Yes I have and this is wasting time. It is up to Rivendale to pony up. As it is, it is not known whether you even know what you’re talking about. You are simply spitting into the wind and the spittle is coming back and hitting you in the face. You’re jumping in simply to ‘save’ what could be a half truth that was given by a compatriot.
If I’m wrong, I’m happy to be corrected. The fact that Rivendale has not come back with proof that what he said is true is telling.
Yes I have and this is wasting time. It is up to Rivendale to pony up. As it is, it is not known whether you even know what you’re talking about. You are simply spitting into the wind and the spittle is coming back and hitting you in the face. You’re jumping in simply to ‘save’ what could be a half truth that was given by a compatriot.
If I’m wrong, I’m happy to be corrected. The fact that Rivendale has not come back with proof that what he said is true is telling.
But again, I’m happy to be proven wrong.
Where’s the proof?
Regards,
MG
Well no, you could demonstrate that the interviewer had watched the film, AND demonstrate that you had watched the video. But you won’t. I don’t think you can.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Yes I have and this is wasting time. It is up to Rivendale to pony up. As it is, it is not known whether you even know what you’re talking about. You are simply spitting into the wind and the spittle is coming back and hitting you in the face. You’re jumping in simply to ‘save’ what could be a half truth that was given by a compatriot.
If I’m wrong, I’m happy to be corrected. The fact that Rivendale has not come back with proof that what he said is true is telling.
But again, I’m happy to be proven wrong.
Where’s the proof?
Regards,
MG
Well no, you could demonstrate that the interviewer had watched the film, AND demonstrate that you had watched the video. But you won’t. I don’t think you can.
My gosh, IHQ, don’t be so obtuse. I’m the one that linked to the video BECAUSE I watched it. The fact that you’re calling me a liar…well, I don’t know what to do with that except to call you a liar too. Yeah, that accomplishes…nothing.
Well no, you could demonstrate that the interviewer had watched the film, AND demonstrate that you had watched the video. But you won’t. I don’t think you can.
My gosh, IHQ, don’t be so obtuse. I’m the one that linked to the video BECAUSE I watched it. The fact that you’re calling me a liar…well, I don’t know what to do with that except to call you a liar too. Yeah, that accomplishes…nothing.
My patience is running thin with this one.
You’re protecting Rivendale. Pure and simple.
The games people play.
Regards,
MG
If you listen from 04:11 to 10:11 you’ll see neither of them has watched the film.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
My gosh, IHQ, don’t be so obtuse. I’m the one that linked to the video BECAUSE I watched it. The fact that you’re calling me a liar…well, I don’t know what to do with that except to call you a liar too. Yeah, that accomplishes…nothing.
My patience is running thin with this one.
You’re protecting Rivendale. Pure and simple.
The games people play.
Regards,
MG
If you listen from 04:11 to 10:11 you’ll see neither of them has watched the film.
YES! Everyone listen to this block of the video. It becomes readily apparent that Jacob knows the details of what is going on and what is in the film. It sounds like he actually may have seen it. Nowhere in this 7 minutes does he say he has not seen the film or is not going to see it.
Jeff did.
Now. Give us a time stamp that actually makes your point or shut up. Rivendale? Are you there? IHQ is not helping you.
We will see what the moderators say, if anything. I do know that Mr. Wang Chung crossed a line. I don’t expect others will agree.
They haven’t.
Thus, I’ve made it public that I reported his disgusting behavior and did get a response.
Whether there will be any disciplinary response remains to be seen. Silly thing is, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m put in the guillotine rather than him.
What a world.
Regards,
MG
You’re still disrespecting board rules, and you’ve thrown canpakes under the bus just so you can gloat.
“Do not make mention of anything that allegedly transpired or is transpiring via the chat room or via private message that the source him- or herself has not overtly made public. People who communicate behind-the-scenes obviously intend their communications to remain behind-the-scenes. Any post on the board itself making reference to such things will be deleted.”
You seem to be revealing the content of a private message, which is against board rules.
I am simply saying that the situation was reported and there was a response. No details given. Period.
Regards,
MG
Jacob does not admit to watching the video. He mentions a vague situation (cleverly hidden) where he said I think there is a spot where they claim prayers aren't answered (Templeton study). The comment section has many comments that ask Jacob if he had seen it and he won't answer. Because he can't. He has written (mis)Stake presidents to get people disciplined for not following church rules and produced videos condemning members for wearing pride flag pins while working at BYU. He can't admit to watching it so he is coy about it. My original comment still stands as a whole in regards to their critical analysis. Nothing from that video is useful in any way with regards to the mention of Fanny Alger as a subplot in a splendid suspense film. Who does a review with someone that didn't see it and not admit to seeing it also?
There were some interesting comments about the Fanny Alger situation in the exmormon subreddit that call into question the LDS position that she was Joseph Smith's plural wife:
[–]Beneficial_Math_9282[F] 82 points 6 days ago*
You're correct. There is no record of any kind of sealing ceremony with Fanny. Later church leaders just assumed that one surely must have taken place, and that surely Joseph Smith wouldn't have hooked up with her without divine approval.
Bless their poor gullible hearts... Ah Mormonism. Believing the line "It's not what it looks like!" since 1830.
These days, they just go ahead and claim that there was a sealing at some point. The church's official sealing date on record for them was the one done by proxy on 4 Apr 1899: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/perso ... s/KWJY-BPD
"The sealings of those named below were performed during the life of the prophet Joseph, but there is no record thereof. President Lorenzo Snow decided that they be respected in order that a record might exist; and that this explanation be made."
The original register (SL Temple Register Book D, page 243) would be found in this collection, film #184590:
I am simply saying that the situation was reported and there was a response. No details given. Period.
Regards,
MG
Jacob does not admit to watching the video. He mentions a vague situation (cleverly hidden) where he said I think there is a spot where they claim prayers aren't answered (Templeton study). The comment section has many comments that ask Jacob if he had seen it and he won't answer. Because he can't. He has written (mis)Stake presidents to get people disciplined for not following church rules and produced videos condemning members for wearing pride flag pins while working at BYU. He can't admit to watching it so he is coy about it. My original comment still stands as a whole in regards to their critical analysis. Nothing from that video is useful in any way with regards to the mention of Fanny Alger as a subplot in a splendid suspense film. Who does a review with someone that didn't see it and not admit to seeing it also?
So in other words you don’t know if he did or didn’t see the movie. Originally it sounded very much like you were confirming that he didn’t. It looks like we’ve straightened things out.
Jacob does not admit to watching the video. He mentions a vague situation (cleverly hidden) where he said I think there is a spot where they claim prayers aren't answered (Templeton study). The comment section has many comments that ask Jacob if he had seen it and he won't answer. Because he can't. He has written (mis)Stake presidents to get people disciplined for not following church rules and produced videos condemning members for wearing pride flag pins while working at BYU. He can't admit to watching it so he is coy about it. My original comment still stands as a whole in regards to their critical analysis. Nothing from that video is useful in any way with regards to the mention of Fanny Alger as a subplot in a splendid suspense film. Who does a review with someone that didn't see it and not admit to seeing it also?
So in other words you don’t know if he did or didn’t see the movie. Originally it sounded very much like you were confirming that he didn’t. It looks like we’ve straightened things out.
It took a lot to get there.
Thanks.
Regards,
MG
A lot? I made a post that neither of them knew what they were talking about and that still stands. You want to plant your flag on the fact one may or may not have seen it? Go see the movie and then get back to me. You waste people's time here with these insipid, dreary, uninspired criticisms.
You’ve not watched it.