juliann Issues Forth Yet Another Lie

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:18 pm

keene wrote:Mister Scratch...

Are YOU Julian?

OK, I confess. I'm Juliann.

Why do you think I carry the whip?

;)

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:27 pm

Jersey Girl wrote:
She may even have used multiple aliases, but I know for certain that she has shown up over here as "Mrs. Robbins."

Hmmm...how is it that I missed the part of your post that should have said "But I wrongly accused Jersey Girl for posting over here as "Mrs. Robbins". Oh right, it wasn't there.

Hmmm...how is it that I missed the part of YOUR post where you apologized for jerking me around and playing guessing games with me, despite the fact that my private information had been posted? Or the part where you apologized for sending a nasty, profanity-laced PM to me regarding Coggins? Oh right, they weren't there. Will you take any personal responsibility for any of this? No; of course not. You'll just say, "I was looking out for a friend!" and that will be that.

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:29 pm

Trevor wrote:
Gadianton wrote:Yes, a few threads on MDB are devoted to apologetics, and hence also FAIR/MA&D, but is that obsession? Maybe a little, but let's compare to the "more good" foundation which devotes entire websites to ex-Mormon rivals.

Why are the apologists so obsessed with ex-Mormons and so-called anti-Mormons? They devote their whole lives it seems to following what these folks do, talking about them, writing about them. They build up an apologetic orthodoxy that is quite separate from the doctrine of the LDS Church, and then defend it as though it were Church doctrine. In a sense, apologists are a distinct church within the LDS Church, and the ex/anti-Mo is the focus of just about everything they do!

Talk about obsession!

An excellent point. DCP's BYU career is based far, far more on his Mopologetic activities than on the type of scholarship he was ostensibly hired for. Of course, he'd like us to believe that he is not "officially employed" to do Mopologetics *and* that he is "not obsessed." Well, he cannot have it both ways, imho.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:34 pm

liz3564 wrote:
keene wrote:Mister Scratch...

Are YOU Julian?

OK, I confess. I'm Juliann.

Why do you think I carry the whip?

;)

There are a lot of Julianns here.

Post by **_Bond...James Bond** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:27 pm

Yeah it's kinda funny that Juliann talks about this board when she might be Robbins, not to mention her use of the search feature to specifically look for bad language. (Should she confess that she searched specifically for bad words on the Net...she could confess to Bishop Peterson maybe or Crockett perhaps.)

PS:I'm still Bond right? Cause if not I really want to be barrelomonkeys.

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:53 pm

Bond wrote:PS:I'm still Bond right? Cause if not I really want to be barrelomonkeys.

You can't be Monkeys....Jersey Girl is Monkeys, remember? We have to keep all of these phony sock puppets straight! ;)

You are Kimberly Ann!

;)

Post by **_moksha** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:23 pm

Trevor wrote:In a sense, apologists are a distinct church within the LDS Church...

Have they determined if Juliann's position as Sargent-at-Arms, is a restored part of the primitive Church?

Post by **_Trevor** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:25 pm

Blixa wrote:I think that's nearly true, I do think there is some overlap however.

In the end though, I don't think the distinction matters because apologetics are like FPRs. Even if they don't coincide with the strictist interpretation of what constitutes doctrine, and thus can be dismissed as "just opinion" if they get too far afield, ultimately they serve the interest of The Church on some level or "the brethern" would be doing something about them.

Yes, I agree. That the apologists practically constitute a church within a Church is a metaphor I find useful, but not one I would press too far.

Post by **_Runtu** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:30 pm

Trevor wrote:Yes, I agree. That the apologists practically constitute a church within a Church is a metaphor I find useful, but not one I would press too far.

I've always thought it fascinating that they have to move outside of orthodoxy and in many cases refute orthodoxy to prop up the church. Meanwhile, of course, the official church makes no move to adjust its orthodoxy to match the stuff coming from the apologists. Rather, they use the apologists as a band-aid as needed.

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:31 pm

moksha wrote:
Trevor wrote:In a sense, apologists are a distinct church within the LDS Church...

Have they determined if Juliann's position as Sargent-at-Arms, is a restored part of the primitive Church?

Mok, you're such a blasphemer! Juliann is not their Sargent At Arms.

Juliann is their prophetess!

;)