LDS

[Belz...]

The Mormon Church does NOTHING to stop Mormon parents from throwing their gay children into the street. These children often cannot take care of themselves and end up as prostitutes and drug addicts. Many live short lives.

I know this, that isn't love.

Thing is, they probably don't do it out of spite, but because they were taught that they must, or suffer god's wrath or some other nonsense.

 

[dafydd]

You seem to labor under the illusion that Janadele is the sole offender and that her legions of critics are lilly white--authentic, well-meaning souls who have invariably treated her with civility and decorum. Kindly note the following:

halleyscomet, Post 7810, 30 Sept.: ". . . your current, rigid, gloating and prideful sham of belief is pretty much the opposite of enlightenment."

desertgal, Post 7479, 24 Sept.: "She [Janadele] appears more despicable with every post."

deaman, Post 7469, 23 Sept.: "The fact [emphasis added] that you hate people who are different from you says about what you choose to generate in your life."

deaman, Post 7963, 3 Oct.: ". . .people are calling her on her lies, calling her for upholding fraud, calling her for spewing out hatred, racism, and bigotry."

Shalamar: Post 7526, 24 "Sept.: "Too bad you [Janadele] are blind, and very bigoted."

desertgal: Post 7528, 24 Sept.: "What purpose does continuing. . .other than to feed her self-righteous, hate-infested ego?"

Shalamar: Post 7549, 24 Sept.: "Your hate knows no bounds."

desertgal: Post 7536, 24 Sept.: "Ugh . . . what a horrible, blighted way to live. And she doesn't even know it."

Craig: Post 6057, 11 June: ". . .you chose to follow a rapist and a liar."

pakeha: Post 6129, 25 July: "It's probably the only thing that she's ever done right in her career."

jfisher: Post 6171, 25 July: [Re. her children]: "Did she raise them to be as brain-washed as she has presented herself in this thread? Are they mindless syophants [sic] with respect to the LDS Church?

pakeha: Post 5475, 7 April: "It's really sad to witness the effects of falling prey to a conman's spiel, freely abdicating intellectual honesty [emphasis added]."

desertgal: Post 5508, 8 April: [Responding to a quotation Janadele had posted]: "Oh, Jesus. Shut up already."

desertgal: [Referencing Janadele and her associates]: "Prudish, bigoted, religious zealots."

Let's see, was it Slowvehicle who claimed that Janadele had never been personally attacked on this thread? In a sequel to this post, I'll quote that piece of twaddle (among others). You will, of course, want to stay tuned.

All fair comments on her twisted beliefs.

 

[Belz...]

You really, really, really do not "get" the idea of "personal attack". Pointing out that a person's behaviour is despicable is not despising the person.

I'd say most of what we are is what we do, actually, so I disagree.

 

[desertgal]

And, again, I ask, why should we defend anything we've said to skyrider? None of it was said to him. He doesn't fairly address the whole issue, and it's just his attempt to derail the thread as it is.

Janadele is, presumably, a grown woman who has expressed viewpoints which are bigoted and hateful. It's her MO. She's done it on multiple forums. No one has held a gun to her head to force her to do so. She has a choice.

If she can't the handle the heat, then she should stay out of the *********** kitchen. But no one here is answerable to skyrider for it.

 

[dafydd]

And, again, I ask, why should we defend anything we've said to skyrider? None of it was said to him. He doesn't fairly address the whole issue, and it's just his attempt to derail the thread as it is.

Janadele is, presumably, a grown woman who has expressed viewpoints which are bigoted and hateful. It's her MO. She's done it on multiple forums. No one has held a gun to her head to force her to do so. She has a choice.

If she can't the handle the heat, then she should stay out of the *********** kitchen. But no one here is answerable to skyrider for it.

Janadele is free to report any posts that she finds insulting.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You seem to labor under the illusion that Janadele is the sole offender and that her legions of critics are lilly white--authentic, well-meaning souls who have invariably treated her with civility and decorum.

We know Janadele has been offensive in her posts. It's good of you to admit that you know it also.

Back to the topic of the thread which is "LDS": What can you tell us about the proven conman Joseph Smith and the fraud he perpetrated which spawned a religion?

 

[catsmate]

No it is not, and I shall not respond to any further bulliying to comment.

Right.. Losing the debate so you want to avoid it.

Not at all.

Have you any basic for this?

Neither. Gender is an eternal characteristic. There is no negotiation on the gender of our Spirit.

Evidence?

You should probably give some thought to Atenism. We have all that without the silly underwear and our Egyptian manuscripts are genuine.

Hmm, I'm a little concerned at the excessive promotion of sunlight. Being Irish I char in direct sunlight.

 

[jsfisher]

Eternal optimism is an admirable trait; I hope you will not be disappointed.

I hear optimists tend to live longer, but pessimists are usually right.

 

[abaddon]

Right.. Losing the debate so you want to avoid it.


Have you any basic for this?


Evidence?


Hmm, I'm a little concerned at the excessive promotion of sunlight. Being Irish I char in direct sunlight.

I thought that was vampires.

 

[pakeha]

pakeha: Post 5475, 7 April: "It's really sad to witness the effects of falling prey to a conman's spiel, freely abdicating intellectual honesty [emphasis added]."

I'll stand by that comment, skyrider44.
It's really sad.
Of course anyone can be duped into believing there is any spiritual benefit to accept the false pretenses of the BoA- I don't blame the victims of a pernicious conman.
I do blame the people who try to perpetrate the con, however.
Is that hateful?

 

[Craig4]

I'm terribly affronted. I've said way worse things about the founders of the Mormon Church in this thread. I really feel slighted that some of my better work is not being recognized.

She opened the door when she (and you) made demonstrably false statements about the founders of your church. The marketplace of ideas is a tough venue to sell your wares.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm terribly affronted. I've said way worse things about the founders of the Mormon Church in this thread. I really feel slighted that some of my better work is not being recognized.

Me too!

We must collaborate or perish!

What we need is a hat with some rocks in it and a Reformed Egyptian/English dictionary.

Then we'll show 'em, by Crikey!

 

[skyrider44]

None of those are personal attacks.

You are operating under a sadly common error of thinking. The MA requires us to be civil, not nice. We can call people out on personal flaws within reason here.

You don't understand the fallacy in argument known as argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy occurs when the person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. Read the list. Is Jan's argument being attacked or is Jan, as a person, being attacked? The answer is obvious.

Even if you want to take refuge behind the MA, the statements I list are not "civil," and Jan's alleged failings are portrayed as much more than "flaws."
She is "despicable," she has "abdicated intellectual honesty," her "hate knows no bounds," etc.

 

[Dissolution]

halleyscomet, Post 7810, 30 Sept.
desertgal, Post 7479, 24 Sept.
deaman, Post 7469, 23 Sept.
deaman, Post 7963, 3 Oct.
Shalamar: Post 7526, 24 "Sept.
desertgal: Post 7528, 24 Sept.
Shalamar: Post 7549, 24 Sept.
desertgal: Post 7536, 24 Sept.
Craig: Post 6057, 11 June
pakeha: Post 6129, 25 July
jfisher: Post 6171, 25 July
pakeha: Post 5475, 7 April
desertgal: Post 5508, 8 April

Edited to emphasise my point.
This handful of posts were taken from literally thousands of comments.
Many, if not all of them, weren't even close to being personal attacks and were some were in response to some extremely negative claims from Janadele.

Why is this discussion continuing on this thread, anyway?
Take it elsewhere, as it currently looks a lot like an attempt to dodge genuine questions about the LDS.

 

[Dissolution]

You don't understand the fallacy in argument known as argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy occurs when the person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. Read the list. Is Jan's argument being attacked or is Jan, as a person, being attacked? The answer is obvious.

The answer is obvious, but I doubt it's the one that you've settled on.
Janadele doesn't appear to have an argument. She's presenting someone else's without any attempt to engage in civil discourse, which is in clear violation of the terms of the site.

I assume that you're ok with her referring in general terms to people on here being dense, unable to understand English, immoral, disgusting, abhorrent and engaging in behaviour that's an abomination to the laws of nature, though.
Is that civil?

 

[Akhenaten]

You don't understand the fallacy in argument known as argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy occurs when the person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. Read the list. Is Jan's argument being attacked or is Jan, as a person, being attacked? The answer is obvious.

Yup.

Obvious indeed.

Let's discuss the fraud of the BoA, and leave all this he said/she said nonsense to the thread in FM where it belongs.

 

[joobz]

You don't understand the fallacy in argument known as argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy occurs when the person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. Read the list. Is Jan's argument being attacked or is Jan, as a person, being attacked? The answer is obvious.

I agree. it is very obvious. Jan isn't being attacked, her ideas are.


Now, if a religion started from someone known to be a fraud, does it not raises doubts regarding the veracity of the religion?

Does it matter if I am talking about scientology or Mormonism?

 

[deaman]

Edited to emphasise my point.
This handful of posts were taken from literally thousands of comments.
Many, if not all of them, weren't even close to being personal attacks and were some were in response to some extremely negative claims from Janadele

I know, right?

Cherry-pick much, skyrider44?

 

[Olowkow]

You don't understand the fallacy in argument known as argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy occurs when the person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. Read the list. Is Jan's argument being attacked or is Jan, as a person, being attacked? The answer is obvious.

Even if you want to take refuge behind the MA, the statements I list are not "civil," and Jan's alleged failings are portrayed as much more than "flaws."
She is "despicable," she has "abdicated intellectual honesty," her "hate knows no bounds," etc.

Not so.

Actually none of the quotes you posted represents an ad hominem fallacy. The fallacy occurs when the following situation obtains:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

I don't believe anyone is saying that Janadele's claims about Mormonism are false because she is a "bigot or despicable". These quotes are all opinions of her character based on her own statements and implied agreement with what she copies from other sources. I personally would not use the word "despicable" to describe either of you, but some of these ideas about your neighbors are despicable.

As for her "arguments", they are few and far between. When challenged on your religious claims concerning Mormonism, both of you give the impression that this is not something you care to or are able to defend.

 

[Empress]

Now that Janadele is back from her sabbatical, she can answer for herself instead of through her mouthpiece. Janadele, if you missed it, Cat Tale wrote a response to your diatribe via skyrider. No doubt she would like an answer as she has been nothing but kind and informative on this thread and can reasonably expect the same of others.

I've quoted her post here, in case you missed it while you were gone:

Actually, the Heart of the Earth thread was brought up on the LDS thread, and that's what I'm talking about, not the other thread. Janadele left many confused by her comments in this LDS thread. I think I've traced it back to post 5912 GeneMachine who asked Randfan to confirm or deny whether or not the "hollow earth" was LDS doctrine. Pup in post 5917 then said his "gut feeling is that you won't find any mention of the hollow earth in either book [BofM or D&C], ..."

It was then, in post 5923 That Janadele said, "There are many appropriate Scriptural references, including the following," and she quoted 5 references from the D&C. Each of them had something like "in the earth" Why is that a common theme in all 5 scriptures if the point is not to show a hollow earth? It was then that Pakeha 5926 quoted Jan's D&C reference posting, and asked her if she was "saying the hollow earth idea forms part of LDS doctrine?" To which she merely answered in 5931, "Pakeha, as you are aware, LDS Scriptures, which includes the Doctrine and Covenants, is LDS Doctrine."

She was asked at least four times, in subsequent posts, like Randfan 5933, where he said, "Do those scriptures mean to you that the Earth is hollow? If not then what do those scriptures mean and why did you post them?" And she never responded, leaving people (including me) baffled as to what exactly she was saying.

I thought this was a thread where she was to discuss LDS doctrine, and suddenly she was confusing them. Why wouldn't she answer them and simply say, "no, that's my own fun thing I'm investigating." Based on the above, what I'd like to know is how is my post 7930 a "gross misrepresentation?" At what point did she dispel the notion that the hollow earth was LDS doctrine in this thread?



Can you deny that she's done a lot of cutting and pasting? Can you deny that some of her earlier posts, most particularly the Mountain Meadows one would be considered plagiarism? And can you deny that people have been angered by her refusal to reply in her own words? Thus leading some participants of this thread to conclude that LDS are brainwashed, or incapable of independent thought? Do a search of the word brainwashed, or "independent thought," they're there, and not by me.



We've tried to explain to her what this forum is all about, critical thinking. It's the ability to hold a discussion about the copy pasted material, not just copy pasting. Hostility can mean things like starting a thread on the LDS Church and then not answering questions, or to continue to copy paste when asked to cease and discuss. There have been many times people have asked Janadele to put things in her own words. Here's one by SezMe 2605 Or this one by Kerikiwi 2495 Why does she not respond in her own words? Honestly I can't recall even knowing a LDS who wasn't excited to have the opportunity to talk about the Church, and yet it seems like there were very few topics that she wanted to respond to, often times she'd say something like, "that's not appropriate for this thread," when I didn't see a problem with it.

And as far as me claiming that what Janadele has posted is "totally outside of LDS teachings?" Post What I actually said was her hostility is completely against LDS teachings. Again, I'm most particularly talking about her refusal to answer questions on a thread she started. But there is also just hostility toward the homosexual community, and pretty much accusing anyone who disagrees with/or questions her as anti-Mormon.

A good example of this is when I posted that "there were a lot of things in our church's past that I find disgusting, but they are no longer practiced." And Janadele responded with this post about how there are enemies both within and without the church.



Me? The victim? Not at all. I can't believe it doesn't bother you that Janadele started this thread and then refuses to/or at least hasn't taken part in an ongoing active discussion based on her own interpretation of the gospel. I mean members do not just copy paste or quote scripture, they're happy to express what the scripture or doctrine means to them, they actively engage in discussion, and/or bear their testimonies. Skyrider, you and I freely express our thoughts and feelings, I'm just confused as to why she doesn't. I could understand if she didn't want to discuss the church on a forum, but she started the thread.

Again, I have no hatred for Janadele. How can I hate someone I know so little about? However, I can stand up against things like lying, plagiarism, making people upset about something I'm passionate about. I've clearly shown my points regarding my previous post and have no more desire to rehash things again. Janadele got her say, though jeopardizing your account. I have not, and will not, report you. That's all I have to say on this subject. However, I will come back and apologize if Janadele can show me where I'm wrong (AFTER her suspension). I have apologized once before on this thread to Janadele when I made a mistake, so I've proven that I will accept my own errors.