LDS

[abaddon]

Well, here's a little teaser for you, Slowvehicle:

In response to Janadele's statement that "God does not reveal all to us,"
adaddon (Post 7926, 1 Oct., 2013) wrote:

"Yep, your holey spook is a bit of a douche that way, isn't he?"

No spinning, please. The phrase your holey spook was an attack on Janadele. Anyone who has followed her posts understands that.

*BTW, you seem rather impatient. "Venom-filled attacks on Janadele as a person" appeared in a post of my making circa two hours ago. You're confusing that post with a post in which I responded to kerikiwi (#7962) earlier.

The your is correct as it is one of Janadele's beliefs, the word holey is entirely accurate as that entity's story is entirely full of holes, spook is synonymous with ghost or spirit. So it's an accurate description of that biblical entity.

Furthermore, as described in scripture, that entity really is a bit of a douche.

In fact, I could describe the entire trinity as the obnoxious, mass-murdering ineffectual daddy in the sky, his unemployed malcontent hippy son and the holy rapist, all the while retaining biblical accuracy.

Your issue is that you fail to understand that the person is not the belief, the belief is not the person.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm honestly baffled as to how skyrider could consider that post a personal attack. Anyone who speaks English and has basic reading comprehension skills (both of which skyrider clearly does) cannot fail to grasp that it's the belief, not the person holding it, which is being criticised.

Everybody's beliefs, ideas and theories are criticised in this forum. That's what it's for.

 

[desertgal]

Well, here's a little teaser for you, Slowvehicle:

In response to Janadele's statement that "God does not reveal all to us,"
adaddon (Post 7926, 1 Oct., 2013) wrote:

"Yep, your holey spook is a bit of a douche that way, isn't he?"

No spinning, please. The phrase your holey spook was an attack on Janadele. Anyone who has followed her posts understands that.

Nope. Not a personal attack on Janadele. They didn't say Janadele is a douche, did they? Next example.

*BTW, you seem rather impatient. "Venom-filled attacks on Janadele as a person" appeared in a post of my making circa two hours ago. You're confusing that post with a post in which I responded to kerikiwi (#7962) earlier.

You are the one who said the list would be posted "shortly". We're just a-waitin'.

Can we have examples of Person A's bigotry and intolerance?
I am interested in what you mean by these two things.

Rest assured, kerikiwi, the examples you requested in Post 7962 will be posted shortly. I think you will have your hands full explaining those. Once you have done that, I will respond to your most recent request.

An example of each would be appreciated.

Within the next few days, I will comply with your request.

 

[dafydd]

Well, here's a little teaser for you, Slowvehicle:

In response to Janadele's statement that "God does not reveal all to us,"
adaddon (Post 7926, 1 Oct., 2013) wrote:

"Yep, your holey spook is a bit of a douche that way, isn't he?"

No spinning, please. The phrase your holey spook was an attack on Janadele. Anyone who has followed her posts understands that.

No, it was a comment about an imaginary being.

 

[Foster Zygote]

No spinning, please. The phrase your holey spook was an attack on Janadele. Anyone who has followed her posts understands that.

Why, because it offends her to have people reject her unsubstantiated claims regarding what should guide our passage through the universe? Just because Janadele (and you, still?) believes the claims of Joseph Smith to be a profound truth about life, it doesn't mean that anyone else is socially obligated to hide their own opinion of it should that opinion be, "It's a load of rubbish".

This is why so many religions indoctrinate the way they do. When people are conditioned to feel offended by the very idea of questioning the merit of said religion, they will ignore patent falsehoods proclaimed by its founders and clergy. They'll see five lights.

 

[dafydd]

Well, here's a little teaser for you, Slowvehicle:

In response to Janadele's statement that "God does not reveal all to us,"
adaddon (Post 7926, 1 Oct., 2013) wrote:

"Yep, your holey spook is a bit of a douche that way, isn't he?"

No spinning, please. The phrase your holey spook was an attack on Janadele. Anyone who has followed her posts understands that.

*BTW, you seem rather impatient. "Venom-filled attacks on Janadele as a person" appeared in a post of my making circa two hours ago. You're confusing that post with a post in which I responded to kerikiwi (#7962) earlier.

JS was a con artist who wrote a load of tosh called the BOM. Is that an attack on you?

 

[bruto]

One of the biggest differences between faith and the lack of it seems to be that the faithful cannot separate themselves from what they believe. If your faith demands that you ignore or discredit evidence, then the idea of changing your mind in the face of new evidence is alien. The more irrational your belief, it seems, the more personal it becomes. A criticism of any part of your beliefs becomes an attack on them all, and thereby an attack on yourself. We're seeing it here. For some believers there simply cannot be an honest debate.

All criticism of Joseph Smith's work, from questioning his linguistics to calling him a fraud, gets lumped into "anti Mormonism." Dislike the Mormon idea of how God does things? Don't think huge slabs of cut and paste are an argument? Venomous.

 

[desertgal]

Just out of curiosity, why should we be called upon to defend what we've said to Janadele to skyrider? Is he a mod? Can Janadele not speak for herself anymore? There's a whole thread in FM where she can discuss the alleged bias and discrimination against her.

Who the hell died and made anyone here accountable to skyrider?

It's yet another attempt by SR to derail this thread, and there's no point to it, since responding logically to him is like spitting into the void. Just saying.

 

[showmevegas]

It obviously matters immensely, otherwise why the venom-filled attacks on not only Janadele's views, but on Janadele as a person. To attack a person's position is one thing, but to attack the person proper (ad hominem) is quite another.

Ok...... In 1844, Smith and the Nauvoo city council angered non-Mormons by ordering a printing press destroyed, after it was used to publish an exposé critical of Smith's power and practice of polygamy. yep..... ok its sacred not secret.


BTW Nauvoo blue cheese is uber good.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It obviously matters immensely, otherwise why the venom-filled attacks on not only Janadele's views, but on Janadele as a person. To attack a person's position is one thing, but to attack the person proper (ad hominem) is quite another.

When are you going to answer the substantive questions regarding the conman Joseph Smith's obvious and clumsy fraud? I think we can leave the subject of your holey spook being a liar, a murderer and a misogynistic douche for now and address it later if you like.

 

[dafydd]

One of the biggest differences between faith and the lack of it seems to be that the faithful cannot separate themselves from what they believe. If your faith demands that you ignore or discredit evidence, then the idea of changing your mind in the face of new evidence is alien. The more irrational your belief, it seems, the more personal it becomes. A criticism of any part of your beliefs becomes an attack on them all, and thereby an attack on yourself. We're seeing it here. For some believers there simply cannot be an honest debate.

All criticism of Joseph Smith's work, from questioning his linguistics to calling him a fraud, gets lumped into "anti Mormonism." Dislike the Mormon idea of how God does things? Don't think huge slabs of cut and paste are an argument? Venomous.

It's not anti-Mormonism, it's anti-Conmanism.

 

[dafydd]

When are you going to answer the substantive questions regarding the conman Joseph Smith's obvious and clumsy fraud?

Never.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Well, here's a little teaser for you, Slowvehicle:

In response to Janadele's statement that "God does not reveal all to us,"
adaddon (Post 7926, 1 Oct., 2013) wrote:

"Yep, your holey spook is a bit of a douche that way, isn't he?"

No spinning, please. The phrase your holey spook was an attack on Janadele. Anyone who has followed her posts understands that.

*BTW, you seem rather impatient. "Venom-filled attacks on Janadele as a person" appeared in a post of my making circa two hours ago. You're confusing that post with a post in which I responded to kerikiwi (#7962) earlier.

sr44:

No. The phrase "your holey spook is a bit of a douche that way" is not an attack against Janadele. If you actually think it is, the proper approach would be to report the post to the moderators. The "your" in that phrase refers to the fact that the "holey spook" is the one Janadele brought up.

Now, follow the hypothetical: If the phrase had been, "You are a bit of a douche for bringing up your holey spook that way", I would agree that comprised a personal attack on Janadele, who as a member of the forum, enjoys protection against such. However, no 'god' is, nor any 'gods' are, members. Personal attacks against 'gods' do not, in my opinion, violate the MA. Take it up with the mods; perhaps their judgment will differ from mine.

Your attribution, to me, of "impatience" is as unfounded as your attributions, to me, of "deciding to become faithless".

As much as I am curious about the rest of your "evidence", the "teaser" you have presented indicates that your defense of Janadele may, in fact, be irremediably OT for a thread about "LDS". Your mileage, and the decisions of the mods, may vary.

ETA: Sorry, I slept in a bit this morning. I was bitten by a dog yesterday, and am just a bit under the weather. I see being a slugabed got me ninja-ed by: JoeBentley, Craig4, fromdownunder, Frozenwolf150, abbadon, Pixel42, desertgal, dafydd, Foster Zygote, and bruto.

desertgal also raised the issue of why you, sr44, are raising this issue in this thread.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Thanks, managed to get an edit in within time.

Norm

No huhu, cobber!

 

[skyrider44]

I'm honestly baffled as to how skyrider could consider that post a personal attack. Anyone who speaks English and has basic reading comprehension skills (both of which skyrider clearly does) cannot fail to grasp that it's the belief, not the person holding it, which is being criticised.

Nice thought but a tad naive. For it to be true (to cite just one example), the LDS Church would not be called a "hateful" organization and a "fraud" inasmuch as the majority of its members oppose gay marriage.

Everybody's beliefs, ideas and theories are criticised in this forum. That's what it's for.

So if someone you publicly extolled, revered, worshipped, defended, made the locus of your life, etc., were referred to as "your holey spook," you wouldn't take that personally. Astonishing. If something similar were said about your mother or sister or brother--using the possessive your--you wouldn't take that personally, huh?

Kindly note that I said the example was a "teaser." It's amusing to see you and others discombobulate over it--thus wasting a defensive response-- when I have oh so many more, ah, poignant examples to give.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Nice thought but a tad naive. For it to be true (to cite just one example), the LDS Church would not be called a "hateful" organization and a "fraud" inasmuch as the majority of its members oppose gay marriage.



So if someone you publicly extolled, revered, worshipped, defended, made the locus of your life, etc., were referred to as "your holey spook," you wouldn't take that personally. Astonishing. If something similar were said about your mother or sister or brother--using the possessive your--you wouldn't take that personally, huh?

Kindly note that I said the example was a "teaser." It's amusing to see you and others discombobulate over it--thus wasting a defensive response-- when I have oh so many more, ah, poignant examples to give.

That's nice. When are you going to stop deliberately and dishonestly derailing the discussion about LDS? Haven't you read where Janadele specifically told people that derails such as yours aren't welcome here?

When are you going to address the substantive questions regarding the liar and conman Joseph Smith and the fraud he perpetrated? Those questions are on topic to a discussion about LDS.

 

[Agatha]

So if someone you publicly extolled, revered, worshipped, defended, made the locus of your life, etc., were referred to as "your holey spook," you wouldn't take that personally. Astonishing. If something similar were said about your mother or sister or brother--using the possessive your--you wouldn't take that personally, huh?

It wouldn't matter if I took it personally or not; it's not against the rules and it would not be aimed as an attack on me. It would be an attack on my beliefs and thus perfectly acceptable on this forum. Sacred cows are not given a pass here.

Kindly note that I said the example was a "teaser." It's amusing to see you and others discombobulate over it--thus wasting a defensive response-- when I have oh so many more, ah, poignant examples to give.

Are we limited in the number of replies we may make to your posts? If not, then no post is wasted.

If you have better evidence, then why not post it? Janadele already tried this in her thread in forum management, I don't think she grasped the rules any more than you appear to do.

 

[Pixel42]

Nice thought but a tad naive. For it to be true (to cite just one example), the LDS Church would not be called a "hateful" organization and a "fraud" inasmuch as the majority of its members oppose gay marriage.

The LDS church was founded by a proven fraudster and actively works to deny rights to gay people. Pointing these things out does not constitute a personal attack on Janadele. Criticising opinions she personally holds also doesn't constitute an attack on Janadele, only on her opinions. Again, basic English comprehension skills are all that's required to grasp this.

So if someone you publicly extolled, revered, worshipped, defended, made the locus of your life, etc., were referred to as "your holey spook," you wouldn't take that personally. Astonishing. If something similar were said about your mother or sister or brother--using the possessive your--you wouldn't take that personally, huh?

Of course not. Criticism of my relatives or of people I esteem is not criticism of me. If a good case was made that the criticism was justified it would change how I regard them.

My opinions and beliefs can be changed by evidence and convincing arguments. If my opinions really are wrong then I welcome correction, I don't regard it as a personal attack.

 

[dafydd]

I think that Captain Beefheart was a genius but most people I know say he was a hopeless noisemaker. That is not an attack on me. Skyrider is pursuing this in an attempt to avoid discussing the fraudster JS.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Nice thought but a tad naive. For it to be true (to cite just one example), the LDS Church would not be called a "hateful" organization and a "fraud" inasmuch as the majority of its members oppose gay marriage.

No church, or organization, of corral of cows however sacred to the corrallers, is a member of this forum. See the above explanation of the MA.

IMO, referring to what goes on among consenting adults in private as "disgusting and abhorrent", or pretending that any legal civil arrangement among consenting adults, endorsed by the state, can have any effect upon the value of a religious ritual among other adults, is, in fact, a hateful act. IMO it was a "hateful" act when the CJCLDS endorsed organizational racism.

I would be interested in your evidence that a "majority of its {CJCLDS} members" oppose same-sex marriages.

So if someone you publicly extolled, revered, worshipped, defended, made the locus of your life, etc., were referred to as "your holey spook," you wouldn't take that personally. Astonishing. If something similar were said about your mother or sister or brother--using the possessive your--you wouldn't take that personally, huh?

You really, honestly, fundamentally, do not "get" the concept of personal attack, do you? Why is it, then, that the phrase, "disgusting, abhorrent lifestyle" is not a personal attack?

Kindly note that I said the example was a "teaser." It's amusing to see you and others discombobulate over it--thus wasting a defensive response-- when I have oh so many more, ah, poignant examples to give.

Hmmm. You either read a different set of responses, or you have a different, idiosyncratic, meaning for "discombobulate"...or both. Are the rest of your "..ah, poignant examples" as misdirected, as spun, and as OT as this one was? Perhaps you should consider a new thread.

In the meantime, might you conisider answering the questions about how you think that your sect's superstitions about eschatology will somehow miraculously repair the anachronisms in the BoM, and the erroneous claims made about the BoA?