The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

Emma Smith · **Joined:** Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:46 pm **Posts:** 22

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/588 ... 1209170747

juliann:

Quote:

Wanting it and demanding it are two very different things. If there was caffeinated rather than decaf coke at the temple cafeteria I would buy it instead....but it would not even occur to me to ask for it. So unless there is documentation of petitions or other campaigns, which would be very, very unlikely at BYU, it would be quite honest to say there was no discernable demand.

I'm thinking that it might be a little dishonest to claim that there was, unless you are using mind reading as the criteria

WTF!?!?

In what universe is economic demand measured by the number of petitions sent to an organization or company?

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen written on the Internet, anywhere.

Stormy Waters · **Posted:** Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:54 pm

Pahoran wrote:

Anti-Mormons frequently rely upon manufactured quotes attributed to early church leaders. A favourite target for this kind of abuse is Heber C. Kimball. Perhaps the best known example is furnished by Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning, who claimed that Kimball said, at the pulpit of the Tabernacle, "I think no more of taking [another] wife than I do of buying a cow." Arthur Conan Doyle, in a footnote(!) to A Study in Scarlet claimed that Kimball (whose name he consistently misspelled as Kemball) had described his wives as "heifers," which is probably just a mangling of the Ann Eliza fabrication.

And now we notice that Maxrep12, who is particularly exercised upon the subject of honesty -- but only when he can accuse some Latter-day Saint somewhere of not using it -- has the following in his sig:

"The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; " - Apostle Heber C. Kimball

Like most uninformed people, he assumes that "Apostle" is a title of address. Which, of course it is not and never has been.

But apart from that: Sorry Maxrep, but I'm not feeling the honesty.

If you check out this link you will discover that your signature line is bogus.

Do you care?

Regards,
Pahoran

Does he seriously want to bring up honesty and polygamy? How about we discuss how Joseph lied to his own damn wife? That seems more important to me than the credibility of a single citation.
Keep hiding out where you're coddled by the moderation. :mrgreen:

mledbetter · **Joined:** Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:49 pm **Posts:** 168

deleted.

mledbetter · **Joined:** Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:49 pm **Posts:** 168

Stormy Waters wrote:

...William Schryver stupid quote...blah blah....

So the op of a thread can shut it down at anytime?

Over the past few years, while (off and on) lurking on this forum and the other, I have to say that every time I have felt my heart sink, or have felt a growing despair, it has come while reading either William's or DP's responses to the critics. William seems to me to be the worst of the two. He reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJG75FJkjr8

This thread is such an excellent example:
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/456 ... -alphabet/

It has become obvious to me that with these two people at the lead, the apologist are losing the argument. It breaks my heart. I've never felt so much despair and sadness. I can't blame them, however. How do you win an argument where it appears that non of the facts are on your side?
As much as I hate to admit it (or at least I hated to admit it to myself in the past), the most professional people on either side of the Book of Abraham argument have consistently been both Chris Smith and Andrew Cook. I appreciate their scholarship. I'm just tired of the "mental gymnastics" sort of speak. This quote thread is such an excellent example of it. The lengths one goes to in order to stick to preconceived notions are just mind-numbing.

BTW, I'm sure I'll catch crap from TBM's about my movie clip choice. Let it be known that I joined the church at the age of 17 and I'm soon to be 37. My atheist step-father had interesting movie choices, and I'll admit that I found the movie quite enjoyable in my early years and quite memorable for obvious reasons. I'm sure that will be used as a excuse for my growing doubts, however. So be it.

Fence Sitter · **Joined:** Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am **Posts:** 3520

mledbetter wrote:

It has become obvious to me that with these two people at the lead, the apologist are losing the argument. It breaks my heart. I've never felt so much despair and sadness. I can't blame them, however. How do you win an argument where it appears that non of the facts are on your side?
As much as I hate to admit it (or at least I hated to admit it to myself in the past), the most professional people on either side of the Book of Abraham argument have consistently been both Chris Smith and Andrew Cook. I appreciate their scholarship. I'm just tired of the "mental gymnastics" sort of speak. This quote thread is such an excellent example of it. The lengths one goes to in order to stick to preconceived notions are just mind-numbing.

The length of the scroll argument is a great example of scholarship vs apologetics. Reading The Cook Smith paper one can see they carefully laid out their argument and provided the data to support their argument for all to review.

The apologetic response from Gee was "Hey you're wrong but I won't explain why".

mledbetter · **Joined:** Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:49 pm **Posts:** 168

Fence Sitter wrote:

mledbetter wrote:

It has become obvious to me that with these two people at the lead, the apologist are losing the argument. It breaks my heart. I've never felt so much despair and sadness. I can't blame them, however. How do you win an argument where it appears that non of the facts are on your side?
As much as I hate to admit it (or at least I hated to admit it to myself in the past), the most professional people on either side of the Book of Abraham argument have consistently been both Chris Smith and Andrew Cook. I appreciate their scholarship. I'm just tired of the "mental gymnastics" sort of speak. This quote thread is such an excellent example of it. The lengths one goes to in order to stick to preconceived notions are just mind-numbing.

The length of the scroll argument is a great example of scholarship vs apologetics. Reading The Cook Smith paper one can see they carefully laid out their argument and provided the data to support their argument for all to review.

The apologetic response from Gee was "Hey you're wrong but I won't explain why".

You are hitting on something that I have one of the biggest issues with. I just couldn't believe that Gee would make such claims without the data to back it up. Line charts mean jack. I was so angry at that, as if the guy thinks the rest of us are too stupid to realize what he's doing. Gee, show me the data! Show me a detailed explanation as to how you came up with those line charts. Not some stupid, "I'll leave it up to the other guys to figure out what I did" nonsense. It was just laughable and embarrassing at the same time. I think that paper was the last straw for me. I couldn't find Andrew's response, so I called Kevin and he sent it to me. You are correct. It was much more detailed and well documented and made sense. The math is pretty straight forward and simple enough to follow or at least get the general idea. Giving clear details about how you came to your conclusions shows credibility. Gee has none, as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure I'm not the only lurker who feels that way.

Fence Sitter · **Joined:** Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am **Posts:** 3520

mledbetter wrote:

You are hitting on something that I have one of the biggest issues with. I just couldn't believe that Gee would make such claims without the data to back it up. Line charts mean jack. I was so angry at that, as if the guy thinks the rest of us are too stupid to realize what he's doing. Gee, show me the data! Show me a detailed explanation as to how you came up with those line charts. Not some stupid, "I'll leave it up to the other guys to figure out what I did" nonsense. It was just laughable and embarrassing at the same time. I think that paper was the last straw for me. I couldn't find Andrew's response, so I called Kevin and he sent it to me. You are correct. It was much more detailed and well documented and made sense. The math is pretty straight forward and simple enough to follow or at least get the general idea. Giving clear details about how you came to your conclusions shows credibility. Gee has none, as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure I'm not the only lurker who feels that way.

I do not have the math skills to adequately critique Cook-Smith but I do know this, if Gee were to publish his data there are plenty of people out there who do have those skills. This isn't a case where one can argue that a hieratic character can have different interpretations, Gee has accused Cook & Smith of bad math. It should be very easy to verify who is right, if only Gee cared to back up his assertions with actual data.

Isn't Gee the same person who would not allow people to question him on Egyptology unless they passed some sort of test on the subject? He should be held to his own standard when it comes to math.

mledbetter · **Joined:** Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:49 pm **Posts:** 168

That's an excellent point. Perhaps Mortal Man can come up with some sort of test over on modialog and see if Gee Is worthy enough to meet the challenge.

Stormy Waters · **Posted:** Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:57 pm

Pahoran wrote:

aka wrote:

Are you saying that you agree Dr. Ritner is qualified to asses Joseph Smith's translation/interpretation of the facsimilies?

Are you also suggesting that Dr. Ritner's conclusions about the validity of Joseph Smith's facsimilie related results are valid?

I'm saying that Dr Ritner is certainly qualified to examine the facsimiles and, to the extent that they are legible, tell us what they say as Egyptian pictures.

I'm also saying that he's not qualified to comment on what other uses they might be put to, or what other meanings they might convey, either anciently or modernly.

Regards,
Pahoran

So an Egyptologist is qualified to tell us what the facsimiles mean, expect when he isn't.
Tell us Pahoran, who is qualified then? You and your apologist buddies?

Stormy Waters · **Posted:** Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:07 pm

Pahoran wrote:

aka wrote:

The debate is also concerning the accuracy of Joseph Smith's interpretations/translations of the facsimilies. We have Joseph Smith's interpretations of the facsimilies. Dr. Ritner claims the interpretations are in error

And, as an egyptologist, that is entirely within his area of expertise. When Dr Ritner tells us what the facsimiles show and what the text on them says, we should, presuming we are interested in such things, listen.

aka wrote:

and the errors are enough to question the Book of Abraham text.
And as an egyptologist, that is entirely outside his area of expertise.

Well, that just goes to show: scholars are human too. They have their failings, including their prejudices. Dr Ritner's particular failing is not simply that he rejects the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ; plenty of people do that. His problem is that he tries to leverage his academic standing to support his anti-Mormon attacks.

Which is seriously bad form.

Regards,
Pahoran

Not simply that he rejects the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ? God the sheer arrogance of this.
Who should I believe? The scholars or the people trying to rescue their religion? A religion that in the cases of polygamy has proven repeatedly that it is willing to abuse the truth if needed. Who the hell are you to lecture anyone about their prejudices?

Cicero · **Joined:** Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:09 am **Posts:** 742

Stormy Waters wrote:

Who should I believe? The scholars or the people trying to rescue their religion? A religion that in the cases of polygamy has proven repeatedly that it is willing to abuse the truth if needed. Who the hell are you to lecture anyone about their prejudices?

It's perfectly fine to point out the biases of any author and it is true that pure objectivity is a mirage, but what bugs me about apologists is that they sometimes seem to think that pointing out these facts ends the argument in their favor. I guess it does end the argument with those that share the apologist's biases and maybe those are the only people the apologist cares to convince?

Stormy Waters · **Posted:** Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:53 am

Cicero wrote:

It's perfectly fine to point out the biases of any author and it is true that pure objectivity is a mirage, but what bugs me about apologists is that they sometimes seem to think that pointing out these facts ends the argument in their favor. I guess it does end the argument with those that share the apologist's biases and maybe those are the only people the apologist cares to convince?

Certianly true objectivity is impossible, it's just the utter hypocrisy that dazzles me. By using his own reasoning you can disqualify apologists sevenfold. Can you get any more biased than trying to prove your religion is plausible?

3sheets2thewind · **Joined:** Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:28 pm **Posts:** 1297

Not sure if these made it

Mortal Man, on 24 May 2010 - 01:31 PM, said:

Thus, I will be concentrating my future research into limited areas of the FARMS Review, which show the most promise of containing polemical material.

Daniel Peterson: I cheerfully acknowledge, in advance, that the FARMS Review has a polemical edge. I don't apologize for this.

Mortal Man, on 24 May 2010 - 01:31 PM, said:

My new theory posits that, some time ago, a very small group of polemicists introduced themselves into a large preexisting population of respectable authors. This would explain the lack of evidence for polemical material in the large corpus of articles we have today.

Daniel Peterson: Your hypothesis is essentially true,...

cwald · **Posted:** Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:22 pm

KevinG said:

Quote:

I am amazed that so many have bought into the anti-Mormon canard that we are led by a top down dictatorial leadership structure when most of the important decisions on implementing the church programs are held at a very local level and those leaders are subject to counsels and membership.

Wade Englund said, just a few posts down from Kevin's

Quote:

Now, what clearly has worked is the top-down approach, where Christ, through his chosen leaders, affects desired changes, and members implement those changes in their individual lives.

Unbelievable. So I guess Wade is one of those anti-mormon who have bought into the canard that we have top-down leadership structure.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59073-dissent-another-attempt-to-discuss/page__st__60

3sheets2thewind · **Joined:** Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:28 pm **Posts:** 1297

Quote:

William Schyver:

I think it's more a sign of why I should simply refrain altogether from participating on message boards. This is hardly the first time I have been horribly misunderstood and evoked strong negative reactions from people when nothing could have been further from my original intention.

There you have it msjack, it was all a horrible misunderstanding.

Cinnamon Bear Head · **Joined:** Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:45 pm **Posts:** 26

Mopology has had a negative effect on education in geography.

USU says:

Quote:

Isles of the Sea.

Hmmmmm.

Isn't Great Britain an Island?

Isn't Jutland an Island?

cwald · **Posted:** Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:50 pm

Just a whole lot of ass-anity in this MAD thread. I apologize for all the quotes...but I think some of you who can't visit the site might appreciate it.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59240-bishop-quits-because-of-military-service-anyone-know/page__st__20

mfbukowski said:

Quote:

Why do you care and what business is it of yours?

Kenngo1969 said;

Quote:

That's actually a pretty good question. I don't know of anyone who's ever been barred from a particular Church calling because of having killed someone in military service, yet this brother allegedly is unfit to serve for having devised and/or employed tactics in which no one was killed? Sounds like a non sequitur to me.

cdowis said:

Quote:

I suggest that you check your link. It gives a reference to a letter where they give their personal opinion on the matter. But I understand the difference between a personal opinion and a statute of law.

We are not bound by "internation law". Check out the US Constitution if you have any question on that issue.

Quote:

Bob Oliverio, on 27 October 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:
Would God have known about it? Why would He make such a calling if He knew about it?

ERayR said: Maybe he weighed the lives saved against the short term discomfort of a few terrorists.

rpn said:

Quote:

...What I don't get is people here saying they wouldn't sustain him because they don't like what he did in the course of his duties, none of which have gotten him any church discipline, or prevented his being called? Does that mean we get to refuse sustain leaders who don't do their share of the laundry, or who use corporal punishment with their children, or who run companies that we think damage the environment?

rodheadlee said:

Quote:

So, soldiers who have fought on the front lines and killed people are not allowed to serve as a Bishop? Airforce or Navy pilots who have dropped bombs on the enemy are not allowed to serve? I'm asking because I truly don't know the answer to this and I fail to see the difference.

storm rider said:

Quote:

It is nice to know that you have not only judged him, but also found yourself capable of making such judgments. One who can justify sitting themselves on the judgment seat for their fellowman may have problems when standing before the Master; they will be judged by the same standards they have used to condemn others. Good luck with that.

cwald · **Posted:** Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:47 pm

Ahab Said:

Quote:

I voted for Romney pretty much because I had to. My wife did, too. We really didn't like either one more than the other.

We Mormons are supposed to be Republicans and vote for Republicans, don't cha know, so that's what we did. We had to.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59314-last-nights-election/page__st__20

cwald · **Posted:** Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:53 pm

Finally Wade Englund admits what most people over here already know....now if he would only apply the lesson to his own words and actions. Never going to happen.

Quote:

I am finding that more and more these days that prejudice is being projected. In other words, often these days the people pointing fingers at the alleged prejudices of others are inadvertently exposing their own more extensive and deep-seated prejudices. It is an odd phenomena that tends to underscore the adage that we humans tend to dislike most in others what is more pronounced in ourselves.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Falcon A · **Posted:** Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:40 pm

cinepro said

Quote:

You'll be happy to hear that the "razor blade in the apples" stories were just urban legends.

But that still doesn't stop me from going to Safeway every October 31 to buy a bag of apples and a box of razor blades, just to see the look on the cashier's face.

Lol. I like his posts.

cwald · **Posted:** Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:22 pm

From an old recently resurrected thread, Gender Gap Widens In The Church discussing how there are so many more faithful LDS women than men, and may have to marry non members or not marry at all...

Kenngo 1969 said:

Quote:

And (please forgive my cynicism here) some will "have" to marry outside the faith because they look beyond the mark.

P.S.: And I know that because I'm one of the ones they look past as they do that.

Or maybe you are just a misogynist douchebag?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56653-gender-gap-widens-in-the-church/

Anddddddd...it just keeps getting worse. Sad really.

Nominee said:

Quote:

I am 39, single and will absolutely never marry any man that cannot go to the temple with me. I know for a fact that my Heavenly Father wants no less for me than to be sealed for eternity to my husband and our family. He expects no less. If I do not meet my husband in this life I will meet him after this life. I live righteously and worthily and I have complete faith in the love my Heavenly Father has for me and the promises he has made. I know that my needs and desires will be met because I will always do my very best to make God's interests my own. God is a better judge of character than I am. There is zero possibility for me to have less than a temple marriage because I choose what is right for me. And I will be married someday because eternity is a long time given to meet the right guy. I want to live in the Celestial kingdom, I want to live with my Father. I wouldn't settle for less and I wouldn't advise my daughter to either. Mortality is minuscule.

The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

Who is online