It is currently Sun Apr 20, 2014 4:37 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 371 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:46 pm 
Master Mahan

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:13 pm
Posts: 5604
Daniel Peterson wrote:
So smearing me for attempting to do my job as a bishop -- a job that I did not seek, and for which I receive no compensation -- is merely par for his course.


How is it "smearing" for me to simply state that I found your revelations to be disturbing? Further, if you are doing your "job" in the way that you described, I hardly think it's problematic for me to point out potential problems with what you're doing. Or are you just trying to muzzle a critic?

Quote:
I suspect, whatever he may say, that his level of loyalty to the Church is roughly comparable to marg's. No wonder they see eye to eye on this matter.


Right. As if "Church loyalty" depended on approving of every last little thing that Daniel C. Peterson has been up to.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:57 pm 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 7173
Nightingale wrote:
Anyway, next time harmony starts wielding her cattle prod at Daniel Peterson, maybe we can discuss her propensity for violence.

How on earth did I miss the comment above?

Oh my. Harmony has threatened me with violence. She's contemplating doing me harm. Oh oh oh.

I think I can extract paranoid fantasies from this for months, at the very minimum.

How gratifying! How richly soul-satisfying!

_________________

http://mormonscholarstestify.org
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/category/testimonies

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:15 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:16 pm
Posts: 13636
Location: Off the Deep End
I just have to say this. This board (these exchanges and exchanges on another thread I've been reading) has the most negative effect on me to the point of toxicity. I've been known to engage in a battle or two (hundred) on boards but quite frankly, I cannot understand how or why people can be so consistently rude, snide and biting to each other on a daily basis. Or why anyone would want to spend so much time doing it.

The fact that I've spent time reading it and joining it, is just unreal.

I understand disagreements over various issues but for some people around here, it's just chronic.

And depressing.

I tried to draw attention to common ground here and it just doesn't work to forward a discussion. The truth is (I think) is that not many want to forward a discussion or increase understanding.

Geez.

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:12 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18138
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Jersey Girl wrote:
The truth is (I think) is that not many want to forward a discussion or increase understanding.

Geez.


He was teasing, Jersey. Really he was. He knows I didn't make the statement, Nightengale did. And since I can't find the batteries to the cattle prod, nor the cattle prod itself, he's safe.

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:44 am 
Elder

Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:31 am
Posts: 323
Daniel Peterson wrote:
Nightingale wrote:
Anyway, next time harmony starts wielding her cattle prod at Daniel Peterson, maybe we can discuss her propensity for violence.

How on earth did I miss the comment above?

Oh my. Harmony has threatened me with violence. She's contemplating doing me harm. Oh oh oh.

I think I can extract paranoid fantasies from this for months, at the very minimum.

How gratifying! How richly soul-satisfying!



Two points, just to be perfectly clear for all readers, especially if they haven't waded through this entire thread or have forgotten something from pages back, my remark quoted above was a joke, as you can see in the original:

1.

NG:
"... next time harmony starts wielding her cattle prod at Daniel Peterson, maybe we can discuss her propensity for violence. {jk}"

The {jk} notation makes it clear.

2.

The second point is that DCP is joking too, or using irony or sarcasm - take your pick.

I don't want my comments to be misunderstood.

On another note, I see that I unintentionally wandered into the middle of an ongoing feud between a few parties. I'm not really aware of all the history, sides, issues, etc. I was primarily interested in the language question some pages back. I'll bow out of it now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:18 am 
Jersey Girl wrote:
I just have to say this. This board (these exchanges and exchanges on another thread I've been reading) has the most negative effect on me to the point of toxicity. I've been known to engage in a battle or two (hundred) on boards but quite frankly, I cannot understand how or why people can be so consistently rude, snide and biting to each other on a daily basis. Or why anyone would want to spend so much time doing it.

The fact that I've spent time reading it and joining it, is just unreal.

I understand disagreements over various issues but for some people around here, it's just chronic.

And depressing.

I tried to draw attention to common ground here and it just doesn't work to forward a discussion. The truth is (I think) is that not many want to forward a discussion or increase understanding.

Geez.


I think that you and I were on the same wavelength as far as common ground was concerned. Also, Harmony brought out something significant as well. She said that we are more alike than different. I think that is very true.

My comments about Marg partying were not meant to be catty. I was just teasing....much along the same lines as you saying "I wish I was going out, too."

I think I am actually beginning to understand Marg's perspective. She was drawn into studying about Mormonism from a friend of hers who was Mormon. Her own personal views have always been very strongly atheistic. It seems to me that her disagreement is really in any type of belief of higher power. She just doesn't see the logic or need for it.

I think that we could actually start a rather interesting discussion involving characteristics of cults an religions if everyone can be on board to be open about it, and not approach it in a condemning way.

I'll start a new thread, and carry over some of the cult discussion from this thread.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:32 am 
OK, guys....all comments regarding Mormonism and how it is possibly a cult has been moved to this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8596


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 12:57 pm 
liz3564 wrote:
My comments about Marg partying were not meant to be catty. I was just teasing....much along the same lines as you saying "I wish I was going out, too."


Did you delete them? I didn't read anything catty.

Quote:
I think I am actually beginning to understand Marg's perspective. She was drawn into studying about Mormonism from a friend of hers who was Mormon.


I only knew them on the Net, well actually I did end up meeting them in person one time.

Quote:
Her own personal views have always been very strongly atheistic.


I didn't think of myself as an an atheist until participating on the Net in religious discussions. I would think of myself and still do as having a strong naturalistic view devoid of organized religious indoctrination.

Quote:
It seems to me that her disagreement is really in any type of belief of higher power. She just doesn't see the logic or need for it.


No. My disagreement is in a number of things, but not in what you think "belief of a higher power".

I dislike the negative judgmental attitude religion seems to have influenced religious individuals to have against others who don't share their similar beliefs. When it comes to their attitude about atheism for example they often think atheists are morally deficient. That somehow having a God belief translates into having good moral values. I find that attitude is so pervasive with Mormons, based on my observations of discussions on the Net. I disagree with the indoctrination process employed by many religions which start from an early age. I disagree with lies perpetrated by religions, in Mormonism's case that the Book of Mormon is historical, that it is sacred, that somehow a supreme entity had its hand in its making. I don't agree with religious organizations getting involved politically, in getting involved with suppressing the scientific educational programs in schools. So those are some examples of what I take issue with, but having a belief in a supreme entity per se I have no negative thoughts of. It's the belief in a God which interferes with mankind and favors particular groups, and how that influences people's attitudes I might take issue with. Mormons are very much manipulated and controlled by their authority, believe in lies perpetrated by the Church, that sort of thing I take issue with.

Quote:
I think that we could actually start a rather interesting discussion involving characteristics of cults an religions if everyone can be on board to be open about it, and not approach it in a condemning way.

I'll start a new thread, and carry over some of the cult discussion from this thread.


I'll take a look.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:18 pm 
Thanks for responding, Marg. :smile:

Sorry for all the confusion. Since this thread has kind of wrapped around with a zillion different topics, I moved the cult discussion to this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8596&p=224552#p224552

I will respond to you there.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:20 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18138
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
marg wrote:
. I find that attitude is so pervasive with Mormons, based on my observations of discussions on the Net.


You mean the only Mormons you "know" are the ones on the internet? Ummm... marg, there are 13 million Mormons. You might want to meet some of the ones who inhabit your own part of the world before you judge all of us by the various sides that are represented on the internet.

Quote:
I disagree with the indoctrination process employed by many religions which start from an early age.


So, you disagree with allowing parent to teach their children the values they cherish. Yeah, that's gotta bite, when no one listens to you.

Quote:
I disagree with lies perpetrated by religions, in Mormonism's case that the Book of Mormon is historical, that it is sacred, that somehow a supreme entity had its hand in its making.


Gee, no one acknowledges that you're a superior being, far above all the rest of us mere mortals. Sucks to be you, I agree.

Quote:
I don't agree with religious organizations getting involved politically, in getting involved with suppressing the scientific educational programs in schools.


I've had 8 kids in the public school system, I have a daughter who teaches in the public school system, and I have yet to see any church with enough power to suppress or even influence the scientific curriculum. Granted, I live in a liberal state, and maybe in the deep South there's that kind of influence, but I don't see it as pervasive across the country.

Quote:
So those are some examples of what I take issue with, but having a belief in a supreme entity per se I have no negative thoughts of. It's the belief in a God which interferes with mankind and favors particular groups, and how that influences people's attitudes I might take issue with.


You think it's okay to believe in God, so long as he doesn't interfere with mankind or play favorites?

Quote:
Mormons are very much manipulated and controlled by their authority, believe in lies perpetrated by the Church, that sort of thing I take issue with.


Well, geez, are you an equal opportunity authority hater? Because Catholics (at least believing Catholics) bow to authority much more than we poor Mormons do. At least we don't have to attend daily Mass.

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:21 pm 
Lightbearer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:06 pm
Posts: 5659
Location: las vegas
Daniel Peterson wrote:
Nightingale wrote:
Anyway, next time harmony starts wielding her cattle prod at Daniel Peterson, maybe we can discuss her propensity for violence.

How on earth did I miss the comment above?

Oh my. Harmony has threatened me with violence. She's contemplating doing me harm. Oh oh oh.

I think I can extract paranoid fantasies from this for months, at the very minimum.

How gratifying! How richly soul-satisfying!



don't antagonize her Dan. She has stated previouly that she has a robot, and is not afraid to use him.

Image

_________________
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:23 pm 
harmony wrote:
marg wrote:
. I find that attitude is so pervasive with Mormons, based on my observations of discussions on the Net.


You mean the only Mormons you "know" are the ones on the internet? Ummm... marg, there are 13 million Mormons. You might want to meet some of the ones who inhabit your own part of the world before you judge all of us by the various sides that are represented on the internet.


Without going back because I've written quite a few post, I'm assuming I was referring to the attitude that a religous individual holds of moral superiority as long as they abide by the rules of the church over those outside their group.

It is so pervasive on the net..that it is rare and far between to find a religious individual who doesn't think that way.


Quote:
Quote:
I disagree with the indoctrination process employed by many religions which start from an early age.


So, you disagree with allowing parent to teach their children the values they cherish. Yeah, that's gotta bite, when no one listens to you.


Just because people think they are teaching good values, does not mean they do or even know what good values are. But the indoctrination process is not so much about teaching values, it's about getting people to accept really strange ideas that if they were an adult with the ability to critically think they would never do so.

Quote:
Quote:
I disagree with lies perpetrated by religions, in Mormonism's case that the Book of Mormon is historical, that it is sacred, that somehow a supreme entity had its hand in its making.


Gee, no one acknowledges that you're a superior being, far above all the rest of us mere mortals. Sucks to be you, I agree.


I think it sucks to be you Harmony. You are caught up in a religious maze of nonsense.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't agree with religious organizations getting involved politically, in getting involved with suppressing the scientific educational programs in schools.


I've had 8 kids in the public school system, I have a daughter who teaches in the public school system, and I have yet to see any church with enough power to suppress or even influence the scientific curriculum. Granted, I live in a liberal state, and maybe in the deep South there's that kind of influence, but I don't see it as pervasive across the country.


Were in not for organization fighting to keep church out of schools, to keep science free of religious dogma...the schools would be teacing intelligent design as science and evolution would be disgarded. It's a constant battle.

Quote:
Quote:
So those are some examples of what I take issue with, but having a belief in a supreme entity per se I have no negative thoughts of. It's the belief in a God which interferes with mankind and favors particular groups, and how that influences people's attitudes I might take issue with.


You think it's okay to believe in God, so long as he doesn't interfere with mankind or play favorites?


It's the belief in an interfering with mankind sort of God which creates problems, which is resource consuming.

Quote:
Quote:
Mormons are very much manipulated and controlled by their authority, believe in lies perpetrated by the Church, that sort of thing I take issue with.


Well, geez, are you an equal opportunity authority hater?


Sure an equal opportunity critical evaluator.

Quote:
Because Catholics (at least believing Catholics) bow to authority much more than we poor Mormons do. At least we don't have to attend daily Mass.


I've never heard of Catholics attending daily mass. They might I don't know, haven't spent much time looking into Catholicism.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:05 pm 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 7173
Jersey Girl wrote:
I just have to say this. This board (these exchanges and exchanges on another thread I've been reading) has the most negative effect on me to the point of toxicity. I've been known to engage in a battle or two (hundred) on boards but quite frankly, I cannot understand how or why people can be so consistently rude, snide and biting to each other on a daily basis. Or why anyone would want to spend so much time doing it.

The fact that I've spent time reading it and joining it, is just unreal.

I understand disagreements over various issues but for some people around here, it's just chronic.

And depressing.

I tried to draw attention to common ground here and it just doesn't work to forward a discussion. The truth is (I think) is that not many want to forward a discussion or increase understanding.

Geez.

Excellent observations.

Incidentally, my comments about Harmony's propensity toward violence weren't really aimed at Harmony. They were, of course, aimed at Scratch.

_________________

http://mormonscholarstestify.org
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/category/testimonies

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:01 am 
Elder

Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:31 am
Posts: 323
Erased. Expunged. Deleted.

Comment without value. Sorry.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:25 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:23 am
Posts: 7137
Location: On the imaginary axis
marg wrote:

Were in not for organization fighting to keep church out of schools, to keep science free of religious dogma...the schools would be teacing intelligent design as science and evolution would be disgarded. It's a constant battle.


I think that the history bears this out, by and large. Powerful organisations. religions included, rarely give up their positions of influence voluntarily.

marg wrote:
I've never heard of Catholics attending daily mass. They might I don't know, haven't spent much time looking into Catholicism.


Lay Roman Catholics have never been obliged to attend daily mass. They are however obliged to attend mass every Sunday (the day held to be the weekly anniversary of the resurrection of Jesus), and on a few other 'holy days of obligation' during the course of the year.

Amongst both Roman Catholics and other groups of Christians who regard the eucharist as central to belief and practice, it is however common amongst the devout to try to attend the eucharist more often, and sometimes even daily, in the form of a short service which usually takes place early in the morning. But this is completely voluntary, and it is possible to be a 'good Catholic' without doing so.

By contrast, some Christians might have the impression that in the CoJCoLDS "Everything which is not compulsory is forbidden" and vice versa - in the sense (e.g.) that privately organised prayer and study circles are said to be discouraged, but one is supposed to attend a large number of other acitivities during Sunday and at other times in the week.

To what extent is this contrast a real one?

_________________
Christopher Ralph: The discovery that the creators of South Park place a higher value on historical authenticity than do the Brethren creates spiritual shock-waves from which some members never recover.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:24 pm 
Nursery

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:42 am
Posts: 30
Location: CA
So anyways. :confused:

Shades, it was real good catching up with you :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:08 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:07 pm
Posts: 9793
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Wayneman wrote:
Shades, it was real good catching up with you :)

Likewise! :-)

By the way, it looks like you missed my post wherein I asked you two things:

  1. The areas in which you served, and
  2. What's your opinion of President Ames.

So, will you enlighten us?

_________________
"[D. Michael Quinn] is excommunicated so we can't trust anything he ever said? Why does that work for him but not for the witnesses to the Book of Mormon?"

--ZelphtheGreat, 10/17/2013


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:31 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:00 pm
Posts: 9063
Quote:
I think it sucks to be you Harmony. You are caught up in a religious maze of nonsense.


One wonders how Marg's condescending self righteous smugness about religion is any different than a believer in God and Christianity thinking she is an amoral prig simply and totally lost due to her benighted and evil ways.

I mean really. If the believers here acted with the same superior smugness that Marg does towards them she would be screaming about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:10 pm 
Nursery

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:42 am
Posts: 30
Location: CA
Quote:
By the way, it looks like you missed my post wherein I asked you two things:

1. The areas in which you served, and
2. What's your opinion of President Ames.


So, will you enlighten us?

Let's see: 1. Inuyama, Nonami, Yokaichi, Kanazawa, Toyota, and one other, the name of which still eludes me. It was up north though, east of Kanazawa. But Amani and Materfis were my companions there, I remember. Oh, and Bidulph was the DL. I'm telling you, I was atrocious about keeping a journal :)

2. I had no problems with Ames. I had very little interaction with him, so I was probably not a favorite. However, he never gave me a reason to dislike him. He even told me he liked my singing voice. :cool:

I DID like him for at least one other thing, though. He loosened up the music-listening rules for p-day. Smith said no music, except Mo-Tab, and things like that. Ames said, basically, anything which wouldn't chase the Spirit away.

Needless to say, I think we all stretched that one a bit. :wink:

PS I know emoticons are lame, but I find them useful.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:58 am 
Jason Bourne wrote:
Quote:
I think it sucks to be you Harmony. You are caught up in a religious maze of nonsense.


One wonders how Marg's condescending self righteous smugness about religion is any different than a believer in God and Christianity thinking she is an amoral prig simply and totally lost due to her benighted and evil ways.

I mean really. If the believers here acted with the same superior smugness that Marg does towards them she would be screaming about it.


I don't claim atheism is morally superior to any particular position, hence I don't possess self righteous smugness but I certainly have heard from you how atheism = immorality and religious belief = morality. So certainly, you have an attitude of condescending self righteous smugness. As far as screaming, it seems you are the one doing the bitching.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:35 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:00 pm
Posts: 9063
Quote:
I don't claim atheism is morally superior to any particular position,


You claim that critical thinking unfettered by the shackles of what you personally view as naïve and silly beliefs is morally superior to moral positions that may have grounding in religious tradition.
Quote:

hence I don't possess self righteous smugness


Your most certianly do. Your posts are full of your own sense of indignations and smugness against what you view as indoctrinated antiquated beliefs.

Quote:
but I certainly have heard from you how atheism = immorality and religious belief = morality.


No Marg you have not. Not really. I have, at least for quite sometime, refrained from that view and indeed it is not one I hold. So it seems at least in this area your analysis of what a poster's position is, is failing you. Go ahead Marg. Go find posts where I take this position. I think you will be hard pressed to find them. If you do I will apologize for them.

Quote:
So certainly, you have an attitude of condescending self righteous smugness.


Actually you are wrong again. I don't go around at all stating how non believers are stupid, or lacked religious grounding in their early years so this is obviously why they are humanistic and amoral, or that they have chosen to reject God in order to satisfy their hedonistic lusts and desires and appease their conscience in order to do so. But you routinely state how incredulous you are about how LDS persons are so clearly indoctrinated in order believe an obviously lie and fraud. A good percentage of your posts are peppered with such comments.

Quote:
As far as screaming, it seems you are the one doing the bitching



What a profound and intelligent response. I am in awe.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 371 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alscai, DrW, EAllusion, Google [Bot], Juggler Vain, Majestic-12 [Bot], Maxrep, palerobber, Shiloh, son of Ishmael, SteelHead, Water Dog and 30 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group