The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

MrStakhanovite · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:56 pm

Verification does not turn something subjective into objective, that is bizarre. Galileo was either right or wrong about seeing rings, even if no one ever saw Saturn again, it would not make what Galileo saw subjective. If there is a right/wrong or true/false answer to a statement or proposition, then it can’t be subjective.

Darth J · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:03 pm

mfbukowski wrote:

I must say your brilliance is unsurpassed!

All the philosophers who have debated this over the years should have just come to you or looked it up in the dictionary!!

I'm just not seeing the value in any number of philosophers debating over the years whether a third party can objectively observe the thoughts in someone's mind.

Blixa · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:38 pm

Stormy Waters wrote:

selek1 wrote:

First, that since the Priesthood is God's to delegate or refuse as he sees fit, then any discrimination is only alleged, rather than explicit.

For example, if I authorize my daughter to use the family car, but not my son- have I discriminated against my son?

Most people would suggest that I have not, as "discrimination" is commonly understood.

The assumption that either the Ban or not allowing my son to use the car was "discrimination" is speculative. It is inferred, rather than explicitly stated.

My son has no "right" to use the family car. It is a privelege that I can bestow or withhold entirely at my discretion- and for any reason.

It is not your place (or anyone elses) to criticize me on who, how, or when I delegate the use of the family vehicle.

It is not your place to pass judgement on my reasons.

The same logic applies to the Priesthood Ban.

No one now alive or dead (save Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ) have any right to the Priesthood.

That is a privilege that is theirs to bestow or withold as they see fit- for any reason or for no reason at all.

Unless and until it is demonstrated that the Priesthood Ban was not divinely sanctioned, none of us have any right to quibble over the reasoning behind the Ban.

It is not our place to tell God to whom he "must" delegate his authority and under what conditions.

Second, I would stipulate that (assuming for the sake of argument) that I had discriminated against my son- can one assume that I did so on the basis of his gender?

Can one assume that I did so on the basis of his race?

Can one assume that his conduct is "less valiant" than that of his sister?

Can one assume that I did so because of his age?

All of these speculations about my reasoning are just that- speculation.

I really hope the priesthood ban comes up in the general election. Between 'I don't know', and answers like this they will be digging their own grave.

Found here.

I'd respond but I'm banned from the thread.

What I get from this is that the guy must be a real dick as a dad. Or a neighbor.

Yoda · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:37 pm

Blixa wrote:

What I get from this is that the guy must be a real dick as a dad. Or a neighbor

Agreed.

I would also say that his argument is flawed based on one important point. There IS no documentational evidence that the Priesthood Ban was divinely initiated.

bcspace · **Joined:** Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm **Posts:** 14240

Quote:

There IS no documentational evidence that the Priesthood Ban was divinely initiated.

It's doctrine by implication and such is published. OD 2 itself speaks of the long promised day. Who else in LDS theology could make such a promise other than God through his prophets? LDS doctrine (D&C Institute Manual OD 2) also has the ban from the time of Adam. Do any LDS honestly believe God would allow the prophets to be mistaken for that long? The new Book of Mormon manual on 2 Nephi 5 describes the Lamanite curse in terms very similar to what some LDS claim to be speculation for the modern priesthood ban.

LDS doctrine remains that the priesthood ban, which has been around since the time of Adam until some 30 years ago, is Divinely Appointed. There is no way to escape it until the Church modifies it's current publications and actually specifies what it and is not speculation in it's doctrine Newsroom statements.

Darth J · **Posted:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:36 pm

bcspace wrote:

Quote:

There IS no documentational evidence that the Priesthood Ban was divinely initiated.

It's doctrine by implication and such is published. OD 2 itself speaks of the long promised day. Who else in LDS theology could make such a promise other than God through his prophets? LDS doctrine (D&C Institute Manual OD 2) also has the ban from the time of Adam. Do any LDS honestly believe God would allow the prophets to be mistaken for that long? The new Book of Mormon manual on 2 Nephi 5 describes the Lamanite curse in terms very similar to what some LDS claim to be speculation for the modern priesthood ban.

LDS doctrine remains that the priesthood ban, which has been around since the time of Adam until some 30 years ago, is Divinely Appointed. There is no way to escape it until the Church modifies it's current publications and actually specifies what it and is not speculation in it's doctrine Newsroom statements.

bcspace---

We already know that the Church and certain of its defenders are lying with the "we don't know" routine. You don't have to keep beating a dead horse.

Themis · **Joined:** Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm **Posts:** 6018

bcspace wrote:

OD 2 itself speaks of the long promised day. Who else in LDS theology could make such a promise other than God through his prophets? LDS doctrine (D&C Institute Manual OD 2) also has the ban from the time of Adam.

Correct. Other doctrinal statements also confirm it is doctrine. BTW The OD2 and other statements talk about race, regardless of your dishonest attempt otherwise.

Quote:

Do any LDS honestly believe God would allow the prophets to be mistaken for that long?

Further evidence God is not running the LDS church.

Quote:

LDS doctrine remains that the priesthood ban, which has been around since the time of Adam until some 30 years ago, is Divinely Appointed. There is no way to escape it until the Church modifies it's current publications and actually specifies what it and is not speculation in it's doctrine Newsroom statements.

Making the We don't know dishonest. BTW the church has never stated the newsroom is to be considered doctrine.

Here is an interesting link

http://www.staylds.com/docs/WhatIsOfficialMormonDoctrine.html

Official needs to be dropped since if something is not official doctrine it is not doctrine of the LDS church.

This statement seems to cover what most members agree on, though the church has never come out with any declaration or proclamation regarding what is doctrine. It would help some members like yourself understand how it works if they did.

Quote:

This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

bcspace · **Joined:** Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm **Posts:** 14240

Quote:

It's doctrine by implication and such is published. OD 2 itself speaks of the long promised day. Who else in LDS theology could make such a promise other than God through his prophets? LDS doctrine (D&C Institute Manual OD 2) also has the ban from the time of Adam. Do any LDS honestly believe God would allow the prophets to be mistaken for that long? The new Book of Mormon manual on 2 Nephi 5 describes the Lamanite curse in terms very similar to what some LDS claim to be speculation for the modern priesthood ban.

LDS doctrine remains that the priesthood ban, which has been around since the time of Adam until some 30 years ago, is Divinely Appointed. There is no way to escape it until the Church modifies it's current publications and actually specifies what it and is not speculation in it's doctrine Newsroom statements.

Quote:

bcspace---

We already know that the Church and certain of its defenders are lying with the "we don't know" routine. You don't have to keep beating a dead horse.

No, the Church is being honest in saying reasons are not known without denying the doctrine that currently exists. Some apologists on the "SLDS" side are taking it to mean the Church has abandoned all doctrine on the matter and are misrepresenting the Church in that regard. They are also labeling those defenders who do point out the doctrine "racists" or "race-baiters".

Buffalo · **Posted:** Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:47 pm

Mark Beesley wrote:

Now then, heterosexuals may be partly to blame for the current flood of opinions being voiced in support of tolerance for homosexual relationships, after all, homosexuals are not doing anything qualitiatively different than many heterosexuals, including heterosexuals who consider themselves to be good members of the Church. It seems to have become acceptable to use one's mouth for that which it was never intended, and to occupy one's genitals in ways that the Lord never ordained. Oral sex and all other perversions of the procreative power shared with us by the Lord are unholy and impure practices that we covenant to avoid. But if the heterosexual community embraces that which is unholy and impure, it can hardly complain of the homosexual community acting in an similarly unholy and impure manner.

Oh, god

JeremyOrbe-Smith wrote:

. . . .what consenting adults do with their mouths in their bedrooms is not anyone's business but theirs.

Mark Beesley wrote:

You be sure and tell the Lord that when you are standing before Him on Judgment Day. You're gonna tell the Creator and Heaven and Earth, it's none of your business what I did in my bedroom? You might want to spend some time with King Benjamin in the Book of Mosiah.

David T wrote:

Mark Beesley wrote:

Fools mock.

Double

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/573 ... ge__st__40

Hades · **Posted:** Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:35 am

Mark Beesley wrote:

You be sure and tell the Lord that when you are standing before Him on Judgment Day. You're gonna tell the Creator and Heaven and Earth, it's none of your business what I did in my bedroom? You might want to spend some time with King Benjamin in the Book of Mosiah.

What kind of pervert God makes my bedroom his business?

Darth J · **Posted:** Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:04 pm

Must....preserve....this quote.....for posterity........

DarkScythe wrote:

If there is life in the universe, their appearance is an unknown and so is their culture and spiritual needs. So There will be a gospel tailored to them. For All are God's children regardless how they look.

For the Essence of God is Intelligence. Like us, Our cousins in the universe will be intelligent. One of my several opinions, that there is a possible Cathar species(a feline humanoid race from star wars) in the Universe. Remember the Person with the Lions head in heaven praising God. I do believe that his race is both symbolic and an older humanoid race.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/573 ... 1209107144

He's talking about her: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Juhani

IT WAS PRETEND! IT'S NOT REAL! THE GAME DEVELOPERS MADE IT UP! IT WAS AN XBOX GAME, NOT A REVELATION FROM GOD!!!!!!

Yoda · **Posted:** Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:26 pm

Darth J wrote:

Must....preserve....this quote.....for posterity........

DarkScythe wrote:

If there is life in the universe, their appearance is an unknown and so is their culture and spiritual needs. So There will be a gospel tailored to them. For All are God's children regardless how they look.

For the Essence of God is Intelligence. Like us, Our cousins in the universe will be intelligent. One of my several opinions, that there is a possible Cathar species(a feline humanoid race from star wars) in the Universe. Remember the Person with the Lions head in heaven praising God. I do believe that his race is both symbolic and an older humanoid race.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/573 ... 1209107144

He's talking about her: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Juhani

IT WAS PRETEND! IT'S NOT REAL! THE GAME DEVELOPERS MADE IT UP! IT WAS AN XBOX GAME, NOT A REVELATION FROM GOD!!!!!!

Wait! You mean your name isn't REALLY Darth? You don't have the Force? We aren't in a galaxy far far away?? :eek:

Darth J · **Posted:** Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:35 pm

liz3564 wrote:

Wait! You mean your name isn't REALLY Darth? You don't have the Force? We aren't in a galaxy far far away?? :eek:

Okay, okay.....

See, the Star Wars movies are about a fallen righteous person who became an agent of evil, and there was this big civil war, right? And it was supposed to be a long time ago, far away in space, right?

So one of my theories is that Star Wars is essentially a documentary about the War in Heaven.

Because we all need to have theories about the Gospel........

Darth J · **Posted:** Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:03 pm

Quote:

I, personally, wouldn't attend a gay wedding, not just because I view those weddings as morally objectionable, but also because I don't look good in pastels.

I can respect that others of my faith may see it differently, and since attendance at such weddings is entirely irrelevant to the attendee fulfilling the 4-fold mission of the church, I don't see why it would be factored into church standing. Certainly, I have seen no indication that it is--any more than taking someone to get an abortion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/574 ... 1209108057

ludwigm · **Posted:** Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:10 am

Darth J wrote:

Must....preserve....this quote.....for posterity........

DarkScythe wrote:

If there is life in the universe, their appearance is an unknown and so is their culture and spiritual needs. So There will be a gospel tailored to them. For All are God's children regardless how they look.

For the Essence of God is Intelligence. Like us, Our cousins in the universe will be intelligent.
...
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/573 ... 1209107144

...juhani...

Please read "The Streets of Ashkelon" of Harry Harrison.

It is a novel about "natives, simple and unlettered Stone Age types that they are, have managed to come this far with no superstitions or traces of deism whatsoever.".
who
"... have thunder, trees and water without having thunder-gods, tree sprites, or water nymphs. They have no ugly little gods, taboos, or spells to hag-ride and limit their lives. They are the only primitive people I have ever encountered that are completely free of superstition and appear to be much happier and sane because of it."

You can read the plot here.
There is a conflict of "trader Garth", "father Mark" and the "weskers".

You can download it from http://www.pdfdocspace.com/docs/73063/h ... years.html, the first novel of 50.

Darth J · **Posted:** Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:35 pm

Pahoran wrote:

The internet, as others have noted, is a two-edged sword. It gives every crank a soap box and every demagogue a bully pulpit. It flatters short attention spans, and so lends itself to tabloidesque sensationalism and the dissemination of sound-bites that distort rather than inform.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/574 ... 1209108558

moksha · **Posted:** Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:28 pm

Darth J wrote:

DarkScythe wrote:

Remember the Person with the Lions head in heaven praising God. I do believe that his race is both symbolic and an older humanoid race.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/573 ... 1209107144

He's talking about her: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Juhani

IT WAS PRETEND! IT'S NOT REAL! THE GAME DEVELOPERS MADE IT UP! IT WAS AN XBOX GAME, NOT A REVELATION FROM GOD!!!!!!

Are you saying we will never have the pleasure of meeting this lady from Star Trek?

http://www.releasedreactions.com/mbap/images/film/dumb01.jpg

Buffalo · **Posted:** Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:55 am

wenglund wrote:

Comparing sexually defiling of children with sexually defying of homosexuals = Success

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

wenglund wrote:

Geez, lost, do you want to be remembered as the person who twisted my comments beyond recognition? My comments were confined to "sexual defilement," and said nothing about lifestyles and ruthlessness. Sexual defilement is sexual defilement, just as sin is sin. What about this don't you get?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/574 ... el-at-byu/

Consenting adults having sex is the same as child rape? The self-loathing has turned Wade into a very ugly person.

SteelHead · **Posted:** Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:52 am

Hades wrote:

Mark Beesley wrote:

You be sure and tell the Lord that when you are standing before Him on Judgment Day. You're gonna tell the Creator and Heaven and Earth, it's none of your business what I did in my bedroom? You might want to spend some time with King Benjamin in the Book of Mosiah.

What kind of pervert God makes my bedroom his business?

God and his angels are the ultimate voyeurs. You think it creepy when bishops ask teens about their little factories, or SP want to know what color of panties were involved, what positions were employed, etc etc...... Well it has nothing on invisible beings watching your intimate moments in all their invisible omnipresence.

Buffalo · **Posted:** Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:02 am

SteelHead wrote:

God and his angels are the ultimate voyeurs. You think it creepy when bishops ask teens about their little factories, or SP want to know what color of panties were involved, what positions were employed, etc etc...... Well it has nothing on invisible beings watching your intimate moments in all their invisible omnipresence.

For added creepiness factor, open up your baby making sessions with a prayer! :eek:

SteelHead · **Posted:** Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:32 pm

The purpose of the veil is turn turn celestial voyeurism into a money making ppv service.... Ala porn in Marriott's hotel rooms.

The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

Who is online