The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

just me · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2012 2:25 pm

Runtu, use this! I love this gif...it comes in handy here.

Blixa · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2012 5:45 pm

cafe crema wrote:

doughtheavenger wrote:

Sorry, but I disagree. These statements are not about getting anyone's approval. They are about getting out the truth. If I were to choose a person who was the victim of racism, it wouldn't be any black American who frankly know less about racism than most people. I would rather choose a survivor of Auschwitz or some other death camp. Gypsies and Jews who lived through the 1930s and 40s in Europe are the people who's life stories created a reaction against racism. Most of what is said about racism in America today is semi-literate trivialization of the subject.

So gypsies and Jews were a different race than the rest of Germany, I did not know that.

That is the most ignorant thing I've ever read on MDD. And that is saying a whole lot.

It's bad enough that he displays a horrible ignorance about world history, but I don't know how a person could be that ignorant of American history.

Blixa · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2012 5:50 pm

Runtu wrote:

bcspace wrote:

Yes, I think it's funny how you guys concentrate only on the mentally ill and drug fueled Mormon and not the mentally ill and drug fueled liberal atheist and try to make it seem that all Mormons are like this guy when the same logic says all atheists and liberals are like Jared Lee Loughner.

Who are "you guys"? CFR on me doing anything like that.

Quote:

Notice also how you skip over and ignore the evidence given.

What evidence have I ignored? You made a joke about a mass murder, and I made a brief comment. It's not like I built this ridiculous hobby horse about "doctrine" and then ran away when I was shown just how ridiculous it was.

Quote:

This is why we brand you as antiMormons; because you're willing to lie and say or support anything to smear the Church even if it's not true.

BS. I am not willing to lie or say or support anything to smear the church. I am tired of you attacking my character and honesty for no reason other than you don't like people who have left the church. Stop lying about me.

Why bother, runtu? Do you really expect an amoral narcissist to display intellectual integrity? It is one thing to debate a principled human being who takes a position different from or in opposition to your own. It's another thing entirely to engage with someone who is playing a morally empty ego game that has very little to do with Mormonism or religion. Or at least he better pray to God that it doesn't.

cafe crema · **Joined:** Mon May 10, 2010 11:07 pm **Posts:** 2036

dougtheavenger wrote:

Sorry, but I disagree. These statements are not about getting anyone's approval. They are about getting out the truth. If I were to choose a person who was the victim of racism, it wouldn't be any black American who frankly know less about racism than most people. I would rather choose a survivor of Auschwitz or some other death camp. Gypsies and Jews who lived through the 1930s and 40s in Europe are the people who's life stories created a reaction against racism. Most of what is said about racism in America today is semi-literate trivialization of the subject.

cafe crema wrote:

So gypsies and Jews were a different race than the rest of Germany, I did not know that.

Blixa wrote:

That is the most ignorant thing I've ever read on MDD. And that is saying a whole lot.

It's bad enough that he displays a horrible ignorance about world history, but I don't know how a person could be that ignorant of American history.

I admit I found dougtheavenger's post stupefyingly ignorant, at the same time I realize the world is peppered with this kind of ugly ignorance. What I found truly appalling about this was, no one called him on it. On that thread not a single Mormon disagreed with the idea that Black Americans don't know anything about racism. There were posters on that thread I really did expect better from, unbelievable.

Runtu · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 2:17 pm

Blixa wrote:

Why bother, runtu? Do you really expect an amoral narcissist to display intellectual integrity? It is one thing to debate a principled human being who takes a position different from or in opposition to your own. It's another thing entirely to engage with someone who is playing a morally empty ego game that has very little to do with Mormonism or religion. Or at least he better pray to God that it doesn't.

You're quite right. It has been a constant amazement to me how many apologists, while ostensibly religious, have no morals or ethics and will do whatever it takes to defend their religion. As I said in another thread, this isn't about truth; it's about bc's ego.

Stormy Waters · **Posted:** Sun May 06, 2012 11:20 am

mfbukowski wrote:

Let me just answer this question directly as I would without regard to anything beyond what Selek says post 2

To me, all the "scholarly stuff" misses the point entirely. I don't care WHERE the Book of Abraham came from- I believe in what is called the "catalyst" theory, which is in 25 words or less, that Joseph got the papyri and truly believed he was doing a literal "translation" of what the papyri said- AND in fact what came out of him were the inspired words of Abraham.

He could have been "translating" the pattern of his wallpaper as far as I am concerned- I don't care if he was looking at an Egyptian newspaper article about a horse race (kidding of course to make a point- the Kentucky derby is on) BUT WHAT HE WROTE were the words of God.

So if all that is true, the entire scholarly debate is exactly irrelevant, period.

We don't have the plates and we accept the Book of Mormon to be the word of God without them. People accept the Bible to be the word of God and there are no 10 commandments etched by the finger of God, supposedly, to be argued about.

Those arguments are irrelevant. AND they could not prove any scripture was of God even if we had every word AND the papyri were verified as being possibly actually from Abraham's time, AND if Egyptologists actually verified the translation as literal.

We have no scientific evidence of the resurrection or even the existence of Jesus which is incontrovertibly provable- and even if we did, it would not prove that he was the Son of God who died for our sins.

Such things don't have anything to do with science! They have to do with faith and the meaning they give our lives. In other words, a testimony is the only way these things can be shown to be "true" EVEN WITH ALL THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN THE WORLD

So worrying about scholarly evidences for OR AGAINST the Book of Abraham is a waste of time in my humble opinion and totally misses the point.

ERayR wrote:

My name is ERayR and I approve this message. Seriously all the scientific evidence, pro or con, is immaterial. The only thing that means anything is that personal witness that it is the word of God. I guess if you don't have that then one must struggle through all this and still never know.

Scientific or scholarly evidence be damned. They're going to believe it all anyway.

3sheets2thewind · **Joined:** Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:28 pm **Posts:** 1451

Daniel Peterson, on 10 May 2012 - 04:11 AM, said:
It remains my policy not to publicly discuss the background of editorial and personnel decisions. But I think I should say that Bill Hamblin's brief account of the immediate background of l'affaire Smith-Dehlin, above, is correct.

I say this simply because I've noticed that others elsewhere, who don't actually know the back story (and who, by their own admission, haven't read the article in question), are deriding Bill for getting it wrong. He hasn't.

Bill Hamblin, on 10 May 2012 - 04:41 AM, said:

The people over at Bedlam are among the most full-of-**** morons I've ever seen. And that's the nice way to put it.

Bill Hamblin, on 10 May 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:

The world is a strange place. Very strange. But the fact that he tried to suppress the article doesn't mean that he will succeed. I'm sure you'll all get to read it eventually, one way or another.

I've got a copy, and it's a superb piece of work. I'm tempted to post it on the internet right now ... But I have to go pack for Ireland. Erin go Braugh!

Daniel Peterson, on 10 May 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:
I'm certainly not going to disagree with either of Bill's posts above.

Sure would like to go to Ireland, though. Never been there, but, as it happens, I'll be dropping in very briefly in July.

MCB · **Posted:** Fri May 11, 2012 7:22 am

Ireland? Just asked Google.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Mormon ... 41433.html

:eek:

SteelHead · **Posted:** Fri May 11, 2012 10:06 pm

This got locked in a heartbeat:

In response to: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/577 ... 1209121619

Matthew J. Tandy wrote:

DWhitmer: Your post is completely irrelevant to this thread. It has nothing to do directly with the mysterios article involving John Dehlin, nor the interaction of Dan, John, and a general authority. Please open a new thread if you wish to preach about the fallen restored church. Wait. That's against the board rules. On second thought, please just try to stay on topic.

Dwitmer Starts a new thread, as per the request.
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/577 ... acred-cow/

DWhitmer wrote:

Since Mormonism claims that the key stone of their religion is the Book of Mormon; and since the validity of the Nephite record is based in large on the claims of the twelve witnesses; any "slaying" of a Book of Mormon witness, to disparage their character, deserves a response.

In another thread Pahoran said:

Pahoran wrote:

Quote
And now to slaughter your sacred cow:

David Whitmer was clearly a conservative, low-church Protestant throughout his life. He enlarged his definition of "scripture" to include the Book of Mormon because he had to -- his undeniable supernatural experiences left him no choice. But he then carried on as if nothing much else had happened. Receiving no such supernatural experiences about the relevations (in contrast to others) he disregarded them as long as they disagreed with his interpretation of what he was willing to receive as scripture. Thus it is that his testimony of the supernatural events around the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is superlatively important, because it is clear that if those events had not happened, he would have refused to believe them; while his rather stupid opinions about Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, tainted as they clearly were by personal jealousy and animus, are rather worthless, since they merely reflect his own personal prejudices.

Regards,
Pahoran

Let's see:
Disregarded
Superlative
Unimportant
Stupid
Opinions
Tainted
Jealousy
Animus
Worthless
Personal
Prejudices
Something was slained - the character of the most interviewed and therefore staunches defender of the book you claim to believe in. What are the facts?

David was such a "jealous" person that despite not having participated in Zion's Camp he was immediately ordained thereafter as J.Smith's successor, almost to say to the others:

"If you were dumb enough to join me in Zion's Camp, you're not fit to be a leader of this church."

When Emma sent her sons to meet David Whitmer, knowing he was such an "opinionated" person she said:

"When you see David Whitmer, you will see an HONEST man." (Emma Smith, 1856, Saints' Herald, June 21, 1884)

So the moderator chimes in....

Obviously Pahoran missed the mark and hasn't the foggiest idea who the true David Whitmer was.

As a general rule we do not allow personal threads. If you want to fight with Pahoran use a PM.

Pahoran gets chumped, a strong argument is made and the thread gets locked........ but I didn't see any personal attack, so why did it get locked for other than making a good argument and making Pahoran a fool?

Those mods don't like it when the cadre of the elite get pwned.

Bond James Bond · **Posted:** Fri May 11, 2012 11:54 pm

Quote:

Nomad has been banned from the board.

Skylla

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/577 ... 1209122130

Shulem · **Joined:** Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm **Posts:** 7477

Bond James Bond wrote:

Quote:

Nomad has been banned from the board.

Skylla

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/577 ... 1209122130

Ha ha ha!

Hey, Skylla -- kiss my ass you power hungry little man. And, ram Facsimile No. 3 up your moderating hole. You'll be banned eventually too. Just watch. Then we can all get a good laugh at watching you get thrown off the happy bus.

Paul O

jskains · **Joined:** Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:06 am **Posts:** 1749

Shulem wrote:

Ha ha ha!

Hey, Skylla -- kiss my ass you power hungry little man. And, ram Facsimile No. 3 up your moderating hole. You'll be banned eventually too. Just watch. Then we can all get a good laugh at watching you get thrown off the happy bus.

Paul O

This obsession of Facsimile 3 is unhealthy. There are meds for that you know.

JMS

Equality · **Posted:** Sun May 13, 2012 9:57 pm

jskains wrote:

Shulem wrote:

Ha ha ha!

Hey, Skylla -- kiss my ass you power hungry little man. And, ram Facsimile No. 3 up your moderating hole. You'll be banned eventually too. Just watch. Then we can all get a good laugh at watching you get thrown off the happy bus.

Paul O

This obsession of Facsimile 3 is unhealthy. There are meds for that you know.

JMS

JMS, I agree that Paul's reference to Facsimile 3 gets tiresome. But if you want to make him stop, why don't you just give him the name of the king in facsimile 3, or give a reasonable explanation of why Anubis is called a slave. If you don't like his question, just answer it.

jskains · **Joined:** Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:06 am **Posts:** 1749

The explanations are in the POGP.

JMS

Equality · **Posted:** Sun May 13, 2012 10:12 pm

jskains wrote:

The explanations are in the POGP.

JMS

You call that an answer? Somehow, I don't think Paul O. will find that persuasive, lol.

jskains · **Joined:** Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:06 am **Posts:** 1749

I don't think Paul O finds life persuasive.

JMS

Themis · **Joined:** Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm **Posts:** 12695

jskains wrote:

The explanations are in the POGP.

JMS

That's how we know Joseph got it wrong.

jskains · **Joined:** Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:06 am **Posts:** 1749

Themis wrote:

jskains wrote:

The explanations are in the POGP.

JMS

That's how we know Joseph got it wrong.

Was Joseph the name of the human Egyptologist you think is infallible?

JMS

ludwigm · **Posted:** Sun May 13, 2012 11:10 pm

jskains wrote:

The explanations are in the POGP.

JMS

Themis wrote:

That's how we know Joseph got it wrong.

jskains wrote:

Was Joseph the name of the human Egyptologist you think is infallible?

JMS

Anyway, he was a prophet, seer, revelator, translator - see D&C 21:1, 107:92, 124:125.

Shulem · **Joined:** Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm **Posts:** 7477

Equality wrote:

jskains wrote:

The explanations are in the POGP.

JMS

You call that an answer? Somehow, I don't think Paul O. will find that persuasive, lol.

I don't find it persuasive at all. It was a dodge, obviously.

Clearly, Joseph Smith was a fraud and his claims to translate Egyptian by the power of God was a lie. All of his Explanations in the Facsimile are made up lies. And the text of the story is also a made up lie using other sources to create a base and then add to the word like he loved to do. It was his creative desire to write scripture and be a prophet among his people.

But thanks to modern science, Joseph Smith is a proven liar and false translator.

Paul O

Buffalo · **Posted:** Mon May 14, 2012 8:13 am

Bond James Bond wrote:

Quote:

Nomad has been banned from the board.

Skylla

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/577 ... 1209122130

Good thing Will still has his main account. But now he'll have to rely on Wade for props, or else get a new sock puppet.

The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

Who is online