The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

3sheets2thewind · **Joined:** Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:28 pm **Posts:** 1291

are images not allowed in the quote thread?

MCB · **Posted:** Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:37 pm

Quote:

For some reason, that brought Nurse Ratched to mind. We all know how that ends.

I had to take a quick review. Definitely an interesting analogy. :lol:

&

3sheets2thewind · **Joined:** Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:28 pm **Posts:** 1291

Hestia

Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark
Moderators
PipPipPip
733 posts

Posted A day ago
This whole thread seems to be based on speculation and innuendo with the worst possible interpretation. Closing.

sethpayne · **Posted:** Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:09 pm

William Schryver commenting on Richard Bushman's RSR:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58006-…-he-did-go-about-secretly-…-seeking-to-destroy-the-church-…/page__st__360#entry1209132456

Quote:

By and large, I thought Rough Stone Rolling was a satisfactory biography of Joseph Smith. That said, I am of the opinion that, in many cases--and unnecessarily so--Bushman pandered to the critics of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Church. Or, if he was not intentionally pandering to the critics, he holds to some views of Joseph Smith that I believe to be manifestly false, and he incorrectly interprets some events in Joseph Smith's history, such that Rough Stone Rolling can definitely be a faith-eroding book in the hands of those whose knowledge and understanding of LDS Church history is deficient in certain respects.

That Rough Stone Rolling is considered by many to be, at this date, the "definitive" biography of Joseph Smith is, in my judgment, more a commentary on the mediocrity of its competitors than it is a valid assessment of the relative quality of the work itself.

I would like to point out that Richard Bushman is a Harvard-educated historian who has dedicated large portions of his career to studying the life of Joseph Smith. Bushman was a department chair at the University of Delaware, and has taught at BYU and is an emeritus professor at Columbia, who along with his lovely wife Claudia, taught a class on contemporary Mormonism at Columbia/UTS this past semester. Bushman has published dozens of of peer-reviewed articles and several books from highly-respected academic presses.

Just sayin' .....

harmony · **Posted:** Sun Jun 17, 2012 1:10 pm

Wow, I didn't know you saved Will's descriptor of me on your sig. Been a while since I was attacked by Will.

sethpayne · **Posted:** Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:39 pm

harmony wrote:

Wow, I didn't know you saved Will's descriptor of me on your sig. Been a while since I was attacked by Will.

Sorry, Harmony. Including it was insensitive on my part. I will remove it immediately.

Seth

Stormy Waters · **Posted:** Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:37 pm

Pahoran wrote:

california boy wrote:

Quite honestly I don't even know where to begin to respond to your post. Obviously you feel that homosexuality is some kind of physical handicap or disease. You do realize that there are entire states that allow gay marriage and zero states allow blind drivers? There is a legal reason why we don't allow blind drivers.

Possibly for the same reason that we don't have "blind pride" parades: the blind community hasn't been taken over by a coterie of ideologues perversely "celebrating" their blindness and demanding that they be given a special status that gives them "visual equality."

Everyone agrees that blind drivers cause damage. That is because the damage can be easily quantified and cannot be explained away by politically-based verbal legerdemain. But if we had to choose between sharing the road with blind drivers and sharing our children with the unrepentant practitioners of gross immorality, I'd take the blind drivers any day of the week. They'll do far less damage.

Regards,
Pahoran

He was thread banned for this.

robuchan · **Joined:** Thu Jun 21, 2012 2:17 pm **Posts:** 209

Many of you follow the MAD Board closely. Can anyone tell me why I was banned for a week? Nobody told me why, and I can't read the board to see if one of my posts was chastised by a mod. Weird.

Tobin · **Posted:** Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:36 pm

robuchan wrote:

Many of you follow the MAD Board closely. Can anyone tell me why I was banned for a week? Nobody told me why, and I can't read the board to see if one of my posts was chastised by a mod. Weird.

Delete your cookies and log on as a guest.

Doctor Scratch · **Posted:** Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:38 pm

robuchan wrote:

Many of you follow the MAD Board closely. Can anyone tell me why I was banned for a week? Nobody told me why, and I can't read the board to see if one of my posts was chastised by a mod. Weird.

Hi robuchan--welcome to the board! I'm not sure why you were banned for a week. You probably said something that seemed "threatening" to their top apologists. I think I only caught your posts in passing... Were you saying things on Bill Hamblin's thread? If so, whatever you said was probably the reason for your banning.

It's not "weird" at all--it's business as usual over there.

robuchan · **Joined:** Thu Jun 21, 2012 2:17 pm **Posts:** 209

I see I got quoted in this thread. Haha, someone didn't get my sarcasm.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13319&start=630

robuchan · **Joined:** Thu Jun 21, 2012 2:17 pm **Posts:** 209

Doctor Scratch wrote:

robuchan wrote:

Many of you follow the MAD Board closely. Can anyone tell me why I was banned for a week? Nobody told me why, and I can't read the board to see if one of my posts was chastised by a mod. Weird.

Hi robuchan--welcome to the board! I'm not sure why you were banned for a week. You probably said something that seemed "threatening" to their top apologists. I think I only caught your posts in passing... Were you saying things on Bill Hamblin's thread? If so, whatever you said was probably the reason for your banning.

It's not "weird" at all--it's business as usual over there.

Doesn't it just piss people off and make for more hostility if they don't even tell you why they do it? And why make it so you can't even lurk? It seems that policy would create animosity for no reason. Also, how do I know what not to say again, if they don't tell me what I said that was so bad?

Kishkumen · **Posted:** Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:46 am

robuchan wrote:

Doesn't it just piss people off and make for more hostility if they don't even tell you why they do it? And why make it so you can't even lurk? It seems that policy would create animosity for no reason. Also, how do I know what not to say again, if they don't tell me what I said that was so bad?

There is a reason why many here still refer to that board as MAD.

robuchan · **Joined:** Thu Jun 21, 2012 2:17 pm **Posts:** 209

It was this.

Deborah, on 19 June 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:
Your snarky remark aside, the point was that there were no magical powers in the stone itself, but Joseph believed there was in the beginning until he realized the power was in himself and in God.

I agree with what was said previously that a seer stone or any other object is merely the means to focus so that the mind can be open to receiving inspiration. (end of Deborah)
(start of my post)
Same thing with the Book of Breathing.

Does it say anything about the God these apologists believe in that would use trickery and deception to fulfill his word. I would hope if there is a God, he wouldn't be so devious to use trickery like this. And if the argument was that all he's stuck doing whatever he can get his mortal followers to do, then I would he wouldn't be so impotent to let men screw things up so obviously. What's the point of having a prophet if you can't get his attention? What else is in the Mormon church is a legacy of bungling prophets?
(end of my post)
Mod: You have no reason to be rude and disrespectful. Take a break.

No one probably cares, but I want to defend myself, and this is probably my only forum to do so. I don't see any rudeness or disrespect. What I'm saying I think is actually something very important for the apologists to hear. They can make up answers to address difficult issues such as the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham translation, but their answers have repercussions. In the case where they make arguments like the peepstone or the papyri were props. Or that God couldn't get Joseph to do it in a more proper way, and just had to go with whatever way Joseph was ready. These arguments now push some negative traits back on God. Does God really use deceptive methods to translate scripture? Or is God really so impotent that he can't get his prophet to translate an ancient record without trickery involved? These are important questions in my mind. And I don't think they're disrespectful or rude.

The apologists have worked out a lot of answers to deal with science and historical fact, but the Mormon religion is left with something pretty weak. God becomes a distant, impotent God. Prophets become not just fallible, but barely better than the average person in their ability to reveal truth. What used to be literal and solid (things like Priesthood power, ordinances, temple) is now symbolic with uncertain meaning. Doctrine becomes changeable, and we're left with no ability to know what's certain and what might change with the next prophet (who may or may not even be any closer to God than you are).

Stormy Waters · **Posted:** Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:00 am

William Schryver wrote:

Therefore, those who were desirous that the course of the Maxwell Institute should be altered were angry with Professor Peterson, and desired that he should no longer be editor of the Mormon Studies Review; therefore there arose a dispute concerning the matter.

And it came to pass that those who were desirous that Professor Peterson should be dethroned from the editorship were called "learned scholars," for they were desirous that the agenda of the Maxwell Institute should be altered in a manner to overthrow those dedicated to defending the Church against the attacks of its enemies, and to establish the rule of the "learned scholars" over the Maxwell Institute.

And those who were desirous that Professor Peterson should remain editor of the Mormon Studies Review took upon them the name of apologists of Sergeant Nibley's Lonely Hearts Club Band; and thus was the division among them, for the apologists had sworn or covenanted to defend the Church against the attacks of its enemies.

And it came to pass that this matter of their contention was settled by the voice of the people. And it came to pass that the voice of the people came in favor of the apologists, but the voice of the people was ignored, and Professor Peterson and his band of apologists were silenced by the learned scholars.

Now those who were in favor of the learned scholars were those of higher education, and they sought also to be learned scholars; and they were supported by those who sought power and authority over the people.

And behold, this was a critical time for such contentions to be among the people of the Church, for behold, Dehlin stirred up the hearts of the people of the apostates against the people of the Church, and he was gathering together supporters from all parts of the land, and arming them with talking points, and preparing for war with all diligence; for he had sworn to drink the blood of Professor Peterson and all his band of apologists. And it came to pass that he did fill his cup to overflowing.

Darth J · **Posted:** Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:35 pm

Stormy Waters wrote:

William Schryver wrote:

Therefore, those who were desirous that the course of the Maxwell Institute should be altered were angry with Professor Peterson, and desired that he should no longer be editor of the Mormon Studies Review; therefore there arose a dispute concerning the matter.

And it came to pass that those who were desirous that Professor Peterson should be dethroned from the editorship were called "learned scholars," for they were desirous that the agenda of the Maxwell Institute should be altered in a manner to overthrow those dedicated to defending the Church against the attacks of its enemies, and to establish the rule of the "learned scholars" over the Maxwell Institute.

And those who were desirous that Professor Peterson should remain editor of the Mormon Studies Review took upon them the name of apologists of Sergeant Nibley's Lonely Hearts Club Band; and thus was the division among them, for the apologists had sworn or covenanted to defend the Church against the attacks of its enemies.

And it came to pass that this matter of their contention was settled by the voice of the people. And it came to pass that the voice of the people came in favor of the apologists, but the voice of the people was ignored, and Professor Peterson and his band of apologists were silenced by the learned scholars.

Now those who were in favor of the learned scholars were those of higher education, and they sought also to be learned scholars; and they were supported by those who sought power and authority over the people.

And behold, this was a critical time for such contentions to be among the people of the Church, for behold, Dehlin stirred up the hearts of the people of the apostates against the people of the Church, and he was gathering together supporters from all parts of the land, and arming them with talking points, and preparing for war with all diligence; for he had sworn to drink the blood of Professor Peterson and all his band of apologists. And it came to pass that he did fill his cup to overflowing.

We're at war!!!!!

Kishkumen · **Posted:** Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:01 pm

Stormy Waters wrote:

William Schryver wrote:

Therefore, those who were desirous that the course of the Maxwell Institute should be altered were angry with Professor Peterson, and desired that he should no longer be editor of the Mormon Studies Review; therefore there arose a dispute concerning the matter.

And it came to pass that those who were desirous that Professor Peterson should be dethroned from the editorship were called "learned scholars," for they were desirous that the agenda of the Maxwell Institute should be altered in a manner to overthrow those dedicated to defending the Church against the attacks of its enemies, and to establish the rule of the "learned scholars" over the Maxwell Institute.

And those who were desirous that Professor Peterson should remain editor of the Mormon Studies Review took upon them the name of apologists of Sergeant Nibley's Lonely Hearts Club Band; and thus was the division among them, for the apologists had sworn or covenanted to defend the Church against the attacks of its enemies.

And it came to pass that this matter of their contention was settled by the voice of the people. And it came to pass that the voice of the people came in favor of the apologists, but the voice of the people was ignored, and Professor Peterson and his band of apologists were silenced by the learned scholars.

Now those who were in favor of the learned scholars were those of higher education, and they sought also to be learned scholars; and they were supported by those who sought power and authority over the people.

And behold, this was a critical time for such contentions to be among the people of the Church, for behold, Dehlin stirred up the hearts of the people of the apostates against the people of the Church, and he was gathering together supporters from all parts of the land, and arming them with talking points, and preparing for war with all diligence; for he had sworn to drink the blood of Professor Peterson and all his band of apologists. And it came to pass that he did fill his cup to overflowing.

Sheer lunacy.

cwald · **Posted:** Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:31 pm

Had a request in another thread to posts some of the dialogue from last night where I got my ass handed to me. So here goes. This is just a sample. Most of this stuff is just assine circular logic, and stuff that pretty well could be said from anyone on any side of the isle, which is what is so frustrating about it. I just want to scream, "listen to what you are saying!"

I wasn't going to post any of this, but, after the way they treated me over there, the hell with them.

If this is not the right place to do so, please remove the posts.

Quote:

Selek1 wrote:

The Fourteen Fundamentals talk teaches us that it is wise to obey the Prophets (even if we're not entirely sure why)- but nothing more.

cwald · **Posted:** Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:39 pm

Quote:

Selek1 wrote:

I'm not trying to prove the Church true. I'm addressing the specific accusations you've made against the Church.

There is a fundamental and unsubtle difference between the two.

Quote:

cwald wrote

Perhaps some of you here are to focused on proof and evidence and facts....and have forgotten what we learned in primary about faith and listening to the spirit?

Quote:

Selek1 wrote
Call For Reference- what part of Sunday School taught us to disregard or abandon reason... Lesson number, chapter, verse, and page, if you please.

Yeah. I never said that kind of thing when I was on a mission

cwald · **Posted:** Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:43 pm

cwald · **Posted:** Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:46 pm

Quote:

Selek1 wrote

We're being trolled.

How many faithful Latter-day Saints have spent the better part of a week genuinely and patiently trying to discuss LDS thought, theology,and belief with cwald? Aside from myself, there's DBMormon, Calmoriah, Wade Englund, rpn, and several others.

In response to our genuine outreach, we get spate after spate of accusations, rhetorical dodges, and dishonest caricatures of LDS belief and principle.

Such responses are not indicative of someone acting in good faith.

Every single one of cwald's accusations against the Church has been shot down as either baseless, false, or predicated solely on his uninformed opinion.

Cwald has rejected every bit of evidence offered to him, and his only response has been "I'm just trying to understand what you really think."

When we tell him "what we really think", his only response is an airy wave of the hand and a new round of accusations.

Cwald has failed utterly to craft a single, cogent, thoughtful or factual response to the sincere and plain-spoken efforts of the Saints.

Again, this is not the behavior of someone acting in good faith.

I, for one, am done feeding the troll- nor can I in good conscience recommend that others continue to do so.

The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

Who is online