More lying from Le Grand Richards and POGP

[_Mittens]

http://youtu.be/ZUMnI7KO2lg

So this song isn't your taste ?

[_Bhodi]

http://youtu.be/ZUMnI7KO2lg

So this song isn't your taste ?

Not at all. I am more a

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhRa3REdozw

type of guy. Incidentally, when I was in Jerusalem a few years ago I stopped by the LDS Jerusalem Center, which is absolutely beautiful. It was closed, but they let me in and the local missionary was an organist. They have a large (relatively) room with a very nice organ, and he played some Bach. I've found modern Christianity to be rather shallow, were I not LDS I would probably be Orthodox of some variety, and I think the music is representative of that. Very saccharine-esque.

[_Albion]

As a matter of fact I am quite comfortable with the essence of Mittens' posts when they point out the problems with Mormon theology and statements of its so-called prophets. They must be bothersome to you, too, since you divert the issue and spend more time attacking the poster's grammar and taste rather than addressing the point being raised. It is wonderful knowing how educated you are, how traveled you are, what better taste you have, how much more knowledge you have than mere mortals but none of these things addresses the point. What are your thoughts on the Mormon quotes posted?

[_Bhodi]

As a matter of fact I am quite comfortable with the essence of Mittens' posts when they point out the problems with Mormon theology and statements of its so-called prophets.

Except none of it is Mittens' posting. It is Mittens plagiarizing others. This alone should concern you.

They must be bothersome to you, too, since you divert the issue and spend more time attacking the poster's grammar and taste rather than addressing the point being raised.

Mittens has terrible grammar. This is not attacking, it is a simple fact. I assumed that Mittens was not a native english speaker, since homophone problems are characteristic of the non-native speaker. Why would you consider this an attack? Did I say that Mittens was less of a person because of the grammar?

It is wonderful knowing how educated you are

Again, a fact nothing more. Did I say that I was a better person because of it? Not at all, but I have studied some things.

how traveled you are

I have traveled, it is part of the job, I did not have much choice. They do not call them orders for nothing. I cannot see why this would bother you.

what better taste you have

I do think Mittens taste in Christian music is terrible. I also think my daughter's taste in music is terrible. This is not impugning either of their characters.

how much more knowledge you have than mere mortals but none of these things addresses the point.

You're using sarcasm because you feel threatened and are afraid.

What are your thoughts on the Mormon quotes posted?

Indifference. You seem to think that your scholarship is good or even worthwhile. It is not. Most of that sort of anti-Mormon rhetoric is actually of negative value. This has been discussed before, but you're actually hurting yourself in posting or even reading it, because it is so poor, but gives the veneer of education and utility. Many have gone this way to find themselves mentally handicapped. It would be far better to engage the subject matter independent of an anti-Mormon bias and simply learn, and then let the chips fall where they may. Much of the Bible supports Mormons in ways that it does not support traditional Christianity, and this is a problem. Some of Mormonism is not supported outright in the Bible, but is supported in Semitic culture and society. This does not mean that Mormons are right, but that they have support others lack.

[_Bazooka]

On this thread you stated that a poster had "terrible grammar" not as an attack, but merely a statement of fact.

Mittens has terrible grammar. This is not attacking, it is a simple fact.

Incidentally, when I was in Jerusalem a few years ago I stopped by the LDS Jerusalem Center, which is absolutely beautiful. It was closed, but they let me in and the local missionary was an organist. They have a large (relatively) room with a very nice organ, and he played some Bach. I've found modern Christianity to be rather shallow, were I not LDS I would probably be Orthodox of some variety, and I think the music is representative of that. Very saccharine-esque.

Do you think the grammar you used in the paragraph above is good, or terrible?

Let me offer a grammatically better sentence:
"They have a (relatively) large room with a very nice organ...."
You see, where the bracketed word is placed is (grammatically speaking) important.

Now perhaps you can start to contribute to the discussion of the thread.
Adress the argument rather than the spelling.
Make points about the topic rather than score posters on their punctuation and grammar.
Perhaps not...

[_Bhodi]

Incidentally, when I was in Jerusalem a few years ago I stopped by the LDS Jerusalem Center, which is absolutely beautiful. It was closed, but they let me in and the local missionary was an organist. They have a large (relatively) room with a very nice organ, and he played some Bach. I've found modern Christianity to be rather shallow, were I not LDS I would probably be Orthodox of some variety, and I think the music is representative of that. Very saccharine-esque.

Do you think the grammar you used in the paragraph above is good, or terrible?

Let me offer a grammatically better sentence:
"They have a (relatively) large room with a very nice organ...."
You see, where the bracketed word is placed is (grammatically speaking) important.

Now perhaps you can start to contribute to the discussion of the thread.
Adress the argument rather than the spelling.
Make points about the topic rather than score posters on their punctuation and grammar.
Perhaps not...

Do you have a source to support your position? The comment was an aside, the auditorium was large, but I thought someone here would object and claim it was small or fixate on the word large, so I added the (relatively) as an aside. There is nothing wrong with this that I can see, but please let me know what book or online manual you are using. I think you're wrong, but you may not be. I would like to see the source, however.

As for Mittens, she said "your getting warmer" when she meant "you're getting warmer. On her blog she has a post that says "Mormons Lie for there Religion" when she means "Mormons Lie for their Religion". When you read the blog posts, however, the grammatical mistakes disappear (again relatively, there are some places where she interjects). She is clearly cutting and pasting everything, including her own blog, oddly enough.

That was the point, the differences in styles, not as a criticism of her as a person.

[_Albion]

Bhodi, your post confirms my point.

[_Bhodi]

Bhodi, your post confirms my point.

No, it doesn't, but you're stuck. If you try to defend Mittens plagiarism, it will just look silly. There is nothing you really can attack me on, so... the non-answer. And obviously hope no one recognizes this.

Also, Matt Slick is really a bad source of information on Mormonism, or any other ism for that matter. His website is really second rate at best, and just terrible at worst. There is a doctoral candidate who posts here occasionally, though I do not know if she still does, who wrote an brief blog about the issue...

http://www.clobberblog.com/?p=783

Truth told, apologetics are a waste of time in my opinion. You're never really going to learn about either Mormonism or Christianity from CARM, it is just useless. If you really want to learn and engage in scholarly discussion I would recommend blogs and just digging into books without preconceived notions. Mittens' posting may look good to you, but it is really flawed in that nothing is really learned or understood, just trite phrases parroted.

[_Albion]

You fail totally to see the point which is not about where Mittens gets her/his posts but the content of the quotes presented. Yet you continue to attack and defend your efforts to discredit the person rather than what has been posted on the subject. That is my point and my only point. Oh, and by the way, since you brought up the question of grammar it is grammatically incorrect to use the word an as you did. Referring to a doctoral candidate who posts here you said: ".....who wrote an brief blog about the issue..." Correct grammar is "who wrote a brief blog about the issue..." Since this is the second time I have noticed this usage from you I assume it is bad grammar rather than just a typing error. Now, instead of strutting egos, criticizing grammar and sources, can you respond to the quotes posted?

[_Bhodi]

You fail totally to see the point which is not about where Mittens gets her/his posts but the content of the quotes presented.

Really? So outright dishonesty is ok in this situation? Let's examine your premise. Mittens does no work, does not study, does no research, simply cuts and pastes what is honestly terrible work, again without effort, but others are obligated to respond to it, to put their time and effort into the study, research, effort, all because Mittens said something. She has an opinion, so it demands addressing? Her own blog is a plagiarized mess, she cannot even form her own opinions without cutting and pasting someone else's work, but you demand that others work to address it....why?

Yet you continue to attack and defend your efforts to discredit the person rather than what has been posted on the subject.

You do not understand that no one is discrediting Mittens, but Mittens. All anyone here has done is point out that she does nothing but cut ant paste, largely from terrible sites, by the admission of Evangelical Christians. These are not accusations, but they are facts. If this does discredit Mittens, then it is really no one's fault but Mittens. This is supposed, admittedly it is not, but it is supposed to be the scholarly forum. I would see little reason to engage someone who did nothing but cut and paste from legitimate sources, let alone a source I did not respect. Unfortunately this is what you both seem to consider scholarship. This is why you were handicapped with the discussion of the "order" of Aaron and Melchizedek, because the scholarship was foreign to you. Simply having an opinion is not a right to be taken seriously. Some effort is required.

That is my point and my only point. Oh, and by the way, since you brought up the question of grammar it is grammatically incorrect to use the word an as you did. Referring to a doctoral candidate who posts here you said: ".....who wrote an brief blog about the issue..." Correct grammar is "who wrote a brief blog about the issue..." Since this is the second time I have noticed this usage from you I assume it is bad grammar rather than just a typing error. Now, instead of strutting egos, criticizing grammar and sources, can you respond to the quotes posted?

Do you think I plagiarized? Just curious.