Plutarch wrote:I once remarked that a bishop, now an apostle, saved my family's life when my father died. I was mocked and challenged by several prominent posters on this Board.
I went back and reviewed that thread. I did NOT see one post that "mocked" your story about the good bishop who helped your family. Sure, there were some "challenges" to your conclusions about GA qualifications, but nothing nasty. In contrast, you threw out the nastiest insult on that thread when you referred to "this moronic board." Your martyr complex just doesn't fly in the face of facts.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Plutarch wrote:I once remarked that a bishop, now an apostle, saved my family's life when my father died. I was mocked and challenged by several prominent posters on this Board.
I went back and reviewed that thread. I did NOT see one post that "mocked" your story about the good bishop who helped your family. Sure, there were some "challenges" to your conclusions about GA qualifications, but nothing nasty. In contrast, you threw out the nastiest insult on that thread when you referred to "this moronic board." Your martyr complex just doesn't fly in the face of facts.
You are the one who said I was lying about my personal experience, by remarking that no possible apostle could fit the description I had offered for my bishop.
If the nastiest insult I can muster is "this moronic board," I stand convicted.
The internet does not give those people a license to pretend to be one thing and say another.
I certainly haven't done this, nor do I think others have whom you attack.
Are you kidding. This is the most common argument made in support of anonymous posting; that is, that is the way it is done.
You misunderstood me. My quote was in the context of your charge that anonymous folks like me say we are "TBM" because we hold TR's. I was correcting you -- I have never claimed to be "TBM," even though I hold a TR -- I do not think the two are synonymous.
And that is the justification I see most often when I challenge it here; it is the way it is done. Well, it doesn't make it right; nearly every quality newspaper in America refuses to publish anonymous letters to the editor.
But there are reasons "it is done," which I tried to demonstrate in my long post in this thread. Obviously, safety has become a real issue concerning the Internet; being able to express one's feelings and opinions openly and honestly without fear of reprisal or other consequences, is another. The subject should be the focus, not the poster. Let's do away with all this 'attack the messenger, ignore the message' garbage. Join in the debate and give us some substance!
Last edited by Yahoo [Bot] on Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Plutarch wrote:You are the one who said I was lying about my personal experience, by remarking that no possible apostle could fit the description I had offered for my bishop.
I said no such thing -- I simply said that the facts as I understood them, pointed toward just one person (who later became an apostle) who could have been your bishop at that time. It turned out that I had made a wrong assumption (i.e., that you lived in CA at the time; you later revealed it was in Utah) which led to the wrong guy. I even said in the thread that if I was wrong, you could correct me, which you later did. I always took your story as true (it was way too sad of a story for someone to make up), and never claimed, expressly or impliedly, that you were lying about it.
If the nastiest insult I can muster is "this moronic board," I stand convicted.
That was the nastiest one on the thread, in which you claimed others were "mocking" you.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
OUT OF MY MISERY wrote:I will admit I did not read every single post in this thread, but the last caught eye by Rollo having to defend himself to Plutarch...
Rollo is one of my favorite posters and one of the most level headed and informative Mormons one this board..
harmony and liz are as well...
So here is my cheer for Rollo and others CHEER CHEER
OUT OF MY MISERY wrote:I will admit I did not read every single post in this thread, but the last caught eye by Rollo having to defend himself to Plutarch .... So here is my cheer for Rollo and others CHEER CHEER
I'll join you! Three guffaws!
Gosh, now you're making me misty....
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Mister Scratch wrote:Yep. And what's further interesting is that all of the people you named never have anything even remotely critical to say about the Church. They march more or less in lockstep.
And you interpret this to mean what? I interpet it to mean that we all aspire to the same ideals, which we all believe are divinely inspired. You appear to be insinuating that we have criticisms we would like to make, but, for whatever reason, are afraid to make them. Is that accurate?
No, that's not accurate. Liz pointed out that anonymity is a good idea for safety reasons. You responded by saying, "Interestingly, the apologists use their real names!" My response: there is really nothing "interesting" or "surprising" about it. These people don't say anything controversial---i.e., "march in lockstep."
I know that I have prayed and received confirmation about every aspect of the church to which I faithfully adhere, including my mission call, my callings since then, my bishopric changes, my wife, and the decisions we make as a family. Are you saying that I'm lying, that I'm among a minority, or is it something else?
Something else, obviously. I read your earlier post as an attempt to cast the apologist in a morally superior light. Was I wrong about that?
I wasn't trying to cast them in a superior light, I was just trying to show that there's nothing to be afraid of. Who's got more reason to be concerned, someone arguing with generally ticked off people with a bone to pick, or someone arguing with faithful members of the church? Are people really afraid that their bishops are gonna find out, or that someone is gonna recognize their name and turn them in? I think that's ridiculous. I've never heard of that happening, and I have no clue why anyone from our side would ever do that.
maklelan wrote: Are people really afraid that their bishops are gonna find out, or that someone is gonna recognize their name and turn them in? I think that's ridiculous. I've never heard of that happening, and I have no clue why anyone from our side would ever do that.
We had quite a time of it at Beliefnet when one member from a Branch in England recognized another member and had very uncomplimentary things to say about her and her husband. The threat was made to tell the Bishop. They have both since stopped posting and I think the advice of the Bishop may have had something to do with it.