why me wrote:I do believe that Tal is just a little jealous of DCP. I can understand the envy that Tal is showing. After all, it is quite clear that Dan's book is a demonstration that DCP is a first rate scholar. For countermo's like Tal, it is a bitter piece of fruit to swallow to see a Mormon 'apologist' publish a scholarly work. Get used to it Tal.
I too have respect for Daniel. He is a good guy who defends the LDS church quite well. For Tal et, al, he is a thorn in their sides. Why don't you publish your own book Tal and demonstrate just how inferior Dan's book is.
Define "first rate scholar." Decades later with virtually no peer-reviewed pubs does is anything BUT a first-rate scholar. You have extremely loose standards.
The problem with being Dan is that the poor guy just can't win in the countermo world of vindictiveness. If he publishes a book by a non-church publisher he is attacked for the title of the book. Does this make any sense? No. Dan has published a book about Islam. Is it a good book? Is it a bad book? That is the question that should be answered. I do believe that Dan does have respect in the academic world.
I say we should all give Dan a hand and begin to say thank you for a job well done in getting published.
Life, and truth, are not so black and white as you wish to portray. If it was so black and white, we would not be having these debates. I know you are settled in your mind, and I pity your disillusionment, but don't expect the world to think in black and white, like you do. We don't have "all the answers", and believe it or not - that includes you, Tali.
Permit me to allow Gordon B. Hinckley himself to respond to your stupid assertion, as it relates to Mormonism (which of course is the context of our discussion here):
"Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."
How much cognitive impairment is required to not understand what your own prophet announces, over the pulpit, in the church's general conference? Would you answer that one, Ray? Here it is, one more time:
"Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing." (That's from the 2003 GC talk "Loyalty". Look it up on LDS.org).
Perhaps knowing he'd be speaking to members just like you, Hinckley even saw fit to include this scripture in the same talk:
The book of Revelation declares: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” (Rev. 3:15–16).
Are Hinckley's blunt statements enough to get through to you? Of course not. Anyone who could so miss the fact, articulated in every testimony meeting, GC address, and scripture, that it is Mormonism itself which demands that its truth/authority claims be evaluated in black and white terms, could never be presumed to understand even when it is reiterated in plainest language by the church's president.
Hinckley's comments have a ring of truth in them. In the case of the LDS church, it is either true or false. There can be no middle ground. However, in the realm of debate about religion or Mormon history, there is much leeway. As you must know, there is a debate at this moment as to whether atheism is true. Books by Dawkins and Hitchens are put forward as proofs that religion is false. I see no middle ground there either. The middle ground or the discussion comes with the debate and the discussion as to whether such claims can be proven or disproven. Hence, the debate. Most knowledge is up for discussion.
However, Tal, you seem to have much more hatred for the LDS church these days. Your posts are riddled with venom. What happened Tal?
why me wrote:However, Tal, you seem to have much more hatred for the LDS church these days. Your posts are riddled with venom. What happened Tal?
Not answering for Tal, but it's a common phenomenon. When you want liberation from Mormonism, blame the Church. "I was a victim." "I was deceived." Think of the thousands of exmos who never use this lame excuse.
why me wrote:Hinckley's comments have a ring of truth in them. In the case of the LDS church, it is either true or false. There can be no middle ground. However, in the realm of debate about religion or Mormon history, there is much leeway. As you must know, there is a debate at this moment as to whether atheism is true. Books by Dawkins and Hitchens are put forward as proofs that religion is false. I see no middle ground there either. The middle ground or the discussion comes with the debate and the discussion as to whether such claims can be proven or disproven. Hence, the debate. Most knowledge is up for discussion.
However, Tal, you seem to have much more hatred for the LDS church these days. Your posts are riddled with venom. What happened Tal?
Oh look! Another schizoid jack Mormon is back to tell us how he/she believes it all, for the past thirty years of their INACTIVE membership in the Mormon church.
Go away. Wait for the home teachers or something. You have no ground to even defend anything Mormon.
Once you are a full tithe paying member in good standing feel free to come back and rail against us exmormons.
why me wrote:However, Tal, you seem to have much more hatred for the LDS church these days. Your posts are riddled with venom. What happened Tal?
Not answering for Tal, but it's a common phenomenon. When you want liberation from Mormonism, blame the Church. "I was a victim." "I was deceived." Think of the thousands of exmos who never use this lame excuse.
You and Walmart are of the same ilk. Neither put their money where their mouth is. You both will never become full members again, yet you love to defend it. Hypocrites.
Polygamy Porter wrote:You and Walmart are of the same ilk. Neither put their money where their mouth is. You both will never become full members again, yet you love to defend it. Hypocrites.
And you know this, do you? In five years from now I could be giving a talk in Sacrament. But go ahead with your charge of hypocrisy if it makes you feel justified. Wouldn't want to spoil your day, or damage your "all knowing" ego, much less your rabid anti-Mormon sentiments.
Polygamy Porter wrote:Oh look! Another schizoid jack Mormon is back to tell us how he/she believes it all, for the past thirty years of their INACTIVE membership in the Mormon church.
Go away. Wait for the home teachers or something. You have no ground to even defend anything Mormon.
Once you are a full tithe paying member in good standing feel free to come back and rail against us exmormons.
Excuse me PP but aren't you the guy who was supposed to stop posting at 666? What happened? What made you do a flip flop and start posting again? I am no jack Mormon. I live the word of wisdom.
What is the criteria for defending Mormonism? Even a postmormon can defend Mormonism if he or she believes that certain claims made against the church are unfair.
Polygamy Porter wrote:You and Walmart are of the same ilk. Neither put their money where their mouth is. You both will never become full members again, yet you love to defend it. Hypocrites.
And you know this, do you? In five years from now I could be giving a talk in Sacrament. But go ahead with your charge of hypocrisy if it makes you feel justified. Wouldn't want to spoil your day, or damage your "all knowing" ego, much less your rabid anti-Mormon sentiments.
What will the subject of your talk be? "Do as I say, not as I do"? Figures.
Put your money where your mouth is Ray. Actions speak louder than words.
why me wrote:However, Tal, you seem to have much more hatred for the LDS church these days. Your posts are riddled with venom. What happened Tal?
Not answering for Tal, but it's a common phenomenon. When you want liberation from Mormonism, blame the Church. "I was a victim." "I was deceived." Think of the thousands of exmos who never use this lame excuse.
These kind of expressions can give a false sense of security to such exmos as you described. You see, Ray, even if I was to totally fall out with the church, I could never spew such hostility. It would not be worth it. The church has given me a great value structure and perhaps even saved my life when I was a young man in the 1970's. I could never spew hate or anger against it. At times exmos need to think just what their lives could have been like without the value structure of the LDS church. And I would venture to guess, that many still have the Mormon value structure in their lives and in the lives of their children.
why me wrote:Excuse me PP but aren't you the guy who was supposed to stop posting at 666? What happened? What made you do a flip flop and start posting again? I am no jack Mormon. I live the word of wisdom.
What is the criteria for defending Mormonism? Even a postmormon can defend Mormonism if he or she believes that certain claims made against the church are unfair.
Oh you and half of the world "live the word of wisdom" YAWN.
And like that half of the world, you do not attend Mormon church services, not for the past THIRTY YEARS. You said so yourself!
Hey everyone, this is a returning board member, his name is Hungry Hungry HYPO-crite!