DiscussMormonism.com

Can we go back to this original thread and start all over?

Coggins7 wrote:fhdg

OK, Cog....sorry. I don't get it.

What does this acronym mean?

liz3564 wrote:

Coggins7 wrote:fhdg

OK, Cog....sorry. I don't get it.

What does this acronym mean?

It doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that Loran is a knucklehead. I dare you to do a search of his posts in order to see how many of them are double-post screw-ups where he does the same thing he's done here. Once you get done with that, just for kicks, go ahead and see how many times (well over a dozen last I checked) he has bid me "Adieu," only to come back responding to my posts, or writing some parody song about me, etc. You see, Liz---some TBMs can leave Mr. Scratch, but they just can't leave him alone. Instead, their hatred and evil becomes a canker upon their souls, and yea! it is black unto night!

Scratch is the left wing Walter Martin of this board. Much of what we know about him is a complete fabrication (his degrees, and his membership in the Church, both of which are clearly fictional). What really drives his hatred of the Church, I don't know. Perhaps someday he'll really come clean about it and we can have a serious, honest discussion about these issues.

In the meantime, as I posted above in lieu of the original typo, can we just go back and make it stick this time?

Coggins7 wrote: Much of what we know about him is a complete fabrication (his degrees, and his membership in the Church, both of which are clearly fictional). What really drives his hatred of the Church, I don't know. Perhaps someday he'll really come clean about it and we can have a serious, honest discussion about these issues.

You and others really seem to have this obsession with finding out his real-life identity. As you intersperse your posts with goading to get him to to say who he is, do you really expect some kind of "Perry Mason" type confession where he finally breaks down sobbing and says...."Alright, my name is xxxxxx ?

Chris <><

Coggins7 wrote:Scratch is the left wing Walter Martin of this board. Much of what we know about him is a complete fabrication (his degrees, and his membership in the Church, both of which are clearly fictional). What really drives his hatred of the Church, I don't know. Perhaps someday he'll really come clean about it and we can have a serious, honest discussion about these issues.

In the meantime, as I posted above in lieu of the original typo, can we just go back and make it stick this time?

Loran, we don't even know if he's a he. So what? Discuss his arguments, not his on-line persona.

Loran, we don't even know if he's a he. So what? Discuss his arguments, not his on-line persona.

Scratch has never made any "arguments" in an intellectual sense. He's a character assassin and inflammatory demagogue, and that's the extent of the use to which he has put his mind and literary abilities here.

Scratch has never made any "arguments" in an intellectual sense

You mean in contrast to the highly 'intellectual sense' where one speculates that immortal beings in the next life will gravitate toward one another socially rather than as they might be compelled physically or legally, and then inferred from this pure stab in the dark, that it must follow that living critics gravitate away from the church for social/spiritual reasons rather than evidential? Is this the kind of intellectual argumentation absent from Scratch's contributions?

Coggins7 wrote:Loran, we don't even know if he's a he. So what? Discuss his arguments, not his on-line persona.

Scratch has never made any "arguments" in an intellectual sense. He's a character assassin and inflammatory demagogue, and that's the extent of the use to which he has put his mind and literary abilities here.

And yet he's not the one calling you names. Engage his argument, not his persona!

You mean in contrast to the highly 'intellectual sense' where one speculates that immortal beings in the next life will gravitate toward one another socially rather than as they might be compelled physically or legally, and then inferred from this pure stab in the dark, that it must follow that living critics gravitate away from the church for social/spiritual reasons rather than evidential? Is this the kind of intellectual argumentation absent from Scratch's contributions?

Since no such argument exits except within your own mind (or perhaps, in the mind of some Mormon who really doesn't understand LDS doctrine and philosophy very well), you're point is quite moot, and approximately as intellectually serious as most of Scratch's reckless literary forays.

Interesting how many apostates continue to obsess about what active Mormons think about the reasons for their apostasy. Interesting how virtually all of them want to claim lofty intellectual critique as the primary influence. Nary a sinner among them.