Pahoran scores high points!

_Paul Osborne · Post by **_Paul Osborne** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:02 am

Yep, it's the genuine Pahoran.

Paul O

Post by **_wenglund** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:39 am

Runtu wrote:
Dr. Shades wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:Because he used to sign off as a Chapel Mormon? Am I mistaken about that?

I can sign off as a Hindu reformist, but that doesn't make me one. Likewise, Pahoran holds that only isolated, odd-man-out, misinformed Mormons ever believed that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the American Indians. I recall he also believes Noah's flood was localized--both quite clear indicators of an Internet Mormon.

I used to be an Internet Mormon, pretty much, even though I denied to Dr. Shades that I was or that such Mormons even existed. I don't know a single Internet Mormon who would admit to being one.

I took Shade's online test, and answered the questions honestly, and scored as a Chapel Mormon. I believe Pahoran did as well.

Should the test results be ignored?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:53 am

Pahoran,

Didn't you sign off your posts on ZLMB and/or FAIR as "Chapel Mormon"?

Jersey Girl

Post by **_Pahoran** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:20 pm

Jersey Girl wrote:Pahoran,

Didn't you sign off your posts on ZLMB and/or FAIR as "Chapel Mormon"?

Jersey Girl

Yes, for a while on ZLMB I did just that.

That was when Shades's "clever" categories were brand new. I posted my definitions, as above, and added that to my sig.

Regards,
Pahoran

Post by **_Runtu** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:27 pm

When Shades first proposed his categories on FAIR a couple of years ago, I was outraged. I think I sneered at him more than anyone. But it's interesting to see some of the responses among the apologists. Juliann, for example, sees the radical reimagining of core LDS beliefs as evidence of flexibility and continuing revelation. Those who take the prophets at their word are merely inerrantists and rigid fundamentalists.

I'll give her credit for understanding that Mormon apologetics has had to completely turn some notions on their heads to make Mormonism square with what is known about science and history and archaeology. What I find fascinating is the way that so many apologists can speak the language of the chapel Mormon while holding to decidedly unorthodox views.

I think Shades is right. Maybe not in their being two distinct categories, but there seems to be a continuum, and the apologists have clearly been sliding away from orthodoxy, in my opinion.

Post by **_Dr. Shades** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:27 am

Pahoran wrote:
Dr. Shades wrote:Likewise, Pahoran holds that only isolated, odd-man-out, misinformed Mormons ever believed that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

Really? I hold that?

I thought I read you say that, or at least words to that effect. That's your position, isn't it?

I recall he also believes Noah's flood was localized--both quite clear indicators of an Internet Mormon.

Shades, Shades, Shades.

Here, your fawning little acolytes and "lap-dogs" may mindlessly and unquestioningly accept your idiotic, artificial and purely ad hoc categories, invented for the sole purpose of polemical pidgeon-holing, but nobody with any intelligence does.

In that case, please provide a correction. Do you believe Noah's flood was localized, or don't you?

Post by **_asbestosman** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:17 am

Dr. Shades wrote:Do you believe Noah's flood was localized, or don't you?

Yes, it was confined to this Earth.

The atonement, on the other hand . . .

Post by **_Dr. Shades** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:29 am

asbestosman wrote:
Dr. Shades wrote:Do you believe Noah's flood was localized, or don't you?

Yes, it was confined to this Earth.

What I meant was, was Noah's flood a temporal baptism of the earth by sprinkling, or a temporal baptism of the earth by immersion?

Post by **_asbestosman** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:51 am

Dr. Shades wrote:What I meant was, was Noah's flood a temporal baptism of the earth by sprinkling, or a temporal baptism of the earth by immersion?

I don't believe the Earth was baptized and I can't think of who the Earth would be getting sealed to. Who are the Earth's parents, spouse, and children? I guess we could be the metaphorical children of mother earth, but I'm just sayin'. The idea that the Earth needed baptism does not sit well with me. Do I need to baptize my pets too? I guess only my goldfish will make it to heaven.

I wonder what would happen if a baptized my computer. My digital watch is good for 100 feet or so.

Will the Earth ever hold the priesthood? Does the Earth keep the Sabath day holy? How about the law of chastity? The Word of Wisdom?

Post by **_Dr. Shades** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:29 am

asbestosman wrote:I don't believe the Earth was baptized and I can't think of who the Earth would be getting sealed to. Who are the Earth's parents, spouse, and children?

Heber C. Kimball taught that the earth was begotten by its parent earths.

I guess we could be the metaphorical children of mother earth, but I'm just sayin'. The idea that the Earth needed baptism does not sit well with me.

Where were you in the 1970s and 1980s? The teaching that the earth is also following the Plan of Salvation was common. The earth being burned by fire at the Lord's Second Coming was to be the temporal baptism of the earth by fire the way a person receives a baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost following their temporal baptism in water by immersion.

Will the Earth ever hold the priesthood? Does the Earth keep the Sabath day holy? How about the law of chastity? The Word of Wisdom?

Talk to your leaders about that. Perhaps your bishop was raised a Chapel Mormon like I was.