Comments on: A Remarkably Crude and Obvious Forgery

By: KyleR

KyleR — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:06:10 +0000

93 I’m very appreciative of your fairness in allowing me my point of view in your blog Adam. Perhaps I have not shown this more clearly, and if I’ve proved an ungrateful guest I unreservedly apologise. My forceful and passionate mode of expression is in no way an attack. None of what I’ve said is meant as an attack. It’s a cut and thrust style of debate I’m used to but which I’m very happy to rein in. I’ve a lot of respect for the level of cordiality, intelligence, straightforwardness and willingness to engage on T&S and would be horrified if I’d caused any offence. The use of the word ‘totalitarian’ was unfortunate as was the word ”petty”. ‘Totalitarian’ was mean to specifically describe the ‘knowing for sure” and it’s implication that someone else therefore “does not know for sure”, not the claims of truth in a more general sense. I did not accuse anyone of being ‘petty-minded’, but merely said such a suspicion of petty motives could arise. But again thanks for allowing my contributions. I think your toleration of my challenges and responses to them speaks highly of your breadth of mind and your commitment to truth.

#94 I accept your point.

#98 & #99 Very happy to oblige. I hereby accuse Steve of being a cross-dresser and 18 boxes of evidence of this are now on their way to you in support of this claim.

By: Adam Greenwood

Adam Greenwood — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:27:57 +0000

If you have a comment that needs posted, email me (KyleR. or others). Its my first name at timesandseasons.org
No guarantees.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:15:39 +0000

“One person in this reality we live within is not in a position to say to another person within the same reality that their beliefs are â€˜apostateâ€™, without inviting suspicion that such an accusation has very little to do with Man and God, and more to do with a more petty exclusionary impulse.”

So then Judas was just going a different way. He just had a doctrinal disagreement with Jesus. No apostasy involved.

By: Steve Evans

Steve Evans — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:13:49 +0000

Seth, myself not least among them.

By: Seth R.

Seth R. — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:08:14 +0000

On the other hand Kyle, if you’d like to accuse Steve of being a cross-dresser, I’m sure everyone here would be quite receptive.

By: Adam Greenwood

Adam Greenwood — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:04:10 +0000

Those are quotes, Mike. I don’t think they reflect the full tenor of the comments, but they’re a definite strand of them.

Its not your church at all. Its God’s.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:37:32 +0000

Adam:

“attack those exclusive claims as totalitarian and petty-minded”

I did not feel attacked in the very least. Perhaps challenged to think in new ways and maybe even in ways that are not satisfactory in the end, but not attacked. None of these comments paint us as totalitarian and petty-minded. I think this description is way over blown. You better demonstrate these characteristics with your comment, in my perspective.

BTW, whether you are willing to accept it or not, I am Mormon. It is as much my church as it is yours and this in spite of whatever heretic or crazy ideas I might have. So this Mormon is not attacked.

For KyleR:

I am also leaving on vacation right now. No time to answer your questions except one in this way:

A beloved member of my family left Mormonism and it hurts.

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:40:48 +0000

Kyle, I think this is a classic case of reading meaning into words that aren’t there – based on what someone else has attached to the word. “Apostate” to me simply means different than originally intended – by Jesus or Peter or John or Paul or whomever. It has nothing at all to do with condition of the soul or “savability” – and it in no way denies great insight or “closeness” to absolute truth. I think that is the central issue of the original post – and that of the post that initiated this one. There were core assumptions regarding the BofM that just don’t fit, so people here were invited to address those assumptions.

To echo Adam and Ardis, this post began as an opportunity to comment about someone else’s claim that one of our basic canonical texts was a “crude and obvious forgery” (primarily to respond on that site, actually) – not as a forum for discussing or defending other doctrines or beliefs. That, in my mind, is the rub – not necessarily that anyone is scared to address anything, but rather that all of us have done so too many times already over the years in other places to want to turn this thread and site into what it was not meant to be. Even though I contributed to the discussion with you, and even though I thought your lengthy comment might have been sincere, there is no way I am going to try to answer your questions and assertions in this forum. I tend to be too wordy myself, and even I was overwhelmed by your volume.

By: Ardis Parshall

Ardis Parshall — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:13:42 +0000

Still, itâ€™s quite easy and shows a kind of fear to make a sweeping statement such as that one thing is genuine and another is not, then not be wil[l]ing to go into at least a little explanation. That in its own way answers my question.

You make unwise assumptions about a forum with which you are admittedly unfamiliar, and about a writer with whom you are entirely unfamiliar. What you mistook as “fear” would be more accurately characterized as a disclination to wade through four screens of words — in my experience, those who cannot make their points briefly cannot make their points at all.

But you’re welcome here; others may be willing to engage you, although I am not.

By: Adam Greenwood

Adam Greenwood — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:08:58 +0000

No one denies that apostates are human beings. No one denies that Mormons are people. Where are you getting this from? What we do deny is that the fact that we’re all people means that we’re all equally right and equally wrong. When God spoke to Joseph Smith and said that all the creeds were in error, Joseph Smith did not pretend it didn’t happen in the name of conflict-adverse humanitarianism, even though the ministers and congregants he knew were, I’m betting, people and/or human beings. “I had seen a vision and I could not deny it.”

BTW, I’ll be shutting down this post down in a few more comments. This is a Mormon blog and Mormonism’s exclusive truth claims are axiomatic here. We’ve been more than fair in letting you use our forum to attack those exclusive claims as totalitarian and petty-minded. Please reciprocate that fairness by keeping your remaining comments to a reasonable length.