In fairness to BRM, it may come as no surprise that he could produce some outlandish

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I know for a fact that "peer review" is the norm for Ensign articles, conference talks and so forth.

so what's the process? Is it a blind review with ratings of 1-5 for various categories?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I know for a fact that "peer review" is the norm for Ensign articles, conference talks and so forth.

Yeah those articles are so cutting edge.

Is it a blind review with ratings, checks on footnotes and messages for iimprovement?

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Yeah those articles are so cutting edge.

Is it a blind review with ratings, checks on footnotes and messages for iimprovement?

The contempt in your voice is noticeable.

Might want to tone it down a bit, lest you blow your cover.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This debate almost sounds like the ancient cristological debates concerning the nature of God.

You seem to argue the Church isolated from the world, even though it is composed of humans, with their external training. Thus, somehow, the Church should operate, as if by magic or as the Docetists would like, believing the entire world to be but an immaterial appearance.

I on the other hand recognize the Church is comprised of humans, who must take what we learn from the entire cosmos of human existence, even in our earthly Church dealings. To ignore successive models from outside and to try to achieve a Utopian society alone is ripe for failure.

The Logos is indeed material, and separate yet part of the World.

Simpleton that I am, I don't think it's near so complicated. You simply want some prophetic license to sanction your criticism of those General Authorities who take positions or postures that you disagree with.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Simpleton that I am, I don't think it's near so complicated. You simply want some prophetic license to sanction your criticism of those General Authorities who take positions or postures that you disagree with.

Now who's launching a personal attack?

Why not examine the debate its roots rather than launch an attack against the man?

It is complicated. You use the simplest of rhetorical devices, you state you are on the side of angels and everybody else can go F... themselves. That's how you always argue. Never address the distinctions, Cali or anybody does.

Look at the arguments in their real form, don't resort to, "God's way is this, they way I think.""

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Now who's launching a personal attack?

Why not examine the debate its roots rather than launch an attack against the man?

It is complicated. You use the simplest of rhetorical devices, you state you are on the side of angels and everybody else can go F... themselves. That's how you always argue. Never address the distinctions, Cali or anybody does.

Look at the arguments in their real form, don't resort to, "God's way is this, they way I think.""

The hypocrisy is stifling.

I can only believe you're trolling here.

[All-American]

I'm going to declare cougjunkie the winner of this debate and advise all to move along.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by All-American

I'm going to declare cougjunkie the winner of this debate and advise all to move along.

Please excuse my ignorance, but as far as I can tell, junkie hasn't posted in this thread.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Please excuse my ignorance, but as far as I can tell, junkie hasn't posted in this thread.

Precisely.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Now who's launching a personal attack?

Why not examine the debate its roots rather than launch an attack against the man?

It is complicated. You use the simplest of rhetorical devices, you state you are on the side of angels and everybody else can go F... themselves. That's how you always argue. Never address the distinctions, Cali or anybody does.

Look at the arguments in their real form, don't resort to, "God's way is this, they way I think.""

That's a pretty poor characterization of what I've been saying. Suffice it to say, we disagree.