By the way Tex, I am still waiting for the

[Indy Coug]

In Archaea's mind, an absence of explicit verification of OT accounts by modern-day prophets allows him to formulate whatever mythological window dressing he wants to them.

[All-American]

Tex, would you mind pointing me to the place where I insulted you during the course of the debate on torture earlier?

Do you think it is at all possible that you provoke some of the Tex bashing?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Tex, do you discount ANY GA statements?

Is this the new standard of intellectual independence? Shall we go around the room and all cite the GA statements we disagree with?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's an interesting question ... is modern revelation on any given Biblical passage required for it to be considered valid?

Pardon me, Arch, but I giggle every time you suggest I do not understand the teachings of the Church. Coming from someone who discounts large swaths of scripture and GA statements, I find this on each occasion hilarious.

Your knowledge of Church history and various arcane concept does not seem very expansive. The simple principles are simple, one can learn them in theory very quickly. To find deeper application requires contemplation.

Discounting does not show a lack of understanding. And I do not discount them, I discount your literalistic interpretation of them. God's hermeneutic is more complex and expansive than the literalistic construct applied by you.

To me to accept the Hebrew tradition without question is unseemly. For example, suppose you're a small nation at risk to be attacked from all sides. If you created a belief you were ruthless, supported by a powerful God (one who was), and capable and willing to annihilate any opponents, then you might also create a bubble of protection.

This position would be more consistent with existing science and with our own beloved Captain Moroni. He delighted not in the shedding of blood.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

In Archaea's mind, an absence of explicit verification of OT accounts by modern-day prophets allows him to formulate whatever mythological window dressing he wants to them.

And you have a problem with that standard?

Can you find a reasonably authoritative statement that would dismiss that standard?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Is this the new standard of intellectual independence? Shall we go around the room and all cite the GA statements we disagree with?

OK, Tex.

Here are two GA statements I don't agree with:

In the field of psychotherapy there is a very effective technique called "aversion therapy." When we associate or think of something very distasteful with something which has been pleasurable, but undesirable, the distasteful thought and feeling will begin to cancel out that which was pleasurable. If you associate something very distasteful with your loss of self-control it will help you to stop the act. For example, if you are tempted to masturbate, think of having to bathe in a tub of worms, and eat several of them as you do the act.

In very severe cases it may be necessary to tie a hand to the bed frame with a tie in order that the habit of masturbating in a semi-sleep condition can be broken. This can also be accomplished by wearing several layers of clothing which would be difficult to remove while half asleep. -Mark E Peterson

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

OK, Tex.

Here are two GA statements I don't agree with:

In the field of psychotherapy there is a very effective technique called "aversion therapy." When we associate or think of something very distasteful with something which has been pleasurable, but undesirable, the distasteful thought and feeling will begin to cancel out that which was pleasurable. If you associate something very distasteful with your loss of self-control it will help you to stop the act. For example, if you are tempted to masturbate, think of having to bathe in a tub of worms, and eat several of them as you do the act.

In very severe cases it may be necessary to tie a hand to the bed frame with a tie in order that the habit of masturbating in a semi-sleep condition can be broken. This can also be accomplished by wearing several layers of clothing which would be difficult to remove while half asleep. -Mark E Peterson

The tie wasn't strong enough for you?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The tie wasn't strong enough for you?

No. I only had one good tie, and having it attached to the bed every day ruined it, so I had to buy a new one. That's what made me go sour on this method.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The tie wasn't strong enough for you?

LOL! Brilliant!

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

And you have a problem with that standard?

Can you find a reasonably authoritative statement that would dismiss that standard?

Why wouldn't or shouldn't the default position be that prophets tend to think that scripture should be able to stand on its own merit without them having to inventory which stuff is true/false/literal/symbolic?