Epoch changing significance of "Mormon Doctrine"

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

I would agree that the title is not the one I would have suggested he use, but that is the 'how' and not the 'what.'

The objectionable material I found involved the hits on the Catholic Church, the blacks and priesthood, the Lamanite issues, and the overall, general pedantic caustic tone.

As you stated, BRM would have fared well in the fire and brimstone days, calling down hellfire and damnation to wrest wretched souls from the pits of hell. I can still hear his plodding, deap bass voice, with an evangelist fervor added, and you could really have something.

My friend knew his lawyer brother real well, and he always teased him, asking, "Why did Bruce get the smarts and you the personality?" The Kirtland McConkie lawyer, Oscar I believe it is or was, laughed.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You will not have outsiders quoting Maxwell for anything but as Maxwell's opinion. Now if you've read most of Maxwell's works, they are very subtle without any audacious claims, carefully worded.

Why can't you see his title choice was poor?

If you're talking to me, the discussion with Cali is about the statement in my signature, not how carefully worded (or titled) one book is over another.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

If you're talking to me, the discussion with Cali is about the statement in my signature, not how carefully worded (or titled) one book is over another.

Do you believe McConkie could have avoided much of the problem by not titling his work "Mormon Doctrine"? I submit he would not receive very much criticism if that simple mistake had not been made. It made it look as if, despite any internal disclaimer that most will not read, he claimed authority to write an authorized book proclaiming a book of commandments and doctrines.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

That's a nice long tap dance you've done there, Cali. I'll just stick with the "we disagree" line and leave it at that.

In other words, you have no response.

Heh, and the tap dance continues. Like a good lawyer, you've always got an excuse handy.

Well, golly, there's plenty more to choose from ... how about everything written by Neal Maxwell? Gosh, he only wrote about 30 or so ...

No tap dance. I would suggest Maxwell shouldn't have published books. My point about your signature line is that it isn't true. You listed books that have nothing to do with the issue. If you are going to go with a list, at least make an honest attempt at the list.

Parenthetically, I would point out that this is yet another example of why you are difficult to take seriously. You don't appear to me to be generally interested in the debate itself; rather, you appear more interested in working to marginalize your "opponent" in a debate. As a result, virtually every signature line you have ever used has been dedicated to that enterprise (most of which aren't even remotely accurate in describing what they purport to describe).

Your signature line hobby isn't as amusing, though, as your stockpiling of quotations from posters you disagree with. I would venture a guess that there is an insecure personality lurking behind your moniker.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

In other words, you have no response.

Hint: Not every declination to go in circles with you equates to "no response."

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No tap dance. I would suggest Maxwell shouldn't have published books. My point about your signature line is that it isn't true. You listed books that have nothing to do with the issue. If you are going to go with a list, at least make an honest attempt at the list.

Parenthetically, I would point out that this is yet another example of why you are difficult to take seriously. You don't appear to me to be generally interested in the debate itself; rather, you appear more interested in working to marginalize your "opponent" in a debate. As a result, virtually every signature line you have ever used has been dedicated to that enterprise (most of which aren't even remotely accurate in describing what they purport to describe).

Your signature line hobby isn't as amusing, though, as your stockpiling of quotations from posters you disagree with. I would venture a guess that there is an insecure personality lurking behind your moniker.

Frankly, I'm not the least bit concerned with whether or not you take me seriously. Of all people I have ever corresponded with, you make the top 5 of those who have zero room to complain about perceived "opponent marginalization."

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Hint: Not every declination to go in circles with you equates to "no response."

So you are saying that some do. I accept your apology.

Frankly, I'm not the least bit concerned with whether or not you take me seriously. Of all people I have ever corresponded with, you make the top 5 of those who have zero room to complain about perceived "opponent marginalization."

If you have a list of people with ZERO room to complain about opponent marginalization (you really do keep a lot of lists), how would you possibly go about ranking it? Wouldn't they all be tied?

Something tells me you are exaggerating for effect.

[JohnnyLingo]

Your signature line hobby isn't as amusing,

I suppose you have every right to be annoyed that someone brings your more ridiculous posts to greater light.

I would be, too.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

As a result, virtually every signature line you have ever used has been dedicated to that enterprise (most of which aren't even remotely accurate in describing what they purport to describe).

Your signature line hobby isn't as amusing, though, as your stockpiling of quotations from posters you disagree with. I would venture a guess that there is an insecure personality lurking behind your moniker.

Yeah but on the bright side, Tex's neurotic sig lines have spawned a hilarous set of parodies.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Yeah but on the bright side, Tex's neurotic sig lines have spawned a hilarous set of parodies.

You do have a point there. I wouldn't have laughed nearly as much without them.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You do have a point there. I wouldn't have laughed nearly as much without them.

Me neither. I caught Waters' and Dan's. Who have I missed?