The phrase “trolling” comes from fishing–trolling is dragging the bait through the water, making the hook move like it is live bait, and hence catching unsuspecting fish. You can probably figure out what this means on message boards–someone who makes a post “baiting” a response, usually a vitriolic one.
Apology accepted, and I offer my own apology for the troll suggestion. It’s a common baiting tactic on Mormon newsgroups to use “profit” instead of “prophet.” Sorry for jumping to a conclusion.
The point of the OP really was that I thought ‘prophet’ meant god-sent messenger, like Jesus, Mohammed, etc. From the posts, I’m thinking now that it’s closer to a higher priest, one that spends more time praying and studying, so may have more insight than the average Joe. But not necessarily someone who speaks to (or is spoken thru by) God. Close?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I would qualify all the LDS General Authorities (Seventies, Apostles, and Prophet) as god-sent messenger. I would rate Jesus as higher, since He is actually God (God the Son). I make no judgement about Mohammed–I don’t know enough of him or his writings. However, my limited understanding is that followers of Mohammed consider him a Prophet–a god-sent messenger, but do not believe him to be the (or ‘a’) Messiah, like I consider Jesus. Put more clearly, I put the LDS prophet in the same group as Moses, Elijah, Peter, etc.
No, Angela, LDS just follow the rules of the SDMB and don’t allow themselves to result to personal insults. If you really want to question the validity of the LDS church (which you have yet to do, all you have done is made very insultive comments, no real claims against any beliefs) then start a post in the BBQ pit or elsewhere. Your post had NOTHING to do with the OP and just goes to prove your lack of intelligence.
This will probably be deleted or removed because it has nothing to do with the OP and does not belong here, but just in case I hope you see this before it DOES get deleted.
Ok, I saw it. And this has what to do with the OP? (I hope you are able to discern the irony in the first paragraph above.)
I didn’t come here to take threads off course, but everything I say results in personal attacks from my former co-religionists. Amusing (only to me, I imagine) but tiresome for all. From now on, I’m not responding to this type of post.
I DO see the Irony in the first paragraph and was probably out of line to call you unintelligent, so for that I apologize.
If you did not want people to insult you, however, or it was your intention to not take threads off course, then why did you use the language you did, and make the personal insults that you did? basically why did you post what you did? seems odd how you can claim all that, when you were the first to talk against what the LDS dopers posted, etc etc.
& More important is: Why did Adverse Angela feel the need to post something that she evidently lifted from a Mormon-bashing message board without attributing it as such?
I have never in my days seen someone “admit” to bashing the LDS church. My guess would be if she did do that, she would appear to be openly hostile and subjective, and therefore lose all credibility. Even those who disagree with LDS beliefs, can present their arguements in a way that do not insult or degrade LDS beliefs. So basically, she didnt claim the mormon bashing reference so as to keep what credibility she thought she had.
