Posted on 04/27/2006 3:03:34 PM PDT by restornu
>> If you believed Mormonism the same way you believe George Bush is President of
>>the United States, you would expect everything to match that.
Um, it does. Reality, it’s what you make of your perceptions, sic.
>>But you don't.
Yes I do. (I can’t believe you are arguing with me about what I believe; this would be funny if it was not so sad.
>>That's all irrelevant to you, otherwise you wouldn't think it's impossible to prove Mormonism wrong.
In your opinion, is there any unimpeachable source of information?
In my opinion the only unimpeachable source is God. Having received a witness directly from God that the Book of Mormon is true, what do you expect me to do? I believe, that’s what I do. You are right about one thing. You will never change my beliefs by quoting some expert, you will never change my beliefs by interpreting some scripture, and you will never change my beliefs with logic because my faith is based on testimony, direct, continuing testimony. And that is something you are not involved in.
>>Which necessarily means you don't think it's true in the sense of being, you know, true.
Yeah, I know Truth.
>>Unless it conflicts with a burning bosom, in which case we stop studying and start
>>saying "I know Joseph Smith was a prophet, I know the church is true..."
“Science is the history of saying we were wrong.” – Unknown.
Science is Fallible, is the Holy Spirit? Is God?
I’ll stick with my current hand thank you.
>> If we have our own "perceptions" and no objective basis for assessing them,
>>just how are we supposed to have any kind of discussion?
That is what makes it interesting! When you explain how things look to you, and I explain how things look to me, we both have the opportunity for an epiphany. The moment when we “see” from a new perspective and make that perspective ours is the moment we become more enlightened, it is the moment we move closer to reality.
Calling someone an ignoramus is anti enlightenment, the name implies that this person could not have useful perceptions, this belief reduces your opportunity for additional perspective.
“A truly wise man can learn from even a fool” – The analects of Confucius.
>>"Oh, I see," anyone who disagrees with you simply denies that you have perceptions at
>>all and personally insults your sentience. And since personal insults are bad, we should
>>all do the polite thing and agree with everything you say.
Disagreeing is fine (and fun). Calling people names “Ignoramus”, “Stupid”, “Stodgy”, “Misguided” or even "Dense” might be acceptable in some circles, these have no place in civilized debate. You may quote me on this “Name calling is not debate.”
You don’t have to agree with me, just be polite. As for the agreement, as you learn more, you will agree more and more until we see from the same perspective. (humor is also allowed in polite debate Grin).
If you are trying to “get my goat” as the saying goes, well good luck, I ran a technical support department for six years, and have loads of patience.
(R)i remember you during the 2004 rumble got acid all over me!:)
I do get intense when looking for the truth but I don't know of anyone before referring to me as an "acid personality". Most everyone who knows me says I have a very gentle personality.
(R)You never showed that gentle personality towards the LDS!
I love the truth so I love the Catholic Church. Part of loving the truth is hating falsehood. If you find that insulting, so be it.
(R)I admired many thing s about the Catholic Church!
(R)Your Church can't think we are so bad when the millions of dollards of LDS charity donation we distribute in concert with the Catholics!
I grew up in a community of entertainers. Being a somewhat gullible child, on a number of occasions I was taken in before they let me in on the joke.
The stories they tell are no less believable than what I saw in the BOM.
Most of these people don't even have high school educations- it is a talent for making up and telling the story that counts- if anything the intellectualism of education seems to get in the way.
I can't do what they do, but having seen what they do I know that they could (and some of the more rascally ones would) take up the challenge your professor made.
You may not be aware of this but I have no doubt of the LDS population has a great percentage of University grads or have skilled occupation that can compete with any!
You leave me to say by your stereo posting again that you also seems pompous...
>>Incidentally, there are Mormons who've noticed that chiasms appear in Smith's other
>>writings. The particular author I linked to doesn't seem to get that if Smith wrote like
>>that, it doesn't count for ancient authorship.
Um, these are writings he wrote later, after the translated the BOM, so he might have learned something but you wouldn’t give that any credence huh? Maybe he read the scriptures so much that he just started thinking that way, nah. Same author? Nah, Was Joseph Smith even aware they are there? Did he ever talk about it? (There is no evidence … http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=465 ) But hey, “Truth” is only irrelevant to ignorant Mormon’s.
As my father told me, “figures don’t lie, but liars do figure, so always go over the figures your self.” My dad is a wise man; I’ve caught a lot of “mistakes” that way.
BTW, your blog comes up blank for me, no funning, I’d check eBlogger from another computer, or try using ( http://www.anonymizer.com/consumer/products/anonymous_surfing/affilindex.html?id=AFC-QW6867330054 ) to go look at it, and see if it comes up right (I use it to check stuff I’ve posted, I have found stuff I messed up that way). I’ll just take your word that you that you knew what Chiasms are.
So, How exactly do you account for Joseph smith who never mentioned it to anyone as far as the records we have say, know about them?
We can set here and argue up and down, left and right, but what it boils down to is faith. Either you have a faith building experience reading the BOM, or you don’t. I did, others say they didn’t.
“In questioning Deity, any response is significant” – The Analects of Confucius
I like that. "Um", as if pointing out something obvious to anyone, followed by what everyone knows is wrong, including the most vehement Mormon apologists. But no worry, FARMS & co. will produce any amount of special pleading for why an accurate ancient record describes something totally different from what we know was there.
Yes I do. (I can’t believe you are arguing with me about what I believe; this would be funny if it was not so sad.
If you believe your religion cannot be proven wrong by anything at all, there are some things that follow necessarily from that. You don't get a free pass out of people pointing it out by being inconsistent.
Having received a witness directly from God that the Book of Mormon is true, what do you expect me to do?
What did Paul tell the Corinthians? That he had recieved a "witness" (which actually only amounted to a subjective feeling), or that there were actual witnesses, most of them still alive at the time of his writing? But see, Paul really did believe in the Resurrection, and since it was still recent, he expected to find eyewitnesses. And he did. His own experience came last, even though he had experienced actual miracles like being blinded and having his sight restored.
you will never change my beliefs with logic
Then you don't really believe in Jesus, either.
Calling someone an ignoramus is anti enlightenment, the name implies that this person could not have useful perceptions, this belief reduces your opportunity for additional perspective.
No, it simply means you don't know something you should have known. If you had refrained from lecturing us about something when a little searching on the internet showed you didn't know what you were talking about, nobody would have accused you of being an ignoramus. But you tried luring people from the truth of God by falsehoods. Ignoramus is the nicest thing to call you under the circumstances.
Why "nah"? It doesn't burn your bosom?
>>I like that. "Um", as if pointing out something obvious to anyone
It was obvious, nad I am glad you liked it.
>>But no worry, FARMS & co. will produce any amount of special pleading…
Hey, you posted a link to your own BLOG and I took it, get real.
>>totally different from what we know was there.
So, how do you know what was there, were you there when Joseph dug up the plates, perhaps you witnessed the First vision and are just now coming forward, Wow you are older than you sound. You have conjecture stated here as fact like you continued statements as to what I think, what I feel or don’t feel this is pathetic, if this is the best you can do, get some help, get Color Country over here to help you at least he was logical, and polite.
>>If you believe your religion cannot be proven wrong by anything at all, there are some
>>things that follow necessarily from that.
And those are… Apparently free passes! (Can I go see MI3 again?)
“Incomplete sentences show incomplete thinking” – Sherlock Holmes I believe.
>>You don't get a free pass out of people pointing it out by being inconsistent.
Please list links to my “Inconsistencies” in this thread, thank you.
>>What did Paul tell the Corinthians?
First or Second book? Chapter?
Oh come on, It’s not that hard to source the Bible!
I am apparently supposed to be psychic enough to read from your mind. A link would be nice, a fully qualified quote necessary lest I assume and we don’t want to go there do we?
>>Then you don't really believe in Jesus, either.
“Now there you go again … R. Reagan 1980” -- From an earlier post of Quester’s
I believe in Christ. (http://www.lds.org/churchmusic/detailmusicPlayer/index.html?searchlanguage=1&searchcollection=1&searchseqstart=134&searchsubseqstart=%20&searchseqend=134&searchsubseqend=ZZZ ) See it’s not hard to source, try it, you‘ll like it!
>>No, it simply means you don't know something you should have known. If you had
>>refrained from lecturing us about something when a little searching on the internet
>>showed you didn't know what you were talking about, nobody would have accused
>>you of being an ignoramus. But you tried luring people from the truth of God by
>>falsehoods. Ignoramus is the nicest thing to call you under the circumstances.
“I don’t know things I’m supposed to know, but I know things I’m not supposed to know” -- John Doe TV show
Hey, I have no idea what it is you think I was supposed to know BECAUSE you have done nothing but call me names and blather about superiority of intellect (which is the only thing funny about your posts)
>> when a little searching on the internet
Links please…
>> you tried luring people from the truth of God
I have never lured, taught those willing to learn? Yes, Lured, no luring implies an evil intent. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lure ) As when I was introduced to my father in law, “I assure you my intentions are entirely honorable.”
>> Ignoramus is the nicest thing to call you under the circumstances.
My my you have a small vocabulary, how about mistaken, unfortunate, lost, misled, gullible, innocent dupe, or even wrong. I’ve got more, and I’ve got a thesaurus, don’t make me open it! /Humor
Reading your posts I can only picture a stern octogenarian with a dour expression of disapproval. My mental image would make a real good Quaker poster child, if this is not you, you might want to change your posting style.
>>Why "nah"? It doesn't burn your bosom?
Maybe I should have included a humor or Sarcasm tag.
Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket?
Why would I want to rearrange deck chairs anyway, the customers will just move them where they want them, so what's the point?
(Grin)
nad while apparently in Word's dictionary should be and...
Now don't go trying to be nice to me, I might have to return the favor.
Not diminished enough... : )
>>Now don't go trying to be nice to me, I might have to return the favor.
Sorry, but I call them as I see them, at least you never questioned whether I could walk and chew gum at the same time (I’ve been practicing, and I almost have it!) /Humor
Yes on this latest forum you are careful but Flying Circus you were brutal to me in 2004 and I did not forget it.
I tried to be cordial in our dialogue but when you implied drinking and boozing etc.
I fine that offensive for it never happen!
Being offensive is spilling acid on another Flying Circus
...and to say the LDS are of a lower caliber when many have been and are heads of educational departments of many leading non LDS University that remark of your seems being pompous!
BTW
I did not call you pompous I said seems pompous!
Now personally I could be called limited ed as far as the world standards, I don't think my Heavely Father would say that for it is him that my understanding comes from!
Copy and past is great isn't it!:)
Sorry that was not the reason for my tagline...
It was about privacy is not an option in todays world!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.