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.
>>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.