Oh yes, and you must use documentation, “because I say so” don’t fly...
++++++++++++++
You gave us a good example right here as to how you study.
You can refer back to that.
While not surprised, I am a little disappointed. While it went as I expected a part of me expected more.
Oh well, c’est la vie...
A few last parting thoughts though.
I am struck by the fact that no vigorous defense was ever given. Even if one was to assume I would refuse to hear or accept countering information, the opportunity to present such in a public forum, to grant my “come uppance” as it were, would be an opportunity that any who truly have strong convcitons would take, even if only to demonstrate to others watching the truth of their words.
I am stuck by your comment on my study, for my methods, in as much as they were even revealed here are as sound as any. Research is my background. I read and reread all I could asorb from first hand Mormon/LDS sources. I fail to see why that would be an issue, that is just common practice in seeking answers on any subject. Get as close to the original source as you can. Indeed I went back this morning and followed up all the secondary sources, all LDS BTW, that were cited under the entry from the link I posted. Nothing I see contradicts the initial lesson, the initial declaration or definition.
You claim I want you or any others to do my work for me. That is inncorrect and not supported by fact, for I have done all the work myself, and with rare exceptions have I ever actually had an LDS faithful give me additional information despite all claims that such exists. If it does I have not found it and my search was fairly exhaustive. If 10 different sources give the same answer to a question, with no contradicative results else where to be found, it is a waste of time to go further. If some one comes along and says “but no, there is other information” it is incumbant upon them to provide such, or at least the citation, for the burden of proof is on them for making such claims.
I would gladly read, for myself, any bibliographical citations you wish to provide. Of course I don't expect you to, but you have made the claim there is more, and that there is info that will change my conclusion. It is your claim, not mine, so as I said the burden is yours. Indeed I am willing to do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what your “lazy:” claim about me is and assume a large part of YOUR burden and read the sources personally.
Of course I expect a predictable response to this post, they have bordered on monotonous now, and are as predicatable as the sun rise. I understand why and yes it is unfair, since there really is nothing there, nothing to cite. Once again as many of us have done before, we have discovered that the LDS is a mile wide and an inch deep. Sad that but there it is, fact is fact.
I still wonder, deep in my soul, if the bulk of you guys really believe what you say and futrher more actually believe that this continuous redirection, deflection obfuscation and circular logic that you practice, especially after being called on your info, really does impress anyone. I guess it does for the casual observer, it makes you look slick, look cool. But is that really what one should be about in these matters? Perhaps i was right, it really is engrained, so automatic that it never even receives casual thought. You really don't believe you are being slick or coy or whatever, that you truly are making your best defense of your faith.
Well I guess that should be it. I am not one to run the scoreboard up on an opposing team. While I am disappointed to some extent at least I have some good material for my buddy's rhetoric and debate class over at the college...