I see your new book "101 Clever Comebacks" is serving you well.
Have you ever heard of Chiasms? Be honest now, did you know about them before I brought it up?
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.
So, now your not only smarter than me, you are a psychic too, Miss Cleo, is that you? I believe what I believe; you only have my words and my actions to see what that is.
If you believed Mormonism the same way you believe George Bush is President of the United States, you would expect everything to match that. But you don't. That's all irrelevant to you, otherwise you wouldn't think it's impossible to prove Mormonism wrong. Which necessarily means you don't think it's true in the sense of being, you know, true.
I told him and I will tell you, “True science is merely another form of Theology, since we are studying what God left for us to study.”
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..."
Mormonism does meet up with reality, the question is, what is reality? I have my perceptions, you have yours, somewhere in between is reality. One of us may be closer than the other, but reality probably escapes us both. Did you want to have a philosophical discussion, or not? Oh, I see, I am too dim to have any perceptions, well, since I am barely sentient, why are you bothering to even talk to me?
If we have our own "perceptions" and no objective basis for assessing them, just how are we supposed to have any kind of discussion?
"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.
Seems if I were a prophet I would write that way when receivng scripture from the same Author!
>> 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.