>> 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.
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.