Replies

Whatever! Is that supposed to be a complicated debate maneuver?

Your are the one doing it, you tell us.

Simple, This one.

All of these are directly composed by Smith, yours was written by a scribe much later.

(Say it with me now, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence")

I try to put myself in your shoes, but am unable to do it. Must be kinda hard being the last flat earther shouting absence of evidence is not evidence of absence to a world in the 21st century. Or perhaps you might be more like the 911 truthers who claim that it was a cruise missile that hit the Pentegon and not a jet liner.

But then you would know all about the logical fallacy of negative proof and argumentum ad ignorantiam. So keep chanting DUh!
“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe” Carl Sagen

What make it superior over this one

The official JOSEPH SMITH—HISTORY is the only version Joseph felt was right, he said so. All the others, by him and people who heard him speak, he was never really happy with. So, this is the one. All of these are directly composed by Smith, yours was written by a scribe much later.

Dictated by Joseph, maybe that was why he liked it better. Maybe he was a better speaker than a writer, that would not be surprising in someone who had a formal education of third grade.

DU: (Say it with me now, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence")

GZ: I try to put myself in your shoes, but am unable to do it. Must be kinda hard being the last flat earther shouting absence of evidence is not evidence of absence to a world in the 21st century.

Since You are the one trying to critique a book you have never read through I can understand your analogy, and I sympathize.

GZ: Or perhaps you might be more like the 911 truthers who claim that it was a cruise missile that hit the Pentegon and not a jet liner.

Well, If you ant to believe that, Go ahead. I lost friends, so I don't joke about it. Do me one favor, Never forget.

GZ: But then you would know all about the logical fallacy of negative proof and argumentum ad ignorantiam. So keep chanting DUh!

Actually you are the one trying to derive a meaningful result form a corrupted sample of DNA.

GZ: “You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe” Carl Sagen

"You cannot change a mind with logic that was made up without the use there of." -- My Dad.

Godzilla, Keith Crandall is the only Source of credible opinion that has been put forth on this thread, and he is on our side having left yours after observing the evidence. Give up a losing battle or resign yourself to being that last flat earther, the believer who in opposition to all evidence just has to believe that Mormons and Mormonism is bad. We are not, and all the belief anti Mormons can muster will not change that.

Normal people look at anti's of any stripe as a little deranged. You see to "normal" people anyone who spends the amount of time you do on this board trying to tear something down is a lot depressing and more than a little deranged.

JFTR, I am not claiming to be "Normal", as an autistic, I study "Normal People" I am not one of them, and since I have no choice, I'm OK with that.

Godzila, have a good day, spend some time with the family if you can, I am planning to.

God Bless