Church previously denied a John Taylor revelation on polygamy now admits it

[MG 2.0]

It's because I don't believe that surmising something is the same thing as making stuff up. Your accusation had a negative connotation which I did not apprecitate.

Regards,
MG

Here’s the full quote “And no, you have no evidence in support of your assertion that they have their own minds on doctrinal subjects that differ from the official Church position. You just “surmise”. Which is another way of saying you make things up.”

Surmising “sans” evidence is making things up. Here’s a definition for you:

to guess something, without having much or any proof

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... e_vignette

Asserting something on the basis of a guess is making things up.

Surmising suggests forming an opinion or guess with limited information, often without definite proof. Drawing a conclusion from available evidence, but it's still considered a guess. It can also rely on intuition and the patterns a person observes.

But it's not simply "making things up".

Google Search: https://www.google.com/search?q=does+th ... e&ie=UTF-8

Link is OK here. The conversation and context seems adequate to inform the intent, but adding something like ‘Definition follows…’ would have been good. -c-

So yes, I will agree that surmising "doesn't necessarily mean that a person has given extensive thought to a subject beforehand."

But on the other hand, it doesn't say that a person hasn't. The way you used the word and the associated context took a negative turn...as I would expect that it would.

I don't want to get 'wound up' in this, IHQ, as much as you might see it as being something that deserves a lot of attention.

I could, if hard pressed, come up with examples of others on this board that have ACTUALLY 'made things up'. That's not worth my time. I will say, again, as I've been saying lately...I think there is a certain degree of hypocrisy amongst some members of this board.

And I'll leave it at that.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Here’s the full quote “And no, you have no evidence in support of your assertion that they have their own minds on doctrinal subjects that differ from the official Church position. You just “surmise”. Which is another way of saying you make things up.”

Surmising “sans” evidence is making things up. Here’s a definition for you
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... e_vignette
Asserting something on the basis of a guess is making things up.

Surmising suggests forming an opinion or guess with limited information, often without definite proof. Drawing a conclusion from available evidence, but it's still considered a guess. It can also rely on intuition and the patterns a person observes.

But it's not simply "making things up".

Google Search: https://www.google.com/search?q=does+th ... e&ie=UTF-8

So yes, I will agree that surmising "doesn't necessarily mean that a person has given extensive thought to a subject beforehand."

But on the other hand, it doesn't say that a person hasn't. The way you used the word and the associated context took a negative turn...as I would expect that it would.

I don't want to get 'wound up' in this, IHQ, as much as you might see it as being something that deserves a lot of attention.

I could, if hard pressed, come up with examples of others on this board that have ACTUALLY 'made things up'. That's not worth my time. I will say, again, as I've been saying lately...I think there is a certain degree of hypocrisy amongst some members of this board.

And I'll leave it at that.

Regards,
MG

Yet another unexplained link <sigh>

[MG 2.0]

Surmising suggests forming an opinion or guess with limited information, often without definite proof. Drawing a conclusion from available evidence, but it's still considered a guess. It can also rely on intuition and the patterns a person observes.

But it's not simply "making things up".

Google Search: https://www.google.com/search?q=does+th ... e&ie=UTF-8

So yes, I will agree that surmising "doesn't necessarily mean that a person has given extensive thought to a subject beforehand."

But on the other hand, it doesn't say that a person hasn't. The way you used the word and the associated context took a negative turn...as I would expect that it would.

I don't want to get 'wound up' in this, IHQ, as much as you might see it as being something that deserves a lot of attention.

I could, if hard pressed, come up with examples of others on this board that have ACTUALLY 'made things up'. That's not worth my time. I will say, again, as I've been saying lately...I think there is a certain degree of hypocrisy amongst some members of this board.

And I'll leave it at that.

Regards,
MG

Yet another unexplained link <sigh>

Umm...it's a definition. It ADDS to the discussion. You wimped out. You don't answer questions. You could very easily be a BOT of some sort that doesn't actually have any life experience.

Is that why you don't answer questions about yourself? There is no self?

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Yet another unexplained link <sigh>

Umm...it's a definition. It ADDS to the discussion.

No it isn’t. It’s a link to a Google search page containing lots of different things on it.

[MG 2.0]

Umm...it's a definition. It ADDS to the discussion.

No it isn’t. It’s a link to a Google search page containing lots of different things on it.

Umm...it's a definition. It ADDS to the discussion.

No it isn’t. It’s a link to a Google search page containing lots of different things on it.

Interesting. I can click on the link and it goes where it ought to go. Here is the search term I used and the answer (I hope I don't get in trouble for humoring you!)

search term:

Answer:

Yes, the word "surmise" implies that a person has given some thought to a particular subject beforehand, but with limited evidence.
Here's why:
Definition: To surmise means to form an opinion or make a guess about something based on available, albeit incomplete, evidence.
Educated Guess: It's described as an "educated guess" based on limited information. This means there's some processing of existing data, even if it's not exhaustive.
Inferential Nature: The act of surmising involves inferring or drawing conclusions from what is known.
Comparison to Assumptions: Unlike a pure "assumption," which might be based on biases or generalizations without specific evidence, a surmise is more likely based on observations or logical deductions drawn from what's available.
In essence, to surmise means you're not just pulling an idea out of thin air. You're using what you know, however limited, to make a reasoned judgment or inference about something unknown or uncertain.

If this post needs to be moved over to another thread, I'm fine with that. I just wanted to help out IHQ. He needs help!

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Getting back on track…

MG,

Seriously, could you be any more dishonest in your research? You could have just been honest and told me you couldn’t find any sources showing church leaders denying a global flood.

Let’s actually look at what Elder John Widstoe said in his article. Elder Widstoe left no doubt that he believed in a literal global flood that covered the entire world:

https://bhroberts.org/records/0BXNou-0j ... m_of_earth

The great flood of Noah that killed all the inhabitants of the earth except for those few in the Ark is now just the earth getting a bit damp.

The bigger problem with not accepting the story of the great flood that wiped out planet earth is that it renders the Noah story, and the doctrinal implications that come from it, less than credible. For instance, LDS doctrine holds that the tribes of Israel stem from Noah's sons. But with a localised flood, or as Widstoe would have people believe, a slight dampness across most of the planet, then the people of the earth today descend from far more than just the sons of Noah.

If the Great Flood was actually just a thin sheen of moisture, then the inhabitants of the planet didn’t all die. Which undermines the Noah story and the Church doctrines and beliefs that stem from it. The origins of the tribes of Israel etc.

And where does it leave Ether 13:2?

2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I just wanted to help out IHQ. He needs help!

Regards,
MG

Could you possibly be less overtly sexual? Good grief, MG!

[MG 2.0]

Getting back on track…

The great flood of Noah that killed all the inhabitants of the earth except for those few in the Ark is now just the earth getting a bit damp.

The bigger problem with not accepting the story of the great flood that wiped out planet earth is that it renders the Noah story, and the doctrinal implications that come from it, less than credible. For instance, LDS doctrine holds that the tribes of Israel stem from Noah's sons. But with a localised flood, or as Widstoe would have people believe, a slight dampness across most of the planet, then the people of the earth today descend from far more than just the sons of Noah.

If the Great Flood was actually just a thin sheen of moisture, then the inhabitants of the planet didn’t all die. Which undermines the Noah story and the Church doctrines and beliefs that stem from it. The origins of the tribes of Israel etc.

And where does it leave Ether 13:2?

2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

Neither Ether or Moroni would have had personal experience with Noah's flood. Their understanding and references to the flood seemingly would have been based on existing traditions and records available to them at the time.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Could you possibly be less overtly sexual? Good grief, MG!

You're a sick man, Wang. Either that, or you have no shame.

Regards,
MG