Book of Mormon - true account or false mw?

[_Jersey Girl]

by the way, it's not Nietzsche I care about - he's only the catalyst for this thought. It's the notion that a deity is not a 'good' deity if said deity creates mw by making a gift to humanity that humanity is ill-equipped to receive.

Hence, the question, true or false?

H.

But of course you wouldn't be willing to put the skeptic's deity up to comparative scruitiny. Were you to actually involve yourself in an indepth study of mw you would not express it in terms of either true or false. As Blixa implied in her post regarding the nature of narrative closure, the proper terms of application would be "false" vs "authentic". I'm not at all surprised that an intellectual poser such as yourself has tipped your ill equipped hand this early in the dialogue.

[_LDSToronto]

by the way, it's not Nietzsche I care about - he's only the catalyst for this thought. It's the notion that a deity is not a 'good' deity if said deity creates mw by making a gift to humanity that humanity is ill-equipped to receive.

Hence, the question, true or false?

H.

But of course you wouldn't be willing to put the skeptic's deity up to comparative scruitiny. Were you to actually involve yourself in an indepth study of mw you would not express it in terms of either true or false. As Blixa implied in her post regarding the nature of narrative closure, the proper terms of application would be "false" vs "authentic". I'm not at all surprised that an intellectual poser such as yourself has tipped your ill equipped hand this early in the dialogue.

Meh. Authenticity is a term amateur philosophers and hackney cab drivers throw around to look smart. You skirt a meaningful response by avoiding mw with vacuous retorts. Maybe deity's gift is lost on you, which would make for an interesting, if not ironic, turn of the table here - how can one claim Smith a prophet, a true gift, if that gift is rejected in your very answer.

The next move is yours, Jersey Girl. Be very careful how you answer. Check.

H.

[_malkie]

I had an mw once, but the wheels fell off.

Might I suggest that you allow (for once) an intellectually honest discussion to take place on this board? It's obvious that you have no concept of the importance of mw however, I would ask you kindly to please bow out and let us unpack the topic and related subtopics that are bound to emerge much to the delight of skeptics who believe that theists are unfamiliar with their ill conceived efforts to "best" believers on this board.

for what it's worth, I tried googling "mw" and "false mw" and could not readily determine what the meaning was.

I apologize if my ignorance, and feeble attempt at humour, has upset your discussion.

[_Jersey Girl]

LDST

Meh. Authenticity is a term amateur philosophers and hackney cab drivers throw around to look smart. You skirt a meaningful response by avoiding mw with vacuous retorts. Maybe deity's gift is lost on you, which would make for an interesting, if not ironic, turn of the table here - how can one claim Smith a prophet, a true gift, if that gift is rejected in your very answer.

The next move is yours, Jersey Girl. Be very careful how you answer. Check.

Of course, LDST, you choose buffoonish pseudo intellectual banter in lieu of forthright discussion. Had I known you were about to offer me the excruciating proposition of exposing your yahoolian antics on this board, I would have declined to respond to your so called "OP" at the outset.

You are less able to articulate the relationship between false and authentic, not "true", mw in terms of your skeptical deity thus imposing your wrongheaded assessment on each and every true believe that exists on this board, when unbeknownst to them, you are simply attempting to circumvent the discussion via dialectic than reasoning out any particulars in full public view, than you are exposing your own lack of intellectual prowess. You'll not attempt to interject such rhetorical devices without rejoinder from me.

Check mate.

[_Jersey Girl]

for what it's worth, I tried googling "mw" and "false mw" and could not readily determine what the meaning was.

I apologize if my ignorance, and feeble attempt at humour, has upset your discussion.

Then might I suggest once again, that you retreat and attempt to avail yourself of the tutelage of both myself and LDST, as well as Blixa should she choose to return to the thread? As I implied in a previous post, mw is not a fully formed concept in either philosophical or literary domains/circles. Please stand down and allow those who are well familiar with this burgeoning concept to flesh it out on the screen.

Of course, this excludes LDST who hasn't the academic background to approach the topic with the least amount of actual and authentic intellectual honesty and instead chooses to display his lack of enlightenment for all the world to see!

Believer's everywhere should be fully impressed by his guffawish hacking of the topic that he himself initiated.

It is to laugh!

[_quark]

Good Lord. What is Mw?

I read all the posts and still no clue. I googled and found nothing. First -b-b- then this? Too many codes and secrets around here!

[_Nightlion]

All,

Last night on the plane home, I was reading an article an article in Philosophy Now about Nietzsche (a beginner article, no doubt) and is spoke of 'redemption', and how a deity should never burden humanity with a gift that is too much to receive. That in mind, is the Book of Mormon a true account, or a false mw?

Thoughts?

H.

Why so uppity guys? WHat is MW: mental warfare? What? Teach already.

[_Morley]

for what it's worth, I tried googling "mw" and "false mw" and could not readily determine what the meaning was.

I apologize if my ignorance, and feeble attempt at humour, has upset your discussion.

Then might I suggest once again, that you retreat and attempt to avail yourself of the tutelage of both myself and LDST, as well as Blixa should she choose to return to the thread? As I implied in a previous post, mw is not a fully formed concept in either philosophical or literary domains/circles. Please stand down and allow those who are well familiar with this burgeoning concept to flesh it out on the screen.

Of course, this excludes LDST who hasn't the academic background to approach the topic with the least amount of actual and authentic intellectual honesty and instead chooses to display his lack of enlightenment for all the world to see!

Believer's everywhere should be fully impressed by his guffawish hacking of the topic that he himself initiated.

It is to laugh!

You may want to pull back back just a little on this claim, Jersey. Toronto has a minor, but valid point. After all, I'm sure that you remember that Bakhtin developed a whole expository theory based around the concept of mw and its impact on literary critique. Please consider reconsidering.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

As an expert on mw, I think this has to be said:

retromaximisubstantireptialianism

For him who has ears to hear.

[_Chap]

Somehow my slow little brain is focusing in on the idea that the dialogue that has been played out for our benefit has a satirical intent ...