Only Official Doctrine Can Defend Official Doctrine

[_bcspace]

I sincerely do hope that this is true for you, BC, and that your version of 'science' functions completely in your life. Take care.

"My" version of science is likely the same science you accept.

[_Morley]

I sincerely do hope that this is true for you, BC, and that your version of 'science' functions completely in your life. Take care.

"My" version of science is likely the same science you accept.

Perhaps.

[_Some Schmo]

I think it's rather obvious that the plates were etched on pyrite, and that the stories contained within are as true as the plates were gold.

Now prove that's not true.

---

This thread is a shining example of how ridiculous apologist argumentation can get. If people were to judge the church based solely on what the TBMs have said in this thread, they'd be forced to conclude that Mormonism causes brain damage. Literally.

Again, I'm struck by why DJ bothers with these fools. It's like watching a giant in the ring with a kitten. What's the point? Has anyone noticed that only the most lame TBM "debaters" have made an appearance in this thread? There's a reason.

[Guest]

"My" version of science is likely the same science you accept.

Unfortunately, BC, you sometimes hammer science and religion (as well as politics) into unrecognizable shapes to make them fit the philosophy that you've evolved. To you, they form a beautiful and functional mosaic. To many of the rest of us, they're nothing but a confusing and bizarrely Kafka-ish construction. I do appreciate your civil manner, as well as your willingness to engage in dialogue.

[_Darth J]

Has anyone noticed that it's 5 pages into this thread, and not a single person has addressed what the OP is asking?

[_Morley]

Has anyone noticed that it's 5 pages into this thread, and not a single person has addressed what the OP is asking?

Did you really expect it would be addressed? Or is this an example of "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"?

[_stemelbow]

Has anyone noticed that it's 5 pages into this thread, and not a single person has addressed what the OP is asking?

Sure I addressed it. I just disagree with the premise you set up and explained why. That is straight up addressing it.

With that I also addressed all the other things you said and claimed in the OP.

Now why is it that all the pages later you are complaining about no one addressing your question posed in the OP when your question was addressed?

[_Darth J]

Stemelbow:

If a person takes the position that the LDS Church is not responsible for statements made by Mormon leaders that are not official doctrine, on the basis that such things are merely speculation or personal opinions, then why would a person taking that position be justified in relying on speculation or personal opinion to defend what the Church actually does teach?

Please note that your personal agreement or disagreement with the premise is irrelevant to the question.

[_Darth J]

Has anyone noticed that it's 5 pages into this thread, and not a single person has addressed what the OP is asking?

Did you really expect it would be addressed? Or is this an example of "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"?

It is my faith that the OP has already been addressed. Anyone who thinks it hasn't has the burden of proving that it has not, and you can't prove a negative.

So my declaration of faith is just as valid as someone looking through the whole thread for evidence that the OP has not been addressed.

But even that won't matter, because if you don't find any evidence that the OP has been addressed, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[_Tchild]

Yes. Skeptics who have the "its not official doctrine" thrown in their face when critiquing LDS teachings by past leaders, apostle and prophets, have every right to demand that the apologist explanation likewise conform to "official doctrine" status.

Apologists do not however adhere to this fair standard of exchange and use doctrine to their advantage, but disregard it when attempting to defend other certain teachings, IE the global flood, the fall of man and other teachings.

It is craziness.