stemelbow wrote:Darth J wrote:Yeah, I just don't know anything about Moroni's promise or LDS dogma about spiritual epistemology. I just woke up one day and found myself on this board, with a tabula rasa as to what the LDS Church teaches. My completely blank slate was filled in by anti-Mormons and critics, as I have no personal experience with how faithful Mormons are supposed to determine whether something is true.
When you speak on me you don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s apparent.
Oh, of course. You went to that special Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints where they don't teach that Moroni's promise is the gateway to truth.
Tell you what you do, Stemelbow.
Explain why you can sue people for unlawful acts even though you don't know the actual identity of the defendant(s). E.g.,
Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Then, when you have finished explaining to me how I yet again have no idea what I am talking about, you can further enlighten the world as to this deep philosophical principle that you can sue anonymous people in the real world when their wrongful actions are known even if their identities have not yet been discovered, but there is some overarching ontological principle by which you aren't really criticizing a person saying things you don't like on a message board simply on the basis that you don't know that person's real name.
I didn’t say that you aren’t really criticizing a person if you criticize their anonymous handle.
But Simon Belmont did, and that is what I was responding to. So what exactly are you talking about, since you have no conceded that you are not addressing "the topic at hand"?
And then, you can explain how the Federalist and anti-Federalist debates were even possible prior to the ratification of the Constitution, seeing as how the authors of The Federalist were using pseudonyms.
Because, you know, all of this is just over my head, and it must be my rabid anti-Mormonism or something, not a critique of a specious argument offered in response to the OP.
I don’t care anymore, DJ. If you feel your response is valid, then great.
Well, feel free to pop in again any time and remind everyone that people who say things you don't like are "deflecting" or "off topic"!
So, how many threads have you started about yourself, again?
Oh couple playfully, I suppose.
Yeah, just a couple. Just one or two. Because you are certainly not borrowing Daniel Peterson's playbook and trying to make everything about yourself.
And who is it that you are suggesting would have trained and spoon fed me? Besides Satan (a.k.a., Mormonism's Monster Under Your Bed), I mean?
Beats me. Perhaps a combination of other posters here, or ones that were here but are now gone.
Oh, so not even you are aware of what basis you have for your assertions. Hey, maybe you could start another thread about "evidence"!
I am sure, however, that your consistently demonstrated inability to understand, articulate, or address "the issue at hand" at any given time leads you by process of elimination that it is all about "hostility." But then, how could I possibly be hostile to you, since you can't be personal about someone who uses a pseudonym?
Man, my point flew right over your head.
And now it's time for:Today's MDB Challenge!!!For 500 bonus points, someone---anyone---find what Stemelbow's point was, then copy and paste it in your next post! Good luck!I have a great idea, though! Maybe, just maybe, you could say something other than "Nuh uh!" and "Darth J hurts my feelings!" regarding what I said about the faulty reasoning Simon Belmont presented. That way you can really show that it is me, not you, who can't "stick to the topic at hand."
I did say more than “nuh uh!” and “Darth J jurts my feelings!” in fact I didn’t even say those things. But this game has run its course. Have fun.
That's true. You also laid down the persecution card.
And further to Stemelbow inferring with his mind like a well-oiled steel trap that I must be projecting my hatred of Mormons in general on to him, rather than responding to things he actually does, let's look at an example of some of the vile things I have said on this board that betray my utter contempt for Latter-day Saints:
Darth J wrote:That the LDS Church is involved is particularly disappointing, because the Church really does do a lot of humanitarian work when it puts its mind to it. And most Latter-day Saints, in my experience, tend to be kind and decent people who wouldn't feel good about demolishing a motel where poor people are living just to let the land lie vacant until Jesus' next business venture can be thought of.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16021&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=294
Yes, as I worship my Dark Master, Satan, and sacrifice the blood of Mormons to his name, I only continue to demonstrate that I am merely despising Stemelbow because of his loyalty to the LDS Church.