Comfortable ignorance and MD&D

[_MrStakhanovite]

Hogwash and Poppycock. Not a single example given. Plus, one might not have read the same books but I'll put my erudition up against anyone's here any day. I'd even hazard that the erudition of the blondes portrayed on Legally Blonde is superior to most of the anti Mormons posting here. The bottom line is that you're merely judging based on the fact that others have come to different conclusions than you have rather than the information that led them there.

[_aranyborju]

I see three of you looked up the word "erudition".

Why would you think they looked it up? Is that a big word for you?

[_Runtu]

Why would you think they looked it up? Is that a big word for you?

I was thinking the same thing.

It's a little ironic that someone who ran away from a discussion on doctrine (wherein said someone made a complete fool of himself) would mock anyone here as having less erudition than he does.

[_bcspace]

...but I'll put my erudition up against anyone's here any day.

Incredible. And on any subject. Right?

Any subject on which I have an interest right.

Why would you think they looked it up? Is that a big word for you?

No, it's merely an uncommon word for most of you who move in these circles.

Perhaps you could start on the Seven Deadly Heresies Speech Is Now Doctrine thread.

I finished it for you. No one addressed or realized the difference between the Church holding intellectual property and Church publication and in the OP Runtu tried to make it seem as if I had stated that IRI must be stamped on a work for it to be doctrine. I did point out that there seemed to be several references to the SDH in actual doctrinal works but left it as proof for the student to find out if it was quoted in whole or in part or if there was some context to consider.

There's really nothing further to discuss otherwise unless you guys changed the subject, in which case, start another thread.

[_Runtu]

I finished it for you. No one addressed or realized the difference between the Church holding intellectual property and Church publication and in the OP Runtu tried to make it seem as if I had stated that IRI must be stamped on a work for it to be doctrine.

I knew it. You not only are running away, but you are misrepresenting what I said. Gee, there's a surprise.

I did point out that there seemed to be several references to the SDH in actual doctrinal works but left it as proof for the student to find out if it was quoted in whole or in part or if there was some context to consider.

So, again you are distinguishing between doctrinal works and works published by the church. How do you determine which is which? Or are you going to continue to pretend you didn't hear my question?

There's really nothing further to discuss otherwise unless you guys changed the subject, in which case, start another thread.

There's not much to discuss when you run away from your own opinion and then try to make it appear as if everyone else had changed the subject. That is intellectually (and otherwise) dishonest, but then that's de rigeur for you. You have repeatedly accused me of dishonesty, bad motivations, and evil intent, but you refuse to own up to your own positions.

Why you think dishonesty is an acceptable defense of your religion is a mystery.

[_Morley]

There's not much to discuss when you run away from your own opinion and then try to make it appear as if everyone else had changed the subject. That is intellectually (and otherwise) dishonest, but then that's de rigeur for you. You have repeatedly accused me of dishonesty, bad motivations, and evil intent, but you refuse to own up to your own positions.

Why you think dishonesty is an acceptable defense of your religion is a mystery.

Here.

[_bcspace]

I finished it for you. No one addressed or realized the difference between the Church holding intellectual property and Church publication and in the OP Runtu tried to make it seem as if I had stated that IRI must be stamped on a work for it to be doctrine.

I knew it. You not only are running away, but you are misrepresenting what I said. Gee, there's a surprise.

Nope. Here is the direct quote from your OP:

"As my detractor noted, "Doctrine is found in the published works of the Church. You want to pin us down? There it is." Anything bearing the IRI copyright has been through the Correlation process and is official doctrine."

Notice your conclusion is that I made reference to IRI. There is nothing further to say unless you want to admit that the IRI stamp is not a doctrinal stamp.

[_Runtu]

Nope. Here is the direct quote from your OP:

"As my detractor noted, "Doctrine is found in the published works of the Church. You want to pin us down? There it is." Anything bearing the IRI copyright has been through the Correlation process and is official doctrine."

Two things:

1. You said, "Doctrine is found in the published works of the Church. You want to pin us down? There it is." Are you now denying having said that?

2. I stand by my statement: "Anything bearing the IRI copyright has been through the Correlation process and is official doctrine," though as I clarified, I would say it's consistent with doctrine.

Notice your conclusion is that I made reference to IRI.

Not at all. I said that IRI publications are official, which they are. If you have some other definition of official church publications, let's hear it. But be prepared to support your assertion.

There is nothing further to say unless you want to admit that the IRI stamp is not a doctrinal stamp.

I'm not going to admit what is not true. The IRI copyright means the publication has been through Correlation review and is thus consistent with doctrine. You're the one insisting that official church publications aren't doctrinal, which is frankly bizarre, given that you have been insisting for a long time that church publications are "doctrine," not just doctrinal.

You keep ignoring my questions:

1. How do you determine when an IRI publication (i.e., one that has been through Correlation) is doctrine and when it isn't?

2. If the doctrine is not restricted to church publications, can you provide examples of authoritative, doctrinal publications that do not bear the church's (IRI) copyright?

Of course, the reason you've ignored these questions is that you don't have an answer. Apparently, if you don't agree with something that has been published by the church, such as McConkie's talk, you say it's not doctrinal. I thought only Cafeteria Mormons could get away with that.

As I said, I have brought this up because, otherwise, someone might think you know what you're talking about. If you did, you wouldn't have to resort to dishonesty.

[_Kishkumen]

Give it up, bc. You lost a long time ago. You are the only one who has not come to terms with that fact.

[_Buffalo]

This comment alone is sig line worthy.

Brant,

Your argument just doesn't make sense to me, but maybe I am too dumb to see it. I guess you assume thate the use of highly technical terms somehow strenghtens your argument, but I am not impressed.

Anyway, the antis favorite argument is that "it is just another coincidence" and any archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon would and could fall into that category. Sheum, for example, falls under that category.

I guess we are at a point where big words are a sure sign of anti Mormons like Brant Gardner.

Hilarious! But I can understand why a mopologist could see an intelligent post and automatically assume the author was a critic.