Doctor Scratch wrote:No... That's not my argument at all. For all I know, my "intel" may be 100% false. That's why I've urged skepticism again and again. My point to you here on this thread is simply that I have no reason to believe that it's false in light of the lack of evidence supplied by the apologists. Argumentum ad ignorantium applies more to positivistic argumentation. But I'm not "asserting" anything. I'm just saying: This is what I was told, I don't know if it's true, and I haven't seen any evidence from the apologists which would convince me that the "intel" was false.
Well then, I have no reason to reject the truthfulness of my unicorn intel, since no one has proven that they do not exist, they must exist!
In what sense do you think that Mormon apologetics--and the various bureaucracies, institutions, practices, and people associated with it--is comparable with "unicorns"?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote:In what sense do you think that Mormon apologetics--and the various bureaucracies, institutions, practices, and people associated with it--is comparable with "unicorns"?
He's saying that sense you have not proven your intel exists, he does not have to prove things when stating his 'unicorn intel' tells him things. For example, if his intel tells him 'Doctor Scratch secretly likes fluffy pink poodles - even though he tells you he doesn't', you can do virtually nothing to defend yourself, because he doesn't have to prove his intel exists to you.
Wheat wrote:Wheat’s wife and family agree with you.
As far as Schryver is concerned, at first I was somewhat put off by his approach to dealing with you folks. But I grew to understand and respect him as time went on. Does anyone know what happened to him?....
I don’t hate Runtu. I just agree with Shryver that Runtu is a phony. I’m sure he’s a nice guy in most ways. But I still think he’s a hard-core apostate who uses sneaky means to destory people’s faith.
MCB wrote:I once noted that many Mormons I met talked with only their mouths. No facial expressions, no gestures.
I find this very strange. Mormons I know are usually as animated as anyone else. Sometimes moreso...
Maybe you only met Utah Mormons?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
MCB wrote:No, this was not Utah. However, there were some last names from the "aristocracy," so it might as well have been.
Ah, you're talking about DUP folk. I've never had an opportunity to interact closely with a gerat many of those who think it's important that their family was part of a Utah pioneer group. Maybe it's just that I've been lucky... or maybe the further away from Utah one is, the less that phenomena shows up? (I'm remembering the bishop that was thrown out of a high school basketball game because of his foul mouth... no one would have ever accused him of speaking only with his mouth... LOL)
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Maybe it's just that I've been lucky... or maybe the further away from Utah one is, the less that phenomena shows up?
Three blind men of India and the elephant. Yes, you have been lucky.
Maybe it was the subject under discussion at the time?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Doctor Scratch wrote:In what sense do you think that Mormon apologetics--and the various bureaucracies, institutions, practices, and people associated with it--is comparable with "unicorns"?
He's saying that sense you have not proven your intel exists, he does not have to prove things when stating his 'unicorn intel' tells him things. For example, if his intel tells him 'Doctor Scratch secretly likes fluffy pink poodles - even though he tells you he doesn't', you can do virtually nothing to defend yourself, because he doesn't have to prove his intel exists to you.
That's not a very good analogy, TAO. For your analogy to work, I would need to have something--a unicorn horn, say--that would definitively prove the informants' allegations false. DCP and the apologists have such things: budget plans/statements, FARMS editorial remarks, etc., but they refuse to use them (which is their prerogative, of course). DCP et al. *could* definitely show that my "intel" is totally false, but they refuse to do that. What you're proposing above is based on a scenario in which the claims are totally unfalsifiable, and that's just not the same thing.
But I wondered if you/Simon were perhaps citing a "unicorn" for other (perhaps inadvertent) reasons.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Maybe it was the subject under discussion at the time?
Interesting insight. Yes, there would be no understanding of the meaning of the story, thus no expression, other than with the mouth. Why didn't those men just have enough faith to be healed? Perhaps they were blinded because of their lack of faith, or their parents'. Of course, they were dark, therefore more sinful than white folk, that is why they were blind. <shakes head> Woe unto the blind, who cannot see.
Huckelberry said: I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.