stemelbow wrote:Did you or did you not suggest that the problem is in LDS who prefer hypocrisy.
Stemelbow, perhaps if you settle down (I'm settled, comfortable and at ease) and re-read my post (the bit where it says "I believe one of the barriers to constructive discussion is hypocrisy on the part of LDS posters).
What that means is that I believe one of the barriers to constructive discussion is hypocrisy on the part of LDS posters.
I stated this in particular as it seemed ironic that you, the original poster, displayed exactly the type of hypocrisy that I believe is one of the barriers to constructive discussion in your opening post.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Buffalo wrote:You once acknowledged that no one would think the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient document just going by the evidence. Do you acknowledge the same for Mormon truth claims in general?
Allow me to clarify. I would say it is true of the Book of Mormon if faith is not considered evidence. Outside faith, I agree that it is more reasonable to believe the Book of Mormon is not authentic to what it claims to be, than to believe it is.
That is probably more or less true for many of the claims made by the Church, of course I would have to consider each claim individually. Some are more reasonable than others.
I think you'd find few critics who would disagree with you there. Thanks.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Drifting wrote:Stemelbow, perhaps if you settle down (I'm settled, comfortable and at ease) and re-read my post (the bit where it says "I believe one of the barriers to constructive discussion is hypocrisy on the part of LDS posters).
What that means is that I believe one of the barriers to constructive discussion is hypocrisy on the part of LDS posters.
I stated this in particular as it seemed ironic that you, the original poster, displayed exactly the type of hypocrisy that I believe is one of the barriers to constructive discussion in your opening post.
Sadly, Drifting, LDS posters aren't the only ones who can be hypocritical at all. I've clarified myself showing how I think I'm not being hypocritical. You may well disagree. What more to say? Apparently you think it useful then to go after me by saying I am sorts of bad. Get over it. Let's discuss and if you have nothing left, just say so. No need to go after me.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote: Sadly, Drifting, LDS posters aren't the only ones who can be hypocritical at all. I've clarified myself showing how I think I'm not being hypocritical. You may well disagree. What more to say? Apparently you think it useful then to go after me by saying I am sorts of bad. Get over it. Let's discuss and if you have nothing left, just say so. No need to go after me.
...he says hypocritically.
If you have nothing left, just say so. No need to go after critics.
It's simply amazing. Ah well. pep pep
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Stem, I do not doubt you have had an experience you chhose to interpret as a sign from god confirming the truth claims of .Mormonism, LDS style. (I have no idea why you choose to interpret it that way, and you are certainly welcome to explain that. I think we'd all find that intersting.)
That is your individual experience and interpretation. Without a cogent explanation of why you dismiss all other interpretations of your experience as such, there's nothing to discuss except perhaps how you fend off evidence that contradicts Mormonism's truth claims.
So please do elucidate us on why you accept no other explanations of your experience and how you deal with the contra evidence.
stemelbow wrote:I don't. I thought your initial question was bizarre so I responded in the same vain.
You. Uh. You clearly don't understand the intent behind the question.
You do understand Joseph Smith was a "critic", don't you? Martin Luther was the Father of the Reformation. What do you think of his courageous actions?
V/R Dr. Cam
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
sock puppet wrote:Stem, I do not doubt you have had an experience you chhose to interpret as a sign from god confirming the truth claims of .Mormonism, LDS style. (I have no idea why you choose to interpret it that way, and you are certainly welcome to explain that. I think we'd all find that intersting.)
That is your individual experience and interpretation. Without a cogent explanation of why you dismiss all other interpretations of your experience as such, there's nothing to discuss except perhaps how you fend off evidence that contradicts Mormonism's truth claims.
So please do elucidate us on why you accept no other explanations of your experience and how you deal with the contra evidence.
I readily acknowledge my personal experiences that make up my faith can be viewed by many in a variety of ways. I'm aware that any explanation I offer concerning my experiences can easily be thought to be nothing more than my own interpretation that may not be factual. That's cool. I'm not here to justify my faith, as I said. I'm just here to discuss the issues of the Church, acknowledging often that there are problems with the claims of the church. In some cases I feel the Church can be wrong and yet my faith still hold merit. And in other cases I feel justified in thinking my faith provides evidence of issues we aren't fully informed on. The issue I have is if the critics position is to be taken seriously the critic must prove its claims--that is if the claim truly is the Church is proven false.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote:I readily acknowledge I can't show you my faith. Faith is personal. in it I see evidence. But I can't show or demonstrate that evidence.
The critic, as it is, as the arguer must demonstrate his or her position.
Stemelbow, are you saying that you cannot see the hypocrisy in your opening post?
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator