Darth J wrote: Almost all of Ray's posts, for at least the last year or so, have been "shoot the messenger."
How ironical:
That's not irony, Ray. I am not shooting the messenger with you, because you do not have a message.
Darth J wrote:That's because Ray's real problem is not about how wonderful Mormonism is or apologetics for same. His real problem is his opposition to critical thinking---an opposition in which he has a vested interest, as his cherished beliefs about UFO's do not tend to fair very well in an environment in which critical thinking is applied. In another thread, Rock Slider said that my UFO comments to Ray were a low blow. They are not; those comments are at the heart of Ray's posting behavior. If you recall, it was after I failed to be dazzled by Ray's purported UFO evidences that he left the board for a while. Go back and read through some of those threads. It was applying critical thinking to his UFO beliefs that set him off, and which explains a great deal of his ongoing behavior.
Have you finished psychoanalysing me? I doubt it, so carry on.
That's not psychoanalysis. Anyway, Ray, I think you were saying something about how you don't like personal attacks?
RayAgostini wrote: You are just a rat dying in a spiritless desert, and hoping to gain converts to your unbelief misery.
Darth J wrote: Over ten years, as shown by my reference in the link below to an article from 2001.
That's not stated in your post.
Oh, I think I have made it pretty clear over the last two years that I don't know a damned thing about the LDS Church or Mormon apologetic theories. That's just a given, really.
My bet is that you plucked a review here and there, looking for all the negatives.
How would I have known what to look for, Ray? How would I have know to search for that particular article, just in case it contradicted LDS doctrine about how many gods there are? Since the negatives I have talked about on this board are LDS apologists blatantly contradicting or misrepresenting the teachings of the LDS Church, what is your proposed mechanism I would have used to randomly pick MI articles and then scour LDS curricula to find contradictions if I was not familiar with either Mormon apologetics or LDS doctrine?
Kishkumen wrote: If I had wanted to cite the sources, I would have done so in the first place.
You are free to read the whole thread to answer the second question for yourself.
Well, I know it's only a message board, but selective citation in quote blocks, while ignoring positive ones, is not very "academic". One or two sources doesn't tell us anything, either.
I have some more important things to do, but while I'm gone, can anyone tell me if Lavina Fielding Anderson has been re-instated?
RayAgostini wrote:Well, I know it's only a message board, but selective citation in quote blocks, while ignoring positive ones, is not very "academic". One or two sources doesn't tell us anything, either.
Why are we having this discussion, Ray? This is old news as far as I am concerned. Better to put the events of the past few weeks behind us. Nitpicking the academic standards that should be adhered to on a message board is kinda dumb anyway, no?
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
RayAgostini wrote:Well, I know it's only a message board, but selective citation in quote blocks, while ignoring positive ones, is not very "academic". One or two sources doesn't tell us anything, either.
Why are we having this discussion, Ray? This is old news as far as I am concerned. Better to put the events of the past few weeks behind us. Nitpicking the academic standards that should be adhered to on a message board is kinda dumb anyway, no?
Hey, now! We have standards! somewhere... unless Liz used them to line the birdcage...
(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.