Coping with the "Big List" of Attacks on the LDS Faith

[_Runtu]

Now can anyone understand what tobin is talking about? I don't see how any imperfection in Joseph would result in translating word for word passages in the KJV including the italics and mistakes. Even if one, including Joseph, understood reformed Egyptian they would not get word for word translation from the KJV unless they copied from the KJV, as critics believe, or God gave him word for word. The problem is very much about why it would make sense for God to do this. Nothing here that I can see relates to personal flaws in Joesph.

Exactly.

[_sock puppet]

Now can anyone understand what tobin is talking about? I don't see how any imperfection in Joseph would result in translating word for word passages in the KJV including the italics and mistakes. Even if one, including Joseph, understood reformed Egyptian they would not get word for word translation from the KJV unless they copied from the KJV, as critics believe, or God gave him word for word. The problem is very much about why it would make sense for God to do this. Nothing here that I can see relates to personal flaws in Joesph.

Correct. The problems with LDS teachings is that they all trace back to god being personally flawed, not JSJr. JSJr was not a flawed conman. As for conmen, JSJr was able to keep his going for an extraordinary long time. He was good at juggling all those problems and distractions.

[_Tobin]

I really fail to see why it irritates you that I think you assumed that Joseph Smith was perfect at one time when you were a Mormon. It seems like a rather common failing of former Mormons. Maybe you recognize that failing in other critics and that is what irritates you when I associate you with it.

It's a common accusation, not a common failing, and it is used to dismiss and delegitimize people's reasons for leaving. That you think it's a "common failing" says more about your dismissive attitude than it does about my reasons for leaving or anyone else's.

I'm not dismissing anything really. When critics repeatedly bring up points that require the perfection of Joseph Smith, they expose this assumption all on their own. And I can't help it if they can't recognize the weaknesses in their own arguments.

It's true that I don't take your arguments seriously very often, but I thought you were at least a well-intentioned person. I am now rethinking that assumption.

Again, I fail to see how stating that you held flawed assumptions is insulting. Or are you really suggesting that you don't hold any flawed assumptions even now?

[_Tobin]

Now can anyone understand what tobin is talking about? I don't see how any imperfection in Joseph would result in translating word for word passages in the KJV including the italics and mistakes. Even if one, including Joseph, understood reformed Egyptian they would not get word for word translation from the KJV unless they copied from the KJV, as critics believe, or God gave him word for word. The problem is very much about why it would make sense for God to do this. Nothing here that I can see relates to personal flaws in Joesph.

Exactly.

Themis and I have gone around and around on this. He continually insists that he knows exactly how the translation must have been accomplished to be done God's perfect way. I reject that since neither I nor he has ever translated with God's help and I think it is silly to insist it was done one way or the other. And I can understand how existing material (words, phrases and style available in that period and certainly from the KJV that Joseph Smith had) would be incorporated in a production and how flaws appear in the work. While Themis insists God's way should somehow have been magically perfect (even though imperfect beings were involved?!?) and that as a result flaws impeach the work?!? Such assertions are ludicrous since they require a perfect Joseph Smith (and others) and I reject that as being a completely unreasonable requirement. And if God had done it the way Themis insists, a much more simpler and direct way for him to accomplish that would have simply been to hand the translated material to Joseph Smith fully typed of up and in its correct and perfected form. Otherwise, what would be required is that God perfect everyone involved in the Book of Mormon process which was certainly not the case. And as we can see from Themis's comment above, the fact remains that Themis is unable to comprehend this flaw in his reasoning after numerous discussions and that makes him not even remotely interesting to talk to about this topic.

[_Themis]

Themis and I have gone around and around on this.

No we haven't.

He continually insists that he knows exactly how the translation must have been accomplished to be done God's perfect way.

CFR. I have never stated this. This sounds much the same as your made up assumptions about Runtu you, and I, could not possibly know, but what you want to believe about him.

And I can understand how existing material (words, phrases and style available in that period and certainly from the KJV that Joseph Smith had) would be incorporated in a production and how flaws appear in the work.

Then tell us. This is the heart of the matter, and why people don't take you seriously. Try saying how you think "existing materials (words, phrases and style available in that period and certainly from the KJV that Joseph Smith had) would be incorporated in a production and how flaws appear in the work".

You will notice I at least gave two possible scenario's of how KJV text word for word including mitskes and italics got into the Book of Mormon.

Even if one, including Joseph, understood reformed Egyptian they would not get word for word translation from the KJV unless they copied from the KJV, as critics believe, or God gave him word for word. The problem is very much about why it would make sense for God to do this. Nothing here that I can see relates to personal flaws in Joesph.

Now it is your turn. No one else seems to know of any other way this could happen, and that it would relate to personal flaws of Joseph. You say you do, but don't say how. Your long paragraph really did not end of saying anything, but now is your chance, since you suggest you can understand how it would happen. by the way when I say it does not relate to personal flaws of Joseph, that is not a statement that Joseph was perfect.

[_Runtu]

Again, I fail to see how stating that you held flawed assumptions is insulting. Or are you really suggesting that you don't hold any flawed assumptions even now?

Again, either you're clueless or arrogant or both. It doesn't really matter.

[_Tobin]

Again, I fail to see how stating that you held flawed assumptions is insulting. Or are you really suggesting that you don't hold any flawed assumptions even now?

Again, either you're clueless or arrogant or both. It doesn't really matter.

Calling me names does not explain your problem here. I can see this is not going anywhere. So if you wish to be in denial, go for it.

[_honorentheos]

I think the reason that you lost your faith in the first place is that at one time you did rely on the fiction of Joseph Smith's perfection though and that you are now just in denial about that. And if it does turn out that Joseph Smith's claims do have a basis in the truth after all, you do indeed have a problem in the next life whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

Hardly consistent with your stated beliefs. According to what you've said, the worst anyone has to look forward to is the aliens operating the matrix deciding not to record their mind and plug them back in. In which case, it's oblivion. Doesn't seem like much of a problem.

[_ldsfaqs]

How is a big list of attacks any different than a big list of defenses, like Lindsey's web site?

In this case "attacks" against Mormonism are almost 100% perverted falsehoods and outright lies, while defenses for the faith are almost 100% the full and actual truth. One seeks to destroy light and truth while pretending to be for light and truth, while the other actually IS light and truth.

Understand now?

(side note.... wow Jeff is in China now? cool)

[_Ceeboo]

How is a big list of attacks any different than a big list of defenses, like Lindsey's web site?

In this case "attacks" against Mormonism are almost 100% perverted falsehoods and outright lies, while defenses for the faith are almost 100% the full and actual truth. One seeks to destroy light and truth while pretending to be for light and truth, while the other actually IS light and truth.

Understand now?

Awe-Some!



Peace,
Ceeboo