Mister Scratch wrote: You are a coward not to adduce them. You imply that your "proofs" cannot stand the light of scrutiny.
Like I have said many times in the past on the board, I am a person filled with weaknesses and inabilities. to that, I readily confess.
The mission of the prophet Joseph Smith is based upon (1) scripture, (2) the witnesses of other good people who never recanted, and (3) the witness of the Spirit -- all of which you mock and which I never see you cite or really understand. The mission is not based upon a photograph of the plates. It is not based upon slick rhetoric.
Mister Scratch wrote: You are a coward not to adduce them. You imply that your "proofs" cannot stand the light of scrutiny.
Like I have said many times in the past on the board, I am a person filled with weaknesses and inabilities. to that, I readily confess.
The mission of the prophet Joseph Smith is based upon (1) scripture, (2) the witnesses of other good people who never recanted, and (3) the witness of the Spirit -- all of which you mock and which I never see you cite or really understand. The mission is not based upon a photograph of the plates. It is not based upon slick rhetoric.
P
Putarach, most of us have as much, if not more, experience in the Mormon Church as you. We quite understand numbers 1-3 above, but unlike you, we do not find them compelling. Don't be going all Makelenian on us by claiming you understand the "gospel" and its doctrines so much better than us. We understand them just fine, we have just reached different conclusions about them than you have, and we find your preferred epistomoloigcal methodology to be quite unsatisfactory.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
guy sajer wrote:Putarach, most of us have as much, if not more, experience in the Mormon Church as you. We quite understand numbers 1-3 above, but unlike you, we do not find them compelling. Don't be going all Makelenian on us by claiming you understand the "gospel" and its doctrines so much better than us. We understand them just fine, we have just reached different conclusions about them than you have, and we find your preferred epistomoloigcal methodology to be quite unsatisfactory.
Which I fully understand. That is why you rarely see me state my justification because I know it won't fly very far with those who have luxury suites in the great and spacious building. But, once in a while I can't resist; such as when I see the opening post. I usually get triggered when somebody makes a remark about how ridiculous the Church is, angels and plates and all, when Christianity is much more the ridiculous. But, you wouldn't be cowed by such an argument because you reject the Miracle known as Christianity.
Zakuska wrote:Whats wrong with Marrying other men's wives? David did it.
And David died for it, and was condemned to hell for eternity. Not to mention that David lived in a very different environment, in a very different culture, in a very different century than Joseph Smith did. For Joseph to seek validation for his actions from the Old Testament is a verification of how far he'd gotten in his continual binge on the sweet liquor of power.
guy sajer wrote:Putarach, most of us have as much, if not more, experience in the Mormon Church as you. We quite understand numbers 1-3 above, but unlike you, we do not find them compelling. Don't be going all Makelenian on us by claiming you understand the "gospel" and its doctrines so much better than us. We understand them just fine, we have just reached different conclusions about them than you have, and we find your preferred epistomoloigcal methodology to be quite unsatisfactory.
Which I fully understand. That is why you rarely see me state my justification because I know it won't fly very far with those who have luxury suites in the great and spacious building. But, once in a while I can't resist; such as when I see the opening post. I usually get triggered when somebody makes a remark about how ridiculous the Church is, angels and plates and all, when Christianity is much more the ridiculous. But, you wouldn't be cowed by such an argument because you reject the Miracle known as Christianity.
P
OK, this makes sense and is reasonable. We, more or less, see the same things, use a different method to process/understand them, and reach different conclusions.
That's the way it should be, I suppose.
You're also correct that I do apply the same process to Christianity, and God, as a whole. I don't privilege my beliefs by subjecting them to lower standards of reason and evidence (well, I try not to).
I'm less inclined to call Christianity a miracle, as I think it's done more harm than good on balance, but that's a debate for another time.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
Mister Scratch wrote: You are a coward not to adduce them. You imply that your "proofs" cannot stand the light of scrutiny.
Like I have said many times in the past on the board, I am a person filled with weaknesses and inabilities. to that, I readily confess.
The mission of the prophet Joseph Smith is based upon (1) scripture, (2) the witnesses of other good people who never recanted, and (3) the witness of the Spirit -- all of which you mock and which I never see you cite or really understand. The mission is not based upon a photograph of the plates. It is not based upon slick rhetoric.
P
Where among any of your three items does it say, "Thou shalt worship Joseph Smith as a demi-god?" Also, I think you know full well that some of these so-called "other good people" did recant, and actually turned on Joseph Smith in disgust over his activities. Finally, I have not "mocked" the scriptures, Spirit, or witnesses anywhere. I readily admit that my use of citations is limited, however, and I would never claim that I "understood" everything.