simple minded Book of Mormon apologetics

[_Fortigurn]

The lds church has no inclusive right to the holy ghost.

Perhaps you meant 'exclusive'.

[_Runtu]

The lds church has no inclusive right to the holy ghost.

Perhaps you meant 'exclusive'.

I think why me is playing semantic games. It is church doctrine that the LDS church has exclusive authority to grant the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[_Gazelam]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the exclusive authority to give the Gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 19:2-6) but those outside the church may have the Holy Ghost visit and inspire them that they may know true teachings when they are presented. A person with the gift of the Holy Ghost is sanctified by Him through obedience to the principles of the gospel and receives revelation from time to time to guide and direct them as they strive to emulate Christ. There are few who actively listen to the promptings as they come.

[_wenglund]

I don’t know what to call this brand of apologetics other than simple minded. Any descriptive term I can think of is going to sound insulting because it will have to reflect the reality that this brand of apologetics is being spun by people with very minimal understanding of ancient Mesoamerica in specific, or how archeology works in particular.

If your intent is to uplift and improve, and if you aren't able to brand the apologetic in a way that meets that objective (whether due to an inability to fairly and acurately evaluate the apologetic, or otherwise), then not branding it at all may be a viable option--particularly since the branding is not necessary.

Scholars believe things are there because they found evidence for them, wade. The written word is not the be-all, end-all in terms of evidence, and in fact, is in some ways inferior to other evidences which cannot be so easily manipulated and subjected to propaganda. Scholars are NOT suggesting the existence of things for which there is no evidence. If you believe that is what they are doing, you will have to provide a solid example.

Scholars may also reasonably differ as to what constitutes "evidence" and/or where that evidence may be found and/or how they weigh the evidence and/or the degree to which they may inductively extrapolate from the evidence. In other words, some scholars may believe something because they have observed what they deem is sufficient evidence for belief, and others scholars may not believe because they haven't seen any or sufficient evidence thereof. Cashman and my point is that scholars can respectfully differ in their beliefs on this matter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

If your intent is to uplift and improve, and if you aren't able to brand the apologetic in a way that meets that objective (whether due to an inability to fairly and acurately evaluate the apologetic, or otherwise), then not branding it at all may be a viable option--particularly since the branding is not necessary.

I already told you that I find your qualifications of little merit. What is "uplifting"? What is "improving"? My only objective is to find the truth, and share it. This is the obligation I feel to my society.

I need to distinguish this brand of apologia from other apologia which is not as simple minded. Brant, for example, If I recall correctly, doesn't rely on this sort of so-called logic. If you don't like my term, then don't respond to me. I have already made abundantly clear why I am not interested in your self-serving lectures.

Scholars may also reasonably differ as to what constitutes "evidence" and/or where that evidence may be found and/or how they weigh the evidence and/or the degree to which they may inductively extrapolate from the evidence. In other words, some scholars may believe something because they have observed what they deem is sufficient evidence for belief, and others scholars may not believe because they haven't seen any or sufficient evidence thereof. Cashman and my point is that scholars can respectfully differ in their beliefs on this matter.

See my previous response to cacheman. People who believe the earth is six thousand years old have what they call "evidence". People who believe dinosaurs and humans lived together have what they call "evidence". All "evidence" is not equal. No one should feel compelled to treat patently silly and easily falsifiable pseudoscientific claims with "respect". They should be exposed as the nonsense they are. If general society treats any sort of garbage with "respect" it creates a damaging message in general - that there really is serious "evidence" for these claims, when there is not.

[_wenglund]

If your intent is to uplift and improve, and if you aren't able to brand the apologetic in a way that meets that objective (whether due to an inability to fairly and acurately evaluate the apologetic, or otherwise), then not branding it at all may be a viable option--particularly since the branding is not necessary.

I already told you that I find your qualifications of little merit. What is "uplifting"? What is "improving"? My only objective is to find the truth, and share it. This is the obligation I feel to my society.

I need to distinguish this brand of apologia from other apologia which is not as simple minded. Brant, for example, If I recall correctly, doesn't rely on this sort of so-called logic. If you don't like my term, then don't respond to me. I have already made abundantly clear why I am not interested in your self-serving lectures.

Scholars may also reasonably differ as to what constitutes "evidence" and/or where that evidence may be found and/or how they weigh the evidence and/or the degree to which they may inductively extrapolate from the evidence. In other words, some scholars may believe something because they have observed what they deem is sufficient evidence for belief, and others scholars may not believe because they haven't seen any or sufficient evidence thereof. Cashman and my point is that scholars can respectfully differ in their beliefs on this matter.

See my previous response to cacheman. People who believe the earth is six thousand years old have what they call "evidence". People who believe dinosaurs and humans lived together have what they call "evidence". All "evidence" is not equal. No one should feel compelled to treat patently silly and easily falsifiable pseudoscientific claims with "respect". They should be exposed as the nonsense they are. If general society treats any sort of garbage with "respect" it creates a damaging message in general - that there really is serious "evidence" for these claims, when there is not.[/quote]

I have found as a general principle, that if one's intent isn't to uplift and improve or respect, but simply to "share" their perception of the "truth", then by default the opposite tends to occur in reverse (particularly when one's supposed "truth" entails criticism of someone else's supposed "truth"), which typically has the effect of greatly impeding, if not completely preventing, one from successfully conveying ("sharing" in a meaningful and valued way) one's perception of the "truth".

I think your relatively abysmal failure to envoking respect, credibility, and value in the minds of your opponents on this and other LDS-related boards, is a testament to the dysfunction of your approach and the verity of the general principle I just mention.

But, such is your choice, and to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Fortigurn]

Wade why do you always feel the urge to attack people's character, instead of actually addressing the issue?

[_maklelan]

Wade why do you always feel the urge to attack people's character, instead of actually addressing the issue?

I find this statement to be ironic in light of your signature line, which is ad hominem. I don't have a clue which three issues you refer to, and I don't know how you figure that because someone disagrees with you they are "lazy." I was also unaware that their were any judges making final decisions on arguments. All I've seen is a bunch of dogmatic people slapping each other on the back for continuing to disagree with people who espouse ideas that they disagree with. Lastly, if anyone on this board wants me to think they have even an inkling of what my research is saying, the first thing they'll have to do is spell my name correctly. You and Vegas can't even spell my name correctly, so how am I to actually believe you've looked hard enough at an argument of mine to even know what I'm saying? Show you can think critically about something and I'll respect your arguments. I've admitted I was wrong about several things. Up to this point I haven't seen a single one of you budge an inch on being wrong about something. You guys seriously think that you've never been wrong about anything? That's a joke. No scholar is right about everything. Real, honest scholarship has to recognize that, but not a one of you has shown that capacity, which makes your pseudo-research even lazier. That may be attacking your character, but not a single person on this board has shown they're above that, so don't give other people lip about it.

[_beastie]

I have found as a general principle, that if one's intent isn't to uplift and improve or respect, but simply to "share" their perception of the "truth", then by default the opposite tends to occur in reverse (particularly when one's supposed "truth" entails criticism of someone else's supposed "truth"), which typically has the effect of greatly impeding, if not completely preventing, one from successfully conveying ("sharing" in a meaningful and valued way) one's perception of the "truth".

I think your relatively abysmal failure to envoking respect, credibility, and value in the minds of your opponents on this and other LDS-related boards, is a testament to the dysfunction of your approach and the verity of the general principle I just mention.

Perhaps one could also say that your relatively abysmal failure to invoke respect, credibility,and value in the minds of your opponents on this, other exLDS/LDS and homosexual boards is a testament to the dysfunction of your approach and the verity of the general principle that you often mention, but neglect to follow.

After all, what can a person who tried to "help" homosexuals by telling them their behavior was linked to pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia possibly know about encouraging communication? Nothing. What can a person who pretends to want to encourage useful dialog between believers and exbelievers and yet consistently refuses to address dysfunctional behavior of believers and only focuses on critics know about encouraging communication? Nothing, particularly when that same person has openly declared his belief that the REAL problem with exbelievers has nothing to do with the church, but everything to do with their own psychological dysfunctions.

But you keep on pretending, wade, so you can hide from yourself.

[_Fortigurn]

Wade why do you always feel the urge to attack people's character, instead of actually addressing the issue?

I find this statement to be ironic in light of your signature line, which is ad hominem.

Ad hominem is the use of personal attack made in an attempt to discredit an argument being made. Please describe to me how my signature constitutes ad hominem.

I don't have a clue which three issues you refer to...

Then I suggest you read through our exchanges.

...and I don't know how you figure that because someone disagrees with you they are "lazy."

I don't.

All I've seen is a bunch of dogmatic people slapping each other on the back for continuing to disagree with people who espouse ideas that they disagree with.

Ah, so you've been to MAD then.

Lastly, if anyone on this board wants me to think they have even an inkling of what my research is saying, the first thing they'll have to do is spell my name correctly. You and Vegas can't even spell my name correctly, so how am I to actually believe you've looked hard enough at an argument of mine to even know what I'm saying?

By reading our arguments in reply to yours.

Show you can think critically about something and I'll respect your arguments.

Easy - please read my posts.

I've admitted I was wrong about several things.

That's very worthy of you, thank you. Please check this thread and get back to me about the two unanswered posts of mine to you.

Real, honest scholarship has to recognize that, but not a one of you has shown that capacity, which makes your pseudo-research even lazier.

Now that is a character attack.

That may be attacking your character...

Yes it is.

...but not a single person on this board has shown they're above that...

Yes they have, and I'm one of them. But do you really want to commit the tu quoque fallacy?