Former MADB poster that has turned

[_consiglieri]

My god, you are an ass.

Now, gods, stand up for bastards!


--King Lear, 1.2.21

[_Jersey Girl]

You are so damn two-faced it's sick. Is Jersey Girl gonna come rush to help you again with the hot air of some windbag who thinks her mannish persona has the right to tell others what to do?

My god, you are an ass.

Oh, don't worry about that. He was fearful of engaging the question that I posed to him regarding his selective definition of "occult". His reply?

"You aren't the boss of me."

Seriously, I'm waiting for spitballs to come flying out of the screen.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Sir,

White is white. Daytime is daytime. Gravity is gravity. Space is space. Truth is truth. It is reality. It is, in fact, a fact. That is truth. You cannot redefine for everyone else what is truth. Your value judgements have no place in a world where men seek truths in order to discover what is and what is not.

Your theory for "what is" has been discovered to be false. Thoroughly. Mormonism is clearly the construct of men. It cannot define "what is" because it, in of itself, is a deeply flawed untruth. It is false in regards to its foundational claims.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4ME

[_Dr. Shades]

In other words, you adopt a "correspondence theory" view of "truth." There is more than one kind.

Here is a small primer for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Okay, yes, I adopt a "correspondence theory" view of truth. As a matter of fact, I'll go one step further and say that any other theory is simply a methodology by which people think about truth.

But for the purposes of this discussion, let's zoom in on the correspondence theory even further and employ the "Shades Theory" of truth as our yardstick: "Truth" is anything that exists--or continues to exist--entirely independently of whether anyone believes in it or not.

As for what I chose as my answer, what did you think of that? Isn't that a satisfactory answer?

It all depends on whether A) your answers were delivered with the Shades Theory of truth in mind, and B) whether I encapsulated your opinion correctly when I restated it. Once again, for reference:

QUESTION ONE: Trevor, in your opinion, is it true that there exists a trinity of Gods that consists of three separate and distinct beings?

QUESTION TWO: Trevor, in your opinion, is it true that God continues to give revelation to mankind that's canon-inclusion worthy?

Remember, these appeared to be what you were hinting at in your own response to my question of just what aspect unique to Mormonism you find to be true. I'm just trying to understand whether you believe that these things correspond to the "Shades Theory" of truth as opposed to some other fuzzy human construct of improvement or beauty, etc.

Now, I'm not trying to attack you here. If you indeed believe that those two concepts, which you yourself appeared to identify, are true according to the "Shades Theory" of truth, then that's fine. You don't see me attacking why me for his beliefs, do you?

I'm not sniping at you or gunning for you. You see, the reason I'm carrying on this conversation is that you apparently possess the answer to a question that is entirely mind-bending to me and utterly beyond my capability to comprehend: How is it possible to believe that X is true but simultaneously disbelieve X enough to depart from it?

[_Gadianton]

Hi Doctor Shades,

I have to say that I think you're up in the night on this one. Granted, Trevor did pull a semi-Mopologetic move by seeming to go the Moby Dick route of Mormon appreciation and +1 for you for that, and -1 for Trevor. However, I think he ultimately gave a reasonable answer to your question, he thinks there is something "true" encapsulated in Mormonism's rejection of the trinity. Sure, he could stand to explain himself a little more here, but, I think the criteria you're setting up for him is completely ridiculous. Even if there is no God, there might be thinking that merits being considered "truth" in the way one belief is selected over another about God.

[_Trevor]

However, I think he ultimately gave a reasonable answer to your question, he thinks there is something "true" encapsulated in Mormonism's rejection of the trinity. Sure, he could stand to explain himself a little more here, but, I think the criteria you're setting up for him is completely ridiculous. Even if there is no God, there might be thinking that merits being considered "truth" in the way one belief is selected over another about God.

Thanks , Gad. Furthermore, I was offering this as one kind of "truth" that did not constitute my answer to the question. I very clearly indicated that my answer was "seek ye wisdom out of the best books." Granted, this too has been rejected, although by thews.

[_Trevor]

I'm not sniping at you or gunning for you. You see, the reason I'm carrying on this conversation is that you apparently possess the answer to a question that is entirely mind-bending to me and utterly beyond my capability to comprehend: How is it possible to believe that X is true but simultaneously disbelieve X enough to depart from it?

It would help me if I understood what your "Xs" are. Are you asking whether I believe Mormonism to be true but then disbelieve it enough to be an apostate?

[_Calculus Crusader]

We are scholars.

So am I, but I find the defense of Joseph Smith's pimp cane as "Christian" pretty absurd. As for the Book of Mormon, it's okay as religious fiction, I guess.

[_Trevor]

So am I, but I find the defense of Joseph Smith's pimp cane as "Christian" pretty absurd. As for the Book of Mormon, it's okay as religious fiction, I guess.

So now you've told me that your definitions of Christian and scripture are not the same as mine. OK.

[_emilysmith]

I have to admit that the more I read, the more LDS apologetics seems like one of the most bizarre corners of the internet. I have never had much faith, but whatever illusions I maintained about religion and spirituality have all been dusted away.

I am very surprised at how dishonest the church has been throughout its entire history and I can't help but wonder if they aren't all atheists at the top. Pretending at church is really becoming difficult for me. I think I will take a lesson from Abaddon, and though I doubt I will turn to porn, it may be useful to find something to distract me from the droning testimonies.