Thinking outside the box

[_wenglund]

Moroni's promise. It says one can know the truth of ALL things with it, and particularly that the Book of Mormon is true, which has very object claims which cannot be eliminated, although I suspect you will try.

I think this helps us to hone in on the crux of your problem--which, as I see it, is your inability to correctly distinguishing between objective and subjective, facts and opinions/faith, physical and metaphysical, science and religion, literal and figurative, etc.

Do you literally believe that Moroni's promise was intended as a means for determining truths like the boiling point of water, the speed of light, the distance from the sun to the earth, the cause of certain cancers, the creb cycle, the nature of bi-polar disorder, fiscal policy, the rise and fall of the third riech, etc.?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Darth J]

Do you literally believe that Moroni's promise was intended as a means for determining truths like the boiling point of water, the speed of light, the distance from the sun to the earth, the cause of certain cancers, the creb cycle, the nature of bi-polar disorder, fiscal policy, the rise and fall of the third riech, etc.?

Or the existence of purported ancient civilizations. We should rely on things like archaeology and anthropology to address that kind of question. We don't use Moroni's promise to determine whether the Assyrians or the Visigoths really existed, so we shouldn't rely on Moroni's promise to determine whether the Nephites or the Jaredites really existed, either.

Right, Wade?

[_Buffalo]

Do you literally believe that Moroni's promise was intended as a means for determining truths like the boiling point of water, the speed of light, the distance from the sun to the earth, the cause of certain cancers, the creb cycle, the nature of bi-polar disorder, fiscal policy, the rise and fall of the third riech, etc.?

Or the existence of purported ancient civilizations. We should rely on things like archaeology and anthropology to address that kind of question. We don't use Moroni's promise to determine whether the Assyrians or the Visigoths really existed, so we shouldn't rely on Moroni's promise to determine whether the Nephites or the Jaredites really existed, either.

Right, Wade?

[_wenglund]

Perhaps one day, Wade, you will read a book or something about logical fallacies, where you will learn that referring to what someone has actually said is not a straw man. Obviously, today is not that day.

I would like to thank you, however, for providing a bit of nostalgia about LDS culture, where prolixity is often mistaken for profundity.

This is a wonderful, if not unwitting, object lesson in self-delusion--a classic case of thinking one knows better than the author what the author means and says. It is also a malady that seems to particularly plague vocal losers of LDS faith. Perhaps this is more than a correlation, and a variation of the Novak rule: "When becoming an [vocal loser of LDS faith], expect your IQ to drop at least 85 points. Or, to put it a little more succinctly: God strikes you stupid."

Who knows. Maybe Themis can commission a scientific study. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Darth J]

Perhaps one day, Wade, you will read a book or something about logical fallacies, where you will learn that referring to what someone has actually said is not a straw man. Obviously, today is not that day.

I would like to thank you, however, for providing a bit of nostalgia about LDS culture, where prolixity is often mistaken for profundity.

This is a wonderful, if not unwitting, object lesson in self-delusion--a classic case of thinking one knows better than the author what the author means and says. It is also a malady that seems to particularly plague vocal losers of LDS faith. Perhaps this is more than a correlation, and a variation of the Novak rule: "When becoming an [vocal loser of LDS faith], expect your IQ to drop at least 85 points. Or, to put it a little more succinctly: God strikes you stupid."

Who knows. Maybe Themis can commission a scientific study. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The Mormon Apologetics Articles of Faith

12. The plain, obvious meaning of the words someone said are not a reliable indication of what they meant.

[_wenglund]

Or the existence of purported ancient civilizations. We should rely on things like archaeology and anthropology to address that kind of question. We don't use Moroni's promise to determine whether the Assyrians or the Visigoths really existed, so we shouldn't rely on Moroni's promise to determine whether the Nephites or the Jaredites really existed, either.

Right, Wade?

Right. Obviously.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Darth J]

Or the existence of purported ancient civilizations. We should rely on things like archaeology and anthropology to address that kind of question. We don't use Moroni's promise to determine whether the Assyrians or the Visigoths really existed, so we shouldn't rely on Moroni's promise to determine whether the Nephites or the Jaredites really existed, either.

Right, Wade?

Right. Obviously.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And based on the current state of the evidence, we can therefore conclude that the Book of Mormon does not present a true story, as there is no evidence to show that a thousand-year civilization of Hebrews who practiced Christianity and had steel swords, horses, and chariots existed in the pre-Columbian Americas.

Right?

[_wenglund]

The Mormon Apologetics Articles of Faith

12. The plain, obvious meaning of the words someone said are not a reliable indication of what they meant.

Lame interlocution strategy 101:

13: Close-mindedly assume that your fundamentalist and over-simplistic caricatures are the plain meaning of what your opponent has said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Darth J]

The Mormon Apologetics Articles of Faith

12. The plain, obvious meaning of the words someone said are not a reliable indication of what they meant.

Lame interlocution strategy 101:

13: Close-mindedly assume that your fundamentalist and over-simplistic caricatures are the plain meaning of what your opponent has said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade:

Tell me the name of a person who has ever disagreed with what you said who understood what you said.

[_wenglund]

And based on the current state of the evidence, we can therefore conclude that the Book of Mormon does not present a true story, as there is no evidence to show that a thousand-year civilization of Hebrews who practiced Christianity and had steel swords, horses, and chariots existed in the pre-Columbian Americas.

Right?

Wrong? Obviously.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-