DiscussMormonism.com

I just gets to be so taxing listening to the defenders of the faith (Mormonism). With predictable scripting you know exactly what the response to any query about Mormonism.

If the query is for further understanding in the lack of evidence to support Mormonism - Attack the messenger, attack the message, attack the need for proof, attack reasoning, attack the the lack of evidence against the claim, attack attack attack.

If the query is for further understanding in the message of Mormonism - We just aren't meant to know at this time, it doesn't impact our salvation, the message was for a different time and people, excuses, excuses, excuses.

If the query is for support of the message of Mormonism - Praise the author, praise the message, praise Horny Holy Joe for coming up with the truth though he was only a stupid kid, praise, praise, praise.

If there is need for clarification of the message of Mormonism - Where is the Hill Cumorah, why Polygamy, tithing on gross or net, - silence, silence, silence.

And don't forget about the revelation given to all the world that there is a king's name written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3 according to the scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It's official.

I hold the Mormon church responsibile for this claim and would like to take a moment to call Joseph Smith a liar for saying there is a name in the writing. I challenge all the school teachers at BYU to prove me wrong. Their prophets eat off the fat of the land and have nothing to offer in this regard -- prophets that don't prophesy and prophets who are caught in a lie.

The founding prophet of Mormonism has been proven a liar through the science of modern Egyptology. The BYU school teachers are cowards. The pretended prophets are a joke. The apologists are in a looney tune. Just look at Kerry Shirts and his cigar!

Jesus H. Christ!

Paul O

Who is Horny Holy Joe?

bcspace wrote:Who is Horny Holy Joe?

The same who said women in Facsimile No. 3 are men. Holy Joe always had his eyes on women.

Paul O

bcspace you are an

Removed because I realized I demonstrated Rule 1 of my own Points. Man am I a dumb ass.

The Mighty Builder wrote:I just gets to be so taxing listening to the defenders of the faith (Mormonism). With predictable scripting you know exactly what the response to any query about Mormonism.

If the query is for further understanding in the lack of evidence to support Mormonism - Attack the messenger, attack the message, attack the need for proof, attack reasoning, attack the the lack of evidence against the claim, attack attack attack.

If the query is for further understanding in the message of Mormonism - We just aren't meant to know at this time, it doesn't impact our salvation, the message was for a different time and people, excuses, excuses, excuses.

If the query is for support of the message of Mormonism - Praise the author, praise the message, praise Horny Holy Joe for coming up with the truth though he was only a stupid kid, praise, praise, praise.

If there is need for clarification of the message of Mormonism - Where is the Hill Cumorah, why Polygamy, tithing on gross or net, - silence, silence, silence.

The Mighty Builder, in your opinion do I follow this pattern?

The Mighty Builder wrote:I just gets to be so taxing listening to the defenders of the faith (Mormonism). With predictable scripting you know exactly what the response to any query about Mormonism.

I see that The Mighty Builder is quite chuffed with his statement, and instead of responding to it, I'll let bcspace respond

bcspace wrote:Standard responses come from standard and long-refuted anti Mormon chestnuts. The argument has been thoroughly refuted and unless you can come up with something different, you will get the standard response.

I happen to agree, though that might make me very unpopular. I haven't seen a new Mormon-critical argument crop up in many years, only variations of the the same old whinge. Does anyone (other than Dr. Southerton) even remember that DNA contretemps?

The three responses in escalation order as if stated by an apologist:

Defcon 1. You are wrong and I am right.
Defcon 2. You are wrong and it is plausible that I am right.
Defcon 3. You are wrong and a vile jerk and you smell and it is perhaps possible that under certain circumstances determined by me that I could be close to being nearly not wrong.


These are in response to the critics escalation process which is:
1. Here is the evidence to support my position
2. Please read the evidence I have presented to support my position
3. Why won't you read the evidence I have presented to support my position?

Droopy wrote:I'm going to be leaving this place for a while. I don't know when I'll be back, and don't really care. This place is an outhouse, and I'm tired of feeling, all too often, that I have to gather with many of the other posters here at the bottom of it to make my points and field my arguments.

I may be back, periodically, to carry forward some of the ongoing discussions with Stak and whoever else wishes to join in intelligent, civil, intellectually productive discussion and debate in the Celestial room as those discussions proceed (and its usually quite slowly there), but beyond that, I'm gone.

Ciao.

Thank you Droopy (or is it Dopey) for proving Point number 1 of my responses.