Three Powerful Books

[_honorentheos]

Back to the OP. This thread has made it readily apparent why these three books won’t see much traction here.

Corbridge’s primary question number one gets in the way at the get go.

I'd argue the primary person this applies to is you. You're always welcome to come to the table with evidence to share.

[_mentalgymnast]

Any idea how many of them participated in this thread?

Regards,
MG

I counted six in the first five pages. I stopped my tally after that. Of course for most folks, I have no idea.

Really? I don’t see one person that stands out as a theist in the first five pages. Agnostic, possibly.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Back to the OP. This thread has made it readily apparent why these three books won’t see much traction here.

Corbridge’s primary question number one gets in the way at the get go.

I'd argue the primary person this applies to is you. You're always welcome to come to the table with evidence to share.

You’ve got me over a barrel, admittedly. For reasons I’ve already expressed.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

I'd argue the primary person this applies to is you. You're always welcome to come to the table with evidence to share.

You’ve got me over a barrel, admittedly. For reasons I’ve already expressed.

Regards,
MG

MG is just looking to retreat again. It's an admission of lack of good evidence to support Joseph's claims as true, while also avoiding great evidence against. It's the same story different day. He likes to link what he thinks are good sources of information, but shows he lacks understanding when pressed to articulate the arguments himself.

[_Morley]

I counted six in the first five pages. I stopped my tally after that. Of course for most folks, I have no idea.

Really? I don’t see one person that stands out as a theist in the first five pages. Agnostic, possibly.

Regards,
MG

You either haven't been paying attention or your definition of 'theist' doesn't match general usage.

.

[_Morley]

At least with theists there would be some common ground to start from.

If theists were so friendly to Mormonism, wouldn't the LDS Church's missionary program be more successful?

.

[_mentalgymnast]

At least with theists there would be some common ground to start from.

If theists were so friendly to Mormonism, wouldn't the LDS Church's missionary program be more successful?

I never said that theists were necessarily friendly to Mormonism. What I did say was that we have common ground with a belief in God. Albeit there are theists that believe in many gods...but hey, we have that in common too.

It’s pretty difficult to really have a substantive discussion around here when we can only, at best, agree to disagree with grace and forbearance. When we’re able to be civil, that’s a bonus. Over on another thread today I made a rather innocuous comment and a poster, who I think makes the claim of being Christian, had a conniption fit simply because I was showing my face, so to speak, on the same thread that she was participating in and made a comment to help her understand why the LDS church sends out missionaries.

It was weird.

Truth is, however, and as I’ve learned with greater clarity on this thread, atheists are ruthless in pummeling believers and showing disdain for those that believe in ancient ‘myths’. That’s OK though. Anything that even has the potential of being true I would expect that it’s been around a LONG time in various iterations.

This has been an enlightening and fun thread. Thanks to those that participated in a substantial way. And no, I’m not bailing as one poster is claiming. The thread has been going along for quite a while. It can’t and doesn’t need to last forever.

I’ve learned some things here and there and hope others have too.

Thanks,
MG

[_Dr Exiled]

If theists were so friendly to Mormonism, wouldn't the LDS Church's missionary program be more successful?

I never said that theists were necessarily friendly to Mormonism. What I did say was that we have common ground with a belief in God. Albeit there are theists that believe in many gods...but hey, we have that in common too.

It’s pretty difficult to really have a substantive discussion around here when we can only, at best, agree to disagree with grace and forbearance. When we’re able to be civil, that’s a bonus. Over on another thread today I made a rather innocuous comment and a poster, who I think makes the claim of being Christian, had a conniption fit simply because I was showing my face, so to speak, on the same thread that she was participating in and made a comment to help her understand why the LDS church sends out missionaries.

It was weird.

Truth is, however, and as I’ve learned with greater clarity on this thread, atheists are ruthless in pummeling believers and showing disdain for those that believe in ancient ‘myths’. That’s OK though. Anything that even has the potential of being true I would expect that it’s been around a LONG time in various iterations.

This has been an enlightening and fun thread. Thanks to those that participated in a substantial way. And no, I’m not bailing as one poster is claiming. The thread has been going along for quite a while. It can’t and doesn’t need to last forever.

I’ve learned some things here and there and hope others have too.

Thanks,
MG

I think any hostility you see from atheists is a result of cheerleading missionary Christians or Mormons pushing their beliefs on others. If missionary work were to cease and desist for perhaps a year or two, attitudes would change toward believers. No one would care if anyone believed in Jesus or not. I think people, in general, want to live and let live, until someone is knocking on their door claiming they are wrong.

[_I have a question]

Why don’t you find something else to do besides attacking the church and it’s members?

Regards,
MG

"If we have truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed." J. Reuben Clark

That's a call for people to scrutinise; to challenge; to investigate; to hold up to the light; to criticise. Unfortunately the Church doesn't stand up too well to such scrutiny. Criticism of the Church is why plural marriage is no longer a thing, why black people have the priesthood, why the Church files stock returns, why gay people are no longer physically tortured, why there is now a two deep interview policy etc etc. The Church only progresses because of criticism, not in spite of it. You should be thanking critics and praising their efforts because they are why you have the Church you've got today.

[_Morley]

Why don’t you find something else to do besides attacking the church and it’s members?

"If we have truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed." J. Reuben Clark

That's a call for people to scrutinise; to challenge; to investigate; to hold up to the light; to criticise. Unfortunately the Church doesn't stand up too well to such scrutiny. Criticism of the Church is why plural marriage is no longer a thing, why black people have the priesthood, why the Church files stock returns, why gay people are no longer physically tortured, why there is now a two deep interview policy etc etc. The Church only progresses because of criticism, not in spite of it. You should be thanking critics and praising their efforts because they are why you have the Church you've got today.

Amen.


The LDS Church boots any who criticize, then turns around and complains that it's primarily those they've booted who are doing the criticism. Meanwhile, it brings joy to their bones to critique anyone and everyone outside their own great and spacious building.

MG thinks it's his right and obligation to rail against those damn secular humanists--but God forbid any one outside his closed system from questioning the Church or the behavior of its anointed.

.