There's something strange about 'the Mormon debater'

[_bcspace]

in reference to the three verses bcspace noted about contention that somehow trumped the simple and difficult to twist words of the Mormon Jesus:

paul = A guy writing to Jude

an adulterous poser = Joseph Smith

Pre-mormon Jesus Alma = The Mormon Jesus chastised those that "contended" - which would include the ficticious Alma as well as others written about.

Like I noted, keep contending bc, coggs & others. Defend the indefenseable. Cover for a God you neither know or understand.

Using ad hominem against long dead prophets is not an impressive argument.

[_wenglund]

What is the point of debating Mormonism, for believing Mormons?

LDS missionaries are told explicitly not to Bible bash. LDS GA's constantly tell members that conversion "only comes through the sweet spirit of God", not through debate. The Book of Mormon Jesus criticizes religious "disputations". Most Mormons can't help but regard those who have left or rejected Mormonism as either too dumb to understand "the gospel", or too evil to stick with it - making it even more pointless, from the Mormon's perspective, to debate.

Most crucially, to engage in debate is to tacitly concede that (empirically-discernible) facts and logic impose constraints upon what one may justifiably believe; but this is just what Mormonism denies.

Mormon theology might pay lip service to "studying it out in your mind", but any question is decided in the end by "feelings" taken to be divinely-given, and/or simply crediting what "the prophet" said. Hinckley made this point himself in his "Loyalty" GC talk a few years ago.

So what are all these online Mormon "debaters" even doing, really?

I don't come to Mormon related discussion boards with the intent to "debate". Rather, my intent is to clarify and correct false generalization about my faith (like the above--though I will leave that for later) and to provide a differing point of view. Mostly, though, I want to help ameliorate whatever unnecessary and life-limiting animus that may be felt on either side towards the other. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Moniker]

What is up with the mention of ad homs all the time? Sheesh, let's just insult people if we may and move on with it. I see that at MAD now, a lot, too. Good grief, the mentioning of the ad homs is more annoying then the ad homs themselves.

Wade, if your intent is to clarify how come I rarely can converse with you without a misunderstanding? :)

I perceive no such restraints, for in my defense of my beliefs, I will as easily appeal to the metaphysical as to the empirical, and to regard metaphysical discernment as being, generally speaking, more reliable, in terms of its use as a sensor of fact/truth, than the tools employed in any laboratory. Of course, the inherent difficulty of using metaphysical sensors is the degree of fine calibration required – calibration parameters which seldom have relevance for someone else. We communicate “beyond the veil” on a frequency peculiarly our own, and learn how to make judgments based on the peculiar nature of the signals we discern.

You speak in gobbly gook. I can't discern what in the world you're saying most of the time. That may be because I have my fact/truth detector calibrated in just the right frequency so that I can discern tiddlywink speak when I view it.

[_Tal Bachman]

Of course I know who said it, Tal. I would be interested to know what you understand the "true and living Church" to be. We would need to define the terms before moving on in this direction.

---Actually, the phrase is: "The only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth".

By the way, if you really think that phrase allows for non-exclusive authority claims, then...there is no point in me discussing this with you. Why don't you convince me otherwise by telling ME what "what you understand" that phrase to mean? And after that, you can try telling me what you think Hinckley's baldly black-and-white statement "really" means.

I await your answers...

[_wenglund]

What is up with the mention of ad homs all the time? Sheesh, let's just insult people if we may and move on with it. I see that at MAD now, a lot, too. Good grief, the mentioning of the ad homs is more annoying then the ad homs themselves.

Wade, if your intent is to clarify how come I rarely can converse with you without a misunderstanding? :)

Regardless of how adept one may be at clarifying (I don't know that I am all that skilled), that because of peoples' diverse fields of experience and differing world views, it may often take many steps and attempts and much effort to scale the, at times, mountain of faulty perceptions. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Of course I know who said it, Tal. I would be interested to know what you understand the "true and living Church" to be. We would need to define the terms before moving on in this direction.

---Actually, the phrase is: "The only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth".

By the way, if you really think that phrase allows for non-exclusive authority claims, then...there is no point in me discussing this with you.

As soon as I ask for a definition of terms you point out that there is "no point" in discussing it further?

Why don't you convince me otherwise by telling ME what "what you understand" that phrase to mean?

I'd be glad to discuss it. I'd prefer, however, to have you answer my question first. I know it seems lame to say but "I asked you first." I'm disappointed that I even have to point that out.

And after that, you can try telling me what you think Hinckley's baldly black-and-white statement "really" means.

I await your answers...

I don't see a problem with some absolutes, that hasn't been my contention. My contention is over what, where or how those absolutes are described or understood. This is one reason why I am asking you to define the terms. I await your explanation of what the "only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth" statement indicates.

I see you await my answers, but I have been "awaiting" longer, and still await.

[_Tal Bachman]

I await your explanation of what the "only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth" statement indicates.

----What is up with you guys? Could Mormonism's exclusive authority claims be any clearer?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I await your explanation of what the "only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth" statement indicates.

----What is up with you guys? Could Mormonism's exclusive authority claims be any clearer?

Are you saying the "only true and living Church" statement consists of the claim exclusive divine of authority?

[_Tal Bachman]

Are you saying the "only true and living Church" statement consists of the claim exclusive divine of authority?

---I don't know if that was a typo, or you actually meant to write the words "the claim exclusive divine of authority". I don't know what that might mean...

If by that phrase, you meant to say that the church claims exclusive divine authority, of course it does, if words have any meaning.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Are you saying the "only true and living Church" statement consists of the claim exclusive divine of authority?

---I don't know if that was a typo, or you actually meant to write the words "the claim exclusive divine of authority". I don't know what that might mean...

If by that phrase, you meant to say that the church claims exclusive divine authority, of course it does, if words have any meaning.

I'll fix my comment to reflect my question again, as I clearly blew it last time.

Are you saying the "only true and living Church" statement consists only of the claim to exclusive divine authority?