Crockett Challenges Scratch to a Debate

[_TrashcanMan79]

Well, my posting priviledges have been removed. . .

Wha-?! How did I miss that? This just happen or what? What did you do?

[_antishock8]

The problem with debating a Mormon is he already knows the truth, so it's essential that he redefines terms/words in order to fit his notion of what the truth really ought to be. If the Mormon can't do that successfully then he just debates in the realm of non-reality. The Book of Abraham is the best example of that. It's an open and shut case of fraud. Rather than accept that, the Mormon goes on about missing scrolls, mystical interpretations of the parchments, and ignores the facsimilies that are actually IN the Book of Abraham itself. It goes beyond stupidity and becomes complicity. That's sad.

Everything has been hashed over a 100 times. Everytime a Mormon is shown his argument is baseless, a new theory or twist on an old one is developed as a "possibility". That "possibility" then becomes Internet Canon until it's shown by a critic that it's baseless. Ad Hominems are tossed about, a new theory is developed, and the cycle repeats itself.

Fortunately, these kinds of discussions aren't really for people like Mr. Scratch or Robert Crocket. They're for the people who need to see the lies, duplicity, and obfuscation of Mormons and the Mormon church in order to make an informed decision. What apologists don't know is that they already lost the battle once they started down the apologetic path, but I don't think that will ever dawn on them. They're so mired in self-deception they think they're doing the Lord's work on the Internet. The truth is they're helping ease the way out for many more than they think they're keeping in...

[_Coggins7]

The problem with debating a Mormon is he already knows the truth

It seems to be the case that this is quite true of militant secularists as well, except for the most inveterate epistemological relativists among the more intellectually flaccid members of the liberal cultural hoi polloi.

All things then, are essentially equal at the outset. What is always debated, in any event, whether or not one's opponent believes he already has the truth or not, are the merits of each case or claim as they evidentially or logically stand. Declining to enter the arena of ideas at all on the premise that one's opponent believes he already knows the truth is nothing more than an intellectual cop out; a recusing of oneself from the marketplace of ideas in favor of the safety of one's own philosophical womb.

Anitshock plays the same, threadbare old game played by Bachman and other secular fundamentalists here: he wants TBMs to declare at the outset that the Gospel could be false, and recuses himself from philosophical confrontation with the Gospel until such is forthcoming.

Of course, if the Gospel could be false; if that possibility exists, then TBMs who come to the table of discussion and debate having accepted this premise have already given a massive chunk of ground to their critics by, in principle, denying the power of efficacy of revelation and testimony, and have allowed their critics to set the terms and conditions of debate in a very fundamental epistemological sense.

If the demarcation line between metaphysical naturalism and the Gospel divides anything, it marks the boundary between two vastly different epistemological frames of reference.

Antishock seems to think that the primary purpose of the critical discussion of opposing views is primarily to change the minds of the debators. While this may be one purpose of such discussion, are greater purpose is served by changing or altering the views of those who may be watching or listening who have not yet made up their minds or whose views are not yet committed. The evangelical nature of the Gospel makes it incumbent upon members to "always be ready", as Paul said, with an answer to critics of the Kingdom, and philosophical debate is an appendage to that evangelical feature of the Gospel.

[_antishock8]

The problem with debating a Mormon is he already knows the truth

It seems to be the case that this is quite true of militant secularists as well, except for the most inveterate epistemological relativists among the more intellectually flaccid members of the liberal cultural hoi polloi.

All things then, are essentially equal at the outset. What is always debated, in any event, whether or not one's opponent believes he already has the truth or not, are the merits of each case or claim as they evidentially or logically stand. Declining to enter the arena of ideas at all on the premise that one's opponent believes he already knows the truth is nothing more than an intellectual cop out; a recusing of oneself from the marketplace of ideas in favor of the safety of one's own philosophical womb.

Anitshock plays the same, threadbare old game played by Bachman and other secular fundamentalists here: he wants TBMs to declare at the outset that the Gospel could be false, and recuses himself from philosophical confrontation with the Gospel until such is forthcoming.

Of course, if the Gospel could be false; if that possibility exists, then TBMs who come to the table of discussion and debate having accepted this premise have already given a massive chunk of ground to their critics by, in principle, denying the power of efficacy of revelation and testimony, and have allowed their critics to set the terms and conditions of debate in a very fundamental epistemological sense.

If the demarcation line between metaphysical naturalism and the Gospel divides anything, it marks the boundary between two vastly different epistemological frames of reference.

Antishock seems to think that the primary purpose of the critical discussion of opposing views is primarily to change the minds of the debators. While this may be one purpose of such discussion, are greater purpose is served by changing or altering the views of those who may be watching or listening who have not yet made up their minds or whose views are not yet committed. The evangelical nature of the Gospel makes it incumbent upon members to "always be ready", as Paul said, with an answer to critics of the Kingdom, and philosophical debate is an appendage to that evangelical feature of the Gospel.

Translation:

Bulls**t Bulls**t Bulls**t Bulls**t

[_Coggins7]

The problem with debating a Mormon is he already knows the truth

It seems to be the case that this is quite true of militant secularists as well, except for the most inveterate epistemological relativists among the more intellectually flaccid members of the liberal cultural hoi polloi.

All things then, are essentially equal at the outset. What is always debated, in any event, whether or not one's opponent believes he already has the truth or not, are the merits of each case or claim as they evidentially or logically stand. Declining to enter the arena of ideas at all on the premise that one's opponent believes he already knows the truth is nothing more than an intellectual cop out; a recusing of oneself from the marketplace of ideas in favor of the safety of one's own philosophical womb.

Anitshock plays the same, threadbare old game played by Bachman and other secular fundamentalists here: he wants TBMs to declare at the outset that the Gospel could be false, and recuses himself from philosophical confrontation with the Gospel until such is forthcoming.

Of course, if the Gospel could be false; if that possibility exists, then TBMs who come to the table of discussion and debate having accepted this premise have already given a massive chunk of ground to their critics by, in principle, denying the power of efficacy of revelation and testimony, and have allowed their critics to set the terms and conditions of debate in a very fundamental epistemological sense.

If the demarcation line between metaphysical naturalism and the Gospel divides anything, it marks the boundary between two vastly different epistemological frames of reference.

Antishock seems to think that the primary purpose of the critical discussion of opposing views is primarily to change the minds of the debators. While this may be one purpose of such discussion, are greater purpose is served by changing or altering the views of those who may be watching or listening who have not yet made up their minds or whose views are not yet committed. The evangelical nature of the Gospel makes it incumbent upon members to "always be ready", as Paul said, with an answer to critics of the Kingdom, and philosophical debate is an appendage to that evangelical feature of the Gospel.

Translation:

Bulls**t Bulls**t Bulls**t Bulls**t

This is precisely why my online persona over the last year or so has been abrasive, on occasion, and why either taking many here seriously or respecting them is a monumental task (indeed, impossible, in some cases). The solution, obviously, is the exercising of a degree of personal control greater than heretofore, as well as simply ignoring provocations such as this.

I gave a substantive evaluation regarding a claim antishock made, to which he could have responded with serous attempt at a rational, logically coherent rebuttal. But what we get, instead, is the typical juvenile exmo tirade, essentially, a tantrum that makes up, in the tantrum throwers mind, for his inability to construct a literate, intellectually cohesive argument.

And so it goes...

[_Trevor]

This is precisely why my online persona over the last year or so has been abrasive, on occasion, and why either taking many here seriously or respecting them is a monumental task (indeed, impossible, in some cases). The solution, obviously, is the exercising of a degree of personal control greater than heretofore, as well as simply ignoring provocations such as this.

Heretofore?

Oh brother.

[_rcrocket]

Give me your very best single example of suppression of Church history; cites would help.

I tend not to think of it in terms of "single examples," but rather more of an aggregate "picture painting", as it were. I guess while we're at it we may as well point out that "history" and "suppression" are likely to be contested terms. My opinion is that the Church "suppresses" its history chiefly by omission. E.g., failure to tell investigators about Joseph Smith's troubles with the law, or polygamy, or MMM, blood atonement, the Danites, etc. Suppression also occurs by denying access to sensitive archives. And by keeping the financial records closed, etc.

Well, I deal in evidence, not speculation. And, financial records is a different question. Why don't you pick your very best example of suppression and we'll move on from there? After all, the proposition (the Church suppresses its history) should be supported by at least one good example, no?

If "by omission" is your "best," boy that is weak. The Biblical model requires the slimmest thread of knowledge for baptism -- Phillip and the eunuch. Come on, go out on a limb; give me your best piece of evidence to support the proposition.

[_antishock8]

It seems to be the case that this is quite true of militant secularists as well, except for the most inveterate epistemological relativists among the more intellectually flaccid members of the liberal cultural hoi polloi. All things then, are essentially equal at the outset. What is always debated, in any event, whether or not one's opponent believes he already has the truth or not, are the merits of each case or claim as they evidentially or logically stand. Declining to enter the arena of ideas at all on the premise that one's opponent believes he already knows the truth is nothing more than an intellectual cop out; a recusing of oneself from the marketplace of ideas in favor of the safety of one's own philosophical womb. Anitshock plays the same, threadbare old game played by Bachman and other secular fundamentalists here: he wants TBMs to declare at the outset that the Gospel could be false, and recuses himself from philosophical confrontation with the Gospel until such is forthcoming. Of course, if the Gospel could be false; if that possibility exists, then TBMs who come to the table of discussion and debate having accepted this premise have already given a massive chunk of ground to their critics by, in principle, denying the power of efficacy of revelation and testimony, and have allowed their critics to set the terms and conditions of debate in a very fundamental epistemological sense. If the demarcation line between metaphysical naturalism and the Gospel divides anything, it marks the boundary between two vastly different epistemological frames of reference. Antishock seems to think that the primary purpose of the critical discussion of opposing views is primarily to change the minds of the debators. While this may be one purpose of such discussion, are greater purpose is served by changing or altering the views of those who may be watching or listening who have not yet made up their minds or whose views are not yet committed. The evangelical nature of the Gospel makes it incumbent upon members to "always be ready", as Paul said, with an answer to critics of the Kingdom, and philosophical debate is an appendage to that evangelical feature of the Gospel. This is precisely why my online persona over the last year or so has been abrasive, on occasion, and why either taking many here seriously or respecting them is a monumental task (indeed, impossible, in some cases). The solution, obviously, is the exercising of a degree of personal control greater than heretofore, as well as simply ignoring provocations such as this. I gave a substantive evaluation regarding a claim antishock made, to which he could have responded with serous attempt at a rational, logically coherent rebuttal. But what we get, instead, is the typical juvenile exmo tirade, essentially, a tantrum that makes up, in the tantrum throwers mind, for his inability to construct a literate, intellectually cohesive argument.And so it goes...

[_Mister Scratch]

Give me your very best single example of suppression of Church history; cites would help.

I tend not to think of it in terms of "single examples," but rather more of an aggregate "picture painting", as it were. I guess while we're at it we may as well point out that "history" and "suppression" are likely to be contested terms. My opinion is that the Church "suppresses" its history chiefly by omission. E.g., failure to tell investigators about Joseph Smith's troubles with the law, or polygamy, or MMM, blood atonement, the Danites, etc. Suppression also occurs by denying access to sensitive archives. And by keeping the financial records closed, etc.

Well, I deal in evidence, not speculation. And, financial records is a different question. Why don't you pick your very best example of suppression and we'll move on from there? After all, the proposition (the Church suppresses its history) should be supported by at least one good example, no?

Several examples have of Church "suppression" have already been listed, Bob. Feel free to deal with any of them.

[_Jason Bourne]

I reiterate my challenge to go mano a mano with you in a debate on a topic of your choice dealing with Church history. Your silly rejoinder to me about debating me about something I have said in the past is rejected.

Sorry, Bob, if you are going to reject my choice, then I'm afraid there's nothing we can do.

All the world thus knows that you refuse to debate me on topics dealing with Church history. Instead, you choose only to debate the prior contents of this board and what I may have said on it.

And what's wrong with that?

Besides, you are overlooking the obvious: I *was* interested in "debating" whether or not the BYU "spy ring" was wholly "student-instigated," but you chickened out on that one.

As I have constantly pointed out here, your "claimed" expertise is ethics (I don't get this, citing material you don't have and claiming to have it), rhetoric (you are certainly skilled at honing in on the little nits of what people say), rules of logic (you excel in the Latin, for sure), and the deft insult and malignment of the reputations of real people, but when it comes to being read or deeply read in Church history or doctrine, you just are not there. My challenge is meant to expose you for what you are -- a thinly read agent provocateur.

I have never "claimed" "expertise" for anything, Bob.

I challenge you to a debate on this board with respect to one of the following topics.

Sorry, Bob, but I just don't find those topics very interesting, and prefer to engage in conversation and debate in a more organic fashion. (If I had to choose, though, I'd probably go with the Kinderhook Plates topic, or perhaps the issue of whether or not the Church "covers up" or "conceals" its history, although I have debated that at length many times. Where were you when that happened?) In any case, I agree more or less 100% with my dear old friend Rollo Tomasi.

No surprise here. Scratch would rather continue in character assassination. Too bad. Could be fun to watch. Funny that Scratch in his/her declining to debate calls Bob a chicken.