1. Did Joseph Smith marry other men's wives, and if so, why? 2. Was there post-manifesto plural marriage 3. What is the purpose for the limited geographic theory of the Book of Mormon? 4. Should the Church publish its finances? 5. Does the Church cover up its history? 6. Does the Church have a legitimate basis to claim that it is the only true church? 7. Was the Book of Abraham a revealed work, or merely a fraud? 8. Was Joseph Smith deceived by the Kinderhook Plates? 9. What was the purpose for the Jupiter Talisman? 10. Did B.H. Roberts doubt the Book of Mormon, and if so, why? 11. Was Joseph Smith tried for fraud in the Bainbridge proceedings?
This was Bob's caveat:
I am willing to debate specific topics on specific issues, not general ones where mere handwaves suffice as rhetoric.
Scratch's response? Scratch wants to go around the sugar bowl yet again on comments Bob had already made on this board in his usual style of artificial quibbling and mind reading. Then, Scratch wants to debate the BYU "spy ring" and peer review at FARMS, two of his favorite demons he likes to call up (even though Bob had already debunked his endeavors to place the first at the Church's door in any direct fashion, while others have set Scratch straight on the latter again and again and again) when, what is apparently his substantive lack of knowledge on other subjects is broached.
Come out from under the blanket Scratch, and into the arena of ideas. Those of us about to hand you your gluteus maximus on a silver platter, salute you.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
I am willing to debate specific topics on specific issues, not general ones where mere handwaves suffice as rhetoric.
And, as if on cue, Tomasi follows up with the following:
My answers:
1. Yes. Reason: he did not recognize their prior civil marriages.
2. Yes.
3. Depends on who you ask, but I think it's running for cover from mounting scientific evidence.
4. Yes.
5. Depends on what you mean by "cover up," but I think the Church does this on occasion (or at least waters down or misleads).
6. Depends on what you mean by "legitimate." Certainly there is that belief (and doctrine per the D&C) in the Church.
7. Could "revealed" include the possibility it is not an ancient records of real peoples, but more allegory?
8. Yes.
9. You'd have to ask Joseph, but I think it was consistent with his belief in folk magic/occult.
10. Privately, and late in life, I think he did. Why, I'm not sure, but he analyzed the Book of Mormon from a scientific angle for many years, and perhaps the dearth of helpful evidence disheartened him.
11. I think it certainly was akin to fraud, even if that's not the legal term that was used.
And so it goes. Rollo wipes out the entire Church in a few brief sentences.
This is nice work if you can get it.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
I don't see that in the list Scratch. Of course, if Bob wants to debate that subject, that's his choice, but what, pray tell, is it that precludes you from making a selection from among his initial choices?
Well, does the question "should the Church publish its finances" encompass the history of those finances? We'll have to let Bob have his say on this, I suppose.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
Is there any way, Scratch, we can start with a clean slate here, and you identify one single example of the Church's suppression of its history? Just one? Don't force me to wade through prior posts of yours.
I proposed several topics; you picked the suppression of history. I would now like to discuss, on an evidentiary case by case basis, your best example. I may lose, I may concede, I may win. But, I deal in evidence.
Coggins7 wrote:I don't see that in the list Scratch. Of course, if Bob wants to debate that subject, that's his choice, but what, pray tell, is it that precludes you from making a selection from among his initial choices?
Well, does the question "should the Church publish its finances" encompass the history of those finances? We'll have to let Bob have his say on this, I suppose.
I already selected "Does the Church cover up its history?", and Bob asked me to provide my "favorite" example of such. I don't have a "favorite" ('cause I love 'em all!), but am willing to discuss, or "debate", the history of the Church's finances, and whether or not this information has been "covered up." Answer: Yes, it has. End of story.
See: Bob does not actually want to debate. He wants to score a point and try and get revenge for the many times I have embarrassed him.
Coggins7 wrote:I don't see that in the list Scratch. Of course, if Bob wants to debate that subject, that's his choice, but what, pray tell, is it that precludes you from making a selection from among his initial choices?
Well, does the question "should the Church publish its finances" encompass the history of those finances? We'll have to let Bob have his say on this, I suppose.
I already selected "Does the Church cover up its history?", and Bob asked me to provide my "favorite" example of such. I don't have a "favorite" ('cause I love 'em all!), but am willing to discuss, or "debate", the history of the Church's finances, and whether or not this information has been "covered up." Answer: Yes, it has. End of story.
See: Bob does not actually want to debate. He wants to score a point and try and get revenge for the many times I have embarrassed him.
That's not true. Revenge is not my motivation. I am here to have fun.
Let me then start with the opening proposition: "Mr. Scratch refuses to identify a single anecdotal story of the Church suppressing its history." Will you agree with that proposition?
Last edited by _rcrocket on Sun May 11, 2008 7:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I think the bell has now proverbially tolled for this thread's chances of ever moving beyond the set-up phase. Bob says the following:
Is there any way, Scratch, we can start with a clean slate here, and you identify one single example of the Church's suppression of its history? Just one? Don't force me to wade through prior posts of yours.
I proposed several topics; you picked the suppression of history. I would now like to discuss, on an evidentiary case by case basis, your best example. I may lose, I may concede, I may win. But, I deal in evidence.
Scratch then replies to Bob through a reply to my last post thusly (following Rollo's lead earlier in the thread):
... am willing to discuss, or "debate", the history of the Church's finances, and whether or not this information has been "covered up." Answer: Yes, it has. End of story.
See: Bob does not actually want to debate. He wants to score a point and try and get revenge for the many times I have embarrassed him.
My take? This is an utter exercise in futility, as far as Mr. Scratch is concerned. Nor has anyone else yet stepped up to the plate regarding Bob's challenge.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
rcrocket wrote:I proposed several topics; you picked the suppression of history. I would now like to discuss, on an evidentiary case by case basis, your best example. I may lose, I may concede, I may win. But, I deal in evidence.
Here is my "best example": The Church, starting at about the mid-20th century, has suppressed the history of its finances.
rcrocket wrote:That's not true. Revenge is not my motivation. I am here to have fun.
Let me then start with the opening proposition: "Mr. Scratch refuses to identify a single anecdotal story of the Church suppressing its history." Will you agree with that proposition?
No, not really, since I've already identified several. Let me propose a counter proposition: "Bob refuses to deal with any of the provided examples of the Church suppressing history." Do you agree?
Here is my "best example": The Church, starting at about the mid-20th century, has suppressed the history of its finances.
I know its not the case that you just "don't get it" Scratch. You're not dense, not by any means. This is a vague, general proposition, and nothing whatever like the concrete examples you know very well Bob is looking for. We cannot precede to debate your claim until a substantive example, or set of discreet examples that can be analyzed as to there evidential legitimacy is forthcoming.
Let me then start with the opening proposition: "Mr. Scratch refuses to identify a single anecdotal story of the Church suppressing its history." Will you agree with that proposition?
This seems to be the perennial state of affairs.
No, not really, since I've already identified several.
You've done no such thing, except in vague outline, a safe area in which you believe you can never be conclusively pinned down.
Last edited by Dr. Sunstoned on Sun May 11, 2008 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.