Mike Reed wrote:Came accross this during my research.
JH July 2, 1856. (Deseret News clip)
A sad day for the Saints as they learn that their prophets (Smith and Young) were wrong.
Their claims to knowing about men living on the moon indicates they were quite willing to make things up with no evidence. If they are quite willing to bull crap about men on the moon as if they knew what they were talking about then they obviously were quite willing to BS about being prophets, about having personal connection to a God which conversed with them.
But there are lots of stupid people in this world gullible enough to believe BS stories and that too obviously Smith and Young were quite aware of. If only one could have heard their inner thoughts, they must have thought what idiots many people are.
That or what has been published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints. See my siggy.
If this is the case, what do we do with every statement made by every leader in every General Conference?
Did they get published by the Church? And considering the doctrine of continuing revelation, are they of latest date on the issue?
Dismiss it all as "opinion"? What of the concept of "modern" and "continuing revelation"?
I think I just answered this question. You know, I think we've this conversation before and you know what the answers are but you can't afford to acknowledge them. You seem to be suffering from the logical fallacy of many questions.
bcspace wrote:I think I just answered this question. You know, I think we've this conversation before and you know what the answers are but you can't afford to acknowledge them. You seem to be suffering from the logical fallacy of many questions.
Not really, BC. It's just that in spite of being labelled an "apologist" myself, my BS filter still tells me what bad apologetics is, and what good apologetics is.
bcspace wrote:The fact that you guys know this is BY's opinion and not doctrine puts the lie in your implications. In order to make your point, you have to resort to yellow journalism which shows your intellectual dishonesty.
So you are calling me a liar now. That is a strange response, coming from a Latter-day Saint. I'd hope (for your own sake) that you only make such baseless accusations out of arm's reach, while safely posting anonymously in the privacy of your own home. You wouldn't want to get your face flattened by someone who is less prone (than I am) to blow your remarks off as the harmless rant of an insecure polemicist.
Not really, BC. It's just that in spite of being labelled an "apologist" myself, my BS filter still tells me what bad apologetics is, and what good apologetics is.
To quote Henry Eyring - yours is "baloney".
The typical response of the intellectually dishonest when cornered.
The fact that you guys know this is BY's opinion and not doctrine puts the lie in your implications. In order to make your point, you have to resort to yellow journalism which shows your intellectual dishonesty.
So you are calling me a liar now.
Is yellow journalism not considered lying?
That is a strange response, coming from a Latter-day Saint. I'd hope (for your own sake) that you only make such baseless accusations
I think the claim of yellow journalism is well founded. You know I am right and instead of adressing the issues head-on, you engage in invective.
out of arm's reach, while safely posting anonymously in the privacy of your own home.
Yet another logical fallacy seeing as how you are also likely in the privacy of your own home.
You wouldn't want to get your face flattened by someone who is less prone (than I am) to blow your remarks off as the harmless rant of an insecure polemicist.
It's unlikely that most individuals could best me in a fight but I see that you are still resorting to invective.
