Sethbag wrote:Wrong. I've said this before, many times, and I'll probably say it quite a few times again. I was a smart guy too, and I "thought around" all of the problems with Mormon truth claims that had been building up slowly in my mind for decades. The big difference between me and you on this issue is that I finally recognized that I was doing that, and made myself take that recognition seriously. I then decided, in a knock-down, hair-pulling internal struggle between my natural inclination toward intellectual honesty and my natural impulse to be loyal to the tribe and testimony, not to do that anymore.
When it comes to things that support the church. My whole point was that you're happy to do it when it's required to support your new worldview.
The very key thing one must understand is the Mormon church is not hiding behind their apologists. They put them squarely out front, on stage so to speak, by having their articles and thoughts published in The Ensign. This is a tacit endorsement of the apologists' views by the Mormon church itself.
Very sobering if you consider the ramifications...
Very Respectfully,
Doctor CamNC4Me
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
The very key thing one must understand is the Mormon church is not hiding behind their apologists. They put them squarely out front, on stage so to speak, by having their articles and thoughts published in The Ensign. This is a tacit endorsement of the apologists' views by the Mormon church itself.
Very sobering if you consider the ramifications...
Very Respectfully,
Doctor CamNC4Me
Yes, but they do not officially endorse their apologia so as to create plausible deniability.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:The very key thing one must understand is the Mormon church is not hiding behind their apologists. They put them squarely out front, on stage so to speak, by having their articles and thoughts published in The Ensign. This is a tacit endorsement of the apologists' views by the Mormon church itself.
Very sobering if you consider the ramifications...
And, if you're sober when you do the math, you notice that they do so two or three times a decade or so, which means about two to three times every 120 issues, which means roughly about twice to three times every 1200 articles. Which is something on the order of two or three tenths of a percent of the time. Which, thin as it is, seems to be quite enough to keep a Scratch's engines running perfectly well. No high octane rating is required.
Mak, it's possible that you may be right about me and my blind spots. I've been susceptible to using my intellect to think around the problems in my worldview before, with Mormonism, and I may well be, indeed I probably am, guilty of it in some other areas of my life where I've just not recognized it yet. I can accept that, knowing I'm doing my best, and that I'm willing to change my mind on things based on evidence and good, well-supported argumentation. That's all we can do, really. We human beings are just smart enough to get ourselves in trouble. It's a very human thing.
Maklelan, I hope you will take this seriously. I believe sincerely that you have been using your intellect and your smarts to think your way around the evidence against Mormonism. Consider all of the main criticisms, and all of the FARMSesque defenses against them. These defenses are such classic examples of what I'm talking about, it just screams out to be understood by you.
The Mormon Church and its beliefs are entirely manmade. I've been saying this for a while now, and I'll keep saying it over and over, because it's 100% dead-on truth - the Mormon church is not just not true, it's obviously not true. The reason it's not obvious to you is really at the heart of the problem.
Last edited by Anonymous on Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Daniel Peterson wrote:And, if you're sober when you do the math, you notice that they do so two or three times a decade or so, which means about two to three times every 120 issues...
Good Afternoon Dr. Peterson,
Thank you for affirming my position. It is a rare pleasure to be in accordance with you. Glad to see you admit the Mormon church endorses apologia in an official capacity.
Very Respectfully,
Doctor CamNC4Me
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Good Afternoon Dr. Peterson,
Thank you for affirming my position. It is a rare pleasure to be in accordance with you. Glad to see you admit the Mormon church endorses apologia in an official capacity.
Very Respectfully,
Doctor CamNC4Me
I'd insert some prior to "apologia" in your last sentence. I don't see a blanket endorsement from the Brethren for all apologia or all apologists.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
JohnStuartMill wrote:Heh, "hell". Probably the only thing sillier than Mormonism's early history is mainstream Christian theology. "Yes, of course an omnibenevolent God would create a place where people don't believe in Him will suffer for eternity!"
4. We find in the prophet Isaiah, that the fire with which each one is punished is described as his own; for he says, "Walk in the light of your own fire, and in the flame which ye have kindled." By these words it seems to be indicated that every sinner kindles for himself the flame of his own fire, and is not plunged into some fire which has been already kindled by another, or was in existence before himself.
You've gotta be crapping me. Where does Isaiah say anything about hell? "Ooh, he's talking about lighting a fire; that must mean he's talking about hell!"
Of this fire the fuel and food are our sins, which are called by the Apostle Paul “wood, and hay, and stubble."--Origen, De Principiis 2.10.4
Even if this view is correct, that doesn't mean that God isn't an asshole. God could easily make it such that the sins of which we're unaware -- or that we erroneously, but with good faith, determine to not be sins -- don't condemn us. That He doesn't means that, even if He exists, He isn't worthy of worship.
Look, I know you're dumb enough to think that whatever has a Latin title must be correct, but I'm not. Next time, come up with something a little stronger, yeah?
JohnStuartMill wrote:You've gotta be crapping me. Where does Isaiah say anything about hell? "Ooh, he's talking about lighting a fire; that must mean he's talking about hell!"
You are a pretentious damn moron if ever there were one.
Isaiah 66:24
24 And they shall go out and look at the dead bodies of the people who have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.
God could easily make it such that the sins of which we're unaware -- or that we erroneously, but with good faith, determine to not be sins -- don't condemn us. That He doesn't means that, even if He exists, He isn't worthy of worship.
Your opinion is duly noted and discarded.
JohnStuartMill wrote:Look, I know you're dumb enough to think that whatever has a Latin title must be correct, but I'm not. Next time, come up with something a little stronger, yeah?
I'm not the one with the worthless degree. Moreover, you are the dullard who keeps attributing to me beliefs which I do not necessarily espouse.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
