Let's see where we can get with this

[_stemelbow]

Hey all.

It appears to me "the critic" whomever that may include, seems to often be missing the boat in this whole "discussion" thing.

The critics position, as far as I can tell, seems to be "The Church is not true. It simply can't be true. it is proven false on too many fronts to be able to hold the claim that it is true."

The LDS position seems to be, this is true at least for me, "I have faith that the Church is true. This means I hold my faith as the evidence that the Church is closer to being the true Church than any other organization on earth."

I readily acknowledge I can't show you my faith. Faith is personal. in it I see evidence. But I can't show or demonstrate that evidence.

The critic, as it is, as the arguer must demonstrate his or her position. He/she is beholden to the notion that the Church is demonstrably false. in his/her mind it seems obvious to me, that the Church is false because many particular claims made by the Church shows either no evidence in support of it, or show contradicting evidence. The parameters are illy defined in most cases, so we're left quibbling about non-essentials it seems from my believing perspective. "did the Book of Mormon peoples really exist?" who knows? The critic may think he/she knows but it seems like he/she can't define what would be expected. Can't demonstrate that civilizations are all known and accounted for and that those that are known about are really understood. If that's not demonstrated then there's no support for the proposal that the Book of Mormon events never took place.

We're coming from two separate paradigms. The critics is there is no such thing as faith. The believers is my faith supports my position. There's little if any attempt to address each other. There's little if any attempt to understand each other (and that's with the knowledge that many here are former believers).

That's where we're at. Unless we can address the other side with a good idea of where they are coming from and what they wish to discuss, we'll be left quibbling, as it were, about things like is DCP a bad man? Does Pahoran hate Runtu? Are Mormon idiots? Can a Mormon become president?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

?

What do you think of Martin Luther?

- VERY RESPECTFULLY, DOCTOR CAM

[_stemelbow]

What do you think of Martin Luther?

- VERY RESPECTFULLY, DOCTOR CAM

I think he is a spirit son of God who was probably quite sincere and therefore somewhat inspired by God. He's probably relishing in the blessings of paradise right now awaiting the great and wonderful day of resurrection.

[_Drifting]

I readily acknowledge I can't show you my faith. Faith is personal. in it I see evidence. But I can't show or demonstrate that evidence.

The critic, as it is, as the arguer must demonstrate his or her position.

stemelbow,

I believe one of the barriers to constructive discussion is hypocrisy on the part of LDS posters.

[_stemelbow]

stemelbow,

I believe one of the barriers to constructive discussion is hypocrisy on the part of LDS posters.

Good for you. And another of the barriers is the need to assume hypocrisy from another because of their religious beliefs. That is holding a bigoted view of others due to what they believe, religiously.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

What do you think of Martin Luther?

- VERY RESPECTFULLY, DOCTOR CAM

I think he is a spirit son of God who was probably quite sincere and therefore somewhat inspired by God. He's probably relishing in the blessings of paradise right now awaiting the great and wonderful day of resurrection.

Wow.

That was really... Bizarre.

What do you think of Martin Luther as a critic, buddy?

VRC

[_Drifting]

stemelbow,

I believe one of the barriers to constructive discussion is hypocrisy on the part of LDS posters.

Good for you. And another of the barriers is the need to assume hypocrisy from another because of their religious beliefs. That is holding a bigoted view of others due to what they believe, religiously.

Can you provide a quote like I did?

[_Drifting]

Stemelbow said about DCP:

...so it's not like he's spending time reading here.

and when faced with the evidence went on to say:

Sure DCP came and read some things after he was linked to the site upon his request. Meaning he did indeed read here when someone showed him where the quote was.

Flip Flopping makes it difficult to take the debater seriously.

[_sock puppet]

Those of us that are ex-TBMs have been on both sides of the TBM-non-believer divide. We know the believing perspective as well now as the more enlightened non-believing perspective. Those who are life-long TBMs only see one perspective, because they've only experienced one perspective.

By the way, as far as burdens of proof go, you must first prove the proposition that is not self-evident to your jury before the burden shifts to disprove it. Mormonism is neither self-evident, nor has it been proven.

Also, faith is not evidence. By definition, faith is a belief in the absence of evidence.

[_brade]

The critics position, as far as I can tell, seems to be "The Church is not true. It simply can't be true. it is proven false on too many fronts to be able to hold the claim that it is true."

I'm a critic, and I don't approve that message.

The LDS position seems to be, this is true at least for me, "I have faith that the Church is true. This means I hold my faith as the evidence that the Church is closer to being the true Church than any other organization on earth."

What is it for it to be true at least for you? Can it be true for you and false for me?