Simon Belmont: This is what "quote mining" means

[_Simon Belmont]

Seemingly contradictory?

Correct.

[_Darth J]

Gee, I don't know. I guess it must be that he felt the physical sensation, but how that would be possible, the Church does not say.

So our problem lies in the fact that your definition of "physical" leaves out anything mechanical, whereas I take the more standard definition of "physical." Is that what your quibble is about?

What the “F” are you talking about? "Our" problem? Your insistence that the words in front of your face are not there is "our" problem?

And what quibble? The quibble over whether objective reality exists, which you continually put at issue?

I'm aware that in the postmodernist sea in which Moplogists swim, the meaning of words is subjective. Still, where is "my definition" of physical? And if "your definition" of physical "takes the more standard defintion," then you be sure and show me where it says anywhere in LDS doctrine that there was some mechanical stimulus that caused Jesus to bleed from every pore when he took on the sins and sorrows of the human race.

Just what exactly was your point with the misrepresentation in question? What were you trying to tell Stemelbow, Darth J.?

You have yet, through your endless, tedious pages of babbling, to explain what I supposedly misrepresented. I guess it wasn't a very good strategy to quote official LDS sources and link to them if I wanted to be deceptive. I am aware that you will continue until the end of time to argue by assertion, but for the benefit of others reading this thread

WHERE DID I EVER SAY THAT THE CHURCH TEACHES ANY PARTICULAR MECHANISM OF HOW Jesus WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EXPERIENCE ALL OF THE PAIN, SORROW, AND TRAUMA OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE?

That's the issue that Simon Belmont is simultaneously raising and avoiding with his sacrilegious "trillions of penises penetrating Jesus" remarks.

And I would like to believe you are not stupid enough to ask what I was trying to tell someone in a thread where I specifically said that Mormonism has nothing unique, insightful, or enlightening to say about the problem of evil. I would like to believe that, but I would be mistaken if I did.

Your epic straw man jihad that you still won't let go of is just a demonstration of two essential facets of Mopologetics. One is that any criticism of Mormonism is a priori a lie, so you can't stand it if someone is right when they say something about the Church that isn't faith-promoting. The second is that Mopologists are obsessed with making LDS doctrine not an objective fact (i.e., it is a fact that the Church teaches [X]), but a moving target. As long as Mopologists can keep people from pinning down LDS doctrine, it can't be falsified.

[_Darth J]

The truth is, this thread is dumb.

Yeah, I just randomly put up this thread just to sort of say whatever.......it had nothing at all to do with your insistence, without being able to back it up, that I am lying about what the Church teaches.

A more accurate term, I've already admitted, for what DJ does is datamining -- searching LDS.org to find seemingly contradictory quotes, sentences, phrases, and articles. It is not limited to quotes.

Datamining is not equivalent to quote mining. Quote mining means that you are lying: deliberately taking statements out of context to make it appear that someone said something other than what they really meant.

I have started several threads about contradictory teachings from the Church, and about apologists contradicting the Church. Pretty sure neither the moderators nor anyone else is going to stop you from showing where those contradictions are only "seemingly."

[_Simon Belmont]

WHERE DID I EVER SAY THAT THE CHURCH TEACHES ANY PARTICULAR MECHANISM OF HOW Jesus WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EXPERIENCE ALL OF THE PAIN, SORROW, AND TRAUMA OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE?

I simply assumed that, by "physical," you meant "physical" and not "physical with the exclusion of anything mechanical."

But, in your rage, you have corrected this. The point was that you originally misrepresented the church, and you did.

To be certain, I believe in the atonement and what He did for us. I do not claim to know the ways in which He suffered, only that He did -- for all our pains, sorrows, and sins. He is the redeemer of the world, and the centerpiece to LDS theology.

I have started several threads about contradictory teachings from the Church, and about apologists contradicting the Church. Pretty sure neither the moderators nor anyone else is going to stop you from showing where those contradictions are only "seemingly."

Your interpretation of them is contradictory, yes, but they are not contradictory in and of themselves. That's my whole point. It's not as if the other 14 million members of the Church don't have access to LDS.org -- in fact most probably do, and most come to very different conclusions than you do in your anger.

[_Darth J]

WHERE DID I EVER SAY THAT THE CHURCH TEACHES ANY PARTICULAR MECHANISM OF HOW Jesus WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EXPERIENCE ALL OF THE PAIN, SORROW, AND TRAUMA OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE?

I simply assumed that, by "physical," you meant "physical" and not "physical with the exclusion of anything mechanical."

But, in your rage, you have corrected this. The point was that you originally misrepresented the church, and you did.

Oh, yes it's all rage and anger and the bitter galls of apostasy. We're all combatants on the cosmological battleground on which you see yourself. Just like when my kids are running around the house shooting toy laser guns, that means I really am an Imperial stormtrooper.

Notice to our viewers at home: did you see where Simon demonstrated the place that I "originally misrepresented the Church"? Or does this look like how I called it: that he would continue ad infinitum with his argument by assertion?

To be certain, I believe in the atonement and what He did for us. I do not claim to know the ways in which He suffered, only that He did -- for all our pains, sorrows, and sins. He is the redeemer of the world, and the centerpiece to LDS theology.

But how could Christ have suffered all our pains, Simon, since He did not have a vagina that was penetrated by trillions of penises? It looks to me like you are misrepresenting LDS doctrine.

I have started several threads about contradictory teachings from the Church, and about apologists contradicting the Church. Pretty sure neither the moderators nor anyone else is going to stop you from showing where those contradictions are only "seemingly."

Your interpretation of them is contradictory, yes, but they are not contradictory in and of themselves.

And this is why "Nuh-uh!!!" is the invincible super-weapon in argument. How can you possibly defeat it? Facts, logic, reason......they can all be refuted by the mighty stroke of "Nuh-uh!!!"

However, there is one weakness to nuh-uhism, which is that it is only impressive to the solipsist who invokes it. In the context of external reality, "Nuh-uh!!!" is like masturbation: it might make you feel good, but you are only screwing yourself.

That's my whole point. It's not as if the other 14 million members of the Church don't have access to LDS.org -- in fact most probably do, and most come to very different conclusions than you do

See: argumentum ad populum

The LDS Church teaches that it alone has authority to perform saving ordinances that are acceptable to God. It teaches that there was a great apostasy wherein the keys to and authority of the priesthood were lost and needed to be restored. And yet there are approximately 1.18 billion Roman Catholics who have come to very different conclusions.

Go figure, huh?

ETA: did you notice Simon's rhetorical sleight of hand where he implied that all of the adherents that the LDS Church claims to have are active, believing, and/or knowledgeable about what its taught by the organization that has them on its rosters?

in your anger.

Oh, yes, my anger. I'm not making fun of you at all. At all. It must needs be anger, because you, the Keyboard Evangelist (who had other priorities than going on a mission), are battling the forces of darkness by talking about trillions of penises penetrating Jesus Christ.

[_Simon Belmont]

Notice to our viewers at home: did you see where Simon demonstrated the place that I "originally misrepresented the Church"? Or does this look like how I called it: that he would continue ad infinitum with his argument by assertion?

Yes. Multiple times. Conveniently, you decided to invent a different definition of "physical." By doing this, the word can include or exclude anything you want. Talk about rhetorical slight of hand!

As I said. I simply thought that by "physical" you meant "physical" and not "physical with the exclusion of anything mechanical."

But how could Christ have suffered all our pains, Simon, since He did not have a vagina that was penetrated by trillions of penises? It looks to me like you are misrepresenting LDS doctrine.

I don't know, and it doesn't matter. I'm a faithful member, remember? You aren't.

Your interpretation of them is contradictory, yes, but they are not contradictory in and of themselves.

And this is why "Nuh-uh!!!" is the invincible super-weapon in argument. How can you possibly defeat it? Facts, logic, reason......they can all be refuted by the mighty stroke of "Nuh-uh!!!"

It isn't "nuh-uh" when I've shown how you misrepresent my faith. It's really too bad nobody but you have access to LDS.org ... oh, wait.

That's my whole point. It's not as if the other 14 million members of the Church don't have access to LDS.org -- in fact most probably do, and most come to very different conclusions than you do

See: argumentum ad populum

The LDS Church teaches that it alone has authority to perform saving ordinances that are acceptable to God. It teaches that there was a great apostasy wherein the keys to and authority of the priesthood were lost and needed to be restored. And yet there are approximately 1.18 billion Roman Catholics who have come to very different conclusions.

Go figure, huh?

ETA: did you notice Simon's rhetorical sleight of hand where he implied that all of the adherents that the LDS Church claims to have are active, believing, and/or knowledgeable about what its taught by the organization that has them on its rosters?

There was no slighting of hand, DJ. Again, you misrepresent not only what my church teaches, but what I am saying. Look at what I said: most probably do have access. I said nothing absolute.

In context, other faiths have nothing to do with the fact that many people have access to LDS.org, but conveniently, you are the only one who gravely misinterprets the words of church leaders past and present to support your agenda.

[_Darth J]

Here's a fun game you can play while you're reading this thread:

Find the Evidence To Back Up Simon Belmont's Assertions!

Notice to our viewers at home: did you see where Simon demonstrated the place that I "originally misrepresented the Church"? Or does this look like how I called it: that he would continue ad infinitum with his argument by assertion?

Yes. Multiple times. Conveniently, you decided to invent a different definition of "physical." By doing this, the word can include or exclude anything you want. Talk about rhetorical slight of hand!

For 10 points, find where Darth J ever gave any definition of "physical."

As I said. I simply thought that by "physical" you meant "physical" and not "physical with the exclusion of anything mechanical."

For 50 points, explain why Simon Belmont's subjective, arbitrary assumptions should be imputed to Darth J. You may do so on either philosophical, rhetorical, or logical grounds.

But how could Christ have suffered all our pains, Simon, since He did not have a vagina that was penetrated by trillions of penises? It looks to me like you are misrepresenting LDS doctrine.

I don't know, and it doesn't matter. I'm a faithful member, remember? You aren't.

For 30 points, explain how much you enjoyed Simon Belmont asserting that an ostensibly believing Mormon is telling the truth, but a formerly believing Mormon is lying, when they each say the exact same thing.

And this is why "Nuh-uh!!!" is the invincible super-weapon in argument. How can you possibly defeat it? Facts, logic, reason......they can all be refuted by the mighty stroke of "Nuh-uh!!!"

It isn't "nuh-uh" when I've shown how you misrepresent my faith. It's really too bad nobody but you have access to LDS.org ... oh, wait.

For 20 points, copy and paste where Simon Belmont showed how Darth J misrepresents "my" faith.

Note: keep in mind that Darth J said that the LDS Church teaches that Christ experienced all of our pains in a way we can't understand, and Simon has said this:

"To be certain, I believe in the atonement and what He did for us. I do not claim to know the ways in which He suffered, only that He did -- for all our pains, sorrows, and sins."

ETA: did you notice Simon's rhetorical sleight of hand where he implied that all of the adherents that the LDS Church claims to have are active, believing, and/or knowledgeable about what its taught by the organization that has them on its rosters?

There was no slighting of hand, DJ. Again, you misrepresent not only what my church teaches, but what I am saying. Look at what I said: most probably do have access. I said nothing absolute.

For 30 points, explain how insinuating that 14 million Latter-day Saints have reached different conclusions than Darth J does not suggest that among those 14 million who have access to LDS.org, they all got on, extensively researched LDS teachings, and determined that Church teachings means something other than what is meant by the plain words in front of their faces.

In context, other faiths have nothing to do with the fact that many people have access to LDS.org, but conveniently, you are the only one who gravely misinterprets the words of church leaders past and present to support your agenda.

Ignoring for the moment Simon Belmont's arguing from ignorance and incessant argument by assertion, for 30 points, use specific statements from the board by Darth J to demonstrate what Darth J's "agenda" is. Making things up will result in a substantial point deduction!

[Guest]

Maybe if you gave Simon a tutorial on what quote mining is and what it isn't, and then once in a while got on his ass for claiming Darth J has been quote mining when he hasn't, Simon would stop his ridiculous accusations and there wouldn't be the need for a thread like this to be started. But since your tribalism prevents you from calling out Brother Simon for his constant misuse of the accusation of quote mining, then shut up your whining about a thread like this being started.

Why the anger, Sock Puppet? I don't know of anyone, on either side of the fence, who thinks Asbestosman is or has been unreasonable.

Trying to keep Asbestoman from bowling gutter balls, you know, in the gutter of whining.

Doesn't his opinion hold more weight for you than, say, mine?

Not necessarily. Depends on the post content.

The truth is, this thread is dumb. A more accurate term, I've already admitted, for what DJ does is datamining -- searching LDS.org to find seemingly contradictory quotes, sentences, phrases, and articles. It is not limited to quotes.

How can God's message seem contradictory?

[_sock puppet]

Your epic straw man jihad that you still won't let go of is just a demonstration of two essential facets of Mopologetics. One is that any criticism of Mormonism is a priori a lie, so you can't stand it if someone is right when they say something about the Church that isn't faith-promoting. The second is that Mopologists are obsessed with making LDS doctrine not an objective fact (i.e., it is a fact that the Church teaches [X]), but a moving target. As long as Mopologists can keep people from pinning down LDS doctrine, it can't be falsified.

Your observation that I've underlined is perhaps the strongest evidence of how fragile at this point Simon's testimony is. Simon is willing to die on the most insignificant molehill, as if it is part of a defensive perimeter that encircles and protects a core that is wobbling. The implosion of the testimony is likely imminent.

Most of us post-Mos have gone through this very experience. For me, I dug my heels in and went kicking and screaming with shrills of my own mopologetic jihad for months, before accepting the reality.

In a few months, Simon may be laughing about the fact he made the trillions of penises comment. For a time, he might even include it in a self-deprecating way in his signature line.

[_Yoda]

For 30 points, explain how insinuating that 14 million Latter-day Saints have reached different conclusions than Darth J does not suggest that among those 14 million who have access to LDS.org, they all got on, extensively researched LDS teachings, and determined that Church teachings means something other than what is meant by the plain words in front of their faces.

Wait...Darth...I need you to clarify something for me.

What is it you are actually stating here? Are you concluding that those who are aware of LDS.org and are still faithful members have simply not bothered to study what you have studied at length, and that they would all reach the exact same conclusion you reached if they did?