All the same old tired criticism are met with all the same old tired pat responses.
Pure win.
BC... If you can prove that the church is true in a way that does not appeal to circular sources, or to a witness of the spirit then we can talk about you being victorious. As of now you, sub, logjam, faqs and radex don't even agree on what constitutes doctrine and yet, all represent the same team.
All I have to do now is pick them off with my shotgun every time some ears show above ground.
And yet by your own admission earlier in this thread the rabbits are multiplying at an ever increasing rate. You must not be too good of a shot.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:48 pm, edited 4 times in total.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
You have made no advances or gained any advantage. You just keep answering criticisms with the same old tired defenses.
Come up with something other than the same tired old criticisms. I've been down every anti Mormon rabbit hole imaginable. All I have to do now is pick them off with my shotgun every time some ears show above ground.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
BC... If you can prove that the church is true in a way that does not appeal to circular sources, or to a witness of the spirit then we can talk about you being victorious.
The witness of the Spirit is the only way and it will always be the only way until the judgement. What I and many others have done, however, is proven that all LDS criticism is too flawed to be taken seriously. Only someone who is intellectually dishonest or ignorant will be guided by such criticism.
As of now you, sub, logjam, faqs and radex don't even agree on what constitutes doctrine and yet, all represent the same team.
I have merely communicated what the Church says in context so perhaps they are not in agreement with the Church itself.
BC... If you can prove that the church is true in a way that does not appeal to circular sources, or to a witness of the spirit then we can talk about you being victorious.
The witness of the Spirit is the only way and it will always be the only way until the judgement. What I and many others have done, however, is proven that all LDS criticism is too flawed to be taken seriously. Only someone who is intellectually dishonest or ignorant will be guided by such criticism.
bcspace, since you're so good a proving things, will please show us in consolidated form the argument from statements from official church publications to the conclusion that everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine unless it says of itself it isn't or something says of it that it isn't?
Here, I'll prepare the format for you:
Premise 1: [insert statement from official Church publication] Premise 2: [insert statement from official Church publication] ... [additional premises here using statements from official Church publications, if needed] Conclusion: Everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine unless it says of itself that it isn't or something else in an official Church publication says of it that it isn't.
BC... If you can prove that the church is true in a way that does not appeal to circular sources, or to a witness of the spirit then we can talk about you being victorious.
The witness of the Spirit is the only way and it will always be the only way until the judgement. What I and many others have done, however, is proven that all LDS criticism is too flawed to be taken seriously. Only someone who is intellectually dishonest or ignorant will be guided by such criticism.
As of now you, sub, logjam, faqs and radex don't even agree on what constitutes doctrine and yet, all represent the same team.
I have merely communicated what the Church says in context so perhaps they are not in agreement with the Church itself.
BC what you have actually done is conceded that the church isn't any more special than any other church/religion, it can affirm no claims to being the only true church, as it can only be proven true by a totally subjective process that witnesses to everyone that their's is the true religion. The members can make no more supportable claims than the EVs, adventists, JWs, the catholics, the hindus, the moslems, the baptist or the macumbeiros and candomblistas, etc etc etc.
How are you forwarding your position again?
Last edited by Guest on Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
BC what you have actually done is conceded that the church isn't any more special than any other church
Unless the Spirit testifies of it's truthfulness, that is correct. This is also why the only rational argument against the LDS Church is Atheism. Everything else deals with spiritual matters which cannot be disproven.
bcspace, since you're so good a proving things, will please show us in consolidated form the argument from statements from official church publications to the conclusion that everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine unless it says of itself it isn't or something says of it that it isn't?
I already answered this question in the pinned thread on the subject. One can answer it rhetorically as well on this wise: If the Church publishes something and says it's not doctrine, is it still doctrine? The only rational answer of course is no and there are several examples such as the printed introduction to the Bible dictionary.
In talking to a TBM friend last week, he asked, thinking that it was impossible, if I have ever met anyone who had followed Moroni's promise and received a witness that the Book of Mormon is not true. To his shock I responded yes, as I have (met such).
If the spirit can affirm to you that the Book of Mormon is true and to another that it is false than it is of no more value as a witness than flipping a coin.
In fact the growth of the church would be better if people were basing their decision on a coin toss. At least that way 50% of investigators would join.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
In talking to a TBM friend last week, he asked, thinking that it was impossible, if I have ever met anyone who had followed Moroni's promise and received a witness that the Book of Mormon is not true. To his shock I responded yes, as I have.
Irrelevant. Why would I not believe that you did not ask with real intent, were not really listening, and/or received an answer from a different spirit? Why would I not believe the parable of the Sower?
Ha, who are you to qualify some one's intent, level of faith, or was answered by a different spirit?
What gives you such privilege? Because you make an unprovable assertion, it somehow gives you the right to create the yardstick? My church is true because it says it is, and anyone who receives "guidance" otherwise isn't doing it right, is self serving to the point of being narcissistic. It is almost akin to saying my dad can beat up your dad in the scale of juvenile arguments.
You better point to something else if you ever want to be taken seriously. Again this does nothing to forward your position as all you are doing is attacking the credibility of another's witness while not forwarding your own argument.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin