A challenge to the board about Mormon Think...

[_subgenius]

CFR that the 2 classes don't exist. You do realize that opinion can be factual right?

i did not make the claim that there were 2 classes, burden of proof is not mine.
and an opinion can be factual?
so a "subjective belief resulting from emotion or interpretation of facts" can be factual....thanks!, i always knew you agreed with Moroni!

CFR that this is not both an opinion and a fact. You do realize that opinion can be factual right?

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
are you new here? (see also above)

CFR that these examples are not factual. You do realize that hearsay can be factual right?

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
are you new here? (see also above)

CFR that the statement is not factual...You do realize that speculation can be factual right?

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
are you new here? (see also above)

its funny because you are promoting that an "opinion" can be factual over-and-over, and you don't realize that it makes you inadequate.

ooh ooh..wait!
CFR that there is NO God.

[_Bob Loblaw]

standing corrected is all to familiar for you is it not?
at least now we have an upgrade from your level of it...you seem to have hit rock bottom with stupidity.
Thanks for commenting!

Lee, it's hard to imagine that you have spent all these years in online apologetics and still remain clueless. But you continue to prove that you comprehend nothing.

[_Tobin]

Tobin,

You really need to pay attention when you read. You completely missed this bit of pertinent information:

The term Urim and Thummim, while used in this revelation and in the ms text does not appear in early publications of the revelation, nor does it seem to have been used in any contemporary document of the principals. No early ms of this revelation survives apparently. In the 1833 Book of Commandments, verse one read "Now, behold I say unto you, that because you delivered up so many writings, which you had power to translate, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them. . . ." Thus, the words "by the means of the Urim and Thummim" in verse one were not part of this verse in the Book of Commandments; nor was section 17, which also makes use of the term Urim and Thummim, printed in the Book of Commandments. Both section 17 and verse one of section 10, as we now have them, first appeared in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. Lyndon Cook writes:

While the retroactive placement of the term in section 10 has led to some speculation relative to the Prophet's having the instrument in his possession, a preponderance of evidence confirms the Prophet's own testimony: "With the records was found a curious instrument, which the ancients called 'Urim and Thummim,' which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate" (History of the Church, 4:537 [Wentworth letter]). The problem here seems to be one of terminology, not whether or not the Prophet had possession of an ancient artifact. Until some time after the translation of the Book of Mormon, the sacred instruments may have been referred to as "Interpreters," or "spectacles." It is possible that Joseph Smith's inspired translation of the Bible played some part in designating the translating instrument "Urim and Thummim." The earliest use of the term Urim and Thummim in Mormon literature is in the Evening and Morning Star (January 1833). An article on the Book of Mormon, undoubtedly authored by W. W. Phelps, stated, "It was translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles--(known, perhaps in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim)." [RJS, 17]
[Phelps' speculation that the Old Testament word "Teraphim" refers to an object or objects similar to the Urim and Thummim is wrong. Teraphim were small household idols. Recent studies in regard to Biblical "Urim and Thummim," historically the object of wide speculation, suggest they were similar in character to the "Interpreters" had by Joseph Smith. See notes in JSCOM.]

1) You assume I was unaware of that. I actually was aware of that.
2) So what?

[Guest]

...

Oh.my.elohim...your idiocy knows no boundaries. First of all, you apparently don't seem to understand what CFR stands for - I should have guessed....Next, you are the one claiming that these opinions, anecdotes and speculations are not "factually correct" just because the statements happen to be opinions, anecdotes and speculation. I merely pointed out that opinion/anecdote/speculation and fact are not mutually exclusive - I said nothing about them being factually correct so your responses are complete and utter failures.

The rest of us are capable of seeing the statements as the opinions, anecdotes and speculations that they are meant to be. They may or may not be factually correct and you were the one tasked with showing us where MT was factually incorrect. Nobody but you, in your utter cluelessness, is claiming that they are factually correct or incorrect hence the CFRs that they are factually incorrect (thus meeting the challenge in the OP) which, as I expected, you completely failed as all you did was point out that they were opinions, anecdotes and speculations...

It would appear that you, as usual, don't actually understand the basics of logical fallacies. Maybe try reading what you are responding to before posting, it will make you look a lot less foolish.

its funny because you are promoting that an "opinion" can be factual over-and-over, and you don't realize that it makes you inadequate.

ooh ooh..wait!
CFR that there is NO God.

Um, an opinion can be factual and I am not sure why this statement of fact would influence my adequacy...Then again, much of what you post makes no sense so I am not sure why that would surprise me...

Again, you don't actually seem to understand what CFR means and why would I need to prove that there is NO god/zeus/elohim/baal/santa claus?.

[_LDS truthseeker]

[quote="Tobin"]
http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/HTMLHistory/v1c3history.html

[quote]

Thanks - added.

[_TrashcanMan79]

...why do you and other ex-Mormons run around seeking every opportunity you can to basically crap on Mormonism? At every opportunity. Not a dot or dash "worthy of criticism" (in your eyes) is missed by the "offenders for a word" - like you.

You've got "self-justification" and "A-G-E-N-D-A", written all over your forehead.

Now let me predict what your reply will include: You "like Mormons", or maybe you "are a Mormon", and you're "trying to be objective".

Maybe you even go to Church, bear testimony, and do what's required, but you're just addicted to sniffing the parrot crap at the bottom of the cage.

Ray, thought you might be interested in the thread at PostMo your post inspired.

[_Chap]

...why do you and other ex-Mormons run around seeking every opportunity you can to basically s*** on Mormonism? At every opportunity. Not a dot or dash "worthy of criticism" (in your eyes) is missed by the "offenders for a word" - like you.

You've got "self-justification" and "A-G-E-N-D-A", written all over your forehead.

Now let me predict what your reply will include: You "like Mormons", or maybe you "are a Mormon", and you're "trying to be objective".

Maybe you even go to Church, bear testimony, and do what's required, but you're just addicted to sniffing the parrot s*** at the bottom of the cage.

Ray, thought you might be interested in the thread at PostMo your post inspired.

Those people left the church and are bitter so their views can be discounted.

Oh wait. RayA has left the church too, and he is, well, sometimes a little ...