“The worst religious text I have ever read.”

[I Have Questions]

Dianetics is a milestone for man comparable to his discovery of fire and superior to his invention of the wheel and the arch.

-L. Ron. Hubbard

Dianetics contains complexity AND chiasmus.

[Gadianton]

So, MG, let's back up a minute.

First of all, all you're doing is taking certain unique Mormon claims and then asking if anyone else makes these same unique claims, and if not, you claim victory, as in your mind, only faiths worthy of consideration make the unique claims of Mormonism. However, if any other entity made such claims, then the claims you note wouldn't be unique, and therefore, you would have insisted on other claims as your gating criteria. Other claims that were, in fact, unique. You're chasing your own tail.

You've already in these very posts, switched criteria to some extent, changing your claim from "second witness" to "another witness". Specifically, the second witness IS a Mormon claim, even if the blue book says "another," and that's because a second witness plays an important role in the law of witnesses, "two witnesses". The second witness has a unique ratifying power that a third and fourth don't have. Even deep doctrines such as the "sure nail" is the second nail. There is a less sacred analogies missionaries use: the Bible is like a nail in a board. The board pivots around the nail, but with a second nail, the place of the board is secured. Adding a third or forth offers no benefit beyond what the second nail already accomplished.

Second of all, you may have looked up something about Scientology from your AI, but have you ever known a Scientologist? I have, and said individual lived among the Sea Org, and I can tell you the beliefs about Jesus among the inner circle are not what your AI has scraped from the Internet.

Third of all, you didn't vote for Nikki Haley. Haley was not on the 2024 Ballot, and if you wrote her name in, it wasn't a vote, because she was not registered with the Utah Secretary of State to receive votes in Utah. You simply defaced the Ballot, IF that's what you did. But you've been quite slippery on this point. You've called me a liar over it, but your claim is trivially impossible.

[MG 2.0]

I assume you might be referring to the Catholic Church? If so, are you an active adherent? If not, why?

Regards,
MG

I'm just trying to follow your logic. You seem to be pleading a special case for Mormonism, and not realizing that Christ's church existed long before Joseph Smith. The argument we are making is that Joseph Smith is as superfluous as L Ron Hubbard. And the Book of Mormon and Dianetics are both irrelevant and unnecessary to follow Christ. Inflated claims about how special those books are, are just that, claims.

If you want to follow a charismatic charlatan like Smith, you might as well follow Hubbard while you're at it. They're two peas in the same pod.

Hi drumdude,
Not to be nitpicky, but what are you referring to when you say, "Christ's Church?"

Catholics (various branches with differing beliefs)?
Lutheranism?
Other schisms?

From your point of view these are all "Christ's Church"? Would Luther have agreed with you? Calvin?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

So, MG, let's back up a minute.

First of all, all you're doing is taking certain unique Mormon claims and then asking if anyone else makes these same unique claims, and if not, you claim victory, as in your mind, only faiths worthy of consideration make the unique claims of Mormonism. However, if any other entity made such claims, then the claims you note wouldn't be unique, and therefore, you would have insisted on other claims as your gating criteria. Other claims that were, in fact, unique. You're chasing your own tail.

You've already in these very posts, switched criteria to some extent, changing your claim from "second witness" to "another witness". Specifically, the second witness IS a Mormon claim, even if the blue book says "another," and that's because a second witness plays an important role in the law of witnesses, "two witnesses". The second witness has a unique ratifying power that a third and fourth don't have. Even deep doctrines such as the "sure nail" is the second nail. There is a less sacred analogies missionaries use: the Bible is like a nail in a board. The board pivots around the nail, but with a second nail, the place of the board is secured. Adding a third or forth offers no benefit beyond what the second nail already accomplished.

Second of all, you may have looked up something about Scientology from your A.I., but have you ever known a Scientologist? I have, and said individual lived among the Sea Org, and I can tell you the beliefs about Jesus among the inner circle are not what your A.I. has scraped from the Internet.

Third of all, you didn't vote for Nikki Haley. Haley was not on the 2024 Ballot, and if you wrote her name in, it wasn't a vote, because she was not registered with the Utah Secretary of State to receive votes in Utah. You simply defaced the Ballot, IF that's what you did. But you've been quite slippery on this point. You've called me a liar over it, but your claim is trivially impossible.

The Book of Mormon and Dianetics are not , by any stretch, comparable in their testimony and witness of Jesus Christ. Not even close.

You know that.

Did Hubbard consider himself to be a Christian?

You are correct. Nikki Haley was not on the 2024 ballot. In my mind, it was wishful thinking when I said that.

I voted for Harris.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

I'm just trying to follow your logic. You seem to be pleading a special case for Mormonism, and not realizing that Christ's church existed long before Joseph Smith. The argument we are making is that Joseph Smith is as superfluous as L Ron Hubbard. And the Book of Mormon and Dianetics are both irrelevant and unnecessary to follow Christ. Inflated claims about how special those books are, are just that, claims.

If you want to follow a charismatic charlatan like Smith, you might as well follow Hubbard while you're at it. They're two peas in the same pod.

Hi drumdude,
Not to be nitpicky, but what are you referring to when you say, "Christ's Church?"

Catholics (various branches with differing beliefs)?
Lutheranism?
Other schisms?

From your point of view these are all "Christ's Church"? Would Luther have agreed with you? Calvin?

Regards,
MG

You’re right, clearly Christ wanted there to be hundreds of years with the wrong church before the correct denomination happened to appear.

It would be silly to think his original church had any legitimacy being, well, the original one.

Or, perhaps he warned against false prophets who would come to you. Saying they had a new religion, new scripture, and wanting 10 percent of your paycheck. Things to think about, if you really want to follow Christ.

Do you put Joseph first, or Him?

[Marcus]

...Third of all, you didn't vote for Nikki Haley. Haley was not on the 2024 Ballot, and if you wrote her name in, it wasn't a vote, because she was not registered with the Utah Secretary of State to receive votes in Utah. You simply defaced the Ballot, IF that's what you did. But you've been quite slippery on this point. You've called me a liar over it, but your claim is trivially impossible.

He called you a liar, but when you prove his lie, he backtracks and redefines his lie as "wishful thinking" Wow. He has no shame.

[MG 2.0]

Hi drumdude,
Not to be nitpicky, but what are you referring to when you say, "Christ's Church?"

Catholics (various branches with differing beliefs)?
Lutheranism?
Other schisms?

From your point of view these are all "Christ's Church"? Would Luther have agreed with you? Calvin?

Regards,
MG

You’re right, clearly Christ wanted there to be hundreds of years with the wrong church before the correct denomination happened to appear.

It would be silly to think his original church had any legitimacy being, well, the original one.

Or, perhaps he warned against false prophets who would come to you. Saying they had a new religion, new scripture, and wanting 10 percent of your paycheck. Things to think about, if you really want to follow Christ.

Do you put Joseph first, or Him?

That's kind of a non answer. Your last few posts have been beating around the bush.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

...Third of all, you didn't vote for Nikki Haley. Haley was not on the 2024 Ballot, and if you wrote her name in, it wasn't a vote, because she was not registered with the Utah Secretary of State to receive votes in Utah. You simply defaced the Ballot, IF that's what you did. But you've been quite slippery on this point. You've called me a liar over it, but your claim is trivially impossible.

He called you a liar, but when you prove his lie, he backtracks and redefines his lie as "wishful thinking" Wow. He has no shame.

No lie. Misremembering the vote/election. Voting for Harris though...you would think I would have remembered that, right?

Getting older...

I assume you think your calling out "liar" is productive? Civil even?

Anything substantial to add to the conversation?

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

You’re right, clearly Christ wanted there to be hundreds of years with the wrong church before the correct denomination happened to appear.

It would be silly to think his original church had any legitimacy being, well, the original one.

Or, perhaps he warned against false prophets who would come to you. Saying they had a new religion, new scripture, and wanting 10 percent of your paycheck. Things to think about, if you really want to follow Christ.

Do you put Joseph first, or Him?

That's kind of a non answer. Your last few posts have been beating around the bush.

Regards,
MG

I’m trying to redirect you away from black and white thinking, and to get you to reexamine your pre existing biases.

Unlike Joseph Smith, we don’t have an angel appearing to us to tell us which church is true. We have to use our brains.

L Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith have a lot in common. Just because one of them integrated Christianity into their religion doesn’t absolve them.

[MG 2.0]

That's kind of a non answer. Your last few posts have been beating around the bush.

Regards,
MG

I’m trying to redirect you away from black and white thinking, and to get you to reexamine your pre existing biases.

Unlike Joseph Smith, we don’t have an angel appearing to us to tell us which church is true. We have to use our brains.

L Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith have a lot in common. Just because one of them integrated Christianity into their religion doesn’t absolve them.

You asked if I put Joseph first or God/Jesus Christ. The answer is, of course, Jesus Christ. That's why I don't give Scientology ANY credence. That's why I DO pay special attention/notice to the claims of Joseph Smith and the restoration.

Regards,
MG