Buffalo wrote:That's not true, stem. No matter how well ANYTHING is proven, any number of unlikely possibilities always remain. For example, while it's been proven that smoking causes cancer, it's still technically possible that aliens are somehow giving smokers the cancer to fool the researchers. That's just as likely as any of the hypotheticals you bring up in defense of your faith.
I know I"m speaking about disproving.
You are using it improperly. It is not meant as an absolute, so that any possibility however remote means that something is unproven.
stemelbow wrote: I agree that's its a personal preferential assessment. That's my point. Its not so clear to many a Mormon that Joseph Smith' behavior was very poor, particularly in light of the circumstances. To you it is a fact. To many an LDS it is not a fact.
The reality that so many members who find out about the evidence think it is more then enough to conclude the church is not true does not fair well for where the current evidence sits. Even you have admitted it does not support the church being true. It's your interpretations of spiritual expereinces that Trump any other evidence, and I guess making up any possibility may help you feel better about it.
To me it is not so black and white either way.
I think you are the one being black and white. Look at how you use the word prove.
Thus, the impasse. But you stating your opinion is the facts of the case is not helpful for discussion for those who disagree with your opinion.
It's hard to have good discussion with someone who thinks any possibility you can think of is valid.
Buffalo wrote:Why does the term "sexual predator" offend you? Joseph made mistakes, right?
It doesn't offend me at all. I just think its inaccurate.
Well, manipulating young girls into having sex with him by promising salvation or threatening damnation (and social ruin) seems to be predatory to me. You may disagree of course.
You said earlier that it's okay for Joseph to sin and still be a prophet. I think that's reasonable in general, but how far does that go? Is it okay to be a sexual predator? An outright rapist? A murderer? A serial killer? Not saying Joseph was all of those things, mind you.
And if that's the standard you have for prophet, shouldn't the standard for member be lower? Currently the church holds the members to a much higher standard than it does the church's founding prophet.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Themis wrote:It's hard to have good discussion with someone who thinks any possibility you can think of is valid.
I think its clear you've misunderstood me. I don't see the need for you to continue if its so hard. And just to note, I do not think any possibility I canthink of is valid. Not even close.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:Well, manipulating young girls into having sex with him by promising salvation or threatening damnation (and social ruin) seems to be predatory to me. You may disagree of course.
And he may disagree that he did that.
You said earlier that it's okay for Joseph to sin and still be a prophet. I think that's reasonable in general, but how far does that go? Is it okay to be a sexual predator? An outright rapist? A murderer? A serial killer? Not saying Joseph was all of those things, mind you.
I don't know. I'm not really one for setting up a standard and saying, "here's how far we go and no further".
And if that's the standard you have for prophet, shouldn't the standard for member be lower? Currently the church holds the members to a much higher standard than it does the church's founding prophet.
Holding high standards on behavior is good.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote: And just to note, I do not think any possibility I canthink of is valid. Not even close.
From what I have seen you tend to go for the ones that favor what you have already concluded. It was not until I started to questions those conclusion that I was open minded enough.
I'm not here to defend my faith, but I am here to discuss and at times to defend the claims of the Church. There is a difference there, but I fear you don't see it. Let me know.
stemelbow, you said in the above post that there is a difference between: 1. Defending your faith And 2. Defending the claims of the Church.
Does this mean your faith is different to the claims of the Church and if so, can you explain the difference please?
:-)
Bump Answering this may help the multitude who currently misunderstand you.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Themis wrote:From what I have seen you tend to go for the ones that favor what you have already concluded.
I think if you reviewed the OP you might get why that is. My faith is my evidence for my religious preference. That does not mean I have all the answers to the questions that are raised by my Church's truth claims at all. that merely means many questions are unanswered. That some presume to answer them all in the negative (or so often in the negative) doesn't mean the questions are answered, necessarily, it means some have presumed answers, but those answers may not be the case.
It was not until I started to questions those conclusion that I was open minded enough.
Well, you're a better man than I am.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.