One-Minute Answers to Apologist Assertions

[_Buffalo]

The Catholics preached the false doctrine of infant baptisms for most of their history, but we shouldn't view them as being in apostasy. The Popes were just speaking as men. They're still the true church. :)

[_Darth J]

"We don't know why blacks couldn't have the priesthood/it wasn't doctrine."

my point was that since you picked one of the potentially endless possibilities as THE conclusion, it does not mean you are right. Your conclusion is merely one of many possibilities.

"Physical evidence will never prove that the Church is true."

Evidence becomes that which is in the eye of the beholder when all evidence is rejected just because you want it to be. Its a game most apologists probably have no interest in playing with you. Its like the older brother who sets up his younger sibling in some game the elder made up and decides to change at his own convenience. Playing with 6 year olds ain't too fun, in that regard. But watchin' 'em wiggle and squirm, hoping their reasoning isn't exposed is the adorable part that keeps me at least partially interested.

"The papyri were a catalyst."

its already been shown multiple times over the years that Joseph Smith used the word translation in a very loose sense. If ya ain't up on the current scholarship no prob. Go look it up. Even in Joseph Smith' time its been shown the word to include more than just taking one language and forming into another. Really...I read abotu it before. In this sense this becomes nuttin' more than a game of semantics, headed by those who have bones to pick.

"[Insert name of Mormon/LDS leader here] was speaking as a man/speculating/just stating his opinion."

So is it possible for all people in the Church, assuming the Church is true, regarding a particular teaching/idea that is/will turn out to be false to accept this falsehood as truth? yep. I have no problem with that. I guess you and I have different ideas of what a true church is. No big deal. We simply disagree on the premise. I don't think your idea of the presmise is true, and you mine. Can either of us prove the other wrong? I don't think so, but I feel I have a better grounding knowing that all people will err from time to time, and its unreasonable to assume any one person will not err on something.

"It will all work out/be sorted out in the Millenium/the next life."

Yep. And one such teaching proves it is not common. I agree. can't wait to see how God handles all of this in the end, though. I'm on pins and needles, having great faith that He is greater than us all.

[_Molok]

Lol@ that. Well played Darth, well played.

[_stemelbow]

You are right that I am dismissive of derailing my thread, junior high-level comebacks, deliberate ignorance of evidence, and dog-ate-my-homework excuses about why the Church might be true.

good, then you can understand why any LDS would be dismissive of your original OP, as silly as it is.

[quote

I love the deflections...keep 'em coming. I've found that people who avoid the opportunities to engage and instead complain about the person who is replying to the claims made, are often helping the responder moreso than himself. Keep it up.

Hey, if you consider lying to your legally-recognized wife and followers of your church about your secret harem that includes teenage girls and the wives of other men to be moral, more power to you.

So now you're advocating power to anyone who finds the actions above moral? I thought you were no into this relative morality?

Yeah, it's just "something." Just one of those things.

finally...you have abadoned your fallacious reasoning.

Oh, I know there's a whole lot, because people are incapable of relying on what Joseph Smith and his contemporaries said and what they and the modern LDS Church claim. People might get the wrong impression if they relied on the plain meaning of someone's words and the reasonable conclusions to be drawn from their actions.

and people might get the wrong impression if they rely on their own assumptions and additions to the words of Joseph Smith. No big deal. I'm glad you concede that there's a lot to it. Its not an open and shut case, as has been shown as its growing scholarly-attributed list of works on the topic.

There is nothing from what they said they witnessed that is evidence that the Book of Mormon is true. An LDS apostle affirmed that holding the plates in your hand would not tell you that the Book of Mormon is true any more than not having the plates. The testimony of the Eight Witnesses is hearsay with regard to the historicity of the Book of Mormon: someone else told them what the plates were supposed to be. The only thing the Eight Witnesses could say from personal knowledge is that they saw this object and that a representation was made to them about what this object was supposed to be. They had no independent knowledge of the plates they saw actually being what Joseph Smith said the plates were.

For the testimony of the Eight Witnesses to be evidence, you have to have a priori accepted Joseph Smith's claim of what the plates were, because the Eight Witnesses had no way of knowing for themselves whether what they saw was authentic.

It seems like you're having a hard time saying it out right. Is the testimony of the 8 witnesses evidence that the plates existed? If so, then it leads some credibility, albeit very little by itself, to Joseph Smith' story. Simply a yes or no would do for my question. I don't mind explanation but you have danced around so much...

love ya tons,
stem

[_Buffalo]

Ha ha, nice one Darth J.

[_Darth J]

You are right that I am dismissive of derailing my thread, junior high-level comebacks, deliberate ignorance of evidence, and dog-ate-my-homework excuses about why the Church might be true.

good, then you can understand why any LDS would be dismissive of your original OP, as silly as it is.

Of course I can understand why any Latter-day Saint would be dismissive of the OP. Defenders of the LDS faith rely on argument by assertion and reject any evidence contradicting the faith-promoting narrative.

You continue to claim that I am merely asserting things, but you have provided nothing to contradict the evidences I have provided, nor have you provided anything to support your adolescent ripostes.

Hey, if you consider lying to your legally-recognized wife and followers of your church about your secret harem that includes teenage girls and the wives of other men to be moral, more power to you.

So now you're advocating power to anyone who finds the actions above moral? I thought you were no into this relative morality?

Okay. You do find it to be morally acceptable that Joseph Smith lied to his legally-recognized wife and followers of his church about his secret harem that includes teenage girls and the wives of other men. Your position is noted.

Yeah, it's just "something." Just one of those things.

finally...you have abadoned your fallacious reasoning.

You don't happen to know where Warren Jeffs got his ideas about polygamy, do you?

and people might get the wrong impression if they rely on their own assumptions and additions to the words of Joseph Smith. No big deal. I'm glad you concede that there's a lot to it. Its not an open and shut case, as has been shown as its growing scholarly-attributed list of works on the topic.

I remember my missionary days, when I would invite people to get PhD.'s in several different fields so they could understand the Church's teachings. What a choice experience.

For the testimony of the Eight Witnesses to be evidence, you have to have a priori accepted Joseph Smith's claim of what the plates were, because the Eight Witnesses had no way of knowing for themselves whether what they saw was authentic.

It seems like you're having a hard time saying it out right. Is the testimony of the 8 witnesses evidence that the plates existed? If so, then it leads some credibility, albeit very little by itself, to Joseph Smith' story. Simply a yes or no would do for my question. I don't mind explanation but you have danced around so much...

No, it is not evidence that "the" plates" existed. It is evidence that something that was represented to be "the" plates existed.

[_stemelbow]

[quote="Darth J]Of course I can understand why any Latter-day Saint would be dismissive of the OP. Defenders of the LDS faith rely on argument by assertion and reject any evidence contradicting the faith-promoting narrative.

You continue to claim that I am merely asserting things, but you have provided nothing to contradict the evidences I have provided, nor have you provided anything to support your adolescent ripostes.[/quote]

Since you haven't provided any support for your claims, I am merely giving you the assertion back. Seems fair to me. I don't know why your whimpering about it.

Okay. You do find it to be morally acceptable that Joseph Smith lied to his legally-recognized wife and followers of his church about his secret harem that includes teenage girls and the wives of other men. Your position is noted.

you've simply misunderstood my position. No big deal. If you wish to portray me as better suited to W. Jeffs then Monson because of the many wives thing, so be it. Its a silly personal game I don't care to play.

You don't happen to know where Warren Jeffs got his ideas about polygamy, do you?

Funnily enough, i don't know the personal history of W Jeffs much, but I do realize he pretty much got it from his daddy, in the immediate sense.

I remember my missionary days, when I would invite people to get PhD.'s in several different fields so they could understand the Church's teachings. What a choice experience.

You must have been an extremely defficient and weird mission'ry.

No, it is not evidence that "the" plates" existed. It is evidence that something that was represented to be "the" plates existed.

Wow. So the testimony of the 8 witnesses is not evidence that plates existed but only something like plates existed. I think that says it all. You'll deny anything it seems, as being evidence of anything. "No way...Abe Lincoln wasn't shot", spouts one like unto D J, "the witnesses to the shooting don't provide evidence he was shot. They merely provide evidence that something that was represented to be the shooting did take place". Oh the silliness, people resort to when they wish to prove negatives.

love ya tons,
stem

[_Darth J]

[

The reason that "the" is in quote marks is that your question assumes an unproven fact: that the plates shown to the Eight Witnesses were plates that an ancient Hebrew who lived in America buried in upstate New York in case Joseph Smith might live there 14 centuries later, then came back to life and gave to Joseph Smith so these plates could be translated into the Book of Mormon.

Note: the rest of my discussion about stemelbow's uninformed, and frankly, stupid, ideas about what evidence is and how it can be used legitimately are in the thread he started about what "evidence" means.

[_Darth J]

Of course I can understand why any Latter-day Saint would be dismissive of the OP. Defenders of the LDS faith rely on argument by assertion and reject any evidence contradicting the faith-promoting narrative.

You continue to claim that I am merely asserting things, but you have provided nothing to contradict the evidences I have provided, nor have you provided anything to support your adolescent ripostes.

Since you haven't provided any support for your claims, I am merely giving you the assertion back. Seems fair to me. I don't know why your whimpering about it.

Which of my assertions specifically do you claim lack support? That apologists really say what the OP is talking about, as do Simon Belmont and you?

Okay. You do find it to be morally acceptable that Joseph Smith lied to his legally-recognized wife and followers of his church about his secret harem that includes teenage girls and the wives of other men. Your position is noted.

you've simply misunderstood my position. No big deal. If you wish to portray me as better suited to W. Jeffs then Monson because of the many wives thing, so be it. Its a silly personal game I don't care to play.

I understand your position. Your position is, "The Church is true!" Objective reality must therefore be constructed around that position.

You don't happen to know where Warren Jeffs got his ideas about polygamy, do you?

Funnily enough, i don't know the personal history of W Jeffs much, but I do realize he pretty much got it from his daddy, in the immediate sense.

He, and the rest of the FLDS Church, got his ideas from Joseph Smith.

http://fldstruth.org/sysmenu.php?MParen ... &MIndex=0;

I remember my missionary days, when I would invite people to get PhD.'s in several different fields so they could understand the Church's teachings. What a choice experience.

You must have been an extremely defficient and weird mission'ry.

Of course, the alternative is taking what the Church and its leaders say at face value, and we can't have that.

[_Kishkumen]

uh...do you know what is contained in the testimony of the 8 witnesses? I mean its not very compelling to maintain many of the things you have attempted to characterize regarding the Book of Mormon. It was merely them maintaining that they saw and touched the plates and saw the curious engravings on them. This is merely evidence that there were plates. I think you have simply mischaracterized what it is in some silly attempt to dismiss them.

You do think that I have mischaracterized them? In what way? Kindly explain. If you are anything more than a troll, you should be able to detail your objections.

They certainly have some validity even given any one else's attempts to get witnesses.

And I granted them a sliver of validity. I think they believe they saw and handled plates that came from an ancient civilization. Now, if it is your contention that the value of this testimony is limited to the existence of some object that they handled, you are right. Whether that object was in fact a collection of ancient plates from the Nephite civilization is another question entirely. As evidence of the latter, the 8 witnesses are practically useless. So, really, although one can say it is evidence, it could equally be evidence of the existence of plates that Joseph Smith procured to carry out a hoax.