LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
skyrider44 said:
"One and one" is a unit; thus the correct verb is. . .is. By the same grammatical reasoning, "ham and eggs" is a unit; thus, "Ham and eggs is Mike's breakfast favorite."
Click to expand...

No. "One and one" may be a unit, if one is referring to arithmetic. "One and one" may also be a pair of pronouns (ie. One (spoon) and one (fork) are two (utensils)). In your original question you did not specify, nor was it clear in context, which sense you intended. If we're talking about breakfast, then it may also be the case that ham and eggs are two of the ingredients in a Denver Omelette.
 
skyrider44 said:
...I remain a faithful, lifelong Latter-day Saint even while acknowledging difficulties involving my faith's sacred works. If those difficulties did not exist, why would the Church find it expedient to mount a multi-faceted apologetic effort?

Critics fail to point out--in the spirit of fairness--that those difficulties are at least mitigated by the remarkable spiritual insight found in certain passages of the BoM and the BA. ...
Click to expand...

How is it anything but fraud to purvey a hoax as spiritual insight?
skyrider44, everyone knows the BoA is a hoax.
What can possibly justify its use as a religious text?
 
Of course I asked an absurd question in response to an absurd claim. When I was in high school a classmate argued that modern computers were evidence that aliens intervened in human affairs, because he could not understand how humans could have created computers on our own. He simply could not comprehend that there were people significantly more intelligent that he was.

The Book of Mormon was KJV fan fiction written in a complete historical vacuum at what was at the time a fourth or fifth grade reading level. Smith didn't need access to a library to write it. Absurdities like horses at the time period claimed by the book and advanced metal working show he did no such research anyway.

The Book of Mormon is no more or less complex than what one would expect from a con man trying to create a fake bible appendix. There is NOTHING about it that makes its composition without a computer remarkable. Frankly, Wikipedia access would have dramatically improved the book as Smith would have been able to look up and remove the more egregious historical absurdities.
 
skyrider44 said:
There are, in fact, dozens of examples of spiritual insight in the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but just quoting a bunch of dogma as though it is self-evidently true doesn't qualify as evidence of the truth of your doctrine, or any other, for that matter. The same thing can be done by Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Scientologists, etc.
 
>>"Ham and eggs is one of my favorites."
This is correct, if one considers "ham and eggs" as a unit, or fixed expression.

But:
Ham and eggs were [*was] found in the victim's refrigerator.

>>"Six months is [*are] a long time to wait."
Often, a seemingly plural construction may be syntactically singular for purposes of pure semantics. "Six months" in the above is semantically a unit.

Note, however that in the sentence:

>>"Six months are set aside for my vacation next year."
The phrase "six months" conveys a meaning of a particular number of months more specifically and therefore uses the plural verb "are", and using "is" would be a bit odd at best.


>>"The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form"
I can see how "its" could grammatically have as its antecedent "spirit and body".

On the other hand, "reunited" already means "united again", so "reunited again" must mean "united again...again", which strikes my ear as oddly redundant.

This reminds me of the "you didn't build that" furor that Obama set off a while back, wherein "that" (singular) referred to the aggregate of semantically separate units. Perfectly fine English, by the way.

[/grammar purist]
 
Last edited:
Prometheus said:
No. "One and one" may be a unit, if one is referring to arithmetic. "One and one" may also be a pair of pronouns (ie. One (spoon) and one (fork) are two (utensils)). In your original question you did not specify, nor was it clear in context, which sense you intended.
Click to expand...

I did not write the sentence in which the error was made. As I recall, the poster was referring to "body and soul"--wording to that effect.

If we're talking about breakfast, then it may also be the case that ham and eggs are two of the ingredients in a Denver Omelette.
Click to expand...

You have changed the parameters; hence, your examples, though correct, do not apply to my point.

The overarching rule, expressed by professional grammarians, indicates that my point about "one and one is two" is correct, to wit: "When the subject stands for a definable unit, such as money, measurement, time, and food combinations, the verb is, indeed, singular: Where IS my $50? Three months IS a long time to wait." (Daily Writing Tiips [available on the Internet])

Another example: "When a seemingly compound and plural subject comes to be regarded as singular through popular usage [the verb is singular]:
corned beef and cabbage is an Irish tradition." (About.com: "Grammar and Composition")

The site Word reference.com simply states "One plus one is two" is correct.

And Answers.com asks "Which is correct, 'one and one IS two' or 'one and one ARE two'"? It responds: "The correct wording is 'one and one IS two.'"
 
Last edited:
Foster Zygote said:
I'm sorry, but just quoting a bunch of dogma as though it is self-evidently true doesn't qualify as evidence of the truth of your doctrine, or any other, for that matter. The same thing can be done by Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Scientologists, etc.
Click to expand...

What you denigrate as "dogma," LDS consider doctrine. The test of its validity is not whether or not you consider it true.

Your response is exactly what I anticipated. It functions much like a knee-jerk when a doctor taps the knee cap with a rubber hammer.
 
For goodness' sake, who gives a monkey's?

I still don't like it but for the sake of moving on from this pointless off topic tangent I'm prepared to accept that "The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form" may indeed be grammatically correct. It's still not a spiritual insight. It's a statement of dogma.

ETA after seeing the post above which crossed with this one: dogma, doctrine, I don't care what you call it as long as you don't call it spiritual insight. Because it isn't.
 
Last edited:
skyrider44 said:
What you denigrate as "dogma," LDS consider doctrine.
Click to expand...


And what anyone not indoctrinated into the fairytale considers to be bollocks.


skyrider44 said:
The test of its validity is not whether or not you consider it true.
Click to expand...


No, the test of its validity is how well it matches reality and I have some bad news for you.


skyrider44 said:
Your response is exactly what I anticipated. It functions much like a knee-jerk when a doctor taps the knee cap with a rubber hammer.
Click to expand...


Except that it's nothing like that at all.
 
skyrider44 said:
What you denigrate as "dogma," LDS consider doctrine. The test of its validity is not whether or not you consider it true. Your response is exactly what I anticipated. It functions much like a knee-jerk when a doctor taps the knee cap with a rubber hammer.
Click to expand...

What is the test of it's validity? I generally consider a thing as true if it conforms to reality, how about you?


I anticipate

1. ignored

2. personal attack

3. redefine reality.
 
"Insight"

Please define your terms. What do you mean by "insight"?

I don't see how repeating a concept that is thousands of years old is an "insight".
 
skyrider44 said:
What you denigrate as "dogma," LDS consider doctrine.
Click to expand...
dog*ma |ˈdôgmə|
noun
a principle or set of principles laid down by
an authority as incontrovertibly true : the
Christian dogma of the Trinity | the
rejection of political dogma.

The test of its validity is not whether or not you consider it true.
Click to expand...
What test has confirmed the validity of any of the things you've offered as evidence that Joseph Smith must have been a true messenger of God, rather than an opportunistic con-man?

Your response is exactly what I anticipated. It functions much like a knee-jerk when a doctor taps the knee cap with a rubber hammer.
Click to expand...
Your response is pretty much what I've come to expect based on your previous behavior. You've attempted to evade acknowledging the failures of your argument by histrionically playing the victim. It's just the continuation of a pattern that goes back to your failure to defend or renounce your erroneous claim that faith is a component of scientific methodology.
 
skyrider44 said:
What you denigrate as "dogma," LDS consider doctrine. The test of its validity is not whether or not you consider it true.

Your response is exactly what I anticipated. It functions much like a knee-jerk when a doctor taps the knee cap with a rubber hammer.
Click to expand...

Why is it knee jerk to simply point out that you're wrong? You were anticipating the correct response, which is that the BoM and all other Mormon texts are frauds. Perhaps you anticipated this because you're defending the indefensible.
 
skyrider44 said:
What you denigrate as "dogma," LDS consider doctrine. The test of its validity is not whether or not you consider it true.

Your response is exactly what I anticipated. It functions much like a knee-jerk when a doctor taps the knee cap with a rubber hammer.
Click to expand...

...And you are still, unsurprisingly, running away from the truth that "acknowledging Christ as 'the authority' " for an LDS practice is not the same thing as demonstrating that the bible provides support for the idea that Christ instituted, or ordained, or approved of a practice...as was demonstrated with the "baptism for the dead" mention in I Cor. 15:29.
 
Slowvehicle said:
...And you are still, unsurprisingly, running away from the truth that "acknowledging Christ as 'the authority' " for an LDS practice is not the same thing as demonstrating that the bible provides support for the idea that Christ instituted, or ordained, or approved of a practice...as was demonstrated with the "baptism for the dead" mention in I Cor. 15:29.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point. Please elaborate.
 
skyrider44 said:
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point. Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

You said,
And I'm still waiting for a single example of an ordinance performed in an LDS church or temple that does not acknowledge Christ as the authority for that ordinance.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9478095#post9478095

...to which I responded,
"Acknowledging" christ "as the authority" for a practice is not the same as having biblical support for a uniquely LDS practice...which is one reason so many other xianists are loath to declare LDS as fellow xianists.

What, if any, is your scriptural supp0rt for baptizing the dead? What, if any, is your scriptural support for maintaining the family unit in the afterlife? For your "three levels of glory"? For the whole multiple 'gods'/people becoming 'gods' thing?
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9478500#post9478500

RandFan pointed out that"baptism for the dead" is mentioned in I Cor. 15:29.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9478529#post9478529

To which I responded that it was not Jesus who is said to have been said to be "the Christ", who mentioned "baptism for the dead", but Paul--and Paul did not so as an example of what xianists should do, but what the pagans did.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9478547#post9478547

Now, follow:

Nowhere in the xianist bible is Jesus who is said to have been said to be "the Christ" said to have instituted, approved of, suggested, or called his followers to practice "baptism for the dead".

Claiming Jesus who is said to have been said the be "the Christ" as the "authority" for the "ordinance" of "baptism for the dead" is on the same level of intellectual accuracy and honesty as claiming Darwin as the "authority" for "social darwinism" and the anti-semitism of the Third Reich; or claiming Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley as the "authority" for the image of shambling, green-skinned, bolt-necked, "rapid oxidation unacceptable", inarticulate monsters.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom