halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
Leaders of all stripes commonly say one thing for public consumption and write another in their personal journals. How many times have VIPs been caught saying the "wrong" thing into a microphone they didn't know was "live"?
What are you, a truther arguing that CIA black ops during the cold war are proof that 9/11 was an inside job? If you want to argue Paul believed a particular thing, provide some evidence, not irrelevant yammering about how other people believe something different than what they wrote.
Nice imagery, even though it's revelatory of naivete about the dynamics of public relations.
Trying to make a claim based on what you wish Paul REALLY meant is nonsensical at best. You can babble all you want about politics, but that doesn't change the fact that you are bulls****ing. Any argument based on what one wishes Paul meant when he wrote the opposite is not an argument, but blatant, naked, wishful thinking.
I could, with just as much accuracy, claim that John Smith REALLY advocated the violent rape of six year old Native children, but he didn't write about it for political reasons.
Don't bother arguing against that accusation. You'd just be exposing your naivete about the dynamics of public relations.
You posit a breathtakingly silly claim.
And just when I thought it couldn't get any more nonsensical.
And yet that's exactly how some of the Lutheran churches I attended described Mormons, as humanists who believe men can become rulers of their own planets.
Claiming it's "silly" doesn't change the fact that many people see you in exactly those terms after examining your cosmology. I know you think you believe in a "god," but your "god" is just a man who was a really good Mormon on another planet. You are a humanist. You do not worship a god, but an ascended man. Your "God" is little different than the "Star Baby" from "2001: A Space Odyssey."
Your inability to realize this is an artifact of the human mind's status as a complex Turing machine. There are limits to self-analysis, and you are currently refusing to examine your own faith from the viewpoint of an outsider. Until you accept the realities of how your faith is perceived, your attempts at apologetic writing will remain clumsy and embarrassing.
For example:
http://woodyoubelieveit.blogspot.com...f-ephraim.html
The above link is to a blog post taken from Treasures from the Book of Mormon, Volume One, by W. Cleon Skousen, PAGES 232- 234 .
I found it to be a fascinating read which generally outlines LDS beliefs and teachings regarding the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. The following is the introduction:
"When the Gospel was restored in modern times, we gained an additional insight into one of the most perplexing riddles of Bible history: "Whatever happened to the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel?" We are far from having the whole answer, but at least we have located two important segments of the Lost Tribes -- the Ephraimites in America and Europe and the people of Manasseh among the aborigines of America and the Pacific Islands. Since Isaiah 11:13-14 speaks of Ephraim and Judah combining together in the performing of a special work, it is particularly significant to have the Lord bring Ephraim out of hiding."
Here we have someone rambling on, claiming there's some kind of "Mystery" to what happened to the "ten tribes" when the historical record and the Bible both agree that the region was invaded and people carted off multiple times. Inventing a "mystery" that's "explained" by your holy text is sloppy, because it's easy to fact check and find the "mystery" isn't a mystery at all.
