LDS

[RandFan]

I listed in an earlier post claims you have made, and I demonstrated that you didn't provide a source.

Because they are my opinions. The attributions are mine. You are seeking rhetorical advantage and to change the subject. It's dishonest of you.

Your back-door explanation is that those claims were merely your opinion, and as such, you, yourself, constitute legitimate attribution. How, then, is a reader to separate your opinion from supportable, verifiable facts in text you post?

There are no "verifiable" facts. They are opinions. To assert that my opinions must be proven is simply cheap sophistry (and it is dishonest).

A claim is a claim, empirical or otherwise; you are responsible for it in every case. Opinion? Say so. Verifiable fact: Give attribution.

I did say so. I and others have told you now a number of times. So this is just dishonest of you.

 

[RandFan]

The "empirical data" point is irrelevant. You stated the claims as facts because you didn't say they constituted your opinion. I repeat: How are your readers to know when you are stating an opinion and when you are stating a fact? You would place that burden on them, wouldn't you? Opinions require some mitigating introduction, which can be accomplished with a short sentence or phrase. Why are you reluctant to do that? Do you fear it will weaken your argument?

Again you are seeking rhetorical advantage, to keep the subject on me. You can't point to a fact that I can demonstrate so, it's obvious you know that these are my opinions. You've been told that they are my opinions. Yet you dishonestly continue to demand I prove my opinions.

You need to understand that what you are doing is transparent to anyone reading this. You are playing games because these are difficult questions for you to answer.

If you are uncomfortable here you should leave. If you think you are having any positive effect you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Cat Tale]

For Cat (as she seems likely to actually answer the question thoughtfully rather than dogmatically) the same question I asked earlier.
What do you find loving and comforting about your version of god?

You know, one of the weird things about me is I sought out the church rather than the other way around. I looked for a match for me, concluded it was the church (despite having never actually met a member) and called the missionaries and joined. So I guess the answer to what I find loving and comforting about my version of God, is that the Church fits in with what I wanted out of life. I think my answer to your next question might answer this more fully.

Given the powers attributed to this diety this is a know result of the choice of prophet and it would suggest that your god *wants* to make sure only a small portion of the world will actually find the right way to not be punished. Which again to me smacks of a quite unpleasant and petty god.

Based on my experience growing up in a different church, (Methodist), I saw a God who only rewarded a small portion of people, and that the rest of the world would be punished for eternity after death. I never really thought that was fair.

One thing that drew me to the LDS Church, and I think it draws a large number of converts, is that there is a second chance for non-believers in this life to accept it in the next. Not only that, but the deceased will have all the knowledge he had when he departed from this life. He suddenly wakes up from death, finds himself in Paradise with Mormon missionaries teaching him, I mean, wouldn't that be evidence? But on a more serious note, that is how I feel. That is something that enticed me to the LDS Church. I don't really know of any other Christian church that teaches a second chance after you die. Can I prove any of that? No. Does it seem ridiculous to you? Probably!

 

[Craig4]

The Book of Mormon is the word of God. There is nothing of consequence foolish mortals can say against it, no matter how much of their precious mortal probation time they waste on their efforts to fight the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Eternal law is eternal law and will always be so.

The conversation has moved past anything as simplistic as this. The fact that you posted this indicates a lack of belief on your part. Clearly you've decided to reject criticism which is an act undertaken by someone who knows their beliefs can be shaken.

This is the post of someone who knows they have been taken in by a fraud and is unable to face the reality of it. I pity you.

 

[Janadele]

 

[RandFan]

There is no need for smart alec replies re ex-members who may have neglected to remove their names, this is their responsibility to make sure this is done, and would make little difference over all.

Ad hominem poisoning the well. In any event, there are other churches who remove inactive members from their records after a period of years.

Failing to do likewise puts the Church in jeopardy of its own rules of avoiding even the appearance of evil.

No matter how many members there are, does not affect the fact that the Lord has spoken in these latter-days and is gathering his elect for the ushering in of the Millennium.

Evidence?

 

[skyrider44]

skyrider, you are on a sceptic forum. Most posters here are adept at telling the difference between someone stating an opinion and someone making factual claims which require supporting evidence. The fact that you personally seem to have a problem telling the difference is illuminating. . . .

Perhaps you will find the following instructive: "People use facts and opinions to make decisions; you [writer] must help them by showing clearly which is which. You must attribute all opinions and any facts for which there is no commonly accepted truth" The News Manual, Chapter 56, "Facts and Opinions," http://www.thenewsmanual.com Note: The link is inoperative (at least for the moment); consequently, enter "The News Manual" into your search engine.

 

[tsig]

It is the teaching of Brother Samuel of Morse.

s,s,s?

 

[Craig4]

My point exactly. So, what do you believe because it sure ain't what you've been posting?

 

[RandFan]

Perhaps you will find the following instructive: "People use facts and opinions to make decisions; you [writer] must help them by showing clearly which is which. You must attribute all opinions and any facts for which there is no commonly accepted truth" The News Manual, Chapter 56, "Facts and Opinions," http://www.thenewsmanual.com Note: The link is inoperative (at least for the moment); consequently, enter "The News Manual" into your search engine.

Still dishonestly trying to keep the subject on me? You know they are opinions as we've told you they are opinions. You are dishonestly trying to gain rhetorical advantage and change the subject.

 

[Shalamar]

Perhaps Janadele and skyrider44 aren't really Mormons? Because they are making their beliefs, and religion look REALLY bad.

 

[tsig]

You know, one of the weird things about me is I sought out the church rather than the other way around. I looked for a match for me, concluded it was the church (despite having never actually met a member) and called the missionaries and joined. So I guess the answer to what I find loving and comforting about my version of God, is that the Church fits in with what I wanted out of life. I think my answer to your next question might answer this more fully.



Based on my experience growing up in a different church, (Methodist), I saw a God who only rewarded a small portion of people, and that the rest of the world would be punished for eternity after death. I never really thought that was fair.

One thing that drew me to the LDS Church, and I think it draws a large number of converts, is that there is a second chance for non-believers in this life to accept it in the next. Not only that, but the deceased will have all the knowledge he had when he departed from this life. He suddenly wakes up from death, finds himself in Paradise with Mormon missionaries teaching him, I mean, wouldn't that be evidence? But on a more serious note, that is how I feel. That is something that enticed me to the LDS Church. I don't really know of any other Christian church that teaches a second chance after you die. Can I prove any of that? No. Does it seem ridiculous to you? Probably!

So you believe in god

believe Jesus died for sins

believe his message was lost for 1800 years

believe that someone (Moroni) wrote a better account of Jesus's message

believe Joesph Smith found and translated that message.



I can't make it over that first hurdle anymore.

(Once I could do three of them god>Jesus>RCC had his message.)

 

[Craig4]

Perhaps Janadele and skyrider44 aren't really Mormons? Because they are making their beliefs, and religion look REALLY bad.

No, I think they are members of the church (or I have no reason to disbelieve their claims). Sticking your fingers in your ears and humming really loud or doing the intellectual equivalent of same isn't the act of someone who really believes. Why fear the critic if you really believe?

 

[Pixel42]

Perhaps you will find the following instructive: "People use facts and opinions to make decisions; you [writer] must help them by showing clearly which is which. You must attribute all opinions and any facts for which there is no commonly accepted truth"

Something Randfan has done to my satisfaction throughout the thread.

You and Janadele, however, have made many factual claims "for which there is no commonly accepted truth". Where is your evidence?

 

[Janadele]

The doctrines and teachings of the LDS Church are not designed to win a popularity contest, nor do they bend to suit the whims of mankind.

 

[tsig]

Perhaps Janadele and skyrider44 aren't really Mormons? Because they are making their beliefs, and religion look REALLY bad.

Could it be that the appearances in this thread have been too convenient?


(you're not paranoid when the world really is out to get you)

 

[tsig]

The doctrines and teachings of the LDS Church are not designed to win a popularity contest, nor do they bend to suit the wims of mankind.

That's why you still practice polygamy? Oh wait....

 

[RandFan]

The doctrines and teachings of the LDS Church are not designed to win a popularity contest, nor do they bend to suit the wims of mankind.

One would think that an omnipotent god could craft doctrines and teachings that had the ring of truth to them. Not doctrines that were so contradictory.

 

[abaddon]

The subject of Patriachal Blessings had already been introduced to the thread, my post was a response.

But then you deleted and substituted 9 dots. Even though the post in question was quoted multiple times. Why?

 

[tsig]

The doctrines and teachings of the LDS Church are not designed to win a popularity contest, nor do they bend to suit the wims of mankind.

One would think that an omnipotent god could craft doctrines and teachings that had the ring of truth to them. Not doctrines that were so contradictory.

I blame it on the wims.