Book of Mormon Intro Modified

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

This is like talking to Humpoty Dumpty. "When I use a word, it means exaclty what I want it to; nothing more and nothing less." Just becasue it was ever so clear to you doens't mean it is ever so clear to others. In fact, that is one reason people have discussions. Rather than spend the time explaining why it is in your fantastical category (which you eventually do and I was diappointed to find that the reason is so mundane as your utter disbelief of mormonism), you spend the time accusing others of being stupid. This does not endear or enlighten.

(This leaves aside the fact that you may simply be wrong even if we do understand your menaing, although I suspect this is a possibility that you would not entertain).

Of Woot, it will be said, "he was not always right, but he was never in doubt."

[woot]

Originally Posted by creekster

This is like talking to Humpoty Dumpty. "When I use a word, it means exaclty what I want it to; nothing more and nothing less." Just becasue it was ever so clear to you doens't mean it is ever so clear to others. In fact, that is one reason people have discussions. Rather than spend the time explaining why it is in your fantastical category (which you eventually do and I was diappointed to find that the reason is so mundane as your utter disbelief of mormonism), you spend the time accusing others of being stupid. This does not endear or enlighten.

(This leaves aside the fact that you may simply be wrong even if we do understand your menaing, although I suspect this is a possibility that you would not entertain).

The possibility that I'm wrong is something I would love to discuss. It just seem to possible to do so with you guys constantly diverting every conversation into a critical analysis of my phrasing.

Your post is disingenuous, however, as I have clearly explained my position. If there's anything you still don't understand about my position, feel free to ask.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Tex is the quintessential poster who will argue in support of a fundamentalist idea no matter what and will never concede a point which is negative point against the Church.

You are his polar opposite but cut from the same cloth. Arguing with you is the same as arguing with Tex, you're both arrogant, full of yourselves and incapable of civil discussion.

First, I have never admitted the story is based on empirical evidence but the lack of empirical evidence doesn't make it fantastical, especially if it is plausible. That's my point. For argument's sake, I'll concede it might be true or might be untrue, but you're simply dead wrong if you believe as you believe as to the meaning of fantastical.

In that case, any story I make up that is theoretically possible is worthy of respect and is not fantastical. I guess fantastical just lost its meaning.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

If you were an honest and thoughtful person, Tex, this is what you would say.

"Although I might disagree in nearly every other instance, I have to now admit that Adam and others who criticized the 'principal ancestor' language of the BofM intro were right. It is now clear that the Church agrees with Adam and others that the language went too far, was unsupported by either evidence or revelation, and needed to be stricken. While I reserve the right to object to future positions taken by Adam and his ilk, I will now give greater pause and realize that like a stopped clock, they are occasionally right on target."

Yes, you predicted correctly. Cheers to you.

Now, on to the mission of killing the Manifesto quote, and doing away with door-to-door missionary work.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

In that case, any story I make up that is theoretically possible is worthy of respect and is not fantastical. I guess fantastical just lost its meaning.

Now you're assuming there is empirical evidence Joseph Smith just made it up. He may have made it up, I'll grant that possibility, but provide me the empirical evidence thereof. Did you pull that one out of your arse?

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Of Woot, it will be said, "he was not always right, but he was never in doubt."

Yet more baseless crap. I doubt everything. This whole discussion is about your acceptance of fantasy and my doubt of it.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Yet more baseless crap. I doubt everything. This whole discussion is about your acceptance of fantasy and my doubt of it.

You never doubt the certitude of your own position. Even you can divine the meaning of that axiom.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Now you're assuming there is empirical evidence Joseph Smith just made it up. He may have made it up, I'll grant that possibility, but provide me the empirical evidence thereof. Did you pull that one out of your arse?

You're confused. Science deals in "what's more likely?" and doesn't concern itself with finding evidence against people's fantasies. If there isn't positive evidence for something, then it's not worthy of belief. It's not the other way around.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by woot

The possibility that I'm wrong is something I would love to discuss. It just seem to possible to do so with you guys constantly diverting every conversation into a critical analysis of my phrasing.

Your post is disingenuous, however, as I have clearly explained my position. If there's anything you still don't understand about my position, feel free to ask.

This is almost comical. (It would be if I didn't think you were so serious.) Are you wrong? Not now that I unerstand that you think the story is fantastic becasue you think it sprang from Joe SMith's head. That's your opinion and you can have it. The entire point is that your post made it sound like you thought it was fantastic becaseu "it" was disproveable. The "it" turns out to be Joe Smith's story instead of the other possibly proveable parts of the topic. Next time, be a little quicker to explain and a little slower to hurl invectives and you might find that this whole process goes a little better.


Btw, any response at all, of any type, to my sincere inquiry about the woven mat theory? I will tell you exactly why I want it, btw. First, I think it is interesting and I am unaware of what evdicen for this idea exists. IOW, I am curious about it. Second, I would also be interested to know what evidcen you think qualifies as compelling.

Can you help me out here? Or at least tell me you won't help me out?

[woot]

Originally Posted by creekster

How about some of that evidence on the woven mats? Even if you think I am stupid, I would still appreciate the cites.

I can't seem to find anything immediately. I read a news article about it a week or so ago and watched an interview with the guy at the Smithsonian who is the major proponent of that theory. Beyond that, your google is as good as mine.