If you found out that the Golden Plates never existed, would you still be a Mormon?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

And the contemptuous follow up that is completely devoid of reason.

Yet another confirmation of Tex as a congenial, neighbor-loving, and sincere fellow.

And you wonder why some around here don't care for your manner.

You are accusing me of being completely devoid of reason, immediately after calling me swine and turning up your nose? Heh.

Much learning doth make thee mad.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

He asked you a legitimate question and you gave him a completely contemptable answer, then you have the gall to get huffy with his response to your contempt.

Beautiful.

From whence comes the legitimacy of his question? Time after time he has demonstrated that he has no actual interest in what I think.

But here we are, again, talking about Tex of all things. It's sickening.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So what was the purpose for the 11 witnesses?

You're taking me too seriously. If you don't have the evidence, get some people to say they saw the evidence. I'm with you, I'm just poking at you a little since these testimonies are not exactly beyond criticism. FWIW, I'm sure there were plates or something like plates in 1830. So? What other type of object would he use, a squeak toy? The question is were there plates buried in the 5th century in NY. The answer to the first question is not necessarily the answer to the second.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

You are accusing me of being completely devoid of reason, immediately after calling me swine and turning up your nose? Heh.

Much learning doth make thee mad.

You have done nothing but confirm the rightness of my decision not to share my perspective on D&C 1. My reasons for writing what I did are confirmed by evidence--your response here being only one small piece.

And more bullying.

Your conclusion that my response confirmed the truth of the Church was without reason.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

From whence comes the legitimacy of his question? Time after time he has demonstrated that he has no actual interest in what I think.

I am legitimately interested in your interpretation of that passage, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. You can't require that I agree with you, or expect not to counter with questions.

The chutzpah is stunning.

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

But here we are, again, talking about Tex of all things. It's sickening.

Stop whining. You are welcome to ignore me at any time.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

I am legitimately interested in your interpretation of that passage, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. You can't require that I agree with you, or expect not to counter with questions.

The chutzpah is stunning.



You are welcome to ignore me at any time.

Now, why would I not think you're legitimately interested? Where would I get such a crazy notion? Someone help me out here.

Not chutzpah. I'm just stating that I interpret the passage differently than you seem to, and that I do not want to discuss it further with you. I would never require you to agree with me. I wouldn't even know how to go about trying to do such a thing.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Well, given the testimonies of the 3 witnesses, the 8 witnesses, Joseph Smith, and so forth, I would have a very hard time believing all of them lied.

It's always struck me as extremely shallow for anyone to found their faith on the "witnesses'" statements, for many reasons. For one thing, they are so lacking in credibility that they wouldn't be admissible in a court of law for the simple reason that an original signed document can't be produced and there is no evidence such a thing ever existed. Which is ironic, since sworn testimony of witnesses tries to ape a court of law's means for finding truth. This reminds me of those Christian "news networks" aping real news networks. Moreover, yes, there are many more believable explanations for the statements than that they really saw golden plantes and angels, including, yes, that all of these men, most of whom were named Whitmer, lied. That's a lot more believable than the alleged content of the "testimony." I'd love to cross-examine any of them. I'd have a riotous time.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Now, why would I not think you're legitimately interested? Where would I get such a crazy notion? Someone help me out here.

Not chutzpah. I'm just stating that I interpret the passage differently than you seem to, and that I do not want to discuss it further with you. I would never require you to agree with me. I wouldn't even know how to go about trying to do such a thing.

Fine. Discuss or not discuss whatever you want. Just dismount the high horse. You're no more or less civil than I am in these conversations.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

It's always struck me as extremely shallow for anyone to found their faith on the "witnesses'" statements, for many reasons. For one thing, they are so lacking in credibility that they wouldn't be admissible in a court of law for the simple reason that an original signed document can't be produced and there is no evidence such a thing ever existed. Which is ironic, since sworn testimony of witnesses tries to ape a court of law's means for finding truth. This reminds me of those Christian "news networks" aping real news networks. Moreover, yes, there are many more believable explanations for the statements than that they really saw golden plantes and angels, including, yes, that all of these men, most of whom were named Whitmer, lied. That's a lot more believable than the alleged content of the "testimony." I'd love to cross-examine any of them. I'd have a riotous time.

I don't think the statements were intended to meet any legal standards, either of the day, or now. I wonder what the legal standard for "an angel showed it to me" is. Just how would you cross-examine that?

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't think the statements were intended to meet any legal standards, either of the day, or now. I wonder what the legal standard for "an angel showed it to me" is. Just how would you cross-examine that?

He's just making sure, again, that we all know that he does not believe to begin with, and that he can give us a logical explanation why he's right and we're wrong.