Warbler said:
georgec said:
This might have been discussed before, but how do you feel about South Park's lampooning of Mormonism and their broadway play, The Book of Mormon?
I never what South Park, so I wouldn't know.
They are whatting your every move Warb.
I never knew you were a mormon.
georgec said:
This might have been discussed before, but how do you feel about South Park's lampooning of Mormonism and their broadway play, The Book of Mormon?
I feel it's disrespectful and mischaracterizes our church and history, but whatever. It's not like it's anything new. Besides, we actually enjoy turning it to our fun advantage now and then.
http://www.myspace.com/video/lord-of-chaos/mormons-the-correct-answer/2373188
DuracellEnergizer said:
I've also got a question - one that may also have already been answered here. What is the LDS' position on the theory of evolution?
Let me give you a starting point on research:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Evolution
The official Church position is actually relatively neutral. Leaders have spoken against it, but a few have also showed some openness to the idea. More recently they simply say it is not of particular theological concern (a pretty safe statement). You will find that most members do not believe in it and hold that it is against Church doctrine. I hold a somewhat ambiguous view, understanding that it is not actually Church doctrine not to believe it, understanding that there are issues that may seem irreconcilable, but believing that all things truly are compatible in the end. That probably didn't make much sense. Let me put it this way: I do believe Adam and Eve were the first man and woman God created. Were they a product of evolution, or were they made "from scratch" with similar traits to existing creatures? I'm not certain, and I don't feel it's terribly important. If I'm answering a test in Biology 101, I don't feel any guilt providing answers that support the evolution of man. But when I'm teaching Sunday school (which I do, to the majority of the adults in my congregation, incidentally), I teach that Adam was the first man with no dissonance. Make sense?
darth_ender said:
Make sense?
Whatever happened to the gold plates and seer stones?
“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_plates#Returning_the_plates
There are second hand stories, but the primary story from Joseph Smith simply describes the situation as having returned the plates to the same angel who instructed him how to get them in the first place. See the link for further reading.
"Pffftt...Convenient timing! Dum dum dum dum dum!" Yes, of course, good ol' South Park to point out what of course no critic had noticed in the prior 170+ years of my church's existence. We have plenty of reasons to justify why we believe the plates were actual, real objects. Joseph Smith had 11 official witnesses of the plates, not one of whom ever denied having seen the plates in spite of the fact that many became estranged from Smith and the church. Most of those stayed within the movement, often joining some schismatic group, and two returned to the main branch. This singular fact is strong evidence of its authenticity, as those opposed to the church or its leadership had a wonderful opportunity to discredit a key element of the Church's doctrine. Even those who never came back to Mormonism in any form still maintained their original testimony.
I wasn't thinking of South Park when I asked that question. I was genuinely curious if the artifacts had somehow been preserved.
While I might disagree or have different beliefs, that discussion is reserved for the insane Politics thread.
It's cool of you to take all the questions on here. Not many people would be so open, methinks.
“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”
darth_ender said:
We have plenty of reasons to justify why we believe the plates were actual, real objects. Joseph Smith had 11 official witnesses of the plates, not one of whom ever denied having seen the plates in spite of the fact that many became estranged from Smith and the church. Most of those stayed within the movement, often joining some schismatic group, and two returned to the main branch. This singular fact is strong evidence of its authenticity, as those opposed to the church or its leadership had a wonderful opportunity to discredit a key element of the Church's doctrine. Even those who never came back to Mormonism in any form still maintained their original testimony.
Wow, so eleven men who lived over a hundred and fifty years ago may or may not have claimed they saw these plates, but they certainly didn't deny it, and are never recorded to have done so even after they had falling outs with Joseph Smith. This counts as strong evidence?
Other plausible reasons for the 11 never to deny the existence of the plates even if they never really did actually see them: Admitting they are fake would be admitting their own dishonesty in the matter and devaluing the credit of their word in all matters, followed by a potential backlash from those followers they led astray. They may also have feared violent action taken the others who were still members of the movement. These are just a couple of plausible explanations, there could be any number of others.
Surely if you are going to believe something so unlikely, something that contains in its text a history of America that is so abundantly at odds with what the objective world knows of America's history, you are basing it on stronger evidence than 11 men who are said to have seen the original plates and never denied it. Right?
Aw, crap! You're right! I had nothing to go on but a flimsy story about 11 men, and you threw it out the window! *sob* How could you!?!
Actually, you can come up with hypothetical situations to justify it, but in reality for these men, it would have been easier on their lives to deny it in many cases. In the early years, it was far easier to be a Mormon, and when they left the Church, they lost their positions of authority. Those who returned did so in spite of no reinstatement. They could have lived quiet lives apart from anything Church related and probably have been happier. If they had recanted, most would have lost nothing, and possibly gained something.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Character
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Eight_witnesses
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Other_Book_of_Mormon_witnesses
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Recant
This site is obviously pro-Mormon, and therefore will provide a slanted view. But you would be impressed with Mormon academics--they are not simple, superficial, and dismissive of contrary evidence. Let me give an example: the Book of Mormon has been criticized due to the fact that we believe the Native Americans have Hebrew blood (a bit of an oversimplification, but to make it clear). A fellow named Rod Meldrum has set up seminars and websites devoted to his research that "proves" that Indian blood is indeed quite saturated with Hebrew genetics. And most LDS scholars reject his claims, in spite of how hunky dory and promising they might sound. They question his methodology, knowledge of the subject, and conclusions on that and a number of points, because they do not believe it holds up to scientific scrutiny.
There is in fact a surprising amount of tangible evidence that often is unconvincing to many outside the church, but is quite fascinating to members.
But in reality, I wish to make it clear. This thread is not a "convert OT.com to Mormonism" thread. This is an educational thread. I am not going to produce proof that the God or Christ or Joseph Smith or this church is real to you or anyone else. But to me, the belief I have does not rely on these 11 men you so easily and quickly dismissed without real thought or research of your own. The evidence I have I believe comes from a higher source. My testimony is based on far more evidence, both scientific and spiritual, than you give me credit for.
darth_ender said:
Aw, crap! You're right! I had nothing to go on but a flimsy story about 11 men, and you threw it out the window! *sob* How could you!?!
...
I am not going to produce proof that the God or Christ or Joseph Smith or this church is real to you or anyone else. But to me, the belief I have does not rely on these 11 men you so easily and quickly dismissed without real thought or research of your own. The evidence I have I believe comes from a higher source. My testimony is based on far more evidence, both scientific and spiritual, than you give me credit for.
Good use of mocking sarcasm as a defense. If you're just going to get on the defensive when you can't answer something, this thread probably wasn't a very good idea. I felt my question was legit and fair.
I am not sure why you think I am easily and quickly dismissing your eleven men without real thought or research of my own (other than the obvious answer: because my conclusions are different than yours). I grew up in an area with a very high population of Mormons, my closest friends growing up were Mormons, and just about every neighbor and friend I ever had from childhood to my early teens tried to convert me every chance they got. I've studied with many Mormons and spent a fair deal of my own time reading about their history and about their leaders. It is a subject I've always found really interesting, and I've spent a good deal of time in it.
There is so much objective tangible evidence that raises some very large exclamation points such as the Book of Abraham written in hieroglyphs really being Egyptians texts having nothing to do with Abraham, or the history of the Americas as presented in the Book of Mormon being entirely at odds with historical evidence, or all scientific data showing the Native Americans originated from Asia and were most certainly not descendents of the Hebrews (I'll definitely take some time to look into the case you mentioned), it is kind of hard for me to even begin to think in a way that would make all these inconsistencies and lose ends fit together.
I know Mormon apologists have an answer for everything point I could possibly bring up, and all are explanations they are 100% confident in, but all those answers have one very large factor in common: they all start in the middle and work their way outward. They all start with the conclusion, and build a circle of semi-plausible explanations and potential evidences around that conclusion; rather than looking at the evidences and following them to the most plausible conclusions. So no, I am not impressed with Mormon academics, while they may not be dismissive of contrary evidence, they certainly don't treat it fairly.
A non-Mormon and entirely non-biased observer isn't going to look at the same pieces of evidence as a Mormon and come to the same conclusions. No one else is going to look at what remains of the Joseph Smith Papyri, translate it, and say, "Yeah, see, if he translated these in a "nontraditional" way, they could say things totally different than what real Egyptologists have found them to say, therefore we can conclude that the Book of Abraham is totally legit". Only someone starting at, "These have to be legit, but the evidence clearly indicates otherwise... so how?" would come to these kinds of conclusions.
Darth Ender, I'm a bit curious about Alma 7:10, which seems to prophesy that the "Son of God" (presumably Jesus Christ) will be born in Jerusalem. Obviously, this constitutes at least an apparent contradiction with the Bible, which specifies the birth of Christ, both predictively and descriptively, as Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2; Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4-7). I'm sure this has been addressed by LDS apologists before, but I'm curious as to what your take on it is. Thanks.
Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!
This question could easily go to anyone of a broad swath of Christian faiths.
Does it bother you that most of the people you know and interact with everyday are going to burn in hell for all eternity? It would bug the HELL out of me.
When you're in heaven, will you ever think, "I wonder how Boost and Bingowings are doing... oh yeah, they're suffering infinite torment for all eternity." and then go back to strumming your harp? I'm not sure I could enjoy heaven knowing that, if somehow I end up there.
Edmund Blackadder says :
The thing about Heaven, is that Heaven is for people who like the sort of things that go in Heaven, like, uh, well, singing, talking to God, watering pot plants...
TheBoost said:
This question could easily go to anyone of a broad swath of Christian faiths.
Does it bother you that most of the people you know and interact with everyday are going to burn in hell for all eternity? It would bug the HELL out of me.
When you're in heaven, will you ever think, "I wonder how Boost and Bingowings are doing... oh yeah, they're suffering infinite torment for all eternity." and then go back to strumming your harp? I'm not sure I could enjoy heaven knowing that, if somehow I end up there.
So THAT'S why some religious folk keep trying to "help" me.
CP3S said:
darth_ender said:
Aw, crap! You're right! I had nothing to go on but a flimsy story about 11 men, and you threw it out the window! *sob* How could you!?!
...
I am not going to produce proof that the God or Christ or Joseph Smith or this church is real to you or anyone else. But to me, the belief I have does not rely on these 11 men you so easily and quickly dismissed without real thought or research of your own. The evidence I have I believe comes from a higher source. My testimony is based on far more evidence, both scientific and spiritual, than you give me credit for.
Good use of mocking sarcasm as a defense. If you're just going to get on the defensive when you can't answer something, this thread probably wasn't a very good idea. I felt my question was legit and fair.I am not sure why you think I am easily and quickly dismissing your eleven men without real thought or research of my own (other than the obvious answer: because my conclusions are different than yours). I grew up in an area with a very high population of Mormons, my closest friends growing up were Mormons, and just about every neighbor and friend I ever had from childhood to my early teens tried to convert me every chance they got. I've studied with many Mormons and spent a fair deal of my own time reading about their history and about their leaders. It is a subject I've always found really interesting, and I've spent a good deal of time in it.
There is so much objective tangible evidence that raises some very large exclamation points such as the Book of Abraham written in hieroglyphs really being Egyptians texts having nothing to do with Abraham, or the history of the Americas as presented in the Book of Mormon being entirely at odds with historical evidence, or all scientific data showing the Native Americans originated from Asia and were most certainly not descendents of the Hebrews (I'll definitely take some time to look into the case you mentioned), it is kind of hard for me to even begin to think in a way that would make all these inconsistencies and lose ends fit together.
I know Mormon apologists have an answer for everything point I could possibly bring up, and all are explanations they are 100% confident in, but all those answers have one very large factor in common: they all start in the middle and work their way outward. They all start with the conclusion, and build a circle of semi-plausible explanations and potential evidences around that conclusion; rather than looking at the evidences and following them to the most plausible conclusions. So no, I am not impressed with Mormon academics, while they may not be dismissive of contrary evidence, they certainly don't treat it fairly.
A non-Mormon and entirely non-biased observer isn't going to look at the same pieces of evidence as a Mormon and come to the same conclusions. No one else is going to look at what remains of the Joseph Smith Papyri, translate it, and say, "Yeah, see, if he translated these in a "nontraditional" way, they could say things totally different than what real Egyptologists have found them to say, therefore we can conclude that the Book of Abraham is totally legit". Only someone starting at, "These have to be legit, but the evidence clearly indicates otherwise... so how?" would come to these kinds of conclusions.
I have to say that for someone so *tough*, most of our conversations have at times startled me with your over sensitivity. It was a joke. Geez, man!
As for your question, it is truly a question easily broadened to all religions. Logically there are things unexplained and one has to rely on faith. the last paragraph you quote was supposed to catch the gist of that. If you do not believe in faith in the unexplainable, then why should I have to try to prove it to you?
As for the witnesses, my links were supposed to address your questions and provide more information on their character including quotes from their contemporaries. If you took the time to read them, it probably would have answered your questions. I can address your very specific questions, but I'm already limited on time if you haven't noticed my decrease in activity on this board. If you really, really want answers to the hypotheses you provided (which really are weak considering you know very little of the circumstances of these individuals), then I will do whatever research is necessary to at least provide an explanation, which I'm sure you'll quickly dismiss. But just to get you started, I believe you mentioned that one reason they never denied their testimonies was because of their fear of losing influence or alienating those that followed them. I actually think I already answered this, but I suspect your irritable mood may have interfered with you noticing: these men had already lost their standing with the majority, or even all members of the Church. Many had no social pressure to return, and likely would have faced more pressure to denounce what they had seen. But none did. That was my point. I'll be more specific if you require in a future post, which may not be for a few days as I really have a horrendous week ahead of me, tying me up even on Saturday and Sunday.
Just remember, I didn't start this thread so I could prove my church correct or so someone else could prove me incorrect. I started it to answer questions about my faith. Feel free to question why. Feel free to press me a bit hard. But know that I admit now that I will never prove my faith as correct, and if you want to take the time to be a bit demeaning (you mean that's the only reason you believe in your church???), you are missing the intended spirit of the conversation.
Please don't be upset, but just keep in mind that I feel your intentions were somewhat belittling. That is why I responded with playful sarcasm.
Akwat Kbrana said:
Darth Ender, I'm a bit curious about Alma 7:10, which seems to prophesy that the "Son of God" (presumably Jesus Christ) will be born in Jerusalem. Obviously, this constitutes at least an apparent contradiction with the Bible, which specifies the birth of Christ, both predictively and descriptively, as Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2; Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4-7). I'm sure this has been addressed by LDS apologists before, but I'm curious as to what your take on it is. Thanks.
10 And behold, he shall be aborn of Mary, at bJerusalem which is the cland of our forefathers, she being a dvirgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and econceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.
"The land" can mean region. Bear in mind that this verse is also speaking to a group of people that had not been in the Holy Land for hundreds of years. They were probably not familiar with the geography, but knew where Jerusalem was.
Bethlehem was a suburb of Jerusalem, very close (I think no more than 5 mi.). If I were to tell you I served my mission in Alpharetta, Cumming, Kennesaw, Griffin, and Buchanan, you'd probably not know what I was referring to. But if I told you I served my mission in Atlanta, you'd probably have a better idea.
I don't have the exact verses at the ready, but bear in mind that the Old Testament calls Jerusalem "The city of David." Luke 2 also calls Bethlehem "the city of David."
And yes, this has been addressed extensively by apologists as well and doesn't bother me in the least.
EDIT: Sorry this looks so ugly. It's what happens when you copy and paste.
darth_ender said:
I have to say that for someone so *tough*, most of our conversations have at times startled me with your over sensitivity. It was a joke. Geez, man!
What are you even talking about? Where did I come off as sensitive at all, let alone overly so?
I feel like every time we have a discussion you want to read all sorts of things into my posts that aren't there.
darth_ender said:
but I suspect your irritable mood may have interfered with you noticing...
Seriously, where do you come up with stuff like this? I wasn't in a bad mood when I wrote my previous post. Your newfangled computer that can read people's moods and emotions through the internet must need recalibration.
Feel free to press me a bit hard. But know that I admit now that I will never prove my faith as correct, and if you want to take the time to be a bit demeaning (you mean that's the only reason you believe in your church???), you are missing the intended spirit of the conversation.
Someone asked about the gold plates and the seer stone, you mentioned the eleven witnesses, and I was surprised that was considered "strong evidence" for the existence of the gold plates. Yes, I was legitimately asking if that was really the best evidence for their existence, but from the sounds of things I way overstepped the boundaries of the sort of inquiry your are comfortable with.
No, you didn't Perhaps it's your style, but I often feel when you write something, you tend to be condescending and belittling. Thus, I detect an "irritable mood." And when you sound snappish ("Oh, you were sarcastic, which means you can't provide a real answer"), it just sounds like you were overly offended by my innocent sarcasm and are resorting to criticism. Perhaps it's just the way you write, but on numerous occasions it feels like a "grumpy grump" response. If I misread you, I apologize.
darth_ender said:
"The land" can mean region. Bear in mind that this verse is also speaking to a group of people that had not been in the Holy Land for hundreds of years. They were probably not familiar with the geography, but knew where Jerusalem was.
Bethlehem was a suburb of Jerusalem, very close (I think no more than 5 mi.). If I were to tell you I served my mission in Alpharetta, Cumming, Kennesaw, Griffin, and Buchanan, you'd probably not know what I was referring to. But if I told you I served my mission in Atlanta, you'd probably have a better idea.
I don't have the exact verses at the ready, but bear in mind that the Old Testament calls Jerusalem "The city of David." Luke 2 also calls Bethlehem "the city of David."
And yes, this has been addressed extensively by apologists as well and doesn't bother me in the least.
Thanks for the explanation. It's pretty well in sync with explanations I've heard from my other LDS friends. Personally, the discrepancy still bothers me, for the following reasons.
1.) Bethlehem is indeed quite close to Jerusalem, about five miles to the south. However, it must be kept in mind that five miles is a much quicker journey when traveling by automobile; in ancient Palestine, the primary mode of locomotion was walking. That being the case, I don't think it's accurate to label Bethlehem a "suburb" of Jerusalem. The Bible consistently treats them as separate cities, never conflating the two. This practice is, as far as I know, preserved in all extant contemporary extra-biblical documents as well. The moniker "city of David" is indeed applied to both, but for markedly different reasons. Bethlehem is the city of David's birth, while Jerusalem is the city that David conquered and from which he exercised rulership. Thus, they are "cities of David" in entirely different respects.
Now I realize that the distinction between accuracy and precision comes up often in discussions on inerrancy, but in this case it is not merely imprecise to equate Jerusalem with Bethlehem, it is simply inaccurate.
2.) If "land" is meant to be read as "region," it would be the only occasion that I'm aware of where "land of Jerusalem" is used in such a way. The far more common way of referring to the region would be "Judah" or "Judea," not "Jerusalem."
3.) If the Nephites were unfamiliar with Bethlehem, then it is lamentable that they knew so little of their own historical heritage. Bethlehem occupies a centrally important place in ancient Hebrew historiography. This is the city where the greatest Israeli king, King David, was born, and also where he was anointed king. It is also the burial place of Israel's favored wife Rachel, the homeland of the Levite who instigated the war against Benjamin in Judges 19-20, the hometown of Ruth and Boaz, and the prophesied birthplace of the Messiah according to the prophet Micah [Micah was written around 740-695 BC, at least ninety-five years before Nephi is alleged to has migrated to the Americas]. Given the historical importance of Bethlehem to the Hebrew people, the Nephites really ought to have been familiar with it if they were also familiar with Jerusalem.
4.) Here's the core of the issue: in Yahwism, prophetic accuracy is tremendously important. In fact, it's one of the two authorized tests for the veracity of a prophet given to Israel just before entry into the land (Deut. 18:21-22). The issue of confusing Jerusalem and Bethlehem thus becomes quite a serious matter, as it calls a prophet's credentials into question.
That's my take on it, anyway. I'd like to stress that I'm not trying to pick a fight or start an argument; the fact that you've been willing to field questions like this is quite commendable. I just want you to be aware of why non-Mormons might find Alma 7:10, and explanations given for it, objectionable.
Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!
darth_ender said:
No, you didn't Perhaps it's your style, but I often feel when you write something, you tend to be condescending and belittling.
Just because I don't pepper my posts with apologies and claims I have the utmost respect for your religion, doesn't mean I intend to be condescending or belittling. I am simply calling ducks ducks. Any "belittling" things I have said have been factual weak points I was interested in hearing your response to, but as you said, that was not your intention for this thread, thus I overstepped.
And when you sound snappish ("Oh, you were sarcastic, which means you can't provide a real answer"), it just sounds like you were overly offended by my innocent sarcasm and are resorting to criticism. Perhaps it's just the way you write, but on numerous occasions it feels like a "grumpy grump" response. If I misread you, I apologize.
I am not easily irritated and I am almost always in a good mood, you're reading a lot that isn't there into my posts.
As for "snappish", you were using sarcasm to mock/dismiss the train of thought I presented to you, sarcasm can be great fun when used at relevant times, but it is an extremely immature and really poor way to try to win/dismiss an opposing argument. I wasn't being snappish, I was simply pointing to the immature use of sarcasm.
Discussion between you and I don't get very far, because you have a tendency to bend it around and somehow make it about me. You've done this in the past. You also do it with other posters that voice opposite views from your own without apology or excessive tact, perhaps it is your form of lite "character assassination", by complaining that they have a massive stick up there ass, any pressure is off of you to continue the discussion, and you can walk away feeling like the bright and cheery always positive upstanding poster. Am I reading way too much into your posts and reactions with this assessment? Almost certainly. Obviously I am just being a "grumpy grump".
These are all valid points. I wish I had time to really explain, but I simply want to make two statements:
1) I have no dount that the Nephites were quite familiar with the importance of Bethlehem, as clearly there was a great deal of historic and messianic importance to the city. However, their familiarity with its actual location is quite understandable in my mind. Moreover, this chapter is a sermon delivered to people in a city that is rather new to the gospel of Christ by Alma, the leader of the Church at that time. It would be even more lamentable that they did not understand the messianic prophecies that Alma lays out for them. He speaks to them as if they are quite naive to the nature of the Christology already had among the Nephites, and he mentions that there was even some waywardness among the people. Such a people would likely be ignorant to the full significance of Bethlehem in my mind.
2) I appreciate your last statement about not trying to pick a fight, but I didn't even suspect it with you. I wish to make it clear that I don't detect any condescension in your tone, merely an effort to explain and possibly correct what you perceive to be in error. I can handle tough questions without a problem, but I don't appreciate what appears to be talking down. I got no such vibe from you.
CP3S said:
darth_ender said:
No, you didn't Perhaps it's your style, but I often feel when you write something, you tend to be condescending and belittling.
Just because I don't pepper my posts with apologies and claims I have the utmost respect for your religion, doesn't mean I intend to be condescending or belittling. I am simply calling ducks ducks. Any "belittling" things I have said have been factual weak points I was interested in hearing your response to, but as you said, that was not your intention for this thread, thus I overstepped.
And when you sound snappish ("Oh, you were sarcastic, which means you can't provide a real answer"), it just sounds like you were overly offended by my innocent sarcasm and are resorting to criticism. Perhaps it's just the way you write, but on numerous occasions it feels like a "grumpy grump" response. If I misread you, I apologize.
I am not easily irritated and I am almost always in a good mood, you're reading a lot that isn't there into my posts.
As for "snappish", you were using sarcasm to mock/dismiss the train of thought I presented to you, sarcasm can be great fun when used at relevant times, but it is an extremely immature and really poor way to try to win/dismiss an opposing argument. I wasn't being snappish, I was simply pointing to the immature use of sarcasm.
Discussion between you and I don't get very far, because you have a tendency to bend it around and somehow make it about me. You've done this in the past. You also do it with other posters that voice opposite views from your own without apology or excessive tact, perhaps it is your form of lite "character assassination", by complaining that they have a massive stick up there ass, any pressure is off of you to continue the discussion, and you can walk away feeling like the bright and cheery always positive upstanding poster. Am I reading way too much into your posts and reactions with this assessment? Almost certainly. Obviously I am just being a "grumpy grump".
Geez, man, you're right, we never get far because you misinterpret me at every turn as well, whether you realize it or not. Have I truly avoided a perilous discussion at any point? Clearly no as you have pointed out in the abortion thread (yes, I'm bringing it up again, make sure you hang me for it). I responded with fervor and to excess in your opinion, but not without rational discussion, never resorting to personal attacks, and never shutting down because I couldn't handle the "walls of logic" (to quote a terribly missed former member here) people were throwing my way. I don't avoid what doesn't match my point of view. Here in this thread I've taken it head on. Have you actually read the past several pages?
And with other folks I've done the same? I've gotten even more irritated at walkingdork for his style, but I think we've generally worked things out and I understand his style. When he says offensive things, I generally don't get so offended. The only other person I didn't get along with was twooffour, and I don't know anyone who did. I did end a discussion with him while he had the last word, but that was because reasoning with him takes a whole different kind of patience that goes beyond trying to be logical or at least providing a different perspective. Please enlighten me if there is someone else I've gotten worked up over and couldn't handle in a mature fashion.
As for the timing of my sarcasm, did you even read the rest of the post? I actually answered your question to the best of my ability in the limited time I had at the moment, then went back to the beginning of my comment and added the sarcastic first sentence. It was literally the last thing I wrote before clicking "Post Reply." I did not dismiss your train of thought, but was trying to make light of the situation. It seems you took me completely in a way that was not intended. At that point I wasn't even irritated with you yet, though I thought your post had been a little diminutive. Go back, read the rest of the post, feel free to look at the links I provided, and if you feel those answers weren't satisfactory, please raise the issue again. I truly will go into greater depth to answer your questions, even though I don't even feel they were that well thought out. My point to it all was that I don't rely simply on that one point, but that I do consider 11 men who did not change their story as a rather reliable testimony that could hold up in court as at least a genuine and commonly shared belief among them. If you don't see it that way, I have no qualms with that.
Ultimately, yes you are reading too much into my posts. I don't intend what you continually assert. I've read many of your posts as well, and it seems like you get in tiffs fairly often. You are clearly an intelligent person and I respect you for many of your points, but I don't think I'm the only one who misinterprets you if your intentions are really not to be confrontational. And as for being a "grumpy grump," it was again an attempt at humor in reference to a certain OT.com member's ridiculous fan edit. Yes, I can be overly sensitive at times, but if you've truly read my posts and if you give me credit for what I do write, I am quite capable of handling a mature conversation and taking difficult issues head on, oft times at the expense of coming off as the upstanding poster. Please be a little more fair-minded in your assessment of me.
darth_ender said:
Geez, man, you're right, we never get far because you misinterpret me at every turn as well, whether you realize it or not.
I honestly don't have time for this kind of BS discussion, and I am pretty sure you don't either. Let's not go around in circles for ever. How am I misinterpreting you explicitly stating that you think I am in an irritable mood or that I am being a "grumpy grump"? I don't think there is anything to misinterpret there. I was referring to walkingdork as the other person who you've freak out over regarding attitude. From everything I have read, everyone else you've interacted with regarding religion on the forum has taken the pins and needles PC approach when the subject of religion has come up.
I don't avoid what doesn't match my point of view. Here in this thread I've taken it head on. Have you actually read the past several pages?
You avoided the points I brought up, explaining that isn't the point of this thread. Which is legit. Yes, I've read the last several pages.
As for the timing of my sarcasm, did you even read the rest of the post?
Yes I did. It didn't answer my question about other evidences for the gold tablets apart from the eleven.
I truly will go into greater depth to answer your questions, even though I don't even feel they were that well thought out.
If my questions weren't that well thought out, by all means, please feel free to disregard them. Personally, I'd be extremely impressed if you could provide a reasonable answer to all (or any of) the points I brought up in my posts. But like you said, that isn't the point of this thread, so I am not going to ask you to bother.
