tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post3831718920383597636..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: It Depends on What the Meaning of "It" Is: Reconsidering the "Burning in the Bosom" and "Studying It Out" in Doctrine & Covenants 9Jeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-79282680925074961972018-12-26T23:12:26.317-06:002018-12-26T23:12:26.317-06:00Critics attempts to “dissuade people from having a...Critics attempts to “dissuade people from having an interest in the Church.” This is irony coming from a Mormon, given that Mormonism is based on dissuading people from having an interest in other Christian Churches.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-55774217417303121102018-12-22T08:12:04.703-06:002018-12-22T08:12:04.703-06:00Bearyb -
The fixation with the book and its orig...Bearyb - <br /><br />The fixation with the book and its origin has always been with the apologist. For example, it was the apologist who started by claiming the book proves anything, and then moving on to stylometry studies, etc. Apologist only exposed the critics for their disingenuous “research” and conclusions. The critics were successfully retorting the apologist bogus claims. So much so, that people like you get frustrated with the critics success and attempt to retort it by falsely accusing the critics of being the ones fixated. It is a deceitful claim to argue that there are “weighty matters to consider, especially if it’s true”, because “proper priesthood authority” is the theological differentiation of the religion. Whether or not the book is a miracle, is irrelevant, after all Pharoah’s priests could turn a staff into a snake also. <br /><br />When apologist lie and say things like the book’s origin is “crucial in understanding and evaluating the claims of the Restoration” it is near complete deceit in order to trick people with smoke and mirrors and pull the wool over their eyes. It is awful and disgusting behavior by people who swore an oath to God not to behave that way. The “restoration” is all about rejecting the other’s Christians priesthood and has little to do with the book or its origin. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-71272706719687336812018-12-20T19:01:18.559-06:002018-12-20T19:01:18.559-06:00Sorry you feel "Mormonspeak" is derogato...Sorry you feel "Mormonspeak" is derogatory. An anon apologist early had this to say, "Also, words, in-and-of-themselves, are not inherently good, bad, or otherwise .... That it is automatically labeled as such is a projection of feelings from the receiver, not necessarily a sign of intent from the giver." I am sure in this case the giver would gladly use an alternative that expresses the same thing if you offered it. The American Heritage Dictionary merely says Mormon Church when referencing Mormonspeak in definitions, for example, lookup gentile.<br /><br />As you are obviously familiar with, "The Church is true" is a common phrase used in various Mormon situations. As you are no doubt also familiar, this is frequently objected to my Mormon critics, who rarely hesitate to point out that a Church cannot be true or false. As anyone remotely familiar with Mormondom knows, Mormons will readily say the positive outcomes of an individual "just shows the Church is true". So to be consistent, the negative outcomes of following "the Church" must show it is false.<br /><br />Your baseless and weak finger pointing show you are familiar with these aspects. You further demonstrate your familiarity by your deliberate changing Church to faith with "truth of one’s faith isn’t dependent on those who attempt to live it." A comment that essentially placed you agreeing with the critics and South Park. Your statement was the entire punchline of the South Park episode.<br /><br />While errored for erred was a mobile device speed error, you nonetheless again demonstrate the point by recognizing you fully understood what was being communicated, but not at all interested in sincerely addressing it. However, "falsely insult" was deliberate, just to see you if you would take the bait. As you appear to admit, you chose to portray yourself "as an ignorant d-bag who is just looking for a fight", so naturally you took the bait.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-14985510249407465792018-12-20T17:05:35.302-06:002018-12-20T17:05:35.302-06:00Thank u for correcting your intellectual wrongs an...Thank u for correcting your intellectual wrongs and admitting u r only here "just here to point fingers and call names and not have a debate".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-33397798400966948452018-12-20T15:59:39.867-06:002018-12-20T15:59:39.867-06:00I accept your challenge. You outlined a lot of ste...I accept your challenge. You outlined a lot of steps, so pardon me if I miss one. <br /><br />Step 1)<br /><br />“Then, as you now admit the statement is no longer confusing to you, practice your writing and write back the meaning of the statement in your own words.” <br /><br />Thanks to a sudden flash of insight into your way of thinking, I’m no longer confused, and, concurrently, the following is your statement in my own words:<br /><br /><br />"Also, the truth of one’s faith isn’t dependent on those who attempt to live it." - Stated by an individual purporting to know [insert a derogatory term that I think is clever describing how I think a certain group talks] untruthfully trying to argue against a person fluent in [insert a derogatory term that I think is clever describing how I think a certain group talks].<br />. . .Just an editorial note—not sure this helped my understanding. <br /><br />Step 2<br /><br />“explain how you errored in using the phrase familiar with the text”<br /><br />I’m skipping this step based on a technicality—errored isn’t a word. I think someone erred in using it. <br /><br />Step 3<br /><br />“explain the difference between blog chat writing and expositional essays.”<br /><br />Now this is a prompt for at least a three page essay. I’ll try to keep my response contained to much less, since this is in a blog and not an essay. Hey, that’s one difference right there. <br /><br /><i>Any</i> good writing, be it a blog response, or an essay, considers 4 key elements: writer, subject, audience, and the writing situation. Writer: who am I as a writer, and how do I want to portray myself to my readers? For example, I could choose to portray myself as intelligent, measured, and educated, or I could portray myself as an ignorant d-bag who is just looking for a fight. The words you use and your tone determine how you are perceived as a writer. Subject: what am I writing about? How should I treat my subject? Do I have disdain for it or do I truly want to analyze it and pick it apart? Audience: who will be reading my writing? Will it be someone who will criticize it for errors? Maybe it will be an educated audience, or perhaps an unwashed mob. If I’m aware of who my audience is, I can choose my language and how I approach my subject accordingly. Writing situation: this is the brass tacks of the matter. Am I writing an expository essay? Am I responding in a blog? The writing situation really informs the other three elements, but doesn’t necessarily limit them. I may be less formal in a blog response than an essay, and more concise, since I’m usually responding to someone else, but who my audience is, my subject matter, and importantly, how I want to portray myself come into play. Blog responses tend to be short and to the point. The essay, as the name implies, is an attempt—an attempt to explore, or explain a subject. They tend to be longer and more drawn out than a blog response because they explore their subject from multiple angles. They often include research and citations to help bolster their claims, although a blog response may include research as well if, say, someone wants to make a claim that contradicts common knowledge about a subject and doesn’t want to be seen as a crackpot hack, for example. <br /><br />Whew—that was quite a workout. I think I completed all of the required steps. Hopefully I’ve proven to you and the rest of my readers that I really was here to right intellectual wrongs, and not here to point fingers and falsely insult (I’m not sure how an insult can be true or false—it just <i>is</i>.). Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-75201581058659767792018-12-20T07:47:40.976-06:002018-12-20T07:47:40.976-06:00"just here to point fingers and call names an..."just here to point fingers and call names and not have a debate"<br /><br />That is exactly what you are doing, so if you are interested in righting intellectual wrongs, start there. Then, as you now admit the statement is no longer confusing to you, practice your writing and write back the meaning of the statement in your own words. Since you are so interested in righting intellectual wrongs, explain how you errored in using the phrase familiar with the text, then explain the difference between blog chat writing and expositional essays.<br /><br />Of course, if you don't do these things then we have proven you were never truly interested in righting intellectual wrongs but we're only here to point fingers and falsely insult as you did from the very first sentence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-20160689678539115222018-12-19T22:51:46.661-06:002018-12-19T22:51:46.661-06:00I don’t usually have to play at being dumb—it just...I don’t usually have to play at being dumb—it just comes naturally. Also, I’m not an apologist but I do like to attempt to right intellectual wrongs when I see them occurring. <br /><br />I’m not sure what, in your estimation, would be an appropriate response to a statement that was confusing to me? I often have to remind my writing students that just because <i>you</i> know what you are trying to convey, doesn’t mean everyone else does. <br /><br />If you’re just here to point fingers and call names and not have a debate, then so be it—I’m rubber and you’re glue, yada, yada, yada. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-6744102420723036992018-12-19T22:14:00.647-06:002018-12-19T22:14:00.647-06:00Yep, ??? , is pretty much the logo of the apolog...Yep, ??? , is pretty much the logo of the apologist. Most of them know it is not true, so the bulk of what they do is play dumb, pretending they don't understand the arguments against it, when they know full well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-2617563945211173592018-12-18T18:35:46.468-06:002018-12-18T18:35:46.468-06:00Anonymous4:35 - Perfect impression of that unhinge...Anonymous4:35 - Perfect impression of that unhinged Anon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-58010142939106267962018-12-18T16:35:31.508-06:002018-12-18T16:35:31.508-06:00??????Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-8557564113654960812018-12-18T15:08:58.505-06:002018-12-18T15:08:58.505-06:00Ronald Reagan, right? Do you do any other impress...Ronald Reagan, right? Do you do any other impressions?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-71125998728933580872018-12-18T11:24:31.863-06:002018-12-18T11:24:31.863-06:00There you go again.There you go again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-52908430444768898722018-12-18T10:44:35.969-06:002018-12-18T10:44:35.969-06:00???
Not sure exactly what you mean by this. Also,...???<br /><br />Not sure exactly what you mean by this. Also, what was dishonest?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-88670462352813958002018-12-17T23:12:08.984-06:002018-12-17T23:12:08.984-06:00Anon 4:32 PM, December 15, 2018 -
"Also, the...Anon 4:32 PM, December 15, 2018 -<br /><br />"Also, the truth of one’s faith isn’t dependent on those who attempt to live it." - Says a person who claims to be familiar with Mormon-speak in a dishonest attempt to refute someone who accurately used Mormon-speak.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-56410692059592987482018-12-17T00:50:40.739-06:002018-12-17T00:50:40.739-06:00It has been quite entertaining to watch Jeff twist...It has been quite entertaining to watch Jeff twist himself into knots over the years. This book of so-called scripture does nothing to answer even the most simple requirements of evidence, yet armchair apologists see quite the opposite. Never mind the fact that these arguments do nothing but sow confusion and contention and backwards logic and obfuscation. Some fruits these are! No simple honest answers are to be found. Only wishy-washy "search your feelings, Luke" nonsense. No hard evidence. Only what-ifs and could-bes and endless fumfering among the already converted.<br />Like I said: quite entertaining. I'd be crying for you if it wasn't so fun to watch!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-58707292735622003792018-12-16T21:25:57.695-06:002018-12-16T21:25:57.695-06:00Add me to the folks here for the sideshow.Add me to the folks here for the sideshow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-56424286878579977542018-12-16T18:17:38.357-06:002018-12-16T18:17:38.357-06:00This blog's unhinged nature is indeed the ente...This blog's unhinged nature is indeed the entertainment, and the truly unhinged here are unapologetic for their delusions, providing the bulk of the entertainment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-74558101377650853192018-12-16T14:44:20.649-06:002018-12-16T14:44:20.649-06:00:-)
Bearyb, I must ad an addendum to my comments ...:-)<br /><br />Bearyb, I must ad an addendum to my comments as to why I’m here. If I’m honest, another reason to visit Jeff’s blog is the entertainment it provides watching the unhinged defend their unhinge-itude. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-49866843228821323482018-12-16T11:53:58.585-06:002018-12-16T11:53:58.585-06:00Anon 9:53 AM, December 16, 2018,
Congratulations,...Anon 9:53 AM, December 16, 2018,<br /><br />Congratulations, now you are understanding. Yes, it does contradict the common Mormon interpretation. May I remind you that was never disputed. As all those familiar with the text know, the entire theme of the book and story behind it, is the preservation of scripture as the keystone of the religion. No where near a grandiose idea. Demanding evidence for such a basic part of the narrative proves you are not at all concerned with being taken seriously.<br /><br />Posters here clearly intend to harm by inventing false disagreements and assigning false intentions to critics in order to assuage the pain of their own internal logical inconsistencies. Even if operating under the best defense is a strong offense theory, it is still a from hate. The apologist's false projections of disagreements and intentions to the critics is derived from fear and anger, as evidence by your demand for evidence for such a basic part of the BoM narrative, one you are clearly familiar with, but are playing dumb, insincerely pretending you do not know. Your opening salvo of "then you are not familiar with it at all" is nothing more than ad hominem, which is an expression of hate. <br /> Obviously uncomfortable with your hate, your solution is to pretend there is no such thing as hate.<br /><br />Hate:<br />intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury<br />extreme dislike or disgust<br />a systematic and especially politically exploited expression of hatred<br /><br />Again, the book and the book's origin have zero to do with the theological differentiation of Mormonism from Christianity. That is, John the Baptist reset an laying of hands derived authority, not Layman Wright.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-17067474209806235152018-12-16T09:53:55.780-06:002018-12-16T09:53:55.780-06:00Anon 3:41
May I remind you that your claim was th...Anon 3:41<br /><br />May I remind you that your claim was that "the book actual emphasis authority coming from scripture," which contradicts what is commonly understood from those familiar with the text (and would indicate a lack of familiarity on your part). If you would like to make such a grandiose claim, and be taken seriously, a little evidence from the text and elucidation by you would be in order. <br /><br />To address your idea of hate, keep in mind that hate requires intent--it's an active, not a passive, thing. Also know that disagreement and hate are not mutually exclusive. This seems to be something many in our society are forgetting. Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I hate you, or even the ideas you have put forth. Also, words, in-and-of-themselves, are not inherently good, bad, or otherwise. The use of a word or phrase without some intent to harm on the part of the user, is not "hate speech." That it is automatically labeled as such is a projection of feelings from the receiver, not necessarily a sign of intent from the giver. To bring this full circle, the whole idea of Jeff's post was the interpretation of language based on intent. :^)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-87560439216790947132018-12-16T03:41:13.691-06:002018-12-16T03:41:13.691-06:00Anon 4:32 PM, December 15, 2018 -
You first conf...Anon 4:32 PM, December 15, 2018 - <br /><br />You first confuse what the book actually says with Mormon interpretation, then you confuse Mormon interpretation, showing that you are familiar with both, recognizing the contradictions, but stubbornly refuse to state them as such, and then you concede the point with "few enter into the details of how they receive the calling or the authority". Attacking people who are clearly familiar with the nuances as "not familiar with it at all", is exactly the type of hate referred to, and it takes you further from Christ also. Just as coltakashi's claim that "One or more comments from "Anonymous" deny the reality of revelation from God" is a hate derived claim. No where above do I see any anonymous deny revelation from God exists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-26187754608811641442018-12-16T02:20:06.206-06:002018-12-16T02:20:06.206-06:00One or more comments from "Anonymous" de...One or more comments from "Anonymous" deny the reality of revelation from God. Apparently they lack the experience of receiving personal revelation that is satisfying both intellectually and emotionally. Yet I and literally milliond of my fellow Latter-day Saints can attest that we have received revelation, and that it has proven to be a reliable guide in our lives. <br /><br />Having read most of the scholarly anslysis of the Book of Mormon over the past half century, the trend of scholsrly findings is clear, that the only rational explanation for the contents of the text of the Book of Mormon is what Josrph and the 11 witnesses say it was. No other explanation can explain how two centuries of scholarship has revealed tgat the Book of Mormon is packed with knowledge from the ancient world that was unknown to anyone in 1829. The more evidence that accumulates, the more accurate the Book of Mormon is sern to be.<br /><br />A century ago,Einstein published his Theory of General Relativity. Over the course of that century, observations of the universe have repeatedly affirmed the accuracy of that story of how the world works. This includes the first observation, in 2015, of gravity waves generated by two supermassive colliding blsck holes a billion light years away.<br /><br />Just so, the evidence for the accuracy of the Book of Mormon continues to build up. In 1829, critics of the Book of Mormon claim to be written on golden plates, and to include excerpts from a copy of much of the Old Testament, was ridiculed as prims facie unreasonable. Yet in the past two centuries the number of ancient religious writings on bronze and other metals has grown each year. coltakashihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06478524737130808597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-41454760755567121022018-12-16T01:51:37.396-06:002018-12-16T01:51:37.396-06:00This interpretation of what the Lord is referring ...This interpretation of what the Lord is referring to in D&C 9 makes sense. Given what we know about how the translation was given to Joseph, including the evidence that the object labguage is primarily Early Modern English from the early 1500s, making surmises about how a script not readable by any contemporary human should be rendered into English would be a formidable task. Joseph and Oliver did not even know which order the characters were written in. Hebrew, for example, is read right to left. <br /><br />Nevertheless,Section 9 still offers one model for reaching a decision with inspiration from the spirit,so the principle taught in lessons using Section 9 is still valid. coltakashihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06478524737130808597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-87215417297167427062018-12-15T17:19:57.660-06:002018-12-15T17:19:57.660-06:00Anon How the story changes. At least the story ke...Anon How the story changes. At least the story keeps changing closer to that of the critics ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15562023045755829362018-12-15T16:32:59.541-06:002018-12-15T16:32:59.541-06:00Anon,
If you think that “the book actual emphasis...Anon,<br /><br />If you think that “the book actual emphasis authority coming from scripture,” then you are not familiar with it at all. Although it doesn’t mention priesthood as an authority, per se, neither does it emphasize scripture as a source of authority. Most callings in the Book of Mormon claim to come directly from God, though few enter into the details of how they receive the calling or the authority. <br /><br />As for Jeff being filled with hate, you’ve made another claim that is completely off base. Though Jeff has his faults and blind spots in relation to his faith, hatred is not a character trait I have observed in anything he has posted on this Blog. If anything, he is beyond gracious, and almost overly patient with those who disagree with his point of view. <br /><br />Also, the truth of one’s faith isn’t dependent on those who attempt to live it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com