I hate lazy research!

[_bcspace]

You claimed there are such examples. But you are going down the wrong track. How does examples of LDS using lazy research prove that an antiLDS critic is not?

Please read my post.

I did. Please read mine.

I provided both positive evidence for my argument. The positive evidence constitutes a number of debates in which critics conducted non-lazy research.

Then where is the proof? All you claimed (without proof) was that certain LDS posters have used lazy research. That does not mean the antiLDS critic involved did not also use lazy research and it also does not prove that antiLDS critics are not guilty of lazy research without exception. Notice that I did not say every argument by said critics were the result of lazy research......but you have yet to show a single one.....

Claims still are not proof.

I agree, which is why I have offered you hard evidence (quotes).

Where are the quotes you said you would provide?

Ah, so now you say that even if I do give quotes as proof, they won't actually qualify as proof because they 'don't apply to the Church'. How would they not apply to the Church?

The priesthood ban was a Church-wide policy, not limited to afew wards or stakes or the opinions of individuals. Therefore you will have to come up with Church statements as the reason of the ban in order to show what you claim.

I'm sorry, but how does this address the issue?

It answers your concern underlined above.

I haven't added anything, and nor have I backtracked.

Yes you did.

I've even offered you evidence,

Offered, but not provided.

but you claim no evidence would be relevant.

Never even implied that. I think you are afraid to provide the quotes or that you actually don't have any.

[_Bryan Inks]

I hate lazy research!

So do I. All antiLDS critics are guilty of it without exception.

Burden of Proof.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

I'd, of course, add to the end "and sweeping generalizations". But that's just me and my bad habit of thinking.

Read it. Learn it. Don't do it again.

[_bcspace]

So do I. All antiLDS critics are guilty of it without exception.

Burden of Proof.

Agree and accepted. However, it is impossible (too tedious) to go through all the arguments of every LDS critic. But I did provide Fort with one positive example and all he has to do is provide one single negative example to prove me wrong. He has yet to do it.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

I generally agree though I also accept the opposite. For example, Atheists also must show proof that God does not exist. Consider also the example of the City of Troy (and many other like examples). It was claimed to be a mythological city, until it was found.

It is also reasonable to provide a test. For example, John 7:17 provides the test for Christianity. I have provided a simpler test in that instead of going through all antiLDS critics, all you need to find is just one.

I'd, of course, add to the end "and sweeping generalizations". But that's just me and my bad habit of thinking.

Read it. Learn it. Don't do it again.

You can be sure I will do this again as it is not a sweeping generalization at all. It's simply a factor of having heard it all already and not being convinced.

[_Fortigurn]

But I did provide Fort with one positive example and all he has to do is provide one single negative example to prove me wrong. He has yet to do it.

I gave you three threads in which critics engaged in non-lazy research. You haven't addressed any of them yet.

[_Fortigurn]

All you claimed (without proof) was that certain LDS posters have used lazy research.

No, I also claimed that non-LDS critics have used non-lazy research. I gave you three threads as examples.

Where are the quotes you said you would provide?

I thought you didn't want them, because you said they didn't count. Can you please tell me whether or not you want them, and I'll provide them.

Are you actually ignorant of the fact that other churches (including the RLDS church), felt that black men were entitled?

It answers your concern underlined above.

How?

I haven't added anything, and nor have I backtracked.

Yes you did.

When?

[_Bryan Inks]

Agree and accepted. However, it is impossible (too tedious) to go through all the arguments of every LDS critic. But I did provide Fort with one positive example and all he has to do is provide one single negative example to prove me wrong. He has yet to do it.

You agree that burden of proof lays on you. You accept that burden of proof lays on you. And yet you expect Fortigun to refute your one, anecdotal example? While disregarding his three anecdotal examples?

Mind if I call you "Kettle" from now on?

I generally agree though I also accept the opposite. For example, Atheists also must show proof that God does not exist. Consider also the example of the City of Troy (and many other like examples). It was claimed to be a mythological city, until it was found.

Disprove God? Kettle, I can do it in just a couple of words and an acronym.

Occum's Razor

D.M.T.

Done. Now I want your proof that all critics of Mormonism are guilty of "lazy research" despite evidence to the contrary.

It is also reasonable to provide a test. For example, John 7:17 provides the test for Christianity. I have provided a simpler test in that instead of going through all antiLDS critics, all you need to find is just one.

John 7:17 is circular logic.

How do you know it is God's doctrine? Because you follow it. Why do you follow it? You follow it because it is God's doctrine.

Sorry, Kettle, your test fails.

Seriously, though, enough with the side-tracking. Where is your proof that all critics of Mormonism are guilty of "lazy research" despite evidence to the contrary?

I'd, of course, add to the end "and sweeping generalizations". But that's just me and my bad habit of thinking.

Read it. Learn it. Don't do it again.

You can be sure I will do this again as it is not a sweeping generalization at all. It's simply a factor of having heard it all already and not being convinced.

Kettle, are you aware of the definition generalization?

According to a quick "Dictionary.Com" search:

Generalization, noun
1. The act or process of generalizing
2. a result of this process; a general statement, idea, or principle.
3. (as applies in Logic) a proposition asserting something to be true either of all members of a certain class or of an indefinite part of that class.

You stated on the first page, in your first reply, that

All antiLDS critics are guilty of it [lazy research] without exception.

And you can claim that it isn't a generalization? With a straight face? I want your proof.

[_bcspace]

Agree and accepted. However, it is impossible (too tedious) to go through all the arguments of every LDS critic. But I did provide Fort with one positive example and all he has to do is provide one single negative example to prove me wrong. He has yet to do it.

You agree that burden of proof lays on you.

Indeed. And I have given you the test that will prove whether I am right or wrong.

Disprove God? Kettle, I can do it in just a couple of words and an acronym.

Occum's Razor

D.M.T.

Done.

Not done. How does Occam's Razor and D.M.T disprove God? by the way, is Occam's razor a scientific truth or just a recommendation on which competing theory to choose? I think you are in way over your head here.

Now I want your proof that all critics of Mormonism are guilty of "lazy research" despite evidence to the contrary.

They way to disprove it is to show one example of a critic not guilty of lazy research. I can't disprove it. You can't disprove it. Nobody can. I must be true (this is your own logic by the way).

And by the way, I give you the claims of GIMR in the Telestial forum about early Christian doctrine as yet another example of lazy research. She's having such a hard time with the refutation......

[_Bryan Inks]

Agree and accepted. However, it is impossible (too tedious) to go through all the arguments of every LDS critic. But I did provide Fort with one positive example and all he has to do is provide one single negative example to prove me wrong. He has yet to do it.

You agree that burden of proof lays on you.

Indeed. And I have given you the test that will prove whether I am right or wrong.

No, you presented a circular path to side-tracking that has nothing to do with the topic on hand. I want you proof.

Disprove God? Kettle, I can do it in just a couple of words and an acronym.

Occum's Razor

D.M.T.

Done.

Not done. How does Occam's Razor and D.M.T disprove God? by the way, is Occam's razor a scientific truth or just a recommendation on which competing theory to choose? I think you are in way over your head here.

My apologies. I got sucked into your little side-tracking methods. If you would like to contine conversation about this subject, do so in another thread. Right now you need to present your proof that all critics of Mormonism are guilty of "lazy reseach".

Now I want your proof that all critics of Mormonism are guilty of "lazy research" despite evidence to the contrary.

They way to disprove it is to show one example of a critic not guilty of lazy research. I can't disprove it. You can't disprove it. Nobody can. I must be true (this is your own logic by the way).

Kettle, you haven't provided your proof that all critics are guilty of lazy research. You provided one anecdotal example. You have yet to provide any proof that your grand and sweeping generalization is true.

So. . . where is your proof that all critics of Mormonism are guilty of "lazy research"?

And by the way, I give you the claims of GIMR in the Telestial forum about early Christian doctrine as yet another example of lazy research. She's having such a hard time with the refutation......

Now we have a second anecdotal example. At least it is progress. I figure if I give you another 12 years, you might build up to the point where you are ready to present your evidence.

Until then, I'm going to keep asking.

Where is your proof that all critics of Mormonism are guilty of "lazy research"? Take your time. I've got all day.

[_bcspace]

Indeed. And I have given you the test that will prove whether I am right or wrong.

No, you presented a circular path to side-tracking that has nothing to do with the topic on hand. I want you proof.

Your proof is found in the one example of an LDS critic who is not lazy in their research that you may or may not be able to give. I cdertainly can't give an example of a non lazy critic. Can you? So as you can see, the argument, rather than being circular, is quite terminal. The answer is in black and white.

Not done. How does Occam's Razor and D.M.T disprove God? by the way, is Occam's razor a scientific truth or just a recommendation on which competing theory to choose? I think you are in way over your head here.

My apologies. I got sucked into your little side-tracking methods.

No, you were phased by a cromulent example.

If you would like to contine conversation about this subject, do so in another thread.

Feel free.

Right now you need to present your proof that all critics of Mormonism are guilty of "lazy reseach".

The fact that no one can come up with a single example otherwise.

Now we have a second anecdotal example. At least it is progress. I figure if I give you another 12 years, you might build up to the point where you are ready to present your evidence.

Until then, I'm going to keep asking.

And I will simply keep asking for an opposing example. It's the quickest way to the truth should you choose to accept it. It's just good use of the Occam's razor principle....

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

[_Sam Harris]

First of all, blacklds.org is just a big testimony site hosted by none other than her royal highness miss Juliann. She's not ever going to face the truth on this issue, and I think it's just too painful for most others, black and white to do so as well.

This is a huge open sore on the face of the church, and most people are not going to probe that wound, they're just going to take what they've been told as truth, and go only to the sources that they're told are "faith promoting and truthful". Heaven forbid they should head to a church bookstore and stumble upon something really nasty like I did.

Not "everybody" within Christianity was "doing it" at the time that Joseph Smith decided that he wanted to go with the Cain doctrine. One group I can think of who were not teaching that blacks were inferior were Shakers, and I believe the Quakers were of the same belief as well.

Inks, with regards to McCary, this is the first I've heard of him. I had no idea there was a man "of color" who was setting up a rival Mormon faction in the 1840s. What other information do you have?

Hi GIMR and all else here,

An important point that I think and believe that should be made here is that the Reorganized LDS Church ( Now Called The Community of Christ) did Not have a Priesthood ban from ordaining men of African ancestry to the Priesthood, like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Church (THE Utah Base LDS Church) did. The Reorganized LDS Church ( Now Called The Community of Christ) has been ordaining men of African ancestry to the Priesthood since about 1866. Please Check OUt And See: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/reo ... church.htm And: http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... =392.topic

It is true that Joseph Smith decided to go along with the Cain doctrine (bsically meaning that he believed that all Africans were descendants of Cain), however, the Priesthood ban came from Brigham Young.

Hey Brackite,

The RLDS have been discussed on other forums that I have frequented, and one person commented that he felt the CoC to be far more Christ-like in its dealings with its members and others than the Utah-based church. He also said that this church seemed to be more to the tune of Mormonism without Joseph's foibles and grasps for power. There aren't that many congregations around here, but I'd be interested in attending one service to see how different it was.