So it now seems that you are agreeing with me, that despite there being a possibility of new thoughts stemming from Dan’s eagerness to argue his view, there are zero examples across decades of him arguing online, that amount to either him having new thoughts as a result of that interaction, or of him generating new thoughts in others.huckelberry wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2026 4:38 pmDr Steuss's observations about memory are well worth remembering. There are bits of family history which remain uncertain as explained above.I Have Questions wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2026 11:21 amYes. "Beat them into the ground" is code for "listened carefully and responded with respect". Apparently. Because Dan isn't two-faced, no siree.
I think different reactions are possible but in at some situations I am disappointed with listened carefully and responded with respect. Such may be a method of shutting discussion down, covering over disagreement which could be important. I respect Dan's eagerness to up and argue his view. There is a possibility of new thoughts there instead of a thought ending public respect hiding disagreement.
Should Mopologists "listen carefully to those who leave the Church"?
-
I Have Questions
- God
- Posts: 4193
- Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am
Re: Should Mopologists "listen carefully to those who leave the Church"?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.