Wow. A cornered rat bites. There's no 'ad hominem by innuendo' in that, just a panicked lashing out.mg 2.0 wrote: ...I think we will continue to talk past each other Res Ipsa. I was teasing you a bit somewhere in the last few posts in regards to ad hominem. I think you may have taken me too seriously. Truthfully, my interactions with you and others have demonstrated, at least to me, the fragility of confidence manifest by those that leave the church. They are always wondering if they may have ‘blown it’ and are constantly on the defensive. I’ve seen that in you on this thread.
I’m calling like I see it. Of course someone will come back and say I’m simply projecting. I think that trope has been used a few times already...
And yes, I will say this comment, unconnected to any of the actual discussion, is pure projection:
That in no way can be generalized to all people who are former Mormon, nor can all participating in this thread be categorized as former Mormon. You have inadvertently described your private issues exceedingly well, however....my interactions with you and others have demonstrated, at least to me, the fragility of confidence manifest by those that leave the church. They are always wondering if they may have ‘blown it’ and are constantly on the defensive. I’ve seen that in you...
You mean the 'artifact' you define as plates that an 'angel' removed from the planet and that no one actually saw and which weren't even used to 'translate' the completely unverifiable story?mg wrote: ...I think it’s pretty simple. The story of the plates is either true or false. ...From my perspective the part of the restoration with the narrative of the plates…or an artifact…surviving the eons of time in order to act as a ‘witness’ to the witness makes sense....
