Thanks for reposting that. The simple answer is yes, I would. I would also agree that a,b,and c can be looked at from various directions/perspectives with differing outcomes/conclusions. That’s what I find interesting in this forum. Getting a deeper perspective on some of those differing views as I alternatively hold up a more supportive position for traditional and faith focused accounts/narratives of the restoration and the value of Christianity in the marketplace of ideas.
Regards,
MG
So why attribute not seeing the evidence the way you do the individuals not wanting to have their worldview changed, which is going to come with the insinuation they just want to live lives of sin?
It's your go to when you can't respond. And even when you can.
You’re using this as an ‘out’. Res Ipsa, same thing.
Ad hominem where there is none. Just show on your part to create drama.
Regards,
MG
Congratulations. Your behavior and tactics will be forever used by me to explain the lengths and tactics a believer will use to validate their world view. Every member a missionary in your case will be used to show how disingenuous , dishonest and outright devilish stategies get implemented all under the guise of lying for the lord.
You’re using this as an ‘out’. Res Ipsa, same thing.
Ad hominem where there is none. Just show on your part to create drama.
Regards,
MG
Congratulations. Your behavior and tactics will be forever used by me to explain the lengths and tactics a believer will use to validate their world view.
I have no idea what you’re referring to. Care to be specific with examples of what your concerns are?
Every member a missionary in your case will be used to show how disingenuous , dishonest and outright devilish stategies get implemented all under the guise of lying for the lord.
Again, please elaborate using specific examples of “disingenuous, dishonest, and outright devilish strategies” you are referring to.
I think I somehow touched a button but I don’t know why.
So why attribute not seeing the evidence the way you do the individuals not wanting to have their worldview changed, which is going to come with the insinuation they just want to live lives of sin?
Your words, not mine.
Regards,
MG
From your post of 2033 23 Sep:
Honestly? I don’t think that there is much, if anything, that would convince most critics.
But as I’ve said, the plates and the angel are KEY. And there is good reason to think that the plates existed. Now, we just have to get you to be open to the possibility that an angel of God delivered them.
But then, that would change EVERYTHING, wouldn’t it?
From your post of 1530 25 Sep:
I understand why you are so adamant in trying to explain away the plates. Potentially it would distort your present worldview. And you are fully invested in that worldview. The physical evidence that you demand, that would be satisfactory for you, is highly unlikely.
From your post of 1222 27 Sep:
If the plates were real that opens up some possibilities that some folks would rather not entertain.
And from your post of 1500 27 Sep:
I’ll repeat my last sentence in the post you’re referring to.
“If the plates were real that opens up some possibilities that some folks would rather not entertain.”
As it stands, that sentence is true.
And I’m also saying that this…obviously…is why you and others go to great lengths to disregard and/or diss the testimony of Emma and others, including women, who testified that the plates were real.
You CAN’T have real plates.
NO MATTER WHAT.
Real plates would change your whole worldview.
Right?
It certainly has been a recurring theme in your discussion.
Thanks for reposting that. The simple answer is yes, I would. I would also agree that a, b, and c can be looked at from various directions/perspectives with differing outcomes/conclusions. That’s what I find interesting in this forum. Getting a deeper perspective on some of those differing views as I alternatively hold up a more supportive position for traditional and faith focused accounts/narratives of the restoration and the value of Christianity in the marketplace of ideas.
Regards,
MG
So why attribute not seeing the evidence the way you do the individuals not wanting to have their worldview changed, which is going to come with the insinuation they just want to live lives of sin?
Honestly? I don’t think that there is much, if anything, that would convince most critics.
But as I’ve said, the plates and the angel are KEY. And there is good reason to think that the plates existed. Now, we just have to get you to be open to the possibility that an angel of God delivered them.
But then, that would change EVERYTHING, wouldn’t it?
From your post of 1530 25 Sep:
I understand why you are so adamant in trying to explain away the plates. Potentially it would distort your present worldview. And you are fully invested in that worldview. The physical evidence that you demand, that would be satisfactory for you, is highly unlikely.
From your post of 1222 27 Sep:
If the plates were real that opens up some possibilities that some folks would rather not entertain.
And from your post of 1500 27 Sep:
I’ll repeat my last sentence in the post you’re referring to.
“If the plates were real that opens up some possibilities that some folks would rather not entertain.”
As it stands, that sentence is true.
And I’m also saying that this…obviously…is why you and others go to great lengths to disregard and/or diss the testimony of Emma and others, including women, who testified that the plates were real.
You CAN’T have real plates.
NO MATTER WHAT.
Real plates would change your whole worldview.
Right?
It certainly has been a recurring theme in your discussion.
Thanks for posting these references to me where I said that worldviews would change and that folks would be hard pressed not to entertain thoughts that they were unwilling and/or unable to accept.
OK
But then you said, “which is going to come with the insinuation they just want to live lives of sin[.]”
THOSE are the words I’m referring to when I said, “Your words, not mine.”
