116 pages

[_beastie]

Many people signed their witness that they saw the things of the Book of Mormon, and that is but one thing amid many which better confirms to me it's validity.

Did you bother to read any of the links I provided detailing how unreliable eyewitness testimony is? You came here, made assertions, people provided direct evidence that contradicted your assertions, and you ignore that evidence.

If it was so wrong, then why hasn't it been killed, yet? ;) That's rhetorical - please don't bother answering, because you won't hear the responses I give. That is evident.

I bet you don't want an answer. Even you must know what the answer is. There's plenty of things that are "so wrong" that haven't been killed yet by this world. Why? Because there are plenty of people who believe in things that most people view as "so wrong". That should be a clue to you as to how valid the strength of belief is.

At this point, I concede the fact that talking to some of you here is utterly wasteful of my breath. You will not hear that which fails to make sense in your own perspective, and you obviously aren't being too successful in your anti-mormon efforts. :)

Are you just saving face? Do you really believe this? I wish I knew, I find it so bizarre when people say things that are so obviously contradicted by reality, I always wonder if they know that they're just saying anything to avoid admitting defeat.

Best wishes to you, but at this point I wash my hands of trying to help you understand that which you've already made up your mind on.

Retreat is a good idea at this point.

[_Gillebre]

Well answer me this, beastie, what comes from continuing to stay here and waste time arguing with you guys?

I mean, does an angel get it's wings?


Is a baby saved from a burning building?


What useful anything comes from sitting here listening to the stuff spouted as each side argues or points out how they're right, and the other is wrong?


Nothing, in my opinion. I could be dead wrong on every point I make, and that doesn't change the fact that it's pointless, either way. :) You could be dead wrong on every point you make, and it wouldn't change anything.

I'm done talking with some of you here, because unless you can point me directly to something that comes from this, enjoy messing with those who are more experienced than I. ;)

[Anonymous]

Nope, I do not, Seth. :)

Many people signed their witness that they saw the things of the Book of Mormon, and that is but one thing amid many which better confirms to me it's validity.

If it was so wrong, then why hasn't it been killed, yet? ;) That's rhetorical - please don't bother answering, because you won't hear the responses I give. That is evident.

Well I will answer, but I'll answer it with a question.

If Jehovah's Witnesses are so wrong, then why hasn't it died on the vine yet? If Islam is not the true religion of God, and the Koran is not true scripture from God, why do people still believe in Islam and read the Koran as God's Word?

Why the hell are their still Branch Davidians? Why hasn't the Catholic Church been killed yet? For that matter, why has a church like the Church of England still not died yet, when in fact it was founded by a secular king who took it upon himself to set up a church when the existing church wouldn't meet his needs, and set himself, a secular king, up as head of that church. If a church could possibly have a worse claim to being "God's church", I have a hard time imagining it.

Why do I ask you these questions? Because it demonstrates that a church's longevity and viability over time, and robustness in the face of adversity, is absolutely, positively, meaningless in terms of whether or not that church is true or not. You really should factor this into your thinking, and realize that the LDS church's success over time, both in growing over the last 170 years, as well as in continuing to maintain faithful believers even in the face of truth-telling anti-mormons, means absolutely nothing to the question of whether the LDS church is actually true or not.

It may be that the LDS church is actually true, but if that's so, the evidence of it is not in the church's survivability.

As far as my being willing to listen to responses, dude, I listen to your responses, but the problem is your responses are devoid of any meaningful or persuasive evidence backing up your claims. You toss up stuff like "if the LDS church isn't true, then why is it still around" when that's obviously not a convincing argument. I counter it with nothing more than "if the Jehovah's Witnesses aren't true, then why are they still around"? What is your answer to that?

At this point, I concede the fact that talking to some of you here is utterly wasteful of my breath. You will not hear that which fails to make sense in your own perspective, and you obviously aren't being too successful in your anti-mormon efforts. :)

Dude, it's talking with people like you that is a waste of peoples' breath. And I am sorry to tell you, but you're absolutely, utterly, and completely dead wrong about the success of the anti-mormon efforts. Just because your mind is still in thrall to the church doesn't mean the critical position is toothless; it just means that you're still mentally incapable of an objective, honest, and thorough evaluation of the evidence that exists. If the anti-mormon position is so impotent, then how do you explain the fact that almost all of the critics on this board are in fact either ex-mormons, or else still Mormons of record who are unbelievers now?

You weren't persuaded by the "anti-mormon" position, but I was. So just how impotent is the anti-mormon position? Oh yeah? Well, it got me, Shades, Runtu, the Dude, Tarski, Gramps, Kimberly Ann, and all the others either currently, or formerly still affiliated with this board. Dude, we were all believers like you once. The truth about Mormonism was in fact enough to convince us that the Church isn't actually true. So what exactly do you mean that anti-mormon efforts aren't successful?

And if you're speaking to me personally, I could show you, if they're still saved, PMs I've received from people who privately thanked me for things I'd posted online about Mormonism, who were wavering in their faith, and who felt I helped clarify some issues for them, and help them understand the critical position better. Since these were private communications, I don't feel at liberty to show them to you, but the efforts haven't been as unsuccessful as you think they have been, even if, so far, they've been unsuccesful with you. I'm sure a lot of other critics on this board could show the same kinds of communications.

Best wishes to you, but at this point I wash my hands of trying to help you understand that which you've already made up your mind on.

You're way too young and inexperienced, really, with this kind of thing, IMHO. I personally predict that you will eventually leave the church, having realized that it was in fact not true, as the critics on this board already have. I think that with you it's only a matter of time. There's just so much freaking evidence that pretty clearly demonstrates that this church isn't actually true, and it can only be twisted so far before a lot of people see the light and realize they're going to great lengths to protect a cherished belief in something that isn't actually true, and find the guts to admit that to themselves and act on it. Some people are immune to the truth, but I don't think that you are yet, and I predict that it will gnaw on you, and as you go on, you'll learn more and more of the kinds of things that stand as evidence of the charade, and it'll start bugging you how much you have to twist and turn and squirm to keep believing, and then eventually, someday, something will give in your mind, and you'll flip over to the "dark side" and realize that the church's not being true just makes so much more sense. Ask me how I know.

[_Runtu]

Well answer me this, beastie, what comes from continuing to stay here and waste time arguing with you guys?

I mean, does an angel get it's wings?


Is a baby saved from a burning building?


What useful anything comes from sitting here listening to the stuff spouted as each side argues or points out how they're right, and the other is wrong?


Nothing, in my opinion. I could be dead wrong on every point I make, and that doesn't change the fact that it's pointless, either way. :) You could be dead wrong on every point you make, and it wouldn't change anything.

I'm done talking with some of you here, because unless you can point me directly to something that comes from this, enjoy messing with those who are more experienced than I. ;)

I pretty much agree that it's pointless to argue here. I don't think there is anything anyone could say here that would change my conclusions about the church. That said, I do find listening to differing perspectives interesting and often enlightening. But yeah, arguing is not going to do anyone any good.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Jesus Humbert Christ...

I always wondered what the "H" stood for!

KA

Actually, I heard it stood for "Henrietta," not Humbert. Guy sajer, what sayest thou?

You are both wrong. It stands for Haploid.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Unlike Joe and dupe Harris, Peter and the rest did not try to turn a profit by selling the rights to their story.

One wonders how well the founders of Christianity would fare were there better historical records. Of course the so called Christian LDS critic refuses to see this, all the while using techniques to tear down the LDS Church that, if honestly applied, would cause difficulties for their own belief system. I am sure this is a hrd thing for you to admit.

One more point. I seem to recall Peter collecting all of the temporal items that Christians possessed and sitting by when a husband and wife dies on the spot for holding back money or substance. One wonders how did the apostles make a living when they were out preaching all the time.

Please. Paul specifically mentions supporting himself, and I doubt Peter was any different. The LDS Church is a patent fraud, and your calumny against the Apostles does not change that.

[_Sethbag]

I think it stands for Hogomemnon, the brother of Agamemnon. :-)

[_karl61]

this gave me a good laugh: (from ohiohistory.org)

"But a further hint as to the growing unpopularity of the Mormons was given by the issue of March 15. Recording the arrival of Martin Harris in Painesville, the paper contained a clear suggestion that the approach of the Mormon missionaries to the unwashed sometimes fell a shade below the highest diplomatic standards. Harris was a well-to-do New York farmer who put up most of the money for publishing the first edition of the Book of Mormon, and was especially active in selling the book. On arrival he immediately planted himself in the barroom of the Painesville Tavern, reported the Telegraph, and began to expound the Mormon Bible in a loud and aggressive manner to everyone within hearing. Growing more and more fervent, he denounced as infidels all who presumed to challenge his statements, and created such a hubbub that the innkeeper had to order him out of the place. His parting shot was that all who believed in Mormonism would see Christ in fifteen years, but all who did not so believe would be damned."

"Such tactics were scarcely the best way to win friends and influence people. But the evidence is clear that Harris' approach to Gentiles was fairly typical. The forcing of preaching and argument on the indifferent, the vigorous denunciation and damning of all who would not believe, was characteristic. "

[_beastie]

You're way too young and inexperienced, really, with this kind of thing, IMHO. I personally predict that you will eventually leave the church, having realized that it was in fact not true, as the critics on this board already have. I think that with you it's only a matter of time. There's just so much freaking evidence that pretty clearly demonstrates that this church isn't actually true, and it can only be twisted so far before a lot of people see the light and realize they're going to great lengths to protect a cherished belief in something that isn't actually true, and find the guts to admit that to themselves and act on it. Some people are immune to the truth, but I don't think that you are yet, and I predict that it will gnaw on you, and as you go on, you'll learn more and more of the kinds of things that stand as evidence of the charade, and it'll start bugging you how much you have to twist and turn and squirm to keep believing, and then eventually, someday, something will give in your mind, and you'll flip over to the "dark side" and realize that the church's not being true just makes so much more sense. Ask me how I know.

This is my suspicion as well. I suspect that Gillebre simply has not had his assertions tested at all - he's used to preaching to the choir, fellow believers who are happy to assert that the witness testimony is SERIOUS evidence, as is the fantastic growth of the church! He's a newbie to this, and wasn't ready for how easily and quickly his assertions were dismantled.

[_karl61]

Jesus Humbert Christ...

I always wondered what the "H" stood for!

KA

Actually, I heard it stood for "Henrietta," not Humbert. Guy sajer, what sayest thou?

You are both wrong. It stands for Haploid.

you are all wrong: the real story is that it stands for Jesus Humbert Christiansen. He is a half danish and half mexican day laborer who hangs out at the Home Depot.