aaronshaf wrote:Wyatt explicitly claims that Mormons believe that God was God and that Jesus was the Son of God from eternity past.
Isn't this a weeeee bit misleading?
[SNIP!]
Not everyone in the Mormon church--indeed, not even the majority of LDS members--understands this the neo-orthodox way.
HOLY COW!! This Wyatt guy is a bigger buffoon than even I had given him credit for--no small feat!
Interestingly enough, he makes it easy for us by allowing us to select precisely why:
Allen Wyatt wrote:1. Wyatt is being misleading because he doesn't know what Mormons really believe. 2. Wyatt is being misleading because he does know what Mormons really believe, but won't say it publicly. 3. Wyatt is being misleading because he is Mormon.
[SNIP!]
A. If you picked #1, explain why you think this given the fact I've been a Mormon (and studied Mormonism) longer than you've been alive.
B. If you picked #2, explain why, without the apparent ability to read my mind, you think me guilty of lying.
C. If you picked #3, explain why Mormons, if they are congenitally predisposed to being misleading, are even worth talking to.
What kind of idiots does he take us all for? OF COURSE IT'S #2!! I simply cannot believe that even his Internet Mormon haze has blinded him to the OBVIOUS FACT that he's heard in church, ad nauseum, that God was once a man like us and that we, too, are following the same plan of salvation. There's no doubt in my mind that he himself even taught the doctrine numerous times to various and sundry classes. If he so easily forgets, then what on earth does he think the sentence "the Lord's course is one eternal round" means?
I clearly explain on my website on this topic that each group--the Internet Mormons and the Chapel Mormons, respectively--denies the existence of the other group and believes its doctrines are the one and only "true" Mormonism. Wyatt's mind-bendingly false assertion is just the latest example of this phenomenon.
Mr. Wyatt, if you're reading this, then I apologize for actually paying attention in church.
#4 Wyatt is being misleading because he doesn't understand the logical problems for Mormonism when he invokes an actual infinite
cksalmon wrote:#4 Wyatt is being misleading because he doesn't understand the logical problems for Mormonism when he invokes an actual infinite
I'd love to learn just what those problems are and whether or not they can be resolved. I don't see any logical problems in an actual infinite. If time/space isn't discrete, then don't actual infinites already exist, or is the term actual infinite reserved only for an infinity of physical objects such as electrons?
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Dr. Shades wrote:What kind of idiots does he take us all for? OF COURSE IT'S #2!! I simply cannot believe that even his Internet Mormon haze has blinded him to the OBVIOUS FACT that he's heard in church, ad nauseum, that God was once a man like us and that we, too, are following the same plan of salvation. There's no doubt in my mind that he himself even taught the doctrine numerous times to various and sundry classes. If he so easily forgets, then what on earth does he think the sentence "the Lord's course is one eternal round" means?
I clearly explain on my website on this topic that each group--the Internet Mormons and the Chapel Mormons, respectively--denies the existence of the other group and believes its doctrines are the one and only "true" Mormonism. Wyatt's mind-bendingly false assertion is just the latest example of this phenomenon.
Mr. Wyatt, if you're reading this, then I apologize for actually paying attention in church.
If you want further evidence that Bro. Wyatt is behaving in a snake-like fashion, I suggest you check out the thread, where he has continued to thrash about, proclaiming his innocence, etc. I'm not sure whether aaronshaf has been banned or not, but I do think it is quite interesting that they keep trying to discredit him by referring to some "God is a homosexual drag queen" comment that he apparently made a long time ago. (Incidentally, these are the same posters who get all bent out of shape when anyone reminds them of Prof. Hamblin's "Metcalfe is Butthead" slip-up.)
cksalmon wrote:#4 Wyatt is being misleading because he doesn't understand the logical problems for Mormonism when he invokes an actual infinite
I'd love to learn just what those problems are and whether or not they can be resolved. I don't see any logical problems in an actual infinite. If time/space isn't discrete, then don't actual infinites already exist, or is the term actual infinite reserved only for an infinity of physical objects such as electrons?
Hey Abman--
I'm currently writing up my thoughts on the matter. Not that anyone besides you and I care. The crux of the matter is Wyatt's apparent endorsement of a Dedekind definition of the infinite (i.e., subsets equinumerous with the superset). This is on top of the more general problem of positing an actually infinite passage of time prior to our (your and my) arrival on the scene. Of course, actual infinites are definitionally non-traversable.