73 replies to this topic

[mfbukowski]

Rob Bowman, on 05 October 2011 - 08:30 AM, said:

I also must say that I have completely lost respect for those LDS posters here who have said, in effect, that they would prefer IRR's website to continue having such supposed distortions on it because they make it easier to dismiss what we say. More than one Mormon here has complained that informing me of inaccuracies on our website or discussing any LDS issues with me on this forum is more or less helping the devil of anti-Mormonism.

Woe is me!   One of the major detractors of my faith has lost the respect he never had for me!   Whatever shall become of me?

At least you may find consolation in the fact that the feeling is mutual.

[mfbukowski]

Rob Bowman, on 05 October 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

Lehi,

By your reasoning, then, it should be possible for the Holy Ghost to be non-material. It should also be possible for the Holy Ghost to be in two or more places at the same time.

This is just silly.

His influence can be felt in more that one place at the same "time"- whatever that means.  At least that sentence can be regarded as true for all practical purposes.  

Time IS space, so there can be no way of knowing when two clocks at two different spatial locations are in synch- at least not perfectly.

It's just a silly rabbit hole to go down.   We could never in principle know if it is true scientifically anyway.

[mfbukowski]

Rob Bowman, on 05 October 2011 - 09:46 AM, said:

Lehi,

Then I guess it is not so that "all things are possible with God," in your understanding, because he cannot be in two places at once.

This is just childish.

What was that one about lifting a rock?   Na na ne na na

[mfbukowski]

wenglund, on 05 October 2011 - 10:36 AM, said:

I think this bears repeating: In my worldview, there is a wide gulf between saying "the LDS church teaches..." and saying "a few LDS members have said on rare occasion..."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wish I had a couple of more points to give you on this one.

[mfbukowski]

DaddyG, on 06 October 2011 - 06:11 PM, said:

http://www.mormondia...__p__1209052507

Volgadon's not getting any love.

Standard operating procedure.

[volgadon]

mfbukowski, on 08 October 2011 - 03:27 PM, said:

Standard operating procedure.

I sincerely hope that when Rob gets back he can explain why using an unsourced late medieval text is acceptable when trying to dispute the significance of a passage no later than the Babylonian Talmud.

Edited by volgadon, 08 October 2011 - 05:09 PM.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 05 October 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:

I wouldn't ask readers to be suspicious by using the wording you suggest ("it may not accurately reflect..."),

Of course you wouldn't.  You want them to swallow the falsehoods and misrepresentations in your stuff hook, line and sinker.

Quote

. . .  but I wouldn't have a problem with some sort of statement directing readers to official LDS sources for firsthand, authoritative articulation of LDS doctrine.

AFTER you have "poisoned the well" sufficiently, naturally you wouldn't have a problem with it.

Quote

In fact, in my articles, I usually do direct readers to primary LDS sources, including links in my online articles.

See above.

[mfbukowski]

volgadon, on 08 October 2011 - 04:41 PM, said:

I sincerely hope that when Rob gets back he can explain why using an unsourced late medieval text is acceptable when trying to dispute the significance of a passage no later than the Babylonian Talmud.

Did you look at the link Daddy posted?   He IS back, he's just avoiding you- more precisely it appears he never left.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 05 October 2011 - 01:36 PM, said:

While we're on this subject, when Mormons denounce the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, the evangelical doctrine of justification by faith, and similar doctrines as evidence of the Great Apostasy, the supposed corruption of Christianity by philosophy, etc., do they ever include such disclaimers as you are saying I should use?

You mean like the disclaimer found in the front of Mormon Doctrine?

[Vance]

mfbukowski, on 08 October 2011 - 06:38 PM, said:

Did you look at the link Daddy posted?   He IS back, he's just avoiding you- more precisely it appears he never left.

He always leaves the threads that get too difficult for him.

Unless things have changed, he is currently working on another line of attack that he will post when he thinks it is ready.

[Skylla]

If you feel Rob Bowman is violating board guidelines, report it.  Otherwise, stop commenting on his behavior please.

Skylla

[mfbukowski]

Skylla, on 09 October 2011 - 12:14 AM, said:

If you feel Rob Bowman is violating board guidelines, report it.  Otherwise, stop commenting on his behavior please.

Skylla

Good idea.

"Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements"

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

My time is very limited, but I want to reply to the following:

volgadon, on 08 October 2011 - 04:41 PM, said:

I sincerely hope that when Rob gets back he can explain why using an unsourced late medieval text is acceptable when trying to dispute the significance of a passage no later than the Babylonian Talmud.

I don't understand the question. Who is using "an unsourced late medieval text...when trying to dispute the significance of a passage no later than the Babylonian Talmud"? If I am the person you mean, where did I do that?

[volgadon]

Rob Bowman, on 13 October 2011 - 10:01 AM, said:

volgadon,

My time is very limited, but I want to reply to the following:

I don't understand the question. Who is using "an unsourced late medieval text...when trying to dispute the significance of a passage no later than the Babylonian Talmud"? If I am the person you mean, where did I do that?

I appreciate you taking the time to respond.
You did. You mentioned a bit of Jewish lore (which it appears you found in Ginsberg) "according to which Eden had 310 worlds; the saying you cited may be a colorful way of saying that each righteous person (with his wife) will have his own Eden..." This lore comes from a 13th c. work produced in the same circle which produced the Zohar.