John Williams Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Why would anyone choose a belief system that they thought made them less informed about the truth or 'unenlightened'?Exactly. That's why I find it odd that so many people suggest that exmormons deep down still believe that which they have rejected. You're right that people tend to believe in things that make more sense and make them feel more informed about the truth. The problem is that not every agrees on what makes sense and what is true.
David Bokovoy Posted June 18, 2007 Author Posted June 18, 2007 Interesting. Given my observations in this thread, a friend emailed me the following quote from another board. Iâ??m not sure who wrote it, but I agree with the sender that the following statement provides a nice illustration for what Iâ??ve been addressing. In view of the authorâ??s reference to â??antis,â? I would assume that this poster is in fact LDS. Kevin was railroaded on the MAD board. Those moderators are not working in the framework of what I consider to be honest and tolerant. They can be just as mean and nasty as their critics! Anyway, Kevin should continue to pound away and challenge the learned fools at FARMS. He knows there is something rotten going on and his sole intention is to get to the truth. FARMS will distort truth just as quickly as the antis do! I can see that clearly from some of the writings of Hugh Nibley. Pound away, Kevin.
John Williams Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Interesting. Given my observations in this thread, a friend emailed me the following quote from another board. Iâ??m not sure who wrote it, but I agree with the sender that the following statement provides a nice illustration for what Iâ??ve been addressing. In view of the authorâ??s reference to â??antis,â? I would assume that this poster is in fact LDS.Yes, this quote is from a church member. If nothing else, the quote illustrates the sort of good vs. evil approach a lot of people take towards apologetics.
phaedrus ut Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 I'm often confidently informed that Muslims, for example, claim testimonies in the same way (or, at any rate, in much the same way) that Latter-day Saints do, but (and perhaps I simply don't know enough about Islam or know too few Muslims) this doesn't appear to me to be the case.When I hear La ilaha illa Allah, Mohammadun rasulu Allah(There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet). It strikes me as a personal declaration of belief much like we'll have when someone bears their testimony saying "I know this church is true...."I'm sure you've forgotten more about Islam than I'll learn; but I'm curious in how you see the difference.Phaedrus
juliann Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Kevin was railroaded on the MAD board. Those moderators are not working in the framework of what I consider to be honest and tolerant. Hmmm....we respond to one of their daily vicious character assaults and our moderators are dishonest and intolerant for letting people talk back? I will never understand minds who can't look beyond their own noses.
LifeOnaPlate Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Interesting. Given my observations in this thread, a friend emailed me the following quote from another board. Iâ??m not sure who wrote it, but I agree with the sender that the following statement provides a nice illustration for what Iâ??ve been addressing. In view of the authorâ??s reference to â??antis,â? I would assume that this poster is in fact LDS.I love the underhanded ad hominem dismissal of Hugh Nibley. A common theme by critics who've likely read little to ZERO of Dr. Nibley's work. Bye bye, credibility.
John Williams Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 I love the underhanded ad hominem dismissal of Hugh Nibley. A common theme by critics who've likely read little to ZERO of Dr. Nibley's work. Bye bye, credibility.Heh. I'm quite certain Paul has read quite a bit of Nibley. And I have to laugh that someone who essentially condemned me and every other exmo to hell is considered a critic. Too funny.
SlackTime Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Heh. I'm quite certain Paul has read quite a bit of Nibley. And I have to laugh that someone who essentially condemned me and every other exmo to hell is considered a critic. Too funny. Um, I must be totally missing something...David Bokovoy quoted someone who was unnamed except to be called "a friend".LifeOnaPlate makes a dismissive comment based upon the quote about that same unnamed "friend".And you John W, know this same friend as Paul?I somehow missed the giving of the name.-SlackTime
LifeOnaPlate Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Heh. I'm quite certain Paul has read quite a bit of Nibley. And I have to laugh that someone who essentially condemned me and every other exmo to hell is considered a critic. Too funny.Anyone who condemns anyone else to hell is out of the line anyway [if this is true about above quoted poster] , and needs to look inside themselves. Accusers are out of the path, whether they be in or out of the Church.
John Williams Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Um, I must be totally missing something...David Bokovoy quoted someone who was unnamed except to be called "a friend".LifeOnaPlate makes a dismissive comment based upon the quote about that same unnamed "friend".And you John W, know this same friend as Paul?I somehow missed the giving of the name.-SlackTimeI hope I didn't do something wrong. David quoted a post on another board, which I had previously read. As I confirmed to David, the post was from an LDS poster. Unless he's trying to hide something, he uses his own name over there, as he does here (he's not banned, is he?). Anyway, I meant no harm. Just thought it was kind of funny that he's being used as an example of an angry exmo and unscrupulous critic.
Momus Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 We have been trying to keep this thread from being personal or getting personal. I guess I haven't been clear enough. Momus
SlackTime Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 I hope I didn't do something wrong. David quoted a post on another board, which I had previously read. As I confirmed to David, the post was from an LDS poster. Unless he's trying to hide something, he uses his own name over there, as he does here (he's not banned, is he?). Anyway, I meant no harm. Just thought it was kind of funny that he's being used as an example of an angry exmo and unscrupulous critic.Not upset, just got confused (easy to do to this old man). Things just weren't adding up. Now that you threw in the other board, it makes more sense. I reviewed back to David's post and he said:a friend emailed me the following quote from another board.So you also frequent the other board and so knew the author.But it seems to me that if one poster maintains someone's anonymity, it should be kept that way.-SlackTime
John Williams Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Not upset, just got confused (easy to do to this old man). Things just weren't adding up. Now that you threw in the other board, it makes more sense. I reviewed back to David's post and he said:So you also frequent the other board and so knew the author.But it seems to me that if one poster maintains someone's anonymity, it should be kept that way.-SlackTimeThen I apologize for having broken his cover.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.