ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Strong statement. Have you read any of BH's actual writings or just the FAIR responses?I have read some. What's your point?
robuchan Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 You need to go back and read your original comment then - you wrote "I wonder why is isn't mentioned in the Book of Mormon."Not sure where you're going with this.I said "I wonder why the doctrine was never mentioned in the Book of Mormon"The doctrine meaning the Swedenborg doctrines of three degrees, spirit world, celestial marriage.
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 That is seemingly rhetorical.Nope...genuine question.
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 I'm not sure what you mean. I'm talking about the Swedenborg stuff.I see you clarified in post #102...I thought you were talking about polygamy in general.
robuchan Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 I have read some. What's your point?You keep throwing the FAIR link up there about BH. Your logic seems to be that since the FAIR article suggests that BH died in the faith that nothing BH ever wrote could possibly be used against the church. BH wrote a lot and his final testimony while important doesn't negate everything he shed light on. He did quite a bit of research on what source material Joseph had access to and the parallels of such.
lostindc Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Doesn't mean it wasn't available.At want point do you stop.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Reality hit me. . . . like a semi.And you went off that a possibility was in fact a reality and you accepted that it was reality solely because it was a possibility? Right?
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Didn't mean I had to come to the same conclusion Roberts did, just because he pointed out the questions and decided to hold onto the church faithfully rather than starting down another path. His conclusion doesn't invalidate the possibility of the questionable origins of the BOM. Adding. . . which he himself pointed out.Regarding the "which he himself pointed out" statement, can you please provide a link to what you are using to support this position? BTW, our board rules require that when someone has issued a "call for references" (or "CFR"), the person who made the claim, must provide support for the alleged statement of fact. Thanks.
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 You keep throwing the FAIR link up there about BH. Your logic seems to be that since the FAIR article suggests that BH died in the faith that nothing BH ever wrote could possibly be used against the church. BH wrote a lot and his final testimony while important doesn't negate everything he shed light on. He did quite a bit of research on what source material Joseph had access to and the parallels of such.Why is it that you incessantly impute conclusions into my statements that aren't there? I never said that "nothing BH ever wrote could possibly be used against the church." Such a statement is absurd. I said that the critics reach conclusions that he didn't share and that they invoke his name in the process. There is a HUGE difference there.
mercyngrace Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 I see you clarified in post #102...I thought you were talking about polygamy in general.I read it the same way and was floored that robouchan would say there is no polygamy in the BOM! My mistake.
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 And you went off that a possibility was in fact a reality and you accepted that it was reality solely because it was a possibility? Right?Frankly, you don't allow for a more complex answer. . . and I wouldn't have the time to go into all the detail of the reality that hit me and my exit from the church.
robuchan Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Why is it that you incessantly impute conclusions into my statements that aren't there? I never said that "nothing BH ever wrote could possibly be used against the church." Such a statement is absurd. I said that the critics reach conclusions that he didn't share and that they invoke his name in the process. There is a HUGE difference there.Redefined points out that BH said he had the book available in a local public library, and you respond with a link to FAIR showing BH died a faithful Mormon.
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 At want point do you stop. Your saying it wasn't highly likely? Why not? What makes that so?
lostindc Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Your saying it wasn't highly likely? Why not? What makes that so?I think my peers sufficiently tore that up throughout the thread. At this point we are waiting on you to substantiate any of your claims.
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Redefined points out that BH said he had the book available in a local public library, and you respond with a link to FAIR showing BH died a faithful Mormon.Are you defending your incessant imputation of conclusions on me, or trying to address something of substance? The fact is, my discussion with Redefined has extended beyond just the notion of "availability".
mfbukowski Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 You guys all need to do your homework.I never finished my masters in philosophy because I decided I didn't want to teach, and that was the only avenue open rather than be a "Certified Public Philosopher", but I did do all the coursework necessary and I was working on my thesis when I quit.My thesis was on the work of William James.When I found Mormonism, what instantly struck me was that Mormonism imo reflects the philosophy of William James in many respects. I got baptized. William James is seen as one of the founders of a school of philosophy known as "Pragmatism" and it is also known as "American Philosophy" because it reflects many of the values and perspectives of what it means to be American.One of William James' books is called "The Varieties of Religious Experience", in which he discusses whether or not religious experience can be seen as "valid" and though he never expressed his own religious views, that work and others show that he was indeed sympathetic to the validity of religious experience.I became aware of Sweedenborg several years ago and was struck with the parallels with Mormonism.Guess what I discovered? William James' father, the famous author Henry James, was a Sweedenborgian, and William James was raised with those beliefs as part of the "air he breathed".The American spirit itself is essentially Sweedenborgian/Jamesian/Mormon.Self reliance. Individualism and the ability to "figure out" things for oneself.The need for work, and that hard work brings big rewards. (Anyone hear Pres. Uchtdorf's talk?)The lack of need for central authority.The idea that anyone can create his own destiny (even to the point of godhood).The taming of nature, the assertion of the human spirit over wildness and/or carnalityThe idea that humans create the world in which we live; the idea that we are gods in that sense.And if you think I am nuts, you could be right, but I am not the only one.http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/pragmatizing-mormonism-and-baptizing-william-james-or-was-william-james-a-closet-mormon-and-joseph-smith-a-proto-pragmatist-part-i-on-william-james-and-mormonism/If two scientists discover the same phenomenon, it is called "science"If two men of God receive revelation it is called "plagerism". Why is that?Both should just be called "the truth".Edit: And incidentally the Paulsen article referred to in the above link mentions how much of a Jamesian BH Roberts was.
robuchan Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Are you defending your incessant imputation of conclusions on me, or trying to address something of substance? The fact is, my discussion with Redefined has extended beyond just the notion of "availability".I'm not sure.I just think it's lame you throw out that FAIR link about BH's final testimony to answer Redefined's claim that BH researched and wrote about the availability of said source material (which was only brought up because she was CFR'd on the issue...it's called moving the goalposts around here). You did the same thing the other day concerning BH and Ethan Smith.You see how lame it is now, right?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Frankly, you don't allow for a more complex answer. . . and I wouldn't have the time to go into all the detail of the reality that hit me and my exit from the church.Frankly I really don't care why you left the church. It is no different from the 100's I have heard from others.I just find your reasoning in this thread to be a little unconvincing.
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 I'm not sure.Well, perhaps you should get sure before you keep calling me out for things I didn't say.I just think it's lame you throw out that FAIR link about BH's final testimony to answer Redefined's claim that BH researched and wrote about the availability of said source material (which was only brought up because she was CFR'd on the issue...it's called moving the goalposts around here).You clearly don't understand what moving the goalposts is, because I did no such thing.You did the same thing the other day concerning BH and Ethan Smith.I'm sorry. I didn't realize that providing resources, that I consider useful, in response to the general discussion was a problem. Why is that, exactly?You see how lame it is now, right?Get back to me when you can behave civilly.
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Regarding the "which he himself pointed out" statement, can you please provide a link to what you are using to support this position? BTW, our board rules require that when someone has issued a "call for references" (or "CFR"), the person who made the claim, must provide support for the alleged statement of fact. Thanks.CFR. . . here you goB. H. Roberts. . . Studies of the Book of Mormon. . . Book of Mormon Difficulties: A study.
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 CFR. . . here you goB. H. Roberts. . . Studies of the Book of Mormon. . . Book of Mormon Difficulties: A study.Am I to read the whole thing, or do you have a specific quote in mind? I'm not trying to be difficult, just wondering what, exactly, prompted your statement.
Vance Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Frankly, you don't allow for a more complex answer. . . and I wouldn't have the time to go into all the detail of the reality that hit me and my exit from the church.So it IS possible that when you left the church, you walked away from the truth.So the mere existence of this possibility makes it the TRUTH. To follow your logic, anyway!
lostindc Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 CFR. . . here you goB. H. Roberts. . . Studies of the Book of Mormon. . . Book of Mormon Difficulties: A study.Better yet:http://books.google.com/booksEverything that Redefined has mentioned can be referenced to the above link. Go find
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Am I to read the whole thing, or do you have a specific quote in mind? I'm not trying to be difficult, just wondering what, exactly, prompted your statement.Well, it's kinda the point of the book.
robuchan Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 You clearly don't understand what moving the goalposts is, because I did no such thing.Redefined answered a CFR to a claim that Joseph had a certain source material available by referring to BH. You claimed to refute this by linking to a FAIR article suggesting BH died with his testimony intact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.