Flyonthewall Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 The argument that it is POSSIBLE that Joseph Smith read a book and plagerized from it, does not mean that it happened. The Hobbit, and Lord of the Rings have been in print since before I was born. These books were very popular when I was in High school, and some kids were even learning the elvish language. Although it was POSSIBLE that I could have read these books as a youth, I did not. I had access to them, but did not read them. It wasn't until the LOTR movies came out that I actually read them.War and Peace is another book that is in print and available for me to read, but again, I have not read it.If you take the total number of books that are available to read verses the number of books people actually read, the odds are that a specific book has not been read by a specific person. So if you want to use statistics to argue a possibility, be prepared to admit a statistical impossibility.
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 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!I think truth and reality are the same thing.
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 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_goalpostI wasn't the one she was answering in the first place, so how I could move a goalpost for a point I never made?I was anticipating where the argument ALWAYS goes, that B.H. Roberts didn't believe in the divinity of the BoM, and shortcut the process. Forgive me for trying to cut down the number of meaningless argument that I expected to occur by providing a resource. Now that you've sufficiently derailed this thread with your attack on me, are you finished now?
robuchan Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Better yet:http://books.google.com/booksEverything that Redefined has mentioned can be referenced to the above link. Go findRedefined's being a lot more specific than LOAP and others have been with me on certain questions. "I can't do your homework for you."
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 The argument that it is POSSIBLE that Joseph Smith read a book and plagerized from it, does not mean that it happened. The Hobbit, and Lord of the Rings have been in print since before I was born. These books were very popular when I was in High school, and some kids were even learning the elvish language. Although it was POSSIBLE that I could have read these books as a youth, I did not. I had access to them, but did not read them. It wasn't until the LOTR movies came out that I actually read them.War and Peace is another book that is in print and available for me to read, but again, I have not read it.If you take the total number of books that are available to read verses the number of books people actually read, the odds are that a specific book has not been read by a specific person. So if you want to use statistics to argue a possibility, be prepared to admit a statistical impossibility.But then I would have to take your word for it. Added. . . and I could find it in myself to give you the benefit of the doubt, but things would change if I learned something that would call your integrity into question.
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 I think truth and reality are the same thing.Would you agree that our perception of "reality" can be substantially influenced by an almost innumerable number of outside factors?
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 I wasn't the one she was answering in the first place, so how I could move a goalpost for a point I never made?I was anticipating where the argument ALWAYS goes, that B.H. Roberts didn't believe in the divinity of the BoM, and shortcut the process. Forgive me for trying to cut down the number of meaningless argument that I expected to occur by providing a resource. Now that you've sufficiently derailed this thread with your attack on me, are you finished now?Thus the reason for my post asking why you are jumping to assumptions that I would be going a certain way that everyone else did, and not really listening to which way I was going with it. Added. . . I guess people aren't "ALWAYS" what you assume of them. I'm glad I could break the mold here.
robuchan Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 The argument that it is POSSIBLE that Joseph Smith read a book and plagerized from it, does not mean that it happened. The Hobbit, and Lord of the Rings have been in print since before I was born. These books were very popular when I was in High school, and some kids were even learning the elvish language. Although it was POSSIBLE that I could have read these books as a youth, I did not. I had access to them, but did not read them. It wasn't until the LOTR movies came out that I actually read them.War and Peace is another book that is in print and available for me to read, but again, I have not read it.If you take the total number of books that are available to read verses the number of books people actually read, the odds are that a specific book has not been read by a specific person. So if you want to use statistics to argue a possibility, be prepared to admit a statistical impossibility.It's a fair point, but if someone is going to write an opus work about a different time and place, it stands to reason the person would seek out as much research material as possible. Likewise for creating a religion and researching other religious doctrines.
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Would you agree that our perception of "reality" can be substantially influenced by an almost innumerable number of outside factors?Would you agree that yours could?
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Thus the reason for my post asking why you are jumping to assumptions that I would be going a certain way that everyone else did, and not really listening to which way I was going with it. Added. . . I guess people aren't "ALWAYS" what you assume of them. I'm glad I could break the mold here.Sorry...wasn't talking about you specifically. I meant the thread in general.
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Would you agree that yours could?Absolutely! Which is why I'm puzzled by your "reality = truth" statement.
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Sorry...wasn't talking about you specifically. I meant the thread in general.All I'm askin for is a fair listen.
Vance Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 And I still haven't read the Hobbit or LOTR, nor do I plan to, but it IS possible.
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Absolutely! Which is why I'm puzzled by your "reality = truth" statement.its about what REALLY happened was JS REALLY who he said he was.
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 its about what REALLY happened was JS REALLY who he said he was.How can we know that?
Vance Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 It's a fair point, but if someone is going to write an opus work about a different time and place, it stands to reason the person would seek out as much research material as possible. Likewise for creating a religion and researching other religious doctrines.So you have to start with the ASSUMPTION that THAT was what he started out to do, rather than just take him at his word.If you are looking for reasons NOT to believe you can find them EVERYWHERE. If you are looking for reasons TO believe you can find them everywhere ALSO.
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 ummhhumm. added: Honestly, it's an important issue. Everything we read in history books (on both sides of the argument) are written and provided through someone else's lens of perception. Even the compilation of historical writings by the individual in question is subject to some amount of bias. So, the question remains - given that you and I are orders of magnitude removed from being actual eyewitnesses, how do we comfortable determine what was "real"?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 I think truth and reality are the same thing.Sure, so what is the real truth?Oh, now that is the qolden question.How do you define truth or reality?
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Honestly, it's an important issue. Everything we read in history books (on both sides of the argument) are written and provided through someone else's lens of perception. Even the compilation of historical writings by the individual in question is subject to some amount of bias. So, the question remains - given that you and I are orders of magnitude removed from being actual eyewitnesses, how do we comfortable determine what was "real"?I think when questions one has that don't make sense or align with what one believes already, start to fall into place. . . that is a sign to follow that train of thought out til the end to see where it leads you. Some things stick and other things seem to always be redefining. The message to me is about infinity.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 And I still haven't read the Hobbit or LOTR, nor do I plan to, but it IS possible.It is possible I will read them to. But the reality is that I won't. I have no interest in reading them.Darn it I must be lying because if it is possible it must be true and it must be reality. Darn it I hate when I am wrong about something.
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 However, I have never tried to establish a church and gain followers based on my understanding of things like Joseph Smith did. Added. . . So I'm not the one on trial.
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 I think when questions one has that don't make sense or align with what one believes already, start to fall into place. . . that is a sign to follow that train of thought out til the end to see where it leads you. Some things stick and other things seem to always be redefining. The message to me is about infinity.Again, there's the potential for bias here - "align with that one believes already..." for example, implies a bias in the research.
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 It is possible I will read them to. But the reality is that I won't. I have no interest in reading them.Darn it I must be lying because if it is possible it must be true and it must be reality. Darn it I hate when I am wrong about something.You are mistaken, I never claimed possibility=truth, possibility does not equal reality.
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 However, I have never tried to establish a church and gain followers based on my understanding of things like Joseph Smith did. Added. . . So I'm not the one on trial.No, you're not. Technically, neither is he, given that he's dead...but I digress. But, we are trying out ideas and I'm trying to understand where your coming from and how you can conclude that your perception of reality (which equals "truth", in your mind) is superior to mine?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.