Vance Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 No, I have addressed the issue repeatedly.Yes, with CIRCULAR arguments. Just like he said.Since you can only give circular arguments for why you believe in the Bible, I wouldn't bring it up if I were you.BUT, can you do it without circular arguments. That is the question.
splendidsun Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 I generally think that most people misread the KFD, not least because the amalgamated texts are horrible.
ERayR Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Senator,You wrote:Responsible critics -- like me -- do point out the diversity of LDS opinions on such matters. However, we also point out that the LDS Church does officially teach certain things, whether some apologists acknowledge it or not.If only you could get it right.
Cobalt-70 Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Your agenda driven posts are becoming positively annoying. You do not appear to have anything useful to contribute to this message board.Of all my posts, this is the one that you get annoyed with? The one where I quote a touching testimony by President Wilford Woodruff?
Jack Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 http://www.boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1844/7Apr44.htmlThe link above gives a nice comparison of various written accounts of the speech.
Cobalt-70 Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 When you stray beyond what God has revealed, that is what happens. Then you are on your own. You are in the realm of speculation. If everybody stuck to the canon (as they should), that wouldn't happen.If you stuck to the LDS canon, you would almost be a Protestant. In fact, trinitarianism is technically consistent with the LDS canon. Yes, God has a body, and so does Jesus; but many Protestants and Catholics believe Jesus has a body too--you can have a body and still share the same essence with the Trinity. There is no Heavenly Mother in the LDS canon. No Endowment, either, and no temple garments. The canon encourages you to drink beer. 1
Rob Bowman Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Vance,You wrote:Yes, with CIRCULAR arguments. Just like he said.BUT, can you do it without circular arguments. That is the question.I don't think the argument I gave was circular. But since you guys bring this up, can you give an argument for accepting your testimony that is not circular?
Rob Bowman Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Cobalt-70,You wrote:If you stuck to the LDS canon, you would almost be a Protestant. In fact, trinitarianism is technically consistent with the LDS canon. Yes, God has a body, and so does Jesus; but many Protestants and Catholics believe Jesus has a body too--you can have a body and still share the same essence with the Trinity. There is no Heavenly Mother in the LDS canon. No Endowment, either, and no temple garments. The canon encourages you to drink beer.Your claim here is largely true if you include only the Book of Mormon. However, the Book of Abraham introduces some of the key elements of the LDS theology that are radically opposed to Trinitarian theology. Furthermore, Joseph Smith's revelations in D&C moved Mormonism away from Trinitarianism at a rapid clip. As early as 1833 Joseph was proclaiming that man was in the beginning with God. That was a clear indication that Joseph's theology was morphing into something highly unorthodox. I'm afraid your claim here is so overstated that it cannot stand.
mfbukowski Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Mr. Bukowski,You wrote:No, I have addressed the issue repeatedly. You just don't want to let go of this issue because it's just too convenient for you to change the subject to it whenever you are unhappy with something I say.No, I have challenged you repeatedly- the last time was on general revelation and how it relates to the Bible. No answer. Do you want me to look up the thread and show you??
Rob Bowman Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Mr. Bukowski,You wrote:No, I have challenged you repeatedly- the last time was on general revelation and how it relates to the Bible. No answer. Do you want me to look up the thread and show you??It is always possible to ask additional questions. Your continued questioning in this general area does not seem intended to understand my position, and whenever you don't get an answer you like you claim I'm avoiding your questions, which gets tiresome. I decline to pursue the matter with you further, especially because of the many times you have loudly complained about me participating here. I've tried to be polite, but it is possible to run an issue into the ground. You will have to convince me that you have a different attitude toward me than the one I have described here and that there is some legitimate fruit to be gained by going another round. Otherwise, I have to choose what I spend time doing, like anyone else, and I choose to pursue discussions that seem to have some potential for being illuminating. Edited November 4, 2011 by Rob Bowman
mfbukowski Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Mr. Bukowski,You wrote:It is always possible to ask additional questions. Your continued questioning in this general area does not seem intended to understand my position, and whenever you don't get an answer you like you claim I'm avoiding your questions, which gets tiresome. I decline to pursue the matter with you further, especially because of the many times you have loudly complained about me participating here. I've tried to be polite, but it is possible to run an issue into the ground. You will have to convince me that you have a different attitude toward me than the one I have described here and that there is some legitimate fruit to be gained by going another round. Otherwise, I have to choose what I spend time doing, like anyone else, and I choose to pursue discussions that seem to have some potential for being illuminating.Fine. Leave all the questions unanswered if you like. I'm used to it.For what it's worth, this was the most recent exchange. There were more posts- I cut out numerous other requests about how one was to know a revelation was "true" or "false"It was your statement- but you refused to answer. You acknowledged that Evangelicals know the Bible is true by revelation, just as we do, but they know because their revelations are "true" but ours are not.Go ahead. Don't answer this time either.Mr. Bukowski,You wrote:No. I was talking about both general and special revelation.No again. I have always insisted that I do believe in revelation.You're simply not grasping the entirety of the post to which you refer. I mentioned God's revelation in creation, conscience, Christ, and the Bible. Furthermore, the issue dividing us is not the belief in special revelation but the content and meaning of that revelation. Evangelicals reject LDS religion because its primary basis is what we are convinced are false revelations. These false revelations distort your understanding of all four media of revelation that I discussed. I also explained that in my view knowledge of revelation and knowledge of facts are never at odds because all facts are revelatory. This means that facts can confirm true revelations and they can also expose false revelations. My position has not changed and I am not blurring my previously stated understanding of the differences between our two beliefs.How does one distinguish between true and false revelations?Let me guess.If it corresponds to Evangelical theology it is "true", and if it does not, it is "false". Right?How did I know?And what do you mean by "facts"? Is "Pluto is a planet" a fact? How about Quantum Mechanics or Newtonian physics as opposed to Relativity? Which of these are "factual"? We know these facts by revelation? Which are right?Sigh.This whole line of questioning developed to see how we knew the Bible was "true revelation" in the first place.Around and around we go."There's a hole in the bucket dear Lisa, dear Lisa,......"http://en.wikipedia....le_in_My_BucketRobI guess you have chosen not to reply to this. Just wanted to remind everyone.
mfbukowski Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 It is always possible to ask additional questions.Yes, especially when you don't answer them
Greg Kofford Books Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 FYI. We are about to publish a new biography of King Follett himself by Joann Follett Mortensen - The Man behind the Discourse: A Biography of King Follett. The $999 price is just to prevent orders before a price is finalized.
Rob Bowman Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Mr. Bukowski,You claim that I did not respond to the following questions from you:How does one distinguish between true and false revelations?Let me guess.If it corresponds to Evangelical theology it is "true", and if it does not, it is "false". Right?How did I know?But I did respond to those questions.You see -- even when I answer something, you claim I didn't. I know you know I answered the above questions, because you quoted my response in your reply, which you also quoted above. But here you conveniently left out my response and claimed, falsely, that I did not respond to your questions.Please stop. I will report as harassment any further complaints about me not answering you.
mfbukowski Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 FYI. We are about to publish a new biography of King Follett himself by Joann Follett Mortensen - The Man behind the Discourse: A Biography of King Follett. The $999 price is just to prevent orders before a price is finalized.That should be an effective strategy.
Calm Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 That should be an effective strategy.Definitely works for me.
mfbukowski Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 But I did respond to those questions.LOL! you serious call that a response?Mr. Bukowski,You wrote:Wrong.If a purported revelation contradicts the earlier revelations given in the Bible, then the new revelation is false. That is the primary test. I bet you already knew that.The Bible is true because it is true. That is not a response- I skipped it because there was no point to repeating it. My answer was the "Dear Lisa" song.Repeating the same circular argument again and again is not a response.I am not harassing you in any way; complain all you like. It is a legitimate question and you have never answered it. Many here are aware of that. It will only underline the fact that you have no real response but must rely a smokescreen to avoid the question. It is plain for all to see.You recall that this all started on another thread in which I posted that I actually liked your response to a similar question- but you answer was incomplete. I am simply following up to see if that response I liked was in earnest.Apparently it is not. Your idea of "revelation" to prove the Bible true is the revelation of the Bible itself. That is not an answer.But if that is the best you can do, so be it. I just want it pointed out clearly that that is the best you can come up with.
Rob Bowman Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Mr. Bukowski,You wrote:LOL! you serious call that a response?As expected.You wrote:The Bible is true because it is true.I neither said nor implied such a facile claim.You wrote:Repeating the same circular argument again and again is not a response.Falsely accusing me of not answering you again and again does not make it so.You wrote:I am not harassing you in any way; complain all you like.Done.
mfbukowski Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Fine. You've amply proved my point. If that's the best you can do, it's the best you can do. Edited November 4, 2011 by mfbukowski
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Honestly, guys, Bowman is generally polite long after I would have exploded. Just because he disagrees with us and publishes his stuff does not make him The Enemy. He is obviously sincere, and has genuine issues with the Church. If half of our "enemies" - heck, if half of our members - were as informed as he is, the world would be a better place. I can't remember the last time I agreed with his arguments, but he usually comports himself well here unless poked with a sharp stick. Give the guy a rest. 1
mfbukowski Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Honestly, guys, Bowman is generally polite long after I would have exploded. Just because he disagrees with us and publishes his stuff does not make him The Enemy. He is obviously sincere, and has genuine issues with the Church. If half of our "enemies" - heck, if half of our members - were as informed as he is, the world would be a better place. I can't remember the last time I agreed with his arguments, but he usually comports himself well here unless poked with a sharp stick. Give the guy a rest.Its nothing personal- I just want answers. It makes no sense to me how he can believe the Bible is true based on the mere fact that it is the bible.If that's all he has, it stands on its own. I really don't care, I just presumed there was a better argument in there somewhere, that's all.But yes, I do see him as the "enemy" since he makes a living tearing down others religions.I am highly opposed to that as a practice, and will oppose it vigorously on moral grounds every time I see it. 1
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) I doubt career anti-cultism is a very lucrative bidniz, brotha. *grin* The point is, from his perspective he's doing a good thing, and from my perspective, I prefer his brand of opposition to that of, say, Jack Chick or Ed Decker. I certainly dislike Bowman's site, etc, but we should be persuading him to join our "side", not excoriating him for not seeing the light quite yet.Edit: And back on the subject of the thread, does anyone else think that the cartoon from The Godmakers is one of the most hilarious things they've ever seen? We should show it in Institute and Seminary classes for laughs. The ominous music and conspiracy-theory voiceover alone are worth the price of admission, but the animation ... OH the animation ... Edited November 4, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith
blackstrap Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Mr.Bowman vs ( pick an opponent ) : topic- same,same : discourse- yes I did...no you didn't...yes I did....no you didn't ...repeat as necessary.I suppose if I were paid enough I could spend time refuting the arguments of the Hindus or Buddists or Catholics or Bahais ...One has to admire his.... then again... Edited November 4, 2011 by blackstrap
shalamabobbi Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 I for one am glad He's back. I missed the cheap entertainment..
Recommended Posts