Daniel Peterson:
A word of advice, born of long experience: Don't waste your time. George Bernard Shaw's famous witticism is perfectly apropos with regard to the Stalker: "I learned long ago," he quipped, "never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

And that is why I am on solid ground in believing that the Republican party platform is the restoration of the true politics that were practiced in the lost city of Atlantis, and which Poseidon has divinely inspired to be brought back in our modern day.

I have yet to see anyone prove a lot to the contrary.

Apparently stem didn't learn anything from his time here, except to sort of, in a garbled way, repeat back the criticisms that were made of his "remote possibilities" approach to belief.

He was the king of possibilities, or at least all the ones that helped him protect his beliefs. :)

The Church "indicates" the most reasonable artistic expression which imply's translating.... That is the plates on the table and Joseph sitting at it, and maybe with Oliver also at the table.

Head in a hat would be an awkward and confusing presentation. You wouldn't know who's head in the hat, etc.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=22298&p=548733#p548733

Is it cheating to use a quote from this board?

It is simple.
The (usually inchoate) epistemology implicit in the notion of a private inner witness from the Holy Ghost just can't be made to work.
Knowledge has to make reference to publically available evidence and norms of rationality--at least in principle. You have to have good reason to say you know something.

It is no wonder that contradictions arise between different people's revelations. The number of religions and diverse metaphysical beliefes that arise because some body somewhere had a kind of inner mystical experience is huge.
Good methods converge. Bad methods diverge.
Thus we do have some good reasons to deny this notion of personal revelation as it is normally concieved.
In some sense then, what we know is that it doesn't work.

It is amazing that people just can't apply this lesson to their own relgion.

I appreciate you demonstrating that some secularists can be as narrow-minded, fundamentalist, and dogmatic as some religionists.

It isn't unexpected that some people who flunk spiritual tests will blame the test. From what I can tell, the tendency in this regard seems to correspond increasingly with the size of one's ego. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Gotta love how Wade thinks he can dismiss Tarski's level-headed, clear-eyed scientific analysis of personal revelation by projecting his own narrow approach back on Tarski.

Too much sex talk.

From the "My Porn is OK, Your Porn Is Not OK" AKA "The Lady Porn" thread,



In a thread that is utterly devoid of any sex talk whatsoever...

H.

The fact that some experiences can be so induced doesn't give me pause so much as it tells me that our brains were designed to be able to receive such impressions as directed from outside of them.

If you read my earlier post, you may recall that I had an unmistakeable impression that I was to be called to a position of responsibility, and that this impression was later confirmed by being so called. Perhaps you would choose to believe that all of this occurred because self-generated electrical impulses in my brain triggered a cascade of chemical release and, perhaps, shall we take this into the realm of particle physics, caused quantum entrainment of a particle that subsequently hit the stake president two weeks later and caused his brain to generate electrical impulses and chemical releases, making him call me to the position?

Hmmm. A bit too Rube Goldberg for my tastes, but nevertheless I shall consider this for a moment. <tick, tick, tick>

Nah. Occam's Razor alone would cause me to reject the scenario above as not the simplest explanation of what happened. I find that the simplest explanation is that God wanted me to be called to that position and inspired the stake president to make the call.

But if you prefer a more convoluted explanation that leaves God out of it, I shan't argue with you about it. The fact that I was there and it happened to me does tend to make me believe my own experience over any attempt to ascribe it to random physical phenomena.

Judea is an English word, and since the Book of Mormon is translated into English, no surprise that English words are found in it.

Pure bilge. There is no need to "re-inject" Christianity into Mormonism, because Mormonism is Christianity par excellence.

The Spirit bears witness to me that they were (and are.)

I think I'll rely upon the spiritual witness I've received, thanks.

Given that Moses was a murderer on the run from the law when he had his first vision, and that he received a number of revelations that "conveniently" shored up his leadership position, and that Abraham practiced polygamy, and that Paul published different versions of his first vision, and that Peter claimed to have received a revelation that contradicted what was revealed to previous prophets, I don't actually see any obvious difference between them and Joseph Smith except that Joseph had a surname.

Regards,
Pahoran

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56813-the-city-of-judea/page__view__findpost__p__1209086709



Judea is not an English word.

"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07

Seeing angels mean nothing to those who choose to leave. The Book of Mormon is good evidence of that.

What does it mean that even the very elect shall fall? Is this not prophecy? I do not think we should be overly concerned about who leaves; meeting their needs is not our objective because, frankly, I don't think we can do anything to meet their needs. They had long since chosen to leave before the door ever hit them on their way out. They have put their faith in the arm of flesh and abandoned all things spiritual.

In many respects I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Everyone seems to be talking as if no one is left in the Church; the pews are empty and the Church's history is the black hole. Nothing could be further from the truth; first you must take history selectively, ignore all that is glaring good, focus completely on perceived difficulties and then only listen to Satan to lead you quietly down to hell.

An old classic. So much was deleted. :(

The problem I have with this question is that it assumes the spirit is not part of the equation. In other words, it's tangibles like the history, that are the crux of a person's testimony which has never been the case. Accepting the gospel and joining the church has always been done by a spiritual confirmation. Usually a person who is firmly founded by a spiritual conversion can get through the things that may appear questionable. I think the things that appear questionable are just that: they appear to be so.

So the answer to the question in the title: Probably nothing except what they've been doing since the restoration and that is getting people to get a personal confirmation from the Holy Spirit that these things are true. If they later decide that they were somehow mislead they have no one to blame but themselves.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/568 ... -the-fold/

Let's be real, some "apostates" do come back. Most probably do not. And, it seems to me, many apostates leave after tons of efforts to reconcile their disbelief with the teachings and history. In most cases, I don't see any change really being effective, except perhaps denial of most of the Church's teachings.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/568 ... ge__st__20