Why are people mormon considering it is obvioulsy fabricated?

[cthulhubryan]

Bryan,
You have taken the common approach to these issues, but it is not a very scholarly approach, though I suppose it works for you.

So you mean to say that every one of the hundreds of tribal groups in the Americas has DNA originating in East Asia, and you have complete and accurate proof of that?

And you also have complete and accurate proof that those whose DNA has been compared who are in East Asia did not migrate there from another part of the world?

My, you are a very ill mannered fellow this morning. I’ve yet to through the first insult and here you are. If you know anything at all about the process then you know that all human DNA is similar. What we know is that American Indians are most similar to East Asians.

Restate the date of the Rosetta stone. The translation for the Rosetta stone applied when the translation was actually done, which was over a thousand years after the Book of Abraham. We have already discussed on this thread that religious beliefs and doctrines can change in a few short years. The changes over a thousand years would be monumental, and any scholar who reads Egyptian history and says religious beliefs were a constant has not researched the history at all.

Again, you are trying to shift the discussion away from the matter at hand. Smith did not accurately translate the papyri according to all sources known to man.

Yes, and the people who had him arrested had believed him and sought out his “gift” so they could make money from it. Of course they would have him arrested when his “gift” didn’t work for their purposes.

What is the point of your statement? I merely said that he was arrested for it. Period. Statement of fact. Your spew does nothing to dispute the fact, because it cannot be disputed. My post had nothing to do with WHY he was arrested.

Mormon theology does not and has never taught that. One man gave something similar to that as his opinion, and others believed him, but that does not make it “theology” and such a teaching has been completely refuted by actual Mormon theology. Welcome to the years 1978 and beyond.

Hmmm, perhaps you should go back and look at the words of your own prophets.

So you’re saying if you had a brother and a mob was about to kill him, you would not try and defend him? What would you do, exactly?

Again, you try to smear my words. I only confirmed that he died in a shoot out and he also shot back. I made no value judgment on the fact. I said no such thing and any rational person would see that.

If I get back to Utah I’d love to continue this conversation over a Crown Burger.

 

[mjf001]

MJF, you’re being diplomatic, but in matters this important, one needs to be direct and crystal clear.

In asserting Joseph Smith is a true prophet, in asserting that he has received a witness of the Book of Mormon that he will not deny, and in being baptised as a Mormon, WhyMe doesn’t have a “problem as a Catholic”. Instead, WhyMe is NOT a Catholic.

If WhyMe ever WAS a Catholic as he claims (which I doubt) he self-excommunicated at the time of his Mormon baptism. And then there’s the whole “testimony” aspect of his Mormon faith. The Catholic faith did not leave him, he left the Catholic faith. Unless and until he remedies this situation through reconciliation/confession, where he would have to give up his Mormon testimony and renounce his Mormon baptism, he is NOT A CATHOLIC. He excommunicated himself by his actions years go and has never done one thing to change that.

Bottom line ~ he doesn’t have a “problem as a Catholic”, he is NOT a Catholic, by his own choices.

Agreed, I should have been more direct.

 

[ParkerD]

Michael,

This is a good discussion to have.

So, in the New Testament, Christ, who is God, did not once try to clearly let the Jews know who he was? He never once quoted scripture, for instance, prophesying of his coming?

He certainly did quote the scriptures and tell the Jews who He was. He did not hesitate to do that, even when He knew the leaders were about to have Him killed.

He never performed miracles and healing to show the Jews who he was?

I disagree that His motivation for doing those miracles and healing was to “show the Jews who He was”. I think His motivation was love for the people, and also to demonstrate to humankind throughout the world that He does have the power to heal. He is the great Healer. But whom does He heal? Those who come to Him with a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

Come on, Parker. God does communicate to us through the Holy Spirit, but faith is not the only gift he gave us. God wants us to use all our gifts, including reason. Because God is truth, faith and reason shouldn’t contradict. Show me one instance in the Bible, where God revealed something to the Jews, then hid the evidence. Show me one.

Are you saying that anyone who wanted to could go in and see the Ark of the Covenant, or the tablets on which were written the Ten Commandments and all the other parts of the Mosaic law? Are you saying that Christ as a resurrected Being with love in His heart for all of mankind, appeared to every Jew in the world at that time to show them that He had been resurrected?

The idea that “faith and reason shouldn’t contradict” is so completely askew of what was taught by Paul, that it basically says to me that you are unfamiliar with the teachings of Paul. Paul taught essentially the exact opposite, that faith and reason would contradict, and that would be a test for the people. (See 1 Corinthians, entire book.)

 

[ParkerD]

My, you are a very ill mannered fellow this morning. I’ve yet to through the first insult and here you are. If you know anything at all about the process then you know that all human DNA is similar. What we know is that American Indians are most similar to East Asians.

Again, you are trying to shift the discussion away from the matter at hand. Smith did not accurately translate the papyri according to all sources known to man.

What is the point of your statement? I merely said that he was arrested for it. Period. Statement of fact. Your spew does nothing to dispute the fact, because it cannot be disputed. My post had nothing to do with WHY he was arrested.

Hmmm, perhaps you should go back and look at the words of your own prophets.

Again, you try to smear my words. I only confirmed that he died in a shoot out and he also shot back. I made no value judgment on the fact. I said no such thing and any rational person would see that.

If I get back to Utah I’d love to continue this conversation over a Crown Burger.

Just for the record, if my brother was being threatened by a mob with guns and obvious intent to kill, then I would seek to defend him in any way that I could. I think most reasonable people would do that.

Have a good day, and by the way I am familiar with the “words of my own prophets” as well as with the words of the prophets in the Bible.

 

[mjf001]

Michael,

[SIGN]This is a good discussion to have.

He certainly did quote the scriptures and tell the Jews who He was. He did not hesitate to do that, even when He knew the leaders were about to have Him killed.
[/SIGN]

[SIGN]I disagree that His motivation for doing those miracles and healing was to “show the Jews who He was”. I think His motivation was love for the people, and also to demonstrate to humankind throughout the world that He does have the power to heal. He is the great Healer. But whom does He heal? Those who come to Him with a broken heart and a contrite spirit.[/SIGN]

The Jews of the time believed that illness indicated the person had sinned. By healing those he healed, in some instances he showed that he had the power to forgive sin. This was important because only God can forgive sin. In other instances, he used it as a demonstration of the power of faith. There was a purpose for everything Jesus did in his three years of ministry, leading to his death on the cross.

[SIGN]Are you saying that anyone who wanted to could go in and see the Ark of the Covenant, or the tablets on which were written the Ten Commandments and all the other parts of the Mosaic law? Are you saying that Christ as a resurrected Being with love in His heart for all of mankind, appeared to every Jew in the world at that time to show them that He had been resurrected?[/SIGN]

Parker, only the Levites could see the ark of the covenant. But the ark wasn’t the most important thing. It was there to protect the Word of God. People saw those stone tablets and knew what was contained therein. This isn’t an example of God providing a revelation, letting only one person seeing it, and then taking it away. If you can show me an example of this, then at least I can say it’s happened before. Let me state, I’m Catholic because I’ve found the truth, nothing will ever change that.

[SIGN]The idea that “faith and reason shouldn’t contradict” is so completely askew of what was taught by Paul, that it basically says to me that you are unfamiliar with the teachings of Paul. Paul taught essentially the exact opposite, that faith and reason would contradict, and that would be a test for the people. (See 1 Corinthians, entire book.)

[/SIGN]

If something is true, it is true yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Our understanding of the truth may not be complete, our interpretation of the facts may be in faulty, but the truth is the truth. I stand by my statement. It defies reason to expect that Jesus, who is God, came down and established his church, died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins, only to see his Church fall within 100 -200 years after his death. The issue is his divinity. As God, He would know whether his efforts were in vain or not. LDS like to throw apostacy around all the time. Apostacy is a big deal for Catholics, it means a total abandonment of the faith. To say the early church fathers were apostate, for a Catholic, well, there really is no bigger insult. It means the entire church from that point on was fallen. It has been pointed out by others in the past. If Jesus is God, and he couldn’t protect his church for 100 - 200 years, then why should anyone follow Jesus at all. This cuts everyone who follows Jesus, even LDS, because if he couldn’t do it the first time, what’s to say he could do it a second or a third. It’s the Catholic position that is in line with reason. It requires faith: Jesus died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven; it requires us to use the gift of reason which also came from God.

I look forward to your response.
In Christ,
Michael

 

[sweetnay]

If by “Catholic” you mean “a person who belongs to the universal Christian church,” as the dictionary defines “Catholic”, then yes. The word was chosen deliberately and meant and means “universal”, and the LDS certainly believe in Christ and His divine mission.

Wow. Always the politician Parker–that’s not what I meant–can one fully believe in the Catholic church and the LDS church?
Of course not, but just wanted to see if the Mormons would honestly answer this or spin this one too Yup, never fails…
Kumbayah!

 

[Synneve]

Lengthy discussion with ample sources have been posted on the forum for years, one merely needs to do a bit of research to find them.

Been there, done that.

One also needs to exercise rational thinking v. magical thinking.

It’s extraordinarily rich for a Catholic to insinuate that, while Mormons are mired in magical thinking, her religiosity is the product of deep rationality.

Now, don’t get me wrong. My youngest son doesn’t bear the middle name of Thomas by pure chance; I have enormous respect for the Catholic intellectual tradition.

But are you really unaware that Protestant polemics against Catholicism since the Reformation have routinely accused it, precisely, of “magic,” and that contemporary secularists mock theism in general and Catholicism in particular as both irrational and exemplary of “magical thinking”?

Thousands of illustrations could be given. I choose one: “You can’t be a rational person six days of the week,” declared the alleged comedian Bill Maher during a 2008 appearance on Late Night With Conan O’Brien, “and put on a suit and make rational decisions and go to work and, on one day of the week, go to a building and think you’re drinking the blood of a 2,000-year-old space god.”

The “your beliefs are irrational” sword cuts both ways, and believers in any given faith – note that word, faith – should be extraordinarily cautious about using it against rival faiths. How many times, over the years, have I heard a non-Catholic demand to know, regarding (say) relic-veneration or transsubstantiation or the intercession of the saints or papal infallibility or priestly celibacy or Marian veneration or Lourdes or the prohibition on artificial birth control or any number of things, “How can a rational, intelligent person believe such things?”

To which, it seems to me, the appropriate answer is that rational and intelligent people can and do believe such things, in large numbers, and have done so for a long time. If the critic can see absolutely no reason why large numbers of rational, intelligent people accept such beliefs, the problem is much more likely to be with the critic than with the believers.

If you’re sincere in your interest in this information, you’ll go off on your own search, and there is no need for me to do it for you. If you’re not sincere, then any effort I may expend to collect those references would be of no value. I guess we’ll see if you’re sincere soon enough.

I said nothing about “searching” for such information. I’m serenely confident that I know much more – and I mean much more – about the evidentiary situation respecting the claims of Mormonism than you do. I’ve been looking at these issues, reading and researching them, for many years now.

What I said is that there is no information out there that “proves” Mormonism false. There is also no information out there that “proves” Catholicism false. Furthermore, there is insufficient information on hand to “prove” either one true. We’re in the realm of faith. There’s evidence for it, and there’s evidence against it. You have to make your choice.

 

[MelanieAnne]

[/SIGN]

If something is true, it is true yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Our understanding of the truth may not be complete, our interpretation of the facts may be in faulty, but the truth is the truth. I stand by my statement. It defies reason to expect that Jesus, who is God, came down and established his church, died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins, only to see his Church fall within 100 -200 years after his death. The issue is his divinity. As God, He would know whether his efforts were in vain or not. LDS like to throw apostacy around all the time. Apostacy is a big deal for Catholics, it means a total abandonment of the faith. To say the early church fathers were apostate, for a Catholic, well, there really is no bigger insult. It means the entire church from that point on was fallen. It has been pointed out by others in the past. If Jesus is God, and he couldn’t protect his church for 100 - 200 years, then why should anyone follow Jesus at all. This cuts everyone who follows Jesus, even LDS, because if he couldn’t do it the first time, what’s to say he could do it a second or a third. It’s the Catholic position that is in line with reason. It requires faith: Jesus died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven; it requires us to use the gift of reason which also came from God.

I look forward to your response.
In Christ,
Michael

Hey Michael, I notice from the quotes in your post that the discussion has touched on the teachings of St. Paul. The teachings of St. Paul warn us specifically away from “gospels” such as that used in Mormonism.

Galatians, Chapter 1, NAB translation:

7 …there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!
9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!

(emphasis supplied)

It is fairly clear here that St. Paul is warning against new “gospels”, even if they are allegedly received from an angel, which is claimed by both Mormonism and Islam. When St. Paul says they, or anyone one preaching these new “gospels” should be “accursed” he is saying they should be damned and that Christians should avoid them the way they would avoid damnation. So we can’t say we weren’t warned!

As an aside, I find it interesting that this passage of the New Testament is on the walls of the Catholic Cathedral in Salt Lake City.

 

[ParkerD]

[/SIGN]

If something is true, it is true yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Our understanding of the truth may not be complete, our interpretation of the facts may be in faulty, but the truth is the truth. I stand by my statement. It defies reason to expect that Jesus, who is God, came down and established his church, died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins, only to see his Church fall within 100 -200 years after his death. The issue is his divinity. As God, He would know whether his efforts were in vain or not. LDS like to throw apostacy around all the time. Apostacy is a big deal for Catholics, it means a total abandonment of the faith. To say the early church fathers were apostate, for a Catholic, well, there really is no bigger insult. It means the entire church from that point on was fallen. It has been pointed out by others in the past. If Jesus is God, and he couldn’t protect his church for 100 - 200 years, then why should anyone follow Jesus at all. This cuts everyone who follows Jesus, even LDS, because if he couldn’t do it the first time, what’s to say he could do it a second or a third. It’s the Catholic position that is in line with reason. It requires faith: Jesus died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven; it requires us to use the gift of reason which also came from God.

I look forward to your response.
In Christ,
Michael

Michael,
I’m fine with your beliefs. I think you’re fine with your beliefs. You will do fine by them.

Christ’s work wasn’t finished when He ascended into heaven. The scriptures (Biblical) make that very clear. I don’t understand why you limit Him by saying that if the church failed to keep itself pure and complete and authorized, that Christ failed. His work isn’t finished. He finished the atonement, but John shows very clearly in the book of Revelation that Christ had not finished His work by finishing the atonement.

Have a great day.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Now, don’t get me wrong. My youngest son doesn’t bear the middle name of Thomas by pure chance; I have enormous respect for the Catholic intellectual tradition.

I’ve read this before from a mormon. Considering your posts, probably, the same mormon.

Welcome to the madness we call the CAF forums.

 

[Synneve]

This is accurate. While some studies at BYU come to the conclusion that science cannot tell us if the native americans were of Hebrew lineage they are dodging the point. Science has proven that they were of East Asian origin.

It has proven that most of the haplotypes thus far tested are most consistent with currently-known Siberian haplotypes. But this doesn’t even remotely prove what you seem to think it does. Moreover, the situation is far from completely examined, and will probably never be fully resolved, and what is true of most isn’t necessarily true of all: I heard a presentation just the other day, for example, in which a geneticist pointed out that one Amerindian haplotype that has been identified recently appears to be connected, very distinctly and uniquely, with the Druze population of Mount Lebanon.

That geneticist, incidentally, was not affiliated with BYU. Nor are several of the others who’ve written on the subject. Simply dismissing them won’t do – in several cases, they have national and even international scientific reputations – and it surely won’t do simply to brush their evidence and arguments aside and to pretend that repeating your assertions constitutes some sort of “proof.”

It is possible that another group of another lineage may exist outside the anthropological record. It is very difficult to prove a negative.

To anybody who has actually paid serious attention to this issue, that’s putting it very, very mildly.

This statement is correct as far as it goes. There is no physical evidence to back any of the BoM. Again, it is hard to prove a negative.

What about the NHM inscription? That’s pretty “physical.”

It is true that the “Joseph Smith Papyri” were rediscovered in NY in 1966. It is also true that with the use of the Rosetta stone scholars have shown that Smith’s translation of the Papyri was entirely wrong.

Not true on several counts.

It is also true that Smith was arrested and tried for claiming to be able to find treasure and water (For those who live in the SLC area, this is on the top floor of the UofU library in a restricted section. You may have to be a student to access this, I do not recall as I was a student)

There’s no need to gain access to a restricted portion of a library in Salt Lake City. This matter has been discussed time and time again in journal articles and books.

 

[mjf001]

Michael,
I’m fine with your beliefs. I think you’re fine with your beliefs. You will do fine by them.

Christ’s work wasn’t finished when He ascended into heaven. The scriptures (Biblical) make that very clear. I don’t understand why you limit Him by saying that if the church failed to keep itself pure and complete and authorized, that Christ failed. His work isn’t finished. He finished the atonement, but John shows very clearly in the book of Revelation that Christ had not finished His work by finishing the atonement.

Have a great day.

I was hoping for more than this, it’s disappointing. You disregarded most of my post.

Michael

 

[Synneve]

I’ve read this before from a mormon. Considering your posts, probably, the same mormon.

Welcome to the madness we call the CAF forums.

Thanks. Thus far, the frenzy seems to be a little less here than on other, similar, boards, and the discussion perhaps on a somewhat higher level. (With the exception, I judge, of Dee Dee King.)

I tend to think more highly of Catholicism and of Catholics, as a general rule, than long and sometimes very unpleasant experience has taught me to think of evangelicals and evangelicalism, so I’m pleasantly unsurprised.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Been there, done that.

It’s extraordinarily rich for a Catholic to insinuate that, while Mormons are mired in magical thinking, her religiosity is the product of deep rationality.

Now, don’t get me wrong. My youngest son doesn’t bear the middle name of Thomas by pure chance; I have enormous respect for the Catholic intellectual tradition.

But are you really unaware that Protestant polemics against Catholicism since the Reformation have routinely accused it, precisely, of “magic,” and that contemporary secularists mock theism in general and Catholicism in particular as both irrational and exemplary of “magical thinking”?

Thousands of illustrations could be given. I choose one: “You can’t be a rational person six days of the week,” declared the alleged comedian Bill Maher during a 2008 appearance on Late Night With Conan O’Brien, “and put on a suit and make rational decisions and go to work and, on one day of the week, go to a building and think you’re drinking the blood of a 2,000-year-old space god.”

The “your beliefs are irrational” sword cuts both ways, and believers in any given faith – note that word, faith – should be extraordinarily cautious about using it against rival faiths. How many times, over the years, have I heard a non-Catholic demand to know, regarding (say) relic-veneration or transsubstantiation or the intercession of the saints or papal infallibility or priestly celibacy or Marian veneration or Lourdes or the prohibition on artificial birth control or any number of things, “How can a rational, intelligent person believe such things?”

To which, it seems to me, the appropriate answer is that rational and intelligent people can and do believe such things, in large numbers, and have done so for a long time. If the critic can see absolutely no reason why large numbers of rational, intelligent people accept such beliefs, the problem is much more likely to be with the critic than with the believers.

I said nothing about “searching” for such information. I’m serenely confident that I know much more – and I mean much more – about the evidentiary situation respecting the claims of Mormonism than you do. I’ve been looking at these issues, reading and researching them, for many years now.

What I said is that there is no information out there that “proves” Mormonism false. There is also no information out there that “proves” Catholicism false. Furthermore, there is insufficient information on hand to “prove” either one true. We’re in the realm of faith. There’s evidence for it, and there’s evidence against it. You have to make your choice.

Anyone who would quote Bill Maher, a little man with an ego bigger than China (is his problem a Napoleonic complex? I guess we’ll never know) as a source will get no respect from me. He’s not even that smart, although he fancies himself to be vastly superior than the bulk of the population, especially those living in “flyover” states (Utah for example. ) You think he’s hard on Catholics? Most likely because he grew up Catholic, but if you’re such a Bill Maher fan, let’s hear his opinion on Mormons ~ the faith founded by a guy who got “golden plates” from an “angel” that have since disappeared, that were “translated” in secret using “magic rocks” held at the bottom of a hat. You’re going to tell me that’s rational? Or more to the point, you’re going to say the guy that doesn’t believe in a 2000 year old space god anymore would think the Book of Mormon story was rational? PUH-LEEZE.

But that’s besides the point, perhaps a diversion thrown in? Diversions are so typical of Mormons! Back to the subject at hand ~ clearly, you are either unable or unwilling to view the scholarly research that has shown such things as the “Book of Mormon” to be demonstrably false. As others have stated, there is a world of difference between NOT being able to prove something to be unequivocally false (which cannot be done with the Catholic faith) and BEING ABLE to prove something IS demonstrably false ~ as has been done with the Book of Mormon.

But you don’t want to look at that information. So you have at least proved my initial theory that your request for proof was not sincere. Hence there is nothing to be gained by further dialog. Welcome to the ever-growing ignore list, I’m sure you’ll find good company there, at least for you!

Just a suggestion to the Mormons and their thinly veiled attempts at proselytizing on this forum ~ this may not be the rich feeding ground for converts that you had hoped. Your time and resources are being wasted here. Go back to your bishop or priesthood leader and tell them you want a different assignment, one where you can be more productive.

 

[RebeccaJ]

What about the NHM inscription? That’s pretty “physical.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4104070&postcount=66

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thanks. Thus far, the frenzy seems to be a little less here than on other, similar, boards, and the discussion perhaps on a somewhat higher level. (With the exception, I judge, of Dee Dee King.)

I tend to think more highly of Catholicism and of Catholics, as a general rule, than long and sometimes very unpleasant experience has taught me to think of evangelicals and evangelicalism, so I’m pleasantly unsurprised.

We’ll see.

 

[Synneve]

Anyone who would quote Bill Maher, a little man with an ego bigger than China (is his problem a Napoleonic complex? I guess we’ll never know) as a source will get no respect from me. He’s not even that smart, although he fancies himself to be vastly superior than the bulk of the population, especially those living in “flyover” states (Utah for example. ) You think he’s hard on Catholics? Most likely because he grew up Catholic, but if you’re such a Bill Maher fan, let’s hear his opinion on Mormons ~ the faith founded by a guy who got “golden plates” from an “angel” that have since disappeared, that were “translated” in secret using “magic rocks” held at the bottom of a hat. You’re going to tell me that’s rational? Or more to the point, you’re going to say the guy that doesn’t believe in a 2000 year old space god anymore would think the Book of Mormon story was rational? PUH-LEEZE.

Good grief. Would it even be possible to miss my point more completely than you appear to have done? Perhaps I should have been more cautious before suggesting that the discourse here seems to be on a bit higher level than on other, similar, boards.

I didn’t cite Bill Maher because I’m a fan. I cited him as a representative specimen of the many vocal secularists who regard Catholicism, Mormonism, and theism in general as the products of “magical, irrational thinking.” And I did so in order to hint (rather gently, I thought) that a person who subscribes to Catholicism – or, for that matter, to Mormonism – ought to be very leery of accusing other religionists of being irrational and given to “magical thinking.” Other religions often look irrational to insiders, but they don’t look irrational from within. And they all look crazy to many unbelievers.

In interreligious dialogue, humility and charity count for a great deal.

But that’s besides the point, perhaps a diversion thrown in? Diversions are so typical of Mormons!

Umm, meaning no disrespect, I might point out that fundamental failure to grasp basic points is very typical of poor reasoners.

Back to the subject at hand ~ clearly, you are either unable or unwilling to view the scholarly research that has shown such things as the “Book of Mormon” to be demonstrably false. As others have stated, there is a world of difference between NOT being able to prove something to be unequivocally false (which cannot be done with the Catholic faith) and BEING ABLE to prove something IS demonstrably false ~ as has been done with the Book of Mormon.

Whatever. It will only confirm your confidence in your transparently superior reasoning skills, and so forth, but I’m familiar with the “scholarly research” to which you allude – and, I’m quite confident, with much more of which you’re wholly unaware – and I don’t agree with your assessment of the situation.

But you don’t want to look at that information. So you have at least proved my initial theory that your request for proof was not sincere.

LOL. I’ve not only looked at it, I’m virtually certain that I know much, much more about it than you do.

Hence there is nothing to be gained by further dialog. Welcome to the ever-growing ignore list, I’m sure you’ll find good company there, at least for you!

Feel free to ignore me. I think, based on my limited experience here with you, that you’re probably right that there is nothing to be gained by further . . . um, dialogue . . . between us.

Just a suggestion to the Mormons and their thinly veiled attempts at proselytizing on this forum ~ this may not be the rich feeding ground for converts that you had hoped. Your time and resources are being wasted here.

You’ve apparently concluded that I’m dishonest, but perhaps others here haven’t. So, for them, I say, quite truthfully, that I didn’t come here with any intention of seeking, let alone gaining, converts. I simply enjoy discussions about religion.

I might point out, by the way, that baseless accusations of speaking or writing in bad faith – “poisoning the well,” as the great John Henry Cardinal Newman famously termed it – are lethal to civil conversation, and are, very often, an identifying mark of poor reasoners.

Go back to your bishop or priesthood leader and tell them you want a different assignment, one where you can be more productive.

And again, perhaps not for MelanieAnn but for others (who don’t leap so easily to insinuations of dishonesty when they encounter those holding other views), I’ve been “assigned” by absolutely nobody to come here. The charge is actually somewhat insulting. Not that MelanieAnn is likely to care.

 

[Synneve]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4104070&postcount=66

I hope you don’t offer that as a serious examination of the NHM issue.

Incidentally, since you think you know who I am, do you have any idea what my academic background is?

 

[Religio71]

I hope you don’t offer that as a serious examination of the NHM issue.

Incidentally, since you think you know who I am, do you have any idea what my academic background is?

uh oh, here comes the “I have more letters after my name than you!” argument.

 

[Synneve]

uh oh, here comes the “I have more letters after my name than you!” argument.

I’m seriously reconsidering my apparently premature judgment that this board represents a higher level of discourse.

My comment may, in Dr. Johnson’s words, have represented the triumph of hope over experience.

Look. Let’s just put it this way: Offering up an unidentified Arab’s reaction to a simplistic partial explanation of the NHM issue doesn’t impress me. And, given my background, there’s utterly no reason why it should. The odds are overwhelmingly high that I’m more qualified, linguistically, to evaluate the significance of the occurrence of the triliteral root NHM on a seventh-century-BC Arabian altarpiece than he is.