CCM: If You Don't Know, Don't Condemn.

[log]

Well you did use some ad hominem

Ad hominem is like this: "you suck as a person therefore your arguments are false."

Unless you mean I was engaged in ad hominem abusive where I just say "you suck." But I didn't do that either.

Unless you mean that I characterized your position in a rhetorical fashion which you didn't particularly care for - but that's just an example of reductio ad absurdum.

Anyways!

[ajax]

I personally don't have a problem with any of that. Just as when I speak of my experiences, I emphasize some things, deemphasize others, and don't mention yet others, depending on the audience.

You might benefit from this link.

The amalgamated version is cool:

http://www.kevinhinckley.com/uploads/Co ... Vision.doc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;‎

[jbalm]

I personally don't have a problem with any of that. Just as when I speak of my experiences, I emphasize some things, deemphasize others, and don't mention yet others, depending on the audience.

You might benefit from this link.

If you met HF and JC face to face, would you leave that detail out in any iteration of your experience? Seems kind of central to the whole thing.

[log]

I personally don't have a problem with any of that. Just as when I speak of my experiences, I emphasize some things, deemphasize others, and don't mention yet others, depending on the audience.

You might benefit from this link.

If you met HF and JC face to face, would you leave that detail out in any iteration of your experience? Seems kind of central to the whole thing.

The short answer is "yes."

[jbalm]

Remind me never to call you as a witness.

[log]

Remind me never to call you as a witness.

Why?

[jbalm]

Because if you are recounting an event for the benefit of the listener, leaving out the most important detail of the event makes one a very poor witness. In short, no cred.

[log]

Because if you are recounting an event for the benefit of the listener, leaving out the most important detail of the event makes one a very poor witness. In short, no cred.

So, you're saying that if I were under oath to tell the whole truth, etc, I would break that oath?

Or are you saying if I am not under oath and therefore do not tell everything I know, I have no credibility?

I'm confused. Neither position sounds defensible. The first is just a personal attack on me. The second is nonsense.

"The most important detail" is an irredeembably subjective measure, I think, as well, and one that cannot be justified.

[Hannant]

Remind me never to call you as a witness.

Why?

Because you are obviously prepared to try to kid others like you are obviously comfortable kidding yourself?

I mean seriously, I read the link, I read the 1832 version.

One person, the lord showed me a vision.

Then years later it kept getting better and bigger

[log]

Remind me never to call you as a witness.

Why?

Because you are obviously prepared to try to kid others like you are obviously comfortable kidding yourself?

Are you serious? So, when my kids ask me how they were conceived, I should go into complete clinical detail, preferably with video, lest those mean people in the great and spacious building should point their fingers at me and mock, saying I'm withholding the most important details?

I mean seriously, I read the link, I read the 1832 version.

One person, the lord showed me a vision.

Then years later it kept getting better and bigger

You are free to interpret it how you wish. For those of us who have had actual spiritual experiences, there's nothing untoward about leaving out details or glossing for the audience, depending on our purposes in relating them.

I can see why that might disturb others, but hey, all will be revealed at the resurrection, so no need to worry. We'll all get there soon enough.

[Hannant]

This is why it is so important to have latter-day prophets who can lead us and tell us what God wants us to know.

To make sure our confirmation bias doesn't lead us astray. It can be very difficult to know whether what we are feeling really is the spirit of God or the spirit of the devil because the devil can mimic the spirit.

So it's even more important to have the apostles and especially the prophet to lead us. We know that God would never led the Prophet lead the church astray.

So please, don't trust your feelings and just follow the prophet, unless those feelings are telling you to follow the prophet, the church is true, the First Vision was true, the BoM is true, JS was a prophet, it's true God commanded JS to marry 14 year olds and other men's wives, the BoA is much more than a funerary text and we may not know how it was translated but it was through God, as long as your feelings are telling you all that, then it's not confirmation bias, it's the spirit.

But again, be careful. If you ever, ever feel comfort that maybe the church isn't what it says it is, more than likely that's confirmation bias and of the devil. Same with the confusion of the First Vision

And sometimes the Prophet and apostles can have confirmation bias like, men will never make it to the moon, Adam is God, the whole blacks and priesthood thing, but don't worry, you have the spirit to help you know when they are having the confirmation bias. But when in doubt, don't doubt. They are right, until they are wrong.

So accept the First Vision Magic Bullet theory and be happy you aren't being deceived by Satan.

And don't forget to sign up for Tithing settlement interview on Sunday

[log]

We need a sarcasm tag, just for Hannant. [/sarcasm]

[Hannant]

Remind me never to call you as a witness.

Why?

Because you are obviously prepared to try to kid others like you are obviously comfortable kidding yourself?[/quote]

Are you serious? So, when my kids ask me how they were conceived, I should go into complete clinical detail, preferably with video, lest those mean people in the great and spacious building should point their fingers at me and mock, saying I'm withholding the most important details?

I mean seriously, I read the link, I read the 1832 version.

One person, the lord showed me a vision.

Then years later it kept getting better and bigger

You are free to interpret it how you wish. For those of us who have had actual spiritual experiences, there's nothing untoward about leaving out details or glossing for the audience, depending on our purposes in relating them.

I can see why that might disturb others, but hey, all will be revealed at the resurrection, so no need to worry. We'll all get there soon enough.[/quote]

















Get real Log.

The heavens were opened, but until 1835 not a single member knew about the first vision?

They found this 1832 version in a diary that Joseph Fielding Smith found in the 1930s and ripped 3 pages out of it was that bad.
Then in 1965 when they found the diary he buried, he glued the 3 pages back in.

This isn't not telling kids about conception.

This is going home and writing in your own diary about this experience in a hospital, and not even mentioning THE BABY.

[Hannant]

We need a sarcasm tag, just for Hannant. [/sarcasm]

Sure, theres an icon for that.

Its right next to the Reality check box.

[log]

Get real Log.

The heavens were opened, but until 1835 not a single member knew about the first vision?

So what?

They found this 1832 version in a diary that Joseph Fielding Smith found in the 1930s and ripped 3 pages out of it was that bad.
Then in 1965 when they found the diary he buried, he glued the 3 pages back in.

This isn't not telling kids about conception.

This is going home and writing in your own diary about this experience in a hospital, and not even mentioning THE BABY.

So what?

[log]

1st - you're stuck trying to prove not a single member knew of the first vision until 1835. (Impossible, by the way - JS wasn't the scribe to the 1832 account.)
2nd - you're stuck trying to show that such ignorance until 1835 on behalf of every single member, if it existed, means anything.

[keep the faith]

We need a sarcasm tag, just for Hannant. [/sarcasm]

Sure, theres an icon for that.

Its right next to the Reality check box.

Is that you Aussie? What took you so long to start the rabble rousing up again? Joseph is waiting to talk to you when you cross through the veil. :-ss