Lehi.. 81 Evidences

[serapha]

BTW, if anyone else would like to pick up the discussion, I would be glad to move forward.

Of course, the same standards apply. I won't participate in childish behavior. This is a question and answer forum, or a discussion and debate forum, and not a whipping post to determine who has the most wicked tongue.

~serapha~

[Snow]

Serapha,

I pretty much nailed you straight on the head right from the beginning didn't I. You lack the tools or conviction to defend you points of view. You post supercillious and irrelevant material as a distractor and then pretend to be all offended when I notice that it is supercillious and irrelevant. To top it off, you, an antiMormon, claim that I am hateful. Frankly, you just don't have enough substance to hate. Rather than addressing issue, you say stuff like "I must know something you don't" and then throw up silly excuses why you never have to say what you pretend that you know.

Archeologically your position is out to lunch. I suspect that you know so little about it and so refuse to talk about it. How's that teacher?

[serapha]

Hello snow,

After posting this morning, I had hoped to send you private message before you replied.

This is my position, you can take it or leave it.

You have nothing to lose when you post on this forum... or any other forum.

That isn't the case for me. I have a lot to lose. I like working in archaeology, I would like to continue working in archaeology; and in three years, I hope to be working full time in archaeology.

Now, the problem is, I meet "diamonds" like you all the time. You are diamonds, but rough-edged diamonds. Something really shines out about you, but your only means of communication is through powerhouse statements and condescending comments.

In other words, if I want the diamond, I must go after it.... even if it is in the mire. I won't do that. I have too much to lose to lower my communication standards to that level. You might think we are "anonymous" on the internet, but we are not. As I said, I like working in archaeology and if am "quoted" from the mire with a condescending and demeaning comment, I won't find work.

If you want to rise above name-calling and mud slings, then talk to me, but don't expect me to put my work now, or future work on the line for a diamond in the rough that likes staying in the mud puddle slinging mud.

It's your choice whether the dialogue continues. But I'm standing my ground, you'll have to move up and leave all the condescending comments behind. I would rather have the reputation of refusing dialogue than the reputation of mud-slinger.

~serapha~

[Snow]

That is fair enough Serapha, and thank you.

And this is my position which can be taken or left:

I find your essential LDS position to be bigoted and hateful. You may not think so, but I do. I don't pretend that my position is 100% correct but I can and do defend it aggressive until convinced otherwise. You obviously are offended that I don't bother with the social niceities. Personally I find your approach infinitely more offensive. Nevertheless, I enjoy the dialogue and am teachable. I don't suffer a few things well: hypocrisy, unfair characterization of the LDS position or history, or blatant idiocy. I also don't much like it when a poster jumps around the issues and throws in too many distractors.

Regardless, I am often caustic but generally respectful and appreciative with well-intentioned posters (regardless of their religious beliefs) and just the opposite with those who have bad intentions regarding the gospel or Church. See my exchanges with Trident. On the upside, I am not particularly bothered by well-reasoned, adroitly written arguments against the Church if they are fair and unhypocritical. I have no illusions that anyone should accept my theological perspective. Oh - I will often argue as an intellectual exercise - devil's advocate type of thing, so I may argue against you, even if I agree with you if your argument is flawed.

So, if you want to converse, knowing what you get in me, by all means.

[Rodney]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 24 2004, 11:22 PM

That's nice. It doesn't address the question but that's nice.

The condescension that abounds from such posts is enough to make a healthy person puke.

Just an observation.

You're welcome.

[Rodney]

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 26 2004, 05:10 PM

Hello snow,

...Something really shines out about you, but your only means of communication is through powerhouse statements and condescending comments...

...As I said, I like working in archaeology and if am "quoted" from the mire with a condescending and demeaning comment, I won't find work...

~serapha~

Believe it or not, I wrote my previous post before reading this.

[Rodney]

I am not a real psychiatrist, I only play one on television. But there is a certain burning in my bosom, a little voice whispering in my inner ear telling me that in many cases a condescending attitude often reveals a modicum of defensive fear. At least I've noticed it in myself when I'm guilty of exhibiting such attitudes. Think of someone holding tightly to something they've grown to treasure as, well, treasure, only to have someone come along and suggest that their "treasure" is actually a load of worthless rubbish. Chances are you're going to get either a lot of defensive posturing or a ton of glib condescending rebuttal. Either way, the person holding tightly to his treasure will probably increase his stranglehold rather than relinquish it and usually the more you try to convince/belittle them the tighter they squeeze.

[Spencer]

Originally posted by Rodney@Mar 27 2004, 09:48 AM

I am not a real psychiatrist, I only play one on television. But there is a certain burning in my bosom, a little voice whispering in my inner ear telling me that in many cases a condescending attitude often reveals a modicum of defensive fear. At least I've noticed it in myself when I'm guilty of exhibiting such attitudes. Think of someone holding tightly to something they've grown to treasure as, well, treasure, only to have someone come along and suggest that their "treasure" is actually a load of worthless rubbish. Chances are you're going to get either a lot of defensive posturing or a ton of glib condescending rebuttal. Either way, the person holding tightly to his treasure will probably increase his stranglehold rather than relinquish it and usually the more you try to convince/belittle them the tighter they squeeze.

Rodney, Please do not mock us.

[Rodney]

Originally posted by Spencer+Mar 27 2004, 08:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Spencer @ Mar 27 2004, 08:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Rodney@Mar 27 2004, 09:48 AM

I am not a real psychiatrist, I only play one on television.  But there is a certain burning in my bosom, a little voice whispering in my inner ear telling me that in many cases a condescending attitude often reveals a modicum of defensive fear.  At least I've noticed it in myself when I'm guilty of exhibiting such attitudes.  Think of someone holding tightly to something they've grown to treasure as, well, treasure, only to have someone come along and suggest that their "treasure" is actually a load of worthless rubbish.  Chances are you're going to get either a lot of defensive posturing or a ton of glib condescending rebuttal.  Either way, the person holding tightly to his treasure will probably increase his stranglehold rather than relinquish it and usually the more you try to convince/belittle them the tighter they squeeze.

Rodney, Please do not mock us.

Sorry if you feel I'm mocking you. Not my intention at all. Just trying to use words and phrases with which readers of this site might more readily identify. Am I not as capable as the next person to have and express feelings and conclusions no matter how illogical or fatuous they may seem?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Rodney@Mar 27 2004, 06:48 AM

in many cases a condescending attitude often reveals a modicum of defensive fear. At least I've noticed it in myself when I'm guilty of exhibiting such attitudes.

yeah,

I know that you have been throught the emotional ride that a lot of us have, so you have an understanding of some of our motivations. Don't mistake that for understanding all motivations in all situations. If a am condescending (that's not really questionable) it could be out of annoyance, anger, lack of social grace, hurriedness, etc or defensiveness (because of an assumed inherrent inferiority in my position), then again, I may just think it is funny or maybe better yet, I think it is a way to throw the other party off their game.

Your insight is decent enough but it only goes so far..

[Spencer]

Originally posted by Rodney+Mar 27 2004, 12:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rodney @ Mar 27 2004, 12:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Spencer@Mar 27 2004, 08:10 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Rodney@Mar 27 2004, 09:48 AM

I am not a real psychiatrist, I only play one on television.  But there is a certain burning in my bosom, a little voice whispering in my inner ear telling me that in many cases a condescending attitude often reveals a modicum of defensive fear.  At least I've noticed it in myself when I'm guilty of exhibiting such attitudes.  Think of someone holding tightly to something they've grown to treasure as, well, treasure, only to have someone come along and suggest that their "treasure" is actually a load of worthless rubbish.  Chances are you're going to get either a lot of defensive posturing or a ton of glib condescending rebuttal.  Either way, the person holding tightly to his treasure will probably increase his stranglehold rather than relinquish it and usually the more you try to convince/belittle them the tighter they squeeze.

Rodney, Please do not mock us.

Sorry if you feel I'm mocking you. Not my intention at all. Just trying to use words and phrases with which readers of this site might more readily identify. Am I not as capable as the next person to have and express feelings and conclusions no matter how illogical or fatuous they may seem?

Well id appreciate it if in the future you tried to put it in your own words then, cause it comes off very different than your intentions.

But there is a certain burning in my bosom, a little voice whispering in my inner ear

I dont buy your explanation for one moment. So ill ask again, please do not mock us.

Spencer

[Rodney]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 27 2004, 12:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 27 2004, 12:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Rodney@Mar 27 2004, 06:48 AM

in many cases a condescending attitude often reveals a modicum of defensive fear.  At least I've noticed it in myself when I'm guilty of exhibiting such attitudes.

yeah,

I know that you have been throught the emotional ride that a lot of us have, so you have an understanding of some of our motivations. Don't mistake that for understanding all motivations in all situations. If a am condescending (that's not really questionable) it could be out of annoyance, anger, lack of social grace, hurriedness, etc or defensiveness (because of an assumed inherrent inferiority in my position), then again, I may just think it is funny or maybe better yet, I think it is a way to throw the other party off their game.

Your insight is decent enough but it only goes so far..

No disagreement here. In fact, you may or may not have noticed the words I used to quantify my statement, i.e., "...in many cases..."

[Rodney]

Originally posted by Spencer@Mar 27 2004, 01:45 PM

I dont buy your explanation for one moment. So ill ask again, please do not mock us.

Spencer

I remember someone somewhere saying that you can't offend the offensive. Don't suppose that applies to mocking though, does it.

Anyway, I'll do my best to avoid the appearance of mocking.

[serapha]

Hi there!

Just for clarity, I'm not in this latest "discussion", nor am I going to participate. I do hope to bring this thread into a resurrection to life status when some other foundational beliefs are discussed and identified.... if there's anything left to resurrect.

~serapha~

[Rodney]

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 28 2004, 04:09 PM

Just for clarity, I'm not in this latest "discussion", nor am I going to participate. I do hope to bring this thread into a resurrection to life status when some other foundational beliefs are discussed and identified.... if there's anything left to resurrect.

~serapha~

Suppose there's irrepressible condescension and then there's bombastic pomposity. Not sure which irritates my stomach lining more.

[broadway]

My problem with 'evidence'

Who decides whether the evidence is real? I wasn't there when Lehi crossed the wilderness. I wasn't there when these evidences were found. In fact, I haven't even seen these evidences. I probably never will. I have to take the word of someone who says that they've seen it, and even then, how does this person know that the evidence wasn't put there before he got there, and isn't really evidence?

It seems to me that the idea of 'evidence' and 'reliabe sources' takes as much faith as anything else.

I believe the Book of Mormon to be a reliable source. I believe President Hinkley to be a reliable source. I believe his testimony to be evidence. I believe Joseph Smith's visions to be evidence of our church's truth. I believe the witness's testimony to be evidences of its truth (as written in the beginning of the Book of Mormon). (I'd urge you to read at least that. It is only a few pages long.)

These reliabel sources and evidences take faith. So, what's the difference?

broadway

[serapha]

My problem with 'evidence'

Who decides whether the evidence is real? I wasn't there when Lehi crossed the wilderness. I wasn't there when these evidences were found. In fact, I haven't even seen these evidences. I probably never will. I have to take the word of someone who says that they've seen it, and even then, how does this person know that the evidence wasn't put there before he got there, and isn't really evidence?

It seems to me that the idea of 'evidence' and 'reliabe sources' takes as much faith as anything else.

I believe the Book of Mormon to be a reliable source. I believe President Hinkley to be a reliable source. I believe his testimony to be evidence. I believe Joseph Smith's visions to be evidence of our church's truth. I believe the witness's testimony to be evidences of its truth (as written in the beginning of the Book of Mormon). (I'd urge you to read at least that. It is only a few pages long.)

These reliabel sources and evidences take faith. So, what's the difference?

broadway

Hi there!

Well, primarily, from what I have read thus far, the "evidences" are canyon walls 2,000 feet high, and a stream flowing through the wadi. The majority of the referenced "evidences" are not man-made; therefore, they are not to be considered "put there before he got there".... though the collateral evidenes, many times, are correlated artifacts.

I believe the Book of Mormon to be a reliable source. I believe President Hinkley to be a reliable source. I believe his testimony to be evidence. I believe Joseph Smith's visions to be evidence of our church's truth. I believe the witness's testimony to be evidences of its truth (as written in the beginning of the Book of Mormon). (I'd urge you to read at least that. It is only a few pages long.)

~thanks for the response~

We do have different beliefs with different foundational strengths. I have read the Introduction, the Testimony of Eight Witnesses, and the explanation.

~serapha~