Actually if you had read what I said you'd see that's not what I'm claiming.
By "vast majority of humanity" do you mean all the anti-Mormons you run into on the internet, or ALL 2 of you on this thread? You're misrepresenting us and the context of this issue.
I made it quite clear that there...
I did. I directly quoted it twice in responses directly to her. If you would read what we're saying instead of just reading anti-Mormon crap and buying it wholesale you might get a more objective perspective. By the way, you're welcome to respond to my discussion of your "It came to pass"...
I've never called anyone "pubescent," but I did respond directly to some accusations of yours regarding the phrase "It came to pass" in the Book of Mormon. I showed quite conclusively that you were wrong. Do you have a response to that, or you only concerned with discussions you feel you can...
If it's not about doctrine then why the quote with the bolded section here:
You clearly want it to be about doctrine. I'm not going to ask you again to stop being dishonest.
The post that I've directly quoted to you twice now. I'm getting tired of your constant refusal to respond honestly to anything. Please respond honestly and directly to my statement in your response to this post or you will be put on ignore. I can't have my time wasted by people who just want to...
This is a simple assertion that this policy was earlier made official, but the institution of that policy is nowhere found, and this assertion cannot produce it. As I said before, it was a working ban that was never formally made official. Statements to the effect that "it was previously made...
You still haven't addressed the substance of the very first post I directed toward you in a perfectly respectful manner. When you can respond to that honestly I'll be happy to care about what you think. Until then you're just using juvenile evasion methods.
Again:
I made a perfectly...
So? That doesn't make his interpretation correct (or yours).
I really don't care. Am I required to?
His interpretation is incorrect. That shouldn't be difficult to understand.
Don't talk down to me as if you're being the least bit honest in this discussion.
When you begin to address the substance of mine I will return the favor, but as you've shown in the following exchange, you're not interested in engaging anything honestly:
I think the point was that there was...
Yes, I disagree. As I stated quite clearly, this was a working ban that was never official brought before the First Presidency or the general assembly for approval. For some reason (your bigoted dogmatism) none of you want to respond to that, and instead keep burping up these utterly irrelevant...
You were never taking this debate seriously. You haven't responded to numerous posts that point out there errors and fallacies of your assertions, you're just posting incredibly ignorant statements from equally naive anti-Mormons and waiting to see what sticks. You're acting like a child, and...
More childish evasion. To answer your question, though, of course it made a difference to many of them. It also made a difference to the many black men who were ordained to the priesthood during the "ban." That was pointed out to you, and you also refused to engage that. To others it did not...
I'm afraid that's flat wrong. It was never made official, and there's no text or piece of evidence in existence anywhere that can refute that. All that can be said is that it was assumed to be valid by all the leaders. Not a one of them tried to make it official or even point to an official...
Was that your question?
I'll answer for you since you're obviously not interested in honestly engaging this discussion. No, it wasn't your question, and it's a very infantile evasion of the discussion. Your question was an ignorant attempt to find a mistake in something that was not...
I think the point was that there was a working ban that really had no indication of ever having been formally accepted as revelation or as doctrine. Thus it was not official, despite the assumptions of those in the church who espouse the idea that if a church authority said it, it's official.
To begin with, I'm aware of what 'olam and aionon mean, and I agree that they do not mean philosophical eternity as we understand it, but that's not what I was addressing. You are very clearly stuck in the hermeneutic circle, and I promise you the very last thing I am when it comes to this is...
While I enjoy Blenkinsopp's scholarship, I took issue with some of his conclusions here. First, he rejects the superimposition of P on an existing narrative on the grounds that too much remains which a P redactor should have removed (namely, the clean and unclean animals on the ark and Aaron's...