Wrong answer.
Academic honesty demands that you build your case, not just tearing down someone else's.
That's not strictly speaking accurate; it also is inapplicable I think in a theological debate. As I see it, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the Mormon church has not begun to provide anything approaching the evidence required to take any of its theological claims at face value. I don't believe, from my understanding of the history, that you have satisfactorily proven that Joseph Smith was even the recipient of an actual prophetic message; there is some evidence to suggest that he may not have been entirely honest. Assuming he was, however, we remain still hundreds of miles, intellectually speaking, from any kind of proof that the Book of Mormon does not represent another Gospel.
Welcome to the internet, the great equalizer. Just because a person doesn't have the "proper" title doesn't mean that they don't have something to say.
They might have something to say, but being a network engineer and studying to prepare for seminary leaves me with precious little time, and thus I am most interested in the works of trusted authors with sound credentials.
Note this is not an appeal to authority; if you wish to present their claims in this argument I will review them, I simply have no desire to seek out this information otherwise, as I have wuite a full plate.
This is not academic honesty.
You're approaching matters with a conclusion already in mind, leading you to dismiss anything that doesn't support your conclusion.
I honestly thought you said you were going to be honest here.
I undertook to avoid any logical fallacies, to avoid intentionally misrepresenting your position, and to correct any factual errors in my post, and I believe I am meeting these commitments. However, I am asking
@St_Worm2, the ombudsman of our club, who I believe is also a friend of yours, to conduct an independent review of all my posts in this thread to make sure they agree with our internal quality control standards for honesty and integrity in debating (which I provided you access to via a PM). If he finds any deficiencies in my posts, I will immediately rectify them and offer a formal apology.
Also, if at any time you believe I have flamed you personally or violated the rules of this forum, please report my posts to the moderators, or PM me if you wish and I will edit them.
If this is the biggest "scandal", then mainline Christianity should consider its priorities.
By scandal, I mean "stumbling block" as opposed to the sort of moral and ethical fiascos that have sadly plagued some churches. Your own church did have a few of those, btw; recall Mountain Meadows, polygamy, and the issue of African Americans joining the church. All of which, to your credit, you have done a very good job rectifying.
Alcohol was consumed back then because water was not always safe. The process of converting the materials into alcohol killed the nasties that were in the water supply, which is why alcohol was so common back in the day: once people got into civilized societies, alcohol began.
Water is still quite dangerous in many parts of the world. But that said, ancient Rome had clean water thanks to its excellent system of plumbing; recall St. Paul's injunction to Timothy to "drink a little wine for thy stomach."
I believe the limited use of wine, not drunkennes mind you, but the limited and careful use of wine, in the Eucharist and for other purposes, is an integral part of the Christian faith. I think my own former denomination, the UMC, historically erred in its support for the temperance movement.
So the Mormon church does own or control ancestry.com then?
How much more clearly does this need to be stated?
Why do Mormons get discounts? What is the precise nature of the relationship between Mormonism and ancestry.com?
Frankly, I would rather we set fire to our church's vital records, which date back to the fourth century, btw, then let them fall into Mormon hands;
This statement says some very horrible things about your belief system.
How so? These records are of great historical value, but they are not sacred relics; their destruction would be important but would not be an act of sacrilege. Destroying them to prevent them from being abused by your church, in order to facilitate the proxy baptism of deceased Orthodox, which we do regard as a sacrilege, would be in my opinion a justifiable course of action.
