tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8729080532188674868.post7625163415898004029..comments2024-03-23T19:56:39.134-06:00Comments on Dear Bro Jo . . . : Doubts and QuestionsBro Johttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04525964417706399553noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8729080532188674868.post-46375423584784719132012-09-02T18:25:10.362-06:002012-09-02T18:25:10.362-06:00@ J-Dawg
I originally wasn’t going to post your c...@ J-Dawg<br /><br />I originally wasn’t going to post your comment in hopes of saving you the embarrassment, but then I figured “hey, he’s a big guy, he can take it”. <br /><br />Plus I figure that I’ve waited long enough that if you wanted to retract it you’d have emailed me.<br /><br />So, there you go. It’s posted.<br /><br />And here's my response:<br /><br />Some people, including scientists (and you, apparently) do get annoyed by the facts; the only way I can help that I suppose, would be to be quiet. But then, I figure, if they’re that thin skinned, they probably shouldn’t be reading opinion columns like mine.<br /><br />I’m sure you meant “animosity”, not “anonymity”, but I’ll chalk that up to you being a victim of auto-complete.<br /><br />Not only could I teach you about scientific theory and the workings of scientific method, but it seems you could also stand a lesson in the difference between and meaning of “inductive reasoning”, “deductive reasoning” and, most importantly, the difference between “all” and “many”.<br /><br />If you understood all of that you might not have jumped to the incorrect conclusion you make at the end of your comments.<br /><br />Thanks for keeping me on my toes!<br /><br />Still like ya.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />- Bro JoBro Johttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525964417706399553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8729080532188674868.post-16608133229149216012012-08-30T11:52:49.116-06:002012-08-30T11:52:49.116-06:00"The problem with many "scientists"..."The problem with many "scientists", (or more accurately perhaps, people that call themselves such), is that they rely on "inductive reasoning" as opposed to "deductive reasoning". This "loophole in logic" allows them to declare that things that are just theories (i.e.: the evolution of one species into another, particularly as accidental biology and not part of a greater plan, despite the lack of "empirical evidence" to be fact, and yet in the same mind declare that an individual's knowledge of the things they believe to be true as impossible to know. For my part, as a reasonably intelligent human being, I think both arguments are garbage."<br /><br /><br />It's statement like these that annoy people in the science community and lead to the anonymity between religion and science. You obviously don't understand what a scientific theory is, or how the scientific method works. And apparently you think all scientists just believe what they want to believe and haven't contributed anything. J-Dawg Fluffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04374286597676647157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8729080532188674868.post-27877748000532155282012-08-29T19:30:14.316-06:002012-08-29T19:30:14.316-06:00The premise of this letter writer is a little bit ...The premise of this letter writer is a little bit off. She implies that her testimony is struggling because she's questioning the things she's never doubted before, like the fact that Mormons are better than everyone else and that the only way to have a testimony is if you can say you know something is true. But in reality her testimony is becoming stronger because she is separating the false things she believed, like the superiority of Mormons, from the truth like the reality of Christ's atonement. Doubt isn't only a natural part of a testimony, it's an important one, because without it we will never be able to sift out these false assumptions.Christopher Cunninghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11886330185703159799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8729080532188674868.post-8484799127277637892012-08-29T11:26:50.269-06:002012-08-29T11:26:50.269-06:00@ Anon -
This letter writer is the only person I...@ Anon - <br /><br />This letter writer is the only person I know personally that has gone on a mission after a divorce. I don't know if there are different guidelines for men and women, either.<br /><br />The person to ask would be the Bishop or a member of the Stake Presidency.<br /><br />However, friend, you're not the one that should be doing the asking; he is.<br /><br />- Bro JoBro Johttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525964417706399553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8729080532188674868.post-57171175538378563622012-08-29T11:23:45.205-06:002012-08-29T11:23:45.205-06:00Bro Jo, it made me happy to read that this sister ...Bro Jo, it made me happy to read that this sister went on a mission after being a divorcee, because I was wondering about a male friend of mine who got married young instead of going on a mission and is now divorced. I've been trying to figure out who to ask if he can still go...institute teacher, bishop, who?... but I guess I can ask you. Does it depend on the situation? I think a mission could help re-make his life a better way. (and he'd be great at it)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com