Evidence for God from Science

gooooooo B.W. you are on a roll!!

gooooooo B.W. you are on a roll!!

I love reading this thread, I learn so much from it!

You won't make any progress with Obiwan though. Mormons have a propensity to mind-bend beyond belief. Reasoning from the scriptures isn't effective because anyone can put whatever spin on the scriptures just to fit their theology. Obiwan's fallen back on sarcasm, argument-labeling (without refuting), character-labeling (I don't recall him laying the anti-mormon label on us, but he's brought up a book that downgrades Evvie character), supplying external pages that corroborate his position (which anyone can do for anything), and the same ol' arguments we always see.

It's just the lengths people go to defend the indefensible. Obi had a spiritual experience (the yes to his prayer), and won't back down even if it means calling the bible a polytheistic document.

Right now, we're essentially witnessing a battle of personalities. Nobody will win except the fringe person reading along from the side.

It's also a fun lesson in rhetoric. I hate to chide B.W.'s wonderful scholarship, but the firehose method doesn't work. Obi will need to swallow it bit by bit, just like the Mormon doctrine he had to conform to (I can assure you that the missionaries don't present Joseph's handling of polygamy, his doctrine of becoming a god, etc, etc. when talking to newcomers, and even families adhere to the "line upon line, precept upon precept" method).

Keep it up though, I love reading over it.

Blessings

openminded wrote:

gooooooo B.W. you are on a roll!!

I love reading this thread, I learn so much from it!

You won't make any progress with Obiwan though. Mormons have a propensity to mind-bend beyond belief. Reasoning from the scriptures isn't effective because anyone can put whatever spin on the scriptures just to fit their theology. Obiwan's fallen back on sarcasm, argument-labeling (without refuting), character-labeling (I don't recall him laying the anti-mormon label on us, but he's brought up a book that downgrades Evvie character), supplying external pages that corroborate his position (which anyone can do for anything), and the same ol' arguments we always see.

It's just the lengths people go to defend the indefensible. Obi had a spiritual experience (the yes to his prayer), and won't back down even if it means calling the bible a polytheistic document.

Right now, we're essentially witnessing a battle of personalities. Nobody will win except the fringe person reading along from the side.

It's also a fun lesson in rhetoric. I hate to chide B.W.'s wonderful scholarship, but the firehose method doesn't work. Obi will need to swallow it bit by bit, just like the Mormon doctrine he had to conform to (I can assure you that the missionaries don't present Joseph's handling of polygamy, his doctrine of becoming a god, etc, etc. when talking to newcomers, and even families adhere to the "line upon line, precept upon precept" method).

Keep it up though, I love reading over it.

Blessings

Thanks Openminded!

Don't mind the chide at all

I understand what you are stating about Mormon's - this is simply a forum one can come to and safely read. A person does not need to respond and read as they please...

I have gone slow and easy dealing with other Mormons in face to face encounters, sometimes too slow that we constantly repeat each other. On the other hand, I have also discovered that many Mormons go fishing on the internet in order to polish their mind bending scripture twisting techniques, How — by brain storming with other Mormons after collecting data to develop ways to counter Christian objections.

So why not give such direct revelation (a fire hose) about their doctrine that they cannot run from, or hide, or conceal, and just avoid beating around the bush? We all should never underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit...
-
-
-

I have gone slow and easy dealing with other Mormons in face to face encounters, sometimes too slow that we constantly repeat each other.

Oh Lord. I had a hard enough time discussing things with the friend who introduced me to it. I even introduced to her the concept of deification on accident while "discussing" things (this is where I pulled out my fire hose--my then-form of discussion). I had a bone to pick at the time, so I laughed. I don't have the anger that anymore, but the drive hasn't left me (and I do still find it ironic that a non-Mormon introduced her to deification).

I see where you're coming from with the fire hose idea, keep it coming! The Mormons are at a major disadvantage: they must prove themselves like a bill is to be passed in congress. They must line up at every step, or else the entire ordeal fails (or turns them liberal in some ways, or make amusing reenactments of George Orwell's 1984).

I may not be angry anymore, but I do laugh at their handling of the Book of Abraham.

Anyways, back to the topic

openminded,

It can be amusing.

I'll add some more in a few days; unless, you have a particular topic you would like to discuss that you learned from your own experience with dealing with them… we can begin again from here...

For the reader following this or just ariving - please read page 9...
-
-
-

Well, I'm more interested in the smoking gun of Mormonism rather than their...different interpretation of the bible.

The Book of Abraham is entirely indefensible, I'll put together a post some time soon.

I read the first couple posts, then I skipped down to the last couple pages of this thread and skimmed those. It seems that this discussion has wandered all over the map. Someone described BW's approach as a "firehose" method....that seems pretty accurate. Among LDS apologists we like to refer to it as the "shotgun" approach. The idea is that if you throw enough ammo, no matter how bad your aim and no matter how poor the arguments, hopefully something will hit. It is designed to overwhelm your opponent. Understandably, nobody wants to respond to a shotgun-like attack because it simply is impossible. Nobody has the time of day to (at least, those of us with normal lives) to sit around and respond to so many accusations all at once.

The unbelievable thing is that once the defender has backed out of the ridiculously impossible discussion, the accuser often pats himself on the back for a job well done and laughs about the defender's retreat. That is rather ridiculous. I'm not sure if such a thing has happened in this thread (like I said, I haven't read it thoroughly) but I've seen it happen many many times.

Interfaith dialogue can be a wonderful and exciting thing. When the aim is to improve understanding and candidly, but amicably, discuss the issues the result can be very productive and satisfying. Such things are best accomplished in private, one-on-one conversation. When an audience is introduced they become the de facto jury. When there is a jury (especially one that is largely biased to one side or another) real dialogue breaks down and an otherwise friendly exchange will almost inevitably turn into a fist-fight. The game then becomes one-upmanship, rhetoric, big bolded words in all caps, and the aim is to destroy rather than to understand. For some reason, some people enjoy the idea of punishing other people in public.

I much prefer a friendly email exchange, one-on-one. People tend to be a little more conscious of what they are saying when there is only one other person reading it. They tend to be a little more polite, a little more patient, and a little more...humane. Their words are crafted for understanding, unlike the public arena where words are often crafted with the intent to entertain the crowd. Egos are kept in check when discussions are held privately. Once something of value has actually been gained through one-on-one dialogue, we can bring back what we learned to the public conversation.

So with that lengthy introduction I'd like to extend an offer to discuss LDS-related topics with whomever is interested via email. I can't promise that I'll know all the answers, and the conversation may not be as quick paced as a message board, but it has far greater potential for productivity.

Sincerely,
Sargon

P.S. I probably won't be responding to any posts that respond to this post.

Sargon wrote:I read the first couple posts, then I skipped down to the last couple pages of this thread and skimmed those. It seems that this discussion has wandered all over the map. Someone described BW's approach as a "firehose" method....that seems pretty accurate. Among LDS apologists we like to refer to it as the "shotgun" approach. The idea is that if you throw enough ammo, no matter how bad your aim and no matter how poor the arguments, hopefully something will hit. It is designed to overwhelm your opponent. Understandably, nobody wants to respond to a shotgun-like attack because it simply is impossible. Nobody has the time of day to (at least, those of us with normal lives) to sit around and respond to so many accusations all at once.

The unbelievable thing is that once the defender has backed out of the ridiculously impossible discussion, the accuser often pats himself on the back for a job well done and laughs about the defender's retreat. That is rather ridiculous. I'm not sure if such a thing has happened in this thread (like I said, I haven't read it thoroughly) but I've seen it happen many many times.

Interfaith dialogue can be a wonderful and exciting thing. When the aim is to improve understanding and candidly, but amicably, discuss the issues the result can be very productive and satisfying. Such things are best accomplished in private, one-on-one conversation. When an audience is introduced they become the de facto jury. When there is a jury (especially one that is largely biased to one side or another) real dialogue breaks down and an otherwise friendly exchange will almost inevitably turn into a fist-fight. The game then becomes one-upmanship, rhetoric, big bolded words in all caps, and the aim is to destroy rather than to understand. For some reason, some people enjoy the idea of punishing other people in public.

I much prefer a friendly email exchange, one-on-one. People tend to be a little more conscious of what they are saying when there is only one other person reading it. They tend to be a little more polite, a little more patient, and a little more...humane. Their words are crafted for understanding, unlike the public arena where words are often crafted with the intent to entertain the crowd. Egos are kept in check when discussions are held privately. Once something of value has actually been gained through one-on-one dialogue, we can bring back what we learned to the public conversation.

So with that lengthy introduction I'd like to extend an offer to discuss LDS-related topics with whomever is interested via email. I can't promise that I'll know all the answers, and the conversation may not be as quick paced as a message board, but it has far greater potential for productivity.

Sincerely,
Sargon

P.S. I probably won't be responding to any posts that respond to this post.

No is patting thenselves on the back...

Whose God's father? and his father?

Interfaith dialogue can be a wonderful and exciting thing only for those using it to fish for converts. Mormon doctrine seeks to make people their own gods - the same sin Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden for and Satan sin's as well. Jesus is not Satan's brother either, These are the things Mormon doctrine teaches moving people away from the bible to false works and fables.

if that is your choice, then that is your choice, be prepared for the consequences of such act.
-
-
-

B.W.,
I'll fill you in on my conversion to Mormonism

This is an interesting topic and one I've struggled with a lot in the past.

There are many names which Jesus is called by in the scriptures -Teacher, Christ, Jesus, Messiah, etc as His role on Earth is defined in different ways by different areas of scripture, which may cause confusion...
There are also many scriptures including in Genensis where Moses is transcended or adam and eve walk with God in person, so we know that God Himself is His own distinct Entity in physical form. Just as Christ the Son is a physical being. And God created us in His image also logically tells us that we are a physical likeness to God the Father in Heaven. etc etc.

That being said, the LDS church supports the teaching that the three in the trinity are three seperate entities..

I think where some confusion comes into play is certain areas of scripture this:

In revelation and Genesis right off hte top of my head, it talks about Satan becoming the Father of Lies and deceit. Satan was a brother of Christ and a brother to us children of God. God bade them come to Him and he asked both Satan and Christ if they would save His children [we who choose to follow Him] from being lost to Him forever. Satan said he would take away our free agency and force us to follow and come back to God.. Christ on the otehr hand understood God's plan and that we should have Free agency to choose to love God and follow Him or to choose not to; Christ said he would never force us to do anything.

So we know that Christ shared God's Will and shared the intent and purpose of God the Father. because of this, Christ was chosen to be our saviour and Satan created a rebellion against us all.
Because Christ made his Will the same as that of the Father the Father in Heaven GAVE HIS AUTHORITY to his son Jesus.
This is where it gets confusing.
when Christ came to earth and had built the church upon the earth with a renewed Preisthood and the desciples and the Apostles etc, Christ, WITH GODS ABSOLUTE POWER AND AUTHORITY, spoke FOR God on earth. Many times when it seems in scripture that it is God speaking, it is not God Himself but it is His Son Jesus Christ speaking on His Behalf because Christ was given that privelage since His Will was the same as the WIll of God in every sense and in every way.

That explained, It's very easy to believe that the 'trinity' is three people in one? which makes no sense at all.. vs three seperate entities... because there can certainly be easy confusion of who is speaking and who is doing what in the bible, at times if you don't read closely.

EDIT:
"Jess L. Christensen, Institute of Religion director at Utah State University, Logan, Utah. On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel “who was in authority in the presence of God,” a “son of the morning.” (See Isa. 14:12; D&C 76:25—27.) Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer's older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)"

openminded wrote:

gooooooo B.W. you are on a roll!!

.... Reasoning from the scriptures isn't effective because anyone can put whatever spin on the scriptures just to fit their theology. ...

I don't agree with this. If we believe that the scriptures are the TRUTH and the truth is absolute, then naturally there is one meaning to the scriptures and one path that it lays before us.. Christ did not put many paths before us.. he gave us a set of rules that leads us to eternal freedom and happiness with our Father in Heaven. There is no changing those rules. They are as they have always been. Therefore Reasoning from scriptures is our ONLY WAY of finding understanding and what Truth really is.

If you want to use scripture out of context for your own good and lead people away from the Path that has been laid out before us that is on your conscience, but every one of us needs to PRAY and make sure what they believe is the Truth. READ your scriptures and study them with others to know that YOU know the truth.
Every single one of us is on a different part of our journey along the Path that Christ laid out before us and we cannot judge others for where they are at on their own path, but we can all help eachother by strengthening our own personal testimonies and by praying and by studying together and by LIVING our lives in a Christlike manner. We all have our own experiences that have led us to the point we are at. But in the end there is only ONE TRUTH and that comes from the Scriptures. if anything, the Scriptures are our best source of information and anything else is only Man Made, fulfilling man-made doctorine and completely Fallible.

When does each of our individual compilation of knowledge become Truth? We all like to beileve that what we believe is the right truth. If you believe in something, that makes what you believe right, right?

There was a story I heard once about a classroom of students [based on a true story apparently] all given an assignment in several teams seperated throughout the room. They were to write up a plan for a constitution and a government for their own theoretical Nation. Half way through the class the professor of the class asked them to come up and each of them share their ideas on how to form this perfect Nation... of course they all had their own individual ideas and none of them together could agree on what ONE way they could come to an agreement and form this nation of theirs.. The professor suggested something profound. He suggested they all retreat back into their small groups and spend time in prayer. He suggested that if they pray for a unity in wisdom and direction that they would be better guided and find a resolution between all the groups together..
So the class split up and prayed in their seperate groups without talking between themselves. Befre the end of the class, the class grouped up together again as a whole, and they all shared the inspiration that came to them through prayerful thought and meditation.
Every one of the groups shared the same resolution. In the end.. it was not a unity of their own ideas they found, but a unity of Spirit-driven inspired ideals..

If we can approach our lives in this way more often, I believe that the same could be true of us all in many instances. So often, we have our own answers to talk about and we don't pray for answers enough and ask for God's answers to be instilled in us. If we pray, there can be unity in understanding, no matter who we are or what background we come from.

In the Milenia when Christ returns to this earth and reigns on earth for the thousand years, there will not be many beliefs, there will be ONE UNIFIED belief and understanding. This is what we need to seek.

Columhcille,
thank you for sharing! I enjoyed reading your perspective. I'm certain we've all struggled to understand the nature of God, especially since He's God. We're left with so very little in comparison to who He is.

I'd like to critique your perspective though, I hope you dont take it personally.

Before I get into it, I think I misunderstood something from you:

We all like to beileve that what we believe is the right truth. If you believe in something, that makes what you believe right, right?

I don't think I took this phrase the right way. Obviously, if we believe in something, that does not make it right. Whatever we do, we do not affect the truth through belief. We can definitely deceive ourselves into thinking something is right, and we may hold a right belief, but there is no causal relationship at all between believing in something and the truth of something. I really don't think you meant it that way, though.


Anyways. Back to your perspective. You said:

If we believe that the scriptures are the TRUTH and the truth is absolute, then naturally there is one meaning to the scriptures and one path that it lays before us.. Christ did not put many paths before us.. he gave us a set of rules that leads us to eternal freedom and happiness with our Father in Heaven. There is no changing those rules. They are as they have always been. Therefore Reasoning from scriptures is our ONLY WAY of finding understanding and what Truth really is.

Truth is absolute, but the Bible, for instance, can be ambiguous. Also, we must determine if scripture is truly scripture (which, despite the professed unity of the spirit, we do not have a unified agreement on what is scripture even when verifying through the Spirit).

For an example of the ambiguous nature of Scripture, I'll use Col. 1:15 as an example. You cited Christensen using that verse to justify Lucifer being the younger brother of Jesus, but the following verse (Col. 1:16) claims that all things were created by Jesus. This would include Lucifer, meaning they aren't brothers. But since this contradicts a Mormon doctrine, the verse, for Mormons, must be read in light of scripture written (or revelated, depending on your position) by Joseph Smith. With Smith's scriptures in mind, we can now come to the conclusion that Lucifer and Jesus were brothers.

But since we don't accept Smith's scriptures (namely because they disagree with previously written Scripture), we can only reason up to a certain point. Smith's scriptures add a new context that wasn't there before, and really, wasn't there in the first place. The idea of Jesus and Lucifer being brothers is entirely absent from any proposed doctrine of Christianity preceding and proceeding Mormonism, biblical and not. There is no context in the Biblical text itself, nor in the theological atmosphere it came from, nor in the Catholic era that proceeded it, nor in the Protestant reformation, nor in the many denominations from over the centuries.

Accepting this doctrine does not come down to reasoning from the scriptures, it comes down to whether or not Joseph Smith was mistaken about himself and his prophethood.

Was he a prophet? How can we tell? Already I've shown how reasoning from the scriptures isn't effective because Smith's scripture adds a new spin to fit his theology; a spin that is entirely extra-biblical and is derived from Smith's take on the creation story (which, again, is scripture to some).

So if reasoning from the scriptures is not effective, then what? I tend to examine Joseph Smith's truth claims and see how true they really were. If it turns out he had no idea what he was talking about, I keep that in mind and consider it when I "study things out" as instructed by the D&C. If Smith's reputation begins to take a toll, then I grow wary of his claims of prophethood.

I've already prayed, and did so with the greatest desire to learn what the real truth is. I was prepared to drop everything I knew if I received a Yes to the Book of Mormon. And so, I prayed multiple times; but each time I did so, I received a greater and greater No impression from my prayer.

That was my experience with praying for a divine answer, and if praying for answers is the right way to do it, then I thank God for revealing to me the falseness of Mormonism and keeping me in His beautiful truth.

As for studying things out, Smith has made prominent claims that turned out to not be true. We can discuss the evidences if you'd like, but there have been some serious blows to his claims of prophethood and seership when the situation is examined.

Columhcille wrote:This is an interesting topic and one I've struggled with a lot in the past.

There are many names which Jesus is called by in the scriptures -Teacher, Christ, Jesus, Messiah, etc as His role on Earth is defined in different ways by different areas of scripture, which may cause confusion...
There are also many scriptures including in Genensis where Moses is transcended or adam and eve walk with God in person, so we know that God Himself is His own distinct Entity in physical form. Just as Christ the Son is a physical being. And God created us in His image also logically tells us that we are a physical likeness to God the Father in Heaven. etc etc.

That being said, the LDS church supports the teaching that the three in the trinity are three seperate entities..

I think where some confusion comes into play is certain areas of scripture this:

In revelation and Genesis right off hte top of my head, it talks about Satan becoming the Father of Lies and deceit. Satan was a brother of Christ and a brother to us children of God. God bade them come to Him and he asked both Satan and Christ if they would save His children [we who choose to follow Him] from being lost to Him forever. Satan said he would take away our free agency and force us to follow and come back to God.. Christ on the otehr hand understood God's plan and that we should have Free agency to choose to love God and follow Him or to choose not to; Christ said he would never force us to do anything.

So we know that Christ shared God's Will and shared the intent and purpose of God the Father. because of this, Christ was chosen to be our saviour and Satan created a rebellion against us all.
Because Christ made his Will the same as that of the Father the Father in Heaven GAVE HIS AUTHORITY to his son Jesus.
This is where it gets confusing.
when Christ came to earth and had built the church upon the earth with a renewed Preisthood and the desciples and the Apostles etc, Christ, WITH GODS ABSOLUTE POWER AND AUTHORITY, spoke FOR God on earth. Many times when it seems in scripture that it is God speaking, it is not God Himself but it is His Son Jesus Christ speaking on His Behalf because Christ was given that privelage since His Will was the same as the WIll of God in every sense and in every way.

That explained, It's very easy to believe that the 'trinity' is three people in one? which makes no sense at all.. vs three seperate entities... because there can certainly be easy confusion of who is speaking and who is doing what in the bible, at times if you don't read closely.

That is where we disagree... Because it t is self evident from the Mormon scriptures that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings.. Completely different from mainline Christianity. And Satan is not the brother of Jesus. Good grief..

But that is only part of the story.. There are other HUGE differences with the doctrine such as "the curse of Cain" (against blacks) fused into the Mormon books. Or works to obtain salvation.. Completely wrong!!

Columhcille wrote:EDIT:
"Jess L. Christensen, Institute of Religion director at Utah State University, Logan, Utah. On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel “who was in authority in the presence of God,” a “son of the morning.” (See Isa. 14:12; D&C 76:25—27.) Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer's older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)"

There is no correlation that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are offspring of God and therefore, spirit brothers. Nothing... Jesus is God. To speak anything else is blasphemy..

Hi Columhcille,

Sorry for the delay,

I was on vacation and jsut returned today. I'll respond to your posts soon...
-
-
-