Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[Call_of_the_Wild]

According to what he states God has a beginning so how is this not a problem for him but is for science because the universe supposedly has a beginning. I have my own answer for that, pantheism, but I have yet to hear how other types of theologies can solve that other than chalking it up to supernatural magic beyond our understanding yada yada.

Actually, it isn't a problem for me because God did not have a beginning, nor did God exist in time "before" the universe was created.

 

[idav]

Actually, it isn't a problem for me because God did not have a beginning, nor did God exist in time "before" the universe was created.

That makes little sense. May as well say god doesnt exist. As for the universe it doesnt exist in time at the quantum level nor would the singularity. I still cannot fathom how you think god is an exception to the rule you suppose. Well as I pointed out the universe doesnt have rules like that, there is no beginning of time with the singularity it is for all intents eternal which is why the universe is god. Our time began but the stuff that makes the universe did not. Qm shows everything is atemporal deep down beyond the fabric of space-time. General relativity shows this.

 

[idav]

Well, in my humble opinion...the existence of God seems rather intuitive. I just can't believe that inanimate material got to a point where "came alive". Just don't buy it.

Well I dont buy that either, good thing there really is no such thing as inanimate matter. All matter is animate and full of energy.

 

[cottage]

?
There is more evidence of the mind surviving bodily death than there is for evidence of the origin of consciousness coming from unconsciousness.

What ‘evidence’ is there for the mind surviving bodily death? None! And as far as I’m concerned there is no evidence for consciousness coming from non-consciousness either, but that cannot be taken as some kind of affirmative argument for disembodied consciousness.

?Only if god doesn't exist would it be neither probable or possible.

Question begging!

Well I don't know what "in this life" means. Christians believe in resurrections.

‘In this life’ means the same mortal life described in the Bible in which we are expected to believe the deceased came back from the dead.

That is not necessarily true. How many on here can say that they were raised in the church but later abandoned the faith?

I have reasons to believe everything that I believe.

No it’s not necessarily true, of course it isn’t. For many religious people their faith is not beyond question and they work continuously to justify their beliefs to themselves. Believers, like unbelievers, come from all walks of life and neither side has the monopoly on intelligence and knowledge. But with very few exceptions the faith is prior to the reasoning, although the believers’ reasoning will to be tuned to accommodate the teaching or elements of the preferred doctrine or belief system. So my argument is that belief in God together with the allegiance to a particular faith is learned and established mostly in the formative years, facilitated by a predisposition; in other words this faith does not come about only after weighing probabilities on the balance of reason. It is, with respect, founded on dogmatism.

All those things you mentioned were orchestrated by an omnipotent God. If you take God out of the equation, I am at a lost to see how we can get to the point of donkeys, salt, women, and human beings in the first place.

So is your argument is ‘God exists therefore talking donkeys, a woman being turned into salt, and humans living to be 600 years of age is credible.’?

If so then again you are beginning with the answer

If God exists he can perform miracles
The Resurrection was a miracle.
The Resurrection is therefore true
Thus God exists and he can do miracles

Still harping on the holy men and the graves? lmao.

In some ways the Resurrection itself almost has an air of disinterestedness and a genuine search for the truth about it. There is nothing particularly fantastic in the account; there are no supposed witnesses to an invisible force that effortlessly rolled back the huge stone that closed off the tomb, and no mention, for example, of angels appearing to bear Jesus up to heaven followed by his reappearance in a brilliant flash of white light, or some such thing. In fact the entire matter proceeds lawyerly-like on the basis of circumstantial evidence. But then there is Matthew’s testimony, the saints leaving their graves and strolling into the city, a momentous event by any standards, but not supported by any circumstantial or anecdotal evidence, which is remarkable. His account is sensational but spoken in a very flippant way, devoid of detail, and just given to impress and convince the readership in my view. And if we can doubt his testimony on a matter such as this, the dead coming to life, then why should we accept the central premise of his testimony which is that Jesus was resurrected?

 

[viole]

Mathematics deal with infinities, but this all conceptual. It doesn't reflect reality. Ok so lets say you have an infinite amount of marbles, right? Now lets say you give me 3 of your marbles. How many do you have? Infinity. Lets say you have an infinite amount of marbles, and I give you 3 marbles, how many do you have? Infinity. Now lets say you have an infinite number of marbles, and you gave me all of the odd numbered marbles, how many do you have? Infinity. So what do we have here?

Infinity + 3 = infinity
Infinity - 3 = infinity
Infinity - Infinity = infinity

These are absurd results, because when you subtract, you are supposed to have less than what you had previously, and when you add, you are supposed to have more than you had previously, but this is not the case when dealing with infinity.

And the infinity - infinity seems even more absurd. If you have an infinite number of marbles, and you gave me all of the odd numbered marbles (an infinite amount), then you are left with an even numbered of marbles....So in actuality, I didn't really lose any marbles, DESPITE giving you an infinite number of marbles from my collection.

Oh, the absurdities!!!!

Well, it is worse than that. The perimeter of a circle contains the same amount of points of the whole circle (including its perimeter).

You seem to be unaware of Cantor's work on actual infinities.

Incidentally, do you think the Universe contains a finite number of points in space? Remember, space is a physical entity, according to general relativity, it is not only conceptual.

I don't think all events are known to him a-temporally, since God is not longer atemporal. He was atemporal "before" the creation of the universe, but since then he has and will be forever in the realm of time, and thus his thoughts are in time. Now before the universe, I guess it would make sense to say his thoughts were "fixed" in the sense that his thoughts weren't temporally becoming, like our thoughts are.

Yes, but you believe in eternal life, I presume. i also assume that you believe God knows everything, including all the possible states of affairs of an eternal future.

So, how does He do that without knowing an actual infinity of events? I hope that all possible states will not be in finite number. That would imply that you will cyclically do the same things for ever. That would make you a Hindu.

Alternatively, heaven would be deterministic, which would create some issues with free will.

But you will have free will in Heaven. Will you?

The evidence is based on background events. We are basing it on inference.

Which are all written in a book. Like the legends of King Arthur or the Odyssey.

I would be careful to believe what you read.

Jesus' was flogged, beaten and battered, and he appeared to his disciples as if nothing ever happened. I like that better than growing a new arm, personally.

Well, we have even today bogus claims of people resurrecting from death. All those stories about flatliners and all. There are no limits to people credulity. Alas, a chopped off arm never regrows, no matter how much you pray, for some reason.

Sorry. With all efforts, I cannot find it impressing. Again, that could be pure fiction or just visions, which usually do not carry scars.

My friend just had a vision of her recently departed mother. And she was looking young. There are people convinced to be able to speak with the dead. If you are good and press them, they might even tell you that she is sitting near the medium.

These things happen all the time, even with secular people. I would not neglect the power of delusion of a grieving mind, especially if we add the cognitive dissonance of seeing their alleged Messiah being crucified in the mix.

LOL but no one is saying that Elvis resurrected from the dead. They may claim that he wasn't really dead, but no one is saying that he was dead, and rose from the dead. Big difference.

Maybe. But do you believe their claim? If not, why not?

Too bad the disciples claimed they saw the physical Jesus...

Yes, in a book. Incidentally, Paul is not so clear cut about this physical attribute. He is pretty silent about empty tombs also, apparently, which is odd considering the emotional impact of such a story and his temporal proximity to the events. Surely, an empty tomb story would boost news broadcasting ratings. Can you imagine a news reporter saying: forget the empty tomb story, it is boring, lol.

I suspect that the physical attribute and the empty tomb myth have been added later to avoid the hilarity of the intellectuals of the time, who were not very sympathetic with spiritual visions.

The same thing won't be said 2,000 years from now. And its funny you mention this, because in 1 Corin 15:6, Paul states:

6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

At the time Paul wrote this, most of the brothers and sisters that saw Jesus was still alive, just like you said the witnesses that claimed to have saw Elvis are still alive and can be interviewed...well, so could those that saw the appearances of Jesus.

And do you believe him? Just because a claim is 2,000 years old, that does not make it more believable. As brokensymmetry mentioned, what makes those claims more believable than the claims concerning Joseph Smith or the claims of prophets flying on a winged horse?

As you read the Gospels & Paul's letters, how do you think the authors intended their message to be taken as?

As motivated to create a new religion. Or maybe he just experienced a heat stroke that made him see things (his companions did not see a thing, maybe they were wearing protection hats, lol), it is very hot down there. Maybe he fell in love with a Christian or had a bad conscience, or just made it up. Or maybe that was a huge gullibility test, like R.Hubbard's invention of scientology.

Test passed, as usual.

Not everyone is willing to accept eternal life.

I know, the conditional probability of believing in your local God if you aspire to eternal life for yourself and your dear ones, is pretty high.

Ciao

- viole

 

[brokensymmetry]

There are serious problems with proposing that God was 'outside of time', not experiencing time, until creating the world and then 'entered into time'.

First, this solution was proposed in order to explain how a God 'outside of time' intervenes insofar as there are conceptual difficulties with atemporal beings causally influencing anything. But, hopefully the problem with this is clear. How did God made this sudden transition? How did God manage to get off the ground, as an atemporal being, with any creative act whatsoever?

I think there is another issue as well. IF we are going to deny that atemporal beings, objects etc can't 'do anything', which call of the wild wants to do in order to run his argument against infinite regression, then in what sense was God really existent 'before' the first creative act? Any thoughts, for instance, if we accept the background to this view, can't occur. No events could occur, mental or otherwise. In that sense God simply wasn't there... nothing was there... until the act of creation which created both God and the universe ex nihilo.

Now, how does this solve any of those challenges brought up by natural theology that mormon theology is supposed to be ill equipped to handle?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That makes little sense. May as well say god doesnt exist.

Or I may as well say that God does exist, on my view.

As for the universe it doesnt exist in time at the quantum level nor would the singularity.

Well unless you are saying the singularity was just sitting idly for eternity waiting to expand some 14.7 billion years ago, there is just no way the universe could have expanded from a singularity point without there existing a transcendent cause.

I still cannot fathom how you think god is an exception to the rule you suppose. Well as I pointed out the universe doesnt have rules like that, there is no beginning of time with the singularity it is for all intents eternal which is why the universe is god. Our time began but the stuff that makes the universe did not. Qm shows everything is atemporal deep down beyond the fabric of space-time. General relativity shows this.

There are at least 10 different interpretations of QM, and no one knows which one of these interpretations are correct...but even with that said, you can't use quantum mechanics to explain the origin of its own domain..if there was a point at which literally nothing existed, I don't even see how you can begin to explain how we (all nature) can go from a point of non-existence, to existence...and if you think the universe is eternal, i don't see how ANY event that has come to past could ever come to past if there were an infinite number of events preceded it. Makes no sense...and this holds true regardless of what cosmologists or physicists tells you...no amount of quantum mechanics can escape this philosophical problem.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well I dont buy that either, good thing there really is no such thing as inanimate matter. All matter is animate and full of energy.

But is all matter full of life? Obviously not.

 

[Katzpur]

No I haven't misunderstood your doctrine.

Yes, you have misunderstood our doctrine. As a matter of fact, you obviously don't even understand what the word "doctrine" means in LDS theology. The only definitive source of official LDS doctrine is found within the Standard Works and in statements issued by the First Presidency and/or Quorum of the Twelve Apostles collectively. Period. Here is an official Church statement to back that up:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Do you think I am just making stuff up off of the top of my head?

Of course not. I wouldn't think of giving you that much credit. "This stuff" has been regurgitated so many times by so many people that you would have no need whatsoever to re-invent the wheel.

No, I am going by my research...

God the Father According to Mormonism | Mormonism Research Ministry

Sure you are. But you're not getting your information from reputable sources. You're getting it from websites like this one whose sole purpose is to present the LDS Church in such a way as to come across in the most damaging way possible. Let me ask you something. If you were interested in really learning about Judaism, where would you go for your information? To a knowledgable Jew or to a Muslim extremist? Would it make more sense to you to look to a Jew for accurate information on Christianity? Wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to ask a believing Christian? Why is it that when someone wants to "research" Mormonism, they turn to websites founded, funded and run by people who detest everything Mormonism stands for? MRM is an anti-Mormon website. I don't care what this website says, because I have been a practicing Mormon for over 65 years and I know what I read in the scriptures and I know what I tear taught in church week after week, month after month and year after year. And it's not this:

The Mormon doctrine of God is not the same as the historic Christian view. It holds that God and man are essentially of the same species, and that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones. He is not uniquely self-existent, transcendent, or eternal.

Neither is he truly the creator of all things, for he is one among potentially billions of Gods, and does not even have the ability to create matter.

Big letters not withstanding, this is merely one example of MRM's attempt to paraphrase what they are claiming to be "Mormon doctrine." There is not one single solitary statement anywhere in the LDS "Standard Works" that says anything at all about God's ability to create matter. MRM's would like very much for people to think that we believe God is incapable of doing so, but no Mormon who has ever lived has ever said that. While it is true that we believe that God created our universe out of already existing matter, this is totally irrelevant to some supposed inability of His part to have created matter. Furthermore, the Bible never states that He "created" matter. It says that He created "the heaven and the earth." Michaelangelo created the Sistine Chapel, regardless of the fact that he used materials that already existed at the time. Or do you want to argue that point, too? You accuse us of having strayed from "historical Christianity." Congratulations, we plead guilty! What we have reestablished is "biblical Christianity."

The really funny thing was that some poor, unknown BYU professor is created with coming up with the interpretation.

So I haven't misunderstood anything.

Yes, you have, and furthermore, you have done so intentionally. You want so badly to prove Mormonism false that you will grasp at any straw that supports your preconceived beliefs about it. You won't allow yourself to be corrected, not even by someone who knows that you're wrong and is willing to take the time to help you get it right. Martin Luther King once said something that I really, really liked. It was: "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." When I hear people continuing to repeat inaccurate statements time and time again, after they have had the opportunity to say, "I'm sorry. I guess I was wrong," I lose all respect for them.

So if you are going to be upset at anyone, you need to be upset at the person or person's who created the website that I linked to you, and also be upset at the countless other websites that say the same thing that this one say.

First off, you're right about one thing: Websites "that say the same thing are a dime a dozen." Nothing unites people like a common enemy. Secondly, don't tell me who I'm allowed to be upset with. Till the day I die, I will be upset with people who create websites that intentionally tweak Mormon teachings in such a way that the average person who doesn't know better will find Mormonism absurd and offensive. I will also continue to be upset with people who post from those websites with the same intentions.

I have far more respect for people who are willing to take the time to find out -- from Mormons and Mormon sourcecs -- what Mormons really believe. If, after doing that, they reject the doctrines as false, I can fully accept that they were at least sincere. When the best they can do is to quote from MRM, CARM, and miscellaneous websites, I have nothing but pity for them. Any fool knows that getting your "information" from such sources is not research

 

[idav]

Or I may as well say that God does exist, on my view.



Well unless you are saying the singularity was just sitting idly for eternity waiting to expand some 14.7 billion years ago, there is just no way the universe could have expanded from a singularity point without there existing a transcendent cause.

This is the same issue people pose when you say god is just sitting in an atemporal state then all of a sudden decides to do something. We are saying the same thing.

There are at least 10 different interpretations of QM, and no one knows which one of these interpretations are correct...but even with that said, you can't use quantum mechanics to explain the origin of its own domain..if there was a point at which literally nothing existed, I don't even see how you can begin to explain how we (all nature) can go from a point of non-existence, to existence...and if you think the universe is eternal, i don't see how ANY event that has come to past could ever come to past if there were an infinite number of events preceded it. Makes no sense...and this holds true regardless of what cosmologists or physicists tells you...no amount of quantum mechanics can escape this philosophical problem.

It doesn't matter the interpretation. All interpretations, due to general relativity show that quantum is transcendent. Like you say a point where nothing exists, which is what people tell you of god, that god was nothing and became something. Posing some more initiator doesn't solve the delimna. At least we can point to natural causes which are transcendent as a singularity where time is not a factor.

 

[idav]

But is all matter full of life? Obviously not.

No matter. QM experiments show that particles know things, so knowledge is possible without life. Starting everything with life makes even less sense.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No matter. QM experiments show that particles know things, so knowledge is possible without life. Starting everything with life makes even less sense.

Depends on how you which to define "life".

 

[idav]

Depends on how you which to define "life".

Right, when atoms already seem to know things it already has the makings of awareness and therefore life like.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well, it is worse than that. The perimeter of a circle contains the same amount of points of the whole circle (including its perimeter).

You seem to be unaware of Cantor's work on actual infinities.

Ok, so using Cantor's work...explain to me how long it will take you to travel an infinite distance...if a zillion dollars was in a huge brief case waiting for you to retrieve, and it is an infinite distance away from your current location, and you began to walk....using whatever equation or formula you want, explain to me how long it will take you to get there, and what finite point would complete the journey...I will wait.

Incidentally, do you think the Universe contains a finite number of points in space? Remember, space is a physical entity, according to general relativity, it is not only conceptual.

I believe the space in the universe is finite, yes.

Yes, but you believe in eternal life, I presume. i also assume that you believe God knows everything, including all the possible states of affairs of an eternal future.

That is to assume that all possible state of affairs is a sum total of infinity, and I doubt this is the case.

So, how does He do that without knowing an actual infinity of events? I hope that all possible states will not be in finite number. That would imply that you will cyclically do the same things for ever. That would make you a Hindu.

God knows all true propositions, and if we don't assume there is an infinite number of propositions to know, then your question is pointless.

Alternatively, heaven would be deterministic, which would create some issues with free will. But you will have free will in Heaven. Will you?

I don't believe there will be free will in heaven.

Which are all written in a book. Like the legends of King Arthur or the Odyssey.

Last I checked, practically every historical event that historians care about were written in books, and the bible is no difference. So if that is your argument, then your argument will apply for any alleged event that history books claim happened in the past.

Well, we have even today bogus claims of people resurrecting from death. All those stories about flatliners and all. There are no limits to people credulity. Alas, a chopped off arm never regrows, no matter how much you pray, for some reason.

And for some reason, no man has ever seen an animal produce another animal that is different from what it is (macroevolution), and no one has ever seen life come from non-living material (abiogenesis)...no matter how much wishful thinking scientists have, no one has ever seen it, and these two things are SUPPOSED to be natural occurrences.

Sorry. With all efforts, I cannot find it impressing. Again, that could be pure fiction or just visions, which usually do not carry scars.

You are telling me what it could have been, and I am telling you what the disciples CLAIMED.

My friend just had a vision of her recently departed mother. And she was looking young. There are people convinced to be able to speak with the dead. If you are good and press them, they might even tell you that she is sitting near the medium.

Yeah but your friend is not claiming her recently departed mother ROSE FROM THE DEAD, now is she?

These things happen all the time, even with secular people. I would not neglect the power of delusion of a grieving mind, especially if we add the cognitive dissonance of seeing their alleged Messiah being crucified in the mix.

Paul wasn't grieving though, so you can't reason your way like that regarding him, and notice that delusions STILL doesn't explain away the empty tomb.

Maybe. But do you believe their claim? If not, why not?

It depends on the claim. Is the claim that people have seen Elvis because he rose from the dead? Or is the claim that he really wasn't dead in the first place? It depends.

Yes, in a book. Incidentally, Paul is not so clear cut about this physical attribute. He is pretty silent about empty tombs also, apparently, which is odd considering the emotional impact of such a story and his temporal proximity to the events. Surely, an empty tomb story would boost news broadcasting ratings. Can you imagine a news reporter saying: forget the empty tomb story, it is boring, lol.

Well, what the heck do you think "raised from the dead" means lol? If a man dies, and you see this man's spirit after his dead, you won't say the man was "raised from the dead". But if the man dies, and you see his physical body after death, you will say the man was "raised from the dead".

But if that won't convince you, consider what Paul said in Acts 13:34-37, where he is speaking to the assembling:

34 God raised him from the dead so that he will never be subject to decay. As God has said,
“‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.’[c]

35 So it is also stated elsewhere:
“‘You will not let your holy one see decay.’[d]

36 “Now when David had served God’s purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his ancestors and his body decayed. 37 But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay.

In verse 36 he is stating that basically, David was buried with his ancestors and his body decayed, but Jesus' body did not see decay, contrary to David's body, which stayed in his grave, and decayed. He is drawing a parallel between David's body and Jesus body...and not only that, but he is harmonizing what Peter said in chapters previous...Acts 2: 29-32

29 “Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31 Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. 32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.

Also keep in mind that both Peter and Paul are recalling the prophecy of David in Ps 16:8-11.

So please, stop it with the spiritual stuff...it is clear that both the disciples and Paul preached a physical resurrection.

I suspect that the physical attribute and the empty tomb myth have been added later to avoid the hilarity of the intellectuals of the time, who were not very sympathetic with spiritual visions.

Not so fast...1 Corin 15:3-7 has been dated to within 5 years of the cross, so I don't know where you get this "later" stuff from.

And do you believe him? Just because a claim is 2,000 years old, that does not make it more believable. As brokensymmetry mentioned, what makes those claims more believable than the claims concerning Joseph Smith or the claims of prophets flying on a winged horse?

Then I will tell you the same thing I told him....if the concept of a god is logically flawed, then such a god cannot exist..and if such a god cannot exist, then such a god cannot be seen.

As motivated to create a new religion. Or maybe he just experienced a heat stroke that made him see things

That wouldn't explain the empty tomb or the origin of the disciples belief.

(his companions did not see a thing, maybe they were wearing protection hats, lol), it is very hot down there.

It wasn't meant for them to see.

Maybe he fell in love with a Christian or had a bad conscience, or just made it up.

Again, that wouldn't explain the origin of the disciples beliefs nor the empty tomb.

Or maybe that was a huge gullibility test, like R.Hubbard's invention of scientology.

Gullibility would be an understatement.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes, you have misunderstood our doctrine. As a matter of fact, you obviously don't even understand what the word "doctrine" means in LDS theology. The only definitive source of official LDS doctrine is found within the Standard Works and in statements issued by the First Presidency and/or Quorum of the Twelve Apostles collectively. Period. Here is an official Church statement to back that up:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Of course not. I wouldn't think of giving you that much credit. "This stuff" has been regurgitated so many times by so many people that you would have no need whatsoever to re-invent the wheel.

Sure you are. But you're not getting your information from reputable sources. You're getting it from websites like this one whose sole purpose is to present the LDS Church in such a way as to come across in the most damaging way possible. Let me ask you something. If you were interested in really learning about Judaism, where would you go for your information? To a knowledgable Jew or to a Muslim extremist? Would it make more sense to you to look to a Jew for accurate information on Christianity? Wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to ask a believing Christian? Why is it that when someone wants to "research" Mormonism, they turn to websites founded, funded and run by people who detest everything Mormonism stands for? MRM is an anti-Mormon website. I don't care what this website says, because I have been a practicing Mormon for over 65 years and I know what I read in the scriptures and I know what I tear taught in church week after week, month after month and year after year. And it's not this:

Big letters not withstanding, this is merely one example of MRM's attempt to paraphrase what they are claiming to be "Mormon doctrine." There is not one single solitary statement anywhere in the LDS "Standard Works" that says anything at all about God's ability to create matter. MRM's would like very much for people to think that we believe God is incapable of doing so, but no Mormon who has ever lived has ever said that. While it is true that we believe that God created our universe out of already existing matter, this is totally irrelevant to some supposed inability of His part to have created matter. Furthermore, the Bible never states that He "created" matter. It says that He created "the heaven and the earth." Michaelangelo created the Sistine Chapel, regardless of the fact that he used materials that already existed at the time. Or do you want to argue that point, too? You accuse us of having strayed from "historical Christianity." Congratulations, we plead guilty! What we have reestablished is "biblical Christianity."

The really funny thing was that some poor, unknown BYU professor is created with coming up with the interpretation.

Yes, you have, and furthermore, you have done so intentionally. You want so badly to prove Mormonism false that you will grasp at any straw that supports your preconceived beliefs about it. You won't allow yourself to be corrected, not even by someone who knows that you're wrong and is willing to take the time to help you get it right. Martin Luther King once said something that I really, really liked. It was: "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." When I hear people continuing to repeat inaccurate statements time and time again, after they have had the opportunity to say, "I'm sorry. I guess I was wrong," I lose all respect for them.

First off, you're right about one thing: Websites "that say the same thing are a dime a dozen." Nothing unites people like a common enemy. Secondly, don't tell me who I'm allowed to be upset with. Till the day I die, I will be upset with people who create websites that intentionally tweak Mormon teachings in such a way that the average person who doesn't know better will find Mormonism absurd and offensive. I will also continue to be upset with people who post from those websites with the same intentions.

I have far more respect for people who are willing to take the time to find out -- from Mormons and Mormon sourcecs -- what Mormons really believe. If, after doing that, they reject the doctrines as false, I can fully accept that they were at least sincere. When the best they can do is to quote from MRM, CARM, and miscellaneous websites, I have nothing but pity for them. Any fool knows that getting your "information" from such sources is not research

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTfNPJ8KNmU&feature=player_detailpage

Don't let this be you, Katz lol. But seriously, what do you believe, Katz? Is God eternal, and was he created? Also, the quote that the website gave by Joseph Smith, is that quote accurate or not, or is this all a ploy to discredit Mormons for some reason?? Was the quote out of context? Did he really say it at all? What is it?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Right, when atoms already seem to know things it already has the makings of awareness and therefore life like.

Foolishness.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No matter. QM experiments show that particles know things, so knowledge is possible without life. Starting everything with life makes even less sense.

What does particles know, idav?

 

[Katzpur]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTfNPJ8KNmU&feature=player_detailpage

Don't let this be you, Katz lol.

If you have something to say, say it. I don't know what I was supposed to get out of that video.

But seriously, what do you believe, Katz? Is God eternal, and was he created? Also, the quote that the website gave by Joseph Smith, is that quote accurate or not, or is this all a ploy to discredit Mormons for some reason?? Was the quote out of context? Did he really say it at all? What is it?

I can't answer those questions with a simple "yes" or "no." It's just not possible. I would, however, be 100% amiable to discussing them with you on the Misconceptions about Mormonism thread in the LDS DIR. I'm sure idav did not start this thread with the intention of it turning into a debate over the LDS doctrine regarding the nature of God. I don't believe in hijacking other people's threads just because I have something I want to say. If you honestly want answers to these questions, you will take me up on my offer. If you don't do that, I'll assume you would just prefer to believe the lies and half-truths. I will not, however, be doing anything more to further derail this thread.

 

[idav]

Foolishness.

You refuse to understand it.

What does particles know, idav?

It knows past future and across any space it can possibly reside in.

Delayed choice quantum eraser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If you have something to say, say it. I don't know what I was supposed to get out of that video.

It is just a cool video

I can't answer those questions with a simple "yes" or "no." It's just not possible.

I just want to know did Joseph Smith actually say that...and based on that question, it is a simple yes or no, because either he did, or he didn't.

I would, however, be 100% amiable to discussing them with you on the Misconceptions about Mormonism thread in the LDS DIR. I'm sure idav did not start this thread with the intention of it turning into a debate over the LDS doctrine regarding the nature of God.

If Mr. Smith saw what he claimed he saw, that is a miracle..and the title of the thread is "Historicity of Claimed Miracles"....and Joseph Smith CLAIMED he saw a MIRACLE..and this is a HISTORICAL claim because it happened in HISTORY..so I would say this fits the title of the thread quite nicely

I don't believe in hijacking other people's threads just because I have something I want to say.

I do

If you honestly want answers to these questions, you will take me up on my offer. If you don't do that, I'll assume you would just prefer to believe the lies and half-truths. I will not, however, be doing anything more to further derail this thread.

Either he said it, or he didn't. I am not interesting in looking at your side-stepping dance moves. Either he said it, or he didn't...and there isn't much wiggle room to blossom out of that cocoon.