Finrock

Good afternoon rameumptom. I hope you are having a fine day! :) I agree. Not only do people forfeit the protection of Heavenly Father when they do wickedly, but also often because of their wickedness they bring upon themselves the predicted destruction. The Book of Mormon in particular teaches this principle clearly. God knows what the consequences of unrighteous living is. He knows what will occur, and thus He warns His children that if they do not repent, they will be destroyed. Not because He will conspire with evil men to bring about their destruction, but, because, like you said, they will no longer be protected, and they will bring upon themselves their curse and their destruction. Below are listed a couple of scriptures to illustrate this truth: "Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads; nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God; therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them. Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation" (Alma 3:18-19). "And this to the intent that whosoever will believe might be saved, and that whosoever will not believe, a righteous judgment might come upon them; and also if they are condemned they bring upon themselves their own condemnation" (Hel. 14:29). Regards, Finrock

Good morning dazed-and-confused! I hope you are enjoying your day and are happy. :) There are many posters. Regards, Finrock

Greetings all. I hope everyone is have a wonderful day! :) Just wanted to make a general comment about the option in the survey: "thats [sic] your choice and only your choice". I think it is obvious that all things we do are ultimately our choice. But, what kind of an option is that? I'm confused by this option or sentiment, because I'm uncertain as to what the application is and what it's relevancy is. Does saying that it is "ultimately one's choice" to go on a mission mean that God has made going on a full-time mission optional (i.e. no breaking of God's commandments) as opposed to God making it a requirement (a commandment) for a young Melchizedek priesthood holder to go? If that is what is being implied, then this is simply an incorrect understanding of a young man's priesthood duty and covenant. If it is not being implied that a young man can opt out of going on a mission without breaking God's commandments, then the sentiment and the option in the survey about it being one's choice to go, becomes meaningless in its context. That option on the survey and that sentiment expressed doesn't represent an alternative decision at all, but instead is just a statement of fact. An obvious restatement of fact, at that. So, I don't think the issue here is whether or not it is one's choice to go or do, etc. but the question is a matter of oughtness. Ought one to go or do, etc.? Is it required for a young man to prepare themselves to go on a mission and to go, barring legitimate circumstances that would prevent a young man from going? By virtue of priesthood covenants, by the counsel of our prophets, and by the proclamation of scripture, the answer to these questions is an unequivocal YES! Yes, a young priesthood holder is commanded by God to be/become prepared to serve and then to serve a full-time mission. Yes, a young priesthood holder ought to serve a full-time mission. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Dravin. I hope you are doing great today! :) Technically there are many, many more choices (commit a crime and go to jail, kill one's self, join the Catholic church, go to Africa as a Red Cross missionary, join a rock band, etc.) But, all statements like the one Hemi made assumes (not an implicit assumption, but a deduced assumption) that these are the only acceptable options. Even though Hemi didn't state it explicitely, the statement must, obviously and necessarily, be understood to be saying that the two options listed are the only acceptable options in Hemidakota's home. So, you are indeed incorrect in stating there is a third option, because in Hemi's home there are only two acceptable options for his sons when it comes to this question of serving a mission or not. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Melissa569! Nice to meet you. :) I just wanted to add a caveat to the quoted statement. Things will work out the way they are supposed to be insofar as we are doing the things we are suppose to be doing. In context to this young man's dilemma, unless he has a legitimate reasons why he cannot go on his mission, what he is suppose to do and what he ought to do is prepare with his might to go on a mission and then go. It is his priesthood duty and covenant. Period. So, in his case, things with his girlfriend will work out the way they are supposed to work out if he continues to do what he is suppose to do, which at this point in his life, is to serve a full-time mission. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Snow. I hope you've been well (no sufferring implied)! :) The history of the world has been a cycle of restorations and apostasies. A reading of the scriptures readily reveals this. Adam heralded in the first dispensation, but over time his children fell in to apostasy. The gospel was restored through Enoch, beginning a new dispensation, which was followed by yet another apostasy, and so on. When we consider these cycles of righteousness and wickedness in the world, then making a comparison "across the centuries" needs to be refined to accomodate the dispensations. We should focus, instead, our comparison to the beginning of the latest dispensation and the current state of affairs. Now, if we are going to compare our current state of affairs to previous dispensations, then it seems the only way to do this in a sensible way would be to compare our current state with past dispensations at their height and at their low. In other words, does our current state more closely match the beginning of a past dispensation, the middle, or the end of a past dispensation (assuming the state of morality can be measured from past dispensations). Given that, generally speaking, it is in the beginning of a dispensation that people are the most righteous, in the "middle" of a dispensation the state of sin is the highest, and towards the end of a dispensation that there is a general move towards more righteousness, we should be able to see where we stand as compared to different eras of a past dispenstation. However, I think the most accurate comparison will occur if we limit the comparison to the passage of time in our current dispensation. Obviously there is going to be some personal bias in how "sinfulness" is going to be measured. So, we need to also define what will be the standard by which we measure sin. It seems to me that the Standard Works are that measure. Sin, then, will be whatever is defined as sin in the scriptures. Regards, Finrock

Evening! :) I think havejoy was making a reference to "Monthy Python and the Holy Grail". Regards, Finrock

Good evening Snow! I hope you are well tonight. :) And when I say that I hope you are well, I mean that I hope you are suffering well on the side of the desert road, hopelessly trying to stuff your innards back in. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Bini! I hope you are healthy and happy. :) Oh, no, please no! Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Jason_J! I hope you are enjoying your day. :) Thanks, Jason_J. I'm not sure if I remember you from Catholic Answers. Did you go by a different name there or was it just Jason? Perhaps I do remember... Catholic Answers is a fine place. But, when my ability to remain respectful and kind gets tested, it is time for me to take a break. That's essentially what happened at Catholic Answers. Well, in any case, you've actually been an example to me on the lds.net forum and probably on the Catholic Answers forum as well, if I'm remembering you correctly. I've always appreciated your well thought-out and respectfully worded posts. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon anatess! I hope your enjoying your Friday. I sure hope it is warmer in your part of the world than it is here in Michigan. :) Thank you for the kind thread, but I would advise you that you don't actually want to be my fan, because I'm guaranteed to let you down, sooner or later! However, please continue being nice and respectful to others in your posts. And, go out of your way to let others know that you respect them and their agency, even when you don't agree with them. The internet forum scene needs a lot more of this! :) Kind Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon marshac! I hope you are enjoying your day. :) From what I gather the word "doulus" is intended to mean a slave servant. It seems in context that this isn't what Phebe was. On the other hand, "diakonos" seems to indicate someone who is a servant of royalty or serving because of desire and not because of coersion. So, I don't think in that verse it is speaking of the office of deacon, but of a person who faithfully serves in the Church. I think that an amplified translation of the verse would be something like this: "I present this woman Phebe as someone who is worthy, having willfully and faithfully served in the church at Cenchrea." Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon angel333. It is a pleasure to meet you and welcome to the forum! :) I'm gathering from your title that you aren't just looking to have 3 questions about the priesthood and the early apostles answered. So, to clarify, is the implication with your questions that the apostasy did not occur? But, to answer your questions: 1. Yes, the apostles passed the priesthood down to others. 2. Yes, the apostles baptised others. 3. God did not tell them to stop. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Landy77. I hope you are having a great day! :) Although techinically an apostate is someone who turns away from the Lord in any respect (Apostasy), hence making all of us apostate, I believe that in the general Church parlance an Apostate is one who defies or opposes God and/or Church leaders (Rebellion). The Encyclopedia of Mormonism defines an apostates as, "Latter-day Saints who have seriously contravened or ignored cardinal Church teachings (publicly or privately)..." Regards, Finrock

Good evening Intrigued! It is a pleasure to meet you and welcome to the forums! :) I understand that you are addressing this question to Rosabella, but since I feel the urge to respond, I'm gonna just give in and do it. Plus, I want to test out my new mechanical keyboard (not sure of your age, but think of the old Model M IBM keyboards). So far I'm very happy with the keyboard. I like the tactile feel and clickity click of the mechanical keys. So, I hope you don't mind. Anyways, to answer your question. Doctrine has not changed and neither has truth. More particularly, eternal truth has not changed. The source of doctrine is God and the doctrine of the Church is based upon eternal principles (Source). Changes that do occur in the Church and which often get misunderstood as changes in doctrine are: 1. People's understanding of truth. This can vary from time to time or from person to person. 2. How doctrines are implemented. How eternal principles are implemented can and has varied through-out the history of the Church. These changes in policies and implementations of eternal truths, or doctrine, do not constitute a change in doctrine. 3. What doctrines are applicable to us at any given era. How much doctrine may be revealed to us or which doctrines are applicable to us, or how a particular doctrine is implemented, can, has, and likely will continue to change. But in all of these cases, that which is doctrine, or eternal truth, does not change. Regards, Finrock

Good morning Snow! I hope you are doing well today.:) You can probably guess the result of that challenge, but I don't see how this is relevant to what Rosabella is posting? You are asking Rosabella to provide evidence of a claim she isn't making. For instance you make the following assertion: Will you please provide a quote from Rosabella where she made the claim you assert she did? In truth, the above question is a rhetorical question because Rosabella never made such a claim. In logical parlance, what your post is doing is creating a straw man. That isn't very helpful in advocating your point and it is even less helpful in producing any sort of productive dialogue. Essentially, Rosabella is making this claim: God, through His prophets, has warned His children that as the last days prior to the second coming draws near, calamaties will increase on the earth. These calamaties will affect both the good and the bad. When calamaties affect individuals, they can be humbled by them or imbittered by them. The obedient will see them for what they are: trials to overcome and to grow from. While those who do not humble themselves and repent, will be filled with dread and fear because they have no hope in Christ and in the gospel and are unable to see beyond mortality. So, my challenge to you, Snow: I challenge you to deal with the content of Rosabella's posts rather than the caricature of her posts presented in your responses. I further challenge you to lay aside your sacrasm and ad hominems (which using such is just another way to not have to deal with the actual content) and have a discussion with her like a gentleman. :) If you accept this challenge, you may even have a chance at convincing her of your position. Otherwise, I can almost assure you that your goal of helping, "...those who haven't thought through it to come to a rational conclusion," will not be realized. In order to help others come to rational conclusions, your posts need to be rational themselves. And that's a good thing! Regards, Finrock

Good evening all! I hope everyone is healthy and happy. :) It is true that we are all "just human" and we are all imperfect. It's true that we all make mistakes and it is also true that we shouldn't act like we don't make mistakes. Being disenginuous is a form of dishonesty. We should be sincere, honest, and true to ourselves and to others. But, because all of this is true it doesn't mean that our potential and our duty isn't more than we are. As members of God's true church and as disciples of Jesus Christ, we are held to a higher standard. When we take on temple covenants and particularly for the men of the Church when they receive the priesthood, we do so by covenant. A covenant that demands from us something better; something better than what we are now and even something better than we are able to accomplish if we were acting alone. Our covenants not only bind us to act better but they also give us the power to be better. It's been mentioned already that God's people have always been a peculiar people. They have been a people who have been set apart. To set apart means to be distinquishable from the norm or others. What sets God's people apart is they morality, their justice, their mercy, their goodness, their kindness, their love for God and for their neighbor, their charity, their purity, and their strict obedience to all of God's commandments. Of course we are imperfect and of course we will fail. But, to those who have entered in to the waters of baptism and who have taken upon them sacred covenants, God has promised power to overcome the flesh and the fiery darts of the adversary. Until we are exalted, we will always find need for the atonement. This is a given. However, we still can be perculiar in this life if we only choose to follow Christ in all things. If we actually take upon us the name of Christ, and if we actually always remember Him, and if we actually always keep His commandments that He has given us, then we will actually always have His Spirit to be with us, and when we do have the Spirit with us, then will our countenance shine and we will be light and beacon to the world. We will be a standard of righteousness that good men and women will see and recognize as the light of Christ shining through us and they will be attracted to that goodness in us and want more! We cannot nor should we ignore our imperfections and fallible nature. On the other hand, we ought not to celebrate our imperfections either, supposing that it is our imperfections that make us attractive to the outside world or which sets us apart. If we see that we are losing our flavor and are just blending in to the world, then this should be a call to action on our parts to repent and do better. We shouldn't languish in our sins thinking all is well and it is but human to be imperfect and sinful! Especially when we've been given the power, and the promise, and we've been given the means to be more than what we are! God expects more from His people. If we are His disciples then we will be peculiar. We will be set apart. It will be obvious to those around us because we will have chosen to live according to a higher standard and a higher law. And this is what people are looking for, more than anything else, people want to know where truth is. They want to know where true peace and happiness can be found. They already know about the failures of mankind and they've found that all in themselves and all around them, but where is goodness and light? Is there anyone who has this light? Are there any true disciples of Christ? Are they here at lds.net and if so, do people notice? Regards, Finrock

Hello Saturnfulcrum! I hope you are well. :) Hey, this is my thread and I caused 24 pages of debate! Why you trying to steal the all credit? In all seriousness, though, you didn't cause any of this so don't feel bad. You may have missed my other reply to this concern of yours, but I started this thread with the sole purpose of have a respectful debate/discussion about a particular point of view concerning SSA. Sure a conversation from the thread you started was the catalyst for this thread, this time, but that's how things work on a discussion forum. One conversation leads to another. It's what keeps it all interesting. Also, it would be premature to close this thread. Right now it appears we have real communication going on because people participating seem to be trying to understand where each one is coming from and come to some reconciliation. If we close it before these things can get resolved, then the thread gets closed while someone could potentially still be harboring bad feelings. Anyways, I think it's all good. Stop feeling guilty about something you are not responsible for. It's not your fault and you've done nothing wrong. This is just how things go sometimes, not that I think this thread has been particularly bad in the first place. For the most part people have been reasonable and kind with the rare outburst here and there, but that isn't the end of the world. :) Kind Regards, Finrock

Good evening Elphaba. I hope you've had a good week. I'm certainly glad it is the weekend! :) What you describe is very manipulative and wrong. Did you think that this is what I was suggesting? Oh, this isn't what I think and it does matter how. No, I think most people prefer honesty and directness. I think most people, if not all people, are put off by insincere niceness. What I described I think is the best way to defend the truth. I'm convinced it is the best way to teach the gospel. What you are saying in your post, though, isn't what I am saying. It isn't what I believe. I mean, being manipulative, insincere, and dishonest in motives and desires is Satanic! It's likely the least effective approach to helping someone understand the gospel. I didn't see it. Thanks, though, for caring enough to remove what you thought was rude on account of me. Well, that's a new criticism as to why my posts are confusing. Have you considered that perhaps I'm sincere? I'm just saying...:) Then again, maybe it's confusing because I write confusingly. My mother tongue is Finnish, so although I speak and write English better now than I do Finnish, I still have a tendency to phrase things in a Finnish way and this phrasing doesn't always work in English. I've noticed that sometimes this can be confusing to people. I even confuse myself sometimes when I read back what I've written! OK. So, here are my closing thoughts. I think if you look back on what I wrote you'll notice that the guiding principle in all of what I suggested is "love unfeigned", genuineness, and a true, sincere concern for others. I had the rare pleasure to serve 2 months with my older brother in the same mission. When I arrived on the mission field he was an Assistant to the President. Although we didn't serve as companions, we were able to spend some time together during zone conferences and such when he would come up to visit. One of the most lasting lessons that my brother taught me and which set the tone for my mission, was when he told me to, "Be a friend first, and forever." Now, here is a cliche, but it's true, people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care. You cannot fake love a person. Teaching the gospel is not like selling a product. We should be nice and friends to people because they are our brothers and sisters, and not so that we can teach them the gospel. Your friendship and your love should not be conditioned on whether or not the other person listens to you or accepts your message. If it is real concern and love, then it will not be. This is what I'm suggesting. Not the fake, manipulative, dishonest crap of a sleazy salesman, but the true, sincere, loving approach of the Master, Jesus Christ. We should emulate Him in all things, in deed and in thought, including in how we treat and care for others. Regards, Finrock

Good evening crazypotato. I hope you are doing well! :) I hope you receive my post as it was intended to be received. As sincere advice and counsel. My contention here is not about anyone wanting to defend the truth or if they should, but it is how we do it and how we treat others while we are doing it. Obviously it is our duty to defend truth, but we defend truth most effectively when it is done, "...by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile— Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith..." (D&C 121:41-45). In my experience, when teaching the gospel, aggressiveness, insensitivity, haughtiness, or a condescending attitude are all things that place barriers to people listening and accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ. I'm convinced that the Lord would have us do things differently. Defending the truth is really about teaching people the truth. When you teach people the gospel you should be warm, respectful, and genuine (Preach My Gospel, pg. 176). You should demonstrate sincere interest and love for those you are teaching (Preach My Gospel, pg. 176). Your goal should be to create an environment that allows the Spirit to direct both you and those you are teaching (First Presidency, Preach My Gospel, pg. 175). Ultimately it is the Spirit who has the power to convince with lasting effect and to change hearts. Now, there is nothing wrong in reasoning with and expounding upon the truths taught in the scriptures. In fact, we are commanded to do so (D&C 68:1). But, in doing so we should use "dignified...language to help people understand the [truth]" (Preach My Gospel, pg. 182). A part of teaching the truth means to also listen to what others are saying. "When you listen carefully to others, you understand them better" and "[w]hen they know that their thoughts and feelings are important to you, they are more likely to be receptive to your teachings..." (Preach My Gospel, pg. 185). When you listen to what others are saying, this allows you to identify concerns that they might have as to why they may be having difficulty accepting what you are teaching. If your goal is to defend the truth and bring others unto Christ, then you will certainly want to know what is keeping them from accepting the truth. But, unless you care about them, care about their feelings, their thoughts, and try to understand them, then you will likely never be able to help them to understand true gospel principles. I commend you for your passionate desire to defend the truth and it is obvious to me that you have a strong testimony of the gospel. And I think in your heart you desire others to come unto Christ and be perfected in Him. I think, however, that we can best do this when we apply the gospel in how we treat others and teach them. Just because this is an internet forum doesn't mean the principles of the gospel and those principles of effectively teaching others the truth, are not applicable. They may be harder to apply, but it should be our goal to do so. Kind Regards, Finrock

Good evening thatgirl1985! I hope you are doing well. :) I sent an email to my brother. I'll let you know if and when he responds. Regards, Finrock

Good evening Snow! I hope you are happy tonight. :) First, thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. Now here is a post with some substance in it! Although the first two quotes were some of your last points, I wanted to address them first. I quote you below: Thank you for your kind words. Although I haven't participated on this forum for "years" I have participated in some religious forum of some type for many, many years. As a result of seeing too much negativity, too much sarcasm, and too much effort put in to tearing down beliefs, and hardly any effort put in to truly understanding an opposing perspective, I've decided to expend a tremendous amount of effort in trying to foster an environment online that is conducive to edifying conversations. This means that I go out of my way to make sure people understand that I respect them and their agency, even when I disagree with what they are saying. If you are going to converse with me then be prepared to accept the fact that I respect you, I respect your agency, and I will not forget that even though we are disagreeing that you are still my brother and I have no desire to hurt you in anyway and I wish you to be happy and well. If this is too much for you, then you are probably better off not conversing with me (although that would be a shame). :) I'm not scared of disagreement. I've learned the hard way with my brothers (one being Vanhin who posts on here frequently) that I need to face challenges to my beliefs and opinions in a positive way, rather than choosing to get my feelings hurt and/or pridefully getting angry. As a result, I don't mind people disagreeing with me. I don't mind being called names, or ridiculed, or whatever. What I mean by I don't mind is that it doesn't hurt my ego or pride. However, I'm here to teach and to learn. Neither can occur if the parties involved don't respect each other. And I try hard to make sure I am not the cause of a disrespectful environment or atmosphere. To my disappointment I don't always succeed in this, but still I try. So, when I see things that are detrimental to that goal of teaching and learning, I point them out and try to get those things weeded out of the conversation so that the goal of teaching and learning can occur. Otherwise, for me, there is no point in participating. OK, so now to the rest of your post... Yeah, because I've already addressed this in previous posts. I figured since you didn't acknowledge it before then you likely wouldn't acknowledge it now. Yeah, my point exactly! :) First, you know as well as I do that I cannot empirically demonstrate that God exist. But, surely this isn't your expectation or requirement to be convinced? If so, then your expectation is unreasonable and we might as well pack it up and go home. Second, do I really have to do this for a fellow believer? I'm operating under certain assumptions. I'm assuming we both agree that God exist. I'm assuming that we both agree scripture is a reliable source to learn about the attributes of God. If these assumptions are false, then we are dead in the water, regretfully. Yes, I read it many times. Let me make sure your quoting my corrected version...yes, you are. First of all, my first version of that post was even more tortured and this isn't a result of me trying to dress up my language to make it sound important, it's a result of my fallibility. I hope you can look past that. Actually, not exclude in my first sentence means "include". Why I didn't write "include" instead of "not exclude" I suspect I was trying to emphasize the contrast between the points. So, the proper meaning is that the observable visible universe also includes things that science cannot currently observe but which can be observed in principle. In contrast, the supernatural includes things that cannot be observed, not even in principle. Meaning the supernatural is impossible to observe because it is outside of nature. Testing claims of supernatural occurrences is not the same as observing something supernatural. I can test a supposed physical result from some claimed "supernatural" source, but I can't test the "supernatural" source. At least that is what science claims. Well, what you may intend to mean and what a definition from a dictionary intends to mean can be two different things and this is precisely what happened. When merriam-webster speaks of the observable visible universe it is using observable and visible in a technical sense. Your posts are trying to separate visible from the sense that it was being used. So we have to look at what these terms mean in their scientific context. This is why I provided the sources I did. When science speaks of the observable visible universe they don't mean to say that this includes only those parts of the universe that have currently been observed, but any part of the universe that can be observed in principle. Your merriam-webster definition is phrased differently than most entries I find online, but it means the same thing that the others do. Your posts seemed to be taking advantage of the phrasing of the merriam-webster definition to make supernatural mean something other than it means. So, this wasn't an issue with what the dictionary is saying, but how your post was distorting what the dictionary is saying. Consider some other definitions of supernatural provided by other dictionaries, and Wikipedia: * "1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. 2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. (Dictionary dot com * "1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. 2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces." (thefreedictionary) * "Of, coming from, or relating to forces or beings that exist outside the natural world:" (answers dot com) * "not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material;" (wordreference) * "Being beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature" (onlinedictionary) * "existing or occurring outside the normal experience or knowledge of man; not explainable by the known forces or laws of nature; specif., of, involving, or attributed to God or a god" (yourdictionary) * "being above or beyond what is natural, unexplainable by natural law or phenomena." (Wikipedia). I mean, only the merriam-webster definition that you provided alters from the similar language used in the entries I've quoted (the last one coming closest to the merriam-webster definition). All of these definitions concur exactly with how I have been defining and using the term supernatural. Supernatural specifically speaks of things outside of nature, outside of the universe, period. So, when you take the standard definition of supernatural rather than the distorted one your post are attempting to attribute to it and compare this definition of supernatural to what we know about God from the scriptures, then it is clear that God does not operate outside of the Universe and nature. His power is not outside of the Universe and nature. No, I didn't catch it. It seems to me that it would be easier to just make a direct challenge. As for my evidence, here, see this post. It's already been provided. I used pseudoskepticism for a very particular purpose. As opposed to skepticism which says, "that until evidence of your claims is forthcoming, skepticism is the appropriate stance" pseudoskepticism makes negative claims but doesn't bear the burden of proof. You've made several negative claim about the content of my posts, yet you've provided very little or none at all as to evidence for your negative claims. I gave as an example your claim that what I was saying is a "bunch of mumbo, jumbo." You are asserting a position and in doing so you need to justify it. A pseudoskeptic asserts a negative position, but justifies it not at all. Well, I think your principle here is great! I agree. However, your post hasn't demonstrated this principle in action. Until now, your post has mostly just asserted that my position is false. That isn't challenging. I'm mean you've thrown down the gauntlet only you've done very little than just that, thrown down the gauntlet. That's cool by me. I've no problems with this. I'm just saying start doing some testing instead of just saying the word testing! Kind Regards, Finrock

Good morning Snow! I hope you are having a great day. :) First, I think you're funny and I mean that in a nice way. Your posts crack me up sometimes, your last one being one of them! This is not true. I've demonstrated this in earlier posts. This statement isn't true. I've demonstrated this in earlier posts. Yes, this is true. The implication, of course, is that I've only postulated an imagined possibility. This implication is false. I haven't just postulated an imagined possibility, but I've demonstrated a reasonable probability based on scripture. To close this chapter of what has been admittedly entertaining in some respects, but lacking in enlightenment, I offer these final thoughts. Here is the overall tenor of this post and your other posts and I state the following as a matter of fact as opposed to stating it emotively: For this post it's essentially a declaration, "I, Snow, decree that your ideas are mumbo jumbo and I further decree there is no evidence to support it." This is proof by assertion, logically fallacious, and wholly valueless. Your posts in general have taken the classical pseudoskeptical stance where you make claims but bear no burden of proof (i.e. This is just a bunch of mumbo, jumbo). Period. Unfortunately (and it is truly unfortunate because I'm convinced you are an intelligent person) your posts have not added much to the advancement of knowledge and understanding. They've mostly served to tear down ideas or make an attempt at ridicule. What is unfortunate for me, at least, is that I was truly looking forward to something better. I was looking forward to a discussion where my opponent offers something of substance in return rather than just asserting my position is wrong. Unfortunately I very seldom get what I want! Perhaps next time? :) Kind Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Snow! How are you? :) I'm not going to dwell on this too much more because going in to this much further means focusing on something in exclusion of the point of this thread. 1. When speaking about the observable visible universe we are not excluding things that science cannot currently observe. It includes anything, whether science can currently observe it or not, that is possible in principle to be observed (Source). When speaking of things that are supernatural you are not speaking about things that science cannot currently observe, but you are speaking of things that cannot be observed, not even in principle. You are speaking of things that are "...above or beyond what is natural, unexplainable by natural law or phenomena (Source). You are equivocating on what "visible" means as it relates to your supplied definition of "supernatural". 2. The definition you supplied assumes things relating to God are supernatural. Of course if that is true, then supernatural things are things that relate to God. But, if God's power isn't supernatural then you cannot relate supernatural powers as things that relate to God. Your responses on this point are both equivocating on what is meant in context of the definition and they are circular. When I speak of God's power, I am speaking about the observable visible universe. I am speaking of something that is not "above and beyond what is natural." This means that given we had more intelligence we would see that it is just a part of the natural universe. Supernatural explicitly speaks to things that are not possible to observe, not even in principle. They are outside of the scope of nature. But here is the bottom line and the answer to your question as to how I explain God's power (having weeded out the incoherent parts of your question): I believe that as it relates to things of God the, "...'supernatural' is just a term for parts of nature that modern science and philosophy do not yet properly understand, similar to how sound and lightning used to be mysterious forces to science." I also believe, "...that the 'supernatural' consists of things in the physical universe not yet understood by modern science..." (Source). This is not what your supplied definition of "supernatural" means. So, God's power is priesthood. It may be "that modern science and philosophy do not yet properly understand" God's power, but it is still very much a part of the natural, physical universe. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon thatgirl1985! Welcome to the boards. It is a pleasure to meet you. :) My little brother is currently stationed at Seoul South Korea. He is a member of the church and should know some info to help you out. I could ask him to see if he'd be interested in helping, if you like? I'm sure he wouldn't mind helping you to get assimilated. Regards, Finrock