Bluejay

Hi, AJ. Are you familiar with logical fallacies? This one is "argumentum ad populum," the appeal to popularity. And, it's considered a fallacy for good reason: Did the popularity of the Roman religion in Jesus's day make it correct? If not, why does popularity make your religion correct today? ----- If everything in the Book of Mormon was in the Bible, we wouldn't need the Book of Mormon, would we? ----- Though this isn't really the topic of the thread, I would like you to provide me with these prophecies that "have not and can never be fulfilled." I am particularly interested in how you're going to argue the "can never be" part. ----- It sounds like you're assuming that we haven't searched the Scriptures. What is the basis for your assumption? The fact that we disagree with you? I'm sure that, if we all just thought about it, we'd end up thinking just like you.

Hi, AJ. So, Jesus is God because God spoke to Him and called Him "God"? A God who apparently talks to Himself. ----- Mormons believe that there are three gods. Jesus is one of these three: thus, it is perfectly acceptable for Jesus to be called, "God." ----- Why do you treat it like a word game, AJ? Semantics is not the substance of truth. ----- Man is also a spirit (Zech. 12:1; Eccl. 12:7; Matt. 26:41; James 2:26). And... Here we have John the Baptist, a man, who has a spirit, and is also called "holy" in the Bible: proof that John the Baptist is also the Holy Ghost. Thus, John the Baptist is also Jesus and Heavenly Father. This is what happens when you treat the Bible like a word game. ----- I believe this was already done upthread: Emphasis mine.

Hi, AJ. Okay. But, you're not talking about "knowing Jesus": you're only quibbling about what we call Him. Look: And the response: Jesus is God's Son. Peter said so, right there in the Bible, right in front of Jesus's face, no less, and Jesus approved of it. It's pretty clear who Jesus is and what His relationship to God is. And, from Romans, we see that: We are God's children, also. It says so, right there in the Bible. So, since we have the same Father as Jesus, the title "Brother" is wholly appropriate: Thus, this LDS doctrine does not clash with what is written in the Bible. But, this whole brother thing is more about our knowledge of ourselves than it is about our knowledge of Jesus. We believe the spiritual father-son relationship between God and Jesus, and between God and us, is literal, which tells us that we have a spark of divinity within us, as well. But, realizing our own divinity does absolutely nothing to belittle or change what Jesus Christ is to us, so, it has absolutely nothing to do with how well we know Him or what He has done for us. He is still our Savior and our Exemplar, and He is still the key to unlock the gate to eternal life---and we still acknowledge this and worship Him appropriately.

Hi, Islander. Okay, I see what you're saying now. Please note that, while I did say that our religion cherry-picks the scriptures, I rejected Rockwoodchev's argument that the statement about Moroni is an example of cherry-picking. My exact words were: Source: Cherry-Picking

Hi, AJ. I'm not sure I understand why this makes such a big difference for you. We still believe that Jesus died for our sins, and that, by so doing, He made it possible for us to live with Him again. We simply call Jesus by one more title, and one that simply follows directly from the wording in the Scriptures. It amazes me that every little difference in detail can become a "question of life and death," and result in huge divisions in our religion (Mormons are guilty of this, too, so don't think I'm singling you out here). For instance, is there really that dramatic a difference between Sunday Sabbath and Saturday Sabbath? Is there really that dramatic a difference between dipping a head in a bowl and dunking a body in a river? Is there really that dramatic a difference between a Trinity and a Godhead? Is this sort of thing really the big difference between us and you? I think there are larger differences than this (e.g. the Three Kingdoms, eternal marriage, modern-day prophets, etc.): surely you don't think the extra title we give Jesus is that big a deal?

Hi, Islander. I assume you're referring to this blanket statement: Prove me wrong: show me one religion that believes every word of the Bible literally, and I will gladly take it back. The simple fact is that everybody who believes in the Bible believes that some of it was not meant to be read literally, or that some of it was translated or interpreted inaccurately, or that some bits are more important than other bits, or that some of it hasn't been fully explained by God yet, or that some of it is missing some important contextual clues, or whatever. Our religion in particular is very explicit on this matter: unlike the leaders of other churches, our leader actually went and changed what was written in the Bible, because he believed some of it to be in error. Whether or not his actions were condoned by God, the fact remains that our church changed the Bible to suit our doctrines. This is referred to as "cherry-picking," or, in worse cases, "special pleading," and we do do it. Even if we do it with authorization from God, it's still called "cherry-picking." ----- What gave you the impression that I have a problem with this? My comments only addressed the five angels that were not included in the manual: what does that have to do with the mission of Moroni, or with my testimony of it? ----- I humbly suggest that you consider the possibility that I might have already done so. That possibility apparently hasn't crossed your mind yet.

Hi, Rockwoodchev. Agreed. With the rampant inconsistencies between different parts of the Bible, you can't not cherry-pick, so there's no use pretending that we don't. The only difference between any two Christian churches is which scriptural quotations they feel are more important than others. ----- I'm confused: what exactly is being bent or taken out of context? Nothing is being misrepresented: the lesson is simply not mentioning the other five angels. There could be any number of reasons why they weren't mentioned: Maybe we don't know who the other five angels are.Maybe the other five angels haven't come yet.Maybe the other five angels are like Heavenly Mother: their names need to be protected for some reasonMaybe their duties aren't as relevant to the intended topic of the lesson.Maybe the Church had to choose only one to mention because of time issues (as a teacher, you should know that 45 minutes isn't very long for a lesson ).Maybe the Church doesn't want teachers to get into the confusing details in Sunday School, so they only mention the simplest and most familiar stuff, like Moroni.Maybe the Church only wants to present the information that is most relevant to the class's testimony in the LDS Church.I personally don't think this scripture has been bent, cherry-picked, taken out of context or inappropriately cropped at all.

Hi, Steve. I married a co-worker, and that's going pretty well so far. Of course, before we were married, she dumped me twice while we were still co-workers, and that made it quite awkward, but I eventually convinced her to see the light. Seriously, don't get bogged down worrying about what might go wrong: there's too much that could go wrong to make that a meaningful use of your time and brain power.

I said "no": it won't make the universe collapse under the paradox, will it? If it does, I'm sorry, everybody.

The Theory of Evolution or the theory of life out of primordial goop by accident? Either way: the creationist camp is generally built around the premise that if any materialistic theory of life can be shown to be flawed, then all materialistic theories go down together and the belief that God magicked the universe into existence is vindicated. ----- Agreed. My point was that this is the fault of the creationist camp. Creationism has so far defined itself as an endeavor to defeat the Theory of Evolution and other materialistic theories of science. This is the result of a false dichotomy: creationist leaders labor under the assumption that, if they defeat evolution and abiogenesis (that's the word you were looking for :) ), then creationism is proven true by default. The Wedge Strategy is a "secret document" written by the Discovery Institute, the leading creationist/IDist research agency, outlining their purpose. This is the relevant quote: It isn't that people are misunderstanding what creationism is: it's that creationism is actually defining itself as the opposite of evolution. Belief in God doesn't have to be that way, though: Traveler is an excellent example of this, and one who has gained my respect after only two posts.

Hi, Dravin. I'm not sure I'm going to back you up with this one. What I have learned during my time in the evolution vs creation debate is that the primary effort of Creationism and Intelligent Design is exerted in attacking the Theory of Evolution: very little else is put forward at all. In fact, there is very little that has been put forward in terms of an actual theory of Creationism, at all: there are some ideas and opinions out there, but none of them satisfies the scientific definition of "theory"*. ----- *For those who don't know: a scientific "theory" is a model the describes all available evidence and has "stood the test of time": outlasting its rivals and weathering the storm of naysayers, who usually attack the theory very vehemently. For an example, read about the hobbit, Homo floresiensis: two ideas (hypotheses) were put forth to explain what this cretaure was, and, after a vicious exchange of papers supporting both sides, one hypothesis has faltered under the pressure, and the other is still going strong and gaining momentum. The one that is still going has outlasted all of its competitors, and so, has earned the right to be called a scientific theory.

Clearly: look how many of you are so willing to speak evil of something that God called "good" in the very first chapter of scripture ever written. It's truly a bizarre phenomenon.

Hi, Shadow. Yeah, I'm with you on this one. I'm a doctoral student in entomology, and I work with evolution on a regular basis. Bro. Millett clearly has very little understanding of the history and the science of biology. I'm sure he would be very upset if I wrote an article about how computer scientists like him are just blind followers of George Stibitz (the guy who "invented" the modern computer), and professed that his understanding of computers is fundamentally flawed. Not that I can really blame him: biology education in the US (and in Utah, in particular) is pathetic. ----- Well, he did come up with the "warm pool" idea, but that doesn't count as a scientific theory. ----- Too many people confuse these issues. I debate at EvC Forum, where countless threads have been filled with attempts to explain that "evolution" is not a term that embodies everything in opposition to the Christian mythos, and is not synonymous with "atheism" or "the Big Bang Theroy," but is a specific theory intended to describe a limited set of phenomena associated with the processes of life. I cannot stress this enough: The Theory of Evolution does not require any specific type of origin. For instance, if God created a number of life forms, those life forms could still evolve in accordance with the Theory of Evolution. If life arose spontaneously from a pool of muck, those life forms could still evolve in accordance with the Theory of Evolution. ----- It's extremely hard, for some reason, for many religious people to grasp the thought processes involved in science, which are not supposed to be motivated by beliefs, but by observations and supporting evidence. Religion is fundamentally built on the concept of trusting authority, but science is not. For instance, I have never read The Origin of Species, and have no plans to do so in the near future. Most of the reading I do in science is literature from the last decade or two, because that's where all the good stuff is. I do not subscribe to the Theory of Evolution because someone converted me to it or because I respect Darwin's authority or persona, but because I have spent time, on my hands and knees, collecting data with my own hands that affirms the Theory of Evolution. The bottom line is that, if we are going to Hell for our belief in evolution, it won't be because we blindly followed Darwin there, but because the evidence led us there.

I love spiders. In fact, I am studying spiders for my PhD dissertation. I like scorpions and centipedes, too. And mantids and dragonflies, and pretty much any other kind of bug. You see, I'm an entomologist. Generally speaking, spiders are completely harmless to humans. Even black widows and brown recluses don't usually do much damage when they bite (often, their bites will look just like any of those tiny little bites you'd get from a house spider). It's just that the rare, horrific occurrences get lots of media attention (like plane crashes). Furthermore, most of the time, doctors don't know how to identify brown recluses and black widows (let alone their bites), so, more often than not, if you were diagnosed with a brown recluse bite, you were misdiagnosed. Here (Brown Recluse Spider) is a webpage that shows a map of the distribution of the brown recluse. It has never been reported in Utah, nor really anywhere near it. You people in Utah should be more worried about red harvester ants: their stings hurt like you wouldn't believe!

Hi, A.J. Thanks for your response. It fits my definition of "question." ----- Do you consider yourself ignorant of Satan's devices? If not, what is the problem? ----- In logical debate, there is a term for this: it's called "confirmation bias." Basically, it means that you've picked an authority, and have refused to believe anything that disagrees with that authority. This is not a valid means for discovering truth, it is only a valid means of finding what else agrees with your particular authority. See, there is a danger in appealing to a specific authority: you have already suggested that Satan can mimic an angel of God. Thus, you have no assurance that the authority to which you are appealing is not the work of Satan. If the Bible is the work of Satan, then your red flags are only telling you that the Book of Mormon contradicts the falsehoods of Satan. That is why it is important to obtain external verification for your proposed model of truth. To us Mormons, the Book of Mormon is the external verification of the truth of the Bible. Where there are seeming contradictions between our two witnesses, a third witness---the Doctrine and Covenants, a modern prophet. etc.---will provide us with a tie-breaking vote. Thus, we have safeguards against being led astray by Satan. And we need them.

Hi, Aj4u. I can't answer your questions for you. But, this isn't through any fault of my own, but it's just an artifact of the way you've set up the question. Look at this: With this statement, you have rendered it literally impossible to discern truth from error. My only response can be, "Why do you consider the Bible immune to this fault, but not the Book of Mormon or the Qur'an or the Bhagavad Gita?"

Hi, Mikbone. Okay, I see where you're going with this. My father has been thinking along the same lines recently (he and I have this kind of discussion all the time). What would we be able to become if not gods like Elohim? Would we really be allowed to create our own worlds? Would we have spirit children of our own? Who would atone for their sins? ----- I have never really subscribed to this idea. Where does it come from, other than John 5:19?

Hi, Mikbone. Sorry for the delay. I won't argue that Jehovah isn't different from us. Obviously, he is. But, you'll need to define your criteria for being a different species before we can determine if he is a different species. Otherwise, I don't know what can realistically be said about it. For instance, I could make the case that, because Ray Charles was blind, had dark skin, hair and eyes, and could play the piano very well; and because I can see, have light skin, light hair and light-colored eyes, and can only play two easy hymns on the piano---Ray Charles and I are different species. It all depends on what you will accept as sufficient distinction to merit designation as a separate species. Once you've set your criteria, if Jesus fits them, nobody can argue against you except to disagree that your criteria are meaningful. I would be happy to discuss meaningful criteria for distinguishing species, but I'm not sure the discussion could ever come up with a real answer, because subjective criteria are essentially arbitrary.

Hi, Livy. Sorry I’ve taken so long on this: I have a busy field season this year. The "quote" tags that result when you quote an entire message can be used for separate quotes, too. Just write this: And it comes out like this: I learned this on another debate forum. ----- Well, it isn't really that I question the Zelph incident: It was aimed specifically at Bro. Hancock’s mentioning of Desolation. I generally question the reliability of details in historical accounts, especially when only one of several different accounts contains the detail in question (I’ve only read a couple of the Zion’s Camp journals personally, though, and that was a while ago, so I may just be assuming that Levi Hancock is the only one to mention the land of Desolation). ----- Amen. ----- Amen again. Again, I’m not a Meldrum fan, and I’ve only seen his video once. I wasn’t impressed with him as a researcher, but there are just a few points that he made that I rather like. I liked his suggestion that some of the buildings were temples. ----- And, it’s quite refreshing! :) Of course, if we accept Meldrum’s cherry-picking about mutation rates, then the 25,000 years thing is anachronistic. It’s always nice if you can just hand-wave away years of science, isn’t it? Well, that’s not technically true: some of the western and Great Plains tribes have X2a in small amounts (the Navajo and Sioux are notable). I was actually going to quote the same source in my post, but I thought I'd keep it simple (I'm brand-new here, and I have no idea how much everybody knows about various topics; plus, internet forums are for recreation: in-depth literature searching is for my dissertation). ----- You're probably right. The only trouble is that genetics have to come into play at some point, and Meldrum’s X2 connection is the most parsimonious of the available options (with the exception of the Nephites-didn’t-exist argument): it’s my scientific custom to stick with parsimony until something better comes along. A civilization that spanned the hemisphere would surely leave its haplotype behind in noticeable amounts, but extensive population studies haven’t found anything decidedly Middle Eastern. ----- I stand corrected. ----- I would like to use this as an example of why I don’t like contextual/literary evidence. First, the only types of suffering explicitly described are hunger and thirst. Nakedness is mentioned, but suffering is never explicitly tied to the nakedness. It’s really a matter of speculation that they would have died from exposure, because Alma 14 doesn’t say how exposed they were. They were indoors: they could have been near a fire. Second, I am postulating the Hopewell civilization as the Nephites. The Hopewell culture was found across the eastern United States. I don’t know where Ammonihah would have been (except west of Zarahemla and along the river Sidon), but anywhere south of the Ohio River would have had far less severe weather (even here in Kentucky, the winters (except this last one, which was awful) are quite mild). I could make a number of other arguments to support my claim, because vague contextual clues simply are not capable of providing enough solid information on which to form an opinion. ----- Another example of it: And yet, strangely enough, there is documented evidence of Native Americans in the region wearing loincloths. Lamanites going into battle naked was mentioned twice in the Book of Mormon (Alma 3, Alma 43). Alma 43 was in April, by your reckoning, and Alma 3 didn’t specify a season. At no times was nakedness mentioned in relation to winter. Bro. Lund is simply assuming that the nakedness applies year-round, when, in fact, the evidence only supports the argument that they were naked in summer. But, if we’re just going to talk about the semantics of the Book of Mormon, I’ll quickly lose interest. This is why I hope some real archaeological evidence comes up soon: so we’ll have something to talk about.

Hi, Livy. Thanks for your response. Assuming, of course, that Levi Hancock is a reliable source. ----- I'm not a Meldrum fan-boy, Livy, so elucidating all of Meldrum's personality flaws and errors is not the way to go about convincing me that the Book of Mormon happened in Central America. I'm not arguing from his authority, but from a few of the simple evidences that he put forward. ----- Is this part your own stuff? Or was it meant to be included in the preceding quote? Because, the formatting was a bit ambivalent in this regard. Either way, I want to raise a couple of points: First, my primary reason for rejecting the Central American and accepting the Great Lakes models is the genetics evidence. Haplotypes are groups of genomes that contain a common collection of mutations in them. Haplotypes are highly correlated with ethnic groups, and can be clustered into haplogroups based on similarity between haplotypes. Haplogroups are highly correlated with broader patterns of ethnicity. X is a haplogroup, not a haplotype: the specific haplotype that Brother Meldrum is always on about is the mtDNA haplotype X2, which is present in the Great Lakes region of North America, as well as western Asia and eastern Europe. It's also present in a Middle Eastern community called the Druze, and this is the connection that Bro. Meldrum likes. Unfortunately, the Druze are of ambiguous heritage themselves, so there's no way of knowing where their X2 minority came from. So, Bro. Meldrum’s haplotype evidence is extremely weak, and even a bit pathetic. What I want to point out, however, is the alternatives to his model. There are 5 mtDNA haplogroups found in Native American peoples, and all the other 4 (A,B,C, and D) are strongly associated with East Asia, specifically, with Mongolia and Siberia, and really with no where else. This evidence is highly consistent with the Beringian Strait theory, and utterly undermines any attempt to explain most of the peoples of North America as anything but Asian. Suffice to say, if the Great Lakes model is misusing haplogroups, then all other models are torturing and adulterating them beyond belief. So, if you wish to argue against the Great Lakes model using genetics, academic integrity requires you to reject all the alternatives on the same grounds. ----- Second, in regards to Bro. Meldrum’s comments about weather, I can’t really remember what his argument was. Was it the one about the Nephites using snow in their metaphors? That actually seems quite legitimate to me: certainly a civilization in Central America (such as the Mayas) would not know what snow was, let alone be able to use it for comparative purposes. Certainly, it doesn’t refute the non-limited geography model, but you can’t really call this misusing evidence: Bro. Meldrum’s arguments have been mainly against other limited geography models, as far as I remember, anyway. ----- And, I don’t know what misuse of geography you’re referring to, so I won’t comment on that one. It seems that the “narrow neck of land” is thoroughly explained by the Great Lakes region, as well as the two seas; much better than the Central American models do. Further, the timing of the Hopewell civilization is appropriate, whereas the timing of the Maya civilization is not. I am no archaeologist, so I can’t go much further in this direction without extensive reading (but, I have my own research to do right now, so please be patient as I attempt to bring myself up to speed again). ----- What I have presented is physical evidence from genetics, as well as apologetics from cultural and geographical cues. What has been presented against me so far is third-hand hearsay. My scientific mind only allows me to judge between two models based on the strength of the evidence for and against each: while the evidence for the Great Lakes model is weak, it still seems to outclass the evidence for the other models.

Hi, Mikbone. Howdy,And thanks for askin! Dictornary.com 1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. 2. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species. So, I'm a biologist, and the reason I asked you is because the term "species" is a vacuous and unstable term in biology. The field of biology is increasingly of the opinion that the term is only useful as an aid for our work, and doesn't really constitute a meaningful categorization scheme for organisms. But, since God is thought to have given birth to us, then we should probably be considered the same species as God, just as your own children are considered the same species as you. But then, there's no way of knowing for sure if the same logic applies to spiritual births. ----- Well, this depends on what criteria you're using to define your scale from chimp to human to God. If you're talking about cognitive ability, then I submit that "species" is probably an inappropriate term to define the categories. If you're talking about spirituality, then I would also discourage the use of the term "species." If you're talking about genetic differences, then we'd need to wonder whether God has genetics and whether our genetics are even comparable to His. There are just too many unknowns about how our physical being, how spiritual qualities translate into physical qualities: anything we could come up with would be pure speculation. That's not to say we shouldn't try to come up with it (I think it might be interesting): but, as a scientist, I'd have a difficult time trying to make an authoritative statement out of it.

Hi, Just a Guy. I am not advocating treatment by force: I am advocating deference for an expert's judgment. Surely you believe that your client would be better off listening to you than to someone like me, whose knowledge of the law comes from watching Law & Order, right? You are approaching the problem from the viewpoint of the professional: I am approaching it from the viewpoint of the parent. And, as a parent myself, I don't understand why a mother wouldn't listen to her kid's doctor.

Hi, Spiritseeker At 13, you can't really believe that the boy knows the relative benefits of chemo vs alternative medicine. I think we're kidding ourselves if we believe that the boy's personal opinion has anything to do with the decision that is made. I agree that parents should be given sovereignty when it comes to their children, and that the government should not be given the authority to override parental sovereignty, except in very extreme cases. But, parents need to make responsible decisions, which means they shouldn't try to put their own judgment up against the judgment of experts. Do you trust your own opinion over the mechanic's when your car breaks down? Do you trust your own opinion over the lawyer's when you're in legal trouble? Of course not: so why is it different for doctors? Doctors are not infallible, of course, and they still make mistakes. But, surely they're more capable of determining the proper medical care than you are: what do you stand to gain by poopooing their expertise? It's not like you can't still pray for the kid while he's taking chemo!

Hi, Mikbone. What do you mean by "species?"

Hi, the Ogre. Agreed. We know so little about the truth of such things, anyway: it doesn't make sense to base a testimony on a favorite conceptual model. The whole point in academic study is to get the model to approach reality, which obviously involves shifting the parameters of the model a few times.