CaptainTux

I went with some events in the news that had occurred in the last 5 years at that point and then showed that the scientific method for proving things is great in a controlled environment. I used 2 visual aids. I had a fishbowl and dumped dove soap in it to show it would float and I could do this over and over in a controlled environment. I then grabbed a small mr potato head and claimed it had wept three days ago. I can investigate the toy for ducts, tubes, and other trickery, but I could not repeat the event. I further said I could not repeat the healing of a blind person or the raising of the dead. Miracles are unique events. I pro actively put science into question knowing that was his only trump card on me. I proved miracles by putting the reasonable question that there is more to this world than science knows and understands at this point. It was a little song and dance, but the judges took the bait.

I would love to have a formal debate with an atheist...even in a team setting. The closest I got was a one on one debate when I was 21. I choose the assertion of believing in miracles and my opponent chose miracles do not happen. I won that one hands down.

Oh heck with it! In general discussion, discussion is just that, discussion. In HS and in Colllege I was in debate team and speech team. There are 4 types of debates Parliamentary Debate, Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Cross Examination Debate, and Academic Debate. Generally, the rules followed are either verbatum or variants of Competitive Debate—Rules and Techniques by George McCoy Musgrave. Here are the rules from chapter one of the book regarding proof. Take the rest of it with a grain of salt since we are not in a judged debate. However, the burden of proof is on whomever is making the assertion in a debate. Refution and Rebuttal has rules as well and does not just get to sit back smugly and watch football. So, do with that what you will.

Nope. I am not sure there is a right way to have these discussions. You just play it by ear and change your step when the music changes. In Bible College, my Soteriology and Christology teacher told me to always write my theology in pencil in case I learned I was wrong on something......which one will all through life if they have a correct perspective.

And I, respectfully, submit that the proposed standard has many pitfalls and is not realistic. Frankly, by this standard it would be difficult to prove the existrance of William Shakespeare from a certain point of view. I have read the work, it has been some time, though. I equate it with Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Though both books claim to give further explanation of their reasons and blah blah blah, they are mainly preachin to the choir (forgive the analogy). In a moderated debate you can exact rules that both parties agree to (or not), but in a forum such as this, a wee bit more difficult and unrealistic. Sometimes ya just gotta role with it and try to meet in the middle.

Question: How many sins does it take to lose salvation?

Let me ask this. Are there readily available books written from the lds perspective that are about the same length as hers?

Point taken, my apologies. I would still say that some of those who launch attacks may still be Christians, just misguided ones. The freaks that shoot abortion doctors and bomb clinics may have a very devout belief and may very well be written in the Book of Life. Their actions are sinful and reprehensible, but it is a tough call for me to say where they are with the creator. Their fruits are horrible and disgusting, but it is hard for me to say who is and who is not a christian. Some people just get really bad teaching.

My problem is that the statement of George is myopic. It is a clever semantic argument to take the weight of the argument against deism off the atheist. The atheist has a clever and easy out from engaging an argument. One could easily say it is up to the atheist to prove there is no intelligence in design and a great many other things. It is tough when you enter any conversation with a presupposition. An atheist is given license to enter the discourse with an anti supernatural presupposition and the theist has to accept those terms. That is as myopic as the this expecting the atheist to accept the supernatural presupposition. Tough call for these two to meet in the middle. He also fails to account for the multiple levels of proofs in an argument and when to know which one to apply. One will prove dove soap floats or sinks by the scientific method. Onw will choose a different method for proving fraud in a court of law. I feel that Descartes has a better model than George does in the Discourse on Method and even that is limiting and he contradicts himself in matters of reason and faith knowing that not all things can he handled by his method. His conflict on matters of reason and faith show that not all topics can rely on so simplistic a method for truth.

With all due respect, you speak as if this is a problem unique to the LDS. There are books, websites, and pamphlets that accuse many denomiations in Christianity of being wrong. This is done in many cases of warping the beliefs of a denomination and exagerration and, at times, outright falsehoods. I just spent 15 minutes on google and found websites and books that assault the lds, catholicism, assemblies of god, baptists, lutherans, missionary alliance, jews for jesus, methodists, and the amish (which is particularly unfair since they cannot respond to the websites content). Many faiths like the lds and the catholics call themselves the one true church. That belief, in and of itself, may be perceived by some as a direct attack on their belief and may feel this is a proper response. One thing that the lds has in common with catholicism is extra books that do not exist in the rest of the protestant faiths. You have the Book of Mormon and the Catholics have some additions to the OT that do not exist in the OT of protestants. To some, these extra books are not recognized and are a threat since they are foreign to what they know to be The Bible. Who is right? What books are correct to have and call God's word and what books are not? I dunno. I did not build the Earth in six days. Anyway, my point is that the attacks on a belief or set of doctrines is not unique to the lds.

At least he did not say, "Trust me!"

I am not cool with my emails and phone calls monitored without a warrant, but blogs are public.

Thanks again for the answer AK. No, this is not something I am here to debate. For the moment I just want strait answers without sugar coating or careful, but similar phrases (missionaries specialize in that). I appreciate strait answers and you have delivered.

So is the lds belief one of polytheistic of more than one god? Again, I appreciate the direct answers so far. Thank you.

Thanks for the direct answer AK! :) Now for the other part, if they are three separate beings, then who exactly is Jesus, and more importantly...what is Jesus? Is he a god, a spirit, an angel?

Okay, this is an issue the missionaries always skirted around with me, without justification, references or long answers, I would simply like the short answer to start. Does the LDS believe that there is one God in Three Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit-the Trinity), or are these three separate entities? If they are 3 separate entities, who is Jesus? Is he a god or merely a divine being of slightly higher rank than the angels? This is not a trap, I need clarification.

efyman2005, My head is spinning with confusion here. Lemme see if I have the basic facts down right, You are not allowed to date yet. You like (have a crush on) girl a. Girl b like (has a crush on) you. Girl a and b are friends. You are afraid that girl b will interfere with a friendship between you and girl a. You cannot call girl a due to conflicting schedules. If I got it right...there are some basics here. Since you are not allowed to date yet, the issue of romance is moot, so friendship is the immediate goal with the possibility of dating when allowed to. If girl b is a true friend to you and/or girl a, she will not hinder a friendship between you and girl a since all we are talking about is friendship. The schedule conflicts...if this friendship is important to you, you will find a way to make the effort to contact her and remove that part of the drama from this situation. The one thing I do see is the possibility of hurt feelings from girl b. You need to talk to her and (with kindness) explain that you do not see her as more than a friend. When you do this..you have to be clear that it is not her. Her weight, her physical appearance, her voice....there is no fault in her, you just a. cannot date and b. do not wish to go that direction in your friendship at this time. Now for girl a. Call her, talk to her. Do not say anything corny. Just be you. If you are you and she is her, then anything that may spring from it will be real and not bs.

Outstanding post PC!!!!!!! Shortly after my six year old was born, it was discovered she had a heart defect. The first pediatreic cardiologist was a man with the bedside manner of a rabid possum. He wanted to perform surgery on a six month old child. He told me nothing about the procedure and little about the condition and left me alone with my little one in my arms. I did not pray. I told God off and told Him to do whatever he wanted to me but to leave her alone. I was angry. That anger and fear had an affect on my marriage. I had bumped into an old pastor of mine from the days when I was a Bible College student. I told him my situation and he asked me why I was not praying about it. I told him that I lived in wealth and luxury compared to most of the world had and felt guilty asking for his help. Truth was, I was afraid the answer would be no. I was upset that He allowed this to happen. My old mentor called me on it. I prayed that night. I told God that I knew that His will may be different from mine but this is my wish and my desire and my desperate need. Six years later, she is healthy as can be and there is no ailment. Now I sit here feeling unworthy of His grace, but grateful. I am now not afraid to pray for my needs, but I am also prepared to accept the answer.

For clarification, I am not assaulting the leadership of the lds. I am challenging the ten points. I would encourage parents to research netsmartz and make their own decisions. The Internet is a hazardous place, so is the school, so is the mall, so is the park, so is driving, etc. The best we can do is lay a foundation for our kids and teach them about safety and responsibility. We do not help our kids with drivers education without knowing the rules of the road or how to drive a car. We do not teach our kids about the Bible without knowing the Bible, we do not teach our kids English without knowing the language and structure of grammar. We may not know everything about cars, the Bible, and Grammar, but we know enough to help them on thier way. The Internet and technology is something that many adults are ignorant of, but the good news is that education is a few clicks away, a trip to the library away. or a community college class away. It is important for us as parents to be educated and not just take any document for granted as correct.

Mrs S, I am in no way trying to be disrespectful toward you, but I am also not looking at this from a worldly perspective. A non LDS perspective? Yes, I will cop to that. I did give you the courtesy of reading the for the strength of youth. It seems to be a sound documents. I think the dating aspects are a wee bit on the harsh side, however, I can see the wisdom in the rules established...I especially like the bit about keeping the parents involved in knowing who you are dating. Anyway, much of what is spoken of in this document is similar to the cautions and standards encouraged by youth pastors in the evangelical and Lutheran circles that I knew growing up. So, we have now established that we are mostly on the same page. After reading the strength of youth and re reading the 10 points contained within the document combined with my own understanding of the Internet, technology, personal experience with a youth who was victimized by a predator (the predator was, sadly, someone that I thought was a friend and I have known the young girl and her mom since the girl was knee high to a grasshopper), and my involvement with some Internet task forces in developing programs to educate children and parents regarding the web, I still stand by what I said. There are dangers on the Internet...but, even if this document was carefully researched, the findings are still incorrect and myopic. No one learns anything, but they get fear of ONE site with no knowledge that several others like it exist. A parent that reads may tell the kid.."No more of the myspace". Well, good, Jr is no longer on myspace, but he id on other blog sites and still has access to the Internet. Nothing has been done, nothing has been improved, nothing. All that has been accomplished is the vilification of one website without looking at the larger problem. The direction of only assaulting myspace and not addressing the real core is akin to straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel. It is also dangerous. Why? Because no problems are solved and no tough questions asked and molestation and victimization will continue. Maybe it is time for the Strength document to include proper Internet behavior. That is what NEEDS to be discussed. That is what is being discussed by law enforcement professionals and safety advocates. Like much of the Strength document, the core issues are discussed. I see a command to dress modestly and reasons why. I do not see a message that says "Do not shop at the gap. The gap seals short skirts and if you are seen walking into the gap your parents reputation will be in jeopardy. Even if you only buy modest jeans at the Gap, the Gap is bad. The Gap owns Old Navy...that place has tight shirts." I see a message that encourages healthy living, nowhere do I read..."Do not order the Monte Crisco at Benningans! It will damn your soul." The Strength document goes beyond specific stores, cigarette brands, movies and televisions and speaks to a broader and wiser exposition. The ten points are mostly incorrect IMHO. The majority of the interaction on Myspace and other blog sites is not only harmless, but positive. Research to the nth degree will show that. Law enforcement professionals who pro actively work on Internet crime and awareness and safety advocates like me (I give about 2 presentations a month about Internet safety to parents) use a most valuable resource. The resource is called Netsmartsz.org. It is very well researched and sponsored my the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. These may be secular organizations, but they have proved track records and document their research and truly have their fingers on the pulse of the WWW. There are two links they have that are pertinent to this topic. http://www.netsmartz.org/news/blogbeware.htm (Blog beware discusses BLOG sites...what myspace is as opposed to one website.) http://www.netsmartz.org/resources/reallife.htm#realteresa (Tracking Theresa is a scary exercises on how easy it is for a predator to find information about your child. This is general to the Internet, not one site.)

I have a lot of frustration with the church and computers. I do not know how things are in the lds church, but in the evangelical churches we have some unique little quirks. We have financial aid ministries in many of our churches which is nothing more than a thinly veiled multi level marketing gig like primerica. Yet, I am a member of a group called the Freely Project (freely given freely received...get it?). As an owner of a company, I volunteer my services and expertise to churches for free as a member of the freely project. I am approached with suspicion that I may be out to sell something. I have signed a document with the freely prooject saying I will not for a church. AUGH! I do free educational gigs for ladies axillary groups, elderly day cares, PTO groups, etc...cannot get churches to accept a freebie with training and tools offered to parents and then I read of documents like this that are so full of misinformation. That said...some good points AK.

Letsjam, there are a few things that you need to be concerned about. This was not the thoughts of one Bishop. This document was given to him at a Bishop's conference by a Stake President. They were sold a persuasive bill of goods that preyed on their lack of knowledge about computers and the Internet. Now this FUD is being spread to parishioners. They are not alone, they have teachers, principles, head of schools, politicians, and the news media (who has a history of willful ignorance in tech) saying the same stuff. You and your young friends have your work cut out for you. Some schools have actually made it a punishable offense to have a myspace account, I would not be shocked is some churches (both in the LDS and out of the LDS) start telling parents to ban teens from myspace. You have to explain to them what myspace, livejournal, deadjournal, etc are and how they work. You will have to get parents like me and Strawberry Fields who understand the technology to agree with you. You will have to address the problems of pedophilia that occurs on the web. I have 17 year old in my life whom I have known since she was knee high to a grasshopper. A year ago she was raped by a man who was 37 years old. She met him on a forum and he followed the playbook to the letter. I do not blame the forum, the webmaster of the forum turned the database over to the police so they could red the PM's they exchanged. You need to educate the parents and the leaders how a responsible teen will take precautions not to invite predators by avoiding divulging certain information and avoiding key phrases that attack these sick people like moths to a flame. You have to explain how a responsible teen will handle inappropriate contact from an adult or troubled teen. They need to understand that a myspace account is no different from a profile on a forum, yahoo, etc and information can and will be gleaned from predators...but there are measures smart teens can make to reduce the damage. You need to remember two things. 1. People fear what they do not understand (a pamphlet given to you at a conference was obviously created by experts ). 2. People like scapegoats and nickel and dime answers to $20 problems. Statutory rape is on the rise at an alarming rate. The predators playbook has the adult listening to the teen and giving their thoughts consideration and respect...something they are not getting at home, school, and church. As opposed to looking at the deeper questions (why do these adults think this is okay? why does my child think she needs to go this route? why do I not spend more time with my kid?) it i easy and comforting to point a finger at somethng else, villify it, and go home thinking you have solved the problem. "Look, myspace and hip hop ruined our kids. Let's ban it, prohibit it......and sue it and go home with better children!"

Assuming the three disciples exist, I doubt most people who have encountered them know they have encountered them.

If the three disciples are walking around, I suspect they would be spending most of their time preaching and teaching incognito. That said, they may pop on a site like this and pass some words of encouragement to others to share good news. In other words...if you have three immortals walking the earth...anything is possible.

Right on Soulsearcher. We have been warned of what you speak of since 1955's Rebel Without a Cause...and we still have not heard the lesson.