Lost Boy
-
Posts
755 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Lost Boy
-
-
11 minutes ago, Scott said:
No it doesn't. It is known that some mountain ranges are older than others. For example, the Himalaya does not form a continental divide. Rivers from the Tibetan Plateau cut through the Himalaya. This is because the Tibetan Plateau and accompanying mountain ranges riding from the central areas are older than the Himalaya.
Water does not flow uphill and yet rivers cut through the Himalaya. The reason for this is because the rivers coming from the Tibetan Plateau existed before the Himalaya did. Since water does not flow uphill, the Himalaya had to rise at a slow enough rate that the rivers could cut through the mountains at a greater rate than the mountains were rising. If the mountains rose at a high rate of speed as you are claiming, the rivers would simply be diverted around the mountains, not cut through them.
Closer to home, the same situation is true in Utah and along the Wasatch Front. The Uinta Mountains are older than the Wasatch. This is known because the Provo and Weber Rivers which originate in the Uinta Mountains cut through the Wasatch. Although geologically a young mountain range, the Wasatch had to rise slow enough that the rivers could cut through the mountain at a faster rate than the mountains were rising. The Provo and Weber Rivers existed before the Wasatch (otherwise they wouldn't cut all the way through them). If the Wasatch rose at a high rate of speed as you are claiming, why weren't the rivers forced around them? Water does not flow uphill. Or does it in your "visions".
That last bit was a bit mean, but I am glad I am not alone in marrying today's science with the flood.
-
3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:
The tops the mountains were the newly forming mountains being upthrust. As this upthrust was occuring it appeared as if the waters were being lowered. But they werent, just the perception of such. In Psalms it teaches that after the flood waters came the mountains were created and carried up and the valleys sank (ocean trenches) to create a boundary (a place for the flood waters) for the flood waters to never be able to cover the whole earth again.
Easy. After the flood the continents were created or separated by the waters receding off the uplifting crusts creating elevated areas. Some animals migrated. But most of the unique animals on different continents got there at the time of the confusing of the tongues at the tower of Babel when God caused the people to disperse and separate. We know this because the Brother of Jared was commanded to take his people and separate and take various animals with them into new areas of the land. He scattered all his children into the four corners of the earth at that time. They took various animals with them, thus the unique dispertion.
I dont know how more clear than you can get in describing the mountains being upthrust a great mountain. This isnt no 500 foot mountain spoken of-
10 And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain.( 3Nephi 8:10)
I am glad you have found a way to explain it to yourself. It doesn't make any sense to me, but in the end I doubt that it matters that much.
-
8 minutes ago, MrShorty said:
Considering how long this debate has been going on in the church without "coming to a unity of faith" on this issue, I'm not sure what else is to be expected from a thread like this. We have been debating these kinds of things since at least the early 20th century, and, it seems to me that we will be debating them until Christ returns to the earth and completely takes over the education (both secular and church) system. The current discussion reminds me of the accounts of the discussions between Henry B. Eyering and Joseph Fielding Smith, where Eyering failed to change then Elder Smith's views on these subjects. (this might be an interesting read: http://signaturebookslibrary.org/the-search-for-harmony/)
I find these to be interesting -- often contentious -- discussions, but it seems that they are also mostly fruitless. Most have their minds made up, and few are persuaded to substantially change their view.
I completely agree. I doubt that it really matters whether we believe the bible account to be accurate or not. Probably not a salvation deal breaker.
-
44 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:
I may well do this, in due course, when I am ready. I like discussions! But, for the moment, I only have two chairs in my flat, and it seems I might need more than that.
Best wishes, 2RM.
They could meet you anywhere. The local church has a lot of class rooms and the missionaries often meet people there. Some people have messy houses and would rather not have people come in and see their situation.
-
52 minutes ago, Anddenex said:
I will stop trying to use logic with people that want to jam a square peg in a round whole. (I love the irony in this statement)
When you make the following statement, "So essentially to believe the biblical flood you have to set aside all logic, and all understanding of man," you are indeed specifying the flood did not happen. There is a difference between the following statement, "I do not know if the flood happened or not, but I believe it didn't" and your statement regarding logic.
True, if God can change the earth in "one day" just think of what he can do in 10 months! Yes it is my prerogative to accept that God is able to command and the elements obey. It is my prerogative to accept that people continue to make assumptions, then call it logical, while not having all the facts. The problem is your assumptions. There was Pangea, and then there was continental drift. Why didn't God just start out with separate continents instead of Pangea? Doesn't matter. Did God screw up? No. Why make Pangea, and then separate continents? Don't know.
Why does God have to fit your world view in that he either "screwed up with Adam" or that he made it the way it is today. Well, we know the Nephite civilization isn't the same geography as it was during Nephi's time. So did he screw up with the Nephites? Why not make it essentially the same? Why change anything at all? Why even have a flood in the first place. None of these questions are beneficial or prove anything, but that you simply do not know, and do not have enough facts to call anything logical or illogical or beyond all human understanding; however, I redact my last part, God indeed does things that are beyond "all" current human understanding which the natural man calls "illogical."
Ok
-
2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:
Let's begin with the last statement. I am always truly amazed when members make such comments regarding "logic" when they themselves do not have all the facts, but have a very limited knowledge regarding actual events. They are also judging past events according to our current knowledge, which is limited, which makes the comment illogical and irrational itself.
First, you are making an assumptions on what the tallest mountain was according to our day.
Second, you are making an assumption that during the year of the earth being under the water that there were not changes to the earth that could have easily have happened.
Third, you continue to make assumptions regarding water, water depth, how much rain could fall (by present statistics), and where all the water would go, and regarding how fast water recedes given areas.
Fourth, you are making assumptions or removing them, that God is able to command and the elements obey. If God commands the elements to recede faster than their normal course they will recede faster.
If you want to believe it didn't happen, that is fine, just stop pretending what is logical and what is not logical by applying present statistics thinking they add up to what the earth was like then. The reality, you don't have all the facts to make a statement that someone would need to set aside "all logic" and all "understanding" of man.
I will stop trying to use logic with people that want to jam a square peg in a round whole. I am not saying the flood didn't happen, but there is definitely no scientific evidence for it. And if you want to create things in your mind to help you believe the flood, then fine. To me, if it happened, God did it and then erased all evidence of it. To me that is the most plausible way of it happening.
And as the assumption.... The assumption is that the water was at least as deep as Ararat (16,000ft) as the bible said this was the first mountain peak to poke out of the water. But if you want to think there were massive continental shifts of thousands of miles in the course of 10 months, that is certainly your prerogative. The next question would be why do all of the rearranging in the first place? Did God screw up how he wanted the Earth to look when he made it for Adam? Why not make it essentially like it is today?
Where did kangaroos come from? were they on the ark? How did they get to Australia? Why didn't any hang around the middle east?
-
1 minute ago, MormonGator said:
Right, I agree with you. I'm just reminding you that there are people in the world who don't care/ don't understand science, and telling them that there is no physical evidence to support a flood is as useless as arguing about how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
Science is black and white, but that doesn't mean everyone understands it.Gotcha. I do find it interesting how people try to deny the scientific evidence against a flood and then try to find a scientific way of proving it...
-
1 minute ago, MormonGator said:
I hear what you are saying my friend.
To me the global flood is a matter of faith. No, you can't prove it geologically, and those who try lack the scientific knowledge to be taken seriously outside their own circle. To me, that doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means that science doesn't back them up. We are confronted every day with people who don't share our opinions on things, and trying to convince them, especially on matters of faith, is fruitless. It's not really worth debating, in my view.
I am not saying it didn't happen. Just saying there is no evidence of it. This is one of the few things that i don't have a testimony of. If others do, then I can't dispute that. What I will dispute is the physical evidence.
-
6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:
Your answer shows the weakness of human logic. Have you ever performed your own sedimentary experiment? Go and get ten different kinds of material- dirt, rock, shells, etc, and crush it all up into a fine mixture. Place it in a big glass jar, add water and shake it all up. As the sediments fall and deposit they will form layers, one on top of another.
The mountain chains we have today did not exist during the flood. During the flood the topography of the earth that then existed was destroyed. The fallacy is believing the flood waters had to cover a Mt. Everest. Those chains of mountains did not exist then.
During the flood the ocean floor was pretty much even and layers of sedimentary we're formed. Then, nearing the end of the flood the ocean floor in some areas were upthrusted tens of thousands of feet while in other areas great trenches we're formed still under water. This explains it. Like I said before, geologists do not debate that all of the great mountain chains we're once part of the ocean floor and we're then later upthrusted tens of thousands of feet. What they do debate is when that event happened and how long it took. Science though really has no proof for the when or length of time. It's all conjecture at that point. I thus find it quite telling that in the Book of Mormon at Christ's crucifixion that in the Americas great mountains we're upthrusted practically overnight while in other areas entire lands were buried by earth and others were sunk in the depths of the ocean. Science of course says that is impossible. So, either the Book of Mormon is a fraud, or, geologists really have no idea on how fast geologic events happen. My opinion and belief is that geologists really have no clue on most of what they think they understand.
Perhaps you need to go back and read the story. It says that the tops of the mountains became visible. That means the mountains existed before the flood water poofed away. This means the water had to be at least 16,000 ft deeper than it is now. The bible states that the water covered the high hills.
So where did the water come from and where did it go? Where did all of the animals that didn't fit on the ark come from? How do you explain animals unique to certain continents such as Australia? Were they on the ark? If so, how did they get to Australia? If not, did God just poof them there after the flood?
As for the Book of Mormon, it is not clear where these mountains are at, nor how high the mountains were. The Book of Mormon account is more believable as it is not requiring to poofing of non-existent material (water). And there is precedence for earthquakes changing the structure of the land.
-
13 minutes ago, Anddenex said:
Are you sure she had a dream about "twin flame" or was it something similar, similar enough, that it is being interpreted as such? As twin flame is a false theory, then the interpretation is incorrect of the dream. Similar to self-fulfilling prophecies, because I appear to have all the symptoms of "x" I must therefore have "x" when the truth is that you don't.
If you think these actions are not truth or fact, then your mind denies fact and truth. No matter how you want to explain it away, it still doesn't change what happened and the cause behind it. If you can decide to accept or reject something this does not change what it was/is. Even proof people reject, and are able to reject "compelling" evidence. Proof does not all of a sudden commit a person to not use their agency to accept or reject. You seem to be applying a definition to "proof" that is not a definition of proof, and you appear to be applying a definition to evidence that is not a definition of evidence. Similar to how some people use the word "fact."
When Christ, through touch or by word of mouth, allowed the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the lame to walk (all of which are compelling evidences -- proof) they still had a choice -- and their choice "It was the devil." Proof still requires faith to accept what you experience as fact and truth. If not, Christ would have never been put to the cross for all Jews would have believed who he was. Proof maybe compelling but still can be rejected.
I am not misinterpreting anything, I am seeing it for what is being said. You are happy with denying proof, because the "proof" isn't compelling enough for you, and that is fine. You have "choice" and "faith" to deny proof. Our faith is not extinguished when proof is given. We still very much, like Laman and Lemuel, can deny the angel bearing witness, and exercise our faith in false premises that deny the proof before our eyes.
In her vision she heard the words "Twin Soul" she had never heard this before. So afterwards she googled it. So I don't think it was a self-fulfilling prophecy.
As for proof... if it isn't compelling enough for the masses to believe, then I would submit it is not compelling enough to be proof. This has nothing to do with whether I believe the miracle or not.
-
7 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:
That would typically be the secular answer. In truth though sedimentary rocks cannot form that way. Secular understanding requires advancing and retreating oceans with slow gradual uplift then erosion events that carry debris out to sea. These slow erosion events though do not carry the substance of material required to make such a vast set of relatively uniform layers. We all know that sedimentary layers are formed under water. We also know the very highest mountain chains around the world contain sea fossils in sedimentary rock at or close to their peaks. We also know that the great mountain chains we're upthrusted from the sea floor. The only thing standing in the way of people believing the flood is the dating process. I thus find it ironic that secular trained geologists readily agree that pretty much all of the topography of the land was at one time or another, under water, they just don't agree it was during time frames given by the scriptures.
I am sorry, but a global flood does not explain sedimentary layers. Not even close. A global flood would explain one layer, not multiple layers. Nor does the flood explain mountains. Science has much more sound explanations for mountains and sediment layers, fossils on the top of mountains, etc. Plate tectonics explain this quite well. Take mount Everest.... It grows at 4 mm/year. given a million years, that is 4000 m. The Earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. a million years is nothing in a 4.5 billion year old history.
And just for your info, under water is not the only place where sedimentary layers form. They form on land as well.
I am not saying the flood didn't happen. I don't know. But the evidence you provided does not further a flood story.
So according to the flood story, the mountains were there before the flood waters abated. Where did the water come from to rain deep enough to cover the mountains? And then where did it go? Did God just poof the water here and then poofed it away? The average ocean depth is 12,000 ft. Mount arrat is 16,000 ft. So for the that mountain to be covered in water would require there to be over 2 times as much water on the planet as there is today. Where did it come from and where did it go? Perhaps you believe in Hollow Earth. I mean that is just as plausible. Also, the bible describes the water drying up. How do you dry up 16,000 ft of water in less than a year? For it to rain 16,000 ft of water in 40 days, it would have had to rain 3 inches of rain a minute over the entire planet. Here is the fastest recorded rain falls.. https://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/what-is-the-most-rain-to-ever-fall-in-one-minute-or-one-hour.html Those were highly localized and only lasted a short time and no where near 3 inches per minute.
So essentially to believe the biblical flood you have to set aside all logic, and all understanding of man. The evidence is not there. God would have had to do the flood and then erased all traces of it. Seems like a lot of work to go through to get rid of all the bad people.
-
6 hours ago, Anddenex said:
If you want to split hairs then you will split hairs, and still deny what is proof as is given by the evidence. Truly up to you. If you want to deny the evidence as proof, again fully up to you.
Twin flame is a false theory. Doesn't matter if she dreamed it or not. She doesn't have a twin flame, just as people do not have "soul mates." If people want to believe in false theories they have their moral agency to do so.
When we begin with a false premise, "if it requires faith, then it is not proof it is evidence," we have already lost. It is still proof, even if it requires faith.
As to healings, if someone is pronounced dead, after all the doctors could do, and it wasn't until a priesthood blessing was given (or even if a faithful prayer was given) and the person instantly wakes -- that is proof, and it is also evidence it was done by priesthood and God. I am not even sure why any member would seek to deny it, and minimize what it is, but again, each and every member has their moral agency to call black white and white black (doesn't matter the color that is just an easy contrasting comparison), but it doesn't change black is black and white is white. It doesn't change it is proof and evidence, even if it is by faith we accept it.
Yes, I will deny evidence as proof.
I am not asking about twin flame theory. I am asking how she had a vision of it without ever knowing about it.
Pronounced dead is not always dead and priesthood blessings are not involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome . It seems to me like it is not proof. There are plenty of people that came back to life without a priesthood blessing. Therefore it is not proof. It is only evidence.
What I believe you are misinterpreting here is what I am saying. I am not here denouncing priesthood power. I believe miracles are worked through priesthood power. And the guy coming back alive after a blessing probably was due to the blessing. but miracles seem to always be a manner that is left open for the viewer to decide if it was a miracle or not. Just because a doctor pronounced him dead, does not necessarily mean he is dead. Now give a guy with a severed head a priesthood blessing and watch him come back to life.... now that would be proof. There is not history of something like that happening. Physically impossible for it to happen naturally.
I know of no miracles in the modern day that don't require faith to accept as miracles. They are evidence, not proof. But if you want to view them as proof, I can't stop you.
Proof - the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.
In all cases, the mind is not compelled to accept the miracle as truth or fact. Only by faith and the spirit does one know for sure.
-
2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:
OK, looks like sedimentary rock that formed over millions of years under heat and pressure.
-
30 minutes ago, Anddenex said:
In our life there are two opposing natures, and we are embracing in our every day thoughts, words, and deeds one or the other. These two natures are know by:
1) Spirit, Spiritual minded, the armor of God
2) The Natural man, Carnally minded, and the arm of flesh
The Spirit, spiritually minded, have this to say to us, "Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."
The spiritually minded recognize testimony, scriptures, earth and its creation and motion, planets and their creation and motion, all denote (give evidence and proof) to a Supreme Creator (God).
The natural man, the arm of flesh, would like us to disbelieve -- to create doubt -- that these things do not denote and are not evidence or proof that God "really exists."
I am not sure the need to split hairs between "evidence" and "proof" as they are the same in practice. Proof is in the evidence. The spectrum of weak to strong is irrelevant as evidence is evidence. When an Atheist stands before God no amount of argument for "weak evidence" is going to change that this "weak evidence" (at least in their simple minds) was still proof (evidence) that denoted there was/is a God.
Twin flame is similar to the false theory of soul mates. If we have dreams of things already known as "false", well, if you have a dream and believe it to be true -- when we know it is false -- that is personal choice. If I have a dream I am a big fluffy elephant that can fly, am I a big fluffy elephant?
I had a dream that my mother-in-law was a snake, does this prove my mother-in-law was a snake? Creating a scenario that we know isn't true, doesn't negate dreams that are true and that indeed do come to pass and that denote, give evidence and proof, that there is a God. If people want to explain away truth, it is to their detriment.
The fact that a blessing doesn't always heal doesn't negate that a blessing healed. The lack of knowledge of why something does not occur every time, does not deny or negate that it has and does occur and give evidence and proof to God's existence. Because we can not explain why God chooses to move mountains for the Brother of Jared, and not move mountains for the pioneers does not negate or weaken what happened with the Brother of Jared and its evidence of God's existence.
I am sorry, but the arm of flesh is the only nature that would deny these miracles as evidence/proof for God's existence. All these miracles and every miracle performed by the priesthood are evidence and proof of God's existence.
Actually I will split hairs evidence is not proof. In a court of law any testimony for or against something is evidence. Proof can only be one, not the other. Either there is proof of something or there is not. There can be evidence for and against. And it is up to the viewer of the evidence to determine what it means.
As for the twin flame thing, my wife had never even heard of a twin flame before her vision.. How do you explain that?
Please don't get me wrong. I do believe in miracles. I have witness a number of what I would deem as significant miracles. I believe each and every one were through the power of God, yet I believe each requires faith to recognize it as a miracle.
How do you know that someone was healed by the power of the Priesthood? If one was healed after receiving a blessing, does that mean they were healed by the power of the Priesthood? Or could it just be that the person was going to be healed anyway? It requires faith to believe in it. As such it is evidence not proof.
I think God makes us search for much evidence of him for us to be able to understand him.
-
The simplest answer is the only way is for the spirit to testify to you of its truthfulness. Invite the missionaries over and talk with them. They aren't going to bite.. They can answer many of your questions. But if you really want to to know, pray about and study the book of Mormon. It is how I got a testimony.
-
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:
I think I can understand your viewpoint and I think it applies to a great many people. I also think that you have a testimony from what you've expressed, but I also understand the hesitation one may have in declaring whether they know, or that they have faith, or that they believe. At times, from what I've seen, the more powerful someone is in declaring what they feel or know the more powerful the adversary attacks them and that testimony. If one does not have the testimony that they declare they have, they might quickly fall to the tempter's snares. It is a scary proposition and we all have different levels of faith and knowledge as well as different levels of what we are willing to say or not to say.
In addition, most of our witness of the Lord and the gospel is a personal witness. Excepting for miracles which normally only help the believer build their faith and knowledge but the unbeliever tosses away and may try to explain via other means, the other items (the Spirit testifying, visions, etc) are highly personal things and are not acceptable to science currently. Thus, this leaves the world with a distinct lack of scientific evidence.
As a Historian I can definitely see the evidence against the Bible actually being true or having happened. Even the New Testament has VERY LITTLE evidence to support that the Lord even lived. As for the world goes, I agree, there is no evidence that the world accepts in general about the Lord or his gospel as being anything buy myths and fables.
The irony of course is that I believe in a literal Bible. I believe it literally tells us what happened in addition to telling us about the truth. Thus I believe in a literal flood over all the world, even if the worldly evidence I see seems to indicate that this never happened. I don't know how this happened.
I did hear something, I think over the radio or maybe I read it here or someplace about Joshua (maybe it was from you even). There is a story where the sun stood still
We know today that the Earth revolves around the Sun, so why didn't the scriptures say that the Earth stood still instead of the Sun and the Moon? The hypothesis is that in many ways the scriptures are written in the understanding of the time they are written. I have been thinking about this today, and perhaps this is also relavant to the flood. I still believe in a literal global flood, but perhaps some of the way it was written was expressed in terms from an earlier era and thus it is described in the same way that other stories of the time were related. Perhaps my ideas of a global flood are greatly inflated of what happened, and in reality, even if water covered the whole earth, the high flood waters were more of a local phenomenon. I do not know.
I think we can pray and know that the Story of the Flood is TRUE though (and there is a difference between truth and facts, but I think from your posts that this may be what you are getting at).
From what you've written I think you have a testimony, and it may even be stronger than mine or others. I also understand why you would not say something you have in faith rather than a pure knowledge of sight and touch and hearing is something you believe rather than know. I may be mistaken, but I think the misunderstandings being discussed is not a matter of testimony that we have received from the spirit, as I feel you have received and have a testimony (and I think you have stated as much), but rather a matter of how much evidence can actually be used to prove something happened, vs. our personal experiences which cannot be categorized as proof or evidence in a physical way such as science might use.
I think you have a pretty good handle on my view. I am not one to willy nilly just say I know something. Unless I know something to the nth degree, I typically won't say I know something.
I believe I have a strong testimony of the gospel. But to me that does not equate to pure knowledge. Take for instance a man that went blind, received a priesthood blessing and then eventually saw again. I would probably see that as a miracle, but at the same time it is of a nature that you could explain away with science. Now I have never heard of a severed head being restored or a severed leg.... Something like that would be near impossible to explain away... As such would in my opinion not by faith promoting, but more of a parlor trick. It would be more akin to the feeding the masses who came back again more for the physical food, than the spiritual food. With restoring eyesight one cannot be 100% sure that it was through the power of God... Thus you need faith to believe it. Restoring a severed head on the other hand... Now that would be something.
BTW, have you ever heard of someone receiving a priesthood blessing to regrow a severed hand? Did it work? Why not? (I am assuming it hasn't happened).
As for the flood... I've taught Sunday school many years and when it comes to the flood discussion, I have prayed about it many times. Nothing. I believe Noah to be real and have had a witness of that, but not of the flood. It has been interesting reading comments here regarding it. I can't say for sure it didn't happen just like the bible said, so I am not going to put anyone down for believing it did. What I really didn't expect was the condescending attitude from some here towards my lack of a testimony of it. I would hope attitudes like that don't come out in the local wards. And just to be straight, when teaching Sunday School, I don't focus on the flood. If someone asks my opinion about it, I give them my honest opinion that I don't think it happened the way the bible describes, but I wasn't there and don't know. But I have only been asked that once. And I wasn't excommunicated for my answer.
And to be very clear, I do believe in miracles. I have been witness to some pretty cool stuff. But at the same time, I believe God works mostly through natural means to achieve the miracle. For instance, my parents were planning on going on a mission, but needed to sell their business. They had tried in the past and had failed, and the deadline to get it sold was fast approaching. Then one day out of the blue someone stops in saying that God told them to buy the place. The person didn't even know it was for sale... Pretty cool miracle. Could it be written off as something else? Absolutely. But I don't believe in chance. I truly believe God knows the end from the beginning and things follow his plan. And that is the biggest miracle of all... His plan.
Throughout this discussion I have felt peer pressure to accept the flood. I don't cave to things of that nature. If the flood happened the way the bible says, then I am sure the spirit will eventually let me know.
-
1 hour ago, Jersey Boy said:
If you do not know, then you have something that’s less than the divine revelatory knowledge of the truth so often testified of in the scriptures. The Holy Ghost does not testify of things the things of God as things that may be or could be true; rather, he testifies of things that are true so that we might know what is true. If you are now at the point in your spiritually journey where you are able only to hope that the Church and gospel are true, that’s a good thing. We all have to start somewhere and an attitude of wanting to believe is a lot better than not wanting to believe or indifference.
Yeah, I am not a fan of dishonest people.
-
2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
This is no different than many scientific truths we've come across. We "KNEW" light behaved like any other wave. Until it didn't. We "KNEW" the earth was flat. Until we didn't. We "KNEW" that the sound barrier could not be broken. Until we did. We "KNEW" the brontosaurus was the largest dinosaur ever to have lived. Until we found the brontosaurus never existed after all. So, then we "KNEW" they never existed. Until we decided that it actually did, but it was just different.
Yet, we consider these scientific truths to be things we "know". Are all scientists also liars? You said that you "know" several things about science that make you disbelieve the story of Noah. Do you really? Or do you trust the words of others? Have you ever looked at raw data? Have you ever seen any photographs of earth core samples? Have you preformed a variety of testing to verify the dating on such samples? Have you done so at locations all around the globe? Have you performed radioactive testing by placing radium near a canvas with lamp oil to determine that radioactivity actually works? Have you flown around the globe? I could go on...
You know that a great portion of the "knowledge" you have is not really base, visceral, knowledge. You "know" because you trust the words of others. It is impossible for any man to know virtually anything significant beyond his own experience without trusting someone else.
So, what is wrong with trusting the Spirit over trusting a textbook? Nothing. What is different? You put faith in a textbook. You don't put quite as much faith in the Spirit. Why?
For some, it is because they don't have enough experience with Spiritual communication to understand it or have certainty when they hear/feel it. We have more experience with reading books. We have experience with the societal order we've created with experts and people who specialize in different fields who are "hopefully" honest about their work. And we trust them.
The weakness here is not the person who says they "know" when they really just "have a testimony". The weakness is that you are lacking in experience with the Holy Ghost sufficiently to trust that feeling. And in early stages, that would probably be wise. But don't discount the testimony of others with more experience receiving promptings and confirmations from the Holy Ghost.
Actually it is significantly different. Truth is eternal and never changing. As such I don't recall ever using the term "Scientific truth." Methinks someone is trying to put words in my mouth. You can put a medium rare NY strip in my mouth, but don't appreciate have words shoved in there. Any real scientist will profess that they seek truth, but their knowledge is still limited. Generally they work on theories and such and don't claim truth. I would never claim geology to be a truth. That can only be speculated. As for looking at raw data, yes I have. I have taken core samples and looked at them. Have I gone around the world looking? No, I am not a geologist. I have flown around the globe, been to around 40 countries.
I don't put faith into text books. I read them and try to understand them. But entirely concede that there are things that are incorrect in text books. As for trusting the text book over the spirit? No, I don't trust text books over the spirit. But the spirit has never testified to me that the flood happened the way the bible says it did. So what am I to do?
I do appreciate how you know what I am lacking. You are very helpful... I mean condescending. You don't know me. nor what I know.
-
2 minutes ago, Jersey Boy said:
The reason why you perceive that those who have obtained genuine spiritual witnesses that the Church is true are being dishonest when they testify that they do know is because you have not received the same spiritual witness they have, and one cannot be expected to understand, appreciate and acknowledge that which he himself has not also personally experienced. Until you have received your own witness from the Holy Ghost that the restored Church is true, it’s only to be expected that you will continue to think that those who have genuine testimonies of the restored gospel are being dishonest when they testify that they know, and the reason for this is that the natural man naturally thinks that the concept of revelation of truth from God to man is nothing more than foolish hogwash and wishful thinking.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2)
You have gone and put words in my mouth. That is being dishonest. Never did I say that those who have had a genuine witness are being dishonest when they say they "know"
And then you imply that I am a natural man that does not receive the things of the Spirit of God... Interesting. Way to try a prop a guy up.
-
44 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:
Testimonies are interesting. I believe we can have a witness of truth but if we are not careful we can lose sight of it. Testimony and knowledge go hand in hand. We believe in the resurrection because in a sense we want to believe it on the one hand and so we are more willing to allow our minds the faith and on the other we have so many testimonies that it is true. But I believe it's no different with the flood except for the fact that you actually do have evidence for a flood right before our eyes. So, in that sense it requires less faith. But, because our salvation and eternal life doesn't depend on it we are more prone to lend ear to secularism and disbelieve it.
You keep saying there is evidence of the flood. Where? What is your evidence?
As for the resurrection, that is easier for me to believe. That I have received a witness many times of its truthfulness. And it isn't secularism for me and the flood. I never once believed it to happen the way the bible portrays it even when I was a little kid. It never made sense to me and that is before I knew anything of science.
-
8 minutes ago, Grunt said:
I don't think they are lying. I think saying you know the church is true is cultural. Like you said, people say it because everyone else says it. It's like folding your arms to pray. Someone starts doing it then it catches on.
I think you are right in that it is cultural, but I still think it is dishonest at the same time. I believe a few have that true knowledge, but I think most are like me, still on the path working our way to salvation building on our testimony little by little.
I would much rather hear an honest testimony. "I experienced this.... " , "I felt that...." It makes it much more real and powerful in my opinion.
-
51 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:
Okay I will say it another way-
I've had dreams or visions about being resurrected. And, occasionally I have been wrong with dreams and visions. There isn't proof of resurrection. So do you believe in the resurrection?
I do believe in the resurrection. I believe because of the spirit telling me that it is true. I have zero proof beyond that. And I would hardly say the spirit whispering to me is proof either. Believing requires faith.
I have seen far to many members profess that they "know" the church is true, just to leave the church a few years later.
I personally don't "know" the church is true. My experiences and feelings tell me that it is, but can I say with 100% conviction that it is? No, I can not.
I think most people that say they "know" are up there lying only saying that they "know" because it is what everyone else says.
-
So far as I can tell the universe acts according to set laws. Laws that govern how all matter interacts. There is nothing I have seen that contradicts nature.
I would think that if God lies, you'd see unnatural things. But you don't. He follows his laws. Perfectly consistent.
If he wanted to doom us to an eternity of torment, why go through all the effort? Sounds pointless. It would be far easier just to torment us from the get go.
-
49 minutes ago, Anddenex said:
It's asinine to deny what God did because people simply don't want to accept it, and they provide silly explanations (i.e. seagulls bulimic -- lol -- all of them?) to say it was something else. Being written the Bible is proof, just because it is not the "proof" you think it should be, that is asinine also and a simpleton's mind. I am going to deny it because I didn't experience it is asinine.
And yet you still didn't explain it away regarding the person being claimed dead, and then when a priesthood blessing is given he immediately wakes. If you want to deny experiences that occurred, because it doesn't fit your "world view" that is asinine. I claim God did something because he did something. It isn't asinine when God did something and you still can't explain how he did it.
Actually, none of those are proof. Only evidence. And weak evidence at that.
My wife had a vision that she has a twin flame. Does that prove that she has one?
I know of many Priesthood blessings that didn't save a life. So how do you prove one did when others haven't. And why have others come back to life when not receiving said blessing?
I am sorry, but none of these are proof. Evidence, but not proof.
Noah's Flood
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Yes, I know there is a large body of people that believe it including some that refer to themselves as "scientists" I have read some sites regarding this and I feel like I am checking my brain at the door when I visit those sites. Same feeling I have when visiting websites regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories, moon landing hoax theories, etc.
There are also many that believe in hollow Earth and Flat Earth. There were also a lot of people that voted for Trump or Hillary.. Doesn't make either of them right as well. Two idiots are not smarter than one idiot (I am not calling you an idiot).
Many want to see the scriptures as the perfect word of God. I don't know if it is to my credit or detriment, but I don't. I view them as books that need to be studies and prayed about and are mostly right. It is easier to just turn a blind eye to science and believe everything. I can't do that.