Defending the Gospel

[Traveler]

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Aye. I wonder just how receptive we will be when a few major shifts in doctrine occur.

BTW, number theory is equvilant to the Catholics belief of the Godhead.

 

Truth does not change - only our perception of it.  I am inclined to think your reference to number theory and the Catholic belief of the G-dhead is the result of a very elementary understanding (misapplication) of both.  Using the fundamentals or number theory as applied to the real number system I can prove, using the complex number system, that 1=-1 or that 0=infinity (obviously not true). 

Starting with a conclusion and trying to logically validate an assumption can be an interesting process – but it creates flawed conclusion regardless of how brilliant the logic seems.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Starting with a conclusion and trying to logically validate an assumption can be an interesting process – but it creates flawed conclusion regardless of how brilliant the logic seems.

Isn't that the entire scientific method...

...just a sec...reviewing.....

...yep.

 

Edited November 10, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Rob Osborn]

32 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

First...fixed it. Second. If that happens I suspect there would be a great many who struggle with it, but on whole I don't think it would cause too much trouble. My biggest problem with your theory is that it comes from you made up by your brain entirely outside the method and means the Lord uses to give us His gospel and doctrines. If the same theory was presented in general conference by the unanimous voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve I would say, "Oh...okay."

It will happen. 

[Rob Osborn]

18 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Truth does not change - only our perception of it.  I am inclined to think your reference to number theory and the Catholic belief of the G-dhead is the result of a very elementary understanding (misapplication) of both.  Using the fundamentals or number theory as applied to the real number system I can prove, using the complex number system, that 1=-1 or that 0=infinity (obviously not true). 

Starting with a conclusion and trying to logically validate an assumption can be an interesting process – but it creates flawed conclusion regardless of how brilliant the logic seems.

 

The Traveler

Just like our perception of number theory is wrong (infinity isnt a number) in a degree, so too is our perception of the plan of salvation wrong in a measure of degrees.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

It will happen. 

Thus sayeth the great seer, Rob Osborn!!

[estradling75]

40 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

First...fixed it. Second. If that happens I suspect there would be a great many who struggle with it, but on whole I don't think it would cause too much trouble. My biggest problem with your theory is that it comes from you made up by your brain entirely outside the method and means the Lord uses to give us His gospel and doctrines. If the same theory was presented in general conference by the unanimous voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve I would say, "Oh...okay."

Indeed...  God has set up his Church that it is Lead from the Top Down.  From him, to his ordained leaders, to the masses.   Even if Rob is right he is going about it the wrong way...  The masses do not dictate to the leaders or to God what we need to know, and what understanding we need to have.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

Before or after he died of a cocaine overdose?

I know, it's very tragic. A lot of these guys live hard lives. I'm not going to cry for them, their wounds are often self inflicted-but it is still sad. 

He was one of my favorite wrestlers in childhood, so I have a soft spot for him. 

Edited November 10, 2017 by MormonGator

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Thus sayeth the great seer, Rob Osborn!!

[CV75]

On 11/10/2017 at 11:12 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

The question is, of course, only hypothetical, and therefore probably not super useful.

His work also addresses those who are not meek, so if hypothetically there are no meek, He still gets His work done, and interestingly it is sometimes by the wicked! "But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished..." (Mormon 4:5).

[Traveler]

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 12:49 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

You would say that, of course. Your entire life approach is about complicating things it seems.

Hmmmmmmm – Is this a good example of you defending the Gospel?   To be honest – it looks more like a personal attack.

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Hmmmmmmm – Is this a good example of you defending the Gospel?   To be honest – it looks more like a personal attack.

 

The Traveler

The "it seems" makes it an observation and not a personal attack.  I kinda agree with TFP's observation.  You have a way of making simple things complicated.  A perfect example is the very simple concept of inalienable rights that we just discussed a few days ago.

[Traveler]

46 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The "it seems" makes it an observation and not a personal attack.  I kinda agree with TFP's observation.  You have a way of making simple things complicated.  A perfect example is the very simple concept of inalienable rights that we just discussed a few days ago.

Sorry to have offended.

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

Just now, Traveler said:

Sorry to have offended.

 

The Traveler

Uhm... dunno why you think I got offended.  Are we on the same conversation here?

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Hmmmmmmm – Is this a good example of you defending the Gospel?   To be honest – it looks more like a personal attack.

Neither a defense or an attack. Just an observation.

[Traveler]

 

This may be a long post.  I am personally troubled and so this may be my last post on this forum – not because I am offended but quite the opposite – because of my offenses (disputations) with others.  I know that my thinking is complex – I know that I do not settle for “simple answers” but that I always strive to dig deeper and understand more.  I know this is my nature – what I have not realized is that others (and not just any others but others that are good righteous individuals) that are sincere in their covenants and temple worthy; find my posting contentious and of a spirit of disputation.   It really does not matter that I do not intend such.  I would like to think this is not my problem but more and more I am thinking it is.

Jesus commanded his saints that there should be “NO” disputations among them.  One particular item he referenced was the name that should be given to his church.  It is interesting that there were two sides in the dispute – and one side was right about what the church should be called.  Never-the-less, Jesus condemned those that were right as much as those that were wrong.  There is a fine line in speaking to one’s opinion and perpetrating disputations – a line I often cross because I do not know where that line is and at time I do not realized that I have crossed that line and offended a fellow saint or son or daughter of G-d.  In short there are to be no disputations among the saints of G-d – even if your opinion is right.  The last caveat is very difficult for me.  I would not speak at all if I did not think I could add something that is right.

I would like to think the fault lies somewhere else – maybe not all of it but at least some.  But if I contribute even 1% to someone else’s 99% - I am still disobedient to Christ and Jesus said that to engage in disputations is following after and being obedient to the spirit of Satan.  I do not know how to engage my “more complex” thoughts without starting a dispute – however minor that dispute may seem to me at the time.   I could claim that I have an inalienable right to speak my opinion and those that disagree and engage in disputing my opinion be condemned – but that is obviously engaging in disputations.  At least it is obvious to me.  There seem to be more responsibility when speaking than there is a right to speak and what an undisciplined tongue is not a G-d given right but rather a sin before G-d that has eternal consequences. 

It seems obvious to me that any good saint is going to be eternally engaged in disputations with the adversary.  I believe that when addressing Satan and his minions we can defend the gospel and we can defend the faith and that our adversaries will find our word discoursing and a disputation to their cause.  I do believe that untrue accusations ought to be answered – I believe truth should be defended and that we should stand for truth.  What I do not know is how to address differences among the saints.  The greatest disputes of the saints in this dispensation has been with former saints.  It is interesting that in D&C section 6 – Oliver was told to stand by Joseph Smith; despite Joseph’s faults not because Joseph did not have any faults.  Oliver was even told that his eternal blessings depended on his supporting a faulty prophet.  But then Jesus also told Oliver that he ought to counsel with Joseph and this is where even my complex thinking struggles with the simple notion and I wonder where and when our opinions of counsel become disputations and we no longer support our fellow saints.

 

The Traveler

Edited November 15, 2017 by Traveler

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

 

This may be a long post.  I am personally troubled and so this may be my last post on this forum – not because I am offended but quite the opposite – because of my offenses (disputations) with others. 

TRAVELER!

Oh my gosh... STOP!  You did not offend!  C'mon dude.  I've been trying to tell you this.  I completely understand that you are a complex guy who can look at a square and see more than 4 sides.  That's why we love you.

We were just hoping that you'd slow your brain down a bit so we can have a strait-and-narrow conversation without side-shoots because... it can get confusing!  So, I was simply hoping that we can discuss things one precept at a time before we pile on the rest of the bricks so we can have a basic foundation for the rest of the stuff, ya know?  Like start with a basic 4-side square first and agree it's a square.  With 4 sides.  Blank square.  Ya know?

C'mon.  Don't pack your legos.  Come just... I don't know - take a break from the serious discussions and start a thread on rocket engines or something.

[Guest]

On 11/10/2017 at 1:56 PM, Traveler said:

Truth does not change - only our perception of it.  I am inclined to think your reference to number theory and the Catholic belief of the G-dhead is the result of a very elementary understanding (misapplication) of both.  Using the fundamentals or number theory as applied to the real number system I can prove, using the complex number system, that 1=-1 or that 0=infinity (obviously not true). 

I love those proofs.  A famous author provided the following proof that no one actually exists.

The number of beings in the universe must be finite. 
The amount of space in the universe is infinite. 
So, the average population of the universe (persons per cubic meter of space) is finite#/infinity = 0.

If the average population of the universe is zero, then the total population of the universe is also zero.

If the total population of the universe is zero, then we must not exist.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Guest

[zil]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I love those proofs.  A famous author provided the following proof that no one actually exists.

The number of beings in the universe must be finite. 
The amount of space in the universe is infinite. 
So, the average population of the universe (persons per cubic meter of space) is finite#/infinity = 0.

If the average population of the universe is zero, then the total population of the universe is also zero.

If the total population of the universe is zero, then we must not exist.

Clearly the famous author knew nothing about intelligences (just like Firefox's spelling dictionary).

[Rob Osborn]

14 minutes ago, zil said:

Clearly the famous author knew nothing about intelligences (just like Firefox's spelling dictionary).

Equally interesting is that the moment one adds "infinity" into an equation, even a hypothetical one, they create the absolute absurdity as infinity doesnt exist. 

[zil]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

Equally interesting is that the moment one adds "infinity" into an equation, even a hypothetical one, they create the absolute absurdity as infinity doesnt exist. 

In your mind it doesn't.  I happen to know that it does.  If it didn't, Christ could not have performed an infinite and eternal Atonement, but scriptures and the Spirit testify that he did.  Scriptures also testify to the limitless (aka infinite) nature of certain things, should one care to understand.

[Rob Osborn]

9 minutes ago, zil said:

In your mind it doesn't.  I happen to know that it does.  If it didn't, Christ could not have performed an infinite and eternal Atonement, but scriptures and the Spirit testify that he did.  Scriptures also testify to the limitless (aka infinite) nature of certain things, should one care to understand.

In proper context, as a philisophical term it just means endless or without bounds. In mathematical terms and philosophy the term "infinity" is completely absurd as it cannot be known, has absolutely no quantifiable value, etc. Set theory with infinite sets is the king of all kings of graduated absurdity!

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Equally interesting is that the moment one adds "infinity" into an equation, even a hypothetical one, they create the absolute absurdity as infinity doesnt exist. 

Yeah, I guess there is an outside curtain where gods and matter end.

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

In proper context, as a philisophical term it just means endless or without bounds. In mathematical terms and philosophy the term "infinity" is completely absurd as it cannot be known, has absolutely no quantifiable value, etc. Set theory with infinite sets is the king of all kings of graduated absurdity!

Alas, I don't care about philosophy, or its application in math.  I was referring to reality, and in reality, infinity is real.

Edited November 15, 2017 by zil

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

Alas, I don't care about philosophy, or its application in math.  I was referring to reality, and in reality, infinity is real.

Okay, for instance-

We will exist forever, we are eternal beings that have no end. Is that correct? Yes. It could thus be said that perhaps our existance will be infinite. Correct? Sure, philisophically speaking. Now, lets apply reality-

Suppose where you are at right now represents a point on a line extending endlessly forward. Will there ever come a time when you have reached any point in that endless line that is infinitely far away? No, never. It will always be quantifiably known even going on forever. There will never come a time when infinity is achieved.  Thus, in reality terms, infinity as a quantifiable reality isnt possible. A valued principle here is that anything quantifiable can only be part of a quantifiable reality. If we count or measure something it cant be part of an infinite thing. Space for example may hypothetically go on forever. But that could never be proven, it cannot be known. Why? Because, as soon as we start measuring, no distance will ever become an infinite distance from where we began measuring from. 

[zil]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

Okay, for instance-

We will exist forever, we are eternal beings that have no end. Is that correct? Yes. It could thus be said that perhaps our existance will be infinite. Correct? Sure, philisophically speaking. Now, lets apply reality-

Suppose where you are at right now represents a point on a line extending endlessly forward. Will there ever come a time when you have reached any point in that endless line that is infinitely far away? No, never. It will always be quantifiably known even going on forever. There will never come a time when infinity is achieved.  Thus, in reality terms, infinity as a quantifiable reality isnt possible. A valued principle here is that anything quantifiable can only be part of a quantifiable reality. If we count or measure something it cant be part of an infinite thing. Space for example may hypothetically go on forever. But that could never be proven, it cannot be known. Why? Because, as soon as we start measuring, no distance will ever become an infinite distance from where we began measuring from. 

Spoken like a true, bounded mortal.  If you want to look at infinity as a specific instance time (like 2017-11-15 19:51:00.000 UTC), place (like 51.5074° N, 0.1278° W), or quantity (like 32,767), yeah, sure fine, then mortals can't get there and don't know whether immortals can.  But the rest of us (as ought to have been obvious from my previous post and @Carborendum's) are thinking of it as a state, a descriptor, as something which exists, not which is mortally attainable.

PS: You seem to have forgotten that our existence has already been infinite.

PPS: I don't know why I bother; you really are a brick wall.  Your world and only your world exists and everyone else's way of looking at things is all wrong.  Do you engage in these conversations in hopes of convincing people they're wrong, or because you enjoy futility.  (I have no excuse, I should have learned better by now.)  (I don't say that to offend, and you're so stubborn about your own views that you ought not to care about mine, just shake your head at how stupid I am, but this is seriously what it's like talking to you.)