Noah's Flood

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I believe scripture can be misinterpreted and misrepresented.   For example, I am quite sure that in all of scripture depicting creation (including the Pearl of Great Price) days 3 and 4 are backwards and should be the other way around.  So, I will ask you for your opinion (with the obvious that this is a “trick” question that will demonstrate your personal research and ability to “pay attention”) – Do you believe that there were plants producing fruit and seeds on earth before there was a sun in the sky that still exist in our day?  I have a follow up question if you believe the scriptures are correct and inviolate concerning this matter.

 

The Traveler

I have a different view. I don't think there was any life- human, plant, or animal on the earth before the seventh day or period of creation.

[BJ64]

13 hours ago, unixknight said:

It may also be that Mormon men live longer.  Just the other day I learned that prostate cancer is so common that every man would get it eventually if he lives long enough and his body is continuing to produce testosterone.

Testosterone is protective against prostate cancer which is in part why old men with low testosterone get prostate cancer and young men with high testosterone don’t. 

[Anddenex]

On 5/10/2018 at 5:24 PM, Lost Boy said:

My real beef with the whole Noah story in the bible is that it is very counter to science.

Not a single miracle has been performed in the Latter days that one can point to it and say yep, God is definitely real.  Not even Joseph Smith, perhaps one of the greatest prophets of all time (if you can even rank prophets) didn't perform any miracles that one can say.... "Yep, God definitely exists" 

These statements here truly give your Mormonhub name some credit.  And you know every miracle in the latter-days to make such a statement? Probably not. Will pass this as tongue in cheek.

 

 

[Lost Boy]

2 hours ago, Anddenex said:

These statements here truly give your Mormonhub name some credit.  And you know every miracle in the latter-days to make such a statement? Probably not. Will pass this as tongue in cheek.

 

 

you know of one that proves God is real? Do tell. 

[Colirio]

5 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

you know of one that proves God is real? Do tell. 

This dispensation started with God appearing to a young man in a grove of trees. I'd say that miracle is pretty convincing of God's reality... 

Edited May 12, 2018 by Colirio

[Traveler]

17 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I have a different view. I don't think there was any life- human, plant, or animal on the earth before the seventh day or period of creation.

Interesting view - care to provide more details - like what is a creation period and where your view came (based on what empirical - or other non empirical information) from and how (what methods) were used to validate your view?

 

The Traveler

[unixknight]

11 hours ago, BJ64 said:

Testosterone is protective against prostate cancer which is in part why old men with low testosterone get prostate cancer and young men with high testosterone don’t. 

Actually it's the opposite.  The higher the testosterone in a man's system,  the higher risk he has of prostate cancer.

I recommend this episode of The Art of Manliness where the guest is an oncologist who specializes in Prostate Cancer and the discussion of the way it's affected by testosterone.

I know that there's some disagreement in the scientific community on whether there's a link, but this is well worth listening to.

[Anddenex]

7 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

you know of one that proves God is real? Do tell. 

Yes, plenty. The Bible is full of them. The New Testament is full of them. Modern day is full of them.

1) The pillar of fire before Egypt.

2) Seagulls (I believe @Carborendum is still waiting for your "explaining away" of this one)

3) Person pronounced dead by doctors, after all the doctors could do, 10 minutes after being pronounced dead priesthood blessing given and he lives.

Every miracle proves, or is evidence to God, people seeking to explain it away doesn't negate the truth behind it. If a person wants to "explain away" the dead being brought back to life, well, as the scriptures specify, he who hath ears to hear let him hear, but sadly the blind still choose to be blind, and the deaf still choose to be deaf. Similar to the miracles of Moses. All which proved God's existence, and yet because of simple tricks by Pharoah's servants he believed in the simple tricks which could not reproduce the magnitude of what God did through Moses.

 

 

[BJ64]

14 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Actually it's the opposite.  The higher the testosterone in a man's system,  the higher risk he has of prostate cancer.

I recommend this episode of The Art of Manliness where the guest is an oncologist who specializes in Prostate Cancer and the discussion of the way it's affected by testosterone.

I know that there's some disagreement in the scientific community on whether there's a link, but this is well worth listening to.

I would suggest that you read the book Testosterone for Life by Abraham Morgentaler

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Interesting view - care to provide more details - like what is a creation period and where your view came (based on what empirical - or other non empirical information) from and how (what methods) were used to validate your view?

 

The Traveler

The scriptures actually state that no life was physically placed on the earth to live until the seventh day. Up through the 6 previous day's of creation God was creating and preparing for life to be placed upon the earth. It wasn't until the seventh day that God sanctified the earth and then actually caused it to rain and life to spring forth. These accounts are in both Genesis ch. 2 and Moses ch. 3.

[unixknight]

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

I would suggest that you read the book Testosterone for Life by Abraham Morgentaler

If you're up for listening to that podcast I'm up for checking out that book.

Still though, I think I'd probably put a bit more faith in an oncologist who specialized in the prostate than a doctor whose focus is on testosterone deficiency.  Not saying he isn't knowledgeable, just not the same focus.

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎5‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 8:10 AM, estradling75 said:

Our "lack of evidence" on the precise doctrinal basis for the ban... is not however "Evidence of Lack" on Brigham Young having one.  All Brigham Young needed was a simple "Do this" prompting from the spirit, and he is on solid ground.

Brigham Young was a human being with all the Human flaws that come with it.  He can and did make mistakes.  But he was also called of God to lead the Saints, and God was not afraid to correct him as needed.  Therefore the idea that the Ban was in place and remained it place for so long solely because Brigham was a flawed person (like we all are) is an attack on the idea of the church being lead by God.

I had an entire post deleted (unfortunately) by the forum.  I am going to have to boil this down and thus will probably not be as clear as I was with my former reply, but I want to state...

I NEVER SAID THE ABOVE...that is ALL YOU...you created this statement...NOT I.  In fact, all my posts reflect that I actually believe Brigham YOUNG WAS a prophet and that the revelations he had were based on what is still Church doctrine (PoGP - Moses 7:6-8, Abraham 1:20-27).  (You asked for written revelation...well...that's probably about as official as you are going to get on the reasons given behind the ban given by those during and after the 1890s) even if at the time they were NOT official doctrine when he came out with the Ban.

Furthermore, the you asked me to respond (which I did, but the forum ate or deleted the response) when I had already told you I was not going to be able to.  Why you did so when you knew (and it should even have become apparent over time) that I was UNABLE to respond, mystifies me.

Next, you have misquoted the Essay on Race and the Priesthood.  At NO TIME that I can tell did it state that we do not know the reasons...It instead states...

Quote

Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

Which is correct.  Currently, We do not accept the theories they espoused as OFFICIAL Doctrine.  The kicker...it was NEVER OFFICIAL doctrine (unless you take a written letter from President George Albert Smith and signed by the other members of the first presidency in the late 40s as official doctrine, or various statements by apostles and prophets over the years over the pulpit and in books...but it was NEVER a section in the D&C or written down directly as Official Doctrine per se...not a ton actually IS written and stated as official Doctrine permanently beyond what is found in the standard works). 

Regardless, the REASON we no longer adhere to what is taught in the Pearl of Great Price is due to Official Declaration #2.  This is official doctrine and supersedes any Official doctrine that came prior to it.  It is also found in the LDS standard works today.

The essay does not state we do not know the reasons, it simply states that today the explanations are NOT official Doctrine (though some of them are STILL held as opinions in Mormon culture, for example the reason you are a Mormon and place in life is due to choices you made in the pre-existence which is one I believe in, which is historically connected to the ban declarations and explanations behind it as well as declared in the letter by George Albert Smith mentioned above).

As for WHY it seems I address it as if you consider the Essays' doctrine, because that seems your approach.  You seem to think that they are "embraced" by the church and if there are inaccuracies or mistakes that it means the church is lying. 

As you stated here...

 

On ‎5‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 5:37 PM, estradling75 said:

 

I never claimed they were doctrine... Please quit putting in my mouth or otherwise implying that you know my position is when you clearly do not.

The church had there historians create the Race in the Priesthood article to help member between understand how everything happened.  That article states that we do not know the details of how the Ban came to be.  Either we accept that has a accurate reflection of the facts as we currently have them.  Or the historians and the church are knowingly and willfully promulgating a lie.

This could not be further from the truth and further from how I see it.  You seem to think that the essays must have some divine component behind them.  I do NOT see them as such.  You state that historians and the church are knowingly and willfully promulgating a lie (even if it stated that we do not know the details of how the Ban came to be, which is NOT found in the essay currently, that I could see) which is similar to saying it is doctrine in relation to the church.  You stated you never claimed they were doctrine, and then you treat them as such with your ensuing paragraph right after.  Hence, you see it as the church being responsible and solely responsible for what is in the essay from how I read this statement (and perhaps previous statements).

I see them as being written BY MEN.  Much like institute manuals are written by Men for aiding us in our scripture study (and for institute classes of course), they are not something that are glossed over and inspected in depth necessarily by the Twelve and especially not necessarily by the First Presidency.  If there are mistakes in them they are mistakes of MEN...not of the church.  The church is not lying about things or events if there are mistakes in the Study Guides or Institute Manuals written by MEN...and the same holds true for the Essays.

I think this is where we differ, whereas you see the essays coming from the LORD and hence the Church must be lying if there are inaccuracies or mistakes, I see them as being written by men with the best of their knowledge so that these can supplement our studies (and as I've often stated) NOT SUPPLANT our doctrine or gospel.  If there are mistakes, they are the mistakes of THOSE men...not the church.

Finally, in your haste to paste your accusatory posts, you seem to miss the MOST important items which I posted...and so I'll post it one more time again below...

Quote

As such, I'd like to end this one a more positive note.  The current policies and commandments allow all men to hold the priesthood and to participate in the Temple.  All around the world people rejoice in their ability to participate and to enjoy these blessings.  Our testimonies should be based upon the gospel that the spirit has testified to us is true, not the various facets of trivia or historical conundrums that may have purposes and reasons that have no application or reasons for us today.  Instead, we should focus on the truth and light of the gospel and the atonement of our Lord which enables us to attain salvation and exaltation.  History and the study of it is fun, but not all that is considered the facts in history are true, and not all truth is verified by scientific fact.  What we should seek is the truth that will enable us to enter into the Celestial Kingdom and live with our Father above after this life.  At least, that's my goal...hopefully I will make it with all of you as well!

I apologize for bringing this back up, but as a statement (and rather querulous as I was unable to respond so why it was posted) asking for a response was posted earlier and some rather accusatory tones were implied towards me, I felt a need to defend my own testimony and faith.  I HAVE a strong and steady testimony of the Prophet and of the gospel.  I refute those who try to make it appear that I do not.

I think much of this quibble is due to a misunderstanding between us and hope it is not going to be a slipping stone between us.  I apologize once again for bringing this up and hope this thread can continue onwards.

 

Edited May 13, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

In regards to evidence of the Lord...I like Alma's statement in Alma 30:44

Quote

 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.

I heard recently that they tried the monkey trick and typewriters (if you have enough monkeys they will eventually be able to type out Shakespeare).  The monkeys didn't write a sentence, much less anything close to Shakespeare.  They DID hit letters...repeatedly...but enough to indicate that monkeys will NEVER be able to write a book, much less a legible sentence, even with a typewriter.

In that light, when one considers the complexity of the Earth and life, I think it speaks that there must be a creator rather than the idea that the chaos of the universe formed laws and order within itself enough to create the great complexities we find on this planet.

But, I will grant that the mind that is not attuned to holiness will probably almost always find a way to explain something, including miracles.  Faith is an important (and indeed the first principle) of the gospel...and a requirement for us to utilize at least until we gain pure knowledge.  Unfortunately as most of us are not that blessed to attain that knowledge in this life, Faith is something we rely on, even when we have all the miracles that should make knowledge pure rather than faith on it reside within us.

[Lost Boy]

23 hours ago, Colirio said:

This dispensation started with God appearing to a young man in a grove of trees. I'd say that miracle is pretty convincing of God's reality... 

I don't see any proof that happened. You have one man's testimony. That is not proof. 

You couldn't take that into a court of law and say Joseph Smith saw God so we know he is real. 

I believe in God because of the whisperings of the holy ghost. There is no proof beyond that that you will find. 

 

[Lost Boy]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

In regards to evidence of the Lord...I like Alma's statement in Alma 30:44

I heard recently that they tried the monkey trick and typewriters (if you have enough monkeys they will eventually be able to type out Shakespeare).  The monkeys didn't write a sentence, much less anything close to Shakespeare.  They DID hit letters...repeatedly...but enough to indicate that monkeys will NEVER be able to write a book, much less a legible sentence, even with a typewriter.

In that light, when one considers the complexity of the Earth and life, I think it speaks that there must be a creator rather than the idea that the chaos of the universe formed laws and order within itself enough to create the great complexities we find on this planet.

But, I will grant that the mind that is not attuned to holiness will probably almost always find a way to explain something, including miracles.  Faith is an important (and indeed the first principle) of the gospel...and a requirement for us to utilize at least until we gain pure knowledge.  Unfortunately as most of us are not that blessed to attain that knowledge in this life, Faith is something we rely on, even when we have all the miracles that should make knowledge pure rather than faith on it reside within us.

Exactly. God performs miracles in such a way that we still have to have faith. 

[Guest]

On 5/11/2018 at 10:50 AM, Traveler said:

If one does much research they will discover the experts – reference a source.  This is done in foot notes.  Then if one checks the footnotes they will discover that the experts do the very same thing – they reference other “experts” and in other expert’s footnotes, they give sources.  As the footnotes and sources are continued – at least in my experience – we begin to discover that the sources (experts) are circular.    

Are you familiar with the word "Ethos"?  I used it before.  Did you understand my meaning of the word as well as the accompanying sentence?

Quote

There is something that is much more scarce, something finer far, something rarer than ability. It is the ability to recognize ability.
 

-- Elbert Hubbard

Edited May 13, 2018 by Guest

[estradling75]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I NEVER SAID THE ABOVE...that is ALL YOU...you created this statement...NOT I.  In fact, all my posts reflect that I actually believe Brigham YOUNG WAS a prophet and that the revelations he had were based on what is still Church doctrine (PoGP - Moses 7:6-8, Abraham 1:20-27).  (You asked for written revelation...well...that's probably about as official as you are going to get on the reasons given behind the ban given by those during and after the 1890s) even if at the time they were NOT official doctrine when he came out with the Ban.

 

Please note that there are more people in the conversion then you.  If I had been quoting you then I would understand the confusion.  But the quote you pulled was me talking to Connie. The fact that you decided to take make it all about you says alot about your personal malfunctions and nothing about my intent.  Please try to read and comprehend what is being said to who.  Before jumping to being personally offended.

 

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Furthermore, the you asked me to respond (which I did, but the forum ate or deleted the response) when I had already told you I was not going to be able to.  Why you did so when you knew (and it should even have become apparent over time) that I was UNABLE to respond, mystifies me.

Seriously???  Do you really expect everyone to just stop and wait for you?  Yes we were having a conversion, and yes I have noticed that you were not responding for whatever reason.  And I am waiting.  However I am not your exclusive conversation buddy.  I can and will talk to other people, this whole forum is about talking, and discussing with many people and we do not shutdown just to wait for one person. 

Now that you are back you can catch up and resume. 

However given how quickly you are willing to distort and take personal offense, I no longer have any desire to converse with you on the subject.  Good day

[Lost Boy]

21 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Yes, plenty. The Bible is full of them. The New Testament is full of them. Modern day is full of them.

1) The pillar of fire before Egypt.

2) Seagulls (I believe @Carborendum is still waiting for your "explaining away" of this one)

3) Person pronounced dead by doctors, after all the doctors could do, 10 minutes after being pronounced dead priesthood blessing given and he lives.

Every miracle proves, or is evidence to God, people seeking to explain it away doesn't negate the truth behind it. If a person wants to "explain away" the dead being brought back to life, well, as the scriptures specify, he who hath ears to hear let him hear, but sadly the blind still choose to be blind, and the deaf still choose to be deaf. Similar to the miracles of Moses. All which proved God's existence, and yet because of simple tricks by Pharoah's servants he believed in the simple tricks which could not reproduce the magnitude of what God did through Moses.

 

 

I don't know of any proof that there was a pillar of fire. Being written in the Bible is not proof. 

The seagulls were bulimic. And just because I don't have a explanation doesn't prove it was God's doing. That is asinine to claim God did something just because you don't understand it.    There are numerous cases where doctors claimed someone was dead when they were not. 

[Lost Boy]

On 5/11/2018 at 2:06 AM, Rob Osborn said:

If you say you believe I do then why do you need proof? That's like saying "I believe you but I don't". Sure, I have been wrong or misinterpreted.

You misunderstood what I was trying to convey. You saying that you had visions is something that cannot be corroborate. And therefore cannot be accepted as proof.  And if you are occasionally wrong, that further weakens your testimony of seeing visions of the future. 

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

I don't know of any proof that there was a pillar of fire. Being written in the Bible is not proof. 

The seagulls were bulimic. And just because I don't have a explanation doesn't prove it was God's doing. That is asinine to claim God did something just because you don't understand it.    There are numerous cases where doctors claimed someone was dead when they were not. 

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.

[Lost Boy]

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. 

[Guest]

I just read the following as I was looking up debates with flat-earthers.

A flat-earther was making the argument that a belief in a flat earth was not as uncommon as one might think.  He declared the following:

Quote

There are members of the flat earth society all around the globe.

Edited May 13, 2018 by Guest

[zil]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I just read the following as I was looking up debates with flat-earthers.

A flat-earther was making the argument that a belief in a flat earth was not a uncommon as one might think.  He declared.

That was too funny for just a laughter-like.

[Grunt]

On 5/12/2018 at 11:17 AM, unixknight said:

Actually it's the opposite.  The higher the testosterone in a man's system,  the higher risk he has of prostate cancer.

I recommend this episode of The Art of Manliness where the guest is an oncologist who specializes in Prostate Cancer and the discussion of the way it's affected by testosterone.

I know that there's some disagreement in the scientific community on whether there's a link, but this is well worth listening to.

You beat me to it.

[Rob Osborn]

6 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

You misunderstood what I was trying to convey. You saying that you had visions is something that cannot be corroborate. And therefore cannot be accepted as proof.  And if you are occasionally wrong, that further weakens your testimony of seeing visions of the future. 

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?