Jump to content

Rob Osborn

Contributor
  • Content Count

    5,283
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rob Osborn

  1. After careful prayer and study, I have come to the conclusion that we will never know the locations of the Book of Mormon.  Oh, there will be discoveries like on the Arabian Peninsula...where intelligent minds will disagree of its significance, but we will never uncover the exact location.

     

    And that is exactly how it is supposed to be.  We should NEVER find it.

     

    I know this sounds strange to anyone who knows me and my arguments in the past.

     

    But, as I studied and prayed, I came upon this thought:

     

    We can walk the streets of Jerusalem, but doing so does not PROVE the Bible.

     

    However, if we EVER uncovered an ancient sign that said, "Welcome to the Town of Zerehemla" that fact, in and of itself, would PROVE...definitively, the Book of Mormon.  And then, there would be perfect knowledge and no need for faith.

     

    And without Faith, there is no hope.  No refining.  No progression.

     

    So, despite my vociferous arguments as a Non-Mormon, I admit my error as an LDS re-investigator.

     

    If it served God's purpose for us to know...we would.  However, it better serves His purpose that we walk by faith, not by perfect knowledge.

    My own searchng and prayer has led me to believe their is sufficient evidence of the BoM in the America's. That said, I do not need to prove where exactly the lands were or were not to validate my testimony in the book or in the church or in Joseph Smith. I have read through the BoM many times and each time I gain new insights and hidden treasures of knowledge that validate one thing and one thing only- that the Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites were real ancient people and that they did in fact communicate with God and his son Jesus Christ.

  2. Another nail in the coffin of Irreducible Complexity.

    SEE http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

     

    I know it isn't proof and not even if it crawled out of the test tube and shook Creationists hands they still wouldn't accept it.

    Read your link. Not very impressive. I wouldnt call it nail in any coffin- your science hasnt even begun to answer how life inteligently assembles. All of the research right now is in creating scenarios that they think happened to create the common building blocks required for life to then assemble.

    Call me when you guys actually do something truly novel.

  3. So, let's say you didn't hear the true gospel in this life, which is like 99% of everybody but you accept it when you die. Will you be tested to see if you are valiant in the testimony of Jesus? In the Doctrine and Covenants 101 it says about being tried like Abraham. 

    Yet I will own them, and they shall be mine in that day when I shall come to make up my jewels.

     Therefore, they must needs be chastened and tried, even as Abraham, who was commanded to offer up his only son. 

     

    As we all know people can join the Church here and sadly fall away sooner or later or join the Church but never embrace the gospel and understand it. I was wondering if the next life is almost like a re do of this life if you never heard the gospel and you like us today are being tried and tested

    The millenium. Thats what the millennium is for- to be perfected in Christ. Everyone will have the opportunity to live and serve Christ who want to.

    • Upvote 3
  4. Well then there is a major problem for the LDS church .

    1: Adam and Eve as the original humans whonoriginated all humans some 6000 years ago with no others before them is demonstrably false

    2: death on planet earth clearly has been going on for billions of years.

    3: the earth is at least about 4 billion years old. Science has proven this beyond dispute. Life and death on this globe has been going on for a very long time. Homosapiens very much like us have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Civilizations started springing up about 11,000 years ago.

    Your points are all conjecture unprovable by science.

  5. Very correct, FAIR isn't the Church. It's just collates some various perspectives for convenience.

     

    The wisdom of Pres. Clark's counsel is quite apparent. Coupled with Pres. Hinckley's statement (though he had his own opinions on the matter) doesn't cast your stance in a good light: "What the church requires is only belief that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race. Scientists can speculate on the rest"

    The 1909 statement Origin of Man by the first presidency teaches that Adam was the first man and that he did not come from evolution of a lower animal species. That is the official doctrine.

  6. I'll let others again debunk Rob Osborn's claims or otherwise link the many FAIR articles on the subject that do the same. I'll just quote Pres. J. Reuben Clark for the moment:

    FAIR isnt the church. Its not my claims you are trying to debunk, its the church official doctrine you are trying to debunk.

  7. No! Only that the positing of any Supernatural being or force is not allowed in science. IE; If I as a scientist find a watch on the beach science can't say God put it there. Though as a LDS I certainly am free to believe that he did.

    If I found a watch on the beach science would say that it came from a person. The argument isnt about "who" put it there, its about if it is a design made by a person.

  8. Note that I suggested that you were exceeding the teachings of the Church as passing them off as being the Church's (and the Church's official position has been cited numerous times in this thread). That isn't "following".

     

    Hugh Nibley's Zeal Without Knowledge may be instructive.

    The church official teachings-

    1. Adam was the first man on the earth. There could have been no pre-adamites as they would have been classified as "man"(see 1909 Origin of man and reprinted in 2002 Ensign by the first presidency as official doctrine)

    2. There was no death on the earth before the fall of Adam and Eve. (see Gospel Principles)

    3. The temporal age of the earth is 7,000 years. This is the age of the earth since the fall till the end of the millennium. Because there was no death on the earth before the fall then none ofour earths life is older than the 6,000 years approximately.

    Those three points represent the official doctrine of the church.

  9. I think the problem is that you exceed the position of the Church and claim it as the position of the Church. This is, in it's own way, a form of apostasy. Not that I'm calling you apostate (I don't think that), but the behavior is one that does and has lead some to apostatize.

    Umm....wow, you are really stretching now.

    So, if someone follows the church teachings then they are on the road to apostacy. Okay then, never heard that one before.

  10. No they don't.  Consider Luke 3:38 and note that the JST corrects it:

     

    JST Luke 3:45 … who was formed of God, and the first man upon the earth.

     

    In addition, the scriptures say Jesus is the only Begotten Son of the Father, so it is only Christ whose body physically descends from God.

     

     

    That is not doctrine, that Adam and Eve were procreated physcially and directly by the Gods. In addition, because of the 1931 statement, it is indeed possible within the realm of LDS doctrine that the physical bodies of Adam and Eve came from pre Adamite races of man.  There is nothing in the doctrine that precludes Evolution from being part of the physical creation of homo sapiens.

    Interesting that Moses 6:22 reads-

    22 And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed.

    Your JST reference is an add on, not replacement of words. You add it on after it explains Adam was the son of God.

  11. (1) We believe in power. (D&C 93:26)

    (2) We do not have a scientific explanation for power.  We only know it exists.  We see its effects.  It is called "light of truth" or "spirit."

    (3) This power is the driver of matter and energy, which somehow it "obeys" it.  It also acts as a communication system that is instantaneous regardless of distance, comparable to quantum teleportation of information.  It is also a system of travel, that is instantaneous, from one part of the universe to another, regardless of distance.

    (4) This power is carefully regulated and wielded by powerful, exalted beings in the universe that are fully-matured human beings in their ultimate state.

    (5) The hope of these beings is to help their fellow beings qualify themselves and mold themselves to become like the others who regulate and wield this power. (D&C 93:28)

    (6) Those beings make sure that beings that abuse the rules do not have access to it.  And so, those beings like Satan must resort to use negative energies that are still subject to being overridden by this ultimate power called "light of truth." (D&C 29:36; Luke 4:6)

    (7) Christ is one of these exalted personages that presides over a measure of this power, giving it to all who enter the world, thus it is called the Light of Christ.

    (8 ) The Holy Ghost is another one of those personages as well that presides over a greater measure of this power given to those who receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and by this power, they can know truth, receive guidance and companionship.

    (9) There are various parts or aspects to this power that cannot be separated from each other that work together to allow one to channel and command the power, and for one's soul to become a storehouse of this power.

    (10) One aspect of this power is "faith," which is the mental driver or generator of it.  The faith is directed by pure will, and therefore, is linked to the words spoken.

    (11) Satan seeks to rob us of faith, because he knows that if he robs us of faith, he also robs us of the ability within ourselves to generate and wield power.  Those that think that they can merely be social Mormons that are basically just unbelievers have been deceived and robbed of the core of their power generating ability, because they refuse to choose to believe.  The whole reason the Lord wants us to have faith is to learn to wield and generate power with our intent, because it is this mental ability that is the core of the use of this power.  And so, no wonder Satan wants to rob us of faith. (D&C 93:39)

    (12) Another aspect of this power is "priesthood power," which is inherent in the being of a person, that grows stronger and stronger as one magnifies priesthood through service, and through obedience to law.  Someone can channel this power from outside himself, but can also become a storehouse of power themselves, and it becomes brighter and brighter in them little by little.

    (13) Then there is priesthood authority, which is license to use it given by the regulators of the power.

    (14) Since there are gatekeepers, or keepers of the way (key holders), they ensure that order is followed in the use of the power and authority.  And so, in order to exercise the power and authority in ordinances and so-forth, one must have clearance from these keepers of the way.

     

    So no, we do not believe in someone just merely speaking, and then magically, something happens.  We believe in a process whereby real power that controls matter, elements and outcome of events is driven by the intent of the mind, and this intent can be verbalized.

     

    When the physical laws behind this can be understood by science, this will become scientific.

     

    God does not use science because he does not practice it to discover new laws.  If we ask, "Does God use technology?"  I think that is an open question.  He uses "devices" like the Urim and Thummim or Seer Stones.  But does that really make those things technological?  Maybe in some sense.  But why would God use "technology" in the mortal sense of computers, machines and so forth when he has all power?  He has no need for light bulbs because he has his glory.  He has no need of cars or planes or spacecraft because he moves with the Spirit.  He has no need of supercomputers because his mind exceeds anything that could be invented.  He needs no TV sets or monitors because of his mind.  Its difficult for me to believe that technology in any meaningful sense the way we have it in mortality is useful to an exalted being.  It seems to me that we have technology because of our mortal limitations that is like a crutch for us here.  To me, technology, like science, is not practical to an exalted being with all power.  Its usefulness is no longer useful.  Even a seer stone to an exalted being is unnecessary (even though everyone has one there), like it was not all that useful to Joseph Smith after his mind had been trained in his later years.

    So, do you think heaven is just an open space in nature with no manmade things like buildings, musical instruments, clothing, etc? What does God, or other immortal beings use their hands for? To they use them to do skills, make things etc?

    One would think that if they do indeed have things like pianos in heaven, then someone has to make them and that manufacturing is technology and an understanding of science.

  12. But, that is why supernatural is not a good word for what Mormons or other flavors of Transhumanists for that matter believe.  Mormons do not believe in the supernatural according to that definition. We believe what Richard Dawkins said, and that is essentially this.  Whatever there is outside of the realm of science is so because it cannot be detected and studied directly.  When it is detected, it is welcomed as part of science.  Just because God has revealed things that are outside of science because of the limitations of current science doesn't make those things supernatural.  Its just that, through the spiritual senses, these things are detected which are not supernatural but real and physical.  When science has the technology, they will be detected and known.  Until then, they are in the realm of religion, but they are real, not supernatural.

    Take it one step farther- we shall find ultimately that all scientific truth traces back to God himself and is thus "religion". We shall find that even the power of why our cells work is the very power of God. We shall indeed find out that God is the very definition of "law" and "science". One aspect to all of this that we tend to neglect in light of the discussion is the principle of "intelligence" and how it applies in science and yet is wholly unexplainable by science at this point by mans feeble understanding even though we detect it, measure it, and observe it, are part of it, etc. Its proof to me that we no so very little about scientific laws and thus- no very little about God himself who is science.

  13. Is that your echo bouncing back at you?

     

     

    Why does this apply to me and not to you?

     

    You see, I have scripture to tell me what God's power is, I don't need science for that.  In fact, science can say nothing of the power of God.  I would like to see you try to use the scientific method to "prove" what God's power is.  Science is blind to it, but the scriptures are not.

     

    http://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/quotes/Light%20of%20Christ.htm

     

    The light of Christ is the power of God.  Science cannot say anything of this light. 

     

    Here is a little equation that might help:

     

    Omiscience > the scientific method

    Try reading section 88. It speaks about Gods power there and tells how it is things we see and feel with our scientific equipment.

  14. No! What I am saying is that science can't use God in science. Do you see the difference?

    Why not? Try substituting the word "God" for "design" and see how silly it makes your statement appear-

    "No! What I am saying is that science can't use design in science. Do you see the difference?

  15. Rob, you have had this explained to you dozens of times. You are being willfully stubborn. Science, by its very nature, does not consider the supernatural. It considers the observable world. Religions, by its very nature, is concerned with the supernatural. The two are not related. There is nothing in salvation that requires science, and there is nothing in science that requires salvation.

    Define supernatural the. Perhaps we are not on the same page. My argument is that the "supernatural" as defined by science is an entitiy,thing, or force outside of the laws/reality of the universe and as such definitions go, "supernatural" means "nothing" or perhaps even the "unexplainable". I tend to think it takes on this second definition though- that it holds all things we do not understand but may indeed exist but decide not to include it in science context because of the lack of understanding. Some like to say that "supernatural" means anything pertaining to God. But that doesnt work because everything we see is Gods very handiwork and as such must also be "supernatural. That makes you, me, and even the internet and this forum "supernatural". A thousand years ago, all of our technology would have been considered "supernatural" according to their technology. Here is the classic definition of supernatural-

    : unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.

    By using this classic definition, a laptop computer and the internet would have been considered "supernatural" by the "science" of a 1000 years ago even though we can prove every single scientific law used in its manufacture and operation because of our greater understanding of the same scientific laws that have always been in place.

    Evolutionists and humanists like to use this word "supernatural" to automatically discard something they "think" doesnt or cannot possibly exist. How do we know God cannot be explained by science? Are we not made in Gods likeness? If then in his likeness, then just as we can be explained by science so too then must be God.

×
×
  • Create New...