Implications Of Noah's Flood Not Being Global

[ryanelwood]

I think they might be quite well aware that they're "embarrassing themselves" in front of consensus-driven, canon-denying individuals.

Flat-earth society members? Holocaust deniers? Wackos?

Maybe, in attempting to be faithful to their scriptures, they're simply less-than-impressed with your caricatured associations.

Even as a believer in a local flood, I know I am.

Would you consider the Flat earth society and holocaust deniers as wackos? I know I do. And since both those groups are just as respected in their fields as creationists are, yes, I would consider them wackos as well. Defending scripture is great when it is logical, but sometimes reality knocks very loudly, which it should to anyone that can believe in a global flood. I cannot imagine, someone living in the enlightened 21st century that can hold to a global flood. Can you?

[cksalmon]

I cannot imagine, someone living in the enlightened 21st century that can hold to a global flood. Can you?

I don't have to imagine it. You've already identified them.

[ryanelwood]

I don't have to imagine it. You've already identified them.

Alright, I cannot imagine an "intelligent" person, is that better?

[cksalmon]

Alright, I cannot imagine an "intelligent" person, is that better?

But, I don't believe that Ron is unintelligent. So, no, that's not better for me, personally.

I just think he disagrees with me for a whole host of reasons to which I'm not necessarily privy.

I'm not willing to punt to IQ at this point.

If you wish to do so, I have no problem with that, frankly. I'm just not following merrily after you.

More power to you.

CKS

[ryanelwood]

But, I don't believe that Ron is unintelligent. So, no, that's not better for me, personally.

I just think he disagrees with me for a whole host of reasons to which I'm not necessarily privy.

I'm not willing to punt to IQ at this point.

If you wish to do so, I have no problem with that, frankly. I'm just not following merrily after you.

More power to you.

CKS

Would you question someone's intelligence that held to a flat earth? Or do they just simply disagree with you? How about a holocaust denier? Or maybe a 9/11 conspiracy theorist? How about someone that thinks the LDS Church has a government take over plan? Do they just simply disagree with you? Or do you question their intelligence?

[Ron Beron]

Ah, so she's only dumb! I guess faith and stupidity go hand in hand!

Well, at least for the CoS.

I'll bet you tried your best to convince her until she said something that made you stop, huh?

Wrong on both counts. Don't insult. She allows me my faith and knowledge as I reciprocate hers.

Obviously not. (And no, I'm not talking about global flood, either.)

Now you are quite insulting. I have served three stake missions, a full time mission, a stake mission presidency and have shared my tired and dusty testimony with jail inmates for 20 years. And not once has the subject of the flood came up, but my belief in Jesus as savior has. What have you done besides fill these pages with odious codswallop?

CFR. (No, one or two books, especially by a whacko creation scientist with a bought degree, *won't* do. I want it minimally from a old earth/ big bang/ no global flood/ "faithless" one.)

I posted this before and you obviously missed it.

'One is the Physics of Immortality. The other is The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder."

[Ron Beron]

There is evidence everywhere the flood happened. Every major mountain chain is evidence. There is so much evidence perhaps there is too much evidence!

Yep it definatly happened, sure enough! Everywhere I travel I see sedimentary deposits hundreds and thousands of feet thick- laid down in a flood- a gigantic flood- one just like the bible says. This vaidifys to me that the bible is correct, WOW!

Ever drive up through death valley and up to Vegas? That is some knarly twisted sedimentary and volcanic rocks there. It is like you can see how the flood caused that almost as if it were yesterday. WOW!

The evidence is pretty cool if you open your eyes.

How are you certain these were laid down by a flood? They could just have easily been laid down by ocean sentiment and lifted up through the eons. I am not a geologist, but I am fairly certain that the geological features you noticed were laid down in the manner I described.

[Ron Beron]

But, I don't believe that Ron is unintelligent. So, no, that's not better for me, personally.

I just think he disagrees with me for a whole host of reasons to which I'm not necessarily privy.

I'm not willing to punt to IQ at this point.

If you wish to do so, I have no problem with that, frankly. I'm just not following merrily after you.

More power to you.

CKS

Careful there pilgrim, that's Rob not Ron!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wrong on both counts. Don't insult. She allows me my faith and knowledge as I reciprocate hers.

Now you are quite insulting. I have served three stake missions, a full time mission, a stake mission presidency and have shared my tired and dusty testimony with jail inmates for 20 years. And not once has the subject of the flood came up, but my belief in Jesus as savior has. What have you done besides fill these pages with odious codswallop?

I posted this before and you obviously missed it.

'One is the Physics of Immortality. The other is The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder."

What is going on here. This thread seems to have turned a little sour. Yes I am being a board nany. So sue me.

[SolarPowered]

How are you certain these were laid down by a flood? They could just have easily been laid down by ocean sentiment and lifted up through the eons. I am not a geologist, but I am fairly certain that the geological features you noticed were laid down in the manner I described.

Ron, I'll go further on your point. Within these layers are fossils. The fossils are layered in an orderly arrangement that is consistent throughout the world. Further, unless I am greatly mistaken, radioisotope dating establishes ages for these various layers, and such dates are consistent throughout the world. These sediments were deposited over the course of millions and hundreds of millions of years, not over the course of a single year.

[cksalmon]

...

[SolarPowered]

What is going on here. This thread seems to have turned a little sour. Yes I am being a board nany. So sue me.

I second this notion. Especially you, Ryan. We do try to be civil around here, even with people who are clearly wrong. Being nice seems to facilitate much more productive discussion than being nasty.

[Ron Beron]

Ron, I'll go further on your point. Within these layers are fossils. The fossils are layered in an orderly arrangement that is consistent throughout the world. Further, unless I am greatly mistaken, radioisotope dating establishes ages for these various layers, and such dates are consistent throughout the world. These sediments were deposited over the course of millions and hundreds of millions of years, not over the course of a single year.

Ta dah!

[grego]

QUOTE

Ah, so she's only dumb! I guess faith and stupidity go hand in hand!

Well, at least for the CoS.

I'll bet you tried your best to convince her until she said something that made you stop, huh?

Wrong on both counts. Don't insult. She allows me my faith and knowledge as I reciprocate hers.

You're the one who has been saying it, and to more than just her.

Here, just what I was referring to when I responded:

No, not at all. My wife believes similarly to you, and I get along with her very well despite what I see is a lack in certain cognitive features. Aside from that I admire her ability to have faith in something I feel is very unsound as doctrine.

Good luck slicing and dicing. Get emotional and make accusations when you stick your own foot in your mouth, and blame others for your faults? Sorry, I don't accept it.

-=-=-=

QUOTE

Obviously not. (And no, I'm not talking about global flood, either.)

Now you are quite insulting. I have served three stake missions, a full time mission, a stake mission presidency and have shared my tired and dusty testimony with jail inmates for 20 years. And not once has the subject of the flood came up, but my belief in Jesus as savior has. What have you done besides fill these pages with odious codswallop?

Ah, you're the most righteous one, all must bow down and worship your POV.

No, *you* are insulting, that comment is insulting, and your comments on this thread have been insulting for a while now. (Though I think that's great.)

"Odious"? CFR.

And please, what does that have to do with this anyway?

Let's go back to the original:

Do you see that you have somewhat of a quandary here? You claim that the CoS says A, so it has to be A, and all must accept it as A; while on the other hand, the CoS says something else has to be B, but you don't accept that B, and you fight all claims to the contrary. Do you perhaps have a testimony you would like to share? You claimed that scientists believe in the resurrection. On what grounds? Scientific ones? If I send any researcher anywhere in the world an email, go to any science forum and post a questionnaire ask any sane scientist to give any form of scientific theory, evidence, etc., asking if the resurrection is possible, do you think I will get anything positive back? Do you think any of them have anything "scientific" regarding flying angels, U&T, revelation, or any of the thousands of miracles LDS believe in or have even experienced firsthand? In other words, you want to be the one to decide, based on what the CoS says, which miracles God can do, and which ones he can't do.

So, what does "Do you perhaps have a testimony you wold like to share?" refer to? A testimony about JC?

-=-=-=

QUOTE

CFR. (No, one or two books, especially by a whacko creation scientist with a bought degree, *won't* do. I want it minimally from a old earth/ big bang/ no global flood/ "faithless" one.)

I posted this before and you obviously missed it.

'One is the Physics of Immortality. The other is The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder."

Two books. (I didn't miss them.) I assume they are from scientists as I requested? I'll check them out. How many other "faithless" scientists agree with those books? You have a reference for that?

[Rob Osborn]

ryan,

I decided I am going to try and appease you. What good will it do- I have no Idea as your mind is already made up and so is mine, anyway- here goes-

1. If there was a global flood then a mountain of evidence would have been left behind, therefore, why do 99.99999999% of scientists across the world somehow miss all this evidence?

Your calculation of 99.99999999% of scientists is interesting. Could you be so kind as to how and where you came up with this exact number, I am truly interested? You see, I happen to read a lot of global flood papers from notable scientists and I wonder if all these scientists are just the .0000000001 % that have found the truth. Seems to be a made up number.

2. Why have creationists been classified in the same category as the Flat Earth Society among scientists?

Again could you please give me some quotable references from some notable scientists on this matter because last time I checked, most scientists are descent people and just say that people have a difference of opinion. Again, I think you are just making this stuff up.

3. Why have creationists totally failed to make any in roads into the true world of science?

Maybe you are unaware of the "Discovery Institute" and the other many notable real organizations who contribute daily in the research of flood geology and creation from Intelligent design.

4. Why isn't the global flood talked about and affirmed in any scientific journals or college text books?

For the same reason that the Book of Mormon isn't talked about and affirmed in any scientific journals and college textbooks. Admitting to a global flood destroys all of the theories that they have already worked so hard at putting forth- Why stabb yourself in the back?

5. How did 8 people fit and take care of millions of animals on the ark?

I don't know, maybe while you are wondering, we can discuss how Christ turned water into wine or how he miracuosly fed thousands of people when there was clearly not enough food. It could be that God caused a sleep (hibernation) to fall upon either all or part of the animals. It could also be that Noah learned a way to feed the animals automatically- kind of like a auto bird or cat feeder. Who knows. It is possible though. There is obviously some issues though with your "millions" of animals. It has been studied and researched that only some 40-50 thousand animals would have had to of been on the ark. Mosta of the animals classified by science (95+%) are water creatures. Only the land dwelling animals were on the ark.

6. How did they breath being that they were above Mt. Everest?

This is another area where global flood geology differs. Mt. Everest was not yet lifted up at that time. Mt. Everest along with the other major mountain chains were lifted up after the flood. The raising up of the land caused the waters to recede off the face thereof.

7. How did all the animals become dispersed around the world? Did Kangaroos swim to Australia? Remember the continents separated 200,000,000 years ago.

I would strongly disagree that the seperation ocurred that long ago. The bible says it happened some 150-350 years after the flood of Noah. According to the bible, many people left from the tower of babel and took animals and seeds and the like and repopulated the world. The Jaredites from the BoM are one such group. Why would the Jaredites need to take hoards of animals and seeds if there was no flood. they even took the "bee" to help with polination. Why would they bother to take bees to a new land if there was no flood?

I hope I have given the answers you so desperatly want. i know they are not to your likening, but hey, no answer would be!

[Ron Beron]

What is going on here. This thread seems to have turned a little sour. Yes I am being a board nany. So sue me.

I agree. I have been patient, but after 30+ years of service in the church to have my testimony challenged by someone who obviously doesn't know me or my life is beyond civility and requires some admonition.

[ryanelwood]

I second this notion. Especially you, Ryan. We do try to be civil around here, even with people who are clearly wrong. Being nice seems to facilitate much more productive discussion than being nasty.

All right, I will back track on my references to peoples intelligence.

[Honorentheos]

Bees? White men's flies? 2,000 yrs before Christ? I'm sure there is a FAIR paper on the subject somewhere, though.

[Honorentheos]

Honor, I suspect your information may also be on an ignore list. However, there really is no getting around the evidence contradicting this global flood. Best to accept it and worry about other religious issues.

True, Severian. It's an interesting topic to me, since I work with archeologists, biologists, and geologists every day. So it's hard not to jump in with a thought about things such as the tree ring record. I'm refraining from commenting on the geology lesson in the thread, too. I guess if someone really was interested in learning the reality of how these geological formations occured, they could find the answer easily enough on their own.

On the flip side, I think there is value in the Noah story regardless of whether one views it as a literal event or not. I view the entire bible as being mythical with some history in it, but gain much in reading it. To each their own.

Thanks for the reminder to be civil, and know when to move on.

[ryanelwood]

My answers to Rob Osborn:

Your calculation of 99.99999999% of scientists is interesting. Could you be so kind as to how and where you came up with this exact number, I am truly interested? You see, I happen to read a lot of global flood papers from notable scientists and I wonder if all these scientists are just the .0000000001 % that have found the truth. Seems to be a made up number.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My answer,

I got this estimate from scientists themselves. It may be an arbitrary number, but I know it is close to accurate. When you accept the fact that ALL scientists at accredited Universities do not believe in the global flood, I believe the number is very accurate. When you look at the fact that no respected scientist in any scientific journals affirm the global flood, again, the number is very close to true. It is also worth noting that some of the best known names in the creationist movement are not actually scientists.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Why have creationists been classified in the same category as the Flat Earth Society among scientists?

Again could you please give me some quotable references from some notable scientists on this matter because last time I checked, most scientists are descent people and just say that people have a difference of opinion. Again, I think you are just making this stuff up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My answer,

Sure, every scientist I have spoken with has expressed this parallel. To quote some, here you go:

â??Even university students fall prey to the equal-time argument [for creationists], not withstanding that the creationist interpretation of life is on par with idea of a flat Earth.â?

Scientist Tim M. Berra, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, page 122.

Flat earth supporter Robert N. Bostrom, said this:

â??From most science teachers' point of view, a flat Earth is no more ridiculous than a magical account of creation with floods and miraculous creation from ribs and stuff..â?

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/stewart.htm

Reporter Robert J. Schadewald said this:

â??Though flat-earthism is as well supported scripturally and scientifically as creationism, the creationists plainly do not want to be associated with flat-earthers. In a public debate with creationist Duane Gish, paleontologist Michael Voorhies suggested that the Creation Research Society resembles the Flat Earth Society.

Whether or not there are still flat-earthers in the Creation Research Society, scientific creationism is little different from the flat earth movement. Both are based on the same kind of scientific evidence and on a more or less literal interpretation of the Bible. In fact, scientific creationism, geocentrism, and flat-earthism are respectively the liberal, moderate and conservative branches of a tree that has often been called Bible-Science. (Compare the creationist Bible-Science Association, headquartered in Minneapolis, with the nineteenth-century flat-earth Bible-Science Defence Association, headquartered in London.)â?

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/crea-fe.htm

That is just a fraction of some examples, if you still doubt, ask your local geologist at your local University. I would encourage you to do this at BYU where you will still get the same answer. Amazing your prophets allow such things to be taught there.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe you are unaware of the "Discovery Institute" and the other many notable real organizations who contribute daily in the research of flood geology and creation from Intelligent design.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My answer,

I am very aware such organizations and am also aware of Flat Earth organization in London. I am also aware of holocaust deniers in California. But none of them have made any roads into their fields because their research is laughable.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Why isn't the global flood talked about and affirmed in any scientific journals or college text books?

For the same reason that the Book of Mormon isn't talked about and affirmed in any scientific journals and college textbooks. Admitting to a global flood destroys all of the theories that they have already worked so hard at putting forth- Why stabb yourself in the back?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My answer,

Ah, a conspiracy theorist. Science is always re-working theories due to new discoveries. Theories are based on the scientific method, if the method demonstrated a global flood they would gladly accept it. Again, go to your local University and ask, particularly BYU. Read the following about why it has been rejected:

â??In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense, and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges that they say further undermine his statements about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".[30] During this testimony Behe conceded that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[31] Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.â?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Dover_testimony

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know, maybe while you are wondering, we can discuss how Christ turned water into wine or how he miracuosly fed thousands of people when there was clearly not enough food. It could be that God caused a sleep (hibernation) to fall upon either all or part of the animals. It could also be that Noah learned a way to feed the animals automatically- kind of like a auto bird or cat feeder. Who knows. It is possible though. There is obviously some issues though with your "millions" of animals. It has been studied and researched that only some 40-50 thousand animals would have had to of been on the ark. Mosta of the animals classified by science (95+%) are water creatures. Only the land dwelling animals were on the ark.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My answer,

Any animal biologist would find the estimate of only 40-50 thousand animals on land just 5,000 years ago laughable. Yes 95% of animals are in water, but there are still a few million on land. Yet even if it is the absurd number of 40-50,000, the question is the same. How did 8 people take care of that many. It sure takes many more than just 8 at San Diego Zoo where there are thousands of animals. Once God enters the picture as causing them to hibernate you are leaving the world of science and entering faith. This is why Creationism has been rejected.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is another area where global flood geology differs. Mt. Everest was not yet lifted up at that time. Mt. Everest along with the other major mountain chains were lifted up after the flood. The raising up of the land caused the waters to recede off the face thereof.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My answer,

No credible scientist believes Mt. Everest was so recently formed, it takes millions of years of plate tectonics to form such a mountain. Remember when it comes to predicting earthquakes and knowing where fault lines are, it is the regular respected scientists that know these things due to plate tectonics. Neither creationist or Intelligent Design have been able to make viable scientific predictions which is the purpose of science.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. How did all the animals become dispersed around the world? Did Kangaroos swim to Australia? Remember the continents separated 200,000,000 years ago.

I would strongly disagree that the seperation ocurred that long ago. The bible says it happened some 150-350 years after the flood of Noah. According to the bible, many people left from the tower of babel and took animals and seeds and the like and repopulated the world. The Jaredites from the BoM are one such group. Why would the Jaredites need to take hoards of animals and seeds if there was no flood. they even took the "bee" to help with polination. Why would they bother to take bees to a new land if there was no flood?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, and according to all real scientists the Bible is wrong. If you calculate the movement of the continents there is no way they would have gotten where they are today in 5,000 years. Utterly impossible. Yes the hypothetical Jaredites brought some animals, but there was also animals already here. The amount of animals on the American continent did not spring in just the last 3,000 years when the Jaradites came, that is ridiculous. Did the Jaredites bring all the Bison and deer in their barges? Come on, be reasonable. Plus, there have been people here for at least 30,000 years which for some reason survived the flood. Even Utah has been populated for 12,000 years.

Just remember that true scientists do not debate this issue, only a small majority out in left field with the Flat Earth Society do so.

[HiJolly]

Hey Jolly, I have really enjoyed your contributions to this thread. They are so refreshing for someone who was raised in the church, but does not buy into grego's view of the world. I have spent a lot of time contemplating the things you discussed in this post and I want to share some of my thought. I hope you will not take offense at my statements, as I am only trying to gain additional insight from someone I see as viewing the world in a similar fashion as myself.

Ok.

I have discussed historical church problems with almost every church leader I can find; my old mission president, my area authority seventy, and many others. It always seems to come down to experiences like those you have related in your post. Here is my problem with using these types of experiences as proof of the church being true:

For me it is a question of causation. Because an experience occured to me while I was doing something "churchy", or I was healed by a mormon priesthood holder etc. the church must be true; this seems to be the line of reasoning (hopefully I am not misunderstanding your post).

I think most LDS start out that way, certainly. And I don't think that's necessarily bad. Of course at some point, that will change, if the member is introspective to any degree.

I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. That's not hard to do, considering how few words I have posted on the subject here. I could literally speak for two hours straight on revelation, truth, thought, feelings, the mind, psychology and their interrelationships. It's a HUGE subject, one that I have been thinking about for decades. Not to say I've got it all figured out, either. The problem is communicating what I've learned in a manner that it is understandable for others. I haven't figured that one out, yet. Perhaps it is intrinsically an individual, personal effort. Could be.

I'd like you to consider that an individual's personal experience should trump other people's comments, reasoning and logic, every time, hands down. Indeed, it HAS to, or we are nothing but mindless animals. I think that this is one of the temple's greatest teachings. If we aren't learning directly from God or His messengers, then what we get is a mix of truth and error -- "philosophies of men, mingled with scripture" -- including these comments of mine here in this very post. Granted that the better the individual can think and reason, and the more clearly they can receive the spirit/light of Christ/Holy Ghost, the better their interpretation of their experience should be. As Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living". I also think that the unexamined testimony is not worth believing. At least, that's how it is for me.

As I have stated in other, earlier posts, the experience of being baptised by fire was interpreted by me in just the manner you have proposed. IT MUST ALL BE TRUE. Gimme a break, I was only 8. Today, my interpretation is very different. But that doesn't mean that my previous views were BAD. Not at all. They were quite useful.

Ok, I will start with the healings. If someone is miraculously healed by a witchdoctor does that mean that the witchdoctor has access to God's power?

Quite possibly, yes. I sincerely mean that. How much do you know about how a witchdoctor operates? Are you truly objective in observing the phenomenon? What do you know of God's power, and how it is used, and whom can use it? Have you really studied this? The 'truth' might surprise you, if you did.

Moreso, does this mean the witchdoctor's religion is the one true religion on earth?

Would the witchdoctor claim that?

I will assume most will answer no to both these questions.

I don't blame you, truly.

How about other charismatic christian religions who also have healing practices. The Community of Christ also has people who heal through their priesthood, I am sure I could go on and on. In an art therapy course i took we talked about people being stuck in the wilderness and having to cut off a leg or arm etc. There are numerous cases where people have had such experiences and survived for days even though doctors said they should have died in the wilderness from bloodloss. When asked, these people said they told themselves they were superman or that they were indestructable etc. This is how their mind was able to stop the loss of blood in a miraculous manner. It seems to me that healings and similar experiences are very common throughout the world.

Absolutely. Do you disbelieve those experiences? Why would you?

They seem to me to be dependant on something internal about the person, as opposed to a special power possesed by a healer.

That was one of the biggest testimony builders for me, when I saw that LDS belief provides for an understandable way for God to be present in each of us, in our 'core' being. I refer to 'intelligence'. What a fantastic teaching. D&C 93 is deep, deep stuff. But why do you have this dichotomy between what is inside, and a "special power"? I think you may need to examine your beliefs along those lines, at some length. What is faith, really? How is the sacrament effectual in our lives?

Even in the LDS church many people that are given blessings die or have no effect. It seems to me that for some the idea of God's healing power causes a similar internal respone as that of the guy who convinced himself he was superman. Mind over matter. Any thoughts?

Oh yes, indeed. Did you know that there are people who, through the focus of intent (or, will) put the light of Christ to the purpose of physical healing? Could that be real? I once wondered. Now, following the biblical advice in the NT, I know. It takes a little work, a little discipline, a little faith to find answers of this sort. The scriptures are full of little gems pointing to these truths, that are there to be found for the seekers. This is no reason to doubt, for crying out loud. It's all about faith, which cannot come without belief!

The other example is temple experiences. Many people of other faiths have remarkable spiritual experiences when they enter and worship in a place they deem holy. Monks in their temples, Muslims at Mecca etc. Again, if a mormon has a spiritual experience in the temple is it not more likely because they are pondering life, meditating about god and life or a problem in their life. These types of experiences are not unique to mormonism, so I don't understand how they verify that the church is true anymore than other religions.

Very good. You are thinking, but lack much data. This can be fixed.

It seems to me that proof of the church being true should be based on Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. If these are true the church is, if they are fraudulent then the church is a fraud. I hope I have not offended you but I am interested in others perspectives and you happened to bring it up.

I disagree. It should be based on personal experience. Like what Joseph experienced, in bringing forth the BoM. Without that understanding in our own lives, we cannot know truth, but will be tossed to and fro, helpless in a world which by its nature, requires faith for anything to be accomplished. At the same time, truths come in many flavors.

There are physical truths, there are spiritual truths. Sometimes the two intersect. Just as we all need to balance the use of both intellect and emotion, in our lives. It is only through Christ that the balance can be struck, just as only Christ can balance Justice with Mercy. What a beautiful symmetry!

HiJolly

[Hammer]

Very well put HiJolly. I would only add one thing: The church being true is validated by all things. Because it is of God, inspite of the weakness of men, it thrives, but not just in the physical world, but in the spiritual progressions of those who will completely set themselves into its doctrines and Christ Himself.

Understanding, hidden knowledge, progression even as we speak-- into greater power than just those who 'think' and gain mind over matter. Expand everything every other religion or person has experienced in power and miracles and magnify it a thousand fold and there you have what the true church gives to men on earth.

For instance: Putting both mind and God to the task of surviving, you have more than just a physical endurance, but rather a physical and spiritual growth into oneness with God.

Then you add to this the understanding of the purpose of this earthly experience and you have phenominal insight and boyancy swelling within you. You see past this life into the next with clarity, connection and authority. All knowledge or key of knowledge --that is what the keys of the priesthood or keys of the kingdom consist of--

D&C 128:14 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as are the records on the earth in relation to your dead, which are truly made out, so also are the records in heaven. This, therefore, is the sealing and binding power, and, in one sense of the word, the keys of the kingdom, which consist in the key of knowledge.

[grego]

QUOTE

Can the resurrection happen? What does science say about that possibility? Wine to water in an instant? Commanding nature? It could very well have to do with interpretation. On the other hand, is it possible, maybe, that science doesn't really know? Or that "it" does, but man, the ones who intepret it, don't know, or do, but don't let it out?

This may surprise you, but there are many who accept just that view. Two books you may find interesting. One is the Physics of Immortality. The other is The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder.

Well, like I was hoping for more evidence that there were "*many* who accept just that view" than two books that aren't much more than theory.

Schroeder: Orthodox Jew.

Dr. Schroeder's yeshiva studies were guided by Rabbi Chaim Brovender at ITRI, and before that by the late Rabbi Herman Pollack. http://www.geraldschroeder.com/sog.html

Both "theories" get ripped on quite a bit from what I've seen. Infidels.org--the atheist version of snopes.com, from what I gather--says they are horrible, impossible ideas, overall. So do a lot of reviews.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gra...ppy/tipler.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic...ger/schrev.html

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossi.../pg1/index.html

Esp. Tipler--lots and lots of "ifs" and bad science, and besides: Tipler's concepts of "resurrection", etc. are so different than the LDS ones, it's very misleading to say they both believe in a "resurrection". But then, believers in God seem to like them, and atheists seem not to.

There are other books, of course. But there's not much by the type of scientist I asked for. For what it's worth, I imagine the numbers who like their theories, are in line with those that believe in a global flood. Perhaps even less... Of course, I'm just guessing, though I might post to a science board just to ask for opinions. We could, of course, ask Tarski how many top scientists believe in resurrection, flying angels, etc. and take his word for it.

Maybe I just need a little more time to see these scientists.

[ADog]

HiJolly, I cannot discount as impossible that a God who actually exists would choose an utterly unreliable method for communicating, and verifying truth with human beings on earth. It's possible in the sense that as God, he could do it if he wanted to. It just doesn't make much sense to me why he'd do so. Absent any good reason to believe that God would choose completely unreliable means for such communication, I assume that he did not do so.

There is essentially no way, in my my opinion, that anyone on Earth can stand up and claim that they have been told something through the Holy Ghost, and have rational justification to be absolutely sure that their interpretation of whatever they experienced is in fact true. There are just way too many counter-examples.

Seth, I totally understand your problems with the concept of spiritual communication from Deity through the Holy Ghost. A couple of thoughts to explain why I believe it is the only way the God could in fact communicate with us. It comes down to our agency. Our ability to choose for our selves is the whole point of mortal existence. If God put in place a uniform, demonstrable, reproducible recipe for receiving messages from Him, you would have to be a fool to NOT believe. It would destroy our agency to choose. Even IF He had such a method for revelation- we mortals are not capable of reproducing the exact circumstances under which we may have received inspiration- let alone someone else (ever try to draw the exact same picture???).

Instead we have been given promises that if we do certain things we will receive answers.. how they will appear, when, where- those are the variables. Discounting individual experiences because they may be unique to the receiver (perhaps even erroneous or misinterpreted) seems too generalizing. The whole LDS concept of personal revelation is you work out your salvation with the Lord- ask your own way. I think there are some major points that all faithful/believing Latter-Day Saints need to agree on- but one of the factors I appreciate is that LDS theology allows for people to hold various opinions and even belief in personal revelations. We are taught line upon line- often perceptions of our personal revelations change with experience or perspective.

Curious to know if you were a deity that wished to communicate with his creations, how would you do it?

[Sethbag]

What is going on here. This thread seems to have turned a little sour. Yes I am being a board nany. So sue me.

I don't know man. I'm just going to sit back and watch it play out, but I do think Ryan could tone it down a bit. I agree that Grego and Rob are looking at the data without understanding the science that underpins it, but nobody will get anywhere calling people flat-earthers or holocaust deniers, or whackos, to their face.

I don't think these two believers are whackos. They just don't understand the science behind the phenomena they're talking about. For instance, yes, there are sedimentary layers in lots of high-altitude places where it might surprise one to find them. At least, it would surprise one who wasn't familiar with plate tectonics and how some landmasses are pushed up as multiple plates collide into each other.