Which LDS Truth Claims are Falsifiable?

[ERMD]

You find no problems with the following differences?

Let's assume for a moment that this analysis is accurate (I do not concede that, but for the sake of argument, we'll use it). The same standard could be applied to what was written on the tablet that was placed above Christ's head when he was crucified.

Since there is inconsistency there, it obviously means the crucifixion never occured, the Bible is false, and Christianity is a fraud.

BZZZZZZT!

Try again.

[krose]

Let's assume, for a moment, that: 1) there is a God; 2) He actually does answer Priesthood Blessings as He sees fit; and 3) He is aware of the performance of such an experiment. Given that God has, repeatedly, told His children to TRUST HIM, why would He perform like a trained monkey in this clear effort to "tempt God"?

This strikes me as odd. So God might decide not to heal some deserving people that he otherwise would have, not because it was always his plan for them or because not being healed was the best outcome for them, but simply because they were being used in an experiment and he refuses to be manipulated?

[Jason]

This strikes me as odd. So God might decide not to heal some deserving people that he otherwise would have, not because it was always his plan for them or because not being healed was the best outcome for them, but simply because they were being used in an experiment and he refuses to be manipulated?

If He didn't heal them because they were involved in an experiment, it would also have been His plan all along and not healing them would also be the best outcome for them at that time.

It's awfully hard to manipulate someone who can perfectly predict the future.

[krose]

If He didn't heal them because they were involved in an experiment, it would also have been His plan all along and not healing them would also be the best outcome for them at that time.

It's awfully hard to manipulate someone who can perfectly predict the future.

Ah, the old "I knew that would happen all along" defense. Whatever happens is exactly what was always intended to happen, no matter what it is. Even if I change my mind at the last instant about what I'm writing here, he already knew that's exactly what I would write. Right.

Sounds like predestination to me. There is no real free choice, only the freedom to act according to the eternal script. In my case, God always knew that I would be an apostate who raised agnostic children, in spite of the predictions of that flowery-talking patriarch, who was just spouting nonsense about what might have happened in a different reality, but never had a chance of actually coming to pass in this one.

[Doctor Steuss]

Hello lifeonaplate,

I would be interested in reading the various versions of the 1st vision provided that they are unedited. Where would one find them.

If you bypass the apologetic spin put on some things, Opening the Heavens (Welch) would likely be a good all-in-one source.

Matthew Brownâ??s new book is supposed to be an in-depth look at all the versions, but I havenâ??t read it (or even read a comprehensive review of it, for that matter). Other than that, you can probably find them in various places on the internet ( here might be a good place, and thereâ??s always Watson's site where he places some of the various accounts next to each other). Saints Without Halos might have them as well.

[ttribe]

This strikes me as odd. So God might decide not to heal some deserving people that he otherwise would have, not because it was always his plan for them or because not being healed was the best outcome for them, but simply because they were being used in an experiment and he refuses to be manipulated?

Perhaps he would/could heal them outside the laboratory setting...unless you plan on holding your subjects hostage. Again - God will not behave like a trained monkey for your enjoyment. He is not subject to your experimental rules.

[DrW]

Perhaps he would/could heal them outside the laboratory setting...unless you plan on holding your subjects hostage. Again - God will not behave like a trained monkey for your enjoyment. He is not subject to your experimental rules.

And yet, you seem quite comfortable in explaining to us what God will, and will not, do.

[ttribe]

And yet, you seem quite comfortable in explaining to us what God will, and will not, do.

Based on repeated observations.

You have point or just making more snarky drive-by's?

[krose]

Perhaps he would/could heal them outside the laboratory setting...unless you plan on holding your subjects hostage. Again - God will not behave like a trained monkey for your enjoyment. He is not subject to your experimental rules.

And by refusing to heal people in this scenario just to thwart the efforts of the experimenters, he has just been successfully manipulated by them.

It appears that remaining hidden and undetectable to humans is a very high priority for your version of a deity, if a sincere effort to detect his hand in healing is treated as an evil exercise.

[Nyal]

Let's assume for a moment that this analysis is accurate (I do not concede that, but for the sake of argument, we'll use it). The same standard could be applied to what was written on the tablet that was placed above Christ's head when he was crucified.

Since there is inconsistency there, it obviously means the crucifixion never occured, the Bible is false, and Christianity is a fraud.

BZZZZZZT!

Try again.

Citing one fiction in support of another fiction is weak. Shall I be clearer?

[ttribe]

And by refusing to heal people in this scenario just to thwart the efforts of the experimenters, he has just been successfully manipulated by them.

Not really, if the effect is the same, only the timing is different. Furthermore, the experimentation relies on an almost sure assumption that when A happens (invoke the Priesthood), B happens instantaneously (healing). There are few, if any, examples of that being claimed by us. Consequently, you are stacking the deck in favor of your null hypothesis (viz. priesthood blessings are ineffective) from the beginning. How are you planning on assuming IID when you are dealing with Deity?

It appears that remaining hidden and undetectable to humans is a very high priority for your version of a deity, if a sincere effort to detect his hand in healing is treated as an evil exercise.

Your snide summarization notwithstanding, perhaps you forgot that the scriptures are replete with REQUIRING faith. Gee...how does that work again?

[Jason]

Ah, the old "I knew that would happen all along" defense. Whatever happens is exactly what was always intended to happen, no matter what it is. Even if I change my mind at the last instant about what I'm writing here, he already knew that's exactly what I would write. Right.

Yep.

Sounds like predestination to me. There is no real free choice, only the freedom to act according to the eternal script.

Nope. God's foreknowledge does not cause you to act according to an eternal script - He just happens to know what you will choose.

In my case, God always knew that I would be an apostate who raised agnostic children, in spite of the predictions of that flowery-talking patriarch, who was just spouting nonsense about what might have happened in a different reality, but never had a chance of actually coming to pass in this one.

Patriarchal blessings are always conditional on obedience.

It appears that remaining hidden and undetectable to humans is a very high priority for your version of a deity, if a sincere effort to detect his hand in healing is treated as an evil exercise.

Maintaining mankind's agency is of the greatest priority to God. That requires faith, but doesn't require that He remain completely hidden or undetectable.

[Nyal]

Yep.

Nope. God's foreknowledge does not cause you to act according to an eternal script - He just happens to know what you will choose.

Patriarchal blessings are always conditional on obedience.

I used to wonder about this one. If God knew everything, especially well enough to give prophets inside information, then do we have free will? I wrestled with this one for some time as a member and realized that God must be looking back. Think of it like this. I am looking through a history book about Stalin. I know about all the murders he committed and his cop-mustache. How do I know? He already made the choice, right? Therefore, just because I knew the choice he made, doesn't mean he had to make those choices. He recorded the choice, I read it. All this means is that God is looking backwards. He could, based on this, get on his bat-phone and warn the saints to get out of Russia (if they were there), he could predict what would happen if this or that happened, all without affecting agency. Plus, this explains why he is reluctant to intervene, to avoid contaminating the time line and interfering with free will. I see no reason that knowledge of an action should mean no choice in the action.

Now where is my time-phone, something must be done about Cher.

[ttribe]

I used to wonder about this one. If God knew everything, especially well enough to give prophets inside information, then do we have free will? I wrestled with this one for some time as a member and realized that God must be looking back. Think of it like this. I am looking through a history book about Stalin. I know about all the murders he committed and his cop-mustache. How do I know? He already made the choice, right? Therefore, just because I knew the choice he made, doesn't mean he had to make those choices. He recorded the choice, I read it. All this means is that God is looking backwards. He could, based on this, get on his bat-phone and warn the saints to get out of Russia (if they were there), he could predict what would happen if this or that happened, all without affecting agency. Plus, this explains why he is reluctant to intervene, to avoid contaminating the time line and interfering with free will. I see no reason that knowledge of an action should mean no choice in the action.

Now where is my time-phone, something must be done about Cher.

Ever read a "choose your own adventure" book? Think about those and then you might get a little better perspective on some us see the issue.

By the way, is there a reason you insist on using derogatory language (i.e. "bat phone", "Cher", etc.)?

[krose]

... perhaps you forgot that the scriptures are replete with REQUIRING faith. Gee...how does that work again?

Why do you assume that the recipients of the blessings (or the priesthood holders who did them) would have less faith in the blessings just because the outcome was being tracked and compared to a control group?

[Nyal]

Ever read a "choose your own adventure" book? Think about those and then you might get a little better perspective on some us see the issue.

By the way, is there a reason you insist on using derogatory language (i.e. "bat phone", "Cher", etc.)?

I don't insist. Nothing wrong with a little levity. I don't like the Choose Your Own Adventure analogy because that has fewer choices than mine.

[Brade]

God's foreknowledge does not cause you to act according to an eternal script - He just happens to know what you will choose.

That future contingencies can be known, even if they're not, is enough to undermine free will in the sense of the ability to do otherwise. So, you're right that God's knowledge does not cause you to act. What does cause you to act one way or another, if your future acts can be known, is the past and the laws of nature.

[Jason]

That future contingencies can be known, even if they're not, is enough to undermine free will in the sense of the ability to do otherwise. So, you're right that God's knowledge does not cause you to act. What does cause you to act one way or another, if your future acts can be known, is the past and the laws of nature.

We've debated the point before.

[ttribe]

Why do you assume that the recipients of the blessings (or the priesthood holders who did them) would have less faith in the blessings just because the outcome was being tracked and compared to a control group?

I don't. You're reading facts into evidence that don't exist.

[krose]

I don't. You're reading facts into evidence that don't exist.

I thought your point was that any effort to test priesthood blessings would fail because of lack of faith. As I re-read, I see that you could have been referring to requiring faith as the reason for God to remain hidden.

It's just a coincidence that the end result for us is the same as if gods are human inventions. Faith is required in both cases, either because there is nothing there or because the deity says it's important to believe without seeing. And sometimes people who pray or are blessed get better and sometimes they don't, just like people who do neither.

[Jason]

If people did get better every time they prayed, would you consider that proof positive that God exists?

[ttribe]

I thought your point was that any effort to test priesthood blessings would fail because of lack of faith. As I re-read, I see that you could have been referring to requiring faith as the reason for God to remain hidden.

Your re-read was correct.

It's just a coincidence that the end result for us is the same as if gods are human inventions. Faith is required in both cases, either because there is nothing there or because the deity says it's important to believe without seeing. And sometimes people who pray or are blessed get better and sometimes they don't, just like people who do neither.

I doubt it's coincidence, but it is certainly your prerogative to chalk it up to whatever you wish.

[ttribe]

If people did get better every time they prayed, would you consider that proof positive that God exists?

My guess - the answer would be something like - "the act of 'praying' must induce a naturalistic response in the brain which triggers inherent healing processes already resident in the brain, passed down from our ancestors."

[Jason]

My guess - the answer would be something like - "the act of 'praying' must induce a naturalistic response in the brain which triggers inherent healing processes already resident in the brain, passed down from our ancestors."

Which would mean that God could heal someone every time without removing the need for faith, right?

[ttribe]

Which would mean that God could heal someone every time without removing the need for faith, right?

Yep.