Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 No, the refusal to explore possibilities is what is close-minded. What weight does your possiblity carry that strengthens it?The 3 and 8 witness, the huge sacrfice of the saints. The fact that JS never dnied his testimony nor the 3 and 8 witness. More and more that is being confirmed though archaeology. Not taht it proves it but taht the critics are bing silenced were they thought there was obvious anachronism. A spiritual Witness. Also the blessing of living the gospel that I see.There is to much to write at this time.The point is that I am asking for something that will strenghten the possibility it self. I am not interested in just talking about an infinte set of possibilities. Most people aren't if that is your hobby fine by me I just don't know what good it does to sit and think about possibilites esp if the evidence doesn't support a possibility.And as far as having a close mind I would think one would have a closed mind if they don't want to consider certain evidence. Or they refuse to look at it.
mercyngrace Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 What if I were here giving the same statement about my "evidence" to substansiate my possibility?If you were saying there is another way to gain information, I'd say awesome! Let's give it a whirl!Best as I can tell, you are saying, in essence, that you have already made a determination based on some information. You acknowledge possibilities exist beyond the information you presently have but you have drawn a conclusion anyway based on what you know and perceive, however limited that data may be. I'm saying there is more information available to those who want it but this information is experiential and requires more effort than a google search or a trip to the library.If you approach investigation with a foregone conclusion, there's really no point in my providing evidence is there?
robuchan Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 We know that Christ reprimanded the Nephites for failing to record teachings and events He felt were substantial and significant. He acknowledges their fallibility as record keepers. Can you?That's a real stretch. 1. I don't believe in a God that's that impotent2. I can't believe Swedenborg is that much more of a faithful servant than Nephi, Alma, Moroni, et
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 The 3 and 8 witness, the huge sacrfice of the saints. The fact that JS never dnied his testimony nor the 3 and 8 witness. More and more that is being confirmed though archaeology. Not taht it proves it but taht the critics are bing silenced were they thought there was obvious anachronism. A spiritual Witness. Also the blessing of living the gospel that I see.There is to much to write at this time.The point is that I am asking for something that will strenghten the possibility it self. I am not interested in just talking about an infinte set of possibilities. Most people aren't if that is your hobby fine by me I just don't know what good it does to sit and think about possibilites esp if the evidence doesn't support a possibility.I think these issues that you use as evidence are not substantial. These issues you have brought up are the very issues that have been discussed here so much in depth. . . So you know that I don't see your evidence as proof, and you know very well the reasons because they have been so thoroughly discussed. So at the very least, I find your evidence to be lacking, misconstrued, and not compelling. We could go around and around about it all day, because all we have been doing is going in circles. Your posts in particular are dizzying.
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 If you were saying there is another way to gain information, I'd say awesome! Let's give it a whirl!Best as I can tell, you are saying, in essence, that you have already made a determination based on some information. You acknowledge possibilities exist beyond the information you presently have but you have drawn a conclusion anyway based on what you know and perceive, however limited that data may be. I'm saying there is more information available to those who want it but this information is experiential and requires more effort than a google search or a trip to the library.If you approach investigation with a foregone conclusion, there's really no point in my providing evidence is there?I guess what I'm saying is I think it is irresponsible to form a conclusion claim truth from prayer and other people's testimony. I guess I took it to heart. . . by their works, ye shall know them. . . . and I would rather take into consideration all possibilities instead of just the possibilities that the church would like me to hear.
Zakuska Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 And which possibilities is it the chruch would like you to hear?13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul--We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.There are alot of things outside the church that are true after all.
mercyngrace Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 That's a real stretch. 1. I don't believe in a God that's that impotent2. I can't believe Swedenborg is that much more of a faithful servant than Nephi, Alma, Moroni, et1. Me either.2. Me either.I think we are misunderstanding each other again.
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 And which possibilities is it the chruch would like you to hear?13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul--We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.There are alot of things outside the church that are true after all.You think you have to be part of the church to "seek after these things"?
mercyngrace Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 I guess what I'm saying is I think it is irresponsible to form a conclusion claim truth from prayer and other people's testimony. I guess I took it to heart. . . by their works, ye shall know them. . . . and I would rather take into consideration all possibilities instead of just the possibilities that the church would like me to hear.Key words: "I think"Where is your logical basis for excluding these possibilities? Prove this negative.
Vance Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 I think these issues that you use as evidence are not substantial. These issues you have brought up are the very issues that have been discussed here so much in depth. . . So you know that I don't see your evidence as proof, and you know very well the reasons because they have been so thoroughly discussed. So at the very least, I find your evidence to be lacking, misconstrued, and not compelling. We could go around and around about it all day, because all we have been doing is going in circles. Your posts in particular are dizzying.How about this?I think these "possibilities" that you use as "possibilities" are not substantial. These "possibilities" you have brought up are the very "possibilities" that have been discussed here so much in depth. . . So you know that I don't see your "possibilities" as proof or even as evidence, and you know very well the reasons because they have been so thoroughly discussed. So at the very least, I find your "possibilities" to be lacking, misconstrued, and not compelling. We could go around and around about it all day, because all we have been doing is going in circles. Your posts in particular are dizzying.THERE!!!!How about that!!!
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence."Got to go.
robuchan Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 1. Me either.2. Me either.I think we are misunderstanding each other again.One of the pieces of logic about why Swedenborg and Joseph had the same theology is that God revealed truth to both of them.My question is why none of the BOM prophets wrote about the Swedenborg/Joseph doctrines of three degrees, spirit world, and celestial marriage. It seemed you were implying that possibly God wanted the BOM prophets to do so, but they failed to do it.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 I think these issues that you use as evidence are not substantial. These issues you have brought up are the very issues that have been discussed here so much in depth. . . So you know that I don't see your evidence as proof, and you know very well the reasons because they have been so thoroughly discussed. So at the very least, I find your evidence to be lacking, misconstrued, and not compelling. We could go around and around about it all day, because all we have been doing is going in circles. Your posts in particular are dizzying.Here is the nice part, at least I gave evidence. I didn't just muse on and on about possiblites. Talk about lake of substance.There is no point to that. If you enjoy just thinking about the endless possibilities in life great. Have fun. Yes My posts are so dizzing because I actully require something more than mere possiblities and conjecture when I make a decission in life. I know it is tough but you to can learn to do it.IOW if you want to talk about something of substance something more than just "Hey here is a possibility" Let me know."Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence."They sure do, when do you want to discuss JS supposed plagarism from the Arbain peninsula book?Good day to you.
Vance Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 One of the pieces of logic about why Swedenborg and Joseph had the same theology is that God revealed truth to both of them.My question is why none of the BOM prophets wrote about the Swedenborg/Joseph doctrines of three degrees, spirit world, and celestial marriage. It seemed you were implying that possibly God wanted the BOM prophets to do so, but they failed to do it.My understanding is that the BOM contains the Gospel of Jesus Christ, meaning the Gospel that Jesus taught during His mortal ministry. Jesus didn't publicly teach the three degrees nor celestial marriage. (Although there is indication that he may have taught celestial marriage privately).PS the BOM does teach about the spirit world, just not in the detail that is had elsewhere.
mercyngrace Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 One of the pieces of logic about why Swedenborg and Joseph had the same theology is that God revealed truth to both of them.My question is why none of the BOM prophets wrote about the Swedenborg/Joseph doctrines of three degrees, spirit world, and celestial marriage. It seemed you were implying that possibly God wanted the BOM prophets to do so, but they failed to do it.Okay - I see where you're coming from now. My point was simply that every doctrine isn't mentioned by every prophet - sometimes omissions are made to the disappointment of the Lord, hence His scolding in 3 Nephi. Generally speaking, I think most of what we would call modern revelation was generated through Joseph petitioning the Lord for further knowledge. I don't know why the Lord would withhold knowledge from other petitioners if they sought it. We know reformers were inspired even though they weren't prophets. Perhaps, Swedenborg's writing simply validates the principle of personal revelation.As for why BOM prophets specifically did not mention the doctrine - perhaps it comes down to the same argument we see about Christ's marital status. Common knowledge may be omitted as it is perceived as a given by the audience.I don't personally buy into this idea, though I allow it as a possibility.If I had to guess, I'd say there were doctrines the world simply wasn't ready to embrace. The idea that most people would inherit glory is a very merciful doctrine annd very much out of step with the rigidity of the lower law as it was practiced throughout the apostasy. The world had to move from complete apostasy and toward restoration before this doctrine could be elaborated on, understood, and accepted. Anyway, I'm just musing - I'd definitely be interested in reading more about this though.
ttribe Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence."Like divine manifestation via direct answers to prayers? Sounds pretty extraordinary to me.
thews Posted October 10, 2009 Author Posted October 10, 2009 The 3 and 8 witness, the huge sacrfice of the saints. The fact that JS never dnied his testimony nor the 3 and 8 witness. The "witnesses" clearly denied their testimony. More than half of the witnesses left Mormonism before they died. Is that a faith promoting fact? Like David Whitmer?http://mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htmDAVID WHITMER - Was born in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in 1805 and was raised in a Presbyterian home. In 1828 he heard about JS through Oliver Cowdery, while visiting Palmyra NY, on a business trip. He served as a scribe to JS during the alleged translation period in 1829 at the age of 24. He was baptized into the church in 1830. He married Julia Ann Jolly 1831, and they had two children. He left the church in 1937 and was labeled an apostate. He was subsequently EXCOMMUNICATED in 1838. He was requested to lead the RLDS church, but declined their offer and any affiliation with them. He died in Richmond Missouri in 1888 at the age of 83 years old and never re-joined the church."If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints'... [Address to all believers in Christ, p27, 1887.] More and more that is being confirmed though archaeology. Can you please link me to one tiny chunk of something regarding archaeology to substantiate this claim?Not taht it proves it but taht the critics are bing silenced were they thought there was obvious anachronism. A spiritual Witness. Also the blessing of living the gospel that I see. Believe what you wish, but claiming facts support those beliefs will have to backed up with facts. There is to much to write at this time.The point is that I am asking for something that will strenghten the possibility it self. I am not interested in just talking about an infinte set of possibilities. Most people aren't if that is your hobby fine by me I just don't know what good it does to sit and think about possibilites esp if the evidence doesn't support a possibility. I'm sort of with you, and sort of not. Infinite concepts are outside of our level of understanding. But, tangible things and facts are not. And as far as having a close mind I would think one would have a closed mind if they don't want to consider certain evidence. Or they refuse to look at it.I agree with you 100%. One should seek evidence to support or deny any claim. That journey top seek the evidence should include both pro and con arguments if one is to be truly honest witrh the results. One cannot fear knowing the truth, no matter what it take to find it. I agree with you 100%.
Redefined Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 The "witnesses" clearly denied their testimony. More than half of the witnesses left Mormonism before they died. Is that a faith promoting fact? Like David Whitmer?http://mormonthink.c...itnessesweb.htmCan you please link me to one tiny chunk of something regarding archaeology to substantiate this claim?Believe what you wish, but claiming facts support those beliefs will have to backed up with facts. I'm sort of with you, and sort of not. Infinite concepts are outside of our level of understanding. But, tangible things and facts are not. I agree with you 100%. One should seek evidence to support or deny any claim. That journey top seek the evidence should include both pro and con arguments if one is to be truly honest witrh the results. One cannot fear knowing the truth, no matter what it take to find it. I agree with you 100%.Thank you THews! I thought everyone would just self-righteous me to death!! Added. . .as is to say, how can you argue with the the great and abdominable themselves. . . they seem to insist upon rubbish! *****Sorry to ALL I offended by saying this. It wasn't right for me to say, and I apologize. I can see my fault in calling the church the members of the church "the great and abdominable". There are no excuses, and I'm sorry.
handys003 Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 you mean like this book written in 1792...http://onlinebooks.l...rks%20to%201800The arguments in here make it seem as if everything Swedenborg wrote would have to be exact to have relevance. You can deny them if you choose, but it doesn't negate that there are far too many similarities to make an act of random chance. For the record Joseph Smith liked to read... they had books back then on many subjects. The argument that he couldn't have possibly known enough about Arabia to write about locations is false, as referenced above.Yes that's the one(2) The other question concerns the ease of access to written sources in, say, a local library. A student assistant and I have gone through all of the works known to have been in the collection of the Manchester Public Library before 1830, a resource that would have been available to Joseph Smith in his teens and later. None of the works in that collection which claim to deal with the ancient Near East would have given him good information on ancient Arabia. And in our review we spotted nothing that bears a familiar ring in the narrative of First Nephi. The only other library resource that young Joseph could possibly have drawn on was that of Dartmouth College. As most are aware, the Smith family lived in Lebanon, New Hampshire, from 1811 to late in 1813, before moving back to Vermont. The home where the Smith family lived in Lebanon was just down the road from Dartmouth College. There are two problems that a researcher must surmount in determining whether Joseph Smith during these years might possibly have put his hands on works such as Robert Heron
handys003 Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 You know it just amazes me how many people take for granted the easy access towards acquiring information today. Many of you non- believers think it was a mere stroll down to the local library to pick up a book on Ancient American discoveries or Old World Archaeology in a frontier backwoods of the USA in early 1800's. Give me a break. You couldn't get that kind of information in the 1960's in majority of libraries in the United States.
Redefined Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 You know it just amazes me how many people take for granted the easy access towards acquiring information today. Many of you non- believers think it was a mere stroll down to the local library to pick up a book on Ancient American discoveries or Old World Archaeology in a frontier backwoods of the USA in early 1800's. Give me a break. You couldn't get that kind of information in the 1960's in majority of libraries in the United States.True, if my grandparents would have known what I know now, I can only speculate on how my life would have been drastically different.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.