Predestination And Foreordination. Does Science Preclude Either?

[Freedom]

If we can understand that no one, including God, is outside the arrow of time, then we can realize that whatever happens in the future is still yet to happen. We cannot reverse time, nor can we fastforward it. We may get on a different plane of how time is perceived and played out but the one thing we cannot stop is the ever present arrow of time. Time itself is the measurement of sequenced events- cause and reaction.

But can and should we understand time in this manner? Those whose expertise it is to study it would disagree. It has been scientifically proven that time is relative and not absolute. If it is a simple method of measurement when why is it not consistent? my understand that time cannot be quantified like a liter of milk.

[Mariner]

Mariner:

Prayer travels faster than light.

Neutrinos may well travel faster than light.

http://www.rawstory....ter-than-light/

I'm with theoretical physicist Brian Greene on the reports of superluminal neutrinos. He believes it is highly unlikely that this observation will be verified by other laboratories.

After all, there are laws you know.

[Rob Osborn]

But can and should we understand time in this manner? Those whose expertise it is to study it would disagree. It has been scientifically proven that time is relative and not absolute. If it is a simple method of measurement when why is it not consistent? my understand that time cannot be quantified like a liter of milk.

I studied time for over a decade and what I came upo with in the end is that time is always progressing and it caanot be stopped, rewinded, or fastforwarded. It may go faster for some over others- one may get more done than another in different levels of time, but time is what it is and it flows endlessly in one direction forever and ever.

[KevinG]

I studied time for over a decade...

Wow! that's a lot of clock watching.

[Freedom]

I studied time for over a decade and what I came upo with in the end is that time is always progressing and it caanot be stopped, rewinded, or fastforwarded. It may go faster for some over others- one may get more done than another in different levels of time, but time is what it is and it flows endlessly in one direction forever and ever.

I will advise MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Cornell, Oxford, Royal Halloway, St Andrews and Queen Mary universities of your findings. Perhaps you will be nominated for a Nobel price in 'Outstanding Uses of a Stop Watch'.

Please clarify the difference between 'may go faster' and 'fastforwarded'. If something is going faster, is it not being fastforwarded?

[Rob Osborn]

I will advise MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Cornell, Oxford, Royal Halloway, St Andrews and Queen Mary universities of your findings. Perhaps you will be nominated for a Nobel price in 'Outstanding Uses of a Stop Watch'.

Please clarify the difference between 'may go faster' and 'fastforwarded'. If something is going faster, is it not being fastforwarded?

I will kindly disregard the snide remarks...

Perhaps if we could say-" time travel into the future" (fast forward), then this is what I mean. It is against every principle and law of known physics to travel into the future while the present still exists (kind of like the movies "Back to the Future") . Time itself, in realtion to others perspectives however may slow down or speed up, but there is no real reverse of time nor fast forward of time, just the perception may change.

[Mariner]

I think you are arguing from a number of false premises. I do not know of any examples where gravity is challenged in the scriptures. We have a God ascending into heaven, and an angel hovering above the ground, but these are no more violations of gravity than a hot air balloon. If gravity is never to be counteracted, why are there so many legitimate scientists trying to counter it? And if gravity is a scientific certainty, do tell me what causes it because it is a mystery to the scientific community. Or perhaps all the scientists that are studying it are all ignorant evangelical Christians that are too blind to see the truth.

There is no mention of these flying beings being connected to a hot air balloon or any other device (thrusters, etc) that would allow them to fly around or ascent through the solid roof of Joseph Smith's bedroom.

As for the second part of your response referring to legitimate scientists trying to counter gravity, or your request for me to explain it to you; neither are relevant to the fact that the Mormon teachings that are in direct conflict with science include violation of the law of gravity.

I also do not know what civilization you are referring to that disappeared without a trace. Clearly there is evidence of a grand civilization in central america. The church has never argued that the civilization disappeared. You have fabricated this claim. I have no idea what you mean by a genetic record either. The Book of Mormon never provided any DNA details so such a criticism is rather bazaar. And exactly what is this 'other' civilization that has been left in its place? What can you tell me of the language, religion, culture, political structure and other features of the society that existed 2,000 years ago?

The Jaredites civilization disappeared without a trace and the Nephites and Lamanites disappeared without a trace. In their asserted place in time and space (in Mesoamerica) we find a number of civilizations including the Olmec and the Mayan. The archeological and written historical record shows that these latter real civilizations had nothing in common whatsoever with those imaginary civilizations described in the Book of Mormon. Population genetic analyses confirm the archeological findings.

. We have no scientific proof of how time and space function so there is no conflict with what we know of God.

This sentence seems to pretty much sum up your argument. You are claiming that certain teachings of the LDS Church are not in conflict with science because there is no scientific proof about how space and time function. I am sorry to say this, I really am, but this statement demonstrates a near complete lack of understanding on your part about what science is and how it works.

Science has had an excellent understanding about how space, time (and even matter) work from the time of Isaac Newton. Discoveries since Newton's time have refined this understanding. Anthropomorphic beings of flesh and bone who ascend without the aid of a external means of propulsion constitute a contradiction to science - then and now. So do anthropomorphic beings who come to Earth from Kolob in less than several years time and prayers that are answered from Kolob in less than several years time. This is a clear violation of special relativity.

Your argument boils down to this: LDS teachings do not conflict with science because science does not really understand science. Is that about it?

___________________________________

From your writing, it appears to me as if you might be a young person. If you are, then I would encourage you to continue your education. The level of understanding of important concepts that you demonstrate here is really insufficient to allow you to function effectively in the world you are likely to encounter as time goes on.

Best wishes.

[Freedom]

I will kindly disregard the snide remarks...

Perhaps if we could say-" time travel into the future" (fast forward), then this is what I mean. It is against every principle and law of known physics to travel into the future while the present still exists (kind of like the movies "Back to the Future") . Time itself, in realtion to others perspectives however may slow down or speed up, but there is no real reverse of time nor fast forward of time, just the perception may change.

I think you nailed it on the head when you said 'known physics'. To presume that we understand everything there is to know of our physical world is irresponsible. The known laws of physics of the middle ages told us that the world was flat. There are numerous physicists that disagree with what you refer to as 'known physics'. Nobody knows what 'time' is. We simply do not know, beyond the limited perspective of our own puny existence, how time and space really work. If the theories, or philosophies if you will, of string theory have any validity (and you cannot deny that there are many legitimate scholars that consider it a plausible explanation for the apparent contradictions with the current 'known laws') then time is simply another dimension and can be observed in the same manner as a two dimensional piece of paper. From my LDS perspective this would explain how god can see the future, revealing it to his prophets through visions. So when you say there is no real reverse of time you are simply stating this from your own limited perspective of reality. The fact is, nobody has any idea. You call it a snide remark, but I must admit that it is rather presumptuous of you to make a declaration when some of the greatest minds in the world that make this the focus of their research disagree with you. Perhaps you feel the way you do because the alternative contradicts your paradigm of God or reality.

[KevinG]

(only because I couldn't find a clip of Thomas Dolby yelling "Science!")

[Freedom]

There is no mention of these flying beings being connected to a hot air balloon or any other device (thrusters, etc) that would allow them to fly around or ascent through the solid roof of Joseph Smith's bedroom.

So your position is that, since Joseph did not explain how they appeared then it must be false. You have decided that we know all there is to know about our physical world. Well, that must give you comfort.

As for the second part of your response referring to legitimate scientists trying to counter gravity, or your request for me to explain it to you; neither are relevant to the fact that the Mormon teachings that are in direct conflict with science include violation of the law of gravity.

The causes of gravity are unknown. That is the reality that we must recognize. We know, for example, that magnetism is significantly more powerful than gravity and there are numerous examples of using electromagnetic fields to make things appear to defy gravity. Until we understand what causes gravity, we cannot state that there is no way to counter its effects. All we can say at this point is we do not know what technology or laws of physic may have been at play since every legitimate scientist will admit that our knowledge of our world is infinitesimally small.

The Jaredites civilization disappeared ...Population genetic analyses confirm the archeological findings.

The information coming out of mezzo America paints a very different picture than what you are describing. In fact, you are demonstrating a narrow perspective of what is known of these people. Genetic analyses? You have genetic information of the Olmecs to compare to the genetic information that Mormon provided on the Jaradites? This comment is curious. I recommend you read The Olmecs: America’s First Civilization by Richard Diehl. It is a pretty good primer on the people. Another interesting read is “Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica by Christopher Pool.

Science has had an excellent understanding about how space, time (and even matter) work from the time of Isaac Newton. Discoveries since Newton's time have refined this understanding.

Well, as I said earlier, you think this if it gives you comfort.

Anthropomorphic beings of flesh and bone who ascend without the aid of a external means of propulsion constitute a contradiction to science - then and now. So do anthropomorphic beings who come to Earth from Kolob in less than several years time and prayers that are answered from Kolob in less than several years time. This is a clear violation of special relativity.

Kolob. Right. God lives on Kolob. That doctrine must be in one of the lost revelations that LDS scholars talk so much about. Science has proven that faster than light travel is absolutely impossible. As I commented earlier to another poster, I will advise the physicists of the leading universities and perhaps you will be recommended for a Nobel prize. But this begs the question: if the story has been written and the case is closed, why are there so many scientists all over the world claiming otherwise and spending billions of dollars in research trying to understand why this is simply not the case?

Your argument boils down to this: LDS teachings do not conflict with science because science does not really understand science. Is that about it?

Ya, that's it.

From your writing, it appears to me as if you might be a young person.

Well, thanks you. My years of using skin cream and exercising regularly have finally paid off. By important concepts are you referring to the mapping of the Olmec DNA? LDS doctrine that the earth is 6,000 years old? And the revelation that tells us where God lives? Or perhaps you are referring to the consensus in the scientific community that we fully know and understand both the affects and causes of gravity. Are you aware that of the debate going on among experts in mezzo American history whether the artefacts we have now is in fact a form of writing? Do you know why this is still debated?

[Mariner]

Freedom,

If you do not believe that The Mormon God lives in the immediate vicinity of Kolob, then you should re-read The Book of Abraham Chapter 3. Kolob is the planet (or the star, depending on which verse you choose to believe) closest to where God lives. So, if God were to come to Earth the interstellar address closest to his departure point would be Kolob.

If you think that scientists are spending billions of dollars to try to violate the law of gravity or prove superluminal particle velocities, then you have no business engaging in any kind of conversation or discussion on either subject. Let me help you out.

The recent neutrino experiments were not intended to demonstrate superluminal particle speeds. As I posted earlier, most theoretical physicists, including Brian Greene, who write a lot of popular literature on science, do not believe that this finding will be confirmed by other laboratories. There is no theoretical reason to believe that it would be.

With regard to your claim that science does not understand gravity, again you do not demonstrate much knowledge in the area. Science has a had a good understanding of gravity since Newton. This understanding was greatly refined by Einstein, and may be refined again in the future. There are a number of concepts that arise from string theory that may allow the harmonization of our understanding of gravity in terms of classical mechanics and general relativity with our understanding of quantum gravity.

Your statement that science does not understand gravity because it has not yet harmonized the various manifestations of gravity across the entire dimensional spectrum is analogous to claiming that one cannot understand how a car works until one can identify every piece, part, nut, bolt, tire and wire that makes up the car. Such a statement is just silly. Science has a more than adequate understanding of the laws of gravity to know when it is being violated, and Joseph Smith's account of events would be a violation if there ever was one.

As for any debate regarding Mesoamerican artifacts, the only debate that is going on is among LDS apologists. As far as mainstream science is concerned, we have a fairly complete and consistent picture of ancient Mesoamerican language, writing and religion. Hebrew, reformed Egyptian and Christianity are not among them.

Edited November 19, 2011 by Mariner

[Freedom]

If you do not believe that The Mormon God lives in the immediate vicinity of Kolob, then you should re-read The Book of Abraham Chapter 3. Kolob is the planet (or the star, depending on which verse you choose to believe) closest to where God lives. So, if God were to come to Earth the interstellar address closest to his departure point would be Kolob.

It says no such thing but there is no point arguing with you. You have demonstrated a propensity to take the evidence and create your own conclusions while pretending that all the scholarship in the world agrees with you.

With regard to your claim that science does not understand gravity, again you do not demonstrate much knowledge in the area. Science has a had a good understanding of gravity since Newton. This understanding was greatly refined by Einstein, and may be refined again in the future.

There is a theory of what causes gravity but nobody actually knows where it comes from. The research is ongoing. You would have fit well into the middle ages. To you we know all there is to know and there is no point debating it.

I like this quote from Tega Jessa who sums up the research (no, she is not a physicists but she is effectively paraphrasing their conclusions):

"Gravity still remains one of the biggest mysteries of physics and the biggest obstacle to a universal theory that describes the functions of every interaction in the universe accurately. If we could fully understand the mechanics behind it, new opportunities in aeronautics and other fields would appear."

Mark Jackson, a theoretical physicist says: "Gravity is completely different from the other forces described by the standard model. When you do some calculations about small gravitational interactions, you get stupid answers. The math simply doesn't work."

Gravity is identified as one the biggest mysteries of science but you clearly disagree. For you the answers are all before us and we know all there is to know.

As for any debate regarding Mesoamerican artifacts, the only debate that is going on is among LDS apologists. As far as mainstream science is concerned, we have a fairly complete and consistent picture of ancient Mesoamerican language, writing and religion. Hebrew, reformed Egyptian and Christianity are not among them.

You are quite wrong and you did not answer my question so let me state it in a different form: What is the current debate going on among experts in mezzo American history concerning the Olmec artifacts and their link to language? Why this is still debated? (hint, read what Karen Bruhns and Nancy Kekler have to say on the topic).

[Mariner]

Freedom,

Abraham Chapter 3:

2 And I saw the ^astars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;

3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is ^aKolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

9 And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one ^aplanet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same ^border as that upon which thou standest.

Again, if Kolob is nearest identified object to the throne of God, when humans far away on Earth ask from whence in the heavens God came, the best answer would be Kolob. This is because "the throne of God" answer does not provide any information about place. Even though Kolob is imaginary (no star with the attributes ascribed to Kolob could possibly exist at the time of Joseph Smith, or today), Kolob at least gives one the idea of a place far away in the heavens and not on a Caribbean island or at the North Pole.

In deference to your demonstrated lack of understanding of the basic concepts of science in general, and of gravity in particular (quote mining from a freelance science writer and from a theoretical physicist talking about things you clearly do not understand notwithstanding), and in view of your claim that Joseph Smith's heavenly visitors were not violating the law of gravity when they magically appeared in his closed bedroom and hovered in the air above his bed, I will not be responding to you further on science related issues.

[KevinG]

If someone's ignorance is an excuse not to talk to them about a topic you wouldn't be getting much of a response to your claims about Mormonism. Are you sure you want to go there?

[Freedom]

Freedom,

Again, if Kolob is nearest identified object to the throne of God, when humans far away on Earth ask from whence in the heavens God came, the best answer would be Kolob. This is because "the throne of God" answer does not provide any information about place. Even though Kolob is imaginary (no star with the attributes ascribed to Kolob could possibly exist at the time of Joseph Smith, or today), Kolob at least gives one the idea of a place far away in the heavens and not on a Caribbean island or at the North Pole.

In deference to your demonstrated lack of understanding of the basic concepts of science in general, and of gravity in particular (quote mining from a freelance science writer and from a theoretical physicist talking about things you clearly do not understand notwithstanding), and in view of your claim that Joseph Smith's heavenly visitors were not violating the law of gravity when they magically appeared in his closed bedroom and hovered in the air above his bed, I will not be responding to you further on science related issues.

It is unfortunate that you do not have a basic grasp of Hebrew imagery. I don't call it quote mining, I call it being aware of the issues and you ignoring the breadth of discussion on the matter which is demonstrated by your inability to respond to my questions. So back to the Olmecs, do tell what the debate about language is at this point. You keep stating that our believes contravene science but at issue is your narrow interpretation of what the science is saying and what our doctrine is saying. I may not fully understand the theories but I don't think you do either. I also know that to say all the questions have been asked and we have a full understanding of our universe is naive.

[altersteve]

Mariner, nothing in Mormonism conflicts with science. Only some of it conflicts with what we currently understand about science, and there is a HUGE difference there.

[Mariner]

If someone's ignorance is an excuse not to talk to them about a topic you wouldn't be getting much of a response to your claims about Mormonism. Are you sure you want to go there?

I was a member of the LDS Church for longer than I care to remember. I graduated from seminary, attended institute and taught Gospel Doctrine classes in a number of wards. I have seen the doctrine of the "one true Church" change drastically over the decades. I have seen the apologists call for "nuanced" reading of scriptures that are, and always have been, just plain silly. I have sat in class as seminary and institute instructors provided all kinds of "special knowledge", "insights" and excuses for Zelph and Adam ondi Ahmen and blood atonement and polygamy and polyandry and Kolob cosmology.

I have seen my Mormon parents disappointed and disappointed again as teachings of Mormonism they believed in as members are altered and changed as they become untenable.

I noticed that nobody bothered to refute my claim on another thread that LDS apologists have finally realized that the Book of Abraham is no longer defensible and have started to prepare members for it to eventually fade away like so many other objectionable and indefensible aspects of LDS doctrine have over the years.

So if your definition of "understanding the Gospel" means that I need to recite and believe the nonsense generated by apologists to try to give the faithful some slim possibility that allows continued belief, then I would agree with you. But if you ask me if I have read the LDS scriptures, and if I know what the leaders of the Church claim to be doctrine, then I will answer absolutely yes, from many long years of personal experience.

It is no surprise to me that I am not getting much response to my claims about Mormonism. The reasons is that once one puts aside the ever changing apologetic interpretation of what many of the scriptures actually say, many of the scriptures and their claimed provenance is simply indefensible, especially in the light of advances in science since 1830. And that is the whole point, is it not?

[Mariner]

Mariner, nothing in Mormonism conflicts with science.

And you make this statement based on what evidence?

Only some of it conflicts with what we currently understand about science, and there is a HUGE difference there.

I really hate to break this to you, but what we currently understand about science constitutes science. The scientific method being what it is, science will change by the time you wake up in the morning.

I any case, is great to see that you finally agree with me.

Thank you.

[Calm]

I noticed that nobody bothered to refute my claim on another thread that LDS apologists have finally realized that the Book of Abraham is no longer defensible and have started to prepare members for it to eventually fade away like so many other objectionable and indefensible aspects of LDS doctrine have over the years.

Honestly, I thought it was so silly I just ignored it.

An extensive series of volumes devoted to examining the BoA as an inspired text among other things has been produced by the Maxwell Institute (my favorite so far is the Traditions of Abraham book), five volumes so far. Why so much effort demonstrating its credibility when they should be trying to sweep it under the rug according to your theory? How about pointing to some articles at the MI website that support your claim?

Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out examples in the FAIR DVD on the BoA where this alleged preparation occurs....and if you aren't interested enough to get the DVD, then please use the FAIR website to demonstrate your claim. As a member of the FAIR elist, I can honestly I have never heard anything remotely resembling your claim being discussed as part of the strategy of dealing with the BoA, quite the reverse in fact.

Edited November 20, 2011 by calmoriah

[altersteve]

I noticed that nobody bothered to refute my claim on another thread that LDS apologists have finally realized that the Book of Abraham is no longer defensible and have started to prepare members for it to eventually fade away like so many other objectionable and indefensible aspects of LDS doctrine have over the years.

And I noticed that you still haven't bothered to provide a reference for that statement. I have never seen an LDS apologist make the absurd claim that "the Book of Abraham is no longer defensible." Obviously, it is still defensible, because scholars are still defending it. Have you even read the books that scholars have written about it? I'm guessing you haven't. Your claim is incredibly naive.

So if your definition of "understanding the Gospel" means that I need to recite and believe the nonsense generated by apologists to try to give the faithful some slim possibility that allows continued belief, then I would agree with you. But if you ask me if I have read the LDS scriptures, and if I know what the leaders of the Church claim to be doctrine, then I will answer absolutely yes, from many long years of personal experience.

Maybe you've read the scriptures. But do you understand them? From what I've seen from you so far, I'm going to take a shot at this and say "absolutely not." If you fully understand the scriptures and the gospel of Jesus Christ that the scriptures teach, then please, enlighten us. What is the gospel exactly?

The fact that you claim to understand the gospel is proof that you don't.

And you make this statement based on what evidence?

A witness from God, the greatest kind of evidence there is. Deny it if you want.

I really hate to break this to you . . .

No you don't.

. . . but what we currently understand about science constitutes science.

You know what I mean. The gospel teaches certain things that seem to conflict with our current limited human understanding, but it doesn't bother us when this happens, because we understand that science changes continually. The gospel does not, and does not contradict the truth -- it is truth. But Latter-day Saints fully embrace science, far more so than perhaps any other religious people.

The scientific method being what it is, science will change by the time you wake up in the morning.

My point exactly.

I any case, is great to see that you finally agree with me.

I don't.

[Rob Osborn]

I think you nailed it on the head when you said 'known physics'. To presume that we understand everything there is to know of our physical world is irresponsible. The known laws of physics of the middle ages told us that the world was flat. There are numerous physicists that disagree with what you refer to as 'known physics'. Nobody knows what 'time' is. We simply do not know, beyond the limited perspective of our own puny existence, how time and space really work. If the theories, or philosophies if you will, of string theory have any validity (and you cannot deny that there are many legitimate scholars that consider it a plausible explanation for the apparent contradictions with the current 'known laws') then time is simply another dimension and can be observed in the same manner as a two dimensional piece of paper. From my LDS perspective this would explain how god can see the future, revealing it to his prophets through visions. So when you say there is no real reverse of time you are simply stating this from your own limited perspective of reality. The fact is, nobody has any idea. You call it a snide remark, but I must admit that it is rather presumptuous of you to make a declaration when some of the greatest minds in the world that make this the focus of their research disagree with you. Perhaps you feel the way you do because the alternative contradicts your paradigm of God or reality.

And I don't have a great mind? We all have great minds if we apply ourselves to a subject. I did just that- applied myself to the study of time for over ten years. I almost went insane over it. What I came to realize after studying out others works along with my own philosophy is that no one thing, being the same- such as any object of physical value which takes up space, can exist at more than one physical location and time in the universe (all of it). The reason behind this is everything is cause and effect and all has imutable space. For instance, if we proposed that the past and future exist at the same time- with real physical value, then the matter that makes up my body would have to exist at more than one location at a time and be in a different place also. But how can unique individual matter exist at the same quantative value infinitly in a an infinite amount of space? It cannot! It can only exist at one physical place at one physical time, that time being the present which is a arrow of progressive time moving in one direction only.

So what does it mean when it says that the past present and future are all before God at one time? IT doesn't mean this literally. It only means that he has a knowledge of past events, present events as they are occuring, and the possible future events if things run a natural course with or without intervention. Of special note here is that the future, because it doesn't exist in any physical reality of objects, in a place, taking up space, it can be viewed as a vision only of events how they may transpire. Thus, God can see the various outcomes of what people do for the most part before they do them- there has already been a limited amount of cause and effect that will play out ina number of certain ways. God, or anyone, can manipulate or change the outcome of future events by the actions they choose to do or not do while existing in the present.

Hope all that made sense. It brings back old memories of defeating the grand paradox of time.

[Mariner]

Honestly, I thought it was so silly I just ignored it.

An extensive series of volumes devoted to examining the BoA as an inspired text among other things has been produced by the Maxwell Institute (my favorite so far is the Traditions of Abraham book), five volumes so far. Why so much effort demonstrating its credibility when they should be trying to sweep it under the rug according to your theory? How about pointing to some articles at the MI website that support your claim?

Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out examples in the FAIR DVD on the BoA where this alleged preparation occurs....and if you aren't interested enough to get the DVD, then please use the FAIR website to demonstrate your claim. As a member of the FAIR elist, I can honestly I have never heard anything remotely resembling your claim being discussed as part of the strategy of dealing with the BoA, quite the reverse in fact.

Calmoriah,

John Gees address from which I quoted is widely seen as an important first step down the road to "abandonment" of the Book of Abraham. Your own statement that a strategy is needed for dealing with the Book of Abraham is very telling. Why is a strategy needed for dealing with an issue if that issue does not constitute a problem?

And what is this about the Book of Abraham being an "inspired text"? Joseph Smith claimed that it was a direct translation of a papyri in his possession written by the hand of Abraham.

I have never heard the apologists say that a strategy is needed to deal with the Old Testament, for example, even though it is filled with claims that are clearly false and portrays a God who seems more than happy to have his chosen people kill others by the thousands.

This need for a strategy for dealing with the Book of Abraham indicates problems. And the main problem is that of provenance. With the scroll length apologetic about to go down the tubes, and the text apologetic in big trouble, the Kolob cosmology and other silliness in the inspirational aspect of the content of the book is not the main issue that the MI needs to manage.

The LDS Church has shown time and again that it can downplay or jettison doctrine and beliefs that become too costly to defend. Polygamy, blood atonement, and the ban on Blacks in the priesthood are three examples of abandoned doctrine. Books and writings by the prophets and general authorities once held as important can also be shuttled to the side, including Journal of Discourses and Mormon Doctrine. Many folks, including myself, predict that the Miracle of Forgiveness will soon join them because the media has finally figured out how offensive some of the teachings in this book are and it is rapidly becoming too costly to defend.

By the way, when was the last time you heard a General Authority take the text for his Conference Address from the Book of Abraham?

If you have young children who remain in the Church, I would lay odds that their children will know no more about the Book of Abraham than younger members today know about the Journal of Discourses or Mormon Doctrine, both of which were mainstay sources of teachings and doctrine when I was active.

The DVD you mention contains nothing new. Those who have seen it (I have not) admit that it is the same old apologetics served up in a more expensive presentation format.

Unfortunately, with the best will in the world, the Maxwell Institute cannot salvage the Book of Abraham in the court of public opinion, which court is becoming more and more important to the LDS Church. MI simply does not have the credibility to do so. Without support of credible scholars outside the LDS Church, the claims made about the Book of Abraham by MI will continue to be seen by objective observers as self serving and meaningless apologetics, which continue to take hit after hit.

If you think I am off base on this, you might want to read Brother Gee's address again. This time perhaps you could try doing so from the perspective of someone who does not believe in the Book of Abraham, remembering that these are the kind of people who the Church is trying to reach with their I'm a Mormon campaign.

[Calm]

The strategy I was talking about was not about the BoA itself but about the various attacks made upon it such as you are doing now by acting as if it is something that is being downplayed among scholars.

[etana]

... no one thing, being the same- such as any object of physical value which takes up space, can exist at more than one physical location and time in the universe (all of it).

Of course it can. Otherwise you weren't there yesterday to grow to what you are now, and what you are now couldn't be the root of what you are becoming.

The reason behind this is everything is cause and effect and all has imutable space. For instance, if we proposed that the past and future exist at the same time- with real physical value, then the matter that makes up my body would have to exist at more than one location at a time and be in a different place also. But how can unique individual matter exist at the same quantative value infinitly in a an infinite amount of space? It cannot! It can only exist at one physical place at one physical time, that time being the present which is a arrow of progressive time moving in one direction only.

So what does it mean when it says that the past present and future are all before God at one time? IT doesn't mean this literally. It only means that he has a knowledge of past events, present events as they are occuring, and the possible future events if things run a natural course with or without intervention. Of special note here is that the future, because it doesn't exist in any physical reality of objects, in a place, taking up space, it can be viewed as a vision only of events how they may transpire. Thus, God can see the various outcomes of what people do for the most part before they do them- there has already been a limited amount of cause and effect that will play out ina number of certain ways. God, or anyone, can manipulate or change the outcome of future events by the actions they choose to do or not do while existing in the present.

Hope all that made sense. It brings back old memories of defeating the grand paradox of time.

All you've really done here is make some assumptions based on your limited experience. Try adding in the fact that time moves at different speeds for different observers; that time moves more quickly in orbit than it does down here due to gravity.

[Mariner]

All you've really done here is make some assumptions based on your limited experience. Try adding in the fact that time moves at different speeds for different observers; that time moves more quickly in orbit than it does down here due to gravity.

Both gravitational red shift and relativistic time dilation affect the Earth bound observation of orbiting clock rates. Gravitational red shift (a consequence of general relativity) for GPS satellites, for example, is dependent on orbital altitude and amounts to an accumulated difference in observed elapsed time of approximately + 48 ms/day.

This is partially offset by the time dilation observed in orbiting clocks due to their speed relative to observers on Earth (a consequence of special relativity), which amounts to approximately - 7 ms per day. So the net difference of these effects in GPS satellites, which must be compensated for, is about + 38 ms per day.

If left uncorrected, this is enough to create acculated navigational errors (reported position errors) on the order of 10 km per day.