Predestination And Foreordination. Does Science Preclude Either?

[Rob Osborn]

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.

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.

I am not sure but perhaps you completely missed what I was saying. I am not speaking of time being measured differently for different observers. I am speaking entirely about the fact that only the "present" exists at any one time. The past, future and present, as physical places of reality, cannot exist at the same time.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Rob Osborn

[Freedom]

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.

The problem with Mariner's argument is that he makes references to 'doctrines' that are not doctrines so it is impossible to argue logically.There have not been any changes to LDS doctrines so he digs out past theories and opinions that have now been abandoned. He provides no evidence of his claims, just condescending retorts. He seems incapable of answering simple questions such as where in LDS doctrine does it state the earth is 6000 years old, or what do the experts say about the Olmec language. He makes proclamations such as 'we have a very firm grasp of the nature of time and space' when I do not know of a single scientist that would make such a claim. On the contrary, they make comments like 'cosmic conundrums'. I would love for him to share his long list of doctrines that have changed that caused his parents so much concern. His common tactic, however, is to insult the messenger rather than to attempt to answer the questions.

[Freedom]

I am not sure but perhaps you completely missed what I was saying. I am not speaking of time being measured differently for different observers. I am speaking entirely about the fact that only the "present" exists at any one time. The past, future and present, as physical places of reality, cannot exist at the same time.

To you, they exist as as separate realities. The concept is that they exist all at once. The example being that if a two dimensional creature watched a balloon pass by, it would first appear as a dot, then become a circle, then grow larger and larger and then shrink again until it disappeared. This is because it can only see two dimensions of an object at any given time. Likewise for time, we are only capable of seeing or observing one point in time so to us the past is gone and the future is yet to occur. For a creature that is in the 5 dimension, they see it as all present, so they would observe you from infancy to old age as one entity, just as you can see the entire balloon at one time. Consequently, you cannot go back and change the past to corrupt the current timeline any more than you can cut off a persons toe to make their nose turn into a pumpkin. The past is simply another part of your existence.

This is why traveling no faster than light is only a restriction in our reality; but even this restriction is questioned by many physicists. It could be that our 3 dimensional reality with the illusion of linear time was created for our mortal existence. Regardless, to make a declaration of any sort is not possible since we simply do not have even a vague understanding of the world around us.

[Mariner]

The problem with Mariner's argument is that he makes references to 'doctrines' that are not doctrines so it is impossible to argue logically.There have not been any changes to LDS doctrines so he digs out past theories and opinions that have now been abandoned. He provides no evidence of his claims, just condescending retorts. He seems incapable of answering simple questions such as where in LDS doctrine does it state the earth is 6000 years old, or what do the experts say about the Olmec language. He makes proclamations such as 'we have a very firm grasp of the nature of time and space' when I do not know of a single scientist that would make such a claim. On the contrary, they make comments like 'cosmic conundrums'. I would love for him to share his long list of doctrines that have changed that caused his parents so much concern. His common tactic, however, is to insult the messenger rather than to attempt to answer the questions.

Freedom,

When you say that you do not know any scientists who say that we have a firm grasp on space and time, my response is that you don't know many scientists, and have probably never taken anything beyond a high school physics course, if that.

Did you see my above post on gravitational red shift and relativistic time dilation in GPS satellites?

Do you know that GPS systems use precise time measurements to make exceedingly accurate position measurements in 3 dimensional space?

Do you know that in terms of space and time, we have GPS systems that are able to determine a 3D position on the Earth to within less than an inch?

Do you understand how a GPS system operates? If you read my post above, then you realize that a detailed and precise understanding of gravity, as well as mass, space, and time are amply demonstrated in a working GPS. GPS relies on precise measurements and calculations that are required by both special relativity and general relativity in order to operate properly.

Do you not think that with that kind of understanding and ability to measure space and time that science would be able to determine if gravity was being violated by an anthropomorphic being flying around Joseph Smith's bedroom?

Actually I doubt that you know or understand any of this, and this is one of the simplest practical examples that I could come up with as an illustration of what we do understand about space and time. My guess is that you read pop science and think you understand the underlying issues. It is clear to me, and probably many others here, that you do not.

As to your statement that you have never met a scientist who claims that we humans have a good understanding of space and time, let me take care of that right now.

How do you do, Freedom. I am Mariner, a professional scientist who believes that science has a good understanding of space and time. We could not operate GPS systems, satellite phone systems, or land probes on Mars without a precise and highly detailed understanding of space and time. Glad to meet you.

As to the LDS doctrines that have been jettisoned by the Church, I note that, of course, once these are gone they are no longer doctrine.

Here is something you might want to try. Just do a simple Google search with search strings like, " Doctrine banning blacks from the priesthood"," Doctrine of blood atonement", and "Doctrine of plural marriage". Then see how many hits you get with the word doctrine associated with each of these.

Although all of these have been referred to at one time or another as Church doctrine, you will claim that they were really only policies. You would be in good company because apologists and apostles tend to do the same thing.

However, this is a distinction without a difference. To folks who were banned from the priesthood, forced into plural marriage, or experienced blood atonement when these were doctrine, it makes little difference that they are only policies now.

I doubt if you really want to discuss LDS beliefs on the age of the Earth, or the ascent of man, or the Garden of Eden. These are simply more apologetic problems for the LDS Church.

As for the "debate" about the Olmec language, I have not been able to find any reference to a debate by quickly looking up the authors you mentioned. Unless someone is claiming that Olmec was really Hebrew, I don't see how such a debate could help your case.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Mariner

[altersteve]

I doubt if you really want to discuss LDS beliefs on the age of the Earth, or the ascent of man, or the Garden of Eden. These are simply more apologetic problems for the LDS Church.

There is no doctrine of the Church about the age of the earth. Church leaders repeatedly say that we don't know how old the earth is. But the doctrines on the ascent of man and the Garden of Eden are no problem at all.

Unless someone is claiming that Olmec was really Hebrew, I don't see how such a debate could help your case.

The Book of Mormon never claims the Jaredites were Hebrew, so this sentence is meaningless.

[Rob Osborn]

To you, they exist as as separate realities. The concept is that they exist all at once. The example being that if a two dimensional creature watched a balloon pass by, it would first appear as a dot, then become a circle, then grow larger and larger and then shrink again until it disappeared. This is because it can only see two dimensions of an object at any given time. Likewise for time, we are only capable of seeing or observing one point in time so to us the past is gone and the future is yet to occur. For a creature that is in the 5 dimension, they see it as all present, so they would observe you from infancy to old age as one entity, just as you can see the entire balloon at one time. Consequently, you cannot go back and change the past to corrupt the current timeline any more than you can cut off a persons toe to make their nose turn into a pumpkin. The past is simply another part of your existence.

This is why traveling no faster than light is only a restriction in our reality; but even this restriction is questioned by many physicists. It could be that our 3 dimensional reality with the illusion of linear time was created for our mortal existence. Regardless, to make a declaration of any sort is not possible since we simply do not have even a vague understanding of the world around us.

It may be termed "vague" as you say, but to think otherwise is foolishness. God works within linear time. What do you think it means when God speaks of bring to pass his works? To understand this, one must aknowledge the main mechanism in force here- that of cause and effect. Here is the simple version (of the which we are all aware of)-

If object A moves and creates an effect, it is because of the cause leading up to that event. In essence, time itself can be viewed as the sequence of numbered events of the cause and effect, you know- A before B, B before C, C before D, etc etc.. If God is going to bring about his will- basically his cause and effect, it must be numbered in a series of sequences of measurable actions of one leading to the next. This passage of sequenced events is linear, and because it can't all happen at the same time, there must be a sequnce of timing inbetween and during these events. For this not to be the case, then God's will would have already both not happened and happened at the same time- being in a state of chaos and especially not one governed by any cause and effect. But, and here is the big but, we know that God works to bring out his course- his will, line upon line one stpe before the next. Steps take time, and all of that is completely linear. So, we do know that God himself, his actions and his abilities all take place within linear time, just as you and I do actions in linear time. It's no different for God- He can't rewind nor fastforward time at his will and change the course of events that have already happened or are yet to happen until it suits his will. This isn't Back to the Future.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Can you define one independently of the other?

Since true science is relatively easy to define independent of religion, I would like to hear a definition of true religion independent of science.

Is this true science?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/EU-bans-claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html

A meeting of 21 scientists in Parma, Italy, concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control.

Lol.

[KevinG]

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?

If you choose to hang on to an old institute instructors opinions over continued revelation that may explain your struggles.

[Freedom]

It may be termed "vague" as you say, but to think otherwise is foolishness. God works within linear time. What do you think it means when God speaks of bring to pass his works? To understand this, one must aknowledge the main mechanism in force here- that of cause and effect. Here is the simple version (of the which we are all aware of)-

If object A moves and creates an effect, it is because of the cause leading up to that event. In essence, time itself can be viewed as the sequence of numbered events of the cause and effect, you know- A before B, B before C, C before D, etc etc.. If God is going to bring about his will- basically his cause and effect, it must be numbered in a series of sequences of measurable actions of one leading to the next. This passage of sequenced events is linear, and because it can't all happen at the same time, there must be a sequnce of timing inbetween and during these events. For this not to be the case, then God's will would have already both not happened and happened at the same time- being in a state of chaos and especially not one governed by any cause and effect. But, and here is the big but, we know that God works to bring out his course- his will, line upon line one stpe before the next. Steps take time, and all of that is completely linear. So, we do know that God himself, his actions and his abilities all take place within linear time, just as you and I do actions in linear time. It's no different for God- He can't rewind nor fastforward time at his will and change the course of events that have already happened or are yet to happen until it suits his will. This isn't Back to the Future.

Well, you may be right but my fundamental point is that we have no idea. From our perspective your logic is sound but the scriptures are full of examples of references depending upon the perspective of the reader. I read the same verses and draw very different conclusions. If your read my post again, you would see the huge difference between the portrayal of time in Back to the Future and the ideas getting put forward by physicists.

[Mariner]

If you choose to hang on to an old institute instructors opinions over continued revelation that may explain your struggles.

To what continued revelation are you referring?

Have we not seen statements on this thread to the effect that the Church has no real position on evolution or the age of the Earth? The Church leaders can't seem to tell faithful members where the Nephites and Lamanites lived, or whether or not the flood of Noah was global.

Science knows the answers to these questions and understands the answers in some detail. Most importantly, that understanding is based on evidence.

If the Church leaders were receiving continued revelation from God, wouldn't you think that He could at least help them get these fundamental issues sorted out?

The unfounded and evidence-free stories and excuses that my seminary and institute teachers came up with to explain away or justify the indefensible claims of Mormonism are no better and no worse that those of today's apologists, who still seem hard pressed at times to come up with explanations of, and defense for, some of the pronouncements made by the leaders of the Church.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Mariner

[Freedom]

So Mariner, first you state:

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.

One would presume, therefore, that you have read the literature and are aware of the more prominent scholars of this field. You continue portraying yourself as well informed by stating:

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.

So again, it would appear that you are well read. Your sentence structure suggests that you are in fact one of these scholars but I don’t think this is what you meant. Then I provide names of leading experts on the Olmecs, none of which are LDS, and you say:

As for the "debate" about the Olmec language, I have not been able to find any reference to a debate by quickly looking up the authors you mentioned. Unless someone is claiming that Olmec was really Hebrew, I don't see how such a debate could help your case.

So on the one hand you say that the scholars have spoken, but on the other hand you do not even know who the scholars are or what any of the current thoughts are on the matter. This seems to be a consistent handicap that you play with. DNA? Really? You actually have DNA samples from the ancient Olmecs and Mayans? For that matter, you have DNA samples from the ancient Hebrews? Can you even identify any geneticists who have drawn conclusions about the DNA of these ancient civilizations?

Here is another of your comments that gives some insight into your scientific approach:

I have seen the doctrine of the "one true Church" change drastically over the decades...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.

So with a comment like this, I am expecting at least ten or twenty significant doctrinal changes over the past 40 years but all you can come up with is polygamy (your parents were around when this change was introduced?) and access to the priesthood. This is what you consider drastic? I was hoping for a change to the nature of God, or a reversal of the purposes of baptism. And when you say your parents were disappointed, are you suggesting that allowing the African Americans to receive the priesthood disappointed them? For that matter, on what scientific premise to you cling to that says a divine being (if one were to exist) cannot change the structure or focus of his kingdom? Where your parents not aware that the church is directed by a living prophet that receives revelation and that the prophets of the Old Testament and New Testament also revealed changes from time to time?

On the Olmec issue, let me give you a hint. Nobody knows for certain if they actually had a written language. All we have are a small collection of pictographs. Concerning the official perspective of the LDS church, nowhere does it state in our doctrine that the Jaradites or Nephites were Hebrew. In fact, the only time the work ‘hebrew’ shows up is when we are told that the language was in fact not used with the written record, and that it had been altered. You also might want to learn about where the Mayan civilization was located and what the apologists are saying about the location of the Nephite civilization. You also might want to find out the official church position is on the matter.

I am not even going to discuss your insights into physics if all you can do is create your own quote to justify your position.

[Freedom]

If the Church leaders were receiving continued revelation from God, wouldn't you think that He could at least help them get these fundamental issues sorted out?

Top 10 Doctrines The Prophet must reveal or be dismissed as a fraud:

10. The Cure for Cancer (of course this is not nearly as important as letting us know how old the earth is)

9. Whether Pluto is a planet or a planetoid

8. Adam’s skin color

7. The location of the lost Arch

6. How they get the caramel in that candy bar?

5. The horizon problem.

4. Who really blew up the twin towers?

3. Where DOES Napoleon keep his armies?

2. Why, where, whow and with whom did the chicken cross the road?

1. Where do socks go when they disappear between the spin cycle and the fold-and –put-them-in-the-drawer cycle.

[altersteve]

Top 10 Doctrines The Prophet must reveal or be dismissed as a fraud:

10. The Cure for Cancer (of course this is not nearly as important as letting us know how old the earth is)

9. Whether Pluto is a planet or a planetoid

8. Adam’s skin color

7. The location of the lost Arch

6. How they get the caramel in that candy bar?

5. The horizon problem.

4. Who really blew up the twin towers?

3. Where DOES Napoleon keep his armies?

2. Why, where, whow and with whom did the chicken cross the road?

1. Where do socks go when they disappear between the spin cycle and the fold-and –put-them-in-the-drawer cycle.

How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop?

[Freedom]

How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop?

I cannot believe the brethren are wasting so much time engaging in meaningful service when there are so many mysteries to be unfolded. I wonder why the Savior talked in parables when he could have been discussing quantum mechanics and micro biology.

But in all seriousness, I doubt very much that in 500 years we will look back and say that all there is to know about physics was revealed by Newton and Einstein. I am currently reading a book by Joao Magueijo, 'Faster than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation'. He is recognized as having developed the theory of VSL or varying speed of light. He developed the theory because, as he explains it, the existing theories create more problems then they solve. He is of the opinion that we simply do not have a firm grasp on how time and space work. Victor Stenger, author of 'Timeless Reality' and 'The Unconscious Quantum' draws the same conclusion. Some would have us abandon religion because not everything can be explained by science but these same people do not suggest we abandon science for the same reason.

Some concepts of God seem to contradict the laws of physics, but there are many aspects of the natural word that also seem to contradict the laws of physics. If we leave god behind, we might as well do the same with time and space. If we cannot explain it, the arguement goes, we must abandon it. I am sorry, but that is not good science.

[TAO]

Mariner, Book of Abraham is certainly defendable. It just involved a paradigm shift. ;-)

[Mariner]

I cannot believe the brethren are wasting so much time engaging in meaningful service when there are so many mysteries to be unfolded. I wonder why the Savior talked in parables when he could have been discussing quantum mechanics and micro biology.

But in all seriousness, I doubt very much that in 500 years we will look back and say that all there is to know about physics was revealed by Newton and Einstein. I am currently reading a book by Joao Magueijo, 'Faster than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation'. He is recognized as having developed the theory of VSL or varying speed of light. He developed the theory because, as he explains it, the existing theories create more problems then they solve. He is of the opinion that we simply do not have a firm grasp on how time and space work. Victor Stenger, author of 'Timeless Reality' and 'The Unconscious Quantum' draws the same conclusion. Some would have us abandon religion because not everything can be explained by science but these same people do not suggest we abandon science for the same reason.

Some concepts of God seem to contradict the laws of physics, but there are many aspects of the natural word that also seem to contradict the laws of physics. If we leave god behind, we might as well do the same with time and space. If we cannot explain it, the arguement goes, we must abandon it. I am sorry, but that is not good science.

Freedom,

Better be careful with that Victor Stenger fellow. He is the undoubtedly evil scientist who wrote "God the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist".

And, just by way of comment, your conecpt of what makes good science, as expressed in the above post # 64, again demonstrates that you have no clue about science or how it works.

I would suggest that whatever time you have to devote to reading about science might be better spent reading something like the above named book by Stenger. At least then you might understand that the supernatural has no place in science. None whatsoever. Period.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Mariner

[mfbukowski]

LDS doctrine and science don't conflict.

I am going to begin by challenging my own underlined claim above vis a vis this topic and maybe some of you can come up with some answers that confirm or deny it.

According to science, our usual notions of the past, present, and future may all be an illusion and in reality, all three exist simultaneously. The science behind this is explained here in layman's terms in this fascinating video recently aired (or re-aired) on PBS:

So according to science, are we necessarily predestined? The answer may be contained in the video presentation itself ("arrow" of time), or maybe not.

A secondary topic could perhaps be God using the understanding of what space-time is to aid the property of being all knowing.

I have not read the rest of the thread yet, but just from our experience we know that choice is not an illusion.

You really CAN decide to respond to this post or not, so for all practical purposes anything beyond that is speculation.

In other words, it is up to you to define it in the context necessary for your area of inquiry, but it has no consequences in real life whatsoever.

Edited November 22, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

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?

The problem is that you are a fundamentalist.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Oh, you mean kind of like continuing revelation?

[mfbukowski]

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

Likewise. As is this discussion. Rehash after rehash. How many times do we have to do this?

[mfbukowski]

Leonard Susskind: The Bad Boy of Physics [Preview]

Leonard Susskind rebelled as a teen and never stopped. Today he insists that reality may forever be beyond reach of our understanding

By Peter Byrne | June 22, 2011 | 31

In Brief

Who

LEONARD SUSSKIND

Vocation | Avocation

Theoretical physicist, known especially for pioneering string theory, black hole physics and the multiverse

Where

Stanford University

Research Focus

What is the deep nature of physical reality?

Big Picture

We may never be able to grasp that reality. The universe and its ingredients may be impossible to describe unambiguously.

Stanford University physicist Leonard Susskind revels in discovering ideas that transform the status quo in physics. Forty years ago he co-founded string theory, which was initially derided but eventually became the leading candidate for a unified theory of nature. For years he disputed Stephen Hawking’s conjecture that black holes do not merely swallow objects but grind them up beyond recovery, in violation of quantum mechanics. Hawking eventually conceded. And he helped to develop the modern conception of parallel universes, based on what he dubbed the “landscape” of string theory. It spoiled physicists’ dream to explain the universe as the unique outcome of basic principles.

Physicists seeking to understand the deepest levels of reality now work within a framework largely of Susskind’s making. But a funny thing has happened along the way. Susskind now wonders whether physicists can understand reality.

Big Picture

We may never be able to grasp that reality. The universe and its ingredients may be impossible to describe unambiguously.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bad-boy-of-physics

But of course our scientific fundamentalist here knows more.

HE has the answers. Uh huh.

[KevinG]

To what continued revelation are you referring?

Have we not seen statements on this thread to the effect that the Church has no real position on evolution or the age of the Earth? The Church leaders can't seem to tell faithful members where the Nephites and Lamanites lived, or whether or not the flood of Noah was global.

Science knows the answers to these questions and understands the answers in some detail. Most importantly, that understanding is based on evidence.

If the Church leaders were receiving continued revelation from God, wouldn't you think that He could at least help them get these fundamental issues sorted out?

The unfounded and evidence-free stories and excuses that my seminary and institute teachers came up with to explain away or justify the indefensible claims of Mormonism are no better and no worse that those of today's apologists, who still seem hard pressed at times to come up with explanations of, and defense for, some of the pronouncements made by the leaders of the Church.

Try seeking a testimony of the Gospel from the Holy Spirit not apologists. It is really becoming evident why you are struggling with the LDS Church.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_I_Dont_Have_a_Testimony_of_the_History_of_the_Church.html

[KevinG]

Likewise. As is this discussion. Rehash after rehash. How many times do we have to do this?

IMO as many times as someone levels the charge where an innocent third party could be discouraged from seeking the blessings of the Gospel.

[altersteve]

If the Church leaders were receiving continued revelation from God, wouldn't you think that He could at least help them get these fundamental issues sorted out?

None of the issues you mentioned are fundamental by any means.

[mfbukowski]

IMO as many times as someone levels the charge where an innocent third party could be discouraged from seeking the blessings of the Gospel.

You are right of course, as usual but it would be much easier just to refer them to a canned answer. These poor folks don't know how many times we have been over this same stuff.

I guess that is what FAIR is for, but it has its limitations.