teddyaware Posted January 14, 2014 Author Posted January 14, 2014 13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. 14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful. Perhaps best to cut those who know not some slack and thank God for the spiritual gifts that you have? And at your kind suggestion, I will do so.
teddyaware Posted January 14, 2014 Author Posted January 14, 2014 Good night my fellow bloviators. I'm on the east coast and need to bed, so I bid you all a fond adieu until I return to bloviate again.
omni Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Let us assume you are standing out of doors, among a multitude of others, and the Saviour descends from the sky right in front of your eyes. After he touches ground, you and some others are fortunate enough to be positioned in very close proximity to Him, close enough for all 5 of your empirical senses to be actively engaged in what is about to take place. The Lord stands before the empty table and then miraculously produces bread and wine for the administration of the sacrament, seemingly out of thin air, just as He did in 3 Nephi 20. So...1. As someone with a scientific background or inclination, would be able to solemnly testify to present and future generations that the Lord did indeed miraculously produce the bread and wine?Or...Would your insistence on scientific methodology prohibit you from testifying to the reality of the miracle because the demonstration didn't satisfy enough scientific criteria* ?* e.g. strictly controlled conditions and environment, repeatability factor, etc.I would testify of course!
Freedom Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 I do not understand the need to advocate some mysterious higher law of which we are not aware when the current scientific laws are quite sound. Why assume that gravity is an illusion and that some higher law is causing objects to fall to the ground, some miracle that has Gods direct involvement, when gravity works just find. There is no need to put aside the current scientific theories. the current laws that we apply in science have come from God. Why would he direct us down paths of darkness? The current laws have brought us medicine, transportation, communication and a host of other miracles. And we are to believe that these are all false because some other 'higher law' is at work? Why not consider that they laws we use now are part of a greater whole?
The Nehor Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Let us assume you are standing out of doors, among a multitude of others, and the Saviour descends from the sky right in front of your eyes. After he touches ground, you and some others are fortunate enough to be positioned in very close proximity to Him, close enough for all 5 of your empirical senses to be actively engaged in what is about to take place. The Lord stands before the empty table and then miraculously produces bread and wine for the administration of the sacrament, seemingly out of thin air, just as He did in 3 Nephi 20. So... 1. As someone with a scientific background or inclination, would be able to solemnly testify to present and future generations that the Lord did indeed miraculously produce the bread and wine? Or... Would your insistence on scientific methodology prohibit you from testifying to the reality of the miracle because the demonstration didn't satisfy enough scientific criteria* ? * e.g. strictly controlled conditions and environment, repeatability factor, etc. 1. Yes. I could not claim it was provable by scientific methodology. Your reference seems to indicate that you are talking about the physical repeatable proofs used mostly in the "hard" sciences like physics and chemistry. If it works it should always work and be tested repeatedly. I could not give any scientific explanation for the miracle either if that is what they are asking. This would be based more on the methodology for studying history. That leaves it up to those who hear me. Am I a credible witness of the events? Are others who saw the same thing credible witnesses? You establish the facts about past events by studying accounts and not trying to repeat them. Otherwise we would have to refight World War II every decade or so to verify that we have it right and that would get expensive.
cinepro Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Let us assume you are standing out of doors, among a multitude of others, and the Saviour descends from the sky right in front of your eyes. After he touches ground, you and some others are fortunate enough to be positioned in very close proximity to Him, close enough for all 5 of your empirical senses to be actively engaged in what is about to take place. The Lord stands before the empty table and then miraculously produces bread and wine for the administration of the sacrament, seemingly out of thin air, just as He did in 3 Nephi 20. So... 1. As someone with a scientific background or inclination, would be able to solemnly testify to present and future generations that the Lord did indeed miraculously produce the bread and wine? Or... Would your insistence on scientific methodology prohibit you from testifying to the reality of the miracle because the demonstration didn't satisfy enough scientific criteria* ? * e.g. strictly controlled conditions and environment, repeatability factor, etc. Why bother with a hypothetical? I will solemnly swear to you, teddyaware, and everyone else who reads this that I have in fact seen a man saw a woman into two separate and distinct pieces, and then rejoin those pieces at which point she was fully restored. I saw and heard this with my own senses, and I was in no way impaired. Now, I'm not saying that the reports of Jesus feeding the multitude are a report of any kind of "magic trick", but were someone to come across my solemn (and totally sincere) testimony 1,000 years from now, would they be expected to believe that our society had men who possessed the power (or skill) to actually do what I have described? Or would you find it rational (and reasonable) for future readers to withhold belief in my statement until further information was available? 2
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Let us assume you are standing out of doors, among a multitude of others, and the Saviour descends from the sky right in front of your eyes. After he touches ground, you and some others are fortunate enough to be positioned in very close proximity to Him, close enough for all 5 of your empirical senses to be actively engaged in what is about to take place. The Lord stands before the empty table and then miraculously produces bread and wine for the administration of the sacrament, seemingly out of thin air, just as He did in 3 Nephi 20. So... 1. As someone with a scientific background or inclination, would be able to solemnly testify to present and future generations that the Lord did indeed miraculously produce the bread and wine? Or... Would your insistence on scientific methodology prohibit you from testifying to the reality of the miracle because the demonstration didn't satisfy enough scientific criteria* ? * e.g. strictly controlled conditions and environment, repeatability factor, etc.I work and teach in a difference science, principles of electricity, but ever sense I had I would use for being prostate on the ground at his feet weeping. But I would use my senses Evernote through overwhelmed to bare (or is it Baer) witness of emphatically Insee,
teddyaware Posted January 14, 2014 Author Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) Why bother with a hypothetical? I will solemnly swear to you, teddyaware, and everyone else who reads this that I have in fact seen a man saw a woman into two separate and distinct pieces, and then rejoin those pieces at which point she was fully restored. I saw and heard this with my own senses, and I was in no way impaired. Now, I'm not saying that the reports of Jesus feeding the multitude are a report of any kind of "magic trick", but were someone to come across my solemn (and totally sincere) testimony 1,000 years from now, would they be expected to believe that our society had men who possessed the power (or skill) to actually do what I have described? Or would you find it rational (and reasonable) for future readers to withhold belief in my statement until further information was available?If I didn't make myself clear enough in the OP, my implied intent was to have the LDS scientist picture himself as one of the Nephites who were blessed to be with the Lord at His ministry in America. That being the case, what you speak of here is exactly what these folks were called upon to do. From a distance of two thousand years, these people testify to us of the reality of their experience when the Lord administered the sacrament and miraculously produced bread and wine. And remarkably, because their testimony is recorded in a very special kind of book we call holy scripture, we are told we may know for a surety their testimony is true by the Holy Ghost without the need of scientific controls and instrumentation. It's the Holy Ghost who empowered these people to make their testimony powerful and enduring. And it's the Holy Ghost who convinces those of faith, sincere heart and real intent that this testimony of the Nephites is true. In the end, it's those who have fully developed the gift of the Holy Ghost who will learn the truth of all things, even the deepest mysteries of the universe and of God. Meanwhile, the supreme irony in all this is that many of the scientifically inclined of the type who lean only on scientific method and the empirical senses in their quest for truth, while ignoring the further revelations of truth that can be obtained by means of the Spirit of God, will, according to the Lord's own word, be left in the dark without the answers they so earnestly seek. And they will remain in ignorance until they humbly come unto Fount of Knowledge.28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God. (2 Nephi 9) Edited January 14, 2014 by teddyaware
teddyaware Posted January 14, 2014 Author Posted January 14, 2014 1. Yes. I could not claim it was provable by scientific methodology. Your reference seems to indicate that you are talking about the physical repeatable proofs used mostly in the "hard" sciences like physics and chemistry. If it works it should always work and be tested repeatedly. I could not give any scientific explanation for the miracle either if that is what they are asking. This would be based more on the methodology for studying history. That leaves it up to those who hear me. Am I a credible witness of the events? Are others who saw the same thing credible witnesses? You establish the facts about past events by studying accounts and not trying to repeat them. Otherwise we would have to refight World War II every decade or so to verify that we have it right and that would get expensive. See my post just above this one.
CV75 Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 all 5 of your empirical senses to be actively engaged If these 5 senses were all I was working with, there would be no reason to solemnly testify, but some reason to have more questions.
teddyaware Posted January 14, 2014 Author Posted January 14, 2014 I do not understand the need to advocate some mysterious higher law of which we are not aware when the current scientific laws are quite sound. Why assume that gravity is an illusion and that some higher law is causing objects to fall to the ground, some miracle that has Gods direct involvement, when gravity works just find. There is no need to put aside the current scientific theories. the current laws that we apply in science have come from God. Why would he direct us down paths of darkness? The current laws have brought us medicine, transportation, communication and a host of other miracles. And we are to believe that these are all false because some other 'higher law' is at work? Why not consider that they laws we use now are part of a greater whole?You are reading things into my posts that go beyond what I'm actually trying to say. But I will say that the reason why we Latter-day Saints must deal with higher law (laws that we cannot understand at this time) is because the scriptures and the Gospel are awash in it. Have you ever been called upon to administer to the sick and the Spirit inspired you to say that the desperately sick person you were administering to, who was near death, is going to recover and they did recover? That is higher law (or whatever one wants to call it). And when Enoch by the power of God turned mighty rivers out of their course, that is a manifestation of laws in operation that go beyond our current knowledge, yet Enoch knew how to use those laws to advantage. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now?
teddyaware Posted January 14, 2014 Author Posted January 14, 2014 If these 5 senses were all I was working with, there would be no reason to solemnly testify, but some reason to have more questions. See post 33.
The Nehor Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 If these 5 senses were all I was working with, there would be no reason to solemnly testify, but some reason to have more questions. At the risk of sounding blasphemous does this mean you licked the Savior?
thesometimesaint Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Let us assume you are standing out of doors, among a multitude of others, and the Saviour descends from the sky right in front of your eyes. After he touches ground, you and some others are fortunate enough to be positioned in very close proximity to Him, close enough for all 5 of your empirical senses to be actively engaged in what is about to take place. The Lord stands before the empty table and then miraculously produces bread and wine for the administration of the sacrament, seemingly out of thin air, just as He did in 3 Nephi 20. So... 1. As someone with a scientific background or inclination, would be able to solemnly testify to present and future generations that the Lord did indeed miraculously produce the bread and wine? Or... Would your insistence on scientific methodology prohibit you from testifying to the reality of the miracle because the demonstration didn't satisfy enough scientific criteria* ? * e.g. strictly controlled conditions and environment, repeatability factor, etc.
Senator Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 I would have no problem testifying to what I saw. Upon cross examination, I would have to admit that it all could have been an illusion made possible by sleight of hand and cool hidden technology. A blind man healed by Jesus wisely said "Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!" I can only testify to what I know. Whether it was an illusion or not, I was hungry and I did eat. A good response. I was going to say likewise. Given the amazing abilities of magicians and visual technologies of our day. I would not be inclined to immediately declare a miracle.
Freedom Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 In the end, it's those who have fully developed the gift of the Holy Ghost who will learn the truth of all things, even the deepest mysteries of the universe and God. Meanwhile, the supreme irony in all this is that it's many of the scientific inclined, who lean only on scientific method in their search for truth while ignoring the further revelations of truth that can be obtained by the Holy Ghost, who will be left in the dark. Perhaps you are misinterpreting this scripture which is causing your doctrinal stumbling block. There is a difference between learning all things and learning the truth of all things. Also, the 'all things' has a qualifier - it is referring to all things pertaining to our salvation. You would have to provide an example of where scientific knowledge came through prayer. When the Salt Lake Temple was built, Brigham Young sent people out to learn through scientific discovery and not through prayer how to get the job done. Prayer guided them in the right direction, but it did not produce the information. The truth of the knowledge they were uncovering was confirmed through the holy ghost, but the knowledge itself was uncovered through the scientific method of observation.
Freedom Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Also, you are again pushing this one or the other scenario. You are saying that we can either learn through the spirit or through the scientific method, and those who use the scientific method will be left in the dark. if this were true, please explain why the church runs a university and why all the quorum of the 12 have advanced university degrees. revelation is for salvation, science is for understanding the physical world. Two different methods of learning for two different disciplines. Until you get over this blind spot you will always be kept in the dark. 2
thesometimesaint Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Also, you are again pushing this one or the other scenario. You are saying that we can either learn through the spirit or through the scientific method, and those who use the scientific method will be left in the dark. if this were true, please explain why the church runs a university and why all the quorum of the 12 have advanced university degrees. revelation is for salvation, science is for understanding the physical world. Two different methods of learning for two different disciplines. Until you get over this blind spot you will always be kept in the dark. Agreed. Can the right side tell the left side I have no need of thee and still be a whole person?
Senator Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Meanwhile, the supreme irony in all this is that it's many of the scientific inclined, who lean only on scientific method in their search for truth while ignoring the further revelations of truth that can be obtained by the Holy Ghost, who will be left in the dark. I don't believe that.
ERayR Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 A gem of a post! Thank you for this one. Am I off base when I say the quest of these physicists in some ways seems to mirror a thoughtful Latter-day Saint's quest to know and understand God? In giving this some thought I still think these are good questions but, to me, more important is the question, How many would really believe it was Christ?
ERayR Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Room for doubt? Absolutely. I can only know one thing: that I exist. How do you know that this existence is really real? Perhaps it really is a matrix.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) How do you know that this existence is really real? Perhaps it really is a matrix.I didn't say this existence is real. Whether I exist in a matrix, a dark cave with shadows on the wall, or in the real world, I exist. I think therefore I am. Cogito ergo sum. Edited January 14, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding
teddyaware Posted January 14, 2014 Author Posted January 14, 2014 I don't believe that.They won't be totally left in the dark. After all, our "empirical knowledge only" friends do posses the light of Christ and their scientific investigations will reveal some truths of God's universe to them. But the scriptures plainly testify that unless they ultimately come unto the Fount of Knowledge, through the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and receive personal revelation through the inspiration of the Hoy Ghost, they will not know the mysteries of God's creation in full. The following quote leaves no wiggle room for other possibilities on this principle:5 For thus saith the Lord—I, the Lord, am merciful and gracious unto those who fear me, and delight to honor those who serve me in righteousness and in truth unto the end.6 Great shall be their reward and eternal shall be their glory.7 And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom.8 Yea, even the wonders of eternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations.9 And their wisdom shall be great, and their understanding reach to heaven; and before them the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught.10 For by my Spirit will I enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my will—yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man. (D&C 76)
Freedom Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 of course, the wisdom that will parish includes that of the creationists who suppose they are wise in interpreting the scriptures according to their own dogma and rejecting the brilliant knowledge God has revealed through science.
teddyaware Posted January 14, 2014 Author Posted January 14, 2014 Also, you are again pushing this one or the other scenario. You are saying that we can either learn through the spirit or through the scientific method, and those who use the scientific method will be left in the dark. if this were true, please explain why the church runs a university and why all the quorum of the 12 have advanced university degrees. revelation is for salvation, science is for understanding the physical world. Two different methods of learning for two different disciplines. Until you get over this blind spot you will always be kept in the dark.Again you misunderstand me. I said "many of the scientifically inclined;" I wasn't referring to all the scientifically inclined. Words mean things, and the reason why I didn't say all of them is because some scientists do believe in God and, to one degree or another, seek additional wisdom beyond scientific inquiry from the scriptures, the prophets and personal revelation through the light of Christ or through the gift of the Holy Ghost. I would appreciate it if from now on you read my posts more carefully and stop jumping to conclusions. I appreciate the subtleties of language and try to be careful as I write. So please pay attention to the subtleties of my writing. Again, there is a significant difference between the words 'many' and 'all.'
Recommended Posts