The Nehor Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 I've never seen an example where revelation was successfully employed in that task. Surely if it were the best tool it would have the best track record?I would put up the Book of Moses as a great example. Nowhere else do we get so much information about Enoch. 1
Gray Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 I would put up the Book of Moses as a great example. Nowhere else do we get so much information about Enoch. That's a lovely piece of scripture, but it's not history.
The Nehor Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 That's a lovely piece of scripture, but it's not history.I disagree.
filovirus Posted September 9, 2015 Author Posted September 9, 2015 The true pharisaical saints you men. The rest of the true saints think people you see it that way are as silly as those who would stick to the letter of the law in all things.I guess I see it this way. If a person is has a complete understanding of the Gospel and truly tries to live by that understanding, they would live by the letter of the law by living by the spirit of the law. Take for example the law of chastity. If a person understands the doctrine of the soul, the doctrine of the eternal family, and the doctrine of eternal increase, and tries to live by that understanding, they would live the law of chastity even if the law did not exist. So they would be living the letter of the law by living the spirit of the law. Same with the law of tithing, which would be consumed in the law of consecration. Unfortunately, some from the outside looking in may see them as only living the letter of the law because that's what the outward appearance shows. This is why Moroni advises to "not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged." 1
Rivers Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 "Liberal" is a very relative term. But I think agreement with the Proclamation on the Family is a good measuring stick.
strappinglad Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Does a liberal believe that Enoch was not a real person, nor Noah, nor Abraham, nor Christ for that matter? These were not real in the same sense that Caesar Augustus or Abraham Lincoln or Bill Clinton are real, according to some . They are only metaphor and example .
Avatar4321 Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 I think I understand it better than I used to. It can't be used like a Ouija board or a diving rod, for one thing (if you use it that way, you get similar results as you would with the other tools). Revelation is tied up in the subjective, and completely separate from the objective.You're reinforcing my point
ERayR Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Science hasn't been kind to those that want to place so called "revelation" ahead of science. There is a dynamic tension between religion and science. They are looking at the same object through different lenses. I expect that someday that tension will be resolved, but that day isn't likely to be today./ . Science has not been kind to anybody who has a dissenting voice concerning current scientific dogma.
ERayR Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Leaders aren't whining about liberals these days, so I'd say Pres Lee was speaking presumptuously. Or they are and I've missed it, hearing only that which I want to hear. The latter. 1
Gray Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 You're reinforcing my point Not taking a fundamentalist approach to revelation is not the same thing as not understanding revelation. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Liberal (circa 1960-1970 Utah) Proponents of racial integration and the Civil Rights movement. Families in which the wife worked outside the home. Married couples who used birth control Women who wear pants Men who grow facial hair Liberal/conservative is a continuum that changes with the time and culture which leads me to believe that "liberal" refers to anyone willing to push against the cultural norms of the time.
The Nehor Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 On what basis?On the basis that you are wrong.
Gray Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 On the basis that you are wrong. Fortunately, I am made of rubber, while you are made of glue.
The Nehor Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Fortunately, I am made of rubber, while you are made of glue. 4
thesometimesaint Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) Does a liberal believe that Enoch was not a real person, nor Noah, nor Abraham, nor Christ for that matter? These were not real in the same sense that Caesar Augustus or Abraham Lincoln or Bill Clinton are real, according to some . They are only metaphor and example . Yes; some do, some don't, but it has nothing to do with being a liberal or conservative. IE; It is quite possible to accept that a Yeshua bar Yoshef was a real itinerant preacher living in Palestine some 2000 years ago and still not accept him as The Son of God. Edited September 10, 2015 by thesometimesaint
thesometimesaint Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Science has not been kind to anybody who has a dissenting voice concerning current scientific dogma. Given the history of changes that have occurred just in my lifetime in science, please demonstrate your hypothesis. IE; I was 10 years old in 1961 when JSF made that spectacular "revelation". Less than a decade later we not only had men in space but landing on the moon. We even wrote about it our books.
TheSkepticChristian Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) Science has not been kind to anybody who has a dissenting voice concerning current scientific dogma. What do you mean by scientific dogma? You mean Macro-Evolution? You say Macro-Evolution is just an interpretation, but how do you explain the falsifiable predictions that were proven to be correct? For example, Macro-Evolution predicted (a falsifiable prediction) that the whale and the hippopotamus are cousins, a lot of independent evidence confirmed that prediction. So how do you explain the predictions? Do your theories make falsifiable predictions? and yes, Science is kind to evidence, but not to propaganda. So present a theory that makes predictions. Edited September 10, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) So how many predictions has Macro-Evolution theory made? You agree that a lot of predictions have been proven to be correct? Please tell ERayR that we are only interested in scientific theories that make falsifiable predictions. Edited September 10, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
thesometimesaint Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) What do you mean by scientific dogma? You mean Macro-Evolution? You say Macro-Evolution is just an interpretation, but how do you explain the predictions that were proven to be correct? For example, Macro-Evolution predicted (a falsifiable prediction) that the whale and the hippopotamus are cousins, a lot of independent evidence confirmed that prediction. So how do you explain the predictions? Do your theories make falsifiable predictions? and yes, Science is kind to evidence, but not to propaganda. To be fair to ERAyR science has a dogma, Just not in the way dogma is commonly understood.SEE http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma/4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle: the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation.Synonyms: conviction, certainty. For science to be science it must make accurate predictions. Predictions in and of themselves are pretty meaningless when not accurate. IE; It's 92 degrees outside where I live right now. I can predict that snow will fall here tomorrow, but unless it did. I probably shouldn't apply for a job at my local TV station predicting the weather. Religion has nearly forever made fantastic claims. Generally I don't have a problem with that, especially when it is my religion. OTOH when a religious person make claims about the physical world/universe then they are subject to the same criticisms that a scientist person is. IE. JSF famously predicted that man would never be in space or on the moon, even though Yuri Gagarin and Alan Shepard had already been in space, and within a decade we had successfully been to and returned from the moon. Edited September 10, 2015 by thesometimesaint
TheSkepticChristian Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 For science to be science it must make accurate predictions. Yes, Macro-Evolution theory makes a lot of accurate predictions. What about his "dissenting voice "? Does it make falsifiable predictions?
thesometimesaint Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Yes, Macro-Evolution theory makes a lot of accurate predictions. What about his "dissenting voice "? Does it make falsifiable predictions? Agreed. I accept the standard model of Evolution. The so called Micro-Macro dichotomy has been falsified. It is all evolution. We're still trying to work out all mutations and permutations that lead from simple one celled organisms to man. So there will for the forseeable future there will dessenting voices even among those that agree with the overall theme of evolution. That being said nothing the Ken Ham's of the world have is a clue as to what real science is telling them.SEE
Rivers Posted September 11, 2015 Posted September 11, 2015 On the subject of evolution:http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-both-belief-and-unbelief-in-a-supreme-being/One can believe in both God and Evolution
strappinglad Posted September 11, 2015 Posted September 11, 2015 Speaking of predictions. What think ye ? https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/
Recommended Posts