Follow F.A.I.R, They Know the Way

[Fair Dinkum]

5 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

Where does F.A.I.R. claim they do not support a literal Adam, Eve or Noah?

Where did I claim that they don’t?

[let’s roll]

5 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I must of missed the official list showing exactly what is and what is not "essential to salvation."

Maybe someone can post it so we can all stop discussing anything not included. Afterall everything else is just not worth discussing, amirite?

 

And, can we just lock any threads where we suspect the Op of being a critic?  Obviously, there is no reason to discuss something coming from a critical source.

I think the answer to your question and to the question posed in the OP is one and the same.

Who should we follow?  We should follow Him.

What is essential to our salvation?  That we wholeheartedly accept His invitation to follow Him.

Edited July 14, 2022 by let’s roll

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

No.  You’re mischaracterizing what I said. I’m merely suggesting that on this subject, FAIR is on a more truth based foundation than the prophets

Have the prophets taught that one has to believe in a literal flood though?

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It's always entertaining to have you around, Mr. Dinkum.  I was disappointed when, essentially, you swore off the board and said you were moving on.  (It's like Crack.  You may say you're quitting for good, buuuuut ... )

 

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Miss me?

Of course!  ;-D :-)  (The real emoticons aren't working for me for some reason, and I wouldn't want you or anyone else to think that I take you, or that I take myself, too seriously.  Oh, well! ;-D)

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Now, Mr. Dinkum will proceed to lather himself into a huff, wondering how anyone could doubt his sincerity, swearing by all that is Holy that his questions and intent are sincere and not feigned.  Okay, now that everyone has had a chance to review the script ...

Lights ...

Camera ...

Action!

 

Ha-ha thanks for the "heads up"! I mean, "peristomium" up!  

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I’m merely suggesting that on this subject, FAIR is on a more truth based foundation than the prophets

Then why did you ask whether to follow FAIR or the prophets?

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Then why did you ask whether to follow FAIR or the prophets?

To get everybody riled up.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

FairDinkum, at this point in your life, are you a believing member?  I may have mixed you up with another, so please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe your past posts left me with the impression you did not believe anymore.  I ask because the question as framed, should you choose the prophets or FAIR is really irrelevant if you wouldn’t choose to follow the prophets in much of anything to begin with. 

 

14 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I believe in TRUTH.  A lot of what Prophets teach is frankly not true. A universal flood and a literal Missouri living Adam and Eve are just 2 of the mistruths they have taught. 

Thank you for the question, Senator. 
 

I don’t like your question, however, so I’m going to ignore it, substitute a question of my own, answer it instead, and then feign having been responsive. 
 

I’m doing this because I believe in truth. 

Edited July 14, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yeah, your "Whom do I follow, the prophets or F.A.I.R.?" question doesn't seem to be posed in good faith, FD.

Thanks,

-Smac

At this point, it obviously was not in good faith, having been framed as though to misleadingly imply that FD is still a believing member, nor is it sincere, as he claimed. 
 

It would have been far better had he structured the question to this effect: “Whom do you follow, the prophets or FAIR?” Such a question, though still based on a faulty premise, would have left the inquirer much less vulnerable to the charge of bad-faith, insincere questioning. 

Edited July 14, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

17 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I believe in TRUTH.  A lot of what Prophets teach is frankly not true. A universal flood and a literal Missouri living Adam and Eve are just 2 of the mistruths they have taught. 

Who says they're mistruths.
I think they're very real.

[pogi]

17 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I believe in TRUTH. 

I think everybody believes in TRUTH.  The question is, do you claim to know TRUTH with absolute certainty?  If not, then you are no different from the rest of us who walk in faith.

 

[carbon dioxide]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

Have the prophets taught that one has to believe in a literal flood though?

The prophets have taught that there is a literal Noah.  The flood must be literal too.  Since floods exist, this should not be a problem.  The only issue is the size or scale of the flood.  I think the truth may be somewhere between a local flood and a global flood.  Big enough that Noah and the family could not just walk away from but not so big that it wiped out all land life on the entire planet.  There is quite a lot of ground between the two positions.

Edited July 14, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The prophets have taught that there is a literal Noah.  The flood must be literal too.  Since floods exist, this should not be a problem.  The only issue is the size or scale of the flood.  I think the truth may be somewhere between a local flood and a global flood.  Big enough that Noah and the family could not just walk away from but not so big that it wiped out all land life on the entire planet.  There is quite a lot of ground between the two positions.

But do they require members to agree with them on those teachings?

[Fair Dinkum]

On 7/13/2022 at 3:43 PM, T-Shirt said:

Nowhere does F.A.I.R. state that Adam, Eve and Noah were not literal beings, so your strawman argument was a swing and a miss.  You can safely follow both F.A.I.R. and Latter-day Saint prophets on this.

Again please point out exactly where I have claimed your assertion that I have stated that fair does not promote a literal Adam,Eve or Noah.

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, ksfisher said:

To get everybody riled up.

To attempt to get everybody riled up. Our religion-bashing bushranger appears about as successful as his IRL avatar was in the end ...

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Again please point out exactly where I have claimed your assertion that I have stated that fair does not promote a literal Adam,Eve or Noah.

OP:

On 7/14/2022 at 6:25 AM, Fair Dinkum said:

F.A.I.R however, understanding that science does not support either a literal Adam, Eve or Noah, teaches something quite different from LDS prophets & LDS scripture. 

 

[Fair Dinkum]

On 7/13/2022 at 4:09 PM, smac97 said:

CFR, please as to each prophet's declarations about "the reality of a Universal Flood."

From FAIR: "Whether the Flood covered the entire earth at once, multiple smaller floods happened over a period of time, a localized flood happened, or no flood at all occured makes no difference."

Personally, I have some difficulty with the "or no flood at all" bit, but I think these other alternative approaches are also "supported" in scripture.

I'll go along with that.

Not sure about the "universal flood" part.

Not sure about that.  See here: Mormonism and the reconciliation of the Flood of Noah with scripture and Church teachings

And here: Question: Why does the Church teach that the flood was a global event?

I'll first need to see the evidentiary basis for your juxtaposition, then we can talk.

"This question" being . . .?

Regarding the Flood, I am okay with the idea of

• A) ancient and modern prophets and apostles
• B) speaking with limited and/or not-pristinely-accurate-and-correct information about
• C) an event that happened centuries before they were born, and
• D) the specific particulars and parameters of which event are not essential to my salvation.

Similarly, I am open to the possibility that Job was an ahistorical figure.  

Such accommodation is not, I think, infinite.  For example, I can't get on board with Jesus Christ being only a mythical/metaphorical figure.  I'm not sure about the "no flood of any type ever happened at all" argument, either.  And the "pious fraud"/"inspired fiction" approach to the Book of Mormon is, for me, an nonstarter.

So . . . perfection.  That's your benchmark?  The only way a prophet could be a prophet would be for him to never make a mistake about anything, ever?

Thanks,

-Smac

Uuugggg Bro Smac.  You’ve twisted my words to create your straw man.   I said “since it’s founding in 1830, LDS prophets”…that suggests multiple not each.  Do you really disagree with what I actually posted that LDS prophets have made such declarations?  To assist you, “prophets” denotes plural or multiple.  Do you really doubt that I couldn’t produce 2 or more LDS prophets who taught the literalness of a universal flood or a Missouri Eden?  
 

but to assist you I’ll give you 2, Bruce McConkie & Joseph Fielding Smith

so your CFR is a strawman and has been exposed. 

[Fair Dinkum]

On 7/13/2022 at 4:38 PM, The Nehor said:

I am guessing you follow none of the above. That would make this concern trolling.

I actually follow both when their assertions are based in reality and I reject both when their pronouncements are in conflict with empirical evidence. 

[Fair Dinkum]

On 7/13/2022 at 4:57 PM, smac97 said:

In the grand scheme of things, prophets and apostles providing scientifically accurate and exact information about the geospatial parameters of the Flood does not have an impact on my salvation.  So if past and present prophets and apostles have erred on these particulars, I'm more than happy to cut them some slack.

It is the broad strokes of the Restored Gospel that paint the picture I find so appealing, and true.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Wrong:  If prophets are wrong on something as simple as these matters it makes every claim suspect. I seriously doubt that you as a lawyer would call as a witness someone who is known to clain known falsehoods as truths.  The opposing council would tear the credibility of that witness to shreds

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I actually follow both when their assertions are based in reality and I reject both when their pronouncements are in conflict with empirical evidence. 

Walking by sight, not faith.  Got it.

So there's no way an almighty God could do those things because current understanding doesn't allow for it?

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Wrong:  If prophets are wrong on something as simple as these matters it makes every claim suspect. 

Again, assuming they were wrong.

Joseph didn't teach there was a literal Adam or Noah.  He actually witnessed the literal Adam firsthand.  He had keys bestowed by Noah, a practice that generally involves the laying on of hands. That's firsthand witness, not scientific theory.

[Fair Dinkum]

On 7/13/2022 at 5:50 PM, Vanguard said:

FD! Great to 'read from you' again! I was sad to see you go and am glad to see you back. I always looked at your avatar and wondered what your Aussie voice would sound like as I read from your posts Trust me, you don't want to hear my stupid American version of an Aussie accent - something like, '...shrimp on the barbie' and that's the extent of it! ;o

Calm wrote - "FairDinkum, at this point in your life, are you a believing member?  I may have mixed you up with another, so please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe your past posts left me with the impression you did not believe anymore.  I ask because the question as framed, should you choose the prophets or FAIR is really irrelevant if you wouldn’t choose to follow the prophets in much of anything to begin with."

She beat me to it. What's your status with the church? Your classic way of framing questions is legendary in these parts! And to stay totally transparent, I agree with virtually everything everyone else has thus far said regarding your style.

Cheers. And welcome back. : )

Not back just a short visit. My reception reminds me again why I left before.  But you asked a fair question…I’m a non believer in all things Mormon.  I believe JS was a fraud and the BoM a work of fiction as was all so called scripture written by JS.  That said I love Mormons and I consider myself very much a Mormon.   But as I replied earlier.  I follow established verifiable truth.  This kind of Truth is generally supported with empirical evidence. 

[Fair Dinkum]

On 7/13/2022 at 6:19 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

What is the antecedent of “its”? The sentence as written suggests three possibilities: “LDS prophets,” “the reality of a universal flood,” and “the reality of a literal Adam and Eve.”

I doubt, though, that the writer meant any of those three things as the antecedent of “its”. 
 

He probably meant “its” to refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but that’s not given in the sentence. 
 

If nothing else Bro Lloyd with 2 L’s not one, you’re consistent 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Quote

 

In the grand scheme of things, prophets and apostles providing scientifically accurate and exact information about the geospatial parameters of the Flood does not have an impact on my salvation.  So if past and present prophets and apostles have erred on these particulars, I'm more than happy to cut them some slack.

It is the broad strokes of the Restored Gospel that paint the picture I find so appealing, and true.

 

Wrong:  If prophets are wrong on something as simple as these matters it makes every claim suspect.

With respect, I disagree.  

Again, you seem to be imputing an expectation of perfection onto prophets and apostles.  You are imposing an unreasonable, impossible-to-attain standard of expectations and demands.  I suspect you are doing this because you want prophets and apostles to fail to meet these expectations.  You want reasons to reject them.

I have a brother-in-law who is a pediatrician.  He and I have occasionally exchanged thoughts on how his patients project expectations onto him, and how my clients project expectations onto me.  I also sometimes bring up expectations imposed by judges.  Most of my clients are, in their expectations, quite reasonable.  They recognize, for example, that I cannot be expected, at the outset of a case, to have a full and complete and utterly accurate grasp of the facts, the evidence, the law, and the eventual outcome.  There are often too many moving parts, unknowns, variables, etc. to allow for a precisely accurate assessment of the case.  So . . . they work with me.  They expect me to be very familiar with the law, but not every jot and tittle of it.  They expect me to provide reasoned surmises about how the judge or the opposing party will behave, but they also recognize that there is always some guesswork and uncertainty in such things.

My brother-in-law has said that some of his patients (he's a pediatrician, so usually it is his patients' parents) harbor unrealistic expectations about how medicine works.  Some of this comes from watching medical dramas on TV, from in-the-moment anxieties about the health of the patient, from simple inexperience, and so on.  Medicine is seldom a skill that can produce answers and results with mathematical precision and predictability.  Again, there are often too many moving parts, unknowns, variables, etc.

So . . . back to your expectations about prophets and apostles.  You expect . . . perfection from them.  I think particularly from the 19th-century ones, who were operating under centuries-old stories and presuppositions about those stories.  I think you have an expection here about how divine revelation works.  That it "should" have included corrections and clarifications to Joseph, Brigham, etc. as to the factual particulars of the Flood.  I don't think that is reasonable.  You want perfection, and - apart from the Savior - it ain't coming.  

6 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I seriously doubt that you as a lawyer would call as a witness someone who is known to clain known falsehoods as truths.  The opposing council would tear the credibility of that witness to shreds

I would not call someone to testify about an event to which he was not a percipient witness.

And I certainly would not call someone to testify about matters of religious faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Vanguard]

24 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Not back just a short visit. My reception reminds me again why I left before.  But you asked a fair question…I’m a non believer in all things Mormon.  I believe JS was a fraud and the BoM a work of fiction as was all so called scripture written by JS.  That said I love Mormons and I consider myself very much a Mormon.   But as I replied earlier.  I follow established verifiable truth.  This kind of Truth is generally supported with empirical evidence. 

Thanks for getting back. I guess that means you reject the notion of God being a real entity then?