Radio Free Mormon & Backyard Professor Take Elder David A. Bednar to the Limit

[consiglieri]

And obsequious.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I know it is exhausting just watching how believers can extract a spiritual meaning out of a head on collision that decapitated one of their relatives.

What? Did no one catch this? My man, please don’t leave us with a cliffhanger like that.

- Doc

[dastardly stem]

I can see now, in part, why you and others flunked the course on spiritual faith.

Good. So how do you support your contentions? Acting as if God and a spirit realm exists all because you really want them to is interesting, but not believable all because you really want them. These conversations are interesting because they are throwbacks from years ago. you have to buy a pile of really untenable presuppositions in order to find space enough to believe. The problem is though it appears to me, when you describe your reasoning for belief it appears to be nothing more than your desire to believe is the driving catalyst.

For instance, you keep saying "Alma 32" as if it carries some evidence. What we have in Alma 32 is a story about a metaphorical seed being planted inside someone, summed up nicely in vs 28:

Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

So what if the seed inside someone is a desire to murder another? Not a desire to murder someone, like Nephi's prompting to murder Laban, but a lust for blood? What if that person feels the swelling motions on that word? The desire and faith and hope in murdering and maimingjust grows and grows. It enlightened the person's soul, and understanding, and begins to be delicious to the person. How does that person test that seed inside them to know its a good thing?

But:

But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own alikeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

So such a believer in murder and pillage can too find the seed inside them to be a good seed on the grounds laid out in the passages you keep alluding to.

It seems to me the test you are advocating is a inconsistent, meaning non-repeatable, and foolish one. A word, or shall we say, a set of teachings given to someone can lead that person to think, as they ponderize and contemplate, that it is good for them. That's how we get Nazis, communists and Republicans. And we say, "as it comes to believing and thinking and favoring differing ideas, to each their own. That set of teachings and ideas are good and meaningful to that person. They claim it informs and directs their lives, inspires them and therefore are true". But as we compare and scrutinize the thinking to the data of our existence, there are problems. As we compare and scrutinize the teaching that there is a God, to the knowledge of how things work, we have all sorts of problems. So on these theorectical ideas and hopes and desires, all we have are things like rationality to help us gauge their value, purpose and truthfulness. As we use rational principles Mormonism seems to come up short.

If you disagree, I'm asking why?

Now, with that all said, I'll state my disagreement with my fellow posters who have gotten after you. I mean I have a bit, but I'm more interested in ideas. What you are doing is age-old attempted rationalizing for religion. There are no solid reasons to accept religion, or God for that matter. People do based on faith, if you will. When someone who believes enters the world of rational discourse in order to justify their beliefs they inevitable do as you have done. They presume another world and they presume the activity inside them is meaningful as it pertains to ultimate truth in the universe, or in reality. They treat their beliefs as the measure of morality and offer condemnations based on that treatment, quite often. You are simply practicing that method, it seems to me. And its really all religion ever has had.

But of course it's possible there's a God and he supports a religion in this world. But thinking objectively, what would it mean to say there's a God? How would we test that claim? And, if that could ever be resolved, which it hasn't for human existence, what would it mean to say there's a true religion inspired by this God and how would we test that claim?

I don't expect you to resolve anything reasonably. But if you claim you can, I'll ask. If you demonstrate you can't, after you claim such...no big deal. you are likely mistaken as many many others. You aren't alone. You have faith that is unreasonable to hold to....as does Bednar. I expect he and you to lash out and challenge that claim. But it seems pretty obvious. Otherwise you'd have provided reason instead of presumed your position.

There are none so blind that will not see. Have a nice day.

Thanks, Wade Englund

I mean...yep...as expected. I wish you well.

[sock puppet]

Wade, in your view, did any dropouts previously pass the test of spiritual faith and taste the delicious fruit thereof?

I am not in a position to say for certain, but your wonderful question is best answered in Lehi's dream as expounded by Nephi (see 1 Nephi 11: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... tures/Book of Mormon/1-ne/11?lang=eng )

Thanks, Wade Englund

Hmmm. No answer in that Book of Mormon chapter. I'm thinking you are barking up the tree of the No True Scotsman fallacy, or in this situation, the No True LDS fallacy.

[wenglund]

I am not in a position to say for certain, but your wonderful question is best answered in Lehi's dream as expounded by Nephi (see 1 Nephi 11: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... tures/Book of Mormon/1-ne/11?lang=eng )

Thanks, Wade Englund

Hmmm. No answer in that Book of Mormon chapter. I'm thinking you are barking up the tree of the No True Scotsman fallacy, or in this situation, the No True LDS fallacy.

See chapter 8 ( https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 8?lang=eng ), particularly verses 17-18, 21-24, 28, 35.

Thanks, Wade Englund

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hmmm. No answer in that Book of Mormon chapter. I'm thinking you are barking up the tree of the No True Scotsman fallacy, or in this situation, the No True LDS fallacy.

See chapter 8 ( https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 8?lang=eng ), particularly verses 17-18, 21-24, 28, 35.

Thanks, Wade Englund

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... e?lang=eng

Marriage between a man and a woman is a vital part of God’s plan. The Lord has said, “Whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man” (D&C 49:15). Since the beginning, marriage has been a law of the gospel.

Wade, you cannot possibly know God’s will or exhort unto apostates and gentiles while you continuously defy God’s will and eschew marriage. You’ve had more than enough time to take a humble sister under your wing and seek the highest order of knowledge through a temple marriage. You’re in apostasy and are preaching heresy until you marry.

- Doc

[Doctor Steuss]

“Oh, it is excellent!” replied the old wise man, looking at the fruit through his spectacles. “This pattern, and the colors, yes, I will tell the Emperor without delay, how very delicious I think it is.”