Moon Not Inhabited!

[_Ray A]

By the way, BC, I should tell you what Paul Osborne's reply to this same JD quote was, when I put it to him some 18 months or so ago. He said that men do live in the sun, but science has just not yet discovered how this is possible.

Yet somehow, I find his reply more frank than yours.

[_Mike Reed]

The point of the post is to give a newspaper clip that I thought would be of interest to others here.

And why do you think they would find it interesting?

Because I found it interesting. And why did I find it interesting? I found it interesting that the Church found the discovery interesting enough to publish the report. Don't you find it interesting too?

[_Ray A]

The fact that you guys know this is BY's opinion and not doctrine puts the lie in your implications. In order to make your point, you have to resort to yellow journalism which shows your intellectual dishonesty.

My intellectual dishonesty extends to trying to understand the difference between opinion/revelation, when it comes to prophets who supposedly speak under inspiration, and claim they do. Should we disregard them all?

[_bcspace]

And why do you think they would find it interesting?

Because I found it interesting.

LOL!

And why did I find it interesting? I found it interesting that the Church found the discovery interesting enough to publish the report. Don't you find it interesting too?

It drew my attention because you left off context and details.

[_Mike Reed]

By the way, BC, I should tell you what Paul Osborne's reply to this same JD quote was, when I put it to him some 18 months or so ago. He said that men do live in the sun, but science has just not yet discovered how this is possible.

Yet somehow, I find his reply more frank than yours.

As late as 1948, Joseph Fielding Smith believed this too:

"The weather here for several days has been really warm. . . . We have no complaint coming, however, for we depend upon the sun for most everything. If it were not for the sun we would have no rain, no water to drink, for it is the sun which draws the water up into the sky and then lets it down again. The grass would not grow; the trees would not bloom and there would be no fruit. Everything would wither up and die. . . . We know that we could not exist if we did not have the good old sun to warm us and provide us with what we have. . . . But there is something still more important than all of this about the sun. Contrary to the teachings of the astronomers and men of science-these great men who think they know it all-the sun is not gradually throwing off its heat and eventually after eons of years it will [not] become a cold dead world like the moon. I do not know just how dead the moon is, but that is another question. . . . It is my judgment and belief that the sun is a celestial body. It has previously passed through its death and had its resurrection, just as it is decreed that this earth shall do. No man ever saw the face of the sun, so far as I know, for it is surrounded by a cloud. This cloud is what the astronomers see. It is very apparent during an eclipse, but the sun is veiled so that we cannot see its surface. Moreover, I believe that it is inhabited. Why not? If we ever have the privilege of dwelling on a celestial earth-and this earth will become such-we will have to endure 'everlasting burnings.'" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., and John J. Stewart, The Life of Joseph Fielding Smith, p.295)

[_Mike Reed]

Because I found it interesting.

LOL!

Horse Laugh fallacy.

And why did I find it interesting? I found it interesting that the Church found the discovery interesting enough to publish the report. Don't you find it interesting too?

It drew my attention because you left off context and details.

So... you don't find it interesting. I wonder why you are so sensitive about this topic then, with your knee-jerk apologetic rebuttal.

[_bcspace]

My intellectual dishonesty extends to trying to understand the difference between opinion/revelation, when it comes to prophets who supposedly speak under inspiration, and claim they do. Should we disregard them all?

The Church has a clear and recent statement on this issue found in my siggy.

[_bcspace]

It drew my attention because you left off context and details.

So... you don't find it interesting. I wonder why you are so sensitive about this topic then, with your knee-jerk apologetic rebuttal.

The point you are trying to make is a common antiMormon chestnut; easily refuted and easy for detractors of the Church to fall into teeth gnashing such as your post rather than admit they are wrong.

[_bcspace]

By the way, BC, I should tell you what Paul Osborne's reply to this same JD quote was, when I put it to him some 18 months or so ago. He said that men do live in the sun, but science has just not yet discovered how this is possible.

Yet somehow, I find his reply more frank than yours.

Did he quote any doctrinal works?

As late as 1948, Joseph Fielding Smith believed this too:

"The weather here for several days has been really warm. . . . We have no complaint coming, however, for we depend upon the sun for most everything. If it were not for the sun we would have no rain, no water to drink, for it is the sun which draws the water up into the sky and then lets it down again. The grass would not grow; the trees would not bloom and there would be no fruit. Everything would wither up and die. . . . We know that we could not exist if we did not have the good old sun to warm us and provide us with what we have. . . . But there is something still more important than all of this about the sun. Contrary to the teachings of the astronomers and men of science-these great men who think they know it all-the sun is not gradually throwing off its heat and eventually after eons of years it will [not] become a cold dead world like the moon. I do not know just how dead the moon is, but that is another question. . . . It is my judgment and belief that the sun is a celestial body. It has previously passed through its death and had its resurrection, just as it is decreed that this earth shall do. No man ever saw the face of the sun, so far as I know, for it is surrounded by a cloud. This cloud is what the astronomers see. It is very apparent during an eclipse, but the sun is veiled so that we cannot see its surface. Moreover, I believe that it is inhabited. Why not? If we ever have the privilege of dwelling on a celestial earth-and this earth will become such-we will have to endure 'everlasting burnings.'" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., and John J. Stewart, The Life of Joseph Fielding Smith, p.295)

Yet another nondoctrinal work and it doesn't meet the criteria/claim you gave that it was something taught as a revelation.

[Hawkeye]

bcspace: The point you are trying to make is a common antiMormon chestnut; easily refuted

Me: You misunderstood my point, hence your quesitons, "So if, as admitted, that this was BY's opinion, what is the purpose of this post? Is there a problem?"

bcspace: and easy for detractors of the Church to fall into teeth gnashing such as your post rather than admit they are wrong.

Me: Teeth gnashing? Where do you find evidence of this? Oh wait... the holy spirit must've told you. Dang it, I hate it when ghosts blow my cover.