Only Official Doctrine Can Defend Official Doctrine

[_bcspace]

And, by your own definition, bcspace, God is a personage of Spirit,

I agree. He also has a physical body.

contrasted with his son Jesus, who is a personage of flesh.

Who also has a spirit, yes.

We can know this of a surety, because the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, canonized scripture, told us this.

"My own" definition includes the caveat: of latest date.

[_Buffalo]

And, by your own definition, bcspace, God is a personage of Spirit,

I agree. He also has a physical body.

Not according to the 1835 text.

[_stemelbow]

Let's take that step by step.

"Its also a claim that has yet to be verified."

That is certainly true. No evidence has been found to suggest that the claim is true, despite a rather well developed science of New World archeology having been around for quite some time.

Chap, your better than this type of tactic frequented by Dj and others—the bait and switch. Afterall I don’t say there is no evidence at all. I’m just saying weighing all information we have to date, from the various disciplines that are appropriate, it isn’t verified. There are many questions, many criticisms yet to be resolved, and I can’t blame people for disagreeing with the conclusions I’ve reached via faith.

"I suppose your faith is that means that the civilization never existed."

That is a misuse of the word "faith". If someone says there are black shoes in the hallway, and you look all over the hallway and find quite a lot of stuff but no black shoes, then no normal person says "It is my faith that there are no black shoes in the hallway". Instead, one would at least say something like "I've looked, and it seems that there just aren't any black shoes in the hallway." Normal people use the word 'faith' in sentences like "I have faith that Christ will return to judge the world at the last day", and not in sentences about the conclusions about material facts that they draw from direct inspection of evidence in the physical world.

I think you are using the word in this way in order to give the misleading impression that Darth J's suggestion that, based on the physical evidence, it looks like there never was a Nephite civilization has the same status as your purely faith-based claim that there was such a civilization. No fair, stemelbow!

I didn’t suggest there was any sort of same status. I think you have misunderstood me. In the realm of the claims made by the LDS faith regarding a Nephite Civilization, if one weighs all the evidence for and against, I’d imagine one would most often, if not all the time, come to the conclusion that there never was any Nephite Civilization as described in the Book of Mormon. My use of faith is akin to trust here. One must trust the notion that “if we can’t see it, then it ain’t there” in order to conclude there is no way the Nephite civilization existed.

"I disagree with you. I think there is room enough for it to exist."

Where on the American continent is there room for the great, powerful and inevitably distinctive Judeo-Christian civilization described in the Book of Mormon to have existed for a thousand years while still leaving no trace yet detected by archeologists, either in itself or in its effects on its neighbors?

I’d probably go with the Sorenson model to answer this. I don’t suggest every question and criticism is answered on this, but I think there remains possibility.

"We simply can’t verify enough to know enough, if you will."

What, never? You mean even if archeologists in a hundred years are still seeing no sign of Nephite civilization in the Americas you would will go on making this claim? I fear that the answer may be "yes".

I do say it will be interesting where we’re all at on this in a hundred years. I don’t know what claim you have in mind in your question. But to take the “no way could there ever have been a Nephite Civilization as described in the Book of Mormon anywhere in the Americas” stance is to say in one hundred years time there is no way a greater understanding of the Americas could not exist which could demonstrate evidence of the civilization. I’m rather open to being wrong. Just hoping someone who is nicer and less hostile then DJ comes along and is able to discuss the matter without having to attack me each time.

[_schreech]

How does filling in the gaps with science constitute a basis for faith? I even take great care to identify that my opinion is only an hypothesis in the case of evolution. The fact of the matter is that though is that I've shown using scripture and official doctrine how my hypothesis is compatible. Perhaps you're jealous you didn't think of it before?

What else should I think about you or Darth's or Buffalo's complaints when none of you is willing to address the subject head on?

Lol - yes, you filled the gaps with "science" - lol. Can you please show me where "science" has proven that there was a "garden state" or a "fall"...Has this "science" that you are talking about also proved the existence of spirits? Again, your faith is based on nothing but your own, nonsensical and non-lds-doctrinal fables. Why would I be jealous of your ability to concoct and believe in fictitious, pseudo-religious hogwash?....

[_Morley]

Sure it is. An hypothesis by definition implies a lack of tangible evidence. It relates well to faith because of the Gospel definition of faith; the substance of things hoped for, evidence of things not seen.

Hypotheses are proposed explanations for observed phenomena. The observed phenomena are tangible evidence. Hypotheses are the explanations. Nice try.

So likewise, an hypothesis is "based.....on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories." The only requirement for a scientific hypothesis is that it can be tested. Matters of faith can also be tested, but usually in a more uniquely personal way.

Too funny. Now you mention the "previous observations," but promptly toss them out by saying "The only requirement for a scientific hypothesis is that it can be tested." A hypothesis also requires that there have been previous, measurable observations. Faith has no such requirement. Faith does not have to be able to be tested, either.

If one truly understands science and faith, one can see how they are actually two sides of the same coin. But most people think of faith in the blind sense which really isn't faith at all by any Gospel standard.

It is obvious that scientific hypothesis and religious faith are not "two sides of the same coin."

[_beefcalf]

bcspace,

I can deal with us having differences of opinion, but you are being deliberately obtuse here, and by 'deliberately obtuse', I mean dishonest.

The Lecture Fifth of the LoF in the 1835 D&C clearly explains that the nature of the Father is spiritual, ONLY. To make this point clear, the nature of the Son is contrasted as being physical, not once, but twice:

c. They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness.
d. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or rather, man was formed after his likeness and in his image.
e. He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father, possessing all the fullness of the Father, or the same fullness with the Father, being begotten of him;
f. and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name;
g. and is called the Son because of the flesh—and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer, or in other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be.

I don't include this to inform you, bcspace. You already know these issues and are quite familiar with the Lectures on Faith, which is why you take extreme care and extra effort to maneuver around this problem. I include this to show any third party that you are being patently dishonest with this tripe:

And, by your own definition, bcspace, God is a personage of Spirit,

I agree. He also has a physical body.

contrasted with his son Jesus, who is a personage of flesh.

Who also has a spirit, yes.

How does it feel, in defending God's one and only true church on this Earth, that, in doing so, you must continually resort to intellectual dishonestly and sophistry?

[ETA]
Any believing Latter-Day Saint may want to ask themselves this: "Why would later church leaders remove from canon the Lectures on Faith? Why would the explanations, descriptions and discussions given by Joseph Smith, Jr., the first prophet of the restoration, be removed from canonized scripture by those who succeeded him?"

[_bcspace]

I can deal with us having differences of opinion, but you are being deliberately obtuse here, and by 'deliberately obtuse', I mean dishonest.

The Lecture Fifth of the LoF in the 1835 D&C clearly explains that the nature of the Father is spiritual, ONLY. To make this point clear, the nature of the Son is contrasted as being physical, not once, but twice:

I understand that. But it is YOU who are being dishonest by not accepting the fact that LDS doctrine does change with new revelation and understanding. Often times people like you refuse to accept or understand what has and has not changed because such would thwart your favorite chestnuts, but that is the nature of the beast.

How does it feel, in defending God's one and only true church on this Earth, that, in doing so, you must continually resort to intellectual dishonestly and sophistry?

I wouldn't know. When are you going to stop beating your wife?

[ETA]
Any believing Latter-Day Saint may want to ask themselves this: "Why would later church leaders remove from canon the Lectures on Faith? Why would the explanations, descriptions and discussions given by Joseph Smith, Jr., the first prophet of the restoration, be removed from canonized scripture by those who succeeded him?"

I think the answer is obvious and well illustrated by poeple such as yourself. Some, not understanding the building of doctrine or continuing revelation or even simple date comparison are confused when the old understanding is juxtaposed with the new. In this case the 1835 with the 1843. So it had to be dumbed down for your benefit.

[_bcspace]

Sure it is. An hypothesis by definition implies a lack of tangible evidence. It relates well to faith because of the Gospel definition of faith; the substance of things hoped for, evidence of things not seen.

Hypotheses are proposed explanations for observed phenomena. The observed phenomena are tangible evidence. Hypotheses are the explanations. Nice try.

More than that, I hit a hole in one. One sees the good accomplished by religion or experiences the blessings of it or is positively affected by the teachings. Those are the observed phenomena. Now comes the faith.....

So likewise, an hypothesis is "based.....on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories." The only requirement for a scientific hypothesis is that it can be tested. Matters of faith can also be tested, but usually in a more uniquely personal way.

Too funny. Now you mention the "previous observations," but promptly toss them out by saying "The only requirement for a scientific hypothesis is that it can be tested."

Not really. You simply fail to follow it to it's logical conclusions. I've just shown you what the observations are. Now one puts them to the test, by living the doctrine or praying and receiving an epiphany etc. Does one continue to observe the phenomena? In my experience, the answer is yes.

If one truly understands science and faith, one can see how they are actually two sides of the same coin. But most people think of faith in the blind sense which really isn't faith at all by any Gospel standard.

It is obvious that scientific hypothesis and religious faith are not "two sides of the same coin."

I've proven yet again that they are. The coin is the truth and both science and faith are the ways to it. They compliment each other because each is more suited to the finding of certain kinds of truth. A man is not complete if he is wholly committed to one or the other but rather only when he understands what each is for and how they balance.

I am disappointed you couldn't see it immediately.

[Guest]

.... Now one puts them to the test, by living the doctrine or praying and receiving an epiphany etc. Does one continue to observe the phenomena? In my experience, the answer is yes. ....

I sincerely do hope that this is true for you, BC, and that your version of 'science' functions completely and fully in your life. I've no doubt that it might. Take care.

[_bcspace]

How does filling in the gaps with science constitute a basis for faith? I even take great care to identify that my opinion is only an hypothesis in the case of evolution. The fact of the matter is that though is that I've shown using scripture and official doctrine how my hypothesis is compatible. Perhaps you're jealous you didn't think of it before?

What else should I think about you or Darth's or Buffalo's complaints when none of you is willing to address the subject head on?

Lol - yes, you filled the gaps with "science" - lol. Can you please show me where "science" has proven that there was a "garden state" or a "fall"...

What scientific tools do you think are required for the task? Let's say the garden was local and the state lasted a thousand years. Do you think science can curently detect a thousand year gap in evolution? How would we identify the garden?

Has this "science" that you are talking about also proved the existence of spirits?

Again, what tools do you think are required for the task?

Again, your faith is based on nothing but your own, nonsensical and non-lds-doctrinal fables.

Well actually it's based on things like the observed phenomena I mention in my previous thread and because I now have faith because I;ve tested the hypothesis, I believe the doctrine.

Why would I be jealous of your ability to concoct and believe in fictitious, pseudo-religious hogwash?....

I don't approach conversion on the basis of jealousy. In fact, you're not even a target for conversion or faith strengthening (John 6:44).