DiscussMormonism.com

The Nehor wrote:Relevant to some, I don't care.

That's fine, Nehor. As long as you recognize that what you care about isn't always what others care about.

wenglund wrote:...a host of other historical issues that are irrelevant to belief in the restored gospel of Christ

Heh. Tarski's items are EXACTLY the sort if things that ARE relevant to testing the claims of the otherwise unfalsifiable claims of a given religion.

Can you test whether Joseph Smith actually saw god? no. But can you test whether he was trustworthy? Yes. Can you test whether jesus turned water into wine? no. But can you test whether there was a global flood? Yes.

And when those 'testable' claims turn out to be false, what does that say about the rest of the 'untestable' claims?

Runtu wrote:

wenglund wrote:
I would venture to guess that they are also unfamiliar with Judah's inadvertant sexual relations with his daughter-in=law (who he mistook for a prostitute), or Joseph coming to fist-to-cuff with his brother William during a study group in Nauvoo, or Brigham Young's sentiments about dogs in his bedroom, or a host of other historical issues that are irrelevant to belief in the restored gospel of Christ (at least in the minds of many of us believers).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For many of us, these are relevant issues, Wade. I'm sure I'm misinterpreting you (I seem to have a knack for never getting you right), but saying that you don't care about such things does not minimize their importance for those of us who do.

I took great care to avoid that misperception by including the key qualifier: "in the minds of many of us believers". Clearly, my efforts were unsuccessful. ;-)

Also, I used the word "irrelevant", which to my mind doesn't speak to the issue of "importance". There are a number historical facts (like Joseph's run for the presidency) that I believe are very important, which I do not view as relevant to the verity of the gospel of Christ--though I can respect if others think otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

"I don't care" posts are so freakin lame. In the world of online message boards, the only legitmate way to express true apathy is by, and read closely please, NOT POSTING.

Tarski wrote:Except that, unlike you, they all saw quite clearly how these things would (if true) be quite relevant to belief in "the restored gospel". That's why they so emotionally reacted. I doubt that dogs in BYs bedroom would get such a defensive reaction.

Sometimes what we think we clearly see, we do not. There are some things in life I think are clearly wrong, but if my child's life were in danger, who knows how I'd view things then. Similarly, if my testimony were in danger because certain uncomfortable but relevant things turn out to be true, who knows what I'd do then either. Hopefully I'd re-evaluate both the testimony and the importance I place on those things. I mean, sometimes we don't alays know what's really relevant until we've been there.

Hi WK...

Heh. Tarski's items are EXACTLY the sort if things that ARE relevant to testing the claims of the otherwise unfalsifiable claims of a given religion.

Can you test whether Joseph Smith actually saw god? no. But can you test whether he was trustworthy? Yes. Can you test whether jesus turned water into wine? no. But can you test whether there was a global flood? Yes.

And when those 'testable' claims turn out to be false, what does that say about the rest of the 'untestable' claims?

This post jumped out at me in light of my thread about con-artists and belief.

I do think there is value in learning about those who make amazing claims that may impact one's life.

~dancer~

Who Knows wrote:But can you test whether there was a global flood? Yes.

No you can't. As soon as you bring God or other very powerful agents into the picture, then everything becomes unfalsifiable. Maybe Satan did it.

rcrocket wrote:Genetically inferior material, perhaps.

I wonder if you wandered into any "genetically inferior" folks on your mission? I'm sure you filled them in on all of the above, eh?

asbestosman wrote:

Who Knows wrote:But can you test whether there was a global flood? Yes.

No you can't. As soon as you bring God or other very powerful agents into the picture, then everything becomes unfalsifiable. Maybe Satan did it.

:O

Did you forget the 'wink' smilie?

edit - did shades disable smilies?

Runtu wrote:

The Nehor wrote:Relevant to some, I don't care.

That's fine, Nehor. As long as you recognize that what you care about isn't always what others care about.

I've accepted that for a long time.....I know people who care about reality TV.

I'm scared, hold me.