LDS things that are false if cafeteria Mo's are right

[_Molok]

In this thread- people who don't understand the difference between being able to have a difference of opinion on some doctrine without fear of excommunication, and the doctrine itself being that you can believe whatever you want.

[_nc47]

Flood happened. Global, local, as a metaphor for the baptism of broken creation, doesn't matter.

Cite anything the LDS Church has ever printed in its history that supports that assertion.

Cite a Church publication saying the question doesn't matter?

[_Bazooka]

Cite anything the LDS Church has ever printed in its history that supports that assertion.

Cite a Church publication saying the question doesn't matter?

Arh, so you were firing blanks nc. Got it.

[_nc47]

Cite a Church publication saying the question doesn't matter?

Arh, so you were firing blanks nc. Got it.

Please excuse me while I go solicit emails from Egyptologists and Mesoamerican archaeologists to justify my life decisions ex post facto. BRB.

[_Darth J]

Cite a Church publication saying the question doesn't matter?

That's a good point, Nelson. Since you are the one asserting that it doesn't matter, it is incumbent on you to cite an LDS publication that says so.

By the way, Nelson, the topic of this thread is ultimately about logical consistency. You know, the kind of thing you supposedly are studying in graduate school.

[_Darth J]

I like how interesting the Noah story as a geographically limited flood still believes there was a literal Noah who survived a literal deluge with a literal ark and literal animals. Actual liberals think the story is a myth that contains useful symbolism about man's relationship to God. You know that trying to stave off science by dropping the most obviously falsifiable aspects of the narrative while still taking on a literal interpretation is only slightly less fundamentalist, right?

That is fun, but it's even more fun to see the explanation as to how even though Homo sapiens evolved already, and death was already present on the Earth, Elohim had to stick Adam and Eve into the enclave of the Garden of Eden, after he specially created them, because........well, we never really get a "because."

[_Darth J]

Has anyone besides me notice the two points that our stalwart defenders of the faith are decidedly avoiding?

--the idea that the current leaders of the LDS Church can understand the difference between their personal beliefs/opinions and truths revealed from God
--the idea that past Mormon leaders could understand the difference between their personal beliefs/ideas and truths revealed from God

Keep watching Nelson and everyone else avoid this.

[_Tobin]

I like how interesting the Noah story as a geographically limited flood still believes there was a literal Noah who survived a literal deluge with a literal ark and literal animals. Actual liberals think the story is a myth that contains useful symbolism about man's relationship to God. You know that trying to stave off science by dropping the most obviously falsifiable aspects of the narrative while still taking on a literal interpretation is only slightly less fundamentalist, right?

Actually, you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying conceivably many parts of the story of Noah could have a basis in fact. There may have been one or more catastrophic flood stories in the past and there may have been one or more survivors. That seems completely reasonable to believe. And I do not know if there was a Noah either. There may have been or there may not have been. My view is that these stories may have a basis in fact and are instructive as interesting stories only. What part of these stories are factual and what are myths or simply embellishment (or just good storytelling) is what I find interesting and worthy of discussion. I am not sympathetic to the view it is all myth however.

[_nc47]

Cite a Church publication saying the question doesn't matter?

That's a good point, Nelson. Since you are the one asserting that it doesn't matter, it is incumbent on you to cite an LDS publication that says so.

By the way, Nelson, the topic of this thread is ultimately about logical consistency. You know, the kind of thing you supposedly are studying in graduate school.

You can't demonstrate the logical consistency of any system. Goedel's impossibility theorems.

[_Darth J]

By the way, Nelson, the topic of this thread is ultimately about logical consistency. You know, the kind of thing you supposedly are studying in graduate school.

You can't demonstrate the logical consistency of any system. Goedel's impossibility theorems.

If that really were the case, then it would not be possible for Goedel to have formulated a theorem, since he would not be able to prove his theorem of no logical consistency was logically consistent.

How do you prove the logic of Goedel's theorem that it's impossible to be logical, pretending for fun that that's what it means?