Rasmussen’s ‘narratives’?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Rasmussen’s ‘narratives’?

Post by Philo Sofee »

Gabriel wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:07 am
Dr Moore wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 4:09 pm
Another reason why 0 credible experts will publicly support this project.

PG is right. It's fantasy. In the same way pornography is fantasy.
Indeed, and at the risk of sounding like a prude, when this fantasy is indulged in too much, it often causes these scholars to start experimenting with mathturbation. Now mathturbation may seem like a relatively innocuous indiscretion when practiced in private, but it often devolves into mutual mathturbation, and before you know it, you see these same scholars quite shamelessly mathturbating in public. I say let no one be called a credible expert who is not free from this practice.
***BRILLIANT!!!***
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Rasmussen’s ‘narratives’?

Post by Lem »

Gabriel wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:07 am
…quite shamelessly mathturbating in public….
I am not above saying that in my opinion this describes exactly the current misuse of Bayesian analysis on the Interpreter site. In full view of their peer reviewers, no less!
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 3842
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Rasmussen’s ‘narratives’?

Post by Gadianton »

I can only read about a paragraph of this stuff because I get that same "embarrassed for the speaker" feeling like on fast Sunday when one of the 'off' people of the ward gets up and bears an inappropriate testimony.

It's the musings of somebody who really lives in their own world without feedback from society. It's not just producing an epic project that would get an F at any university, including BYU, it's his supreme confidence in his own abilities. All the problems of the Dales plus a satirical novella to go with it, mocking the imagined responses of his critics in purple prose.

A victory dance prior to the game beginning. A lion playing with his prey, knowing that in but a moment, he shall bring a merciful death to the tormented creature with his mighty fangs.

The guy is a serious piece of work.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8979
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Rasmussen’s ‘narratives’?

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Well. The apple doesn’t fall from the Mopologist tree:
I believe that God has all power that exists and all knowledge that can be known. But I don't believe in classical definitions of omnipotence and omniscience.
-_-

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Rasmussen’s ‘narratives’?

Post by huckelberry »

I should admit I did not read this in complete detail. I could not avoid a general impression. A number of early criticisms of the Book of Mormon assumed the book was about the whole North American land mass. Mormon believers searched around for a limited area that better fit things mentioned in the book. This adjustment results in fewer conflicts. I see no reason to think this indicates an ongoing progression which will finally result in a positive evidence accumulation instead of negative.
Last edited by huckelberry on Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Rasmussen’s ‘narratives’?

Post by huckelberry »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:11 am
Well. The apple doesn’t fall from the Mopologist tree:
I believe that God has all power that exists and all knowledge that can be known. But I don't believe in classical definitions of omnipotence and omniscience.
-_-

- Doc
I am not sure how this fits but I have a moment of curiosity. Where did this odd comment come from? I am puzzled , how is a classical definition of omnipotence different and how can a Mormon believe God has all power that exists when matter and spirit are understood to be eternal? Does it mean God has all power which he is able to have and all knowledge which he is able?
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Rasmussen’s ‘narratives’?

Post by Philo Sofee »

huckelberry wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:50 pm
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:11 am
Well. The apple doesn’t fall from the Mopologist tree:



-_-

- Doc
I am not sure how this fits but I have a moment of curiosity. Where did this odd comment come from? I am puzzled , how is a classical definition of omnipotence different and how can a Mormon believe God has all power that exists when matter and spirit are understood to be eternal? Does it mean God has all power which he is able to have and all knowledge which he is able?
I think this is Blake Ostler's approach - though its been a long while since I have delved into his pages, so don't quote me. Yes, God is limited in power and is as powerful as he needs to be in order to save humanity is his approach. It eliminates some of the logical conundrums of the omni properties, but it brings out more problems. There really is no one size fits all when it comes to God... Mormonism certainly does not have the exclusive when it comes to explaining God.
Billy Shears
Sunbeam
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:13 pm

Re: Rasmussen’s ‘narratives’?

Post by Billy Shears »

huckelberry wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:50 pm
I am not sure how this fits but I have a moment of curiosity. Where did this odd comment come from? I am puzzled , how is a classical definition of omnipotence different and how can a Mormon believe God has all power that exists when matter and spirit are understood to be eternal? Does it mean God has all power which he is able to have and all knowledge which he is able?
Daniel Peterson made that statement in the comment section of his blog yesterday. Here is a link.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... ealth.html

The context is he posted links to several psychology studies that "plainly" come from his infamous Religion Poisons Everything file. In the comments, I asked him:
Billy Shears wrote:Is it fair to say that Latter-day Saints believe that we are here on earth as part of God's plan, and that suffering is an integral part of that plan?

By the same token, do Latter-day Saints believe that God has a knowledge of the future and could prevent human suffering if He wanted to?

Do Latter-day Saints believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient?
He responded:
Daniel Peterson wrote:BS: "Is it fair to say that Latter-day Saints believe that we are here on earth as part of God's plan, and that suffering is an integral part of that plan?".

Yes.

BS: "By the same token, do Latter-day Saints believe that God has a knowledge of the future and could prevent human suffering if He wanted to?

We would have to discuss the nature of his knowledge of the future before I could answer this one. And I don't believe that he could prevent all suffering. Not, at least, without violating human freedom.

BS: "Do Latter-day Saints believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient?"

I believe that God has all power that exists and all knowledge that can be known. But I don't believe in classical definitions of omnipotence and omniscience.
It appears Peterson didn't read the abstracts to all of the papers he linked to, because one of them had conclusions that Hitchens would probably agree with. It actually says in the abstract that Peterson posted on his blog that "beliefs that suffering is part of God's benevolent plan" are associated with "lower levels of well-being and higher distress."
drumdude
God
Posts: 5212
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Rasmussen’s ‘narratives’?

Post by drumdude »

I believe that God has all power that exists and all knowledge that can be known. But I don't believe in classical definitions of omnipotence and omniscience.
This is a major problem within Mormonism. They don’t have a consistent systematic theology. They have a hodgepodge collection of contradicting doctrines that are spouted randomly from the rich lawyers and businessmen that lead the church.

Dan and Midgley think that this is a strength of Mormonism but it is very much a weakness if you care deeply about philosophy and theology. It’s good enough to keep the chapel Mormons in the pews, and amounts to essentially just a weekly self-help therapy session.
Post Reply