False enough for me

[_beastie]

I know you didn't use the words "man-made". You don't have to use the words. When God deliberately constructs a system that forces human beings to have to have FAITH, then the system looks man-made. Otherwise, faith wouldn't be necessary.

Think about what you've said. God can't make it obvious, otherwise people wouldn't have to have faith. He can't deliver answers simply and clearly, because then people wouldn't learn.

It's not obvious. Human beings are making lots of mistakes and "learning". How in the world does that look different than being man-made?

[_truth dancer]

God:

Let me see, there are a thousand belief systems on the Earth and I don't want to give folks any clues that will help them figure out which is the one and only true one, so I'm going to make my one "true" church look like all the others, in fact maybe make it even more complicated, convoluted, confusing, and challenging than most of the others.

Yeah, I'll even make my true church appear untrue, and the only way anyone will be able to tell if it is true is if they have faith in the belief, but I will not give them any clues to know in which belief to have faith. Hmmmm, yes. And in order to tell if the one true church is actually the real one, they will get a special feeling, but.... I'm going to be even more tricky and give everyone that feeling regardless of which belief system they think is true. So, regardless of what my children believe they will think it is true.

Yep, this is a great plan. I think it will work!

;-)

~dancer~

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi Beastie, let's look at what you're saying:

When God deliberately constructs a system that forces human beings to have to have FAITH, then the system looks man-made.

Well...not completely. I originally said, "give them a guidebook to begin with" and then let them run with it. The guidebook is one of God's "fingerprints" which would provide some evidence that the church is not wholly man made in its totality. This guidebook may not be the only fingerprint. But these fingerprints are only observable, it seems, by those that have eyes to see and ears to hear. Similarly, fingerprints left behind in a room are only detectable by those who have the tools to retrieve them. If all of the fingerprints that were left in a room were directly observable, one would not have to have faith that they are there. After all, it would be possible that there weren't any finger prints in the room, period. But, they either are or aren't. It is just as possible that there are...or aren't... any of God's finger prints on the LDS church. If these purported prints are invisible to the naked eye, it would take special apparatus to see that they really are there. The fingerprints that show God's handiwork in the LDS church may literally be invisible to those that do not have the apparatus to observe them, or are unwilling to use said tools.

As a result the church could, in a very real sense, appear to be completely and exclusively man made.

That is how you and others see it. I think it is possible to have at least a partial understanding of why that may be the case.

Regards,
MG

[_Tarski]

So are you saying it is official LDS doctrine that Noah's flood was literal, worldwide and catastrophic, and that there was no physical death anywhere in the world for plants or animals until the Fall of Adam?

(Adam and Eve)
(Noah

I'm not seeing a problem here. Define "world" and "earth"...according to the ancients. Is the lesson material referring to the world/earth of the ancients...or not? Can you tell one way or the other?

The whole world was full of death and life and has been for millions of years. The world could not have reasonable meant the garden becuase that alread was called "the garden" as opposed to "the world".
There was death in the alleged location of the garden in Missouri continuously for the past hundreds of thousands of years. There is a fossil and geological record in that area.
What nonsense are you suggesting?
Can't you tell a myth when you hear it? It shouts myth. Every ancient culture had them and they are all fantastic and transparently not literally true.
Come on. Talking snake, magic fruit of knowledge, cherubim, flaming swords, Eve from a rib, first man, no death?????
Jeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!

[_cinepro]

I'm not seeing a problem here. Define "world" and "earth"...according to the ancients. Is the lesson material referring to the world/earth of the ancients...or not? Can you tell one way or the other?

While "world" may be synonymous with "earth", you can't argue that either is synonymous with "garden". Even with the Limited Garden Theory, you still have a problem with physical death outside of the garden before the fall. If there was physical death outside of the garden, then Adam didn't introduce physical death into the "world"; he only introduced it into the garden. But the lesson manual says:

The Fall of Adam and Eve brought physical and spiritual death into the world.

Either way, it's referring to the space outside of the garden.

Just exactly WHERE were Adam and Eve before "the fall"? Were they in and of the world created through evolutionary processes? Or not?

It doesn't really matter. There is only a distinction made between "In the Garden" and "Outside the Garden", regardless of the labels.

The last desperate apologetic hope is to argue for mortal conditions outside the garden coexisting with immortal conditions inside the garden (Limited Garden Theory with immortal Adam and Eve in the Garden, and mortal cavemen living, dying and evolving concurrently outside the garden). But the manual clearly states that "The Fall of Adam and Eve brought physical and spiritual death into the world." If "the world" is the space outside the garden and not including the garden, then you're in trouble. If "the world" is the entire planet including the garden, then you lose. Either way.

Your only "out" is to distance yourself from the lesson manuals, which was my point in the first place.

[_mentalgymnast]

God:

Let me see, there are a thousand belief systems on the Earth and I don't want to give folks any clues that will help them figure out which is the one and only true one, so I'm going to make my one "true" church look like all the others...

~dancer~

But it doesn't look like the others. Thus, this board and others like it arguing/discussing its truth claims. Evangelicals and other Christian faiths (and non-Christian for that matter) don't want to have anything to do with Mormon baptisms. The truth claims differentiate it a great deal from "the others". Mormons are a peculiar people...as a result of belonging to a church that doesn't just "look like all the others".

Regards,
MG

[_cinepro]

God:

Let me see, there are a thousand belief systems on the Earth and I don't want to give folks any clues that will help them figure out which is the one and only true one, so I'm going to make my one "true" church look like all the others...

~dancer~

But it doesn't look like the others. Thus, this board and others like it arguing/discussing its truth claims. Evangelicals and other Christian faiths (and non-Christian for that matter) don't want to have anything to do with Mormon baptisms. The truth claims differentiate it a great deal from "the others". Mormons are a peculiar people...as a result of belonging to a church that doesn't just "look like all the others".

Regards,
MG

Sorry, but that's not true. We aren't any different from other churches as they are from us.

[Tator]

Well...not completely. I originally said, "give them a guidebook to begin with" and then let them run with it. The guidebook is one of God's "fingerprints" which would provide some evidence that the church is not wholly man made in its totality. This guidebook may not be the only fingerprint. But these fingerprints are only observable, it seems, by those that have eyes to see and ears to hear. Similarly, fingerprints left behind in a room are only detectable by those who have the tools to retrieve them. If all of the fingerprints that were left in a room were directly observable, one would not have to have faith that they are there. After all, it would be possible that there weren't any finger prints in the room, period. But, they either are or aren't. It is just as possible that there are...or aren't... any of God's finger prints on the LDS church. If these purported prints are invisible to the naked eye, it would take special apparatus to see that they really are there. The fingerprints that show God's handiwork in the LDS church may literally be invisible to those that do not have the apparatus to observe them, or are unwilling to use said tools.

As a result the church could, in a very real sense, appear to be completely and exclusively man made.

That is how you and others see it. I think it is possible to have at least a partial understanding of why that may be the case.

No. You’re talking nonsense. The only reason you don’t recognize it as such is because you’ve completely immersed yourself in your “choice” to believe.

Really. Listen to what you’re saying. If you don’t have “eyes to see and ears to hear” then the church looks just like any other man-made church. It is literally invisible if you don’t have the “apparatus” to observe them.

This is the same bullchip that any other “we have the one truth” religion peddles. But, according to them, it’s YOU that isn’t “chosen”, or, In other words, “don’t have the apparatus to observe them”.

To someone on the outside of all these claims, like me, you all sound the same, and you’re all making nonsensical rationalizations for what even you can’t deny – your “one true” religions end up looking just like the poser “man-made” religions.

But it doesn't look like the others. Thus, this board and others like it arguing/discussing its truth claims. Evangelicals and other Christian faiths (and non-Christian for that matter) don't want to have anything to do with Mormon baptisms. The truth claims differentiate it a great deal from "the others". Mormons are a peculiar people...as a result of belonging to a church that doesn't just "look like all the others".

You're no more peculiar than scientologists, and likely less peculiar.

But you're missing the point - it doesn't look the same in regards to teachings and dogma - it looks the same in that you ALL look like man-made churches. Unless, of course, you have the Right Apparatus to Recognize (my) Truth.

[_mentalgymnast]

I'm not seeing a problem here. Define "world" and "earth"...according to the ancients. Is the lesson material referring to the world/earth of the ancients...or not? Can you tell one way or the other?

While "world" may be synonymous with "earth", you can't argue that either is synonymous with "garden". Even with the Limited Garden Theory, you still have a problem with physical death outside of the garden before the fall. If there was physical death outside of the garden, then Adam didn't introduce physical death into the "world"; he only introduced it into the garden. But the lesson manual says:

The Fall of Adam and Eve brought physical and spiritual death into the world.

Either way, it's referring to the space outside of the garden.

Just exactly WHERE were Adam and Eve before "the fall"? Were they in and of the world created through evolutionary processes? Or not?

It doesn't really matter. There is only a distinction made between "In the Garden" and "Outside the Garden", regardless of the labels.

The last desperate apologetic hope is to argue for mortal conditions outside the garden coexisting with immortal conditions inside the garden (Limited Garden Theory with immortal Adam and Eve in the Garden, and mortal cavemen living, dying and evolving concurrently outside the garden). But the manual clearly states that "The Fall of Adam and Eve brought physical and spiritual death into the world." If "the world" is the space outside the garden and not including the garden, then you're in trouble. If "the world" is the entire planet including the garden, then you lose. Either way.

Your only "out" is to distance yourself from the lesson manuals, which was my point in the first place.

About the best I can do at this juncture on this topic is to quote from Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Neither the biblical records nor secular history and archaeological research identify the dimensions or the location of the garden in terms of the present-day surface of the earth. Latter-day revelation specifies that as a mortal, Adam lived at Adam-ondi-ahman in what is now Daviess County, Missouri.

Early church leaders taught that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri.

Beyond that, who knows?

Regards,
MG

[_msnobody]

There is a reason it is said to be like trying to nail green jello to a wall. [green is mine]

My question is, what effective methods are used to condition people to deny or suppress such teachings knowing full well the teachings or doctrine has existed within the church? Perhaps even teachings existing while at the same time denying it to outsiders. It is like the brain in compartmentalized and only one thought at a time can present itself, then that thought must go into hiding before the opposite thought can present itself. I don't know, maybe opposition in all things includes thought processes as well.