Unbelievable... seriously!

[_beastie]

It is crazy making!

Indeed. I think this conversation with BC has quickly reached the point of diminishing returns. I doubt even believers are taking his argument seriously, with one or two nutty exceptions.

[_bcspace]

Are you familiar with LDS doctrine on science?

Which one? The First Presidency, or Henry Eyring's?

Whichever one (or both) is published by the Church.

[_bcspace]

Indeed. I think this conversation with BC has quickly reached the point of diminishing returns. I doubt even believers are taking his argument seriously, with one or two nutty exceptions.

I don't see you answering the questions or supporting your claims so yes, this conversation is unlikely to produce results from your side.

[_beastie]

See my post made at 7:26 for my answers. They are quite specific.

[_truth dancer]

Hi BC,

With all due respect, you seem not to realize that your "views" only make sense to you, and they only make sense to you because you make up your own definitions. Further you seem to not understand that because you have a particular view doesn't mean it is that of the LDS church.

For the hundredth time (or so... smile), saying doctrine is found in scriptures does not in any way tell us what doctrine is. It is virtually meaningless in helping one figure out LDS doctrine, if there is such a thing. (It is like saying you can find my favorite poem in a library).

Of course you have never responded to this point but just keep repeating your mantra.... Oh well. We get it.

The fact is, while you are certain your interpretation of doctrine is the correct one, your fellow members, church leaders, and apologists do not seem to agree with you.

You are in your own little world where, to you you have it all figured out but your convoluted system doesn't make sense to anyone but yourself.

I'm pretty sure you are just playing a game here... I can't believe you really believe what you claim to believe but one never knows. ;-)

Back to the point of this thread...

Scottie, you bring up a good point. I looked at the record of donations and I was amazed at how big the donations are... $50,000.00, $100,000.00, $200,000.00.

Of all the problems in the world that need fixing, how is it possible that this issue is so important? I just don't get it at all.

We have 1/2 a billion people in our world without clear drinking water, children dying of cancer, sorrows and heartaches all over the planet and THIS issue is the one that takes priority?

Someone help me understand this, cause I really don't.

td

[_Thama]

BC--

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."

The key phrase here is "any man". Let me draw a scientific analogy.

Should you wish to falsify an idea, say, Mendel's law of independent segregation (alleles randomly assort independently of all other alleles), you must simply provide an case for which this does not hold true. This does not mean that a single experiment or run will falsify the theory, but rather a set of conditions which fit entirely within the parameters defined by the theory which do not follow the theories predicted results will falsify it (such as Morgan outlined in discovering genetic linkage).

The parameters for John 7:17 are "any man". Each individual must be considered a set of conditions, as the mental and environmental makeup of each person varies considerably. In addition, each person is capable of performing numerous "runs" over the course of their life. Should, after many runs (a considerable period of observance of the commandments), a person not then obtain the result predicted by the theory (a knowledge of the divine origin of those commandments), that person then falsifies the theory by providing a counterexample.

By defining the parameters to include all of humanity, the Bible makes this verse very easy to falsify, and I suspect that Beastie isn't the only person on this board to have done so.

[_EAllusion]

The kind of superstitious thinking that attributes fortuitous events to acts of prayer, magic, ritual, etc. often is an attempt reasoning that is within the domain of science. It's just really freakin' bad, as demonstrated here. That doesn't change the fact that it is a kind of argument based on observational evidence that is perfectly accessible by science. Indeed, if it was a good case, it would be sound science. This kind of stuff can be tested scientifically, however. The problem is that once we apply scientific procedures to allow for sound conclusions, these kind of superstitions do not fare well. That should leave the slightly informed religious person in a position of claiming their superstition isn't a matter of science. That has one drawback some of them don't like to admit, however, which is evidential arguments like the above are not meaningful.

Also - A religious organization engaged in significant advocacy for a law, not just a candidate, also would violate the conditions of tax exempt status. Churches do it all the time and get away with it, though.

[_ludwigm]

Rocket scientist!
How is John 7:17 unscientific? You are simply being invited to experience it for yourself.

Sure, you're a rocket scientist, and I'm Donald Trump in disguise.
Please, what is your field, and what school taught you that "scientific = being invited to experience it for yourself"?????????

Twas the Sunday School. Or that early morning Institute or whatever.

[_Some Schmo]

You really have to give the church credit for being one of the most well conceived, evolved scams ever created. They actually have people investing thousands of dollars in their own “testimonies” and the church is the ongoing beneficiary of that illusion.

There’s a part of me that feels sorry for folks who donate all that money to the scam (i.e. church), but on the other hand, another part of me thinks that’s they’re getting what they deserve. If you’re stupid enough to believe in a scam so strongly that you waste all kinds of money on it, you’ve got nobody to blame but yourself.

But what’s really amazing is how, when confronted with a decision that actually has the potential to open someone’s eyes to how they’re being scammed (as is the case in this blog story), a person chooses to continue blindly believing in the scam, investing more money, and chalking whatever good things may happen in their lives up to that investment, thus making the illusion stronger than ever. They end up investing more money to protect past investments!

Normal, rational thinking people understand these events are unrelated. I mean, I can understand why they would want to relate getting their dream house to making this donation; not putting the two unrelated events together allows for the possibility that they aren’t doing the right thing, and if that were the case, that’s a lot of money they just wasted. Better to conflate the two and protect the feelings they have surrounding the investment.

And this is why one must respect the church for its ability to scam people. The church is so good at it, they actually have members defending they’re right to act idiotically on the church’s behalf (i.e. bare their testimony / pay tithing or make other ill-informed donations / become an apologist). This is why I consider church members to be brainwashed, not just indoctrinated.

I’m glad I’m not that stupid (or at least, care so little about reality). I can’t afford it.

[_solomarineris]

What a great testimony.

Making such connections is magical thinking. This testimony is basically the same as the testimonies one gets with adverts for pyramid schemes, cults, gurus and new age medical procedures.
Give money to me and I promise you will be blessed. Try it!

Nobody invented a better way to scam the government than Religions.
They pay no no taxes, while 1/3 of my earnings go to Uncle Sam.
Think of the bright side though;
that 2/3 lets me subscribe to Playboy, buy Tequila, go to Paris, Vegas, enjoy Utah's deserts.
Life is full of fun stuff. But for those crooks who steal, they cannot even enjoy life.
Joseph Smith did know how though.