Question for the Atheists.

[_mentalgymnast]

Why would the all knowing creator/god of all human beings on the earth be using the same techniques and procedures to communicate with human beings on the earth as these charlatans do?

Doesn't make sense.

I would think God is better than that.

Regards,
MG

Why would such a being use magic rocks or seer stones, burning bushes, magical sprouts, secret passwords, or sacred underwear? If you pull back a bit from your beliefs you might see how strange some of them might appear to non believers and how some of those items can looks like props.

You have a point there. Magic sprouts?

Regards,
MG

[_Fence Sitter]

You have a point there. Magic sprouts?

Regards,
MG

D&C 8, which is a revelation to Oliver Cowdery verse 6 in the original said "remember this is thy gift now this is not all for thou hast another gift which is the gift of working with the sprout." Cowdery came from a family that used divining rods and had one himself.

In the revelation, the phrase “the gift of working with the sprout” appears, possibly describing Cowdery’s use of a divining rod or similar “thing of Nature.” The phrase was later revised to read “the gift of working with the rod” in the 1833 Book of Commandments and ‘the gift of Aaron” in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/revelation-april-1829%E2%80%93b-dc-8#2

[_Some Schmo]

MG, if your god is real, why would he choose to communicate to his children in the same manner utilized by psychics, astral projectionists, and sorcerers? Why would a god that truly exists use the same methods that charlatans use to deceive their marks?

Why would the all knowing creator/god of all human beings on the earth be using the same techniques and procedures to communicate with human beings on the earth as these charlatans do?

Doesn't make sense.

I would think God is better than that.

Regards,
MG

That's pretty much what he was asking you. You just repeated his question back to him.

That should make you pause.

[_mentalgymnast]

That's pretty much what he was asking you. You just repeated his question back to him.

That should make you pause.

Yeah, it did. Now that I think about it I suppose I can't differentiate between Joseph Smith and others who have used intermediary sorts of devices and objects as a medium in which they have had reliance on in their work. I stand corrected on that point.

Particularly in Joseph's usage of a seer stone in the translation of the Book of Mormon. I don't know that I'd say he used it simply as a prop, however. For a period of time in the Book of Mormon translation process it acted/performed as something more or less comparable to a modern day computer.

A quote from Elder Dallin Oaks of the Q12 might be useful:

As Dallin H. Oaks remarked:
It should be recognized that such tools as the Urim and Thummim, the Liahona, seerstones, and other articles have been used appropriately in biblical, Book of Mormon, and modern times by those who have the gift and authority to obtain revelation from God in connection with their use. At the same time, scriptural accounts and personal experience show that unauthorized though perhaps well-meaning persons have made inappropriate use of tangible objects while seeking or claiming to receive spiritual guidance. Those who define folk magic to include any use of tangible objects to aid in obtaining spiritual guidance confound the real with the counterfeit. They mislead themselves and their readers.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

Particularly in Joseph's usage of a seer stone in the translation of the Book of Mormon. I don't know that I'd say he used it simply as a prop, however. For a period of time in the Book of Mormon translation process it acted/performed as something more or less comparable to a modern day computer.

How so? I see no meaningful similarities between the two. We know how a computer works. We know how they are made. There is no mysticism or supernatural forces at work with a computer. With the translation story of the Book of Mormon, there are a host of assumptions that must be ignored just to get to the point where one can accept that even Joseph was the recipient of the text. The funcionality of the supposed U&T is NOTHING like a computer.

[_Buffalo]

That's pretty much what he was asking you. You just repeated his question back to him.

That should make you pause.

Yeah, it did. Now that I think about it I suppose I can't differentiate between Joseph Smith and others who have used intermediary sorts of devices and objects as a medium in which they have had reliance on in their work. I stand corrected on that point.

Particularly in Joseph's usage of a seer stone in the translation of the Book of Mormon. I don't know that I'd say he used it simply as a prop, however. For a period of time in the Book of Mormon translation process it acted/performed as something more or less comparable to a modern day computer.

A quote from Elder Dallin Oaks of the Q12 might be useful:

As Dallin H. Oaks remarked:
It should be recognized that such tools as the Urim and Thummim, the Liahona, seerstones, and other articles have been used appropriately in biblical, Book of Mormon, and modern times by those who have the gift and authority to obtain revelation from God in connection with their use. At the same time, scriptural accounts and personal experience show that unauthorized though perhaps well-meaning persons have made inappropriate use of tangible objects while seeking or claiming to receive spiritual guidance. Those who define folk magic to include any use of tangible objects to aid in obtaining spiritual guidance confound the real with the counterfeit. They mislead themselves and their readers.

Regards,
MG

So, fake magic vs real magic. :)

[_Fence Sitter]

Yeah, it did. Now that I think about it I suppose I can't differentiate between Joseph Smith and others who have used intermediary sorts of devices and objects as a medium in which they have had reliance on in their work. I stand corrected on that point.



Regards,
MG

Do you believe there was a time before Joseph Smith became a prophet that he used those same tools to convince people he could find buried treasure? If your answer is yes, do you believe he did so knowing it was a charade or do you think he actually believed he could find treasure?

[_mentalgymnast]

Neither you or a god have demonstrated that there is a god trying to communicate with me by ANY means (supernatural or otherwise). Hell, existence hasn't even been established, let alone this being's desire or capability to communicate with me. So... why would I even begin such an endeavor? Let's establish their existence first. So... have you got any evidence that this being exists?

Not any evidence that I can place directly in your hands and say, "Here's proof!"

But there are interesting bits of research out there by some reputable folks that cause one to take pause and consider the possibilities.

Australian astrophysicist Paul Davies says, "The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe."

Paul Davies is an advocate of the principle of "fine tuning" of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

He also wrote a short piece that could be of interest to you.

http://books.google.com/books?id=C7g2WS ... &q&f=false

On the above link type "Paul Davies" into the search field, scroll down to the bottom of the search results and go to: Big Bang.

I'm reading a book on my NOOK right now called:

http://www.amazon.com/Rare-Earth-Comple ... 0387952896

The basic thesis of the book is how rare developed life forms are in the universe. Good book to pick up if you haven't read it yet.

More on "Rare Rarth Hypothesis" here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

Einstein said:

"You may find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world to the degree that we may speak of such comprehensibility as a miracle or an eternal mystery. Well, a priori one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be in any way grasped through thought... The kind of order created, for example, by Newton's theory of gravity is of quite a different kind. Even if the axioms of the theory are posited by a human being, the success of such an enterprise presupposes an order in the objective world of a high degree, which one has no a priori right to expect. That is the miracle which grows increasingly persuasive with the increasing development of knowledge."

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/bradley/ ... verse.html

From the same article just quoted:

...the incredibly diverse phenomena we see in nature are the result of such a small number of physics laws, each of which assumes such a simple mathematical form, that they can all be written on one side of one sheet of paper...

No, I can't place evidence for a creator right in your hands, but there is a lot of observational science, using the five senses, that lead one to consider the possibility that a creater/god responsible for human beings on the earth may not be such a far fetched idea.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Yeah, it did. Now that I think about it I suppose I can't differentiate between Joseph Smith and others who have used intermediary sorts of devices and objects as a medium in which they have had reliance on in their work. I stand corrected on that point.



Regards,
MG

Do you believe there was a time before Joseph Smith became a prophet that he used those same tools to convince people he could find buried treasure? If your answer is yes, do you believe he did so knowing it was a charade or do you think he actually believed he could find treasure?

Yes he did. From what I remember reading when I was looking more closely at Joseph's treasure seeking days, I think it was a little of both. He was following in the footsteps of his father, participated in the craft of treasure seeking, but had his doubts as to whether or not it always worked. At least that's what I remember without going back and reading the available material all over again.

Regards,
MG

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think when stuff like this stops happening the argument for a loving and interactive god will be better positioned:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... -23308972/