Does it take more faith to stay, or to go?

[_KevinSim]

Thews, then you went on to explain how you know that you're "not wrong" regarding "the divine inspiration of Mormonism." It seemed to come down to five points. (1) God would not have His prophet use an object to translate ancient records that had been used occulticly to allegedly see evil "treasure guardians." (2) God would not reveal to His prophet that things happened anciently when those things have no historical support. (3) God would not choose as a prophet someone who would claim "to be more accomplished than Jesus Christ." (4) God would not command His prophet to marry seventeen-year-olds behind his wife's back. (5) God would not choose a man as His prophet who could be fooled into believing modern manufactured plates were actually ancient documents, as in the Kinderhook incident.

What I believe based on the facts is represented in the above 5 points, but there's a lot more to solidify why I believe Mormonism is false. If you don't mind Kevin, can you address the 5 points above with your take on them?

Gladly. Regarding point (1), a little bit later in your article you quoted:

Deuteronomy 18:10-12
10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.

So, in Deuteronomy 18 God does command that "no one be found among" the Israelites "who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead," but God also restricts those who practice divination. You mentioned the prohibition on divination yourself.

Now in Exodus 28:30, while talking about the things God wants His priests (or in particular Aaron) to wear, God says, "And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before the LORD: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually."

If you go to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim" you'll see that at least some scholars (assuming Wikipedia is actually telling us what scholars think) believe that the Urim and Thummim "is a phrase from the Hebrew Scriptures or Torah associated with the Hoshen (High Priest's breastplate), divination in general, and cleromancy in particular. Most scholars suspect that the phrase refers to specific objects involved in the divination."

The point I guess I'm trying to make is that just as God commanded the Israelites to not let "one be found among" them "who practices divination," and then commanded His priests to actually wear items that scholars later associated with divination, you can't conclude that because God also included those who consult the dead with those who practice divination, He's going to necessarily refuse to let His prophet work with seerstones, just because some people think they're involved in necromancy. Or can you think of some reason why seerstones should be associated with necromancy more than the scholars mentioned in the Wikipedia article associate the Urim and Thummim with divination?

The scholars can be wrong about whether the Urim and Thummim involved divination, in the same way that you can be wrong about whether God would or would not have His translator use seerstones, based on what you think about seerstones being involved with the occult.

(2) Every faith has some things that can be verified from history and some things that cannot. Christianity certainly does. Sure, much of the Bible can be verified; significant parts of it cannot. All that means is that it was common practice for the Jews and early Christians to include some parts of their history in their scriptures. History does verify that Israel did have a king named David, yes, and it verifies a lot of other things about the nations of Israel and Judah that the Hebrew Tanakh records.

But all that we have to support the narrative in the first five books of the Tanakh is the discovery of chariot wreckage at the bottom of the Red Sea. The historicity of the entirety of Genesis and Exodus is controversial at best, and laughable at worst. And there are many places in the Tanakh whose historicity is in question, not just the first five books. Is there any historical verification that an Israelite prophet convinced the entire city of Nineveh to repent of its sins, as related in the Book of Jonah? Is there any historical confirmation that a Jewish queen of Persia saved her race from complete annihilation, as related in the Book of Esther?

So, sure, I'm not aware of any historical support at all for the narratives in the Book of Mormon or the Books of Moses or Abraham. On the other hand, there's great historical verification that large numbers of Latter-day Saints moved as a group to the Kirtland, Ohio area, and that other large numbers of them gathered in Missouri as they believed God had commanded them. Both of these events are talked about in the book of scripture known as the Doctrine & Covenants. Joseph Smith-History in the Pearl of Great Price also mentions historical facts that can be verified.

Parts of the LDS-specific standard works can be historically verified; parts cannot. Parts of the Tanakh and New Testament also can be historically verified; parts cannot. So what's the big deal about historical claims the LDS Church has made?

(3) I think the assertion that Joseph Smith claimed to be more accomplished than Jesus is an exaggeration. The simple fact is that when Judas kissed Jesus in Gethsemane and Jesus Himself prevented Peter from using a sword to defend Him, the apostles scattered. Peter followed from a distance for a while, and the author of John's Gospel relates that John himself stood at the foot of the cross, but in the case of most of Jesus' apostles and disciples, they were nowhere to be found during Jesus' trial, beating, and execution.

Matthew 27 verse 20 says, "But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus." Then later verse 25 says, "Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." I find it hard to believe that any of the apostles would make statements like this, so I'm convinced they weren't present. But verses 20 and 25 sound like pretty persuasive arguments that during that horrible day Jesus was pretty surrounded by His enemies.

That's all that Joseph Smith meant; the Latter-day Saints never abandoned him like Jesus' disciples abandoned Him on that day.

(4) The victim in the case of Joseph Smith marrying the seventeen-year-old was Joseph's wife, Emma. I guess a case could be made that the seventeen-year-old herself was also a victim, but I think the principal victim was Emma Smith. Thews, you seem to be convinced that God would not choose as His prophet a man who would commit an offense against someone like Emma period, let alone do it without her knowing what he was doing.

On the other hand, the victims in the account of 1 Samuel 15 is not just a wife and a seventeen-year-old girl, but instead is a whole race of people, the Amalekites, men, women, children, infants, and sucklings. When God commanded Samuel to commit genocide on the Amalekite race, and Samuel passed that order on to Saul, did Samuel tell Saul to inform the Amalekites that God wanted them dead? The Bible doesn't say. But I think military precedent indicates that Saul probably thought it was in the best interests of the Hebrew warriors if he caught them by surprise, so they probably didn't know they were being annhilated until the day of the attack.

So Joseph Smith didn't tell Emma what he was doing, and in all probability Saul didn't tell the Amalekites what he was going to do before he attacked them. Why in the world is it more likely that God would command Saul to kill an entire race (including every single "infant and suckling") than it is that God would command one man to polygamously marry a seventeen-year-old girl?

(5) One of the main, overarching themes developed in almost every part of the Bible is that there has been only one man in the history of the human race that didn't make a single mistake, and that man is not included among those who are commonly called prophets. Why is it so hard to believe that a man that God chose as His prophet wouldn't make a mistake regarding the Kinderhook plates?

I'm not conceding that Joseph Smith did make a mistake regarding those plates; LDS apologists have said things regarding this issue that I haven't read, and I probably need to read those things before I decide my opinion on this matter. What I'm saying is that even if it was estabslished that Joseph Smith did make a mistake, I don't see how you can go from such a mistake to the conclusion that God had not chosen him as God's prophet.

In short, I really don't see how any of these five points lead to the inescapable conclusion that God did not choose Smith as His prophet, as His spokesman to the world.

But while you sounded very convinced you were not wrong on the subject of the divine inspiration of Joseph Smith, you admitted that you might be wrong on the subject of endless torment for the unsaved, an issue that divides you with the vast majority of Biblical Christianity. Can you tell me, perhaps, what good it does for anybody, for the unsaved to spend the rest of eternity suffering unbearable agony that will never end? If one cannot know that a good God would cause the unsaved to cease to exist, if He could, rather than let them suffer unbearable agony forever, then what can one know that a good God would do?

You said that there were things beyond the five points I addressed above that made you doubt the divine inspiration of Joseph Smith. Think for a moment about all those things you were thinking of. Do any of them involve an infinite amount of damage to any of the souls of men or women? If so, then I'd like to know what they are. If not, then how in the world can you be more sure that God did not inspire Joseph Smith than you are that God would cause the souls of the unsaved to cease to exist if He had the ability to do that?

[_thews]

Deuteronomy 18:10-12
10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.

So, in Deuteronomy 18 God does command that "no one be found among" the Israelites "who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead," but God also restricts those who practice divination. You mentioned the prohibition on divination yourself.

What part of contact with the dead did I miss here? Joseph Smith used his seer stones to "see" treasure guardians and performed rituals to appease them. Your retort was that God never told you what he wouldn't use to bring his new doctrine, which is in direct opposition to what is stated in Deuteronomy 18:10-12.

Now in Exodus 28:30, while talking about the things God wants His priests (or in particular Aaron) to wear, God says, "And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before the LORD: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually."

If you go to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim" you'll see that at least some scholars (assuming Wikipedia is actually telling us what scholars think) believe that the Urim and Thummim "is a phrase from the Hebrew Scriptures or Torah associated with the Hoshen (High Priest's breastplate), divination in general, and cleromancy in particular. Most scholars suspect that the phrase refers to specific objects involved in the divination."

What scholars think about the biblical use of Urim and Thummim doesn't mean anything when it comes to Joseph Smith's seer stones. As I've stated explicitly in this thread, the use of Urim and Thummim wasn't used until three years after the Book of Mormon was published. Mormon history somewhat acknowledges this, but continues to claim the Book of Mormon was translated with the Nephite spectacles, showing Joseph Smith with his breastplate on and magic glasses. We know this is incorrect (as the Nephite spectacles were taken back as punishment after the lost 116 pages), and the failure to show Joseph Smith with his head in a stove-pipe hat using seer stones is hidden.

The point I guess I'm trying to make is that just as God commanded the Israelites to not let "one be found among" them "who practices divination," and then commanded His priests to actually wear items that scholars later associated with divination, you can't conclude that because God also included those who consult the dead with those who practice divination, He's going to necessarily refuse to let His prophet work with seerstones, just because some people think they're involved in necromancy. Or can you think of some reason why seerstones should be associated with necromancy more than the scholars mentioned in the Wikipedia article associate the Urim and Thummim with divination?

You're simply grasping at fragmented arguments previously used to convince you that Joseph Smith's seer stones are the Urim and Thummim... they are not. When Joseph Smith found his first seer stone, you know, the one he used when he was paid to see evil treasure guardians, he didn't call it an Urim or Thummim... because all it was, was a seer stone. That's what it is today... an occult object used by someone who believed in magic. To your argument, if I called a Ouija board a crystal ball because they're used to contact the dead, it doesn't make them the same thing. The LDS chuch has Joseph Smith's seer stones locked up in the vault... why? Why don't they let you see these magic objects for yourself?

The scholars can be wrong about whether the Urim and Thummim involved divination, in the same way that you can be wrong about whether God would or would not have His translator use seerstones, based on what you think about seerstones being involved with the occult.

(2) Every faith has some things that can be verified from history and some things that cannot. Christianity certainly does. Sure, much of the Bible can be verified; significant parts of it cannot. All that means is that it was common practice for the Jews and early Christians to include some parts of their history in their scriptures. History does verify that Israel did have a king named David, yes, and it verifies a lot of other things about the nations of Israel and Judah that the Hebrew Tanakh records.

But all that we have to support the narrative in the first five books of the Tanakh is the discovery of chariot wreckage at the bottom of the Red Sea. The historicity of the entirety of Genesis and Exodus is controversial at best, and laughable at worst. And there are many places in the Tanakh whose historicity is in question, not just the first five books. Is there any historical verification that an Israelite prophet convinced the entire city of Nineveh to repent of its sins, as related in the Book of Jonah? Is there any historical confirmation that a Jewish queen of Persia saved her race from complete annihilation, as related in the Book of Esther?

So, sure, I'm not aware of any historical support at all for the narratives in the Book of Mormon or the Books of Moses or Abraham. On the other hand, there's great historical verification that large numbers of Latter-day Saints moved as a group to the Kirtland, Ohio area, and that other large numbers of them gathered in Missouri as they believed God had commanded them. Both of these events are talked about in the book of scripture known as the Doctrine & Covenants. Joseph Smith-History in the Pearl of Great Price also mentions historical facts that can be verified.

Parts of the LDS-specific standard works can be historically verified; parts cannot. Parts of the Tanakh and New Testament also can be historically verified; parts cannot. So what's the big deal about historical claims the LDS Church has made?

(3) I think the assertion that Joseph Smith claimed to be more accomplished than Jesus is an exaggeration. The simple fact is that when Judas kissed Jesus in Gethsemane and Jesus Himself prevented Peter from using a sword to defend Him, the apostles scattered. Peter followed from a distance for a while, and the author of John's Gospel relates that John himself stood at the foot of the cross, but in the case of most of Jesus' apostles and disciples, they were nowhere to be found during Jesus' trial, beating, and execution.

Matthew 27 verse 20 says, "But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus." Then later verse 25 says, "Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." I find it hard to believe that any of the apostles would make statements like this, so I'm convinced they weren't present. But verses 20 and 25 sound like pretty persuasive arguments that during that horrible day Jesus was pretty surrounded by His enemies.

That's all that Joseph Smith meant; the Latter-day Saints never abandoned him like Jesus' disciples abandoned Him on that day.

(4) The victim in the case of Joseph Smith marrying the seventeen-year-old was Joseph's wife, Emma. I guess a case could be made that the seventeen-year-old herself was also a victim, but I think the principal victim was Emma Smith. Thews, you seem to be convinced that God would not choose as His prophet a man who would commit an offense against someone like Emma period, let alone do it without her knowing what he was doing.

On the other hand, the victims in the account of 1 Samuel 15 is not just a wife and a seventeen-year-old girl, but instead is a whole race of people, the Amalekites, men, women, children, infants, and sucklings. When God commanded Samuel to commit genocide on the Amalekite race, and Samuel passed that order on to Saul, did Samuel tell Saul to inform the Amalekites that God wanted them dead? The Bible doesn't say. But I think military precedent indicates that Saul probably thought it was in the best interests of the Hebrew warriors if he caught them by surprise, so they probably didn't know they were being annhilated until the day of the attack.

So Joseph Smith didn't tell Emma what he was doing, and in all probability Saul didn't tell the Amalekites what he was going to do before he attacked them. Why in the world is it more likely that God would command Saul to kill an entire race (including every single "infant and suckling") than it is that God would command one man to polygamously marry a seventeen-year-old girl?

(5) One of the main, overarching themes developed in almost every part of the Bible is that there has been only one man in the history of the human race that didn't make a single mistake, and that man is not included among those who are commonly called prophets. Why is it so hard to believe that a man that God chose as His prophet wouldn't make a mistake regarding the Kinderhook plates?

I'm not conceding that Joseph Smith did make a mistake regarding those plates; LDS apologists have said things regarding this issue that I haven't read, and I probably need to read those things before I decide my opinion on this matter. What I'm saying is that even if it was estabslished that Joseph Smith did make a mistake, I don't see how you can go from such a mistake to the conclusion that God had not chosen him as God's prophet.

In short, I really don't see how any of these five points lead to the inescapable conclusion that God did not choose Smith as His prophet, as His spokesman to the world.

But while you sounded very convinced you were not wrong on the subject of the divine inspiration of Joseph Smith, you admitted that you might be wrong on the subject of endless torment for the unsaved, an issue that divides you with the vast majority of Biblical Christianity. Can you tell me, perhaps, what good it does for anybody, for the unsaved to spend the rest of eternity suffering unbearable agony that will never end? If one cannot know that a good God would cause the unsaved to cease to exist, if He could, rather than let them suffer unbearable agony forever, then what can one know that a good God would do?

You said that there were things beyond the five points I addressed above that made you doubt the divine inspiration of Joseph Smith. Think for a moment about all those things you were thinking of. Do any of them involve an infinite amount of damage to any of the souls of men or women? If so, then I'd like to know what they are. If not, then how in the world can you be more sure that God did not inspire Joseph Smith than you are that God would cause the souls of the unsaved to cease to exist if He had the ability to do that?

If you want to believe seer stones used to contact the dead would also be chosen to bring new supposed Christian doctrine, that's up to you. Making a long-winded argument about what constitutes an Urim and Thummim doesn't negate Joseph Smith's seer stones were what was used to translate every single word of the Book of Mormon using his stove-pipe hat. Believe what you wish, but Christians don't believe what you believe.

[_KevinSim]

If you want to believe seer stones used to contact the dead would also be chosen to bring new supposed Christian doctrine, that's up to you. Making a long-winded argument about what constitutes an Urim and Thummim doesn't negate Joseph Smith's seer stones were what was used to translate every single word of the Book of Mormon using his stove-pipe hat. Believe what you wish, but Christians don't believe what you believe.

Thews, you're absolutely right; the group of believers you call Christians don't believe God would have Joseph Smith use seer stones ("used to contact the dead") to "bring new supposed Christian doctrine." On the other hand, the vast majority of those Christians do believe that their God would let a majority of the human race suffer unbearable agony for the rest of eternity, when that same deity has the power to cause those sufferers to cease to exist, and therefore put them out of their misery, anytime He wanted to.

You have said you don't personally believe in the unbearable agony called Hell, and I have praised you for that viewpoint in the past. But you've also said that you might be wrong about your viewpoint on Hell, while at the same time you have said you're certain that you're not wrong about your viewpoint on the divine inspiration (or lack thereof) of Joseph Smith.

Why is it easier to believe you might be wrong about whether or not God lets some souls suffer forever than it is to believe you might be wrong about Joseph Smith? Why is it more likely that God would let some souls suffer forever (a belief that, if true, would cause an infinite amount of damage to a large number of the souls of men and women) than it is that God would choose to let Joseph Smith use a seer stone for a time to translate the Book of Mormon (a belief that, if true, wouldn't cause any long term damage at all)?

[_KevinSim]

If you want to believe seer stones used to contact the dead would also be chosen to bring new supposed Christian doctrine, that's up to you. Making a long-winded argument about what constitutes an Urim and Thummim doesn't negate Joseph Smith's seer stones were what was used to translate every single word of the Book of Mormon using his stove-pipe hat. Believe what you wish, but Christians don't believe what you believe.

Thews, you're absolutely right; the group of believers you call Christians don't believe God would have Joseph Smith use seer stones ("used to contact the dead") to "bring new supposed Christian doctrine." On the other hand, the vast majority of those Christians do believe that their God would let a majority of the human race suffer unbearable agony for the rest of eternity, when that same deity has the power to cause those sufferers to cease to exist, and therefore put them out of their misery, anytime He wanted to.

You have said you don't personally believe in the unbearable agony called Hell, and I have praised you for that viewpoint in the past. But you've also said that you might be wrong about your viewpoint on Hell, while at the same time you have said you're certain that you're not wrong about your viewpoint on the divine inspiration (or lack thereof) of Joseph Smith.

Why is it easier to believe you might be wrong about whether or not God lets some souls suffer forever than it is to believe you might be wrong about Joseph Smith? Why is it more likely that God would let some souls suffer forever (a belief that, if true, would cause an infinite amount of damage to a large number of the souls of men and women) than it is that God would choose to let Joseph Smith use a seer stone for a time to translate the Book of Mormon (a belief that, if true, wouldn't cause any long term damage at all)?

[Guest]

If you want to believe seer stones used to contact the dead would also be chosen to bring new supposed Christian doctrine, that's up to you. Making a long-winded argument about what constitutes an Urim and Thummim doesn't negate Joseph Smith's seer stones were what was used to translate every single word of the Book of Mormon using his stove-pipe hat. Believe what you wish, but Christians don't believe what you believe.

Thews, you're absolutely right; the group of believers you call Christians don't believe God would have Joseph Smith use seer stones ("used to contact the dead") to "bring new supposed Christian doctrine." On the other hand, the vast majority of those Christians do believe that their God would let a majority of the human race suffer unbearable agony for the rest of eternity, when that same deity has the power to cause those sufferers to cease to exist, and therefore put them out of their misery, anytime He wanted to.

I fail to find any logic in your argument. When conversing with Mormons, I often find the logic required to cancel out one thing that doesn't make sense with another argument (in this case completely unrelated) that also doesn't make sense an exercise in futility. If belief in a God that allows "unbearable agony" would convince you (or anyone else) that God is inherently flawed, so it somehow negates some other aspect equally as flawed, is the basis for your belief in God, then the foundation is built on flaws. How can you believe in something where you champion God is flawed? To my point, when it comes to Christianity, the use of an occult seer stone placed in a stove-pipe hat to see treasure guardians is against what Christianity encompasses. Conversely, this is what Joseph Smith used to translate the supposed golden plates into the Book of Mormon, and is a part of placing belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God requires that you find this translation logical. If I can ask you a question Kevin, do you acknowledge the fact that the seer stone(s) Joseph Smith used to translate the supposed golden plates was also the exact same seer stone(s) used to see treasure guardians before the Book of Mormon?

You have said you don't personally believe in the unbearable agony called Hell, and I have praised you for that viewpoint in the past. But you've also said that you might be wrong about your viewpoint on Hell, while at the same time you have said you're certain that you're not wrong about your viewpoint on the divine inspiration (or lack thereof) of Joseph Smith.

We're going in circles here. What I believe is what I believe, but it's based on what I acknowledge as the truth. The entire concept of "unbearable agony" is something God wants, because God created us. I don't see life as a pass/fail test intended to prove to God we were correct, but rather a lesson to the soul. Again, if you knew this right now, you would also know there was no hell; therefore, you wouldn't learn what you were supposed to learn. That's my opinion, but it's based on what I actually believe. I don't need to draw parallels to force my logic to make sense to me, but rather it's what I've logically concluded.

with regard to hell, assume hell doesn't exist. In your dreams, when a nightmare happens and you awake from it knowing it was only a dream, solace is found in the fact that it wasn't real; I see the afterlife in the same sort of way. Whatever evil we are exposed to on earth, if it doesn't exist on the other side we will know what evil is, what it feels like, and the agony felt by others. That nightmare phase of the learning experience is necessary, so to understand life, evil is necessary. I don't make the rules and my finite brain can only comprehend so much, but what I refuse to place faith in is something that A) Doesn't make sense, or B) Something I know is false.

Why is it easier to believe you might be wrong about whether or not God lets some souls suffer forever than it is to believe you might be wrong about Joseph Smith? Why is it more likely that God would let some souls suffer forever (a belief that, if true, would cause an infinite amount of damage to a large number of the souls of men and women) than it is that God would choose to let Joseph Smith use a seer stone for a time to translate the Book of Mormon (a belief that, if true, wouldn't cause any long term damage at all)?

Kevin, as a Christian I believe Jesus Christ was God... they are one and not distinct personages. To put it into humanistic terms is beyond the capability of the finite brain, because we are not infinite. Tarski may argue we are capable of understanding infinity, but while understanding infinity is finite when it's reached a limit to where it doesn't matter anymore, we have to put things into a finite boundary conditions to understand them. What I know, for a fact, is that Joseph Smith used occult seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon, the pagan book of the dead to translate the Book of Abraham, had an occult Jupiter talisman which he prized, and all of these things are not Christian. If you believe in these things as of God, then Mormonism is for you and makes sense. It doesn't make sense to me.

[_Tarski]

Kevin, as a Christian I believe Jesus Christ was God... they are one and not distinct personages. To put it into humanistic terms is beyond the capability of the finite brain, because we are not infinite.

Let us suppose that you are right and this is not understandable by humans because it is radically infinite or whatever.

OK, then, what are you talking about?? Aren't you just making noises? By your own admission you cannot understand what you are saying.


By the way, I don't claim that humans understand infinity period.
I claim we can understand something about various consistant and useful notions of infinity. We must understand something of it. After all, it is our word--a human bit of vocabulary.

[_thews]

Kevin, as a Christian I believe Jesus Christ was God... they are one and not distinct personages. To put it into humanistic terms is beyond the capability of the finite brain, because we are not infinite.

Let us suppose that you are right and this is not understandable by humans because it is radically infinite or whatever.

OK, then, what are you talking about?? Aren't you just making noises? By your own admission you cannot understand what you are saying.

I understand what I'm capable of understanding. My brain is finite, which is why I cannot fathom any logical scenario where matter just *happens* and decides to create the universe. Something from nothing is finite, because it has boundary conditions. True *nothing* doesn't exist and I acknowledge that... do you?

By the way, I don't claim that humans understand infinity period.
I claim we can understand something about various consistant and useful notions of infinity. We must understand something of it. After all, it is our word--a human bit of vocabulary.

It is part of our world and the definition is one we can perceive in concept (sort of), but not unless it's placed in some sort of package where we can conceptualize it. We've been through this before Tarski, and no matter what you say, the answer to the pinball analogy is that the exact distance the pinball traveled is infinite. The finite box it's placed in makes it finite, but the answer is infinite, as a metric of measuring distance has no boundary condition, but is held to the device measuring it. The box is finite, so one must step outside of the finite domain to acknowledge it has no limits... infinity.

[_Tarski]

Tarski, and no matter what you say, the answer to the pinball analogy is that the exact distance the pinball traveled is infinite. The finite box it's placed in makes it finite, but the answer is infinite, as a metric of measuring distance has no boundary condition, but is held to the device measuring it. The box is finite, so one must step outside of the finite domain to acknowledge it has no limits... infinity.

The description or determination of the distance may be infinite in a sense just as irrational numbers have infinitely long decimal expansions. But the number itself is finite. Notice that Pi is such a number but since Pi is less than four, it is finite by at least one reasonable definition.

By the way, a pinball doesn't even have infinitely precise boundaries or an infinitely precise position so it won't have an infinitely precise distance travelled anyway.
There are just so many things wrong, wrong and silly, about your pinball scenario.

[_thews]

Tarski, and no matter what you say, the answer to the pinball analogy is that the exact distance the pinball traveled is infinite. The finite box it's placed in makes it finite, but the answer is infinite, as a metric of measuring distance has no boundary condition, but is held to the device measuring it. The box is finite, so one must step outside of the finite domain to acknowledge it has no limits... infinity.

The description or determination of the distance may be infinite in a sense just as irrational numbers have infinitely long decimal expansions. But the number itself is finite. Notice that Pi is such a number but since Pi is less than four, it is finite by at least one reasonable definition.

One more time... what is the last decimal place (in inches) regarding the highest resolution? In response to your answer, what is the next decimal place after that, and so on?

By the way, a pinball doesn't even have infinitely precise boundaries or an infinitely precise position so it won't have an infinitely precise distance travelled anyway.
There are just so many things wrong, wrong and silly, about your pinball scenario.

No Tarski, you are wrong. Infinity doesn't end, so the metric your brain is held to is defined by the resolution that you consider relevant. If it's a million decimal places, there's a million more after that and so on.

Care to muster up an argument that has a foundation that *nothing* can become something? Let me guess... it involves quantum physics I don't understand, but you supposedly do. True *nothing* doesn't exist, and something that doesn't exist doesn't have properties that can be observed, tested, theorized or explained unless you have a plausible explanation for how *nothing* actually is *something* so it can implode and create the universe. Please enlighten me, as your magnificent brain understands infinity and my finite brain does not. Where did matter come from? (insert answer here and not a link).

Your thought process is likened to belief in Mormonism... it requires a leap of faith in something that has no logical foundation. If you can acknowledge *nothing* cannot become *something* nor can it have properties... you know, because it doesn't exist, then your hocus-pocus logic is built on the old "the universe was just always there" foundation. Your mind is finite, no matter how hard you try to disprove it isn't. To have the infinite knowledge you claim you do, you must be able to explain the foundation.

[_KevinSim]

I fail to find any logic in your argument. When conversing with Mormons, I often find the logic required to cancel out one thing that doesn't make sense with another argument (in this case completely unrelated) that also doesn't make sense an exercise in futility.

Thews, once again you're absolutely right. The two cases are completely unrelated. I'm not trying to argue that there's some connection between a belief in a deity who would let people suffer forever in unbearable agony and a deity who would inspire a man who uses an occult object to translate ancient records. All I'm saying is that it's much more likely that a good deity would do the latter than the former, and that therefore I don't understand why you concede that you might be wrong about the former but you insist that you're not wrong about the latter.

In your post of 7 October you pointed me to Deuteronomy 18:10-11, where God tells Moses to not let any "one be found among you who ... is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead." Verse 12 says, "Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD." How do you go from those three verses to the conclusion that God will never choose someone to be His prophet that makes use of seer stones? Why would a deity who is so evil that s/he will let some people suffer unbearable agony for the rest of eternity, have any qualms at all about forbidding consulting "the dead" in one book of scripture and then later choosing someone who "consults the dead" as that deity's spokesman to the world?

If belief in a God that allows "unbearable agony" would convince you (or anyone else) that God is inherently flawed, so it somehow negates some other aspect equally as flawed, is the basis for your belief in God, then the foundation is built on flaws. How can you believe in something where you champion God is flawed?

I don't believe that God, as Latter-day Saints understand Him, is flawed. I don't see how you go from the fact that God forbade the Israelites from consulting the dead to the conclusion that if the same God allowed a prophet of a later day to use seer stones then that God must be flawed. I mean, is there some inherent reason why God must require a man to keep all the commandments God gave to previous prophets, before God will inspire that man to translate ancient records? If there is, then I'd like to know what that inherent reason is; if there isn't, then I don't see how God, as Mormons understand Him, is flawed.

Also, a very relevant question is, does God consider the seer stone Joseph Smith used to have been occultic? You apparently do, and many Biblical Christians do as well. But that was the point I was trying to make about the Urim and Thummim. The people who wrote "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim" also thought the Urim and Thummim involved divination, which Deuteronomy 18 also forbade, but clearly God didn't agree with the authors of that website, since He Himself commanded the use of the Urim and Thummim. If those authors could be wrong in their conclusion that the Urim and Thummim involved something God forbade, how can you be sure that you're right in your conclusion that God considers seer stones occultic? It looks pretty straightforward to you that a seer stone must be occultic due to what Deuteronomy 18 says, but I'm sure that it also looks straightforward to the Wikipedia authors that the Urim and Thummim were used for divination.

If I can ask you a question Kevin, do you acknowledge the fact that the seer stone(s) Joseph Smith used to translate the supposed golden plates was also the exact same seer stone(s) used to see treasure guardians before the Book of Mormon?

I have no idea whether the seer stone Joseph Smith used "to translate the supposed golden plates was also the exact same" seer stone he used to see those treasure guardians. I know some people say it was the same, and I have no reason to doubt them. To be perfectly honest, I don't know with certainty the precise details of what went on during the translation. I just don't see how Joseph's use of a seer stone, even if it was the same seer stone you mentioned, would be particularly relevant in a discussion of whether God inspired him to translate the book or not.

The relevant issue is not how Joseph translated the book, but rather whether God approved the means of translation. I think approaching determining whether God approved of the means with preconceptions regarding which means God would use to do such a translation and which He would not, is not a very open minded way of approaching the matter.

The entire concept of "unbearable agony" is something God wants, because God created us. I don't see life as a pass/fail test intended to prove to God we were correct, but rather a lesson to the soul. Again, if you knew this right now, you would also know there was no hell; therefore, you wouldn't learn what you were supposed to learn.

I'm not sure I'm understanding this correctly. It seems like you're saying that God wants some people to think there is a Hell and unbearable agony for the souls suffering in it, but all the time He knows that there isn't such a place or any souls suffering in it? Is that what you're saying? If not, could you be more specific about what you mean?

That's my opinion, but it's based on what I actually believe.

But see, there's the problem I see with your reasoning. What you believe about Hell you say is your opinion, and you admit that your opinion might be wrong. But what you believe about Joseph Smith, you say is certain, and you cannot be wrong.

And yet your belief about Joseph Smith depends on whether God considers a seer stone to be occultic, whether God might use an occultic object to get an ancient record translated, or whether God even cares about a seer stone, and might have just inspired Smith independently of Smith's use of the seer stone. All these conditions might be true or false, depending on how well we understand the way God does things.

In the meanwhile, the certainty of the non-existence of Hell rests squarely on the literal omnipotence and goodness of God. I say if we can't know that a good God would cause the souls of the unsaved to cease to exist, if He had that ability, rather than let them suffer unbearable agony in Hell (or any other place) for the rest of eternity, then we can know absolutely nothing about what a good God would do.

If you were to come out and say that you are absolutely certain that God did not inspire Smith to produce the Book of Mormon, and also that you are absolutely certain that there is no Hell, then I wouldn't have an awful lot to say to you. I can understand why many people think God never did inspire Smith to do anything. But saying that you're certain that God didn't inspire Smith and then turning around and saying that you're not certain that there is no Hell just boggles my mind. Why would a deity so evil that s/he would allow people to suffer that agony have any qualms at all about forbidding the occult in one piece of scripture and then breaking her/his word later by choosing to inspire someone that did use such occult items?