LDS things that are false if cafeteria Mo's are right

[_honorentheos]

Sounds like we can add dispensational prophets to the list of things that are false if cafeteria Mormonism is right.

- Adam, prophet of the first dispensation: Evolution means no literal Adam

- Enoch, prophet of the second dispensation: No flood, why must Zion have been lifted up and saved?

- Noah, prophet of the third dispensation: See EA's brilliant point up thread

- Abraham, prophet of the fourth dispensation: Legendary figure not attested to in history

- Moses, prophet of the fifth dispensation: The Documentary Hypothesis makes him unnecessary as the author of the law, also not attested to in history

- the dispensation of the meridian of time, or Christ: See Darth J's point about atonement being unnecessary in the OP

If there were no literal prophets of the other dispensations why must there be a prophet of the dispensation of the fullness of time?

[_nc47]

No more arguing with literalists. My new policy.

[Guest]

Yeah, in 3 Nephi 22, when the resurrected Jesus is referring to himself in the first person about his dealings with Noah as the God of the Old Testament, he was probably just repeating and/or embellishing stories he had heard.

Let it not be said that defenders of the faith have this uncanny knack for demonstrating specific ignorance of the thing they are defending, though.

LOL!

Just a FYI - 3 Nephi 22 is a citation of Isaiah 54 (Isaiah is someone else that did not know or ever meet Noah). The other problem here is Jesus Christ was born thousands of years after Noah. And this is the problem I have with the Mormon critic. They can't help themselves (and look rather foolish as a result) to assume Mormon claims only when it suits them (i.e. the claim that Jesus Christ was the God of the Old Testament and thereby would have known Noah despite quoting Isaiah). And I don't have a passion for the position that Noah did not exist. I believe the case that he did actually exist is stronger. However, as I said, I've never met Noah and do not know that is a fact. And the sources critics cite about his existence are also from people that in the real world could never have met Noah either, except as I discussed.

[_SteelHead]

Straw man. We are not the literalists. The church is. We are engaged in merely restating the official position of the church. You have provided 0 evidence otherwise.

[_SteelHead]

Tobin,
You are talking about the resurrected Jesus after his ascension and spirit world sojourn. Are you going to argue that he was still subject to some kind of veil or was some how not all knowing?

[_LDSToronto]

That's a good point, Nelson. Since you are the one asserting that it doesn't matter, it is incumbent on you to cite an LDS publication that says so.

By the way, Nelson, the topic of this thread is ultimately about logical consistency. You know, the kind of thing you supposedly are studying in graduate school.

You can't demonstrate the logical consistency of any system. Goedel's impossibility theorems.

Since you've already copped to having never studied Gödel, allow me to help you out a bit.

1. The name is Gödel, not Goedel.
2. There are two theorems: one is called Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem, the other, Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem. You probably got your Gödel mixed up with your Harry Potter.
3. Both deal with the provability and consistency of arithmetic proofs; the first deals with the natural numbers, the second is more generalized to arithmetic systems. Both deal with axioms of mathematical systems.

I don't know the proof. I didn't take real analysis (or whatever class it's taught in).

4. You are a moron for citing crap you know nothing about.

H.

[_nc47]

Since you've already copped to having never studied Gödel, allow me to help you out a bit.

1. The name is Gödel, not Goedel.
2. There are two theorems: one is called Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem, the other, Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem
3. Both deal with the provability and consistency of arithmetic proofs; the first deals with the natural numbers, the second is more generalized to arithmetic systems.

4. You are a moron for citing s*** you know nothing about.

H.

Wrong. I correctly said above what it was: you can't prove the consistency of a system. I haven't done the proof. Don't mess with an Asian kid math, Billy Bob.

[_Darth J]

Wrong. I correctly said above what it was: you can't prove the consistency of a system. I haven't done the proof. Don't mess with an Asian kid math, Billy Bob.

Show how that mathematical theorem is applicable to Mormonism.

Alternatively, if you assert that Mormonism has no internal consistency because no "system" (you're equivocating on what that means, by the way) can be internally consistent, then why are you so worried about trying to prove that evolution is consistent with LDS teachings?

[_Darth J]

Don't mess with an Asian kid math, Billy Bob.

Because all your base are belong to us.

[_nc47]

Wrong. I correctly said above what it was: you can't prove the consistency of a system. I haven't done the proof. Don't mess with an Asian kid math, Billy Bob.

Show how that mathematical theorem is applicable to Mormonism.

Alternatively, if you assert that Mormonism has no internal consistency because no "system" (you're equivocating on what that means, by the way) can be internally consistent, then why are you so worried about trying to prove that evolution is consistent with LDS teachings?

I threw that out as something frivolous.