A couple of points (I'm skipping MG's responses which Marcus handled very well, they were quite on point and not "all about MG" but MG's use of math ideas which don't add anything to what he's already said)
And what I said was it isn't all about math and exactness/accuracy. We're talking about metaphorically interesting ideas that try to broaden one's way of viewing the world. A bit analytical...but not so much.
Simply mixing things up with the hope of looking at things with different eyes and through lenses that might be dormant or never used.
It is true that in one of the Thirteen Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we read:
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
The Fall of Adam was a necessary event rather than a catastrophic event in the sense that all mankind are born in sin. We don't inherit the guilt of Adam being born into a state of condemnation. We are only responsible for our own sins and transgressions. The Book of Mormon teaches that "Adam fell that men might be.'
A necessary fall which resulted in the potential for spiritual death or on the other hand, life unto salvation.
If we are responsible for our own sins then we also are responsible for how we use our agency. There will be crooked lines along the way. Latter-day Saints believe that the Atonement of Christ can make crooked paths straight. Yes, there are some important theological differences between the CofJCofLDS and traditional Christian churches who are dependent on the outcomes of the Councils and the Creeds as their guide.
Ah there it is. From that starting point, our worldviews are so different that I don’t see much room for reconciling the two views.
Strange comment from MG. I've known a lot of Christians over the years and most don't give a rat's rear end about "Councils and the Creeds." They read the New Testament, mostly pay attention the the Book of John and a few Pauline letters and "love Jesus" and live the Golden Rule knowing that the blood of Jesus paid for their sins. Sounds pretty good, if I were so inclined, because the True Christiain Religion, if there is one, should be something a kid could accept. (Matthew 18:3) Indeed, Paul referred to the Good News as "simple." (2 Cor 11:3) "Rightness, Peace and Joy in the Holy Spirit." And all that. (Rom 14:17).
Last edited by bill4long on Tue Jan 13, 2026 4:20 am, edited 2 times in total.
Ah there it is. From that starting point, our worldviews are so different that I don’t see much room for reconciling the two views.
Strange comment from MG. I've known a lot of Christians over the years and most don't give a rat's rear end about "Councils and the Creeds." They read the New Testament, mostly pay attention the the Book of John and a few Pauline letters and "love Jesus" and live the Golden Rule knowing that the blood of Jesus paid for their sins. Sounds pretty good, if I were so inclined, because the True Christiain Religion, if there is one, should be something a kid could understand. Indeed, Paul referred to the Good News as "simple." (2 Cor 11:3) "Rightness, Peace and Joy in the Holy Spirit." And all that. (Rom 14:17).
I bet it's even possible for Christians to do all of that without accumulating hundreds of billions of dollars in an investment fund, huge amounts of real estate in various places, and great and spacious buildings all over the world.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
Just for fun and to blow Res Ipsa's mind a wee bit more here is something fun to do for kicks and giggles. Go to Gemini AI. Open up an inquiry dialogue box. Type in:
How is symmetry in nature related to the Sorites Paradox and fractal geometry?...
It was pretty obvious anyway, but now it's confirmed where mentalgymnast gets his non sequiturs.
...Be entertained.
Bringing in symmetry in nature opens up more lines for discussion and/or thought as it relates to the OP and some of the other 'flavors of the day' I've dropped in along the way...
Sigh. No, AI sometimes just produces gibberish.
I'm not necessarily pointing at the 'theory of God', as much as to get some folks to step outside of any kind of fundamentalist thinking that might lurk in the undercurrents of the mind.
Those trained in some professions vs. others may find it difficult to widen their horizons and be prone to being overcome with really really really mixed metaphor syndrome, or the like. ...
Another deep sigh. Yes, thinking for oneself is hard, but even a mentalgymnast could try.
Be honest, is that your self image - that this is a playground full of kids and you’re the only adult in the room?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
It is true that in one of the Thirteen Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we read:
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
The Fall of Adam was a necessary event rather than a catastrophic event in the sense that all mankind are born in sin. We don't inherit the guilt of Adam being born into a state of condemnation. We are only responsible for our own sins and transgressions. The Book of Mormon teaches that "Adam fell that men might be.'
A necessary fall which resulted in the potential for spiritual death or on the other hand, life unto salvation.
If we are responsible for our own sins then we also are responsible for how we use our agency. There will be crooked lines along the way. Latter-day Saints believe that the Atonement of Christ can make crooked paths straight. Yes, there are some important theological differences between the CofJCofLDS and traditional Christian churches who are dependent on the outcomes of the Councils and the Creeds as their guide.
Ah there it is. From that starting point, our worldviews are so different that I don’t see much room for reconciling the two views.
It’s as if MG 2.0 is holding on to the childish Primary level view that the Adam & Eve story is literal. Rather than understanding it for the allegorical tale that it really is. The Fall Of Adam, wasn’t an actual event. It’s just an iron-age blogger’s allegorical vehicle for explaining consciousness, human freedom, moral choice, and the origin of spiritual brokenness.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
A couple of points (I'm skipping MG's responses which Marcus handled very well, they were quite on point and not "all about MG" but MG's use of math ideas which don't add anything to what he's already said)
And what I said was it isn't all about math and exactness/accuracy. We're talking about metaphorically interesting ideas that try to broaden one's way of viewing the world. A bit analytical...but not so much.
Simply mixing things up with the hope of looking at things with different eyes and through lenses that might be dormant or never used.
Regards,
MG
That looks a lot like you haven’t got the first clue about what it is you think you are talking about, that you don’t understand anything anybody has explained to you, but are stubbornly ploughing on spouting nonsense in the unerring belief that you’re brilliant.
I’m not saying that’s the case. I’m just saying that it looks exactly like that’s the case.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Invoking Sorites and fractals goes from “we can’t always tell where a lie begins” to “God can lie to you for good” pretty quickly. I just don’t see how that follows.
Be honest, is that your self image - that this is a playground full of kids and you’re the only adult in the room?
MG, you may have meant this lightly, but the “playground” metaphor lands as dismissive and reduces the credibility of a good faith discussion. It’s times like this when the “troll” language feels apt.
...
