If the Church makes claims that are falsifiable, then the Church can be demonstrated not to be true.
I had a feeling you were the one being either disengenuous or obtuse. You should have just said so from teh beginning. The church makes claims that are falsifiable, for sure. But if a claim is falsified it does not necessarily mean the Church has been demonstrated to not be true. I hope that helps.
If I say that the Loch Ness Monster lives in Scotland, but then the evidence very, very strongly indicates that there is not a sea serpent (or something a lot like a sea serpent) in Loch Ness, I don't get to claim that I am still right about my "fundamental" claim because Scotland is a real place.
Indeed. So if the claim that there is a Loch Ness Monster made by someone and it is a falsified claim, that someone is not necessarily someone who can't say something true, nor is that person a false person. The person still exists and the person still can tell truths.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Elijah doesn't restore the Priesthood keys required for sealing until 1836.
Any union between Joseph Smith and any woman other than Emma cannot therefore have been a sealing if it happened prior to that. It can only have been an affair.
Oh my God. It's SO bloomin' obvious I can't believe I missed it.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Buffalo wrote:You avoided the issue of the date of the revelation and the authority to seal by focusing on a typo. Bravo.
Buffalo. My point is that the revelation was received in 1843. That's when Joseph Smith had outlined for him the proper rules to follow regarding how to go about marrying multiple virgins. And in 1843 the revelation includes a statement that exonerates Joseph Smith in his previous actions, that were seen as sins, by God (in verse 60). Thus, i too agree that 1831 claim is probably not well maintained. You have helped my case. Thanks again.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote: I did not say the Church does not make claims of fact that are falsifiable.
Please, provide examples of LDS church claims that are falsifiable.....I would like 3....
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents "I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs
If the Church makes claims that are falsifiable, then the Church can be demonstrated not to be true.
If I say that the Loch Ness Monster lives in Scotland, but then the evidence very, very strongly indicates that there is not a sea serpent (or something a lot like a sea serpent) in Loch Ness, I don't get to claim that I am still right about my "fundamental" claim because Scotland is a real place.
Oh yes you do! You see, for a start your use of the word 'sea serpent', or even 'Scotland' may not be the same as in my holy scripture, where those words may mean, respectively, 'strange shaped stain on the bathroom ceiling in my uncle's house' and 'State of Maine'.
Then it could be an invisible sea serpent. Or a very very small one. You see - there is still room for faith!
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:Oh yes you do! You see, for a start your use of the word 'sea serpent', or even 'Scotland' may not be the same as in my holy scripture, where those words may mean, respectively, 'strange shaped stain on the bathroom ceiling in my uncle's house' and 'State of Maine'.
Then it could be an invisible sea serpent. Or a very very small one. You see - there is still room for faith!
Lol. I love it. Good show.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:You avoided the issue of the date of the revelation and the authority to seal by focusing on a typo. Bravo.
Buffalo. My point is that the revelation was received in 1843. That's when Joseph Smith had outlined for him the proper rules to follow regarding how to go about marrying multiple virgins. And in 1843 the revelation includes a statement that exonerates Joseph Smith in his previous actions, that were seen as sins, by God (in verse 60). Thus, i too agree that 1831 claim is probably not well maintained. You have helped my case. Thanks again.
No, your point is that you believe Joseph when he tells you that's what God told him.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Buffalo wrote:You avoided the issue of the date of the revelation and the authority to seal by focusing on a typo. Bravo.
Buffalo. My point is that the revelation was received in 1843. That's when Joseph Smith had outlined for him the proper rules to follow regarding how to go about marrying multiple virgins. And in 1843 the revelation includes a statement that exonerates Joseph Smith in his previous actions, that were seen as sins, by God (in verse 60). Thus, i too agree that 1831 claim is probably not well maintained. You have helped my case. Thanks again.
In which case, Fanny and all of Joseph's trysts with married women become adulterous affairs. You have helped my case. Thanks again.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
schreech wrote:Please, provide examples of LDS church claims that are falsifiable.....I would like 3....
Schreech is a penis (D&C 138:79) Cumoms inhabited the americas 2000 years ago (I suppose you could say there's a potential to disprove that). coffee is a great a terrible temptation.
Tons of the claims are potentially falsifiable. That's not to say they ahve been falsified.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Elijah doesn't restore the Priesthood keys required for sealing until 1836.
Any union between Joseph Smith and any woman other than Emma cannot therefore have been a sealing if it happened prior to that. It can only have been an affair.
Oh my God. It's SO bloomin' obvious I can't believe I missed it.
I believe part of the LDS response here is that while the ability to seal may not have been restored, the commandment to practice polygamy was.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."