"But, Mommy, I want it now"

[_Kishkumen]

I just want to interject something I learned over at Mormon Times: Uranus testifies of Christ.

'Nuff said.

[_Blixa]

I just want to interject something I learned over at Mormon Times: Uranus testifies of Christ.

'Nuff said.

Maybe yours does, but mine doesn't...

(such an old joke!)

[_Presbyter]

I just want to interject something I learned over at Mormon Times: Uranus testifies of Christ.

'Nuff said.

Such a weird article.

[_Kishkumen]

Maybe yours does, but mine doesn't...

(such an old joke!)

I guess mine is just special?

[_beefcalf]

Sorry if I'm a bit slow -- I feel that way much more now than I did when I was younger -- but how does the verses about Adam sacrificing affect my statements? Are you saying that Adam, a prophet, did something he didn't fully comprehend?

If so, I agree with that -- I think Joseph Smith produced the book of Abraham which he didn't fully comprehend (or maybe he did but just didn't share). But on second thought I think Adam actually did comprehend sacrifice, even if he didn't comprehend the purpose behind it -- just as Joseph Smith actually did comprehend the literal text of the book of Abraham, even if he didn't comprehend the purpose behind it.

And I have no immediate references to share to back me up -- just my own evolving understanding of the Gospel plan.

Presbyter,

Hey, thanks for your reply.

Yeah, my point about referring to Adam and the animal sacrifice was an attempt to say that there is at least one occasion in the scriptures where we see a prophet doing something that he doesn't understand. Maybe the example was weak. Probably. Anyway, my original point was in response to the bcspace's clearly silly assertion that the LDS church does not conflict with science. This is so dramatically and obviously false that I suspect bcspace is either profoundly uneducated or willfully dishonest.

I asked earlier and will ask again, hoping for an answer: When has ANY prophet of God (LDS or otherwise, ancient or modern) been vindicated by the onward march of science? I used to say Joseph Smith and his Word of Wisdom, which, I was taught, brought light and knowledge which preceded scientific understanding of the dangers of tobacco and caffeine by a hundred years. Of course, once one looks deeper and sees the other side of the story, the uncorrelated facts, things don't seem so favorable to Joseph Smith's prophetic ability.

Why didn't God reveal to the Egyptians the unthinkable and unfathomable craziness of a heliocentric solar system? Why didn't he make some passing reference to energy/matter equivalency? To relativity? How much power might that have had to persuade the children of men in modern times that the source of such scripture must have been an omniscient God?

But in Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham, the God foisted upon Abraham some iron-age claptrap about our sun borrowing it's light from another star. All scripture, which are asserted by believers to come from an all-intelligent, all-powerful god, seems to contain only crude depictions of man's own flawed view of the world around him.

My choices are:

• God told Abraham a bunch of astronomical hooey.
• Joseph Smith's fictional God tells a fictional Abraham a bunch of astronomical hooey.

I have to go with the latter.

[_Presbyter]

Presbyter,

Hey, thanks for your reply.

Yeah, my point about referring to Adam and the animal sacrifice was an attempt to say that there is at least one occasion in the scriptures where we see a prophet doing something that he doesn't understand. Maybe the example was weak. Probably. Anyway, my original point was in response to the bcspace's clearly silly assertion that the LDS church does not conflict with science. This is so dramatically and obviously false that I suspect bcspace is either profoundly uneducated or willfully dishonest.

Does the LDS Church conflict with science? That depends what you mean. Mormons, including leaders, have certainly believed things and even taught things that conflict with science. Many still do.

But the Gospel itself, in its purity, does not conflict with science. It encompasses all truth. Or at least that's how I understand it.

I asked earlier and will ask again, hoping for an answer: When has ANY prophet of God (LDS or otherwise, ancient or modern) been vindicated by the onward march of science? I used to say Joseph Smith and his Word of Wisdom, which, I was taught, brought light and knowledge which preceded scientific understanding of the dangers of tobacco and caffeine by a hundred years. Of course, once one looks deeper and sees the other side of the story, the uncorrelated facts, things don't seem so favorable to Joseph Smith's prophetic ability.

I think that the Word of Wisdom might be a good example, and obedience to it will certainly keep one healthier than they would be if they were drinking heavily or smoking.

But the purpose of the Gospel isn't to reveal scientific truth. Secular science has no salvation, and God has no purpose in revealing things that have no salvific value. Hence if God reveals something, that must be his primary objective.

Why didn't God reveal to the Egyptians the unthinkable and unfathomable craziness of a heliocentric solar system?

I can't begin to fathom the mind of God, but here is my understanding. What would have been the point? God is concerned with salvation. Our views on astronomy have no bearing on our salvation. But he can use their astronomical/astrological beliefs, even if they are technically false, to teach them Gospel lessons -- as is done in Abraham 3.

Why didn't he make some passing reference to energy/matter equivalency? To relativity? How much power might that have had to persuade the children of men in modern times that the source of such scripture must have been an omniscient God?

That's true, but it would diminish the need for faith -- which I've recently begun to understand why it is so necessary. But again, I can't guess the mind of God.

But in Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham, the God foisted upon Abraham some iron-age claptrap about our sun borrowing it's light from another star.

He used the astronomical understanding of the day to teach the Egyptians a Gospel message. I think it's a wonderful example of his love.

All scripture, which are asserted by believers to come from an all-intelligent, all-powerful god, seems to contain only crude depictions of man's own flawed view of the world around him.

Maybe you're not looking deep enough.

My choices are:

• God told Abraham a bunch of astronomical hooey.
• Joseph Smith's fictional God tells a fictional Abraham a bunch of astronomical hooey.

I have to go with the latter.

Let me add a third choice: God repeated or slightly modified the astronomical hooey that was universal in Abraham's day in order to teach them a Gospel message.

And of course you don't "have" to go with any one -- it's always your call. We each define on our own paths. Fortunately there's always the option of going back and choosing a different one.

[_Some Schmo]

I just want to interject something I learned over at Mormon Times: Uranus testifies of Christ.

'Nuff said.

Maybe yours does, but mine doesn't...

(such an old joke!)

I always wondered who pulled that whole christ myth out of his ass...

[_GR33N]

Tower of Babel is very obviously mythological.

The Book of Mormon presents the story of the Tower of Babel in a historical context, as if it was a real event.

The Book of Mormon, hence the LDS Religion, conflicts with truth and science.

Just one example out of many...

I'm curious, what evidence can you reference that proves that the Tower of Babel is not a historical event?