The problem with Moroni's challenge

[Anonymous]

.

[_subgenius]

Oh my. I suppose next you'll be asking for a test for gravity.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 075601.htm

nope, still asking for the "scientific test" for evolution. (i does not appear that you have the depth for gravity yet)
You have only provided a link to a man-made "discovery".
and quote:
"because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation"
emphasis mine. key word from your link is "could", as opposed to "does".
I believe corpsegrandeur identifies this condition as being "inconsistent and unreliable". I guess we are all fortunate that the scientific method does not require absolute proof, ironically you seem to require that from Moroni.

some guy genetically mutates some fruit flies in a lab and you term that a "test"? wow, and you criticize Moroni's challenge.
nevertheless, provide "test" for evolution. all you have done, at best, is support a notion that given a man-made genetic mutation a simple organism will adapt accordingly.....nice experiment, but not really a "test" for EVOLUTION. Its not even actual evidence of evolution. macro-evolution has never been observed nor has any "test" provided any indication of its existence. They have likely stumbled upon a great step in the fight against cancer, but as a "test" for evolution....fail.
My request is simple....provide the "test" for evolution.
Now, i will gladly concede that you have provided one of many references for unnatural gene flow, laboratory mutation, or man-made variation....but its a stretch for actual "evolution".

"oh my", like i said before.....i can wait.

[_jon]

subgenius,

Would you say that the Italians today are exactly the same as the Romans?
What about medieval Brit's - do they compare with the Brits of today?

Or perhaps, based on all of the available evidence - dwellings, armour, clothing etc, would it be reasonable to suggest that human beings are now taller, more elongated in the frame, than perhaps they were in the well-researched 'recent' past?

Whatever the reason, human beings have clearly evolved in easily identifiable ways.

[_subgenius]

Your abrupt attempts to change the subject are, in effect, a concession that relying on Moroni’s Challenge yields inconsistent and unreliable results…like any other form of divination. You’re essentially running away from the subject of this thread: The Problem with Moroni’s Challenge.

i have addressed the topic thoroughly, see previous posts.

On the contrary, the Church’s professional apologists assert that folk magic, as practiced in Joseph’s day, is indeed indistinguishable from religion. Refer to the following…
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Occultism_and_magic

contrary to the manner by which you used the relationship, whereas you would use "magic" in a prejudicial and loaded manner, to state otherwise would be dishonest.

You are aware, I trust, that Moroni’s Challenge--along with the rest of the Book of Mormon--was "translated" with a brown peep stone that Joseph found while digging a well on the Mason Chase farm?

again, you are dishonest. Surely, it can be agreed that any belief in a supernatural being with power can be termed "magic", but you mislead, mis-characterize, and misinform. It was also clearly known that the Smith family believed in the Bible which has quite a clear stance on "witchcraft". The context of the time reveals that practices such as "dowsing" where not considered witch craft, but just how things were. Yes, the seer stone was used in translation, but its power was understood to have been from God and operated through His grace. Your inability to recognize context in order to prejudice facts is unflattering to any honest an sincere discourse which is further diminished by your insistence for revisionism.

[_subgenius]

subgenius,

Would you say that the Italians today are exactly the same as the Romans?
What about medieval Brit's - do they compare with the Brits of today?

Or perhaps, based on all of the available evidence - dwellings, armour, clothing etc, would it be reasonable to suggest that human beings are now taller, more elongated in the frame, than perhaps they were in the well-researched 'recent' past?

Whatever the reason, human beings have clearly evolved in easily identifiable ways.

i have not, nor do i contend that evolution does not exist. Nor do i consider science to be worthless. What i do contend is that there are several valuable aspects of life (all life) that is beyond the privy of science, that is unaffected by science, and that our entire reality is defined by more than just science. Science is a wonderful aspect of life and our abilities to use science in order to improve and understand aspects of life are indeed a blessing.
However in the words of ee cummings:
"what's beyond logic happens beneath will;
nor can these moments be translated:i say
that even after April
by God there is no excuse for May
....
While you and i have lips and voices which
are for kissing and to sing with
who cares if some oneyed son for a bitch
invents an instrument to measure Spring with?"

http://www.americanpoems.com/poets/eecummings/353

[_jon]

subgenius,

Do you believe that there is only one possible outcome to Moroni's challenge?

[_subgenius]

Actually, you have things just backwards, the God in a test tube trope is used by religionists: "hey ya can't put God in a test tube buddy".

This attack on skeptics is a cliché move from your side of the tracks-not ours.

dishonest. Not an attack, but a rebuttal to the poster's specific request for "scientifically testable data".
Your deceit has even got your own self confused.
And though it may be cliché', it still is true...."ya can't put God in a test tube buddy", and no matter of your own insolent phrasing can render that false.

[_subgenius]

subgenius,

Do you believe that there is only one possible outcome to Moroni's challenge?

Yes, there is only one possible outcome to the meeting that challenge and it will be to receive the "truth of it". But recognize, that there is also only one possible way to meet that challenge.

I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Now as to the when and where it will "manifest" is not stated nor assumed.

[_jon]

subgenius,

Do you believe that there is only one possible outcome to Moroni's challenge?

Yes, there is only one possible outcome to the meeting that challenge and it will be to receive the "truth of it". But recognize, that there is also only one possible way to meet that challenge.

I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Now as to the when and where it will "manifest" is not stated nor assumed.

So you absolutely reject the possibility that you can follow the criteria and be told that it (the Book of Mormon) is not true?

[_subgenius]

So you absolutely reject the possibility that you can follow the criteria and be told that it (the Book of Mormon) is not true?

"So"? that is an incorrect inference towards a conclusion on your part.
I am unable to reasonably nor logically conclude what would be "told". I can only speak to the promise that the "truth of it" will be manifest. If you want to speculate that the "truth of it" would be that the Book of Mormon is true or false, then i consider that to be the proverbial "long row to hoe". All that can be reasonably inferred is that, should the conditions be met, the truth of it will be manifest at some point in time.
Again, i believe critics are, mistakenly, trying to enforce the scientific method outside of its jurisdiction, whereas if the challenge seemingly produces different or conflicting "answers" then the challenge, itself, must be flawed; yet there is no evidence to support such a conclusion. To apply the SM to the challenge would require that all data be derived from sources where the "criteria was followed", and science can not reliably do that. All that one can reasonable discern is that apparently some people believe the Book of Mormon to be true and some believe it to be false, whether those beliefs are a result of successfully meeting Moroni's challenge is not able to be determined by "science".