The problem with Moroni's challenge

[_Buffalo]

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.

Your anti-intellectualism and inability to understand the linked material is noted, but repeatability and testability aren't the same thing as 100% certainty.

[_Themis]

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.

This is the major problem with the challenge. The church teaches that one may not get the answer right away, so even if they have meet the criteria, they will not know it. Then they will start to look for events in their life that they may be able to interpret as getting their answer that the Book of Mormon is true. From my own observations most members do not get their answer right away. I am not sure how this cannot be viewed as inconstant and unreliable. Missionaries will usually probe investigators to bring up any positive feelings, thoughts, expereinces, etc and then tell them this is the spirit telling them the church or Book of Mormon are true. The topic comes up in Conference and teaching materials as well as magazines regularly because people can't really tell if their is some Holy Ghost trying to communicate or is it themselves. A great way to delude our selves though. Joseph Smith supposedly had trouble as well, but then he was just making things up and got it wrong, so he needed an out.

Again, i believe critics are, mistakenly, trying to enforce the scientific method outside of its jurisdiction

I always laugh when some people desperately want to suggest that science has some jurisdiction.

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.

That's why it is inconsistent and unreliable. It is very subjective and left to the individual to interpret. You can't even define what the spirit is, or how it interacts with people.

[_Corpsegrinder]

Subgenius write:

i have addressed the topic (The Problem with Moroni’s Challenge) thoroughly, see previous posts.

Not even close. You’ve provided no real world examples. You’ve shed no light on the mechanism by which it operates. You’ve also failed to list and explain the specific factors that determine whether a person “receives” a right or a wrong answer--such as when faithful members of other Christian sects are "told" by the Holy Ghost that Mormonism is false.

You’re still running away from the topic of this thread.

But you have my permission to start a new thread of your own.

Subgenius write:

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.

From your previous post: easily addressed......simply put "nope". Moroni's challenge has no relation to folk magic (nor have you proven any relation apart from your usual "i sez so").

So basically you’ve done a one-eighty and are now conceding the relationship between folk magic and the Book of Mormon (but are too embarrassed to state it directly).

Subgenius write:

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.

Please be specific: In what why have I been dishonest?

On the contrary, I have stated my position clearly and concisely from the beginning--Moroni’s Challenge is a form of divination and yields results similar in quality and consistency to other forms of divination. In contrast, your position is in constant flux, e.g. your initial denial of a relationship between folk magic and Moroni’s Challenge, followed by your concession that such a relationship exists.

For the record, would you please state your position in a clear and accessible manner so that we may refer to it in the future when the need arises? Thank you.

Ezias wrote:

To me he was one of the most remarkable cases of bi-polar "disorder" I have ever seen. He was almost as bi-polar as the yin yang itself! I saw this in him immediately when I studied his life as a teenager. He was a master of polarities. He certainly took his "forbidden fruit".....whatever that was. At first I thought perhaps he used hallucinogens, which could likely still be the scenario, but it is also likely that he could have gotten to the same place naturally as a natural mystic. For me personally this is how it has worked, it is all the same no matter which Medicine you take the lesson is the same it's just a different teacher who has perhaps a different semantic. He perhaps mastered the use of plants on crowds though, I'll give him that even if he didn't need them himself. But still.........ya never know what really happened.

I agree. Joseph’s bi-polarity is the most striking feature of his personality. His so called King Follet discourse remains, to this day, the most amazing sermon preached on American soil…and yet his financial chicanery and sexual predations remain inexcusable.

I too am attracted to the theory that Joseph and his followers used naturally-occurring hallucinogens to achieve a visionary state. The fact that modern Apostles and Prophets no longer experience the dramatic visions and visitations of early Mormonism would seem to support this position. FYI--J. Reuben Cark (the gift that keeps on giving) strongly discouraged members from seeking out the kinds of visionary experiences that were so common in the early days of the Church. Could this be because he knew that such experiences required certain extra ingredients?

Tarski wrote:

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

This is just a lame attempt at a conversation stopper and version of this "ignore the evidence--just feel it in your heart" trick is used by all sorts of cults and religions to divert attention away from troubling facts about the religion.

Don’t worry--the fact that Subgenius keeps changing his position can only mean one thing: he’s slowly coming around to our point of view…albeit with a lot of bitching and whining.

Buffalo--thanks for the ink to the article. It was a good read.

[_stemelbow]

I gotta say Stem, I appreciate your frankness. You really, really, REALLY want to believe.

Well of courseyou'll see it that way. But its more accurate to say I really, really, REALLY do believe. Its not about want here, my good man.

[_subgenius]

I always laugh when some people desperately want to suggest that science has some jurisdiction.

the truth can be funny. wait....are you suggesting that science has no jurisdiction??? Are you proposing that science will, can, and does explain, determine, and validate all that was, is, or may be in the Universe???

That's why it is inconsistent and unreliable. It is very subjective and left to the individual to interpret.

contradictory statement. If you are able to describe it so succinctly here, then how is it unreliable or inconsistent?
i have seen no evidence that it is "subjective" nor have i seen any evidence that the scientific method is the sole means to consistency and reliability.

You can't even define what the spirit is, or how it interacts with people.

why should i have to?
Just because you do not understand what the spirit is or how it interacts with people does not negate the existence of the spirit.
You try to argue apples with oranges.

[_Buffalo]

I gotta say Stem, I appreciate your frankness. You really, really, REALLY want to believe.

Well of courseyou'll see it that way. But its more accurate to say I really, really, REALLY do believe. Its not about want here, my good man.

Sure, that's cool.

[_subgenius]

Not even close. You’ve provided no real world examples. You’ve shed no light on the mechanism by which it operates. You’ve also failed to list and explain the specific factors that determine whether a person “receives” a right or a wrong answer--such as when faithful members of other Christian sects are "told" by the Holy Ghost that Mormonism is false.

I believe Moroni's challenge does not introduce the idea of a right or wrong answer, but only that the through the power of the HG the truth of it will manifest. You, once again, are off the reservation and having a discourse with yourself.
If someone where to inform me that they met Moroni's challenge and the "truth of it" was that these things were indeed false then i would have to consider their information in the same manner. The truth would be manifest to me about their information. Since that has yet to be brought before me, in a sincere manner, i have not had that experience.
But Moroni's challenge is quite clear and makes no bias assertion, anymore than one would accuse bias in the premise that if you bond 2 hydrogen atoms to 1 oxygen atom you will get water. Moroni does not claim that you will receive immediate confirmation that anything is right or anything wrong...simply put you will simply get the "truth of it", and if the quest for the truth of things is wrong, then obviously you have nothing to worry about.

You’re still running away from the topic of this thread.

nope. i clearly responded to the OP and even answered the OP's question quite directly.....how about you?

But you have my permission to start a new thread of your own.

you can imagine how flattered i am.

So basically you’ve done a one-eighty and are now conceding the relationship between folk magic and the Book of Mormon (but are too embarrassed to state it directly).

nope. i still maintain the same position, read it again.

I too am attracted to the theory that Joseph and his followers used naturally-occurring hallucinogens to achieve a visionary state. The fact that modern Apostles and Prophets no longer experience the dramatic visions and visitations of early Mormonism would seem to support this position.

it does not support that position, and more feeble association has yet to be made. besides, the grateful dead had not yet started touring.
you know, a fundamental knowledge of the time period and basic history would reveal that among all the religious fervor being experienced in the area and time period, "visions" were not that uncommon and are quite reasonable in their occurrence.

Could this be because he knew that such experiences required certain extra ingredients?

for you they would require it, often external devices are needed by those who are lacking or are otherwise impotent. But for most of us it can occur naturally.

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

seriously, you either can not read or you are so entrenched that you can not read. The cliché was initiated by the poster, not by me.

Don’t worry--the fact that Subgenius keeps changing his position can only mean one thing: he’s slowly coming around to our point of view…albeit with a lot of bitching and whining.

sorry, revisionism is your forté'. Truth is in order to "slowly come around" to your view would require a slow mind and a step backwards (evolutionary speaking of course).

Buffalo--thanks for the ink to the article. It was a good read.

get a room.

[_Buffalo]

Buffalo--thanks for the ink to the article. It was a good read.

get a room.

Hey, at least he was able to comprehend the material, Jenny Jealous.

[_Themis]

the truth can be funny. wait....are you suggesting that science has no jurisdiction??? Are you proposing that science will, can, and does explain, determine, and validate all that was, is, or may be in the Universe???

I am saying that science has no jurisdictions, not that it can explain everything. Many try to limit what science should be looking into like spiritual experiences, but science has been doing that for a while now, and is gaining knowledge about it.

contradictory statement. If you are able to describe it so succinctly here, then how is it unreliable or inconsistent?
i have seen no evidence that it is "subjective" nor have i seen any evidence that the scientific method is the sole means to consistency and reliability.

It is unreliable and inconsistent since even you admit that that it has no particular time or method in which one will get communication from the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true if they have meet the criteria. This is why some will look for any expereince they feel good enough about to interpret as the Holy Ghost telling them the church is true.

why should i have to?
Just because you do not understand what the spirit is or how it interacts with people does not negate the existence of the spirit.

I am not suggesting that because I do not understand it that it does not exists, but it's obvious you do not as well. I am not the only one who has been trying to get you to explain what you think it is, and how it works. How is an investigator to know some divine being is communicating to them and what the message is?

[_Corpsegrinder]

I believe Moroni's challenge does not introduce the idea of a right or wrong answer, but only that the through the power of the HG the truth of it will manifest. You, once again, are off the reservation and having a discourse with yourself.

In this context a “right” answer is obviously one that affirms the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon...you are a believing Mormon, right? Conversely, a “wrong” answer is one that denies its truthfulness. Your equivocation to the effect that Moroni’s Challenge “does not introduce the idea of a right or wrong answer” indicates a confidence deficit. You, my friend, are a closet doubter.

If someone where to inform me that they met Moroni's challenge and the "truth of it" was that these things were indeed false then i would have to consider their information in the same manner. The truth would be manifest to me about their information. Since that has yet to be brought before me, in a sincere manner, i have not had that experience.

Has yet to be brought before me…yeah, right. You served your mission yet, elder? On my mission in Taiwan I encountered the “the Holy Ghost told me it wasn’t true” response from Chinese Christians on a regular basis. My brother encountered this response at similar intervals on his mission to Louisiana. Your claim that this response “has yet to be brought before me” is a disingenuous evasion.

Again you are evading the core issue: Reliance on Moroni’s Challenge yields inconsistent and unreliable results.

But Moroni's challenge is quite clear and makes no bias assertion, anymore than one would accuse bias in the premise that if you bond 2 hydrogen atoms to 1 oxygen atom you will get water. Moroni does not claim that you will receive immediate confirmation that anything is right or anything wrong...simply put you will simply get the "truth of it", and if the quest for the truth of things is wrong, then obviously you have nothing to worry about.

“Bias” is not the issue; reliability and consistency is the issue.

nope. i still maintain the same position (that “Moroni’s Challenge has nothing to do with folk magic"), read it again.

Did you lie because the Holy Ghost told you to lie?

Subgenius on 12 Sept:
easily addressed......simply put "nope". Moroni's challenge has no relation to folk magic (nor have you proven any relation apart from your usual "i sez so").

Subgenius on 13 Sept:
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.

get a room.

I’m sure Buffalo’s a nice guy but you’re the one I like to think about naked. ;)

Love, Corpsegrinder.