Adding to the Bible?

[_subgenius]

The real problem is not sign seeking. It's all the signs that show one's beliefs are not correct. At this time one may wisely reevaluate those spiritual experiences.

but according to your philosophy "re-evaluation" is impossible, or at least as unreliable as the original experience as is created by your "illusion creating biological machine".

[_subgenius]

Get back to me if you have anything of substance to say on that issue.

ditto

[_subgenius]

I love how people just throw out things like moving the goal posts as though making the statement some how makes it true. My comment was precisely on target. The LDS church makes truth claims that can be tested and fails. The Book of Abraham is the smoking gun to LDS truth claims that are specific to Mormonism. The Book of Mormon has many problems from copying parts of Isaiah that were not in existence at the time, to copying KJV text mistranslations and all, to DNA, to anachronisms, etc. I love your last link. To bad it was just thrown out there without any thought in hopes of making people think there was really a problem with what I said. Perhaps instead of just making assertions you could explain how it fits with your claims.

let us refresh the history...
first we read the response to the OP -

This argument is fine for defense against Christians. Does nothing for secular based criticisms of the Book of Mormon.

to which i responded -

"secular based criticisms" of the Book of Mormon?
I see, so likewise one may levy "theological based criticisms" of...<insert any other non-related paradigm here>

(italic edit mine)
then, from an unrelated planet you decide to flame the following:

Yes the Book of Mormon makes objective truth claims that can be tested, and they come up very short.

As if to assume that the Book of Mormon, or any spiritual text for that matter, has ever presented itself as an instructive or documentary vehicle with regards to the geographic, geologic, or even meteorologic sciences. Only a rather narrow and uninformed mind would consider these texts to be intended as "handbooks" for the physical sciences....any more than my old Helena Curtis Biology text was intended to facilitate morality.
ergo
using apples to measure oranges.

[_Themis]

The real problem is not sign seeking. It's all the signs that show one's beliefs are not correct. At this time one may wisely reevaluate those spiritual experiences.

but according to your philosophy "re-evaluation" is impossible, or at least as unreliable as the original experience as is created by your "illusion creating biological machine".

Reevaluation is not impossible, but if one does it honestly I think it will lead to a conclusion that the spiritual experience is unreliable at delivery universal truths. The biological machine is very capable of producing a wide range of experiences including illusions.

using apples to measure oranges.

I stand by what I said as accurate. Your assertions are wrong since I didn't say anything incorrect. My statement was correct and was never about whether theological criticisms could be used against 'Insert whatever'. Knock yourself out. BJB's statement is still an accurate observation of the weakness of defending the Book of Mormon against secular criticisms.

[_jo1952]

Some people here would do well looking at BookofMormonEvidences.org! Also, Little Nipper, The Book of Revelation appears last in the Bible, but it was not the last Biblical Book written. John was banished to the Isle of Patmos in 95 AD, and was released in 96 AD. It was after this time that he wrote 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John. Albion, what can I say? You once again win the prize for the dumbest post. IS IT NOT TRUE?!?

Saint Ignatius placed the date for Revelatiuon to be about 96 AD and attributed it to one author... The books of First, Second, and Third John are believed by many to have been written between 85-95 AD. That would make Revelation the newest /last book of the Bible written.

Regardless of which source you choose to believe as your time-line as to when the books of the Bible were written, all of the Bible still needs to be looked at in order to make sense of your interpretation of it:

Acts 2:17 (KJV)

And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

The above passage does not appear to have occurred by the time the books of the Bible were canonized. Thus, the interpretation of the teaching in the Revelation wherein it warns man not to change or add to what was revealed within the Revelation itself, as opposed to general continuing revelation from God, is warranted. In other words, we should not try to change John's Revelation. The warning covers only that Revelation; not future revelation.

Blessings,

jo

[_jo1952]

The real problem is not sign seeking. It's all the signs that show one's beliefs are not correct. At this time one may wisely reevaluate those spiritual experiences.

I see you are moving your goal posts. Spirit to spirit communication cannot be seen or heard with physical eyes and ears. Therefore, you cannot prove with worldly evidence/signs that someone has not had Truth revealed to them spiritually.

Your argument is stuck in the physical realm.

Blessings,

jo

[_jo1952]

And I thought for a second you might be willing to say what those explanations were, but then you pulled the major dodge of you don't believe as I do so you must be spiritual blind and cannot see the truth. by the way truth is only in the proposition.

I am sorry you don't remember that in past months you and I and other posters have discussed this issue. So, I will re-post what I just wrote to LittleNipper yesterday on this thread:

God has never stopped speaking to mankind in general; nor has He stopped speaking His message of salvation. The Holy Ghost leads us to all Truth. When Father deems we are ready, we receive more Truth. I would like to add that individually we receive that portion of the whole Truth which we are able to handle being revealed to us. Since each of us are on our own personal journey, and no two journeys are exactly alike, it can appear that people receive "conflicting" Truth. Once we can understand this concept, we can make greater progress because we do not become concerned with why another person may not share all of the beliefs which we as individuals believe. This also helps to be more receptive to Truth as we are then more inclined to keep our hearts and our minds open. It is difficult for the Holy Ghost to share wisdom and knowledge and Truth with someone who has closed their heart and mind.

Blessings,

jo

[_subgenius]

Reevaluation is not impossible,

sure it is, it is physiologically impossible to have an unbias, therefore reliable, reevaluation. Chemicals in the body and mind will obfuscate any "reality".

but if one does it honestly

again, "honesty" is a delusion created by physiological, chemical, reactions - a "pure" conception is impossible. To investigate one's self with the same inconsistent and unreliable physiological mechanisms (ie. brain) that produced the delusion in the first place is absurd and illogical.

I think it will lead to a conclusion that the spiritual experience is unreliable at delivery universal truths. The biological machine is very capable of producing a wide range of experiences including illusions.

the conclusion is as flawed as the original experience. Replacing one delusion with another is not a resolution. You have no means by which you can escape the flawed instruments of your perceptions.....according to your own theory.

I stand by what I said as accurate.

of course you do...that is the essence of a delusion...the chemicals in your brain have combined to reassure you of its carefully constructed reality.

Your assertions are wrong since I didn't say anything incorrect. My statement was correct and was never about whether theological criticisms could be used against 'Insert whatever'. Knock yourself out. BJB's statement is still an accurate observation of the weakness of defending the Book of Mormon against secular criticisms.

my criticism was correct, and your statement is still incorrect, no matter how many times you repeat it...the idea that one paradigm can be used to measure another paradigm or that either can be valid methods of evaluating the other is absurd and reflects an inadequate understanding of either.
One does not use Moh's scale to measure blood pressure, and that does not diminish its meaning.

[_Themis]

The real problem is not sign seeking. It's all the signs that show one's beliefs are not correct. At this time one may wisely reevaluate those spiritual experiences.

I see you are moving your goal posts.

Not at all. I acknowledge that many religions including LDS think it is fine to seek spiritual signs but not physical. MY point above was just the bring to light that for many like me, we were not seeking physical signs, but we did come across signs that showed our beliefs(LDS) incorrect. The point being it was not a lack of physical signs that caused a change in beliefs, but signs that showed the beliefs wrong.

Spirit to spirit communication cannot be seen or heard with physical eyes and ears.

That's why we call them spiritual, but don't go to far with it.

Therefore, you cannot prove with worldly evidence/signs that someone has not had Truth revealed to them spiritually.

You went to far. The physical can have it's own evidence that shows certain claimed truths as false, even though many may believe them true through their spiritual experiences. The fact people can have conflicting beliefs shows just how unreliable they are.

Your argument is stuck in the physical realm.

Not really, but I just don't ignore the physical when it doesn't support what I want to believe.

[_Themis]

I am sorry you don't remember that in past months you and I and other posters have discussed this issue. So, I will re-post what I just wrote to LittleNipper yesterday on this thread:

God has never stopped speaking to mankind in general; nor has He stopped speaking His message of salvation. The Holy Ghost leads us to all Truth. When Father deems we are ready, we receive more Truth. I would like to add that individually we receive that portion of the whole Truth which we are able to handle being revealed to us. Since each of us are on our own personal journey, and no two journeys are exactly alike, it can appear that people receive "conflicting" Truth. Once we can understand this concept, we can make greater progress because we do not become concerned with why another person may not share all of the beliefs which we as individuals believe. This also helps to be more receptive to Truth as we are then more inclined to keep our hearts and our minds open. It is difficult for the Holy Ghost to share wisdom and knowledge and Truth with someone who has closed their heart and mind.

Blessings,

jo

I do remember. I also remember that you didn't really provide anything to support what you want to believe. Even this statement is without substance and just a bunch of assertions meant to dodge the issues you cannot handle. If anyone disagrees with you, you just pull the you don't understand. You will need to do better then that around here. Many of us have spent decades as believing LDS, so we understand quite a bit. by the way I am not sure most LDS are going to buy into God giving people conflicting messages.