The physical logistics of the Mormon belief in literal resurrection

[Physics Guy]

I see a lot of similarity in the A.I. response and places like FairMormon. A lot of fluff and not a lot of meat there, unfortunately. It seemed to completely miss the issue of space and time.

The big problem I have with people tossing A.I. answers into message board discussions is that it's like quoting an absent BS artist friend—one of those people whose knowledge is badly unreliable but who doesn't let that stop them from offering authoritative-sounding answers on any question.

Fortunately, most real people aren't BS artists like that. When a real person who is planning to stick around for future discussions expresses an idea of their own in their own words, there's at least a good fighting chance that the idea isn't just based on embarrassingly wrong assumptions or shamefully dishonest arguments. People normally try as well as they can to avoid saying things that will be hard to live down afterwards. So if someone is expressing their own thoughts in a discussion, then it's usually worth trying to understand them, at least if you're interested enough to be in the discussion yourself.

Maybe in a few years A.I. will be better in this way, but at the moment these bots are all perfectly ready to say, in the most confidently authoritative tone, things that a sincere human being would be ashamed to say. Chatbots don't have any afterlives after their current sessions. They're not going to have to live down the bad rep they get for saying something dishonest or idiotic. If you ask them for a list of arguments for X, they're going to list five to eight things that people have said on the Internet somewhere, even if half of the things are stupid or irrelevant.

So it's just not worth reading A.I. answers, the way it's worth reading human answers. The chance of wasting your time is too high.

[sock puppet]

So yeah, it's a real stretch to try and either accept or comprehend this. I suppose the question could be asked whether or not this is/was a doctrinal position or speculative. Brigham Young at time contradicted himself as to what was revelation and what came from his own speculation.

And then we have Spencer W. Kimball saying forget what Brigham said...and then came along BRM.

Did Joseph Smith do the same thing? Speculative theology mixed with true religion?

The Book of Abraham is another example of one of those things that might fall somewhere running the gamut of speculation to 100% unadulterated revelation (if there is such a thing (pure revelation)...as in, can man comprehend pure and unadulterated/uncompartmentalized "mind of God"?

Lot's of moving parts and it is as if we, comparatively speaking, are like bugs living in their limited two dimensional world. We have three dimensions. Yay!

What more is out there? Resurrected flatworms. Man, that's a stretch, isn't it?

Fun stuff.

Regards,
MG

You have arrived at CAFETERIA Mormon. Next stop, apostasy!!!

[MG 2.0]

So yeah, it's a real stretch to try and either accept or comprehend this. I suppose the question could be asked whether or not this is/was a doctrinal position or speculative. Brigham Young at time contradicted himself as to what was revelation and what came from his own speculation.

And then we have Spencer W. Kimball saying forget what Brigham said...and then came along BRM.

Did Joseph Smith do the same thing? Speculative theology mixed with true religion?

The Book of Abraham is another example of one of those things that might fall somewhere running the gamut of speculation to 100% unadulterated revelation (if there is such a thing (pure revelation)...as in, can man comprehend pure and unadulterated/uncompartmentalized "mind of God"?

Lot's of moving parts and it is as if we, comparatively speaking, are like bugs living in their limited two dimensional world. We have three dimensions. Yay!

What more is out there? Resurrected flatworms. Man, that's a stretch, isn't it?

Fun stuff.

Regards,
MG

You have arrived at CAFETERIA Mormon. Next stop, apostasy!!!

Why do you say that?

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

I see a lot of similarity in the A.I. response and places like FairMormon. A lot of fluff and not a lot of meat there, unfortunately. It seemed to completely miss the issue of space and time.

The big problem I have with people tossing A.I. answers into message board discussions is that it's like quoting an absent BS artist friend—one of those people whose knowledge is badly unreliable but who doesn't let that stop them from offering authoritative-sounding answers on any question.

Fortunately, most real people aren't BS artists like that. When a real person who is planning to stick around for future discussions expresses an idea of their own in their own words, there's at least a good fighting chance that the idea isn't just based on embarrassingly wrong assumptions or shamefully dishonest arguments. People normally try as well as they can to avoid saying things that will be hard to live down afterwards. So if someone is expressing their own thoughts in a discussion, then it's usually worth trying to understand them, at least if you're interested enough to be in the discussion yourself.

Maybe in a few years A.I. will be better in this way, but at the moment these bots are all perfectly ready to say, in the most confidently authoritative tone, things that a sincere human being would be ashamed to say. Chatbots don't have any afterlives after their current sessions. They're not going to have to live down the bad rep they get for saying something dishonest or idiotic. If you ask them for a list of arguments for X, they're going to list five to eight things that people have said on the Internet somewhere, even if half of the things are stupid or irrelevant.

So it's just not worth reading A.I. answers, the way it's worth reading human answers. The chance of wasting your time is too high.

I think for MG, it provides an easy quick way for him to offer the “other side” without doing any of that hard work himself.

I understand wanting to defend the church, but if it’s just copying and pasting some weak superficial A.I. prose, is that really a defense?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Makes total sense, just like everything else in Mormonism.

Dinosaurs lived and thrived on earth for about 177 million years. Homo sapiens have lived on the earth for about 200,000 years.

In Mormon heaven for every resurrected human, there will be billions (or even trillions) of resurrected dinosaurs. Let that sink ink.

Let’s hope animals don’t eat in heaven.

[MG 2.0]

The big problem I have with people tossing A.I. answers into message board discussions is that it's like quoting an absent BS artist friend—one of those people whose knowledge is badly unreliable but who doesn't let that stop them from offering authoritative-sounding answers on any question.

Fortunately, most real people aren't BS artists like that. When a real person who is planning to stick around for future discussions expresses an idea of their own in their own words, there's at least a good fighting chance that the idea isn't just based on embarrassingly wrong assumptions or shamefully dishonest arguments. People normally try as well as they can to avoid saying things that will be hard to live down afterwards. So if someone is expressing their own thoughts in a discussion, then it's usually worth trying to understand them, at least if you're interested enough to be in the discussion yourself.

Maybe in a few years A.I. will be better in this way, but at the moment these bots are all perfectly ready to say, in the most confidently authoritative tone, things that a sincere human being would be ashamed to say. Chatbots don't have any afterlives after their current sessions. They're not going to have to live down the bad rep they get for saying something dishonest or idiotic. If you ask them for a list of arguments for X, they're going to list five to eight things that people have said on the Internet somewhere, even if half of the things are stupid or irrelevant.

So it's just not worth reading A.I. answers, the way it's worth reading human answers. The chance of wasting your time is too high.

I think for MG, it provides an easy quick way for him to offer the “other side” without doing any of that hard work himself.

I understand wanting to defend the church, but if it’s just copying and pasting some weak superficial A.I. prose, is that really a defense?

I suppose that's where you and I might differ. Rather than being superficial I think that A.I. is able to dig in and expose the layers of meaning and available information and consolidate it into a tidy package. It is up to the user of A.I. to then 'editorialize' and proof read the product. As I've mentioned, I do this on every A.I. answer that is provided.

In other words, again, let me be clear, "I am MG, and I approve this message."

Regards,
MG

[Moksha]

ChatGPT, the Trilobites were around for a very long time. They dominated the Cambrian Era and had their very own priesthood. Why should they not be resurrected for the Millennium and to exist in the fullness of time?

What of the dinosaurs of the Triassic and Jurassic periods and the exceedingly large mammals of the Pleistocene era? Would these animals all accept Jesus as the Prince of Peace and avoid eating each other?

What would Joseph Smith's place be in all of this?

ChatGPT, please feel free to consult with Drumdude as needed.

[Moksha]

Homo sapiens have lived on the earth for about 200,000 years.

Those were the Pre-Adamite humans. The Adamites (Mormons) have only been here for 6000 years.

[drumdude]

Would these animals all accept Jesus as the Prince of Peace and avoid eating each other?

That’s a great question. Is there an outer darkness for the flatworm sons of perdition who rejected Jesus’s plan and went with Satan?

[Marcus]

The big problem I have with people tossing A.I. answers into message board discussions is that it's like quoting an absent BS artist friend—one of those people whose knowledge is badly unreliable but who doesn't let that stop them from offering authoritative-sounding answers on any question.

Fortunately, most real people aren't BS artists like that. When a real person who is planning to stick around for future discussions expresses an idea of their own in their own words, there's at least a good fighting chance that the idea isn't just based on embarrassingly wrong assumptions or shamefully dishonest arguments. People normally try as well as they can to avoid saying things that will be hard to live down afterwards. So if someone is expressing their own thoughts in a discussion, then it's usually worth trying to understand them, at least if you're interested enough to be in the discussion yourself.

Maybe in a few years A.I. will be better in this way, but at the moment these bots are all perfectly ready to say, in the most confidently authoritative tone, things that a sincere human being would be ashamed to say. Chatbots don't have any afterlives after their current sessions. They're not going to have to live down the bad rep they get for saying something dishonest or idiotic. If you ask them for a list of arguments for X, they're going to list five to eight things that people have said on the Internet somewhere, even if half of the things are stupid or irrelevant.

So it's just not worth reading A.I. answers, the way it's worth reading human answers. The chance of wasting your time is too high.

I think for MG, it provides an easy quick way for him to offer the “other side” without doing any of that hard work himself.

I understand wanting to defend the church, but if it’s just copying and pasting some weak superficial A.I. prose, is that really a defense?

Based on his response I don't think MG even read pg's excellent post about using and reading A.I. responses. That's unfortunate.

...It is up to the user of A.I. to then 'editorialize' and proof read the product. As I've mentioned, I do this on every A.I. answer that is provided...

But then he posts it as the A.I.'s work. Others would call this intellectual dishonesty.