Which holy ghost is Guy R. Briggs talking to?
Duwayne Anderson
Latter-day Saints, says the figures that are in the Book of Abraham
are not scripture. Guy claims the holy ghost agrees with this:
net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote in message news:<92C3CA65netza...@199.45.49.11>...
<snip>
> [Guy R. Briggs, apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of
> Latter-day Saints] Pondered the issue at length. Fasted and prayed.
> The answer that seems good to me and also "seemeth good to the Holy
> Ghost" (Acts 15) is that the pictures are not scripture.
How many other Latter-day Saints on ARM agree with Guy R. Briggs? Do
you all get the same answer from the holy ghost? Or, is Guy speaking
with a different holy ghost than the rest of you?
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
Hill5045
>From: duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson)
>Date: 11/11/02 8:04 AM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <a42139e3.02111...@posting.google.com>
Wow! It sounds like Guy is receiveing his own revelation now! We should inform
his bishop, Mormons get excommunicated when they start receiving their own
revelation, especially when it differs from Mormon Church teachings.
When will these mormon apologists even learn that they're trying to ride a dead
horse.
Gordon Hill
TheJordan6
>Date: 11/11/2002 10:04 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <a42139e3.02111...@posting.google.com>
The reason Guy got a "witness" that the pictures are not scripture is because
he offered his opinion a couple of weeks ago that the pictures are not
scripture. As we have seen from the "testimonies" of Jong and Aaron Kim,
ldsvegascowboy, etc., the "Holy Ghost" gives "testimony" of whatever anyone
already wishes to believe. Guy wants to believe that the pictures are not
scripture. Guy has also demonstrated countless times the propensity to refuse
to change his mind on given issues, even when his opinions are soundly
contradicted by the facts. Therefore, he fasts and prays, and presto! He
receives a "testimony" which confirms his chosen stance.
Whether the given issue constitutes verifiable truth outside of that
"testimony" or not is immaterial.
Randy J.
Duwayne Anderson
Right you are, Randy. All of which simply goes to show what a
worthless exercise this "pray and get the holy ghost to confirm"
exercise is.
What's interesting is that Guy is saying the holy ghost agrees with
him, yet his Church treats the figures as scripture. So apparently
the holy ghost is telling Guy R. Briggs something different from what
he's telling the Church leaders.
One has to wonder, why the holy ghost cannot keep the story straight.
Duwayne Anderson
It's interesting, don't you think? Bill was bitching about the
question being a "trap." And, in fact, I explained -- SEVERAL TIMES
-- the problem with answering the question either way. But Guy R.
Briggs just has too big an ego, I guess. He just HAD to answer the
question, and now look at what he's standing in.
It will be interesting to see if any of Guy's fellow Saints bothers to
come to his rescue, and say the holy ghost told them the same thing.
Mike sort of did. I think. It's always hard to tell, with Mike, what
the hell he's saying.
alienward
>
> How many other Latter-day Saints on ARM agree with Guy R. Briggs? Do
> you all get the same answer from the holy ghost? Or, is Guy speaking
> with a different holy ghost than the rest of you?
>
hard time answering):
"Tell us what the holy ghost said to you about the figures in the Book
of Abraham."
So far, we've got three different Mormon invisible supernatural
entities they call the Holy Ghost:
Mike W:
"...I can say the Holy Ghost said to me, "It is and isn't scripture"."
Guy Briggs:
"The answer that seems good to me and also "seemeth good to the Holy
Ghost" (Acts 15) is that the pictures are not scripture."
Then Guy writes:
"Mike and I are telling you exactly the same thing."
What a goofball. It looks like Guy had no bosoms burning and Mike had
one bosom burning.
Bill Schroader:
"As far as the figures go, well, the figures, along with the text, is
a collective work. It's kind of like asking me to pray about a
specific chapter and verse in the Book of Mormon isn't it? Why would
the Holy Ghost care? Oh wait, I see, he would have one opinion
regarding the figures and a different opinion of the collective works
of the Pearl of Great Price as a whole."
Woody, where the hell is your answer? Are you going to get us up to
four Holy Ghosts?
Alien
TheJordan6
>Date: 11/11/2002 5:53 PM Eastern Standard Time
I found something else intriguing about Guy's "witness": He claims to have
fasted and prayed, I assume over the last week or so whilst he pondered your
question, whereupon he received his "witness" apparently in a timely manner and
with unmistakable clarity.
But in the past, Guy has also told us that LDS leaders have made mistakes in
disseminating church doctrines and practices. Guy has opined, for instance,
that LDS leaders were totally wrong about the "curse of Cain" doctrine.
Evidence shows that LDS leaders "had prayed long and hard," and had reportedly
been discussing and voting on the Negro/priesthood issue since at least 1971.
So, the question here is, if Guy, a lowly peon rank-and-file Mormon with no
authority whatsoever, could receive his "witness" about the BOA facsimiles in a
matter of days, then why couldn't the "prophets, seers, and revelators" receive
answers to their "long and hard" queries about the Negro issue for YEARS?
Why did the god of Mormonism allow LDS leaders to continue to propagate the
"curse of Cain" doctrine for 120+ years, if it was false? And why did the god
of Mormonism allow Brigham Young to propagate the heretical "Adam-God" doctrine
for 25 years, if it was false?
These, of course, are merely rhetorical questions. But I believe that the
answer to them should be obvious, and that answer is that Guy Briggs should
immediately fly to SLC and take his rightful seat as the Prophet, Seer, and
Revelator of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After all, if
Guy's getting "revelation" about church doctrine faster and more clearly than
Mormon leaders are, he deserves the job.
Randy J.
€ R.L. Measures €
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
** Amen, Randy J. It took the official "prophet" Way too long to get
the message that "God" had done gone and called off his Darkies curse. If
Guy had been in the driver's seat, the problem could have been taken care
of decades before them damn uppity niggah athletes started talkin' about a
boycott of BYU and pressuring them Infernal Revenooers to investigate the
Church's tax exempt status.
--
Rich Measures, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures
Mike W
> news:da1f15d3.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message
> > news:<a42139e3.02111...@posting.google.com>...
> > How many other Latter-day Saints on ARM agree with Guy R. Briggs? Do
> > you all get the same answer from the holy ghost? Or, is Guy speaking
> > with a different holy ghost than the rest of you?
> Here's the question again (for the Mormon cultists who've had such a
> hard time answering):
>
> "Tell us what the holy ghost said to you about the figures in the Book
> of Abraham."
>
> So far, we've got three different Mormon invisible supernatural
> entities they call the Holy Ghost:
Seems to be a bit of a mundane approach.
> Mike W:
>
> "...I can say the Holy Ghost said to me, "It is and isn't scripture"."
I bet you're not a fan of non-representational, abstract art either. Here's
a link to "The Voice of Fire" hanging in the National Art Gallery in Ottawa,
Canada.
http://www76.pair.com/keithlim/postcards/voiceoffire.html
"Think not of it as a pathway of a 'sequence' of gedankenexperiment
simpletons where heir-lines are a prima facie case of a paradiachronic
transitivity. Rather think of it as a chain strength possibility of what,
eventually, comes out as a product of epistemic conditions, considered as
the reciprocal substitution of semiotic material for a dialogical product in
a dynamic reflexion."
Acquired in 1990 for $1.76 million per
http://www.museums.ca/publications/muse/1997/fall97/rabinov.htm
So... there we are... whispering about the Holy Ghost. But maybe you can
help.
I've asked a couple of times in this thread where thinking comes from (which
is a critical part of the setup for my statement above). Suggesting it's
thinking that leads to ideas, which are then tested for validity. I
suggested that I could be dissuaded from my belief that thinking comes from
the Holy Ghost. Nobody's done a particularly good job dissuading.
Maybe they don't understand the question, maybe they'll just mumble
something about how thinking is merely the product of chemical interactions.
There they're describing process though, IMHO. Not really addressing the
origins of selfhood. Not really getting to the philosophical root of it
all. Guy, Bill (see below) and Charles (not quoted below) excepted. I
especially liked Guy's treatise on the connection between the Holy Ghost and
God (snipped from the excerpt below).
> Guy Briggs:
>
> "The answer that seems good to me and also "seemeth good to the Holy
> Ghost" (Acts 15) is that the pictures are not scripture."
>
> Then Guy writes:
>
> "Mike and I are telling you exactly the same thing."
>
> What a goofball. It looks like Guy had no bosoms burning and Mike had
> one bosom burning.
LOL. If you're trying to be funny... you're doing a good job!!! :-)
Mike
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> I've asked a couple of times in this thread where thinking comes from (which
> is a critical part of the setup for my statement above). Suggesting it's
> thinking that leads to ideas, which are then tested for validity. I
> suggested that I could be dissuaded from my belief that thinking comes from
> the Holy Ghost.
<snip>
Why not the Cheshire Cat? How about the Easter Bunny? Why not
propose that they are the source of "thinking?" What, exactly, is the
difference between then and the holy ghost, or anything else you might
imagine, Mike?
You act as though there is some sort of evidence that this holy ghost
exists. That was partly the point of my question. To test this
claim. But, as Guy R. Briggs has illustrated for us, the holy ghost
is really just our inner desires. Guy's holy ghost (part of his
mind/imagination) tells him one thing, and it tells Mormon leaders and
other members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS,
or Mormon) another thing.
Mike W
> news:a42139e3.0211...@posting.google.com...
> > "Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<ut3kigo...@news.supernews.com>...
> <snip>
> > I've asked a couple of times in this thread where thinking comes
> > from (which is a critical part of the setup for my statement above).
> > Suggesting it's thinking that leads to ideas, which are then tested
> > for validity. I suggested that I could be dissuaded from my belief
> > that thinking comes from the Holy Ghost.
> <snip>
>
> Why not the Cheshire Cat? How about the Easter Bunny? Why not
> propose that they are the source of "thinking?"
Nobody's suggested that. I doubt you are. In fact, you seem to be leaving
it at a big "I don't know" and that's that. Fine. The only expansion I
could give on my reasons would be to recite a testimony... I haven't given
it alot of thought. Guy has prayed and fasted... he's come up with an
expansion on the idea. Good. I wonder if anyone's got a counterpoint out
there. Another theory, so far from testability as to be almost divine.
That might dissuade me.
> What, exactly, is the difference between them and the holy ghost,
> or anything else you might imagine, Mike?
>
> You act as though there is some sort of evidence that this holy ghost
> exists.
Sorry. Unless I parse the word "evidence"... that wasn't my intent.
> That was partly the point of my question. To test this
> claim. But, as Guy R. Briggs has illustrated for us, the holy ghost
> is really just our inner desires.
Is this where you try to suggest the source of thinking or are you merely
telling us what you think the Holy Ghost is?
> Guy's holy ghost (part of his mind/imagination) tells him one thing,
> and it tells Mormon leaders and other members of the Church of Jesus
> Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, or Mormon) another thing.
Well, this one's a tempest in a teapot, whether the figures are scripture
(definition 1) or scripture (definition 2) or scripture (definition x). I'm
having a hard time grasping the import. Something that does impact me is
the beginning of life. Is it conception? Is it later? I've yet to see an
argument with evidence like you suggest is required. So, I'm left looking
for other reasons to settle. Within the origin of thought, with the help of
the Holy Ghost and God are other ways to settle.
Mike
dangerous1
the import is the response the HG gives to those that ask. Guy said that the
ghost told him that the figures were not scripture. If anyone else gets a
different answer the ghost must be unreliable or lying to someone.
Simple. Ask the ghost, compare answers.
--
Best,
Dangerous1
D1 @ Dangerous1.com
Don Marchant
"In fact, when you get right down to it, almost every explanation
Man came up with for *anything* until about 1926 was stupid."
[Dave Barry]
Mike W
> > Mike W wrote:
> > Well, this one's a tempest in a teapot, whether the figures are
> > scripture (definition 1) or scripture (definition 2) or scripture
> > (definition x). I'm having a hard time grasping the import.
> > Something that does impact me is the beginning of life. Is it
> > conception? Is it later? I've yet to see an argument with evidence
> > like you suggest is required. So, I'm left looking for other reasons
> > to settle. Within the origin of thought, with the help of
> > the Holy Ghost and God are other ways to settle.
> the import is the response the HG gives to those that ask. Guy said
> that the ghost told him that the figures were not scripture. If anyone
> else gets a different answer the ghost must be unreliable or lying to
> someone.
>
> Simple. Ask the ghost, compare answers.
You're doing the same thing alienward did. Treating this like a
conversation between people. Given the lengths I've gone to, trying to
describe what the Holy Ghost is (to me), this doesn't make sense. The
second person allegory only goes so far. We think different things, we have
different ideas, hopefully those ideas, when tested, result in one logical
position.
The problem arises, I guess, when ideas can't be logically tested and yet we
still have the same idea. In comes the Holy Ghost, helping us to describe
that commonality. So, the facsimiles aren't scripture per Guy's statements
and I see his point, but are in that they're included in "The Scriptures".
I have to say, this is one of the first times I've actually used the phrase
"The Holy Ghost said to me" in recent memory. It's a carefully qualified
statement.
Mike
dangerous1
> > dangerous1 wrote:
> > > Mike W wrote:
>
> > > Well, this one's a tempest in a teapot, whether the figures are
> > > scripture (definition 1) or scripture (definition 2) or scripture
> > > (definition x). I'm having a hard time grasping the import.
> > > Something that does impact me is the beginning of life. Is it
> > > conception? Is it later? I've yet to see an argument with evidence
> > > like you suggest is required. So, I'm left looking for other reasons
> > > to settle. Within the origin of thought, with the help of
> > > the Holy Ghost and God are other ways to settle.
>
> > the import is the response the HG gives to those that ask. Guy said
> > that the ghost told him that the figures were not scripture. If anyone
> > else gets a different answer the ghost must be unreliable or lying to
> > someone.
> >
> > Simple. Ask the ghost, compare answers.
>
> You're doing the same thing alienward did. Treating this like a
> conversation between people. Given the lengths I've gone to, trying to
> describe what the Holy Ghost is (to me), this doesn't make sense.
You're a person. The ghost is supposedly a person.
> The
> second person allegory only goes so far. We think different things, we have
> different ideas, hopefully those ideas, when tested, result in one logical
> position.
You're a person. The ghost is supposedly a person. (I feel like Duwayne).
>
>
> The problem arises, I guess, when ideas can't be logically tested and yet we
> still have the same idea. In comes the Holy Ghost, helping us to describe
> that commonality. So, the facsimiles aren't scripture per Guy's statements
> and I see his point, but are in that they're included in "The Scriptures".
>
> I have to say, this is one of the first times I've actually used the phrase
> "The Holy Ghost said to me" in recent memory. It's a carefully qualified
> statement.
>
> Mike
What did he say to you about the figures?
AnthonyPaul
>From: "Mike W" Circle_314...@hotmail.com
>Date: 11/13/02 10:12 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <ut653s...@news.supernews.com>
If it wasn't for insomnia, some people wouldn't get no sleep at all. What is
the correct perception of this statement? It has several different (yet
correct) ways in which it can be considered.
My children have started to sing a song that they heard "Eminem" singing: I'm
sorry mama; I didn't mean to hurt you; I didn't mean to make you cry; But
tonite, I'm cleaning out my closet.
At 5 and 7 years old; they tend to have a different opinion of what the words
they hear actually mean. Which to them it means that mama is upset that they
did not clean their closet.
Anyhoos, when all is said and done, it does not matter what illusions we chased
in life.
Anthony
1 Corinthians 13:11-13, "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood
as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish
things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I
know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
alienward
>
second Mormon their HG says the facsimiles are and are not scripture
and to a third Mormon their HG says the facsimiles are scripture.
Yes, concluding there are at least three invisible supernatural HS
entities claimed to be a only one actual HG person by the Mormon
church is pretty mundane. Maybe I should try to compare this HG
claimed by the Mormon church to be a real person to abstract art or
something...
>
> I bet you're not a fan of non-representational, abstract art either. Here's
> a link to "The Voice of Fire" hanging in the National Art Gallery in Ottawa,
> Canada.
>
>
> I've asked a couple of times in this thread where thinking comes from (which
> is a critical part of the setup for my statement above). Suggesting it's
> thinking that leads to ideas, which are then tested for validity. I
> suggested that I could be dissuaded from my belief that thinking comes from
> the Holy Ghost. Nobody's done a particularly good job dissuading.
>
trying to make up excuses for the multiple Mormon HGs, you didn't
realize it. You don't need to make up this nonsense, the Mormon HG
communication process with the HG is quite simple:
Read and study something, think about it, reach a conclusion, go
without eating, fold your arms and pray, ask the HG if your conclusion
is true. If conclusion is true – bosom burns.
Here's the conclusions you Mormon clowns reached and got the burning
bosoms over:
Guy – facsimiles are not scripture
MikeW – facsimiles are and are not scripture
Bill Schroader – facsimiles are scripture.
There are at least three different Mormon HGs. But maybe you should
now try arguing it's really just one HG and he's got a multiple
personality disorder instead of try to compare him to abstract art.
Alien
Mike W
> > Mike W wrote:
> > > dangerous1 wrote:
> > > > Mike W wrote:
> > > > Well, this one's a tempest in a teapot, whether the figures are
> > > > scripture (definition 1) or scripture (definition 2) or scripture
> > > > (definition x). I'm having a hard time grasping the import.
> > > > Something that does impact me is the beginning of life. Is it
> > > > conception? Is it later? I've yet to see an argument with
> > > > evidence like you suggest is required. So, I'm left looking for
> > > > other reasons to settle. Within the origin of thought, with the
> > > > help of the Holy Ghost and God are other ways to settle.
> > > the import is the response the HG gives to those that ask. Guy said
> > > that the ghost told him that the figures were not scripture. If
> > > anyone else gets a different answer the ghost must be unreliable or
> > > lying to someone.
> > >
> > > Simple. Ask the ghost, compare answers.
> > You're doing the same thing alienward did. Treating this like a
> > conversation between people. Given the lengths I've gone to, trying to
> > describe what the Holy Ghost is (to me), this doesn't make sense.
> You're a person. The ghost is supposedly a person.
Being divine sort of puts lie to that thought. I'm reminded about how we
talk about cars, "she runs well" does not imply the car is actually a woman.
So...
> > The second person allegory only goes so far.
> > We think different things, we have different ideas, hopefully those
> > ideas, when tested, result in one logical position.
> You're a person. The ghost is supposedly a person.
> (I feel like Duwayne).
You're getting the style down. It forced me to clarify but I wish there
were a better comparison. Discussing divinity and cars... seems like a bit
of a sacrilege. Sigh... not that that's stopped me before :-)
> > The problem arises, I guess, when ideas can't be logically tested
> > and yet we still have the same idea. In comes the Holy Ghost,
> > helping us to describe that commonality. So, the facsimiles aren't
> > scripture per Guy's statements and I see his point, but are in that
> > they're included in "The Scriptures".
> >
> > I have to say, this is one of the first times I've actually used the
> > phrase "The Holy Ghost said to me" in recent memory. It's a carefully
> > qualified statement.
> What did he say to you about the figures?
Ahh... the heart of the matter, no? Nothing. But a few wonders come to
mind. What might the artist have been feeling? How would he have tapped
out his intent given the apparent mix of divine representation and mundane
representation? How much would his language change to express his thoughts
given the audience? Would a psychiatrist be able to tell us what was really
meant?
It might be the Holy Ghost suggesting I should appreciate the sentiment at
the bottom of Facsimile 2, "The above translation is given as far as we have
any right to give at the present time."
I haven't given this alot of thought... they're shallow views.
Mike
dangerous1
Your car was never a woman. Your gods were once men. And are distinct persons.
>
>
> > > The second person allegory only goes so far.
> > > We think different things, we have different ideas, hopefully those
> > > ideas, when tested, result in one logical position.
>
> > You're a person. The ghost is supposedly a person.
> > (I feel like Duwayne).
>
> You're getting the style down. It forced me to clarify but I wish there
> were a better comparison. Discussing divinity and cars... seems like a bit
> of a sacrilege. Sigh... not that that's stopped me before :-)
Me neither.
>
>
> > > The problem arises, I guess, when ideas can't be logically tested
> > > and yet we still have the same idea. In comes the Holy Ghost,
> > > helping us to describe that commonality. So, the facsimiles aren't
> > > scripture per Guy's statements and I see his point, but are in that
> > > they're included in "The Scriptures".
> > >
> > > I have to say, this is one of the first times I've actually used the
> > > phrase "The Holy Ghost said to me" in recent memory. It's a carefully
> > > qualified statement.
>
> > What did he say to you about the figures?
>
> Ahh... the heart of the matter, no? Nothing. But a few wonders come to
> mind. What might the artist have been feeling? How would he have tapped
> out his intent given the apparent mix of divine representation and mundane
> representation? How much would his language change to express his thoughts
> given the audience? Would a psychiatrist be able to tell us what was really
> meant?
Nothing is exactly what you should hear when questioning imaginary ghosts. You
are sane. Rejoice in that.
>
>
> It might be the Holy Ghost suggesting I should appreciate the sentiment at
> the bottom of Facsimile 2, "The above translation is given as far as we have
> any right to give at the present time."
That's pretty good. It looks like woodyspeak for "I don't know what the hell
I'm talking about". I don't think that came from the holy ghost.
>
>
> I haven't given this alot of thought... they're shallow views.
>
> Mike
It has been interesting.
Mike W
> > news:<ut3kigo...@news.supernews.com>...
> > Seems to be a bit of a mundane approach.
> Yes, to one Mormon their HG says the facsimiles are not scripture, a
> second Mormon their HG says the facsimiles are and are not scripture
> and to a third Mormon their HG says the facsimiles are scripture.
> Yes, concluding there are at least three invisible supernatural HS
> entities claimed to be a only one actual HG person by the Mormon
> church is pretty mundane. Maybe I should try to compare this HG
> claimed by the Mormon church to be a real person to abstract art or
> something...
Mundane in the way you seem to be interpreting "HG says".
> > I bet you're not a fan of non-representational, abstract art either.
> > Here's a link to "The Voice of Fire" hanging in the National Art
> > Gallery in Ottawa, Canada.
> You gotta be kidding me.
Sadly, I'm not. It's a complicated load of BS. Would that everything were
actually black and white.
> > I've asked a couple of times in this thread where thinking comes from
> > (which is a critical part of the setup for my statement above).
> > Suggesting it's thinking that leads to ideas, which are then tested
> > for validity. I suggested that I could be dissuaded from my belief
> > that thinking comes from the Holy Ghost. Nobody's done a particularly
> > good job dissuading.
> Yo, dude. This is your first post in this thread.
Doh! Sorry. This and similar threads. Like the one you took an abstract
from. Is there a word for a thread-set?
> You're so busy trying to make up excuses for the multiple Mormon HGs,
> you didn't realize it. You don't need to make up this nonsense, the
> Mormon HG communication process with the HG is quite simple:
It's simple? Though I despair the tone, Guy's treatment of scripture, canon
and now doctrine (different thread) have given me pause to consider how
simple it really is.
> Read and study something, think about it, reach a conclusion, go
> without eating, fold your arms and pray, ask the HG if your conclusion
> is true. If conclusion is true - bosom burns.
>
> Here's the conclusions you Mormon clowns reached and got the burning
> bosoms over:
>
> Guy - facsimiles are not scripture
> MikeW - facsimiles are and are not scripture
> Bill Schroader - facsimiles are scripture.
>
> There are at least three different Mormon HGs.
Indeed? Why? The Holy Ghost is divine... does that make any logical sense?
Nope. Not to mention that you didn't qualify which definition of
"scripture" was used by each party. Maybe we (you included) could each do a
thesis on what "scripture" really is. Think somebody'd pay $1.76 million
for it? Hell... the plot thickens :-)
> But maybe you should now try arguing it's really just one HG and he's
> got a multiple personality disorder instead of try to compare him to
> abstract art.
I wasn't comparing the Holy Ghost to abstract art. I was comparing one's
perception of 3 vertical lines with another's perception of the Holy Ghost.
Your response has been stunning, to say the least.
Mike
Duwayne Anderson
> > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a42139e3.0211...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<ut3kigo...@news.supernews.com>...
>
> <snip>
> > > I've asked a couple of times in this thread where thinking comes
> > > from (which is a critical part of the setup for my statement above).
> > > Suggesting it's thinking that leads to ideas, which are then tested
> > > for validity. I suggested that I could be dissuaded from my belief
> > > that thinking comes from the Holy Ghost.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Why not the Cheshire Cat? How about the Easter Bunny? Why not
> > propose that they are the source of "thinking?"
>
> Nobody's suggested that.
Sure, Mike. YOU are suggesting that. There is no difference between
the holy ghost and the Cheshire Cat, or the Easter Bunny. It's just
semantics. You use a different name, but it's still an invisible,
imaginary entity.
> I doubt you are.
I'm pointing out, Mike, that There is no difference between the holy
ghost and the Cheshire Cat, or the Easter Bunny. It's just semantics.
You use a different name, but it's still an invisible, imaginary
entity.
> In fact, you seem to be leaving
> it at a big "I don't know" and that's that.
No, Mike. I'm pointing out that there is no difference between the
holy ghost and the Cheshire Cat, or the Easter Bunny. It's just
semantics. You use a different name, but it's still an invisible,
imaginary entity.
> Fine.
Not until you get the point, Mike that there is no difference between
the holy ghost and the Cheshire Cat, or the Easter Bunny. It's just
semantics. You use a different name, but it's still an invisible,
imaginary entity.
> The only expansion I
> could give on my reasons would be to recite a testimony...
A testimony is worthless. There are people who have testimonies that
Elvis Lives.
> I haven't given
> it alot of thought.
No kidding.
> Guy has prayed and fasted... he's come up with an
> expansion on the idea.
Guy is hopelessly engaged in mental masturbation. He praid to himself
and got the answer that he wanted. But the problem is, Guy hears from
the holy ghost what he wants to hear, and it's different than what
someone else hears.
The amazing thing is, none of you guys seem to get the point yet.
It's not a matter of what is "official" but the fact that different
people get different answers. So we have Guy, who goes away and
"prays" and gets one answer that he claims is from the holy ghost.
And we have OTHER Mormons who claim to do the SAME thing, who say the
holy ghost told them something DIFFERENT.
Got it? If you have, perhaps you can help Guy.
<snip to end>
Mike W
Riiight! That does add a confusing wrinkle. I'll have to consider that for
some time. Meanwhile, I feel no further ahead. Not knowing where thinking
comes from or adding for good measure, that it comes from the Holy Ghost.
'cause these ideas... sometimes they don't feel like mine but I doubt
they're anybody else's either. That is, anybody I'm likely to be
communicating with in the traditional sense. Oh well.
Mike
Duwayne Anderson
> > dangerous1 wrote:
> > > Mike W wrote:
>
> > > Well, this one's a tempest in a teapot, whether the figures are
> > > scripture (definition 1) or scripture (definition 2) or scripture
> > > (definition x). I'm having a hard time grasping the import.
> > > Something that does impact me is the beginning of life. Is it
> > > conception? Is it later? I've yet to see an argument with evidence
> > > like you suggest is required. So, I'm left looking for other reasons
> > > to settle. Within the origin of thought, with the help of
> > > the Holy Ghost and God are other ways to settle.
>
> > the import is the response the HG gives to those that ask. Guy said
> > that the ghost told him that the figures were not scripture. If anyone
> > else gets a different answer the ghost must be unreliable or lying to
> > someone.
> >
> > Simple. Ask the ghost, compare answers.
>
> You're doing the same thing alienward did. Treating this like a
> conversation between people.
Mike: Here is something I posted for Guy R. Briggs. You might find
it helpful:
We are dealing with a particularly difficult problem of logical
dissonance. So let's try and re-establish for Guy R. Briggs (an
apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) what
the issues are:
1) Guy R. Briggs claims that the holy ghost agrees with him that the
Facsimiles that are in the Pearl of Great Price are not scripture.
2) The Pearl of Great Price is sustained as scripture in the General
Conference of the Church twice each year.
3) I've posted many references from LDS authors to the effect that
they believe the holy ghost has told them that the Facsimiles are
scripture.
4) I've posted reference to the fact that the Facsimiles are listed
by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as scripture on its
Official Internet site.
Now, the point that Guy seems incapable of getting (or is deliberately
ignoring) is that the holy ghost is telling him one thing, and other
Mormons something else.
So, Guy's example has undermined the very existence of the holy ghost
all together, because the holy ghost -- IF it exists -- would tell
everyone the same thing.
The problem is, Guy R. Briggs seems not to realize that he has,
through his argument, testified against the holy ghost. He has
illustrated, by his *actions,* that the holy ghost does not exist.
That's the point, Guy and Mike. See if you can deal with the issues,
now.
<snip to end>
alienward
>
> Mundane in the way you seem to be interpreting "HG says".
>
"Some of the ways the Holy Ghost helps us are:
1. He reveals the truth to us.
2. He helps teach us the gospel.
3. He helps us remember things.
4. He comforts us in times of sorrow.
5. He protects us from evil.
6. He inspires us as we teach the gospel in talks and lessons.
7. He warns us when we are in danger.
8. He tells us all things we should do."
Do you see this Mike? The Mormon church claims the HG tells us things
and a whole lot more. The Mormon church also claims this can happen
by visions, voices, burning bosoms, and a feeling called still a small
voice. We the Mormon church and other people say the HG tells you or
"HG says" it is meant to cover the communication methods claimed by
the Mormon church. And we are specifically discussing whether the HG
says something is true or not. You don't need to go off on all kinds
of tangents and calling interpretations mundane, just stick to whether
or not the "HG says" it's true the facsimiles are scripture or not.
>
> Sadly, I'm not. It's a complicated load of BS. Would that everything were
> actually black and white.
>
Yes, you are full of shit. We are talking about the HG telling you
whether something is true or false. That's as black and white as you
can get.
>
> Indeed? Why? The Holy Ghost is divine... does that make any logical sense?
> Nope. Not to mention that you didn't qualify which definition of
> "scripture" was used by each party. Maybe we (you included) could each do a
> thesis on what "scripture" really is. Think somebody'd pay $1.76 million
> for it? Hell... the plot thickens :-)
>
The Mormon church claims the HG is an actual person that is invisible
and has the superpowers listed above. The reason this doesn't make
logical sense is there is no evidence an HG does any of these things,
there's evidence an HG has not done these things, and you Mormons in
here are all claiming the HG tells you different things.
>
> I wasn't comparing the Holy Ghost to abstract art. I was comparing one's
> perception of 3 vertical lines with another's perception of the Holy Ghost.
> Your response has been stunning, to say the least.
>
Ok, let's see your comparison of your perception of 3 vertical lines
to your perception of the actual invisible person with the superpowers
listed above.
Alien
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> Sadly, I'm not. It's a complicated load of BS. Would that everything were
> actually black and white.
Everything does not have to be black and white for somethings to be
black and white.
<snip>
> It's simple? Though I despair the tone, Guy's treatment of scripture, canon
> and now doctrine (different thread) have given me pause to consider how
> simple it really is.
I have a standing challenge for anyone to provide an official
definition of official doctrine (or scripture).
So far, everyone has failed. Including Guy R. Briggs, Woody, Charles
Dowis, and John Guynn (along with all the other people in his head).
The requirements for this test are simple:
1) Quote a definition of official doctrine (Story telling, offering
one's own opinion, or blabbering not allowed. Just a quote, please.)
2) Make sure that your quote uses the term "official doctrine," and
gives a definition.
3) Make sure that your quote is taken from a source that is official
doctrine, based on the definition that is being quoted.
My bet? Nobody on ARM (or anywhere else) can take this challenge.
The reason? Mormon doctrine (what is taught) is a fluid, changing
thing. It's essentially any damn thing the current prophet wants to
say.
This is why Mormons use the "not official doctrine" argument. They
know there is no such thing, but many non-Mormons don't know it. So
it's a way of changing the argument by sleight of hand.
<snip>
> > There are at least three different Mormon HGs.
>
> Indeed? Why? The Holy Ghost is divine... does that make any logical sense?
> Nope.
Glad we agree here. It makes no logical sense. The question is, why
persist in accepting the holy ghost, then? It makes no more logical
sense than any other illogical entity. Do you accept them ALL?
<snip to end>
Mike W
> > news:<ut6j322...@news.supernews.com>...
> > Mundane in the way you seem to be interpreting "HG says".
> From the Mormon curriculum for Gospel Principles and Doctrines:
>
> "Some of the ways the Holy Ghost helps us are:
>
> 1. He reveals the truth to us.
>
> 2. He helps teach us the gospel.
>
> 3. He helps us remember things.
>
> 4. He comforts us in times of sorrow.
>
> 5. He protects us from evil.
>
> 6. He inspires us as we teach the gospel in talks and lessons.
>
> 7. He warns us when we are in danger.
>
> 8. He tells us all things we should do."
>
> Do you see this Mike? The Mormon church claims the HG tells us things
> and a whole lot more. The Mormon church also claims this can happen
> by visions, voices, burning bosoms, and a feeling called still a small
> voice. We the Mormon church and other people say the HG tells you or
> "HG says" it is meant to cover the communication methods claimed by
> the Mormon church. And we are specifically discussing whether the HG
> says something is true or not. You don't need to go off on all kinds
> of tangents and calling interpretations mundane, just stick to whether
> or not the "HG says" it's true the facsimiles are scripture or not.
Thanks for the primer. Odd way to learn but appreciated nonetheless. So...
I'm still stumped by how the original questioner wanted to define scripture,
how you want to define scripture. Anyways, I haven't thought all of it
through and I'm not certain the definition I provided for the Holy Ghost
would sit well with a TBM.
From thinking to ideas to logic... that's something I picked up here. Add
in a circle back to the Holy Ghost... well that's a fresher thought. By the
way... any ideas on the origins of thinking? I wonder if I'd understand you
if you did.
Mike
P.S. Apologies for considering your interpretation mundane. It obviously
wasn't.
TheJordan6
>Date: 11/14/2002 10:38 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <da1f15d3.02111...@posting.google.com>
>
>"Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<ut6j322...@news.supernews.com>...
>>
>> Mundane in the way you seem to be interpreting "HG says".
>>
>From the Mormon curriculum for Gospel Principles and Doctrines:
>
>"Some of the ways the Holy Ghost helps us are:
>
>1. He reveals the truth to us.
>
>2. He helps teach us the gospel.
>
>3. He helps us remember things.
>
>4. He comforts us in times of sorrow.
>
>5. He protects us from evil.
>
>6. He inspires us as we teach the gospel in talks and lessons.
>
>7. He warns us when we are in danger.
>
>8. He tells us all things we should do."
9. He tells us that the Tanners are behind Elizabeth Smart's kidnapping.
10. He tells us that Art Bulla is "The one might and strong."
Mike W
> > "Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<ut6j322...@news.supernews.com>...
This is the third of three replies in the same thread set (that I've found).
I'll focus on this one as they appear to contain basically the same
questions.
> <snip>
> > Sadly, I'm not. It's a complicated load of BS. Would that
> > everything were actually black and white.
> Everything does not have to be black and white for somethings to be
> black and white.
True.
> <snip>
> > It's simple? Though I despair the tone, Guy's treatment of scripture,
> > canon and now doctrine (different thread) have given me pause to
> > consider how simple it really is.
>
> I have a standing challenge for anyone to provide an official
> definition of official doctrine (or scripture).
<snip>
Good luck. Don't look to me.
> > > There are at least three different Mormon HGs.
> >
> > Indeed? Why? The Holy Ghost is divine... does that make any logical
> > sense? Nope.
>
> Glad we agree here. It makes no logical sense. The question is, why
> persist in accepting the holy ghost, then? It makes no more logical
> sense than any other illogical entity. Do you accept them ALL?
It doesn't matter that it makes no logical sense. That's not an issue.
There's no logical definition of where thinking comes from. There's only
the description of process. I still await a philosophy or logical
exposition that puts lie to that.
So... the question stands. Why accept one illogical, imaginary entity who
is the source of thought over another? Why accept that there's even a
source to thought? The answer... no reason. It's all about feelings and
testimonies and that other munged-up stuff we use to sort through ethical
questions etc. (witness a current thread, thank you Mr. McSorley, "How can
you call that abortion") In the absence of reason, make it up as you go.
Make it up as your friends go, that's my philosophy. Although Alienward has
pointed out, I probably don't have an acceptable vision of who the Holy
Ghost is in those TBM eyes. Oh!
The comedy here is that I don't think you have a logical definition of what
scripture is. You're just bugged by how illogical it all is and how prone
to disagreement doubletalk can be. I guess that's the price to be paid when
we start expounding about stuff logic won't touch. Actually, it could be
frightening, not funny at all. I guess the trick is to learn what to ignore
and what not to.
Mike
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> > Glad we agree here. It makes no logical sense. The question is, why
> > persist in accepting the holy ghost, then? It makes no more logical
> > sense than any other illogical entity. Do you accept them ALL?
>
> It doesn't matter that it makes no logical sense.
Sure it does.
> That's not an issue.
Sure it is. Issues relating to the literal existence of things that
matter in the physical world are subject to investigation and
scientific examination. And, if they don't make sense, they should be
dismissed as non-existent. Just like the Easter Bunny.
> There's no logical definition of where thinking comes from.
My point exactly. Your holy ghost is all in your head. Just like the
Easter Bunny.
<snip>
> So... the question stands. Why accept one illogical, imaginary entity who
> is the source of thought over another?
That's my question. Do you believe in the holy ghost? If yes, then,
do you believe in the Easter Bunny? If no; why?
If you answer "no reason," then your arguments are illogical. Can you
explain why anyone should listen to them?
alienward
>
> I'm still stumped by how the original questioner wanted to define scripture,
> how you want to define scripture.
I define scripture the same way dictionaries define scripture -
writings or books considered sacred by a religion. I wonder why you
don't do the same but play games with semantics, logic and thought
processes instead. How about just cutting the crap and proposing a
definition, picking one from a dictionary yourself or going with this
one - writings or books considered sacred by a religion?
Or would you like to just skip defining scripture and go with works
the Mormon church calls scripture?:
"Other writings accepted as scripture are the Doctrine and Covenants,
a compilation of revelations and writings given since the restoration
of the Church began, and the Pearl of Great Price, a selection from
the revelations, translations and writings of Joseph Smith." (lds.org)
The facsimilies are in the Pearl of Great Price. At the bottom of
Smith's translations of Facsimile 2, Smith wrote:
"The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at
the present time."
This should be enough to convince you the facsimiles and Smiths
translations are considered scripture by the Mormon church. Or are
you still stumped?
> Anyways, I haven't thought all of it
> through and I'm not certain the definition I provided for the Holy Ghost
> would sit well with a TBM.
>
In addition to playing games with the definition of scripture, you
spew the same semantic, logic and thought process mumbo-jumbo about
the Holy Ghost. Let's just go with a dictionary definition - the third
member of the Christian Trinity; Holy Spirit. Whoops, that won't work,
the Mormons say the Christians got that one god business all wrong.
So I'll go with the Mormon definition if that's ok with you. From the
Aaronic priesthood manual and Smith:
"Explain that the Holy Ghost is an actual person. He is a personage of
spirit and is separate and distinct from Heavenly Father and Jesus
Christ. Read and discuss the following scriptures and quotations.
Explain that the Prophet Joseph Smith taught the following:
"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a
separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy
Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three
constitute three distinct personages and three Gods." (History of the
Church, 6:474)."
> From thinking to ideas to logic... that's something I picked up here. Add
> in a circle back to the Holy Ghost... well that's a fresher thought. By the
> way... any ideas on the origins of thinking? I wonder if I'd understand you
> if you did.
>
Origins of thinking (to use the brain to plan something, solve a
problem, make a decision, etc.) - about 20 million years ago when some
male ape threw a rock at another male ape trying to move in on his
mate. Understand?
>
> P.S. Apologies for considering your interpretation mundane. It obviously
> wasn't.
Thanks. So what do you say, are the Facmilies scripture as the Mormon
church says, or is the HG still telling you they are and they are not?
Alien
Mike W
> > news:<ut7is4p...@news.supernews.com>...
> > From thinking to ideas to logic... that's something I picked up here.
> > Add in a circle back to the Holy Ghost... well that's a fresher
> > thought. By the way... any ideas on the origins of thinking?
> > I wonder if I'd understand you if you did.
> Origins of thinking (to use the brain to plan something, solve a
> problem, make a decision, etc.) - about 20 million years ago when some
> male ape threw a rock at another male ape trying to move in on his
> mate. Understand?
> > P.S. Apologies for considering your interpretation mundane.
> > It obviously wasn't.
> Thanks. So what do you say, are the Facmilies scripture as the Mormon
> church says, or is the HG still telling you they are and they are not?
Definitions, eh? I was looking at this from dictionary.com
Scrip·ture ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skrpchr)
n.
1. a) A sacred writing or book.
1. b) A passage from such a writing or book.
2. The sacred writings of the Bible. Often used in the plural. Also called
Holy Scriptures.
3. scripture A statement regarded as authoritative.
They're not a sacred writing, the translations maybe but the figures, no.
So they're not scripture. But they could be considered a "statement" as The
Voice of Fire might be considered a "statement" so in that way they might be
considered scripture.
Confusing, eh? Not nearly as confusing as this little poem which might help
you understand the trouble I'm having with your ape & stone analogy...
Every stone is light
slowed down tied in a knot
and light
is every stone's dream
At night
I remember how old I am
calcium in my bones forged
long before the Sun
was a swirl in the dust
Atoms drifting through time
Worlds and Bones
(from Every Stone's Dream by trance mission on the CD meanwhile)
Good night. There's nothing rational to be found here. There's nothing
rational about the Holy Ghost. It just is.
Mike
Mike W
> news:a42139e3.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > news:<ut85bbm...@news.supernews.com>...
> <snip>
> > > Glad we agree here. It makes no logical sense. The question is, why
> > > persist in accepting the holy ghost, then? It makes no more logical
> > > sense than any other illogical entity. Do you accept them ALL?
> > It doesn't matter that it makes no logical sense.
> Sure it does.
Huh? I thought it was you who said that things which can not be proven to
exist deserve no consideration. Shrug. It's a vague memory.
> > That's not an issue.
> Sure it is. Issues relating to the literal existence of things that
> matter in the physical world are subject to investigation and
> scientific examination. And, if they don't make sense, they should be
> dismissed as non-existent. Just like the Easter Bunny.
Actually, I wonder if it really matters, in the way you want it to. And
exactly how does an apparently artificial entity matter in the physical
world? It might matter in an ethical sense but there's little room for
logic when it comes to ethics.
> > There's no logical definition of where thinking comes from.
> My point exactly. Your holy ghost is all in your head. Just like the
> Easter Bunny.
It's all in my head, eh? I wonder how you'd go about proving that. It
might be a comforting thought but as you say, it might also be just so much
"mental <fill in the blank>"
> <snip>
> > So... the question stands. Why accept one illogical, imaginary
> > entity who is the source of thought over another?
> That's my question. Do you believe in the holy ghost? If yes, then,
> do you believe in the Easter Bunny? If no; why?
>
> If you answer "no reason," then your arguments are illogical. Can you
> explain why anyone should listen to them?
Nope. But not all my discussions are illogical, are they?
Mike
Duwayne Anderson
> > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a42139e3.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<ut85bbm...@news.supernews.com>...
>
> <snip>
> > > > Glad we agree here. It makes no logical sense. The question is, why
> > > > persist in accepting the holy ghost, then? It makes no more logical
> > > > sense than any other illogical entity. Do you accept them ALL?
>
> > > It doesn't matter that it makes no logical sense.
>
> > Sure it does.
>
> Huh? I thought it was you who said that things which can not be proven to
> exist deserve no consideration. Shrug. It's a vague memory.
Oh. Of COURSE they deserve consideration. Take Jehovah, for example.
The evil god of the OT does not actually exist outside the minds of
his followers, but THEY have done LOTS of evil things in his name.
When the guy next door is hearing voices that are not there, the
voices are not there. But the nut next door can still be dangerous.
> > > That's not an issue.
>
> > Sure it is. Issues relating to the literal existence of things that
> > matter in the physical world are subject to investigation and
> > scientific examination. And, if they don't make sense, they should be
> > dismissed as non-existent. Just like the Easter Bunny.
>
> Actually, I wonder if it really matters, in the way you want it to.
The only way it matters is that there is no holy ghost, but crazy
people THINK there is, and if some nut can convince the crazy people
that he/she speaks for the holy ghost, then they can use that
crazyness to cause harm.
alienward
>
> They're not a sacred writing, the translations maybe but the figures, no.
> So they're not scripture.
Do you realize you are saying this translation from the Book of
Abraham is scripture:
"Fig. 8. Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but
is to be had in the Holy Temple of God."
but the writings in figure 8 that can only be revealed in God's holy
temple are not sacred and therefore are not scripture?
> Confusing, eh?
Not at all. It's quite clear you are either clueless about the Book
of Abraham or you have resorted to lying to try and legitimize your
claim of the Holy Ghost telling you the facsimiles are and are not
scripture.
> Good night. There's nothing rational to be found here. There's nothing
> rational about the Holy Ghost. It just is.
Description of Holy Ghost from lds.org:
"He does not have a body of flesh and bones as our Father in Heaven
and Jesus have. He is a spirit. He looks like a man."
Yes, an invisible human with a beard and a penis - just is - about as
irrational as you can get.
Alien
Mike W
> news:a42139e3.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > "Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<utajoa5...@news.supernews.com>...
> > > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:a42139e3.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:<ut85bbm...@news.supernews.com>...
> > > > It doesn't matter that it makes no logical sense.
> > > Sure it does.
> > Huh? I thought it was you who said that things which can not
> > be proven to exist deserve no consideration. Shrug. It's a
> > vague memory.
> Oh. Of COURSE they deserve consideration. Take Jehovah, for example.
> The evil god of the OT does not actually exist outside the minds of
> his followers, but THEY have done LOTS of evil things in his name.
>
> When the guy next door is hearing voices that are not there, the
> voices are not there. But the nut next door can still be dangerous.
Yikes!!! You're right of course. Nuts can be dangerous but I'm equally
worried by those who by denying anything outside their simple little
imaginations, their simple little minds, use that philosophy to justify all
manner of unethical behaviour. Do I have to outline how unethical atheists
can be? This though, is not an attack against you. I don't think you know
why but there seems to be an ethical thread running through most of your
posts. I'm not sure I know why.
Before I go off the deep end there, are you saying no good things have been
done in the name of Jehovah? Maybe none come to mind. Heck, how about
reiterating those ethical oldies through the Ten Commandments? Seems to me
to have been a good move.
> > > > That's not an issue.
> > > Sure it is. Issues relating to the literal existence of things that
> > > matter in the physical world are subject to investigation and
> > > scientific examination. And, if they don't make sense, they should
> > > be dismissed as non-existent. Just like the Easter Bunny.
> > Actually, I wonder if it really matters, in the way you want it to.
> The only way it matters is that there is no holy ghost, but crazy
> people THINK there is, and if some nut can convince the crazy people
> that he/she speaks for the holy ghost, then they can use that
> crazyness to cause harm.
Crazy people can forget that simple idea (the good ole Holy Ghost) and
conjure up visions of telepathic communications via the EM spectrum. Or
imagine the neutrino that whizzed it's way through one person and then the
next, tranferred a thought. Or get so blown away by quantum mechanics they
imagine we're all connected in some deep, almost surreal way. Or babble
about opiates while they quietly seize power. Or the oldie but goodie,
"Eat, drink & be merry. For tomorrow we die". Ground control might be
calling them.
So... the Holy Ghost? Tinfoil hats? I think I'll take the tried and true,
try to work it into an overall worldview that incorporates logic but
acknowledges the infinite, the divine.
Mike
Mike W
> > news:<utaj2gc...@news.supernews.com>...
> > Good night. There's nothing rational to be found here. There's
> > nothing rational about the Holy Ghost. It just is.
> Description of Holy Ghost from lds.org:
>
> "He does not have a body of flesh and bones as our Father in Heaven
> and Jesus have. He is a spirit. He looks like a man."
>
> Yes, an invisible human with a beard and a penis - just is - about as
> irrational as you can get.
LOL. I see why you hate the idea. I don't know why you snipped the lyric.
Seemed sort of inspirational to me. So, given you loathe the Holy Ghost,
what philosophy have you replaced it with? Is it like Duwayne's idea that
it's all "in our heads"? I'm not sure I've phrased that right but maybe you
get the drift.
Who knows? It may be a rose we're talking about here, we've just given it
different names.
Mike
alienward
>
> They're not a sacred writing, the translations maybe but the figures, no.
> So they're not scripture.
You didn't answer this question, so let's try again. I really
appreciate an answer:
Do you realize you are saying this translation from the Book of
Abraham is scripture:
"Fig. 8. Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but
is to be had in the Holy Temple of God."
but the writings in figure 8 that can only be revealed in God's holy
temple are not sacred and therefore are not scripture?
It's strange enough that you would think Smith's statement is
scripture - that a writing of Abraham is too sacred to reveal, but the
too sacred to reveal writing by Abraham is not scripture. And an
invisible human male HG god that would confirm this is true would have
to be completely incompetent.
Alien
Mike W
> > news:<utaj2gc...@news.supernews.com>...
> > They're not a sacred writing, the translations maybe but the
> > figures, no. So they're not scripture.
> You didn't answer this question, so let's try again. I really
> appreciate an answer:
>
> Do you realize you are saying this translation from the Book of
> Abraham is scripture:
>
> "Fig. 8. Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the
> world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God."
>
> but the writings in figure 8 that can only be revealed in God's
> holy temple are not sacred and therefore are not scripture?
Bear with me. As you stated, I'm woefully ignorant of the BoA, not to
mention the Facsimiles which I only started looking at in any detail these
past couple of weeks.
I get your point. There are little characters in the Facsimiles that one
might ought to consider scripture. But what to make of buddy sitting down,
and those others standing about? Do they still qualify as scripture? (Even
I don't know what I just asked. I don't know which definition I'm
subscribing to.) Perhaps you have some ideas... perhaps you've given that
some thought.
> It's strange enough that you would think Smith's statement is
> scripture - that a writing of Abraham is too sacred to reveal, but the
> too sacred to reveal writing by Abraham is not scripture. And an
> invisible human male HG god that would confirm this is true would have
> to be completely incompetent.
I guess I loathe, as you appear to do also, the LDS definition of the Holy
Ghost given that interpretation. The philosophy of it all is too obscure.
In an effort to simplify the concept it seems somehow defiled. Shrug. I
was just looking for a way to express the source of my thoughts.
Somebody wrote something about "line upon line, precept upon precept" in
another thread talking about the Holy Ghost. I think I like the gist of
that. Of course alot of my current thinking can be directly traced back to
interactions with you, Duwayne, Guy and that other guy who posted. No
mystery there.
Mike
Who will soon begin to bore, if not already.
Duwayne Anderson
> > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a42139e3.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<utajoa5...@news.supernews.com>...
> > > > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:a42139e3.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:<ut85bbm...@news.supernews.com>...
>
> > > > > It doesn't matter that it makes no logical sense.
>
> > > > Sure it does.
>
> > > Huh? I thought it was you who said that things which can not
> > > be proven to exist deserve no consideration. Shrug. It's a
> > > vague memory.
>
> > Oh. Of COURSE they deserve consideration. Take Jehovah, for example.
> > The evil god of the OT does not actually exist outside the minds of
> > his followers, but THEY have done LOTS of evil things in his name.
> >
> > When the guy next door is hearing voices that are not there, the
> > voices are not there. But the nut next door can still be dangerous.
>
> Yikes!!! You're right of course. Nuts can be dangerous but I'm equally
> worried by those who by denying anything outside their simple little
> imaginations, their simple little minds, use that philosophy to justify all
> manner of unethical behaviour.
I agree here. There are plenty of mad dogs in the world, who need an
evil god to keep them in line. In fact, I'm inclined to think that's
the purpose served by many of these damnable gods, like Jehovah, in
the first place.
> Do I have to outline how unethical atheists
> can be?
No more unethical, Mike, than theists. Look at the world around you.
When was the last time that a crazy atheist staped on a belt of
explosives and blew up a bunch of kids and women because of their
religion?
Sure, atheists can be bad people. But there is nothing to compare
with the evil done by an atheist who thinks he/she is doing it for
god. Just look at the devout theists who took down the WTC.
> This though, is not an attack against you. I don't think you know
> why but there seems to be an ethical thread running through most of your
> posts.
God is not a prerequisite for ethics or morality, Mike.
> I'm not sure I know why.
It's because I have strong ethical/moral values. In fact, that is WHY
I'm not a theist. My ethics don't, for example, allow me to excuse
the murder of women and children. Mormon/Christian ethics do. Just
look at how they make excuses for what Moses did in Numbers 31.
> Before I go off the deep end
Too late for that.
> there, are you saying no good things have been
> done in the name of Jehovah?
Oh, sure there have been. Theists are not inherently bad anymore than
atheists are inherently bad.
> Maybe none come to mind. Heck, how about
> reiterating those ethical oldies through the Ten Commandments?
The ethical parts did not originate with Jehovah. The part about
praying to that evil god did, of course.
> Seems to me
> to have been a good move.
Time to brush up on our history, I see.
alienward
>
> Bear with me. As you stated, I'm woefully ignorant of the BoA, not to
> mention the Facsimiles which I only started looking at in any detail these
> past couple of weeks.
I appreciate your candor.
> I get your point. There are little characters in the Facsimiles that one
> might ought to consider scripture.
Are you trying to downplay the writing on the facsimiles as "little
charactors"? Pay attention to this quote from the History of the
Church:
"At my office exhibiting the Book of Abraham in the original to
Brother Reuben Hedlock, so that he might take the size of the several
plates or cuts, and prepare the blocks for the Times and Seasons; and
also gave instruction concerning the arrangement of the writing on the
large cut, illustrating the principles of astronomy, with other
general business."
Smith called it writing, so you can call it writing too. Smith said
the facsimiles were from the Book of Abraham and the Mormon church
says the facsimiles are from the Book of Abraham and are scripture.
> But what to make of buddy sitting down,
> and those others standing about? Do they still qualify as scripture?
You mean the buddy sitting down with an erection that Smith said was
god but isn't? Or the one laying down Smith said was Abraham but
isn't?
Smith, not knowing Egyptian, says he translated the facsimiles through
revelation from his Egyptian knowing god, and the Mormon church
believes this and calls it scripture.
> (Even
> I don't know what I just asked. I don't know which definition I'm
> subscribing to.)
You sound like Hinckley.
> Perhaps you have some ideas... perhaps you've given that
> some thought.
The common Egyptian funerary material that Smith and the Mormon church
includes in their scripture has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham.
> I guess I loathe, as you appear to do also, the LDS definition of the Holy
> Ghost given that interpretation. The philosophy of it all is too obscure.
> In an effort to simplify the concept it seems somehow defiled. Shrug. I
> was just looking for a way to express the source of my thoughts.
I don't loathe the Mormon HG. It's just a silly and illogical
construct. It's not too obscure to the Mormon church, they say the HG
is a "sure compass", and millions of people buy into it without much
effort at all.
> Somebody wrote something about "line upon line, precept upon precept" in
> another thread talking about the Holy Ghost. I think I like the gist of
> that. Of course alot of my current thinking can be directly traced back to
> interactions with you, Duwayne, Guy and that other guy who posted. No
> mystery there.
People are using that "line" to try and justify the HG tell some
Mormon the facsimiles are scripture, others they aren't scripture and
you they are and aren't scripture. That's lying, not revealing
further details after previous details are absorbed.
Alien
Mike W
> > news:<utctnef...@news.supernews.com>...
> > > news:da1f15d3.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > > It's strange enough that you would think Smith's statement is
> > > scripture - that a writing of Abraham is too sacred to reveal,
> > > but he too sacred to reveal writing by Abraham is not scripture.
> > > And an invisible human male HG god that would confirm this is
> > > true would have to be completely incompetent.
> > I guess I loathe, as you appear to do also, the LDS definition of
> > the Holy Ghost given that interpretation. The philosophy of it
> > all is too obscure. In an effort to simplify the concept it seems
> > somehow defiled. Shrug. I was just looking for a way to express
> > the source of my thoughts.
> I don't loathe the Mormon HG. It's just a silly and illogical
> construct.
Y'know, it is an illogical construct. I guess I get stuck on the event
horizon between reality and the realm of God and the Holy Ghost. Lost down
there, where the universe itself makes no sense, I tend to use words to
describe my ideas that lack focus.
So... "writing" becomes "characters", "scripture" is a multi-faceted,
"Osiris" becomes "Abraham", "Anubis" becomes "Elkenah" and the "Book of
Breathings" (common Egyptian funerary material) gets skewed to read like
something with wisdom for a time closer to ours. Which brings us to
Facsimile 2, Figure 7 where Min becomes God but with the offensive bits
looking more like part of the chair or an arm than anything else. I note
the hypocephalus at http://www.foxgrape.com/pg.htm isn't nearly that
circumspect. By the way, my reference in the snipped portion to "buddy
sitting down" was from Facsimile 3, Figure 1 where Osiris becomes Abraham on
Pharaoh's throne.
> It's not too obscure to the Mormon church, they say the HG
> is a "sure compass", and millions of people buy into it without much
> effort at all.
Until the really hard questions come up. Like, "About those stem cells
being extracted from human embryos? What say you?" It's a sure compass,
it's a help when the questions get hard, just not too hard.
> > Somebody wrote something about "line upon line, precept upon precept"
> > in another thread talking about the Holy Ghost. I think I like the
> > gist of that. Of course alot of my current thinking can be directly
> > traced back to interactions with you, Duwayne, Guy and that other guy
> > who posted. No mystery there.
> People are using that "line" to try and justify the HG tell some
> Mormon the facsimiles are scripture, others they aren't scripture and
> you they are and aren't scripture. That's lying, not revealing
> further details after previous details are absorbed.
I guess it might be considered lying if we were to take all this to court
but they'd throw us out. The judge would likely realize it's a babble about
faith and not anything to be adjudicated.
I'm also hesitant to call it lying because I'm not 100% sure I have the
truth at my disposal. What the Holy Ghost "says" is as ephemeral as deity,
the origins of thought or stones and calcium travelling through the infinite
'til the universe collapses or disintegrates.
Now, if I told you the Church was closed last Sunday, I'd be lying. There
was time to learn how to actually read like Hinckley. I didn't pursue that
course.
Your course, now. That's a puzzle. Have you really embraced atheism? Do
you realize you're not likely going to escape the nonsensical on that path?
Finding flaw is a snap compared to finding truth... God knows. Perhaps
you've embraced another faith.
Mike
alienward
>
> Y'know, it is an illogical construct. I guess I get stuck on the event
> horizon between reality and the realm of God and the Holy Ghost. Lost down
> there, where the universe itself makes no sense, I tend to use words to
> describe my ideas that lack focus.
You seem to think the HG and everything else is based on fuzzy logic.
I hope you don't drive. A traffic light would put you in a real
quandary.
> So... "writing" becomes "characters", "scripture" is a multi-faceted,
> "Osiris" becomes "Abraham", "Anubis" becomes "Elkenah" and the "Book of
> Breathings" (common Egyptian funerary material) gets skewed to read like
> something with wisdom for a time closer to ours.
Yes, the skewing is proof positive Smith was clueless about Egyptian
civilizations, his claim of a god revealing Egyptian translation to
him are bogus, and the BoA is a fraud.
> Until the really hard questions come up. Like, "About those stem cells
> being extracted from human embryos? What say you?" It's a sure compass,
> it's a help when the questions get hard, just not too hard.
Is asking the HG if the facsimilies are scripture too hard? Is that
why he tells Mormons different things? The question is too hard? And
why do you keep pretending the HG is some vascillating illogical
construct who can't answer a question as simple as whether or not
items included in Mormon scripture are scripture? The Mormon church
say the opposite. From lds.org - a leader writing about that "sure
compass":
"The Holy Ghost will also help us solve crises of faith. The Spirit of
the Holy Ghost can be a confirming witness, testifying of heavenly
things. Through that Spirit, a strong knowledge distills in one's
mind, and one feels all doubt or questions disappear."
> Now, if I told you the Church was closed last Sunday, I'd be lying. There
> was time to learn how to actually read like Hinckley. I didn't pursue that
> course.
Right, and if the HG tells one Mormon the facsimiles are scripture and
tells another Mormon the facsimiles are not scripture, the HG is lying
to at least one of the Mormons.
> Your course, now. That's a puzzle. Have you really embraced atheism?
No, because as an atheist I simply lack a belief in a god or gods.
This is only because every god I have studied is a mythology of humans
and there is not one single aspect of the universe that requires the
existence of a god or gods. Now, if you could provide evidence a god
or gods exist, I might change my lack of belief.
> Do
> you realize you're not likely going to escape the nonsensical on that path?
You must have some pretty solid evidence to ask a quesiton like this.
Please provide some examples of the nonsensical that I'm not likely to
escape.
> Finding flaw is a snap compared to finding truth... God knows. Perhaps
> you've embraced another faith.
This statement is completely false in the context of Mormonism. If
you have a degree in Egyptology and know truths about Egyptology and
then read the BoA, you read many false claims about Egyptology. But
all you need to do is pray to the Mormon god and he will tell you all
these false claims about Egyptology are true. It's a snap!
Alien
Mike W
> > news:<utjk3bf...@news.supernews.com>...
> > Y'know, it is an illogical construct. I guess I get stuck on the event
> > horizon between reality and the realm of God and the Holy Ghost. Lost
> > down there, where the universe itself makes no sense, I tend to use
> > words to describe my ideas that lack focus.
> You seem to think the HG and everything else is based on fuzzy logic.
Yep. But within all that fuzziness is a clear and concise realm. A space
where logic rules and things are known --- hmmm, maybe I should clarify.
Definition 1 per www.dictionary.com). If you care to look outside now...
hold up... it's confusing out there. Into the places where nobody's yet
discovered. The "edge" of the universe where the curvature of space is a
factor. The things smaller than quarks, where gravitons are supposed to
dance. The impossible equation that presumes to know the effect on the
weather of a butterfly's fluttering wing, one thousand years from now. Our
minds, which if known, would be too small to know.
> I hope you don't drive. A traffic light would put you in a real
> quandary.
LOL. Seriously though, I haven't been run down. Not yet. I can still walk
the walk if need be.
> > So... "writing" becomes "characters", "scripture" is a multi-faceted,
> > "Osiris" becomes "Abraham", "Anubis" becomes "Elkenah" and the "Book of
> > Breathings" (common Egyptian funerary material) gets skewed to read
> > like something with wisdom for a time closer to ours.
> Yes, the skewing is proof positive Smith was clueless about Egyptian
> civilizations, his claim of a god revealing Egyptian translation
> to him are bogus, and the BoA is a fraud.
1822 Champollion.
1835 Joseph Smith.
1989 "...Greenberger, Horne and Zeilinger sharpened Bell's results further
by considering correlated states with 3 or more entangled particles."
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/6929/nonlocality.html
2002 "We review recent theoretical progress on the use of electron spins as
qubits in coupled semiconductor quantum dots for quantum information
processing."
http://theorie5.physik.unibas.ch/gywat/
"Nothing can travel faster than light. Despite a recent raft of reports in
the media, this statement is as true now as it ever was. Nonetheless,
experiments over the past 20 years have been forcing us to re-examine what
we mean by the word 'nothing'."
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/09/3
But our friends at physicsweb aren't bogus fraudsters. I wouldn't say so.
> > Until the really hard questions come up. Like, "About those stem
> > cells being extracted from human embryos? What say you?" It's a
> > sure compass, it's a help when the questions get hard, just not too
> > hard.
> Is asking the HG if the facsimilies are scripture too hard? Is that
> why he tells Mormons different things? The question is too hard?
Yep. You're asking me to apply classical logic to something you believe
doesn't exist. What could the Holy Ghost be in this context? What could a
"sacred" text possibly be? I find it impossible to fathom. I don't know
where to start.
> And why do you keep pretending the HG is some vascillating illogical
> construct who can't answer a question as simple as whether or not
> items included in Mormon scripture are scripture? The Mormon church
> say the opposite. From lds.org - a leader writing about that "sure
> compass":
>
> "The Holy Ghost will also help us solve crises of faith. The Spirit of
> the Holy Ghost can be a confirming witness, testifying of heavenly
> things. Through that Spirit, a strong knowledge distills in one's
> mind, and one feels all doubt or questions disappear."
Faith, Spirit, heavenly... highly illogical. They said the opposite? OK...
maybe that wasn't the best quote to illustrate the point. I don't doubt
there's a better one out there.
> > Now, if I told you the Church was closed last Sunday, I'd be lying.
> > There was time to learn how to actually read like Hinckley. I didn't
> > pursue that course.
> Right, and if the HG tells one Mormon the facsimiles are scripture and
> tells another Mormon the facsimiles are not scripture, the HG is lying
> to at least one of the Mormons.
So many iterations of "scripture". Guy's pointed to two, a couple of others
have described their own variations. Yet still... it's lying. I guess once
a value judgement has been made it's the end. I don't know what to say.
> > Your course, now. That's a puzzle. Have you really embraced atheism?
> No, because as an atheist I simply lack a belief in a god or gods.
> This is only because every god I have studied is a mythology of humans
> and there is not one single aspect of the universe that requires the
> existence of a god or gods. Now, if you could provide evidence a god
> or gods exist, I might change my lack of belief.
Duwayne said there's a proof for infinity. Finally another kindred soul
(oops, sorry ;-| ) Do you believe that? Rather, do you know that to be
true? I took him at his word.
> > Do you realize you're not likely going to escape the nonsensical
> > on that path?
> You must have some pretty solid evidence to ask a question like this.
> Please provide some examples of the nonsensical that I'm not likely to
> escape.
No evidence. Just unending questions for the infinite. Often I tire of
asking and just contemplate it. The infinite. At it's basest level, the
simplest way I know how, I realize it's nonsensical. It awaits us, it waits
'til we have a chance to bring it sense or maybe, in a humbler vein, to find
the sense.
> > Finding flaw is a snap compared to finding truth... God knows. Perhaps
> > you've embraced another faith.
> This statement is completely false in the context of Mormonism.
> If you have a degree in Egyptology and know truths about Egyptology and
> then read the BoA, you read many false claims about Egyptology.
Hopefully you remember the context it was written in. A prayer parallel to
the realizations of Egyptology. The Father of Egyptology writing so close
in time to this prayer.
> But all you need to do is pray to the Mormon god and he will tell you all
> these false claims about Egyptology are true. It's a snap!
I get your point. There are likely alot of folks who wouldn't know
Champollion from champagne and could care less. They find their search for
sense satisfied in the most unlikely corners. A closer study reveals
though, there's a door open, the search has just begun. The only silver
lining to that revel in foolishness, was the chance it afforded to
contemplate the divine and all that meant.
Mike
alienward
>
> "Nothing can travel faster than light. Despite a recent raft of reports in
> the media, this statement is as true now as it ever was. Nonetheless,
> experiments over the past 20 years have been forcing us to re-examine what
> we mean by the word 'nothing'."
> http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/09/3
>
> But our friends at physicsweb aren't bogus fraudsters. I wouldn't say so.
Quotes from and links to physics web sites don't validate Smith
completely hosing the explanations of the facsimiles.
> Yep. You're asking me to apply classical logic to something you believe
> doesn't exist. What could the Holy Ghost be in this context? What could a
> "sacred" text possibly be? I find it impossible to fathom. I don't know
> where to start.
Start with the Aaronic priesthood manual:
"Explain that the Holy Ghost is an actual person. He is a personage of
spirit and is separate and distinct from Heavenly Father and Jesus
Christ."
Your Mormon Holy Ghost is an invisible human male. Still in a stupor?
Sacred text - how about one that a prophet says can't be revealed on
earth, only in God's temple.
> Faith, Spirit, heavenly... highly illogical. They said the opposite? OK...
> maybe that wasn't the best quote to illustrate the point. I don't doubt
> there's a better one out there.
Yes, they said the opposite of highly illogical. And here's an even
better quote to illustrate the simple logic of the Holy Ghost
"testifying of heavenly things":
"Ask a young man to read Doctrine and CovenantsD&C 9:7-9 while the
others mark these verses in their scriptures.
. When we desire an answer to a problem from the Lord, what does this
scripture tell us we should do? (Study the problem out in our mind and
make a decision. Then pray and ask if our decision is right.)
. How will we know whether we have made the right decision? (We will
have a burning in our bosom if we made the right decision. We will
have a stupor of thought if we made the wrong decision.)" (lsd.org)
See, it's logical and as easy as 1,2,3: study and make decision, then
pray if decision is right, then the invisible human male makes your
bosom burn if it's right or put's you in a stupor if it's wrong.
> Duwayne said there's a proof for infinity. Finally another kindred soul
> (oops, sorry ;-| ) Do you believe that? Rather, do you know that to be
> true? I took him at his word.
Yes, Duwayne has more credibility than any Mormon leader or apologist.
We can all take Duwayne at his word, because he's very intelligent,
honest, and backs up his claims with verifiable references.
And here, have some more details on your Holy ghost from lds.org:
"The Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead (see 1 John 5:7; D&C
20:28). He is a spirit that has the form and likeness of a man (see
D&C 130:22). He can be in only one place at a time, but his influence
can be everywhere at the same time."
Did you catch that? - "He can be in only one place at a time". So much
for infinity.
And why do you keep rambling on about infinity? We're talking about
the invisible human male Mormon Holy Ghost. He can't even morph into
a dove:
"The Holy Ghost cannot be transformed into a dove; but the sign of a
dove was given to John to signify the truth of the deed, as the dove
is an emblem or token of truth and innocence" (History of the Church,
5:260-61).
Alien
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
> Here's the question again (for the Mormon cultists who've
> had such a hard time answering):
>
> "Tell us what the holy ghost said to you about the figures
> in the Book of Abraham."
>
Excuse me, but where, exactly, is the question? Looks more like a
directive than a question.
>
> So far, we've got three different Mormon invisible
> supernatural entities they call the Holy Ghost:
>
Erm, no. We've got just one.
"But all these worketh that one and the selfsame
Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will."
-- 1 Corinthians 12:7-11
A discussion of how the Spirit works might be in order. I'm no great
expert on the subject, but I see three levels. At the most basic level,
the Spirit helps us remember stuff - a great comfort to those of us
already experiencing symptoms of CRS. Consider:
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the
Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all
things, and BRING ALL THINGS TO YOUR REMEMBRANCE,
whatsoever I have said unto you." -- John 14:26
"Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all
men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue
garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy
confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and
THE DOCTRINE of the priesthood SHALL DISTIL UPON THY
SOUL as the dews from heaven. The Holy Ghost shall be
thy constant companion ..." -- D&C 121:45-46
The comparison is to dew - you don't necessarily know when it
happens, but the grass is wet when you wake up in the morning. In that
same way, you don't need to spend too many years in the Church -
mentored by Primary, Mutual, Sunday School, Priesthood, relief Society
and Seminary instructors - before you wake up one morning with with an
understanding of what's doctrine and what isn't.
It's like the dew.
Which is, I think, the concept behind what Pres. Smith, in the 1984
Priesthood Manual, wrote:
"Each [member] of the Church should be so well versed
[in the standard works] that he, or she, would be
able to discern whether or not any doctrine taught
conforms to the revealed word of the Lord. Moreover,
the members of the Church are entitled ... to have
the spirit of discernment."
That's the most basic level, and the level (I think) at which most
apologists on this forum operate (when we're influenced by the spirit
at all, that is ;)
The next level is what we call "promptings" or "the still, small
voice."
"And [the word of the Lord] said, Go forth, and stand
upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the
Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the
mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the
Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the
wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the
earthquake:
"And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not
in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.
The stories are abundant in the Church about the blessings that come
from listening to the still, small voice. It happens in blessings. It
happens during ordinances. Sometimes, it happens when we least expect
it: an idea pops into our minds, we receive an "impression" that turns
out to be correct.
The problem here is obvious: EVERYONE remembers things they have
previously learned, everyone has ideas pop into their head. How does
one differentiate between normal and inspired?
Good question. A good question I don't really have a good answer
for. I expect that it comes with practice, and that prophets and
patriarchs are good at it.
Which brings us to the third level. The "search, ponder and pray"
method described in D&C 9 and Moroni-over-and-out. The Lord tells us
that this is the most certain of all the methods:
"Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the
matter? What greater witness can you have than from
God?" -- D&C 6:23
Level 1: Bring to rememberance.
Level 2: Promptings.
Level 3: Burning bosom/peaceful mind.
So, let's look at these "different" Holy Ghosts, hmmm?
>
> Mike W:
>
> "...I can say the Holy Ghost said to me, "It is and isn't
> scripture"."
>
Followed by some waffling about where this came from. Obviously not
level 1 stuff, this is more of a prompting or impression. Level 2.
IMHO, it's not a bad answer, but I'll reserve comment until I reply to
Mike.
>
> Guy Briggs:
>
> "The answer that seems good to me and also "seemeth good to
> the Holy Ghost" (Acts 15) is that the pictures are not
> scripture."
>
Level 3 stuff. Fasting and prayer, about a very specific definition.
>
> Then Guy writes:
>
> "Mike and I are telling you exactly the same thing."
>
Complete the thought. Mike's statement (following the statement of
his impression and his questioning of the source of that impression)
was that the Holy Ghost "can't say, not in the way [DuWayne meant]."
He's talking about Level 3, which isn't an answer in words at all -
rather, an imponderable feeling.
That was what Mike and I agreed on.
bestRegards, Guy.
Mike W
> > "Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<utmi4po...@news.supernews.com>...
> > "Nothing can travel faster than light. Despite a recent raft of
> > reports in the media, this statement is as true now as it ever was.
> > Nonetheless, experiments over the past 20 years have been forcing
> > us to re-examine what we mean by the word 'nothing'."
> > http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/09/3
> >
> > But our friends at physicsweb aren't bogus fraudsters.
> > I wouldn't say so.
> Quotes from and links to physics web sites don't validate Smith
> completely hosing the explanations of the facsimiles.
Sigh. It was a stretch... a tenuous link at best. Not a totally wasted
effort though, it was another learning experience tracking down the most
appropriate ones for the post.
But "hosing"? I like that. Not nearly as vitriolic as your other comments.
How about, he added an interesting philosophical approach to understanding
Egyptology. The revisionists will have a field day, no matter what the
evidence so, why not go full bore and work it into the faith. Tie in
ancient Egypt and Kolob. Expand peoples perceptions of the world and
universe they live in... get them thinking about the stars and their
history. Idiots and workers are not going to take the time to do it unless
there's a mighty good reason. God through Joseph, has given us a reason.
Moving right along... quantum mechanics anyone? I may see computers built
on those chips that use qubits or quantum bits before I die.
I'm not sure when or how it'll get worked into scripture and likely be wrong
the day after it's written. But, to push the point of how we need to
re-examine the word "nothing" and all the atheistic double-speak that went
with it. That will be a wondrous day from this perspective.
> > Yep. You're asking me to apply classical logic to something you
> > believe doesn't exist. What could the Holy Ghost be in this context?
> > What could a "sacred" text possibly be? I find it impossible to
> > fathom. I don't know where to start.
> Start with the Aaronic priesthood manual:
>
> "Explain that the Holy Ghost is an actual person. He is a personage of
> spirit and is separate and distinct from Heavenly Father and Jesus
> Christ."
>
> Your Mormon Holy Ghost is an invisible human male. Still in a stupor?
Looks like we're stuck on the first sentence. What jumped out at me was
"personage of spirit". I can't find any sense or logic there. In fact what
it's forcing me to do is contemplate the "spirit" within each and every
"actual person". If you limit your understanding of yourself to that which
is known and proveable then your going to have a hard time understanding
what they're saying by "actual person".
Somehow your spirit sings though, I'm impressed with your knowledge of the
Church. I was only active as a teenager, most of the facts of life - LDS
style, are a distant memory.
Before I go too far off track though... this is the Aaronic priesthood
manual??? This is the foundation? Everything else is predicated on this
little philosophy... amazing! I wonder how many LDS get lost up in the
higher levels, forgetting how spiritual the baseline was. Thinking perhaps
that it was all supposed to make sense like the old science makes sense.
It's not though. From the ground up it's about spirit and God and all those
beautifully puzzling ideas.
> Sacred text - how about one that a prophet says can't be revealed on
> earth, only in God's temple.
Well there's another one that confuses me. From what I've seen here on ARM
"God's temple" seems to be any old temple. With the counterpoint of "earth"
though, I'm wondering why it's not interpreted as being in the heavenly
realm ie not on earth.
> > Faith, Spirit, heavenly... highly illogical. They said the opposite?
> > OK... maybe that wasn't the best quote to illustrate the point.
> > I don't doubt there's a better one out there.
> Yes, they said the opposite of highly illogical.
OK. I'll trust you believe that but I'm having a hard time so far.
> And here's an even better quote to illustrate the simple logic of the
> Holy Ghost "testifying of heavenly things":
>
> "Ask a young man to read Doctrine and Covenants D&C 9:7-9 while the
> others mark these verses in their scriptures.
>
> . When we desire an answer to a problem from the Lord, what does this
> scripture tell us we should do? (Study the problem out in our mind and
> make a decision. Then pray and ask if our decision is right.)
Pray... as an atheist that must be considered nonsensical and illogical. As
a theist, it has it's uses, a pause to reflect on the nature of the
universe, it's infinite puzzles, it's unending nature. To "speak with it"
as it were. It helps you come back to the task at hand with a fresh
perspective. Perhaps a new idea from out there in the void... a new
approach to your "problem".
> . How will we know whether we have made the right decision? (We will
> have a burning in our bosom if we made the right decision. We will
> have a stupor of thought if we made the wrong decision.)" (lsd.org)
:-) I love that "burning in our bosom" business. I still don't know
exactly what that is. I can make a wild guess but it's not like it can be
described. Having two quarters in your pocket can be described... having
two quarters in your heart now? That's a long, weird story that can't be
written (at least not by me).
> See, it's logical and as easy as 1,2,3: study and make decision, then
> pray if decision is right, then the invisible human male makes your
> bosom burn if it's right or put's you in a stupor if it's wrong.
The process is logical. The steps themselves though, aren't all logical.
The first would be, in the classically atheist sense.
> > Duwayne said there's a proof for infinity. Finally another kindred
> > soul (oops, sorry ;-| ) Do you believe that? Rather, do you know
> > that to be true? I took him at his word.
> Yes, Duwayne has more credibility than any Mormon leader or apologist.
> We can all take Duwayne at his word, because he's very intelligent,
> honest, and backs up his claims with verifiable references.
So, it would seem you trust him as well. Lord knows why we do that.
Anyrate, I was asking if you'd seen and understood the proof. I haven't
even found it let alone understood it. Nice to know it might exist.
> And here, have some more details on your Holy ghost from lds.org:
>
> "The Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead (see 1 John 5:7; D&C
> 20:28). He is a spirit that has the form and likeness of a man (see
> D&C 130:22). He can be in only one place at a time, but his influence
> can be everywhere at the same time."
>
> Did you catch that? - "He can be in only one place at a time". So much
> for infinity.
The scripture you quoted is paradoxical to me. Not that there's anything
wrong with that. Some say great music can be made contemplating paradox.
> And why do you keep rambling on about infinity?
Because saying there's a proof for infinity is like a bass-ackwards way of
saying there's a proof for God, IMHO. *** Duwayne would blow my brains out
for that comparison ;-) ***
In other words, starting the talk with a discussion about the nature of
infinity and what that means to us, little finite, logical & sensible
creatures we are. Starting it there with an atheist, usually separates the
contrarians from the true believers.
> We're talking about the invisible human male Mormon Holy Ghost.
> He can't even morph into a dove:
>
> "The Holy Ghost cannot be transformed into a dove; but the sign of a
> dove was given to John to signify the truth of the deed, as the dove
> is an emblem or token of truth and innocence" (History of the Church,
> 5:260-61).
You know I don't much care for what God isn't. It's what He is that
fascinates. In a strange way you've demonstrated what He is with those
scriptures you've quoted while apparently disagreeing with them. More than
I ever could, for sure. I guess I should thank you. So... thanks!
For me, after having gone through a mill of sorts, a mill where atheism
seemed to be the answer; God is like infinity, the origins of conscience,
values or ethics - the universe, the "nothing" (see physics quote) that's
actually something. He's there when every impossible question presents.
When rationality fails to address the issue at hand, He's there. But who is
He? There we digress and bubble up with Mithraic echoes, Jesus Christ.
Echoes from the Dreamtime, the Holy Ghost. The philosophy grows and
flourishes because it's trying to address all the things rationality has
abandoned.
There, an attempt to not be contrarian myself. An attempt to describe who I
think God is... at this time.
Mike
Mike W
> > alienward wrote:
> > Mike W:
> >
> > "...I can say the Holy Ghost said to me, "It is and isn't
> > scripture"."
> Followed by some waffling about where this came from. Obviously not
> level 1 stuff, this is more of a prompting or impression. Level 2.
> IMHO, it's not a bad answer, but I'll reserve comment until I reply to
> Mike.
Don't forget my waffling on the nature of the word "scripture" itself. I
wasn't using the definition you used a while back. Now you've moved on to
defining the variations in thought provided by the promptings of the Holy
Ghost (snipped portion). All I can say is, amazing!!! I hadn't given it
that much thought but I snipped it out to get to the point here. But with
need to address your musings, I have to say I hope I can take it to heart...
remember it. It's an eternal learning curve, after all.
> Complete the thought. Mike's statement (following the statement of
> his impression and his questioning of the source of that impression)
> was that the Holy Ghost "can't say, not in the way [DuWayne meant]."
> He's talking about Level 3, which isn't an answer in words at all -
> rather, an imponderable feeling.
>
> That was what Mike and I agreed on.
I think everyone, who asked the question, was expecting the ravings of
lunatics who cry out about the voices in their heads. Words from those
who've never woken up (for reasons innumerable from physical to
pychological) and are still dreaming about conversations.
That's not it in the sane world, the world that's fully awake... thanks for
putting it straight.
Mike
Duwayne Anderson
> monso...@aol.com (alienward) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Here's the question again (for the Mormon cultists who've
> > had such a hard time answering):
> >
> > "Tell us what the holy ghost said to you about the figures
> > in the Book of Abraham."
> >
> Excuse me, but where, exactly, is the question? Looks more like a
> directive than a question.
Sheesh. Okay, Guy:
When the holy ghost spoke to you about the Facsimiles, what did it say?
Happy? It's now formulated with a question mark.
alienward
>
> But "hosing"? I like that. Not nearly as vitriolic as your other comments.
> How about, he added an interesting philosophical approach to understanding
> Egyptology.
No, he demonstrated he was completely clueless about Egyptology.
> Tie in
> ancient Egypt and Kolob. Expand peoples perceptions of the world and
> universe they live in... get them thinking about the stars and their
> history.
But don't get them actually learning about ancient Egypt and
astronomy. They will discover Smith totally hosed up both.
Quit trying to change the subject by going off into quantum computers.
Stick with Smith's claim the sun gets it's light from Kolob. Tell us
how that works.
> If you limit your understanding of yourself to that which
> is known and proveable then your going to have a hard time understanding
> what they're saying by "actual person".
If you paid attention in your Aaronic priesthood lessons, you would
know:
"Help the young men understand that the Holy Ghost is a personage of
spirit and does not have a physical body of flesh and bones. Remind
the young men that a spirit looks like a body and is composed of
matter."
They're saying body composed of matter.
> Before I go too far off track though... this is the Aaronic priesthood
> manual??? This is the foundation? Everything else is predicated on this
> little philosophy... amazing!
No, D&C(130:22) is. Mormon gods either have flesh and bones bodies
that run on spirit juice or completely spirit matter bodies.
> Well there's another one that confuses me. From what I've seen here on ARM
> "God's temple" seems to be any old temple. With the counterpoint of "earth"
> though, I'm wondering why it's not interpreted as being in the heavenly
> realm ie not on earth.
Because the point is that Smith said it's so sacred it can only be
revealed in a temple. Whether it's in a Mormon McTemple or in the CK
Lounge is irrelevant.
> :-) I love that "burning in our bosom" business. I still don't know
> exactly what that is. I can make a wild guess but it's not like it can be
> described. Having two quarters in your pocket can be described... having
> two quarters in your heart now? That's a long, weird story that can't be
> written (at least not by me).
In the D&C the Mormon god says he will make your bosom burn. But
because Mormons like you never have the experience of an invisible
human male making your bosom burn, the Mormon church has resorted to
saying just about any old feeling will do as a manifestation of the
Holy Ghost.
Is he still telling you the facsimiles are and are not scripture?
Alien
Mike W
> > news:<utpfuq3...@news.supernews.com>...
> > But "hosing"? I like that. Not nearly as vitriolic as your other
> > comments. How about, he added an interesting philosophical approach
> > to understanding Egyptology.
> No, he demonstrated he was completely clueless about Egyptology.
Well... that sounds vitriolic. To each his own I guess but I see no logical
reason for viewing it that way over an "interesting approach".
> > Tie in ancient Egypt and Kolob. Expand peoples perceptions of the
> > world and universe they live in... get them thinking about the stars
> > and their history.
> But don't get them actually learning about ancient Egypt and
> astronomy. They will discover Smith totally hosed up both.
>
> Quit trying to change the subject by going off into quantum computers.
> Stick with Smith's claim the sun gets it's light from Kolob. Tell us
> how that works.
Well... you're not going to learn about Egypt and astronomy if you think
anything to do with qubits is changing the subject. But it's back to qubits
and the nature of light for an answer to your question about "getting it's
light from Kolob". I haven't given it much thought though.
> > If you limit your understanding of yourself to that which
> > is known and proveable then your going to have a hard time
> > understanding what they're saying by "actual person".
> If you paid attention in your Aaronic priesthood lessons, you would
> know:
>
> "Help the young men understand that the Holy Ghost is a personage of
> spirit and does not have a physical body of flesh and bones. Remind
> the young men that a spirit looks like a body and is composed of
> matter."
>
> They're saying body composed of matter.
Since I see "personage of spirit" and I know what "matter" is, like I know
what "nothing" and qubits are, this once again doesn't read like too much at
all. By the way, where are you pulling the quotes from?
> > Before I go too far off track though... this is the Aaronic priesthood
> > manual??? This is the foundation? Everything else is predicated on
> > this little philosophy... amazing!
> No, D&C(130:22) is. Mormon gods either have flesh and bones bodies
> that run on spirit juice or completely spirit matter bodies.
Indeed. Flesh and bones as tangible as man's. Once again I'm forced to
contemplate what it is we are...
Atoms drifting through time
Worlds and Bones
But that scripture follows another thought... it's not an isolated comment
(easy enough to find at http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/130):
D&C 130:19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this
life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much
the advantage in the world to come.
D&C 130:20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the
foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated--
D&C 130:21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to
that law upon which it is predicated.
Which makes 130:22 read like an enforcer. Perhaps for 20 & 21. Remembering
who you are and by what right you enforce the law... well the enforcement
part seems to be hard coded up there in your response. Which is odd, given
your apparent disbelief.
19 on the other hand; I wouldn't have known it but it could be a defense for
discussing quantum details, the nature of light, time & matter. Knowledge
for knowledge's sake but also for the purposes of more future intrigue.
Very enlightening, my friend. You've done it once again.
> > Well there's another one that confuses me. From what I've seen
> > here on ARM "God's temple" seems to be any old temple. With the
> > counterpoint of "earth" though, I'm wondering why it's not
> > interpreted as being in the heavenly realm ie not on earth.
> Because the point is that Smith said it's so sacred it can only be
> revealed in a temple. Whether it's in a Mormon McTemple or in the CK
> Lounge is irrelevant.
Oh. I forget what that is... something the Egyptologists have no doubt
translated. I don't get your point with this.
I can see how you might overdose on this stuff. Which is what I think
you've done. Take some time out... contemplate a qubit. Something,
anything as long as it has nothing to do with Mormonism. It obviously makes
you angry or so it would seem. Maybe after time, you can come back with a
new light to shed on the matter. Tell us all about how things really are
and how the myths of Mormonism are merely postcards from the edge. I know I
can't stay out at the edge too long... I have to get back to the
logical/rational/sensible in order to feel good about my experiences out
there.
Sorry for the mixed metaphors.
> > :-) I love that "burning in our bosom" business. I still don't know
> > exactly what that is. I can make a wild guess but it's not like it
> > can be described. Having two quarters in your pocket can be
> > described... having two quarters in your heart now? That's a long,
> > weird story that can't be written (at least not by me).
> In the D&C the Mormon god says he will make your bosom burn. But
> because Mormons like you never have the experience of an invisible
> human male making your bosom burn, the Mormon church has resorted to
> saying just about any old feeling will do as a manifestation of the
> Holy Ghost.
>
> Is he still telling you the facsimiles are and are not scripture?
See my response to Guy for the latest and greatest from the likes of me.
"Re: Which holy ghost is Guy R. Briggs talking to?" 21/11/2002 6:59 AM
&
"Re: Woody? Guy? Take this challenge" 21/11/2002 8:02 AM
Mike