Interesting.
How do you know it's true?
Does it make your body twitch in the right places? Or some other reason?
Body Signals Redux: Proving Mormonism
- Thread starter Billy Baxter
- Start date
How do you know it's true?
Does it make your body twitch in the right places? Or some other reason?
How exactly does it show that Smith was lying scum, etc.?
You seem quite angry about this, for some reason. Why is that?
Undeniably true? That's a very strong truth you've got there. And I see people in this very thread denying it.
I get it that you believe it, but how do you know it's true? Because you think God told you directly, perhaps?
I mean, it's one thing to believe it's true, but to have no doubts at all is what puzzles me. It suggests to me that you're not a very critical thinker.
What does "witness" mean? Does it mean you've seen things you regard as the works of God? Or something else?
As for "testimony", is this direct from God, or through other people? If it's other people, you're really just trusting that what they say is true, aren't you?
Does it make any more sense than the bible?
Has it occurred to you that the lack of any physical evidence was kind of convenient for Joseph Smith?
Not read The Secret.
Heard enough about it it to not even bother to waste WiFi download pirate copy.
Not sure about the publishing details but speculate (love speculating) a lot went on behind the scenes before printing began.
Wasn't there a TV program??? Was that (speculate) set up before publication?
Gut feeling though as he has, in his words 'done decades of research' but only has 'two pages of notes' the rest being 'in his head' I see the book remaining a dinosaur and not becoming a bird of flight.
Poe is very relevant here though.
As the wisdom of Poe dictates:-
Poe's law is an Internet adage that states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers or viewers as a sincere expression of the parodied views.
With a tiny bit of twisting it can be applied to publishing rubbish.
Now where did I leave my manuscript about a love affair between a elephant named Louise and goldfish named Fred?
While I'm at it, I might as well respond to the opening post, too.
For example, if I'm hungry, is that God, or is it my body wanting energy?
If I sneeze, is that God telling me something?
If I feel the need to go to the toilet, is that God talking?
What if I feel like dancing? Is that God, or something else?
Is it all God?
Right now, as I sit here writing this post, I have slight itches on my left-hand upper body, behind my left knee, on top of my head and near my right elbow. Now, I'd be inclined to put these down to the fact that it's quite warm in the room where I am, and I've been out in the sun exercising this afternoon and I got a bit sweaty.
But I take it you'd say that these are all signals from God, telling me that I'm thinking evil thoughts (left side of body and left leg), but at the same time doing good actions (right elbow). Oh, and what does the head mean?
Anyway, I'm wondering how you propose to test your body twitch theory scientifically. Do you have a particular set of tests in mind? Obviously, you'd need to look at many people other than yourself.
Anecdotally, how many people have you talked into agreeing with your body twitch theory, so far?
Do you think there is any body signal that is not a sign of God communicating with us?
For example, if I'm hungry, is that God, or is it my body wanting energy?
If I sneeze, is that God telling me something?
If I feel the need to go to the toilet, is that God talking?
What if I feel like dancing? Is that God, or something else?
Is it all God?
Right now, as I sit here writing this post, I have slight itches on my left-hand upper body, behind my left knee, on top of my head and near my right elbow. Now, I'd be inclined to put these down to the fact that it's quite warm in the room where I am, and I've been out in the sun exercising this afternoon and I got a bit sweaty.
But I take it you'd say that these are all signals from God, telling me that I'm thinking evil thoughts (left side of body and left leg), but at the same time doing good actions (right elbow). Oh, and what does the head mean?
Anyway, I'm wondering how you propose to test your body twitch theory scientifically. Do you have a particular set of tests in mind? Obviously, you'd need to look at many people other than yourself.
Anecdotally, how many people have you talked into agreeing with your body twitch theory, so far?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Well clearly I can't prove the man is a liar but I will say that he is a liar.
And if I could get face to face with him I would call him a liar to his face.
And I am not angry I am/was trying to stir the pot and generate a response.
I do not get angry.
The emotion I experience is sadness as I just feel sorry for folk who get taken in by con men, and I believe Joe Smith was a con man, I believe he did not find the golden bible as he claimed and although not conclusive the fact the golden bible was given back to the angel suggests that there never was a golden bible or if there was it is more likely that it was hidden to avoid examination as opposed to the angel taking it back.
Alex
I just find it somewhat disappointing that non-believers can't do a bit better than to call names and make unprovable accusations, in response to various kinds of nonsense. Proof by ridicule isn't really a valid kind of argument. Nor is Proof by Outrage or Proof by Handwaving Dismissal.
No
But what is expelled from your anal sphincter bears a striking resemblance to BB postings.
Poe tells Humpty Dumpty to shut his potty mouth.
Billy Baxter
Registered Senior Member
James R, I'd refer you to the LDS missionaries for further info on the way God proves truth to us via the Holy Spirit. Google "local mormon missionaries" and contact them to set up a visit.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
How can we do better?
In the case of Joe Smith is there any need to try and prove he is lying.
We could argue the ins and outs day long but why would anyone bother.
If there is any proof for his story it could be put forward but given there is only a unbelievable story offered is it unreasonable to expect more than crude ridicule.
In retrospect I don't know why I even bothered other than my genuine concern that folk can be taken in by nonsence.
Alex
I think you're out to convince yourselves how clever you all are. I also think it's a power trip to put other people down, while placing undue and unspoken confidence in the foundations of your own beliefs. Moreover, its a kind of lazy bullying behaviour.
Thanks, but I've already talked to a number of Mormon missionaries. Let's just say they didn't convince me. In my experience, though, most Mormons I've met have been nice, well-intentioned people. For what it's worth...
Well, yes, there is.
If you're going to start ridiculing a religion that has about 15 million followers, then you should do a little research and find out why they believe what they believe. And if you don't accept what they believe, then you shouldn't go around preaching that they are wrong unless you have reasonable support for your claims about their beliefs.
I don't know. Why did you bother posting in this thread? Only you can answer that.
Again, I make the point that 15 million people believe the story so much that they identify as Mormon. The fact that, at first glance, you find it unbelievable, doesn't tell us very much.
But this is religion. All religions offer stories that have little, if any, solid proof. Generally, the excuse is that the proof has been lost to history in various ways.
The fact is, the vast majority of the world's population, that's 7 billion people, believe in one or another kind of religion. And they're not all stupid or ridiculous people. It would seem to follow, therefore, that it is not completely unreasonable to hold religious beliefs that may seem, at first glance, to be ridiculous. Chances are that there are subtleties and complications to the doctrine that don't readily present themselves at first glance.
Speaking personally, it annoys me that some non-believers are ready to dismiss virtually the whole of religion without bothering to learn about it or truly considering what it has to teach. Religion is a very wide topic. It's not all bad. And it certainly is not all simplistic nonsense.
Billy Baxter
Registered Senior Member
I don't know that hunger is a signal, but a gurgling gut, a sneeze, sudden urgent diarrhea and gas pains are.
Knees = intentions (front) / secret intentions (back)
left-hand upper body -> please be more specific
right elbow = good action God approves
top of head -> please be more specific
I haven't devised tests yet.
Three or four have kept an open mind about them, but most have laughed and mocked me.
Billy Baxter:
There's a problem with a statement like "right elbow = good action God approves", which is that it is appears to me to be unfalsifiable.
You tell me that a right-elbow itch means God approves of my actions. But how can I be sure? There's no way I can check whether God really approves or not. I just have to take your word for it.
At this point, therefore, I can't see any way of testing scientifically whether there's anything to your theory. You're essentially telling us that any body function can be interpreted as a signal of God's approval or disapproval or whatever, but there's no way anybody can know what God is really approving or disapproving at any particular time. So, all this stuff about God communicating through the body may as well be just imagination.
Can you think of any way that we could, in principle, prove that a right-elbow itch was not a sign of God's approval of good actions? What test would we need to make to attempt such a proof?
This is a common method in science, and what falsifiability is all about. We try as hard as we can to prove the opposite or negative of what we suspect is really the case. If we can't prove the negative, then the initial hypothesis is a viable theory. Importantly, however, we need to be able to point to a specific test which, if the opposite were true, would definitively prove that the opposite was true. If no such test exists then the idea is unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific.
There's a problem with a statement like "right elbow = good action God approves", which is that it is appears to me to be unfalsifiable.
You tell me that a right-elbow itch means God approves of my actions. But how can I be sure? There's no way I can check whether God really approves or not. I just have to take your word for it.
At this point, therefore, I can't see any way of testing scientifically whether there's anything to your theory. You're essentially telling us that any body function can be interpreted as a signal of God's approval or disapproval or whatever, but there's no way anybody can know what God is really approving or disapproving at any particular time. So, all this stuff about God communicating through the body may as well be just imagination.
Can you think of any way that we could, in principle, prove that a right-elbow itch was not a sign of God's approval of good actions? What test would we need to make to attempt such a proof?
This is a common method in science, and what falsifiability is all about. We try as hard as we can to prove the opposite or negative of what we suspect is really the case. If we can't prove the negative, then the initial hypothesis is a viable theory. Importantly, however, we need to be able to point to a specific test which, if the opposite were true, would definitively prove that the opposite was true. If no such test exists then the idea is unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific.
Billy Baxter
Registered Senior Member
No, I know the scriptures are true because the Holy Ghost told me in my heart and mind.
Billy Baxter
Registered Senior Member
I understand and am a bit stymied on how to prove the signals scientifically. Talking about it online like this is greatly helpful.
I think TOBS is potentially dangerous because it's so easy to misinterpret.
Billy Baxter
Registered Senior Member
JS said that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book on the earth and that one could get closer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book.
Lack of physical evidence sets up a test of faith to see if we will exercise our faith to find out if the Book of Mormon is true according to Moroni 10:3-5 :
"3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
"4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
"5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
The wiki article was not disputed.
The fact that is there and not altered or corrected suggests we can assume the fundamentals are as written there.
Joe Smith was visited by an angel.
Really who would believe that?
He found a golden bible which was given back to the angle.
I don't need more to write them off as having founded their church on lies.
I have no doubt they do good things, and are good people etc but I won't make it complicated by looking past the lies of Joe Smith.
We can look at all the good things but I can not see how anyone could conclude Joe was not losing.
Alex