"Prophets are not scientists"

  • user warning: Table './exmo_08072012/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:03fdc72573dd71ea71efe9bb0a4f0d18' in /home/exmormon/public_html/d6/drupal/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
  • user warning: Table './exmo_08072012/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = '<p>xyz Nov 2012</p>\n<p>\"Prophets are not scientists: Their views of science tend to reflect the prevailing views of the time.\"</p>\n<p><a href=\"http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Changing\" title=\"http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Changing\">http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Changing</a></p>\n<p>They certainly are not scientists. IF they REALLY were in discourse with a deity they claim is intelligent enough to have created the entire universe, then how is it that their deity\'s clock needed a good cleaning before they even got started?</p>\n<p>From their very beginnings in the early 19th century (around the same time Joe Smith, Sid Rigdon, and Ollie Cowdery were concocting their Manifest Destiny Meso-American Adventure Fantasy), sociologists (social scientists) recognized that despite racial distinctions, humans are humans and that slavery was, in practice, an unstable and undesirable blight on human development. In the United States this knowledge eventually resulted in the adoption of the XII, XIV, and XV Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (respectively: 1865, 1868, 1870). The United States was among the LAST major Western nations to ban slavery, and it even took a while longer for us to deal with the fallout caused by the institution of slavery: racial discrimination.</p>\n<p>In contrast, Mormons (who claim a two-way exclusive to the cellphone of the ruling deity of the universe) apparently didn\'t get any of those memos until ...1978.</p>\n<p>Let\'s get clear on that: it took Mormon god AT LEAST 108 years to pick up the clue phone that All God\'s Chillun Got Wings. No, Mormon prophets certainly are not scientists, LOL! They aren\'t even good bellwethers, BECAUSE THE PREVAILING VIEW IN 1865-1870 IS WHAT GOT THOSE THREE AMENDMENTS ADOPTED INTO OUR CONSTITUTION.</p>\n<p>That isn’t all of it, either: they’re still getting their social science dead wrong. Demonstrating his freakish miscomprehension of sociology and history, in a speech delivered at BYU-Idaho on 13 October 2009 Mormon leader Dallin Oaks likened present-day Mormons to 1950s Black Civil Rights activists, claiming that the LGBT community oppresses Mormons just as white racists oppressed Blacks. The wildly positive acceptance of that speech within the Mormon sphere demonstrates that from top to bottom Mormons still harbor unresolvable race issues. They cannot even keep up with “the prevailing views of the time.”</p>\n<p>What is taking the Mormons so long? Is there static on the line? Has a Kolobian energy-storm disrupted the connection? Did Mormon god change his service agreement and not tell them?</p>\n<p>I propose that from the outset we should accept the premise that Mormon prophets are not scientists, then go many more steps down the road of what they are not: Mormon \"prophets\" are not prophets.</p>\n<p>What, then, are Mormon \"prophets\"? They are neo-Luddites. They are so terrible at prophesying and bellwethering that their sucky social sciences record places them solidly within the category of \"Dumbest Last-place Losers\" in the human herd.</p>\n<p>Do you remember the children\'s game called Follow-the-Leader?</p>\n<p>Here is how it is played: first, a leader is designated then all the other children line up behind the leader. The leader then moves around and all the children have to mimic everything the leader does. Any players who fail to do so are out of the game. The last child standing other than the leader (the one most able to mimic the leader in everything) is now the new leader.</p>\n<p>But the rules of the game are only part of my point: do you also recall that the leader, in order to confuse the followers and impel them to failure, might resort to engaging in actions, gestures, or procedures of a particularly complex, outlandish or bizarre nature?</p>\n<p>It is a simple children\'s game, is it not? Most of us probably played it well before we were even in Kindergarten, because it is a game that helps teach us very basic positive social behaviors.</p>\n<p>Yet it also carries a moral with it: if all we do is play Follow-the-Leader then the Leader is free to take us where he will. And it follows that Following, without directing thought or contemplation toward what we are doing and where we are going, might take us where we ought not to be. The implications are no longer merely silly and playful: they have the potential to be foolish, malignant, or dangerous.</p>\n<p>Since 1820, Mormon \"prophet\" after Mormon \"prophet\" has set himself up to be a Leader based on the hollowest of claims, with the flimsiest of qualifications, without tangible proof of anything. And generations of grown-up Mormons have played Follow-the-Leader, willy-nilly. It is this tendency which has gotten Mormons and Mormonism into some very bad places in their history. It is this tendency which continues to put Mormons and Mormonism into bizarre social positions today.</p>\n<p>If Mormon \"prophets\" can function as neither scientists nor bellwethers, then of what use are they? Their views of science do not reflect the prevailing views of the period – they remain steadfastly stuck in the prevailing views of decades or centuries past! Isn\'t it time Mormons grew up, stopped playing children\'s games, and started directing sober thought and contemplation to what they are doing, where they are going, and what kind of Leaders they are Following?</p>\n<hr />\nLydia<br />\nRe: \"Prophets are not scientists\"<br />\nI could, quite literally, weep! Another nail for me,\n<hr />\nChicken N. Backpacks<br />\nRe: \"Prophets are not scientists\"<br />\nMormon prophets are not theologians, either....\n<hr />\nxyz<br />\nRe: \"Prophets are not scientists\"<br />\nYes, but I was trying to keep it under 1,000 words today. LOL!\n<hr />\n<p>blueorchid<br />\nRe: \"Prophets are not scientists\"<br />\nBravo. That is the best description of Mormonism ever.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>justrob<br />\nRe: \"Prophets are not scientists\"<br />\nThis is another reason I get bugged when people say JS was a genius. He made a TON of mistakes. He wasn\'t particularly good at his craft, and he allowed himself to get trapped.</p>\n<p>If he had been an excellent con-man, at least I could respect the craft.</p>\n<p>I compare him to Silvia Brown. If you\'ve ever watched her on TV, you VERY quickly realize that she is NOT good at her psychic-con. I am better at it than she is, and I\'ve never practiced it before.<br />\nYet she has an INSANE following.</p>\n<p>So large quantities of people following you does NOT mean you are good at what you do.</p>\n<p>Had JS been better at what he did, he would have sensed this trend and leveraged it, along with many of the other mistakes he could have avoided by just playing to his audience better.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>mormonthinker<br />\nRe: \"Prophets are not scientists\"<br />\nThe LDS prophets haven\'t really done a whole lot of anything prophetic. The church would have been better off if they didn\'t claim their leaders were prophets - that way they could have changed with the times e.g. allowing blacks to have the priesthood.</p>\n<p><a href=\"http://mormonthink.com/prophetsweb.htm\" title=\"http://mormonthink.com/prophetsweb.htm\">http://mormonthink.com/prophetsweb.htm</a></p>\n<hr />\njustrob<br />\nRe: \"Prophets are not scientists\"<br />\nAre you kidding me!?!?<br />\nOnly having 1 pair of earrings, not playing with face cards, tiny temples, &amp; 18yo missions changed my life!!!\n<p>Yeah, if I were a prophet I\'d make a bunch of predictions about technology. It\'s super easy because you can already see the future of technology.</p>\n<p>So make some prophecy about the mark of the beast being implanted technology, and then when they come out with a cell phone implant, or a holograph visualization device that simply projects the holograph in your mind, then you can point to that and say \"Look I was right\"</p>\n<p>These GAs are all sackless shells unwilling to gamble on anything, when they have the cushiest position for gambling.<br />\n--Make it vague<br />\n--Make it several years out<br />\n--If your wrong it doesn\'t matter cuz folks ignore 99% of Gen Conf anyway</p>\n<p>If you\'re gonna be a shyster, at least be good at it.</p>\n<hr />\nJesus Smith<br />\nRe: \"Prophets are not scientists\"<br />\nSo, here\'s a question, are the FAIR contributors *better* scientists than the church leaders? Because they diss the leaders whenever the cherry picked science results FAIR chooses differ from past leaders.\n<p>I\'ll repeat what I wrote before:<br />\nFAIR extols an ever vanishing doctrine theory, of which is included the vanishing geography theory of the BOM. Eventually, the LDS doctrine taught as correct at FAIR will become an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that is getting harder and harder to explain for these compartmentaltardation wizards the more science learns. And at some point FAIR will disappear in the tiniest poof that philosphers will be heard to argue, if no one is there to see FAIR implode did they ever actually exist?</p>\n<hr />\njustrob<br />\nRe: \"Prophets are not scientists\"<br />\nSure they are \"better\"<br />\nBut I have a hard time applying the word \"science\" to them, because they don\'t follow the scientific method.\n<p>Any time you start with a pre-conceived answer, you aren\'t following the scientific method.</p>\n<p>You START with observation.<br />\nYou do get a pre-conceived idea, but it is based on that observation.</p>\n<p>Starting with \"well the BoM is true so X must\'ve happened, so how could we find any evidence or explanation for X\" is so bass ackwards it makes me sick.</p>\n<hr />\nxyz<br />\nRe: \"Prophets are not scientists\"<br />\n&gt;&gt;&gt;\"if no one is there to see FAIR implode did they ever actually exist?\"\n<p>Don\'t all exploded atoms leave some sort of palimpsest? Or am I just proving I know nothing about physics? LOL!</p>\n<hr />\nscooter<br />\nthis is good.<br />\nof course another major problem is the collateral damage this inflicts on innocents outside the system.\n<p>I give you my scouts as an example. We may have never met a kolobian, and yet they have a disastrous effect on us.</p>\n<p>an enjoyable read. thanks.</p>\n<hr />\njustrob<br />\nRe: \"Prophets are not scientists\"<br />\nNot sure what you mean by palimpsest (I thought it meant \"manuscript\"), but when you say \"explode\" if you are referring to fission (splitting the atom) then what is left behind is whatever elements were formed from each part of the split atoms, plus a radius of vaporized material due to the immense energy released at the moment of fission (and most likely radiation, assuming you were splitting radioactive material).\n<p>If you were referring to fusion (also causes an \"explosion\") it\'s a fairly similar remnant, without much/any radiation (depending on what you fused... but I\'d imagine it was Hydrogen ;) ) and more predictable elements (if you fused Hydrogen, you got Helium, not a bunch of random elements whose atomic weight totals the weight of the initial material)</p>\n<p>#longAnswersToRhetoricalQuestions</p>\n<p>Sorry, apparently I\'m too anal and can\'t help but chime in on these sorts of questions</p>\n<hr />\nxyz<br />\nThanks for the short answer!<br />\nBy using \"palimpsest\" I meant this: the technical description is that of a manuscript whose calligraphy has been scraped off or erased, but the word also is used to refer to what can still be seen embedded in the substrate - the \"shadow\" of the original calligraphy, if you will.\n<p>So in this case I was asking what the remnants of an imploded FAIR would be, and if they would be discernible - maybe under atomic force microscopy? Who knows, LOL!</p>\n<hr />\njustrob<br />\nRe: Thanks for the short answer!<br />\nGotcha. That makes sense now.\n<hr />\n<p>xyz<br />\nRe: \"Prophets are not scientists\"<br />\nJesus Smith Wrote:<br />\n-------------------------------------------------------<br />\n&gt; So, here\'s a question, are the FAIR contributors<br />\n&gt; *better* scientists than the church leaders?<br />\n&gt; Because they diss the leaders whenever the cherry<br />\n&gt; picked science results FAIR chooses differ from<br />\n&gt; past leaders.<br />\n&gt;</p>\n<p>They\'re cherry-picking on the other side of the tree. I don\'t think that makes them any better or worse at what they\'re up to than the Dear Leaders doing what they\'re up to.</p>\n<p>Been There<br />\nRe: \"Prophets are not scientists\"<br />\nThis ties in with an earlier post;</p>\n<p><a href=\"http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,719822\" title=\"http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,719822\">http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,719822</a></p>\n<hr />\nstarkravingmad<br />\nRe: \"Prophets are not scientists\"<br />\nThis is brilliant.\n<hr />\n<p>fossilman<br />\nRe: \"Prophets are not scientists\"<br />\nProbably just a typo (and I\'m just nit-pikin), but it was Amendment XIII and not XII. I\'m not a constitutional historian, but I did just see Lincoln.</p>\n<hr />\nxyz<br />\nRight! Amendment XIII \n<hr />\n<p>deconverted2010<br />\nRe: \"Prophets are not scientists\"<br />\nIf prophets are no scientists<br />\nIf scientists will supersede a prophet\'s words<br />\nand a new prophet will align with the new scientific discory<br />\nshouldn\'t we be better off following science and not prophets in the first place?</p>\n<hr />\nshadowspade<br />\nRe: \"Prophets are not scientists\"<br />\nI have thought the same thing xyz. Prophets aren\'t scientists but they do claim to be in communication with THE scientist. You\'d think they would get at least one thing right by sheer chance yet they\'ve been wrong on every major civil rights issue from their very beginning.\n<p>One question for you xyz since you are bringing up U.S. History. Did you intentionally name yourself after the famous affair?</p>\n<hr />\nsteve benson<br />\nOne can glean more reliable information from the nightly TV weather forecast than from Mormon General Conference.&nbsp;\n<hr />\n<p>danboyle<br />\nRe: \"Prophets are not scientists\"<br />\nFrom ETBensons talk in 1980, \"13 fundamentals of follwing the prophet\", and re-delivered in a recent general conference:</p>\n<p>Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.</p>\n<p>Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to his prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven’t yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate degree in any subject. We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet and you’ll be blessed and time will show you have done the right thing.<br />\n.........</p>\n<p>Sometimes you can only smack your head, considering the insanity of it all.......</p>\n<hr />\n<p>justrob<br />\nRe: \"Prophets are not scientists\"<br />\nYeah, it\'s sad to look back on my former self who used to embrace that \"doctrine\" so hard that I turned a blind eye to fact.</p>\n<hr />\nxyz<br />\nRe: \"Prophets are not scientists\"<br />\nAh, The XYZ Affair - I wish it was that historically witty but alas, no.\n<p>It\'s my own petty response to Revelation 1:8 (\"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.\").</p>\n<p>Since I seem to find myself in constant conflict with ***whomever*** ^^^ that ^^^ personage is, I decided to refer to myself as \"xyz, the living end - what it is, what it was, what it shall be!\" with no caps, in defiance of all that pompous capitalized biblical self-importance. The end of it was a joke between me and a few of my teenager friends. But it\'s too long for a handle so I shortened it to \"xyz\", LOL!</p>\n<hr />\n<p>sonoma<br />\nRe: \"Prophets are not scientists\"<br />\ngreat post, buddy</p>\n<p>seems to me that if someone thought that they would be creating new worlds/universes, they would want to start preparing by becoming as well versed in the sciences as possible.</p>\n<p>it\'s like claiming that one wants to be a great kabuki actor, but never bothers to learn japanese.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>badseed<br />\nApparently they\'re not really Prophets either......<br />\nit ain\'t just science that they get dead wrong.</p>\n<p>\"Recovery from Mormonism - www.exmormon.org\"</p>\n', created = 1490455768, expire = 1490542168, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:03fdc72573dd71ea71efe9bb0a4f0d18' in /home/exmormon/public_html/d6/drupal/includes/cache.inc on line 112.

xyz Nov 2012

"Prophets are not scientists: Their views of science tend to reflect the prevailing views of the time."

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Changing

They certainly are not scientists. IF they REALLY were in discourse with a deity they claim is intelligent enough to have created the entire universe, then how is it that their deity's clock needed a good cleaning before they even got started?

From their very beginnings in the early 19th century (around the same time Joe Smith, Sid Rigdon, and Ollie Cowdery were concocting their Manifest Destiny Meso-American Adventure Fantasy), sociologists (social scientists) recognized that despite racial distinctions, humans are humans and that slavery was, in practice, an unstable and undesirable blight on human development. In the United States this knowledge eventually resulted in the adoption of the XII, XIV, and XV Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (respectively: 1865, 1868, 1870). The United States was among the LAST major Western nations to ban slavery, and it even took a while longer for us to deal with the fallout caused by the institution of slavery: racial discrimination.

In contrast, Mormons (who claim a two-way exclusive to the cellphone of the ruling deity of the universe) apparently didn't get any of those memos until ...1978.

Let's get clear on that: it took Mormon god AT LEAST 108 years to pick up the clue phone that All God's Chillun Got Wings. No, Mormon prophets certainly are not scientists, LOL! They aren't even good bellwethers, BECAUSE THE PREVAILING VIEW IN 1865-1870 IS WHAT GOT THOSE THREE AMENDMENTS ADOPTED INTO OUR CONSTITUTION.

That isn’t all of it, either: they’re still getting their social science dead wrong. Demonstrating his freakish miscomprehension of sociology and history, in a speech delivered at BYU-Idaho on 13 October 2009 Mormon leader Dallin Oaks likened present-day Mormons to 1950s Black Civil Rights activists, claiming that the LGBT community oppresses Mormons just as white racists oppressed Blacks. The wildly positive acceptance of that speech within the Mormon sphere demonstrates that from top to bottom Mormons still harbor unresolvable race issues. They cannot even keep up with “the prevailing views of the time.”

What is taking the Mormons so long? Is there static on the line? Has a Kolobian energy-storm disrupted the connection? Did Mormon god change his service agreement and not tell them?

I propose that from the outset we should accept the premise that Mormon prophets are not scientists, then go many more steps down the road of what they are not: Mormon "prophets" are not prophets.

What, then, are Mormon "prophets"? They are neo-Luddites. They are so terrible at prophesying and bellwethering that their sucky social sciences record places them solidly within the category of "Dumbest Last-place Losers" in the human herd.

Do you remember the children's game called Follow-the-Leader?

Here is how it is played: first, a leader is designated then all the other children line up behind the leader. The leader then moves around and all the children have to mimic everything the leader does. Any players who fail to do so are out of the game. The last child standing other than the leader (the one most able to mimic the leader in everything) is now the new leader.

But the rules of the game are only part of my point: do you also recall that the leader, in order to confuse the followers and impel them to failure, might resort to engaging in actions, gestures, or procedures of a particularly complex, outlandish or bizarre nature?

It is a simple children's game, is it not? Most of us probably played it well before we were even in Kindergarten, because it is a game that helps teach us very basic positive social behaviors.

Yet it also carries a moral with it: if all we do is play Follow-the-Leader then the Leader is free to take us where he will. And it follows that Following, without directing thought or contemplation toward what we are doing and where we are going, might take us where we ought not to be. The implications are no longer merely silly and playful: they have the potential to be foolish, malignant, or dangerous.

Since 1820, Mormon "prophet" after Mormon "prophet" has set himself up to be a Leader based on the hollowest of claims, with the flimsiest of qualifications, without tangible proof of anything. And generations of grown-up Mormons have played Follow-the-Leader, willy-nilly. It is this tendency which has gotten Mormons and Mormonism into some very bad places in their history. It is this tendency which continues to put Mormons and Mormonism into bizarre social positions today.

If Mormon "prophets" can function as neither scientists nor bellwethers, then of what use are they? Their views of science do not reflect the prevailing views of the period – they remain steadfastly stuck in the prevailing views of decades or centuries past! Isn't it time Mormons grew up, stopped playing children's games, and started directing sober thought and contemplation to what they are doing, where they are going, and what kind of Leaders they are Following?


Lydia
Re: "Prophets are not scientists"
I could, quite literally, weep! Another nail for me,
Chicken N. Backpacks
Re: "Prophets are not scientists"
Mormon prophets are not theologians, either....
xyz
Re: "Prophets are not scientists"
Yes, but I was trying to keep it under 1,000 words today. LOL!

blueorchid
Re: "Prophets are not scientists"
Bravo. That is the best description of Mormonism ever.


justrob
Re: "Prophets are not scientists"
This is another reason I get bugged when people say JS was a genius. He made a TON of mistakes. He wasn't particularly good at his craft, and he allowed himself to get trapped.

If he had been an excellent con-man, at least I could respect the craft.

I compare him to Silvia Brown. If you've ever watched her on TV, you VERY quickly realize that she is NOT good at her psychic-con. I am better at it than she is, and I've never practiced it before.
Yet she has an INSANE following.

So large quantities of people following you does NOT mean you are good at what you do.

Had JS been better at what he did, he would have sensed this trend and leveraged it, along with many of the other mistakes he could have avoided by just playing to his audience better.


mormonthinker
Re: "Prophets are not scientists"
The LDS prophets haven't really done a whole lot of anything prophetic. The church would have been better off if they didn't claim their leaders were prophets - that way they could have changed with the times e.g. allowing blacks to have the priesthood.

http://mormonthink.com/prophetsweb.htm


justrob
Re: "Prophets are not scientists"
Are you kidding me!?!?
Only having 1 pair of earrings, not playing with face cards, tiny temples, & 18yo missions changed my life!!!

Yeah, if I were a prophet I'd make a bunch of predictions about technology. It's super easy because you can already see the future of technology.

So make some prophecy about the mark of the beast being implanted technology, and then when they come out with a cell phone implant, or a holograph visualization device that simply projects the holograph in your mind, then you can point to that and say "Look I was right"

These GAs are all sackless shells unwilling to gamble on anything, when they have the cushiest position for gambling.
--Make it vague
--Make it several years out
--If your wrong it doesn't matter cuz folks ignore 99% of Gen Conf anyway

If you're gonna be a shyster, at least be good at it.


Jesus Smith
Re: "Prophets are not scientists"
So, here's a question, are the FAIR contributors *better* scientists than the church leaders? Because they diss the leaders whenever the cherry picked science results FAIR chooses differ from past leaders.

I'll repeat what I wrote before:
FAIR extols an ever vanishing doctrine theory, of which is included the vanishing geography theory of the BOM. Eventually, the LDS doctrine taught as correct at FAIR will become an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that is getting harder and harder to explain for these compartmentaltardation wizards the more science learns. And at some point FAIR will disappear in the tiniest poof that philosphers will be heard to argue, if no one is there to see FAIR implode did they ever actually exist?


justrob
Re: "Prophets are not scientists"
Sure they are "better"
But I have a hard time applying the word "science" to them, because they don't follow the scientific method.

Any time you start with a pre-conceived answer, you aren't following the scientific method.

You START with observation.
You do get a pre-conceived idea, but it is based on that observation.

Starting with "well the BoM is true so X must've happened, so how could we find any evidence or explanation for X" is so bass ackwards it makes me sick.


xyz
Re: "Prophets are not scientists"
>>>"if no one is there to see FAIR implode did they ever actually exist?"

Don't all exploded atoms leave some sort of palimpsest? Or am I just proving I know nothing about physics? LOL!


scooter
this is good.
of course another major problem is the collateral damage this inflicts on innocents outside the system.

I give you my scouts as an example. We may have never met a kolobian, and yet they have a disastrous effect on us.

an enjoyable read. thanks.


justrob
Re: "Prophets are not scientists"
Not sure what you mean by palimpsest (I thought it meant "manuscript"), but when you say "explode" if you are referring to fission (splitting the atom) then what is left behind is whatever elements were formed from each part of the split atoms, plus a radius of vaporized material due to the immense energy released at the moment of fission (and most likely radiation, assuming you were splitting radioactive material).

If you were referring to fusion (also causes an "explosion") it's a fairly similar remnant, without much/any radiation (depending on what you fused... but I'd imagine it was Hydrogen ;) ) and more predictable elements (if you fused Hydrogen, you got Helium, not a bunch of random elements whose atomic weight totals the weight of the initial material)

#longAnswersToRhetoricalQuestions

Sorry, apparently I'm too anal and can't help but chime in on these sorts of questions


xyz
Thanks for the short answer!
By using "palimpsest" I meant this: the technical description is that of a manuscript whose calligraphy has been scraped off or erased, but the word also is used to refer to what can still be seen embedded in the substrate - the "shadow" of the original calligraphy, if you will.

So in this case I was asking what the remnants of an imploded FAIR would be, and if they would be discernible - maybe under atomic force microscopy? Who knows, LOL!


justrob
Re: Thanks for the short answer!
Gotcha. That makes sense now.

xyz
Re: "Prophets are not scientists"
Jesus Smith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, here's a question, are the FAIR contributors
> *better* scientists than the church leaders?
> Because they diss the leaders whenever the cherry
> picked science results FAIR chooses differ from
> past leaders.
>

They're cherry-picking on the other side of the tree. I don't think that makes them any better or worse at what they're up to than the Dear Leaders doing what they're up to.

Been There
Re: "Prophets are not scientists"
This ties in with an earlier post;

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,719822


starkravingmad
Re: "Prophets are not scientists"
This is brilliant.

fossilman
Re: "Prophets are not scientists"
Probably just a typo (and I'm just nit-pikin), but it was Amendment XIII and not XII. I'm not a constitutional historian, but I did just see Lincoln.


xyz
Right! Amendment XIII

deconverted2010
Re: "Prophets are not scientists"
If prophets are no scientists
If scientists will supersede a prophet's words
and a new prophet will align with the new scientific discory
shouldn't we be better off following science and not prophets in the first place?


shadowspade
Re: "Prophets are not scientists"
I have thought the same thing xyz. Prophets aren't scientists but they do claim to be in communication with THE scientist. You'd think they would get at least one thing right by sheer chance yet they've been wrong on every major civil rights issue from their very beginning.

One question for you xyz since you are bringing up U.S. History. Did you intentionally name yourself after the famous affair?


steve benson
One can glean more reliable information from the nightly TV weather forecast than from Mormon General Conference. 

danboyle
Re: "Prophets are not scientists"
From ETBensons talk in 1980, "13 fundamentals of follwing the prophet", and re-delivered in a recent general conference:

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to his prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven’t yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate degree in any subject. We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet and you’ll be blessed and time will show you have done the right thing.
.........

Sometimes you can only smack your head, considering the insanity of it all.......


justrob
Re: "Prophets are not scientists"
Yeah, it's sad to look back on my former self who used to embrace that "doctrine" so hard that I turned a blind eye to fact.


xyz
Re: "Prophets are not scientists"
Ah, The XYZ Affair - I wish it was that historically witty but alas, no.

It's my own petty response to Revelation 1:8 ("I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.").

Since I seem to find myself in constant conflict with ***whomever*** ^^^ that ^^^ personage is, I decided to refer to myself as "xyz, the living end - what it is, what it was, what it shall be!" with no caps, in defiance of all that pompous capitalized biblical self-importance. The end of it was a joke between me and a few of my teenager friends. But it's too long for a handle so I shortened it to "xyz", LOL!


sonoma
Re: "Prophets are not scientists"
great post, buddy

seems to me that if someone thought that they would be creating new worlds/universes, they would want to start preparing by becoming as well versed in the sciences as possible.

it's like claiming that one wants to be a great kabuki actor, but never bothers to learn japanese.


badseed
Apparently they're not really Prophets either......
it ain't just science that they get dead wrong.

"Recovery from Mormonism - www.exmormon.org"