A couple of questions.

[smokymountainrain]

Originally Posted by landpoke

Which bring up yet another question: What's your cut-off age for the babies you eat? I've got a one year old that I'm kind of fond of which that might constrain my ability to entertain your sales staff.

I'm not positive on the doctrine, but I prefer they can't crawl or walk away. I imagine the missionaries are less picky, however.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

So then genes didn't actually exist until the 20th century? Scientific discovery dictates truth? The universe really was 6000 years old until the scientists decided it was much older than that? For not believing in science, it's weird that you allow them to dictate your "fluid" truth.

You are projecting again. I've never claimed to be anything more than and anti-evolutionist, not a literalist. Actually I'm certainly not anti-evolution but I do beleive in intelligent design. And ... you know what my truth appears pretty fluid when you think about it.

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You are projecting again. I've never claimed to be anything more than and anti-evolutionist, not a literalist. Actually I'm certainly not anti-evolution but I do beleive in intelligent design. And ... you know what my truth appears pretty fluid when you think about it.

That didn't even touch on my question. Why do you think truth is fluid? Is the search for truth the same thing as truth for you? Do you believe that whatever someone believes becomes the truth? I don't know how many times I've begged you to make some kind of positive assertion, but here it is again. Please tell me what your position is.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

That didn't even touch on my question. Why do you think truth is fluid? Is the search for truth the same thing as truth for you? Do you believe that whatever someone believes becomes the truth? I don't know how many times I've begged you to make some kind of positive assertion, but here it is again. Please tell me what your position is.

I have many other times in many other threads -do a search. I believe truth is relative and it is fluid. I am also devout LDS. Sensative to and fascinated with Marxism, and I will likely vote for Mitt Romney in absentia (I live in your former mission), and am an arteest.

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I have many other times in many other threads -do a search. I believe truth is relative and it is fluid. I am also devout LDS. Sensative to and fascinated with Marxism, and I will likely vote for Mitt Romney in absentia (I live in your former mission), and am an arteest.

Do you find that believing in fluid truth is consistent with LDS doctrine? It seems like Mormonism is pretty strong in it's belief that truth is unchanging. Similar to science that way.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

Do you find that believing in fluid truth is consistent with LDS doctrine? It seems like Mormonism is pretty strong in it's belief that truth is unchanging. Similar to science that way.

I don't agree. Truth is relative.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I don't agree. Truth is relative.

A word of clarification -I do believe fluid truth is consistent with LDS doctrine.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I don't agree. Truth is relative.

It is very difficult to read your posts tb. I really don't have a dog in this fight but you come across like a slimy politician always dodging the question with another question.

I doubt you really believe truth is relative. I would guess that you believe that a person's perception of the truth is relative. The 2 concepts are very different. Truth exists independent of belief.

wait, let's look at what a test of your hypothesis that truth is relative would uncover:

1.) I decide to keep and store massive amounts of shit.

2.) I believe that shit and gold are the same. (my shit has now becomes gold because of my belief)

3.) Anyone want to buy my shit?


The idea that truth is relative is obsurd.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

It is very difficult to read your posts tb. I really don't have a dog in this fight but you come across like a slimy politician always dodging the question with another question.

I doubt you really believe truth is relative. I would guess that you believe that a person's perception of the truth is relative. The 2 concepts are very different. Truth exists independent of belief.

wait, let's look at what a test of your hypothesis that truth is relative would uncover:

1.) I decide to keep and store massive amounts of shit.

2.) I believe that shit and gold are the same. (my shit has now become gold because of my belief)

3.) Anyone want to buy my shit?


The idea that truth is relative is obsurd.

I agree whole heartedly that it is absurd ... I should've clarified above that along with being devout, Marxism, voting for Mit and art I revel in the absurd!

Consider for a moment your crap ... what if after a million years of storage your crap became the fundamental element in crude oil -what is it's worth to an industrial society

[Jim Swarthout]

Originally Posted by landpoke

So from a doctrinal timeline standpoint, were Adam and Eve in Missouri before or after your people were there. That is, did their location change or was it not determined prior to the exodus from Missouri?

I think the answers to your questions about Missouri lie in three facts:

1. JS was bent on building Zion somewhere either Ohio, Missouri, or Illinois.
2. Missouri was the frontier in the mid-19th century.
3. Early Mormons believed that the 2d Coming was imminent.

Given those facts, is it any wonder that JS and others believed that Christ would come again to Missouri?

Today, the first two are no longer true. As for the third, while many LDS believe the 2d coming is still imminent (and many probably opening hope for the 2d coming to cleanse the earth of "wickedness"), I suspect many LDS no longer believe it is imminent.

That's just my .02.