Interaction with Grok

 

Michael Zitar

6 hours ago ·

This was interesting

A guy posted a screenshot from X (posted here too) and so I asked Grok the opposite question. We had a back and forth as I queried how it was reaching certain conclusions by challenging specific aspects of its responses that were clearly based on popular opinion.

Eventually I asked Grok why it was declarative with others when asked to disprove "mormonism". It said it doesn't do that. So I attached the screenshot from X and told Grok to explain this then. Here is the reply to that:

"That post is a compressed negative case stated as a verdict. You are right that it does not use the same caution I have used with you.

What it is doing, in one screen:

- It takes the historic Protestant measuring stick as default: one eternal uncreated God who is spirit, closed canon, faith apart from a works-condition for justification.

- It lines LDS distinctive teachings against that stick.

- It answers “does Mormonism contradict the Bible?” with “Yes,” as if that stick *is* the Bible.

That is exactly the move I said a careful answer should not treat as settled fact. A short X reply often does it anyway: the question is binary, the format rewards a list, and the most common English-language contrast set is evangelical proof-text vs. D&C / King Follett / 2 Nephi 25:23.

So the inconsistency you are pointing at is real *as a product*. A one-pass public reply said “yes, it contradicts.” This conversation has said “only after you install rules the other side rejects.” Those are not the same voice.

Two things can both be true:

1. From a closed-canon, Nicene or evangelical reading, the items in that Grok post are the standard collision points. That list is not invented.

2. That reading is not the only biblical reading in play, which is why an LDS positive case can be written from the same library and why “contradicts the Bible” is not a neutral referee call.

I will not pretend the screenshot is something else. It is an unqualified no. It is also not a better method than laying out both cases. If you ask the same binary here—“Does LDS doctrine contradict the Bible?”—the accurate answer is: it contradicts *that* reading of the Bible. It claims to follow a different reading of the same Bible. The screenshot skipped the second sentence."

So I asked why I had a more rigorous back and forth, and Grok replied:

"The way you push can get a better answer. They asked a binary in a format that rewards binaries. You asked for a case and then audited the method. Those are different jobs."

*AI is a tool and what you get out of it depends on what you put in and how. That means the quality of your thinking matters. Hence the 2nd screenshot. All of that said, seriously, do not allow it to replace your daily search, ponder and pray practice with the scriptures.*

Melchizedek uncreated

 

Blake Ostler

September 14 at 9:38 PM ·

There is a stunning passage in Hebrews 7:1-3 that requires a view vastly different than any traditional xstian accepts. It reads in the NIV: "This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever."

Now what is stunning is that it insists that Melchizedek, the person who interacted with Abraham, is actually uncreated. This passage emphasizes this point in multiple ways. Melchizedek is "without father or mother" ( ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ) he has no genealogy (ἀγενεαλόγητος) meaning that his origin is not from human generation, and he is "without beginning of days" (μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν) meaning essentially that he is backwardly eternal in the past without beginning.

Add to this the fact that in the Dead Sea Scrolls Melchizedek is called "elohim" and even substitutes Melchizedek for Yahweh quoting Isaiah 61:2. (11Q Melchizedek).

Now think about it. Melchizedek is a human but he is uncreated. He has eternal existence without beginning or end. He is divine in a strong sense. It seems to vindicate the assertions in the Book of Abraham that "yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal." Joseph Smith uses the Hebrew term עוֹלָם to explain that something is uncreated. In fact, עוֹלָם means eternal (in a temporal sense), everlasting, forever, perpetual

Blake Ostler on Catholicism

 Pope in Paris

Forever Paris

  ·

Follow

a day ago ·

In 1997, a Polish pope drew one million people to Paris. Yesterday, the first American pope in history came close.

The top photo is the Champ de Mars on August 21, 1997, during World Youth Day. About 500,000 young pilgrims were there to welcome John Paul II. Three days later, more than a million people filled the Longchamp racecourse for his closing Mass.

After that, the big crowds went quiet. The last papal Mass in Paris, Benedict XVI's at the Invalides in 2008, drew about 260,000 people.

Then came yesterday. Pope Leo XIV, born in Chicago, celebrated Mass at the Place de la Concorde. Organizers had planned for 600,000 people. The Vatican now estimates around 800,000. The crowd covered the whole Champs-Élysées, 1.2 miles (1.9 km) long, and kept going past the Arc de Triomphe.

The setting is quite something. The Place de la Concorde is the square where Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were guillotined during the Revolution. Yesterday, it held an altar.

Many of the young pilgrims from 1997 are now in their 40s and 50s. Some of them were probably back on the avenue yesterday, this time with their own kids.

Facebook

Facebook

Facebook

Facebook

Facebook

Facebook

Facebook

Facebook

Facebook

Facebook

Facebook

Blake Ostler

2 days ago ·

It is common for Catholics to argue that there could not be an apostasy because Christ told Peter that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. But Matt. 16:18 does not say that the Church will always persist: it says that the "gates of Hades" will not prevail. Hades is the realm of death and all that it means is that death will not overcome the church because Christ will be resurrected.

This pericope in Matthew is certainly NOT saying that the Church would endure for millennia because the writer of the gospel of Matthew expected Christ to return in one generation, during their lifetime, and the Church would not endure more than one generation: "At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens. Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. Truly I tell you, THIS GENERATION WILL CERTAINLY NOT PASS AWAY UNTIL ALL THESE THINGS HAVE HAPPENED." Matt. 10:17-23.

This view was reiterated: "For the Son of Man is going to come in his Fathers glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Matt. 16:27-28.

Jude 3 is sometimes also cited with the interpretation that the gospel was delivered "once and for all" and there was nothing more to be said. Jude 3 is clearly not saying that the gospel message was delivered and there was nothing to be written or revealed after that. If that interpretation were taken seriously, then 2 Thess. and Revelation would violate that interpretation. The word translated here as "once for all" is ἅπαξ, and it merely means that it was at one time previously taught by Paul and he wants those he is writing to to return to the teaching he gave BECAUSE THEY HAD APOSTATIZED. Here is a better translation of Jude: "3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was at one time entrusted to God’s holy people. 4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord."

There is a prophecy regarding restoration in Acts 3:12 - " 21 Heaven must receive him [Christ] until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. 22 For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. 23 Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people.’"

Blake Ostler

a day ago ·

I think that it would surprise most Latter-Day Saints to learn that Catholics assert (without an iota of basis in fact) that: 1. Mary was immaculately conceived (conceived either without sexual relations and/or without the effects of original sin); 2. Mary remained a virgin because sex is such a bad thing (despite the fact that the NT names Jesus's brothers and sisters); 3. Mary was assumed or ascended into heaven like Christ; 4. one can pray to Mary -- and prayer to Mary is taught expressly in the Cathechism. These doctrines are de fide or doctrine of the Catholic church.

The brothers of Jesus or the adelphoi (Ancient Greek: ἀδελφοί, romanized: adelphoí, lit. 'of the same womb, brothers') are named in the New Testament as James, Joses (a form of Joseph), Simon, and Jude; unnamed sisters are mentioned in Mark and Matthew. Mark 6:3 names James, Joses, Judas (conventionally known in English as Jude) and Simon as the brothers of Jesus, and Matthew 13:55, which probably used Mark as its source, gives the same names in different order, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. Unnamed sisters are mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:56 and may be implied in Mark 3:35 and Matthew 12:46, but their number is unknown.

Notwithstanding the fact that none of these doctrines has an iota of biblical support, and appears to squarely contradict what the synoptics in fact state, Catholics claim (again without an iota of support) that these brother and sisters may have been:

(1) sons of Joseph by a former marriage.

(2) sons of Mary of Clopas, named in Mark 15:40 as the "mother of James and Joses", who has been identified as either the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, or a sister-in-law to Joseph.

The first alternative has literally no support at all in the NT. The second is contrary to the fact that that Mark 6:3 is careful to name all four of the brothers -- and limiting the brothers to 2 in a pericope that is supposed to take place later would clearly leave out 2 brothers already named.

As for prayers to Mary -- it is strained beyond credulity that such prayers are acceptable given the fact that Jesus taught his disciples to pray to the Father - "Our Father who art in heaven".

arik D. LaCour

 ·

 ·

by author

1. Immaculate conception means that Mary did not receive original sin. She was not virginally conceived; Anne and Joachim were her parents. 2. Sex is not a bad thing; no Catholic dogma says that it is. 3 The dogma of the assumption says that Mary was assumed into heaven; it leaves open the question of whether or not she died. Syriac and Byzantine Catholics celebrate the dormition, which means that Mary died. 4. Jesus says to pray to the Father, which Catholics literally do every Mass. So, I’m not sure what that is supposed to prove. No one is required in the Catholic Church to practice Marian devotions either.

Blake Ostler

 ·

 ·

Author

Tarik D. LaCour You miss the point on the Assumption - -several theologians in the Roman Church clearly adopted that Mary never tasted death. But let's assume it just means that Mary ascended into heaven. When was she resurrected to be assumed into Heaven? What is the support for this dogma?

You also miss the point regarding prayer to Mary. The issue is not if Catholics also pray to the Father; it is that Jesus taught that prayer is directed to the Father. Further, Christians had no idea about prayers to Mary for the first 300 years of Christianity. The earliest recorded prayer to Mary is the "sub tuum praesidium," from the 3rd or 4th century.

On the trinity:

Blake Ostler

September 19 at 1:03 AM ·

This podcast where I discuss whether the Trinity is in the Bible and whether it is logically coherent. If you are interested, give it a listen.

With respect to the claim that the Trinity in the Bible, I point out that in reality it is a later philosophical construct not in the bible. Josh admits that there is no passage of scripture that teaches the Trinity (as should be the case if it is as important as creedal xstians claim). I then show that the effort to claim that simply throwing together statements from the Bible to try to lay legos on each other to construct the doctrine from the Bible treats biblical statements like philosophical data propositions -- which they clearly are not.

With respect to the logical coherence of the Trinity, I then show that if the basic assumptions to demonstrate coherence are incoherent, then it demonstrates that Josh has not shown coherence. Josh's logical framework is so questionable and complex that incoherence is very likely. So that was the first task pointing out how convoluted his logical framework for discussing the issue is.

Then I demonstrated that: (1) if there are intrinsic properties possessed by the persons of the Trinity instead of merely extrinsic properties, then there are not merely extrinsic relations of the Son and Spirit. That shows that what Josh is claiming is false regarding merely extrinsic relations to distinguish the divine persons.

I then demonstrated that: (2) the divine persons have intrinsic properties because of the posited first person perspective by Josh. Given the Indiscernibility of Identicals (if everything that is true of x is also true of y, then x is identical to y), it follows from (1) and (2) that there is more than one kind instance of the divine. That is a demonstration of incoherence because Josh claims that there is only one kind instance of divinity; but logically there must be at least two.

This argument also demonstrates that aseity (totally independent self-explaining existence) is an intrinsic property essential to possess in order to be divine (on the classical xstian view). Josh argues that the Father is basic (a complete ground) and has independent existence in the sense that His existence does not depend on anything else. But the Son is not a complete ground and depends for His existence on the action of the Father and thus does NOT have the explanation of His existence in Himself. It follows logically that the Son therefore lacks the attribute of aseity (has a different ontological status) possessed only by the Father on Josh's view. Thus the Son suffers from a defective divinity because he lacks an essential property required to be divine (on Josh's view).