Jump to content

Mordecai

Members
  • Content Count

    991
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

94 Excellent

1 Follower

About Mordecai

  • Rank
    Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth
  • Birthday 06/21/1974

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    religion, philosophy, English/literature, science, politics, sports, anthropology

Recent Profile Visitors

1,708 profile views
  1. Mordecai

    Love Everyone Equally?

    I'm not saying that merely loving those who love us is a good thing. I'm saying that if you love decent people, including ones that aren't part of our local tribe (like the Samaritan), more than you love Gadianton Robbers, that's probably normal and seems to me to be recommended. I've never read that we should love Gadianton Robbers equally. If Katherine the Great is correct, and love merely means we help take care of others, the Church's official policy is to take care of members first and then people outside the Church. That seems consistent with, "By this shall all men know, ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another," as opposed to, "love to everyone."
  2. Mordecai

    Love Everyone Equally?

    I don't think we're expected to love everyone equally. Jesus taught, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:35); speaking to disciples, it sounds as if Jesus is talking about disciples loving disciples. Perhaps more convincing, after stating we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, when Jesus is asked, "Who is my neighbor," He doesn't say, "Everyone:" To me that suggests that we don't need to love everyone equally; we put a priority on people with basic decency. Doesn't mean we don't love others, but Jesus suggested that the Pharisees were not our brothers but were "children of the devil," being murderous oppressors. Not saying we shouldn't love them; Jesus specifically said to love our enemies. He just didn't say to love them equally. Regardless, I think it's rather natural to love decent people more than we love Gadianton Robbers, and I don't think that's a sin.
  3. Mordecai

    Contention is of The Devil

    I'd say that depends. You can contend against evil by having the spirit of contention yourself, contending with anger "one against another," as opposed to contending for what's right.
  4. Mordecai

    Contention is of The Devil

    So what does it mean when "Gideon withstood him with the words of God?" I think he was clearly countering the claims that there was no God and no Savior, using the scriptures and inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Maybe he was using the scriptures, speaking on God's behalf instead of his own behalf. But I don't think this was a friendly discussion! Gideon, I suspect, was calm and composed, using the scriptures rationally, without anger, but what he was saying was probably rather bold and straightforward. We read other examples of this with Abinidi, explaining the meaning of the scriptures in what many would describe as a "contentious fashion." Saying, "Ye have not understood [the scriptures]," was not going to make the priests of Noah happy! That was a "contentious" thing to say, but you can't really say that was of the devil, can you? Jesus went as far as to call the Pharisees, "vipers," to their faces, suggesting that they were subhuman killers. Not too nice! Of course, that's pretty much what they were, murderous and beyond feeling. Speaking the truth boldly to the wicked, I think, is righteous, as long as your ego isn't in it; easier said than done, of course, trying to counter evil without your ego involved. But I think the righteous can and should do it.
  5. This has been a subject of debate for a long time and, ironically, many suggest you shouldn't debate, because it's "of the devil." I've been listening to--like seemingly everyone else--Jordan Peterson; he argues for, among other things, evolutionary biology, where human instincts for hierarchy are directly analogous to those of chimpanzee instincts. This, to me, suggests that, "the natural man," may be natural in the sense that, in part, our animal instincts drive us to contend for position in a hierarchy, one against another. A debate or argument can be a means of climbing a hierarchy, either as an authority on doctrine or as an intellectual elite. Conversely, the book of Jude suggests we should contend (Greek: struggle) for the faith against those that would corrupt it. How do you do that without "contending with anger, one against another?" If we want to take our desire to climb the hierarchy out of the equation, I think you contend without the idea of your own position or status in mind, but the status of God. God, being all powerful and a permanent fixture, hopefully at the top of our emotional hierarchy, isn't someone who needs us to be angry, as God can't be harmed by man in any way. So we can argue for other people's good, without anger, by thinking about God and arguing loyally for Him. If you don't get angry, and you have no thought for your own ego, I think you are keeping with what Jude recommends, which is to contend for the faith, as opposed to contending with anger with others for a higher intellectual or religious status. So contend in the context in which Jesus uses it, doesn't mean to not debate, in my hypothesis; it means that you are competing for position, a higher status in a natural, instinctual hierarchy. The debate per se isn't the contention, in itself; it only can be, if you are going "one against another" in pursuit of a higher position. Alma 1:9:
  6. I don't think we need to completely phase out "LDS" to be true to the D&C declaration that the Church shall be known as, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." The "of Latter-day Saints," phrase is merely meant to differentiate the Church of Jesus Christ of today from the Church at its founding. The phrase "of LDS," can do that, as long as you leave, "The Church of Jesus Christ," in place. Why not, "The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS," for short, so people associate _The Church of Jesus Christ_ with _LDS_, which is really the whole point? Less confusing for outsiders. Once people remember the _Jesus Christ_ part, the essential part, then we can explain that LDS means "Latter-day Saints." Priorities. One thing at at time. Otherwise, people will be very confused, and we will sound very long winded.
  7. Obviously it's easier if you have the mutation already. You missed my point. The question is, where did you get the mutation. Are you telling me that huge populations produce that one magic mutation and then, by completely implausible chance, that one mutation gets isolated? Think about the problem. Even with a large population, the chances of a useful mutation occurring is astronomically small. Then, you need yet another astronomically small chance of that creature getting isolated with a small breeding population, which still doesn't guarantee the mutation gets passed on and, especially since inbreeding tends to reduce fitness, increases the likelihood of extinction, adding to the higher risk of extinction caused merely by having a small population. I mean, the odds of that are astronomically small as well. So you need two miracles, basically, for this to work. I know a lot of biologists argue for this, but that is because they have nothing else. They're being ridiculous, from a mathematical standpoint. But who needs math, when you have ideology?
  8. God or extremely advanced aliens couldn't have created or terraformed planets like ours? Or maybe our planet was terraformed to be like another? Or adapt creatures from other planets to this planet? The reason I disagree with Darwin's theory is, it doesn't fit the fossil record at all. Not even close. How did whales evolve from pakicetus to durodon in a mere 9 million years? That makes _no_ sense _at all_ from a Darwinian standpoint. And body plans are the most coordinated, with respect to interdependent mutations. So again, how in the world did pakicetus become durodon in a mere 9 million years. The tail flukes! The heat exchanges! The completely aquatic body plan! Impossible! Mathematically, it's literally impossible. But with infinite time or some amount of time that is beyond our imagination, it's possible. So durodon and pakicetus may have been transplanted from somewhere else but in that somewhere else, there is a good explanation as to why they appear related. Possibly a Darwinian process or related to Darwinian processes.
  9. So, you think it's plausible that everything was wiped out in just the right way, so that 90% of what we see today is a new species? That makes no sense with anything other than maybe microbes. If it were that easy, the researcher himself wouldn't be "fighting it as hard as he could." As I said, mass destruction can't produce variety. A small breeding population doesn't produce a new species, either. It either kills the creature off, or they stay the same. The reason being, you need a large population to supply opportunities for beneficial or functional mutations. Smaller populations just reduce opportunities. With the largest breeding population you can get, under ideal circumstances, it will _still_ take 30 million years to produce a single coordinated mutation in large mammals. A small population means, it will take far longer. You need more creatures to get more mutations. Not fewer. Makes no sense, from the standpoint of population genetics.
  10. First of all, Richard Dawkins was quite serious, when he made that statement. He actually said it condescendingly. LOL Watch Ben Stein play dumb, to get Dawkins to speak openly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8 With respect to similar animals on our planet, with apparent common ancestors, that suggest a type of evolution, obviously. But couldn't that evolution have occurred elsewhere? Perhaps in a place with enough time and resources, possibly tinkered with along the way, to produce the life forms on earth? I merely reject the notion that Darwin's theory fits the fossil record here, and reject that it adds up mathematically, given the limited time we have here. With enough time and resources and/or help, it could work. The theory is such an elegant theory, we can't just throw it out, of course. So I'm still open to it, but _only_ if you have the aforementioned conditions. Well, right, they wouldn't have "intermarried." I just think of marriage, when I think of babies, being Mormon. lol All of that said, the DNA that kangaroos and humans have in common is enormous and _exactly_ the same. Well beyond what anyone would predict; no rational person could predict from Darwin's theory, that we would see enormous amounts of _identical_ DNA in kangaroos and humans, looking at the fossil record. What are the chances of producing 100 MB of functional information (which is basically nothing compared to the first life, of course), given the limits of Darwinian processes and the timeline found in the fossil record, where humans and kangaroos emerged? Zero. What are the chances of producing that much exactly _identical_ information with two profoundly different pathways to get there? Yet another miracle. The production of the information in the first place is mathematically implausible, given the tiny amount of time, relative to what's mathematically plausible. Then you produce that amount, and it turns out to be _identical_, despite two widely diverging branches of life? That's insane. With respect to neanderthals and humans, again, I'm aware of everything you've said. Obviously, it _appears_ that maybe there was interbreeding. But the same logic applies to kangaroos and humans. It seems something _else_ can explain large amounts of common DNA. "This can only be explained through gene flow with Neanderthals after some of our ancestors left Africa." Wait. You just said that a bunch of common DNA can be explained, because the form is the same. Kangaroos and humans have a lot in common; therefore, they have identical DNA. Not sure why if the "only" way to explain some common DNA in humans and neanderthals _must_ mean interbreeding, while identical DNA in kangaroos doesn't mean interbreeding. Obviously, I agree with the latter. That's not interbreeding. But the former? I think it's certainly plausible that there was interbreeding. But I don't think it's necessary, by any means, since we know nothing of how the fossil record looks like it does, seeing as _no_ scientific theory can explain it, unless you include ID. And I still don't see how the existence of human cousins somehow disproves intelligent design or at least, some sort of seeding via an intelligent designer. So it can't possibly be true that some humans represent "parallel evolution" the same way kangaroos represent "parallel evolution?" Either way, it's mathematically impossible to produce the information in the first place, given the tiny bit of time we see in the fossil record.
  11. So... uh... you think 20-25 million years is a long time? It would take a large mammal, typically, 30 million years to evolve a mere two-point, coordinated mutation, judging by observations of microbes. (Unless it's an adaptive mutation, which means, the mutation is built- in, which is not a Darwinian process, as it's not random). So 20-25 million years is absolutely nothing for typical creatures. It's still nothing even for microbes, if you are looking for functional changes in body plans.
  12. I never said that this _per se_ means that life was transported from another planet. I'm merely saying that the fossil record demonstrates something that nothing currently explains well, so having creatures put here from other planets at least fits the evidence. Do you have a _better_ theory? Because Darwin's theory fails miserably to match the pattern of speciation in the fossil record. The panspermia hypothesis arose merely from looking at the "punctuated equilibrium" in the fossil record and such and Richard Dawkins himself posted that maybe aliens designed the first life. So it's not like Mormons are the only ones saying the earth has been tinkered with by an outside intelligence. Furthermore, what do other hominids with similar DNA have to do with anything? That doesn't support Darwin's theory nor contradict the claim that life on earth was placed here. How would it? And there is no good reason to believe that other hominids necessarily intermarried with our ancestors other than a significant amount of similar DNA. Kangaroos have a massive amount of _identical_ DNA, seemingly completely unevolved, despite our nearest ancestor being a shrew-like creature. They call that, "parallel evolution" or some such nonsense. Which basically means that they have a lot of identical DNA despite being very distantly related. Makes no sense from a Darwinian standpoint, as Darwin's theory demands a lot of random stuff occurring gradually, over hundreds of millions of years. Doesn't appear to be the case.
  13. Mordecai

    The Lincoln Hypothesis

    No one here called him a proto nor a crypto saint. The book (and I) are suggesting it may be logical to infer that he was influenced by a quote of the Bible in the BoMormon, and that he became humble after the death of his son and turned to Christianity. After that, the book suggests, he was inspired to carry out God's plan to free the slaves.
  14. So this response is a good explanation to you? Notice that the researcher himself said, "I fought against this as hard as I could." Why? Because it represents more evidence of "punctuated equilibrium," where you have stasis and then a sudden explosion of information. If "evolution is always occurring," shouldn't we see that in bacteria? But in reality, we don't. And for the past 100 to 200 thousand years, it hasn't been occurring either, not among multicellular organisms and extremely little among bacteria! Certainly not enough evolution to produce anything more complex than two point mutations. And why would a bunch of _destruction_ create order in a short period of time? It's called _evolution_, because it is, by definition, _gradual_. That means widespread destruction would _not_ result in millions of new species emerging at the same time. Because there wouldn't be time to search through the needle in the evolutionary haystack, and the claim that "a small population increases the chances of a new mutation becoming dominant," avoids the _real_ problem, which is getting the mutation to appear in the first place. A small population reduces the chances of it appearing and the destruction reduces the chances that such a mutation would survive, if it had emerged with a large population. Malaria has a population of ONE TRILLION PER HOST. But it took a hundred years for malaria to develop chloroquine resistance with _enormous_ selective pressures on it, and that was a mere two point mutation. That's _typical_ of microbes. A hundred years for a large mammal is about 30 million years. For a mere two point mutation. But 90% of all the species on earth appeared _at the same time_ a mere 100 to 200 thousand years ago. And that makes sense to you, in a Darwinian framework? That makes ZERO sense, which is why the researcher "fought against it." It is in stark contrast to any _rational_ interpretation of how Darwinian processes should play out. The "small population" argument is smoke and mirrors that only works on people who don't understand population genetics, which is _basic_ biology.
  15. My current theory is that Brigham Young was right, that all of the creatures on earth were brought from other worlds. Since life on earth was put here according to a designed timeline, we end up with discoveries like this very recent one: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/228798/20180530/massive-genetic-study-reveals-90-percent-of-earth-s-animals-appeared-at-the-same-time.htm
×