Religion and Morals

[Rivers]

In the debate, Sam Harris spent a lot of time ripping apart Christianity and showing how evil and unmoral the Christian god is.

But I find it fascinating that every single one of his arguments can be answered by principles taught in mormonism.

There are many beautiful and profound teachings in mormonism. Unfortunately, nobody can take us seriously because we have too many absurd-sounding beliefs that people can't look past: Garden of Eden in Missouri, Native Americans descending from Hebrews, polygamy, etc.

[Jeff K.]

Maybe if the Garden had an exotic sounding name and was someplace we weren't familiar with, maybe that would make it more plausible?

And of course how could some Native Americans be descended from some Hebrews, since the Kennewick man's DNA is related to no Indian groups, do we assume he doesn't exist? Or that he was a plant?

It seems that the presumed signposts of difficulty believing are rather shallow when you think about it.

[Rivers]

Maybe if the Garden had an exotic sounding name and was someplace we weren't familiar with, maybe that would make it more plausible?

And of course how could some Native Americans be descended from some Hebrews, since the Kennewick man's DNA is related to no Indian groups, do we assume he doesn't exist? Or that he was a plant?

It seems that the presumed signposts of difficulty believing are rather shallow when you think about it.

I actually served in the Kennewick mission. My mission president was telling us about the kennewick man. He told us that the Kennewick man couldn't possibly be as old as scientists said that he was. My president believed the earth to be 6,000 years old. That's another belief that people think is too absurd for mormonism to be taken seriously. Now I know full well that some of our beliefs (official and unofficial) sound pretty strange. I can't make sense of them all, but there are so many other amazing things that Joseph Smith taught. Many of the answers to questions concerning God and morality are answered in Joseph Smith's teachings.

[Rivers]

And of course how could some Native Americans be descended from some Hebrews, since the Kennewick man's DNA is related to no Indian groups, do we assume he doesn't exist? Or that he was a plant?

Nope. We should try to understand the Kennewick the best we can with the resources that we have.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 23 April 2011 - 12:57 PM, said:

Maybe if the Garden had an exotic sounding name and was someplace we weren't familiar with, maybe that would make it more plausible?

And of course how could some Native Americans be descended from some Hebrews, since the Kennewick man's DNA is related to no Indian groups, do we assume he doesn't exist? Or that he was a plant?

It seems that the presumed signposts of difficulty believing are rather shallow when you think about it.

I actually served in the Kennewick mission. My mission president was telling us about the kennewick man. He told us that the Kennewick man couldn't possibly be as old as scientists said that he was. My president believed the earth to be 6,000 years old. That's another belief that people think is too absurd for mormonism to be taken seriously. Now I know full well that some of our beliefs (official and unofficial) sound pretty strange. I can't make sense of them all, but there are so many other amazing things that Joseph Smith taught. Many of the answers to questions concerning God and morality are answered in Joseph Smith's teachings.

Proximity to the Kennewick man doesn't make your mission president an expert, anymore than my proximity to the beach makes me a surfing champion. So your point is moot since your mission president speaks neither for the church in that regard (since the church made no statement) nor does he have the scientific background to make those statements. Like some people he is, as you have phrased it attempted to "understand the Kennewick the best we can with the resources that he has".

Nor does the Mormon church specifically state the earth is 6000 years old, the church as doctrine has never approached that issue (I sometimes tire of repeating myself of these basic points but so many people seem to miss it). The belief that the earth is only 6000 years old is neither official or unofficial. Not sure which saints you hang around with, but most members and stake presidents I know (and I have known more than a few stake presidents and general authorities) do not believe this. Nor did my mission president of 20+ (sheesh almost 30) years ago, he was a history prof at BYU. So consider this a correction of an erroneous belief that is neither official or unofficial.

I still wonder what exotic local other than Missouri that would make the Garden of eden more acecptable?

Jeff K., on 23 April 2011 - 12:57 PM, said:

And of course how could some Native Americans be descended from some Hebrews, since the Kennewick man's DNA is related to no Indian groups, do we assume he doesn't exist? Or that he was a plant?

Nope. We should try to understand the Kennewick the best we can with the resources that we have.

Now, just try extending that charity to the gospel....

The Kennewick man is proof positive that DNA alone cannot account for the ancient people of this continent. Something to consider.

[Nathair/|\]

+Just a thought on the intersection of God and morals,

Imagine you are at switch on a railroad. On one track, there is a baby tied up. The other track is clear, as far as you can tell. There is an out of control train. The switch is set to the apparently clear track. In that scenario, almost everyone would say, "leave it alone," right? Now, imagine someone you know calls you and tell

s you to throw the switch. If you do, there is no way you can save the baby. You know this person wouldn't lie to you, or that he wouldn't have you do it without good reason. Let's say that this person is both all knowing and perfectly moral.Now do you throw the switch? After it is too late to change your mind, you find out that this person knew that if you didn't throw the switch, thousands would die.

Yours under the allegorical oaks,

Nathair /|\

PS. Sorry my example was so mundane. I am really tired.

[elguanteloko]

Why?

Harris didn't get Craig and Craig didn't get Harris.

[elguanteloko]

+Just a thought on the intersection of God and morals,

Imagine you are at switch on a railroad. On one track, there is a baby tied up. The other track is clear, as far as you can tell. There is an out of control train. The switch is set to the apparently clear track. In that scenario, almost everyone would say, "leave it alone," right? Now, imagine someone you know calls you and tell

s you to throw the switch. If you do, there is no way you can save the baby. You know this person wouldn't lie to you, or that he wouldn't have you do it without good reason. Let's say that this person is both all knowing and perfectly moral.Now do you throw the switch? After it is too late to change your mind, you find out that this person knew that if you didn't throw the switch, thousands would die.

Yours under the allegorical oaks,

Nathair /|\

PS. Sorry my example was so mundane. I am really tired.

"tell me why, FAST!" should be the proper response. You can't say we don't have enough time for God to tell us why we should move the switch.

[Nathair/|\]

"tell me why, FAST!" should be the proper response. You can't say we don't have enough time for God to tell us why we should move the switch.

That's probably fair. I'll think about it more after I get some sleep, but for now I think you are right. My point, though was that the moral thing to do with that information is different than the moral thing based on what you could know on your own. I do think, however, that such cases are rare.Exceedingly rare, as Mormon might say.

Yours under the oaks of perspective.

Beannachtaí na Cásca oraibh. Tá an Tiarna éirithe go deimhin!

[ozpoof]

"tell me why, FAST!" should be the proper response. You can't say we don't have enough time for God to tell us why we should move the switch.

You are not to question why. You are to have faith.

[ozpoof]

Now, just try extending that charity to the gospel....

The Kennewick man is proof positive that DNA alone cannot account for the ancient people of this continent. Something to consider.

Apparently the inspired church of God can't do much better either. The recent (non revelation) that changed the preamble of the Book of Mormon so that the church no longer claims it is the history of a Semitic people that are the Native Americans demonstrates that the early church had no idea who these people were.

Surely the Lord knew DNA would show that overwhelmingly the "Lamanites" are of Asian origin. Is he obscuring the truth with scientific facts yet again to eliminate biologists and geneticists from his kingdom?

[WalkerW]

Harris didn't get Craig and Craig didn't get Harris.

Fair enough.

[LeSellers]

"tell me why, FAST!" should be the proper response. You can't say we don't have enough time for God to tell us why we should move the switch.

I believe you are wrong on both counts.

The correct answer is, throw the switch.

I have been in exactly the same situation (except for the details of a railroad and a baby). As an Army officer, I did not have the "luxury" of questioning my orders, nor did I have the discretion to ignore them (General Patton's example notwithstanding).

Nathair's hypothetical situation had a moral and all-knowing person giving the order. Given that condition, which is a very different one from the real-life military situation I (and many others here) have lived, there is no question that the switch would be thrown. Questioning the order (which, although not stated explicitly) would waste just the time needed to obey it, i.e., the switch could not be thrown. It would be the certain deaths of the thousand.

Lehi

[Chris Smith]

What if the person on the other end of the line has a known history of genocidal behavior? What if the person allows hundreds of thousands of innocents to die on a daily basis? What if the person allowed his/her own son to be executed in order to satisfy some overwrought sense of justice? What if you're not even sure the person really exists, and you're not sure if you're actually in communication with him/her or if you're just imagining things?

[Jeff K.]

Apparently the inspired church of God can't do much better either. The recent (non revelation) that changed the preamble of the Book of Mormon so that the church no longer claims it is the history of a Semitic people that are the Native Americans demonstrates that the early church had no idea who these people were.

Surely the Lord knew DNA would show that overwhelmingly the "Lamanites" are of Asian origin. Is he obscuring the truth with scientific facts yet again to eliminate biologists and geneticists from his kingdom?

The revelation may indeed have shown a great people, and someone may have interpreted the vision as all people versus a merely a great people. The Lord knew, but sometimes we misinterpret what the Lord tells us.

[elguanteloko]

I believe you are wrong on both counts.

The correct answer is, throw the switch.

I have been in exactly the same situation (except for the details of a railroad and a baby). As an Army officer, I did not have the "luxury" of questioning my orders, nor did I have the discretion to ignore them (General Patton's example notwithstanding).

Are we not in a position to question? That's the point. There's not baby that is going to get killed or train coming at us so freaking fast that we just have to rely very heavily on trust. He doesn't give you the knowledge you could easily get if God wanted to. He doesn't want to give it and that's the problem. Now, please don't mention free-will because that doesn't solve anything. More knowledge doesn't imply less freedom to choose at all. You can see God and angels face to face and still reject them (i.e. fallen angels, Laman and Lemuel, Adam and Eve, Cain).

Nathair's hypothetical situation had a moral and all-knowing person giving the order.

Problem is you don't know he is moral and you don't know he is all-knowing at all. Do you know these things? How? Hint: you don't.

Given that condition, which is a very different one from the real-life military situation I (and many others here) have lived, there is no question that the switch would be thrown. Questioning the order (which, although not stated explicitly) would waste just the time needed to obey it, i.e., the switch could not be thrown. It would be the certain deaths of the thousand.

Again, the problem is that it isn't "certain". If someone who you see as being a highly immoral being tells you to switch the direction of the train, would you trust him? I wouldn't and if he turns out to be right at the end of the day I still did the moral thing based on as much knowledge as I had. It was that being's fault if the thousands die because he could have very well mentioned me what was going on (God does have time) to convince me but choose not to just to try how much I trusted him. That's kind of sick, man.

[Mordecai]

What if the person on the other end of the line has a known history of genocidal behavior?

If he or she is all knowing and perfectly moral? That would mean that he or she improved the future by engaging in such behavior and did so with good intentions and a good outcome. Hard to question the morality of someone who intentionally and knowingly does good.

What if the person allowed his/her own son to be executed in order to satisfy some overwrought sense of justice?

In that case, he or she wouldn't be perfectly moral. A perfectly moral person might allow his or her son to be executed, if they knew for a fact it was necessary for the greater good of mankind. Also, if he or she knew that son would rise again as an exalted God.

What if you're not even sure the person really exists, and you're not sure if you're actually in communication with him/her or if you're just imagining things?

That's a good point. I think that really would be a problem in this particular situation. Of course, I don't think God would put us positions to make life and death decisions on the spur of the moment, except under extremely rare circumstances.

[elguanteloko]

If he or she is all knowing and perfectly moral? That would mean that he or she improved the future by engaging in such behavior and did so with good intentions and a good outcome. Hard to question the morality of someone who intentionally and knowingly does good.

The epistemological problem, Mordecai, is that you can't go from saying he is moral in somethings (that's all you see) to saying he must be moral in ALL things ALL of the time. Also, you don't know and can't say that he is all knowing because you don't know it all.

In that case, he or she wouldn't be perfectly moral. A perfectly moral person might allow his or her son to be executed, if they knew for a fact it was necessary for the greater good of mankind. Also, if he or she knew that son would rise again as an exalted God.

Who are you to say? You don't know what being "perfectly moral" is because you don't know how perfect morality looks like. God's greater good might not be your good at all but you just go on and assume these things! Again, that God's morality agrees with what you take to be moral doesn't mean ALL of God's actions are going to be what you can think of moral. It's even possible that his "perfect morality" might seem monstrous to us... and there's plenty of evidence that that's the case.

[Nathair/|\]

The epistemological problem, Mordecai, is that you can't go from saying he is moral in somethings (that's all you see) to saying he must be moral in ALL things ALL of the time. Also, you don't know and can't say that he is all knowing because you don't know it all.

Who are you to say? You don't know what being "perfectly moral" is because you don't know how perfect morality looks like. God's greater good might not be your good at all but you just go on and assume these things! Again, that God's morality agrees with what you take to be moral doesn't mean ALL of God's actions are going to be what you can think of moral. It's even possible that his "perfect morality" might seem monstrous to us... and there's plenty of evidence that that's the case.

[Nathair/|\]

Y'all are missing my point (probably my fault for not being explicit.) And yet Ye are kind of illustrating it. In my scenario, almost everyone makes the same initial choice for the same reason. But in the second stage, only the faithful has a chance to make the least bad choice.

[Mordecai]

The epistemological problem, Mordecai, is that you can't go from saying he is moral in somethings (that's all you see) to saying he must be moral in ALL things ALL of the time. Also, you don't know and can't say that he is all knowing because you don't know it all.

It was a hypothetical question posed, that the person was all-knowing and moral. It's just hypothetical.

Who are you to say? You don't know what being "perfectly moral" is because you don't know how perfect morality looks like.

Actually, I didn't say. I said they might do so. I didn't say I knew they would. I think I know what "perfectly moral" is, in principle. We are all blessed with knowing good and evil. What's a good person? A person who wants good for himself and others and acts on that within limits based on the principles of righteousness. A perfectly moral person would be 100% consistent in their good will as well as a willingness to obey God and an openness to God's will, because they know that the only way to produce the best outcomes is with the greater power and knowledge of God. (Not that they covet God's power, but they are submissive to God as a means to produce good outcomes).

It's even possible that his "perfect morality" might seem monstrous to us... and there's plenty of evidence that that's the case.

I'm well aware of that and never disputed it.

[Rivers]

Nor does the Mormon church specifically state the earth is 6000 years old, the church as doctrine has never approached that issue (I sometimes tire of repeating myself of these basic points but so many people seem to miss it). The belief that the earth is only 6000 years old is neither official or unofficial. Not sure which saints you hang around with, but most members and stake presidents I know (and I have known more than a few stake presidents and general authorities) do not believe this. Nor did my mission president of 20+ (sheesh almost 30) years ago, he was a history prof at BYU. So consider this a correction of an erroneous belief that is neither official or unofficial.

I still wonder what exotic local other than Missouri that would make the Garden of eden more acecptable?

The idea that the Earth being 6,000 years old comes from a traditional understanding of the genealogy given in the Old Testament. It also seems to confirmed by D&C 77. I'm not saying that this is an official teaching of the church. But its something many members believe based on D&C 77 and writings by Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, and others.

The garden of Eden in Missouri sounds strange to people because the patriarch's in the Old Testament lived in Mesopotania. Of course Noah could have sailed there on the Ark, but that requires belief in a global flood (also an absurd-sounding belief).

The Garden of Eden in Mesopotania would be much more acceptable to people.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not the one saying these beliefs are absurd. I'm saying they sound absurd to many outsiders.

Now could you please clarify the point you are trying to make with the Kennewick man and how he relates to the origins of Native Americans?

[Jeff K.]

The idea that the Earth being 6,000 years old comes from a traditional understanding of the genealogy given in the Old Testament. It also seems to confirmed by D&C 77. I'm not saying that this is an official teaching of the church. But its something many members believe based on D&C 77 and writings by Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, and others.

Again, neither official nor unofficial. The fact one knows many members who hold that opinion (holding to the non LDS tradition put forward) merely reflects opinions which do not make up our belief system and doectrines. Again, it seems to me that old canard should be dropped because it holds no foundation in doctrine beyond being held as opinion. If you want to criticize a church do it for doctrinal reasons, not the reasons and interpretation of some individuals. It comes off more as a cheap shot than it does a legitimate criticism.

The garden of Eden in Missouri sounds strange to people because the patriarch's in the Old Testament lived in Mesopotania. Of course Noah could have sailed there on the Ark, but that requires belief in a global flood (also an absurd-sounding belief).

The Garden of Eden in Mesopotania would be much more acceptable to people.

Yes, so would allowing people to drink coffee or tea. But I would think most people would know there is no immediate connection between the patriarchs of the Old Testament, that being Abraham, Jacob and Isaac who ARE the patriarch and Adam who existed in a place unknown in the Old Testament.

It would be nice if we as LDS were more "stylish" in our beliefs. I have thought that myself in the past when I was younger (my view being similar "Missouri.... really?""). But style is rarely substance and popularity does not equal truth. If people want to insist on more exotic names and locals, well why not name Adam "Captain Kirk" and call the Garden of Eden "Oz". I think people who find it absurd haven't really thought upon it in a deep way.

[Rivers]

What if the person on the other end of the line has a known history of genocidal behavior? What if the person allows hundreds of thousands of innocents to die on a daily basis? What if the person allowed his/her own son to be executed in order to satisfy some overwrought sense of justice? What if you're not even sure the person really exists, and you're not sure if you're actually in communication with him/her or if you're just imagining things?

You would have to gain strong fatih in that person somehow. You would need some kind of personal confirmation that the person on the other end of the line is somebody you could trust,