Backyard Professor Rips Apart Millet And Mcconkie'S Views.

[David T]

Hi Nackhadlow,

Are you saying, or do you think, it is possible for beings, be they animal or human to live, breathe, breed without them having been imbued with a spirit to animate it? If so what gives you this idea? (Just trying to understand what you are saying and not kick up a fight)

Otherwise I think your idea is very interesting.

Sure. While still very limited, we can design robots and computer programs that make context-based logical decisions, and do problem solving. If they had the organic possibilities of reproduction, they could be programmed to find a mate, and to perform the function on it that would lead to reproduction. Our molecules and cells have combined in such a way that have certain reactions to certain environments and situations. It's very much like an (admittedly highly advanced) self-replicating computer program logic.There are instinctual survival mechanisms and imperatives to procreate that are within our very structure. I don't think, for example, that mosquitoes have eternal unique spirits that are bound for Resurrection, and yet they breathe, live, and breed. It's what that particular combination of cells that has evolved does.

We always talk about fighting against the Natural Man - well, in many cases the natural man is all that would exist without a spirit. We'd be completely owned by our urges to live, eat. breath, breed, etc. Joseph Smith as much said that if that's all we did, then congratulations, we're just as good as the animals, and no better. Apes, our closest relatives, are extremely intelligent, having highly developed brains.

My understanding is that the spirit works with and integrates its functions with the brain. The body is very much like a vehicle, a tool that one integrates with, and needs to compensate with and for. We are a duality of organic evolutionary programming, attempted to be driven by and fully united with self-existent intelligence.

Perhaps God, as a self-existent intelligence, was the first to choose to integrate with an appropriate bio-host...somewhere. What he learned from that experience was so important and groundbreaking for his development that when he adopted hosts of less-developed intelligences as his 'children' to help them progress as he had, this such experience was a key part of the plan.

Once a spirit unites with its body, then there is something to separate from. The body becomes theologically important when a spirit unites with it. The earth and all animals play a very important part in the balance of the ecosystems, or as Mufasa would say, "The Circle of Life" - because our bodies are made up as results of interacting (sometimes materially) with the earth and life on it, the lack of belief in their being driven by developed eternal intelligences should by no means make us respect or care for other life any less. Our bodies are part of and a result of that world. We would not be without the processess of nature. We truly could say that just is God is the father of our spiritual development, then Earth is the Mother of our organic makeup.

Edited December 31, 2011 by nackhadlow

[zerinus]

Sure. While still very limited, we can design robots and computer programs that make context-based logical decisions, and do problem solving. If they had the organic possibilities of reproduction, they could be programmed to find a mate, and to perform the function on it that would lead to reproduction. Our molecules and cells have combined in such a way that have certain reactions to certain environments and situations. It's very much like an (admittedly highly advanced) self-replicating computer program logic.There are instinctual survival mechanisms and imperatives to procreate that are within our very structure. I don't think, for example, that mosquitoes have eternal unique spirits that are bound for Resurrection, and yet they breathe, live, and breed. It's what that particular combination of cells that has evolved does.

We always talk about fighting against the Natural Man - well, in many cases the natural man is all that would exist without a spirit. We'd be completely owned by our urges to live, eat. breath, breed, etc. Joseph Smith as much said that if that's all we did, then congratulations, we're just as good as the animals, and no better. Apes, our closest relatives, are extremely intelligent, having highly developed brains.

My understanding is that the spirit works with and integrates its functions with the brain. The body is very much like a vehicle, a tool that one integrates with, and needs to compensate with and for. We are a duality of organic evolutionary programming, attempted to be driven by and fully united with self-existent intelligence.

Perhaps God, as a self-existent intelligence, was the first to choose to integrate with an appropriate bio-host...somewhere. What he learned from that experience was so important and groundbreaking for his development that when he adopted hosts of less-developed intelligences as his 'children' to help them progress as he had, this such experience was a key part of the plan.

Once a spirit unites with its body, then there is something to separate from. The body becomes theologically important when a spirit unites with it. The earth and all animals play a very important part in the balance of the ecosystems, or as Mufasa would say, "The Circle of Life" - because our bodies are made up as results of interacting (sometimes materially) with the earth and life on it, the lack of belief in their being driven by developed eternal intelligences should by no means make us respect or care for other life any less. Our bodies are part of and a result of that world. We would not be without the processess of nature. We truly could say that just is God is the father of our spiritual development, then Earth is the Mother of our organic makeup.

That is one step away from believing in a purely naturalistic world in which there is no "spirit" and no after-life; in which "there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime." and that "when a man was dead, that was the end thereof" (Alma 30:12-18).

Edited December 31, 2011 by zerinus

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

There's nothing wrong with a "naturalistic" world at all, and it most certainly does not deny spirits and post-mortal life. It just means that spirits are an eternally-existing, uncreated part of nature, intrinsic and necessary, and there is nothing evil about matter and the biological systems it is formed into. Since our unique scriptures in the D&C make it a point to state that all spirit is matter, we're not duty-bound to accept post-apostasy Christian theology which claims that the only true spirituality is that which transcends the material world. I'm out of rep points, but nackhadlow's last post was fantastic.

[zerinus]

There's nothing wrong with a "naturalistic" world at all, and it most certainly does not deny spirits and post-mortal life. It just means that spirits are an eternally-existing, uncreated part of nature, intrinsic and necessary, and there is nothing evil about matter and the biological systems it is formed into. Since our unique scriptures in the D&C make it a point to state that all spirit is matter, we're not duty-bound to accept post-apostasy Christian theology which claims that the only true spirituality is that which transcends the material world. I'm out of rep points, but nackhadlow's last post was fantastic.

I see all kinds of inventive spirits trying to reinvent the gospel of Jesus Christ according to their own spirits. They are welcome to it. I prefer to stick to the revelations of Jesus Christ for the acquisition of my doctrine.

[David T]

I see all kinds of inventive spirits trying to reinvent the gospel of Jesus Christ according to their own spirits. They are welcome to it. I prefer to stick to the revelations of Jesus Christ for the acquisition of my doctrine.

I believe in living revelation, and that many scientific discoveries are indeed a form of revelation. I view fighting against science as a form of fighting against God. But,YMMV.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"Reinvent" ... or "understand more fully and account for all available evidence"?

"'Mormonism' embraces all truth that is revealed and that is unrevealed, whether religious, political, scientific, or philosophical. It embraces every true science; all true philosophy. The philosophy of the heavens and the earth of the worlds that are, that were, and that are yet to come into existence, is all the Gospel that we have embraced. Every true philosopher, so far as he understands the principles of truth, has so much of the Gospel, and so far he is a Latter-day Saint, whether he knows it or not." - Brigham Young

"We should be scientific - that is, open-minded, approaching new problems without prejudice, deferring a decision until all the facts are in [...] Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the Church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. We should all be interested in academic research. We must go out on the research front and continue to explore the vast unknown. We should be in the forefront of learning in all fields, for revelation does not come only through the prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research and prayer and inspiration." - Hugh B. Brown

Edited December 31, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Senator]

"Reinvent" ... or "understand more fully and account for all available evidence"?

"'Mormonism' embraces all truth that is revealed and that is unrevealed, whether religious, political, scientific, or philosophical. It embraces every true science; all true philosophy. The philosophy of the heavens and the earth of the worlds that are, that were, and that are yet to come into existence, is all the Gospel that we have embraced. Every true philosopher, so far as he understands the principles of truth, has so much of the Gospel, and so far he is a Latter-day Saint, whether he knows it or not." - Brigham Young

"We should be scientific - that is, open-minded, approaching new problems without prejudice, deferring a decision until all the facts are in [...] Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the Church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. We should all be interested in academic research. We must go out on the research front and continue to explore the vast unknown. We should be in the forefront of learning in all fields, for revelation does not come only through the prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research and prayer and inspiration." - Hugh B. Brown

JOrbe-Smith,

I love that quote from Hugh B. Brown! Can you give me a reference?

Edited December 31, 2011 by Senator

[David T]

Parely Pratt believed and advocated that consideration of advances in scriptural and scientific understanding was a healthy and essential part of a growing, living theology - as long as it is placed in a context of what we know (not just think we know) through the latest oracular revelations. New oracular revelations often come and are ratified by taking into prayerful and studious consideration of everything else. I love, and completely agree with that concept, and try to apply it.

Edited December 31, 2011 by nackhadlow

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Senator:

It's part of Brown's (utterly fantastic) "Final Testimony", which is Chapter nine of his memoir, "An Abundant Life."

The whole essay can be read here.

[Smith]

Sure. While still very limited, we can design robots and computer programs that make context-based logical decisions, and do problem solving. If they had the organic possibilities of reproduction, they could be programmed to find a mate, and to perform the function on it that would lead to reproduction. Our molecules and cells have ....

.....We truly could say that just is God is the father of our spiritual development, then Earth is the Mother of our organic makeup.

Thanks for the deeper explanation, I appreciate it. It is a lot to think about and I think something quite possible, but, I would say given our current lack of clear knowledge on this subject, its a lot of speculation. For me however I dont make my mind up yet one way or another and view the unfolding world of knowledge very exciting. I do however think that our main focus ought to be on preaching nothing but repentance, still, these sorts of discussions help to put that into context.

I get the impression that Zerinus dismisses your ideas out of hand and I think I understand why. Such ideas surely raise a lot more questions to which the prophets or scriptures do not speak (because I think they focus more on the topic of Christ, repentance etc) so devising answers could become a dangerous thing that could lead away from faith or repentance. A more conservative approach, safety first is his stance I think, patient maybe, waiting for the day in which all will be revealed. I wonder, given how we understand God to not do for us that which we can do for ourselves, how much of that revealing will be our own work at finding things out?

[Deborah]

Mormons of all people should embrace the discoveries of science. Not everything we think we know is true. The Lord has yet to explain the power and method of creation and I think it may be something we can't even comprehend at this time. Science may give us steps to understanding but as we know science is always changing too. We would be wise to keep our minds and hearts open to new knowledge whatever its source and understand that things we can't yet reconcile will one day be very clear.

[zerinus]

I believe in living revelation, and that many scientific discoveries are indeed a form of revelation. I view fighting against science as a form of fighting against God. But,YMMV.

Gospel doctrine, or the doctrine of the Church, is obtained by the kind of revelation that comes through a prophet, not the kind that comes from a scientist. If scientists could play the role of prophets, God would have restored His gospel though a scientist, not through a prophet.

[zerinus]

"Reinvent" ... or "understand more fully and account for all available evidence"?

"'Mormonism' embraces all truth that is revealed and that is unrevealed, whether religious, political, scientific, or philosophical. It embraces every true science; all true philosophy. The philosophy of the heavens and the earth of the worlds that are, that were, and that are yet to come into existence, is all the Gospel that we have embraced. Every true philosopher, so far as he understands the principles of truth, has so much of the Gospel, and so far he is a Latter-day Saint, whether he knows it or not." - Brigham Young

"We should be scientific - that is, open-minded, approaching new problems without prejudice, deferring a decision until all the facts are in [...] Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the Church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. We should all be interested in academic research. We must go out on the research front and continue to explore the vast unknown. We should be in the forefront of learning in all fields, for revelation does not come only through the prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research and prayer and inspiration." - Hugh B. Brown

That is all well and good; but there is also such a thing as false doctrine, which we are advised to guard against:

D&C 46:

7 But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils.

8 Wherefore, beware lest ye are deceived; and that ye may not be deceived seek ye earnestly the best gifts, always remembering for what they are given;

Edited December 31, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Mormons of all people should embrace the discoveries of science. Not everything we think we know is true. The Lord has yet to explain the power and method of creation and I think it may be something we can't even comprehend at this time. Science may give us steps to understanding but as we know science is always changing too. We would be wise to keep our minds and hearts open to new knowledge whatever its source and understand that things we can't yet reconcile will one day be very clear.

Being open-minded about scientific discoveries is one thing, and smugly accepting a scientific theory just because it bears the title of "science," when it evidently contradicts revealed doctrine, is another. It is sad when it appears that some people can't tell the difference between the two.

[Freedom]

Being open-minded about scientific discoveries is one thing, and smugly accepting a scientific theory just because it bears the title of "science," when it evidently contradicts revealed doctrine, is another. It is sad when it appears that some people can't tell the difference between the two.

You have not established how the scientific theory in question contradicts revealed doctrine.

[zerinus]

You have not established how the scientific theory in question contradicts revealed doctrine.

I think that I have in posts #107, #113, and #123.

[mfbukowski]

Hi mfbukowski,

The way I understand you is as an extension of what Nackhadlow was saying before this quoted post of yours above, in that there were humans before Adam but they didnt have a spirit occupying them as Adam had, is this correct?

I havent heard of such a thing before and I find it hard to understand how a human could live without a spirit. But still a very interesting post and point of view, thanks for sharing!

I enjoy Nackhadlow's posts, but he has his opinions and I have mine, and we often agree but sometimes not. I think this is one of the times we don't agree, but often the words just get in the way so it's hard to tell.

My view is that "spirit" imbues all matter, that spirit and matter are inseparable, so that in a sense even chairs and tables have "spirit" to some degree.

I like the view that God can command the elements and the elements "obey", just as the savior commanded the storm and the elements obeyed. My view is that they "obey" because God upholds the objective world we all see through his knowing of the world. It is a constructivist view- knowledge actually creates reality; we create our personal subjective "realities" and God creates the reality we all see together.

Again as a linguistic constructivist, I think it makes no sense to speak of what happened "before" language any more than it makes sense to speak of what happened "before" eternity or for that matter "before" the big bang- simply because in a real sense our minds cannot comprehend such things.

Yet of course in a scientific context we speak about what happened "before" language, but we must understand that those "facts" are linguistic projections and models and myths and cannot capture "reality" any more than we can speak about light being neither a wave nor a particle- neither pictures are "correct"; so also all we speak about is never totally "correct" because all we speak WITH are linguistic symbols.

So were there "people before" we had the idea of "people" or "before"?

Certainly we speak that way, and understand the idea, but we must realize it is all a matter of definitions. So in some sense the question itself is so ambiguous that it becomes senseless unless the question has a context.

Clearly, we say there were dinosaurs "before" there were people, but in that case we are speaking in a scientific context; we have evidence for evolution, there are bones in the ground which we take for "evidence" of a Mythology of Evolution, but we must understand that it may be the best mythology we have scientifically at the moment, but that it IS a myth, just as everything we know scientifically or otherwise is a myth. If you read Kuhn on the philosophy of science- he puts it differently, but my view agrees very much with his.

So if you want to say "there were people before Adam" I honestly think it is a misleading myth you are perpetuating. It requires as much context and is just as misleading a myth as the statement "there were no people before Adam"

Neither statement is exactly right, nor is either exactly wrong. In each case, it requires definition, thought, and a context for the way we are seeing and speaking about these issues, no single statement outside of a context is "true".

I see Adam as the first human who had language and named things, thereby defining reality. This also reflects on the Adam/God theory- because it is not clear in the scriptures if it is God who is giving Adam the names or if Adam himself is giving the names.

And again, I think you can take these things as literally history- a myth, or symbolically and allegorically, also a myth. Once you see that all language is essentially myth, and that our experiences individually and collectively is all we can speak about with no "reality" "Beyond" what our senses AND our intuitions tell us, suddenly the world becomes a very different place, where revelation and science and poetry and music all become the same sorts of things- human expressions in a human universe all organized and upheld by a human God.

In short, that is why I am a Mormon.

Just as spirit and matter are one, the three persons of the Godhead are one, science and revelation are one, the only place there are distinctions are in the man-made world of language which is the most valuable tool we have, but yet it is ultimately just a tool which sometimes fits the purpose and sometimes does not.

The problem is that we let it get in the way much too often.

Edited December 31, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

You have not established how the scientific theory in question contradicts revealed doctrine.

That's because it can't be done- it doesn't contradict it.

[mfbukowski]

"Reinvent" ... or "understand more fully and account for all available evidence"?

"'Mormonism' embraces all truth that is revealed and that is unrevealed, whether religious, political, scientific, or philosophical. It embraces every true science; all true philosophy. The philosophy of the heavens and the earth of the worlds that are, that were, and that are yet to come into existence, is all the Gospel that we have embraced. Every true philosopher, so far as he understands the principles of truth, has so much of the Gospel, and so far he is a Latter-day Saint, whether he knows it or not." - Brigham Young

"We should be scientific - that is, open-minded, approaching new problems without prejudice, deferring a decision until all the facts are in [...] Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the Church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. We should all be interested in academic research. We must go out on the research front and continue to explore the vast unknown. We should be in the forefront of learning in all fields, for revelation does not come only through the prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research and prayer and inspiration." - Hugh B. Brown

Now see how you are?

There you go telling the truth again! What's 'a matter with you anyway?

[Deborah]

Being open-minded about scientific discoveries is one thing, and smugly accepting a scientific theory just because it bears the title of "science," when it evidently contradicts revealed doctrine, is another. It is sad when it appears that some people can't tell the difference between the two.

"Evidently"? Since there is no doctrine given on the Creation except that it is part of God's plan which also included the Fall and Atonement, not sure how it can contradict anything. The details have been deliberately omitted. I don't think any one is "smugly" accepting scientific theories but rather discussing them as possible answers to how it all took place.

[Calm]

It is sad when it appears that some people can't tell the difference between the two.

You are very right, but it is as likely to be the ones condemning that can't tell as the ones accepting.

[zerinus]

"Evidently"? . . .

Yes, of course. As far as the issue in question is concerned, I think that that has been adequately explained.

[zerinus]

You are very right, but it is as likely to be the ones condemning that can't tell as the ones accepting.

???????

[cinepro]

Gospel doctrine, or the doctrine of the Church, is obtained by the kind of revelation that comes through a prophet, not the kind that comes from a scientist. If scientists could play the role of prophets, God would have restored His gospel though a scientist, not through a prophet.

Well, there's this:

[zerinus]

Well, there's this:

LOL! That is a good one. It had to be you to come up with that.

I would say that Joseph Smith was a scientist in the same way that I am a prophet.