A Theory Of Lds Evolution (Add Yours Here)

[thesometimesaint]

In case you don't realize it, this counsel was given to someone who was attempting to miraculously translate the plates of the Book of Mormon by the power of the Spirit, something strictly earthbound scientists would say is a load of superstitious nonsense.

 

I didn't miss it at all. It was in response to your claim that all one has to do is ask God. .

[teddyaware]

Here you are using one of the most scientifically sophisticated instruments ever developed by man, and you have to ask that question. I don't go to science to save my spirit. That will be there regardless of if I have a physical body or not. But if I want a drink of water science is a pretty good place to start. Just as if I want with communicate to you a good way to do it is through this man made device called a computer using a man made system called the internet.

 

Where have I ever declaimed the spiritual? I just have no way to put it into science.

 

Why are you dissing science? Would you prefer to live in the European Dark Ages?

I'm not at all "dissing science." As an inventor with several inventions and one US patent, and several more patents possibly on the way, I love science. But I haven't elevated science to some sort of an idol with seemingly more persuasive power and import than the scriptures and the prophets. If I had to make a choice over one or the other, I would pick God, the prophets and the scriptures without even a moment's hesitation. How about you? If you too had to chose between focusing on science or on the Gospel, which one would you choose?

Edited February 27, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

I didn't miss it at all. It was in response to your claim that all one has to do is ask God. .

You misunderstand. I believe it's ultimately more profitable for one to focus on the laws of the Celestial Gospel -- including diligent personal study, searching and pondering -- than on earthbound telestial sciences that cannot bring redemption, salvation or the establishment of Zion.

 

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not at all "dissing science." As an inventor with several inventions and one US patent, and several more patents possibly on the way, I love science. But I haven't elevated science to some sort of an idol with seemingly more persuasive power and import than the scriptures and the prophets. If I had to make a choice over one or the other, I would pick the God, the prophets and the scriptures without even a moment's hesitation. How about you? If you too had to chose between focusing on science or the or on the Gospel, which one would you choose?

 

Science is no idol to me either. But I am a very fallible person, and often get things wrong, even things about God. I have no expectation that other people, including prophets, are any less fallible than I am. So I leave science to the things science can answer, and let God take care of the rest.

 

Why should I have to choose in your false dichotomy? I am perfectly content to let God use Evolution in his Creation of us and our world/universe.

[Gray]

Or how about those who reject the scriptural testimonies of the incomparable miraculous power of God (like the oft attested to global flood) have taken an step or two or three into the realm of unbelief?

20 And the reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of men is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should trust.

21 Behold, I say unto you that whoso believeth in Christ, doubting nothing, whatsoever he shall ask the Father in the name of Christ it shall be granted him; and this promise is unto all, even unto the ends of the earth. (Mormon 9)

 

 

They haven't taken a step into unbelief. Maybe they've taken a few steps away from blind faith, but that kind of faith isn't healthy, IMO

[thesometimesaint]

You misunderstand. I believe it's ultimately more profitable for one to focus on the laws of the Celestial Gospel -- including diligent personal study, searching and pondering -- than on earthbound telestial sciences that cannot bring redemption, salvation or the establishment of Zion.

 

 

I don't know about ultimately profitable as far as this world is concerned. I know that if I am thirsty for water the best way to get it on this planet is by using science. If I want to cure a disease the best way on this planet is to use science. If I want to observe the working of an atom on this planet the best way is to use science. If I want to leave this planet, and still remain mortal, the best way is by using science. That in no way precludes my belief in God or in his omnipotent abilities to make me like him.

[Bikeemikey]

I'm not at all "dissing science." As an inventor with several inventions and one US patent, and several more patents possibly on the way, I love science. But I haven't elevated science to some sort of an idol with seemingly more persuasive power and import than the scriptures and the prophets. If I had to make a choice over one or the other, I would pick God, the prophets and the scriptures without even a moment's hesitation. How about you? If you too had to chose between focusing on science or the or on the Gospel, which one would you choose?

Ok real world scenario for you then:

If you had just been shot in a severe fashion and were likely to die without intervention and can do either or, but not both what would you do... Accept immediate medical aid from the best trauma surgeon in the USA or have a blessing?

Edited February 27, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[teddyaware]

Ok real world scenario for you then:

If you had just been shot in a severe fashion and were likely to die without intervention and can do either or, but not both what would you do... Accept immediate medical aid from the best trauma surgeon in the USA or have a blessing?

I would have answered this post 14 hours ago, but a moderator allows me only a limited number of posts per day (this situation has been going on for about a month now) and I used up my last allotted post just before you posted the above. I won't be able to respond to you again till 4:28 PM because I'm allowed only one post (this one) till then.

But to answer your question: I consider the scenario and question you present to be a sort of "deny your testimony or you die" proposition; the same form of entrapment about sacred things that comes right out of the playbook of the wicked detractors who attempted to stump and discredit the Lord. I also consider the question to be a form of insult to what I hold most precious and dear. I know it's unlikely you have similar motivations as the Scribes and Pharisees, but this is how I honestly view this question. 

 

In the real world I would take whatever of the two choices is available or both. And in the real world, the only way I would be faced with a cruel choice such as this would be at the hand of some twisted, diabolical mind who held me prisoner while forcing me to make a decision between what I love most and what I love less. In this case I would chose the priesthood blessing, while exercising great faith, rather than give my devilish tormenter the gloating, triumphant satisfaction of seeing me denying my testimony, according to his design, and turn aside from my first love.

 

Edited February 27, 2014 by teddyaware

[Gray]

I think the answer is that most of us would choose medical intervention first.  

 

I do have a problem with the philosophy that it is somehow wicked or faithless to try to test religious claims rationally. If we have respect for truth, it behooves us to use all the tools we have to confirm truth. If something that we had accepted on faith turns out not to be true, we ought not to continue blindly believing. We should have as much respect for truth as God must have, especially if we aspire to godhood. 

 

I personally don't believe in miraculous healings or literal angelic visitations. That does not mean, however, that I have abandoned faith in God. I observe the way the world seems to work, and I come to the most reasonable conclusion available to me. 

 

In my opinion, religion has been overburdened with thoughts and practices that are what I would call superstitious, like barnacles clinging to a boat. We'll get on better if we can keep our spirituality but lose the superstition. We westerners have read the stories in the scriptures and have taken them literally, often at the expense of the real message behind those stories. I do not believe that most of them were ever intended to be literal retellings of history. They are vehicles for moral teachings. 

Edited February 27, 2014 by Gray

[MiserereNobis]

Why are you dissing science? Would you prefer to live in the European Dark Ages?

 

I'm not saying you meant it this way, but as a Catholic who loves the Middle Ages, I want to point out that the Dark Ages are technically the time between the fall of the Roman Empire (circa 400) to the rise of the Holy Roman Empire (800).  The enlightenment thinkers falsely labeled the Middle Ages, especially the High Middle Age, as the Dark Age as an insult, when in fact the Middle Ages so a tremendous outpouring of culture, especially religious in nature.

 

The irony is that if it weren't for the intellectualism of the High Middle Ages, the modern period would not have come about.

 

1300 was a great year to live

[MiserereNobis]

 If you too had to chose between focusing on science or on the Gospel, which one would you choose?

 

False dichotomy.  All truth comes from God, scientific or otherwise.  The Good, the True, and the Beautiful all lead us towards God.  Science, and other fields of knowledge, contain ample goodness, truth, and beauty.

[thesometimesaint]

I personally don't believe in miraculous healings or literal angelic visitations. That does not mean, however, that I have abandoned faith in God. I observe the way the world seems to work, and I come to the most reasonable conclusion available to me. 

 

 

 

Doesn't that belief present problems for JS?

[MiserereNobis]

I do have a problem with the philosophy that it is somehow wicked or faithless to try to test religious claims rationally.

 

It is a tenet in Catholicism that belief in God is rational and that reason (and the other mental faculties) will lead one to believe in God.

 

From the Catechism:

35 Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man, and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.(so) the proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not saying you meant it this way, but as a Catholic who loves the Middle Ages, I want to point out that the Dark Ages are technically the time between the fall of the Roman Empire (circa 400) to the rise of the Holy Roman Empire (800).  The enlightenment thinkers falsely labeled the Middle Ages, especially the High Middle Age, as the Dark Age as an insult, when in fact the Middle Ages so a tremendous outpouring of culture, especially religious in nature.

 

The irony is that if it weren't for the intellectualism of the High Middle Ages, the modern period would not have come about.

 

1300 was a great year to live

 

I'm not using it as a insult to the Catholic church. They did maintain the spark of civilization as best they could. But as a time collapse into a Feudal State, social unrest, and massive death from the Bubonic Plague.

 

I have no desire to live in any time before my own, and even that is a near thing. But if I HAD to choose a time before the 20th Century. MAYBE I could adapt to a late 19th Century upper class American or English gentleman.

[thesometimesaint]

It is a tenet in Catholicism that belief in God is rational and that reason (and the other mental faculties) will lead one to believe in God.

 

From the Catechism:

 

I think religion is rational, but has lead some to some very irrational actions. IE; The snake handler that just died.

Edited February 27, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Gray]

Doesn't that belief present problems for JS?

 

Not really for me. Many people have had religious visions over the years. Does it matter if they were visions or if they happened in the physical world? I'm not sure it does. I think the point is always the spiritual message, that we all access in our hearts in minds, that manifests in different ways.

[thesometimesaint]

Not really for me. Many people have had religious visions over the years. Does it matter if they were visions or if they happened in the physical world? I'm not sure it does. I think the point is always the spiritual message, that we all access in our hearts in minds, that manifests in different ways.

 

JS claimed to have a personal visitation from God, and other angels. That God is as tangible as you, I, and Resurrected beings. To have translated a book about peoples interactions with God.Those are the Truth Claims of the LDS.  I don't see where that would help your claims to the nonphysical God, angels, and the Lehites.

 

I agree that the most important part is the spiritual meanings behind those events. I just believe they actually occurred with real tangible individuals.

[Gray]

JS claimed to have a personal visitation from God, and other angels. That God is as tangible as you, I, and Resurrected beings. To have translated a book about peoples interactions with God.Those are the Truth Claims of the LDS.  I don't see where that would help your claims to the nonphysical God, angels, and the Lehites.

 

I agree that the most important part is the spiritual meanings behind those events. I just believe they actually occurred with real tangible individuals.

 

Human beings are more than capable of seeing things that aren't there, or remembering things that never happened really. That doesn't mean that such visions have no value.

 

How would Joseph have certified that he had really seen physical beings? I don't think he touched them. And early Church theology held that God the Father had no physical body, so I don't think he concluded early on from that experience what we now conclude for him. 

[thesometimesaint]

Human beings are more than capable of seeing things that aren't there, or remembering things that never happened really. That doesn't mean that such visions have no value.

 

How would Joseph have certified that he had really seen physical beings? I don't think he touched them. And early Church theology held that God the Father had no physical body, so I don't think he concluded early on from that experience what we now conclude for him. 

 

I'm not seeing that as the Resurrected Jesus told Thomas to thrust his hands into his side and feeling the wounds in his hands.

[emarkp]

Oh, I get you... If we sin again after the 490th time the Lord has forgiven us, we automatically become sons of perdition.

33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;

34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—

This is a great insight! But now you've got me worried because you can bet I'm over that 490 limit and it's already too late for me! How about you? Do you think you're already over the 490 limit as well? I would guess there's a pretty good chance I might be seeing you on that downward elevator...

 

 

I have to assume you're intentionally ignoring my point, but I'll try it again in steps:

1. You require a literal, modern-language/culture interpretation of scripture
2. Jesus says to forgive 7 x 70 times.
3. You forgive less or more than 490
4. By your literal interpretation of scripture, you are violating Jesus' commandment

However, you clearly aren't saying 490 times is the precise number of times to forgive, which means you don't actually subscribe to a literal interpretation, which means that your beliefs are inconsistent.

 

Now that it's clear, we can dismiss the rest of your commentary.

[Gray]

I'm not seeing that as the Resurrected Jesus told Thomas to thrust his hands into his side and feeling the wounds in his hands.

 

Whether or not that actually happened is anyone's guess, but again, how would you differentiate that experience from a visionary one, if you were prone to such experiences? 

[thesometimesaint]

Whether or not that actually happened is anyone's guess, but again, how would you differentiate that experience from a visionary one, if you were prone to such experiences? 

 

That is the Truth Claim that all of Christianity is based on. Moreover if JS was making it all up. Where does that leave us?

[The Nehor]

It is a tenet in Catholicism that belief in God is rational and that reason (and the other mental faculties) will lead one to believe in God.

 :

So Catholics consider me to be irrational in some level?

To be fair they are right.

[MiserereNobis]

So Catholics consider me to be irrational in some level?

To be fair they are right.

 

Heck, we are all irrational in some level.

 

You just more so than others

[teddyaware]

Delet6ed

Edited February 28, 2014 by teddyaware