A Scientific Argument Why The Problem of "Immodesty" Will Never Be Fixed

[Exiled]

10 minutes ago, Eek! said:

I'm no longer LDS (nor part of any group) so haven't put any time and energy into figuring out where the Book of Mormon came from.   I think it contains some great teachings, whatever its origins might be. 

Ok. I guess I am in the same area as where you are as far as the bofm teachings. I agree there are some reasonable teachings in the book. However, it looks like historicity is highly improbable.

[Bernard Gui]

56 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think it indicates the good horse sense of McKay in being able to separate the occasion from a narrow and superficial judgment.  After all, women wear bathing suits to pool and beach, and no one complains about modesty in that context.  So also in a normal parade on July 24.  Such costumes may not be appropriate at Church or Temple, but they are considered normal in other contexts.  The story would be characteristic of McKay, who did not often go in for superficial nonsense.

Even if the tale is merely apocryphal, it fits the same pattern we get in the tale of the two Buddhist monks who came to a river and found a young women there wanting to cross, but afraid she might drown.  One monk picked her up and carried her across, then he and his companion continued on their way.  Much later that day, one monk said to the other:  "I can't believe that you carried her across.  You know that is forbidden by your vows."  His companion replied.  "I put her down on the other side.  You are still carrying her."  Like Jesus, Pres McKay had deeper and more profound values than some of his companions.  That is the lesson.

Perhaps. One of his regular companions was Spencer Kimball. It’s interesting that the rest of the marching band was in full body-covering uniform, but that’s a matter for another discussion.

I like to change that story to be about two Mormon missionaries. Works well.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Eek!]

15 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Ok. I guess I am in the same area as where you are as far as the bofm teachings. I agree there are some reasonable teachings in the book. However, it looks like historicity is highly improbable.

I agree that a North and South American historicity seems improbable, but recall reading an article about a Malaysian(iirc) geography that seemed to correspond fairly well.  

Imo it's too bad the Bible doesn't have anything like Alma Chapter 32.  I think something like that would have done Christianity a lot of good. 

Edited July 2, 2018 by Eek!

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, Eek! said:

I agree that a North American historicity seems improbable, but recall reading an article about a Malaysian(iirc) geography that seemed to correspond fairly well.  

Imo it's too bad the Bible doesn't have anything like Alma Chapter 32.  I think something like that would have done Christianity a lot of good. 

Maybe I am missing something but Alma 32 seems to simply be a salesman's pitch to try out the product and see if it works.  Also, it seems to be subject to the vagaries of the group.  What is "good" and what "enlarge the soul" is defined by the group and so could be used to sell just about anything from "the secret" to magic bracelets to any religion. 

[Eek!]

47 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Maybe I am missing something but Alma 32 seems to simply be a salesman's pitch to try out the product and see if it works.  Also, it seems to be subject to the vagaries of the group.  What is "good" and what "enlarge the soul" is defined by the group and so could be used to sell just about anything from "the secret" to magic bracelets to any religion. 

Imo Alma 32 is quite reasonable, in that it tells you to make your own best evaluation of new teachings by taking a test drive, rather than simply trusting an appeal to authority (such as "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it."). 

If you don't like the words "good" and "enlarge the soul", then substitute your own terminology for what you would look for in evaluating a new concept.  The process described is what matters, not the specific wording.  The process is a reasonable approximation of the scientific method:  Conduct the experiment under conditions that give it a fair chance of success, and observe the results.

For example, consider the quote in my signature line.  If you wished to evaluate whether it has any merit, giving it a fair chance via a test-drive would be a rational approach. 

Edited July 2, 2018 by Eek!

[Exiled]

19 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Imo Alma 32 is quite reasonable, in that it tells you to make your own best evaluation of new teachings by taking a test drive, rather than simply trusting an appeal to authority (such as "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it."). 

If you don't like the words "good" and "enlarge the soul", then substitute your own terminology for what you would look for in evaluating a new concept.  The process described is what matters, not the specific wording.  The process is a reasonable approximation of the scientific method:  Conduct the experiment under conditions that give it a fair chance of success, and observe the results.

For example, consider the quote in my signature line.  If you wished to evaluate whether it has any merit, giving it a fair chance via a test-drive would be a rational approach. 

I get it and I agree that sometimes one just needs to try something in order to properly evaluate its merits.  It just doesn't seem that remarkable to ask a potential convert to try out the new religious program, whatever that is, and see what the results are.  If one could see the past properly, my guess is that sales people have been using this teaching since products for sale were invented.

[Eek!]

47 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I get it and I agree that sometimes one just needs to try something in order to properly evaluate its merits.  It just doesn't seem that remarkable to ask a potential convert to try out the new religious program, whatever that is, and see what the results are.  If one could see the past properly, my guess is that sales people have been using this teaching since products for sale were invented.

it sounds like this is something you've put a lot of thought into.  Do you have a better idea? 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

I get it and I agree that sometimes one just needs to try something in order to properly evaluate its merits.  It just doesn't seem that remarkable to ask a potential convert to try out the new religious program, whatever that is, and see what the results are.  If one could see the past properly, my guess is that sales people have been using this teaching since products for sale were invented.

Is there something inherently wrong or deceitful about that approach in sales?  I find it to be the most honest and trustworthy approach out there - "don't take my word for it, try it yourself."  There are no gimmicks or fine print in Alma 32, no high pressure sales, simply an invitation.  

Experiment and observe the results...  

It works in more then sales - that is the foundation of science. 

Edited July 2, 2018 by pogi

[Exiled]

15 minutes ago, Eek! said:

it sounds like this is something you've put a lot of thought into.  Do you have a better idea? 

When I was on my mission, I used the "why not try it out" sales pitch all the time with potential converts and still use it today.  I think "why not try it out?" is an effective sales practice and a pretty good idea, so, I wouldn't change it.  I just don't think it is something remarkable or miraculous or even inspired.  Some here use this chapter as something divinely inspired, but, it just seems like they are over-selling the sales technique.  I think this idea of trying something out is pretty obvious and probably has been around since man has been around.  I can envision a cave-man telling his buddy of a new hunting technique and asking his buddy to "try it out" to see if the buddy liked it and found it useful.  It still is a good idea that sales people practice every day.

[Exiled]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is there something inherently wrong or deceitful about that approach in sales?  I find it to be the most honest and trustworthy approach out there - "don't take my word for it, try it yourself."  There are no gimmicks or fine print in Alma 32, no high pressure sales, simply an invitation.  

Experiment and observe the results...  

It works in more then sales - that is the foundation of science. 

No, there is nothing wrong with it.  It is an obvious process everyone does.  I think one tries something out and then evaluates it regardless of whether or not missionaries specifically use the sales technique or not but there is certainly nothing wrong with asking someone to try out anything, within reason of course.

My objection is trying to make Alma 32 into something it is not.

[cinepro]

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is there something inherently wrong or deceitful about that approach in sales?  I find it to be the most honest and trustworthy approach out there - "don't take my word for it, try it yourself."  There are no gimmicks or fine print in Alma 32, no high pressure sales, simply an invitation.  

Experiment and observe the results...  

It works in more then sales - that is the foundation of science. 

It's not inherently wrong or deceitful, and in most contexts, it can work quite well.   But it is probably most useful for evaluations where there is a defined and objective result. 

"You have a stain on your white shirt.  Use this soap, and it will get the stain out."

But for situations that are vague and subjective, the "try it out approach" can be very misleading.  Obviously, the placebo effect is a concern.

"Take this pill.  It will make you feel happier and more optimistic."

And just trying something out won't tell you everything you need to know about the product.  Sure, that soap might have gotten the stain out, but when you read that the soap uses asbestos, would that change your opinion of it?  What if there are other soaps that cost half as much but do the same thing?  What if the soap turns fabrics black after a month or two?

Likewise, there may be converts to the Church that feel good about The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, but don't have all the information needed to fully judge what they are getting into.  Trying it out could be one piece of data for making a decision, but it probably shouldn't be the only one (or even the most important one).

And "trying it out" is not the "foundation of science."  "Testing with an experiment" is only one step of the scientific process.  The other steps are just as important.

Edited July 2, 2018 by cinepro

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, Exiled said:

No, there is nothing wrong with it.  It is an obvious process everyone does.  I think one tries something out and then evaluates it regardless of whether or not missionaries specifically use the sales technique or not but there is certainly nothing wrong with asking someone to try out anything, within reason of course.

My objection is trying to make Alma 32 into something it is not.

Perhaps you are making it into something more than it claims to be?

Or, are you suggesting that the "fruit" is not really evidence of a good seed?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Perhaps. One of his regular companions was Spencer Kimball. It’s interesting that the rest of the marching band was in full body-covering uniform, but that’s a matter for another discussion.

I like to change that story to be about two Mormon missionaries. Works well.

Given the time period the rest of the band was likely male and even today females and males band members wear the same band uniform, right?  The girl out front twirling the baton was often the only one with a unique costume in my memory of parades in the 60s. 

[Exiled]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Perhaps you are making it into something more than it claims to be?

Or, are you suggesting that the "fruit" is not really evidence of a good seed?

By claiming that some here oversell alma 32 as some big inspirational concept, I am somehow making it into something more than it claims to be? I say it is a common sales technique that probably existed since the dawn of man and that there isn't anything special or inspired about telling someone to try something.

[Calm]

For those who are less fond of the try it out approach for spiritual questions, what approach would you suggest?

[cinepro]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

For those who are less fond of the try it out approach for spiritual questions, what approach would you suggest?

Try it out, but also ask lots of questions.  

 

On my mission, we had a saying.  "Trust in God, but always lock your bike."  When searching for religions truth, I think it's fair to advise "Trust in God, but always use your brain."

Edited July 2, 2018 by cinepro

[Eek!]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

By claiming that some here oversell alma 32 as some big inspirational concept, I am somehow making it into something more than it claims to be? I say it is a common sales technique that probably existed since the dawn of man and that there isn't anything special or inspired about telling someone to try something.

I'm the one who brought up Alma 32.  Do you think I oversold it?  Here's what I said:

"Imo it's too bad the Bible doesn't have anything like Alma Chapter 32.  I think something like that would have done Christianity a lot of good."

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, Exiled said:

By claiming that some here oversell alma 32 as some big inspirational concept, I am somehow making it into something more than it claims to be? I say it is a common sales technique that probably existed since the dawn of man and that there isn't anything special or inspired about telling someone to try something.

You are not considering Alma 32 in the context of the rest of Christianity.  Eek commented that this teaching would be very beneficial to the rest of Christianity, I completely agree. This IS a big concept, relatively speaking, to not just believe something because the Bible says it is true - sola scriptura. The idea that we can have spiritual confirmations about spiritual concepts, and thus have spiritual self-reliance without relying on authority only is HUGE! 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Try it out, but also ask lots of questions.  

Yep.

Alma 32 + James 1:5

 

 

 

[Ahab]

On ‎7‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 9:21 AM, cinepro said:

This study examined what may be a common psychological trait, and it made me think of how it might happen both in the Church, and among critics and exmormons:

 

The obvious application in the Church would be that as people get more and more modest, the definition of "modesty" changes so more and more things are considered "immodest" (hence, showing shoulders is now "immodest").  And more broadly, if it is our belief that the world is "wicked" or "fallen", then our definition of what "wicked" and "fallen" is would change as the world gets better and better.

But this would also apply to critics and exmormons.  As the Church changes and improves on certain "moral" issues, there would be a tendency to continue to redefine these issues so that the the improvement isn't acknowledged.

 

Do you know what else will never be fixed?  The fact that all of us disagree about a lot of things.  All kinds of things.  Little things and big things.

We will never get to a point when all of us agree about everything, and I think it will be quite a while yet before we agree much about anything.

Not that this needs to be fixed.  There must needs be an opposition in all things.  It's part of the program.  Part of the growing and going from one degree of intelligence to another.

If we all started off equally intelligent, and all at the highest degree of intelligence, it would be kinda boring, I think, actually.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

It's not inherently wrong or deceitful, and in most contexts, it can work quite well.   But it is probably most useful for evaluations where there is a defined and objective result. 

"You have a stain on your white shirt.  Use this soap, and it will get the stain out."

But for situations that are vague and subjective, the "try it out approach" can be very misleading.  Obviously, the placebo effect is a concern.

"Take this pill.  It will make you feel happier and more optimistic."

And just trying something out won't tell you everything you need to know about the product.  Sure, that soap might have gotten the stain out, but when you read that the soap uses asbestos, would that change your opinion of it?  What if there are other soaps that cost half as much but do the same thing?  What if the soap turns fabrics black after a month or two?

Likewise, there may be converts to the Church that feel good about The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, but don't have all the information needed to fully judge what they are getting into.  Trying it out could be one piece of data for making a decision, but it probably shouldn't be the only one (or even the most important one).

And "trying it out" is not the "foundation of science."  "Testing with an experiment" is only one step of the scientific process.  The other steps are just as important.

I agree with you if we were talking about objective matters.  Spirituality, on the other hand, is entirely subjective.  God cannot be known objectively, neither can his words (seeds).  There is no objective measure for the spirit of the Lord. 

Edited July 2, 2018 by pogi

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree with you if we were talking about objective matters.  Spirituality, on the other hand, is entirely subjective.  God cannot be known objectively, neither can his words (seeds).  There is no objective measure for the spirit of the Lord. 

Not sure what you mean, or whether we agree or disagree.

I would say the objective measure for the spirit of the Lord is what the spirit of the Lord actually is.  What that means, actually.

Some of us, if not most of us, or even all of us, can see only some of what the spirit of the Lord is, like that elephant analogy with people experiencing different parts of the same thing, collectively speaking. 

All are experiencing at least some of what an elephant is.  And all or at least most of us are experiencing at least some of what the spirit of the Lord is, too.

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I would say the objective measure for the spirit of the Lord is what the spirit of the Lord actually is.  What that means, actually.

The Holy Spirit can only be measured through subjective means.  All we can do is describe how it "feels" to us.  Describing those feelings are entirely inadequate in describing the actual experience, and is non-objective.  You cannot open my chest and objectively measure and observe my feelings to determine if they are caused by the Holy Spirit or not.  All you have is my subjective experience and testimony. 

 

Edited July 2, 2018 by pogi

[Ahab]

Just now, pogi said:

The Holy Spirit can only be measured through subjective means.  All we can do is describe how it "feels" to us.  Describing those feelings are entirely inadequate and non-objective.  You cannot open my chest and objectively measure and observe my feelings to determine if they are caused by the Holy Spirit or not.  All you have is my subjective experience and testimony. 

 

The fact that the Holy Spirit can only be measured through subjective means doesn't mean there isn't an objective reality to what the Holy Spirit is, though.  It is by knowing the objective reality of the Holy Spirit, subjectively, that we come to know who and what the Holy Spirit is.

When you say something objective about your subjective experiences with the Holy Spirit, for example, I can verify what you are saying through my own subjective experiences and together we can both know that objective reality concerning the Holy Spirit.

Like I said, the objective measure for what the Holy Spirit is is what the Holy Spirit actually is.  He ,the Holy Spirit, is our measure of what he is when we experience him, either in whole or in part. 

That is how we experience everything there is in or about objective reality.  Subjectively, as we experience whatever ;there is in or about objective reality.

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The fact that the Holy Spirit can only be measured through subjective means doesn't mean there isn't an objective reality to what the Holy Spirit is, though. 

I think we are probably using these words in different ways. I am comparing objective measures and subjective measures.  To say that the Holy Spirit exists is a matter of faith.  The Holy Spirit cannot be objectively measured and verified.  If it could, it would belong in the realms of science...but it doesn't.

I can objectively measure if a detergent removes ketchup stains from a white shirt, the results can be independently measured and reproduced.  I cannot objectively measure if the atonement removes sin stains - that is a subjective experience, for example.  I cannot objectively determine if the Holy Spirit is causing me happiness, or if it is something else, for example.  All I have is my ineffable experience which cannot be objectively measured.