Hype for April 2019 Conference

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 

Nehor,

You are an imbecile.  But most here, based on your posting history, understand that.

 

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Distraction from what?

And MLM? Really?

You are just being silly.

I’m very serious.  Real problems in the religion and in the culture.  Poverty, suicide, bigotry, supernatural thinking, polarized society, honest history, broken families, marginalized people.  

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Nehor,

You are an imbecile.  But most here, based on your posting history, understand that.

 

 

Autocorrect strikes again. I appreciate you calling me an inspiration.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

We have substantive and principled leadership

I wish. By their fruits they are falling very short.  

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m very serious.  Real problems in the religion and in the culture.  Poverty, suicide, bigotry, supernatural thinking, polarized society, honest history, broken families, marginalized people.  

What is wrong with supernatural thinking? The entire faith is based on a supernatural event of a guy absorbing the punishment for the sin of and suffering of everyone who ever lived and then being executed by torture and then coming back to life again. If you take that out the whole thing is meaningless and we might as well shut down no matter how much principled and substantive leadership.

The rest.....that is what the gospel is built to fix. The institutional church can assist a little but those who suffer need revelation, not principled and substantive leaders. Thankfully these changes point the way to Christ and thus are helping with those problems but the onus lies on the individual.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I wish. By their fruits they are falling very short.  

Exalting those who desire it to eternal life is pretty good. What standard are you expecting them to meet?

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

What is wrong with supernatural thinking? The entire faith is based on a supernatural event of a guy absorbing the punishment for the sin of and suffering of everyone who ever lived and then being executed by torture and then coming back to life again. If you take that out the whole thing is meaningless and we might as well shut down no matter how much principled and substantive leadership.

The rest.....that is what the gospel is built to fix. The institutional church can assist a little but those who suffer need revelation, not principled and substantive leaders. Thankfully these changes point the way to Christ and thus are helping with those problems but the onus lies on the individual.

I think the foundation of supernatural thinking deceives people into viewing the universe through a lens that will not serve them well.  

Taking it out doesn’t make religion meaningless, and there are many examples of amazing religious people who  are inspired by religious traditions and metaphors who don’t believe in the supernatural.  

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Exalting those who desire it to eternal life is pretty good. What standard are you expecting them to meet?

Desire what?  I’m confused by this response.  We were talking about leadership.  And my observation that they aren’t showing it where I also listed a number of issues that are leaps and bounds higher priorities than combining quorums or tweaking the home teaching program or rebranding the church.  

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

That is how I read JLH's post as well.  That he doesn't believe Pres. Nelson is acting under God's direction.

That's a loaded statement.

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I shouldn't speak for JLHPROF, but I'd guess he'd think that Nelson's ideas and timeline can be inspired by the Lord.  If so, I'd think it'd be hard to drive a stake in at a certain point wherein it delineates between Nelson's ideas as opposed to the Lord's.  Perhaps significant overlap is exactly how it's always been for each of the leaders.  

That's more like it.  I don't think every administrative change comes via revelation.  I don't think most of Pres. Nelson's changes are much beyond administrative.  And I don't believe God is so fickle as to tell one prophet one thing and the next one the opposite  - that points purely to the men.

As for the restoration being complete or not, not one of these recent changes rises to the level of restored truths.  God may or may not have directed them.  I 'm fine if he did.

But everything needed for God's children to receive a fullness of salvation and exaltation was restored to Joseph Smith.  Everything since has involved the organization of those things  (and sadly sometimes the elimination or ignoring of them).

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's a loaded statement.

That's more like it.  I don't think every administrative change comes via revelation.  I don't think most of Pres. Nelson's changes are much beyond administrative.  And I don't believe God is so fickle as to tell one prophet one thing and the next one the opposite  - that points purely to the men.

As for the restoration being complete or not, not one of these recent changes rises to the level of restored truths.  God may or may not have directed them.  I 'm fine if he did.

But everything needed for God's children to receive a fullness of salvation and exaltation was restored to Joseph Smith.  Everything since has involved the organization of those things  (and sadly sometimes the elimination or ignoring of them).

I don’t mean to be putting words in your mouth, that’s just honestly how I read it. I know you disagree with a lot of what Pres. Nelson says and does and given that, it seemed like a reasonable interpretation. 

Most of your posts on the subject are critical in nature. I assumed you wouldn’t chance being critical if you believed he might actually be doing exactly what God wants him to do. 

I apologize for misunderstanding you. 

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don’t mean to be putting words in your mouth, that’s just honestly how I read it. I know you disagree with a lot of what Pres. Nelson says and does and given that, it seemed like a reasonable interpretation. 

Most of your posts on the subject are critical in nature. I assumed you wouldn’t chance being critical if you believed he might actually be doing exactly what God wants him to do. 

I apologize for misunderstanding you. 

No worries.  If I thought God was directing these changes I would support them.  If I thought they went against God's will as clearly recorded I would criticize them.

I do neither as I have no need to criticize administrative policy decisions.  I don't think God cares if Sunday block is 2 or 3 hours long.   I don't think he cares if Elders and High Priest meet together.  And I don't think he told Pres. Monson to get behind "I am a Mormon" only to tell Pres. Nelson to reduce the usage of the word.  IF God cares then one of them was wrong.  If he doesn't then it's purely administrative.

Joseph Smith was clear.  New revelation cannot contradict previous revelation and be true unless purely a situational adaptation.

So the most obvious explanation is one or both weren't revelatory. Or neither represent things of eternity (restored truth), only temporal direction - aka, administrative.

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Desire what?  I’m confused by this response.  We were talking about leadership.  And my observation that they aren’t showing it where I also listed a number of issues that are leaps and bounds higher priorities than combining quorums or tweaking the home teaching program or rebranding the church.  

Yeah, I got that. The ever popular idea that there is some magical way the LDS leadership can end world hunger or whatever if they just gritted their teeth and tried and stopped doing all that useless stuff about fostering spiritual growth.

Giving eternal life to those that desire it. That is what the leadership is doing. Pointing the way. By comparison temporal concerns are puerile.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the foundation of supernatural thinking deceives people into viewing the universe through a lens that will not serve them well.  

Taking it out doesn’t make religion meaningless, and there are many examples of amazing religious people who  are inspired by religious traditions and metaphors who don’t believe in the supernatural.  

Interesting can you give me examples of a few deeply religious people who changed the world without believing in anything supernatural like, for example, God?

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, I got that. The ever popular idea that there is some magical way the LDS leadership can end world hunger or whatever if they just gritted their teeth and tried and stopped doing all that useless stuff about fostering spiritual growth.

Giving eternal life to those that desire it. That is what the leadership is doing. Pointing the way. By comparison temporal concerns are puerile.

All is well in Zion.

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

 

Interesting can you give me examples of a few deeply religious people who changed the world without believing in anything supernatural like, for example, God?

There are many who didn’t believe in a supernatural interventionist God or that had a different perspective about God.  Many of the founding fathers of the USA were Deists.  Einstein would be another example of someone who didn’t view God in supernatural terms.  But, going backwards in time also means many people brought their cultural views with them, and a belief in God was ubiquitous no long ago.  

[rockpond]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

That is how I read JLH's post as well.  That he doesn't believe Pres. Nelson is acting under God's direction.

Sister Nelson's comments from October do lend support to @JLHPROF's comment.  I've had the quote in my signature for a while now because I found it interesting.  But I'll paste it in this post since signature's can change:

Sister Wendy Nelson in Oct 2018, speaking of the Prophet: "It is as though he's been unleashed... he's free to follow through with things he's been concerned about but could never do. Now that he's president of [the Church], he can do those things.”

Like @JLHPROF, Sister Nelson seems to imply that at least some of what has been happening in the church is the mind and will of President Nelson.  Not necessarily the mind and will of God.  One example might be the name of the Church.  It would seem that this has been a concern of his for quite some time but he couldn't make the strong statements he made last October until he became the president of the church.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Sister Nelson's comments from October do lend support to @JLHPROF's comment.  I've had the quote in my signature for a while now because I found it interesting.  But I'll paste it in this post since signature's can change:

Sister Wendy Nelson in Oct 2018, speaking of the Prophet: "It is as though he's been unleashed... he's free to follow through with things he's been concerned about but could never do. Now that he's president of [the Church], he can do those things.”

Like @JLHPROF, Sister Nelson seems to imply that at least some of what has been happening in the church is the mind and will of President Nelson.  Not necessarily the mind and will of God.  One example might be the name of the Church.  It would seem that this has been a concern of his for quite some time but he couldn't make the strong statements he made last October until he became the president of the church.

I think one could make the argument that this "he's free to follow through with things he's been concerned about" to other prophets as well, Pres. McKay was on the correlation committee years before it became into it's own in the 1960's, Pres. Kimball was concerned about the Native American Indian and attitudes towards them and guess who got called to be a Seventy in 1975 a year after Pres. Kimball was called? George P. Lee and it continued with Adney Komatsu, Angel Abrea, Yoshihiko Kikuchi, and then several Europeans, Elder Busche, Elder Didier. Pres. Tanner, IIRC, broached an idea for smaller Temples in the early 1980's? Pres. Hinckley was Temple Chairman in the early-mid 1970's, when Pres. Kimball was announcing Temples worldwide and maybe Pres. Hinckley waited until he could carry out more but smaller Temple plans? Clearly President Benson was concerned about the use of the Book of Mormon, he gave several talks about it prior to his presidency. It cannot be a coincidence that President George Albert Smith was the European Mission President, 1919-1921 and he helped the Saints there and rebuild the Church and everything. Guess who was the POC literally within weeks of WW2 ending and now he was in the position to do what he did 15 ish years before. Now he could help then Elder Ezra Taft Benson, because he lived it.  I don't think this issue is solely a President Nelson thing. For all we know God was preparing these men for when they became the POC with the different issues that they faced

Edited December 12, 2018 by Duncan

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

All is well in Zion.

There are many who didn’t believe in a supernatural interventionist God or that had a different perspective about God.  Many of the founding fathers of the USA were Deists.  Einstein would be another example of someone who didn’t view God in supernatural terms.  But, going backwards in time also means many people brought their cultural views with them, and a belief in God was ubiquitous no long ago.  

The “All is well in Zion” statement is not proof that any particular criticism of the gospel or the church is valid.  It does not mean “All is rotten in Zion”. People who use it also tend to ignore context. The scripture talks about relying on carnal security while making the statement. The scripture warns against relying on the arm of flesh and wealth while extolling the gospel. It is not a criticism of an institution or a prophet. The warning is best applied to the self. Weaponized against others it does not work. Anyone attempting to use it as a bludgeon against the church might want to check out the stories of Sherem or Korihor or my namesake’s sad tale.

I have never met or heard of a deeply religious Deist nor anyone who would suggest Einstein was religious. So.....anyone else?

Edited December 12, 2018 by The Nehor

[JLHPROF]

31 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think one could make the argument that this "he's free to follow through with things he's been concerned about" to other prophets as well, Pres. McKay was on the correlation committee years before it became into it's own in the 1960's, Pres. Kimball was concerned about the Native American Indian and attitudes towards them and guess who got called to be a Seventy in 1975 a year after Pres. Kimball was called? George P. Lee and it continued with Adney Komatsu, Angel Abrea, Yoshihiko Kikuchi, and then several Europeans, Elder Busche, Elder Didier. Pres. Tanner, IIRC, broached an idea for smaller Temples in the early 1980's? and then Pres. Hinckley carried it out years later. Clearly President Benson was concerned about the use of the Book of Mormon, he gave several talks about it prior to his presidency. It cannot be a coincidence that President George Albert Smith was the European Mission President, 1919-1921 and he helped the Saints there and rebuild the Church and everything. Guess who was the POC literally within weeks of WW2 ending and now he was in the position to do what he did 15 ish years before. Now he could help then Elder Ezra Taft Benson, because he lived it.  I don't think this issue is solely a President Nelson thing. For all we know God was preparing these men for when they became the POC with the different issues that they faced

That's an interesting take on this subject and one I am far more willing to get behind than a blind assumption of undocumented revelations.  I  am certain that God revealed to Joseph in Nauvoo that the Church would move to Utah.  And Brigham had all the skills to make that happen.  But I also think much of how it was executed was Brigham's administrative methods. 

After all, isn't that how most of our lives operate?  We make our best decisions based on our own experiences and do our best to make them harmonize with God's will.  We don't presume that every decision we make running our lives is God's will and I certainly hope Church leaders don't think that about running rhe Church either.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

21 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Although that could refer to the ceremony. There's been rumors of new filming for the temple video, although they just recently revised things so that may be conflating it with older rumors. Still the endowment ceremony itself still has a lot of elements some would say are non-essential masonic elements. Also some argue the creation drama could be shortened further.

He made specific reference to the law of obedience and the relationship between men and women in that covenant. That's really all I can say about it. 

Edited December 12, 2018 by DispensatorMysteriorum

[JLHPROF]

21 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Still the endowment ceremony itself still has a lot of elements some would say are non-essential masonic elements. Also some argue the creation drama could be shortened further.

Who gets to decide which revelations are non-essential?  Or which ordinances instituted before the foundations of the earth and cannot be changed can actually be changed?

25 minutes ago, DispensatorMysteriorum said:

He made specific reference to the law of obedience and the relationship between men and women in that covenant. That's really all I can say about it. 

Not the first change to eternal covenants, probably not the last.  So much for all being saved on the same principles.

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The “All is well in Zion” statement is not proof that any particular criticism of the gospel or the church is valid.  It does not mean “All is rotten in Zion”. People who use it also tend to ignore context. The scripture talks about relying on carnal security while making the statement. The scripture warns against relying on the arm of flesh and wealth while extolling the gospel. It is not a criticism of an institution or a prophet. The warning is best applied to the self. Weaponized against others it does not work. Anyone attempting to use it as a bludgeon against the church might want to check out the stories of Sherem or Korihor or my namesake’s sad tale.

I have never met or heard of a deeply religious Deist nor anyone who would suggest Einstein was religious. So.....anyone else?

The scripture sounds eerily accurate and applicable from my vantage point.  You don't see any problems with the current leadership, you're comfortable, you think all is well, you don't see a problem with the vast wealth the church has amassed and the way they allocate these resources.  The scripture is a warning that could be applied individually or institutionally.  

As for finding a hero in our past that is "deeply religious" but doesn't believe in God according to the specific you've created, I don't know.  I can tell you many good contemporary Christian influential figures, people like Marcus Borg, or John Shelby Spong, or Richard Rohr, or Rob Bell.  Those were the kind of people I was thinking of originally.  

[smac97]

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the foundation of supernatural thinking deceives people into viewing the universe through a lens that will not serve them well.  

Taking it out doesn’t make religion meaningless, and there are many examples of amazing religious people who  are inspired by religious traditions and metaphors who don’t believe in the supernatural.  

Further, the data do not seem to support your position.  I encourage you to read Daniel Peterson's 2017 FAIR presentation, What Difference Does It Make?, which lays out many of the benefits of exercising religious faith.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

I’m not a professional counselor—though, as I’ve gained experience over my uncountable decades, I’ve come to recognize more and more the help that such counselors can provide. But I believe that there’s an even more fundamental cure for the emotional and psychological turmoil caused by disillusionment and loss of faith.

That cure is a return to faith and trust.

“Unyielding Despair”

I don’t wonder at the havoc that complete loss of faith can induce in sensitive souls.

Listen to what the outspokenly atheistic philosopher Bertrand Russell says in his 1903 essay “A Free Man’s Worship”:

That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the débris of a universe in ruins — all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.

Somehow, “unyielding despair” doesn’t seem a very promising basis for a happy life.

The French philosopher and writer Albert Camus published a famous 1942 collection of essays titled The Myth of Sisyphus in which he grappled with the view that we’re just a pointless combination of chemicals, with what he labeled the “absurdity” of the human situation:

“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem,” he wrote, “and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy.”

A robust faith, like the loss of one, makes a difference.

The entire article is worth a read.  It is a fairly good rejoinder to your suggestion that religious faith "deceives people into viewing the universe through a lens that will not serve them well."  

Moreover, I've never been a fan of the term "supernatural," as it is not an apt descriptor of the Church's doctrines.  Miracles are not "supernatural" (defined as "of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural").  We believe that God is the author and creator of nature, and therefore of natural laws.  He does not operate above or outside ("super") those laws.  His actions are simply a higher manifestation of them.  Arthur C. Clark wrote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."  I often think of this quote when folks characterize God as being "supernatural."  In terms of what God is and how He operates, we are operating within intellectual confines comparable to, say, two Rhesus monkeys in different locations interacting with each other through a Skype session.  They see each other on the computer screens, and they can hear each other, but they have no ability to comprehend how the whole thing works (electricity, the Internet, the hardware involved, etc.).  To them, it is "magic."  It's not, really.  And their inability to comprehend it speaks more to their limitations and ignorance than to the reality of how Skyping actually works.

So it is, I think, with us and our blinkered and finite ability to perceive how the miracles of God work.

Thank you,

-Smac

Edited December 12, 2018 by smac97

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

Sister Nelson's comments from October do lend support to @JLHPROF's comment.  I've had the quote in my signature for a while now because I found it interesting.  But I'll paste it in this post since signature's can change:

Sister Wendy Nelson in Oct 2018, speaking of the Prophet: "It is as though he's been unleashed... he's free to follow through with things he's been concerned about but could never do. Now that he's president of [the Church], he can do those things.”

Like @JLHPROF, Sister Nelson seems to imply that at least some of what has been happening in the church is the mind and will of President Nelson.  Not necessarily the mind and will of God.  One example might be the name of the Church.  It would seem that this has been a concern of his for quite some time but he couldn't make the strong statements he made last October until he became the president of the church.

Yes, I read that quote.  I don't think it makes any sense to believe that that's what Sis. Nelson was implying, given the other things that she has said about Pres. Nelson and his desire to follow what God wants.  That statement wasn't made in a vacuum.

Some of her other quotes about Pres. Nelson's interactions with God in leading the church:

“He is not playing to the crowds with this at all,” she said. "He is only reporting to the Lord, and he is fearless with that focus.”
And when he has the chance to worry, what does President Nelson worry about? “He worries about what is needful,” said Sister Nelson. “What does the Lord really want him to put in place? What does the Lord want him to get people doing?”

Those quotes (which are all from one interview) don't sound like they come from a woman who believes that what is happening in the church is the mind and will of Pres. Nelson.  

There's a very easy way to interpret the quote you shared in a way that also fits in with other things she has said about Pres. Nelson's relationship with God.  If you read Sis. Nelson's words as saying "Now that he has been given authority from God to follow through with things he's been concerned about, he can" everything she has said is congruous.   

Lot's of members see 'becoming president of the church' and 'gaining authority from God to lead the church in a specific direction' to be synonymous phrases.  

 

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, I got that. The ever popular idea that there is some magical way the LDS leadership can end world hunger or whatever if they just gritted their teeth and tried and stopped doing all that useless stuff about fostering spiritual growth.

Giving eternal life to those that desire it. That is what the leadership is doing. Pointing the way. By comparison temporal concerns are puerile.

Interesting can you give me examples of a few deeply religious people who changed the world without believing in anything supernatural like, for example, God?

"Puerile" is a good 25 cent word, but do you really mean that? Do you really believe that temporal concerns like food, water, shelter, safety, belonging, are really just childish concerns?

I'm curious what you think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and how it might illustrate the very human needs to have temporal concerns met before higher needs like self-actualization become the focus.

It seems to me that meeting those puerile needs will help prepare them for spiritual growth. It's hard for someone who is constantly, hungry and scared to focus on self-actualization through spiritual growth.

IF that is the case and physiological, safety, love/belonging are the foundations upon which an individual can grow into higher levels of morality and spirituality, then it would seem like a solid plan for the church to try to help address those needs. In fact, I think we can see through the church's humanitarian aid programs that they recognize that meeting these puerile needs is actually important, maybe just not as important as the tip of the pyramid.

Thinking of it another way, how useful is it to focus on something like temple attendance and family history when a family can't feed itself or receive the medical attention they need? I have no doubt that there are some wonderful, exceptional people who seek and achieve the top of the pyramid before even their basic needs are met, but that hardly seems like a sustainable or generally successful strategy for the church.

Or am I misunderstanding your "puerile" comment?

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

The “All is well in Zion” statement is not proof that any particular criticism of the gospel or the church is valid.  It does not mean “All is rotten in Zion”. People who use it also tend to ignore context. The scripture talks about relying on carnal security while making the statement. The scripture warns against relying on the arm of flesh and wealth while extolling the gospel. It is not a criticism of an institution or a prophet. The warning is best applied to the self. Weaponized against others it does not work. Anyone attempting to use it as a bludgeon against the church might want to check out the stories of Sherem or Korihor or my namesake’s sad tale.

The scripture sounds eerily accurate and applicable from my vantage point. 

What vantage point is that?

Quote

You don't see any problems with the current leadership, you're comfortable, you think all is well, you don't see a problem with the vast wealth the church has amassed and the way they allocate these resources.  The scripture is a warning that could be applied individually or institutionally.  

Nehor can speak for himself, but I think your assessment of him is wrong on just about every level. 

"You don't see any problems?"  Where'd you get that idea?  

"You're comfortable, you think all is well?"  Did you read Nehor's statement?  He specifically said "The 'All is well in Zion' statement is not proof that any particular criticism of the gospel or the church is valid. It does not mean 'All is rotten in Zion.'"

Speaking for myself, I appreciate and value the Church.  I respect it.  It is, in my view, overwhelmingly good.  That does not mean that it cannot be improved upon.  Of course it can.  But I don't see much value in endlessly railing against and slandering the Church in online gripefests.  When I read such things, I sometimes think "Hmm.  It sure would be interesting to see these conveniently anonymous armchair quarterbacks actually put in the game to see how they would do in administering the affairs of the worldwide Church." 

It's the easiest thing in the world to hide behind an online pseudonym and endlessly carp at those who are actually out there, doing the work of the Church.  I am reminded of this quote from Theodore Roosevelt:

Quote

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.  The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 12, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Further, the data do no seem to support your position.  I encourage you to read Daniel Peterson's 2017 FAIR presentation, What Difference Does It Make?, which lays out many of the benefits of exercising religious faith.  See, e.g., here:

The entire article is worth a read.  It is a fairly good rejoinder to your suggestion that religious faith "deceives people into viewing the universe through a lens that will not serve them well."  

Moreover, I've never been a fan of the term "supernatural," as it is not an apt descriptor of the Church's doctrines.  Miracles are not "supernatural" (defined as "of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural").  We believe that God is the author and creator of nature, and therefore of natural laws.  He does not operate above or outside ("super") those laws.  His actions are simply a higher manifestation of them.  Arthur C. Clark wrote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."  I often think of this quote when folks characterize God as being "supernatural."  In terms of what God is and how He operates, we are operating within intellectual confines comparable to, say, two Rhesus monkeys in different locations interacting with each other through a Skype session.  They see each other on the computer screens, and they can hear each other, but they have no ability to comprehend how the whole thing works (electricity, the Internet, the hardware involved, etc.).  To them, it is "magic."  It's not, really.  And their inability to comprehend it speaks more to their limitations and ignorance than to the reality of how Skyping actually works.

So it is, I think, with us and our blinkered and finite ability to perceive how the miracles of God work.

Thank you,

-Smac

My definition for the supernatural in this context would also include the belief that a deity or any extra-natural power of some kind is actively intervening in the natural world and producing miracles.  Even if a person believes these miracles work by natural means that we don't currently understand.   I personally believe that this paradigm has some negatives for operating in the world and viewing how the world works.  It leads to erroneous thinking and drawing the wrong kind of conclusions from flawed observations and putting trust in things that we shouldn't put trust in.   Just like someone trusting that their lucky rabbits foot will actually help them to win something they've gambled on. 

I would also admit that there are obviously many erroneous ways of viewing reality that our 21st century culture engages in, that future societies will look at as very flawed through a more sophisticated paradigm.  My desire is to continue to learn and become more sophisticated about what I know and how I view things.  

I did read your quote from Dan and I'm pretty sure I read that presentation before, but I didn't find it persuasive.