The Work of Salvation and Exaltation.

[Meadowchik]

On 2/29/2020 at 11:47 AM, Navidad said:

I find reading these kinds of discussions among faithful members of the LDS church fascinating. It seems that your doctrine is so complex and difficult to understand that you don't agree on what must be the most critical and basic aspects of any Christian faith - salvation and eternal life with the Father.

Of course, I must be fair and acknowledge that there are also cases in which non-LDS Christians don't agree with each other across denominations about what is ultimately needed for salvation as well. I am speaking now across the wide perspective of 2.3 billion Christians. I am speaking about that which is essential and that which is not. A lot of this however is between differing Christian traditions and groups, not within one group as it appears to be within the LDS church as evidenced by this thread.

For example it seems that some non-LDS Christians believe it is essential to have a certain understanding of the trinity to be truly saved. I reject that; others don't. The whole idea of the ability to lose one's salvation - the doctrine of eternal security is different among different Christian groups. I believe it is fair to say that my LDS friends don't believe in eternal security, while my Baptist friends do. There are at least five or six major differentiations in the understanding of baptism as necessary for salvation across the spectrum of Christian groups. I personally don't believe we can, with certainty say this or that specific view is right or wrong when each one is very complicated in and of itself. We can only with humility say, "This is what I believe" or with trepidation say "here I stand." Humility is certainly a better attribute when discussing these things than is certainty. Saying, this is what I believe in no way requires the second affirmation "therefore if you believe differently, you are wrong." That second affirmation is in and of itself wrong since we know that right now we see through a glass darkly. Pride is rarely if ever a fruit of the Spirit; neither is certainty. At least many of us are doing our very best to see through the glass of faith. 

Your current discussion in this thread points out your own lack of absolute clarity and confidence within your own faith community. I find that wonderfully healthy. I also certainly hope that these discussions foster an atmosphere more heavily laden with humility than with certainty.  Moroni 10 talks about "these things" being true. It seems that the challenge is figuring out "these things" and then how all "these things" fit together in the grand scheme of Heavenly Father. Even the small group of LDS Christians on this forum go beyond pondering (Moroni 10 as well) and discuss, debate, dialogue, and yes at times even challenge each other with rightly dividing the "these things" of LDS faith, like which ordinance is necessary for what and where. I am glad that you all struggle to understand the "truth" of it all. I know I do. 

I was a believing Mormon up until three years ago, but even then I generally sided with the idea that eternity starts now in closeness to and emulation of Christ, that Zion is to put it simply an attitude focused of the Saviour, his gift to humanity and commitment to truth, and his character.

Now as an agnostic atheist I still value much of that but my worthiness is simply because I am. I have value, and, likewise, so do others. I appreciate the extent that my Mormonhood contributes to those values.

Edited March 15, 2020 by Meadowchik

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I was a believing Mormon up until three years ago, but even then I generally sided with the idea that eternity starts now in closeness to and emulation of Christ, that Zion is to put it simply an attitude focused of the Saviour, his gift to humanity and commitment to truth, and his character.

Now as an agnostic atheist I still value much of that but my worthiness is simply because I am. I have value, and, likewise, so do others. I appreciate the extent that my Mormonhood contributes to those values.

Nothing wrong with those ideas. But how do you know those "values" are true?  Feel it in your gut?

That's God telling you that.   We could be pretty much on the same page if you concede that much.  The rest is just the explanation of those basic principles.

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Nothing wrong with those ideas. But how do you know those "values" are true?  Feel it in your gut?

In this context, I resist the need to say that I know it. But, I would say that it is a best-guess based on the information available to me.

I remember some of my childhood process of becoming aware of my position in a world with other people.

At a quite young age, the world naturally centered completely around me. I even wondered if I lived in something like the movie The Truman Show, although this was before the movie. I recognized that this whole thing could be an illusion or my imagination and I would have no way of knowing for sure if it is. And then I decided that the best course of action is to act like it is, as if my best-estimate of real is real.

So that's pretty much what leads me to the belief that: 

1. I am

Likewise, I believe that others can be as real to themselves as I am to me, thus:

2. Others are.

This leads into a standard of the Golden Rule, to do unto others as I would want to be done unto me, or to:

3. Be kind.

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That's God telling you that.   

That's a possibility, but all of this is happening without me using the idea that God is. So if God is helping me "guess-timate" these beliefs, God is doing so without telling me that I need to believe in God. 

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We could be pretty much on the same page if you concede that much.  

Oh I think that kindness can be a robust common value with or without shared theism. I even think that, if God exists, God would approve.

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The rest is just the explanation of those basic principles.

Not sure what that means.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

This leads into a standard of the Golden Rule,

Why?  Plenty of people look on others as merely tools to get what they want if they pay attention to them at all?  Where is the logic in moving from people’s existence to being kind to them?

Edited March 16, 2020 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why?  Plenty of people look on others as merely tools to get what they want if they pay attention to them at all?  Where is the logic in moving from people’s existence to being kind to them?

Exactly my point! More later.

[Meadowchik]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why?  Plenty of people look on others as merely tools to get what they want if they pay attention to them at all?  

The existence of people who do not follow the Golden Rule does not delegitimize it. 

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

Where is the logic in moving from people’s existence to being kind to them?

Why treat others as one wants to be treated? You don't see the sense in it?

The logic is that, if we want a world that treats us as a real person, then we can help create that world by treating others as real people.

And indeed, this does happen. People failing to do it just affirms the point that our actions matter. People succeeding to do it supports the point that we can make a positive difference.

[Meadowchik]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why?  

 

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Exactly my point! More later.

Just as an addendum, the undercurrent that seems to be coming from both of you is that one must have theism in order to have an anchor to goodness. You wouldn't be the first or last to posit such a thing and, whether you are saying this or not, it's important to disabuse people of the notion.

First, I think such a position undermines a whole lot of scripture that speaks of God and Truth being manifest in creation. If God is indeed manifest, then the character of God, the attributes and principles are also manifest and independently manifest. What a sad God it would be to require a person to believe what other people believe about God, or that is comes from God, in order to have an awareness of truth.

If that's not what you were saying, great!

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

the undercurrent that seems to be coming from both of you is that one must have theism in order to have an anchor to goodness.

You are misread me. It is all a value judgment in my view down at the bottom, theism or not. Not particularly rational.  Different people have different definitions of good, for one thing. 

Edited March 16, 2020 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You are misread me. It is all a value judgment in my view down at the bottom, theism or not. Not particularly rational.  Different people have different definitions of good, for one thing. 

Not sure why you found my conclusion to use the Golden Rule as unreasonable. The argument for it is sound.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

 

Just as an addendum, the undercurrent that seems to be coming from both of you is that one must have theism in order to have an anchor to goodness. You wouldn't be the first or last to posit such a thing and, whether you are saying this or not, it's important to disabuse people of the notion.

First, I think such a position undermines a whole lot of scripture that speaks of God and Truth being manifest in creation. If God is indeed manifest, then the character of God, the attributes and principles are also manifest and independently manifest. What a sad God it would be to require a person to believe what other people believe about God, or that is comes from God, in order to have an awareness of truth.

If that's not what you were saying, great!

That's not what I'm saying. I have posted about your very point in numerous times on this board.  More later.

Edited March 16, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That's not what I'm saying. I have posted about your very point in numerous times on this board.  More later.

And I've posted about my philosophy of kindness many times on this board. I'm not sure a discussion with you would be productive. We'll see...

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

 

Just as an addendum, the undercurrent that seems to be coming from both of you is that one must have theism in order to have an anchor to goodness. You wouldn't be the first or last to posit such a thing and, whether you are saying this or not, it's important to disabuse people of the notion.

First, I think such a position undermines a whole lot of scripture that speaks of God and Truth being manifest in creation. If God is indeed manifest, then the character of God, the attributes and principles are also manifest and independently manifest. What a sad God it would be to require a person to believe what other people believe about God, or that is comes from God, in order to have an awareness of truth.

If that's not what you were saying, great!

Here's a little more, a little later.

The most famous atheist I can think of cannot answer my question to you.

He still understands he needs to postulate an inner Witness, the still Small Voice if you will.  

 

[Meadowchik]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Here's a little more, a little later.

The most famous atheist I can think of cannot answer my question to you.

He still understands he needs to postulate an inner Witness, the still Small Voice if you will.  

 

I watched it, and I'm not sure what your point is. What does Hitchens' thoughts about internal monologues have to do with my reasons for valuing the individual? I gave you an answer that does not depend upon some internal guide distinct from myself. I really don't care whether Hitchens can answer your question or not. I did.

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And I've posted about my philosophy of kindness many times on this board. I'm not sure a discussion with you would be productive. We'll see...

 

And so we will..

This is a letter I wrote recently to a brother that had the same issue

"Dear Brother;

I’ve thought a great deal about you over the past many months and have decided to write a few notes which spring from my very real regard for you.

The first thought I had while thinking of you is, “Why do the things that cause you to turn away from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which it teaches and even from Jesus Christ, not have the same effect on me?”  Why do they not destroy my faith in Jesus Christ?

I believe the answer is multi-faceted.

First, I choose to believe.  I consciously exercise the irrevocable, God-given gift of agency to believe that God lives, that He is a very real, living being.

But is “choosing” a way of thinking intellectually honest?  Is it rational? What about the truth of the ideas we are choosing?  Can we just choose to believe anything we decide and make up our own reality that no one else will believe in?  Can we believe in fantasies just because we choose to? How can they be true if they are only our choices?

In the 1600’s a philosopher named David Hume thought about the difference between observable “facts” and the MEANING and SIGNIFICANCE of the facts.   Facts are one thing and their significance is something else. One can describe a flood for example in terms of how much the water rose in feet, the area covered by the flood, how many structures were damaged and perhaps how many people died, were injured etc.

Just the facts.  

Such a description is completely “dispassionate” it speaks about what “IS” in dispassionate terms.  It is about FACTS and the facts only of what happened, without looking at the human SIGNIFICANCE

Suppose the flood was caused by someone bombing a dam as an act of terrorism?

Would an account of the facts alone really convey the TRUTH and moral significance of what happened?

Is there a way to factually measure and contemplate the moral SIGNIFICANCE of such a disaster?  Can that be measured in scientific terms, as we look at the facts? How does one quantify one person’s losses against another?  Should an elderly person’s life be worth less in terms of money because they will be dead soon anyway? Or perhaps minimize the death of children because after all, they are “easily replaced”?  One recoils in horror at such ideas!

Is science in the business of measuring “human significance”?  NO! It’s purposes are quite different and it is deliberately “dispassionate” and discusses only phenomena which can be repeated and agreed upon by any “dispassionate” observer.  It is a crucial discipline in showing us how things work, ways of curing disease, allowing technology to flourish, and making our lives easier and better!

But does it tell us anything about what is IMPORTANT and SIGNIFICANT in life!  No!

Obviously moral TRUTHS by definition almost are about what is IMPORTANT in life.  Facts are great for getting jobs done- how many horsepower an engine puts out is an important fact for a given purpose, but what will that horsepower do for or to humanity is ultimately what is really IMPORTANT.   If that horsepower is used to drive a truck through a crowd, that is quite different than using that horsepower to save people

Hume concluded that you cannot conclude the moral significance of events from the raw facts alone.

This idea has come down to us in the statement that you cannot conclude what “ought to be” from “what is”.   You can google the “Is/Ought” distinction if you want to know more about it.

Galileo was another famous figure and scientist who was persecuted by the Catholic church for helping support Kepler and Copernicus in their contention that the earth rotated around the sun, and not the other way around as the ancients believed.  He was actually excommunicated because the church at the time believed that the Bible was scientifically accurate, and not a manual to teach us how to live.

But Galileo himself clearly saw the distinction I am trying to explain here- and he uttered what is now a famous quote making the point, saying “The Bible is about how to go to heaven, and not about how the heavens go”!

So Religious ideas are similar to moral ideas.  There is no way to “prove” through facts that genocide is wrong, and there is no way to prove that we have an invisible Heavenly Father either.

Yet just as we all have moral instincts about right and wrong, there are religious feelings and instincts which can give us meaning in life, just as values do.  They give us purpose in life, and yet their factual “truth” cannot be proven logically. Why should we be good and not evil? No evidence can prove an answer. Why should we fight for human rights?  Data does not help! Should our cause in life be saving whales? Can science show that we SHOULD dedicate our lives to any cause? Does it tell us what is important in life? How is saving the whales different than choosing personal spiritual service and ministry to God’s children in saving them from their spiritual pain?  

 

It is up to us to decide for ourselves what course to follow in life because “what is” can never show us “what ought to be”.  How do we know what course to follow for our lives? Should we be a heart surgeon or a carpenter? What gives our lives meaning in our hearts?  What is important to YOU in life? Science will not help you decide that.

Can we prove the existence of God?   Can we disprove the existence of God?

We can do neither!  Proofs against God usually make the point that we have no scientific proof or evidence- yet religious people readily admit that!  No we cannot see God! We cannot weigh him or find his shoe size! The whole idea is rather ridiculous!

But does God FUNCTION in our lives?

Yes he does, as a feeling within which guides us and directs us.

But do even atheists have similar beliefs?  They do!

Atheists are usually moral people who follow their consciences just as religious people do, and follow a voice within which tells them what is right and wrong.  One famous atheist, Christopher Hitchens lived his life preaching the atheist point of view nevertheless admitted that there was an internal “Critic or Companion” which enabled us to know what is right or wrong. <Above Hitchens video quoted here>

 With a short computer search, you will find many accounts and explanations for why atheists have consciences but none can be “proven correct” through scientific evidence, This internal voice or compass is also explained as the “unconscious” or something that had to “evolve” for a peaceful society to exist.  Perhaps those are true or perhaps they are false- but the fact is that neither is a full explanation of what that internal voice is- nor is there scientific evidence that either point of view is “correct”.

No science cannot show us what ought to be !

Do non believers have moral instincts which parallel religious people’s beliefs as well?  Of course!

What about the atonement?

In practical earthly terms, intentionally not including the spiritual idea of the unspeakable Atonement of Christ, which can only be understood through personal revelation, religious members of the Church believe that we can be forgiven of our sins after we repent, do all we can to correct the effects of those sins, and pray to the Lord so that we can forgive ourselves, and we can know we are forgiven, again by the Holy Spirit/light of Christ- or that “still small voice”.  We say we are “saved by grace after all we can do”

So what does our secular society believe about forgiveness of sin/criminal activity?

To make it short and sweet- they believe that if you “do the crime, you do your time” and then you are forgiven- but you still have to forgive yourself.  If you were drunk, perhaps and killed an entire family on the road, one might say that you have “done all you can do” by serving your time, but you still have to forgive yourself!  How can you do that? Religious people have the ability to know they are forgiven, “by grace” through the atonement. Non-believers believe you can be saved “by the grace of the law” after you have served your time and done all you can do to be rehabilitated.

And also secular folks believe it is possible to “forgive yourself” perhaps through therapy etc.

But what proof is there that “forgiving oneself” is not the same as knowing you are “forgiven by your conscience”- that internal instinct Hitchens speaks about so ambiguously?

One cannot know for sure using reason alone, either way!  

There are as many ways to doubt the “secular gospel” as there are to doubt the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

So how do we choose what is right?  Hitchens the atheist says we should follow the voice within and so does the Church, in Moroni 10:4-5, James 1,5 and other scriptures

So how do we choose which is right?  In the absence of evidence on either side?

We cannot choose what is right without guidance of what is inside us, call it a “conscience” or the “Spirit” or our “unconscious” or our evolved “instincts”.  But no one can prove with facts that any of these ideas are true!

The problem is we have no “facts” to show which is “correct” but we still have to choose for ourselves what is “True” in finding what is important in our lives.

 

I choose to see the order and beauty of the universe in both the sub-atomic particle and the macroscopic cosmos as a manifestation of His reality, of His hand at work and of His very real and deep and abiding love for us, His children.

 

I choose to believe that He is the perfect parent, that God our Father and God our Mother knew and loved and cared for us long before we were born and that that love continues unabated in mortality.  I choose to believe that Jesus Christ offered himself before he was born as our Savior from death and as our Redeemer from sin. I choose to believe all that He taught during His mortal ministry. I choose to believe that He suffered incomprehensibly in the garden of Gethsemane in taking upon Himself the sins and sorrows and infirmities of every soul who has or ever will live upon this earth and chooses to change his or her life by following Him.  I choose to believe that His wholly innocent martyrdom on the cross at Calvary was followed by His resurrection from dead. I choose to believe the witness of those who saw Him after His resurrection. I choose to see His resurrection as a gift of life after death to all humanity.

I choose to repent – to daily, almost imperceptibly, work to be a better man than I am.  And I believe that as imperfect and corruptible as I am, embracing the changing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can and will make me a better person, even if is literally or figuratively, one molecule at a time.

I choose to believe in the literal and figurative cleansing power of baptism.  I view that ordinance and the weekly symbolic eating of His flesh and drinking the Savior’s blood as essential in personal progress along the pathway – a pathway marked by frequent covenant making and sincere efforts at covenant keeping – that leads to and points us home to God our Father and His Son Jesus Christ.

I choose to believe that the Holy Ghost is a real spiritual being.  I choose to believe that He can and does communicate with me in both my mind and my heart.  I choose to listen with my mind and heart for the unmistakable messages that come from Him and cannot be counterfeited.  I choose to see those personal and powerful experiences where the Holy Ghost has spoken to me as an individual expression of God’s love for me.  I choose to make the effort to qualify for, receive, recognize and follow direction from this member of the Godhead a lifetime labor.

I choose to see in the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, as taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the faith-filled covenant-marked pathway that while in no way is trouble-free, does lead me to happiness in this life and points me to a life after this with my Father and Mother in Heaven, with our Savior Jesus Christ and with those whom I love most dearly in this world.

The choice to believe those fundamental things and enjoy experiences and consequences of that belief  for myself and see the results in the lives of others who choose to believe in like fashion are part of the reason that my faith is not devastated by information that might otherwise cause doubts. "

 

 

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I watched it, and I'm not sure what your point is. What does Hitchens' thoughts about internal monologues have to do with my reasons for valuing the individual? I gave you an answer that does not depend upon some internal guide distinct from myself. I really don't care whether Hitchens can answer your question or not. I did.

If you direct me to that answer, I would appreciate it.

I can't seem to find it.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Why treat others as one wants to be treated? You don't see the sense in it?

The logic is that, if we want a world that treats us as a real person, then we can help create that world by treating others as real people.

IF we "want" such a world.

But why "should" we want it?

What makes that important to you? How can you prove that scientifically?

It is something in your gut. Something that got there in a way that is not experimentally provable.

It is a moral value not based on anything tangible at all.

It is actually a kind of a "religious" conclusion, since it is faith-based.

And if you are basing it on a pragmatic view that's perfectly fine. Except for the fact that it is also Alma 32.

That is why I'm LDS.

The LDS view is pragmatism itself.

 

Edited March 16, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 

And so we will..

This is a letter I wrote recently to a brother that had the same issue

"Dear Brother;

I’ve thought a great deal about you over the past many months and have decided to write a few notes which spring from my very real regard for you.

The first thought I had while thinking of you is, “Why do the things that cause you to turn away from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which it teaches and even from Jesus Christ, not have the same effect on me?”  Why do they not destroy my faith in Jesus Christ?

I believe the answer is multi-faceted.

First, I choose to believe.  I consciously exercise the irrevocable, God-given gift of agency to believe that God lives, that He is a very real, living being.

But is “choosing” a way of thinking intellectually honest?  Is it rational? What about the truth of the ideas we are choosing?  Can we just choose to believe anything we decide and make up our own reality that no one else will believe in?  Can we believe in fantasies just because we choose to? How can they be true if they are only our choices?

In the 1600’s a philosopher named David Hume thought about the difference between observable “facts” and the MEANING and SIGNIFICANCE of the facts.   Facts are one thing and their significance is something else. One can describe a flood for example in terms of how much the water rose in feet, the area covered by the flood, how many structures were damaged and perhaps how many people died, were injured etc.

Just the facts.  

Such a description is completely “dispassionate” it speaks about what “IS” in dispassionate terms.  It is about FACTS and the facts only of what happened, without looking at the human SIGNIFICANCE

Suppose the flood was caused by someone bombing a dam as an act of terrorism?

Would an account of the facts alone really convey the TRUTH and moral significance of what happened?

Is there a way to factually measure and contemplate the moral SIGNIFICANCE of such a disaster?  Can that be measured in scientific terms, as we look at the facts? How does one quantify one person’s losses against another?  Should an elderly person’s life be worth less in terms of money because they will be dead soon anyway? Or perhaps minimize the death of children because after all, they are “easily replaced”?  One recoils in horror at such ideas!

Is science in the business of measuring “human significance”?  NO! It’s purposes are quite different and it is deliberately “dispassionate” and discusses only phenomena which can be repeated and agreed upon by any “dispassionate” observer.  It is a crucial discipline in showing us how things work, ways of curing disease, allowing technology to flourish, and making our lives easier and better!

But does it tell us anything about what is IMPORTANT and SIGNIFICANT in life!  No!

Obviously moral TRUTHS by definition almost are about what is IMPORTANT in life.  Facts are great for getting jobs done- how many horsepower an engine puts out is an important fact for a given purpose, but what will that horsepower do for or to humanity is ultimately what is really IMPORTANT.   If that horsepower is used to drive a truck through a crowd, that is quite different than using that horsepower to save people

Hume concluded that you cannot conclude the moral significance of events from the raw facts alone.

This idea has come down to us in the statement that you cannot conclude what “ought to be” from “what is”.   You can google the “Is/Ought” distinction if you want to know more about it.

Galileo was another famous figure and scientist who was persecuted by the Catholic church for helping support Kepler and Copernicus in their contention that the earth rotated around the sun, and not the other way around as the ancients believed.  He was actually excommunicated because the church at the time believed that the Bible was scientifically accurate, and not a manual to teach us how to live.

But Galileo himself clearly saw the distinction I am trying to explain here- and he uttered what is now a famous quote making the point, saying “The Bible is about how to go to heaven, and not about how the heavens go”!

So Religious ideas are similar to moral ideas.  There is no way to “prove” through facts that genocide is wrong, and there is no way to prove that we have an invisible Heavenly Father either.

Yet just as we all have moral instincts about right and wrong, there are religious feelings and instincts which can give us meaning in life, just as values do.  They give us purpose in life, and yet their factual “truth” cannot be proven logically. Why should we be good and not evil? No evidence can prove an answer. Why should we fight for human rights?  Data does not help! Should our cause in life be saving whales? Can science show that we SHOULD dedicate our lives to any cause? Does it tell us what is important in life? How is saving the whales different than choosing personal spiritual service and ministry to God’s children in saving them from their spiritual pain?  

 

It is up to us to decide for ourselves what course to follow in life because “what is” can never show us “what ought to be”.  How do we know what course to follow for our lives? Should we be a heart surgeon or a carpenter? What gives our lives meaning in our hearts?  What is important to YOU in life? Science will not help you decide that.

Can we prove the existence of God?   Can we disprove the existence of God?

We can do neither!  Proofs against God usually make the point that we have no scientific proof or evidence- yet religious people readily admit that!  No we cannot see God! We cannot weigh him or find his shoe size! The whole idea is rather ridiculous!

But does God FUNCTION in our lives?

Yes he does, as a feeling within which guides us and directs us.

But do even atheists have similar beliefs?  They do!

Atheists are usually moral people who follow their consciences just as religious people do, and follow a voice within which tells them what is right and wrong.  One famous atheist, Christopher Hitchens lived his life preaching the atheist point of view nevertheless admitted that there was an internal “Critic or Companion” which enabled us to know what is right or wrong. <Above Hitchens video quoted here>

 With a short computer search, you will find many accounts and explanations for why atheists have consciences but none can be “proven correct” through scientific evidence, This internal voice or compass is also explained as the “unconscious” or something that had to “evolve” for a peaceful society to exist.  Perhaps those are true or perhaps they are false- but the fact is that neither is a full explanation of what that internal voice is- nor is there scientific evidence that either point of view is “correct”.

No science cannot show us what ought to be !

Do non believers have moral instincts which parallel religious people’s beliefs as well?  Of course!

What about the atonement?

In practical earthly terms, intentionally not including the spiritual idea of the unspeakable Atonement of Christ, which can only be understood through personal revelation, religious members of the Church believe that we can be forgiven of our sins after we repent, do all we can to correct the effects of those sins, and pray to the Lord so that we can forgive ourselves, and we can know we are forgiven, again by the Holy Spirit/light of Christ- or that “still small voice”.  We say we are “saved by grace after all we can do”

So what does our secular society believe about forgiveness of sin/criminal activity?

To make it short and sweet- they believe that if you “do the crime, you do your time” and then you are forgiven- but you still have to forgive yourself.  If you were drunk, perhaps and killed an entire family on the road, one might say that you have “done all you can do” by serving your time, but you still have to forgive yourself!  How can you do that? Religious people have the ability to know they are forgiven, “by grace” through the atonement. Non-believers believe you can be saved “by the grace of the law” after you have served your time and done all you can do to be rehabilitated.

And also secular folks believe it is possible to “forgive yourself” perhaps through therapy etc.

But what proof is there that “forgiving oneself” is not the same as knowing you are “forgiven by your conscience”- that internal instinct Hitchens speaks about so ambiguously?

One cannot know for sure using reason alone, either way!  

There are as many ways to doubt the “secular gospel” as there are to doubt the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

So how do we choose what is right?  Hitchens the atheist says we should follow the voice within and so does the Church, in Moroni 10:4-5, James 1,5 and other scriptures

So how do we choose which is right?  In the absence of evidence on either side?

We cannot choose what is right without guidance of what is inside us, call it a “conscience” or the “Spirit” or our “unconscious” or our evolved “instincts”.  But no one can prove with facts that any of these ideas are true!

The problem is we have no “facts” to show which is “correct” but we still have to choose for ourselves what is “True” in finding what is important in our lives.

 

I choose to see the order and beauty of the universe in both the sub-atomic particle and the macroscopic cosmos as a manifestation of His reality, of His hand at work and of His very real and deep and abiding love for us, His children.

 

I choose to believe that He is the perfect parent, that God our Father and God our Mother knew and loved and cared for us long before we were born and that that love continues unabated in mortality.  I choose to believe that Jesus Christ offered himself before he was born as our Savior from death and as our Redeemer from sin. I choose to believe all that He taught during His mortal ministry. I choose to believe that He suffered incomprehensibly in the garden of Gethsemane in taking upon Himself the sins and sorrows and infirmities of every soul who has or ever will live upon this earth and chooses to change his or her life by following Him.  I choose to believe that His wholly innocent martyrdom on the cross at Calvary was followed by His resurrection from dead. I choose to believe the witness of those who saw Him after His resurrection. I choose to see His resurrection as a gift of life after death to all humanity.

I choose to repent – to daily, almost imperceptibly, work to be a better man than I am.  And I believe that as imperfect and corruptible as I am, embracing the changing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can and will make me a better person, even if is literally or figuratively, one molecule at a time.

I choose to believe in the literal and figurative cleansing power of baptism.  I view that ordinance and the weekly symbolic eating of His flesh and drinking the Savior’s blood as essential in personal progress along the pathway – a pathway marked by frequent covenant making and sincere efforts at covenant keeping – that leads to and points us home to God our Father and His Son Jesus Christ.

I choose to believe that the Holy Ghost is a real spiritual being.  I choose to believe that He can and does communicate with me in both my mind and my heart.  I choose to listen with my mind and heart for the unmistakable messages that come from Him and cannot be counterfeited.  I choose to see those personal and powerful experiences where the Holy Ghost has spoken to me as an individual expression of God’s love for me.  I choose to make the effort to qualify for, receive, recognize and follow direction from this member of the Godhead a lifetime labor.

I choose to see in the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, as taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the faith-filled covenant-marked pathway that while in no way is trouble-free, does lead me to happiness in this life and points me to a life after this with my Father and Mother in Heaven, with our Savior Jesus Christ and with those whom I love most dearly in this world.

The choice to believe those fundamental things and enjoy experiences and consequences of that belief  for myself and see the results in the lives of others who choose to believe in like fashion are part of the reason that my faith is not devastated by information that might otherwise cause doubts. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

It sounds to me like Hume and Galilieo were very understandably wrestling with dilemmas created in large part by religion. It sounds to me like, at least according to your description of him, that Hitchens was unable to establish the simple rationale that I've described, or that he used a rather clumsy "inner voice" to cover that gap. Yet my reasoning isn't based on an unexplained device. It's not esoteric and it's simple, but is infinitely applicable.

The work you talk about here, becoming a better person, how we treat people, how we forgive and forgive ourselves, in my opinion those are all very well managed by valuing the individual and kindness. I think that healthy boundaries based on kindness are even more efficient than a forgiveness paradigm, actually. 

 

 

[Meadowchik]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But how do you know those "values" are true?  Feel it in your gut?

To answer the above, I said:

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

In this context, I resist the need to say that I know it. But, I would say that it is a best-guess based on the information available to me.

I remember some of my childhood process of becoming aware of my position in a world with other people.

At a quite young age, the world naturally centered completely around me. I even wondered if I lived in something like the movie The Truman Show, although this was before the movie. I recognized that this whole thing could be an illusion or my imagination and I would have no way of knowing for sure if it is. And then I decided that the best course of action is to act like it is, as if my best-estimate of real is real.

So that's pretty much what leads me to the belief that: 

1. I am

Likewise, I believe that others can be as real to themselves as I am to me, thus:

2. Others are.

This leads into a standard of the Golden Rule, to do unto others as I would want to be done unto me, or to:

3. Be kind.

Is that the question you were talking about? If not, please point me to your question.

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

IF we "want" such a world.

But why "should" we want it?

What makes that important to you? How can you prove that scientifically?

It is something in your gut. Something that got there in a way that is not experimentally provable.

It is a moral value not based on anything tangible at all.

It is actually a kind of a "religious" conclusion, since it is faith-based.

And if you are basing it on a pragmatic view that's perfectly fine. Except for the fact that it is also Alma 32.

That is why I'm LDS.

The LDS view is pragmatism itself.

 

It is important to me because I am. I choose to value me. And then I decide to extend that to valuing others. It's really not complicated. And it is pragmatic, but for me it is much more pragmatic than adopting religion, and especially much more pragmatic than adopting a religion as authoritarian as Brighamite Mormonism. (In my estimation, the Community of Christ, for example, would be much more consistent with those values than the LDS Mormons.)

Edited March 16, 2020 by Meadowchik

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What does Hitchens' thoughts about internal monologues have to do with my reasons for valuing the individual?

Why do you "value the individual"?  What is your logical basis for doing so?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

The work you talk about here, becoming a better person, how we treat people, how we forgive and forgive ourselves, in my opinion those are all very well managed by valuing the individual and kindness.

Why do you value the individual?

Get the idea?  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I choose to value me. And then I decide to extend that to valuing others. It's really not complicated.

You're not getting it.  Look at my letter I quoted above- it is all about "choosing to believe"

CHOOSING to believe a value is the same as CHOOSING to believe in God.  No difference.  Your choice is your creation out of matter unorganized and your very belief that you can do so shows that you believe in the principles taught by the church

If you believe in forgiving others after they have done all they can do- "served their time" after doing the crime, you believe in the atonement.

All you have done is changed the names of the ideas, but all the ideas are still there.

You perhaps are just not seeing them as abstractions with their own stories attached.  You don't see them as myths and paradigms, you seem to be caught up in the semantics of the concepts, not what they are about.

You have a "god", you just don't see what it is as "God", at least that is my conclusion from what you are telling me.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Not sure why you found my conclusion to use the Golden Rule as unreasonable. The argument for it is sound.

It is reasonable based on your assumptions.  But your assumptions are a value judgment on what you believe is good.

There is nothing wrong with such as long as they are recognized for what they are and not elevated over similar value judgments. (There are value judgments that are so atypical of the general population as to be harmful to that population, so I am stressing "similar".)

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

It is reasonable based on your assumptions.  But your assumptions are a value judgment on what you believe is good.

There is nothing wrong with such as long as they are recognized for what they are and not elevated over similar value judgments. (There are value judgments that are so atypical of the general population as to be harmful to that population, so I am stressing "similar".)

If you look at the pragmatic FUNCTION of these beliefs - what I "get" from believing what cannot be empirically shown, - beliefs in God, beliefs in an autonomous self and free agency as opposed to full blown determinism- all of these- give one a purpose in life, a feeling that I as a person, and all others can make a difference in the world.

It gives us a place in the world and universe, a reason for being kind, a reason for everything.

Nothing wrong with that- it is what humans do!  We create "worlds" of our own.  We build theories, houses, cities, and technological advancements.

God just does it on a bigger scale!

[Meadowchik]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

It is reasonable based on your assumptions.  But your assumptions are a value judgment on what you believe is good.

There is nothing wrong with such as long as they are recognized for what they are and not elevated over similar value judgments. (There are value judgments that are so atypical of the general population as to be harmful to that population, so I am stressing "similar".)

Um, okay, I'm not sure what the issue is, then. I responded to the comment and shared what I believe that still has a common tie to Mormonism. Then another poster interjected to tell me that I should know that my reasoning comes from God. Do you think that is a fair statement?

[Meadowchik]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why do you "value the individual"?  What is your logical basis for doing so?

I already told you.

 

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why do you value the individual?

Get the idea?  

I do understand why I value the individual. Do you? Would you like to explain to me, in your own words, my reasoning? Then maybe I can understand your criticism of my reasoning.

 

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You're not getting it.  Look at my letter I quoted above- it is all about "choosing to believe"

CHOOSING to believe a value is the same as CHOOSING to believe in God.  No difference.  Your choice is your creation out of matter unorganized and your very belief that you can do so shows that you believe in the principles taught by the church

If you believe in forgiving others after they have done all they can do- "served their time" after doing the crime, you believe in the atonement.

All you have done is changed the names of the ideas, but all the ideas are still there.

You perhaps are just not seeing them as abstractions with their own stories attached.  You don't see them as myths and paradigms, you seem to be caught up in the semantics of the concepts, not what they are about.

You have a "god", you just don't see what it is as "God", at least that is my conclusion from what you are telling me.

I read your letter. The ideas are not quite the same. Yours are contingent upon loyalty to an institution and much more other obligations to dogma.

I don't have the same forgiveness framework that you describe, what I have manages what the idea of forgiveness attempts to manage, and in my opinion it does it better.

I replied to the thread here to add what I believe is still something I share in common with Mormonism. You seem to think I "should" know that my belief comes from God. 

I get that you think that my beliefs are some sort of god to me. Of course you are free to define god and God however you want, but I don't accept every definition of God. You can define a person's "god" as whatever they believe or love the most, and that way everyone is a believer. But that sure does dilute the meaning of theism. I'd rather preserve a clear meaning of theism and God.