“Into the millennium” - Pres. Nelson

[Analytics]

22 hours ago, Teancum said:

Good for you. If you want to live your life based on a fantasy that is great.  And it is not nihilistic to think it is a fantasy.  And it is not optimistic to think it is not. The latter may be called delusional.  Living in reality is not hopeless.

I agree. My faith is that the best way to approach life is to face reality with our eyes wide open, observe carefully, think clearly, embrace truth, and use our own ingenuity to make this world the best it can be. I believe that we have the power to make the world a wonderful place and that the best way to do so is from a perspective of embracing what's really true.  

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Good for you. If you want to live your life based on a fantasy that is great.  And it is not nihilistic to think it is a fantasy.  And it is not optimistic to think it is not. The latter may be called delusional.  Living in reality is not hopeless.

I agree. My faith is that the best way to approach life is to face reality with our eyes wide open, observe carefully, think clearly, embrace truth, and use our own ingenuity to make this world the best it can be. I believe that we have the power to make the world a wonderful place and that the best way to do so is from a perspective of embracing what's really true.  

I agree with everything you say here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree with everything you say here.

Thanks,

-Smac

If you do, there is no need to evoke Pascal's Wager. 

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If you do, there is no need to evoke Pascal's Wager. 

I don't think your remarks are incompatible with Pascal's Wager.  I find both sentiments to have merit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I agree. My faith is that the best way to approach life is to face reality with our eyes wide open, observe carefully, think clearly, embrace truth, and use our own ingenuity to make this world the best it can be. I believe that we have the power to make the world a wonderful place and that the best way to do so is from a perspective of embracing what's really true.  

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I agree with everything you say here.

Thanks,

-Smac

How one discerns, evaluates, and decides "what's really true," however, being "Ay, there's the rub!"  Science is a valuable, informative, and, often, even an elegant thing.  But, while it can explain how sound waves are produced by the instruments that are used to play a musical composition, how those sound waves interact with the cochlea of my ear, and how my brain interprets the information it receives from my cochlea to produce what I hear, it cannot explain why (or why not) I experience the music on a deeper (dare I say "spiritual"?) level, or why I might react one way to a particular composition while someone else reacts in a completely different way.

For all of its explanatory power, science cannot answer any of life's "terrible questions": Why, in an ultimate, cosmic sense, did I come into being (a religious person might phrase it "Where did I come from")?  What is my ultimate purpose ("Why am I here")?  Why evil?  Why suffering?  For that matter, why righteousness, and why joy?  Whatever answers science may be able to come up with for these kinds of questions will be found wanting: "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."  1 Corinthians 2:11 KJV.

Now, having said all of that, also, I said the following in another public forum once:

Quote

As hard as it may be for me to conceive of a workable system of morality without some kind of deity at its center, if you are an honest, decent, caring, upright, moral individual who believes in doing unto others as you would have done unto you, in loving your neighbor as yourself, in doing good to and for others and in making life as good as you can make it for yourself and for those around you for as long as you can before (from your perspective) "succumbing to the void," more power to you.

Still, there are some questions that even science, for all of its explanatory power, cannot answer, a fact which, unfortunately, the most ardent devotees of scientism never will acknowledge.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And yet you have reached a conclusion that God does not exist, and that belief in Him is "delusional" and a denial of "reality."  That conclusion is based on faith.  That was my point.

I have an opinion that I see no evidence of as a God like the Bible and Christianity as well as Mormonism describes.  It is not based on faith if you use the NT and BoM definitions.  It is based on lack of evidence.  If evidence arises to demonstrates the reality of in interventional God then I am open to change my mind.  But this is not faith based. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"Convincing evidence" is in the eye of the beholder, I think.  I have found the evidence to be quite convincing.

And I noted that evidence is subjective. I will concede that there are pieces of evidence for Mormonism. The BoM.  The BOA.  The proclaimed revelations that are in the D&C.  But honestly I think these harm the claims of Mormonism more than they help as the evidence is actually problematic for them. These are some if the reasons I rejected the LDS Church's founding truth claims.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  

Yes.

Well, you've denied speaking from knowledge, and here you deny speaking from faith.  So on what basis do you assert that belief in the existence of God is "delusional" and a denial of "reality"?

See above.  Those who make claims of supernatural things need to provide the evidence.  Other wise those claims can be dismissed without evidence.  THe burden of proof is on the claimer of such things.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes, but a difference in degree, not kind.

I value the things I have learned and believe about God, about Jesus Christ, about the Plan of Salvation, about the Restoration, and so on.  I value these things to the extent that I have devoted substantial time and effort to share these things with others.  People do this all the time - spend real time and effort - to share and persuade others to their views on any number of topics: politics, business/moneymaking, education, sports, healthcare, exercise, weight loss, dating/sex, art/music, movies/TV, alcohol, marijuana and other recreational drugs, food, vacationing/travel, foreign languages, home improvement, emergency preparedness, and on and on.

I appreciate and respect that people can and do feel strongly about these things, and - broadly speaking - I do not begrudge devotees of these areas of interest the choice to spend their time, money and effort in exploring and sharing and propagating these things.  

Ok.  Sure.  But it is not the same as trying to persuade by sending out 50k missionaries and pressuring members to be missionaries as well. Sports, healthcare, wieth loss etc that you list above just do not do not take such an approach. I am an avid cyclist. I may share and talk about it with friends and associates, but I don't actively proselyte it nor do I try to convince my fellow avid cycling friends to do the same.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Do you resent people who are ardent and vocal in their views on these topics?  Do you fault them for choosing to spend their time/money/effort on such things, and on persuading others as to the merits of these things?  If you can accommodate the sharing viewpoints on these topics (politics, education, etc.), then why resent and find fault with people who, like me, want to spend time/money/effort on propagating and sharing my views about God?

Of course not.  But as noted above there really are some major differences.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

I also find more comfort in it.  And since we cannot know definitively either way, and since I find belief in God to be well within the bounds of reasonableness, I choose the option that has more joy and optimism and comfort in it.  If I'm wrong, then when I die I will blink out of existence and anything I will have done will not matter a whit.  If I am right, however, then I have changed my behaviors and worldview to a moral code which is, in my view, inherently and overwhelmingly good and decent, which makes me a better person, which makes me help others, and which is what God wants me to do.

Pascal was really on to something.  But I have found grounds to move past Pascal and onto . . . Joseph Smith.  

Ok. That is fine,  For me the cost both mentally, emotionally, financially, time commitment wise, just was not worth investing in something which at least for me, is not what it claims.  Pascal's wager is not worth it for the here and now.  Onto Joseph Smith even makes it less so.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

Belief in God is not all grape juice and roses.  There are plenty of things I believe God has commanded me to do that push me out of my comfort zone, that are difficult, and/or time-consuming, and/or not always enjoyable.  There are Sunday mornings when I want to stay in bed.  I served a mission for two years, and have since spent considerable amounts of time in various callings in the Church.  There are things I'd like to buy that I can't afford because I need to pay tithing instead.  There are things that I have never experienced and never will, like a fine wine or whiskey, or shrooms or peyote or LSD.  

So you live your life according to LDS rules.  OThers live their lives according to other rules.  Would you like to live your life under Islam's rules? Why or why not?  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

On the other hand, there are all sorts of things I have experienced consequent to my belief in the Restored Gospel.  I served a mission and learned the value of service, of hard work, of getting along with other missionaries, of learning about and respecting other peoples and cultures, and so on.  I felt the Spirit many times, both in teaching and in everyday experiences.  I saw practical and substantial blessings and improvements in the lives of people who joined the Church and followed its teachings.  I returned home and met a young woman who shares my beliefs.  We started a family together, and have spent the last quarter century living our lives according to the precepts of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  We have had many struggles, but far more blessings.  And we have avoided many pitfalls.  And we have raised children together. 

Great.  People can do all this without the artificail restrictions of some religion. They do it all the time. And even LDS believers and families have struggles,

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Overall I think my quality of life is substantially better with the Restored Gospel than it would have been without it.  It has helped me a lot in overcoming my bad habits and inclinations.  It has helped me recognize the value of family, service, education, hard work, persistence, and so on.  I am a better husband and father, a better neighbor and citizen, a better person because of it.

Yes maybe and maybe not. You may have been better with out it. Who knows for sure. We cannot do an It's A Wonderful Life scenario now can we?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

If you do, there is no need to evoke Pascal's Wager. 

Evoke?

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

And yet you have reached a conclusion that God does not exist, and that belief in Him is "delusional" and a denial of "reality."  That conclusion is based on faith.  That was my point.

I have an opinion that I see no evidence of as a God like the Bible and Christianity as well as Mormonism describes.  It is not based on faith if you use the NT and BoM definitions.  It is based on lack of evidence. 

I'm okay with that.  But I was using "faith" in a broader sense, that is, "complete trust or confidence in someone or something."  Your previous strident comments not only rejecting the existence of God but characterizing belief in His existence as delusional and denying reality came across as expressions of faith.

For you, a purported "lack of evidence" as to the existence of God is evidence that God does not exist.  Is that correct?

I'm not on board with the notion that the existence of God, spirits, etc. is empirically testable.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If evidence arises to demonstrates the reality of in interventional God then I am open to change my mind.  But this is not faith based. 

Okay.  I guess it comes down to what you consider "evidence."  Daniel Peterson has some interesting thoughts on this:

A Note on Evidence (Part One)

A Note on Evidence (Part Two)

A Note on Evidence (Part Three)

Some pretty good food for thought.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

"Convincing evidence" is in the eye of the beholder, I think.  I have found the evidence to be quite convincing.

And I noted that evidence is subjective. I will concede that there are pieces of evidence for Mormonism. The BoM.  The BOA. The proclaimed revelations that are in the D&C. 

So your assessment is not as much based on a "lack of evidence" but on a lack of sufficiently probative evidence.  Would that be a fair characterization?

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But honestly I think these harm the claims of Mormonism more than they help as the evidence is actually problematic for them. These are some if the reasons I rejected the LDS Church's founding truth claims.

Yes, "eye of the beholder" is the order of the day.  And in the end, it is the Spirit that is determinative.  The rest of the evidences are secondary and ancillary.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

See above.  Those who make claims of supernatural things need to provide the evidence. 

First, and with respect, I do not think "supernatural" is an apt description of the LDS paradigm.  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.

Second, I think we have provided evidence.  Our missionaries are not out there saying "Hey, just take our word for it."  They are inviting people to examine the evidence.  Read the Book of Mormon, pray and seek guidance from God about it.  This is not court-of-law style weighing of evidence, but I think it is valid in its sphere.

Third, I have previously noted this:

Quote

Quote

Smart people more knowledgable in this subject than I am:  What evidence is there that the BOM is a historical record?  Is there any evidence?  And to clarify, I'm not asking for proof of anything.  Just evidence in support of.

Yes, there is evidence.  Quite a bit, IMO.  The sufficiency and probative value of the evidence is very much in dispute, but the existence of the evidence is pretty hard to deny.

Putting aside "evidence" from the Spirit, I would first point to the text overall.  Its origins need to be accounted for.  I don't think Joseph Smith could have written it at all, let alone in the timeframe involved.  

Second, I would point to the statements of the Witnesses, and to the credbility of those witnesses (starting, perhaps, with Richard L. Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses).

Third, I would point to evidences within the text.  Its complexity.  Its narrative structure.  Linguistic elements.  It's internal chronological and geographic consistency.  Hebraisms.  Chiasmus.  Lots and lots of good stuff in here.

Fourth, there are some evidences which have some sort of interaction with or facet touching on archaeology.  See, e.g. this article: Five Compelling Archeological Evidences For the Book of Mormon.  The "five evidences" are:

• Metal Plates
• The Nahom Altar
• Cement in Mesoamerica
• The Seal of Mulek
• Barley in the Americas

Of these, the Seal of Mulek seems to be the one that I think critics would be most likely to construe as "archaeological" (read: artifactual) evidence (though the Nahom Altar seems pretty hard to ignore).  But both of these are Old World artifacts, and I think critics want artifacts from Mesoamerica.

Fifth, I would point an interested party to the Book of Mormon Central website: https://bookofmormoncentral.org/

Sixth, I would point an interested party to Jeff Lindsay's "Book of Mormon Evidences" page: https://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

Seventh, I would point an interested party to FAIR's page about evidences for the Book of Mormon: https://www.fairmormon.org/evidences/Category:Book_of_Mormon

Eighth, I would point an interested party to the following essays:

• The Reasonable Leap into Light: A Barebones Secular Argument for the Gospel (Daniel Peterson)
• I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church (Davis Bitton)
• The Logic Tree of Life, or, Why I Can’t Manage to Disbelieve (Daniel Peterson)
• Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon (William Hamblin)

These are the resources that immediately come to mind.

Much of what is termed "evidence for the Book of Mormon" is better characterized as "assumptions regarding and interpretations of evidence for the Book of Mormon."

That last statement is coming to mind.  Your comments about "evidence" seem to be more about assumptions and interpretations.  That's okay, since the same can be said for me.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Other wise those claims can be dismissed without evidence.  THe burden of proof is on the claimer of such things.

I agree.

But I think there's a fair distance between (A) "the existence of God has not been proven to me by a sufficiently probative quantum of evidence" and (B) "God does not exist, and any such belief is delusional and a denial of reality."

You seem to have stepped away from (B), and I acknowledge that reasonable minds can disagree about (A).

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I appreciate and respect that people can and do feel strongly about these things, and - broadly speaking - I do not begrudge devotees of these areas of interest the choice to spend their time, money and effort in exploring and sharing and propagating these things.  

Ok.  Sure.  But it is not the same as trying to persuade by sending out 50k missionaries and pressuring members to be missionaries as well.

I don't understand.  You are speaking as if these are bad.  

People seek to exert influence over other people all the time.  I don't see anything out-of-bounds in terms of what the Church and its members do.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sports, healthcare, wieth loss etc that you list above just do not do not take such an approach. I am an avid cyclist. I may share and talk about it with friends and associates, but I don't actively proselyte it nor do I try to convince my fellow avid cycling friends to do the same.

But others do.  And there are people who spend huge amounts of time / money / effort on their interests, and in influencing others about those interests.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Do you resent people who are ardent and vocal in their views on these topics?  Do you fault them for choosing to spend their time/money/effort on such things, and on persuading others as to the merits of these things?  If you can accommodate the sharing viewpoints on these topics (politics, education, etc.), then why resent and find fault with people who, like me, want to spend time/money/effort on propagating and sharing my views about God?

Of course not.  But as noted above there really are some major differences.  

But not, I think, differences that matter enough to make what we Latter-day Saints do as being bad / immoral / illegal.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I also find more comfort in it.  And since we cannot know definitively either way, and since I find belief in God to be well within the bounds of reasonableness, I choose the option that has more joy and optimism and comfort in it.  If I'm wrong, then when I die I will blink out of existence and anything I will have done will not matter a whit.  If I am right, however, then I have changed my behaviors and worldview to a moral code which is, in my view, inherently and overwhelmingly good and decent, which makes me a better person, which makes me help others, and which is what God wants me to do.

Pascal was really on to something.  But I have found grounds to move past Pascal and onto . . . Joseph Smith.  

Ok. That is fine,  For me the cost both mentally, emotionally, financially, time commitment wise, just was not worth investing in something which at least for me, is not what it claims.  Pascal's wager is not worth it for the here and now.  Onto Joseph Smith even makes it less so.

I respect that position.  The Church is no doubt a "high demand" kind of thing.  But for me believing it to be what it claims to be, I doubt I would stay with it it either.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Belief in God is not all grape juice and roses.  There are plenty of things I believe God has commanded me to do that push me out of my comfort zone, that are difficult, and/or time-consuming, and/or not always enjoyable.  There are Sunday mornings when I want to stay in bed.  I served a mission for two years, and have since spent considerable amounts of time in various callings in the Church.  There are things I'd like to buy that I can't afford because I need to pay tithing instead.  There are things that I have never experienced and never will, like a fine wine or whiskey, or shrooms or peyote or LSD.  

So you live your life according to LDS rules. 

Voluntarily, yes.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Others live their lives according to other rules.  Would you like to live your life under Islam's rules? Why or why not?

If you are referring to Sharia, then no, I would not like to live under that system of laws.

That said, my family has a dear friend who is an observant Muslim.  She's a wonderful person, and she seems quite happy in her faith.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Great.  People can do all this without the artificail restrictions of some religion. They do it all the time. And even LDS believers and families have struggles,

Everyone lives with "artificial"  restrictions.  Some come from religious beliefs, some from the law, some from societal norms/expectations, and some are self-imposed.

But they are all "artificial."

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Overall I think my quality of life is substantially better with the Restored Gospel than it would have been without it.  It has helped me a lot in overcoming my bad habits and inclinations.  It has helped me recognize the value of family, service, education, hard work, persistence, and so on.  I am a better husband and father, a better neighbor and citizen, a better person because of it.

Yes maybe and maybe not. You may have been better with out it. Who knows for sure.

I dunno.  My life has some real challenges and difficulties, but I wouldn't trade it for . . . anything.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

We cannot do an It's A Wonderful Life scenario now can we?

Oh, I dunno.  I believe the Lord showed Wilford Woodruff a "what if" scenario:

Quote

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice {polygamy}. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice.

Similarly, the Lord seems to be able to discern what would have happened:

Quote

1 The heavens were opened upon us, and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell.
2 I saw the transcendent beauty of the gate through which the heirs of that kingdom will enter, which was like unto circling flames of fire;
3 Also the blazing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son.
4 I saw the beautiful streets of that kingdom, which had the appearance of being paved with gold.
5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;
6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.
7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;
8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;
9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

Is it possible for God to give us glimpses of what would have happened had we taken an alternate course in life?

Perhaps.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Those who make claims of supernatural things need to provide the evidence.  Other wise those claims can be dismissed without evidence.  THe burden of proof is on the claimer of such things.

Out of curiosity, if God where to appear to someone what would you accept as evidence of that appearance? 

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

How one discerns, evaluates, and decides "what's really true," however, being "Ay, there's the rub!"  Science is a valuable, informative, and, often, even an elegant thing.  But, while it can explain how sound waves are produced by the instruments that are used to play a musical composition, how those sound waves interact with the cochlea of my ear, and how my brain interprets the information it receives from my cochlea to produce what I hear, it cannot explain why (or why not) I experience the music on a deeper (dare I say "spiritual"?) level, or why I might react one way to a particular composition while someone else reacts in a completely different way.

For all of its explanatory power, science cannot answer any of life's "terrible questions": Why, in an ultimate, cosmic sense, did I come into being (a religious person might phrase it "Where did I come from")?  What is my ultimate purpose ("Why am I here")?  Why evil?  Why suffering?  For that matter, why righteousness, and why joy?  Whatever answers science may be able to come up with for these kinds of questions will be found wanting: "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."  1 Corinthians 2:11 KJV.

Now, having said all of that, also, I said the following in another public forum once:

Still, there are some questions that even science, for all of its explanatory power, cannot answer, a fact which, unfortunately, the most ardent devotees of scientism never will acknowledge.

Historically, religion in all its forms has encroached on science, and it still does. Religions have claimed to have answers to questions that are within the purview of science. Scientific knowledge advancing provides a scientific test for how reliable religion is at providing answers to questions that are true.

For example, in the 17th century various scholars calculated that according to the Bible, the earth was created around the year 4,000 B.C. In 1832, God confirmed the truth of this to Joseph Smith with the clarification that the earth's "temporal existence" is in fact 7,000 years and began in the year 4,000 B.C. (see D&C 77). Yes, Mormons generally say that there were seven periods of creation of indeterminate length before the "temporal existence" began in 4,000 B.C., and of course you are free to believe whatever you want on the matter. The point is that as scientific knowledge has advanced, religion has either obstinately clung to false beliefs or has backpedaled on its truth claims.

You may think that the religion of your choice provides satisfying answers to "terrible questions." But given its track record on truth claims that have eventually been evaluated by science, there is no reason to believe that it provides any reliable insight into reality. It's the opposite, as a matter of fact.

Science doesn't have all the answers. But religion doesn't have any of them. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Out of curiosity, if God where to appear to someone what would you accept as evidence of that appearance? 

There was a time I would say yes,  But trusting those who make such claims had become more difficult.  Plus there is also the question of why God would only appear directly to a very select few historically that then tell us to trust them and have faith. I am sure there are those who claim to have seen God that you may not trust?

[pogi]

Opps.  Wrong thread

 

Edited October 6, 2021 by pogi

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

 

There was a time I would say yes,  But trusting those who make such claims had become more difficult.

He asked what evidence of that appearance would you trust, not whether you would trust the person reporting and this the report.   
 

Quote

what would you accept as evidence of that appearance? 

 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Out of curiosity, if God where to appear to someone what would you accept as evidence of that appearance? 

sorry I misread.  Not sure. Trust is still high on the list.

[ksfisher]

41 minutes ago, Teancum said:

sorry I misread.  Not sure. Trust is still high on the list.

I think trust is the only thing you can do.  There is really no way to provide evidence such as you mentioned would be needed.  

 

[Kenngo1969]

14 hours ago, Analytics said:

Historically, religion in all its forms has encroached on science, and it still does. Religions have claimed to have answers to questions that are within the purview of science. Scientific knowledge advancing provides a scientific test for how reliable religion is at providing answers to questions that are true.

For example, in the 17th century various scholars calculated that according to the Bible, the earth was created around the year 4,000 B.C. In 1832, God confirmed the truth of this to Joseph Smith with the clarification that the earth's "temporal existence" is in fact 7,000 years and began in the year 4,000 B.C. (see D&C 77). Yes, Mormons generally say that there were seven periods of creation of indeterminate length before the "temporal existence" began in 4,000 B.C., and of course you are free to believe whatever you want on the matter. The point is that as scientific knowledge has advanced, religion has either obstinately clung to false beliefs or has backpedaled on its truth claims.

You may think that the religion of your choice provides satisfying answers to "terrible questions." But given its track record on truth claims that have eventually been evaluated by science, there is no reason to believe that it provides any reliable insight into reality. It's the opposite, as a matter of fact.

Science doesn't have all the answers. But religion doesn't have any of them. 

Okay.  Well, I appreciate your forthrightness even though, shockingly , I don't share your assessment of religion's utility in the lives of its adherents.  Having said that, with all due respect, despite your confident, glib reassurances that some single, objective, self-evident thing called "reality" exists, upon which everyone, if only they were given the proper tools for assessing that "thing" called reality and were trained adequately in the use of those tools, would agree, I am not convinced. 

To take an undeniably-trivial example, what if I believe that, beyond all doubt, French vanilla is the one "true" ice cream, while you, by contrast, are convinced equally of the undeniable, unsurpassed joys of rocky road?  What if I believe, in good faith, that if only you were to experience the unalloyed bliss that is French vanilla ice cream, your opinion would be swayed, while you, by contrast, that the same is true of me with respect to rocky road?  All of "reality," however, is filtered through one's perceptions of it: One's "reality" may change as one's perceptions of that reality change, but there can be no "reality" outside of one's perceptions.

And with respect to your example with regard to religion, I think it would help if, at least, you were to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.  Do you not recognize, or are you not willing to grant, that all religious beliefs are not created equal, that perhaps (as unlikely as the prospect with someone with your particular worldview might seem) there isn't much correspondence or equivalency (if any) between a belief regarding the age of the earth, or the existence of Adam and Eve, or any belief of that nature, on the one hand, and one's belief regarding the afterlife and the ultimate fate of one's immortal soul, on the other hand?   

And as much as science might concern itself with, or as much as its practitioners who are conversant with such things might consider themselves competent to answer questions regarding (e.g.) the age of the earth, why should we, therefore, consider science and scientists competent to answer questions regarding the ultimate, cosmic fate of one's eternal soul when even they consider themselves unqualified to answer such questions?

[See also my additional thoughts in reply to this same post, below.]

Edited October 7, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[2BizE]

I think he is referring to this current millennium and the temple will continue long into this millennium. As far as temple changes, I believe Pres. Nelson has some changes in store. He has shown us he likes to change things up. I believe it will have something to do with the youth of the church.

[CelestialSeething]

On 10/3/2021 at 2:47 PM, bluebell said:

He did seem to be setting the stage. 

Yes. He did. 

Possibly for an announcement on converting portions of stake centers not close to existing Temples, into mini-Temples? 

 

[Bernard Gui]

On 10/5/2021 at 4:55 PM, Teancum said:

I have lost loved ones. Dear friends, a niece that was like a daughters to us that dies 10 years ago at 16 years old totally unexpectedly, parents, etc. Death and loss has been rather common to me that past 10-15 year. Some of these events are what caused me to question a loving God as it relates to the problem of evil and suffering. I am still optimistic about life even if this is all we have.

This seems inconsistent. If you are still optimistic about life even in the face of tragedy, why shut out God? One can still believe in God and be optimistic about life in the face of tragedy. Even more so considering His promises. 

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

I agree. My faith is that the best way to approach life is to face reality with our eyes wide open, observe carefully, think clearly, embrace truth, and use our own ingenuity to make this world the best it can be. I believe that we have the power to make the world a wonderful place and that the best way to do so is from a perspective of embracing what's really true.  

What do you think is true?

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

This seems inconsistent. If you are still optimistic about life even in the face of tragedy, why shut out God? One can still believe in God and be optimistic about life in the face of tragedy. Even more so considering His promises. 

I am not clear as to why you think it inconsistent. The topic of theodicy has been problematic for many humans over time. Evil and suffering are real and for many hard to reconcile with what Judeo Christian ideas are about the nature of God.

[Kenngo1969]

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

Historically, religion in all its forms has encroached on science, and it still does. Religions have claimed to have answers to questions that are within the purview of science. Scientific knowledge advancing provides a scientific test for how reliable religion is at providing answers to questions that are true.

[Snipped to conserve space and because I responded previously to this same post.]

Okay, but, but thinking about it further (see also my previous reply to this same post), it's not as though no scientists are devout and/or are people of faith.  In our rational, enlightened age, such people may be a distinct minority, as many scientists, perhaps, have abandoned faith for, say, secular humanism, but it's not as though secular humanism has won the day completely.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

Science doesn't have all the answers. But religion doesn't have any of them. 

Even for religious scientists?  Is it only a matter of time before they abandon their faith completely and "convert" to secular humanism?  And it's not only religious people who have grappled with life's "terrible questions."  People in many other fields have grappled with them, as well, fields such as art, music, literature, architecture, philosophy, et cetera, ad infinitum.  And what of religion's contribution to those myriad other pursuits?  Are all of those pursuits, as well, destined to be abandoned on the dust heap of history because, allegedly, science is the lone repository and domain of all of the answers worth having?

[Analytics]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

To take an undeniably-trivial example, what if I believe that, beyond all doubt, French vanilla is the one "true" ice cream, while you, by contrast, are convinced equally of the undeniable, unsurpassed joys of rocky road?  What if I believe, in good faith, that if only you were to experience the unalloyed bliss that is French vanilla ice cream, your opinion would be swayed, while you, by contrast, that the same is true of me with respect to rocky road?  All of "reality," however, is filtered through one's perceptions of it: One's "reality" may change as one's perceptions of that reality change, but there can be no "reality" outside of one's perceptions.

This may sound radical to you, but I believe reality is out there. I believe ice cream is real, but in the hypothetical conversation we are having here we are both wrong--flavors of ice cream don't have the property of being "true."

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

And with respect to your example with regard to religion, I think it would help if, at least, you were to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.  Do you not recognize, or are you not willing to grant, that all religious beliefs are not created equal, that perhaps (as unlikely as the prospect with someone with your particular worldview might seem) there isn't much correspondence or equivalency (if any) between a belief regarding the age of the earth, or the existence of Adam and Eve, or any belief of that nature, on the one hand, and one's belief regarding the afterlife and the ultimate fate of one's immortal soul, on the other hand? 

There are limits to what science can know. Sure. But surprisingly, the ultimate fate of one's soul seems to be within the purview of science. Multiple fields of science are converging on the reality that this life is all there is--there simply isn't a ghost in the machine. When you die, that's it. As you point out, there are in fact many scientists who compartmentalize their thinking and believe in their religious traditions while not even having an inkling of a hypothesis for how such beliefs could even be plausible.

The inconsistencies and irrationalities of human thought are also within the purview of science. A belief being human and a belief being rationally justified are two different things.

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Okay, but, but thinking about it further (see also my previous reply to this same post), it's not as though no scientists are devout and/or are people of faith.  In our rational, enlightened age, such people may be a distinct minority, as many scientists, perhaps, have abandoned faith for, say, secular humanism, but it's not as though secular humanism has won the day completely.

Even for religious scientists?  Is it only a matter of time before they abandon their faith completely and "convert" to secular humanism?  And it's not only religious people who have grappled with life's "terrible questions."  People in many other fields have grappled with them, as well, fields such as art, music, literature, architecture, philosophy, et cetera, ad infinitum.  And what of religion's contribution to those myriad other pursuits?  Are all of those pursuits, as well, destined to be abandoned on the dust heap of history because, allegedly, science is the lone repository and domain of all of the answers worth having?

I appreciate you taking the time to read and think about what I wrote here. There are tough questions that are worth thinking about, and science isn't necessarily going to have answers to them. But what is the point of asking the questions in the first place? Is it to make up an answer that is emotionally (and spiritually) satisfying, yet still made up? Or is it better to just say, "I don't know." Religion and religious people have made great contributions to society, and given what we know about cognitive science, humans have a formidable ability to believe in things that aren't true. And intelligence doesn't help all that much in this regard--smart people are inclined to use their intelligence to rationalize their irrational beliefs.

The question comes down to weighing how much we want to know the truth against how much we want to maintain beliefs that are congruent with our communities and that we find spiritually satisfying.

This conversation reminds me of something that Christopher Hitchens said:

The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted.

I trust that if you met me, you would not necessarily know that this was my view. I have probably sat up later, and longer, with religious friends than with any other kind. These friends often irritate me by saying that I am a “seeker,” which I am not, or not in the way they think. If I went back to Devon, where Mrs. Watts has her unvisited tomb, I would surely find myself sitting quietly at the back of some old Celtic or Saxon church. (Philip Larkin’s lovely poem “Church-going” is the perfect capture of my own attitude.) I once wrote a book about George Orwell, who might have been my hero if I had heroes, and was upset by his callousness about the burning of churches in Catalonia in 1936. Sophocles showed, well before the rise of monotheism, that Antigone spoke for humanity in her revulsion against desecration.

Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great (pp. 19-20)

[Kenngo1969]

With all due respect, I think you're engaging in special pleading here, privileging your own brand of certitude over all other [alleged] brands of certitude simply because it is yours.  The best science can do is provide the best explanation possible of any currently available data.  But change the data, change the science. 

And frankly, I find your characterization of faith and devotion as "made up" answers offensive.  They may not be your cup of tea, or they may not be consistent with how you see the world, and that's fine.  But are you absolutely certain that scientists have a corner on the only knowledge with knowing?  Would you, likewise, dismiss the answers provided by philosophers, poets and other writers, musicians, artists, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum, as also "made up," or are you willing to grant, at least, that they have a perspective that you lack?  And if you are willing to grant that much to philosophers, et al (many of whom are religious, by the way, though certainly not all) why are you willing to grant that point to them but not to the religiously devout?

In any event, whatever other benefits I derive from my faith, I assure you that certitude regarding many of the things about which you believe I am certain is not one of them.  There are many, many things I wish I knew that I do not, but I choose, nonetheless, to believe.  (Irrational, I know , but, there it is! )

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, CelestialSeething said:

Yes. He did. 

Possibly for an announcement on converting portions of stake centers not close to existing Temples, into mini-Temples? 

 

I don't think so, because the nature of his talk really wasn't relevant with that kind of announcement.  Building design changes or moving to even smaller temples wouldn't be the kind of change that members would need to be inoculated against or prepared in advance.  There would be no doctrinal change associate with it.  

We've had buildings repurposed as temples already and members haven't struggled with that idea at all.  Likewise, having a temple with parts that are used for other things, such as offices or even ward meetinghouses, is also nothing new.  The Manhattan temple has been doing it for years for example with no one being concerned that such a structure constitutes doctrinal changes that need to be explained.

His talk really didn't set the stage for that kind of revelation.  It seems clear that he was talking about temple ceremonies, not the buildings where we perform them.