New Video on Evolution and Latter-day Saints

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

I have already have answered the question, yet you have ignored my question as to why your question is relevant.

Multiple times.

~

This my answer, I would like it treated as such:

Both science and religion make material claims about existence, as well as contribute to subjective and intersubjective understandings of the world.

~
 

The ‘other topics’ are actually not otherly at all, and are key to the argument.

Some of them have even been examples to back up my argument.

You are deliberately ignoring them and treating them as illegitimate yet you do not explain why. 

You say: Both science and religion make material claims about existence, as well as contribute to subjective and intersubjective understandings of the world.

You also say: I reject that they have two separate lines of inquiry that do not merge or converge.

That is well and good, but making a claim and contributing to subjective and intersubjective understandings of the world does not necessarily entail shared investigation. That last piece is what I am asking examples of: where you think they merge or converge in their investigation, whether by approach, method or even conclusion. I've not seen any examples to ignore. I'm not ignoring what you've posted, but I do not comment on what isn't germane to what I'm asking / looking for.

[ProphetShiloh]

When the intelligence that flows from the book sealed with seven seals (Rev 5:1-5) is taken seriously by the people, the apparent contradictions between science and the word of God will be precisely and thoroughly reconciled.  All truth agrees.

The entirety of God's word is written in a special manner that conceals the truth behind a veil of symbol.  Once this veil is penetrated by having and using the necessary keys of understanding, it will be possible to clearly understand both sides of this needless divide.

The first thing to sort out is the cosmos of Elohim is NOT the physical cosmos.  These two cosmoses should not be conflated.

When holy writ speaks of the creation of the world, it is talking specifically about the eternal family of Adam, which is a subset of what people call humanity.  Adam's "world" is his eternal family.  My "world" is my eternal family.  If I don't have an eternal family, then I am unable to have a "world".  Each "world" that the Latter-day Saints each may acquire is a subset of Adam's "world".  Creation in the Bible is all about people, which is explicitly what Genesis 2:4 says.

The entirety of Elohim's cosmos is a spiritual cosmos that pertains to human civilization.  The creation account in the Bible is the master blueprint of the old world.  The creation account in the LDS temple rites was the master blueprint for the new world if the Saints hadn't transgressed and fell under condemnation.  In due time, when the Lord sets his hand the second time to recover his people, we will get the revised master blueprint for the new world.

Thus, as far as Elohim's cosmos goes: It's "sun" is the Savior.  It's "moon" is the adversary.  It's "stars" are the multitude of foreordained holders of the priesthood spoken of in Abraham who are prophets, apostles, kings, priests, etc., that have the responsibility to shine "light" upon those over whom they govern.  People are the luminaries of Elohim's cosmos.  The same trend goes for everything else.  People are the "fishes", "fowls", and "creatures on dry ground" as well.  It's all about people and how they are organized into civilization.

Just as Joseph Smith, Jr., revealed in D&C 77:6-7, each seal of the master blueprint pertains to a millennium from the first to the last giving each "world" a duration of seven millennia.  The part he left out is that the seven days of creation are the seven seals that are used to encrypt all of holy writ behind that veil of symbols.  Yes, Joseph Smith, Jr., was a Messiah who opened the book sealed with seven seals.  He was the Rod from the Root of Jesse/David.  The Book of Mormon makes it clear that the seals themselves contain writing in them and that they reveal all of the hidden mysteries of God throughout the duration of his creation from beginning to the ending.  This is the creation account itself that performs this role.

So, if you are looking for Adam and Eve of the old world, you are looking for something that Adam and Eve symbolically represent.  You aren't supposed to look for a single human house suitable for a healthy crop of children that Adam and Eve lived in for nearly a millennium.  Rather, what you should look for is a governing priesthood organization accompanied by a church organization that governed a golden age/race society in antiquity.  And, there will also be offshoot organizations from them that reflect the same pattern as we see manifested in Abel, Cain, Seth, etc.  The new world is indeed patterned very much after the old world.  The same pattern/parallel exists. 

Ironically, nobody outside of the people I have taught is consciously aware of the identities of these flesh-and-bone beings that are tangibly in our midst.  This needs to change, and the time for that has come.  The LDS people need to open their eyes of understanding and become self-aware of their collective identities.  Eve (the Church) needs to open her eyes of understanding to the identity of Lucifer-Cain (LDS Inc.) so that he and his minions can be cast down from the stations of heavenly glory that they have usurped in order to do the bidding of the dragon-serpent.

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

It depends on what?

If it depends, then you are admitting that the the non-overlapping magisteria view to be incorrect.

~
 

I’m beginning to believe that you are indeed arguing in bad faith.

I have already explained and gave examples of Religious arguments making material claims, as well as subjective claims like values that are at least partially premised upon physical claims (like god revealing x to y)

Great example of what I am not looking for. Where do religious and scientific arguments make the same material claim, more importantly, as a result of the same inquiry (investigative process)?

[Canadiandude]

34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What is the common approach of investigation or asking the question for a given topic?

Are you asking between science and religion?

There might not be a common approach for a given topic, this does not mean science is incapable of exploring the likely veracity of religious claims that have material elements and components.

We can also examine historical and contemporary examples where religiously based arguments have been used by religious actors to criticize and censure scientific discovery, methods, informed personal/public policy based on the prior, and so on.

~

[Canadiandude]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I've not seen any examples to ignore.

You’ve got to be kidding me.

Brigham Young and many other prophets for example contended the existence of a material Adam and Eve, a material Cain and Abel. A material mark as evidence of a curse. 

If we examine how evolution explains human descent, it is clear that we are all descendants of black ancestors, and that regional skin colour variation is just the result of evolutionary adaptation to the kinds and levels of radiation around the world.

~
 

It is both the scientifically-contradicted, and un-falsifiable material and materially-supported claims that concerns me the most.

Scientific methodologies and discoveries have and continue to call into question many of these material, and materially-supported claims.

[Canadiandude]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Great example of what I am not looking for. Where do religious and scientific arguments make the same material claim, more importantly, as a result of the same inquiry (investigative process)?

As I recall, the response was myself asking and looking for an answer from none other than yourself.

~

When you said: “It depends”, 

What does it depend upon?

 

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Where do religious and scientific arguments make the same material claim, more importantly, as a result of the same inquiry (investigative process)?

Why does this this matter?

My argument is not that they make the exact same claims, nor that they use the same investigative process.

My argument is that religiously based arguments make material claims, as well as subjective claims on topics such as values that also use material claims for support.

~

Another example re: the latter

The church’s stance on polygamy was revealed and legitimated by a god to Smith and others, with some of the participants being warned that god had threatened so and so with an angel to ensure compliance.

Would you not like evidence of such god or angel, especially if you’re the young woman approached by the prophet so terribly threatened??

~
 

Scientific study can also inform subjective and intersubjective values and conventions such as policy.

The social and behavioural sciences are also especially useful in this regard.

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, ProphetShiloh said:

When the intelligence that flows from the book sealed with seven seals (Rev 5:1-5) is taken seriously by the people, the apparent contradictions between science and the word of God will be precisely and thoroughly reconciled.  All truth agrees.

The entirety of God's word is written in a special manner that conceals the truth behind a veil of symbol.  Once this veil is penetrated by having and using the necessary keys of understanding, it will be possible to clearly understand both sides of this needless divide.

The first thing to sort out is the cosmos of Elohim is NOT the physical cosmos.  These two cosmoses should not be conflated.

When holy writ speaks of the creation of the world, it is talking specifically about the eternal family of Adam, which is a subset of what people call humanity.  Adam's "world" is his eternal family.  My "world" is my eternal family.  If I don't have an eternal family, then I am unable to have a "world".  Each "world" that the Latter-day Saints each may acquire is a subset of Adam's "world".  Creation in the Bible is all about people, which is explicitly what Genesis 2:4 says.

The entirety of Elohim's cosmos is a spiritual cosmos that pertains to human civilization.  The creation account in the Bible is the master blueprint of the old world.  The creation account in the LDS temple rites was the master blueprint for the new world if the Saints hadn't transgressed and fell under condemnation.  In due time, when the Lord sets his hand the second time to recover his people, we will get the revised master blueprint for the new world.

Thus, as far as Elohim's cosmos goes: It's "sun" is the Savior.  It's "moon" is the adversary.  It's "stars" are the multitude of foreordained holders of the priesthood spoken of in Abraham who are prophets, apostles, kings, priests, etc., that have the responsibility to shine "light" upon those over whom they govern.  People are the luminaries of Elohim's cosmos.  The same trend goes for everything else.  People are the "fishes", "fowls", and "creatures on dry ground" as well.  It's all about people and how they are organized into civilization.

Just as Joseph Smith, Jr., revealed in D&C 77:6-7, each seal of the master blueprint pertains to a millennium from the first to the last giving each "world" a duration of seven millennia.  The part he left out is that the seven days of creation are the seven seals that are used to encrypt all of holy writ behind that veil of symbols.  Yes, Joseph Smith, Jr., was a Messiah who opened the book sealed with seven seals.  He was the Rod from the Root of Jesse/David.  The Book of Mormon makes it clear that the seals themselves contain writing in them and that they reveal all of the hidden mysteries of God throughout the duration of his creation from beginning to the ending.  This is the creation account itself that performs this role.

So, if you are looking for Adam and Eve of the old world, you are looking for something that Adam and Eve symbolically represent.  You aren't supposed to look for a single human house suitable for a healthy crop of children that Adam and Eve lived in for nearly a millennium.  Rather, what you should look for is a governing priesthood organization accompanied by a church organization that governed a golden age/race society in antiquity.  And, there will also be offshoot organizations from them that reflect the same pattern as we see manifested in Abel, Cain, Seth, etc.  The new world is indeed patterned very much after the old world.  The same pattern/parallel exists. 

Ironically, nobody outside of the people I have taught is consciously aware of the identities of these flesh-and-bone beings that are tangibly in our midst.  This needs to change, and the time for that has come.  The LDS people need to open their eyes of understanding and become self-aware of their collective identities.  Eve (the Church) needs to open her eyes of understanding to the identity of Lucifer-Cain (LDS Inc.) so that he and his minions can be cast down from the stations of heavenly glory that they have usurped in order to do the bidding of the dragon-serpent.

Great stuff, and I agree completely.

Only one small objection and that is simply about the language used; in my paradigms, I try to be aware that they ARE paradigms/interpretations of the symbols with the possibility of other possible interpretations being perfectly acceptabl

Take this example, if it helps

Quote

 

When holy writ speaks of the creation of the world, it is talking specifically about the eternal family of Adam, which is a subset of what people call humanity. 

 

 I can agree with that, or I can see other "correct" examples as well- for example one might be that, instead of seeing it as the "world of the family etc" one MIGHT also see it as Adam's personal "world" and what it is like to live in his subjective "world" as an Everyman figure, in exploring his own psychological adjustments in discovering God and his own struggles with sin.   One can see both Freudian and Jungian interpretations in the symbols as well.

I think when one says ".... It IS talking SPECIFICALLY about..." something it appears that you are laying down the "ONE TRUE" interpretation, which seems contradictory to the presumption that the words ARE symbolic and can be interpreted in other words or ideas.   In other words, when I do that I am worried that it might appear that I am laying down the OLD dogma of say, the literal interpretation, and establishing my NEW dogmatic interpretation- which is just as dogmatic as the original.   

As the "WHO" musical group may have said it,  "Meet the new boss- he's the same as the old boss"- the second view may be seen as just as dogmatic as the first.

MY preference might be to substitute for "IS" in giving my interpretation, might be "...my interpretation is that the scripture is talking about the eternal family of Adam, which can be seen as a subset of what people call humanity."

I don't think that that is less emphatic that you are presenting a new and very strong interpretation of a symbol, but at least it avoids the "new dogma is still dogma" connotation, especially when your moniker includes the word "prophet"- unless of course you do in fact regard your self as THE prophet of a new church.

But on either case,it's not up to me to say how you should send your very powerful message, it is just a suggestion about how to clarify your language if that represents what you really mean.

[Canadiandude]

My line of reasoning is not unique.

More concerning it can be found here:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-Overlapping_Magisteria#Criticisms_of_Gould.27s_NOMA

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Are you asking between science and religion?

There might not be a common approach for a given topic, this does not mean science is incapable of exploring the likely veracity of religious claims that have material elements and components.

We can also examine historical and contemporary examples where religiously based arguments have been used by religious actors to criticize and censure scientific discovery, methods, informed personal/public policy based on the prior, and so on.

~

Yes, that is what I have been asking. Thank you for at least acknowledging there "might not be a common approach" while not offering examples for where there is.

The rest of your posts seem to be to argue why you feel one approach is generally superior over the other, which is fine, but as someone who generally uses both, I'm not about to defend one over the other. I think both are superior in their own ways, and I favor the Church's religion above all other religions, just as I think one branch of science is more useful than others for a specific application.

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, that is what I have been asking. Thank you for at least acknowledging there "might not be a common approach" while not offering examples for where there is.

The rest of your posts seem to be to argue why you feel one approach is generally superior over the other, which is fine, but as someone who generally uses both, I'm not about to defend one over the other. I think both are superior in their own ways, and I favor the Church's religion above all other religions, just as I think one branch of science is more useful than others for a specific application.

Yeah.

I would hate it if doctors told me that the moon must align with mars before the surgery can be done.

[Canadiandude]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Yes, that is what I have been asking. Thank you for at least acknowledging there "might not be a common approach" while not offering examples for where there is.

The rest of your posts seem to be to argue why you feel one approach is generally superior over the other, which is fine, but as someone who generally uses both, I'm not about to defend one over the other. I think both are superior in their own ways, and I favor the Church's religion above all other religions, just as I think one branch of science is more useful than others for a specific application.

Thank-you for sharing your view. 

Remember when you asked for what my overall point was?

It was that I reject the view of the non-overlapping magisteria.

~

I have given my reasons for arguing that scientific and religious arguments make (and have made) overlapping existence claims over time.
 

What exists, why, and how,

~
 

Just as importantly, these overlapping claims have implications behind them for human behaviour, public policy, and more.

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Thank-you for sharing your view. 

Remember when you asked for what my overall point was?

It was that I reject the view of the non-overlapping magisteria.

~

I have given my reasons for arguing that scientific and religious arguments make (and have made) overlapping existence claims over time.
 

What exists, why, and how,

~
 

Just as importantly, these overlapping claims have implications behind them for human behaviour, public policy, and more.

In this case, what is an example of a common existence claim made by separate religious and scientific inquiries? Unless by "overlapping" you really mean incompatible or competing.

[Chum]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I would hate it if doctors told me that the moon must align with mars before the surgery can be done.

I suggest we bring back Biorhythms. They sound medical and have always been ready to guide us, if we'll just believe.

[Canadiandude]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In this case, what is an example of a common existence claim made by separate religious and scientific inquiries? Unless by "overlapping" you really mean incompatible or competing.

What do you mean exactly?

Can you explain the question’s significance in reference to the non-overlapping magisteria? 

Edited November 14, 2021 by Canadiandude

[ProphetShiloh]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Great stuff, and I agree completely.

Only one small objection and that is simply about the language used; in my paradigms, I try to be aware that they ARE paradigms/interpretations of the symbols with the possibility of other possible interpretations being perfectly acceptabl

Take this example, if it helps

 I can agree with that, or I can see other "correct" examples as well- for example one might be that, instead of seeing it as the "world of the family etc" one MIGHT also see it as Adam's personal "world" and what it is like to live in his subjective "world" as an Everyman figure, in exploring his own psychological adjustments in discovering God and his own struggles with sin.   One can see both Freudian and Jungian interpretations in the symbols as well.

I think when one says ".... It IS talking SPECIFICALLY about..." something it appears that you are laying down the "ONE TRUE" interpretation, which seems contradictory to the presumption that the words ARE symbolic and can be interpreted in other words or ideas.   In other words, when I do that I am worried that it might appear that I am laying down the OLD dogma of say, the literal interpretation, and establishing my NEW dogmatic interpretation- which is just as dogmatic as the original.   

As the "WHO" musical group may have said it,  "Meet the new boss- he's the same as the old boss"- the second view may be seen as just as dogmatic as the first.

MY preference might be to substitute for "IS" in giving my interpretation, might be "...my interpretation is that the scripture is talking about the eternal family of Adam, which can be seen as a subset of what people call humanity."

I don't think that that is less emphatic that you are presenting a new and very strong interpretation of a symbol, but at least it avoids the "new dogma is still dogma" connotation, especially when your moniker includes the word "prophet"- unless of course you do in fact regard your self as THE prophet of a new church.

But on either case,it's not up to me to say how you should send your very powerful message, it is just a suggestion about how to clarify your language if that represents what you really mean.

I am thankful that you see value in what I have shared.

I concur that inspiration is available to people as they handle the types and shadows of things spoken of in the word of God.  They may not necessarily be tapping into universal truths that everyone should also apply as they are, but great value is still available to individuals who find themselves in unique circumstances that God's word can speak uniquely to them about.

With that said, what I am commissioned to teach is a universal manner of deciphering the fullness of what is available in holy writ so that people can penetrate all mysteries.  I realize this is a lofty and bold claim, but so is claiming to be the Shiloh Messiah.

Your respectfully presented suggestions are welcomed.  Thank you.

[Canadiandude]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Thank you for at least acknowledging there "might not be a common approach" while not offering examples for where there is

So, are you suggesting that this acknowledgment by myself supports the ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ position?

If yes, please explain why.

If no, then why is it relevant?

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

In this case, what is an example of a common existence claim made by separate religious and scientific inquiries? Unless by "overlapping" you really mean incompatible or competing.

According to the research what are the proponents of the non-overlapping magisteria’s main points? 
 

What do you understand them to be contending for or against?

What do you understand the critics to be contending for against.

Include sources for your answers please.

Edit:

Once you have sufficiently responded to these questions, I shall respectfully re-engage.

But not until then.

You use the phrase ‘at least’ but I’ve so far answered more questions of you than you have of me, even if you did not recognize my examples and answers as such initially.

cheers. 

Edited November 14, 2021 by Canadiandude
Stating terms for further re-engagement.

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, Chum said:

I suggest we bring back Biorhythms. They sound medical and have always been ready to guide us, if we'll just believe.

But are they useful for making diagnoses to cure disease etc.?

Do they work?  THAT is the question.

In all cases the question is whether or not the paradigm "works" by providing us the results we desire.

IF biorythms give us the best remedy for whatever it is they are supposed to help, do they actually do so?  Is there anything that works better for that desired result?

Same question for religion.

The purpose of religion is to provide us with the best answer we can find to give us meaning in life and provide us with a framework of understanding WHY we are here.

For me, that is precisely what the Church of JC LDS does, and having searched for answers to those questions, this church is the one which meets my needs the best.

SO what we call true is what works to give us the "best bang for the buck" within the context we are searching.

Biorythms (let's say) may provde the best cure for what they are supposed to cure, while true religion is to give us the best answers on who we are, where we came from, where we are going, and gives us a purpose for getting out of bed in the morning.

For me that is the CoJCLDS.

I have seen priesthood blessings cure disease as well- both mental and physical, but providng answers is the main mission of the church, to help us "fill the measure of our creation and have joy therein": ie: to help us be the best humans we can be and do it with joy.

There is simply no scientific paradigm that does that

So both have ultimately the same method- to find "truth" ie: "what works best" but what they are seeking is totally different.

THAT is what most folks don't understand about religion.   It's not about facts, it's about the purpose of things.   It's not about ontology, it's teleology

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

So, are you suggesting that this acknowledgment by myself supports the ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ position?

If yes, please explain why.

If no, then why is it relevant?

According to the research what are the proponents of the non-overlapping magisteria’s main points? 
 

What do you understand them to be contending for or against?

What do you understand the critics to be contending for against.

Include sources for your answers please.

Edit:

Once you have sufficiently responded to these questions, I shall respectfully re-engage.

But not until then.

You use the phrase ‘at least’ but I’ve so far answered more questions of you than you have of me, even if you did not recognize my examples and answers as such initially.

cheers. 

You reject the view of the non-overlapping magisterial and argue that scientific and religious arguments make (and have made) overlapping claims. Evidently you do not use “overlapping” to mean incompatible or competing (I was asking it that way for clarification), so what is an example of a common "existence claim" made as a result of a common religious and scientific inquiry?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah.

I would hate it if doctors told me that the moon must align with mars before the surgery can be done.

It is the moon in the seventh house and Jupiter that aligns with Mars… 

[darrenskywalker]

I just want to mention that there are more and more current scientists scientifically disagreeing with evolution as a means of speciation. See Dr Tours on abiogenesis. I personally find it logically and scientifically unsound.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, darrenskywalker said:

I just want to mention that there are more and more current scientists scientifically disagreeing with evolution as a means of speciation. See Dr Tours on abiogenesis. I personally find it logically and scientifically unsound.

Are you addressing two issues here?  Speciation and abiogenesis or are you saying they are the same thing or something else?

added:  Dr. Tours does not believe life began spontaneously apparently.  Does he make other points about speciation?

Edited November 16, 2021 by Calm

[darrenskywalker]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you addressing two issues here?  Speciation and abiogenesis or are you saying they are the same thing or something else?

They are two separate things that are some of the say "building blocks" to the theory of the origin of man etc ...I believe in evolution, I don't believe in speciation

[darrenskywalker]

Of course definitions of species and thus speciation can vary...

[darrenskywalker]

8 hours ago, darrenskywalker said:

I just want to mention that there are more and more current scientists scientifically disagreeing with evolution as a means of speciation. See Dr Tours on abiogenesis. I personally find it logically and scientifically unsound.

Sorry, I should clarify, I find "speciation", where evolution is the driving mechanism, as logically and scientifically unsound. I also have always found abiogenesis improbable like as explained by Dr Tours and others.

[Teancum]

On 11/13/2021 at 8:15 PM, mfbukowski said:

The purpose of religion is to provide us with the best answer we can find to give us meaning in life and provide us with a framework of understanding WHY we are here.

For me, that is precisely what the Church of JC LDS does, and having searched for answers to those questions, this church is the one which meets my needs the best.

SO what we call true is what works to give us the "best bang for the buck" within the context we are searching.

So when I said that nothing really matters and you were offended by that that causes me to be puzzled.  Because that is what I get from your comments above. What works best for you, me or anyone when it comes to finding meaning in life is "truth" or at least that individual's truth.  That is fine but that is NOT what the LDS Church teaches about its truth claims nor what the vast majority of the believers think.  Based on what your position is a Catholic that finds their religion meets their needs best has as much truth as you even where those truth claims conflict.  The same for a skeptic like me, or an atheist.  

Is this a fair summary or not?