Neanderthal temple work

[manol]

On 7/2/2022 at 6:33 PM, mfbukowski said:

I look for propositions which are consistent with a good paradigm, then see if the paradigm "works" for me I test it out as Alma 32 suggests and see if it sweetens my life. 

 

11 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

How do you accommodate for confirmation bias, etc.? 

It would be nice if we had proof, or if we could at least refer to controlled blind studies, wouldn't it?  But would that really make the difference?  Perhaps not - I think we'd still have a tendency to believe what we want to.

About 30 years ago I was interested in controlled blind studies of the efficacy of prayer.  (Google can point you towards papers on the subject, most of which are more recent than my burst of amateur interest.)  The impression I came away with was that there seems to be a small but statistically significant effect; that some "prayer strategies" work better than others; and that effectiveness was increased when the recipients knew they were being prayed for... so, presumably some placebo effect.  When the recipients did not know they were being prayed for, the effect tended to be still there but reduced. 

Driven by curiosity, I participated in an informal, but controlled and blind, investigation of something similar (involving computer-generated random numbers and "guessing"; I wrote the program and did the math.)  The statistical  probability of the result being a lower "score" than what was observed was .99966, and conversely the probability of the "score" being what was observed or higher was .00034, or a little higher than 1 in 3,000.  (The test took all day and was only run once because it was so boring to do, so the data was not cherry-picked).  The test methodology and statistical analysis were afterwards reviewed by a university professor who was one of James Randi's test administrators.   However even if the results had been duplicated in front of a Randi Challenge administrator, the probability would still have fallen orders of magnitude below James Randi's minimum threshold.  Dangit.

Now don't get me wrong - I am NOT expecting ANYONE ELSE to believe or attach any credibility to the foregoing; I'm laying the foundation of "manol arguably has good reason to believe something", as the back-story for what I'm about to say about confirmation bias:

In the years since then, there have been times when I IGNORED the implications of the highly improbable experimental results that had I watched being generated with my own eyes!

In other words, my CONFIRMATION BIAS - my impulse to BELIEVE WHAT I WANT despite evidence to the contrary - has at times overridden my eyewitness testimony and a statistical analysis thereof.   Assuming I'm not unique in this area, we may be "wired" to believe what we want to believe so powerfully that DESIRE is a primary factor in our conclusions.  We see what we want to see.  We find what we seek.   The world "is" what we "think it is", which makes it very hard to change someone else's mind by evidence alone, if their DESIRE to NOT change their mind is sufficiently strong. 

I have no reason to believe my confirmation bias is any weaker now that at any other time in my past.  So I accept the extremely high probability that I'm wrong about most things if not all things, and end up falling back on Alma Chapter 32, which means that I tend to go with what "feels right" to me... which in turn is extremely unlikely to be exactly what "feels right" to anyone else... especially since it hasn't stopped evolving for me. 

Edited July 4, 2022 by manol

[Calm]

3 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

How much formal study would a person need in order to be able to grasp enough of the principles Christianity to receive exaltation? Because ~50 years feels excessive.

You really think 50 or so years is excessive if (and thankfully that is a big if) one could study one’s way to Godhood?  I would be nervous if it took less than 1000 at the very, very least. Long enough to begin to sort of approach the maturity it needs to handle such knowledge without screwing it all up. 

3 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

 I like how this Rorty fellow explains things. Usually, I find philosophers to be mostly chefs of the word salad variety. 

That’s going to raise you a few notches on mfb’s list of favorite posters.  

[Calm]

This is supposedly in my signature, but I have those turned off so I can’t see them to save room on my screen, so I repost it rather than point people to it. 
 

Quote

“When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 268).

Accepting salvation and exaltation otoh requires a change of heart and mind and that might be between one step and another or longer than a lifetime’s journey.  It is up to the individual the length of their path, how long it takes for them to grasp God’s outreached hand and allow him to pull us up the mountain.

Edited July 4, 2022 by Calm

[manol]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

“When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 268).

I like the ladder metaphor ("ladder-day saints?").  That rung which was our anchor in the storm... we may need to let it go in order to grasp the next higher one. 

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Accepting salvation and exaltation otoh requires a change of heart and mind and that might be between one step and another or longer than a lifetime’s journey.  It is up to the individual the length of their path, how long it takes for them to grasp God’s outreached hand and allow him to pull us up the mountain.

It seems to me that a worldwide church with a worldwide audience cannot reasonably tailor its lesson manuals to all of the places people might be on their respective ladders.  So once you have reached the point where you know all of the answers before the teacher even asks them, who or what becomes your teacher?  Fortunately the LDS Church has prepared its members for this from the day they were baptized (or in some cases the day after), by giving them the Gift of the Holy Ghost, who can literally become a personal tutor:

“The Holy Ghost will be your personal tutor as you seek to understand what the Lord would have you know and do. This process is neither quick nor easy, but it is spiritually invigorating." - President Nelson, emphasis mine.

"Tell the people to be humble and faithful, and be sure to keep the spirit of the Lord and it will lead them right. Be careful and not turn away the small still voice; it will teach you what to do and where to go; it will yield the fruits of the kingdom. Tell the brethren to keep their hearts open to conviction, so that when the Holy Ghost comes to them, their hearts will be ready to receive it. They can tell the Spirit of the Lord from all other spirits; it will whisper peace and joy to their souls; it will take malice, hatred, strife and all evil from their hearts; and their whole desire will be to do good, bring forth righteousness and build up the kingdom of God. Tell the brethren if they will follow the spirit of the lord they will go right... Tell the people to be sure to keep the Spirit of the Lord and follow it, and it will lead them just right.” - Joseph Smith to Brigham Young, in a dream (or possibly in a near-death experience, according to @Kevin Christensen) when Brigham was sick in bed at Winter Quarters three years after Joseph's death, emphasis mine.

Edited July 4, 2022 by manol

[Calm]

Yes and yes, amen and amen (to manol’s post)

Edited July 4, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

This is supposedly in my signature, but I have those turned off so I can’t see them to save room on my screen, so I repost it rather than point people to it. 
 

Accepting salvation and exaltation otoh requires a change of heart and mind and that might be between one step and another or longer than a lifetime’s journey.  It is up to the individual the length of their path, how long it takes for them to grasp God’s outreached hand and allow him to pull us up the mountain.

Or, if one dies as a newborn, it may take no time at all.

 

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Love of the game is enough purpose for me.

Fair enough! And I kind of agree.

14 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

I may take the position that the creation account is a myth, that god is a byproduct of our monkey brains, and that zero angels exist to dance on pins (pins, I can be convinced exist, though). But, though I feel pretty confident in my stance on those topics, the fact that people disagree with me on topics like this always sparks my curiosity, helps me assess my own epistemology, and hones my belief system. So, I’m always down to measure some angel tracks on pins.

"Taking a position" implies that one might not be "all in" on that position, thus allowing for the possibility that one might be wrong. This could be described as "classic agnosticism." I, on the other hand, am very certain about the creation myth (as an allegorical tale that was actually given by Deity), that God created our monkey brains (through the evolutionary process) to be an avatar for our directing divine spirits for the purpose of testing our suitability for exaltation, and that angels have no interest at all in dancing on pins. 

14 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Will there be no-salvation-needed animals in the celestial kingdom (like, cows, giraffes, lions, lambs, etc.), and, if so, is that a possibility for other members of the homo genus?

The short answer is: No, not as such.

The longer answer is: Maybe and who knows? We are not told anything about the ultimate destination of any of those. Christianity rejects the concept of transmigration of souls (or, rather, the scriptures say nothing about it). My question: is it nevertheless possible that the spark of the divine which dwells within these lower life forms might someday be raised to a higher level, eventuating as children of God? I think it is possible.

LDS theology holds that our spirits were created by the Father, not ex nihilo (or nothing), but from the intelligences which the Father found.

DC 93:29 - Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

Presumably, some of the intelligences which are expressed as cows, giraffes, lions, lambs, or the homo genus, could eventually be raised to a higher level for testing. Of course this is rank speculation on my part, and definitely not LDS doctrine, but I don't believe it contradicts the purposes of God.

14 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

What a delightful can of sidetracking worms this topic would be.

Indeed. So I shall not pursue it here.

14 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Well, it’s a pretty cool hat. If I weren’t sure of the bet, I would have bet your hat.

LOL!

14 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

How do you determine which is literal history and which is added for allegorical purposes?

It's kind of on a case-by-case basis. And some of it is tricky to decide upon. Did Methuselah really live over 900 years? Or is his claimed age an allegory for something?  I vote the latter. Jewish tradition has it that the sun standing still while Israel fought in the famous battle was figurative, while some Christian literalists insist upon it being a literal fact. I vote for the former. If you take Immanuel Velikovsky at his word (a very iffy step), there's a physical mechanism for the sun's dalliance in that event as a literality. 

14 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Not in this context, but when I’m not discussing religion, I moonlight in, among other topics, ufo discussions, so I’m pretty familiar.

I love the Fermi Paradox. I may post my theory about the Paradox here later, and shall invite you in for commentary.

Are you familiar with Isaac Arthur? If so, great, but if not, I'm pretty sure you'd love to check out his YouTube channel. Here's a playlist of his videos discussing the Fermi Paradox: Fermi Paradox Compendium

14 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

I don’t know why those stocky little thick’ums would have been called giants, but I’ve considered this angle in light of the mention of crossbred humans in Genesis 6. 

They might have been shorter, but mass has its own size.

14 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Orcas cannot interbreed with dolphins, because they are too far removed from their common ancestors, like we are from chimps and bonobos, but they are still in the same family.

However, this brings to mind the concept of ring species:
https://tinyurl.com/RingSpeciesSalamander

Thanks for that! It is quite a fascinating topic. 

14 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Nice to meet you. I think I’ve only been on this site for a couple of weeks, so I’m still expecting at least a few more people to label me as a rabid anti before I manage to fully employ my devilish charm. 

Explains it. You actually come across as a quite delightful fellow. I look forward to reading more from you.

14 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

I will go check out the social hall. I didn’t realize there was a safe get-to-know-you zone. And Mike is my pseudonym, though I did covet the name as a child.

My actual surname is one of the more common ones in the English language, and since Michael/Mike is an extremely common first name, the combination firstname-lastname constitutes near-anonymity. I am now living in the UK, but when I lived in my home state of Washington, the telephone book for my county had about four people with this combo. In what I consider my "home ward" there was another member of the ward with my name, a retired prison guard. His birth name was actually not Mike, but Elwyn. Because I guess he got teased for his birth name as a child, he took Mike as his AKA to avoid this. Or maybe he had another reason, I don't know. But we used to have fun with the resultant confusion in the ward, including his or my claiming that he was my Dad, and I was his junior. Fun times!

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The short answer is: No, not as such.

The longer answer is: Maybe and who knows? We are not told anything about the ultimate destination of any of those. Christianity rejects the concept of transmigration of souls (or, rather, the scriptures say nothing about it). My question: is it nevertheless possible that the spark of the divine which dwells within these lower life forms might someday be raised to a higher level, eventuating as children of God? I think it is possible.

The Celestial .kingdom contains those who are not exalted (exalted meaning living the type of eternal life that God lives and that appears to be only possible for his children).  Makes sense to me some of the inhabitants would be these perfected, but not exalted beasts.

Quote

John saw four individual beasts in the presence of God giving “glory and honor and thanks” to him (Revelation 4:9). Though they were actual beasts that were saved in their sphere, they figuratively represent classes of beings (man, beasts, creeping things, fowls) that would have happiness in eternity—“enjoyment of eternal felicity” (D&C 77:3).…

But John saw the actual beast in heaven, showing to John that beasts did actually exist there, and not to represent figures of things on the earth. …

“John saw curious looking beasts in heaven; he saw every creature that was in heaven,—all the beasts, fowls and fish in heaven,—actually there, giving glory to God. How do you prove it? (See Rev. 5:13.) …

“I suppose John saw beings there of a thousand forms, that had been saved from ten thousand times ten thousand earths like this,—strange beasts of which we have no conception: all might be seen in heaven. The grand secret was to show John what there was in heaven. John learned that God glorified Himself by saving all that His hands had made, whether beasts, fowls, fishes or men; and He will glorify Himself with them.” (Teachings, pp. 289–91.)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-77-questions-and-answers-on-the-book-of-revelation?lang=eng

Edited July 4, 2022 by Calm

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

I maintain that most people use the phrase “quantum mechanics” as a euphemism for “I don’t know.”

Very astute observation.

I offer this quote from Richard Feynman, my favorite physicist (emphasis added):

"There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, (Einstein) because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

Another Feynman quote:

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
 

[Stargazer]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

The Celestial .kingdom contains those who are not exalted (exalted meaning living the type of eternal life that God lives and that appears to be only possible for his children).  Makes sense to me some of the inhabitants would be these perfected, but not exalted beasts.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-77-questions-and-answers-on-the-book-of-revelation?lang=eng

I stand corrected.

But he was specifically asking about exaltation.

Edited July 4, 2022 by Stargazer

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I stand corrected.

But he was specifically asking about exaltation.

I figured you were focused on exaltation.  Wasn’t sure you remember sec 77 or not. 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I figured you were focused on exaltation.  Wasn’t sure you remember sec 77 or not. 

I've read it before, but it didn't come up either in memory or a text search of the scriptures while "researching" for my response. Although I did remember the verses in Revelation that DC 77 refers to. 

Something that did come up (though not included in my response) was DC 88. Amazing experience re-reading it.

ETA: and thanks for pointing DC 77 out to me.

Edited July 4, 2022 by Stargazer