The Folk Prophet

I didn't define confirmation bias, so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with in that regard. But I said (I thought clearly) to NOT ignore spiritual evidence even if it contradicts one's position. My point is to trust in God -- He who knows all, rather than trusting in mortal biases. The only reason I'm talking about it in terms of "ad populi" is because you are bringing it up in terms of -- some people have this experience and others have this experience. In other words, I'm claiming that whether you mean to or not, you're argument is based in that fallacy somewhat. But perhaps I'm reading things into what you're saying. My response to confirmation bias is straight up -- we are not arguing that anyone follow other than the dictates of their own consciences. My believing someone else is mistake because of the evidence I have been given is not confirmation bias. If they claim to have evidence to the contrary, what do I have but their word on the matter? And my claim to them -- what do they have but my word on the matter? Other than the evidence we see (as given by the spirit in spiritual matters) there is no validity to claims of others. And we accept that. You are accusing the method of confirmation bias. But I reject that flatly. If you have valid evidence given you from God then you should follow it. Where the idea of confirmation bias as an accusation against our method fails is in someone receiving no answer. Lack of evidence is no evidence. A suggestion that a failure to receive said evidence requires further testing is not confirmation bias -- particularly when the suggestion is accompanied by recommended alterations in the test. Moreover, if millions of scientists have run a certain test and confirmed it as valid, and then a few running the same test determine it invalid, is it not reasonable to suggest that the few who found it invalid may have messed it up somehow? Unless the few have some new methodology that is somehow more reliable, it is a perfectly reasonable response to say, "well, what did you do wrong then?" It doesn't prove the matter to the scientists who have failed experiments. Until they run a valid test and see valid results, they won't know for themselves. But it does give them cause to consider the validity of what they have done if they are getting different results than millions of others. If we are making any argument by numbers, it would be that. That being said, it's not a science experiment (in that God works by faith as much as by fact in His interactions with us). But that, perhaps, is a different discussion. Hopefully that clears up what I'm trying to say. I read that you are using other's arguments based on their experiences as evidence to draw conclusions (ad populi), rather than going to God yourself with the matter, and I do not believe that we are using confirmation bias to support our position for a variety of reasons. But, to be fair, I'll go back to the faith issue -- even if the confirmation bias accusation is valid, then doing so comes down to faith and choice. We exercise faith without perfect knowledge. God wants it to be that way or He would have given us perfect knowledge and not commanded us to live by faith. So even if we're steeped fully into confirmation bias, it is by faith that we do so. We choose to believe based on the evidence given, in spite of the fact that there is an outside possibility that we're all deluded.

Arguing "confirmation bias" implies that we should or should not be convinced because of the views and experiences of others. But this is irrelevant. It is a misdirect. It does not matter if everyone else in the entire world claims something because of their experience. It doesn't matter how many people say they prayed but weren't given an answer or that they received a negative answer. And it doesn't matter how many people claim they received a positive answer. It doesn't matter what the one's explanation for the other's is either. The positive-answer side claims the negative-answer side didn't do it right or something. The negative-answer side claims the positive-answer side is delusional or something. All this is meaningless to one's personal struggle to find the truth. The fact of the matter is that God has promised that if we come to him seeking truth that He will give it to us. And that is a personal experience between a person and God. Other's experiences may be useful in our journey, but they are not the ultimate answer to truth. Not in the slightest degree. Every mortal is biased. Every single one. But God is not. If you don't believe that, or if you do believe it, it doesn't matter. God still is what He is. He is still perfect, all loving, and keeps His promises. If you go to Him in humility and faith, honestly seeking to know, He will reveal the truth unto you. Yes, we have to do this by His word, and His will, and in His way. So of course we teach that if someone does not do it the way that God specifies that they may well skewer the results. If one shuts themselves off to the Holy Spirit and then claims the Holy Spirit didn't speak to them, what else would we say? But it's still between an individual and God, an no one is going to take away that right. You have the right to worship and believe according to your own desires. If you go to God in prayer and honestly feel He tells you to go another direction, then do it. It's between you and God. But we who have experienced the Holy Spirit's witness that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who restored His true gospel...we know what we know and we will stand for that. We know it's true because it has been communicated to us by God. So we will stand, confidently, and state unapologetically that someone who "receives" a different answer is mistaken somehow. Doing so is not an attempt, per se, to convince that person that they are wrong. Debate and the philosophies of the so-called wise will never bring us to God, and simply do not stand against the witness of the Spirit. What we will do is testify of that spiritual witness. I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. Therefore, I know that anyone who does not believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God is mistaken. I support their right to that. I appreciate the truths and righteousness they do have. But I know that until they find the same truth, as given from the Holy Spirit, that their understanding is incomplete in the matter. Confirmation bias has nothing to do with it.

How does this follow? Is "good" defined by enjoyment? I think not.

God command the destruction of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15: the killing of every man woman and child (not to mention the sheep, oxen, camels, etc.). If God cannot do bad, then clearly there is some level of subjectivity even to Genocide.

The prequel trilogy doesn't count.

Hmm. Are you brushing aside the fact that Laman and Lemuel tried to murder Nephi several times? I hope you don't really mean you could easily be like Laman and Lemuel.

This ^ is the one reason why I think that your suggestion may actually be a future possibility. Very interesting, indeed.

How can you think that when it already HAS gone somewhere -- in that it was decriminalized in Utah (of all places) precisely because of these legal issues?

YES! Ha ha. But isn't everyone? To clarify my post just a bit...I wasn't necessarily trying to say that I thought you were saying what I was saying you were saying...er... I was just trying to express thoughts. :)

Sem, I, honestly, was trying to be somewhat playful and funny with the snoring icon. You took it way beyond that. I'm sorry about that. I didn't mean it to be that insulting. I have no issue with you explaining why it is relevant. I also retain the right to disagree. In this particular thread, I don't think it's entirely irrelevant. I think using it as a refute to my post, as you did, was missing the point of my thread. And I certainly read your "you don't understand how this relates" (which is out of nowhere because my post was in no way contradictory to dual-beings relating) and your accusation that I'm ignoring "the very core of our religion" (another non-sequitur response to my post, which wasn't ignoring the dual-being idea, even if we agreed that it's the very core of our religion) as contrary. You have your ire up, and I think that's causing you to read things that I did not mean. All I meant by "backlash" was I'd respond, countering your points. I'm not sure what kind of "threat" you legitimately feel from me. How can I possibly threaten you in any regard? By disagreeing? That's all I mean by "backlash". I will disagree if you claim I am saying something I didn't mean to. I think you need to take a step back and reconsider the discussion. From my perspective you are blowing this way out of proportion on an emotional level. As I said, I did not mean to offend you in that regard. I thought our relationship and ability to spar with words was casual. I did not realize you would take my snoring icon as seriously as you seem to. As I said, you are misunderstanding my meaning entirely in using the word "backlash". Look Sem, I thought we had a better relationship than this. In realizing we don't I will back out of having further debates with you. I do not want personal, emotional battles, in any degree. I will respect that I have upset you in the way I have responded. I apologize. I hope you can see how you have misread my tone and meaning in cases, however.

I think that is an interesting subject. It's quite trendy to treat shame or guilt as oppressive and something that we shouldn't feel even when we've made mistakes. Then, of course, a very contrasting idea that guilt and shame are good motivators. This idea is quite unpopular in today's "everyone is a victim" world. However, the reality is that both ideas are valid and there has to be balance. It is mistaken to treat guilt as something forced upon us by an oppressive church or judgmental people. Feeling sorrow for sin is a requirement of repentance. But, as you point out, there are those who judge themselves unfairly in the matter. I worry about the common p.o.v. that we should never feel these things for our wrong behavior. It's too eat-drink-and-be-merry for my tastes. But I acknowledge, as well, that there are those who suffer needlessly -- a great many who do -- by imposing guilt upon themselves when they need not. I expect you and I fall on opposite sides of the spectrum on the matter, but ultimately agree in general principle. As to the variance in definition of shame, guilt, remorse idea...sure...that's one way to look at it. If it's helpful to look at it that way, sure. But it's not a universally held idea or understanding of what it means to feel these things. When I sin in ways that I know I shouldn't have I feel shame. And that, to me, is good. It requires me to humble myself in coming to God for forgiveness. But I also think my feelings, for the most part, are fairly balanced from an emotional and mental stability angle. I feel shame, but not beyond what I should. Therefore, I don't know that it's necessarily the best idea to treat the words and their definitions as if one is good to feel, the other bad, or anything like that. But rather, to treat the idea that feeling shame, guilt, or remorse, beyond what you should, is based in emotional or mental unhealthiness and whatever appropriate course is required to correct that response should be pursued. If we are guilty, we should feel guilt. But not beyond what we are guilty of. If we have done something shameful, we should feel shame, but not for things we haven't done, need not be doing, or are otherwise unaccountable for. Nor should we feel shame for unfair judgments by others and/or the like. But our shame should be to our Father in Heaven. If we are remorseful for sin, it is good. It is required as part of repentance. But to feel remorse beyond what we should is not healthy either.

No. Edit: Oh...I guess I'm supposed to add my own. Um... Have you ever sobbed uncontrollably at a Pixar movie? In the theater surrounded by people even? Stupid UP.

As have I. But you can bet your bottom dollar that some read it as "cessation".

That really depends on how literally you take the scriptures that repeatedly teach, for example: "They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born; For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;" D&C 76:32-33 (emphasis mine). The problem comes from D&C 19 where there is an implication that "endless" and or "eternal" may or may not actually mean "endless" or "eternal" when it comes to damnation. Of course, reasonably speaking, most LDS folk (and leaders) believe this teaching to be referring to those who suffer in Hell prior to the resurrection and Judgement. As far as I know, most people read the scriptures which speak of outer darkness being eternal as literal. Of course, there's a wrench thrown into the machinery with the wording, "And the end thereof...no man knows;" (D&C 76:45), which almost seems to imply, if read a certain way, that there might, indeed, be an end.

Unless, of course, you want to get into the whole, "it's not canonized!" debate...which Jane_Doe shut me down on earlier. :) (probably wisely). Of course, as you well know, my view of what is "doctrine" is not so narrow as some who seem to want to limit it to scripture (as they interpret them) and official proclamations they agree with.

I think the hang up comes from feeling like defining someone as bad sets them as permanently so. It's not the case however. LP, for example, when you were abused, the person abusing was bad. Unquestionably. But is he/she still bad? Has he/she repented? Can he/she repent? Yes. If they have or do, they are no longer bad. A bad person is someone who does bad things (we'll throw in "intentionally and knowing better to cover agency"). They cannot be seperated. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, etc....

Depends I guess on what you mean by redemption. We know David lost his exaltation in spite of trying to repent and feeling truly mournful, etc. We also have scriptural references to unforgivable sin. So at some level, there is a state that is beyond Christ's redemption. I would say that usually, as I think you are suggesting, it is because they choose to be beyond...they have gone too far to ever turn back and actually "seek" it. But...as in the example with David, if you mean to find exaltation again? Not so sure.

Being evil is a result of character, which is a result of thought (as a man thinketh...), which leads to action. If a person thinks and does evil then that person is evil. What more is there? Satan thinks and does only evil. He will not do good. Even if something seems good, it's for an evil end, and is motivated by evil thought and evil character. A man/woman can certainly get to the point where they think from only an evil perspective, and therefore their character is evil, and therefore what the do is evil, even seemingly good things being driven my evil motivations and evil ends in mind. Anyhow, the title question is odd. Describing actions as evil doesn't work for me as a universal idea. Is killing evil? What about when killing occurs by nature? Still evil. Are beasts that kill for food evil? Is their action evil? Is the winter evil? What about the Sun? Both can harm. Actions are evil by intent. If I turn quickly with a sharp knife in my hand and cut someone by accident it may be stupid, but it wasn't evil. If I do the exact same action intentionally and with malice in my heart, then it's evil. If I do the exact same action with intent to protect a loved one...? See what I mean. Evil is not about action. It's about intent. I gotta go with evil people as my answer.

If you honestly are incapable of feeling guilt, remorse or shame then it highly suggests emotional or mental disorders along the lines of sociopath, etc. You are telling us that you have never, ever, in your entire life, felt bad about doing something? Anything? Really? If that is truly the case...seek professional help! Immediately.

The comment I was addressing was not the randomness. It was: "..that it is minimal upkeep; that's probably an attractive feature for a guy with a universe to run." I inferred from this statement that you were saying He is too busy to be bothered. As to the random thing: I can agree that this is a possibility of how God works. (Though I do tend towards a view that He is somewhat more involved). But even accepting a stochastic process in mortality, where I think there is missing consideration (perhaps) is on the other side (pre-existence). God knows the beginning from the end. He knows what "randomness" will occur, and He knows that any given spirit He sends into any given body will experience exactly what they experience. To me, that argues for a significant higher level of control than I believe you are alluding to, even within a stochastic based plan.

Apparently your view of "all-powerful" (or "omnipotent", if you prefer) differs from mine. The idea that God allows horrible things to happen and exist if they just happen to randomly exist is because He's too busy to be bothered...? Hmm.

Aahhrrgghh. Me eyes burn as me reads.

If we're going to call the idea of "grandpa" God speculative, it should also be pointed out that the "many" part of this statement is also speculative. We have no idea how many will be angels in heaven. And....back on topic.

Might I add to Vort's excellent post... The reason it is to be considered through prayer and counsel with ecclesiastical leaders is because God's will (as Claire pointed out) is what matters. However, in some cases the right and wrong of it are difficult to establish (particularly in the case of a mother's health, for example). But God still knows the right and wrong of it. Therefore, through revelation to those who have the proper authority in such matters, and through personal revelation, we may be guided as to what is actually right when a clear course eludes us otherwise.

^ This.