2ndRateMind

Over here, hearts are counted as 'offal'. They are tasty and nutritious, like liver and kidneys, but more akin to ordinary meat, being muscle. I eat them because they are far cheaper than prime cuts, and because no animal is killed for them, as they would be for, say, prime rib of beef, or shank of lamb. It eases my conscience to eat something that might otherwise be wasted, or go to pet food. Nevertheless, they are not vital to the recipe. Go with the enthusiasm, and substitute whatever you can get, and appeals. Best wishes, 2RM.

Indeed. But this subjective, anecdotal, emotional, qualitative realm is precisely the region God currently operates in, and for reasons that seem good to Him, and good to me. Do not be so ready to discount the subjective and emotional and qualitative, just because science has yet to develop the tools it needs to operate successfully, there. They are a vital dimension of human existence, even if we cannot yet quantify them such that science can measure them, theorise about them with mathematical precision, and devise experiments to test those precise theories. I might add, at this point, that it is my settled opinion that there will never be a completely convincing proof of God, and that those who want that would be well advised not to hold their breath waiting for one. The idea of a proven, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God does not seem compatible to me with human freedom, and, therefore, God's goodness, and desire for our best interests to be manifested by our own, voluntary, efforts. We have quite enough religious fanatics in the world already, with no good reason to inflict their world-views on the rest of us, though, despite that, they do, and often violently. If God were proven, far from being a benign development, I believe it would be disastrous to the project of human progress. So, He hides, except from those who love Him, in a place where objective science cannot yet reach. Best wishes, 2RM

Thanks Crypto, for your kind advice. I will start to implement it, but gradually. I am not much of a praying, church-going, psalm-singing Christian - perhaps not much of a Christian at all - but I will proceed by getting hold of the Book of Mormon, and by talking to your missionaries more seriously, when they next accost me. As for holding things in common, well that's great for things we can share, and I'm happy to champion that idea. It seems a nutty sort of system, and a sad waste of scarce resources, when every household in the land has a cordless DIY drill, lying 99.9% unused, instead of, say, 1 in 20 households, lying 95% unused. But there are things that we cannot share. Food I eat cannot be food you eat. My house (1 bed rented flat, actually) cannot be your house, simultaneously. The land I grow my crops on cannot be the land you grow your crops on. Doubtless, though, these things can be worked out, if we have the will to do so. I guess my hope is that Christianity in general will lead the way in this working out process, and, by doing so, provide the kind of example to non- and un-believers that will be more persuasive than any amount of sermons. I agree the free-rider problem is a problem. But I am not sure that it is quite so much of a problem as the neo-liberals would like it to be. People are very good at spotting those who take advantage. Altruism operates most effectively when it is reciprocal. Often, all that is required to bring a free-rider to heel is to refuse further cooperation, until they have demonstrated they are willing to cooperate in return. Best wishes, 2RM.

To be fair, I think the problem lies in the prerequisite of faith to replicate the experience of God. Those who have it, may experience God; those who don't, can't. But, those who don't, and can't get this experience, can quite reasonably object that the faithful are presupposing an interpretation of their subjective experiences which may in fact be solely due to psychological or biological quirks in the way the brain operates. For me, the argument to God from individual experiences fails as a proof, even though it does supply considerable supporting evidence. Best wishes, 2RM.

Following Karl Popper* (original publication in German, 1934) - and I know he is controversial - the notion has been current that science proceeds, not by proving hypotheses, but by disproving them. Thus, the Copernican idea that the earth is the centre of the universe was discredited by Galileo, Democritus' idea that atoms are indivisible was discredited by Rutherford, the Michelson-Morley experiment discredited Newtonian physics, and so on. Each experimentally disproven hypothesis constitutes a real advance; we now know something to be false we did not know to be false before, even if we do not know with certain accuracy exactly what is true. As Einstein put it: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Science, Popper thinks, advances by discarding the false, and, by doing so, closes in on the truth, in the manner of a curve approaching it's asymptote. I'm interested by how you think this perspective might inform your conception of God as a 'failed hypothesis'. To the best of my knowledge, the idea that God exists has yet to be disproven, and indeed, some experiment that might accomplish this has yet to be proposed. Best wishes, 2RM. * Popper, Karl, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 2002, Routledge, London. Popper, Karl, Conjectures and Refutations, 2005, Routledge, London

Ha Ha! Reminds me of a sketch I heard, on the radio: Husband: I've decided we need a suicide pact. I'm going to beat you to death with this hammer. Then I'm going to shoot myself. Wife: Alright, darling. Why's that? Husband: It's that gay couple that moved in down the road. They've undermined our marriage. Wife: OK, love. Just let me go and smother the children, first. I'm afraid my sense of humour is bone dry, and tends to the black. Best wishes, 2RM.

Good luck! I did find, at the end of cooking, it really wanted worcestershire sauce. So I recommend that, if you can get it. Best wishes, 2RM.

I haven't read Cosmos, but have read the Demon Haunted World. I loved that book! It surely isn't LDS, or indeed, Christian, friendly, but that, in my opinion, is why every Christian should read it. We cannot, and should not, claim that we have a monopoly on truth and goodness, and a dose of rational criticism, well argued and carefully assembled, should not be ignored by us as if we are immune from any possibility of improvement. I suspect that some people avoid such works out of fear their faith might be shaken, and recommend that others avoid them out of fear that other people's faith might be shaken. Well, if it is, it was never much of a faith in the first place; the kind of faith, perhaps, that will brook no argument. I suspect that this kind of faith is a kind of faith the world can do without, and not miss. Best wishes, 2RM.

OK, so here's what I'm cooking tonight, to use up some stuff in the fridge that needed eating. It's cheap, wholesome and all cooks slowly in one half gallon pot, so should be pretty straightforward even for a newbie chef. And there won't be much washing up. 2RM's hearty, meaty, winter stew. Serves six. Loads of chopped onions; say 4 good sized ones. Half bunch of celery. Some cooking oil - I use sunflower. 3 Ox hearts, chopped. 12 Sausages. Not sure you guys have british bangers, but any cooking sausage would do. 680g. Cooking bacon, diced. Again, not sure you guys have it, but any diced (ideally smoked) pork would be fine. 125g. 2 x 400g tins of tomatoes. 1 x 400g tin of beans - butter, flageolet, haricot, whatever. Just not baked! 1 cup pearl barley. A good shaking of dried oregano. optional extras: worcestershire sauce, tabasco sauce, chilli powder, etc. Method: Add the oil to the pot. On a medium heat, fry the onion and celery til tanslucent. Add the meat, and fry some more, stirring every so often. Maybe 5 minutes, til brown. Add the tomatoes, beans, pearl barley, oregano, turn up the heat some and bring to the boil. Turn down the heat to low, put a lid on the pot, and simmer gently for an hour, til everything is tender. Keep an eye on it, stir every so often and add boiling water or beef stock to keep everything covered by liquid if you need to. Season with salt and pepper to taste. Then you're done. Serve with boiled rice, or boiled potatoes, or just in a bowl with fresh bread. Over here, it all costs about £1.00 per serving, say $1.50 in your money. When I've eaten about half of it, I'll probably stretch it for a few more meals by adding a good sized turnip and a swede, diced small, and cooking again. Hope you try it; hope you like it. Best wishes, 2RM.

Yes, I take a similar view to this sort of 'foundationalism' I discovered there was a God by a search for perfect morality, and came to believe that, in their perfect expression, ideals like the Good, the Right, the Just, the True, the Noble, the Brave, the Kind, the Wise, etc - well these things, in some transcendent sense, actually are God, and articulations of the love of God. The rest came as an answer to an inadvertent prayer, and I discovered Jesus to be real, not myth, that He lived, taught, was crucified, was buried, became resurrected, and persists in Heaven where He still concerns Himself with mortal affairs. That is the sum and total extent of my faith. All else, I consider debatable, to be proven or disproven, or simply to be assessed as more or less likely, according to what we know of the world through the evidence of our senses (including scientific findings), and the rules of logic and reason, and the principles of morality. So, there I stand, open-minded about Christian manifestations and implementations, but not so open minded that I will believe anything, or what most people believe, or what is merely convenient and congenial. So, I mention this as my foundation, because you have mentioned yours, and it might help you to know where I currently stand, and what my perspective is. Best wishes, 2RM.

Do not take my comment as an attack on you personally, or the LDS Church. It was not meant as such, just as an observation, and a warning because there seemed, on the thread, to be a tendency to slide in this direction. As I said before, I am impressed by this forum's willingness to debate, which seems to me to be an improvement on several other Christian forums I have visited. Best wishes, 2RM

OK, there is what the Catholics say is true. And what the LDS say is true. And there is some overlap. There are some things that both the Catholics and the LDS say are true. And there are some areas of contention; there are some things the Catholics say are true, that the LDS say are false, and some things that the LDS say are true, that the Catholics say are false. And that is just the Catholics and the LDS. Add in all the other schisms, denominations, sects, and cults, not to mention the other religions, and you get some idea of the complexity of the issue, and I am not sure we are that much further forward. So, if I reserve judgment for the moment, I mean no disrespect. I simply do not have the required knowledge to decide the rights and wrongs of the various Christian perspectives. So, I am exploring. As for the good, I make no claim that I know it completely. But I have a moral sense, and, as it guides me, I find my idea of the good develops, and, perhaps, gains a little more accuracy with each decision I make, be it correct or mistaken, as my conscience subsequently informs me. And this is the way we all proceed, I think, and so we should. I have read your post again. I can see my misunderstanding of it, and apologise if it made me seem churlish towards you. Best wishes, 2RM.

I did not say we should agree with everyone, or that some perspectives are not evil. I said we should understand them. How else can we know, not just that they are wrong, but exactly why they are wrong? And how they should be countered? Argument by assertion, even if one is wholly, objectively correct (which I do not believe possible in this life) is a very lazy, and quite ineffective, way to proceed. It persuades no one but the protagonist and his like-minded cronies, and progresses the sum of human knowledge not one whit. Best wishes, 2RM.

That is, of course, exactly what the Roman Catholics say. And many others. As Housman puts it: So, how am I to face the odds, Of man's bedevilment, and God's, I, a stranger and afraid Alone, in a world I never made? My own answer is to pursue the good, without compromise. It is all I can do. You say, for example, that the world is not good enough for the Law of Consecration. But instead of working diligently towards it, you appear simply to have jettisoned it, in favour of a more congenial system. Or, do I have that wrong? Best wishes, 2RM.

Just to clarify. I am interested in the alignment of our views, rather than 'making' you adjust your views to suit me. Even if that were possible, it would be an incredibly arrogant thing for me to expect of you. We have, incidentally, since discovered that this Law of Consecration might turn out to be some degree of common ground. So there is a little hope for me yet! Best wishes, 2RM.

If you really are interested in this kind of scheme, you might like to run the name 'Deki' through your search engine of choice, for a more complete view of how they operate. Best wishes, 2RM.

I just wanted to endorse this view. God has deliberately given each of us a unique perspective. Partial, but unique. We cannot possibly know the whole of the truth, without understanding each of these perspectives; the more different from our own, the more difficult, but the more important. It's why I am here, to learn from you all, especially those who disagree with me. If I am sometimes robust in my comments, it is only because this particular cause is one very close to my heart, being as it is, so often a matter of life and death, touching on God's desires for us, which I am convinced is always our collective and individual best interests, and the nature and possibility of a truly good society. So, we have ethics, philosophy of religion, and political philosophy all wrapped up in this one topic, with some economics thrown in. That's bound to be a potent mix. I also want to add how much I am enjoying these discussions with you all, and how I find you more open to discussing these kind of ideas than many another Christian forum I have visited, over these past few years. I truly appreciate that. Best wishes, 2RM.

I am not ignoring this post. It seems to me to be important. But I would like to collect some more perspectives before I respond in full. Best wishes, 2RM.

Dear Eowyn, I am sorry to see you leave the thread. I always value your contributions. Nevertheless I feel bound to point out that no-one is suggesting that people should stop spending money. Instead, I am suggesting that if that money were more equitably distributed, that expenditure would be on more basic, and morally justifiable, goods and services. Expenditure would not stop, just be diverted towards things poor people need to stay alive with, and die without, away from the frivolities of the middle class, and the luxuries of the elite. I hope you will reconsider your decision to go; you may want to counter this point. Best wishes, 2RM.

Just so. I have often thought the phrase 'the trappings of wealth', generally taken to mean accompanying good things about wealth, has a significant double meaning. It is surely true that those accustomed to wealth may be trapped by it. Best wishes, 2RM.

Dear Backroads. You ask me to fix the problem. Believe me, I would if I could. But I am only a small cog in a massive machine; my ability to affect the world for good or ill is limited, perhaps properly so. But what I can do, what we all can do, is talk about the problem, amongst ourselves, and decide if it is a problem, and, if it is, consider the best way to solve it, and, once we have that, decide we all, together, are going to tackle it in concert. We may none of us be able to solve global absolute poverty individually, but together, each playing our own small role appropriately, I believe we can, with the help of those spiritual teachings. Best wishes, 2RM.

Indeed so. But nowhere have I suggested that everyone should revert to subsistence living, so as to enable everyone else at least to survive at a subsistence level. There is more than enough wealth in world to allow better than this, for everybody. And, in case I should be misunderstood in this matter, I am not against wealth. I am in favour of it. But I am so much in favour of it, I am in favour of it for everyone, and not just a privileged few, at the cost of an impoverished many. Best wishes, 2RM.

An interesting perspective, FunkyTown. What, for you, is it that God wants? And how might we know that, objectively? And, if we did, how might that rob politicians of their power, and make them afraid of this eventuality? Best wishes, 2RM.

Having had a little time to digest your various posts, I am wondering if the law of consecration is an issue for Latter Day Saints, given that it - well if not directly contradicts, at least generates friction with, the neo-liberal culture of the US. This is not a dig, but a genuine enquiry. How do you guys think on this consecration thing? It's a communitarian notion, that fits ill, to my mind, with rugged individualism of the self-reliant pioneer ideal I believe to be an important icon for you, socially, economically and politically. I am merely proposing, dear Backroads, that until everyone gets enough to eat, fresh water to drink, clothing, shelter and warmth, sanitation, primary education and health care, then these, and not luxury handbags, should be our universal priority. Uh huh. But instead of producing more and more luxury handbags, Jerome1232, workers could be feeding themselves and their families by producing for the basic needs I outlined above. That is, they could, if those basic needs were expressed as an economic demand, which requires that those whose basic needs are currently unfulfilled, have the money to spend on them. And that requires a redistribution of wealth, however accomplished. So Eowyn, would that be the US economy? Are we talking about some worry the richest economy in the world might have that others meet their basic needs at the expense of some of this wealth? My own feeling about this (coming from another 1st world nation) is that some poor people will be made less poor, more resilient, better able to invest in their own and their children's future, and that this is wholly 'a good thing', if only because they will not be so reliant on emergency support from us in case of war, famine, pestilence and premature deaths. And who knows? Should the economies of the developing world strengthen, they may even become useful trading partners, enriching us all. Nevertheless, I urge you to see this thing, not in terms of patriotic national self-interest, but with the dispassionate impartiality of a global citizen. Best wishes, 2RM

Well, there are plenty of good causes. My own needs are really quite austere. One of my favourite charities is a microfinance operation, that operates mainly in Africa, and provides small (like $100 to $500) loans to business people there, so they can expand their stocks, or to farmers, to provide seed and fertiliser. The loans are paid back out of increased profits, and then relent to the next in line, and so on. It's a great way to make a small amount of money stretch out to do a lot of good. Best wishes, 2RM.