person0

Members
  • Content Count

    1888
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    person0 reacted to mordorbund in Free will   
    I think what’s getting lost here is YouTuber isn’t just dealing with dichotomies, even when he only offers 2 choices, instead there’s an unstated hierarchy of wants. My want at level 50 is “don’t sound pretentious” while my lower want at level 75 is “shake it up a little”. Given the rankings I will greet you with “Hello” instead of “Bonjour”. That’s how it’s going to play out. And it will play out like that every time. That being the case, why did I say “Bonjour”? YouTuber says it’s because there’s actually another want at play. At level 38 is “I want to prove YouTuber wrong about free will.” 
     
    The problem as you’ve stated is that, although it is sel-consistent, it’s also circular. For addicts, “take a hit” ranks higher than “don’t” but there are addicts who don’t. Therefore they must have a third want that you don’t know about. They want “in tact family” or “steady job” or “stop breaking mom’s heart” or some other want. This philosophy is unfalsifiable. The implication of this model is if we want to change behavior we need to add a new want to the hierarchy in a higher rank, or alter the ranking al an existent want. This then leads to the second issue with this philosophy. (I’ll get there after the following paragraph).
    In the Hello/Bonjour example another solution that YouTuber didn’t discuss at all is that maybe there wasn’t a third want - maybe my hierarchy shifted. Every time I say “Hello” my “shake it up” want moves up the hierarchy a notch. Once it’s at 49 I say “Bonjour” and it drops down again. This is something like the infinite prisoners dilemma (there’s a good TedEd video on that) (this is also the problem with the stable marriage algorithm - it only works if everyone’s rankings stay the same).
    Whether Bonjour comes from a new rule or a shift in the hierarchy, it highlights the same question: Where does the hierarchy of wants come from? YouTuber is arguing a mechanical-style of free will based on the hierarchy of wants which means (hopefully I’m not presuming too much) this hierarchy falls under the nature/nurture debate but must ultimately be nurture. That is, if it is mechanistic then the current example can come from how a person was raised (outside influences) or genetics (natural influences) but if it’s ultimately mechanistic then the outside influence (culture, counter culture, parents, etc) is the result of meta-evolution and the natural influence is from evolution. Since YouTuber hasn’t expressly made this argument I won’t engage it further, but I’ll leave it here for consideration.
    Beyond nature and nurture I can think of two other sources for this hierarchy of wants. How bout God? The challenge here is a theological one @Traveler often raises. If a person sins because of the hierarchy God set, who is ultimately responsible for that sin? Is God just for condemning the man He preset to sin? This lead to the fourth option, that there’s something independent within the individual uncreated by God. @Just_A_Guy wrote previously about “intelligences” and while Latter-day Saints are comfortable with it, it creates a divide when discussing with credal Christians about Creation or God’s relationship to man.
  2. Like
    person0 reacted to Just_A_Guy in Free will   
    I don't think Mormonism has ever really preoccupied itself with the supposed "sovereignty" of God in quite the way many other Christian denominations seem to have.  We're quite comfortable, in principle, with the notion that there are some things that God just can't do.  For example, we believe the Atonement of Christ was necessary because God was obligated to bridge the gap between/satisfy the demands of both justice and mercy--He couldn't save us unless He was willing to sacrifice His own Son.  And while it's not "officially" doctrinal, we also speculate heavily on the notion that God was once a mortal as we are now--a supposition which which suggests that He had other mortal peers, some of whom may have attained godhood as He has, but over whom He presumably has no dominion. 
    I don't think we really subscribe to the idea that our God must be the only/mightiest God in all the eternities and the infinite universes that ever have or ever will existed.  Nor does our faith require that our God be absolutely all-powerful within the realm that is His own.  Really, we envision a council of gods who are each supremely mighty within their own spheres (and only One of which with whom, as Brigham Young put it, "we have anything to do"); and it is enough for us that God is spectacularly more powerful than we are and that He invites us to become as He is.  As for humankind's "free will" or "agency" (and frankly, I think within Mormon discourse we often conflate those two concepts, but that's another discussion):  God, like any parent, has kids who develop independent consciences and wills; and who can only be controlled in accordance with certain principles (and even then, only to a limited degree).  In fact, in Mormonism, the kernel of each individual's identity--the "intelligence"--is co-eternal with God Himself.  God can organize and refine intelligence, but He cannot create it.  The will of the intelligence (or, in its later states, the spirit or the human) is subject to God's power, but is not really subject to God's will unless the intelligence/spirit/human chooses to become so.  
    Within Mormonism, I think the more intriguing question isn't whether our "free will" is bound by God's omnipotence, but whether it is bound by His omniscience.  If He can see all things past, present, and future as "one eternal now", as Joseph Smith taught--then in a sense, is my future already written?  Am I just pantomiming a role in a play whose ending is already known?  In my experience, that's the question that tends to keep philosophically-minded Mormons up at night.
  3. Like
    person0 reacted to mikbone in Requiring a COVID-19 Vaccine (shot/s)   
    Im encouraged to see 100,000+ people in the stands watching the Oregon vs. Ohio St football game. They did not require proof of vaccination.  
    General conference will again be closed to the public next month.  
    I realize that conference is an indoor event so it is appropriate.  Maybe if this social plague continues we can plan to have conference in an outdoor venue in the future.
    I love to see the patriotism of Americans, and their refusal to be cowed by fear.  
  4. Sad
    person0 reacted to clwnuke in Requiring a COVID-19 Vaccine (shot/s)   
    8 September 2021: Another false Covid belief meets the reality of actual data
    Don't Vaccinate Teenage Boys!
    Research conducted by the University of California has found that teenage boys are six times more likely to suffer from heart problems caused by the COVID-19 vaccine than to be hospitalized as a result of COVID-19 itself. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1
    A team led by Dr. Tracy Hoeg at the University of California investigated the rate of cardiac myocarditis – heart inflammation – and chest pain in children aged 12-17 following their second dose of the vaccine. They then compared this with the likelihood of children needing hospital treatment owing to Covid-19, at times of low, moderate and high rates of hospitalization.
    Researchers found that the risk of heart complications for boys aged 12-15 following the vaccine was 162.2 per million, which was the highest out of all the groups they looked at. This compares to the risk of a healthy boy being hospitalized as a result of a COVID infection, which is around 26.7 per million, meaning the risk they face from the vaccine is 6.1 times higher!
    _________________________________________

  5. Love
    person0 reacted to NeedleinA in Requiring a COVID-19 Vaccine (shot/s)   
    What do you do when you completely and humiliatingly botch the entire exit out of Afghanistan?
    What do you do when can't fix employment shortages, out of control inflation, when being woke starts to backfire on you, etc??
    You deflect, you redirect and you get the peasants distracted by something else... like more mandates that threaten their livelihood. 
    When you can't win anything abroad and you have burned all our international credibility, try threatening those at home with the sword instead. 

    If the Taliban are the new choir boys... then simply classify the unvaxxed as the new terrorist? Pit family against family, neighbor against neighbor or church member against church member.
    Our city just received one of the recent 13 KIA service members from Afghanistan. 
    Our city for one, will not be so quick to forget or easily distracted.  



     
     
  6. Like
    person0 reacted to Anddenex in Requiring a COVID-19 Vaccine (shot/s)   
    These are the types of decrees that are clear signs that the Constitution will hang by a thread.
  7. Like
    person0 got a reaction from JohnsonJones in Condoms are flying off the shelves in TX!   
    Although the Church allows for the possibility of personal revelation for certain scenarios.  Given the terrible things Heavenly Father 'allows' to happen all over the world because of our individual agency, I can't personally imagine a situation where someone would get a confirming revelation to abort a child solely on the basis of rape or incest.  Without that personal revelation, it would still be a gravely sinful act by the Church's standards noted in the handbook, although I can't imagine any discipline would take place.
  8. Like
    person0 reacted to Grunt in Condoms are flying off the shelves in TX!   
    That isn't exactly accurate.  The Church uses "may" and "doesn't automatically".   It opens the door to the possibility of exceptions, but doesn't outright grant them.

    That said, I don't think they DO exist.   They are never discussed because A:  Many people agree with me that they don't exists, and B: because they are used as a distraction by pro-abortion folks.   

    "I don't believe an innocent life should be taken."
    "Oh, so you believe a woman should endure the emotional trauma of carrying a child conceived in incest and rape?   You hate women."
    "OK, so if I grant exceptions to incest and rape, you'll support legislation that criminalizes all other abortions?"
    "No, it's a woman's right to choose"
    "Then why are we talking about incest and rape, not abortion in general?"
  9. Like
    person0 reacted to Suzie in Condoms are flying off the shelves in TX!   
    Certainly, the existence of these exceptions does not automatically mean that God inspires all who find themselves in those scenarios to get abortions, but it does suggest to me that God might inspire some in those morally ambiguous circumstances to terminate their pregnancies.
    Perhaps I'm overthinking the term "inspiring". I think the Lord might understand these exceptions/circumstances and bring comfort during a very difficult decision. But other than that, I just don't see the Lord inspiring someone to do it. 
  10. Like
    person0 reacted to Vort in Condoms are flying off the shelves in TX!   
    I think both observations are untrue: Exceptions are often mentioned (but not dwelt upon) in conservative circles, and when discussed are treated with great seriousness.
    Why are such exceptions not discussed more among pro-life conservatives? Because they're exceptions. What do we have today? We have women killing their babies. Think about that for a minute. Why is that not the front-and-center topic in Every Single Abortion Discussion that ever takes place? Why on earth would anyone worry that maybe the conservatives just aren't talking about the relatively rare exceptions?
    The problem is not and never has been close-minded, uptight conservatives. The problem is that many people seek to convince everyone that killing an unborn baby is a woman's God-given right. This is appalling to any decent human being, yet is the status quo in the world today. It has been the default position among leftists and media types (but I repeat myself) in the US since at least the late 1970s, a few years after the US Supreme Court permanently disgraced itself with the tortured non-reasoning of Roe v. Wade.
  11. Like
    person0 reacted to Suzie in Condoms are flying off the shelves in TX!   
    or like @person0 said where they cannot believe that God would ever inspire someone to get an abortion even thought the exceptions are part of the official position.
    Personally, I don't think the Church stating that there are possible exceptions for abortions (and they made sure to add that even in those rare exceptions it doesn't justify abortion automatically) equals to God inspiring someone to get one.
  12. Haha
    person0 got a reaction from Grunt in What in Sam Hill is the Point of there Being an LDS Church at All?   
    I met with a Catholic Priest while on my mission and obtained a copy of the Catholic Bible, including the apocryphal books, and also a copy of the catechism.  In reviewing the Catholic doctrines for understanding and comparison, I came across this little gem that really helped me understand the concept of original sin:
    😁
  13. Like
    person0 got a reaction from NeuroTypical in How will you follow the Prophet’s Counsel?   
    I have decided to continue to follow the First Presidency's request despite my opinions on the medical efficacy of so doing.  It may well turn out that the only reason for the request is the practice of obedience.  I will be obedient in this small thing, and hope it will strengthen me in the event I am asked to do more difficult things in the future.
  14. Haha
    person0 reacted to Vort in How will you follow the Prophet’s Counsel?   
    I am determined never to vote Democrat until after I die.
  15. Like
    person0 reacted to Grunt in How will you follow the Prophet’s Counsel?   
    It can be tough, right?   I don't struggle with this, but there are many things I do struggle with.   Oddly, even in my short time I've seen talks ease certain concerns I've had with more light.
  16. Like
    person0 got a reaction from NeuroTypical in How will you follow the Prophet’s Counsel?   
    I have decided to continue to follow the First Presidency's request despite my opinions on the medical efficacy of so doing.  It may well turn out that the only reason for the request is the practice of obedience.  I will be obedient in this small thing, and hope it will strengthen me in the event I am asked to do more difficult things in the future.
  17. Like
    person0 got a reaction from NeuroTypical in How will you follow the Prophet’s Counsel?   
    I have decided to continue to follow the First Presidency's request despite my opinions on the medical efficacy of so doing.  It may well turn out that the only reason for the request is the practice of obedience.  I will be obedient in this small thing, and hope it will strengthen me in the event I am asked to do more difficult things in the future.
  18. Like
    person0 got a reaction from NeuroTypical in How will you follow the Prophet’s Counsel?   
    I have decided to continue to follow the First Presidency's request despite my opinions on the medical efficacy of so doing.  It may well turn out that the only reason for the request is the practice of obedience.  I will be obedient in this small thing, and hope it will strengthen me in the event I am asked to do more difficult things in the future.
  19. Like
    person0 got a reaction from NeuroTypical in How will you follow the Prophet’s Counsel?   
    I have decided to continue to follow the First Presidency's request despite my opinions on the medical efficacy of so doing.  It may well turn out that the only reason for the request is the practice of obedience.  I will be obedient in this small thing, and hope it will strengthen me in the event I am asked to do more difficult things in the future.
  20. Like
    person0 got a reaction from NeuroTypical in How will you follow the Prophet’s Counsel?   
    I have decided to continue to follow the First Presidency's request despite my opinions on the medical efficacy of so doing.  It may well turn out that the only reason for the request is the practice of obedience.  I will be obedient in this small thing, and hope it will strengthen me in the event I am asked to do more difficult things in the future.
  21. Like
    person0 reacted to Vort in BYU - Call to Arms   
    He literally just said he was not. If you refuse to take his words at face value, why should you expect to have yours so taken?
    I heartily disbelieve this. For the past 25 years, I have raised my family on one unimpressive salary (and sometimes no salary for months at a time) in one of the more expensive markets in the nation. We did not live in a huge house. We had three boys sharing a triple bunk bed. We never ate out. When we took the occasional vacation, it was to someplace within a day's drive. We owned used vehicles.
    And despite whatever failures you may assign to my efforts to provide for my family, we were and are happy. On one income. In the Seattle area.
    So no, I don't buy the weak excuse of "we HAVE to have two incomes just to make ends meet!" For every family who makes that claim truthfully, I can show you ten who simply live above their income.
  22. Like
    person0 got a reaction from NeuroTypical in How will you follow the Prophet’s Counsel?   
    I have decided to continue to follow the First Presidency's request despite my opinions on the medical efficacy of so doing.  It may well turn out that the only reason for the request is the practice of obedience.  I will be obedient in this small thing, and hope it will strengthen me in the event I am asked to do more difficult things in the future.
  23. Like
    person0 got a reaction from NeuroTypical in How will you follow the Prophet’s Counsel?   
    I have decided to continue to follow the First Presidency's request despite my opinions on the medical efficacy of so doing.  It may well turn out that the only reason for the request is the practice of obedience.  I will be obedient in this small thing, and hope it will strengthen me in the event I am asked to do more difficult things in the future.
  24. Haha
    person0 reacted to Grunt in What if the Church’s Position on Homosexuality Changed?   
    What if tomorrow President Oaks ripped off a rubber mask and revealed he was really the Queen of England?   Would you still follow the Church?
  25. Like
    person0 got a reaction from JohnsonJones in How will you follow the Prophet’s Counsel?   
    Okay.  I have some thoughts on this. I am surprised others haven't already pointed them out.  I will quote portions of the statement made by the First Presidency and then provide my personal commentary.
    If the leaders and members of the Church were to enact this statement to its literal fulfillment, we would return to remote only Church.  In all sincerity, that would be more preferable to me than Church attendance with masks.  I personally have extreme difficulty devoting any type of focus while wearing the mask, mostly because I struggle to avoid thinking about it and noticing how annoying it is.  That said, I don't want to limit my children to remote participation which is less effective for them.
    Serious question:  If leaders and members are willing to disregard the above council by taking the risk of spreading the virus during in person services, why should other members feel any obligation to wear masks during those services?  If we are to interpret the above statement differently, then why wouldn't we interpret the statement on masks differently.
    Immunization occurs in two ways:
    When one acquires and defeats/overcomes an infection. When one is vaccinated against infection. Notice they did not specify that the protection can only be achieved by vaccination.
    What if social distancing is possible, but people just aren't doing it?  I have done my best to be obedient to this request by social distancing with my family, and putting on my mask when I am in situations where it is not possible, however, I have been dealing with an internal struggle as to whether or not I will continue doing this, as it is truly destroying my Sabbath experience and I am experiencing a great deal of anxiety over it.
    Notice the reason they urge vaccination is not to limit viral spread, but instead to provide personal protection from severe infection.  Given my age group and health, it is not necessary to be vaccinated to achieve this result.  That said, I have told my grandmother and others that the vaccines are unlikely to cause harm and are likely to be beneficial and if I were elderly, I would seriously consider getting vaccinated.
    This statement is very ambiguous, and it makes sense to me why.  This statement makes it clear that each individual may consider the recommendations of the medical experts and government leaders they trust.  There are obviously many doctors and government leaders who recommend vaccination, including former President Trump.  There are also medical experts who recommend it only for adults, and others who recommend it only for the elderly and those with co-morbidities.  And there are a few who don't recommend it at all.
    The only doctor who lives in my ward is a cancer surgeon and has chosen not to get the vaccine and also expressed that even upon reviewing available studies, and the data, that masking is ineffective.  I met with my ENT earlier this week and he is sick and tired of the masks and believes they are unnecessary (he did not specify ineffective, only unnecessary), especially at this point, but he did choose to get vaccinated.  Both of these individuals are at least 55 or older.

    Should I choose not to wear a mask and not to be vaccinated, I would still be fully adhering to this portion of the recent announcement because I have reviewed the available data for myself and also discussed with medical experts to advise my opinion, and am following the thoughtful recommendations of the medical experts I trust.