Mathonihah
-
Posts
18 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mathonihah
-
-
No, nothing can be objectively "proven", but science shows things to be objectively true beyond a reasonable doubt for many things.
I have often wondered if I were born and indoctrinated into a particular church if I would eventually come to the same conclusion I'm at now. I think I probably would, but being taught something your entire life I can imagine how it would be hard to go against that.
My gut feeling tells me religion is wrong
Why ask then? If your gut tells you religion is wrong and your head tells you the same thing, why the doubt?
All any of us can do is follow our conscience, if you do that you are pretty much okay.
-
The problem is that I am doing my homework. I did not come upon this question lightly and I somewhat resent if you are implying I am asking the question flippantly. I am asking God directly because from all my investigation into different religions none of them have any emerical evidence to go on, all require you to take them on faith, so what else am I supposed to do? If God will not respond to an honest question after I have exhausted all other avenues of investigation, how am I to decide which religion is "right"?
There are good people who care and work dilligently and are happy in every religion, even atheists.
I believe President Hinkley was a good man as well, but I know other people who have that "aura" of goodness about them of different faiths as well.
I think hot dogs "taste" good, my wife thinks they are disgusting, does that mean either of us are right about the true nature of hot dogs? My point is that taste (in both food and religion) is subjective by nature, when I seek the truth, I look for things that are objectively shown to be true. So far there is nothing that points to a way of objectively showing any one church is more true than another, so I have accepted that a personal spiritual experience of God telling me which church is true would do it for me. I have yet to receive that.
How do you know the "First Vision" is true? Forgive me for being skeptical but when fantatsic claims are made, the burden of proof is on the one making the claims. I can accept that it must be taken on faith, but knowing the church is true because of an event you've taken on faith doesn't make much sense to me.
I viewed your posted question as an honest one and answered in kind. Many people are flippant about there attitude towards God, I apologize if my respond seemed to place you in the same category, I was suggesting a reason why some don't receive and answer. Some are flippant, some are sincere but lazy, some are diligent but don't like the answer they are given, some are diligent but just can't connect the dots (that "eureka!" or "ahah!" element is somehow missing)
I agree with your wife. Hot dogs are disgusting:D. Now brautwurst, there's a different story:). Anyway, I see your point. And that is one of the reasons people have different religions. But based on taste and comparing it with other foods, would you describe hotdogs as wholesome?
Nothing can objectively be shown to be true. Everyone has their biases. Everyone will consciously, or subconsciously "color" what they are trying to show you. And everyone "colors" what they have been shown.
The events of the first vision are so removed from me by space and time that the only evidence that I have are a spiritual witness, and the evidence of goodness that the Church brings. I grew up in the Church so believing that fantastic story wasn't hard for me. I often wondered if I was raised outside of the Church, if I would find it. Some years ago I concluded that I would because of my "instinctive" knowledge of good. Lacking as all that sounds, it works for who I am and who I wand to become. And I have taken many deep looks at who I am.
:):):)If you have exhausted all avenues of thought, go with your gut feeling. :):):)
-
I ask this question honestly, it was brought up in another thread of mine but I do think it deserves its own thread. It has been proposed that free agency is the cause, but I know for a fact that there are people who are not a part of the church but honestly seeking a relationship with God. If God communicates to us with thoughts and feelings, when someone is honestly an humbly seeking Him, why do they not always get a response? Worse yet, why do some get conflicting responses? How would it violate free agency to simply guide someone who is honestly seeking a relationship with God?
There are many truly faithful people that believe they have communicated with God and that their church is true. I would have no problem believing that they did in fact communicate with God if it weren't for the fact that there are so many different churches all with faithful people knowing their particular church is true. It is clear that these people honestly want a relationship with God, why didn't God send them to the "correct" church instead of allowing them to believe in a false church?
I ask this because I see many of my fellow man who are utterly convinced that God talks to them and nothing can convince them otherwise. Obviously not all of them can be right since they are from different churches with sometimes drastically different messages, so I am understandably cautious before diving head first into the deep end of "faith."
Before I am accused of "blaming" God for the situation, I would like to say that I am not "blaming" God for anything. I am only seeking to understand the process of communicating with God because I am obviously missing something since He doesn't talk to me at all.
God expects us to do our homework. It took two years of thoughtful study before Brigham Young joined the Church. It also took about two years of thoughtful meditation and study for Joseph Smith to feel ready to ask God and get his vision. Oliver Cowdrey was reproached by the Lord because he took no thought save it was to ask God when he tried to translate. If all I do is ask flippantly, "God which church is right?" Why would I expect God to respond? At best I might suppose He would give a flippant response. What about if I asked God sincerely and did nothing to try to reason it out for myself? Remember what James said, "Faith without works is dead."
Sometimes you have to dive off "the deep end". But always check to see if there is water in the pool first! I assume you already found out that the pool holds water. Else you wouldn't have married an LDS girl and would have found the Church teachings repugnant.
I think the question isn't what everyone else thinks (or knows) but, "How do I know?" or "How can I know?"
First I know because it "tastes" good to me. I know when food is good because it tastes wholesome, it satisfies hunger, it leaves me with no regret (like an upset stomach) after I've eaten it. In like manner, I know when a precept is a good one because it "tastes" wholesome, it enlightens my mind (akin to satisfying hunger), it makes me a better person (akin to leaving me with no stomach ache).
I also know because of the examples of the Church leaders I see. They are great men and women who care a lot and work diligently and are happy for the most part. They are extremely intelligent too.
I know because of the "aura" or spirit I see around Church members. There are some people i can just look at and see they are good and wholesome and obeying the commandments. In this manner I knew the President Hinkley was a man of God.
Now you ask, "What about people of other faiths who say they know?"
One, I do not know if they know or what that know. I am not them. I can't be in there head.
I said I know when a precept is good because it "tastes" good. I assume everyone has this ability too (see Moroni 7, especially verses 13 and 16). I assume that people of other faiths have "tasted" what their churches have to offer and found them (or a parts of them) good. That is their churches teach many precepts which their members have tried and found good and therefore of God. They may then say, "Because this principle is true the whole church must be true as well." Are they right? On the other hand, someone might be investigating the same church and find the one of its precepts doesn't ring true and concludes that this particular church is false. Is he right?
One can even investigate every precept that his church teaches and find them all good and of God. Did he find the right Church of God? He can say that all the precepts he has investigated so far as good and of God. I'm not sure that he can say the his church is the "true Church of God" though. Perhaps there was a precept that he missed?
Lastly and most importantly, I know that the Church is true because the "First Vision" is true. God spoke to Joseph Smith and told him that through him he would establish his church (see Joseph Smith-History 1:10-34).
-
What's the purpose of questioning if not to get answers? Are you saying that science doesn't try to get answers on it's own but only looks elsewhere to get answers?
On another note, I don't like your definition of creationism. I would define it more as believing that we came from an intelligent creator. Not that God said hocus pocus and here we are. It shouldn't matter how you believe God created us as far as being a creationist. I consider myself a creationist, but I believe he didn't use magic, but worked by his own natural laws to create us, probaby by one of these two ways-
1. "by His own hands" using existing material (the ultimate Biologist / Chemist / Creator)
2. by "breeding" - possibly using evolution, but probably influenced along the way by our Intelligent Creator. This would mean Adam and Eve had natural parents (and also belly buttons I suppose), yet they were still considered the first man and woman on the earth. Cleon Skousen in his book The First Thousand Years puts forth a theory that they were bred on another planet and transplanted to this earth.
Breeding of humans might sound like a touchy thing to talk about, but I don't see anything wrong with God using this method. If there were generation of creatures that were the ancestors of Adam and Eve, however far back they go, I don't think that poses a problem for creationists. Adam was designed to be the first man, the first man-like creation that had an intelligent spirit, or breath of life breathed into him.
These verses from Abraham 4 Would seem to suggest the first option more, but remember that it is referring to the spiritual creation of the earth, which happened before the physical creation:
26 And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.
Abraham 5 describes the physical creation of man as such:
7 And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man’s spirit), and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.
8 And the Gods planted a garden, eastward in Eden, and there they put the man, whose spirit they had put into the body which they had formed.
Which I feel leaves either possibility open. Just depends what you think "from the dust of the ground" means. Perhaps there's even some other way I haven't considered.
I'm curious of the source of your last statement, and wonder what is meant by spontaneous generation.
.
Perhaps my definition of Creationism is a bit off. It was my understanding that it is Man and all other life was created by God fully formed out of the "dust of the earth", and there was not Man or other life existing prior to God creating Man and other life. It's as if God had a "black box" and one day he puts in dust and it come out man (And woe unto the man who tries to open the black box and understand the process of creation.). Or saying "hocus pocus" and man was. God created man and thats all there is to it. It is heresy to try to understand God's "black box" This is what I meant when I said Creationism.
This maybe a bit unfair definition. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism">Wikipedia</a> gives a pretty interesting definition.
"Cleon Skousen in his book The First Thousand Years puts forth a theory that they were bred on another planet and transplanted to this earth." This is my belief as well. I've never seen a Creationist page on the web suggest this though. I would think that traditional Creationists would view this as heresy.
My belief is that Adam and Eve were created perfectly (or Celestially) on another planet. That is they weren't some primitive, half-developed, ape-things. They were also created in the usual manner of sexual reproduction. They were immortal before the Fall like the Bible says, which would imply immortal parents. This belief goes against most Creationist thought and Evolutionist thought that is why I said I didn't believe in either.
Spontaneous generation is the belief that life (at least very simple life) was created spontaneously without any apparent cause. There was an old belief that maggots were created in grain in this manner because thats how it looks.
-
I'm hesitant to get into this discussion because I'm not nearly as scientifically educated as you seem to be, but I can only tell you my perspective, as a student and lover of science (currently working on an environmental biology degree).
It is my opinion that science tries to explain the how of this world and everything in it. We do the best we can with the knowledge and evidence we have so far discovered. Sometimes we find that we were completely wrong about something, and we have to alter our conclusions. The scientific method is only as good as the information we put into it. If we have incorrect or missing information, we are not going to get a wholly accurate result.
More than one of my science teachers over the years has stated that they do not wholly accept the theory of evolution, because we have no way to guarantee that the data we set our standards by is correct, especially in regards to trying to measure phenomena over the course of thousands and millions of years. I hold this opinion as well. I think there are far too many variables at work. Science tells us that it took millions of years for the earth to be formed as it is. How do we know God is not capable of speeding up the process? If he is all-powerful as we believe, then he surely could do such a thing. Additionally, we do not know how long the actual creation process took. Many people take the word "day" in the Bible to mean a literal day, but most religious scholars now accept the more likely translation of "time", in which case each "day" of creation could very well have taken millions of years. DNA supposedly states that we descended from primates, but if God formed all flesh from the same material (and why wouldn't He?), would this not explain the similarities in DNA?
I'm sure you have already considered these things, but my point is only to say that, while I also study science, I am able to accept that the answers we receive through science are only as good as the data we enter into the equation. We know from past experience that such data can be flawed or missing entirely, and therefore I must take all science with a grain of salt. This would be true for me even if I had no religious faith at all. Science cannot answer all my questions, but that does not mean that I find no use for science.
I trust that all will be sorted out in the end, and I am content with that.
Very, Very good point Mama.
A very simple way of looking at the Science vs. religion issue is that science asks questions while religion gives answers. Very cool huh? Now not all science asks the right questions and not all religion gives the right answers (but hey, now one is perfect:)).
***Science is not in the business of answering questions but questioning answers.***
A hypothesis is some way to explain or make sense of observed data. If the hypothesis is good and is tested against other data and holds true, it becomes a theory or working model of the way things work. (Note that theory answers "how" questions thus it is an element of religion).
I know someone will take exception to my equating science with questions and religion with answers. Think it over. All Truth (answers) belong to Religion. All Doubts (questions) belong to Science.
This is my philosophy.
Moving on. We have two great Religions (religion as a binding set of answers that pertain to the question at hand namely "What is the origin of Man, life, etc."):
Creationism (The answer is that God created (said "Hocus Pocus!" and there was man) us. Period. )
Evolution (The answer is that nature selected us. Period.)
My religion is neither of those (or more accurate, elements of both).
Genesis said God formed man of the dust of the earth. This is correct. We all are formed of the dust of the earth (We eat plants which grow in the ground which become the building blocks of each of us.).
Science will ask the question "Okay, so how was the first, original man formed"?
Religion says
*** "There was never a Son without a Father, never a Father without first being a Son" ***
(see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)
Science questions this.
... and comes to the conclusion that there is no such thing as "spontaneous generation".
...but still it questions...
-
It is my understanding that it has been done on various hominoids and confirmed we have a common ancestor. We know the placement of the ERV is arbitrary because you can find multiple instances of the same retrovirus in different places throughout the same genome, that and the fact that the same retrovirus can appear in different places in different organisms that were infected seperately.
I'd like to see an article on that (really:)).
-
Yes you opened a huge can of worms, and I'm glad you did. I love a good scientific debate :)
I apologize for casually dismissing this argument, the concept sounds interesting and I will definitely look into it more. From what I can tell at the moment, the theory of evolution does appear to violate the second law of thermodynamics. I will however say that if we throw out every theory (especially theories that have a lot of supporting evidence) that appears to violate an esablished principle, we would miss out on a lot of discovery.
You are correct, not many people consider a virus "alive" as it is little more than a peice of genetic material with a coating, so I was using the term "resurrecting" very loosely. I can see where my statement could be misleading.
You are missing one piece of information that I failed to mention in my last post. When a retrovirus embeds itself into the DNA of a cell it infects, it does so at an arbitrary location. So if chimpanzees and humans (or any two given species) acquired an ERV from the same retrovirus at around the same time, it would show up in different places in their genome. Many retroviruses have multiple copies and fragments of themselves embedded in our genome, so the placement is also important in determining ancestry. It is a fairly rare event for a retrovirus to become an endogenous retrovirus and for that to get propogated into the gene pool of a given species, but once it does it is essentially a "genetic fossil." Our DNA contains so many of them because it includes every time this has happened throughout the history of our ancestry.
So you are saying that if I find the same ERV in a chimp and human in the same place in the chimp and human genome both the chimp and human must have inherited this ERV from a common ancestor? Sounds like a pretty compelling argument. Has this been done? Has someone found an ERV linking man to chimp (or other hominiod)?
So how do we know that the placement of an ERV in the genome is arbitrary?
-
Interesting theory, but I don't believe you've examined all the evidence. While comparing the laws of thermodynamics to biological processes may sound like a compelling argument, it has no basis in science and you might as well be trying to explain why oranges don't exist because they are nothing like apples.
You concede that it is possible for all the varieties of dog that exist now to have a single progenitor, but you still don't think it is possible for an isolated population of dogs to form another species altogether given enough time. Why not? Given millions of years, why is it so impossible to you that a species could adapt to their environment so much that it is no longer recognizable and can no longer breed with animals only related by ancestor?
You can use the DNA evidence and find ancestry between different species in existance today through common endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) embedded in our DNA through the eons. Basically a class of virus called a retrovirus embeds its own DNA into the cell it infects. Sometimes, it manages to infect a sperm or egg cell which manages to get carried to term and then that organism and its children will now have this virus DNA as a part of every cell in their body and pass it on to their children as well. It turns out that roughly 8% of our DNA is from these viruses and essentially 'junk DNA' we carry around. It is however useful in tracking when the divergence of species occurred and which species are more closely related. This is direct evidence that seperate species can share a common ancestor. Furthermore, scientists have even reconstructed an extinct virus from fragments of it in our DNA and essentially brought it back to life. Read more here if you are interested.
I have yet to hear a religious or scientific explaination that takes this evidence into account other than evolution. If you have one, I would love to hear it. I'm not saying this is "proof" of evolution but there are very few in the scientific community (especially biologists and anthropologists) who doubt that speciation through evolutionary processes is possible.
I knew I'd open a can of worms with this! :)
It is my understanding that the laws of thermodynamics are universal and can be apply every where. I looked it up on wikipedia and found this:
Second law
Main article: Second law of thermodynamics
“ The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. ”
In a simple manner, the second law states that "energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy" rather than decrease it.
A way of looking at the second law for non-scientists is to look at entropy as a measure of chaos. So, for example, a broken cup has less order and more chaos than an intact one. Likewise, solid crystals, the most organized form of matter, have very low entropy values; and gases, which are highly disorganized, have high entropy values.
The entropy of a thermally isolated macroscopic system never decreases (see Maxwell's demon). However, a microscopic system may exhibit fluctuations of entropy opposite to that dictated by the Second Law (see Fluctuation Theorem). In fact, the mathematical proof of the Fluctuation Theorem from time-reversible dynamics and the Axiom of Causality constitutes a proof of the Second Law. In a logical sense the Second Law thus ceases to be a "Law" of physics and instead becomes a theorem which is valid for large systems or long times.
So this theorem is valid for large systems or long times. I would say evolution encompasses both long time and a large system. I'm not seeing why it would be invalid for evolution.
Okay let us work with the hypothetical ancestor dog and its decendants. Let's say that these dogs can change over time by adapting to their environment. Let us also say that some of these dogs are sexual incompatible with each other due the change (speciation effent). Let us also say that the second law of thermodynamics is valid here (this happened over a long lime). Then the speciation event indicates a loss of genetic information that would allow them to breed. This would not be evolution.
Thank you for sharing about the ERVs. I haven't studied them. Interesting stuff. BTW, "resurrecting" a dead virus is more akin to "resurrecting" a dead computer program than bringing the virus back to "life".
You wanted a explanation that isn't evolution? How about this:
A long time ago ERVs were rampantly infecting dogs, cats, humans, etc. One strain of this ERV infected orangutans. chimpanzees, and man. Another strain infected cats, rabbits, and mice. Now given this senerio, I would expect (or it wouldn't surprise me) that the DNA at the infected sites of orangutan, chimpanzee. and man would be virtually identical (or a close enough match to assume a common ancestor) but be totally different than cat, rabbit, and mouse. So are man, chimp. and orangutan related because some fragments of their DNA have a common ancestor? I would say not! Only that the same ERV infected them at the same time.
So I am not seeing how these ERVs can be used to track ancestry. Am I missing something?
-
Home Sapiens as I understand it and Neanderthals did not descend from each other they were two different branches - Neanderthals are now know to have had art and religion - and there is evidence they communicated.
I do find it interesting that the modern reconstructions of Neanderthals now look like Homo Sapiens.
-Charley
Thats what I meant when I wrote that Neandertal DNA was too different to be an ancestor of modern homo sapiens. I only used Neandertal as an example to make the point that obtaining evidence that supports evolution wouldf be difficult. Here you have a species of man that might be plausible to be haven been genetical similar enough bast on morphology to pass its DNA into our genome but the reality of it was the Neandertal was too different.
-
First a let me give people who may not have seen my other threads a quick summary of my situation: I am agnostic, my wife (of just over a year) is LDS, I usually go to church with her, and I've been curious about the church.
Next, I would like to apologize for brining this up again, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, it's just that this subject is a strong barrier in my acceptance of the gospel and so I figured it would be best to talk to members of the church about it. I've already talked to our Bishop about it, I have a lot of respect for him and enjoy talking with him, but he admittedly has little understanding of scientific principles.
Now I would like to present what is troubling me about joining the church:
-There is overwhelming scientific evidence not only for evolution, but that evolution is the origin of our species.
-The church has not explicitly stated their view on the theory of evolution but the plan of salvation requires the story of Adam and Eve to be accurate.
-If evolution is the origin of our species, it would be a slow process over many thousands of years and there wouldn't be a specific point where you could say the first two humans were born. The gene pool of our ancestors would just grow closer and closer to what we see in modern humans. I'm not sure how this can be reconciled with Adam and Eve.
The usual answer I get is that God does not reveal everything to us and that I should pray about the matter and it will be resolved. But this has yet to work for me, and I don't know if I could disregard a large amount of scientific evidence to believe something with no evidence. People tell me to have faith, but how can it be anything other the blind faith to believe in something that you've seen evidence to the contrary but never seen or felt evidence for?
I also worry that maybe I am just not cut out for religion in general, as other people don't seem to have problems with faith. I never gave my wife the expectation that I would convert, but I know she has the hope that I will and I feel like I'm letting her down since my brain can't seem to accept the church. It's getting to the point where I don't want to go to church with her anymore because I feel hypocritical since she teaches some of the primary kids and I usually sit in with her. I don't think the kids know that I'm not a member, I've never lied to them and said I'm a member but I've never told them I'm not a member as I think it might confuse them and bring up a lot of questions.
I don't know what kind of answers I'm looking for here or even if anyone will understand where I'm coming from. Maybe I just needed to get this all out in the open even if it is anonymously through a forum, but I do appreciate that many people of this forum have welcomed me and put up with my ramblings in a civil manner, I think it says a lot about the church.
Evolution as a means of creating a more complex organism out of a simpler one just doesn't make sense (to me). One law of thermal dynamics states that things become more disorganized over time or entropy in a closed system increases over time. In other words, some (outside) force needs to be acting on object in order for it not to revert back into chaos. Natural selection is an inside force which means it cannot overcome entropy. At best it can mitigate it only somewhat.
One can argue that an outside force would be God and that He can steer the course of evolution if he wants to. This is way too complicated. Why would God go through the trouble of nurturing a single cell through countess eons to arrive at man? If God is so great genetical engineer as to "create" or design the first living cell, why go through all the eons and painstakingly go little by little improving on each iteration of "creation" until finally He makes man? He could just shoot the human genetical information into his first cell and be done with it.
Natural selection is one method species adapt to their environment. No question about that. That is just saying that one progenitor dog (two at least male and female:)) can produce the variety of dogs we find today. But, at the end of the day, a dog is still a dog. One would have to manipulate the dog's genome very very expertly to get anything but a dog and even thing I doubt its possible.)
In order to get real evidence for evolution as a means of species change from simple to complex start with a species and track it back through time until it is undeniably a simpler, less organized, creature. Man is a good one to track since he is the most complex. Homo sapiens trace back to about the Neandertal that is about where we don't see any sapiens around anymore. So is Neandertal any simpler than sapiens? They had a bigger brain size for one. That kinda suggests... no. But thats irrelevant since the DNA is too different from sapien to be an ancestor. Dead end. But lest go further back to Homo erectus. Sorry DNA evidence also suggests that he is not our ancestor. Homo erectus enjoyed a long time in history lets check them out anyway. Now according to my anthropology book, early homo erectus and late homo erectus were not too different. Lo and behold, we have a species that exists for long enough that we should see some significant change but don't. Evidence against evolution wouldn't you say?
-
I Came Across A Study, About The Book Of Abraham.
I Have Many Questions.
1. Do Mormons Believe That The Book Of Genesis Is Correct.
If Yes Then,
2. Is It Not Likely That The Book Of Abraham Story Of Creation Is Not Correct.
If NO Then.
3. How Can The Book Of Genesis Be Correct It Abraham Is Correct.
These Questions Are Very Important, So As Usual, Be Very careful How You Answer Them.
I Would Be Greatful For Your Insight.
They are both correct.
If you are referring to the plurality of Gods in Abraham's account negating Moses's seemingly one God approach, concider this: as I understand it, usually when the Genesis account in the KJV of the bible said "God" the hebrew was "Elohim" with is the hebrew plural of god. Where is says "LORD" the hebrew says, "Yaweh" or "YHWH" which is Jehovah in English. So God=Gods and LORD=Jehovah.
With that in mind, the account in Genesis and Abraham are nearly identical. (see Abraham 5-6 and Genesis 1-2) The sequence of event are the same. One minor difference is Genesis call the firmament Heaven, but Abraham calls the expanse heaven. Which is fine. I have seen the word "vault" used instead of "firmament" in one English translation of the Bible. So vault=firmament=expanse=heaven. "Day" in the Genesis is rendered "Time" in Abraham. I think that "time" is the better word because "day" makes one think of a 24 hour day and since the sun, moon, and stars weren't set apart for reckoning days, months, and seasons until the forth "time" or "day" (see Abraham 5:14-19 and Genesis 1:14-19).
-
I'm not sure what your point here is at it pertains to this discussion; however, I couldn't agree more with you in what you have said.
I will add, however, in such debates as these, I back up my biases with references if appropriate. Just because it is our bias, does not make our bias wrong.
Elphaba
Elphaba, I'm sorry I'm really bad at segues. Just I though you mentioned your "unbiased" view somewhere in this thread and thought I should clear the air. But I can't find it in this thread, so it could have been another thread or another person who said it. In any rate, I apologise.
I agree that being biased doesn't make someone wrong. In fact I agree with you on a lot of points:). One the whole I found this debate educational. (Didn't know who Mark Haufmann was for instance.) I think alot of people (myself included) just look on the surface and make a judgment according to our biases don't delve deeper into issues. Sometimes thats a good thing, sometimes it's a bad thing though...
-
Snow and Elphaba, don't you have each others email so you can send each other hate mail?
I thought this thread was about the Book of Abraham, not about the meaning of accomplice..., or how great you are at making quick jabs at each other. Snow if Elphaba is incapable of giving you the last word, be gracious and move on... Elphaba, if Snow is incapable of giving you the last word, be gracious and let her have it and move on...
Elphaba, there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion or an unbiased view point. Your biases are set by previous experience. Pevious experience makes you biased one way or another. This gets in our way in learning the truth sometimes, but hey it makes it so you don't have to reinvent the wheel every time something simular comes on the horizon...
-
Hi guys,
I am new to this forum for one reason bringing me here. I had a christian friend show me this video about the orgins of the lost book of abraham.
The Lost Book of Abraham video - Video Clips
I have recently been talkin to him about doing a chaple tour to meet our missionaries. but he asked me to watch this video first. I know my first thought was "great some more anti-mormon stuff." I have to be honest after watching the video it made me do some research on ancient egyptian gods and goddeses. It shows how the original Papyri's that Joseph Smith said he translated were directly from Abraham while he was in Egypt, was found in a New York museum in 1967 and our church was able to obtain the Papyri from the museum to do their own investigations. Our church hired some world leading egyptoligists to read the egyptian words and it all came out to be an old egyptian funeral notice or obituary. the main point they stated that not only did Joseph not interperate it correctly but he drew a human head on the man who is sacrificing Abraham. That man really has the head of an ardvark and is the Egyptian God Anubis who oversees the mummification and burial process. And the picture is Anubis mummifying the egyptian man who died. Also the sword in Josephs picture is never to be found in ancient egyptian pictures of burials. Have any of you seen this info or the orginal scrolls that are torn in certain spots that would lead someone to draw in pictures? Any comments would be appreciated, I would also recommened watching the video if this doesn't make sense. There are several videos to make it easier to download and stream.
I've watched the video. I beg to differ about the interpretation of facsimile one. THe video sade that this french guy noted simularities between this facsimile and others from burial documents. Okay let us take the position that facsimile one was translated correctly by Joseph Smith and it is Abraham being sacrificed on the altar. What could then be the reason for it to be simular to the others. Wow! They are all Egyptian. Stand to reason that Egyptian hieroglyphs should be simular to each other. Hey, aren't burial, resurrection, and sacrifice religious rites? Shouldn't one expect there to be alot of simularities? It makes sense that the gods are there in each account, they being all religous rites. It makes sense that a table or altar would be in each too. The body has to lay on something, doesn't it? Which brings us to the body. It makes sense that in all three the body is on its back spread out on the table. What would the diffence be then, bwteen the representation of the bodies? Oh, I know! One is dead(burial), one is alive (sacrafice), and one is becoming alive(resurrection). And what three images did we see in the movie? Shockingly we see one body is dead(he's in a sarcofogus) one body which is alive(note position of the arms, hands and feet in facsimile no. 1), and the last is being raised from the dead(feet apart=alive but note position of the hands?). The last two(sacrifice and resurrection) are harder to diferentiate because they are both alive(feet apart=alive). But notice in facs. 1, that one leg is clear off the table? In the resurrection one both feet are on the table. Also the hands in facs. 1 are both outstretched(Pleading for divine aid?) while the in the resurrection one, only on hand is seen with its elbow bent and hand not outstretched(Perhaps not quite awake yet?). All three we would expect to find an officiator(priest or god). Someone needs to be there to raise the dead. Someone is needed to bury the dead. Someone is needed to sacrifice. The other major figure is the bird. I have no problem accepting it as the angel of the Lord.
There is a tear where the knife should be and where the head of the officiator should be. So the head and knife may not be accurate. I believe someone replying to in this thread sugests both knife and human head are in other hieroglyphs so that its not unreasonable for the figure in facs. 1 to have a human head and a knife.
So I guess if there isnt better (I hardly call 2 simular hieroglyphs good evidence, 10 or 15 maybe) evidence, I'll continue to believe that facs. 1 is correct.
-
If god is god through procession (he is god because he served his god, who served his god, who….), then that implies that at some point there was a god who always was god or that found a way to become a god on his own. Which is it?
If there was an original god would that mean that the god of this world is a lesser god and that since his power came from this original god that he is not all powerful?
If god is only the god of this world, where did the other worlds come from and why are they lifeless? Why have we not discovered life on other worlds yet?
In Genesis is says that God created the stars. If you believe there are other worlds with other gods then none of these had stars or suns.
If the Bible claims that God is eternal, then how could he have become a god?
If a Mormon can claim to be Christian can a Muslim claim the same? Islam believes in the Bible as Christians do. They believe in Jesus (in that he was a prophet). They say they believe in the same God as Christians. They say that they were given the continued and true gospel of God. They too believe in salvation through works.
How can a Mormon say he is Christian by his own opinion when other Christian denominations do not agree because they do not share the same doctrine? I.E… God always was and always will be, there are no other gods, Jesus is God, and we are saved through Christ and not through works because we can never be good enough through ourselves…. Wouldn’t this be equivalent to me calling myself the President even though nobody else agrees with me?
Thank you for your responses.
OK, Every heard the song by W.W. Phelps, "If You Could Kie to Kolob" ? Thats the beauty of eternity. There is no beginning and there is no end. Think about it... how can something(or someone) have a beginning(or birth or start), if the wasnt something there to initiate(or create)? So I think youre reasoning that this iterative God who became God implies that there is an ultimate God is faulty. The only way you can get exalted is to have an exulted Being exault you. Sorta like your in quicksand and the only way to get out is to have someone pull you out who is on firm ground.
answer to 2nd question: God's glory derives from His children ("This is my work and my gloy, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39)). God's Father's glory is more than God's insofar as God's Father has more exalted posterity(including God). It doesn't mean He is more intellegent(more-all knowing, more all-seeing) though. It is my understanding that once you reach Godhood, you only progress insofar as your posterity does(i.e. more glory is added to you as your posterity gets exaulted).
answer to question 3: Read Moses. THere are billions and billions of worlds out there. Enough for everybody:) Some are lifeless some aren't. The closest star to us is 4 light years away. We can't travel nearly the speed of life yet, so it would take lifetimes to get to that star and its(if it even has one) planetary system. Assuming that one planet in that system is inhabited, why would we know about it when we have only begun to send rockets and probes out? (I think I remember hearing that one of our earlier probes had just passed Pluto, or was it Jupiter?)
answer to question 4: Again there are billions and billions of stars our there... enough for everybody....
answer to qustion 5: This one may be harder to fathom. (And this is only my guess) Mortality is a trial period, a set up, an imitation or reality(eternity). You come to earth learn a ton, experience a body, learn to used the body well, do good, learn to love, progress, progress, progress. You have a Savior who can (and does) exalt you, if youve live up to the requirements of recieving the Atonement. You return to real life(eternity). Now God saids, "Well done though good and faithful servant..." You now are exalted to Godhood. And because your in real life(eternity), you become a God from eternity to eternity... (again this is my own thoughts)
answer to question 5: It's been answered previously. Whomsoever has faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and follows His commandments may call himself a Christian.
answer to question 6: same as 5. Anyone who learns from the Master and follows Him is his disciple and can call himself a Christian. The only opinion that matters is Christ's. If He will call me a Christian, thats good enough for me.
-
OK Argentina and Rize, Lets get some defintions straight.
Communism acooring to wikipedia:
Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production.[1] It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution[2].
Communism by that definition is socialism and I think thats a fair definition of communism. Wouldn't you agree?
-
There is a danger in taking a little excerpt of any paper or document out of context. There context within the document itself and also historical context. What was going on back then that was so bad that the Church had to issue a proclamation on it? I read the entire document which the discussion about redistribution of wealth seems (to me) only a preamble. It leads up to people buying stock in ZCMI and supporting other cooperative ventures. This sounds to me like a very capitalist venture.
From the Proclamation on the Economy, 1875:
When the proposition to organize Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution was broached, it was hoped that the community at large would become stockholders; for if a few individuals were to own its stock, the advantages to the community would be limited. The people, therefore, were urged to take shares, and large numbers responded to the appeal. As we have shown, the business proved to be as successful as its most sanguine friends anticipated. But the distribution of profits among the community was not the only benefit conferred by the organization of cooperation among us.
It goes on to say:
Cooperation has submitted in silence to a great many attacks. Its friends have been content to let it endure the ordeal. But now it is time to speak. The Latter-day Saints should understand that it is our duty to sustain cooperation and to do all in our power to make it a success. The local cooperative stores should have the cordial support of the Latter-day Saints. Does not all our history impress upon us the great truth that union is strength? Without it, what power would the Latter-day Saints have? But it is in not our doctrines alone that we should be united, but in practice and especially in our business affairs.
from Wikipedia:
A cooperative (also co-operative, coöperative, or co-op) is defined by the International Co-operative Alliance's Statement on the Co-operative Identity as an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise[1]. A cooperative may also be defined as a business owned and controlled equally by the people who use its services or who work at it.
So it seems to me the the First Presidency and Quorum or the Twelve were urging the saints to participate in cooperative ventures not urging the saints to modify their form of Government in any way.
You sited a few scripture which you say are in favor of socialism. Well here is on for you. Explain to me the the Parable of the Talents? (Read Mathew 25:14-30) The Master gave one servant 5, another servant 2, and another servant 1 talent (unit of money). Hmmm, doesn't sound equally distributing His wealth does it? The Master then leaves for a time and come back. The servant with 5 talents made 5 more. The servant with 2 made 2 more. But the servant with one did nothing and hid his talent and the Master TOOK AWAY HIS TALENT AND GAVE IT TO THE SERVANT WHO HAD 10 (Mathew 25:28). Sounds like redistibution of weath alright. But wait! It's in the wrong direction! The rich gets the one talent from the poor (assuming that the talents the master gave were the only talents they possessed). Doesn't sound like socialism does it?
I'd like to say a word or too about socialism and communism: the USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Not the word socialist. Communism is a form of socialism. So was National Socialism (Nazi Germany). To be fair I suppose there is democratic socialism. Like Sweden (go look at their economy and compare it to ours).
I believe the economic position of the Church is that every man is responsibly for his own economic prosperity. If he cannot meet his own needs he can look toward his family then the Church.
LDS Socialism
in General Discussion
Posted
This is a multinational church. Of course it won't endorse a particular candidate or party. It wouldn't be prudent. But that is neither her nor there in this thread. The church always has stood for the freedoms enlisted in the Constitution. Among which is the right to own property. By the way, the church does take a stance on political issues prohibition and gay-marraige being a couple.