Does God want members of His Church to prosper financially?

[solomon-helaman]

I was thinking of real evidence.

What is real even scientific evidence of things changes

What is real? Even scientific evidence of things change.

[Newcomer4831]

What is real? Even scientific evidence of things change.

What do you mean by this? Theories become improved when new evidence is revealed, the evidence itself doesn't change.

[gabelpa]

What do you mean by this? Theories become improved when new evidence is revealed, the evidence itself doesn't change.

In some cases,the evidence does change because the methods for obtaining the evidence were flawed, improper, or even tainted the evidence, affecting the result.

There's a cracking story about DNA evidence. A certain woman's DNA was found at over 20 crime scenes (2 murders) in countries all over Central Europe. They were desperately trying to find this woman, turns out she worked at the plant that manufactured the swabs for collecting DNA evidence,and contaminated entire batches of swabs. If we don't know our methods for collecting and compiling evidence is flawed, we will come to the wrong conclusions.

[Newcomer4831]

In some cases,the evidence does change because the methods for obtaining the evidence were flawed, improper, or even tainted the evidence, affecting the result.

That's evidence regarding to a crime scene. I'm talking about science. Sure you can say that the outcome of a die changes every time with each roll. But if you gather more and more information, you can see that the you can understand fully to the point that you can predict what comes next on the die. Again, even in this situation, flawed evidence is still evidence.

Nature never lies. I remember a friend in biology was telling me that he was suppose to watch this type of bacteria to see how it cultivated. However, they started dieing; turns out that he washed the petri dish with hand soap that left a film on it. You can say that the evidence was flawed/contaminated, but I would like to look at it as if the experiment showed evidence that dial anti-bacterial hand soap kills bacteria.

[Snow]

That's evidence regarding to a crime scene. I'm talking about science. Sure you can say that the outcome of a die changes every time with each roll. But if you gather more and more information, you can see that the you can understand fully to the point that you can predict what comes next on the die.

I say that is not true - that you are just making it up.

[Newcomer4831]

I say that is not true - that you are just making it up.

What? It's elementary. Einstein believed that the answer to the problems in quantum mechanics is the lack of information. When Bohr suggested that God rolls dice, Einstein understood that if you knew the weight, material, air resistance, density, torque, spin...etc, then you can fully predict the outcomes of the dice.

[Snow]

What? It's elementary. Einstein believed that the answer to the problems in quantum mechanics is the lack of information. When Bohr suggested that God rolls dice, Einstein understood that if you knew the weight, material, air resistance, density, torque, spin...etc, then you can fully predict the outcomes of the dice.

Oh - when you said that you can predict the outcome, you didn't mean that you could predict the outcome; what you meant was that hypothetically, it's possible to conceive of predicting the outcome.

Why didn't you just say that.

[Elgama]

That's evidence regarding to a crime scene. I'm talking about science. Sure you can say that the outcome of a die changes every time with each roll. But if you gather more and more information, you can see that the you can understand fully to the point that you can predict what comes next on the die. Again, even in this situation, flawed evidence is still evidence.

Nature never lies. I remember a friend in biology was telling me that he was suppose to watch this type of bacteria to see how it cultivated. However, they started dieing; turns out that he washed the petri dish with hand soap that left a film on it. You can say that the evidence was flawed/contaminated, but I would like to look at it as if the experiment showed evidence that dial anti-bacterial hand soap kills bacteria.

of course nature lies - we are human we are part of nature and so are our brains, humans lie all the time, and it is our brains that interpret the evidence. A piece of evidence can change its name and interpretations many times before we understand it. And crime scene investigation is based on science. I would also venture that someone who needed to experiment that hand-soap killed bacteria in recent times has missed the huge historical evidence that it has saved countless lives over the past 100 or so years by doing just that, however it has also helped create bacteria that is resistant and stronger so whilst the experiment shows it kills bacteria he did not watch it long enough to see part 2 where the bacteria became stronger and began to fight back...... so he may know hand soap kills bacteria but he doesn't know the important bit that it can in the long run over more than a 100 years kill more humans. But whether that is truth or supposition we don't know yet its not experimental beyond reasonable doubt - only time will tell

Evidence can remain the same but human interpretation of it can change most sensible Quantum Physicists and Partcle Physicists etc will tell you whilst they know things work they don't always know why etc. My original main field was Archaeology I remember 2 incidents., one at an excavation I uncovered a rock formation that looked interesting wasn't sure what it was, second year student pushed me out the way and was determind it was his find - 2 eminent professors were then discussing what wonderful building it was, when along came a local farmer who said 'ooh ahh see ya hit bedrock there.' Another incident involved a piece of evidence that had been dug up 30 years ago, it had been displayed in museum as a tip off a flint knife, an arrowhead, flint scraper and finally in 1996 thrown away as being a shard caused by a tractor. Did the piece of flint change NO, but the human interpretation of it was. The first modern archaeology excavation was performed by Thomas Jefferson and the field and understanding has grown since.

Look at the Salem Witch trials - how much misery was caused because evidence showed these people had caused dreams, hallucination and death, similar events happened in other locations around the world. Now we understand what the evidence points to is mould on the wheat that was then turned into bread

One thing studying science teaches me is the more I study the less I actually know for sure, the more every area becomes supposition, best guess, or assumption based on experiment. What I learned and knew in high school became very unsure in university, whether you like it or not the outcome of many studied these days is determind by who paid for it as much as the evidence. Research in the Psychologist (British Psychology Society Magazine) a few years ago reckoned as many as 75% of researchers in the psychology field had received pressure from their financial backers or a political group to skew evidence.

-Charley

Edited March 28, 2009 by Elgama

[Just_A_Guy]

Scriptural "evidence" is not really evidence. It's simply a case of someone's opinion - as if someone having an opinion makes it true.

Do you accept the Koran as scriptural evidence? It's only evidence if you accept as a precondition that what is said scripturally is true.... it's nothing but circular reasoning, ie. it's evidence of what I believe to be true because I accept it as true in the first place.

You presuppose that we have no meaningful way of distinguishing true scripture from (for lack of a better term) pseudo-scripture. I don't see how you can arrive at that supposition without rejecting the possibility of revelation.

I was thinking of real evidence.

Q.E.D.

[Snow]

You presuppose that we have no meaningful way of distinguishing true scripture from (for lack of a better term) pseudo-scripture. I don't see how you can arrive at that supposition without rejecting the possibility of revelation.

Q.E.D.

I don't suggest that there is no such thing as revelation but revelation as a source of evidence is useless outside the particular person receiving it. It can't be demonstrated, or proven. It is notoriously untrustworthy and usually contradictory.

[Just_A_Guy]

Your overall point being, that just because the scriptures say God will answer prayers doesn't mean (for purposes of a discussion in which all participants profess to accept the same scriptures) that God really answers prayers. (EDIT for additional explanation: Because we can't know that the scriptures are true, except on an individual basis. And our individual revelations--both as to the validity of the scriptures and as to our personal testimonies of the power of prayer--must give way to the "scientific" evidence telling us that the scriptures are bunkum and that prayer is ineffective.) Right?

Edited March 28, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Snow]

Your overall point being, that just because the scriptures say God will answer prayers doesn't mean (for purposes of a discussion in which all participants profess to accept the same scriptures) that God really answers prayers. (EDIT for additional explanation: Because we can't know that the scriptures are true, except on an individual basis. And our individual revelations--both as to the validity of the scriptures and as to our personal testimonies of the power of prayer--must give way to the "scientific" evidence telling us that the scriptures are bunkum and that prayer is ineffective.) Right?

No.

I never claimed that prayers are ineffective.

I never claimed that scientific evidence tells us that scriptures are bunkum.

People in these discussions - some but not all - may agree on what constitutes scriptures but many such people interpret the meaning of those scriptures differently. It is not much of an exercise to collectively acknowledge what we all dogmatically believe to be true and then quibble about who best understands what we all dogmatically acknowledge to be so. It is much more profitable, in my opinion, to test our dogmatic beliefs against the facts and apply reason and see how the dogma holds up. It is unquestionable that much of what people say they "know" crumbles in the face of fact and reason.

[SirWilcomb]

What is your definition of rich? The brothern have asked us to live within our means. The church lives within it's means. They are building on average a church building a day. Temples are being announced at an amazing rate. It is my understanding (Could be wrong) that the church has a surplus of budget for it's buildings so that it can continue to build at the pace it does for five years if were not to add any money to it. I know that not all church building come at the same price but our building here in Gilbert, AZ cost about 5 million dollars (Once again second hand knowledge) They will also be building a temple here soon that has a budget for 60 million dollars. You do the math. The church is rich, but it lives within it's means.

Elder Christofferson said it that article you posted that we are to live within our means and help others around us. I go back to my pie analogy. When four people are wanting a piece of pie we should give each an equal portion, which would be a quarter each. So, how do we get more? The principle of creation. Create a bigger pie. We get more, and so do others around us. So, yes to the previous poster that says it matters how we earn our money. We should create our wealth in a way that will bless the lives of those around us.

Sorry, but I don't totally agree that man created money. God created ALL things on this earth. Man has taken this creation and used it for evil, but it is still a creation of God.

I would say the church is rich. I would even say the church continues to prosper. The church builds more chapels and temples, attracts more converts who pay more tithing and the tithing is used to build more chapels and temples. If this is not an example of the church prospering then I'm a monkey's uncle.

Dont tell me a man (Joseph Smith) who once lived in a log cabin and later lived in a brick built mansion did not prosper. He was eventually murdered, he had struggles and trials and hardships but he did also prosper. Look at all the wives Brigham Young was able to support. Don't tell me he didn't prosper. Are any of the current apostles and seventies poor men?

Snow, I'm not clear on your take on prayer but I do know the scriptures tell us we should pray for things and we should expect those prayers to be answered.

In another thread which I can't just locate at the present moment you have said that you do not 'know' anything to be true but you 'believe' it and I think that you doubted anyone else could 'know' but they must surely only believe. Yet there are people here who will tell you categorically that they do know and the knowing is more than mere belief. Yet you tell these people that there is no evidence of answer to prayer. You do seem to give the impression that prayer is a pointless excercise. Why then would we be commanded to do it?

I know the ground outside is wet. I know this because it has rained. I have not been out there and stood with my bare feet on the wet earth but I do know it is wet. That is more than simply believeing it is wet. It is based on evidence of having seen the rain and past experience of knowing that rain wets things. So it is with prayer and knowledge of the truth.

[Snow]

Don't tell me he didn't prosper. Are any of the current apostles and seventies poor men?

Snow, I'm not clear on your take on prayer but I do know the scriptures tell us we should pray for things and we should expect those prayers to be answered.

In another thread which I can't just locate at the present moment you have said that you do not 'know' anything to be true but you 'believe' it and I think that you doubted anyone else could 'know' but they must surely only believe. Yet there are people here who will tell you categorically that they do know and the knowing is more than mere belief. Yet you tell these people that there is no evidence of answer to prayer. You do seem to give the impression that prayer is a pointless excercise. Why then would we be commanded to do it?

I know the ground outside is wet. I know this because it has rained. I have not been out there and stood with my bare feet on the wet earth but I do know it is wet. That is more than simply believeing it is wet. It is based on evidence of having seen the rain and past experience of knowing that rain wets things. So it is with prayer and knowledge of the truth.

I'm pretty sure that I've never said that prayer is pointless exercise. What I think I did ask - in as much as the OP claims that there is a science of getting rich and then prayer came up... is there any evidence that praying for things actually works? If prayer (which are intended to result in some benefit) or tithing (which some people believe will result in material benefit) actually work, it would be an easy thing to observe and measure - scientifically. However, I'd wager that there is no unbiased evidence that it works.

Beyond actually getting results from prayer, there are, in my opinion, other purposes - to give thanks, to deepen humility, increase spirituality, bond families and saints together in sacred experience... etc.

To your point of knowing - if you really know the ground outside is wet, there is some way that you came by that knowledge. You didn't say what that way was except that it rained. I assume that you either gained the knowledge by experience and observation, or by application of logic. At any rate, your understanding that the ground was wet can be checked - you and others can go outside and observe, measure, validate. It's tangible, its real, it exists outside the neurons of your cerebellum.

On the other hand, if you told me that you KNOW that it was wet on land parcel 208147, sector A8865 of Tunguru, Sudan, and the way that you KNOW is that you have a really strong supernatural feeling about it, and no one else can go check, but rather can only come by the knowledge supernaturally... then I'd say - nope, that's not knowledge, not in any meaningful or useful sense of the word.