I need help


DaBear
 Share

Recommended Posts

In Cleon Skousen's Atonment talk he mentions that Robert Millikan said that if all the elements were obeying all the rules of chemistry, you would never die. He gave no reference for that statement. Does anyone know were Robert Millikan said that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is all really interesting. It makes sense that if the elements completely followed the law of chemistry then there would be no cancer, heart failure, etc. But your right, rocks don't die. they can break down, rust, etc. but that's because of chemical reactions that obey the laws of chemistry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be careful with Skousen's theory on atonement. There are many holes in it, big enough to drive a truck through. There are several much better theories out there, such as Blake Ostler's.

I would be careful of anything Skousen has written. Popular LDS author doesn't mean correct LDS author. Treat him as you would any non-member writing and you'll do okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a google search on Robert Milikan, they guy said some things that were true, others that were not...

here's the talk you are referring to: The Atonement, by Cleon Skousen reperiendi

Cleon has some good ideas, but I'm not quite too sure what he is talking about here? We live in a very orderly universe - a place of cause/effect, action/reaction - science basically deals with action/reaction - "Some of these little elements are just as ornery as you and me. They go wandering around"??? as in Brownian motion? Brownian motion is not random, it just appears to be such. - see intuitive metaphor

chaos theory isn't even random - it is high sensitivity to initial conditions...

here is an interesting chat on a physics forum: Does random exist?

Does random exist?

something that is self-caused / contains free will would look random - in that it was not caused by anything external that we could see... ... Cleon has a point in comparing "that which acts" and "that which is acted upon" - imo science deals with "that which is acted upon"... we go back and forth in the "nature vs. nurture" debates, when it does not just come down to nature/nurture - there is a third component -

1. nature - DNA - some of what we are came from the genetics of our parents

2. nurture - environment - some of what we are came form the neighborhood that we grew up in.

3. spirit - some of who we are came from neither our parents nor our neighborhood - some would call this "random" as they cannot find something external to blame it on... others would call it free will, spirit, the eternal part of us which was not created and therefore has no ultimate origin to trace back to...

some would say we have no free will - that it is jut a complicated system that makes us think we have free will, that everything we do can be traced to either nature or nurture... others of us believe that we do indeed have free will - not in all things, and not all the times, but there are examples of people rising above where they were born, and who they were born to... I'm personally in the "free will camp"

"if all the elements were obeying all of the rules of chemistry, you would never die" ... interesting... yes, the rules of chemistry don't die - iron does not die, copper, zinc - these things do not die, their structures do not die, the atoms do not suddenly "fall apart" after some period of time, atomic reactions do not suddenly start following some new set of rules after some period of time, start re-organizing themselves to some new structure with time??? death is an interesting thing that exists for the living... rocks do not die, and yet we do - why? an interesting thing to ponder....

fun stuff to think about though! I enjoy Cleon's stuff :)

Given your list there, the "random" that comes from spirit amounts to something less than the differences seen between identical twins who are and who have always lived in the same environment. That would almost take out the first two factors in comparing the two. But even then, the zygote can have some "random" changes to it's DNA probably causing even the slightest of differences seen between "identical" twins and even random environmental effects, i.e -calling one of the twins the "oldest" even though it is by minutes can have a psychological affect on the way that twin acts.

I would say there is not much influence by the spirit and definitely a greater influence on behaviors comes from environment and body. If the influence was greatly spirit then we would remember the pre-mortal life and all that we learned there. For most, at best we have a feeling of what we learned there and who we really are, most of that takes faith. The influence from the spirit is almost negligible for most in this world. .... in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be careful of anything Skousen has written. Popular LDS author doesn't mean correct LDS author. Treat him as you would any non-member writing and you'll do okay.

I agree with most of Skousen's stuff, but the idea behind the Atonement talk was given to him by the Apostle John A. Widstoe so I trust this much more. Plus you hear about intelligence in Jesus the Christ by Talmage on page 322 Note 2. He said "...as upon organized intelligenses, whether yet unembodied, in the flesh, or disembodied. Thus, the Lord may speak directly to the earth, the air, the sea, and be heard and obeyed...". It's also mentioned in many other places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with Skousen basing himself on Elder Widstoe or Talmage is that while they were intellectual giants on their day, we've had lots of revelation and development in LDS theology since then. We've also had many well studied LDS scholars ponder a variety of theories and concepts and develop better theories than those from the middle to beginning of the 20th century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of Skousen's stuff, but the idea behind the Atonement talk was given to him by the Apostle John A. Widstoe so I trust this much more. Plus you hear about intelligence in Jesus the Christ by Talmage on page 322 Note 2. He said "...as upon organized intelligenses, whether yet unembodied, in the flesh, or disembodied. Thus, the Lord may speak directly to the earth, the air, the sea, and be heard and obeyed...". It's also mentioned in many other places.

I think people take those words too literal. When God "speaks directly to the earth ... and heard" that should not be taken any more literal than Christ being a "word" or that the Celestial Kingdom will be on a sun and the Terrestrial Kingdom will be on a moon.

Those thought provoking words are meant to express the magnitude of His power not the method, in my opinion.

Edited by Seminarysnoozer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of Skousen's stuff, but the idea behind the Atonement talk was given to him by the Apostle John A. Widstoe so I trust this much more. Plus you hear about intelligence in Jesus the Christ by Talmage on page 322 Note 2. He said "...as upon organized intelligenses, whether yet unembodied, in the flesh, or disembodied. Thus, the Lord may speak directly to the earth, the air, the sea, and be heard and obeyed...". It's also mentioned in many other places.

Oh, there's no doubt that there are levels of intelligences. However, there is serious doubts about whether a rock has any form of 'ornery intelligence'.

In fact, there is a simple test, DaBear.

Go. Pick up some rocks. Throw them.

How many of them choose to defy the rules imposed upon them by the laws of physics?

Throw a thousand. Throw a million. If any of them react in a way other than moving the exact distance imparted by your throw, adjusted for outside forces such as gravity, friction and other bodies - I will admit you were right. Heck - Keep throwing rocks until the end of time. See if they ever do. How long could it possibly be before there are some other 'ornery intelligences'?

You'll probably find a heavy rock that floats like a balloon by lunch time.

That's actually a logical fallacy I just used there. It was more to illustrate a point. I know you're not saying it's easy, but you do seem to be saying it's possible. If you're not saying that it's possible they'll defy the laws of physics, what are you saying?

The possibilities are:

1) They can defy the laws of physics. This is ridiculous and Skousen is ridiculous if this is his point.

2) They can make moral choices, which would imply they can take positive action of some kind. This, I have no idea on. How does a rock make a moral choice? I believe that rocks were a level of intelligence, but it seems to me much more likely that Mankind, who was made in the image of God, is the owner of that free agency that allows them to make moral decisions. That would be beyond a rock, which means I would say Skousen was just flat out wrong, unless he could describe how a rock could make a moral decision.

3) The material can defy God's will. This is heretical. And anti-biblical, as Genesis illustrates that God created the rocks and the trees and 'Saw that they were good.'

So: If you can think of a fourth option for what this discussion means, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I'm sticking with Skousen either being ridiculous, heretical or just wrong. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say 'Just wrong'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share