A Mormon’s love letter to atheists

[Universeman]

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Philippians 4:8

Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing. I have only begun to learn content and peace of mind since I have resolved at all risks to do this.

The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence. Science is simply common sense at its best - that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic. Thomas Huxley

There has been much discussion on this forum regarding Lorenzo Snows famous quote regarding mans true relationship to God. “As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.” Lets kick this theological discussion up a notch. For the record my views are obviously my own, I sincerely believe that they are ennobling of deity and his offspring, I respect your opinion even if we disagree, I expect the same in return.

Are there plausible scientific alternatives to evolution that should also be taught alongside evolution? The creationist, creation-science, and intelligent design movements are all attempts to displace evolution or contradict it with so-called alternative scientific theories. All have failed, both scientifically and legally, as science. The current evidence supporting evolution is so overwhelming that denying it is the intellectual equivalent of denying gravity. (Fairbanks, pg. 157)

Evolution by selection, then, is a combination of randomness and lawfulness. There is first a “random” (or “indifferent”) process – the occurrence of mutations that generate an array of genetic variants, both good and bad; and then a lawful process of natural selection – that orders this variation, keeping the good and winnowing the bad.

This brings up what is surely the most widespread misunderstanding about Darwinism: the idea that, in evolution, “everything happens by chance”. This common claim is flatly wrong. No evolutionist – and certainly not Darwin – ever argued that natural selection is based on chance. Quite the opposite. Chance alone cannot explain the marvelous fit between individuals and their environment. (Coyne, pgs 118-119)

About 6 million years ago mans earliest progenitors diverged from the apes to eventually become human, about 50 thousand years ago full behavioral modernity, including language, music and other cultural universals had developed. At some point, (perhaps 50 thousand years ago?), Adam and Eve were the first humans with the potential to become gods, the first of Gods spiritual offspring designated to spend their mortal probation on this planet. Now in light of what I have told you about the reality of evolution consider the ramifications of President Snows insight that “As man now is, God once was!

Traditional theology states that God is immaterial and eternal, he is the first cause.

“If this Creator were a being like the universe, a being that exists in time and so that came into existence, then it too would have to have been created by something. Nothing comes from nothing, not even God. This tells us that the ultimate cause of the universe must never have come into existence; the ultimate Creator must be a being that exists outside of time, an eternal being with neither beginning nor end.”

In response to this theology Richard Dawkins observes that, “any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.” (Dawkins, 2006 pg. 31)

While I may not have any answers to these very hard questions (not that they matter, I may as well try to calculate how many angels can fit on the head of a pin), I may question whether any of my spiritual witnesses were real or merely created by my own mind due to an emotional response (not that I question my testimony, I just tend to think a lot). I do know that no other religion is truly capable of answering the origin of evil and why God permits evil things to happen to us like the restored gospel of Jesus Christ can. Neither does any other religion (no offence intended PC) offer a satisfactory definition of saved by grace, or that we will be judged by our works, what justice is, the true meaning of the atonement, or what the incomprehensible depth and breadth of salvation actually is.

Mr. Dawkins does a very good job of debunking the concept that God exists, and in fact I completely agree with his case against the existence of God, except for one glaring problem, my life. I have a lot of issues (not as many as some but more then others, did I just describe the entire human race?), I dropped out of High School due to a pretty severe social anxiety disorder combined with ADHD. Yet in spite of my handicaps I successfully served a mission to Spain (one whole convert woot! two if I count myself) I also managed to serve 20 years in the USAF and just retired last year, I have earned an AAS degree and am currently working towards a BS with a 3.8GPA, and I have a wife of 17 years and 3 kids. I look back at my life with awe and think to myself that if I had to do it over again knowing what I know now I honestly do not think I could do it again. My life is literally a paradox, and I assure you that I am not being modestly self deprecating (but I don’t want to bore you with details, it’s a really long story, no C3PO abridgments here).

What I do have a perfect knowledge of is that living the restored gospel has had an unmistakable effect on my life. This perfect knowledge has liberated my intellect; I am able to bear my testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel fearlessly, at the same time I can fully embrace other truths, such as evolution, fearless of science conflicting with my faith. In the end does it make any difference if we are wrong and there is no God? On the other hand I look back at my life so far and stand in wonder, it is impossible for me to comprehend that I have progressed from where I started to where I am today due only to the providence of blind chance. What the restored gospel and evolution means to me is that we literally belong to this planet, on one hand we mere beasts, on the other we are the spiritual offspring of deity. God did not create us with handicaps to prevent us from returning to his presence, he has given us the opportunity to discover who we really are for our selves, the possibility of genuine triumph entails the possibility of genuine defeat, but the decision is ours and ours alone.

According to Lehi, "Adam fell that man might be; and men are, that they might have joy" (2 Nephi 2:25). However, to attain this joy, Lehi taught,

it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, . . . righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. . . .

And [so] to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents . . . , it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other. . . .

[if Adam and Eve had not fallen] they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. (2Nephi 2:11, 15–16, 23)

I understand this to mean that prior to the fall, we were in a state of innocence like the beasts, not yet comprehending good from evil.

For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. Mosiah 3:19

But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

Alma 32:27, 32, 34

References:

( The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1984], 1.)

Fairbanks, Daniel J. 2007. Relics of Eden

Coyne, Jerry A. 2009. Why Evolution is True.

The First Cause Argument

Dawkins, Richard. 2006. The God Delusion.

Notes:

Revelation, Reason, and Faith: Essays in Honor of Truman G. Madsen - Sin, Suffering, and Soul-Making: Joseph Smith on the Problem of Evil

Creationists: the greatest skeptics of our age The Mormon Organon

The implications of evolution for key LDS Doctrines: My SMPT paper part IV The Mormon Organon

Pillar of Salt: Evolution in Regards to the Creation Account in Genesis: Part I

Edited June 10, 2011 by Universeman

[Universeman]

I sincerely hope that I have not come across as arrogant or proud, if I have it was unintentional (I was warned of this in my patriarchal blessing lol). I do believe that the level of our level of understanding regarding Gods true nature (even in light of the first vision) and the true nature of reality, is infinitely beyond our current level of comprehension.

But Just to be perfectly clear (I hope) about what I am trying to say.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints is the restored original church the Savior established while he was on the earth and is the only true church on the Earth, the Savior directs his church through his prophet Thomas S Monson.

Evolution is real and therefore the means by which God created life on this planet as well as his innumerable other planets, evolution therefore is the only possible means by which God creates mortal life. If evolution seems incompatible with the fall it is due to our current lack of knowledge regarding the specifics of how God creates life and not because of any real conflict between science and religion. As for resurrection, I would speculate (seriously I am just shooting from the hip here) that a resurrected being bears only a superficial resemblance to our current evolution based physical bodies, an immortal, resurrected body by definition must be infinitely superior, I would imagine at a bare minimum our entire genome would be completely overhauled in order to remove all traces of evolutionary baggage which we are currently lugging around in our very imperfect mortal bodies.

Keep in mind that I am merely following this line of thought to its logical conclusion, I cannot believe that God would ever be offended by his children honestly seeking the truth wherever it may be found. Relax, and have fun with this, debate is fun, feel free to openly disagree with me.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Universeman

[NeuroTypical]

Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.

Interestingly enough, this is what athiests are always telling me to do. Isn't it fascinating how we can start with a desire to know truth, and end up in such different destinations?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Evolution is real and therefore the means by which God created life on this planet as well as his innumerable other planets, evolution therefore is the only possible means by which God creates mortal life. .

Then how did God raise Lazarus from the dead back to mortal life?

The body was decaying mush, it wasn't like he was in a persistent vegetative state like on a ventilator in the ICU. It wasn't that he just looked dead and the people thought he was dead when he was just unresponsive, the guy was dead, not breathing for 4 days, thus destroying all brain tissue to just a clump of organic material and then brought back to life the way he was before. Once the brain stops receiving blood for even 5 minutes, stroke can occur and science does not know how to regrow brain tissue after it is completely dead. He had no blood flow to the head for 4 days, and he 'stunk' meaning starting to decay. Lazarus didn't need to evolve in any form or fashion to gain the skill to sit at a table and eat a little later. God turned organic mush into full functioning adult human.

If evolution is the only possible means to create mortal life out of no life than Lazarus wouldn't be back yet, it takes longer than 2000 years. Of course, unless you don't believe that miracle is true.

[Backroads]

I sincerely hope that I have not come across as arrogant or proud, if I have it was unintentional (I was warned of this in my patriarchal blessing lol). I do believe that the level of our level of understanding regarding Gods true nature (even in light of the first vision) and the true nature of reality, is infinitely beyond our current level of comprehension.

But Just to be perfectly clear (I hope) about what I am trying to say.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints is the restored original church the Savior established while he was on the earth and is the only true church on the Earth, the Savior directs his church through his prophet Thomas S Monson.

Evolution is real and therefore the means by which God created life on this planet as well as his innumerable other planets, evolution therefore is the only possible means by which God creates mortal life. If evolution seems incompatible with the fall it is due to our current lack of knowledge regarding the specifics of how God creates life and not because of any real conflict between science and religion. As for resurrection, I would speculate (seriously I am just shooting from the hip here) that a resurrected being bears only a superficial resemblance to our current evolution based physical bodies, an immortal, resurrected body by definition must be infinitely superior, I would imagine at a bare minimum our entire genome would be completely overhauled in order to remove all traces of evolutionary baggage which we are currently lugging around in our very imperfect mortal bodies.

Keep in mind that I am merely following this line of thought to its logical conclusion, I cannot believe that God would ever be offended by his children honestly seeking the truth wherever it may be found. Relax, and have fun with this, debate is fun, feel free to openly disagree with me.

No pride detected by me. In fact, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and I agree with much of what you say. I for one am perfectly happy with the notion of evolution and will be until told otherwise.

[Universeman]

Interestingly enough, this is what athiests are always telling me to do. Isn't it fascinating how we can start with a desire to know truth, and end up in such different destinations?

Atheists have decided that the only reality is the one we can detect with our physical senses or by measurement, they have no issue accepting the reality that the universe only consists of 5% normal matter yet they reject the supernatural, and rightly so I might add (I don't believe in magic either), but by so doing they are shutting themselves off from a much larger reality which is currently beyond our ability to detect with our physical senses but no less real then the other 95% of the universe we cannot detect! Just why is it so terrible to simply desire to believe and see where it leads, atheists act like it is a sin to even desire to believe in God lol.

2 Nephi 9: 42And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them.

[Universeman]

Excellent point snoozer, I have seen lots of miracles in my own life, like the time we were heading home for Christmas and had barely left our driveway when our car broke down and then after quickly changing to our other car it broke as well, both very reliable cars, one of which was brand new. Later that day while waiting for the dealer to fix the newer of our two vehicles we discovered that these mechanical failures had prevented me from driving my family right through a blizzard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Holiday_Blizzards_(2006%E2%80%932007)

I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever about Gods power to perform miracles, I don’t know how the Savior resurrected Lazarus, or himself for that matter. The real question that I want to get at is the means by which life was created, we know that Lazarus was returned to life, ie. extensive cellular damage throughout his entire body had to be restored to its former state, the cause of his death being healed in the process. Yet he was still mortal and he could have conceivably walked in front of a speeding chariot the next day and died again. I suspect, perhaps, that the method by which Lazarus was resurrected and my cars were simultaneously disabled are the same type of miracle. We simply do not know the mechanics of how miracles are accomplished.

I have no problem accepting the reality of miracles, with regards to the creation of life we are faced with a different set of problems. Creationists can believe just about anything, a literal interpretation of 6, 24 hour days, or 6 1000 year long days, or 6 periods of time of indeterminate length equaling 3.4 billion years, the means of creation could be supernatural causes (divine fiat) or natural causes (intelligent design or natural evolution) and so on. The problem with divine fiat and intelligent design creation theories is that they are nonscientific by definition. All the geological and fossil evidence indicate that the earth is very ancient and that the advanced life of today is the result of a gradual process of evolution with no indication that an intelligent designer is required in order to explain the current level of complexity of life present to day. The real question is then, if God created life by divine fiat, why would he mislead us with evidence that life is the result of a natural unguided process.

Ether 3: 12And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Universeman
For clarity

[Seminarysnoozer]

Excellent point snoozer, I have seen lots of miracles in my own life, like the time we were heading home for Christmas and had barely left our driveway when our car broke down and then after quickly changing to our other car it broke as well, both very reliable cars, one of which was brand new. Later that day while waiting for the dealer to fix the newer of our two vehicles we discovered that these mechanical failures had prevented me from driving my family right through a blizzard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Holiday_Blizzards_(2006%E2%80%932007)

I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever about Gods power to perform miracles, I don’t know how the Savior resurrected Lazarus, or himself for that matter. The real question that I want to get at is the means by which life was created, we know that Lazarus was returned to life, ie. extensive cellular damage throughout his entire body had to be restored to its former state, the cause of his death being healed in the process. Yet he was still mortal and he could have conceivably walked in front of a speeding chariot the next day and died again. I suspect, perhaps, that the method by which Lazarus was resurrected and my cars were simultaneously disabled are the same type of miracle. We simply do not know the mechanics of how miracles are accomplished.

I have no problem accepting the reality of miracles, with regards to the creation of life we are faced with a different set of problems. Creationists can believe just about anything, a literal interpretation of 6, 24 hour days, or 6 1000 year long days, or 6 periods of time of indeterminate length equaling 3.4 billion years, the means of creation could be supernatural causes (divine fiat) or natural causes (intelligent design or natural evolution) and so on. The problem with divine fiat and intelligent design creation theories is that they are nonscientific by definition. All the geological and fossil evidence indicate that the earth is very ancient and that the advanced life of today is the result of a gradual process of evolution with no indication that an intelligent designer is required in order to explain the current level of complexity of life present to day. The real question is then, if God created life by divine fiat, why would he mislead us with evidence that life is the result of a natural unguided process.

Ether 3: 12And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie.

Thanks, I didn't mean to throw you off your real topic, so I apologize if I did, go back to it. Couple points though, First, God did not resurrect Lazarus, that is why I brought that up. It is not the same that happened to Jesus with His resurrection. Lazarus was made to live again a mortal life. The point in admitting that is to know that is well within God's capability to create a mortal human living body out of organic goo. It doesn't "have to" follow the course of evolution.

Second, "life" doesn't always mean living. "Life" can mean the joining of a spirit with the body. A body that is living and has spiritual force the same way a rock does may be possible, we don't know that. We only call it "life" from a gospel sense when there is a joining of a spirit being with the body. Death, the separation of the spirit from the body, can only, of course, occur when there is a spirit attached to the body to separate from it. Therefore there is no "death" in the world until spirits beings, individual "intelligences" are placed into bodies. "Man" is the description of a spirit being joined with a body that has the image of God. Other bodies that don't have the image of God and do not have a spirit being attached to them are not called "man". So, the first "man" was the first one that had a spirit being put into it, Adam.

If you want to talk about the scientific proofs of some of the things that happened before or after or around the time the first "man" was made, that is a separate discussion than the creation of "man", to me. It is like talking about apples and oranges. One doesn't preclude the other or suggest that they "have to" be interrelated in my mind.

[HEthePrimate]

Is this a love letter or a tract?

FWIW, it's perfectly all right with me if you try to convert atheists, but what if they don't convert? Will you still be their friend?

Just to be clear, Universeman, this is not intended as a personal criticism. You may have perfectly good intentions. But I have seen some other Latter-day Saints essentially feign friendship with non-Mormons in an effort to convert them. Then when those people showed no interest in the Church, the LDS promptly ignored them. Again, you may not be like that, but I have seen some people do that.

Peace,

HEP

[Universeman]

If you want to talk about the scientific proofs of some of the things that happened before or after or around the time the first "man" was made, that is a separate discussion than the creation of "man", to me. It is like talking about apples and oranges. One doesn't preclude the other or suggest that they "have to" be interrelated in my mind.

Its really very simple, our species evolved over millions of years from the apes, at some point our species evolved to the point that we became fully human. One day a special child was born, his name was Adam, he was the first human to receive the breath of life, and he became like God knowing good from evil. Where else could we have come from? The dust? A spaceship? Quantum teleportation? Well we only have proof of evolution so I’m going to go with that one, its not like the brethren are going to make an official doctrinal statement rejecting science. There simply is no conflict between science and LDS doctrine, so why would any one in this church reject the truth of evolution, and yet a lot of members do just that.

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MORMONISM

EVOLUTION

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modem, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity.... Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes (see Appendix, "Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency").

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded,

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.... Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First

Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].

WILLIAM E. EVENSON

(Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 2)

[Universeman]

Is this a love letter or a tract?

FWIW, it's perfectly all right with me if you try to convert atheists, but what if they don't convert? Will you still be their friend?

Just to be clear, Universeman, this is not intended as a personal criticism. You may have perfectly good intentions. But I have seen some other Latter-day Saints essentially feign friendship with non-Mormons in an effort to convert them. Then when those people showed no interest in the Church, the LDS promptly ignored them. Again, you may not be like that, but I have seen some people do that.

Peace,

HEP

I have to leave for work like now

The short answer is I like atheists because they reject nonsence, but they also reject anyone who believes in a God lol.

I have no intention of trying to convert any one, thats on the individual.

I agree with you about feigning frindship, but I also suck at making friends (social anxiety remember) so its not an issue with me lol.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I have to leave for work like now

The short answer is I like atheists because they reject nonsence, but they also reject anyone who believes in a God lol.

I have no intention of trying to convert any one, thats on the individual.

I agree with you about feigning frindship, but I also suck at making friends (social anxiety remember) so its not an issue with me lol.

They don't reject the nonsense of thinking that there is nothing when they die and yet they, from what I have seen, live their lives as if there is some value to living it well.

If one really believed that there is just nothing in the end, all is forgotten, why strive to do well in this life as far as providing for family, "making a difference" etc. That would be nonsense to someone who really believed that when they die there is nothing, no memory, no existence as if it never happened in the first place. The reason they still strive to do the 'right thing', in my opinion, is because they still have a little light of Christ, even though they deny it.

[HEthePrimate]

I have to leave for work like now

The short answer is I like atheists because they reject nonsence, but they also reject anyone who believes in a God lol.

I have no intention of trying to convert any one, thats on the individual.

I agree with you about feigning frindship, but I also suck at making friends (social anxiety remember) so its not an issue with me lol.

I have a good friend who is agnostic. I really appreciate his intellectual honesty, that he doesn't take nonsense from either the religious side or the irreligious side. And also, he's great because he doesn't reject people based on their belief, or lack thereof. (He has friends in both camps, both disbelievers, and people like me, who do believe.) We don't agree about everything, but we can be friends anyway, and that gives me the "warm fuzzies."

[Origen]

Evolution is real and therefore the means by which God created life on this planet as well as his innumerable other planets, evolution therefore is the only possible means by which God creates mortal life. If evolution seems incompatible with the fall it is due to our current lack of knowledge regarding the specifics of how God creates life and not because of any real conflict between science and religion. .

What strikes me is that the LDS interpretation of the fall is the only one I am aware of which does harmonize with evolution. The more 'traditional' interpretation holds that human beings were already 'perfect' (compared to what?) when God created them - the pinnacle of creation - and that the fall was well, a fall.

Even before I knew anything about LDS theology this interpretation never made any sense to me. I do, and have always, seen the story of the fall as an allegory of the evolution of human consciousness. In this allegory our ancestors (Adam & Eve) begin as highly intelligent animals who are nonetheless driven by pure, automatic instinct. They have no ability to reflect on their actions. No forethought. No power of conceptualization. All that exists for them is their perception of the present moment. Then they eat from 'the tree of knowledge' (how can this NOT be allegory?) and BOOM! Suddenly they are aware of their nakedness (self-consciousness), they feel guilt (animals don't feel guilt, only shame which is a very different thing), they become aware that they will die (remember that Jehovah Elohim says that if they eat from the tree they will die. Are we to believe that humans were literally immortal before the fall?). They are kicked out of Eden which means they can no longer survive by picking bananas (like our cousins the chimps do) and they must now either hunt for their food or grow it. Now I ask any fundamentalists or atheists who might be reading this: is this allegorical interpretation of the fall consistent with what anthropologists are saying about human origins or isn't it.

Interpret the fall literally and it fails every test of objective truth. Interpret the fall allegorically and discover that the book of Genesis was ahead of it's time by nearly 3000 years!

As for resurrection, I would speculate (seriously I am just shooting from the hip here) that a resurrected being bears only a superficial resemblance to our current evolution based physical bodies, an immortal, resurrected body by definition must be infinitely superior, I would imagine at a bare minimum our entire genome would be completely overhauled in order to remove all traces of evolutionary baggage which we are currently lugging around in our very imperfect mortal bodies.

You might want to look into Transhumanism is this interests you. (maybe you already have). Medical science is getting very close to extending the human lifespan indefinitely. If only we invested as much money in preserving life as we did in discovering ways to destroy it, immortality treatments would probably already be within everyone's price range.

Atheists have decided that the only reality is the one we can detect with our physical senses or by measurement, they have no issue accepting the reality that the universe only consists of 5% normal matter yet they reject the supernatural, and rightly so I might add (I don't believe in magic either), but by so doing they are shutting themselves off from a much larger reality which is currently beyond our ability to detect with our physical senses but no less real then the other 95% of the universe we cannot detect! Just why is it so terrible to simply desire to believe and see where it leads, atheists act like it is a sin to even desire to believe in God lol.

The curse of logical positivism. To say that whatever cannot be known by the senses is 'meaningless' is a fine axiom for science but it is (in my opinion) an absurd proposition to live by for the reason you already mentioned. I'm sure the the bacteria living on my body aren't aware of my existence and have no means of ever becoming aware of it, but I certainly exist

Keep in mind that I am merely following this line of thought to its logical conclusion, I cannot believe that God would ever be offended by his children honestly seeking the truth wherever it may be found. Relax, and have fun with this, debate is fun, feel free to openly disagree with me.

I agree completely. Galileo had something similar to say (though I can't recall the quote right now). Good post.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Origen

[Seminarysnoozer]

What strikes me is that the LDS interpretation of the fall is the only one I am aware of which does harmonize with evolution. The more 'traditional' interpretation holds that human beings were already 'perfect' (compared to what?) when God created them - the pinnacle of creation - and that the fall was well, a fall.

Even before I knew anything about LDS theology this interpretation never made any sense to me. I do, and have always, seen the story of the fall as an allegory of the evolution of human consciousness. In this allegory our ancestors (Adam & Eve) begin as highly intelligent animals who are nonetheless driven by pure, automatic instinct. They have no ability to reflect on their actions. No forethought. No power of conceptualization. All that exists for them is their perception of the present moment. Then they eat from 'the tree of knowledge' (how can this NOT be allegory?) and BOOM! Suddenly they are aware of their nakedness (self-consciousness), they feel guilt (animals don't feel guilt, only shame which is a very different thing), they become aware that they will die (remember that Jehovah Elohim says that if they eat from the tree they will die. Are we to believe that humans were literally immortal before the fall?). They are kicked out of Eden which means they can no longer survive by picking bananas (like our cousins the chimps do) and they must now either hunt for their food or grow it. Now I ask any fundamentalists or atheists who might be reading this: is this allegorical interpretation of the fall consistent with what anthropologists are saying about human origins or isn't it.

.

Then your view of the story is that when Adam and Eve were listening to God it was a lie (that they were immortal) and when they listened to Satan they learned the truth?

[Origen]

Then your view of the story is that when Adam and Eve were listening to God it was a lie (that they were immortal) and when they listened to Satan they learned the truth?

It was both true and untrue depending on how you interpret death. In a sense they could not die because, while the body is mortal, the soul persists. However, they certainly did die in the flesh, as all things die.

My take on it is that in reality Adam & Eve were always mortal (in the flesh). The death that Jehovah Elohim referred was not death, strictly speaking, but the awareness of death. Like all animals, preconscious humans had no conception of death before the fall and after it they suddenly had to confront their own mortality. This foreknowledge that they would die was the price they paid for partaking from the tree of knowledge (for becoming conscious beings). If there is no awareness of mortality, then mortality is not a burden.

Another interpretation could be this: that in premortal existence we were immortal but when we entered mortal bodies it was, in some sense, like death because we forgot our identities as children of God. There were some early Christians (particularly the Gnostics) who considered the fleshly body to be a tomb. LDS doctrine is very gnostic in two aspects:

1. The pre-existence of all human souls in heaven.

2. Humanity's potential to become like God.

In fact, it could be said that it was these two ideas which defined the Gnostics and set them apart from the other Christian sects; in all other beliefs they differed dramatically but these latter two were fundamental.

Sorry, I tend to go on tangents when I get excited. I'm going to start a new thread in the

LDS Gospel Discussion : LDS & GNOSTICISM.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Origen

[Vort]

Then your view of the story is that when Adam and Eve were listening to God it was a lie (that they were immortal) and when they listened to Satan they learned the truth?

Not taking a position on this, but I would note that this is exactly what many Latter-day Saints already believe and even teach at Church:

• God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit, even while knowing that they had to do so in order to progress.

• Satan tempted them and told them that they had to eat, despite God's clear commandment.

• Eve ignored the counsel of God and hearkened to the voice of Satan, and as a result they fell.

• Said Latter-day Saints proclaim that Eve did a wonderful and insightful thing in disobeying God and hearkening to Satan, while stodgy, stupid old Adam would just have stayed uselessly in the Garden forever.

So it should come as no surprise that some might simply conclude that God lied and that Satan told the truth.

For the record, while I do not believe the series outlined above, I do believe that the Fall was necessary and that our first parents' choice in the matter was ultimately laudatory. But I do not believe the "conflicting commandments" theory. I do not know what the "tree of life" was (though I'm pretty certain it wasn't a tree) and I don't know what "eating of its fruit" entailed (though I'm pretty sure it didn't involve eating anything). Until such things are understood, I don't think we are likely to comprehend the symbolism and significance of the Garden of Eden story.

[Mute]

They don't reject the nonsense of thinking that there is nothing when they die and yet they, from what I have seen, live their lives as if there is some value to living it well.

Is the only reason you do what you believe to be right because you believe you will be punished if you don't? Is the only reason you find value to this life because you believe there is a God? I am not atheist but I'm not so very different from many of them and many of my friends are atheists. I can tell you that my friends and I do what we believe to be right because we care about others. We know if we don't do something now, we may not have another chance later. What we do for others can have a very large impact on those around us.

We seek to do what we believe to be right for the same reasons you seek to do what you believe to be right. Because we believe it will make us happier in this life. Not everything an atheists or agnostic believes is right is going to coincide with what you believe to be right or wrong though.

If one really believed that there is just nothing in the end, all is forgotten, why strive to do well in this life as far as providing for family, "making a difference" etc. That would be nonsense to someone who really believed that when they die there is nothing, no memory, no existence as if it never happened in the first place. The reason they still strive to do the 'right thing', in my opinion, is because they still have a little light of Christ, even though they deny it.

Because others are still going to be affected by what we do. We can make a difference now to affect those who now live and those will come after us. If you knew 100% that there was no God, would you suddenly just stop caring about what others do and think? Would you only care about yourself? No, I don't believe you would and if you say yes then I'd say you never really loved anyone to begin with. I mean look at the LDS faith. The LDS faith teaches that God wants people to live certain ways. Why? Because they believe it will make others the most happy to live that way. So you would continue trying to do what you believe will bring you happiness. Just because our life will end, does not make our lives meaningless.

We forget things in our life. Over time our memories fade. Why do anything if you know you're only going to remember a fraction of it? Because it can make a difference now. It can make a difference in our lives as well as brighten someone elses day.

[Seminarysnoozer]

We seek to do what we believe to be right for the same reasons you seek to do what you believe to be right. Because we believe it will make us happier in this life. Not everything an atheists or agnostic believes is right is going to coincide with what you believe to be right or wrong though.

It is not the same reason, not even close. The reason LDS do what they consider to be right is not for earthly reward at all. It is not because I will be merry in this life. I may suffer even more by doing what is right in this life and I will still do it. LDS try to avoid the concept of eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

Have you ever played a video game that doesn't keep the score stored somewhere? Life would be like that video game if one doesn't believe in an after life. Sure, you could try to earn a lot of points during the game but after it is over the score is erased, so, in the end there is no productive value to the game other than to entertain, enjoy the moment, etc. Add on top of that, not even remembering the game after it is played, then it really serves no purpose at all. That is the atheist view of life.

If one does not believe in an afterlife, then they must also believe that the moment they die all that occurred in this life, to them, no longer exists as if it never happened. If one really believed that there is no consequence to any action in this life that extends beyond this life as it will all turn to forgotten the moment anyone dies then there is only temporary morality and purpose that only exists for the now. I realize the argument is that the person would want others around them to experience happiness temporarily. Why? that, according to that belief will be lost too. There is nothing of lasting value to that belief. In that scenario, if one thinks they could 'get away with it' then there is no reason to avoid a lie to get gain, cheat to get gain, suppress someone else to get gain for themselves or their family. In that view, Hitler would be a hero, he rose from not having much to having most of Europe, at least in his case maybe it would be a good thing that he doesn't remember anything he did in this life.

To do right is based in what we believe to provide the greater amount of happiness for everyone not based in fear of punishment or based in earthly reward.

My argument earlier was that it is not true that the atheist believe 100% that there is not God. Their mind might believe that but their spirit and the little amount of the light of Christ in them still tells them there must be more, that is why they still want to do what is right for them and family. If one did not believe in God 100% there would be absolutely no reason to do right, the only driving force would be momentary self gratification.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Seminarysnoozer

[Mute]

It is not the same reason, not even close. The reason LDS do what they consider to be right is not for earthly reward at all. It is not because I will be merry in this life.

ST JOHN

CHAPTER 13

15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

17 If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.

THE BOOK OF MOSIAH

CHAPTER 2

41 And moreover, I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual; and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness. O remember, remember that these things are true; for the Lord God hath spoken it.

THE BOOK OF ALMA

THE SON OF ALMA

CHAPTER 27

17 Now the joy of Ammon was so great even that he was full; yea, he was swallowed up in the joy of his God, even to the exhausting of his strength; and he fell again to the earth.

18 Now was not this exceeding joy? Behold, this is joy which none receiveth save it be the truly penitent and humble seeker of happiness.

THE BOOK OF ALMA

THE SON OF ALMA

CHAPTER 41

10 Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.

HELAMAN

CHAPTER 13

38 But behold, your days of probation are past; ye have procrastinated the day of your salvation until it is everlastingly too late, and your destruction is made sure; yea, for ye have sought all the days of your lives for that which ye could not obtain; and ye have sought for happiness in doing iniquity, which thing is contrary to the nature of that righteousness which is in our great and Eternal Head.

2nd Nephi

Chapter 2

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

Wait, you're saying someone isn't going to be happier by living the way the lds faith believes one should live? Have you ever heard the saying "Wickedness never was happiness"? The LDS faith teaches that in order for one to be truly happy, you must live a certain way. Why would you want to go to a place for eternity if you don't believe it will bring you happiness? Is what you believe you'll be doing there so different than what you're trying to do and become now?

If nothing you do good is for earthly reward, then why do you bother being kind to your children? Why do you bother being kind to others or helping others? Is it only for what you believe will happen after death? Surely that can't be it. You would care about these people and want them to be happy now. Is that not Earthly?

I may suffer even more by doing what is right in this life and I will still do it. LDS try to avoid the concept of eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

I'm not talking about possible persecution someone may face like that expressed in the Bible towards Christ and the apostles. I'm talking about the way you live. Does being chaste, keeping the word of wisdom, going to the temple, paying tithing, praying, going to church etc., not bring you more happiness? If it doesn't, then why do you do it? I remember talking with missionaries once. They asked me if I was happy. I said yes. Then they asked if I wanted to be more happy and proceeded to tell me that the gospel and keeping the commandments would bring me more happiness. That was their opinion but it wasn't the same as what you're saying. My brother is extremely faithful in the lds faith and he expresses it bringing him great happiness. As does my father and many of my lds friends. What you're saying is not coinciding with what they are saying. They do it because they feel more happiness in that way of life. I live the way I do because it is what brings me happiness.

Have you ever played a video game that doesn't keep the score stored somewhere? Life would be like that video game if one doesn't believe in an after life. Sure, you could try to earn a lot of points during the game but after it is over the score is erased, so, in the end there is no productive value to the game other than to entertain, enjoy the moment, etc. Add on top of that, not even remembering the game after it is played, then it really serves no purpose at all. That is the atheist view of life.

I wouldn't consider it the same at all. Other people learn from you. Think off how much we've learned from those who have passed on. We wouldn't have penicillin if someone didn't invent it. We wouldn't have cars, electricity in our homes and so much more if people had not sought to better our world. Maybe they were doing it partly to make a profit but they created a lot of good for society in doing so. What we do can have enormous affects on the surrounding world. That's worth something. That's worth something to me. If I can make a difference in doing that, I don't care if my existence ends or not. I'm making a difference for those who are still alive and those who will come after me. I'm making a difference for my own species. I can die contently knowing I made a difference. Whether I go on existing or not is besides the point. I don't choose to do good to others for any reason other than I care about their welfare. I don't care if I get a reward for it in an after life. I do it because I care about others.

If one does not believe in an afterlife, then they must also believe that the moment they die all that occurred in this life, to them, no longer exists as if it never happened. If one really believed that there is no consequence to any action in this life that extends beyond this life as it will all turn to forgotten the moment anyone dies then there is only temporary morality and purpose that only exists for the now. I realize the argument is that the person would want others around them to experience happiness temporarily. Why? that, according to that belief will be lost too. There is nothing of lasting value to that belief. In that scenario, if one thinks they could 'get away with it' then there is no reason to avoid a lie to get gain, cheat to get gain, suppress someone else to get gain for themselves or their family. In that view, Hitler would be a hero, he rose from not having much to having most of Europe, at least in his case maybe it would be a good thing that he doesn't remember anything he did in this life.

It's not a waste. If this life is the only one we ever get, why not live it to the fullest? A sparkler will eventually fade. You'll never get that sparkler back. Does that mean you should just cast it aside because it won't last forever? Enjoy life while it lasts. That is the way I look at it. It's not a sin to be happy. It's ok to smile. I'd rather be a person who sees the glass half full than a person who sees it half empty.

There is every reason in the world to avoid a lie to get gain, cheating or suppressing someone else to get gain for yourself and family. There has to be rules for a society to function. I don't cheat on tests because I feel I'll get more out of it by actually doing the work. It's for my best interest to not do that. It makes life a lot simpler to not lie. You have to keep track of all those lies and it can be pretty stressful. People don't trust you and chances are you won't have as good of friends. I don't like being lied to by people. It doesn't make me want to be around them. I also don't want to be around those who cheat and steal. On top of these things, there are other consequences to this. You risk being punished by the law for your crimes which can result in taking away years of your life. Sure, you could take advantage of others in your life but I'd rather earn that reward for myself. It brings a lot more satisfaction to ones self in knowing you accomplished something great.

To do right is based in what we believe to provide the greater amount of happiness for everyone not based in fear of punishment or based in earthly reward.

Why would you think other people couldn't want that too? Why would you think others couldn't want the most happiness for everyone? How could atheists some how not have that motive and only be concerned with themselves? Are you assuming no one can get any benefits to caring about the welfare of others in this life? Are you saying the only benefits come from an after life?

My argument earlier was that it is not true that the atheist believe 100% that there is not God. Their mind might believe that but their spirit and the little amount of the light of Christ in them still tells them there must be more, that is why they still want to do what is right for them and family. If one did not believe in God 100% there would be absolutely no reason to do right, the only driving force would be momentary self gratification.

I would not presume to tell others what they do or do not believe. I know lds do not like having others tell them what they believe. Treat others as you want to be treated. If you would honestly lose all your morals and all your caring for treating others well if you didn't have religion, then I would worry about that. That shouldn't be that way. There is benefit to doing what is right in this life regardless of one's religious beliefs.

[Seminarysnoozer]

ST JOHN

CHAPTER 13

15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

17 If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.

THE BOOK OF MOSIAH

CHAPTER 2

41 And moreover, I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual; and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness. O remember, remember that these things are true; for the Lord God hath spoken it.

THE BOOK OF ALMA

THE SON OF ALMA

CHAPTER 27

17 Now the joy of Ammon was so great even that he was full; yea, he was swallowed up in the joy of his God, even to the exhausting of his strength; and he fell again to the earth.

18 Now was not this exceeding joy? Behold, this is joy which none receiveth save it be the truly penitent and humble seeker of happiness.

THE BOOK OF ALMA

THE SON OF ALMA

CHAPTER 41

10 Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.

HELAMAN

CHAPTER 13

38 But behold, your days of probation are past; ye have procrastinated the day of your salvation until it is everlastingly too late, and your destruction is made sure; yea, for ye have sought all the days of your lives for that which ye could not obtain; and ye have sought for happiness in doing iniquity, which thing is contrary to the nature of that righteousness which is in our great and Eternal Head.

2nd Nephi

Chapter 2

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

Wait, you're saying someone isn't going to be happier by living the way the lds faith believes one should live? Have you ever heard the saying "Wickedness never was happiness"? The LDS faith teaches that in order for one to be truly happy, you must live a certain way. Why would you want to go to a place for eternity if you don't believe it will bring you happiness? Is what you believe you'll be doing there so different than what you're trying to do and become now?

If nothing you do good is for earthly reward, then why do you bother being kind to your children? Why do you bother being kind to others or helping others? Is it only for what you believe will happen after death? Surely that can't be it. You would care about these people and want them to be happy now. Is that not Earthly?

I'm not talking about possible persecution someone may face like that expressed in the Bible towards Christ and the apostles. I'm talking about the way you live. Does being chaste, keeping the word of wisdom, going to the temple, paying tithing, praying, going to church etc., not bring you more happiness? If it doesn't, then why do you do it? I remember talking with missionaries once. They asked me if I was happy. I said yes. Then they asked if I wanted to be more happy and proceeded to tell me that the gospel and keeping the commandments would bring me more happiness. That was their opinion but it wasn't the same as what you're saying. My brother is extremely faithful in the lds faith and he expresses it bringing him great happiness. As does my father and many of my lds friends. What you're saying is not coinciding with what they are saying. They do it because they feel more happiness in that way of life. I live the way I do because it is what brings me happiness.

I wouldn't consider it the same at all. Other people learn from you. Think off how much we've learned from those who have passed on. We wouldn't have penicillin if someone didn't invent it. We wouldn't have cars, electricity in our homes and so much more if people had not sought to better our world. Maybe they were doing it partly to make a profit but they created a lot of good for society in doing so. What we do can have enormous affects on the surrounding world. That's worth something. That's worth something to me. If I can make a difference in doing that, I don't care if my existence ends or not. I'm making a difference for those who are still alive and those who will come after me. I'm making a difference for my own species. I can die contently knowing I made a difference. Whether I go on existing or not is besides the point. I don't choose to do good to others for any reason other than I care about their welfare. I don't care if I get a reward for it in an after life. I do it because I care about others.

It's not a waste. If this life is the only one we ever get, why not live it to the fullest? A sparkler will eventually fade. You'll never get that sparkler back. Does that mean you should just cast it aside because it won't last forever? Enjoy life while it lasts. That is the way I look at it. It's not a sin to be happy. It's ok to smile. I'd rather be a person who sees the glass half full than a person who sees it half empty.

There is every reason in the world to avoid a lie to get gain, cheating or suppressing someone else to get gain for yourself and family. There has to be rules for a society to function. I don't cheat on tests because I feel I'll get more out of it by actually doing the work. It's for my best interest to not do that. It makes life a lot simpler to not lie. You have to keep track of all those lies and it can be pretty stressful. People don't trust you and chances are you won't have as good of friends. I don't like being lied to by people. It doesn't make me want to be around them. I also don't want to be around those who cheat and steal. On top of these things, there are other consequences to this. You risk being punished by the law for your crimes which can result in taking away years of your life. Sure, you could take advantage of others in your life but I'd rather earn that reward for myself. It brings a lot more satisfaction to ones self in knowing you accomplished something great.

Why would you think other people couldn't want that too? Why would you think others couldn't want the most happiness for everyone? How could atheists some how not have that motive and only be concerned with themselves? Are you assuming no one can get any benefits to caring about the welfare of others in this life? Are you saying the only benefits come from an after life?

I would not presume to tell others what they do or do not believe. I know lds do not like having others tell them what they believe. Treat others as you want to be treated. If you would honestly lose all your morals and all your caring for treating others well if you didn't have religion, then I would worry about that. That shouldn't be that way. There is benefit to doing what is right in this life regardless of one's religious beliefs.

You didn't read the words carefully enough. I am using the word reason to mean 'purpose'. That doesn't mean I can't be happy in this life, I am very happy. I am happy in part because I know that this life is not the end, it is not a fleeting moment for me. Our current happiness (even supported by those scripture references you gave, thanks) is dependent on putting our motivations in the right place "that they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness". Yes, that gives me current happiness and current blessing but dependent on maintaining my focus on the eternal blessings, so no I do not do it for the current blessings.

I am talking about the reasons behind doing certain things in this life, the motivation, the purpose. That isn't to say that good things will not come from it. Maybe better stated is that the primary reason is for heavenly treasure not earthly reward. I didn't say that there can be a reward for doing well, there is, but I hope that I receive the reward in the next life. The reward comes from having my heart set on eternal treasures.

The distraction of my poor words, maybe, pulled you away from my point, I am sorry. The point is that it seems a contradiction to seek pleasure in things that will be erased completely in a few years. I am saying that if a person truly did not believe in an afterlife, I do not comprehend how this life would have any value to them at all after they are dead. When that person is dead, if that concept is true, they will have no feeling as to the matter, good or bad. The only way that I can make sense of that is if they really do believe in an afterlife in their heart of hearts to some small degree, even if they deny it, the spiritual sense of what really our situation is. To me that is why there is a sense of doing good now. That is how I can explain it to myself, I am sorry if that offends you.

If you want to explain it to me fine, go ahead, I am willing to hear, instead of berating me for trying to explain these contradictions that I see. I can't have you correct me on these apparent contradictions unless I say what I think they are. (That is not telling people what they believe) You tell me exactly, then (since it seems that you are claiming to understand that point of view) what value does this life have to that person after they are dead, not now, AFTER THEY ARE DEAD, what value does this life have to the person who is dead?

That person who is dead is not going to have any feeling of guilt or pleasure or anything in between as to how well they did or if anyone benefited from their existence or not, nor will they retain any memory of their earthly pleasures of any kind, so how could it matter to that person?

If I told you I would pay for the vacation of your life, 2 weeks on a warm private beach somewhere with all the best food, any activity you wanted to do, no worries but in the end I would erase all memory of you having done that and anyone around you would not retain any memory of you having done that as if it never happened, you would find some value in that experience?

[Universeman]

If I told you I would pay for the vacation of your life, 2 weeks on a warm private beach somewhere with all the best food, any activity you wanted to do, no worries but in the end I would erase all memory of you having done that and anyone around you would not retain any memory of you having done that as if it never happened, you would find some value in that experience?

Wow snoozer you just totally blew my mind with that analogy, very well put. I have never really thought of the atheistic point of view from that perspective before. I am sitting here and my brain is short circuiting trying to figure out a logical response. I have this book ?Biocentrism?: How life creates the universe - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com and the author poses the age old question of if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it crash to the ground, does it make a noise? Most people would answer yes because the human mind is incapable of removing its self from the scene. The reality is, is that there are only tiny puffs of wind which only becomes sound when there is a consciousness present to interpret them as such (or a rainbow, or the chair you are sitting in, or you know everything). We are so accustomed to thinking that the universe is external to us when the exact opposite is the case, the universe is nothing more than quantum probabilities until our consciousness interacts with it and creates reality in our mind, if our consciousness doesn’t exist then neither does the universe, man.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I'm not talking about possible persecution someone may face like that expressed in the Bible towards Christ and the apostles. I'm talking about the way you live. Does being chaste, keeping the word of wisdom, going to the temple, paying tithing, praying, going to church etc., not bring you more happiness? If it doesn't, then why do you do it? I remember talking with missionaries once. They asked me if I was happy. I said yes. Then they asked if I wanted to be more happy and proceeded to tell me that the gospel and keeping the commandments would bring me more happiness. That was their opinion but it wasn't the same as what you're saying. My brother is extremely faithful in the lds faith and he expresses it bringing him great happiness. As does my father and many of my lds friends. What you're saying is not coinciding with what they are saying. They do it because they feel more happiness in that way of life. I live the way I do because it is what brings me happiness.

I think the concept that is missing here is to know that we are mostly judged by the desires of our heart. Are we perfect about it, no but we strive to do all things with an 'eye single to the glory of God'.

If I give to a charity so I can write it off my taxes, that is different then living the commandment of tithing because my eye is single to the glory of God. If I essentially live the word of wisdom because I am taking a medication that doesn't let me drink alcohol and I realize that smoking can cause cancer, that is different than living the word of wisdom out of obedience to God's laws.

If I am caught in a house fire and break through a wall to save my own skin and two people happen to follow me out as well I may be praised by media for saving two people's lives but that is different than breaking through the wall with the intention of saving two people's lives to God and should be different to us. In both cases it is a good thing that will bring happiness but the later brings happiness for eternity.

The reasons we do things, 'the desires of our heart' is just as important as the act itself. I think that is the piece of this discussion that you are missing in understanding the LDS viewpoint. The 'happiness' that we get temporally, earthly happiness, is in doing these things we are told with an eye single to the glory of God. I take care of my family with hope that they will be with me for the eternities, I hope they will do well so they can have that kind of happiness. I may seek to do well in all things, work, education, physical fitness etc. with an eye single to the glory of God, so that I can be a better tool in His hands to carry out His work on Earth, that is happiness. If the goal is personal consumption, to me that is not happiness.

If one does not believe in a higher cause a higher purpose, it is impossible to have that desire in the heart with whatever morally good and right act done on Earth. Even though it may be the same act, it is of lesser value when not done with the right purpose. Are all LDS doing everything with the right purpose in mind, of course not. I, myself, have not mastered that, not even close, but I try. If one focuses on the value of an act that relates to the momentary benefit of the act that is not the same as keeping the desires of the heart focused on God's eternal purposes. For example, I take joy in living the word of wisdom not only for temporal benefits but knowing that I am being obedient and the blessings that come from doing it for the right reasons.

D&C 82; 18And all this for the benefit of the church of the living God, that every man may improve upon his talent, that every man may gain other talents, yea, even an hundred fold, to be cast into the Lord’s storehouse, to become the common property of the whole church—

19Every man seeking the interest of his neighbor, and doing all things with an eye single to the glory of God."

3 Nephi 13: " 19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and thieves break through and steal;

20But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.

21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

22The light of the body is the eye; if, therefore, thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

23But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If, therefore, the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

24No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon."

[Universeman]

Why science is so darned powerful
BY STEVEP, ON JANUARY 9TH, 2011

So what is science? First let me explain what it is not. Science’s (and I’m going to act as if science is a ‘person,’ or a unified concept in this post, and say things like ‘Science is’ and ‘Science does not permit x’ as a handle or shortcut, but as you’ll see I will subvert this use later and show that it is neither unified nor a single monolithic thing, but bear with me, it does mean something), anyway science’s, upfront, nonnegotiable stance is methodological materialism. This means no hidden forces. No influence from God, angels or demons. No magic. No miracles. This does not mean that scientists don’t believe in God, or miracles, or that science claims that nothing that does not fit its materialist claims is worth knowing. No, science does not claim that it will reveal all truth, in fact it really can get little purchase on lots of things we make value claims about like art, ethics, religion, etc. It doesn’t even claim to get at things (this despite misguided attempts by the likes of Richard Dawkins to claim that it can discover all truth). So science is not a method that speaks to all truths of every kind.

Some seem to be afraid of methodological materialism. But you are very familiar with methodological materialism. It’s what you expect from your car mechanic. She assumes that whatever is causing the clunking noise in your DeSoto, it is a mechanical problem, with a particular cause, and that she can take actions to correct it based upon new car parts, tightening, or loosing, bolts, or some such action based purely on the physical realities about the ways cars are put together from metalish things, lubricants, gadgets, and such. If she said, “It looks like malicious fairies have given the engine a curse that causes dark fluxuals from the netherial world of Kandoonianus.” You would likely get a new mechanic. Not that there might not be a curse from said fairies, but that’s not the way to bet, and you expect, and your experience with the world suggests, that the best way to approach car repair is from the perspective of methodological materialism. This assumption is science’s best move too. For exactly the same sorts of reasons. Your mechanic may be an atheist, Buddhist, or Mormon, but this is irrelevant to how she investigates your car. She assumes it is a mechanical problem and moves from there, regardless of what spiritual commitments she might have.

Methodological materialism =/= no threat to spirituality. Methodological materialism = good scientific assumption.

A stance of openness to revision and holding results as tentative: Science is very humble. It has to change its mind sometimes. Conclusions are tentative. New facts, new analysis, new interpretations, sometimes force a confrontation with old facts, old analysis, and old interpretations. Science thrives on this. It holds as open all its findings. Not to change them willy-nilly, mind you. No, science is more than a list of suggested ideas to hold onto this week. Its claims have been but into the furnace for testing, heated, then sledge hammered to see if we can get the claims to crack. When they don’t we gain confidence we are onto something. We always know we might find a hotter furnace or a bigger hammer, so science is ready to change.

Peer Review and Publication: Science is not the Internet. All voices don’t get a say. Your voice has to pass muster. Your claims have to be examined. Your analysis, your interpretation has to be scrutinized by experts. It has to fit into the context of other work that has been done. This is a bloody process. Science is a crowded field and only the best, most well tested, ideas get through the gauntlet. Then when something is published. It is still open to the scientific community for further scrutiny. The claims continue to be prodded, attacked, poked, repeated and replicated, and bothered until it gives, or people start to think there is something here worth looking at. If it isn’t published in the peer review literature, it’s not science. Hence the power of things like Anthropogenic Climate Change in which the peer review literature is united and the air-hammers of the internet say something else. Peer Review is vital to good science. If it is not playing the science game, it’s not science.

So that is science. Not the clean ‘method’ that often get’s cartooned as what science is in the SKD. In short, it is a Darwinian process of ideas. Ideas, theories, hypotheses, are thrown into a struggle for existence. Fitness is defined as how well the claims confront the world and its processes. Only the best survive and to go on to reproduce. If something new comes along, it has to fight in the arena. Prove its mettle. Enter the gladiatorial contest and survive to fight another day. Science is practiced by people. People with all the same weaknesses, shortcomings, misalignments, as any group. But the structure is in place to create a dynamic marketplace of ideas. And nothing has come as close to explaining so much. It works and that is its highest recommendation.
Why science is so darned powerful The Mormon Organon

This has nothing to do with the desires of our heart (more on that in a moment) but what I do want to point out with this article on science is that the spiritual is every bit as important as the physical. They are literally two sides of the same coin, I want to build on this concept before I bring the desires of our heart back into the equation. Alma teaches that spiritual knowledge is discovered in the same manner scientific knowledge is discovered, if we run the experiment properly, the results will always be the same. In Lectures on faith we are taught that unless we have a correct understanding of who God is we cannot exercise faith in him sufficient for our salvation.

Faith: In the LDS mind, ‘faith’ is not a belief system, but a process for gaining knowledge. Beyond what we ourselves can do, the LDS believe the powers of heaven can be called upon through faith, but if you translate that back to a technical understanding, any ‘divine intervention’ is where God (described below), through lawful, natural means, interacts with the environment and provides a causal solution. It’s literally as simple as that. All knowledge and truth is attained through faith. Alma eloquently described the faith process around 74 BC:

Base assumptions / paradigm (Alma 32:39) Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

Observation (Alma 32:28)
Hypothesis (Alma 32:28) Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

Null hypothesis (The null hypothesis is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.) (Alma 32:32) Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

Experiment (Alma 32:27 & 36) 27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

Analysis (Alma 32:33) And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

Knowledge created (Alma 32:34) And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand. Mormon Scholars Testify Blog Archive A. Scott Howe

Question. Is there a being who has faith in himself independently?
Answer. There is.
Q. Who is it? A. It is God.
Q. How do you prove that God has faith in himself independently?
A. Because he is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnicient; without beginning of days or end of life, and in him all fulness dwells. Eph. 1:23. Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. Col. 1:19. For it pleased the Father, that in him should all fulness dwell. (2:12.)
Q. Is he the object in whom the faith of all other rational and accountable beings centers, for life and salvation?
A. He is.

2 Let us here observe, that three things are necessary, in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.
3 First, The idea that he actually exists.
4 Secondly, A correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes.
5 Thirdly, An actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing, is according to his will. For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive; but with this understanding, it can become perfect and fruitful, abounding in righteousness unto the praise and glory of God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Having shown in the third lecture, that correct ideas of the character of God are necessary in order to the exercise of faith in him unto life and salvation, and that without correct ideas of his character, the minds of men could not have sufficient power with God to the exercise of faith necessary to the enjoyment of eternal life, and that correct ideas of his character lay a foundation as far as his character is concerned, for the exercise of faith, so as to enjoy the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Jesus Christ, even that of eternal glory; we shall now proceed to show the connection there is between correct ideas of the attributes of God, and the exercise of faith in him unto eternal life.
2 Let us here observe, that the real design which the God of heaven had in view in making the human family acquainted with his attributes, was, that they through the ideas of the existence of his attributes, might be enabled to exercise faith in him, and through the exercise of faith in him, might obtain eternal life. For without the idea of the existence of the attributes which belong to God, the minds of men could not have power to exercise faith on him so as to lay hold upon eternal life. The God of heaven understanding most perfectly the constitution of human nature, and the weakness of man, knew what was necessary to be revealed, and what ideas must be planted in their minds in order that they might be enabled to exercise faith in him unto eternal life. Lectures On Faith

[Backroads]

There is benefit to doing what is right in this life regardless of one's religious beliefs.

The problem is that far too many atheists tell me that because I have a religion I am not as good a person as they.