Doctrine confusion

[rayhale]

Here is a little quote from Albert Einstein, “Science does NOT EXPLAIN; it only describes.”

This is not the quote that I was looking for, but from the quote that I remember, plus this one, it would seem to suggest that science describes what happens, it doesn’t do a very good job at describing how, and as to the question of why, that’s out of the scope of science.

[Just_A_Guy]

I guess... but I think statistics also show that atheists are incarcerated with less frequency than believers.

Which proves that it's actually jail that makes us happier, more content, and less fearful.

[scholasticspastic]

I guess... but I think statistics also show that atheists are incarcerated with less frequency than believers.

It's also worth pointing out- and this is a problem, not a funny- that a prisoner is more likely to be released on parole if they convert to a religion or become more vocally faithful to a religion. That just tends to be how parole boards work. So one has to wonder how many religious people in prison are atheists who figured it'd be easier to get out on parole if they were "born again."

I have several problems with a religious test coming from parole boards. Not just the fact that making people more likely to lie about religious faith is a crummy deal.

Statistics about religion and criminality (or personal happiness) bothered me when I was a happy atheist. They still bother me as I work to stop being an atheist. There are just too many confounds for us to get anything out of them.

[pam]

Which proves that it's actually jail that makes us happier, more content, and less fearful.

You have NO idea how true that statement really is.

[Just_A_Guy]

You have NO idea how true that statement really is.

Well, maybe some idea.

[jayanna]

Interestingly enough, I was judging at a debate competition that was over the topic of healthy body results in a healthy mind.

I think that it is applicable to your discussion about ill health being a result of sin.

One excellent point that was brought up in the debate was that prisoners are often extremely fit. They have a lot of time to work on their muscles, as well as resources given them to lift weights and engage in other physical activites. However, their improved health does not indicate in any way whether or not their minds are improved. In fact many of them revert back to the anti-social, violent cycles that they had been in previous to their incarceration.

While they might have been given an opportunity for higher education depending on the facility and the resources available, I don't believe a significant amount of them show any sign of an improved moral character, or an improved reasoning abilities.

So the line of reason of healthy people = good people does not really follow the proof we find in the penal system.

Now for my disclaimer, I would not specifically say that all people in the penal system are bad people, or do not improve themselves. I do realize that they have specific challenges when re-entering society that others do not face. I am specifically adressing the greater health vs. greater mind debate and its association with health vs. sin.

[Snow]

It's also worth pointing out- and this is a problem, not a funny- that a prisoner is more likely to be released on parole if they convert to a religion or become more vocally faithful to a religion. That just tends to be how parole boards work. So one has to wonder how many religious people in prison are atheists who figured it'd be easier to get out on parole if they were "born again."

Come on. Now you are suggesting that criminals are dishonest. Sheeze.

[scholasticspastic]

Come on. Now you are suggesting that criminals are dishonest. Sheeze.

Some of the most ethical people I've known were criminals.... Their ethics just didn't match up with ours.

[yjacket]

I am an engineer, working on a PhD. I've often thought if I hadn't been born into the church, I'd probably be agnostic. I understand where you are coming from; I am very logical and extremely anal-retentive. As a missionary, I personally had to understand the gospel from a logical perspective before I could teach it, otherwise it just didn't make too much sense.

If you are looking for a checklist of what it is to be LDS, the best is to stick to the basics. Someone else quoted the baptismal interview questions. Another list is the Articles of Faith:

The Articles of Faith

But ultimately it is more simple than that.

1) Do you believe in God the Eternal Father, in Jesus Christ as your Savior and in the Holy Ghost?

2) Do you believe that Joseph Smith was God's prophet called to establish His Church and that today men are called of God to be Prophets?

3) Do you believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God like the Bible?

4) Do you believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints is His one and only church on the Earth?

Those four things are really it.

Ultimately all doctrine comes from the scriptures, so if you want to learn doctrine: read the scriptures. This is why the BoM, PoGP, and D&C are so important; they help clarify the doctrine in the Bible.

My opinion on xyz topic, or someone else's internet opinion doesn't matter. To find answers, one has to go to the source the scriptures and ultimately God and be willing to accept whatever answer is given.

[NoxNullaEgetDeumPerfectum]

People can give you answers to your questions, but it is up to you to agree and believe it is true. Ask the Women you desire to marry to read the scriptures with you. Together both of you pray and seek the answers to your questions; this prayers must be true and without doubt that you are communicateing with God the father and his son Jesus Christ. Ask for a blessing at the church your loved one attends. Attend church with her asswell and participate in the discussions or listen as you will and try and recieve the answers to your questions. In time only you can decide if you believe the doctine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We can not decide that for you buy giveing you a set of rules to abide by. I fell away from he church at a point in my life, i decided that the doctrine was false. And I have never really even cracked the Bible or Book of Mormon open to try and read it and even pray before reading. In time i felt that i needed to truely read it with an open mind and with heart in place. Ive began to attend church again and seeking information about it and doctrins ever more feverently. Their is alot that we still as member do not know. As in DC 88: 108-111 God will reveal secrets that still arent known in the comeing of his light. Their is a God and this is his church restored by Joseph.

[Seminarysnoozer]

If Adam was the first man, how do you explain all the other other men that existed during the last 200k years?

What the gospel describes as "man" could be different than what science calls "man". In the gospel, "man" is the combination of a body that is in the image of God combined with a spirit being of the same likeness. With that as the description (more or less) that leaves a lot of room for other creatures that seem similar but do not meet those criteria. "Man" could also refer to a specific species (Adamic race), which is also an arbitrary designation based in limited scientific information by man. ... and there is no death, of course, without a spirit to be separated from its body.

The process of God forming the body of Adam is unknown, even though a lot of people on this forum like to speculate that it is similar to mortal birthing. We don't know, though, if the process requires similar mechanisms observed in evolution, or evolution itself. It may be natural evolution plus at some point some genetic engineering, as an example.

[scholasticspastic]

... and there is no death, of course, without a spirit to be separated from its body.

You might want to rephrase this. Not because I'm saying it's wrong, but because it's very probably sloppy.

The first thing that popped into my head is: Then bacteria must have spirits. Because they die all the time. And it's a good thing they do.

An interesting question is: Given an evolutionary spectrum of organisms rather than the sharp division between humans and other animals, shouldn't we expect there to be or have been organisms which also had the capacity to support spirits? If we were to encounter sentient organisms from another world which were clearly not human organisms and yet which had civilization, would it be safe to assume that they also had spirits? Is there room in the LDS faith for aliens with spirits?

None of this is of doctrinal concern to me. I don't expect that we'll encounter any extraterrestrials in my lifetime whether or not they're there. It's just stuff which popped up in my head when you seemed to imply that it was necessary that there be a spirit for something to be alive. Because there's a lot of stuff which we can kill and most of it probably isn't stuff we would be terribly eager to claim had any sort of spirit. Like bacteria. Or dandelions.

The process of God forming the body of Adam is unknown, even though a lot of people on this forum like to speculate that it is similar to mortal birthing. We don't know, though, if the process requires similar mechanisms observed in evolution, or evolution itself. It may be natural evolution plus at some point some genetic engineering, as an example.

Speculation is fine. Asserting that IT IS SO seems to be something a lot of people get tangled up with. This isn't a sign of faith- it is a sign of excessive pride. That Man was made in God's image is written by the same people who clearly had no inkling of the information we would eventually have access to via science. God could have said or meant practically anything and that would have been the extent of the detail in which it could have been recorded by His prophets at the time. So it's probably quite risky to attach too much meaning to that stuff when it comes to truth-claims about the world. Edited December 13, 2011 by scholasticspastic

[Seminarysnoozer]

You might want to rephrase this. Not because I'm saying it's wrong, but because it's very probably sloppy.

The first thing that popped into my head is: Then bacteria must have spirits. Because they die all the time. And it's a good thing they do.

An interesting question is: Given an evolutionary spectrum of organisms rather than the sharp division between humans and other animals, shouldn't we expect there to be or have been organisms which also had the capacity to support spirits? If we were to encounter sentient organisms from another world which were clearly not human organisms and yet which had civilization, would it be safe to assume that they also had spirits? Is there room in the LDS faith for aliens with spirits?

None of this is of doctrinal concern to me. I don't expect that we'll encounter any extraterrestrials in my lifetime whether or not they're there. It's just stuff which popped up in my head when you seemed to imply that it was necessary that there be a spirit for something to be alive. Because there's a lot of stuff which we can kill and most of it probably isn't stuff we would be terribly eager to claim had any sort of spirit. Like bacteria. Or dandelions.

Speculation is fine. Asserting that IT IS SO seems to be something a lot of people get tangled up with. This isn't a sign of faith- it is a sign of excessive pride. That Man was made in God's image is written by the same people who clearly had no inkling of the information we would eventually have access to via science. God could have said or meant practically anything and that would have been the extent of the detail in which it could have been recorded by His prophets at the time. So it's probably quite risky to attach too much meaning to that stuff when it comes to truth-claims about the world.

The comment was directed at Snow, who I know understands what we mean by "death" in LDS lingo. So, sorry if I didn't explain that well. LDS believe in both a physical death and a spiritual death. Physical death occurs when we end this mortal life and our spirit leaves the body. What I was referring to was the idea that there cannot be physical death (in the theological sense) without having a spirit attached to the body in the first place.

Of course, there is a lot of organic life dying all around us all the time. Even off of our own body, skin cells, cells off the intestinal lining, cells related to sexual reproduction, etc. But, that is exactly why I am saying there is a difference between "man" in the theological sense - LDS in particular as the description I gave earlier, versus the secular description of "man" as in hominin or humanoid, or homo sapien or whatever other breakdown one wants to use.

As far as your last paragraph goes, I agree there is a lot of pride attached to that statement. But more importantly what is carried with it is purpose. I would rather have the prideful belief that there is purpose to my life that goes beyond this life more than believe this life serves no purpose greater than momentary self gratification that will be all forgotten upon death.

[scholasticspastic]

As far as your last paragraph goes, I agree there is a lot of pride attached to that statement. But more importantly what is carried with it is purpose. I would rather have the prideful belief that there is purpose to my life that goes beyond this life more than believe this life serves no purpose greater than momentary self gratification that will be all forgotten upon death.

You misunderstood me. Which I guess is fair as I'd just done it to you.

I'm saying that it is prideful to claim to know things which we cannot possibly know given the vagaries of scriptures due to the times they were recorded as far as truth-claims about how the world works. Because even if God had been telling them exactly how the world works, they wouldn't have had the necessary understanding to convey those truths. Thus Moses can be forgiven for not understanding how biology works. Not only that, but it would have been pointless for Moses to learn how biology works at that time. Nobody would have believed him.

This is a separate concern from understanding WHY the world works, which is something which could have been conveyed without any scientific understanding. But the HOW of the world and the WHY of the world are very different things. It is unnecessarily prideful to assume you know the HOW of the world just because you have access to a source which tells you about the WHY of the world.

People back then didn't know how most things worked. We know a lot more about how things work now. We still do not know how everything works. Whenever we confuse speculation with knowledge, whether we're doing religion or science, we're making fools of ourselves.

Concerning the LDS understanding that there are two kinds of death: Then don't be lazy and leave the word "spiritual" off when you're talking about spiritual death versus physical death. It's a barrier to communication. There was no way to tell from context which type of death you were talking about. Not only that, but I'm confused by what is meant by the term "spiritual death."

Care to explain how that's supposed to work? Is it something we ought to call death at all? Because death refers to a cessation. If I die physically, then I cease to be alive. If I die spiritually, do I cease to have a spirit? If not, I have reservations about calling it a sort of death.

[Dravin]

Not only that, but I'm confused by what is meant by the term "spiritual death."

It is essentially a euphemism for separation from God: Death, Spiritual

[JudoMinja]

From what seminarysnoozer was describing, I believe she was talking about the physical death- and she meant that our definition of physical death (separation of body and spirit) cannot happen if something does not have a spirit.

Not only that, but I'm confused by what is meant by the term "spiritual death."

Care to explain how that's supposed to work? Is it something we ought to call death at all? Because death refers to a cessation. If I die physically, then I cease to be alive. If I die spiritually, do I cease to have a spirit? If not, I have reservations about calling it a sort of death.

In our theology, a spiritual death is a permanent separation from the presence of God. The only ones who experience a spiritual death will be those who are cast into "outer darkness" (what your typical Christian would term hell, but here we get into a whole other confusion of terminology because this can mean more than one thing too) come judgement day. We believe that very few people will experience a spiritual death, but that everyone experiences physical death.

[scholasticspastic]

It is essentially a euphemism for separation from God: Death, Spiritual

"Separation from God" doesn't take much longer to say and is much less confusing than "spiritual death."

[Dravin]

"Separation from God" doesn't take much longer to say and is much less confusing than "spiritual death."

Religion, like science, has jargon. *shrug*

[Guest gopecon]

From what seminarysnoozer was describing, I believe she was talking about the physical death- and she meant that our definition of physical death (separation of body and spirit) cannot happen if something does not have a spirit.

In our theology, a spiritual death is a permanent separation from the presence of God. The only ones who experience a spiritual death will be those who are cast into "outer darkness" (what your typical Christian would term hell, but here we get into a whole other confusion of terminology because this can mean more than one thing too) come judgement day. We believe that very few people will experience a spiritual death, but that everyone experiences physical death.

We all experience spiritual death when we sin. Sin separates us from our Father in Heaven. It can only be overcome through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The only way to fully overcome it is to make it into the Celestial Kingdom. Outside of the Celestial, we are cut off from the Father's presence and will be subject to spiritual death. Outer darkness "residents" are not the only ones who are going to suffer permanent spiritual death.

[Vort]

I'm saying that it is prideful to claim to know things which we cannot possibly know given the vagaries of scriptures due to the times they were recorded as far as truth-claims about how the world works. Because even if God had been telling them exactly how the world works, they wouldn't have had the necessary understanding to convey those truths. Thus Moses can be forgiven for not understanding how biology works. Not only that, but it would have been pointless for Moses to learn how biology works at that time. Nobody would have believed him.

Knowledge is a continuum. You think you are a biologist and you believe you have a profound understanding of biological principles, because you compare yourself to men living three thousand years ago. But if you compare yourself with biologists three thousand years in the future, or even three hundred years, you are likely to look quite ignorant indeed. So then, is it justifiable to say that you don't really know any biology, you have no real concept of what you're talking about, and it's prideful for you to pretend to know anything about biology when in reality you are woefully ignorant?

Actually, maybe it's perfectly appropriate to say that; just make sure you apply the same yardstick to yourself that you wish to apply to Moses. And realize that, by so saying, you essentially deny anyone the ability to say anything about anything, because hey, maybe their knowledge is really wrong.

Concerning the LDS understanding that there are two kinds of death: Then don't be lazy and leave the word "spiritual" off when you're talking about spiritual death versus physical death. It's a barrier to communication. There was no way to tell from context which type of death you were talking about. Not only that, but I'm confused by what is meant by the term "spiritual death."

Care to explain how that's supposed to work? Is it something we ought to call death at all? Because death refers to a cessation. If I die physically, then I cease to be alive. If I die spiritually, do I cease to have a spirit? If not, I have reservations about calling it a sort of death.

In LDS scripture and usage, "death" refers to spiritual separation. Separation of the spirit from the body is called "physical death", while separation of the spirit from God is called "spiritual death". As we are all destined to be resurrected and live forever as physical beings, physical death becomes (in that sense) a temporary thing of little overall consequence. Spiritual death, also called "the second death", is the only real death, and the only one we need concern ourselves over in an eternal sense.

[scholasticspastic]

From what seminarysnoozer was describing, I believe she was talking about the physical death- and she meant that our definition of physical death (separation of body and spirit) cannot happen if something does not have a spirit.

That's how I misunderstood the statement. Which is clearly not true. Unless bacteria and dandelions and redwoods and mushrooms and trout and mice and kittens all have spirits.

In our theology, a spiritual death is a permanent separation from the presence of God. The only ones who experience a spiritual death will be those who are cast into "outer darkness" (what your typical Christian would term hell, but here we get into a whole other confusion of terminology because this can mean more than one thing too) come judgement day. We believe that very few people will experience a spiritual death, but that everyone experiences physical death.

I'm already aware of the multiple possible meanings of "Hell." What I am confused about, also as an aside, is why some people are offended when I use the word "hell." It's on my list of cuss-words which don't make any sense.

I do know a little about spiritual death. What mostly confuses me is why it's called death at all. Unless spirits which die spiritually cease to exist as spirits, it's not any sort of death. Just as I would become confused if you tried to tell me I could die physically without ceasing to exist as a living thing.

[Dravin]

That's how I misunderstood the statement. Which is clearly not true. Unless bacteria and dandelions and redwoods and mushrooms and trout and mice and kittens all have spirits.

Spirit

The relevant portion:

All living things—mankind, animals, and plants—were spirits before any form of life existed upon the earth (Gen. 2:4–5; Moses 3:4–7).

Edited December 13, 2011 by Dravin

[scholasticspastic]

Knowledge is a continuum. You think you are a biologist and you believe you have a profound understanding of biological principles, because you compare yourself to men living three thousand years ago. But if you compare yourself with biologists three thousand years in the future, or even three hundred years, you are likely to look quite ignorant indeed. So then, is it justifiable to say that you don't really know any biology, you have no real concept of what you're talking about, and it's prideful for you to pretend to know anything about biology when in reality you are woefully ignorant?

Actually, maybe it's perfectly appropriate to say that; just make sure you apply the same yardstick to yourself that you wish to apply to Moses. And realize that, by so saying, you essentially deny anyone the ability to say anything about anything, because hey, maybe their knowledge is really wrong.

I have no idea how much biology is left to learn. Therefor I cannot rule out that I know practically nothing compared to biologists 3000 years from now. I do know that I only understand a tiny slice of the biology which is currently understood and that no living person can endeavor to know more than a tiny slice of any current scientific discipline.

The same can all be said for a hypothetical comparison between myself and a biologist 300 years in the future.

Yes.

But knowledge is cumulative. We have accumulated a lot more knowledge than was understood back in Moses's time. We aren't any smarter, but we know more stuff. We can describe the way living things work, the way astrophysics works, the way the Earth is shaped and its composition, the movements of the planets, magnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, chemistry and medicine much better than Moses could have. Moses couldn't have described most of those things at all. He didn't have access to the wealth of observations we have access to now. That isn't pride speaking. That's just the way it is.

In LDS scripture and usage, "death" refers to spiritual separation. Separation of the spirit from the body is called "physical death", while separation of the spirit from God is called "spiritual death". As we are all destined to be resurrected and live forever as physical beings, physical death becomes (in that sense) a temporary thing of little overall consequence. Spiritual death, also called "the second death", is the only real death, and the only one we need concern ourselves over in an eternal sense.

Given that the LDS church is a proselytizing church, it's probably a good idea to avoid unnecessary jargon. Death is something other than "separation of the spirit from the body" because we can observe a lot of things dying which would be silly to attribute spirits to. Is there an afterlife for all the billions of trillions of bacteria which have died this year? If things without spirits can die physically, then your definition of physical death is insufficient to be useful. Physical death means you stop being physically alive. Spiritual death means you still exist as a spirit. There is no cessation of being a spirit, thus it isn't terribly useful to call it a death.

Unless being cast into the outer darkness means ceasing to exist spiritually. Then we should probably call it ceasing to exist spiritually instead of calling it the outer darkness. And I would agree that it's a spiritual death.

[Dravin]

I do know a little about spiritual death. What mostly confuses me is why it's called death at all. Unless spirits which die spiritually cease to exist as spirits, it's not any sort of death. Just as I would become confused if you tried to tell me I could die physically without ceasing to exist as a living thing.

As a biologist you are inclined to view death in a certain light, it's a natural consequence of how you've been trained to view the world, but it's not the only use of the word. Consider someone becoming dead to the carnage around them, there is a separation, a distance between them and the carnage. There may be what is termed a cessation of sensitivity, but the carnage has not literally ceased. Likewise someone who is spiritually dead is separated from the source of spirituality, of spiritual life that is connection and closeness with Heavenly Father. As discussed in the scriptures it is talking about becoming dead to righteousness/spiritual things, and the exact phrase is extant in the scriptures.

Edited December 13, 2011 by Dravin

[scholasticspastic]

Spirit

The relevant portion:

"All living things—mankind, animals, and plants—were spirits before any form of life existed upon the earth (Gen. 2:4–5; Moses 3:4–7)."

(I don't know how to do nested quotes on here.)

I'm unable to find an official estimate of how many bacteria are alive on Earth. This source estimates it to be 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria alive on Earth right now. That's just right this minute.

ET 9/98: First-ever estimate of total bacteria on earth

How many Earths of bacteria have there been, assuming the minimum allowed time for the Earth to have existed (I'll let you use the Young-Earth Creationist figure of 6000 years for this one). How many Earths of grass have existed in that time? How many Earths of trees have been germinated in that time? How many Earths of jellyfish have been spawned in that time? How many Earths of mice have been born in that time?

There has been less than one Earth of humans born in the entire history of the Earth so far. So making that claim is possible for human spirits without running into all sorts of logistical problems. But for most unicellular and plant species and for many of the shorter-lived animal species we run into silliness when we try to force that to be literally true.