Arnolt Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Why not? The Church is about leading men and women to God and spiritual salvation, not explaining physical observations and propounding scientific hypotheses.And what makes you sure about this? Leading men and women to God means to lead them to the truth that God grants us to receive at the time of being worth of it and at the time of being on an intellectuel level that allows God to give us scientific knowledge and more. Not spiritual salvation alone might be HIS intention, but to bring us forward to rule the laws of nature and then to proof him that we are worth of becoming nearer to HIM than any other species. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 And what makes you sure about this?Because those whose duty it is to speak the mind of God on the matter have said as much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnolt Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Because those whose duty it is to speak the mind of God on the matter have said as much.Half an answer... so you seem to prefer stagnation of knowledge on the one hand and to receive all his grandeur on the other hand...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Half an answer... so you seem to prefer stagnation of knowledge on the one hand and to receive all his grandeur on the other hand...?Huh? How is this preferring "stagnation of knowledge"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnolt Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Huh? How is this preferring "stagnation of knowledge"?Because you seem to deny the progress of mankind by science and research. And remember the past, when there exactly this happened and one abominable church brought down many attempts of men to bring our civilization more forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Because you seem to deny the progress of mankind by science and research.How so? What have I written that suggests any such thing to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 How so? What have I written that suggests any such thing to you?I'm wondering if there is some miss-communication about what it means for the Church to ignore scientific findings. The Church ignores relativity inasmuch as it doesn't incorporate it into the corpus of it's doctrines and teachings. However I wonder if Arnolt feels to ignore such means the Church denies the existence of relativity and all members must as well (making GPS a form of witchcraft considering it's design had to take into account the effects of relativity). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnolt Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 How so? What have I written that suggests any such thing to you? I've learned to read between the lines. And I quite often read a book from the end up to the beginning. Not when I was younger, because all those enthralling books I once was reading were too expensive to give me the answer before midnight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 I've learned to read between the lines. And I quite often read a book from the end up to the beginning. Not when I was younger, because all those enthralling books I once was reading were too expensive to give me the answer before midnight. What "between-the-lines" stuff have you read that suggest I believe what you think I believe?If it's of any relevance to you, my first bachelor's degree is in physics, and I studied biology and chemistry extensively (to about the third-year level) before transferring into physics. My master's studies were done in physics and then in biomedical engineering. So in my own mind, I am the furthest person from anti-scientific. Just wondering how you got the impression of my opinions that you obviously have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnolt Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) I'm wondering if there is some miss-communication about what it means for the Church to ignore scientific findings. The Church ignores relativity inasmuch as it doesn't incorporate it into the corpus of it's doctrines and teachings. However I wonder if Arnolt feels to ignore such means the Church denies the existence of relativity and all members must as well (making GPS a form of witchcraft considering it's design had to take into account the effects of relativity).This might give me hope... not I'm losing my religion... By the way... would you give me more understanding of your statement? What has "GPS" to do with it in the meaning of witchcraft? And what is witchcraft else but an old fashioned word for things that work while we can't see how they work? A created word by the abominable church that feared to lose influence and power as it was ruled and reigned by no one else but Satan. And who understands the effects of relativity...? I dare to say not even 0,0001 per cent of mankind......including me. But I'm working on it (D&C 130: 18 - 19) Edited June 25, 2012 by Arnolt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 This might give me hope... not I'm losing my religion... Is Dravin right? Did you interpret my saying that the Church doesn't concern itself with scientific findings or hypotheses with the idea that the Church rejects such things? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnolt Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) Is Dravin right? Did you interpret my saying that the Church doesn't concern itself with scientific findings or hypotheses with the idea that the Church rejects such things?I don't think that the church rejects all those things. But they should get implemented into the doctrine. And not to be ignored and make the church old fashioned and overcomed in one hundred years or maybe earlier.By the way... you might try to make me confused and change your words from black to white... I won't get confused, only drunk. But not by your wisdom, but more by that German beer I'm drinking right now. Edited June 25, 2012 by Arnolt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 I don't think that the church rejects all those things. But they should get implemented into the doctrine. And not to be ignored and make the church old fashioned and overcomed in one hundred years or maybe earlier.Not sure why the Church would ever incorporate scientific models into its doctrine. Cell theory, atomic theory, and stellar gravity theory (to name three at random) are all pretty solidly established, but I don't see that any of them are incorporated into our doctrine to any serious degree. And I see no reason that they ever would be. Completely irrelevant to the saving of souls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 By the way... you might try to make me confused and change your words from black to white... I won't get confused, only drunk. But not by your wisdom, but more by that German beer I'm drinking right now.I didn't think German beer had a particularly high alcohol content, around 5%. Wouldn't you have to drink quite a bit to get drunk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnolt Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Not sure why the Church would ever incorporate scientific models into its doctrine. Cell theory, atomic theory, and stellar gravity theory (to name three at random) are all pretty solidly established, but I don't see that any of them are incorporated into our doctrine to any serious degree. And I see no reason that they ever would be. Completely irrelevant to the saving of souls. Completely irrelevant? Welcome to Stone Age, when book printing was not still invented and the holy scriptures were not even in the idea of mankind. The saving of our souls correlates with our intelligence and abilities here in our time of being, and progress in all kinds of knowledge, science, quantum mechanics, gravity, relativity, recognizing our universe or even multiverse... and many other things should not influence our eternal being or should be irrelevant to the saving of our souls? The everlasting development starts here: In moral changing, by things going to improve ourselves in this way, by seeing how things work and not to declare them as a result of witchcraft. This changes our mind, this changes our spirit, this is what might bring us nearer and more similar to God. Wasn't Joseph Smith, the prophet, a man who declared science and knowledge and intelligence as important as our faith? (D&C 93: 36 - 37 / 130: 18 - 19 / Abr 3: 22) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Completely irrelevant? Welcome to Stone Age, when book printing was not still invented and the holy scriptures were not even in the idea of mankind. The saving of our souls correlates with our intelligence and abilities here in our time of being, and progress in all kinds of knowledge, science, quantum mechanics, gravity, relativity, recognizing our universe or even multiverse... and many other things should not influence our eternal being or should be irrelevant to the saving of our souls?Of course they are irrelevant. Or do you think we have spiritually higher standing than our Middle Ages ancestors by dint of our superior technology and scientific understanding?The everlasting development starts here: In moral changing, by things going to improve ourselves in this way, by seeing how things work and not to declare them as a result of witchcraft. This changes our mind, this changes our spirit, this is what might bring us nearer and more similar to God. Wasn't Joseph Smith, the prophet, a man who declared science and knowledge and intelligence as important as our faith? (D&C 93: 36 - 37 / 130: 18 - 19 / Abr 3: 22)You are misinterpreting those citations. "The glory of God is intelligence, or in other words, light and truth." This is a clear reference to understanding God and his ways with us, rather than an exhortation to study physics harder. Such secular learning is encouraged and is important in its sphere, but we are taught very clearly that the knowledge we seek for our edification is not mere scientific learning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnolt Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) I didn't think German beer had a particularly high alcohol content, around 5%. Wouldn't you have to drink quite a bit to get drunk?To be honest, many could drink here gallons of beer and still would not get confused by words of yours. So do I. And remember mathematics: even small numbers make a big number if you count them together. It's the same with low-level drinks like beer... on the other hand I bet that five or six beers (half a liter each) makes a cowboy falling off from his saddle...... while we're going home straightly. Edited June 25, 2012 by Arnolt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnolt Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Of course they are irrelevant. Or do you think we have spiritually higher standing than our Middle Ages ancestors by dint of our superior technology and scientific understanding?You are misinterpreting those citations. "The glory of God is intelligence, or in other words, light and truth." This is a clear reference to understanding God and his ways with us, rather than an exhortation to study physics harder. Such secular learning is encouraged and is important in its sphere, but we are taught very clearly that the knowledge we seek for our edification is not mere scientific learning.1) Yes I do. And don't forget the moral development.2) I wouldn't be sure I did. And who can claim to know about the will of God exactly? There are so many advises within the words of the prophet that makes me sure that we should perform our intelligence to a higher level and to develop our moral status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnolt Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 1) Yes I do. And don't forget the moral development.2) I wouldn't be sure I did. And who can claim to know about the will of God exactly? There are so many advises within the words of the prophet that makes me sure that we should perform our intelligence to a higher level and to develop our moral status.PS... only one example: How would we think about the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki when it was never been invented and used as that kind of ultimative weapon against Japan? I mean, science and empowering mankind to do things like that will change our moral or ethic status and change us to better spirits later as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 PS... only one example: How would we think about the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki when it was never been invented and used as that kind of ultimative weapon against Japan? I mean, science and empowering mankind to do things like that will change our moral or ethic status and change us to better spirits later as well.I do not understand what you're asking. I am envisioning the following conversation:21ST-CENTURY MAN: Let's say you had an enemy that had real military power and was making a creditable attempt to take over eastern Asia. You slap an embargo on them, and the next thing you know, they take out your naval base and declare war on you.19TH-CENTURY MAN: I would fight them to the death.21: All right. Let's suppose that you have a super-duper weapon that will destroy an entire city in a moment. Let's further suppose that you are conquering your enemy, but they will not surrender, and actually subjugating them will likely require hand-to-hand combat in an extended land invasion that will probably cost the lives of at least 100,000 of your own men, and double or triple that number of enemy casualties. What do you do?19: I use my "super-duper" (whatever that means) weapon to destroy one or two of their cities and force them to surrender.So what have we learned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 As a scientist and LDS - I would be most interested in any actual conflict between science and the LDS doctrine (not to say all what some believe to be doctrine or science). Also there is a difference in a "fullness" of the gospel and a fullness of truth even though one is part of the other. In this it is my understanding that the gospel will encompass all truth. And though we have a fullness of the gospel - there are still many great and important things to be revealed concerning the Kingdom of G-d. Learning truth is not contrary to the principles of divine goodness weather such truths be scientific or religious. I am a skeptic of anyone that rejects what-ever truth for religious or scientific reasons. However, it does seem to me that devout scientist is more likely to accept truth - even if it conflicts with their basic notion of things than are devout people or religion. And if we include history, it does appear to me that tradition of devout people of religion have been more willing to go to put others to death and go to war over things we now know to be false than have men of science. The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnolt Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) I do not understand what you're asking. I am envisioning the following conversation:21ST-CENTURY MAN: Let's say you had an enemy that had real military power and was making a creditable attempt to take over eastern Asia. You slap an embargo on them, and the next thing you know, they take out your naval base and declare war on you.19TH-CENTURY MAN: I would fight them to the death.21: All right. Let's suppose that you have a super-duper weapon that will destroy an entire city in a moment. Let's further suppose that you are conquering your enemy, but they will not surrender, and actually subjugating them will likely require hand-to-hand combat in an extended land invasion that will probably cost the lives of at least 100,000 of your own men, and double or triple that number of enemy casualties. What do you do?19: I use my "super-duper" (whatever that means) weapon to destroy one or two of their cities and force them to surrender.So what have we learned?22nd Century Man: Use our latest developed weapon: The gamma ray impact blaster, that brings their weapons and communication out of order immediately so that they will calm down very quickly and say hello to you again. And away with your old fashioned super-duper, it's not of any worth more. Shall we offer you some more interesting war weapons... like American television sitcoms implemented into the heads of your enemies...? Edited June 25, 2012 by Arnolt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 22nd Century Man: Use our latest developed weapon: The gamma ray impact blaster, that brings their weapons and communication out of order immediately so that they will calm down very quickly and say hello to us again. And away with your old fashioned super-duper, it's not of any worth more. Shall we offer you some more interesting war weapons... like American television sitcoms implemented into the heads of your enemies...?You're a funny guy, so I hope you won't be offended when I tell you that I still have almost no idea what point you're making. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnolt Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) You're a funny guy, so I hope you won't be offended when I tell you that I still have almost no idea what point you're making. Sorry.Let's discuss it later... grant me to let the curtain fall down for today, it's late in the night here. Edited June 26, 2012 by Arnolt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnolt Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) As a scientist and LDS - I would be most interested in any actual conflict between science and the LDS doctrine (not to say all what some believe to be doctrine or science). Also there is a difference in a "fullness" of the gospel and a fullness of truth even though one is part of the other. In this it is my understanding that the gospel will encompass all truth. And though we have a fullness of the gospel - there are still many great and important things to be revealed concerning the Kingdom of G-d. Learning truth is not contrary to the principles of divine goodness weather such truths be scientific or religious. I am a skeptic of anyone that rejects what-ever truth for religious or scientific reasons. However, it does seem to me that devout scientist is more likely to accept truth - even if it conflicts with their basic notion of things than are devout people or religion. And if we include history, it does appear to me that tradition of devout people of religion have been more willing to go to put others to death and go to war over things we now know to be false than have men of science. The TravelerWelcome, traveler from 23rd century! Edited June 26, 2012 by Arnolt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.