Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question

[NeuroTypical]

Quote

The atheist's fundamental moral basis: don't be a jerk. Being a jerk gets you ostracized, and ostracization is generally considered bad. If you want to be immoral, be a hermit. 

Trying to rephrase without snark:  The fundamental moral basis for an atheist, is sticking to behaviors that most humans won't ostracize you for doing?  That is, as long as you're one of the majority of humans that think being ostracized isn't a positive? 

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[LDSGator]

Just some humor. 

[Carborendum]

I would think that if we had no religion, we would become like animals.  This is not necessarily as bad as most people think.  We've studied animals at various levels of evolution and have determined that there are many with societies and communities.  And for mammals, there are apparently some rules of behavior.

There are certain rules of behavior for animals.  Even rats have a code of ethics.  Many of those codes are also present in most primate species.  They tend to rise out of psychology.  And it is surprising just how much of that is reflected in Human societies.  But these rules of behavior tend to lend themselves to a monarchy type government.

The Code of Hammurabi was a means of codifying these things that we naturally tended to know.  But there had arisen some religious influences to temper some "natural laws". 

The Law of Moses did much of the same thing.  During the time of Abraham, there were general rules of behavior that had arisen in the Middle East.  God also informed them about more important things.  All of it eventually became the template for the Law of Moses' secular rules.  But God declared that more laws be added that were not necessarily just "common sense" at the time.

What was revolutionary was when Christ came to teach them the new laws.  "Love your enemies."  Where did that come from?  This was not just a codification of common sense and the values that most people had.  It was completely counterintuitive.  "Love" and "Enemy" are mutually exclusive.  But, no.  He said to do exactly that.

This is the first clue that morality is not just "common sense" that will help societies to become more powerful and peaceful.  It is about reaching for something more than just making a living or waiting for death.

Morality is about meaning and purpose.  Animals don't have these things.  All of it is instinct for them.  And if that is all humans ever do, then the society is doomed to remain in a despotic state.  That's all animals have.

So, when you consider that democracy is a value, we must have some form of religion.  Religion is that force that tells us that there is meaning and purpose.  Successful religions will explain that meaning and purpose to their followers in a manner that they can achieve it.  Without that, religion is meaningless.

It is unfortunate to hear that some religions that have so many who find meaning and purpose also has many who just never get it.  And they reject either that religion or any religion at all.

In that sense, atheism can be considered a religion.  Yes, that's a bit like saying "bald" is a hair color, but hear me out.  If you truly absolutely believe that there is no god, nothing more than what we can see & touch, then there is no purpose, no meaning, no good, no bad.

But there are some self-declared atheists who say that they still have some sense of purpose.  They do find meaning in doing "something".  And they feel fulfilled.  Isn't that "something" really their religion?

When Jehovah said "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" that means that nothing should have more meaning or give you a more important purpose than the meaning and purpose that He can give us.

He offers us more.  And if we get more meaning out of other things, then it is not because His offering is less worthy.  It is because we have chosen the mess of pottage as more meaningful than our birthright.

[scottyg]

4 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Just some humor. 

I really enjoy his miniseries "Cosmos"; so much so that I bought it on Blu-ray. I learned a lot, and despite his blatant attempts to discredit God and labeling those who are religious as fools and/or a hindrance to science, I actually found my testimony in God strengthened from watching the show.

[LDSGator]

8 minutes ago, scottyg said:

I really enjoy his miniseries "Cosmos"; so much so that I bought it on Blu-ray. I learned a lot, and despite his blatant attempts to discredit God and labeling those who are religious as fools and/or a hindrance to science, I actually found my testimony in God strengthened from watching the show.

Oh, dude, I understand fully. I’ve heard of people saying the same things about Carl Sagan. 

[scottyg]

11 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Oh, dude, I understand fully. I’ve heard of people saying the same things about Carl Sagan. 

To me Carl seemed to be a genuinely nicer guy (at least on the outside). Niel is full of subtle and passive/aggressive ways to insult those he views as less intelligent than himself.

On a side note, it's interesting how mankind equates certain career fields with a higher degree of overall intelligence. Yes, Niel is smart, but he also has a luxury of reviewing material shortly before going on TV to also make himself appear smarter. The most intelligent person I know is an Electrician by trade. I have a Master's degree and this guy only has a certificate from 2 years of post-secondary education...and yet his overall intellect blows mine out of the water.

Edited June 10, 2023 by scottyg
Spelling

[LDSGator]

23 minutes ago, scottyg said:

Niel is full of subtle and passive/aggressive ways to insult those he views as less intelligent than himself.

I’m the LAST guy who can throw that stone my friend,  because I do the same thing. 

[LDSGator]

25 minutes ago, scottyg said:

On a side note, it's interesting how mankind equates certain career fields with a higher degree of overall intelligence. Yes, Niel is smart, but he also has a luxury of reviewing material shortly before going on TV to also make himself appear smarter. The most intelligent person I know is an Electrician by trade. I have a Master's degree and this guy only has a certificate from 2 years of post-secondary education...and yet his overall intellect blows mine out of the water.

Absolutely true as well.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, scottyg said:

To me Carl seemed to be a genuinely nicer guy (at least on the outside). Niel is full of subtle and passive/aggressive ways to insult those he views as less intelligent than himself.

I never really warmed to Carl Sagan. He always seemed to me less like a physicist and more like a physics populist—which I gather is false; he was a recognized and respected astrophysicist. I really liked Tyson when I first heard him. Over the years, my fondness for NDT has lessened considerably*, and I've started to see Sagan through a more charitable lens.

*Though not totally; didn't Neil Degrasse Tyson recently declare that he would not use CE/BCE instead of AD/BC, because he thought it was deplorable that Pope Gregory and those who worked for him be denied credit for coming up with the best and most accurate calendar ever devised, simply because they were Christians? I can't help but return respect to someone who gives respect when it's due.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, scottyg said:

On a side note, it's interesting how mankind equates certain career fields with a higher degree of overall intelligence. Yes, Niel is smart, but he also has a luxury of reviewing material shortly before going on TV to also make himself appear smarter. The most intelligent person I know is an Electrician by trade. I have a Master's degree and this guy only has a certificate from 2 years of post-secondary education...and yet his overall intellect blows mine out of the water.

The career-fields determination of smartness is reasonable if not reliable. You can't get a PhD in physics without being really smart in several important ways, so if someone earned a real PhD in physics, you can bet s/he's smart, or at least was at the time s/he earned the degree.

The two problems with this are: (1) Being smart in one area, e.g. physics, doesn't make you smart in another area, e.g. spiritual perception and understanding. Of this we have constant evidence. (2) That having such-and-such a degree indicates that you're smart doesn't mean that not having such-and-such a degree means you're not smart. Bonus point: (3) PhDs are handed out like candy these days. Having a PhD in mechanical engineering or chemistry or even English literature is perhaps as meaningful and impressive as ever, but your next-door neighborhood PhD is as likely to have a PhD in gender studies or feminist ideology or sociology or essential oils or transgender phrenology or some other pseudoscientific nonsense. We are quickly reaching the stage, if we're not already there, where really smart people will forgo so-called "higher" education in favor of doing something honest and meaningful. (Not to mention profitable; doctors and lawyers aren't the only people these days who go hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt to get a post-graduate degree.)

[Ironhold]

3 hours ago, scottyg said:

I really enjoy his miniseries "Cosmos"; so much so that I bought it on Blu-ray. I learned a lot, and despite his blatant attempts to discredit God and labeling those who are religious as fools and/or a hindrance to science, I actually found my testimony in God strengthened from watching the show.

There was an incident a few years ago where the social media brand manager for Steak-uums luncheon meats came out swinging, pointing out at length where NDT had overlooked something and so an answer he had given to someone via Twitter was not correct. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steak-umm

The incident even got a mention in the company's Wikipedia article, with a link to the Huffington Post write-up on the matter.

[Guest Godless]

2 hours ago, Ironhold said:

There was an incident a few years ago where the social media brand manager for Steak-uums luncheon meats came out swinging, pointing out at length where NDT had overlooked something and so an answer he had given to someone via Twitter was not correct. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steak-umm

The incident even got a mention in the company's Wikipedia article, with a link to the Huffington Post write-up on the matter.

I remember that. Believe me when I say that there are a lot of pro-science, god-skeptic libs that are tired of Neil's 💩.

[Guest Godless]

On 6/9/2023 at 6:51 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Trying to rephrase without snark:  The fundamental moral basis for an atheist, is sticking to behaviors that most humans won't ostracize you for doing?  That is, as long as you're one of the majority of humans that think being ostracized isn't a positive? 

There's more to it, but that's the 10 year-old version in a nutshell. 😉

Humans are social creatures, so getting along with each other (or at least peacefully co-existing) is a very important directive that's hard-wired into most of us to some extent. None of us execute this directive perfectly, of course. But most of us try our best because co-existing with our fellow humans is the best route to survival and happiness. Carb touched on this a bit with his comparison of humans to the animal kingdom. Pack-centered animals have social rules that they abide by. And if they break those rules, they can get ostracized by the pack.

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The Code of Hammurabi was a means of codifying these things that we naturally tended to know.  But there had arisen some religious influences to temper some "natural laws". 

The Law of Moses did much of the same thing.  During the time of Abraham, there were general rules of behavior that had arisen in the Middle East.  God also informed them about more important things.  All of it eventually became the template for the Law of Moses' secular rules.  But God declared that more laws be added that were not necessarily just "common sense" at the time.

This is where my atheist cynicism is going to leak out a bit. Assuming an atheist worldview is correct and there are no gods pulling the strings, then what is the purpose of divine law? Control. Religion is one of the most powerful systems of control that mankind has ever invented. How many governments throughout history have had theocratic roots, or were outright theocracies? Most of them, especially prior to the rise of democratic systems of government. Even today, we still have theocracies in the Middle East, and there are (thankfully a small minority of) people who would love to see a Christian version of Sharia Law adopted in the US. 

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

It is unfortunate to hear that some religions that have so many who find meaning and purpose also has many who just never get it.  And they reject either that religion or any religion at all.

In that sense, atheism can be considered a religion.  Yes, that's a bit like saying "bald" is a hair color, but hear me out.  If you truly absolutely believe that there is no god, nothing more than what we can see & touch, then there is no purpose, no meaning, no good, no bad.

That's not entirely true. It just means that our meaning and purpose is temporary, and dies with us. It's perfectly understandable that this mindset might sound depressing. But keep in mind that we don't believe that there is any continuing consciousness after we die, so I don't think we'll mind that much that our purpose is gone.*

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

But there are some self-declared atheists who say that they still have some sense of purpose.  They do find meaning in doing "something".  And they feel fulfilled.  Isn't that "something" really their religion?

*Technically, there are atheist religions, though they prefer the term "non-theist". Eastern traditions are rich with spiritual beliefs and practices that are capable of existing in the absence of a god, and a lot of them reject the idea that death is the end. They believe that consciousness ends, but the spirit lives on, and many believe that the spirit is reborn in a new consciousness. Theism? No. Religion? Absolutely.

So what about the rest of us? You're right, we tend to find meaning in tangible things during our mortal time here. I used to joke that beer was my religion. It was something I knew a lot about, was passionate about it's place in our history and our current culture, and even found ways to turn that passion into a livelihood. But now I'm (mostly) sober and working as a line cook. That "religion" wasn't lasting. I have other passions, like music and food, and I find ways to draw meaning from those. And I draw a tremendous amount of meaning and purpose from being a father, something that I think a lot of Christians can relate to. You can call that religion if you want, and I won't try to stop you. I simply call it living.

Edited June 11, 2023 by Godless

[Carborendum]

17 hours ago, Godless said:

This is where my atheist cynicism is going to leak out a bit. Assuming an atheist worldview is correct and there are no gods pulling the strings, then what is the purpose of divine law? Control. Religion is one of the most powerful systems of control that mankind has ever invented. How many governments throughout history have had theocratic roots, or were outright theocracies? Most of them, especially prior to the rise of democratic systems of government. Even today, we still have theocracies in the Middle East, and there are (thankfully a small minority of) people who would love to see a Christian version of Sharia Law adopted in the US. 

Assuming... (That's an important condition).  But I'll go along with it for this post.

That is the genius of the US Constitution. (And I'm going to ask you politely to pay attention to the wording of my next sentence.)  We are not allowed to have a particular religion/sect use governmental force to enforce their faith on people of other faiths.  

• The free-market of ideas allows the blending of many view points via free speech to determine what is enforced by governmental authority.
• Religion is a free-trade consideration for every individual and family.  No government force.  People are allowed to change their religion at any time.  This freedom is essential for preventing religion from getting into the "controlling" paradigm. 
• Even from an atheist's perspective, religion is a necessary institution for codifying the collected wisdom of the ages for every day behaviors that it would be tyrannical for government to regulate.
• Un-codified religions aren't really effective since they can change what they believe at any time.  Thus the role of religion in society as a whole is not satisfied.

17 hours ago, Godless said:

That's not entirely true. It just means that our meaning and purpose is temporary, and dies with us. It's perfectly understandable that this mindset might sound depressing. But keep in mind that we don't believe that there is any continuing consciousness after we die, so I don't think we'll mind that much that our purpose is gone.*

I'm not sure if you read my entire previous post.  But I actually addressed this very issue.  And you're confirming, not refuting my position.

I'll say it more clearly: If you devote your time, talents, and means to a particular concept, idea, or being, that is your "god".  All you're saying is that you believe in a temporary god that will die with you.  All humans do this if they have any purpose/meaning at all.  

17 hours ago, Godless said:

*Technically, there are atheist religions, though they prefer the term "non-theist". Eastern traditions are rich with spiritual beliefs and practices that are capable of existing in the absence of a god, and a lot of them reject the idea that death is the end. They believe that consciousness ends, but the spirit lives on, and many believe that the spirit is reborn in a new consciousness. Theism? No. Religion? Absolutely.

You may not want to admit it, but you're taking a step backwards in religion.  These religions you mention are still steeped in this belief that "things" are "god" (for lack of a better word).  A Buddhist from high school told me that an example of "everything is god" would be like the earth nourishing a tree.  It's all part of one body that cycles through all the universe.  We don't think of our body as separate parts unless we're specifically addressing it from a medical perspective or some such.  The heart is me, the leg is me, the brain is me.  It's all me.  And we need it all.

Gods can take on many forms in our minds and hearts.  But there is little difference between our modern "gods" and the gods of the ancient pagans.

Ancient pagan "gods" were not really "beings".  Greeks didn't worship "Ares, the god of war."  They worshiped war.  "Ares" is simply the Greek word for war.  So, if you worshiped Ares, you worshipped war.  But they simply thought of them as personifications for the purpose of worship.

Abrahamic religions were the first in the world to say, "Hey, those concepts that you worship?  They are not conscious beings that you can bargain with or curry favor from.  We have a Living God that actually does speak."  That may seem like common sense today.  But at the time of Abraham, this was truly revolutionary.

The only difference is your mode of worship.  Whatever you hold dear, you are worshipping it.  The "prayers and oblations" are the hopes and dreams you have of accomplishing something towards that ideal.  You talk to others with similar goals and aspirations to see if you can pool resources or knowledge/experience.  You sacrifice your time, talents, and energy to achieve that ideal.  That's worship. That's your god.  That's a religion.  And your chosen religion is more like the ancients than ours is.

[Carborendum]

18 hours ago, Godless said:

So what about the rest of us? You're right, we tend to find meaning in tangible things during our mortal time here. I used to joke that beer was my religion. It was something I knew a lot about, was passionate about it's place in our history and our current culture, and even found ways to turn that passion into a livelihood. But now I'm (mostly) sober and working as a line cook. That "religion" wasn't lasting. I have other passions, like music and food, and I find ways to draw meaning from those. And I draw a tremendous amount of meaning and purpose from being a father, something that I think a lot of Christians can relate to. You can call that religion if you want, and I won't try to stop you. I simply call it living.

That's not so far off from what I'm saying.  And my sentiment is more real than you realize.

As Mormons, we have built a shrine to St. Browning.

Edited June 11, 2023 by Carborendum

[JohnsonJones]

So, I think we should love all our neighbors and relatives.  That doesn't mean we support behavior we do not feel is appropriate, but we should love them as they are, whether they choose to do the things we would agree with or not. 

Sort of on topic, and sort of off.  This is from someone who was NOT a member of our church, but some consider a rather religious individual.

Mr Rogers I like you as you are

and a second video that may be more accessible...

It's you I like

Edit:  And one last one...because I think this is something that the Lord would want us each to know, that each of us is Loved individually by him, each of us is important to him...not matter who we are and what we choose, we are STILL loved.

Mr Rogers sings you are special

Edited June 12, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[ztodd]

On 5/21/2023 at 11:14 PM, person0 said:

This is an issue that has plagued my ward for years now.  I really appreciate that he taught that Church leaders and teachers have the responsibility to teach the truths of the gospel.  One cannot effectively teach the truth if in one breath they teach the family proclamation, and in the next they refer to someone using eternally/biologically inaccurate pronouns; in doing so, they sacrifice the truth and tear down their own witness.

I appreciate the entirety of his answer, but that part struck me as an excellent way to lead out.

I appreciate the way he noted the parable.  I think what may be lost on many is that in the parable, while the accusers are turned away from their judgement, the woman is also instructed to turn away from her sins.  When members use pronouns, or engage in 'affirming' behaviors, they are supporting the falsehood or sin.  This would be contextually similar to Christ referring to the woman's partner in the sin, as if he were her husband; doing so would entirely unravel the Savior's instruction.

I appreciate the girl being so bold as to ask, and Elder Oaks being willing to answer.

I sure appreciate Elder Oaks for this also.  And thank you also for posting it.  What I got from it is that although standing for truth is important, there are other ways sometimes to love God.  Elder Oaks talked about balance, and also talked about trying to have a perspective of being able to find ways to both stand for truth, as well as show compassion to those we disagree with, at the same time.  This is downright hard a lot of times, but after hearing Elder Oaks answer that letter, I feel that I could definitely be trying harder to do a better job.  Also, when he paused after saying something about seeing things from a longer lasting perspective, I felt that.  I recalled that the people I love most, who I disagree with in belief in these matters, most definitely already know my beliefs.  It's not necessary for me to remind them.  What's more necessary is for me to demonstrate that I'm trying to understand where their hurt and pain in their life has come from, and that I will always be there to listen and love.

Thank you again.  I love the prophets and apostles, and can feel of their love for all of us.  They reflect the love of Christ, who did not condemn sinners, but showed them the way to peace, sometimes by simply inviting them to partake of his love.

[person0]

9 hours ago, ztodd said:

. . . the people I love most, who I disagree with in belief in these matters, most definitely already know my beliefs.

I think the problem 'we' (general) are dealing with in the Church is that the people in these situations may know 'our' (general) beliefs, but they don't know or understand Christ's beliefs.  It doesn't matter one iota what I believe, it matters what Christ believes and members of the Church on both sides of this both think they are following after Christ's way.

What Elder Oaks addressed is that 'we' are in the right but may be going about it in the wrong way in our interactions with others (which is not what I have seen, but I'm not everywhere).  Sadly, many of those on the other side of the argument didn't quite catch that understanding.

9 hours ago, ztodd said:

Christ, who did not condemn sinners, but showed them the way to peace

I could be mistaken, but my understanding is that the unrepentant are regularly condemned all throughout scripture.  My understanding is that we are mostly dealing with the unrepentant and with those who uphold such behaviors.  Though I acknowledge many in this category are confused, misled, and simply in a state of refusal to be moved back into a state where such is no longer the case.

[NeuroTypical]

12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Mr Rogers I like you as you are

It's you I like

Mr Rogers sings you are special

Mr. Rogers is my only mortal hero.   He deserves to be boosted to the top of all the viral playlists.

[LDSGator]

48 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Mr. Rogers is my only mortal hero.   He deserves to be boosted to the top of all the viral playlists.

Amen. 

[Guest Godless]

3 hours ago, person0 said:

I could be mistaken, but my understanding is that the unrepentant are regularly condemned all throughout scripture. 

Condemned by whom? The Old Testament prophets? Paul? Christ himself? Yes, I realize that you take all of it as God's word, but when did Christ himself ever condemn anyone (except perhaps the pharisees)? 

[person0]

12 minutes ago, Godless said:

except perhaps the pharisees

And that doesn't count?

Quote

. . . the voice of the Lord came to him, saying:
. . .
Now I say unto you, Go; and whosoever will not repent of his sins the same shall not be numbered among my people; and this shall be observed from this time forward.
(Mosiah 26: 14, 32)

[Carborendum]

On 6/12/2023 at 12:04 PM, Godless said:

Condemned by whom?... when did Christ himself ever condemn anyone 

Luke 17:1

Luke 17:17

Mark 11:17 & Luke 19:46

Edited June 19, 2023 by Carborendum

[SilentOne]

On 6/12/2023 at 11:54 AM, Carborendum said:

Luke 17:1

Luke 17:17

Mark 11:17 & Luke 19:9

Luke 19:9

And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.

 

I'm not seeing the condemnation there.

[Carborendum]

8 hours ago, SilentOne said:

Luke 19:9

Fixed.  It was supposed to be Luke 19:46.

I could also add Matt 21:13 as well.