Exploring religious theory

[lostnfound]

I will say that from an outsider's perspective, the LDS church has been far more open minded than most. If it weren't for that fact I wouldn't even be here. I would like to point out that I would have been banned from most christian boards by now, probably even some of the more strict LDS ones too :)

hey I don't know what christian forums you were on..but I am not lds..don't clump the few close minded into one catagory or another..:) I have found just as many closed minded lds as I have found open minded lds.:) No offense guys.

[Misshalfway]

Lost,

LDS doctrine. Not LDS people. Closed minded people can be found everywhere. So can closed minded ideas.

And I can't speak for everyone but my experience with the LDS doctrine, IMHO, is open minded in terms of accepting truth throughout the world and seeing opportunities for salvation for every child of God and in understanding everything in the earth and around it.

I suppose coffee and beer lovers everywhere would disagree with me.

[lostnfound]

Lost,

LDS doctrine. Not LDS people. Closed minded people can be found everywhere. So can closed minded ideas.

And I can't speak for everyone but my experience with the LDS doctrine, IMHO, is open minded in terms of accepting truth throughout the world and seeing opportunities for salvation for every child of God and in understanding everything in the earth and around it.

I suppose coffee and beer lovers everywhere would disagree with me. [/quote

I was lost and now I am found..

lol..just messin with ya.

um I am not a coffee or a beer lover and I disagree with you..lol..

but seriously I see what you are saying. Digital was talking about the doctrine rather then the people..well..okay..still not sure I agree with that but I can at least see that point of view.

[Guest tomk]

In comparison to the body of knowledge we had 10000 years ago, I would say the body of knowledge we have now is significantly greater. Compared to the infinite set of knowledge that exists in the universe it is all insignificant, but I was only comparing to what we had before. Did we have any idea what caused rain or other weather patterns? Did we have any idea what the stars in the sky were? Did we know what caused various illnesses? No, we had to rely on supernatural and superstitious explainations for all of those. That was my only point.

I agree.

Now, just because beliefs are antiquated, doesn't mean that they are wrong or superstitious, or supernatural. It just means they are old.

[DigitalShadow]

hey I don't know what christian forums you were on..but I am not lds..don't clump the few close minded into one catagory or another..:) I have found just as many closed minded lds as I have found open minded lds.:) No offense guys.

I think that being in the theological majority breeds close-mindedness and hostility to conflicting viewpoints regardless of what views the majority holds. I don't usually let the actions of a few of the members of any particular church color my view of the church in general. By that same logic, one would have to throw out all of science because a few scientists are jerks.

In any case, no offense was intended :)

[DigitalShadow]

I agree.

Now, just because beliefs are antiquated, doesn't mean that they are wrong or superstitious, or supernatural. It just means they are old.

Yes, "superstitious" refers to the reasoning behind a belief, not the age of it. There are many superstitious beliefs that exist today, but certainly not as many as there used to be.

[rameumptom]

If I said that I've seen Jesus appeared to me and clearly state that Joseph Smith is wrong and that I should start my own church and had another witness who saw the same thing as I do, how would you explain that? Well, that is my answer to you as well.

I've never claimed that people believe in religions merely because someone else said to, I have heard the "undeniable" feelings and experiences they received that led them to their particular religion and supported their particular doctrine or interpretation. My only concern is that I've seen many people utterly convinced they are right but whose "undeniable" knowledge conflicts with each others. Obviously not all of them are right, therefore "undeniable" knowledge does not seem very reliable from my point of view which is why I like emperical, observable, repeatable evidence.

One of the issues I've mentioned is that several people have received a joint revelatory experience concerning Joseph Smith and the book of Mormon. If you, by yourself, receive inspiration towards or against something, then it is solely your view. What happens when there are additional witnesses that all experienced the same thing, or similar things over a period of time? That is when there is more power to the evidence.

The problem with many people in the world, is they are uninterested in finding the truth in the method prescribed.

If I want to examine evidence of atoms and molecules, I should learn how to use an electron microscope. Telescopes are useless in the micro world. Do I need to consider the lessons and exhortations of the experts on how to use the equipment? Of course. Otherwise, in improperly using it, I may never see an atom. We are talking about highly technical and delicate equipment that takes people years to learn to manage properly, and we would be foolish to think it only takes flipping the "on" switch to understand what we are looking at.

And that is how it is with spiritual things. Too many people seek physical evidences to satisfy their curiosity, rather than spiritual evidences. And for those that do seek spiritual evidences, many times they are not properly instructed in using the spiritual methodologies; or they ignore the experts and attempt to do it on their own. Either way, failure is the common experience. I have seen many times people who have prayed for a testimony, but have not prayed specifically, and so have not received the answer they needed. One man I knew, prayed to "know the right way" when it came time to ask if Joseph Smith was a prophet. Well, I explained to him that the Lord was showing him the "right way" by having the missionaries and me in his home. However, it wasn't answering the key question. So we had to instruct him on specific prayers. Once we kneeled together and asked, "Is Joseph Smith a true prophet of God?", we felt the Holy Spirit penetrate our hearts, and Alec had his witness.

Other issues of preparation include: obeying the commandments in order to be in tune with the Spirit, desiring to believe, having an open mind, praying with real intent and sincerity, etc.

Most people do not receive, because they don't go through the preparation. This is also why most people will never see through the eyepiece of an electron microscope, because they won't go through the intensive training to prepare for the experience. I once talked with a couple preachers, who said they would say the prayer: "Dear God, we know that what we already have is the truth, but if Joseph Smith is a prophet, go ahead and let us know." There was no sincerity, no desire to learn, no open mind, no real intent. The Spirit told them what they wanted to hear, for they were not ready for anything more.

But time after time, I've seen people gain a testimony of the restored Gospel through preparation and prayer, when they've followed the prescribed methodologies to receive those witnesses. And the more they follow the methods, the better they get at receiving those witnesses, until they have a sure knowledge. I would recommend a close reading of Alma 32 and D&C 9 to understand these concepts better.

[Misshalfway]

Lost, or excuse me, found!

Well, I am never closed minded...:::cough, cough, choke:::...... Just kidding!!

At the end of the day, we are all just doing the best we can. There are sometimes when we all just need to breath, and enjoy each other -- differences and all. :)

[rameumptom]

I can see how some religions genuinely do require one to close their mind. It is not something I have observed in the LDS doctrine.

Exactly. In fact, LDS doctrine is very different than almost all others because we have an open canon. We believe in continual revelation. While others live in a box defined by creeds, we remain open to the possibility that God could reveal something today that changes many aspects of our faith.

And the prophets have stated that we embrace all truth, regardless of where it is found. This is why many LDS study other religions, seeking the truths within them. Meanwhile, other religions tend to warn their congregates to avoid reading the Book of Mormon like a plague!

[Guest tomk]

Yes, "superstitious" refers to the reasoning behind a belief, not the age of it. There are many superstitious beliefs that exist today, but certainly not as many as there used to be.

Why the mistrust of things we cannot see with our eyes?

Is a caveman foolish for thinking a cell phone was "magical" because he has no concept of microchips or microwaves -- because he cannot see inside the phone?

And yet scientists reject the claims of religion on similar grounds -- because someone's witness is not measurable or able to be seen.

[DigitalShadow]

One of the issues I've mentioned is that several people have received a joint revelatory experience concerning Joseph Smith and the book of Mormon. If you, by yourself, receive inspiration towards or against something, then it is solely your view. What happens when there are additional witnesses that all experienced the same thing, or similar things over a period of time? That is when there is more power to the evidence.

The problem with many people in the world, is they are uninterested in finding the truth in the method prescribed.

If I want to examine evidence of atoms and molecules, I should learn how to use an electron microscope. Telescopes are useless in the micro world. Do I need to consider the lessons and exhortations of the experts on how to use the equipment? Of course. Otherwise, in improperly using it, I may never see an atom. We are talking about highly technical and delicate equipment that takes people years to learn to manage properly, and we would be foolish to think it only takes flipping the "on" switch to understand what we are looking at.

And that is how it is with spiritual things. Too many people seek physical evidences to satisfy their curiosity, rather than spiritual evidences. And for those that do seek spiritual evidences, many times they are not properly instructed in using the spiritual methodologies; or they ignore the experts and attempt to do it on their own. Either way, failure is the common experience. I have seen many times people who have prayed for a testimony, but have not prayed specifically, and so have not received the answer they needed. One man I knew, prayed to "know the right way" when it came time to ask if Joseph Smith was a prophet. Well, I explained to him that the Lord was showing him the "right way" by having the missionaries and me in his home. However, it wasn't answering the key question. So we had to instruct him on specific prayers. Once we kneeled together and asked, "Is Joseph Smith a true prophet of God?", we felt the Holy Spirit penetrate our hearts, and Alec had his witness.

Other issues of preparation include: obeying the commandments in order to be in tune with the Spirit, desiring to believe, having an open mind, praying with real intent and sincerity, etc.

Most people do not receive, because they don't go through the preparation. This is also why most people will never see through the eyepiece of an electron microscope, because they won't go through the intensive training to prepare for the experience. I once talked with a couple preachers, who said they would say the prayer: "Dear God, we know that what we already have is the truth, but if Joseph Smith is a prophet, go ahead and let us know." There was no sincerity, no desire to learn, no open mind, no real intent. The Spirit told them what they wanted to hear, for they were not ready for anything more.

But time after time, I've seen people gain a testimony of the restored Gospel through preparation and prayer, when they've followed the prescribed methodologies to receive those witnesses. And the more they follow the methods, the better they get at receiving those witnesses, until they have a sure knowledge. I would recommend a close reading of Alma 32 and D&C 9 to understand these concepts better.

There are many people who claim to witness supernatural events with witnesses and then inspire others receive feelings that they are in fact true. That's basically what a religion is and there are a multitude of them. The burden of proof is on the one making extrodinary claims, it is not for everyone else to either explain how it didn't happen or believe it. That is all I was referring to. I was pointing out the irony of you casually rejecting other supernatural claims, but then asking for an explaination of the ones you hold to be true.

[Misshalfway]

Exactly. In fact, LDS doctrine is very different than almost all others because we have an open canon. We believe in continual revelation. While others live in a box defined by creeds, we remain open to the possibility that God could reveal something today that changes many aspects of our faith.

And the prophets have stated that we embrace all truth, regardless of where it is found. This is why many LDS study other religions, seeking the truths within them. Meanwhile, other religions tend to warn their congregates to avoid reading the Book of Mormon like a plague!

Seriously! I taught a man on my mission that would not even touch the cover of the BofM because he would immediately go to hell. He was saved, of course. Couldn't understand.....

I have always said that I would rather someone dismiss the church on its merits than reject if because of lies or fear.

[DigitalShadow]

Why the mistrust of things we cannot see with our eyes?

Is a caveman foolish for thinking a cell phone was "magical" because he has no concept of microchips or microwaves -- because he cannot see inside the phone?

And yet scientists reject the claims of religion on similar grounds -- because someone's witness is not measurable or able to be seen.

The majority of scientists are in fact Christian so I'm not sure where your generalization of scientists comes from. Also it's not that scientists "mistrust" what can't be seen with our eyes, it is that they look for emerical evidence to determine the cause behind events rather than simply assuming supernatural reasons behind things and performing rituals in accordance to those beliefs (superstition).

Yes, a caveman would think a cell phone is "magic" because they had no concept of scientific theory back then. If someone from the future came to the present with incredibly advanced technology that we could not explain, there would be research done to investigate it. I fail to see how declaring it "magic" or from God would be of any use in that situation.

[Guest tomk]

The majority of scientists are in fact Christian so I'm not sure where your generalization of scientists comes from. Also it's not that scientists "mistrust" what can't be seen with our eyes, it is that they look for emerical evidence to determine the cause behind events rather than simply assuming supernatural reasons behind things and performing rituals in accordance to those beliefs (superstition).

Yes, a caveman would think a cell phone is "magic" because they had no concept of scientific theory back then. If someone from the future came to the present with incredibly advanced technology that we could not explain, there would be research done to investigate it. I fail to see how declaring it "magic" or from God would be of any use in that situation.

You are trying to get to the bottom of why we believe what we believe, or rather, why religion in general draws the conclusions it does.

I am trying to get to the bottom of why science rejects our witness of the Book of Mormon. I don't think it is the fault of the person who has the witness. The witness is what it is! By it's nature, it does not lend itself to the probes of instrutmentation. By science's own rules, this excludes the witness from being considered as "proof that God lives" -- but what makes this okay? Isn't it really just a matter of opinion as to whether one's witness is valid? And if it is, then for science to reject the witness seems like a refusal to accept ALL available data. A testimony is a data point. One of many possible data points.

[Misshalfway]

My theory behind supernatural events is that it is all science. God follows natural law. The very elements obey Him.

I think we as humans call it magic, because we have no other label that makes sense. I think under every miracle is a process by which the miracle is made possible. I just can't know all of it. I will only live 80 some odd years, and I have laundry to do. In my opinion, faith helps me with all of this. I know that miracles are real. Don't know how it is possible, but then again I don't have to. And I prolly don't show it to you very often, but I do have a very skeptical side. I don't believe that the virgin mary can be seen in cheese sandwiches either.

Just one more thing, DS, have you studying the LDS stuff on light? It is really amazing.

[Guest tomk]

Digital Shadow:

Let me ask you this.

20 scientists are locked in a room. They come up with a brand new form of energy, let's say. There is an accident while one of the scientists is in the breakroom getting a Pepsi. All available data is destroyed, including the complex method of reproducing the results. The scientists are killed.

The lone scientist tries in vain to get a new team and new funding, but nobody will listen to him. Everyone thinks he is crazy. There is no way you can derive energy by way of the processes the scientist is attempting to describe, they say. It just can't be done!!

"But you're wrong, the scientist says. I saw it with my own eyes. We did experience, we witnessed this energy. It was stable and sustainable!"

Where's your proof, they say.

The scientist is at a loss as to how to explain it.

==============

Maybe this is a tad of a stretch -- but does this help explain MY frustration in trying to explain "how I know" ???

I look forward to your thoughts.

[DigitalShadow]

You are trying to get to the bottom of why we believe what we believe, or rather, why religion in general draws the conclusions it does.

I am trying to get to the bottom of why science rejects our witness of the Book of Mormon. I don't think it is the fault of the person who has the witness. The witness is what it is! By it's nature, it does not lend itself to the probes of instrutmentation. By science's own rules, this excludes the witness from being considered as "proof that God lives" -- but what makes this okay? Isn't it really just a matter of opinion as to whether one's witness is valid? And if it is, then for science to reject the witness seems like a refusal to accept ALL available data. A testimony is a data point. One of many possible data points.

Belief in God and religion is seperate from science. There are many Christian and LDS scientists who will tell you so. Scientific principles prevent personal witness as being part of an objective argument for obvious reasons. This does not mean they have to be rejected all together by the scientist, just that they have no place in scientific theory.

I also have the personal philosophy of agnosticism which means that I believe the truth is ultimately unknowable by man.

It is not the scientific aspect of me that prevents me from joining a religion, it is the agnostic one. I know I sometimes meld the ideas together when expressing my viewpoint, but they are in fact two seperate concepts.

[Guest tomk]

Belief in God and religion is seperate from science. There are many Christian and LDS scientists who will tell you so. Scientific principles prevent personal witness as being part of an objective argument for obvious reasons. This does not mean they have to be rejected all together by the scientist, just that they have no place in scientific theory.

I also have the personal philosophy of agnosticism which means that I believe the truth is ultimately unknowable by man.

It is not the scientific aspect of me that prevents me from joining a religion, it is the agnostic one. I know I sometimes meld the ideas together when expressing my viewpoint, but they are in fact two seperate concepts.

Obvious to who?

[Guest tomk]

Belief in God and religion is seperate from science. There are many Christian and LDS scientists who will tell you so. Scientific principles prevent personal witness as being part of an objective argument for obvious reasons. This does not mean they have to be rejected all together by the scientist, just that they have no place in scientific theory.

I also have the personal philosophy of agnosticism which means that I believe the truth is ultimately unknowable by man.

It is not the scientific aspect of me that prevents me from joining a religion, it is the agnostic one. I know I sometimes meld the ideas together when expressing my viewpoint, but they are in fact two seperate concepts.

Why does it matter "how many" people feel or think a certain way?

Truth cannot reside in "just" one person?

[DigitalShadow]

Digital Shadow:

Let me ask you this.

20 scientists are locked in a room. They come up with a brand new form of energy, let's say. There is an accident while one of the scientists is in the breakroom getting a Pepsi. All available data is destroyed, including the complex method of reproducing the results.

The lone scientist tries in vain to get a new team and new funding, but nobody will listen to him. Everyone thinks he is crazy. There is no way you can derive energy by way of the processes the scientist is attempting to describe, they say. It just can't be done!!

"But you're wrong, the scientist says. I saw it with my own eyes. We did experience, we witnessed this energy. It was stable and sustainable!"

Where's your proof, they say.

The scientist is at a loss as to how to explain it.

==============

Maybe this is a tad of a stretch -- but does this help explain MY frustration in trying to explain "how I know" ???

I look forward to your thoughts.

Have you by any chance seen the movie Contact? :)

[Guest tomk]

Have you by any chance seen the movie Contact? :)

I have.

The scientific community did not believe her wild story.

But it happened. She knew it. She experienced it!

[DigitalShadow]

Obvious to who?

By definition of the word objective, it would not contain purely subjective experience. That is the essence of science... removing the personal bias and examining observable, repeatable evidence to draw conclusions. Does that mean that scientists personally have to exclude the subjective experience? No, and in fact many take that into account with their religious beliefs.

[Guest tomk]

By definition of the word objective, it would not contain purely subjective experience. That is the essence of science... removing the personal bias and examining observable, repeatable evidence to draw conclusions. Does that mean that scientists personally have to exclude the subjective experience? No, and in fact many take that into account with their religious beliefs.

From my experience, it is possible to marry subjective and objective information gathering in one seemless whole. The most effective scientist, in my view, would take advantage of many sources of data, not just one source or even one way of thinking.

I am a member of the LDS Faith. But that does not mean I cannot grasp the value of science or the scientific method. Quite to the contrary. I embrace science. I love the technology it brings to light!! My day job would be impossible without it. My faith does not limit my ability to embrace science.

Can science say the same?

[DigitalShadow]

Why does it matter "how many" people feel or think a certain way?

Truth cannot reside in "just" one person?

It doesn't matter and that has nothing to do with the point I'm making. Of course the truth can reside in "just" one person, but without any evidence to back up their claim, it is just another unsubstantiated claim. Sure, we may have missed out on some things by not believing some unsupported claims, but the only other alternative is to believe everything, and the time that would be wasted chasing dead ends outweighs any possible gain from following all of them. That is why science is the way it is and that is also why it WORKS.

[Guest tomk]

It doesn't matter and that has nothing to do with the point I'm making. Of course the truth can reside in "just" one person, but without any evidence to back up their claim, it is just another unsubstantiated claim. Sure, we may have missed out on some things by not believing some unsupported claims, but the only other alternative is to believe everything, and the time that would be wasted chasing dead ends outweighs any possible gain from following all of them. That is why science is the way it is and that is also why it WORKS.

How come science can't try doing both?

Like the LIFE cereal commercial or "Green Eggs and Ham." Try it! You might like it!

What has the scientific community got to lose?

And science chases dead ends ALL THE TIME, so don't give me that.

EDIT: I forgot to smile when I said "so don't give me that." So here: :)