[Watcher]

SilentDawning wrote:

Thanks Watcher. I don’t have much to say other than I enjoyed reading your biography. I wonder why you have a tendency to polarize people? I found that part interesting. As I go through life some people really like me, most are neutral and a few haven’t like me at all — usually based on whether I give them what they want…

I have thought about responding to my polarizing people with an example. Around 17 years ago I was working for a publicly held engineering company that had captured 90% of a niche in the automation and robotics industry. Our management, in all their brilliance, decided to expand by acquiring companies in similar markets. They acquired a company without completing a proper due diligence and inherited a 650 million debt. I had been involved in this acquisition to assist in an audit of the engineering department. It was not a well-run company. I was not surprised that the acquired company was deep in debt. Rather than hurt our company stocks the acquired debt was hidden in accounting.

Two years later there was a recession that our government solved by bailing out a few two large to fail banks (older forum members may remember). This recession caused problems in our company. I believe that our company decided to use this opportunity to declair the debt mostly for tax purposes. Our company president and CEO held an all-hands-on deck meeting to explain necessary steps to keep our company solvent. Among the steps would be a 20% reduction in our engineering force, a 15% cut in all employees pay and a 25% cut in senior management (including board of directors) salary. Our CEO ask if there were any questions.

Because of my standing as a principal engineer in the company – I felt obligated to ask a question. I began by introducing myself and my title in the company – even though I knew the CEO personally. I explained that I had been involved in bidding all our company’s projects over the last 5 years and that all our projects had been highly profitable. I also explained that we had several projects booked that would require we maintain our engineering force. I explained that to my knowledge any debt currently owed by our company was not the result of anything done by any of the company engineers. I also explained that we are a company that requires team work to remain solvent and that such teamwork may require all make sacrifices. So, as I then explained, my question was – Would the senior management guarantee to us here in this meeting that these Draconian measured are not for the purpose of senior management bonuses at the end of the ficscal year; that in the past had been as high as 1,000 % or more of their salary. Would he guarantee that there would be no bonuses granted because of employee sacrifices. My simple question tended to polarize our company. Up until that point I was well liked by management.

[Watcher]

Roy wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

I love looking at stories from multiple perspectives.

I like this one.

I agree. I even enjoy this when done with historical events. Since the good Samaritan is fictional there is no end to the different perspectives that could be added without worrying about historical accuracy. Sometimes, fictional stories evolve over time to stay fresh and new for new generations of readers.

May I add some additional historical information to this thread. Anciently many civilizations believe that there were “local” g-ds that became powerful in local areas because the people there believe and worshiped them. When Israel was divided the norther kingdom was mostly comprised of 10 tribes. The tribe of Juda controlled the southern kingdom.

Before Juda was conquered by Babylon – Assyrians conquered norther Israel. According to traditions the people would be moved to disconnect them with their g-ds. As northern Israel was moved northward a society that did now worship Israel’s G-d was moved into the norther Israel area. All of this was done to make various conquered societies weak. This new society in northern Israel had such difficulties in their relocation they decided to worship the G-d of Israel. However, in doing so they included many of their most beloved traditions. These people became known as the Samaritans. The Jews always thought of them as apostates and false worshipers.

When the Jews returned from captivity the Samaritans became such a problem that the Jews took upon believes that to have any dealing with a Samaritan would render a Jew unclean – even to worship on their Sabbath. Special cleansing rituals were required before a Jew could even properly say a prayer or read scripture. At the time of Jesus, the Samaritans were hated by the Jews more than the Romans to which the Jews paid taxes and to whom they were kept in various levels of bondage. Jews did not even believe that a Samaritan could be converted or saved in eternity. Samaritans were to the Jews the worse scum of the earth. The Romans were the only reason that war between the Jews and Samaritans was avoided. If there was anyone that should not be loved by a Jew, it was a Samaritan.

Jesus was asked about the commandment to love thy neighbor. Jesus was asked, “Who is a neighbor to a Jew?” In response to that question Jesus gave the parable of what is called today, “The Good Samaritan”. Obviously Jesus is the Good Samaritan but there is another under the surface symbolism of the Good Samaritan – if there is anyone you hate or cannot stand and that you do not want anything to do with or even ever be around (someone that offends you beyond anyone or anything else) – that is your Good Samaritan whom you need to learn to love as your neighbor.

[Watcher]

SilentDawning wrote:

I’m glad someone grasped my long version of my “theory”. The difference is that I postulated all iterations happened in the real world as God sped up time in his own realm, changing certain variables until eventually he created “man” succesfully. I postulated that all the births and eventual extinctions of apes and precursors to mankind were attempts at getting the variables right so mankind as we know it could successfully thrive.

You seem to imply that He simulated everything spiritually and when he had a working model, implemented it in steps, which is a different approach than what I said — if I understood you correctly.

I think you understand al lot and not just about me.

It is not my intent to put forth the idea that I have answers concerning creation or for that matter much of anything else. Just that I have experience in creating simulation and emulation models from the ground up and the logic of simulation and emulation models makes a lot of sense to me – not just in real life applications but from various hints in scripture that was written before mankind’s historical applications of scientific modeling to accurately predict outcomes. The most common models of complex systems in use to date are based on “Chaos Theory”. The basis of chaos theory is that all complex systems operate within a tolerance range or balance of specified parameters. If one or more of the parameters goes outside of the tolerance range or balance, then an entirely new tolerance range or balance will eventually be achieved and any attempts to return to a previous tolerance range or balance become virtually impossible. That a changed complex system restoration is virtually impossible is the reason it is called Chaos Theory.

Each parameter has unique possible operations. Operations are defined by various requirements and possible operational outcomes. In essence requirements are resources that are itemized from required to optional and operational outcomes are listed from high (success) to low (failure) and vary on the “life” of an individual element within the specific parameter.

SilentDawning put forth the idea of operational (empirical) testing with time (cron) as a variable parameter. I am suggesting computers add a dimension to testing and learning possibilities that can eliminate various concepts of empirical reincarnation experimentation to produce a most desired response. However, there is a very interesting capability within the same Chaos Theory modeling that allows for time to be run backwards – both as a validation of the emulation as well as an exploration for finding initial possibilities. Examples of this includes things like looking at our current solar system (or our known universe) and running the model backwards to discover “possible” initial creation parameters.

I personally am excited about this idea of modeling as an opportunity of personal study – not just of our universe and other things of science but as an application of religious study. A possible (personal) study could be the payment of Tithes and Offerings. But for such a study to be complete would require regular measurables. And I would classify a yearly tithing deceleration as a required regular measurable.

I have a son that in many ways is smarter than me that I suggested (in a family home evening very long ago) that tithing should be studied on a minimal basis of yearly tithing declaration in a journal. The reason I suggest a written journal is that humans tend to evolve that we think we think, and a journal is a more accurate account. He began to keep a tithing journal and as a result even though he has become inactive in the church concerning just about everything else – he pays a 10% tithing to the Church based on several decades of his close attention to records. I have kidded him that money has become way too important to him.

One thing that simulation and emulation models do is keep records – if such models are deficient in records – the model will always be insufficient perhaps even worthless. I suggest that life (as complex as it is) becomes much more understandable based on keeping records of the effects of important parameters. I find it fascinating that most religions reflect on the possibility of detailed records being kept in heaven. Some think such records are for condemnation judgements by G-d – I am more of the mind that records provide a clear understanding of what, why and how things affect us as they do.

[Watcher]

Roy wrote:

That is a beautiful idea Watcher.

I had an experience that changed my understanding. In the depths of my grief over the stillbirth of my daughter, I received what I believe to be a revelation. I felt impressed that I was known, loved, and accepted by G-d just as my stillborn daughter was known, loved, and accepted by G-d. This was perplexing to me because how could me and my daughter be judged the same in G-d’s estimation? If she was so advanced that she had no need of a mortal probation and just stopped in to grab a body then surely she is greater than I am. OTOH, I have had a life full of both great achievements and great mistakes – how can I be equal with someone with a fresh slate? I conclude that G-d’s calculations of individual worth are not the same as ours.

My experience is mine alone. I do not pretend to know if it applies to anyone besides myself and my daughter. It has been rather transformative for me.

I feel that it has helped me to choose good because I like the good and not because I expect a reward for choosing good.

Thank you for your input. I enjoy reading your posts. I know it is more exciting to disagree and disagreements are more likely to cause retrospection and learning. But I also think it wise, when appropriate, to simply say that I agree.

[Watcher]

InquiringMind wrote:

I’ve been listening to, and reading about, NDEs recently. I like the stories and I think they do provide compelling evidence for the existence of an afterlife and for the existence of God. But I am somewhat bothered by the moral takeaways of them.

…………….

Many people who have NDEs are clear about this: God never judges anyone and God never punishes anyone.

Frankly, I have some problems with this. First off, if I am allowed to judge myself, what is stopping me from being extremely lenient in my judgement of myself? If I can set my own reward, what is stopping me from giving myself a much bigger reward than I probably deserve? If God will give me whatever salary I ask for, why can’t I set my salary at 100 trillion dollars? If God asks me how big of a mansion I’ve earned, what will stop me from saying that I’ve earned the biggest mansion of all time? There is a good reason why courts of law do not allow the accused to decide their own guilt or innocence – of course people are going to give themselves the most favorable judgment possible.

And this idea that God never punishes anyone. Really? Never? Not even violent criminals? Not even serial killers and mass murderers? God does not punish anyone, ever, for anything? I just can’t believe that. I completely reject that idea.

…………….

Maybe I don’t much care for God’s sense of morality.

I will begin with my personal opinion that I do not believe in near death experiences as a death experience even though I have had one or something similar to one. Frankly, there are too many inconsistencies for me. Perhaps I would be less skeptical if someone returned from an actual death experience – a returning a couple of months after being embalmed or cremated.

I would, however, speak opinion as to G-d not judging us or punishing us. As far as judging – Let us consider the “Light of Truth”. What is the point of lying when all have access to truth? Kind of like watching a video of an event or instant replay in sports. One could say that they did not grab their opponent’s face mask – but what would be the point of that, when all could see that obviously they did indeed grab their opponent’s face mask? The only possibility of a lie is the lie one tells themselves. The only one being deceived by such a lie is the one attempting to perpetuate the lie. The lie becomes its own punishment. It seems to me that; any enactment of a forced punishment (other than what someone brings upon themselves) is not in reality justice but a really poor substitute for justice. As a side note here – as a parent it seems to me, especially with small inexperienced children, that we provide punishments in order that children learn, before it is too late for them, that certain behaviors (that we have learned as adults) are more likely to eventually bring misery than joy.

As to the mansion in your example. I would reference something Jesus the Christ said about the good people in heaven. He said that the greatest in his Father’s kingdom were the servants. What is the logic in rewarding oneself with a servant’s mansion if one is expected to receive service rather than provide it? If someone finds adultery fun and exciting – why would they have any desire to spend the rest of eternity in a community where no one else would have anything to do with adultery? I have heard many say they want to be with their friends after they die. There is a saying that birds of a feather flock together. In other words – the logic is that humans tend to enjoy being around others that enjoy the same things they do.

It is very logical to me that when we go before G-d to be interviewed at what is called the final recommend interview (final judgement) that the only incentive is to be honest as to what we desire for eternity. I can imagine that G-d shows the greatest blessing of heaving (opportunities to serve) and the one being interviewed says – “That is not what I thought the highest glory of Celestial Kingdom would be.” Then G-d in his great wisdom would say, “I have a place prepared for you that is exactly what you desire.” To which once that person has seen what has been prepared that they will, with great joy, thank G-d for his wisdom, kindness and mercy. That they will be in a place that they can complete their every desire with those that desire for the same themselves as well.

[Watcher]

DarkJedi wrote:

InquiringMind wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

Here is an interesting article that shows the church is willing to support same-sex rights, while still maintaining its stance that same sex relationships are a sin:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mormon-church-comes-support-same-222005071.html

If you believe that the language in the bill will protect religious freedom, I’ve got a couple acres of ice in Antarctica that I’d like to sell you.

It seems like the Church is trying to strike a bargain here – they’ll back off from the legal issue if they are granted the religious freedom to not perform weddings they don’t want to perform.

But I think it would be naive to believe that the language in the bill will protect the Church on grounds of religious freedom. Based on what the cake-bakers had to go through to protect their religion freedom, it seems like the Church may be in for a similar battle.

I have no doubt that the church is not that naïve and would never support something like this if they weren’t sure, especially in light of all the anti-gay marriage bellowing they have done over the past few years under the guise of religious freedom.

I speculate a few things. First, is the church stand on agency and the power and freedom of choice. All peoples have certain inalienable rights – which may not be empirically completed until one is an adult (Which seems to be physically about the age of 25 as the human brain reaches it executive function capabilities development). As long as individuals do not interfere with the right of others – especially children.

Second, I have long speculated that the church will someday no longer perform marriages in the temples. Rather the ordinance of the temple will remain a religious spiritual “sealing” of covenant between a biological man and biological woman according to G-d’s laws (which is a religious right). This would allow for marriage to be defined according to the laws of the land and later made religiously completed in the temples. I believe the Church is one step a head of what most are thinking.

Third, I speculate that the Church is attempting to position itself as an institution promoting compassion and kindness toward all. As a place of refuge for those seeking Christ and the notion that through repentance; sin can be overcome and a means to free those in bondage and captivity (be it an empirical or spiritual {spiritual being a religious defination} bondage and captivity).

[Watcher]

I was 17 years old (during the Vietnam conflict) when I joined the army (finishing high school while in the army). During my deployment I was quite pleased to find anyone that could possibly connect to my background in the Church. Throughout my profession I did a great deal of traveling – including a significant amount outside of the USA. Whenever I traveled, I would make every effort to attend church.

For me meeting Church members was always an immediate connect with someone I had something in common. Often in my travels it was not always convenient to connect with the LDS church. Under such conditions I would often attend at other places of worship. Besides numerous Christian denominations I have been to Jewish, Islam, Hindu and various Buddhist places of worship. I would always introduce myself as a high priest in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and explain that I had no place to worship with those of my faith and desired to be among them for a part of the day – asking if I would be accepted. I have never been rejected but rather treated almost as royalty or something – especially in the Middle East and Asia.

Though I have had some difficulty with various individuals in religious circles – In general I have found people of religious nature to be kind, considerate and very open. I have discovered many kinder and more open (to strangers) than those of my own LDS faith. If I were to highlight any particular faith it would be Buddhism – that of all religious types seem to be the most interested in finding peace with everybody. For me, if it was not for specifics of the LDS Church, I would most likely identify myself as a Buddhist.

Never-the-less – having often found myself, alone, in a foreign place, I make great effort at home to make strangers or someone new feel welcome. Sometime with just a statement like, “Welcome, I am glad you are here”. And yet I am beginning to realize that everyone is a different individual and apparently wants to be recognized as such or in some cases not recognized but to remain in the background. Unfortunately, I am not the type that is sensitive to differences in individuals – I apologize to anyone of this forum that finds me out of place with them and their particular wants or needs.

[Watcher]

SilentDawning wrote:

Years ago I simulated the running of a factory. This was a monte carlo simulation using probability distributions as well as certain decisions under my control. The goal was to minimize inventory carrying costs while also minimizing unsold inventory — a tension that needed to be optimized) to produce the greatest profit. I was able to simulate the interaction of various variables over a couple decades of running the factory. In the end, I was able to determine, through trial and error, which set of decisions (mostly inventory order quantities, interacting with probabilistic sales figures), would produce the best result over the long term.

Around that time, I saw a video on the evolution of man. The scientists indicated there were many species of ape/human hybrids. These might last for generations but most (many) became extinct.

I started reflecting on my Monte Carlo Simulations. I reflected on the statement that to God, a day is a thousand years. It got me wondering, is our world simply a big experiment in which God is LEARNING (through eternal progression), how to create a world that has just the right balance of variables to produce his goal– ever-expanding worlds and his ability to bring to pass the eternal life of man? Were the early dead-ends of apelike/human species simply God learning to create humans as we are now? Is this a big simulation in which he is capable of observing generations upon generations interacting with each other in a second, because he can control TIME in the simulation, just as I could simulate decades of a factory operating in Excel, observing results as I went, and making adjustments? (Assume the Garden of Eden is an analogy for this life, please, and not the actual creation of man — I don’t want this to digress into Evolution versus Garden of Eden. If a day is a thousand years to God, then conceivably the world of Adam and Even was created over a long period of time so we can understand it better – each day is a creative PERIOD).

Is this world, with all its imperfections, a large laboratory in which God is experimenting with different variables during different eras to see which blend of variables produce the optimal results He is seeking? For example, the optimal mix of valiant and less valiant spirits? The optimal mix of good leaders and people predisposed to bad or evil leadership? Is he trying to create a world which allows us to progress through the opposition of good and evil, while maximizing his goal to make his Kingdom “flow unto him without compulsory means”. I take compulsory means to mean “without God’s intervention”.

Is this why our sufferings are technically “but a moment”? That to God, a lifetime is simulated with the click of a button (for lack of a better analogy). And do we receive some kind of reward in the future since He has not yet figured out how to create heaven ON earth without resorting to Satan’s plan, which was compulsory means? Is God simulating variables so he can learn how to “build a better watch” as watchmaker?

I know, from experience, that if I set up a project with the right variables in place — top leadership support, sufficient resources, training, clear objectives — and people with the right personalities and skills, I can, as a designer, facilitate phenomenal results without intervening — other than to give the team the direction I want them to go (like the scriptures do). But it took years of failing until I hit on the right variables. Is this perhaps what God is doing?

After death, He maintains his character as a JUST God by creating giving rewards and punishment for people who were part of His big experiment with a place in his Kingdom, or not — all places created by him – (through his intervention, and therfore compulsion, because there comes a time when we can’t choose which Kingdom we end up with = judgment day). He rights the wrongs, spun through his simulation of the interaction of variables, by giving the people who suffered significant compensation or punishment, to level the playing field, thus, leading to everyone agreeing that his final judgments are just?

Anyway, that is a recurring thought to me. I wondered what others thought.

********

NOte, this to me, explains why God lets evil run its course, even at the expense of the deaths of many good people, as in the holocaust. He is watching to learn from the interaction of the veraibles, when God will intervene, etcetera, so HE can make adjustments in yet another simulation, fostered by who he lets receive bodies in this world, to the extent he allows the enlightenment of technology and science, etcetera.

Some will cry foul — saying “God is Perfect and all-knowing”. But isn’t progression “ETERNAL”? Therefore, isn’t safe to say that God is in fact Perfect from our perspective but still growing in his own knowledge and wisdom? And compared to us, isn’t he all-knowing? Can being perfect and all-knowing be compatible with learning and therefore, ETERNAL progression even in God’s case?

I was looking for something else in the archive when I found this thread. This particular subject has played on my mind a great deal because what you are speaking about is directly associated with my profession (thought I am now retired). I would add some ideas to what you have introduced. I specialize in factory and distribution center automation. During my career I designed and created both simulation and emulation models. The basic difference is the detail involved in the model. For example, most emulation models included command/response communication traffic for all the robots and transport systems either with two separate computers or a loopback communication within a single computer.

Without going into all the details, when installing new or upgraded systems, we would go through a two-stage integrated testing with simulations and then emulations. First stage is with simulations which was an initial proof or validation of concept model. This proof or validation of concept itemized various throughput parameters that allowed modification of parameters to determine optimal results. The second testing type included emulators of various pieces of the system. For example, part of an emulator would echo back response communication traffic from various robots to the control system. Often there was a host emulation system above that which emulated human interfaces and reports.

This initial integrated testing could all be done and was usually done off site or separate from physical operations. In the “Pearl of Great Price”, LDS theology presents the concept of “all things” being created “spiritually” before they were physically created; the suggestion is that this spiritual creation (simulations and emulations) took place long before anything was attempted physically.

There are many reasons for pretesting simulations and emulations. Not only is it important to find flaws to fix before installation but to also gain confidence in those portions that worked properly when errors (bugs) occur. This helps isolate weak areas in the complex system. Such can also be used – as you suggested – to determine optime operations within the complex system. There is one other important aspect in all this. Knowing what initial characteristics there are for problems – the system can be monitored in the future so such conditions can be rectified during live operations so there is not a system failure shutting down operations – allowing corrections to be made to restore integrity and return to desired operations.

With the information and knowledge from pre-testing the physical system can be installed. Not only with confidence but with understanding of what to do and how to identify when the operations are not optimal. However, as various levels of the physical environment are installed that portion is tested to insure proper performance. I believe there are indications that this testing happened during the creation of our earth. Following the implantation or various cycles (days) of physical creation the creation scriptures tell us that G-d looked upon what was done and indicated it was “good”. This indicates to me that testing was taking place and what was physically in place was determined to be working according to predetermined requirements.

What I have left out is that the first step in designing a complex system is to define or create a requirements document. At this point my post is sufficiently long. And it does appear to me that G-d and his creation team are experts in their craft – from the “beginning” down to the full implementation of a carefully engineered installment of a very advanced and sophisticated complex system of intelligent life that as fare as we know and can verify is extremely rare in this universe – perhaps the only of its kind.

[Watcher]

InquiringMind wrote:

Arrakeen wrote:

I believe there is a very foundational aspect of morality baked into our genes. We are all human, therefore we want fairness, we want to love and be loved, we feel compassion at the suffering of others, we justify our anger when we feel attacked, we want to be good people but at the same time often fall victim to our selfish impulses. The most basic elements of morality are things that simply come with being human.

I used to like evolutionary psychology and it used to be an important part of my worldview, but this is a place where I think evolutionary psychology has been wrong. What evolutionary psychologists do is that they look at American and Western culture and they assume that American cultural norms are human universals, and they try to fit a model of genetic self-interest on top of American cultural norms. The result is something that looks like a genetic version of free-market competitive capitalism that probably has nothing to do with human nature. Then they announce that they can reject American culture and the Judeo-Christian moral tradition because it’s all encoded in our DNA so we don’t need religion to be moral. Further, they argue that religion is not just wrong but actively harmful, and if we have any moral sensibility we will become atheists and do everything we can to destroy religion.

It’s actually not obvious that humans should treat each other with fairness. Indeed, in Ancient Rome you’d be more likely to outrightly slaughter you enemies than to make an effort to treat them fairly. The entire concept of “human rights” was certainly not obvious enough to ancient people to be encoded in their laws (at least not by our standards), and is still not obvious to many countries around the world who still engage in egregious human rights violations. It’s actually not encoded in our DNA that you can’t go slaughter somebody just because you don’t like them or you don’t like what they’re doing, because people throughout history have done exactly that. Far from being encoded in our DNA, Western and American cultural norms – including fundamental human rights – are actually very unusual in historical context. It’s actually quite strange that we would try to treat each other with basic dignity rather than treating each other horribly, which is the historical norm.

That’s the thing about the Judeo-Christian moral tradition – if we were fish, the Judeo-Christian moral tradition would be the water that we’re swimming in, and we wouldn’t even notice it. It’s frankly preposterous to say that these norms are human universals. You can confirm this by a quick look around the world. Then the “New Atheists’ go and say that we don’t need religion to be moral, even as they themselves are living out – and benefitting from – the Judeo-Christian moral tradition.

One thing that perplexes me very much is that even within the Judeo-Christian tradition, people disagree sharply about morality, as is obvious in our political discourse. It’s not clear to me why this should be so, and it’s not clear to me what it means. If there is no objective morality, then it really doesn’t matter whether you choose Left, Right, or Center. Or Far Left or Far Right or Anarchist for that matter. If there is objective morality, then one group is right and everyone else is wrong. If all moralities are equally valid, then why am I wasting my time trying to be a productive and responsible citizen when it would be just as morally valid for me to be a slacker, a mooch, and an outlaw?

I will attempt to answer what I believe are your exceptionally brilliant questions with what I have come to believe. First, I want to redirect the problem to the great crisis of “agency” that divided heaven and created civil war in the most intelligent and advanced society of our universe. That crisis, as you pointed out, is always created whenever someone is able or capable of making a choice become reality. The obvious crisis is exactly as you framed it – if a person is allowed to make a choice become reality; what are we to do when the choice becomes critical and the choice is deliberately or accidently made to cause harm to others? The reality of the problem is that the intent of the choice eventually does not manner.

The only logical conclusion I have been able to intelligently apply is that agency must include a deliberate choice of all applicable consequences. If all applicable consequences are not understood, then I do not understand how we can say the choice is a matter of agency – rather it was an experiment in chance. Now we have an additional problem to deal with. That problem is that somehow the harm done must be rectified or there is no justice. It is also obvious (at least to me) that punishment is not justice because it does not deal with the harm that was done. Likewise, mercy (forgiveness) is not just either.

I have been unable to intelligently deal with mortality as an exercise of agency without including the LDS logic of a pre-existence and post death justly fixing of harm done because of inevitable bad choices (that cause harm) of mortality. As an extension of this dilemma, I cannot find proof that not only justice does exist, but any morals can are justified for that manner. If any choice or consequence does not maters (as expressed) also implies that even intelligence does not matter and in reality, does not exist. I base this on the scientific definition that intelligence is defined as the ability to learn and modify behavior which implies that a choice is made because of possible “learned” consequences.

It is my understanding that LDS theology (as a branch of Abrahamic religions) teaches, from the Eden epoch, that only by partaking of the fruit of tree of the knowledge of good and evil can we discover the “knowledge” of good from evil based on consequences. Our LDS theology teaches that only through a mortal existence resulting in death can we experience and thus understand consequences of the choices that cause harm – to ourselves as well as others. We are also given to believe that through the atonement of Christ the fix is made to restore all that is lost from all the harm because of choices.

Extending the concept of reinventing the wheel, we can include in our understanding of religion a vast database of human experience and logically determine morals for human society. Unless the interpretation of human experience is corrupted – which we have learned (I believe we have learned) by our human experience – inevitable cause harm. The conclusion I have come to is that for justice to exist there must be a means of enforcing it. Whatever that means is – I logically conclude defines G-d and once we have a definition of G-d we have a definition of true religion. From this I conclude that religion is not so much an adoration of G-d as it is an alignment with G-d’s bringing about justice (which I believe must include mercy and forgiveness) to resolve the inevitable experience of the harm that results from mortal life. In LDS theology this inevitable mortal experience is called “The Natural Man” which we are instructed in LDS theology is an enemy of G-d or His restoration of justice.

The problem I see in all this is, in essence, what I have already touched upon – which is that we cannot prove or demonstrate the existence of justice strictly from our mortal experience. For justice to exist there must be an enforcement of justice outside of mortality. Which explains the scripture that in essence employs the logic that if in this life (mortality) we have hope (faith) of Christ (which Christianity defines as the justice of G-d) we are of all men most miserable (harmed by injustice).

What I have intended is not to pass out to everyone my so-called card containing my definition or list of that which ought to or ought not to be defined as morality (good and evil or right and wrong). Rather, a means by which one can use their own intelligence and experience to learn for themselves what moral choices (agency) they will or intentionally choose to employ – which I believe is the concept of LDS theology of teaching correct principles and allowing the use of agency (that we individually) govern ourselves). Thus, agency is the driving principle of a morality that guarantees justice which cannot be completed in mortality. I have only discovered this logic presented in LDS theology. If it is anywhere else – I have yet to encounter it.

[Watcher]

InquiringMind wrote:

……..

I realize that this is quite a different position from many people on this forum and from many post-Mormons. I’m on the outside looking in, wishing I could find a way to believe and participate again. Most of you are probably on the inside longing to get out, gazing at the vast world beyond the Church and wishing you could indulge in all that freedom. Many of you are probably liberals wanting to get away from all those conservatives in the Church. I’m a conservative wanting to get away from all the liberals where I live and work.

I still have that pesky obstacle of not believing the beliefs. If you want to fully participate in the Church, you have to believe the gold plates were real, you have to believe that the Nephites really existed, you have to believe temples, tithing, etc etc. Trying to understand the point of view of guys like Terryl Givens and Richard Bushman has been sort of mixed for me. It seems that some people are much more predisposed to spiritual experiences than others – some people seem to regularly have prayers answered and they seem to have a host of mystical experiences, while other people try and try for years and get nothing. I’m one of the people who prayed for years and years and got nothing.

……..

I thought to respond to your post. In doing so I will apologize for my somewhat unfiltered response and tell a little bit about myself. I am retired and ended my little consulting business in industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence with the onset of COVID. In essence I am (was) a scientist and engineer by trade and happily dealt with atheists my entire career. To be honest I found working with atheists more intellectually stimulating than most theologians – I believe, for the most part that atheists are more connected to logic that theologians.

For all the responses – I am personally most impressed in the response by “Roy” and his reference to service. The point I would make is that nothing that I am aware of is accomplished without discipline. I am a 5th generation LDS member and personally believe that doctrine is the weakest link in true religion. I believe that service (helping others) is the true core of true religion and takes precedence over doctrine. I would suggest that if you feel any inclination to attend church that you do so as an act of service. I would also suggest that if you are inclined to deal with G-d or have him answer your prayers that you ask him how you can help and be of service to those in need. I am of the mind that the greatest discipline is service so also is the greatest reward and even doctrine. I have never encountered anyone that does appreciate someone willing to assist them in accomplishing important and worthwhile tasks that improve their lot of things that are of concern. Those performing service are always on the inside and for them there is no outside – just someone that need service – and then sometimes just a friend.

[Watcher]

Old-Timer wrote:

How is that different than any other recorded word that is not deemed to be scripture?

I understand what you wrote, but nothing in the last comment is unique to what religious people call scripture.

So, with that in mind:

1) Do you see all inspired writings or utterances as scripture, regardless of their origin or religious acceptance?

2) Do you accept all religious foundation texts as scripture – or just the Mormon standard works (and prophetic messages)?

3) How expansive is your definition?

4) Do you believe reasonable people can disagree, even significantly, about what constitutes scripture and the meanings of scripture – or is there one, true canon and interpretation for each tome, passage, story, verse, etc?

I will attempt to answer your questions as I currently understand inspired texts and scripture. I believe in evolution of thought because my journals and notes pertaining to scripture (and inspired texts) has evolved a great deal during my lifetime.

1) I do not classify all inspired texts as scripture. I do not even consider all of our standard LDS “scripture” as scripture. In essence I believe that there are two classifications of “scripture” as well as several levels of “scripture”. For me the first classification of scripture are revelations given concerning the laws, ordinances and covenants of the plan of salvation. These revelations I consider essential, critical and of the greatest importance. I believe this is what is meant by the “Fulness of the Gospel”. The second classification of scripture I believe are revelations given to inspire, direct, help, comfort and give understanding to those that seek divine assistance with their mortal journey that may or may not have any direct bearing on the laws, ordinances and covenants of the plan of salvation. As a side note – I do not fine scripture that beneficial in resolving doctrine and truths outside of the fulness of the gospel.

As to the levels of scripture, I believe that there are basically but not exclusively: a) to all mankind. b) to the children of the covenant (church members in general). c) to various regions which includes areas (under area authority), stakes (under stake authority), wards (under ward authority) and individuals and families (under priesthood ministering authority). I believe that I have personal scripture to which I alone am and will be held, accountable. I see no purpose in exposing others to my personal scriptures that are not invested in my personal mortal journey.

2) I am not sure how to answer your second question. I believe that every religion provides spiritual (moral) truths to which those that hear such truth will be accountable. To them such may be believed to be scripture. I have no problem with what anyone believes as long as they are true and loyal to what ever it is they believe. I also believe that no one will be accountable for truths that they are not exposed to or taught. I believe that there are nuggets of truth to be found everywhere and in all things. If I were prospecting for gold – I would search where I could or at least believed I could find the largest and most deposits of gold. Where I felt the most comfortable, the most liked or the most respected would not be a priority. Also, if I happened upon any deposits of gold by accident, even in a place I never expected to find any – I would not abandon or ignore it.

As for our LDS standards works (scripture) – I believe that they are not yet completed and that there are many things (nuggets of truth) that of necessity are needed to be revealed to complete even our “fullness of the gospel”.

3) How expansive is my definition? I believe it applies to all truths – in religion, politics or public affairs, science, mathematics, music and any other means to discover truth. I believe all truth is encompassed by G-d and revealed to us by G-d as we are able to accept it. I also believe that there are efforts to corrupt truth – so much is the power of corruption that I believe without divine help it is impossible in mortality to discern the light of truth from that which has been corrupted. I believe this from my own experiences.

4) I believe that in the quest for truth – be it science or religion (or whatever) that reasonable people will have and should have different points of view. I even believe that such points of view can be exclusionary – meaning that they are contradictory. When points of view are contradictory, I believe that one or both must have flawed elements. For me, if someone has an opinion (point of view) different than my own and it is an opinion I have not previously considered – I believe that I owe it to myself as well as them to explorer that new view as carefully as I would consider any of my own. If I have considered such a point of view previously and found it or believed that I have found it flawed – I believe I should express my understandings as best as I am able. If, however, they are offended or angered by my attempts to deal with my concerns – I will withdraw and leave then to their opinion somewhat myself concerned that there may be things I have not properly consider.

I do not believe that reasonable individuals searching for truth will be angered or offended by someone having a differing opinion. But I also believe that the more reasonable people communicate and share their points of view – meaning listening carefully to each other that they will tend toward convergence of ideas and away from divergences of concepts. I also believe that if one or both has created lines in the sand that they will not cross – that reason will have it limits and that a conscientious is doubtful at best and most likely impossible. I also consider any concept of idea that I find interesting and likely reasonable – to be unreasonable until I find conscientious with others that are willing to critically consider my concept from the standpoint of it having some flaw somewhere.

[Watcher]

Recently I observed a rather strange challenge to a general faith in electrons. I own some rental property for college students that was once an upper-class home. The problem is that it was an old home – over 100 years old. The original wiring for the home is called knob and tube. In essence the live and ground wires are wired separately in the building to various glass knobs and tubes in the wall. I have replaced 90% of the wiring because of necessity and safety. But because the power and ground are run separately it is possible to overload a ground (which will cause a fire) or have power in a ground or line to a ground inadvertently (which is confusing).

A few days ago, my tenant complained that a light in the kitchen remained on and would not turn off. This is opposite of what usually happens. I thought to fix the problem but discovered that there was no power to the light switch. My tenant was somewhat concerned that the place was haunted. They were present when I discovered that there was no power to the switch and they became quite distraught and concerned that something evil was taking over the place. I tried to calm them by suggesting that there was a reasonable explanation. I tried to explain about knob and tube wiring but quickly discovered that it was too much information for them grasp from short explanations and neither of us had the time for a long-detailed decision. So, I went with the “I am a smart engineer and I know how to fix this – just trust me” response. Though my statement was not 100% accurate – it calmed my tenant in the short term.

I have an excellent electrician that I use because he is experienced with my old place, works fast, does good work and charges reasonably. He is also licensed and bonded which protects me from lawsuits. I learned that there are things knob and tube wiring will do that I had not experienced before. A little more of my knob and tube wiring has been replaced.

I believe that there must be some knowledge before there can be faith. And that faith is an extension of the knowledge into things that we cannot explain with our current understanding and knowledge. If our knowledge is flawed then our faith will be false faith and cause misunderstanding. There is also a possibility that we can make false assumptions to extend our knowledge which is also false faith leading to misunderstandings. And yet we cannot learn without exercising faith and pushing beyond our current knowledge and understanding.

I believe faith must be tested before we can obtain knowledge. As a scientist and engineer I have learned that inadequate testing creates false hope and thinking there is knowledge when there are shades of ignorance still remaining. I find Moroni chapter 10 in the Book of Mormon applicable and interesting. This reference testifies that many different spiritual gifts are given so that faith can be tested differently by individual. And that by comparing the results of our different spiritual gifts that our testing of faith is made more complete. We can and should learn and grow with each other helping each other in our testing of faith. But this can only occur when we exercise and test our own faith by and through our spiritual gifts – and likewise those with whom we exchange our witness. I believe the question quickly becomes – how do we know when faith is being exercised and tested by and through spiritual gifts???? Not just in others but most importantly within ourselves??????

[Watcher]

Old-Timer wrote:

Sincere question, watcher:

How do you view scriptures?

I have thought about how to answer your question. To do so I think I need to deal with a number of factors that divine scripture rely upon. It is my understanding that there are two opposing principalities at work among mortals which can be summed up as light and liberating intelligence and the other is darkness and overbearance. I believe that G-d’s work and glory is the bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Which I think of in terms of ultimate liberty and freedom. In opposition, I believe that Satan’s work and glory is to bring to pass the immorality and infernal life of man. Which I think of in terms of ultimate dominance and bondage.

I see scripture in its initial offering from G-d as pure light and intelligence (as are all things of G-d) – which for man in their mortal and fallen state is incomprehensible. Therefore, in order to relate to the light and truth in scripture we, of necessity, require inspiration and guidance from a spirit of light and truth (which is the Holy Ghost). Because of our mortal and fallen state we are subjected to influences form a spirit of darkness and overbearance which of necessity (or as a default) will overcome us. To defeat darkness we must become disciplined – which I believe is the first or initial step of sacrifice.

With this background I think I can now talk about scripture. All scripture comes to us through mortal individuals. In order for such an individual to provide scripture they, of necessity, must be influenced by a spirit of light and truth (which cannot happen unless they have become somewhat disciplined). But in order for us to comprehend scripture we must be influenced by the same spirit of light and truth (which cannot happen unless we have become somewhat disciplined).

It is interesting to me that we have no “first” or “initial” copies of any scripture. All are secondary copies of copies – sometimes numerous copies of copies. I believe that the more downstream our copies of scripture the more disciplined and studied in the spirit of light and truth we must become to glean or prove to ourselves that which remains light and truth in scripture. This being because of corrupting influences to our mortal fallen state.

I do not believe any mortal can provide us with light and truth – only that spirit of light and truth. But I believe that the more we associate with other disciplined by the spirit of light and truth the “easier” it is to comprehend that which is the light of truth and the easier it is to increase our discipline. In my youth I learned to play the guitar but I found that by joining with a group and playing to gather I was able to better increase my discipline of playing the guitar. I also discovered that playing with someone undisciplined that it tended to, over time, in essence, soil my abilities.

To summarize I believe that to connect to the light and truth in scripture – we must become disciplined and influenced by a spirit of light and truth. I also believe that associating with others disciplined and influenced by a spirit of light and truth will greatly add to our ability to comprehend the light and truth of scripture. It is also interesting to me that Jesus called his followers disciples which has the same root meaning as discipline and he ask us to meet together often. I know this post is rather long but it hardly even scratches the surface. I am interested in your opinion and others as well.

[Watcher]

I am likely one of those members that is not all that helpful for those in need as addressed in this thread. I spent two years in the military before serving a mission during the Vietnam era. For me serving as a missionary was one of the easiest (and certainly most peaceful) times of my life. Especially compared to being in the military during a time of a very unpopular conflict. That said, I could use some pointers (perhaps volumes of suggestions) as to how I could be more of a help and comfort to those in need of comfort.

For 40 years I was involved in white water rafting with my family and friends. I would take as many as 60 on a white-water expedition and I would tell those with me that there are a lot of life lesson that can be learned rafting. Like it really does not matter how bad, how hard or even easy it was getting through the last hydraulic – what everyone needs to do is put the past behind them and get ready for what is coming next. I have the impression that may not always be the best attitude or help for certain people with certain problems. What is help and support for those with mental difficulties? Should there be any expectations?

[Watcher]

Old-Timer wrote:

I had an epiphany today, while driving to get auto work done, ironically, about why I love the concept of degrees of glory – even though I dislike how they are presented and explained so often. Here is how I see the core concept:

We are not punished for Adam’s transgression. This means everything we inherit as a result of being born into a fallen world carries NO punishment. Anything that might be done as “justice” for our actions caused by things we didn’t choose consciously is addressed by the Atonement, which means we are “saved” from the “natural” consequences of our less than ideal choices, as long as we are trying to change (“repent”) and continuing in our efforts (“enduring to the end”). We are free to try – and to be rewarded for our efforts, no matter the actual results.

With this framing, people generally can be categorized into three groups: those who actively choose to fight what they know they should do (Telestial); those who float along without real effort (Terrestrial); and those who try to do what they believe they are supposed to do (Celestial). There also is a very small group who understand clearly who is in authority and that the authority is legitimate and that the authority is being used correctly but consciously choose to fight it (Sons of Perdition).

For me, the key is that we humans generally have no clue who is in which category – so that “judgment” is left to a God who knows perfectly (completely, fully, and fully-developed) AND loves perfectly (with long-suffering, kindness, lack of criticism, etc.).

I also believe in eternal progression, so I see the degrees as representing a path each person walks until they personally are done.

With this framework, bolstered by decades working with under-privileged and mentally unhealthy people, I am convinced of two core beliefs:

1) The VAST majority of people are doing the best they can and will end up “higher” than they and we and others “naturally” would assume;

2) The final totals in each kingdom will be highest (by a HUGE margin) in the Celestial kingdom and smaller as the kingdoms “descend” in glory.

I like your thinking. If I may, I would add some thoughts. The first thought is about agency. I am thinking that agency means that nothing is forced upon anyone – in the end it is or was always their choice. Choices have consequences but this means that we exercise agency as we choose our consequences. As I am thinking about this, I must be careful not to make this post excessively long.

Because of the principle of agency – I speculate that the fall included our choice in the pre-existence to take part with Adam and Eve in the fall. It is interesting to me that the name “Adam” in the ancient Hebrew meant “mankind”; likewise, Eve meant “the mother of all living”. I speculate that because of the principle of agency, everything we experience in this mortal life is a result of our exercise of agency. Before going farther, I am impressed to make a very important point to not judge anything in this life – that we do not choose in this life – as being a sin or a result or consequence of sin. More along the line of a responsibility or burden we are willing to experience or carry in mortality for reasons we may not understand — Yet. I could suggest some of my ideas but the problem with this is that such ideas may fit with the scenarios of how I see my life and not so much for others.

This gets me to my next and final thought for now on this subject. As we read and study the gospel principles of the plan of salvation it is my understanding that the explanations of the various glories of the resurrection is not so we can point to others and condemn or judge them worthy or not worthy of whatever glory. Rather these explanations are given as a warning to us as individuals not to become attached so much to certain things that we will be willing to exercise our agency for the pleasures of lower glories over the intelligence and exaltations of higher glories. In other words, for example, if we come to desire adultery over the discipline of chastity, we will likely end up choosing the telestial glory as the final judgement or final expression of our agency. The point here is that no one has the right to express anyone else’s agency. And as I understand – not even G-d intends to supplant the agency of others and force them to choose what he would.

It is my belief that we will tell G-d what glory we will be resurrected to based on the true desires of our hearts – not the other way around (as all other religions seem to infer – that G-d, gods or karma will judge such things for themself or itself and force such will upon us and that we will therefore not choose heaven or hell.) I speculate that such thinking come from Satan that intends to destroy agency and not the G-d that grants to each their agency.

[Author]

Posts