[wordsleuth23]

I don’t have a problem with the number of Temples being built, but I do disagree with the extravagancey of them. I recognize that the Church does a lot of humanitarian/charity work, but in Africa alone, 10-15 million children die every year because they can’t get clean drinking water. Why not build less expensive Temples, and use the money saved to provide clean drinking water to starving kids. It’s similar to the idea of fast offerings, just on a much grander scale. It doesn’t have to be just African kids, people all over the world, and our country, are impoverished and they really have no hope without some form of charity. The Church could do more in this area.

[wordsleuth23]

A former BYU philosophy professor–now at UVU–Jeffrey Nielsen, wrote a book called “The Myth of Leadership: Creating Leaderless Organizations”. If I’m reading things accurately, the early Church was a lot like this. I’m not a big fan of hierarchies–they seem to stifle innovation. The creation of so many organizations with hierarchies by Joseph strikes me as someone that got used to, and liked, power.

As for today’s Church, with the hierarchy we have in place, how do we innovate? How do we change the 80/20 dynamic, if its even that high? If SP’s are the ones that get to pass on ideas to GA’s, we’re not going to get much change. Most SP’s become SP’s by toeing the line, being good, faithful, orthodox members. They like being SP’s, and they aren’t looking to rock the boat and be viewed as rebellious, so they aren’t going to pass on unorthodox views to GA’s. If your luck enough to get a Bishop with less than orthodox views, you might see minor changes in the ward, but the odds that the SP is going to feel the same way are slim. My bishop isn’t terribly orthodox, but my SP is. My bishop has taken some ideas to the SP and they get rejected–stopping the innovation.

[wordsleuth23]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

As to my point about human beings, I actually meant that human bodies are so NOT ideal that it seems to be not designed by someone perfect but rather by someone who simply used him/herself as the best design. All meaningless speculative “pass the bong” theorizing of course.

That’s an interesting take. Viewing human bodies as not ideal, and then believing that a less than perfect being created us is a big leap. How did this less than perfect being create everything? What powers/character traits does this flawed God have?

[wordsleuth23]

Bruce in Montana wrote:

Scientific and historical evidence is indeed important but, I respectfully submit, we should keep that in perspective and not fall into worshipping science instead of diety.

It wasn’t long ago that science proved the earth to be flat, etc…. In a hundred years or so, IMHO, our science will be considered primitive, full of errors, and maybe even laughable. Just look at the science from 100 years ago….

I agree that science will progress a lot over the next 100 years, but the good thing about science is that it is self correcting, and it continues to add to its overall knowledge base. That means that errors in science now are much smaller than they were 100 years ago. Also, it isn’t “worshipping” science, it’s respecting the method, and that method has given us all the progress we see in this modern world. Can we thank religion for any progress in this world? Vaccines? Planes? Cars? Scientific advancements may not be “good” for traditional, fundamentalist religious views, but it is good for humanity.

[wordsleuth23]

jmb275 wrote:

wordsleuth23 wrote:

The most complete, thorough explanation for human existence is evolution–at least the process, not the why. All of the flaws you pointed out–weak skin, can’t breath underwater, etc. are great examples of evolved species. Evolution is a messy, brutal process, which makes me doubt it would be a method employed by a God capable of creating all this.

That’s an interesting viewpoint ws. Have you ever heard of genetic algorithms? It’s a technique used in solving non-linear systems that is patterned after evolution. I have implemented a couple of them and I think they’re quite beautiful, and brilliant (albeit very slow computationally). They solve problems that our limited mathematical systems can’t solve. They are closely related to stochastic methods of solving such problems such as simulated annealing, and they share a lot in common.

Often in engineering, when mathematics don’t work, we resort to more methods based on nature. Genetic algorithms, neural networks, monte carlo methods all are patterned after nature and are much better at solving real world problems that can’t be solved with mathematics.

I’ve heard of Genetic algorithms, but math isn’t my best subject Anyway, I should have added effective after messy and brutal. jmb, have you read “The Selfish Gene” or “Did Man Create God?”; they both describe evolution as brutal, like viruses, bacteria, parasites, etc. So yes, evolution is brutal, messy, and effective. By the way, that is pretty cool that you implemented some genetic algorithms.

[wordsleuth23]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

God being a perfected human is just the best explanation I have for human existence. Why would a unifying creative energy force create sentient life among bi-pedal humans rather than whales or turtles? What sets us apart from the rest of the animals is our self-awareness and ability to grow our intelligence. Humans bodies are not superior to that of some of our animal brethren. We have skin that can be permeated, unlike the strong exoskeletons of insects. In fact armor mimics that better construct. We have less tolerance for variation in temperature than many species. We typically only reproduce one live offspring at a time, and our gestation period is one of the longer ones. Our life cycle isn’t the longest. We can’t breathe underwater or move from water to land the way some species can. If God doesn’t look like us and it turns out to be a happy accident that we evolved into a sentient species, I can accept that. It just seems more coincidental (to me) than the idea that God is a perfected human.

The most complete, thorough explanation for human existence is evolution–at least the process, not the why. All of the flaws you pointed out–weak skin, can’t breath underwater, etc. are great examples of evolved species. Evolution is a messy, brutal process, which makes me doubt it would be a method employed by a God capable of creating all this. In my eyes, man created God, not the other way around, and that is why we have logical contradictions with a definition of God. I’m reading a book right now called “The Evolution of God” that shows the gradual changes from primeval religion, up to today, and how God has evolved in the process. If we didn’t create God, then the God that exists resembles nothing like any religion describes him today. So Tom, you’re right that if I accept this view, there is no problem of evil.

[wordsleuth23]

Orson wrote:

wordsleuth23 wrote:

…but no evidence confirms Church claims…

My take is well represented in the question: “Is it supposed to?” I know that is a little different from many members, but at the heart of it I don’t think it’s that different.

Yes, I used to think that physical evidence was supposed to confirm something from our teachings. Today I see things differently. Yes, this can be a “painful” transition – but also a wonderful one….http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=642

Orson, the thread you directed me to is definitely related–thanks. As for your question, “Is it supposed to?” Yes, if the Church is true/real. Consider the following scenario: FARMS researches find original scrolls, that carbon date to the time Lehi was alive according to the BoM, and they talk about Lehi, Nephi, Laman, etc; would the Church tout this evidence in defense of the BoM? Absolutely. It can’t be both ways, disregarding negative evidence, yet accepting positive evidence. If historical truths really didn’t matter, then no one in the Church would cite them, or attempt to prove their reality, but they do–look at the history of the Egyptian Papyrus Scrolls and the PoGP. Whether every historical thing can be confirmed or not isn’t the main issue, the bigger problem is the number of historical truths that contradict the BoM, PoGP, Joseph’s stories, etc. No evidence is better than contrary evidence.

[wordsleuth23]

Tom Haws wrote:

wordsleuth23 wrote:

If God isn’t real to you, then there is still no problem of evil. Right? You wouldn’t worry about a problem that doesn’t really exist, would you? Am I misunderstanding? Can you restate the problem in terms that don’t refer to God?

Since I believe in being honest, here is what I really believe “the problem of evil” is. It is a projection of disbelief onto a concept that is believed to be unreal. It is those for whom God is unreal trying to be experts on that which they believe not to exist. Set up a God who can’t exist and prove it doesn’t exist. Would it be accurate to call that “straw man” reasoning? I believe that may be what is happening around the concept of “problem of evil”.

In my reality, as (I assume) in yours, there is no such problem because there is no such God.

Tom, the reason it’s called the “problem of evil” is because it creates a problem for the kind of God mainstream religion believes in. It doesn’t mean their can’t be a higher power, it just means that the current most common definition of God is lacking. It doesn’t even mean their isn’t a Mormon God if faith is placed above reason, which works well for lots of people. No, it isn’t a straw man argument since it is based off of the common description of God, given by Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Am I wrong there? I know I’ve heard the description–omnipotent/omniscient–from primary to gospel doctrine. Once again, it doesn’t mean there is no God, just not one like the latter religions–themselves–have described.

The amount of evil in the world is one reason some people don’t believe in God, or don’t believe in a God that is involved with humanity, hence the problem. The debate is humans, attempting to explain God through reason, which is the best option we have for “proving” anything, since we don’t have evidence, and all problems get rerouted back to faith by religious organizations. It makes perfect sense for people to try and reason/explain how God can exist, and what “it” would be like. This kind of debate gets really interesting when you get into the Philosophy of Language–which is one of the few tenets of philosophy that is quite applicable to everyone.

Tom, at the end of the day, the amount of evil in this world gives me–personally–real doubts about God. It isn’t a superficial argument to me; it may be to you. I’m not attempting to degrade your beliefs, you strike me as a humble, open-minded person, that doesn’t condemn people for believing differently, and I respect you for that. I’ve enjoyed reading peoples responses to this question, since I had only discussed it in non-religious forums before this. I’m not looking for concrete “answers” to my doubts, just interesting responses, and you’ve provided that. Thanks.

[wordsleuth23]

Tom Haws wrote:

wordsleuth23 wrote:

I remain skeptical, and I still can’t reconcile all the suffering/evil with a loving, benevolent, powerful God, but I hope I’m wrong.

The idea that we are all complicit, every one of us, in the “beautiful mess” doesn’t click with you?

Have you read many near death stories? If you want to read some, be sure you read at least 2 dozen (not books, just the web version of the stories such as at http://www.near-death.com or http://www.iands.org/nde_archives/experiencer_accounts/ )

Tom, I understand your point of view, and respect it, but I don’t believe it. Regardless of the issue, one can choose a supernatural explanation, or a natural one; to me, the natural ones make more sense and usually have more evidence. Near death experiences are actually explained quite well by science now. Scientists have created a special helmet that can induce near death experiences by stimulating the brain in a certain way; surgeons can induce them by stimulating certain areas of the brain during brain surgery. I believe that is all that is happening when someone has a NDE, but to some, they are proof of an afterlife. I can understand that, but the scientific explanation makes more sense, and it has more evidence.

[wordsleuth23]

Old-Timer wrote:

ws, I qualified “mortal” experiences with the quoatation marks, but it might have been a more accurate reflection of my own current leaning to say something like “growth” experiences. “Mortal” is such a narrow word in this context. I tend to think in life stages, and, while each current stage is the most important, I like to believe in multiple stages. Maybe we all have only one “mortal” stage; maybe we have more than one; I like to think we have multiple stages, whatever their “form”.

I think your views actually tie into mainstream Mormonism well. Correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t Church leaders taught that children who die get the chance to be raised by their parents in heaven–maybe it was McConkie. Even if that isn’t right, the Church certainly teaches that we can grow and progress–in essence, another “form” of life–in heaven until we become God-like. Ultimately, whether its reincarnation, or Church teachings about heaven, I remain skeptical, and I still can’t reconcile all the suffering/evil with a loving, benevolent, powerful God, but I hope I’m wrong.

[wordsleuth23]

This is from an article in Scientific American, by Michael Shermer. It sums up my view on the Church’s claims, why/whether the history matters, and how they can overcome the issues/problems the history and evidence create:

“Science begins with the null hypothesis, which assumes that the claim under investigation is not true until demonstrated otherwise. The statistical standards of evidence needed to reject the null hypothesis are substantial. Ideally, in a controlled experiment, we would like to be 95 to 99 percent confident that the results were not caused by chance before we offer our provisional assent that the effect may be real. Failure to reject the null hypothesis does not make the claim false, and, conversely, rejecting the null hypothesis is not a warranty on truth. Nevertheless, the scientific method is the best tool ever devised to discriminate between true and false patterns, to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and to detect baloney. The null hypothesis means that the burden of proof is on the person asserting a positive claim, not on the skeptics to disprove it…To be fair, not all claims are subject to laboratory experiments and statistical tests. Many historical and inferential sciences require nuanced analyses of data and a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry that point to an unmistakable conclusion.”

The claims made by the Church can, and have/are, been tested; so far, the tests don’t confirm anything Joseph claimed. Until evidence starts to show some level of accuracy in the BoM, PofGP, etc, I can’t believe. I know that isn’t how a lot of you feel, and I know that isn’t compatible with faith and religion, but no evidence confirms Church claims, while the current convergence of evidence says the Church isn’t true.

[wordsleuth23]

Old-Timer wrote:

ws, there is another equally plausible option if God does exist – some sort of multiple opportunities for “mortal” experiences.

We know SO little from an eternal perspective, but there are fascinating snippets in some of our scriptures and the temple that make me wonder – and our own eternal progression model is MUCH closer to reincarnation than to its Protestant “one shot” philosphy. I understand from a motivational / psychological perspective why the Church leadership can’t talk about or encourage such ideas formally, but I personally lean toward that belief.

Ray, you make an interesting point; I hope you’re right. I seem to notice suffering children a lot more now that I have my own kids; if those that suffer the most get another shot at mortality in some way, that would make the suffering I see easier to swallow.

[wordsleuth23]

jmb275 wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

I’ve said often that I try to see others from the past the same way I hope they see me – stupid and clumsy and wrong oh so many times, but sincere and loving and kind and trying my best. I really do think that describes the VAST majority of people, and I’d rather be wrong with this view about individuals than be wrong with a more condemning view – since it really isn’t about them in the end but rather about how my perspective affects who I become.

Ray I appreciate your view on this. The one big difference I see however, is that you aren’t claiming to be a savior, or claiming to be starting a new religion, or claiming to have found a set of Gold Plates and writing a book, or claiming to have any definitive answers to life’s problems. Those who preach most aggressively, self-assured of their ideas are the ones that are judged most harshly. And if those people have led others astray (or so we perceive), we still may be wrong to judge them, but certainly we can make judgements about whether or not to believe them.

If I am history, I want to be remembered for questioning, always looking for some answers, skeptical when skepticism is warranted based on experience and history, but believing when moved to by some transcendent god. I do not want others to agree with me, but enjoy their cognitive diversity. I hope people recognize me as being satisfied with my position as just another voice in the collective wisdom of the human race.

Well said jmb.

[wordsleuth23]

Tom Haws wrote:

Call me blind and foolish, but the problem of evil just doesn’t wash with me.

Given: We entered this world freely

Given: We knew it was full of rapes, murders, and hurricanes

Therefore: What’s the problem? Surely on the way out the door we said, “…Be back soon; wish me luck.” We all signed the disclaimer that no matter what happened we would not cry foul. We are all complicit.

Answer: The problem with evil is that it hurts. The reason that seems to be a problem is we forget a) it’s supposed to hurt and b) we signed the disclaimer.

We KNOW there is an enormous amount of evil in this world; we don’t know that we “signed up for it”. Did little, starving kids in Africa sign up for for tiny life spans of suffering? The World Health Organization estimates that between 10 and 15 million children die from starvation and thirst every year. The idea that they signed up for that doesn’t work for me. If God is real, and he did create this earth, with a plan for all of us, evil should have a purpose. I don’t think that evil is just something inadvertantly thrown in on the side if God did create us, and if that’s the case, what is the purpose of all the useless suffering? Yeah, I’m not buying the idea that its as easy as a contract being signed. The most logical answer is that God isn’t omnipotent or he isn’t omnibenevolent, or that he doesn’t exist; ultimately we can’t know.

[wordsleuth23]

I know you introduced yourself a while ago, so this a bit late. I can completely relate to your story. If it wasn’t for my amazing wife, I would have left the Mormon community years ago. Having said that, I’m still here, and I’m doing my best to tolerate it, and when I can, to be supportive of my wife and the callings she holds. I don’t know when or if, I will ever get to a point where I’m comfortable at Church, but I will stay “active” for my wife.

[Author]

Posts