paper-machine comments on Theism, Wednesday, and Not Being Adopted - Less Wrong

56 Post author: Alicorn 27 April 2009 04:49PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (320)

Comments (320)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 18 May 2011 09:48:59PM * 3 points [-]

You are free to read section 89 where it is so forbidden to see why.

As a means of procrastinating, I looked up section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants, if that's what it's called. The "why" seems to be that there are people with insufficient willpower to resist caffeine or alcohol addiction (1).

So what? There are people without the willpower to resist chewing ice. Shouldn't the Mormons ban ice?

(1) Wait! I have to be careful here. It never mentions either caffeine or alcohol! It's specifically "grape wine" addiction and "hot drink" addiction -- though Word of God is that hot drink means tea and coffee, curiously excluding soda.

Comment author: Alicorn 18 May 2011 10:10:45PM 2 points [-]

hot drink means tea and coffee, curiously excluding soda.

Curiously including iced tea and iced coffee and curiously excluding hot cocoa and warm cider, too.

Comment author: JohnH comment score below threshold [+] (6 children)

Comment author: shokwave 18 May 2011 10:56:31PM 4 points [-]

that is an assumption that many people make

It's a reasonable assumption, that's why. When we see something nonsensical like "hot drink addiction" which doesn't actually exists in meaningful quantities in the world, we instinctively repair that phrase. The closest sensible meaning is "caffeine addiction", because caffeine is in the hot drinks prohibited, and "caffeine addiction" is something that is in the world in meaningful quantities.

There are a few other things I would like to bring up but my experience with your previous postings indicate to me you come from an unalterable epistemic state. That is, you do not see the need to provide reasons other than God or revelation. I can't do anything with that.

Comment author: JohnH comment score below threshold [+] (2 children)

Comment author: shokwave 20 May 2011 04:30:12AM * 0 points [-]

If God is real and is all knowing then when He says something then that is the way it is. How is that not consistent?

If X then Y

Therefore Y

This is the form of your statement (X is "God is real and all knowing" and Y is "Things are the way He says they are") and I fully agree it is consistent. It is the second step - X is true - that you have not taken. "If X then Y, X, therefore Y" does not assert the truth of X, it conditions the truth of Y on the truth of X.

By way of analogy, there are many mathematical systems that are consistent yet do not apply to reality (in some senses, I believe, they are more consistent than the system(s) that do apply to reality!). Asserting their consistency will not make them apply to reality.

I have the belief that there are reasons for what God does and what is in revelation.

This is already deeply nested and derailed so I don't feel bad pursuing this - could you please tell me what brought you to this belief (that there are reasons for what God does)? Be as concrete as possible, if you could!

Comment author: JohnH 20 May 2011 05:29:44AM -1 points [-]

X is true - that you have not taken

I assume you mean by this that I have not proven to your satisfaction that X is true? I have presented to you most things that are easily with in my reach to show that God is real or to show ways to prove to yourself that God is real.

Consistency doesn't make it apply to reality but I feel it is a necessary prerequisite to doing so.

could you please tell me what brought you to this belief?

For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Moses 1:39

Then the knowledge that God is a glorified and perfected man, that is when it says "in our image and likeness" it wasn't being figurative and that when Christ says He only does what He saw His Father do He was speaking literally. Also, "the glory of God is intelligence". Also, the fact that if God did not act consistently then He would cease to be God, as per the Book of Mormon. Also, the fact that when Jesus said that life eternal was knowing God He was telling the truth and God is knowable.

Therefore God has a purpose, He acts consistently, and He is understandable, and He was human but is now perfectly intelligent. Therefore He has reasons for everything that He does.

Comment author: [deleted] 18 May 2011 11:28:42PM * 2 points [-]

Caffeine is not what is prohibited, that is an assumption that many people make but that is not well founded as there are many things that contain caffeine that are allowed.

See the footnote under (1).

The argument remains: if the reason behind section 89 is the principle that because there exist people too weak to resist the addiction of X, then we must ban X, the prohibitions of section 89 are at least laughably incomplete, and at most incoherent.

If, on the other hand, this isn't the reason behind the prohibitions of section 89, then there is no other reason stated. So the assertion that "You are free to read section 89 where it is so forbidden to see why." is false, because there is no "why" given.

Also see Explaining vs. Explaining Away.

Comment author: JohnH 18 May 2011 11:51:04PM -2 points [-]

the prohibitions of section 89 are at least laughably incomplete

Please remember it was given in 1833 and that there is continuing revelation such that many other substances not listed in the section 89 are likewise banned. Also, please note that in vs 3 it states that it is given for a principle so that if one is too weak to resist the addiction of X then that person should avoid X, that is the principle (well, the one that gets the most attention at least)

God does not command in all things and we are to be taught correct principles and then govern ourselves. Hence the reason that vegetarianism is perfectly acceptable to the church. Also the reason that God was not required to list all of the substances that would in the future need to be banned.

paper-machine comments on Theism, Wednesday, and Not Being Adopted - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (320)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (320)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login