paper-machine comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013) - Less Wrong

27 Post author: orthonormal 01 April 2013 04:19PM

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

Comments (1750)

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

Comment author: atomliner 14 April 2013 09:33:37PM *  0 points [-]

I am going to make a prediction that you likely grew up in a smaller community in Utah or Eastern Idaho.

Wrong. I moved to Utah already an atheist. I didn't grow up in any one area, my family moved several times when I was younger. For example, I lived in Arizona, California, Georgia, and North Carolina before moving to Utah. The state I feel most confident in calling my home is California, since I lived there from 2004 to 2009.

In regards to the Journal of Discourse quote, the actual doctrine that Brigham Young is talking about it is very much emphasized and is found in the D&C, the Book of Abraham, and explicitly in the Temple. A dead giveaway is his reference to philosophers, he isn't talking about us being aliens but that our spirits always existed and come from where God is rather then being created at birth as thought in the rest of Christianity.

I highly disagree that this is what Brigham Young actually intended to teach. For example, in another part of the Journal of Discourses he says:

Though we have it in history that our father Adam was made of the dust of this earth, and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world, and was the chief manager in that operation. He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle. LINK

It does not seem at all that he is talking about the creation of their spirits, but the creation of their bodies.

Given this and your explanation of The God Delusion I take it you aren't that familiar with non-LDS Christian philosophy and the vast differences between us and them.

I have to admit I didn't regard myself as extremely familiar with Christian philosophy before my de-conversion, but I've learned a great deal since coming home from my mission. However, I don't think this was a very fair assessment of my knowledge on your part. There is nothing I've written that gives strong evidence for me being ignorant of Christian and Mormon theology. It seems to me you want to de-legitimize what I have to say by painting me as unintelligent and inexperienced with my own religion. Now, do you really think a person who has studied the Journal of Discourses wouldn't also most likely be a person who has spent a lot of time and energy investigating the rest of Mormon theology? I mean, a scholar I am not but I definitely know my way around Mormonism, more than most Mormons I know at the very least.

The church has not changed at all its position on same-sex marriage and just filed an amicus brief on the subject. I can see how your conclusion on the subject was drawn though.

There is a big difference between an "official position" and what is taught in the chapel and at the dinner table.

Comment author: JohnH 15 April 2013 03:40:15AM -1 points [-]

Since it appears that you grew up in a pluralistic society then I have no idea why you considered everyone different then you to not be a good person and feel you were never exposed to the idea that they possibly could be a good person. Considering that Jesus (Matthew 25:40), Paul (Romans 2), Nephi, Benjamin, Alma, and Moroni all say that it is action more then belief that defines who is saved, who has faith, and who is good, happy and healthy then I don't know how it was a shocking revelation that those who do not have the law but that act by nature according to law are just as much blessed as those that have the law.

I fail to see how blood atonement, Adam-God, racist theology, and polygamist theology gave you the slightest impression that the Journal of Discourses was a good source of doctrine. It is my personal experience that generally those that spend the most time reading it are those least familiar with the gospel, on either end of the spectrum. The biggest fans of the Journal of Discourses seem to be those that are trying to prove the church wrong and those that are seeking "deep" doctrine while ignoring the weightier parts of the gospel, by which I mean those that try to square Adam-God statements or that speculate on the location of the ten tribes or Kolob.

For instance nearly everyone that has taken the time to figure out what Christians say of God in their arguments for God and what the D&C says on the subject quickly realize that the two are wholly incompatible. That those beliefs on God and the arguments in favor of those beliefs are mixing Greek philosophy with scripture to synthesis a new belief. Not that members of the church are not also guilty of mingling the philosophies of men with scripture, that is a very common occurrence as you note with "what is taught in the chapel and the dinner table", me, I tend to focus on the current authorized messengers from God and the Holy Spirit as I feel that is what I have been instructed to do.

Comment author: [deleted] 15 April 2013 05:37:35AM 4 points [-]

I tend to focus on the current authorized messengers from God and the Holy Spirit as I feel that is what I have been instructed to do.

Who authorizes messengers from God? It's not like He has a public key, after all...

Comment author: JohnH 15 April 2013 05:23:37PM 0 points [-]

Who authorizes messengers from God?

God obviously.

It's not like He has a public key,

There are actually quite a few rules given to determine if a messenger is from God. Jesus for instance said "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself", then there is the qualification in Deuteronomy, the requirement in John, the experiment in Alma, the promise in Moroni, and some details in the D&C. It is somewhat of a bootstrapping problem as one must already trust one of those sources, or the person presenting those sources, enough to move forward in trying to verify the source and messenger.

Comment author: MugaSofer 15 April 2013 10:32:33AM -2 points [-]

Well, the usual method is to simply check if they're consistent with earlier messages. Which is great until you remember that the Devil can quote scripture to his purpose.

The canonical method, on the other hand, is to check if the messenger professes Jesus as Lord, since as we all know demons can't do that, so by process of elimination it must be an angel (and therefore true.)

No, I don't know what you're supposed to do if it's a hallucination.

Comment author: [deleted] 15 April 2013 04:00:30PM -1 points [-]

we all know demons can't do that

Can't they?

Comment author: MugaSofer 19 April 2013 02:30:04PM -1 points [-]

Nope. Well-known fact.

Seriously, that's official doctrine, that is. Actually, come to think, don't some demons call him Lord in the NT?

Comment author: CAE_Jones 19 April 2013 03:06:19PM 2 points [-]

Jesus goes so far as to discourage both humans and demons from telling people about his Messiahship; demons tended to be pretty quick to start yelling about how he was the messiah/could torment them /etc. Legion is the most memorable case, but I seem to remember an incident from earlier on in Jesus' life when he had to silence a demon that was revealing his identity (maybe it was in Luke?).

Comment author: MugaSofer 19 April 2013 05:21:16PM *  -1 points [-]

And yet, I've read that piece of, um, advice in books by at least one actual exorcist; a pretty high-level one at that. It appears to be the official Thing To Do in response to a questionably divine visitation.

Yes, I read books on exorcism. Don't judge me.