When I study the Abrahamic Covenant, restored to LDS church members through authority, the idea that we are “the Lord’s Chosen people” does not mean we are chosen, per se. But means that we are called to bring the message to all the other children and through the authority restored, bless them. (see Bible Dictionary for better description than what I can say here).

Because of that, I like to view a loving God blessing and helping ALL his children, just like I want to help all my kids even though they are all different. I sometimes have one child help another child with chores or homework because it benefits the one helping in actually learning the principles they are helping the other child with by having to explain it, and it also helps create opportunities for relationships and bonds to make special experiences.

The idea that those in the church are “better” or will be saved, while those “outside” the church are disadvantaged to God’s love or blessings or exaltation, to me goes against the gospel taught by Jesus Christ.

The descendants of Aaron possibly had the most stringent restrictions, had to work the hardest with temple rites and seen as the most peculiar.

My point is I can know this church is true, with out automatically damming everyone outside my faith with the brush of lesser in some way or another.

Eileen, we don’ t have binding referenda in the case of Light Rail for the beach, so it has required both a voter referendum and a City Council vote to“ pass” – or construct Light Rail. I am sorry for the confusion. Let me try to clarify what may…

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=165&#entry319126

A.

The term “natural laws” is still an enigma despite the continuous efforts of Science and Theology to define it and to give a meaning to it; even though we are embodiments of it and refer to it profusely we are still far from comprehending it.

Linguistically the “laws of nature” are empirical or scientific generalizations that describe empirically or scientifically observed and defined recurring facts or events or processes in nature.

The prime yet unanswered question about the laws of nature is “whence and how natural laws come about”.

B.

I do not attempt to search/review/discuss/assess the many proposed conjectures-answers to the subject question. Just suggesting my own conjecture:

Singularity and D-Infinity, maximum cosmic space expansion since Big Bang, are the alternating cosmic start-and-end states. The cosmos alternates between expansion and impansion. The in-between state is a metastable state, which is an everyday commonsense experience, that the denser the compacting goal the more energy need be invested and, vice versa, the more thorough the disintegration the higher the amount of energy released. It seems that E=mC^2 is a specific case of the cosmic (and universal) process E=Total[m(1+D)] where D is the Distance from Big Bang point and the sum is of all spatial values of D from D=0 to D=selected value.

[BTW, (Nov 9 2006), following Newton (1) gravity is decreased when mass is decreased and (2) acceleration of a body is given by dividing the force acting upon it by its mass. By plain common sense the combination of those two 'laws' may explain the accelerating cosmic expansion of galaxy clusters, based on the above E/ m/ D suggested relationship.]

Since the Universe (including its sub-systems, also Life) is a continuously evolving fractal system, ergo energy is the base element of everything. Cosmic evolution is evolution of energy. At the beginning of the present cosmic cycle was the energy singularity. At its end there will be a small amount of mass and an infinite dispersion of the beginning energy. In-between, the universe undergoes continuous evolution, consisting of myriad energy-to-energy and energy-to-mass-to-energy transformations.

Cosmic impansion will come about to replace expansion and evolve towards singularity when gravity will begin to overcome expansion, when the strain of the stretching space-time matrix will no longer be overcome by the continuously diluting expansion forces.

C.

So whence and how do natural laws come about?

The laws of nature are products of the cosmic evolution, the evolution of energy, that consists of myriad energy-to-energy and energy-to-mass-to-energy transformations.

D.

And a relevant minor question is “who hijacks science”?, who claims-pretends to have the Scientific Answers that we do not have?

The answer to this question is that the hijackers are, broadly, of two general types:

- those who consider themselves, or are considered by others, to be scientists, but posit as scientific findings conjectures that involve some degree of bone fida scientific consideration, and

- those who consider themselves, or are considered by others, to be theologians, and posit that all scientific matters already discovered and yet to be discovered emanate from their deity that is the creator of the cosmos including whatever is brought to our comprehension via science.

Conjecturing,

Dov Henis

I like your post. I was in touch with a member of another faith online and it caused me to write a post recently called “The Church of Jesus Christ”. I would be interested to hear some of your comments of what I wrote. View it here:

http://graceforgrace.com/2008/01/20/the-church-of-jesus-christ/

The point is simply to live my brother…..cherishing the opportunity of “life”.

You should know that there are many people who live virtuous lives of service and peace without the expectation of some reward, such as exaltation. And that there are many people who do not perform their good deeds because of a fear of damnation.

People who don’t have a need to rationalize things not understood with irrational theory.

I do not expect that my son should believe in me as so much that he finds and believes in himself and lives a wonderful life.

How many wars fought and lives lost in the name of some religion?

One should not fear the atheist.

‘I mearly state the classic definition of Atheism: “The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is “not believing in any gods.”’

I didn’t question your definition but your characterization, which I obviously did not clearly state.

“you didn’t fully read what I wrote.”

Firstly, you didn’t seem to read what I wrote. I stated that we can adequately justify morality through evolutionary means. It is explained by the fact that those who cooperate have better chances to survive. By killing your neighbor or attacking the neighboring tribe/group naturally means that one will be attacked in turn thereby minimizing one’s/group safety, food gathering, sustainable shelter, and basic necessities. If the action adversely affects the group, it is a behavior that is punished or frowned upon. Furthermore, religious morality is completely subjective to the area of the world you belong. Yet, basic things such as murder, theft, lying, and adultery are universally abhorred because it damages the community/society/tribe. Ergo, some common thread, evolution, suggests that altruism is a good thing to have in the genetic line. Again, I don’t expect you to take my word for it, but don’t say that those who are atheist or agnostic don’t have an adequate explanation if you haven’t studied what science has to say about moral development.

Secondly, am I to take it that your opinion is the Bible and Book of Mormon are the epitome of morality? Books that glorify war and killing in the name of God? I find greater morality in the teachings of Buddha, Taoism, and Jainism. One can find nearly every moral teaching espoused in these two books in other more ancient texts.

Thirdly, if atheism is essentially amorality as you suggest, then there should be an inordinate amount of atheists in prison, right? Yet, statistics clearly show that the prison population is very close to what the general population is (except where atheism itself is a crime), which is that in the U.S. the majority of prisoners are Christian or some other religion.

Fourthly, countries like Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, in fact, most of Europe, should have huge crime rate due to the fact that they are pre-dominantly secular countries with high percentages of atheism and agnosticism. Yet, we see a lower crime rate in those countries than here in the States.

You’ve stated a couple of times that “I was just stating my opinion.” Fine, I accept that, but when your opinion states falsely that atheists have no meaning nor justification for what we see as truth, I will call you on it. Just because you are unable to see meaning without a god doesn’t mean that everybody holds to your standard of meaning. I gave you my meaning for life. You can say that it is because of deity and that’s fine, and I don’t care. I do care, however, about the stereotypes and the insensitive generalities you’ve advocated regarding the way atheists supposedly view life. That is why I have responded.

I would say that most mormons and many christians think they have an answer to that question. It is obviously based on faith and I am also sure you also know the answer.

For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors. Alma 34:32.

So, if we are not doing that, then what are we doing here?

“For someone to truly be atheistic, then what is the point of life?” As a practicing Mormon with an existential bent, I couldn’t resist responding to this. If you really think about it, what is the point of life for anyone? Even if one believes in God, there is no final answer to the “Why” question.

In response to:
”In order to correctly understand what the “one true Church” claim truly means, we first need to understand what it does not mean.”

You may be safer by qualifying your statement with a “at the present time as I understand it”.

Something to note: These “myths” were not created by non-mormons. They were created by church leadership at one time or another via their beliefs.

It’s also interesting how excerpts from various publications or oratories are used if they are in favor of one’s point of view. However, if a quote of bad light is brought up it is quickly discounted as “not revelation” or “not doctrine”.

It’s good to see that the church is catching up to “itself”.

Although the majority of this is not coming from GA’s. It’s coming from folks like you and me, and what authority do we have?

Of course I understand and agree with your response, and your original post for that matter. I guess I was being a little sarcastic because I don’t think the majority of Mormons internalize your argument. Furthermore, I’m pretty heterodox in my beliefs and wish we’d jettison the whole “one true church” or “fullness” idea entirely, like the RLDS/COC. But I’m obviously in the minority.

BTW, John Dehlin, you need to number these comments.

“I’m sorry, Jeff Spector, but you seem rather ignorant of atheism. As a Mormon turned atheist-agnostic, I see your arguments as utterly lacking in any knowledge as to what “atheists” think and/or believe.”

Thanks for the compliment, I appreciate it. I mearly state the classic definition of Atheism: “The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is “not believing in any gods.”

Apparently, you didn’t fully read what I wrote. So I repeat it. “But, my point was that they (atheists) cannot adequately explain where their morals are derived from.”

So, you have offered an explanation based on secular-humanistic philosphy. but where, does that some from? I am just maintaining that it comes from God. You don’t have to agree with me or accept it. I was just stating my opinion.

“You mention all these hedonistic ideals that apparently are ascribed to all atheists”

Again, i just stated my opinion that for someone to truly be atheistic, then what is the point of life?

I’m sorry, Jeff Spector, but you seem rather ignorant of atheism. As a Mormon turned atheist-agnostic, I see your arguments as utterly lacking in any knowledge as to what “atheists” think and/or believe. First, atheism is simply a moniker that is often confused with a belief system or lack thereof. You have used in your four points negative stereotypes for someone who doesn’t believe in a god, which I find rather offensive. I am a secular-humanist and strongly hold views that we should help our fellow human beings, not because a god tells me to, but because it is what will keep our species alive and our children living in a better world. Altruism can easily be explained through evolutionary terms of tribal communities and cooperation. The tribe that cooperates has a better chance at survival. So, your charge that it is only a belief in a god or God himself makes us moral, is the fallacy.

You mention all these hedonistic ideals that apparently are ascribed to all atheists. Certainly, these things can be said of some, but the vast majority of atheists I know are critically thinking, moral, upstanding people who care about the future of humanity. I do believe that this is the one life we get, but living it to the fullest for me is being with my family, helping my students succeed, encourage positive policies that will help my country and speaking out against those I think harm it, teaching my children the beauties of this life, and so many other things that I feel are positive and productive.

So, some final notes to you: agnostics say that God is improvable and tend not to believe; atheist categorically state that there is no god; deists are those who believe in a higher power but don’t believe in any particular religion (most of our founding fathers were deist, contrary to popular opinion); while theists tend to be those who believe in a one true god. Let me also point out that all of us here are atheists or agnostic in one way or the other; how many believe in Zeus, Odin, Anansi, Shiva, Sun-Hou-Tzu, Ra, or any number of deities worshipped by other cultures? Furthermore, to say that morality is only god-given due to religion, what about Buddhists or Jains who are atheists by definition?

Agreed that “myth” was a questionable choice of words due to its ambiguity, as demonstrated by our current discussion about its meaning. You’ve broken me, and I confess that I wanted to use a catchy title for my post (”MythBusters”) and so I settled on the word “myth”. However, I do think it was an appropriate choice of words based on this dictionary definition for that word: “a belief or set of beliefs, often unproven or false, that have accrued around a person, phenomenon, or institution.” I’m not sure whether a myth always has to have been regarded as “folklore” in order to be a myth. I might be wrong, but I always thought the Greeks and Romans “back in the day” believed the stories we now regard as “myths” were actually true. However, I understand those formerly-believed stories are now widely regarded by the Greeks and Romans as fictional. So the fact those stories were once regarded as true does not prevent them from being referred to as “myths” today, as far as I understand. Similarly, the fact that many people may have once believed all other churches are part of the Church of the Devil does not prevent that belief from being considered a “myth” today because, as I see it, that notion has since been debunked.

As for the statement in JSH that the various sects were “all wrong,” in isolation that statement has multiple possible meanings. I think when we consider it in light of everything else JS said about other churches, I understand that statement to mean the other churches did not have Christ’s official sanction as they lacked priesthood authority. I do not believe for a minute that JS was saying all of the teachings of all other churches were wrong. JS made too many statements to the contrary, such as the one quoted above. I chose the JS statement above because I think it demonstrates how JS differentiated between a church’s beliefs and its authority (or lack thereof). JS recognized other churches had much truth (otherwise, he wouldn’t have advocated an approach of gathering all truth from its many sources). But he was strong in his stance that they lacked Christ’s official stamp of approval.

That’s one of the unfortunate things about language; its clumsiness. As I understand it, saying a church (as in institution) is not “true” is saying it is not “truly Christ’s church” because it lacks Christ’s official approval as an institution. But it does not mean we believe (or have ever believed) that all of the teachings of all other churches are wrong, or that all other churches are of no value whatsoever in God’s plan.

So I guess I am still saying “he never said it” if what is mean by “it” is that JS said all the teachings of all other churches are wrong.

Good post mate. Thank you for that information.

It is so true that we all have a purpose on this earth set out by the Lord…

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

hawkgrrrl – “JS himself said that any one who wanted to call himself a Mormon needed to acknowledge the good in other churches.”
I think that’s true but he did say this whilst at the same time classifying them as in apostasy.

”Personally, I agree that atheists are more friends than enemies to the church (perhaps to any church). Why? I don’t buy that I got my morals from religion.”

Really? The atheists I know, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher & Richard Dawkins, not only are enemy’s to our faith but they never let pass on an opportunity to ridicule just about everything mormon. But maybe I don’t know enough atheists, though.

Andrew A – I see you are a lawyer. Only lawyers can come up with this:
“..When we consider that all the “sects” in Joseph’s day held exclusivist beliefs, then the statement that they were “all wrong” is, paradoxically, a statement of a greater principle of inclusion..”
Not that I have anything against lawyers, since they are needed at times.

With regards to JSH 18 & 19, the kid was pretty clear. He asked which church was ‘right’ and hence which one to join. The answer was also clear: they were all ‘wrong’ and ‘don’t join’ any of them, that is separate yourself from those incorrect churches. I really can’t see a contradictory statement there which implies any inclusion since he was told not to go near them. It was an Us/Them statement made by Lord himself.