sock puppet wrote:harmony, non-scientific "truths" are subject to change in religions, particularly how swift those changes have occurred in Mormonism's ~180 year existence.
There's more to "religion" than Mormonism. Unless you're being that focused, Mormonism is a pretty small dot on the face of thousands of years of religion.
I would like you to expound on this disconnect you seem to perceive in
a-science/based on updating evidence and b-"truths"/based on always-the-same evidence.
I'm not sure I follow or understand the distinction you are drawing.
Updating evidence: Science 200+ years ago--the earth is flat Science today--the earth is round
The same evidence: Religion 2000+ years ago: love is important Religion today: love is important
See?
Thank you for that elucidation, harmony.
Love is important, now and then. It seems however that love is important is a self-evident fact. I don't see why we'd need god (to tell an oracle to in turn) tell us the obvious.
I might term what you have labeled religious 'truth' to be self-evident.
sock puppet wrote:Thank you for that elucidation, harmony.
Love is important, now and then. It seems however that love is important is a self-evident fact. I don't see why we'd need god (to tell an oracle to in turn) tell us the obvious.
I might term what you have labeled religious 'truth' to be self-evident.
I'm not sure that love being important is a self-evident fact. Certainly not that we should build our entire lives around love and service. Plenty of human societies have gotten along ok with holding different values in higher regard than love: honor, bravery, wealth, family success, conquest, knowledge, social order. Many individuals orient their lives towards other things than love.
sock puppet wrote:Thank you for that elucidation, harmony.
Love is important, now and then. It seems however that love is important is a self-evident fact. I don't see why we'd need god (to tell an oracle to in turn) tell us the obvious.
I might term what you have labeled religious 'truth' to be self-evident.
I'm not sure that love being important is a self-evident fact. Certainly not that we should build our entire lives around love and service. Plenty of human societies have gotten along ok with holding different values in higher regard than love: honor, bravery, wealth, family success, conquest, knowledge, social order. Many individuals orient their lives towards other things than love.
Case in point: the cult of Yahweh.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
sock puppet wrote:Thank you for that elucidation, harmony.
Love is important, now and then. It seems however that love is important is a self-evident fact. I don't see why we'd need god (to tell an oracle to in turn) tell us the obvious.
I might term what you have labeled religious 'truth' to be self-evident.
I'm not sure that love being important is a self-evident fact. Certainly not that we should build our entire lives around love and service. Plenty of human societies have gotten along ok with holding different values in higher regard than love: honor, bravery, wealth, family success, conquest, knowledge, social order. Many individuals orient their lives towards other things than love.
So, then that leaves it, per your post, that love is important is (a) not self-evident, and (b) is not that important after all (or so the sociological evidence you point to would suggest).
So how is known to be Truth, then or now? Or is it just something that we like and aspire to? How does that get around to being "Truth"?
Nightlion wrote:In 1844 Joseph Smith spoke of the eternal duration of matter and said all spirit is matter. (King Follet) I am not certain when the first law of thermodynamics was officially stated. It may have been sooner, maybe not. Einstein believe the two laws of thermodynamics to be possible the only laws science will never overturn.
I cannot find it right off but I think Joseph Smith said something even more distinct about it. Was he first? How did he learn of it?
This is close to stating the First Law of Thermodynamics D&C 93: 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
If I recall correctly, the eternal duration of matter was a concept that predates Smith. However, we now know it's not precisely true, as sub-atomic particles pop in and out of existence all the time.
Uh huh, so you say. Easy enough. Call for references there Buffalo. Would not want you to put one over on me. I missed the astounding announcement of sub atomic particles popping in and out of existence. Are you sure? Perhaps not. Me thinks it a way too difficult feat to say with absolute certainty. The detection my pop up and down. But CREATION. What does a newly created particle do? Has done?
I think you laid a pile and want me to not notice.
Nightlion wrote:In 1844 Joseph Smith spoke of the eternal duration of matter and said all spirit is matter. (King Follet) I am not certain when the first law of thermodynamics was officially stated. It may have been sooner, maybe not. Einstein believe the two laws of thermodynamics to be possible the only laws science will never overturn.
I cannot find it right off but I think Joseph Smith said something even more distinct about it. Was he first? How did he learn of it?
This is close to stating the First Law of Thermodynamics D&C 93: 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
Uh huh, so you say. Easy enough. Call for references there Buffalo. Would not want you to put one over on me. I missed the astounding announcement of sub atomic particles popping in and out of existence. Are you sure? Perhaps not. Me thinks it a way too difficult feat to say with absolute certainty. The detection my pop up and down. But CREATION. What does a newly created particle do? Has done?
I think you laid a pile and want me to not notice.
Grove's inaugural lecture in 1842 was the first announcement of what Grove called the correlation of physical forces, in modern terms, the conservation of energy.[1]
Nightlion wrote: Uh huh, so you say. Easy enough. Call for references there Buffalo. Would not want you to put one over on me. I missed the astounding announcement of sub atomic particles popping in and out of existence. Are you sure? Perhaps not. Me thinks it a way too difficult feat to say with absolute certainty. The detection my pop up and down. But CREATION. What does a newly created particle do? Has done?
I think you laid a pile and want me to not notice.
Grove's inaugural lecture in 1842 was the first announcement of what Grove called the correlation of physical forces, in modern terms, the conservation of energy.[1]
He did not publish it until 1846. Perhaps he heard about Joseph Smith's idea from missionaries. And we must see IF he stated the eternal duration of matter or that light and truth cannot be created or made as Joseph stated.........and that last was as early as 1833 when William Robert Grove was only a snide twenty-two year old lad.
Not so McBuff, these particles do not pop in and out of existence, rather they combine and decombine and what they combineth is what poppeth. Hardly in and out of creation.
Your poop pile is rendered dust. (damn that sounds more like bcspace than me.)
Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse
Last edited by Guest on Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
sock puppet wrote:So, then that leaves it, per your post, that love is important is (a) not self-evident, and (b) is not that important after all (or so the sociological evidence you point to would suggest).
So how is known to be Truth, then or now? Or is it just something that we like and aspire to? How does that get around to being "Truth"?
Sock... you know I like you a lot, but seriously... read a little history. You're coming across as very Victorian. Historically, families didn't love each other... children were sold into slavery or left to die on the streets and hillsides; women were property, and treated as such. Men were warriors first and husbands/fathers never.
What seems normal to us now wasn't normal at all, 6000 years ago.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.