Another What's the Alternative Thread

[_KevinSim]

JM smacks the nail on the head. Now add the thought that this thread is an exercises in futility as you up front state that between your own biases and your wife's influence, you are unlikely to research anything, then I stick with: brawndo cuz plants crave elecrolytes.

SteelHead, I never said I wouldn't research anything. I'm willing to read pretty much anything you're willing to point me to. I'm just not likely to go attend an Evangelical church (or a Presbyterian church, or an Anglican church) this Sunday, just because somebody tells me I might like it.

What is Brawndo, and why is it a better alternative than the LDS Church? What about plants craving elecrolytes makes Brawndo a better choice?

[_KevinSim]

So, it sounds to me like you don't have an answer. You have different expectations from different people. That is not fair.

How do you get different "expectations from different people"? If God exists then by definition God is preserving forever some good things. All I want from an atheist group (or an agnostic group--are there any?), is a recognition that it needs to eventually get to the point where it can preserve forever some good things. That's not expecting different things from different people. If anything, God of necessity does more than the mentioned atheist groups; God has to deliver; all the atheist groups have to do is try to deliver, to make it as its goal to deliver.

What EXACTLY are you doing to preserve some good things forever? Are you referring to Temple Ordinances or what???

I'm trying as hard as I can to let God guide me in my daily activities. I'm completely convinced that because I do so God will use me, in conjunction with others like me, to preserve some good things forever.

[Guest]

Brawndo it's got electrolytes!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5Q-yNNu-tM

[_Mooseman]

Zion has yet to be attempted in the latter days.

Keep an eye out.

[_KevinSim]

Then tell us what "real good" is, for crying out loud!

Just Me, why are you asking me to tell you what "real good" is?

[_KevinSim]

Should be no problem for you to clearly articulate what 'real good' is then...

That doesn't necessarily follow. There are some terms in common usage that are pretty well understood that people would have a horrible time articulating.

For example, try coming up with a definition of the word true. Most people understand that term precisely, but I suspect they would have a hard time defining it without using synonyms. You can always go to the dictionary and get a definition of true, just like you can get a dictionary definition of good. But I think that's pretty unnecessary. If people really think about it they know what good means. And if they think it includes some things that other people find controversial, then they also know that they may be stretching the meaning of the word, even if they're firmly convinced they're right.

For the record, "http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/good?s=t" says, "morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man."

[_KevinSim]

Why do we assume that what we see as "Good things" as mortals will apply to an immortal life?

I don't.

One of my favorite pastimes is golf, so would preserving good things forever include playing golf forever?

I'm an optimist, so I think that after a sufficient amount of discussion a group of people firmly committed to preserving forever some good things can come to a consensus about what good things need to be preserved. If golf makes the cut then I'll be happy for you. There's no way to tell how much discussion would need to be involved; it could be a hundred years; it could be a hundred thousand years. But in the interest of carrying out the work of God we'd definitely better get started.

Kevin can you explain what YOU think preserving good things forever entails?

I'm just the visionary. In fact, to be perfectly honest I don't think I have any business saying what preserving them entails. I'm not sure I have anything more substantial to add to the discussion than your golf example. No, it's got to involve a group discussion and some form of consensus building.

[_Cylon]

I also got a lot of responses from atheists and agnostics telling me the alternative to the LDS Church was simply to do nothing, to have no belief in anything at all.

The problem I had with that approach is that I am LDS because I have a firm belief that some good things must last forever. I see God as a being who knows how to preserve forever some good things and is actually acting to preserve forever some good things. If I were to stop believing in God, that would not take from me the need that some good things be preserved forever. My conscience requires me to work toward the preservation, forever, of some good things.

Some posters have contested that viewpoint, asking me why my conscience would be that demanding. But it seems to me that for my conscience to be otherwise there would have to be some statute of limitations, so to speak, of how long I was obligated to care for future generations of humanity. My conscience would perhaps require me to care for my children and my grandchildren, but my conscience would perhaps not require me to do anything for my great-grandchildren. Imposing that cut-off point, between my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren, just seems kind of arbitrary to me. I don't see how anyone can in clear conscience draw such a line between the generations of humanity they will care for and the generations of humanity they will not care for. It seems much more reasonable to conclude that one has the responsibility to care for all future generations of humanity.

I'm not talking about an all-consuming obsession here. All I'm saying is that a conscientious person owes it to future generations of humanity to take some time, even a few seconds a week or a month to think about what would be required to preserve some good things forever.

At any rate, for atheism or agnosticism to be a valid approach, such a way of thinking would have to include some way to work toward preserving some good things forever, and so far nobody has been able to explain how atheism or agnosticism would successfully do that.

So I ask you again, what alternative is there to the LDS Church for a conscientious person?

It sounds like you're talking at least in part about my posts in that other thread, so let me clarify some misconceptions you seem to have. First off, my main question to you was not why your conscience would be so demanding, but why you thought that everybody else's consciences must be that demanding also. Here you are at least attempting to answer that question, but my only response is that just because you can't understand how someone can have a different form of conscientiousness than you do does not in any way prove that they can't.

My other issue is your continued use of the word forever. I actually don't disagree with you that we should try to preserve good things for as long as possible, I just think that "as long as possible" might stop some time short of "forever." It has nothing to do with my conscience, only with my understanding of the laws of physics and the physical properties of the universe. I may very well be wrong in my understanding, but I fail to see how it makes me any less moral a person to recognize the possibility that the universe might not last into eternity.

[_KevinSim]

That said, the fact that you are asking for alternatives leads me to believe that, like many of us, maybe you don't consider the LDS church to be a net positive in your life and that the LDS church is actually a source of frustration...

Well, granted some things that the LDS Church has done have frustrated me. But in general I think you've misunderstood me. If someone can come up with a way of looking at life that meets one's conscientious needs and also makes more sense than the LDS way of looking at life, then I would be completely willing to accept that way of looking at it. On the other hand, if nobody can come up with such a way of looking at life, then doesn't that leave the LDS Church in a pretty good position? If no way of looking at life satisfies the conscience more than the LDS way of looking at it does, then what choice do we have but embrace the LDS way of looking at it?

[_Themis]

I also got a lot of responses from atheists and agnostics telling me the alternative to the LDS Church was simply to do nothing, to have no belief in anything at all.

This simply is not true. You seem to have this idea, and nothing anyone says will change your mind. Why should I repeat what has been said on this topic before?