I think a better plan is available. Instead of claiming we live in a fallen world why not just accept we live in a world that is one of the few places we can see that cultivated life in such a myriad of ways.
It jettisons blame and responsibility in favor of dogma and unfalsifiable claims.
LDS theology doesn’t jettison blame and responsibility in favor of dogma and claims made that are faith based. Accountability is a doctrinal underpinning of the gospel.
That the church teaches the doctrine of the fall doesn’t really change anything significantly in regards to blame and responsibility in the natural world.
Accepting that we are a spark in an otherwise dead solar system creates innovation that your religious ideology wants to downplay and create elaborate torturous mazes to stifle.
The thing is, there is so much we don’t know beyond what we can see in the universe. Quantum entanglement, dark matter and energy, antimatter, etc. My religion doesn’t get in the way or “downplay” anything having to do with investigations of the world around us or the universe beyond.
Although we do believe that we have the potential to develop and grow to something more than a “spark”. Although some people might be happy remaining so. Latter-day Saints have their sights set higher.
Not even sure what you mean by “tortuous mazes to stifle”. Maybe you could elaborate.
Instead of standing in awe of the fallen world and all of its absurdities I would suggest doing something about it collectively…
That’s what good people everywhere attempt to do. You’re not suggesting that a religious person is unable or unwilling to “do something about it” are you?
I think a better plan is available. Instead of claiming we live in a fallen world why not just accept we live in a world that is one of the few places we can see that cultivated life in such a myriad of ways. Not fallen ways but an intricate woven fabric of interesting evolution. Fallen gives excuses. Fallen places blame where there is no evidence of blame. It jettisons blame and responsibility in favor of dogma and unfalsifiable claims. Accepting that we are a spark in an otherwise dead solar system creates innovation that your religious ideology wants to downplay and create elaborate torturous mazes to stifle. Instead of standing in awe of the fallen world and all of its absurdities I would suggest doing something about it collectively rather than letting it be absorbed by the featured religion of the day.
Very, VERY well and beautifully said...
The whole "doctrine" of the fall is stupid and may very well be the cause of so much theological lunacy.
I think a better plan is available. Instead of claiming we live in a fallen world why not just accept we live in a world that is one of the few places we can see that cultivated life in such a myriad of ways. Not fallen ways but an intricate woven fabric of interesting evolution. Fallen gives excuses. Fallen places blame where there is no evidence of blame. It jettisons blame and responsibility in favor of dogma and unfalsifiable claims. Accepting that we are a spark in an otherwise dead solar system creates innovation that your religious ideology wants to downplay and create elaborate torturous mazes to stifle. Instead of standing in awe of the fallen world and all of its absurdities I would suggest doing something about it collectively rather than letting it be absorbed by the featured religion of the day.
Very, VERY well and beautifully said...
The whole "doctrine" of the fall is stupid and may very well be the cause of so much theological lunacy.
Philo you might have a point there. But then I wonder which or what doctrine do you mean and how does it lead to lunacy. Your proposal invites expansion. After all however you approach it we live in world with people who are not angels.
Making the Genesis story the full explanation of why we struggle is narrow to the point choking thought. I might note that Genesis proposes that we got separated from the garden not that the world fell. It is perfectly reasonable to see the world continuing through the ages by natural law. I think calling the world fallen creates confusion and blurs scientific understanding.
But MG if you wish to keep repeating this little puzzle you should take a step back and let us know what you meant by the phrase others seem to misunderstand.
God would have instituted failsafes in the possibility that individuals are going to blow it in a plan/system where free choice is the rule.
Notice that I didn’t say God would create failsafes to prevent people from doing bad things but that there are failsafes in case they do bad things. That allows for agency. Those failsafes most importantly include the Atonement of Christ by which all will be made whole. Some of the more tangible failsafes are follow up for victims of a crime through human intervention and healing opportunities and processes.
MG that clarified what you were thinking of for me. By failsafe you meant remedial possibility after the injury not preventive barriers.
Again, we need to differentiate between an item at the center of a narrative, even the lynchpin of a narrative, and an item as evidence of a narrative. These situations may coexist but neither imply the other. Let's examine a hypothetical example outside of Mormonism.
Imagine a great earthquake opens a chasm in the desert. Suppose there are those who claim Thor struck the earth with his 10,000 pound magic hammer, which opened up the earth and shook half of California to the ground. Suppose a few survivalists claim to have arrived at the chasm shortly after the disaster as Thor stood there beholding his handiwork. They speak with Thor, who informs them Asgard is angry with humanity and he was sent to give a message. He drops his hammer to the ground and the visitors examine it, but they are unable to budge it. Thor smiles, allowing them to chain their trucks to the hammer, but they can barely move it, twisting their frames up as they try.
Excitement builds for many who hear the tale. The claim is that Thor left his hammer and walked into the sunset, and so recovering the hammer becomes an obsession for a swath of post-apocalyptic society. It's never found, and the stories of the witnesses become suspect for many. For instance, one witness showed others the twisted frame of his truck, but this witness was also learned to have cut down and processed some big trees in the past as a hobby.
The discovery of a 10,000 pound hammer, which can't be explained by human technology, would be quite disturbing, even if no magical properties could be ascertained. Discovered next to the chasm, just as the witnesses testified, would make even skeptics think really hard. The hammer would be evidence for the claim about Thor. It's discovery would give credibility to the witnesses and their story. The hammer is evidence. But the hammer is also the lynchpin of the story in terms of narrative. Without the hammer, it's really hard to make the story sensible. Those who claim there was never a hammer or perhaps even Thor but Asgard's displeasure is real aren't necessarily wrong. It's just that, given the tale of the hammer and the possibility it was right there in the desert is what generated the interest around the story -- nobody would have taken an interest if the witnesses just said they saw Thor with hammer in a vision, or they felt inspired that Asgard was displeased but Thor wasn't actually there.
It's very possible, however, for the hammer to remain central to the narrative but not be evidence. For instance, given the hammer is never recovered, even if the witnesses seem very sincere, the story is really far fetched and a 10,000 pound magic hammer is now a liability rather than evidence. The saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" implies that without commensurate evidence, the "extraordinariness" of the claim becomes a liability. However, liability that it might be in terms of story credibility, it still may be central to the narrative. Those who want the fascinating story to be true will swallow the pill of believability in order to maintain a fantastic larger-than-life tale.
Richard Bushman's comment discussed in this thread has nothing to do with the plates as evidence, only with the plates as central to the narrative. His statement we're picking apart is agnostic towards the evidential value of the plates.
Before I can respond to MGs latest, it has to be clear what I mean by the difference between something as evidence of a story and something as central to a storyline. It works the other way also. The DNA of a killer at a crime scene is evidence for a crime, but it has little to do with the narrative of the crime.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
