So, for those that are interested, here's the review:
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Book Review, Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design
I couldn't really decide which of my blogs to post this review on, my religion blog, or my science/technology blog. In the end, after all, this book is an interesting amalgamation of both. My end conclusion was to post my review over there, and link to it from here.
So, for those that are interested, here's the review:
So, for those that are interested, here's the review:
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Transhumanism and Satan's Plan
I recently read an interesting blog post equating the goals of transhumanism with those of Satan's plan. I found this article to be interesting, and reasonably well thought out, even though I disagree with it rather profoundly.
After reading that article, I figured that his thoughts deserved some form of rebuttal, and after writing that rebuttal, I decided that it had value in its own right, and should therefore be posted.
After reading that article, I figured that his thoughts deserved some form of rebuttal, and after writing that rebuttal, I decided that it had value in its own right, and should therefore be posted.
This is the comment I posted to his blog (we will have to wait and see if it is approved or not):
BEGIN:
I believe that the central problem here is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of the proper balance between works and grace.
I have faith that death is part of God’s plan, and that God will eventually grant me immortality as a gift of grace, in fact, He will give this gift to all, and all will be saved (in this sense) but the Sons of Perdition (see D&C 76:43). If I am worthy, and do “all that I can do” to live a life of goodness, then I will also be granted eternal life, and given the power to become like God through the grace of Christ’s infinite atonement.
On the other hand, this faith doesn’t lead me to go out and step in front of a buss, nor does it lead me to refuse potential medical cures. When I get sick, I get a blessing, and I go to the doctor. Nor would it lead me to refuse medical means for moderate life extension, or even for radical life extension for that matter. Methuselah didn’t violate God’s plan by living for a long time, and neither did the three Nephites. If I too want to live and serve in His kingdom until He comes, that does not mean that I am following Lucifer’s plan. The fact that one group seem to have achieved their long lives from faith while transhumanists want to receive it through works, technology, and science does not mean that one is inherently good while the other is inherently evil. Nor is it fair to equate Lucifer’s plan of exaltation for all without any testing with transhumanists plan for immortality and a better life for all. Indeed, the transhumanist vision looks more like God’s plan for ALL his children (again read D&C 76:43) than it looks like Lucifer’s plan.
Pure religion is to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, serve those in need, heal the sick, and create a better world for all. As James so eloquently teaches us, this is about granting real, literal, physical, earthly, temporal aid. The sort of aid that in the past has best been provided through advances in technology. That last is nothing but a historically undeniable fact, and I have blogged about it extensively here and here. Technology leads to increased prosperity, and thus to a reduction in poverty, and thus to James’ “pure religion.” Of course we must also teach the gospel, but that priority does not absolve us from providing James’ pure religion. Doing this is a priority of our religious conviction. In other words, we are quite literally commanded to TRY to build heaven on earth as best we can, while at the same time waiting for God’s kingdom to come, and his will do be done, on earth as it is in heaven. We are commanded to strive to build Zion, through works as well as through faith.
A Luddite interpretation of our religion essentially denies its most fundamental aspect, charity, love, and compassion for all.
If the Telestial kingdom is really so much better than this world, and if ALL God’s children will eventually inherit that glory or greater, and we are commanded to seek by works that which we expect to be given by grace and faith, then a desire for the goals of transhumanism (and even those of the singularity) is nothing more than the logical extension of the doctrine of works and grace.
BEGIN:
I believe that the central problem here is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of the proper balance between works and grace.
I have faith that death is part of God’s plan, and that God will eventually grant me immortality as a gift of grace, in fact, He will give this gift to all, and all will be saved (in this sense) but the Sons of Perdition (see D&C 76:43). If I am worthy, and do “all that I can do” to live a life of goodness, then I will also be granted eternal life, and given the power to become like God through the grace of Christ’s infinite atonement.
On the other hand, this faith doesn’t lead me to go out and step in front of a buss, nor does it lead me to refuse potential medical cures. When I get sick, I get a blessing, and I go to the doctor. Nor would it lead me to refuse medical means for moderate life extension, or even for radical life extension for that matter. Methuselah didn’t violate God’s plan by living for a long time, and neither did the three Nephites. If I too want to live and serve in His kingdom until He comes, that does not mean that I am following Lucifer’s plan. The fact that one group seem to have achieved their long lives from faith while transhumanists want to receive it through works, technology, and science does not mean that one is inherently good while the other is inherently evil. Nor is it fair to equate Lucifer’s plan of exaltation for all without any testing with transhumanists plan for immortality and a better life for all. Indeed, the transhumanist vision looks more like God’s plan for ALL his children (again read D&C 76:43) than it looks like Lucifer’s plan.
Pure religion is to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, serve those in need, heal the sick, and create a better world for all. As James so eloquently teaches us, this is about granting real, literal, physical, earthly, temporal aid. The sort of aid that in the past has best been provided through advances in technology. That last is nothing but a historically undeniable fact, and I have blogged about it extensively here and here. Technology leads to increased prosperity, and thus to a reduction in poverty, and thus to James’ “pure religion.” Of course we must also teach the gospel, but that priority does not absolve us from providing James’ pure religion. Doing this is a priority of our religious conviction. In other words, we are quite literally commanded to TRY to build heaven on earth as best we can, while at the same time waiting for God’s kingdom to come, and his will do be done, on earth as it is in heaven. We are commanded to strive to build Zion, through works as well as through faith.
A Luddite interpretation of our religion essentially denies its most fundamental aspect, charity, love, and compassion for all.
If the Telestial kingdom is really so much better than this world, and if ALL God’s children will eventually inherit that glory or greater, and we are commanded to seek by works that which we expect to be given by grace and faith, then a desire for the goals of transhumanism (and even those of the singularity) is nothing more than the logical extension of the doctrine of works and grace.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Evangelicals, Mormons, and Glenn Beck
Here are two different articles, both from evangelicals on the relationship between Mormons and Evangelicals with regard to Glenn Beck. Both were posted on the same news network, an outlet for evangelical political "news."
In the first, an opinion piece by Russell Moore, the end of the world is coming because Evangelicals are giving up their religious foundations to stand up with Glenn Beck:
The second opinion piece titled "Evangelicals and Glenn Beck" by Dr. Jim Garlow describes how Mormons and Evangelicals can work together. He said "as evangelicals and Mormons, we are not theological brothers and sisters. But we are friends and neighbors. And on that basis we work [together]."
I leave it to my esteemed readers to compare the two and see which seems to make the most coherent argument.
As a Mormon, I believe that Jim Garlow's quote goes both ways. His quote almost exactly expresses how I see our relationship with Evangelicals, they may not be my theological brothers and sisters, but if we are not "theological brothers and sisters" surely we are theological cousins. I can work together with them, and hope that they can work together with me to bring about our shared goals (which are many).
In the first, an opinion piece by Russell Moore, the end of the world is coming because Evangelicals are giving up their religious foundations to stand up with Glenn Beck:
The second opinion piece titled "Evangelicals and Glenn Beck" by Dr. Jim Garlow describes how Mormons and Evangelicals can work together. He said "as evangelicals and Mormons, we are not theological brothers and sisters. But we are friends and neighbors. And on that basis we work [together]."
I leave it to my esteemed readers to compare the two and see which seems to make the most coherent argument.
As a Mormon, I believe that Jim Garlow's quote goes both ways. His quote almost exactly expresses how I see our relationship with Evangelicals, they may not be my theological brothers and sisters, but if we are not "theological brothers and sisters" surely we are theological cousins. I can work together with them, and hope that they can work together with me to bring about our shared goals (which are many).
Monday, August 16, 2010
Religious Freedom, 9/11, and a Muslim Mosque
Freedom, (and religious freedom especially) was what was attacked on 9/11, and it would be a shame if we succumb to religious intolerance ourselves within the very shadow of this vicious attack. If Christians don't like a Muslim mosque on the location, then build a Church themselves, and get out and convert the Muslims, that is how one disagrees in a free and open society.
I am a Christian and a conservative to boot, but on this particular issue I appear to depart from the majority of my party. I feel shocked to find myself in agreement with President Obama (someone I almost NEVER agree with), but Muslims have the legal right to build on private property they own (what he said) but I question the wisdom of their choosing that spot (also what he said). They have the right, but I question their choice. Almost exactly what Obama said..... (wow).
Although I question the wisdom of their choice of locations, if you believe in freedom, and in religious freedom especially, you have to give all people the same freedoms you yourself want. If you want the freedom to build Christian churches wherever you want (which I do), then you MUST grant the right to build Mosques wherever they want, even if they are being stupid about their choice.
I find it fascinating to see organizations like AFA who so often complain about religious persecution of Christians being the first ones to take up the banner against the Muslim mosque. Freedom means freedom, even for people you disagree with (and those who know me know that I disagree with Muslim ideology strenuously and vocally). But freedom is freedom, it has consequences, like having a Mosque where nearly any sane person knows one shouldn't be, but the price of those consequences is worth paying.
I am a Christian and a conservative to boot, but on this particular issue I appear to depart from the majority of my party. I feel shocked to find myself in agreement with President Obama (someone I almost NEVER agree with), but Muslims have the legal right to build on private property they own (what he said) but I question the wisdom of their choosing that spot (also what he said). They have the right, but I question their choice. Almost exactly what Obama said..... (wow).
Although I question the wisdom of their choice of locations, if you believe in freedom, and in religious freedom especially, you have to give all people the same freedoms you yourself want. If you want the freedom to build Christian churches wherever you want (which I do), then you MUST grant the right to build Mosques wherever they want, even if they are being stupid about their choice.
I find it fascinating to see organizations like AFA who so often complain about religious persecution of Christians being the first ones to take up the banner against the Muslim mosque. Freedom means freedom, even for people you disagree with (and those who know me know that I disagree with Muslim ideology strenuously and vocally). But freedom is freedom, it has consequences, like having a Mosque where nearly any sane person knows one shouldn't be, but the price of those consequences is worth paying.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Money, Things, Experiences, and Happiness
I recently read an article in the N. Y. Times about money and happiness that drastically changed my world view about money, possessions and happiness. These topics are clearly related to several important gospel principles, so I thought that I would share some thoughts about the article, and the gospel implications of these ideas.
In the Church, we have several common platitudes about money, such as the love of money is "the root of all evil," or that "money can't make you happy." I believe that these statements are only partly true, and the issues revolve around what we mean by "money."
It has often been said that time is money. There is a large amount of truth to this, and no one would argue that time (properly spent) can't make us happy. I believe that it is actually THINGS (or the pursuit of material possessions) that can't make us happy. On the other hand, relationships can and do make one happy. We can clearly spend our time on either acquiring possessions, or on building relationships. One can make us happy, while the other can not.
The article claims that studies have shown that while there is no correlation between wealth (the amount of money we have) and happiness, there is a correlation between spending habits and happiness. Most in the world would say that if money isn't making you happy, then you don't have enough of it. However, if the article is correct, then this would lead to the astonishing conclusion that if money isn't making you happy, then you aren't spending it right! You likely have enough money for your needs (and for your happiness) if you just spent it right.
If we spend our time/money acquiring things that we never use because we are too busy making money to buy more things, then money/time will not make us happy. On the other hand, if we spend our time/money making our relationships better then money can make us happy. Thus, the difference between those who are happy and those who are not is all about their priorities.
How does one spend money on relationships rather than on possessions? The real question is how we spend our time (remember, time is money). One telling example in the article is of a couple who were house shopping, and who had the choice between buying a larger/nicer home, or buying a home next to an attractive hiking trail. The article claims that studies have shown that we become "used" to our physical environment, and that after time, changes in the environment (larger home etc) have no measurable impact oh happiness. On the other hand, changes in behavior (especially relationship building behavior such as going on long walks with your spouse) do make us happy. Thus, the couple opted for the simpler home next to the hiking trail, and have made use of the train consistently ever since. They believe that this choice has directly lead to their being happier.
The article claims that studies have shown that people who spend their money on "conspicuous consumption" are not happy, while people who spend their money on "fishing poles," "sports equipment," "back yard grills," or "family vacations" do tend to be happier, because, fundamentally, they are spending their money on experiences (or things that can be used to build experiences) and not on possessions. Luckily, these experience building things are not the most expensive items in our budget. The suggestion is that if we want to be happier, perhaps we should buy a smaller car, and go on a vacation, or buy cheaper clothes and save for a backyard grill, and then spend time with our family hanging out in the back yard, or perhaps we should get a less well paying job that provides us with more time to spend at home with our family.
I cannot recommend the N. Y. Times article enough. However, there is a doctrinal reason for these observations. The article's advice (which seems so revolutionary to the world) has been the advice of the Church for years, and it is based on several doctrinal principles:
God's work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of his Children (Moses 1:39). His plan revolves around individuals, not around things. Money and time both have value, but only when they are spent upon people, relationships, and building the kingdom rather than spending money on things. "Wherefore, do not spend money for that which is of no worth, nor your labor for that which cannot satisfy." (2 Ne. 9:51).
The purpose of wealth (money) is specified in Deuteronomy 8:18, where the Lord tells us that when we become rich we should "remember the Lord thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers." This is similar to what Jacob famously said "But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God. And fter ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to lothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted" (Jacob 2:18-19).
See also 2 Ne. 26:31, 2 Ne. 9:50-51.
In the Church, we have several common platitudes about money, such as the love of money is "the root of all evil," or that "money can't make you happy." I believe that these statements are only partly true, and the issues revolve around what we mean by "money."
It has often been said that time is money. There is a large amount of truth to this, and no one would argue that time (properly spent) can't make us happy. I believe that it is actually THINGS (or the pursuit of material possessions) that can't make us happy. On the other hand, relationships can and do make one happy. We can clearly spend our time on either acquiring possessions, or on building relationships. One can make us happy, while the other can not.
The article claims that studies have shown that while there is no correlation between wealth (the amount of money we have) and happiness, there is a correlation between spending habits and happiness. Most in the world would say that if money isn't making you happy, then you don't have enough of it. However, if the article is correct, then this would lead to the astonishing conclusion that if money isn't making you happy, then you aren't spending it right! You likely have enough money for your needs (and for your happiness) if you just spent it right.
If we spend our time/money acquiring things that we never use because we are too busy making money to buy more things, then money/time will not make us happy. On the other hand, if we spend our time/money making our relationships better then money can make us happy. Thus, the difference between those who are happy and those who are not is all about their priorities.
How does one spend money on relationships rather than on possessions? The real question is how we spend our time (remember, time is money). One telling example in the article is of a couple who were house shopping, and who had the choice between buying a larger/nicer home, or buying a home next to an attractive hiking trail. The article claims that studies have shown that we become "used" to our physical environment, and that after time, changes in the environment (larger home etc) have no measurable impact oh happiness. On the other hand, changes in behavior (especially relationship building behavior such as going on long walks with your spouse) do make us happy. Thus, the couple opted for the simpler home next to the hiking trail, and have made use of the train consistently ever since. They believe that this choice has directly lead to their being happier.
The article claims that studies have shown that people who spend their money on "conspicuous consumption" are not happy, while people who spend their money on "fishing poles," "sports equipment," "back yard grills," or "family vacations" do tend to be happier, because, fundamentally, they are spending their money on experiences (or things that can be used to build experiences) and not on possessions. Luckily, these experience building things are not the most expensive items in our budget. The suggestion is that if we want to be happier, perhaps we should buy a smaller car, and go on a vacation, or buy cheaper clothes and save for a backyard grill, and then spend time with our family hanging out in the back yard, or perhaps we should get a less well paying job that provides us with more time to spend at home with our family.
I cannot recommend the N. Y. Times article enough. However, there is a doctrinal reason for these observations. The article's advice (which seems so revolutionary to the world) has been the advice of the Church for years, and it is based on several doctrinal principles:
God's work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of his Children (Moses 1:39). His plan revolves around individuals, not around things. Money and time both have value, but only when they are spent upon people, relationships, and building the kingdom rather than spending money on things. "Wherefore, do not spend money for that which is of no worth, nor your labor for that which cannot satisfy." (2 Ne. 9:51).
The purpose of wealth (money) is specified in Deuteronomy 8:18, where the Lord tells us that when we become rich we should "remember the Lord thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers." This is similar to what Jacob famously said "But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God. And fter ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to lothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted" (Jacob 2:18-19).
See also 2 Ne. 26:31, 2 Ne. 9:50-51.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Wrestling Before the Lord Continued
Continued from: http://amateurscriptorians.blogspot.com/2009/10/summary-of-my-sperry-presentation.html
Here is a summary of the similarities between Jacob and Enos's wrestling:
| Jacob | Enos |
| Struggled and wrestled | Wrestled and struggled |
| Peniel | Before God |
| All night, into the day | All day, into the night |
| Estranged brothers/nations (Jacob and Esau) | Estranged brothers/nations (Nephi/Laban) |
| Esau wanted to kill Jacob | Laman and Lemuel wanted to kill Nephi |
| Jacob fled into the wilderness to escape | Nephites fled into the wilderness to escape |
| Esau is a cunning hunter, with skill in the bow (Gen. 27:1-5) | Lamanites are hunters, with skill in the bow (Enos 1:20), Enos went to “hunt” |
| Records preserved and “sealed” up in an earthen vessel for a long time recording Esau’s loss of the birthright (Jasher 56:55-57). | Preserved and “sealed” records coming forth to convert the Lamanites. |
| Reconciliation with God and man | Reconciliation with God and man |
| Blessed | “Thou shalt be blessed” |
| “Life is preserved” | “the Lord God would preserve a record” |
| Entered the promised land | Soul did “rest” |
| Seeing Esau like seeing the “face of God.” | Then shall he “see His [God’s] face” |
| “and thou wast pleased with me” | “see his face with pleasure” |
Let me know if you can think of any that I missed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)