Some people think that the scriptures have nothing to do with business and that looking at them beyond ethical and moral truths is misguided and wrong. I disagree.
We have been told to pray over our crops, our families, our everything. When you own a business, your business is your crops. When you make business decisions, ethics and honesty are involved. The scriptures also discuss your human value. I will only mention a few scriptures for now.
Mormon 8:14 states: “And I am the same who hideth up this record unto the Lord; the plates thereof are of no worth, because of the commandment of the Lord. For he truly saith that no one shall have them to get gain; but the record thereof is of great worth; and whoso shall bring it to light, him will the Lord bless.” This is Moroni writing about the record condensed and authored by his father, Mormon. The plates were of a gold alloy and weighed 50+ pounds when fully prepared and sealed up to be brought forth by the Prophet Joseph Smith. Moroni is differentiating between the material the record is written on and the message contained on the material. The material is “of no worth” but the message is “of great worth”. Now, in normal human accounting, 50+ pounds of a gold alloy would in fact be worth a large sum of money depending on the gold content. It became worthless “because of the commandment of the Lord”. What faith and power. Moroni simply states as fact (because it is a fact) that the gold is worthless because God said so.
What about your life? Are you like the golden plates? On one hand, our mortal bodies are not worth that much in the eternal scheme of things because they are temporary vehicles that will be replaced with perfect bodies in the Resurrection. But our souls are worth a great amount to God. Our spirit and body, although temporarily united for now, are of great worth to God. Besides the mechanics of the situation, what is the value of your message? Is your message of great worth? It is worth thinking about. God can command us to be great, and we will be so if we obey. I believe that we have all been commanded to be great.
Another great story in the Book of Mormon has to do with Jared and the Brother of Jared. In Ether Chapter 1, the story of Jared and his Brother begins at the Tower of Babel and the confounding of languages. Jared asks his Brother to call upon God to first not confound their language, then to not confound the language of their friends and then to ask if God might then drive them out of the land to a land which is choice above all other lands? Talk about faith and optimism. When everything around them was going wrong at the Tower of Babel, Jared had faith to ask the Brother of Jared to ask God for specific desired blessings with an expectation and optimism that wonderful things would be the result.
As the story goes forward, it turns out that God will preserve the language of this group and will drive them out of the land to a land which is choice above all others. In Ether Chapter 2 and 3, Jared’s group goes forward over some bodies of water where they built barges to cross and camped on the edge of the great waters for the space of about four years and the Brother of Jared gets chastened for the space of about three hours for not praying like he should. Then it is revealed that they should build barges to cross the great waters and God is there to instruct them and show them how to build doors and the Brother of Jared is given the privilege of figuring out how to light the barges for the trip and is then given a glorious vision that is not fully recorded.
The relationship between the Brother of Jared and God was a bit strained from time to time, but God was still there willing to teach and instruct and help and ultimately bless these people with what Jared had in mind from several years prior. That is amazing and instructive to us. Of course, God wouldn’t have done it without His own consent first, but I always wonder if they would have gotten there faster if the Brother of Jared would have prayed more often.
One other scripture that enlightens our understanding of things is Ether 12:37: “And it came to pass that the Lord said unto me: If they have not charity it mattereth not unto thee, thou hast been faithful; wherefore, thy garments shall be made clean. And because thou hast seen thy weakness thou shalt be made strong, even unto the sitting down in the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father.” This is one of the Scriptures that Joseph Smith read to his family before he went to Carthage Jail where he was killed. We don’t need to prove anything to anybody. We need to be right with God, and let the chips fall where they may. Sometimes we want to prove to others that we are right and have made the correct decisions with our lives and fortunes. We don’t need to prove to the naysayers that we are correct, we need to prove to God that we are faithful and willing to follow his instructions and to do the right thing and going forward with Faith that God will lead us where we need to go.
Comments Welcome
The Cause of Liberty 
32 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 3, 2008 at 8:08 am
Bongo
The Book of Ether also tells the tale of a whole race of people crossing the ocean in wooden saucer submarines in almost as many days as a year, carrying with them elephants, bees, sheep, oxen, and curloms + cumoms (whatever [nice language please] they are) just think of the mess – to say nothing of the amount of freshwater they’d have to carry with them.
So, I hope you’ll excuse me if I think the book is somewhat unreliable.
December 3, 2008 at 8:50 am
A Guy
“So, I hope you’ll excuse me if I think the book is somewhat unreliable.”
There’s nothing to excuse really. I also believe that God created/organized the entire Universe. If God can do that, he could help people cross the ocean and live in a land new to them. Miracles happen every day. With regard to your description of what the Book of Ether says regarding their trip, I’d recommend that the curious read the actual writings. The ships for crossing the water were called vessels and barges. You can see for yourself online:
Ether Chapter 2 @ http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/2
Ether Chapter 3 @ http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/3
Ether Chapter 6 @ http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/6
A question I have for you is what part of the philosophical ideas do you disagree with if any?
December 4, 2008 at 8:33 am
Bongo
I agree that there is a God. But I do not know his nature. And there does not exist a creed of organized religion, or belief, that is not without flaw.
Many Christians believe that unbaptized babies go to eternal fire and hell, including those who never had the chance. Infant deaths. Or people born into societies where the so-called gospel of christ and baptism was outlawed or unavailable. That is an inequitable god. And I will not believe in him.
I admit I don’t know much about other faiths. But a religion that cna justify a jihad against people who happen to not know or practice that belief set, is one that must stem from a very insecure god, and I won’t believe in him.
As for reincarnation, that is easily defeated by the question … When the sun expands in 4 billion years to the point where it can no longer sustain life, where then do the dead go?
And as for Mormons, and many Christians, a literal belief in the Bible is required. Which is a book full of all kinds of garbage. From how to sell your daughter into slavery, to God-driven genocide and slaughter of women and children, to crazy stories about a senior citizen who built a boat out of wood, bigger than a battleship, complete with freshwater aquariums(presumably), about a dozen different climates, every known seed and spore, and a pile of food the size of mount Olympus.” Coming from a Biology background… that’s freakin stupid. I’m sorry.
So then there seems to exist no certain truth. And instead we are left with myths from the bronze age.
Yet I reject the notion that our existence is accidental or insignificant.
December 4, 2008 at 9:57 am
A Guy
In the concept of a God, it is common to believe that He would be all knowing and have wisdom and powers that we do not necessarily understand. One iteration of this thought is captured in Isiah 55:7-9, at http://scriptures.lds.org/en/isa/55/7-9#7.
I am familiar with many of the scientific objections to Bible stories and don’t feel particularly compelled to answer each one point by point, partially because I don’t have all the answers either.
How many inventions do we have today that were unimaginable to people 200 years ago, or 100 years ago, or even 20 years ago? 20 years ago CD Players were the bomb. Now you can have an .mp3 player with more memory than almost any computer built 20 years ago and use it to just hold music. I can go on a road trip and take my music library with me on something smaller than a pack of cards. Amazing really.
If you accept that God knows way more than we do, is it really fair to scrutinize His teachings by our own limited understanding? Granted, this pre-supposes that there is a record of his teachings and dealings with the human race. If you are a God fearing person who believes the Bible to be true, arguments that it cannot be true simply because our current scientific understanding does not support the story do not carry a lot of weight or persuasiveness. The Creation is outside of scientific explanation. Science continues to expand and grow and learn new truths about the way the world and the universe operates. God still knows more about the way the world and universe operates because He made it.
At the end of the day, faith is what makes the belief reasonable. Many scientists and philosophers believe that faith is nothing worthwhile because it is not tangible. The intangibles of life are what make it worthwhile for me. Love, beauty, friendship, relationships, and many other things escape the explanation of the hard sciences.
Science has its limits too.
December 4, 2008 at 10:46 am
Bongo
While it is true that more primitive people often cannot fathom the workings of modern science, it is not valid to say that modern science cannot fathom and assess the validity of tales of the past.
I cannot use current technology and science to predict (with 100% certainty) what technologies will be available in the year 2345. But, I can assess with absolute certainty that certain things – reported by ancient scripture – are physically impossible, when considering a literal interpretation. Perhaps no better example exists than Noah’s ark. I mean … we shouldn’t even be having this debate. Do you honestly believe that Noah’s boat housed all the animals, including fresh water species, and all the plants and seeed and spores, of every climate, and that the massive influx of fresh water dilluting the salty oceans wouldn’t kill off most sea life, and that th earth (which is a closed system) has enough water to drown itself entirely? What would god use to flood the earth, an ice comet? Rain doesn’t travel through space.
Obviously that particular story is absolutely ridiculous. I won’t piss on the idea that Noah’s ark is an allegory, or that Noah built a boat and the world that he knew (some obscure island) was flooded, and he recorded it as if “the whole work flooded” sure, that’s possible. But the whole world? or that somehow rainbows couldn’t form before hand. Presumably because light and physics functioned differently?
Ridiculous.
I don’t believe that God and Science are mutually exclusive, I gbeloieve they depend on each other. if god doe snot follow the principle sof reality, science, then what mechanism does he use, magic? That said, he cannot change the rules of reality and therefore scientific principles represent eternal truths and must be consistent.
December 4, 2008 at 12:06 pm
A Guy
We have a fundamental philosophical disagreement about the nature of God and the limitations of science. And as I said, I don’t have all the answers about exactly how it happened.
Starting from the idea that God created the earth and organized it, all sorts of (speculative) possibilities open up. It would mean that God can command the elements of the Universe. If God can build it, He can alter it. He could introduce water and take it away from the Earth. It would certainly seem like magic to us because of our limited understanding of things. If you accept that God can create the Earth, He can command the elements to do things. Why not at the subatomic level? If God can command the elements of the Universe, then why not protons, neutrons, and electrons to re-align into different compositions?
I frankly have no idea if this is how it went down. The idea of an all-powerful God mutes some scientific considerations. Science cannot explain the creation. Entropy as a scientific principle fights against organized life if you believe in macro evolution. Science is certainly a useful tool for understanding things and moving technology forward but it does have its limits.
December 4, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Bongo
Interesting point. But it’s such a stretch just to believe that an old man and a bunch of animals were on boat together. Surely such a powerful God would have better solutions. Especially since (presumably) God ordered Noah to ferry the animals to save their lives, if he hadn’t then (presumably) they would have died. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that all life that cannot swim will die. (ignoring the salty water fresh water considerations, which are still valid) therefore all plantlife would have died.
So there is a fundamental contradiction here. Unless God ordered the animals onto the barge but they would have survived anyway, like the plants–if we asusme god somehow protected them, which also makes no sense) But in that instance the animals would have had to be loaded onto the ship at all … which makes the story even stupider.
I accept the possibility of a trans-dimensional god that operates outside of our scientific knowledge. However, I don’t think that possibility automatically invalidates our knowledge.
We can only reasonably be expected to adhere to what is reasonable, given our limitations, so to assume that it is god’s will that we accept the unreasonable, is inherently unreasonable.
In other words. Because by some inane stretch of the imagination the concept of Noah’s ark is somehow, theoretically possible with the caveat that anything we know is in danger of changing at any time (ie: we know nothing), that doesn’t mean we therefore automatically believe it.
I think a true god would expect us to have better judgment than that. AFter all he gave us the ability to reason, why would he wish us not to…
December 4, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Bongo
edit: “would have NOT had to be loaded onto the ship”
December 6, 2008 at 11:03 am
A Guy
A few things to consider. There can be many reasons on many levels for why something was supposed to happen the way it did and keep in mind, I don’t pretend to have all the answers.
Abraham was asked to sacrifice Isaac, he went to all the trouble to build the altar and was close to performing the deed before the process was stopped an a ram in the thicket was provided. The Children of Israel wandered in the wilderness for 40 years before going to the promised land. Presumably there was something necessary in the human experience for the participants.
If you consider mortality to be a testing ground for the development and proving the mettle of our spirits and souls, that may have been some of the reason why Noah was asked to build the ark in his old age (I’d imagine his sons helped him too, since they ended up on the Ark) and subjected to so much ridicule and difficulty. For the unbelievers, it would look like a proverbial circus and it could have been horribly humiliating and embarrassing for Noah to go through what he did. Maybe it was an opportunity for personal development when the flood was already going to be necessary anyway.
When you consider a better solution, who is it better for? Were Noah’s sons tested in their faith to see how it would go down and better prepared for their lives later on? If everything were simply miraculously preserved and resolved with no effort on our part, is that helping or hindering our progress?
December 8, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Bongo
Regarding Abraham, I’m not so sure it’s a virtue to obey god to the point of murdering your own son. Were I god, I would prefer the servant who is capable of good moral judgment over the unwise servant who is blind and commanded in all things. I think if it was a test, choosing to murder your only son is the wrong choice. And Abraham failed. Which is why I think the whole story is fiction.
Regarding Noah’s age, forgetting the fact that people can’t live that long – I’m willing to pretend that if god kept his body from aging, like he was some sort of hydra, there’s no reason to think Noah was in bad shape. But that doesn’t in anyway diminish the extremity of the task at hand. That’s one big boat and I’m sure his supply of “gopher wood” was limited. Not to mention the tools required. The largest wooden ship to was the schooner wyoming, which had some serious problems, and it wasn’t even as large as noah’s ark supposedly was. Boats made out of wood just don’t float at that size, especially with such ridiculous freight.
Now about the “infidels” who were unbelievers. Do they really deserve to die? By what justification can god slaughter women and children? Just because they choose a different lifestyle? If god can do it, then why can’t his servants? Then is it ok to slay the infidels for not following god’s teachings? Isn’t that was al Queda is trying to do?
The story of the ark seems to warp the principles of science, bend the nature of reality, and distort morality, all to allow an old man and his sons a bit of a leanring experience, at the price of countless horrible, horrible deaths. I don’t think it’s definsible on either a scientific OR ethical basis.
So here’s a more philosophical question – but extremely relevant.
Suppose the bible is a hoax, suppose there never was a noah, what is your mechanism for determining that?
If you pre-accept something as true, and don’t have a vehicle for testing its authenticity/reliability – then you are not enabled to achieve any other awareness. Certainly we can both see the danger in that. There must always be a way to test and assess every scrap of information you ever read, hear, etc. Which means that anything and everything, in light of better information, can be shifted from the probably true category to the unclear category, or the probably false category.
December 8, 2008 at 5:17 pm
A Guy
I decided to check out the Wyoming Schooner. The problem wasn’t that wood doesn’t float in that quantity, it was that the boards flexed allowing water to come in. It was from tip to tip about the same length as the ark. The Wyoming had some problems and it sunk in heavy seas losing all hands, at least according to the oracle of all online knowledge, Wikipedia.org. A lot of wood still floats, the buoyancy of the wood is the same.
The bible also says that the ark was “pitched” or tarred on the inside and out. Presumably for waterproofing. It is entirely possible that if the Wyoming was tarred inside and out, it may have done better at sea at least as far as floating goes. It would not have sailed very quickly though as the surface friction on the hull would be increased. The ark was built to float, not to sail.
You raise the question of whether things unprovable by scientific means can still be true. I believe they can.
If you accept as a premise that God can create life, create the Universe, raise the dead, and do so many other things that are beyond our experience, the story of the ark is not that difficult to swallow.
I won’t bother to argue God’s ethics, because I really don’t know what they are for sure. I don’t know God’s thoughts. I won’t judge God’s actions by my limited knowledge of surrounding facts or other factors.
It is true that you can use the Bible to justify pretty much any corrupt belief. People misuse knowledge all the time. With regard to the death of the people in the flood, one way of viewing it is that God created them and is allowed to destroy them. Another wrinkle in this issue is whether you believe in life after death. If you believe in life after death and that God is the ultimate judge, then God is not killing these people, but merely bringing them home to His presence. They are still alive, but no longer in the mortal realm. It could be seen as God saying that these particular children of His have failed so badly, it is time to just quit and start over again.
If you believe in a Godlike entity, isn’t it a bit arrogant to hold God to your standards instead of trying to adopt God’s standards and understanding?
What if the point of the Abraham and Isaac story was for Abraham to put himself in the position of God allowing the sacrifice of His son, Jesus Christ. By going through the motions, Abraham could identify with God that much more. Isaac was spared, so no harm no foul? The Bible does not say that Abraham’s covenant with God was invalidated with this act or that he was otherwise chastised or corrected. Presumably his acts were correct as far as God was concerned. Maybe the test was whether Abraham would hold anything back from God?
The LDS Church Philosophy answers many of the philosophical questions you have. The way of determining that something is true is the concept that God still speaks to man and there is a hierarchy for conflicts when people disagree on what God is saying.
It still comes down to things not measured by scientific principles. The idea of a God is not really accepted by science as it is currently understood.
The question really boils down to what has a greater truth value, faith or science?
December 9, 2008 at 8:57 am
Bongo
No here is what I have:
” … Biblical literalist websites seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m) long. [47] This is considerably larger than the schooner Wyoming, at 329 feet (100.28 metres) the largest timber-hulled vessel built in modern times. The Wyoming and similar ships of her class suffered chronic leaking, warping, and hull separation due to hogging and sagging, despite reinforcement with iron bracing … ”
You said: “If you accept as a premise that God can create life, create the Universe, raise the dead, and do so many other things that are beyond our experience, the story of the ark is not that difficult to swallow.”
But that doesn’t answer what I actually asked. Because what’s happening here isn’t that you’re accepting that God cna do all this stuff, but that the Bible accurately describes what he did. And what I’m saying is that you are pre-accepting the Bible to be accurate.
Which means you can’t give it a legitimate scrutiny because your take on the subject is “ok I know this is true, so now I’ll speculate about how it might be true–but I already knoiw it is” and I think it would be better to be more objective and think along these lines: “Here is a source of information. I can’t comment on its validity just yet. Let me investigate it, scrutinize it, and then assess whether or not it’s true.”
And as a correction. I’m not assesisng god’s actions, what I’m suggesting is that God would probably not behave in the way the Bible describes. So what I’m actually criticizing here is the Bible.
Being able to create something doesn’t equate with authority to destroy it. Parents can create life and have children. But that doesn’t mean they can kill them at any time to reverse their decision.
Interesting argument regarding Abraham. But god what the Bible actually describes is this: God asked Abraham to murder his son.
Faith loses to Science. Because Science is the realm of things that cna be demonstrated to be true. Faith is the busines sof accepting things as true than cannot be demonstrated, and at times can be demonstratably false. If we allow Faith equal quarter with Science, or a superior role, then we lose the ability to temper our beliefs and actions by reason. And we become capable of all the worst sorts of behavior. More wars and killings have been done in the name of Faith than any other motivation in the history of the world.
Regarding the LDS philosophy. While I applaud many aspects of the LDS church. It seems incapable of explaining away its own controversial history. For instance the absurd marital habits of Joseph Smith and the dictatorship of Brigham Young. The connection to Masonry and the blood, death, and vengeance oathes of the early church. The fabricated Book of Abraham/Book of the Dead papyri, etc.
December 9, 2008 at 10:24 am
A Guy
OK, Wikipedia says the Wyoming from tip to tip was about 450 feet, while the hull was 329.5 feet long. I won’t quibble over that .5 feet. Your answers also ignore the point that the ark was built to carry cargo and float. Presumably sailing and steering were not part of the construction. A rectangular vessel with squarish lines with tar on the inside and outside would likely not have the same kinds of issues. Hogging and sagging may have been alleviated by strong squarish or triangular bracing. Construction and engineering possibilities open up when you are not building a sailing but a floating vessel. Wooden trestle bridges can carry trains and have for many years before being replaced with steel. It is not impossible to build such a thing.
Part of the difficulty in our discussion is what I mentioned earlier. We have made different philosophical choices regarding faith and science. I am of the opinion that science is still expanding and that not everything is explainable by science. Science cannot explain why life works. It describes the mechanics and how things operate and describes how a baby’s heart operates with two chambers in-utero and then switches immediately to four chamber operation with the struggle for a first breath after birth. It really is an amazing thing when you study it. As a biology major, you probably already know this. That is part of why people often refer to the “miracle” of life. We have a different conception of the source of this miracle and the nature of the creation, etc…
Because of these differences, you don’t believe that my scrutiny of the subject is not legitimate. No offense taken.
From what I have gathered, you look at things described in the Bible according to our current understanding of science and claim that some things are impossible. I look at things that are described in the Bible and say that I don’t understand how, and science does not explain it either, but I accept it. So I guess it is fair to say that I pre-accept the Bible as true [although what it took to get me to this point is another story]. It is not the same as saying that science is false or wrong, just that not everything is explainable as science. Such as the “why” of life, consciousness, or a sense of humor.
The functioning of the Universe in stars, gravitational fields, fusion reactions and timing of events are so perfect that in my mind, science points to the existence of an intelligent creator.
God and Parents are not the same thing. Parents often consider children a gift from a higher power. LDS Theology teaches that my children are not really mine but merely entrusted to me for a time to raise them and care for them as best I can. If you see humans as dual beings with a spiritual and a physical part, the wholesale destruction of them by God is a more finessed issue. God created the spirit of each person and has given us power to create physical bodies. The conception-pregnancy-birth process is a joint process. The parents on earth provide the body, the spirit is provided by God. Because the body cannot live without the spirit, God is the ultimate giver of life. When God decided to kill the bodies of his children, their spirits still lived on and returned to Him. Even when the body is dead, the spirit goes on.
This never justifies people to simply kill others because they are “not really dead”, it is a decision that is up to God as the giver and taker of life. The Bible has a number of rules/commandments about when it is appropriate to kill or to engage in pro-creative acts because it is God’s decision to allow or take away life. I hope you can at least see the difference, even if you don’t agree with this point of view.
For you to say what God probably would or would not do, what is your frame of reference or basis for evaluating his probable actions? As is already evident, I believe the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
To call the instruction to Abraham and Isaac as murder is missing the point. There is a difference between murder and a burnt offering. Murder is generally considered to be killing a person with malice aforethought. Because of the many different motivations and circumstances that can surround a death, U.S. law allows for everything between Capitol Murder and Negligent Homicide. There are many delineations between those things. As it applies to Abraham and Isaac, it can be seen as a metaphor for the Atonement of Christ. I’ll explain.
Burnt offerings and sacrifices of animals were used as a way to pay for sins and to seek repentance. It was a way of paying devotion to God and a part of the Old Testament worship pattern. Perhaps this is part of the reasoning behind the sale of indulgences by the Catholic Church in the past, I don’t know. If you are making animal sacrifice to pay for your sins and transgressions, the final sacrifice of the Savior for the sins of the whole world is the great and last sacrifice by Heavenly Father, of His Son for the good of the rest of His children. Animal Sacrifices were pointing forward in time to the Atonement, and the Sacrament today points back to the atonement as a reminder to us today. According to the Bible, Abraham was asked to make a burnt offering of Isaac. That’s why I stand by my original idea of the point of the story, I also find it hard to believe that there was any malice involved.
Faith vs. Science? Faith is not simply used to justify anything at all, there are specific things that Faith informs and other things that Science informs. It is not that simple. Again, science cannot explain everything we see, especially when looking at the human equation.
“More wars and killings have been done in the name of Faith than any other motivation in the history of the world.”
This is not true. Wars, maybe. Conquest and power would seem to be the prime motivators. History does not inform us of all the ancient wars and their motivations. The Roman Empire was not built on Faith, and many of the wars in Europe over the centuries were not simply done for faith.
When it comes to killings, Godless Communism is the runaway winner. The author of “Death By Government” has a page at: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM. There are estimates, but it is hard to be accurate in the lack of records of the killings Communism is responsible for. Many estimates put the death toll from Godless Communist regimes at 100 Million to 250 Million. These numbers do not include war dead either that were precipitated by Communist countries. These numbers are the governments killing their own subjects.
I am not aware of any part of the “controversial history” of the LDS Church that needs explaining away. I would appreciate it if you would follow as less inflammatory course of describing my faith. Thank you. Where large parts of the earth engage in polygamy, it is not that absurd. Brigham Young was not a dictator, people were still allowed to leave the territory and it was hardly oppressive.
I won’t bother to refute/discuss your other points as this particular discussion will not be productive for either of us as you are clearly set against the LDS Church and anything I say will not change that.
December 9, 2008 at 11:59 am
Bongo
For our purposes I’m willing to assume that god somehow granted Noah the knowledge to engineer such a ship, after all it’s harder to imagine him building the damn thing than being told how. So, we’ll say it can float. And we’ll pretend it can carry its cargo. But the issue then becomes, what is its cargo?
I put to you that it doesn’t have enough volume, density aside, to carry everything it would have to take aboard to preserve the earth. During this flood all organic life is in danger or will die. The salt-water oceanic flora and fauna are also endangered by the disolution of the oceans due to fresh water. But let’s pretend that this is not a problem (even though it is an immense one), there is still a lot of fresh-water animal and plant life that has to be saved. From large fish to algae, and everything between. So he’d have to take aboard an aquarium. And a large one. Which would further compound the difficulty of staying afloat.
The soil of the earth would flood, ruin, and in many cases erode away. So the plantlife is in severe peril. So he’ll have to take aboard every seed, spore, bacteria, fungi, virus, and yeast that allows life to be possible. He’d also have the monumental task of distributing this flora on every continent in the world. In some cases he may have to “pot” plants and trees, which would consume even more space aboard his barge.
So you have to add all of that to the overwhelming number of animals he’d have to keep in stock. Which then becomes an issue of preserving them for 40 days and nights. So you have to consider their dietary needs. A single elpahant alone can eat upwards of 300 kilograms a day. So that requires even more plants be brought aboard. But let’s say they are able to survive on a meager 50 kg per day. The two elephants on board (and we’ll assume he only brings Asian elephants even though he’d probably after include other types such as the now-extinct African) that’s going to require him to set aside a dedicated space of 4,000 kilograms of extra plants for just these two elephants. Adding in the fact that he brings along all varieties of animals, who have all varieties of diets, this would take up a tremendous amount of space. And that’s forgetting the fact that finding these resources would be incredibly difficult if not impossible. And that he brought along extra animals for sacrificing, which would take up even more.
But if somehow thos eissues were resolved … there’s still the issue of climates. Assuming Noah brings aboard every known animal, including those extinct, then he’d be faced with the problem that Polar Bears and Toucans don’t survive in the same climate. (This also applies to bacterias, spores, algea, etc which he would need to have aboard) So with animals who require a dry hot climate, such as snakes, they’d have to have a dedicated environment. Cold tundra wildlife would require another dedicated environment, and dense vibrant jungle life would need another dedicated environment. Etc. That list goes on and on.
And so does the list of physical impossibilities regarding the story of Noah’s Ark. So, in the end, it always comes down to people needing to have faith that God magically made it work somehow. Forcing, twisting, and bending your mind to accept that is, to me, les sof a virtue than raising a thoughtful objection. Or at least a skeptical eyebrow.
You’re clearly an intelligent and thoughtful person, I cna tell that form your smooth arguments and clean writing, so it is a mystery to me why that intellect shuts off when something like the Bible is brought under the lense of scrutiny. Because frankly, regarding Noah’s Ark, we really shouldn’t even be having this debate.
Now a brief note regarding the rest of your post. The killings in Russia and in Nazi germany were specifically targetted at Jews, which is a religion. Now, these were politically motivated. But the existence of religion still contributed to the fact that the deaths occurred. But you’re completely on safe ground that my argument is really only on meaningful ground when religion is used as the motivation of the killer and not the killed. So I rescind that point. Changing it instead of “the worst” source of violence, to a “considerable” source of violence. Which, I think, is still an important case ot make.
Regrading the LDS church. I was not aware that discussion of criticisms was off limits. I’ll admit I expected more open-mindedness. I have found a correlation between defensiveness and lack-of security. Perhapos your situation is not so defensible as you thought. Otherwise my criticisms could be easily addressed and deflected by logic, history, and rational discussion. But if you’d prefer not to engage in that discussion. Then I take that as a sign of insecurity.
December 9, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Bongo
And who’d want to have the job of handling and disposing of the waste? maybe that’s where the term Poop Deck came from.
That’s going to be one stinky ship.
December 9, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Bongo
PS No offense intended.
December 9, 2008 at 9:02 pm
A Guy
A few more things to wrap your mind around for Bible Science. The bible is very clear that Noah was to take animals aboard, the plants and fish were possibly left on their own. Who knows exactly what happened, the level of detail you demand is not there. Evidently the plants survived. Perhaps there was a perfect Ph or salinity, or only the heartiest of plant species survived the water or something. Wait for it, I’m only getting started.
A few chapters later, there is a very interesting verse in Gen. 10:25 about Peleg, “for in his days was the earth divided”. In LDS Scripture, there is Doctrine and Covenants 133:24 referring to the earth being restored as it was “before it was divided”. So according to scripture, not only did God create the earth, it was together in one continent (not unlike Pangea) and will be put back together in one continent again, so maybe there were many less climatological considerations to consider and many less sub species to worry about. A lot can change in a few thousand years.
Part of the fundamental difference between modern science and the bible is that many of the geological formations and plate tectonic shifts take place at a much different pace. Modern science places continental drift in a time frame of millions of years, based on the current pace of continental shifting. Biblical science puts these shifts in a much shorter time frame. The account of the bible was purportedly written around 3500 years ago. It is probably the oldest written record translated into modern language.
With a severely limited amount of written observable history, how can we know for certain what happened even 5000 years ago? We have no pictures, eye witness accounts, or other things to really compare with. We can look at radiographic dating and things, but that has it’s own problems when it comes to accuracy. The test will often tell you how old the material is, but not how long the material has been in that form or where it was when it was formed.
OOPArts is a term I think more people should be familiar with. These are Out Of Place Artifacts. Things that defy a conventional understanding of the world and science. http://www.ooparts.nl/, or for foreign objects found in coal deposits, http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2006/11/more-ooparts.html. There is also a very interesting book called Forbidden Archeology about how artifacts that are out of place of the conventional wisdom or the commonly accepted time line of human development are systematically discounted, ignored, or reinterpreted to fit the model. Artifacts are not allowed to challenge the popular scientific theories of today.
My overall point is that there is a whole lot about the history of the world that we simply don’t know. There is a great amount of anecdotal evidence and weird things out there that simply defy the conventional wisdom of how our geological history progressed and even how long it takes for coal to form. To me, these anomalies mean that current science is not as accurate as many believe it to be, but I don’t really have the hard answers either.
With regard to LDS topics being off limits, and my security in my beliefs, here is my point of view about what is going on. You demand a discussion of rational logical thought based on scientific principles that do not even come close to explaining what I believe is happening or happened. Faith is a major element of my beliefs along with other considerations. When you open up a discussion and completely discount the tools used to explain the concepts, a very short discussion (if any) ensues. Some people feel insecure in their beliefs and will argue because in the argument and defense of their position they find security and a way of reassuring themselves of their belief. Other people are secure enough in their beliefs that they feel no need to defend them.
Besides that, our beliefs are approximately 4.2 light years apart and I don’t see how we will be able to bridge the gap. I don’t have the energy or desire to pursue it. I don’t flatter myself that somehow I will provide THE ANSWER you are looking for and convert to my faith.
December 10, 2008 at 9:12 am
Bongo
Well, it is fairly easy to predict what effect a huge drowning of plants will have on them. Generally they die, and on a flood of this scale they would be uprooted and washed away. It is not possible for them to survive, with very few exceptions. So if Noah didn’t bring the plants aborad, then they must have gone underwater, if that happened they died. So only two possibilities exist. Either he brought them on board, or the flood did not cover the earth. If he brought them on board, well, I already told you the difficulties of that. Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that the flood did not happen. Elementary, dear Watson.
Regarding Pangea – the timing doesn’t work out. Pangea began splitting apart as early as 300 million years ago. But supposing the timing did work out, the changes in species, etc, around the world since then would smell of evolution. Something scriptural literalists have distanced themselves from. Right?
And no a lot doesn’t happen in a few thousand years. We’ve made huge technology/science advances, but most of them happened in the last 150 years. Before that, modern man lived for 250 million some-odd years (in his current form) with very little development. Either in knowledge or in the species. Languages and cultures developed, etc, but very slowly. The evolution of several species from only a few, in order to adapt to new climates (because of a continental split) would be in the order of hundreds of millions of years. Not thousands. If evolution were that fast it’d be so obvious and measurable that it’d indisputable.
We do have pictures. We have fossils, for example. And we have scientific testing that is imprescise regarding short time periods but enormously accurate regarding distant past. If we’re off by 5,000 years that’s peanuts when you’re looking at an object that’s 200 MIllion years old. What is that like 99.9999% accurate? Thinking the earth is only 6,000 years old is being mark by a factor of a million. Which is not a trivial error. It’s the equivalent of thinking the distance between New York and Las Angelas is 28 feet.
Several different forms of radioactive dating on dinosaur fossils point to an age that is hundreds of millions of years old. Not just one but several. And they all agree that these fossils are in the magnitude of hundreds of millions.
As long as we have fossils, and other bones such as those belonging to the Neanderthals (who were lcearly not human) we do have pictures, evidence, and information from those time periods. Take your own bones, for example. If far in the future we radioactively dated your skull, we could get a pretty good idea of roughly the time period you lived in. Trying to use the pseudo-argument that we’re only dating the age of your material is silly. Because before you were born your body and its materials didn’t exist. You’re the product of a sperm and an egg and then mass added in the womb. The structure of your bones didn’t exist until you were born, and so those materials cannot be tested or dated. So the date we get from you is the time you lived. The same is true for dinosaur fossils.
Regarding your faith – I’m more interested in getting rational explanations for things that are historically recorded and verifiable. Things even “The Church” acknowledges as part of its own history. In many cases the church is the only authority on the subject because it recorded its own history via the Journal of Discourses. But if you’d rather not discuss it that’s fine.
December 10, 2008 at 1:01 pm
A Guy
Again, we are hitting the same point of disagreement. You have complete faith in you scientific belief. I don’t.
I call it “faith” and “belief” only because they are well educated best guesses by very intelligent people. No one alive today can say with absolute certainty that the fossils are as old as the radiometric tests say they are. The most common form of fossilization is mineral replacement of the prior living matter. Dinosaur bone fossils are not the actual bones anymore, they were replaced by minerals in the exact shape of the prior material. Who knows how old the minerals were?
“And we have scientific testing that is imprescise regarding short time periods but enormously accurate regarding distant past.” I am not certain of any test that is inaccurate in the short term but claims to be accurate in the long term especially when the result is not provable. To claim that something is so old because of a test in a lab is OK, but to claim it with such complete surety is arrogance. There are many intervening events that can affect the results and again, with most things that are inaccurate in a short span, the error is multiplied at a greater span, not diminished. To say otherwise also conflicts with common sense.
Your claims of past geologic and human history are based on conjecture, not certainty. Again, with no written record of the past and no eye witnesses, we have no way of verifying the scientific claims other than peer reviewed journals that all agree with each other because that is where the research dollars are and tend to discount any evidence to the contrary. Scientific tests and best guesses are not the same as historical fact. In scientific exploration, these theories are accepted because no one has any scientifically acceptable evidence to the contrary and the theories can’t really be tested because there is no independent method of verification of results. It is another form of circular reasoning that is not challenged, questioned, and is based on a suspension of disbelief.
Evolution is real, of the micro evolutionary type, not the macro evolutionary type. How many breeds of dogs do we have now? Hybrids of dog breeds? Different kinds of elephants? Different kinds of plants and fruits through grafting, hybridization? Sometimes the hybrids are sterile like mules, other times they are fertile. Nectarines, Pluots, cockapoos, miniature doberman pincers, and other things are a form of evolution. Animal Husbandry has become a science with breeding for specific traits in animals.
At some point, scientists have had to suspend their disbelief and skepticism too. Science makes grand claims about evolution and the origin of the Universe and the theory of everything. The problem is that these things are ultimately not subject to concrete proof, so we can keep guessing about that too.
You and I have made decisions about what areas of life we will suspend our skepticism and disbelief on.
What part of “Things even “The Church” acknowledges as part of its own history. In many cases the church is the only authority on the subject because it recorded its own history via the Journal of Discourses.” Do you want to discuss?
Again, I don’t expect the discussion to be particularly useful.
December 11, 2008 at 8:23 am
Bongo
I agree that “faith” in a technical sense is completely relevant to the scientific approach. I have faith in the scientific method the same way you have faith in personal revelation–because few things can truly be known. The difference here is that I have concrete examples of the scientific method working. For example by following scientific principles we put a man on the moon. Or launched a space station into orbit, etc. I think, where revelation is concerned, demonstratable examples of it working/existing are fewer, or at least harder to see. So, in my opinion, it is much easier to have faith in the scientific method. One point of correction, I’m more convinced of the scientific method than I ma of scientific findings at any moment of time. Those tend to change, though become increasingly accurate over time via the method.
I won’t date the validity of radiometric dating with you, but it has been accurate on several testable examples. Obviously we cannot do such a test on things that are millions of years old, but we have been able to estimate the gae of the earth in the order of billions of years. And this measurement has been consistent througha variety of radiometric dating systems, not just one or two. But if you choose not to believe in radiometric dating, that’s your choice I suppose. But bear in mind not believing in it doesn’t invalidate it.
No, you misunderstand what I was talking about when referring to the margin of error. For example a radiometric test on say… a brand new penny might find it to be older than it is, due to short term subtleties. But the exact same test can accurately predict the age of an ancient egyptian barge. If the error is plus or minus a few decades, that becomes less and less important over longer periods of time. You’re assuming the error represents a sort of constant percent. But with what we’re dealing with it isn’t a percent, it’s an absolute value.
Your dismissal of peer-review is profoundly thoughtless and rather surprising. I suspect this is the product of a lack of formal or thorough education–correct me if I’m wrong. But there are any number of scientists who would love to demonstrate new ideas that conflict with old ones. And that desire is what fuels better and more advanced breathroughs. There isn’t som mob feeding scientists hush money to keeo them from letting out “the truth”, I have worked with several scientists, most notably biologists and physicists, and none of them is involved in the sort of conspiracy you describe. The reason why things in peer-review agree is because they have been adequately tested by experts and labs on every side, and agreement has been found where all known principles agree. There is no sound evidence to the contrary, just sporadic ideas that have been soundly and unquestionably defeated by the scientific community. And so naturally dismissed. Reading some online pro-bible rubbish backed by a pile of jargon and nothing scientifically valid is not a strong enough argument to overturn everything we currently know.
Your understanding of evolution is dissapointingly incomplete. We don’t have half-elephants and half-monkey humans because these creatures are as modenrly evolved as the homo-sapien. Certainly we’re more advanced and more intelligent, but other animals have been evolving contemporarily along with us. And the current monkey isn’t an under-evolved human, he’s a modernly evolved creature. We came from a similar background and share similarities but it would be incorrect to say that humans evolved from monkeys. Regarding evolution the process is generally subtle and profoundly slow. The modern human hasn’t significantly evolved for 250 Million years. So don’t be surprised if you don’t notice any kind of macro-evolution in your lifetime. But again, your failure to observe it doesn’t invalidate it. And hybrids of known animals don’t exist because they’re too genetically different to create offspring. That was Darwin’s opinion of what defined a species. Whether or not healthy offspring can be produced.
I agree that science fails to explain why any of these processes are happening. But it is becoming more and more accurate about telling us how, science is about describing the machanism of change–not the reason for it. But in my experience even religion can’t explain why anything is happening. Take god for example, by what right does he exist? Where did he come from? Even the most firm believer in god can’t completely answer these questions.
Regarding the church. The temple ritual and symbols come directly from masonry. Joseph Smith and many early leaders were masons. This is an important connection that goes unnoticed and undiscussed. Or, with their films etc, the church would have you believe that Joseph Smith was completely monogamous. Yet he had many, many wives, including a child bride, and marriages to people who were already married, and whose husbands were still alive at the time. This is documented. But again, undiscussed. Joseph Smith claimed to translate a piece of egyptian papyri into what is now the book of abraham, but that actual papuri was found a few decades ago and it matches very similar documents which have been translated as a part of the book of the dead–a mythology of the egyptians. And all egyptologists agree that Joseph Smith’s translation was decidedly wrong, and by a margin of 100%. Another incident where his translating abilities failed him was with the Kinderhook plates. I recommend you read about those. Now regarding the Jounral of Discourses, it is largely filled with teachings by Brigham Young. Who was extremely racist and an anti-semite. This coming from a reading of his own sermons–including those at General Conference. He also introduced new parts of the temple ritual, most notably a vengeance oath where participating members were expected to pray to god that he would take vengeance against the United States for allowing Joseph to die. Until the third and fourth generation, or something like that. Isn’t that a little disturbing? The list goes on.
My purpose isn’t to be inflammatory and fill your blog with propaganda. My purpose is to see if an explaination can be made, without fully discrediting the founders of the church.
December 11, 2008 at 11:02 am
A Guy
<> With regard to peer review, I was mostly referring to the fields of archaeology, evolution, and the hot new science of global warming with regard to research dollars and the absolute push to destroy and deny any evidence contrary to prevailing theories. There are also a lot of bad things going on in the FDA approval process for new drugs which also require peer review. Peer review isn’t all that it is cracked up to be although it is useful in its place. In pursuit of scientific understanding, peer review is useful in sharpening ideas and pointing out the more obvious errors (obvious to those that study the subject anyway) and is a useful way of expanding knowledge. The problem is that I am a little jaded about whether some scientists are seeking to have better knowledge or if they are merely pursuing research to back up what they already believe to be true in spite of evidence to the contrary. Motivations matter. Even peer reviews can have the same motivations as individuals.
I am not aware of any fossil evidence of any transitional forms that would be a part of macroevolution. At the end of the day, there are nice sounding theories but no hard evidence to back them up. There are sudden starts and stops with species, of creation and extinction. I have studied evolution, but I have not read any of the more recent modern theories of evolution because I don’t think they will add anything of value to the discussion. It is merely expounding on a wrong idea and a new iteration of a wrong idea is still wrong.
<> I don’t have the answers, but it is arrogance in the extreme to question anyone’s “right” to exist. If you don’t see my point in pointing this out, it just shows how different our point of view is on the existence of god, or the definition of rights.
Why does it matter if Joseph Smith and other early leaders were masons? What if the masons, as some people suggest do have some of their founding information from the stone masons who built Solomon’s Temple and were familiar with the ritual and symbolism? That a modern temple would have similar ritual and symbolism as an old temple and the masons kept knowledge from an old temple is not that far a stretch.
Joseph Smith had many wives it is true. What is there to discuss? Polygamy was practiced in the 1800’s and it was discontinued with the sanction of The Church in 1890.
Really, I am aware of the controversy about the Egyptian papyri and the Kinderhook plates. I do not see a need to discuss them with you because the leaders of the church are already discredited in your eyes and there is nothing I can say that will change that for you.
About Brigham Young, I am not aware of any doctrine where prophets are held up as perfect. I hope that you are not surprised that Brigham Young might have ideas contemporaneous or common at the time. As far as vengeance being disturbing, yes it is. It was also a time where The Church as the Kingdom of God was at war to one degree or another with the United States and gentiles. Historical perspective colors things.
Based on your comments, which may or may not capture your view of things, you already don’t believe in anything the LDS Church teaches anyway, so I don’t see the point of carrying on the discussion.
December 11, 2008 at 12:21 pm
A Guy
I deleted a post because I am done discussing anti-Mormon ideas.
December 11, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Bongo
I said:
” I already told you I am open to information from any source. And I want to hear every side. I don’t intend to argue with you, except to point out what I can see are flaws or breaks in logic. If you can present their arguments and reasons, and they are logically sound and plausible, I will be completely open to that. As a scientist I cannot say with a hundred percent certainty that it is a fabrication. All I am saying is that, given what information I have, that appears to be true. But I know that doesn’t make it true. Which is why I am constantly seeking more information. If you have that information, I implore you to share it. ”
Choosing to delete that post, which was clearly a genuine request for information is rather telling.
December 11, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Bongo
I had also written:
“And it is not correct to say that I don’t believe in anything the church offers. I am attracted to the never-ending nature of marriage according to LDS thought, and I think the church offers more gospel, from a thoughtful perspective, than makes sense in any other known religion. However, it too has what appear to be flaws. Aren’t they worth exploring? ”
Again, choosing to delete this is extremely revealing. Do you realize the implications of refusing to consider information.
I was not presenting an aggressive case with the motive to convince you or sway your views. I was requesting information. If you are uncomfortable asking the questions I was asking, then that is something about yourself you ought to think about.
December 11, 2008 at 1:22 pm
A Guy
You are missing the point that I am not going to discuss this matter any further. Religion and Truth is not always subject to scientific logic. What you simply call logic, is still within the bounds of scientific exploration in the traditional sense. You do not allow for revelation to be part of the equation because it is against the principles of traditional science. You have chosen your god, so to speak.
I don’t know what that tells you either, but people see what they want to see whether they are accurate or not in their conclusions.
December 11, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Bongo
I’m not interested in debating revelation. I’m inetresting in hearing the church’s side on a lot of controversial issues. My information is incredibly biased because I’ve never gotten your side of it. I’d like to have it. If you are unable to provide that information that suggests, to me, that there is no opposite side to the story.
December 11, 2008 at 2:16 pm
A Guy
Please visit http://www.lds.org, or http://farms.byu.edu/, or read Mormon Doctrine, or any other source of authoritative LDS information. It is out there.
I am not an authority, if you want THE LDS view, I am not it.
December 11, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Bongo
How disappointing.
I’m more interested in the thoughtful rationale of an actual believer than the cold formality of an organization’s PR department.
December 11, 2008 at 3:33 pm
A Guy
“Get used to disappointment” — The Man in Black from the Princess Bride.
You make it sound like I am your personal study of religious people or something and that getting the actual, real church view is somehow inferior to seeing what I have to say.
It really is beginning to seem rather patronizing, and further, not worth my time.
Also, you just requested the other side of the story, not my version of the other side of the story. Please be consistent in your requests. If you have not visited the BYU website, it is considered to be scholarly in its treatment of religious issues which is what I think you wanted in the first place.
December 16, 2008 at 8:59 am
Bongo
I’m bored by the FARMS apologism, I’m much more interested in the viewpoint of a member and not an organization. I’m genuinely interested. The religion does have a certain appeal, and no I haven’t yet written it off.
December 16, 2008 at 9:48 am
A Guy
If you would like to continue the conversation, you can email me at krapkanistan@yahoo.com.
December 16, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Bongo
I just might.