Op-Ed from a Prophet

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,278
Reaction score
10,111
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
Viewpoints: LDS president urges spirituality in an increasingly secular world during Phoenix-area visit

If there is anything I’ve learned in my 94 years of living, it is that a life with God is far better — more filled with hope — than one without Him. Faith in God is, and has always been, the pre-eminent force for good in this world. It is the most enduring source of peace for minds and hearts.
After three decades of doing cardiac surgery around the world, I thought I knew a little something about repairing hearts. Then I was called as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. In that moment, my focus shifted instantly to healing hearts another way — by turning all who will listen to the Master Healer, Jesus the Christ.

For the last 35 years, I have traveled the world, meeting with millions of men and women in more than 130 countries. I’ve witnessed the effects of poverty and wealth, seen the impact of education and the lack thereof, met the high in station and the humblest of souls, and been gratified by humanitarian outreach from so many who care deeply about the human condition — including the Church I now have the privilege of leading.

But the most profound thing I’ve witnessed is the unrivaled difference that belief in God and His Son, Jesus Christ, has in a person’s life. There is simply nothing to compare with the refining, ennobling strength and meaning that come into the life of a devoted believer and servant.
I can attest to this. Faith in Christ has changed the trajectory of my life. I've seen it change the lives of others. I invite you to let Him changes yours too
 

Mudda

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
8,023
Reaction score
337
Points
95
If I join LDS, how many underage girls can I marry?
 
OP
Avatar4321

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,278
Reaction score
10,111
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
If I join LDS, how many underage girls can I marry?
0. You are also required to work and support your family and serve others. Also you will need to stop drinking alcohol, smoking, eat healthy, sacrifice your time and money to build the kingdom etc
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
66,365
Reaction score
10,908
Points
2,030
I have seen man made religion change the trajectory of others lives.
For some, that fills a void.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
68,111
Reaction score
3,435
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
I have seen man made religion change the trajectory of others lives.
For some, that fills a void.
It's not religion that does it, TN. It is a relationship with the Creator that does it. Religion is merely a tool.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
68,111
Reaction score
3,435
Points
1,855
Location
Houston

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
18,417
Reaction score
597
Points
190
I have seen man made religion change the trajectory of others lives.
For some, that fills a void.
It's not religion that does it, TN. It is a relationship with the Creator that does it. Religion is merely a tool.
No proof that there is a creator.
I didn’t say it was although proof can be found through that relationship.
So you make up a relationship with your invisible friend and that makes him real? Um... no.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
68,111
Reaction score
3,435
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
I have seen man made religion change the trajectory of others lives.
For some, that fills a void.
It's not religion that does it, TN. It is a relationship with the Creator that does it. Religion is merely a tool.
No proof that there is a creator.
I didn’t say it was although proof can be found through that relationship.
So you make up a relationship with your invisible friend and that makes him real? Um... no.
Not exactly but you will never know until you test it. God exists whether or not you believe God exists but the benefits of belief will not be realized until you do.
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
18,417
Reaction score
597
Points
190
I have seen man made religion change the trajectory of others lives.
For some, that fills a void.
It's not religion that does it, TN. It is a relationship with the Creator that does it. Religion is merely a tool.
No proof that there is a creator.
I didn’t say it was although proof can be found through that relationship.
So you make up a relationship with your invisible friend and that makes him real? Um... no.
Not exactly but you will never know until you test it. God exists whether or not you believe God exists but the benefits of belief will not be realized until you do.
God hasn't been proven to exist. You forgot that little tidbit.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
68,111
Reaction score
3,435
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
It's not religion that does it, TN. It is a relationship with the Creator that does it. Religion is merely a tool.
No proof that there is a creator.
I didn’t say it was although proof can be found through that relationship.
So you make up a relationship with your invisible friend and that makes him real? Um... no.
Not exactly but you will never know until you test it. God exists whether or not you believe God exists but the benefits of belief will not be realized until you do.
God hasn't been proven to exist. You forgot that little tidbit.
The physical, biological and moral laws of nature say otherwise.
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
18,417
Reaction score
597
Points
190
No proof that there is a creator.
I didn’t say it was although proof can be found through that relationship.
So you make up a relationship with your invisible friend and that makes him real? Um... no.
Not exactly but you will never know until you test it. God exists whether or not you believe God exists but the benefits of belief will not be realized until you do.
God hasn't been proven to exist. You forgot that little tidbit.
The physical, biological and moral laws of nature say otherwise.
Doesn’t point to a god who cares what we do. And you have no moral laws.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
68,111
Reaction score
3,435
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
I didn’t say it was although proof can be found through that relationship.
So you make up a relationship with your invisible friend and that makes him real? Um... no.
Not exactly but you will never know until you test it. God exists whether or not you believe God exists but the benefits of belief will not be realized until you do.
God hasn't been proven to exist. You forgot that little tidbit.
The physical, biological and moral laws of nature say otherwise.
Doesn’t point to a god who cares what we do. And you have no moral laws.
Sure it does. We get feedback on our behaviors.
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
18,417
Reaction score
597
Points
190
So you make up a relationship with your invisible friend and that makes him real? Um... no.
Not exactly but you will never know until you test it. God exists whether or not you believe God exists but the benefits of belief will not be realized until you do.
God hasn't been proven to exist. You forgot that little tidbit.
The physical, biological and moral laws of nature say otherwise.
Doesn’t point to a god who cares what we do. And you have no moral laws.
Sure it does. We get feedback on our behaviors.
Not from an invisible being we don’t.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
68,111
Reaction score
3,435
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Not exactly but you will never know until you test it. God exists whether or not you believe God exists but the benefits of belief will not be realized until you do.
God hasn't been proven to exist. You forgot that little tidbit.
The physical, biological and moral laws of nature say otherwise.
Doesn’t point to a god who cares what we do. And you have no moral laws.
Sure it does. We get feedback on our behaviors.
Not from an invisible being we don’t.
Sure we do. Let me highlight the relevant parts.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.


Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.


If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
18,417
Reaction score
597
Points
190
God hasn't been proven to exist. You forgot that little tidbit.
The physical, biological and moral laws of nature say otherwise.
Doesn’t point to a god who cares what we do. And you have no moral laws.
Sure it does. We get feedback on our behaviors.
Not from an invisible being we don’t.
Sure we do. Let me highlight the relevant parts.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.


Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.


If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.
You’d have to prove your invisible being first. You haven’t.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
68,111
Reaction score
3,435
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
The physical, biological and moral laws of nature say otherwise.
Doesn’t point to a god who cares what we do. And you have no moral laws.
Sure it does. We get feedback on our behaviors.
Not from an invisible being we don’t.
Sure we do. Let me highlight the relevant parts.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.


Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.


If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.
You’d have to prove your invisible being first. You haven’t.
Sure I have, on multiple occasions. Physical, biological and moral laws of nature prove God’s existence.
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
18,417
Reaction score
597
Points
190
Doesn’t point to a god who cares what we do. And you have no moral laws.
Sure it does. We get feedback on our behaviors.
Not from an invisible being we don’t.
Sure we do. Let me highlight the relevant parts.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.


Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.


If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.
You’d have to prove your invisible being first. You haven’t.
Sure I have, on multiple occasions. Physical, biological and moral laws of nature prove God’s existence.
You’ve only proven it to yourself, not to anyone else. It’s your personal opinion, which is ok, but you’ve shown not empirical proof.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
68,111
Reaction score
3,435
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Sure it does. We get feedback on our behaviors.
Not from an invisible being we don’t.
Sure we do. Let me highlight the relevant parts.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.


Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.


If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.
You’d have to prove your invisible being first. You haven’t.
Sure I have, on multiple occasions. Physical, biological and moral laws of nature prove God’s existence.
You’ve only proven it to yourself, not to anyone else. It’s your personal opinion, which is ok, but you’ve shown not empirical proof.
Natural laws are empirical proof.

There is no evidence you will accept.

If you could argue how my logic was flawed you would but you can’t so all you can do is say it is wrong without any basis for that statement.
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
18,417
Reaction score
597
Points
190
Not from an invisible being we don’t.
Sure we do. Let me highlight the relevant parts.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.


Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.


If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.
You’d have to prove your invisible being first. You haven’t.
Sure I have, on multiple occasions. Physical, biological and moral laws of nature prove God’s existence.
You’ve only proven it to yourself, not to anyone else. It’s your personal opinion, which is ok, but you’ve shown not empirical proof.
Natural laws are empirical proof.

There is no evidence you will accept.

If you could argue how my logic was flawed you would but you can’t so all you can do is say it is wrong without any basis for that statement.
Natural laws like gravity don’t point to your invisible friend. You just think they do.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top