JohnH

• JohnH 22 Apr 2013 3:44 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: gwern’s comment on: Can some­body ex­plain this to me?: The com­putabil­ity of the laws of physics and hypercomputation

  I see a problem with this: There doesn’t seem to be a way to tell if omega itself is in the laws of physics or some finite precision approximation to omega. Given any set of finite observable phenomena and any finite amount of time there will be some finite precision approximation to any real number which is sufficient in the equations to explain all observations, assuming the models used are otherwise correct and otherwise computable. How would one tell if the universe uses the real value Pi or a finite precision version of Pi whose finiteness is epsilon greater then what is needed to calculate any observable value?

• JohnH 15 Apr 2013 21:44 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Bugmaster’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  Mormonism is much more structured then that. There are different sects but those sects are different churches, both of us come from the LDS church, which is the largest and the one that everyone thinks of when they say Mormon (unless they are thinking of the polygamous FLDS).

  There are those that call themselves New Order Mormons which are within the LDS church, by which they mean they don’t believe in any of the truth claims of the church but like the culture (or something like that, I am sure I am taking what they say out of its “rich contextual setting”).

• JohnH 15 Apr 2013 21:17 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: CCC’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  I am mostly just answering direct questions, I am horrible at walking away when questions are asked. Since this conversation is far outside of the norms of the group, I will do so in a private message if atomliner wants to continue the conversation. If he would rather it be public I would be willing to set up a blog for the purpose of continuing this conversation.

• JohnH 15 Apr 2013 20:06 UTC

  −3 points

  in reply to: atomliner’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  So, you can use your apologetic arguments all you want for whatever idea you have about Mormonism, but if they aren’t based clearly in the scriptures

  Please show what I said (excluding the reference to Confucius) is not clearly based in scripture, Numbers 11:29 may be helpful.

  would not teach false doctrine?

  Yes. that is unreasonable to assume

  Do you think that a person who speaks face-to-face with Jesus Christ would then teach his own false ideas to members of Christ’s One True Church?

  Absolutely, if Jesus says something to a prophet then what Jesus said was correct. What the prophet thinks and communicates in addition to that particular thing has no guarantee of being correct and is very likely to be at least partially incorrect. The prophet will place the words of Jesus in the framework of other beliefs and cultural constructs in the world in which they live. Prophets just as much as anyone else do not receive the fullness at once, meaning that of necessity some of their beliefs (and therefore some of their teachings) will not be correct, excluding Jesus. Prophets are not perfect any more then anyone else is perfect and we are supposed to use the light of the Spirit to discern the truth ourselves rather then follow the prophet without thought or seeking to know for ourselves. In other words, telling people to seek God as to every question is calling them to be prophets.

  Why is what he said logical to you?

  Because I have not stood in the Divine Council and so I know that not only do I not know the secrets of God I also do not have a complete understanding of faith, repentance, baptism, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost, of loving God or of loving my neighbor as myself, nor will I until, either in this life or the next, I hear the Father say Ye shall have eternal life and receive an end to my faith.

  And you are how old?

  Why is that relevant? Older than you.

• JohnH 15 Apr 2013 17:23 UTC

  −1 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  Who authorizes messengers from God?

  God obviously.

  It’s not like He has a public key,

  There are actually quite a few rules given to determine if a messenger is from God. Jesus for instance said “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself”, then there is the qualification in Deuteronomy, the requirement in John, the experiment in Alma, the promise in Moroni, and some details in the D&C. It is somewhat of a bootstrapping problem as one must already trust one of those sources, or the person presenting those sources, enough to move forward in trying to verify the source and messenger.

• JohnH 15 Apr 2013 17:11 UTC

  −4 points

  in reply to: atomliner’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  you can be moral, healthy, and happy without faith in God

  Paul saying those that didn’t know God and that didn’t have the law but that acted justly being justified because of their actions doesn’t imply to you that it is possible to be moral, healthy, and happy without faith in God? How about this, where in “There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated— And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.” does it mention anything about having faith in God being a prerequisite for receiving a blessing? Where in “if ye have done it unto the least of these they brethren ye have done it unto me” does it say that one must believe in God for that to be valid?

  “Till you have learnt to serve men, how can you serve spirits?”

  But you have to admit it’s hard sometimes to distinguish whether or not a prophet is acting as one.

  ″ Would God that all the LORD’S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!”

  How could anyone ignore these parts of the Gospel while studying “deep doctrine”?

  Very easily, as Jesus repeatedly stated.

  every member of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were prophets, seers, and revelators and that they spoke directly with Jesus Christ, therefore they were incapable of teaching false doctrine to the members of the Church.

  I am not sure how the first part of this lead to the second part of this, but I will believe that was your belief.

  How long have you been a member of the LDS Church?

  My whole life.

• JohnH 15 Apr 2013 14:37 UTC

  −2 points

  in reply to: atomliner’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  What passages in the scriptures tell you that you can be moral, healthy, and happy without faith in God?

  I already pointed you to Romans 2, specifically in this case Romans 2:13-15, did you want more?

  Why wouldn’t I?

  A prophet is only a prophet when they are acting as a prophet. More specifically there are multiple First Presidency statements saying Adam-God is wrong; Statements by Apostles saying that the racist theology was created with limited understanding and is wrong (as well as more recent church statements saying explicitly that it is contrary to the teachings of Christ); I am not referring to polygamy as a practice but the belief that polygamy is the new and everlasting covenant itself, which again has revelation and first presidency statements and even the scriptures on polygamy saying that is wrong; Also given that none of those theories were presented to the Quorums of the Church and that Apostles and a member of the First Presidency disagreed vocally with Adam-God at the time I would have thought it was clear that one can disagree with ideas not presented as revelation and not sanctioned by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. I mean, the D&C has procedures on how to conduct a disciplinary council of the prophet so while the prophet will not lead the church astray they are quite capable of sinning and of theorizing based of revelation and their own prejudices as anyone else, though they seem to have mostly gotten better at not doing that.

  what do you even mean by the “weightier parts of the gospel”?

  The two great commandments: Love God, Love your neighbor as yourself, and the actual gospel: faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Statements of the effect of that being sufficient for anyone or even that being the doctrine of Christ and the only doctrine of Christ and anything more or less being declared as the doctrine of Christ being evil seem fairly objective in stating which parts of the Gospel are most important.

• JohnH 15 Apr 2013 3:40 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: atomliner’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  Since it appears that you grew up in a pluralistic society then I have no idea why you considered everyone different then you to not be a good person and feel you were never exposed to the idea that they possibly could be a good person. Considering that Jesus (Matthew 25:40), Paul (Romans 2), Nephi, Benjamin, Alma, and Moroni all say that it is action more then belief that defines who is saved, who has faith, and who is good, happy and healthy then I don’t know how it was a shocking revelation that those who do not have the law but that act by nature according to law are just as much blessed as those that have the law.

  I fail to see how blood atonement, Adam-God, racist theology, and polygamist theology gave you the slightest impression that the Journal of Discourses was a good source of doctrine. It is my personal experience that generally those that spend the most time reading it are those least familiar with the gospel, on either end of the spectrum. The biggest fans of the Journal of Discourses seem to be those that are trying to prove the church wrong and those that are seeking “deep” doctrine while ignoring the weightier parts of the gospel, by which I mean those that try to square Adam-God statements or that speculate on the location of the ten tribes or Kolob.

  For instance nearly everyone that has taken the time to figure out what Christians say of God in their arguments for God and what the D&C says on the subject quickly realize that the two are wholly incompatible. That those beliefs on God and the arguments in favor of those beliefs are mixing Greek philosophy with scripture to synthesis a new belief. Not that members of the church are not also guilty of mingling the philosophies of men with scripture, that is a very common occurrence as you note with “what is taught in the chapel and the dinner table”, me, I tend to focus on the current authorized messengers from God and the Holy Spirit as I feel that is what I have been instructed to do.

• JohnH 14 Apr 2013 21:13 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Kawoomba’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  Why go to the Journal of Discourses? D&C 132 clearly states that those that receive exaltation will be gods, the only question is whether that involves receiving a planet or just being part of the divine council. The Bible clearly states that we will be heirs and joint heirs with Christ. The Journal of Discourses is not something that most members look to for doctrine as it isn’t scripture. I, and any member, am free to believe whatever I want to on the subject (or say we don’t know) because nothing has been revealed on the subject of exaltation and theosis other then that.

  Personally, I think there are some problems with the belief that everyone will have a planet due to some of the statements that Jesus makes in the New Testament but I could be wrong and I am not about to explain the subject here, though I may have attempted to do so in the past.

• JohnH 14 Apr 2013 20:09 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: Kawoomba’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  Calling us morons doesn’t reveal anything to reason or even attempt to force me to address what you may think of as a blind spot.

• JohnH 14 Apr 2013 19:04 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: MugaSofer’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  Being called a moron seems hostile to me, just to use an example right here.

• JohnH 14 Apr 2013 14:52 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: atomliner’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  I am going to make a prediction that you likely grew up in a smaller community in Utah or Eastern Idaho.

  In regards to the Journal of Discourse quote, the actual doctrine that Brigham Young is talking about it is very much emphasized and is found in the D&C, the Book of Abraham, and explicitly in the Temple. A dead giveaway is his reference to philosophers, he isn’t talking about us being aliens but that our spirits always existed and come from where God is rather then being created at birth as thought in the rest of Christianity. Given this and your explanation of The God Delusion I take it you aren’t that familiar with non-LDS Christian philosophy and the vast differences between us and them.

  The church has not changed at all its position on same-sex marriage and just filed an amicus brief on the subject. I can see how your conclusion on the subject was drawn though.

• JohnH 13 Apr 2013 23:09 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: MugaSofer’s comment on: Wrong Questions

  Applying Greek thought to “Ehyeh asher ehyeh” is an attempt to get at something that “explain(s) itself”, I am sure you are familiar with St. Thomas Aquinas and his five ways.

  I suppose you are also familiar with Divine Sophia in Gnosticism? Saying we have a logical reason for things existing seems to be on that same level of reasoning and appears to just add another turtle to me.

• JohnH 13 Apr 2013 21:54 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  I believe the result is that atheists have an above average knowledge of world religions, similar to Jews (and Mormons) but I don’t know of results that show they have an above average knowledge of their previous religion. Assuming most of them were Christians then the answer is possibly.

  In this particular case I happen to know precisely what is in all of the official church material; I will admit to having no idea where his teachers may have deviated from church publications, hence me wondering where he got those beliefs.

  I suppose I can’t comment on what the average believer of various other sects know of their sects beliefs, only on what I know of their sects beliefs. Which leaves the question of plausibility that I know more then the average believer of say Catholicism or Evangelical Christianity or other groups not my own.

  [edit] Eliezer, I am not exactly new to this site and have previously responded in detail to what you have written here. Doing so again would get the same result as last time.

• JohnH 13 Apr 2013 21:03 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: MugaSofer’s comment on: Wrong Questions

  Have you seen Gods as Topological Invarients? Note the date submitted as it is relevant.

  Anyways the whole question seems a confusion: either the answer will be something that does exist or it will be something that does not exist, if it exists it would appear to be part of “anything” and therefore the question is not addressed, and if it does not exist then that appears to be contradictory.

• JohnH 13 Apr 2013 17:30 UTC

  −1 points

  in reply to: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  Some of that might be because of evaporative cooling. Reading the sequences is more likely to cause a theist to ignore Less Wrong then it is to change their beliefs, regardless of how rational or not a theist is. If they get past that point they soon find Less Wrong is quite welcoming towards discussions of how dumb or irrational religion is but fairly hostile to those that try and say that religion is not irrational; as in this welcome thread even points that out.

  What I am wondering about is why it seems that atheists have complete caricatures of their previous theist beliefs. What atomliner mentions as his previous beliefs has absolutely no relation to what is found in Preach My Gospel, the missionary manual that he presumably had been studying for those two years, or to anything else that is found in scripture or in the teachings of the church. So are the beliefs that he gives as what he previously believed actually what he believed and if so what did he think of the complete lack of those beliefs being found in scripture and the publications of the church that he belonged to and where did he pick up these non standard beliefs? Or is something else entirely going on when he says that those were his beliefs?

  This doesn’t limit itself to atomliner; in my experience generally when atheists talk about their previous religion they seem to have always held (or claim they did) some extremely non-standard version of that religion. So is this a failure of the religion to communicate what the actual beliefs are, a failure of the ex-theist to discover what the beliefs of the religion really are and think critically about, in Mormon terms, “faith promoting rumors” (also known as lies and false doctrine, in Mormon terms), or are these non-standard beliefs cobbled together from “faith promoting rumors” after the atheist is already an atheist to justify atheism?

  I know that atheists can deal with a lot of prejudice from believers about why they are atheists so I would think that atheists would try and justify their beliefs based on the best beliefs and arguments of a religion and not extreme outliers for both, as otherwise it plays to the prejudice. Or at least come up with something that actually are real beliefs. For any ex-Mormon there are entire websites of ready made points of doubt which are really easy to find, there should be no need to come up with such strange outlier beliefs to justify oneself, and if justifying isn’t what he is doing then I am really very interested in knowing how and why he held those beliefs.

  What links here?

  • CCC's comment on Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013) by orthonormal (14 Apr 2013 10:47 UTC; 4 points)

• JohnH 12 Apr 2013 18:40 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: atomliner’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013)

  I am Mormon so I am curious where you got the beliefs that Homosexuality would destroy civilization, that humans came from another planet, that the Ten Tribes live underground beneath the Arctic? Those are not standard beliefs of Mormons (see for instance the LDS churches Mormonsandgays.org) and only one of those have I ever even encountered before (Ten Tribes beneath the Arctic) but I couldn’t figure out where that belief comes from or why anyone would feel the need to believe it.

  I also have to ask, the same as MugaSofer, could you explain how The God Delusion obliterated your faith? It seemed largely irrelevent to me.

• JohnH 10 Apr 2013 15:18 UTC

  −1 points

  in reply to: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s comment on: Pre­tend­ing to be Wise

  I think you are confused, this is the Solitudinem Party foreign policy, the Scorched Earth Party involves only the destruction of all non-Jews in the Middle East (facebook) and a lot of lead pipes. We of the Solitudinem Party do agree on some points with the Scorched Earthy Parties foreign policy but feel it doesn’t go far enough in ensuring an end to suffering and world peace. We take as our party motto and guiding principle this sound advice:

  ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant—Tacitus

  It has a proud and honored history of effectively working. We feel we can more effectively implement that advice today leading to a perpetual world peace for at least the next few million years. It causes us deep physic pain to think that anyone (or anything) will ever experience the horrors of pain and suffering and our candidates promise to do everything in their power to eliminate these and all other social ills instantly.

  Donations to our PAC are greatly appreciated and show your support for lasting world peace and a world free from all crime.

• JohnH 25 May 2011 5:54 UTC

  −1 points

  in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: Lonely Dissent

  maybe.

• JohnH 25 May 2011 5:41 UTC

  −2 points

  0

  on: Lonely Dissent

  Forget the clown suit. Try defending theism in a place where atheism reigns. Try being chaste before marriage and happily married after. Try to stand up for what you know to be right even if no one else around you is.

  It is fashionable and respectable to be a dissenter in pre-approved areas of dissent, try instead to stand up for the norms which one knows to be right, and see what happens.

  This is the true lonely dissent and the true rebellion for which the “tolerant” are not able to tolerate regardless of whether it is right or true.