Do God's people eschew violence?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by creekster

Can you exaplin what you mean by this?

The law of conservation of matter-- matter cannot be created nor destroyed, though it can be converted into other forms. There are violations of this principle, however-- when, for example, matter is converted into energy. There is a law of conservation of energy, however, so one way or another, you can't completely destroy matter.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

He can't. I get no indication that evil can be destroyed, from Mormon doctrine. Only that it can separated and removed.

Some great philosopher once said, "there must be opposition in all things". I believe that carries on forever. We learn to deal with and overcome the opposition.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

That just opens up another can of worms. If God didn't create evil, how can he obliterate it?

I just think there ought to be an explanation for the origin of matter. Scientists have no clue where it all came from, and Mormonism also provides no explanation. Other Christian religions use the God explanation for the origin of the universe, thereby creating a God that isn't all-good, since He automatically becomes responsible for all the evil in the universe.

Mormonism resolved the good/evil issue (which I think is more important), but Mormonism lacks an explanation for the origin of the universe.

[MikeWaters]

what makes you think there was an origin to existence?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Free agency.

I loath that term. Absolutely loath it. It's a crude explanation for every bad thing that happens. What does it even men? "Free agency" is an oxymoron. Go to your dictionary and look up "free" and "agency." The words are at war with one another, which I think whatever diobolical mind thought up this newspeak must have known. Commonly Mormons think "free agency" means freedom or liberty. Why not just say that? I don't think Mormonism really believes in freedom or liberty. (See, e.g., position on Constituional amendment banning gay marriage.)

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I just think there ought to be an explanation for the origin of matter. Scientists have no clue where it all came from, and Mormonism also provides no explanation. Other Christian religions use the God explanation for the origin of the universe, thereby creating a God that isn't all-good, since He automatically becomes responsible for all the evil in the universe.

Mormonism resolved the good/evil issue (which I think is more important), but Mormonism lacks an explanation for the origin of the universe.

While interesting, there are other things I would want explained first and are more important to me.

Number 1 would be, why the heck does the football team have to have an honor code and academic standard hanging over their heads.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by All-American

The law of conservation of matter-- matter cannot be created nor destroyed, though it can be converted into other forms. There are violations of this principle, however-- when, for example, matter is converted into energy. There is a law of conservation of energy, however, so one way or another, you can't completely destroy matter.

If you consider energy to be a form of matter, then it's true--matter can't be created or destroyed.

I just think it's funny that neither science nor Mormonism can explain the origin of matter at all. On the other hand, most other religions explain the origin of matter just fine, but they are forced to invoke a partially evil God (even though they don't acknowledge it).

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I loath that term. Absolutely loath it. It's a crude explanation for every bad thing that happens. What does it even men? "Free agency" is an oxymoron. Go to your dictionary and look up "free" and "agency." The words are at war with one another, which I think whatever diobolical mind thought up this newspeak must have known. Commonly Mormons think "free agency" means freedom or liberty. Why not just say that? I don't think Mormonism really believes in freedom or liberty. (See, e.g., position on Constituional amendment banning gay marriage.)

How do you feel about the terms, free speech or all men are created equal. How about a woman has the right to choose. Are you loathful of those terms also.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I loath that term. Absolutely loath it. It's a crude explanation for every bad thing that happens. What does it even men? "Free agency" is an oxymoron. Go to your dictionary and look up "free" and "agency." The words are at war with one another, which I think whatever diobolical mind thought up this newspeak must have known. Commonly Mormons think "free agency" means freedom or liberty. Why not just say that?

Truth be told, many General Authorities would agree with you. I've heard several of them note that the term "free agency" is nowhere to be found in the scriptures. "Agency," yes, but "free agency" not so much.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I don't think Mormonism really believes in freedom or liberty. (See, e.g., position on Constituional amendment banning gay marriage.)

Now that's just dumb.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by All-American

The law of conservation of matter-- matter cannot be created nor destroyed, though it can be converted into other forms. There are violations of this principle, however-- when, for example, matter is converted into energy. There is a law of conservation of energy, however, so one way or another, you can't completely destroy matter.

I understadn which is why I asked the question. I dont' think it is destroyed at all.

This is one of the interesting distinctions between mormon cosmology and some other chirstian comsologies: we do not believe in an ex nihilo creation. So Sooner is correct that we don't know where matter came from. But the idea that matter is eternal, also generally part of our cosmology, is inconsistent with the idea that matter can be destroyed or created. I don't think it can, and I think science supports this view, but I also defer to those real scientists among us.