I even googled this. It seems pets have souls but there is no direct mention of going to heaven in the LDS church.

Only if their temple work is done. Good thing, because cats are much easier to baptize by proxy.

Male pets Must have the PH

which for them is the PetHood...

What if they are into heavy petting?

This is for anyone who has lost an animal friend.

Forget Mormonism.

Look forward to seeing your friend again.


***


RAINBOW BRIDGE

Just this side of heaven is a place called Rainbow Bridge. When an animal dies that has been especially close to someone here, your pet goes to Rainbow Bridge. There are meadows and hills for all of our special friends so they can run and play together. There is plenty of food, water, and sunshine, and friends are warm and comfortable. All the animals who have been ill and old are restored to health and strength, those who were hurt are made better and strong again, like we remember them before they go to heaven.

They are happy and content except for one small thing—they each miss someone very special to them who had to be left behind. They all run and play together, but the day comes when one suddenly stops and looks into the distance. His bright eyes are shining, his body shakes. Suddenly he begins to run from the herd, rushing over the grass, his legs carrying him faster and faster, and when you and your special friend finally meet, you cuddle in a happy hug never to be apart again. You and your pet are in tears. Your hands again cuddle his head and you look again into his trusting eyes, so long gone from life, but never absent from your heart, and then you cross the Rainbow Bridge together.


############


"Rainbow Bridge" painting by Stella Violano

https://render.fineartamerica.com/images/rendered/default/print/8/4/break/images/artworkimages/medium/3/rainbow-bridge-stella-violano.jpg


############


https://thetucsondog.com/the-history-of-the-rainbow-bridge-unraveling-the-mystery/


Recently, one of our readers brought to our attention the unraveling of the mystery of the Rainbow Bridge, a touching poem about animal heaven and meeting up together again with beloved pets when our own time comes to pass. Many of you will have seen or heard some iteration of it before, but it’s doubtful you’re familiar with its actual origins.

Though numerous individuals have tried to claim authorship over the years, it turns out Edna Clyne-Rekhy, a Scottish artist and animal lover, wrote it in 1959 to commemorate her beloved dog, Major. She reportedly “had no idea that the poem had brought comfort to so many others” after penning it nearly 64 years ago.

“I’m absolutely stunned,” she was quoted as saying in National Geographic. “I’m still in a state of shock.”

Clyne-Rekhy’s authorship could easily have remained a mystery if it were not for the dogged determination of Tucson resident Dr. Paul Koudounaris. An author, art historian, cat owner, and PACC foster caregiver, Koudounaris was working on a book chronicling pet cemeteries when he repeatedly ran across references to the Rainbow Bridge.

He learned that while it had made the rounds over the decades, it wasn’t until 1994, when advice columnist Dear Abby was sent a copy, that it gained real attention. A reader had received the poem from their local humane society and decided to share its moving message. Abby printed it, noting that the author’s name was absent, and asked if anyone could identify them.

No one came forward at the time, but the poignant ode took off. Further investigation led Koudounaris to compile a list of names with a connection to the heartfelt words. In time, he narrowed it down to one person: Edna Clyne-Rekhy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2025 11:58AM by anybody.

Hardly a day passes by in that I WISH "Rainbow Bridge" had Visiting Hours...too many Pet Souls to count.

Or so it seems to me...

>It seems pets have souls...

No. Somebody somewhere claims pets have souls. That, plus the claim that humans have souls, or that there is a heaven that anybody goes to, are open questions at best, and delusions at worst.

"I want them to have souls, therefore I declare it to be so" is not the same thing as it being so.

As far as I know, the only pets authorized in Mo Heaven are unicorns. If you don't have the paperwork done on earth issuing you a unicorn, you can't get into Mo Heaven. You end up in TK Smoothie Heaven.

[T]he claim that humans have souls, or that there is a heaven that anybody goes to, are open questions at best, and delusions at worst.

COMMENT: Or more charitably, "The claim that humans have souls and/or that there is a heaven" is *true* at best, and *false* at worst. If it is truly an open question, either side of the argument might turn out to have been *delusional* in their thinking.

The logical form of your statement is a 'tell' of your bias, which is evident in much of your writing (and that of others) here on RFM. There can be no acknowledgement of the possibility of the truth of a sincere, speculative, yet "open" proposition you disfavor. It can only rise "at best" to the level of an open question. Moreover, the worst-case scenario is not that it is merely false, but a "delusion" which amounts to an ad hominin attack on anyone who might believe in the proposition.

A speculative, open, claim, even without any evidence, is always at best *true* (with respect to the claimant) if not inconsistent with known knowledge. And, if such speculation is an open question, it is, by definition, at least possible, and so at best true.

A Platonist, like yourself, might say, "Numbers and other mathematical objects and functions exist in a mysterious realm of abstract entities, which are discovered by mathematicians." Non-charitably, someone might say, such a statement is an open question at best, but a delusion at worst. However, a non-biased opinion would simply say that the statement was true at best, and false at worst. (Equivalent to saying it is not inconsistent with known facts.) Even when Bayesian probabilities suggest to someone that the likelihood of a speculative proposition is remote, it is still at best true!

Speaking of un-charitable assessments of Platonism, consider this statement:

"Heaven and the Mind of God are no longer heard of in academic discourse. Yet most mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics continue to believe in an independent, immaterial abstract world -- a remnant of Plato's heaven, attenuated, purified, bleached, and all entities but the mathematical expelled. . . . MacLane is unusual in his unequivocal rejection of Platonism . . . "The platonic notion that there is somewhere the ideal realm of sets, not yet fully described, is a glorious illusion."

(Quoted from Reuben Hersh, *What is Mathematics, Really?* (1997), p. 12.

Now, whether there is a soul or not, or a heaven or not, is much on a par with whether there is a Platonic mathematical realm or not. So, you and the majority of mathematicians are essentially in the same boat as those you backhandedly criticize. I'm sure you and the majority of your colleagues have philosophical reasons for embracing metaphysical Platonism, just as theists have reasons for embracing a metaphysical soul and/or heaven. We all embrace metaphysical beliefs, whether we admit it or not. (Like our belief in our own consciousness, and our weekend belief in fee will, or the metaphysical belief that scientific materialism is true.

So, moral of the story: Stop implying that in criticizing religious beliefs you are somehow automatically on the highroad of non-delusional rationality. Nothing could be further from the truth, or (non-charitably) itself more delusional. :)

Well, the preponderance of NDEs, including that of Eben Alexander, strongly suggests that the soul exists. It's not an abstraction or hypothetical construct. The soul is a (sometimes directly experienced) real thing. No living thing could exist without one.

Physical materialism is a cult that requires turning a blind eye, just like Mormonism.

Bradley said:

>...the soul exists. It's not an abstraction or hypothetical construct. The soul is a (sometimes directly experienced) real thing. No living thing could exist without one.

Rather a lot of people do think it is an abstraction or hypothetical construct.

BTW, who is Eben Alexander, and why does he get a special shoutout? Did he have the one true NDE? I've heard of this guy in upstate NY who had God and Jesus hanging in the air above him, shortly after the forces of darkness tried to destroy him. Quite the tale.

As for 'no living thing could exist without one', how do you know that? Why couldn't there be some things with souls and some without? I've heard of people being described as soulless. Or is being soulless a hypothetical abstraction, while having a soul is not a hypothetical absrtraction?

Do plants have souls? Bacteria? Viruses? Rocks? Bubbles?

And if yes, what does virus heaven look like? How about bubble heaven? That could be entertaining. Are the bubbles free and round, or all bunched together with flattened sides?

https://mathoverflow.net/questions/270371/do-bubbles-between-plates-approximate-voronoi-diagrams

"As for 'no living thing could exist without one', how do you know that? Why couldn't there be some things with souls and some without? I've heard of people being described as soulless. Or is being soulless a hypothetical abstraction, while having a soul is not a hypothetical absrtraction?"

COMMENT: I do not agree that 'no living thing could exist without one.' However, I do believe that no "conscious living thing" could exist without one. That is to say, consciousness implies a psychologically centered self that has subjective *experiences* and acts generally for its own self-interest within the context of some environment. That is the definition of a soul. (without additional religious connotations.) Humans (and other higher animals), by that definition, have souls, along with a related, advanced cognitive capacity involving thinking, deliberation, action, and (sorry) free will.

The word "soul" (by the above definition) does NOT necessarily entail existence without a physical body, or an afterlife, although it does make such speculations more probable than scientific materialism would allow. But then, scientific materialism cannot explain consciousness or the mental, both of which are given by experience, so it is just plain false.

> Well, the preponderance of NDEs, including that of
> Eben Alexander, strongly suggests that the soul
> exists.

The great thing about rejecting physical materialism is it frees you to believe any damn thing you want. Just open your spiritual eyes.

I do find the NDE literature amusing. We are invited to believe testimony about life after death from people who, by definition, did not experience it.

Eden is an outstanding example. He insists that he died and then got better--much like in the Monte Python sketch.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2025 05:47PM by Lot's Wife.

I'd like to return this parrot.

They still let you near the animals?

Seriously, is it not hypocritical of you to repeat yourself ad nauseam and then expect others to give up and let the faith-based nonsense prevail?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2025 05:46PM by Lot's Wife.

The consensus of Indian gurus is based on direct observation, not faith. The western translation of the akash, courtesy of Rupert Sheldrake, is Morphic Resonance - also based on observation.

The dividing line between what has a soul and what doesn’t is an arbitrary human construct. Crystal formation is subjuct to the effects of morphic resonance, a nonlocal field connecting all like things. If the data is to be believed, maybe rocks have a soul, the Earth has a soul, and AI has a soul.

But the discussion is academic. Dogs most certainly know more about God than humans ever will.

>> Dogs most certainly know more about God than humans ever will.

Our family dog was a better person that I could ever aspire to be. Sometimes I think we evolved from the wrong animal.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The consensus of Indian gurus is based on direct
> observation, not faith.

That proposition is either trite or wrong. If you are describing the demonstrated physiological effects of meditation, it is trite because everyone knows the practice works as a means of calming the mind, reducing pain sensitivity, lowering blood pressure, slowing pulse, etc. But if you are suggesting that the proven efficacy of the Hindu meditative techniques implies that Hindu metaphysics are correct, you are simply wrong.

Wrong on a couple of levels. First, there are dozens if not hundreds of rival Hindu sects with frequently contradictory worldviews. To say that there is a unitary Indian ideology or that all gurus agree is as silly as saying that there is one Islam or one Christianity.

Second, your implicit claim that meditative success proves Indian ontology is absurd in exactly the same way as your insistence that people who undergone near death experiences have something meaningful to say about life after death. By definition, anyone who is alive does not know anything about the subjects you keep harping on.


---------------
> The western translation of
> the akash, courtesy of Rupert Sheldrake, is
> Morphic Resonance - also based on observation.

Sheldrake is a Christian. He says that he's found numerous parallels between mystical Christianity, Sufism, and some forms of Hinduism, but he does not ascribe to the Hindu vision of reality.

So no, Sheldrake does not agree with you.

--------------
> Crystal
> formation is subjuct to the effects of morphic
> resonance, a nonlocal field connecting all like
> things. If the data is to be believed, maybe rocks
> have a soul, the Earth has a soul, and AI has a
> soul.

Crystals, morphic resonance, souls. . .

The great thing about your ideology is it allows you to believe anything you want not just about ultimate reality but also about concrete phenomena like women, ethnic minorities, fast food restaurants, even exhibits at the MOMA. You are right on all subjects at all times.

You become a prophet in your own mind.

We are all prophets in our own mind, are we not? You just take a more argumentative approach due to your training. It may be true that lawyers are the reason we can't have nice things, but I know lawyers who have nice things. Anyway, wielding semantics like nunchuks must be terrific fun. Who am I to interfere?

That said, I don't see any relevance in your rebuttal. The notion that machines could literally have eternal souls is a salient conclusion given the rise of our AI overlords. It may be the most relevant issue of our time.

I'm a little slow hitting the brakes on the woo wagon, so I'll bring up another thread about dowsing Joseph Smith. I didn't watch the video but I did read the comments. They align with my observations of mediumship. Those who have "passed over" do not change. Whatever afterlife they are in provides a cocoon of protection around whatever beliefs they died with. It's as if there is no absolute truth, no realistic ontology. Only turtles all the way down. So, what are we left with? Stories. Religions are stories. The Mormon religion is based on stories of Jewish settlement of pre-Columbian America that can't possibly have happened, yet they have cohesive value.

Against that backdrop, any solid ground one finds is only subjectively solid. Consensus reality is like a ball of ants crossing a pond. That would make me a little like Ant Z.

And yet you get riled up over talk of the afterlife. Because you're triggered, because the Mormon church played you for a fool. It took me a while to get over it, but I was the one who went on board the ship of fools, and fools will be fools. You can't expect TBMs to be something they're not.

Not to try and analyze you, but methinks she doth protest too much.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2025 11:10PM by bradley.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We are all prophets in our own mind, are we not?

No, not all of us are prophets in our own minds.


------------------
> Anyway, wielding
> semantics like nunchuks must be terrific fun.

Is that how you perceive criticism?


---------------
> That said, I don't see any relevance in your
> rebuttal. The notion that machines could literally
> have eternal souls is a salient conclusion given
> the rise of our AI overlords. It may be the most
> relevant issue of our time.

You assume, again, that there is such a thing as a "soul."

I cannot prove there is no soul for the same reason one cannot disprove the existence of God: neither of them are defined in terms that can be tested. What I can do is indicate the presumptuousness of those who think they know the truth without evidence.


--------------
> . . . my
> observations of mediumship. Those who have "passed
> over" do not change. Whatever afterlife they are
> in provides a cocoon of protection around whatever
> beliefs they died with.

You presume the people in question actually "passed over" and then came back to tell their stories, a proposition for which there is no proof other than self-reference. Isn't the testimony of people who claim to have died--that the afterlife is just as they had expected--exactly what one would expect from people who never died?

To that extent, is not their testimony as valid against your views as in favor of them?


------------------
> It's as if there is no
> absolute truth, no realistic ontology.

Again, if pre-death and after-death ontological views are the same, is not the simplest interpretation that the subjects did not, in fact, die?


---------------
> So, what are we left
> with? Stories. Religions are stories. The Mormon
> religion is based on stories of Jewish settlement
> of pre-Columbian America that can't possibly have
> happened, yet they have cohesive value.

Mormon stories have utility, which is not the same thing as value. Crutches can be useful, they have utility, but they are not the same thing as being able to run.


---------------
> And yet you get riled up over talk of the
> afterlife. Because you're triggered, because the
> Mormon church played you for a fool.

"Riled?" "Triggered?"

It appears that you feel more comfortable assigning emotions to me than accepting that you don't know how I feel.


------------------
> Not to try and analyze you, but methinks she doth
> protest too much.

Feel free to analyze me if it makes you feel better.

>
> No, not all of us are prophets in our own minds.
>

Wouldn't that be a judgment call? We all have opinions. Those who voice those opinions the loudest are called prophets.

> > Anyway, wielding
> > semantics like nunchuks must be terrific fun.
>
> Is that how you perceive criticism?

It's how I perceive strawmanning. Intellectually honest criticism is welcome.

> You assume, again, that there is such a thing as a
> "soul."
>
> I cannot prove there is no soul for the same
> reason one cannot disprove the existence of God:
> neither of them are defined in terms that can be
> tested. What I can do is indicate the
> presumptuousness of those who think they know the
> truth without evidence.

We may have different standards of reasonableness. In a court of law, there are reasonable doubt, reasonable arguments, etc. How credible are the witnesses, do you know the witnesses intimately, etc.

>
> You presume the people in question actually
> "passed over" and then came back to tell their
> stories, a proposition for which there is no proof
> other than self-reference. Isn't the testimony of
> people who claim to have died--that the afterlife
> is just as they had expected--exactly what one
> would expect from people who never died?
>
> To that extent, is not their testimony as valid
> against your views as in favor of them?

I don't think so. My DW spent several minutes dead on a river rafting trip. She encountered things she expected but many things she did not expect. As with many NDEs, she reported seeing things that could only been seen (or heard) from an out-of-body perspective.

> > And yet you get riled up over ....
>
> "Riled?" "Triggered?"
>
> It appears that you feel more comfortable
> assigning emotions to me than accepting that you
> don't know how I feel.

That's the nature of boards. It's hard to tell where anyone is coming from. One person's beyond reasonable doubt is another's BS.

All that aside, my views may be too new-agey. I take the Wheeler–DeWitt equation as reasonable evidence that time is fundamentally unreal. The soul is the part of us that exists in a timeless domain. It's a bit like the movie Inception. I'm sure it is terribly complex, but many religions do a good job of simplifying it.

To put on my prophet hat, the information field that makes life possible exists outside of space and time. The ATP oxidative reduction cycle that powers cells also serves as an information interface to this timeless domain to guide cellular mitosis. It's kind of like the cellular machinery is the hardware and the akashic record is the software. I'm not sure whether a soul is required for that to work. Probably not, because people who have an OBE do not die while they are out. So it calls into question what has a soul and what does not. My DW saw the ghost of our dead cat, so cats probably have souls.

> > No, not all of us are prophets in our own
> minds.
> >
>
> Wouldn't that be a judgment call?

Not at all. Any number of people here would not agree that they are prophets.


--------------
> The ATP oxidative reduction cycle that
> powers cells also serves as an information
> interface to this timeless domain to guide
> cellular mitosis.

I guess that's like the mitochondria idea? Certain organelles and chemical processes are supernatural?

Good luck with that.

>> The ATP oxidative reduction cycle that powers cells also serves as an information interface to this timeless domain to guide cellular mitosis.

In my day, I spent a good deal of time studying biochemistry, oxidation/reduction in chemistry and mitosis and meiosis in biology and microbiology. We probably spent a month on aerobic and anaerobic cellular energy generation alone.
Somehow the transfer of an electron from one thing to another was never called an information interface and timeless domain in any of my text books.
There's no need to woo-ify known processes. Biochemistry doesn't need fluff to appreciate or understand IMO.

"In my day, I spent a good deal of time studying biochemistry, oxidation/reduction in chemistry and mitosis and meiosis in biology and microbiology. We probably spent a month on aerobic and anaerobic cellular energy generation alone."

"Somehow the transfer of an electron from one thing to another was never called an information interface and timeless domain in any of my textbooks."

COMMENT: With respect to your "information interface" comment, the problem is in your preface, "in my day." I suspect that this was in the 70s and 80s when mechanism, reduction and neo-Darwinism still held sway in biology. Nowadays, however, systems biology, including such inter-related disciplines as complexity theory and information theory, are ubiquitous in biology, with their mathematical models.

Consider the following quote:

"While [traditional] biology became extremely successful in teasing out intricate features at smaller and smaller scales, it turned out that reductionist methods, even if executed to perfection, could not solve all problems. Reductionism was creating a parts catalog, but as Henri Poincaré (1952) said: "The aim of science is not things in themselves but the relations between things." A crucial aspect was missing. .
. . Thus, even the rapidly growing amount of data and experience with microorganisms and cell lines did not yield the desired true understanding of biological phenomena. Very slowly, it became apparent that another paradigm shift was necessary. New laws had to be postulated -- not laws of "life forces" or teleology but laws of integrated systems and of organized complexity . . .

"Thus, many seminal ideas of today's systems biology emerged during this period. But the time was just not yet ripe for mainstream acceptance of systems thinking in biology. Most biomathematicians continued to be isolated and biology remained to be synonymous with laboratory work. As is typical for every major paradigm shift, the community was not enthusiastic about changing the proven and successful ways of doing science. The tradition of reductionism continued to be the overwhelmingly dominant approach throughout the 20th century."

"Given the huge success of reductionism, one must indeed ask why any biologist should do anything but reductionism. The answer is twofold. An almost practical aspect is that reductionist research is generating so many data that it is becoming mandatory not just to collect and store these data in databases, but to develop a functional context within which each experimental result becomes meaningful. Data must become information. Without a functional context, data are isolated factoids, simply descriptions of features, and only their integration within their physical, spatial, and functional surroundings yields insight and, ultimately, knowledge and understanding. As Davenport noted: "Data are not information. Information is data endowed with relevance and purpose. Knowledge is information endowed with application. Wisdom is knowledge endowed with age and experience."

(From Andrzej K. Konopka, *Systems Biology: Principles, Methods and Concepts,* (2007) pp. 32-33); See also,
__________________________________

"There's no need to woo-ify known processes. Biochemistry doesn't need fluff to appreciate or understand IMO."

COMMENT: With respect to any claimed "timelessness" in biochemistry or biology generally, your "woo" comment is right on. However, with respect to "information interface" as applied generally to systems biology, and more specifically bioinformatics, the comment is 'woo-fully' out of date.

A note in passing: Much of systems-oriented biology involves a 'transcendent ontology,' (Concepts, entities, and laws that go beyond the mechanisms and traditional concepts of biochemistry) that but-for its scientific orientation could be pejoratively called "woo." For example, what underlying entities and laws account for "biological agency," "self-organization," or "emergence." These are all concepts that arise in modern biology out of the realization that reductionism from life to mere biochemistry, or worse to physics, is deeply flawed. The biologist, Stuart Kaufmann, even wrote a book addressing these transcendent issues, calling it *Reinventing the Sacred."

All of this suggests that you should be more careful when calling out someone who you think is engaging in religious motivated "woo" biology or science.

I take the Wheeler–DeWitt equation as reasonable evidence that time is fundamentally unreal.

COMMENT: The Wheeler-Dewitt equation(s) attempt to reconcile General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics by applying General Relativity to states of the entire universe. Time drops out, but this is for most physicists a problem, because time is an essential component of the equations of Einstein's general relativity, as well as quantum mechanics, not to mention the common human experience of time.

Thus, the scientific program is to try to explain how time emerges from this block universe, rather than to remain satisfied that time has been "explained away." In any event, the Wheeler-Dewitt equations are not evidence of anything, much less evidence that time is fundamentally unreal. (See Lee Smolin, *Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe.* (2013), particularly pp. 82-87) (Note further that the block universe of the Wheeler-Dewitt equations (and Einstein) is often high-jacked by theology, which is what you apparently are doing here, in order to somehow get to the concept of immortality. However, immortality in a cosmic universe fundamentally devoid of time is a meaningless nightmare, hardly what I would call heaven.)
_________________________________

"The soul is the part of us that exists in a timeless domain. It's a bit like the movie Inception. I'm sure it is terribly complex, but many religions do a good job of simplifying it."

COMMENT: A dynamic soul (if there is such a thing) cannot exist in a timeless domain. That is like someone being literally "frozen in time." Terribly complex is the best part of any such idea, the worst part being terribly meaningless. And religions most certainly do NOT do a good job of simplifying it. As evidenced by your explanation here.
____________________________________

To put on my prophet hat, the information field that makes life possible exists outside of space and time. The ATP oxidative reduction cycle that powers cells also serves as an information interface to this timeless domain to guide cellular mitosis.

COMMENT: Are you nuts, or just terribly confused. The word 'cycle' implies both space and time, where a system moves from one state to another. This applies to all of molecular biology, including the ATP cycle. Applying this cycle to "information" does not give you timelessness for free. Information analysis is a mathematical assessment of Shannon information flowing through a system. It has nothing to do with the metaphysics of timelessness.
________________________________

It's kind of like the cellular machinery is the hardware and the akashic record is the software. I'm not sure whether a soul is required for that to work. Probably not, because people who have an OBE do not die while they are out. So it calls into question what has a soul and what does not. My DW saw the ghost of our dead cat, so cats probably have souls.

COMMENT: If "cellular machinery" produces some sort of metaphysical "akashic record," there is zero evidence for it. It is certainly NOT encompassed by information theory. You really are getting carried away here. It is your usual hodgepodge of scientific ignorance and theology. There may indeed be such 'things' as souls (I personally believe there is), but the interface between such souls and reality is not met, or explained, by citing vague theological-metaphysical concepts and loosely associating them with scientific theories which you (or your sources) know nothing about.

Finally, NDEs are a reality of human experience. At face value, they *do* suggest survival of death; that is, they *are* evidence of such survival. You do not add to their force, meaningfulness, or explanatory power, by appealing to mysterious fields and fancy made-up concepts and calling it science, or otherwise by bootstrapping them loosely upon existing science. Whatever their transcendental explanation might be, if there is one, it represents an expanded reality that may or may not one day be understood scientifically.

Henry, Henry, whoa there, big fella. I was just trying to make the distinction between someone saying something is true and it actually being true. You're dragging in Plato and Saunders MacLane, a name I never expected to see on RFM. I took an abstract algebra course and he was the co-author of the text. My only C in college. I was so annoyed at getting a C, I repeated the course - got another C. That was about the time that I switched to Computer Science. Abstract algebra was also the course that caused Doug Hofstadter to switch majors, which made me feel better. I was obviously scarred by the experience. There are very few of the textbooks from my college courses where I can name the authors 60 years later. :) [I just came up with 4 textbook authors, so perhaps I remember more than I give myself credit for]

That said, I more or less agree with MacLane. I'm torn on whether math is created or discovered, so I am not quite the platonism you give me credit for. I cheat and say it is both. I can make a case for either position.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2025 05:40PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Thanks for that. Interesting personal anecdote about MacLane and about your experience with abstract algebra. Personally, I realized math was not my thing, long before reaching that point.

But, while we are being cordial, don't you think I have a point in stating the following:

Now, whether there is a soul or not, or a heaven or not, is much on a par with whether there is a Platonic mathematical realm or not. So, you and the majority of mathematicians are essentially in the same boat as those you backhandedly criticize. I'm sure you and the majority of your colleagues have philosophical reasons for embracing metaphysical Platonism, just as theists have reasons for embracing a metaphysical soul and/or heaven. We all embrace metaphysical beliefs, whether we admit it or not. (Like our belief in our own consciousness, and our weekend belief in fee will, or the metaphysical belief that scientific materialism is true."

Put in another way, what is the intellectual or rational difference between belief in a soul and some sort of afterlife heaven, and belief in the reality of abstract numbers and sets, not to mention infinity, in some sort of mathematical heaven?

Shouldn't that give you (and especially Hofstadter) a little pause before engaging in anti-religion rhetoric on metaphysical grounds?

Classic orthodox mormon doctrine absolutely allows for pets in heaven.

"I suppose John saw beings there of a thousand forms, that had been saved from ten thousand times ten thousand earths like this, — strange beasts of which we have no conception: all might be seen in heaven. The grand secret was to show John what there was in heaven. John learned that God glorified Himself by saving all that His hands had made, whether beasts, fowls, fishes or men; and He will glorify Himself with them.

"Says one, 'I cannot believe in the salvation of beasts.' Any man who would tell you that this could not be, would tell you that the revelations are not true. John heard the words of the beasts giving glory to God, and understood them. God who made the beasts could understand every language spoken by them. The four beasts were four of the most noble animals that had filled the measure of their creation, and had been saved from other worlds, because they were perfect: they were like angels in their sphere. We are not told where they came from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John praising and glorifying God."

[DHC 5:343-44, delivered by JS 4/8/1843]

https://archive.org/details/historyofchurcho05robe/page/342/mode/2up?view=theater

So the CK looks like the Mos Eisley cantina?

I was once up-close with a rattlesnake, so my response is NO THANKS!!

If there is an afterlife, I hope to see a lot of wagging and waving tails greeting me. :)

OK, that's Great;

I'd like to hook up with family in a loving home, but I guess I'm the only one that feels that way.

You realize you can have both?

According to BYU deceased professor of religion and philosophy, Truman Madsen (1926–2009), he said on his DVD lectures on "Joseph Smith the Prophet" (1989) that Smith taught your domestic pets are resurrected with you to one of the 3-degrees of glory. Evidently Smith had a real fondness for his horse (or maybe it was his dog?) and thus taught that 'principle.'

I've never heard that 'principle' taught in any LDS lesson manual or over the pulpit during a general conference sermon.

Madsen was a very popular lecturer on the BYU Education Week circuit (1970s-90s) and always had packed classes. He usually got the biggest venue where ever the classes were held, i.e. BYU Campus Education Week (Marriot Center, or large Wilkinson Center ballroom) or at a stake center near you. I remember him being very popular when he came to education week at my nearby stake center back in the 1970s.

After reading everything on MormonThink.com I realized that the inconvenient truths that collide with the Mormon narrative were obviously ignored in Madsen's lectures. Even though I have no proof, I would suspect that he deliberately only spoke faith promoting material that would please the Church Education System overseen by the Q12.

At Least TM lived 'to a ripe old age'

just sayin' Now he's with Joey, Bring'Em & the other scoundrels.

They go to the Alpo Kingdom.

I ain't going there anyway but I hope my dogs went to a nice place. They're more deserving than a lot of people I've met.

Yes, but only as servants...