God Is An Atheist

[CV75]

Yes, and that's why I'm trying to point out that it seems to me the LDS worldview has the tail wagging dog.

I think that "no immaterial matter", or that everything is matter, solves this problem.

[CV75]

In order for a soul to be held accountable, it must be ultimately, personally responsible for creating it's own core personality characteristics. How?

I refer you to the thread on whether God knows someone will be exalted (because I'm lazy and don't want to copy and past all my posts!).

[CV75]

Another Question, with this scenario how can god be anything but a peer?

In a way He is a peer, in that 1) He gave us our agency; 2) wew are joint-heirs with His Son, who has all His Father has; and 3) we are invited to use our agency to be one with Him.

[Xander]

No, it's not.

We are created in the image of God. We are. Not our ancestors. Our "pre-Adamite" ancestors were not spirit children of God in the same way that we are. God used evolution to create the human body, and there had to be a person into whom God placed the first of His spirit children to come to earth (let's call him "Adam"). That's not that hard to understand.

Of course, this is just one possible way to look at it, and it's not necessarily the view I have, but it's not as black and white as you're trying to make it seem.

You're literally making up your own doctrine about "pre-Adamites" and the timing of the "image" creation that has nothing to do with the official LDS position. Yes, LDS doctrine is black and white. It is either doctrine or it isn't, and what you're throwing out on the table now are imagined "possibilities" that have nothing to do with LDS doctrine, and in fact contradict it. The fact remains that LDS doctrine doesn't reconcile with science on this issue and your proposed "possibility" really raises more questions that you think it answers.

[mfbukowski]

You're literally making up your own doctrine about "pre-Adamites" and the timing of the "image" creation that has nothing to do with the official LDS position. Yes, LDS doctrine is black and white. It is either doctrine or it isn't, and what you're throwing out on the table now are imagined "possibilities" that have nothing to do with LDS doctrine, and in fact contradict it. The fact remains that LDS doctrine doesn't reconcile with science on this issue and your proposed "possibility" really raises more questions that you think it answers.

This is precisely why you are now separated from the church. Your understanding of what is "doctrine" is far too black and white and too literal.

None of what you have said appears on a baptismal or temple recommend interview, and is therefore open to interpretation.

Why is it that the only ones who seem to know precisely what LDS doctrine is, are the apostates?

Edited March 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[tana]

I agree that we don't create our personalities- that comes with us when we are born.

But I don't see anybody really addressing how his core could self generate.

If God was once as a man, and man can become as a god, obviously *something* can be added to an entity. What? The only thing I can think of would be knowledge. Start peeling back the layers of learning and eventually one winds up with nutten.

In my opinion LDS theory tries to explain away where the entity acquired it's core personality traits by attributing it to the previous realm.

To me "nurture" cannot be the ultimate identifier. For instance, God nurtured his children perfectly in the pre-existence, yet one third of them still turned out bad. Obviously they must have *brought something with them* from their previous incarnation also.....it just keeps getting pushed back. It turns into nothing more than reincarnation....Which doesn't explain how a soul could self generate a core personality any better than Mormonism.

If a person were to discard all biases, preferences, yearnings....How would they be distinguishable from another at the core level in any way other than their acquired knowledge?

The big five personality traits, openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Wouldn't a perfect being be absolutly neutral in all of these....and if so what would distinguish them from another?

Edited March 13, 2012 by tana

[mfbukowski]

But I don't see anybody really addressing how his core could self generate.

If God was once as a man, and man can become as a god, obviously *something* can be added to an entity. What? The only thing I can think of would be knowledge. Start peeling back the layers of learning and eventually one winds up with nutten.

In my opinion LDS theory tries to explain away where the entity acquired it's core personality traits by attributing it to the previous realm.

To me "nurture" cannot be the ultimate identifier. For instance, God nurtured his children perfectly in the pre-existence, yet one third of them still turned out bad. Obviously they must have *brought something with them* from their previous incarnation also.....it just keeps getting pushed back. It turns into nothing more than reincarnation....Which doesn't explain how a soul could self generate a core personality any better than Mormonism.

If a person were to discard all biases, preferences, yearnings....How would they be distinguishable from another at the core level in any way other than their acquired knowledge?

The big five personality traits, openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Wouldn't a perfect being be absolutly neutral in all of these....and if so what would distinguish them from another?

So you're agreeing with me then right?

I think it is fairly doctrinal that not all intelligences are equal. Some are animals some are rocks.

Lyrics from my favorite hymn:

Be still, my soul; the waves and winds still know

His voice who ruled them while He dwelt below.

http://www.lutheran-hymnal.com/lyrics/tlh651.htm

Winds and waves don't know the voice of God unless they have some kind of intelligence.

Edited March 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[altersteve]

You're literally making up your own doctrine about "pre-Adamites" and the timing of the "image" creation that has nothing to do with the official LDS position. Yes, LDS doctrine is black and white. It is either doctrine or it isn't, and what you're throwing out on the table now are imagined "possibilities" that have nothing to do with LDS doctrine, and in fact contradict it. The fact remains that LDS doctrine doesn't reconcile with science on this issue and your proposed "possibility" really raises more questions that you think it answers.

I am aware that my views on this subject have nothing to do with the official LDS position, because there is no official LDS position. The only official LDS position on this subject is that we were made in the image of our Heavenly Father, both physically and spiritually. Full stop. Everything beyond that is fair game. Believing that there were "people" before Adam will not effect my standing in the Church, since several General Authorities, even, have espoused that view.

And, yes, I agree that my proposition raises a lot of questions, but I don't see how that's a bad thing. In fact, it's a great thing, because asking questions leads to knowledge.

Edited March 13, 2012 by altersteve

[KevinG]

Why is it that the only ones who seem to know precisely what LDS doctrine is, are the apostates?

You know the answer to that.

Something, something... blinders. Something, something... conditioning. Something, something... cognitive dissonance.

[KevinG]

I am aware that my views on this subject have nothing to do with the official LDS position, because there is no official LDS position. The only official LDS position on this subject is that we were made in the image of our Heavenly Father, both physically and spiritually. Full stop. Everything beyond that is fair game. Believing that there were "people" before Adam will not effect my standing in the Church, since several General Authorities, even, have espoused that view.

And, yes, I agree that my proposition raises a lot of questions, but I don't see how that's a bad thing. In fact, it's a great thing, because asking questions leads to knowledge.

Total sidetrack here but I was wondering about speculation on pre-adamites and Nehilim and where the two might come together? Sons of God and Daughters of Men? Hmmm... Believe it or not this thought came from looking at a Biblical timeline prepared by a Harvard Divinity scholar who included pre Eden human activity on his timeline.

[mfbukowski]

Total sidetrack here but I was wondering about speculation on pre-adamites and Nehilim and where the two might come together? Sons of God and Daughters of Men? Hmmm... Believe it or not this thought came from looking at a Biblical timeline prepared by a Harvard Divinity scholar who included pre Eden human activity on his timeline.

Anybody seen bc? On second thought what this board doesn't need is another evolution thread!

[Xander]

This is precisely why you are now separated from the church. Your understanding of what is "doctrine" is far too black and white and too literal.

Don't bore us with your pop-psychoanalysis of why you think I left the Church. One that is designed to make people like you feel better about the fact that most people do in fact leave and most people aren't content to just settle for "invent your own truth" paradigms when the Church turns out not to be true. The fact is the Church has been very clear on this matter and altersteve simply doesn't know what he is talking about. He has to make things up just to maintain faith. I've been there. But couldn't do it anymore, which is one of the reasons why I left. To me, what's true really does matter. And too many things the Church says is true, turns out not to be true at all.

None of what you have said appears on a baptismal or temple recommend interview, and is therefore open to interpretation.

Are you really going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that the only doctrines of the Church are those that are mentioned in Temple recommend interviews? Never mind, I forget again who I'm talking to. You're just making up your own truth again. That you think this is an intellectually honest and respectable position to take is enough to dismiss you.

Why is it that the only ones who seem to know precisely what LDS doctrine is, are the apostates?

Mormons generally know this doctrine well. But the apologists are a strange breed. You guys have to rely on your imagination to invent "possibilities" in order to respond to the clear problems I outlined between LDS doctrine and science. The fact is it is official Church doctrine that God is a glorified man whose body consists of flesh and bones. That I have to teach this to you as if you're hearing it for the first time is stunning. It is also doctrine that God created mankind in his literal image. There is no doctrine about pre-Adamite humans. None. And even if there were, this still doesn't solve the problem LDS doctrine has with science. Nowhere does it say God only created "modern" humans in his image. That's just something Altersteve had to make up to in order to keep believing the Church has no problem with science.

[Xander]

And, yes, I agree that my proposition raises a lot of questions, but I don't see how that's a bad thing. In fact, it's a great thing, because asking questions leads to knowledge.

But you're not interested in knowledge here. What "knowledge" have you gained from these questions? That you have a bad imagination? All you're doing here is trying to come up with some possible scenario where the Church doesn't necessarily conflict with science. All for what? Because you think it is necessary to disagree with every "apostate" assertion, as a sense of duty? The purpose for you to come up with this nonsense about pre-Adamites1 who were human but not created in God's image, born straight from your imagination, is strictly apologetic. It has nothing to do with gaining knowledge. You begin with this notion that the Church has to be true, and so you continue to make things up as you go along, just to reinforce that presupposition. You ignore what the Church has taught and then follow the lead of some self appointed pseudo-philosopher who is telling people here that all is well in Zion because they have the power to make up their own truth when it turns out the Church's truths turn out to be something else but true.

Science is coming closer to proving that homosexuality is genetic, meaning people are born that way. When this happens, you'll have no choice but to admit the Church is anti-science. Boyd K. Packer's recent comments were nothing short of irrational, claiming that a loving God would never make people be born that way. Oh no? But a loving God would make people be born as hermaphrodites?

Edited March 14, 2012 by Xander

[mfbukowski]

The fact is it is official Church doctrine that God is a glorified man whose body consists of flesh and bones. That I have to teach this to you as if you're hearing it for the first time is stunning.

I think I have heard that one before.

And incidentally it is in the temple recommend interview. The gospel could not have been restored without the first vision. If you don't understand the idea of "orthopraxis" talk to Blake Ostler.

I hardly thought it up myself.

[mfbukowski]

Don't bore us with your pop-psychoanalysis of why you think I left the Church.

I would never do that. Then I would have to figure out why you are so bitter and won't go on with your life. That's your job, not mine

[altersteve]

The amount of things wrong with your post is astounding, Xander.

But you're not interested in knowledge here.

There is no possible way for you to know that.

What "knowledge" have you gained from these questions? That you have a bad imagination?

This comment is completely uncalled for.

All you're doing here is trying to come up with some possible scenario where the Church doesn't necessarily conflict with science.

No, I'm not. I admit that there several things the Church teaches that conflict with what scientists currently understand. What I'm doing is having a discussion.

All for what? Because you think it is necessary to disagree with every "apostate" assertion, as a sense of duty?

No.

The purpose for you to come up with this nonsense about pre-Adamites1 who were human but not created in God's image, born straight from your imagination, is strictly apologetic. It has nothing to do with gaining knowledge.

Again, you have no way to know this. Stop mind-reading.

You begin with this notion that the Church has to be true, and so you continue to make things up as you go along, just to reinforce that presupposition. You ignore what the Church has taught and then follow the lead of some self appointed pseudo-philosopher who is telling people here that all is well in Zion because they have the power to make up their own truth when it turns out the Church's truths turn out to be something else but true.

You know, telling me why I believe something is even worse than telling me what I believe. And people who tell me what I believe are really, really annoying.

Science is coming closer to proving that homosexuality is genetic, meaning people are born that way. When this happens, you'll have no choice but to admit the Church is anti-science. Boyd K. Packer's recent comments were nothing short of irrational, claiming that a loving God would never make people be born that way. Oh no? But a loving God would make people be born as hermaphrodites?

The Church does not have a position on whether or not people are born with a certain sexual orientation:

The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction

And even if people are born gay, it does not affect official LDS doctrine in the slightest.

[altersteve]

The fact is it is official Church doctrine that God is a glorified man whose body consists of flesh and bones.

Nobody has ever denied that.

That I have to teach this to you as if you're hearing it for the first time is stunning.

That you seem to think that we don't understand it is even more stunning.

It is also doctrine that God created mankind in his literal image.

Again, no one has disputed this.

There is no doctrine about pre-Adamite humans. None. And even if there were, this still doesn't solve the problem LDS doctrine has with science. Nowhere does it say God only created "modern" humans in his image.

I admitted this myself. But just because something is not a doctrine of the Church does not mean it's false. This is what you don't seem to understand.

That's just something Altersteve had to make up to in order to keep believing the Church has no problem with science.

First you say, "Don't bore us with your pop-psychoanalysis of why you think I left the Church," and then you say this. Okay. I'll just let you figure out the problems with that by yourself.

[altersteve]

Total sidetrack here but I was wondering about speculation on pre-adamites and Nehilim and where the two might come together? Sons of God and Daughters of Men? Hmmm... Believe it or not this thought came from looking at a Biblical timeline prepared by a Harvard Divinity scholar who included pre Eden human activity on his timeline.

Never really thought about that. I think it's definitely possible that there is a correlation between the two. I have no idea what "sons of God and daughters of men" might mean, though.

Edited March 14, 2012 by altersteve

[Calm]

There is no possible way for you to know that....

Again, you have no way to know this. Stop mind-reading.

You know, telling me why I believe something is even worse than telling me what I believe. And people who tell me what I believe are really, really annoying.

And rather interesting considering his own protest:

Don't bore us with your pop-psychoanalysis of why you think I left the Church.

add-on: not surprising at all, I see that steve noticed.

Edited March 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Never really thought about that. I think it's definitely possible that there is a correlation between the two. I have no idea what "sons of God and daughters of men" might mean, though.

IIRC, makelan or David Bokovoy talked about this somewhere on the board. I will try and find the reference if we still have it.

Here is a thread talking about "sons of God and daughters of men"...haven't skimmed through it yet so just saw nack's name which means there is at least one post of substance in it:

http://www.mormondia...ughters-of-men/

Ron Beron posts as well, including this link to his blog about the subject:

http://archaiologia....in-the-earth-2/

In another thread:

It is quite interesting that the expression �sons of Elohim� shows up in Genesis 6 in reference to the rise of the Nephilim, giants that Genesis says were on the earth both before the flood and afterward. Genesis 6 thus connects the sons of Elohim and their offspring, the �mighty ones� known as Nephilim, not only to the time before the flood but also to the time of the repopulation of the earth following the flood.......Nephilim doesn�t mean giants, it means fallen or aborted ones. �Giants� is how the Septuagint tried to translate the word as they understood it based on Num 13:33. In addition, the text never makes reference to any �rise� of the Nephilim. They�re simply said to be there. They have no connection with the sons of God in Genesis 6......This is a bizarre bit of exegesis, but Genesis 10 is from a much later date, and the �sons of God� are referred to in Job as relevant to events prior to the creation of the earth as well as contemporary to Job�s day. The sons of God also aren�t associated in any way with the division of the nations, they�re just associated with the wickedness of the earth and the cause of the flood. The nations are a completely different story, and there are absolutely zero connections between the Nephilim and Nimrod. The Nephilim are not the children of the sons of God, Nimrod is never called a Nephilim, and the gibborim are not associated with the Nephilim.

He talks about "sons of God" as well....

also

Edited March 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Hestia]

Xander is out of the thread for personal comments about others' beliefs.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

There are those of us who find the "spaceman" God to be far more logically satisfying than the God defined by Greek philosophy imported into Christianity. There's nothing wrong with materialism, and plenty of us Mormons are very proud that our religion has no conflict with science; the idea of "immaterial matter" is a contradiction in terms. See my thread Towards Naturalistic Deities for a discussion of this and related ideas.

He has to be somewhere...even if you believe he is a Spirit, Christ has a body of flesh and bone as was taken up into heaven. Elijah did so on a chariot of fire. Calling him a spaceman is an attempt to belittle our beliefs as we all know. Maybe Christ has not returned because it is such a long journey.

[altersteve]

Yeah, man. Starbase Kolob is pretty far away.

[mfbukowski]

He has to be somewhere...even if you believe he is a Spirit, Christ has a body of flesh and bone as was taken up into heaven. Elijah did so on a chariot of fire. Calling him a spaceman is an attempt to belittle our beliefs as we all know. Maybe Christ has not returned because it is such a long journey.

Exactly.

I'm glad you reminded me of that point. I recall a conversation with a Catholic priest who completely scoffed at the idea of God having a body because it would "limit him". He wanted to speak to some missionaries (my first calling after joining the church was as a stake missionary) and I was asked to go because I was a former Catholic.

I asked him whether or not Christ's resurrected body limits him in any way. He literally became silent and could not answer.

True story. I would be interested in any Catholics comments on that- how they get around that theologically, because I don't know either.

[Calm]

From the Catechism:

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. the distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.^92......

69 The Church thus confesses that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man. He is truly the Son of God who, without ceasing to be God and Lord, became a man and our brother: "What he was, he remained and what he was not, he assumed", sings the Roman Liturgy.⁹⁵ and the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom proclaims and sings: "O only-begotten Son and Word of God, immortal being, you who deigned for our salvation to become incarnate of the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, you who without change became man and were crucified, O Christ our God, you who by your death have crushed death, you who are one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us!"⁹⁶

http://www.vatican.v...G0015/__P1J.HTM

The true man may be finite, but the true God is not.

Placeholder until a Catholic speaks up......

Edited March 14, 2012 by calmoriah