Mormonisms Local God

[MiserereNobis]

He is somewhere, otherwise he is nowhere and doesn't really exist in reality.

You are making a circular argument here. Your assumed premise is that something cannot exist outside of space and time, which is exactly what you are trying to prove as your conclusion.

Which would be nowhere, as if there is no place where God is.

Precisely because God is outside of space, He can be everywhere at once. Or, to put the matter better, everywhere is present to Him.

He's nowhere and no part of him/them exists in reality.

Again, you've assumed that to exist at all you have to exist within time and space. That is true for us, but not for God. He existed before there was time and space. He created time and space (I know that Mormons believe differently).

[Ahab]

Your model for understanding God comes from the LDS church, mine from the Catholic.

I'm going to pick on you for this because I think you should pick on me for the same reasons. And I'd also like to try to make a few points with you.

First, I know enough about mski to know his model for understanding God is God while using his own faculties and what God tells him personally. It's the same for me, too, Would you now like to say God is also your model, or are you going to stick on the idea that your model of God comes from what your Church tells you? Or maybe how about a little of both?

Now, we both believe that our model ultimately originated from God, but you have to admit that there has been an intermediary person or persons between God and us.

The intermediatory you're referring to is pretty much the same as if someone, anyone, had said something while saying God had said it.

The question is whether or not your knowledge of God is based on what God tells you, or from what some intermediatory other than God tellls you?

FYI, I take whatever anyone says as their own opinion, even when they claim to be speaking for God, and I do not take it as God's opinion until God personally tells me the same thing.

I think we both agree that God teaches us best about Himself. I think we both also agree that God does that through the proper channels. We just disagree on what those channels are.

You talk as if God speaks to you only through some other channel, other than God. Is that really the way it is for you, or are you just not highlighting the idea that you believe God can speak to you, personally?

For you, it is the prophet and apostles. For me, it is the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him.

All of those people are people like us, regardless of whether or not they ever have or ever will agree with God.

The question now is, how do you know whether or not any of those people have ever said anything in agreement with God?

Hint: I wouldn't believe any of them just because they say they are really speaking for God, even if they pounded on a pulpit and said it with enthusiasm and a sincere belief that God is really speaking through them.

[zerinus]

Hmmmm. Mormons are always getting upset at people telling them what they are and what they believe, and yet here you are telling Christians that they are not monotheists. We are monotheists. There is only one God. God said so Himself. I'll take His word for it.

It is not a matter of telling Christians what they believe; rather, pointing to the problems of their belief. The Trinity, by your own admission, is a mystery. What you call a mystery, I call an absurdity. To me the Trinitarian theology of traditional Christianity is not a mystery, it is an absurdity. It is an impossible absurdity, which not only doesn't, but cannot exist. That is the difference.

[Ahab]

You are making a circular argument here. Your assumed premise is that something cannot exist outside of space and time, which is exactly what you are trying to prove as your conclusion.

I don't have any problem with circular arguments, as long as the point is true.

You said God is not somewhere, because he is outside of space and time. That means, logically, that you believe God is nowhere.

Can you see that now? He is either somewhere, or he is nowhere. There is no middle ground.

Precisely because God is outside of space, He can be everywhere at once. Or, to put the matter better, everywhere is present to Him.

If he is everywhere, then he is somewhere, and there is space in every place even if it is somewhere outside of our space.

All you need is logic to be able to see that much.

Again, you've assumed that to exist at all you have to exist within time and space.

That's not an assumption. That's a logical conclusion based on my true knowledge of reality.

Time includes the past, present, and future, eternally, and there is no place where there is no time.

Space includes all of the places there are, everywhere, and there is no place where there is no space.

Hopefully now we're both speaking and understanding the same language.

That is true for us, but not for God.

God has never said that.

He existed before there was time and space.

God has never said that.

He created time and space (I know that Mormons believe differently).

You believe some things God has never said, and you don't believe a lot of the things God has said.

Would you now like to try to provide some references to show that God is in agreement with you?

[zerinus]

I've sat in the living room of a large Mormon family and heard them making jokes about what they are going to do when they get to create worlds (one woman said she's going to have women lay eggs instead of having to go through pregnancy and childbirth). Were they misinformed as to their own doctrine?

Yes, they were. That is Mormon folklore, not Mormon doctrine. Are there not Catholics who are superstitious? That is not much different.

[MiserereNobis]

Everyone takes us too literally while we are talking about larger issues with deficient language, using metaphors. No wonder no one understands us, for all our attempts at clarity.

Well, perhaps now you can sympathize with how Catholics sometimes feel when they try to describe the Trinity

We speak clearly about things they have never thought about. I honestly think that. Who has ever asked what God did for eternity before he decided to organize this world?

Catholics. See below.

Only Mormons. So we come up with an answer- that he was once like us- and we get flak for it, when their religions don't even ask the question much less come up with some kind of metaphorical answer.

We asked the question and came up with the metaphorical answer. See below.

We should ask anyone who talks about us worshiping a "local god" to explain precisely what it was God was doing for an eternity before he decided to create the world, and WHY he did so in the first place?

Why? Well, see below

I would ask our Catholic friends, but I already know they haven't an answer and I don't want to be rude Well at least not directly rude

Ha! Honestly, that was too much. Catholics asked and answered this question centuries ago, a good 1500 years before Joseph Smith. What was God doing before the creation of space and time (the time part is important -- you can't measure God in years or ages). Well, let's start by looking at the Nicene Creed that is recited every Sunday at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made."

God the Father was speaking His Word, God the Son, before all ages and worlds, before any creation. There was only God and He was contemplating Himself. That contemplation is His Word, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. The Love that flows between God the Father and God the Son is the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, God the Holy Ghost.

And why did God create the world? That's answered in question 6 of the Baltimore Catechism: "6. Q. Why did God make you? A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven."

The questions you are asking about God are new in the sense that noone has asked them in your way because noone has believed in a God like yours before. But the question about what was God doing before the creation of time and space and the universe and why He created things in the first place has long been a part of Catholicism.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

. There was only God and He was contemplating Himself.

So God was thinking about himself.

Well that answers that. I was hoping for something deep. Boy did I get it. Thanks.

On a more serious note, it seems that your theology hints at the idea that God was bored or lonely. Why did he create us? What was the purpose? I am not sure that you really answered the question. God made me to know him and love him? Is that why I made my kids? Was so that they could know me and love me? OR is there a greater purpose involved? Think on it.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[MiserereNobis]

I don't have any problem with circular arguments, as long as the point is true.

It's rather pointless to engage in logical arguments with someone who has no problem with logical fallacies. I do find it a bit humorous that you bring up logic further down in your post after opening with a statement that basically says you have no problem with something that's not logical.

You said God is not somewhere, because he is outside of space and time. That means, logically, that you believe God is nowhere.

Can you see that now? He is either somewhere, or he is nowhere. There is no middle ground.

I suppose that is one way of saying it, but the problem is that "nowhere" implies non-existence. God is nowhere in the sense that you cannot get in a spaceship and fly to Him. He is not in space, but outside of it. You cannot describe things outside of space using the words of space. You cannot speak of distance outside of space, for example. You cannot say "God is here" outside of space, because here is part of the language of space. "Nowhere" is the language of space. It cannot describe God, other than to say that He is not in space.

If he is everywhere, then he is somewhere, and there is space in every place even if it is somewhere outside of our space.

I'm not sure what you mean by somewhere outside of our space.

All you need is logic to be able to see that much.

Can't I just use some logical fallacies instead?

That's not an assumption. That's a logical conclusion based on my true knowledge of reality.

Your experience of reality is limited to time and space. Most people never experience something beyond time and place, though mystics sometimes tap into it.

Time includes the past, present, and future, eternally, and there is no place where there is no time.

Space includes all of the places there are, everywhere, and there is no place where there is no space.

Before God created it, there was no time. In fact, one of the definitions of "eternity" is "a timeless state." Look it up. These are your assumptions about space and time. Mystics, theologians, philosophers, and even physicists report differently.

[MiserereNobis]

So God was thinking about himself.

Well that answers that. I was hoping for something deep. Boy did I get it. Thanks.

It goes as deep as your willing to take it. Obviously, from your tone, you are not willing to give it much thought, so it's not going to seem very deep for you.

On a more serious note, it seems that your theology hints at the idea that God was bored or lonely.

God was not bored or lonely, nor did He have any need. He is perfect -- there is nothing that He doesn't need -- and He is perfect love.

Why did he create us? What was the purpose? I am not sure that you really answered the question. God made me to know him and love him?

Knowing God and loving God is perfect happiness. God made us to be happy. Heaven is called the Beatific Vision -- it is the eternal (timeless) vision of the Presence of God. That will be perfect happiness, knowing Him, loving Him, and being in His Presence, which will be an amazing transformation of who we are. C. S. Lewis uses the analogy of toy soldiers turning into real people. That's the purpose and that is what is behind those words.

Is that why I made my kids? Was so that they could know me and love me? OR is there a greater purpose involved? Think on it.

You didn't "make" your kids, God did. Humans reproducing is not like God creating. That is specifically why the Creed speaks of begetting vs. making.

I know that C. S. Lewis is popular among Mormons -- I was told at one point he was the most quoted non-Mormon at General Conference. I suggest you (and others here having a hard time understanding the Christian doctrines on God) pick up a copy of Mere Christianity and read it to understand the Christian view of God, the creation, and our purpose. It is very short and easy to read He intentionally shied away from areas of disagreements among Christians in order to present a Christian view, not a Catholic or Anglican or whatnot one. In fact, you can read it or listen to it online here. You can even read single chapters to get the gist of a doctrinal idea without having to have read what comes before. Check out Book 4 in particular, as he deals there with the nature of God and the reason for creation.

I could point you toward a specifically Catholic book if you'd like, but I thought Lewis might be a better introduction.

+ PAX

[KevinG]

You didn't create that.

(oops sorry political)

How about there is a difference between ex nihilo creation and organizing matter?

[Ahab]

It's rather pointless to engage in logical arguments with someone who has no problem with logical fallacies.

A circular argument doesn't necessarily equate to a fallacy. Maybe this example of a circular argument will help you see this point:

Q: What is God's word?

A: Whatever God says.

Q: How do you know God has ever said anything:

A: By knowing what God has said.

See now? Circular argument, and true. No fallacy there.

I do find it a bit humorous that you bring up logic further down in your post after opening with a statement that basically says you have no problem with something that's not logical.

What's not logical about the conclusion that if you say God is not somewhere, then that means you believe God is nowhere, which would also mean God doesn't really exist?

It isn't logical for you to say something like that while you say you do believe in God, and yet you seem to have no problem saying it.

I suppose that is one way of saying it, but the problem is that "nowhere" implies non-existence.

I can see how you could think that's a problem for someone who says he believes God is not somewhere, but you said it. I was just pointing out the logical conclusion of your belief that God is not somewhere.

God is nowhere in the sense that you cannot get in a spaceship and fly to Him.

Forget about the spaceship idea for a moment. Let's think more broadly of any way you might be able to get to our Father in heaven, whereever he is right now, personally. Do you think that's possible? I know you don't have a spaceship, and I can see how you might not be able to get to him on your own with whatever mode of transportation you could possibly build, but how about if our Father wanted to summon you to him, to wherever he is? Do you believe he is out there, somewhere, in some place we could refer to as heaven, or do you believe he just isn't out there at all for you to be able to see him, in his person?

He is not in space, but outside of it.

Do you mean outside of our space? Wherever that place is, don't you see how there would still be some space in that place?

You cannot describe things outside of space using the words of space.

There is no place outside of space... and by "space" I'm referring to any place that exists in reality. If you're using the word "space" to refer to a particular portion of all that exists everywhere, try thinking outside of that space to include any other place that exists in reality.

You cannot speak of distance outside of space, for example.

Because there is no place that has no distance. In every place there is some space, including the space that goes on forever.

You cannot say "God is here" outside of space, because here is part of the language of space.

Because there is no place wehre there is no space, so if God exists anywhere, he exists in some space.

"Nowhere" is the language of space.

No, nowhere is the language of somebody who believes there is some place where there is no space, with even that place not considered a place.

It's crazy talk. There is no truth in it.

It cannot describe God, other than to say that He is not in space.

It can't realistically describe where God supposedly is, either, because in reality there is no space without God in it.

I'm not sure what you mean by somewhere outside of our space.

Some people think of "our" space as a particular portion of all of the space that exists everywhere, perhaps even in some other "universe" than the universe they think of as our particular universe. My point is that space is everywhere in reality, regardless of where that space is.

Your experience of reality is limited to time and space.

Yes, because time and space are in all of reality. The opposites are never and nowhere.

Most people never experience something beyond time and place, though mystics sometimes tap into it.

Mystics are wherever they are and whenever they think they're tapping into some place without space they're just fooling themselves.

They are where they are, and they're doing whatever they're doing whenever they're doing whatever they're doing.

Before God created it, there was no time.

When? Heh, if you'd just think about what you're saying, some more, I think you'd eventually get it.

In fact, one of the definitions of "eternity" is "a timeless state." Look it up.

Whenever something happens, there was a moment before that moment as well as a moment after that moment. Eternity, as a whole, is a combination of past, present, and future, and within it are particular moments.

These are your assumptions about space and time.

They're not assumptions. They're things I've observed during my experiences in mortality and when I pass on I'll only be going further down the road in eternity.

Mystics, theologians, philosophers, and even physicists report differently.

Lot of people have yet to learn what I've learned and I'm not even close to done yet..

[TAO]

The problem here is that the models we are talking about, you and I, were not given to us directly from God, but from God to another human than to us. Your model for understanding God comes from the LDS church, mine from the Catholic.

How do you know it wasn't given to us directly from God though?

You see, while it is true that the idea of asking God is in the Book of Mormon somewhat, and thus, you could say it comes from the church, you can also come to the same conclusion about God (ask God yourself, in other words) on your own, without using it as a source. In fact, it tends to make more sense; why are you going to just trust it from a book, which you don't know is right or wrong, or from a person, which you don't know is right or wrong. Instead, you can ask God yourself,and get the information on who you need to trust. You get it from the source. The model, really isn't even a model anymore... it's just a question, which gets answered.

In my case, while it is true I had read the Book of Mormon... even came across the verse describing it itself, I didn't believe in it beforehand. It was a nice book, but not necessarily true. It took asking God about that to figure that out. Without asking God, I would have no idea that the Book of Mormon, or the Prophet, was trustable and true. But now, I do.

Now, we both believe that our model ultimately originated from God, but you have to admit that there has been an intermediary person or persons between God and us.

The Holy Spirit. While in certain cases, church leadership is there too, it is often not the case. Our leadership really encourages us to ask God on our own for personal problems and such.

I think we both agree that God teaches us best about Himself. I think we both also agree that God does that through the proper channels. We just disagree on what those channels are. For you, it is the prophet and apostles. For me, it is the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him.

I'd agree there, yes.

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

[MiserereNobis]

A circular argument doesn't necessarily equate to a fallacy. Maybe this example of a circular argument will help you see this point:

Q: What is God's word?

A: Whatever God says.

Q: How do you know God has ever said anything:

A: By knowing what God has said.

See now? Circular argument, and true. No fallacy there.

A circular argument is ALWAYS a logical fallacy. It's called "begging the question." Logical fallacies can have true conclusions, but that's just a coincidence. Logic is the connection between claim and evidence. For example, I could say: My profile picture is Pope St. Pius X because the sky blue. That is a totally illogical statement; the sky being blue (my evidence for my claim) has nothing whatsoever to do with my profile picture (my claim). However, it is true that my profile picture is of St. Pius X. So there is an example of illogical statement coincidentally having a true conclusion. If you use logical fallacies in your arguments, you may have a true conclusion, but the argument doesn't support that conclusion.

Please take a course on informal logic.

What's not logical about the conclusion that if you say God is not somewhere, then that means you believe God is nowhere, which would also mean God doesn't really exist?

That statement is logical if you add the premise: in order to exist, you have to be somewhere in time and space. But that statement is exactly what we are debating and exactly what I, and many others, do not accept.

It isn't logical for you to say something like that while you say you do believe in God, and yet you seem to have no problem saying it.

It's only illogical if you assume that for God to exist, he must exist in time and space. Can you not see that this assumption is at the heart of things?

Forget about the spaceship idea for a moment.

Why? If God exists in time and space, then I can theoretically fly to Him in a spaceship, yes?

Let's think more broadly of any way you might be able to get to our Father in heaven, whereever he is right now, personally. Do you think that's possible? I know you don't have a spaceship, and I can see how you might not be able to get to him on your own with whatever mode of transportation you could possibly build, but how about if our Father wanted to summon you to him, to wherever he is? Do you believe he is out there, somewhere, in some place we could refer to as heaven, or do you believe he just isn't out there at all for you to be able to see him, in his person?

Heaven is outside of time and space. That is why it is "eternal." It doesn't mean it lasts forever. It means it has no time.

No, nowhere is the language of somebody who believes there is some place where there is no space, with even that place not considered a place.

Now you're starting to get it, even though you don't think you are. This statement is close. We can't talk very well about something beyond time and place because our language and common experience is based on time and place. So our words end up getting very confused and paradoxical. It's like advanced physics -- relativity, quantum mechanics, etc -- they don't make much sense to us because our language and common experience cannot conceptualize them. Luckily for the physicists, there is the language of mathematics, which can. Our language and common experience cannot easily conceptualize something beyond time and space.

It's crazy talk. There is no truth in it.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not true. Modern physics is full of crazy talk, too, things like curved space, relativistic speeds, probability fields, etc.

Yes, because time and space are in all of reality. The opposites are never and nowhere.

You don't see a third option, do you...?

Mystics are wherever they are and whenever they think they're tapping into some place without space they're just fooling themselves.

Perhaps you should study the writings of the mystics and see what they are saying about their experience of God.

Heh, if you'd just think about what you're saying, some more, I think you'd eventually get it.

Heh, I'm thinking the same thing about you

Whenever something happens, there was a moment before that moment as well as a moment after that moment. Eternity, as a whole, is a combination of past, present, and future, and within it are particular moments.

And if God is outside of that time-box, then he can see all those particular moments at the exact same present moment, unlike us, who are stuck within the time-box, and experience time as passing.

They're not assumptions. They're things I've observed during my experiences in mortality and when I pass on I'll only be going further down the road in eternity.

There are many common day experiences that we interpret incorrectly. I'll go back to physics for an example. Your common-sense everyday experience tells you that those keys are solid, yet physics says they are mainly made up of empty space.

Mystics, theologians, philosophers, and even physicists report differently.

Lot of people have yet to learn what I've learned and I'm not even close to done yet..

Go get 'em, Ahab

[altersteve]

Ah, which brings up another issue. How can two people ask God which Church is His and come up with two different answers? Obviously one or both of us is wrong. There is more to finding truth than just asking God. We have to ask Him to help us and then we also have to do our own homework and use the gifts of reason and intellect that He created for us to us.

There is truth in all religions. God works through all faiths to bring His children closer to Him, and I believe He sometimes feels that a person belongs in another religion for now, so He tells them to join that one. He told me to stay in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I'm not in any position to argue with Him.

He is clearly a distinct Person, not a separate Being.

What's the difference?

As far as communicating with such a being, being outside of time and space does not limit God, it frees Him to be everywhere and everywhen.

That sounds like a blatant contradiction to me. If I'm outside my house, how does that free me to be "everywhere" inside my house?

All time is the present moment for Him. All space is the present location for Him. He is in all things and through all things. There is nowhere I can point to where God is not.

So everywhere can't be present to God if He has a body? Why not? We believe all things are known unto Him by the power of His glory and by the Light of Christ -- through His creations.

These concepts may seem new and strange to you, because your religion and theology doesn't think about such things.

Our religion most certainly does think about such things.

I have been asking. But I also have an intellect that I can use to try to put two and two together.

Do you mean to imply that Latter-day Saints don't use reason and intellect in their beliefs? We are encouraged to think for ourselves.

Sure, but what if I were talking about William Jefferson Clinton, the guy I grew up with who now lives in Chicago, and you are talking about William Jefferson Clinton, the president? We might be using the same name, but we are talking about two different people.

A better example would be Joseph Smith. I believe he was a prophet. You believe he wasn't. Does that mean we're talking about two different people? And I believe God has a body and lives within time and space. You believe He doesn't. Does that mean we're talking about two different Gods?

This makes sense -- we each need to seek the truth. However, whether or not we find it doesn't change the fact that something is true.

Exactly. The fact that you haven't discovered the truth of the Book of Mormon and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't change the fact that they are true.

[MiserereNobis]

How do you know it wasn't given to us directly from God though?

You see, while it is true that the idea of asking God is in the Book of Mormon somewhat, and thus, you could say it comes from the church, you can also come to the same conclusion about God (ask God yourself, in other words) on your own, without using it as a source. In fact, it tends to make more sense; why are you going to just trust it from a book, which you don't know is right or wrong, or from a person, which you don't know is right or wrong. Instead, you can ask God yourself,and get the information on who you need to trust. You get it from the source. The model, really isn't even a model anymore... it's just a question, which gets answered.

But your very conception of praying to God comes from someone. Why didn't you do a voodoo ceremony to summon up a dead spirit to tell you if Mormonism was true? You were already following concepts from intermediaries. Imagine taking adults who had no knowledge of religion and telling them: Go pray and come back and tell us what the nature of God is. Do you think they'd all come back with the same answer, or an answer at all?

Also, note that you were praying and asking if something was true. You weren't praying and asking for the truth directly, but a confirmation of something. It's the difference between asking "what is 2 + 2" and "does 2 + 2 = 4?"

The Holy Spirit. While in certain cases, church leadership is there too, it is often not the case. Our leadership really encourages us to ask God on our own for personal problems and such.

I think this is too simplistic for such deep questions as to the nature of God. Did you ask God what His nature is and He told you? Or did you ask God if what the LDS church teaches on the nature of God is true? If it's the latter, then there was an intermediary: the LDS church.

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

To you, too!

[altersteve]

Why? If God exists in time and space, then I can theoretically fly to Him in a spaceship, yes?

No. Existing in space and time does not mean He exists in a place we can reach. He may live in another universe, another dimension, another plane of existence entirely -- that doesn't mean such existence is outside space and time, because space and time is not equal to only what we can observe.

Heaven is outside of time and space.

CFR.

That is why it is "eternal." It doesn't mean it lasts forever. It means it has no time.

CFR.

[TAO]

Also... uh... St Pius, I'm pretty sure eternal in Hebrew doesn't mean the same thing as eternal in Greek. If I remember correctly, it means for a long time (presumably till the end of the universe). It could last forever. But it doesn't have to.

Edited September 11, 2012 by TAO

[MiserereNobis]

There is truth in all religions. God works through all faiths to bring His children closer to Him, and I believe He sometimes feels that a person belongs in another religion for now, so He tells them to join that one. He told me to stay in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I'm not in any position to argue with Him.

Is this your personal view or is this a common LDS view, that God will tell people to stay in a religion that is not LDS?

Our religion most certainly does think about such things.

What I meant is that sense in your religion God exists within time and space, you don't have theologians contemplating and understanding what it would mean to exist outside of time and space. Or am I wrong here -- do LDS people think about what it would be like for God to be outside of time and place?

Do you mean to imply that Latter-day Saints don't use reason and intellect in their beliefs?

Not at all! I was responding to the statement that I should just listen to what LDS people have to say and not lean to much on my ownself. My response was that I am asking questions and listening but that I can also use my own intellect to think through things. That's all -- I meant nothing about LDS people.

A better example would be Joseph Smith. I believe he was a prophet. You believe he wasn't. Does that mean we're talking about two different people? And I believe God has a body and lives within time and space. You believe He doesn't. Does that mean we're talking about two different Gods?

Yes, that means we are talking about two different gods. The belief of Joseph being a prophet or not is accidental to his identity. If he were sitting in the room, we could both point to him and say, "Joseph Smith [true/false] prophet." But if there were a god sitting in the room with a physical body, I could not point to that god and say, "that's the god I believe in."

Exactly. The fact that you haven't discovered the truth of the Book of Mormon and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't change the fact that they are true.

Truth is truth, regardless of our personal beliefs, opinions, or preferences. It's a shame that one or both of us, despite our sincerity, has got it wrong and I pray that God will continue to guide us all to the truth.

+ PAX

[Ahab]

A circular argument is ALWAYS a logical fallacy. It's called "begging the question." Logical fallacies can have true conclusions, but that's just a coincidence. Logic is the connection between claim and evidence. For example, I could say: My profile picture is Pope St. Pius X because the sky blue. That is a totally illogical statement; the sky being blue (my evidence for my claim) has nothing whatsoever to do with my profile picture (my claim). However, it is true that my profile picture is of St. Pius X. So there is an example of illogical statement coincidentally having a true conclusion. If you use logical fallacies in your arguments, you may have a true conclusion, but the argument doesn't support that conclusion.

Please take a course on informal logic.

Well, looks like we're not going to make a connection here. Maybe we just have different ideas about what a circular argument is and we're both right from our own perspectives.

That statement is logical if you add the premise: in order to exist, you have to be somewhere in time and space. But that statement is exactly what we are debating and exactly what I, and many others, do not accept.

You don't accept it and yet all of reality testifies it is true.

I have yet to see any person who doesn't exist in any particular place or at any particular time. I've heard people say there are such people, or places, but never any evidence of what they say and believe is true.

It's only illogical if you assume that for God to exist, he must exist in time and space. Can you not see that this assumption is at the heart of things?

I can see that you keep making that argument but I see no support in reality for your assertions.

Do you recognize the fact that Jesus Christ is a person who is God, and that he is in some place at this very moment in time?

Maybe you just have strange definitions for what you mean by time and space, too, rather than what is commonly understood.

Why? If God exists in time and space, then I can theoretically fly to Him in a spaceship, yes?

I was going wider, instead of limiting it to spaceship travel. I asked if you could imagine any way to be where our Father is, in person.

Heaven is outside of time and space. That is why it is "eternal." It doesn't mean it lasts forever. It means it has no time.

God has never said heaven is outside of time and space. Those are your own ideas, as well as those who agree with you, but God has never said anything like that. Heaven is out there in the space we call the universe. It consists of planets and stars as real as ours are in this solar system.

Now you're starting to get it, even though you don't think you are. This statement is close. We can't talk very well about something beyond time and place because our language and common experience is based on time and place. So our words end up getting very confused and paradoxical. It's like advanced physics -- relativity, quantum mechanics, etc -- they don't make much sense to us because our language and common experience cannot conceptualize them. Luckily for the physicists, there is the language of mathematics, which can. Our language and common experience cannot easily conceptualize something beyond time and space.

Read my lips: There is no place where there is no space, and there is no place in space where God is not.

If you'd just stop talking as if God is not somewhere, and instead say he is everywhere by virtue of his influence being everywhere and over evertthing, then you'd be closer to seeing the truth. He is somewhere, right now in time, and he will always be somewhere in the future as much as he has in the past.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not true. Modern physics is full of crazy talk, too, things like curved space, relativistic speeds, probability fields, etc.

I'm basing my understanding of what you're saying on the words you are using to express your ideas, and you're the one saying things like God is not somewhere and is not in space or time. The fact is that he is, whether you realize it or not, and I"m trying to use plain ordinary language to make these truths known to you. If you don't agree, that's not my problem.

You don't see a third option, do you...?

Like a combination of both ideas, maybe? Sure, but when you say "not" you are limiting the options. Try using "and" instead of "or" and "not".

Perhaps you should study the writings of the mystics and see what they are saying about their experience of God.

That's a good point. You're the one saying they think they're tapping into no place and no time. Maybe they don't actually say that.

And if God is outside of that time-box, then he can see all those particular moments at the exact same present moment, unlike us, who are stuck within the time-box, and experience time as passing.

You're saying "outside" of time. Can you instead say he is in all 3 regions of time at once, and thus "inside" of time, generally?

That would make much more sense to me and I can see how that is true.

There are many common day experiences that we interpret incorrectly. I'll go back to physics for an example. Your common-sense everyday experience tells you that those keys are solid, yet physics says they are mainly made up of empty space.

If they were to say they are "not" made up of matter, and instead only of empty space, while outisde of time and space, then I'd have the same problem with them I'm now having with you. Using the word "not" and "outside" limits the options.

Go get 'em, Ahab

I'm done for now. Nice chatting with you! :<)

Edited September 11, 2012 by Ahab

[altersteve]

Is this your personal view or is this a common LDS view, that God will tell people to stay in a religion that is not LDS?

Many Latter-day Saints I know espouse this view, and I know many are at least open to the idea. But I can't speak for the entire Church membership, only for myself. However, the Church has always taught that there is truth throughout all religions and that these few Latter-day Saints cannot accomplish God's work by themselves (to paraphrase something Orson F. Whitney once said). I testify to the truth of that.

What I meant is that sense in your religion God exists within time and space, you don't have theologians contemplating and understanding what it would mean to exist outside of time and space. Or am I wrong here -- do LDS people think about what it would be like for God to be outside of time and place?

Well, I'm sure some do.

Not at all! I was responding to the statement that I should just listen to what LDS people have to say and not lean to much on my ownself. My response was that I am asking questions and listening but that I can also use my own intellect to think through things. That's all -- I meant nothing about LDS people.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. But we are not asking you to "just listen to what LDS people have to say." We ask you to listen to what God tells you. If you believe that He has revealed to you that you should remain a member of the Catholic Church, then do that.

Yes, that means we are talking about two different gods. The belief of Joseph being a prophet or not is accidental to his identity. If he were sitting in the room, we could both point to him and say, "Joseph Smith [true/false] prophet." But if there were a god sitting in the room with a physical body, I could not point to that god and say, "that's the god I believe in."

Well, that's simply not how we see it. Our perspective is simply that we both believe in the same God, even though we understand Him differently. We believe He sees it that way too.

Truth is truth, regardless of our personal beliefs, opinions, or preferences. It's a shame that one or both of us, despite our sincerity, has got it wrong and I pray that God will continue to guide us all to the truth.

No one has "got it wrong," not entirely. We both have some things wrong, and we both have a lot of things right -- and I don't think that's a "shame." It's part of being human, which is not a "shame" by any means.

We both seek to worship God according to the dictates of our conscience and according to what He has revealed to us, and we should continue to do so. The way God leads us toward Him differs from person to person, always line upon line, precept upon precept; if you being a Catholic is the best way for Him to do so for you, then that's how He'll do it.

Edited September 11, 2012 by altersteve

[Cobalt-70]

No. Existing in space and time does not mean He exists in a place we can reach. He may live in another universe, another dimension, another plane of existence entirely -- that doesn't mean such existence is outside space and time, because space and time is not equal to only what we can observe.

Mormon theology does tell us that, given the right technology (worm holes, "beaming-up," or however the angels travel), we can reach the location where he dwells. Otherwise, how could we ever return to his literal presence?

[altersteve]

Mormon theology does tell us that, given the right technology (worm holes, "beaming-up," or however the angels travel), we can reach the location where he dwells. Otherwise, how could we ever return to his literal presence?

But not our technology. That's what I meant. We can get to the location where He lives (whatever and wherever it is), but absolutely not in a way that we can understand.

Edited September 11, 2012 by altersteve

[Calm]

I can understand the comparison to the Holy Father, but I'd like to highlight your use of the word "advice." Teachings about the basic nature of God seem to be much more than simple advice -- they appear to be foundational doctrines of any religion.

Think of it as advice on what to study out in our hearts and minds and seek God's inspiration on. I believe that the Church is specifically set up with its recognition of the fallibility of mankind and man's language so that we are driven to seek out God in order to progress in any way, including knowledge.

There are some things about God's nature that are basic doctrine. The "advice" term applies to those that are not, but even that which is basic doctrine members are taught to seek out God's confirmation of any truths. I agree with you in that sense there are intermediaries, people who supply us with ideas to think about and ask the Lord are they right or wrong. However, I also believe that God doesn't leave it at that, just a yes or no answer but that he also illuminates our minds and spirits with additional knowledge and understanding and wisdom so that eventually all will come, who desire it, to a full knowledge of God. We will do so by experiencing him by becoming one with him as is promised through the Atonement.

Besides Preach My Gospel, another good resource for LDS doctrine is the Gospel Principles manual which can probably be read in a couple of hours or less depending on speed and if you read the scripture references. It is not quite the equivalent of the Catechism (which I am jealous of...sort of) I do like the idea of having something like that as comprehensive and authoritative as it is, yet I love the idea that for LDS we are given limited official doctrine on which we are supposed to build our personal understanding by seeking God himself for answers rather than turning to an authoritative text. (not that Catholics aren't supposed to do the same thing, I just haven't heard them being as encouraged to do so as LDS are, though perhaps this is more of a gap in my education than anything else, I have heard Catholics being encouraged to seek out God for personal support, etc).

Here is a link to an online version of the GP manual: http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles?lang=eng

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Yes, they were. That is Mormon folklore, not Mormon doctrine. Are there not Catholics who are superstitious? That is not much different.

They weren't misinformed unless they claimed it was doctrine. I've made the same kind of jokes, but I am well aware that it is folklore. I've heard others do the same knowing the same.

[Calm]

We like to actually understand our theology, weird people that we are. And we think our God is smart enough to explain it to us dummies in a way we can understand, no "mysteries" needed!

This is not to give the impression that LDS believe we can know it all in the here and now, somethings will have to wait until we have grown past our mortal understandings. (see my signature; also, I am not saying mfb was implying anything else, I was just adding a little more content to what he was saying for clarity's sake).

Do Catholics believe that the mysteries of God will ever be understood by men postresurrection?

God was not bored or lonely, nor did He have any need. He is perfect -- there is nothing that He doesn't need -- and He is perfect love..... God made us to be happy ....That's the purpose and that is what is behind those words.

This explains what his creation does for us, what does his creating do for him though? Why was he motivated to make us to be happy? God made a change in his environment, so to speak. Men do this because of comfort, pleasure, etc. Why did God do this? Does it give him pleasure to see the happiness of mankind? If so, can we not say his pleasure was incomplete and therefore not perfect in the sense of being complete?

Go get 'em, Ahab

I am enjoying your sense of humour, btw.

No one has "got it wrong," not entirely. We both have some things wrong, and we both have a lot of things right -- and I don't think that's a "shame." It's part of being human, which is not a "shame" by any means.

It would be a shame if this was all there is, but since there is much more opportunity to learn (and how exciting that is), there is no need to regret that all can't have the full truth and nothing but the truth in the here and now. Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah