Robert F. Smith Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Well I do posit all of the last things, no surprise there, I'm one of them darned apostates.I wouldn't use that term "apostate" if I were you. You simply have a very different view on the nature and sovereignty of God, which makes Him the author of everything, including every flap of a butterfly wing. Since you adhere to a very traditional view of God, you should also be willing to own the consequences of that: premises very alien to Mormonism lead to conclusions which are equally alien. Leaving not much room for real communication -- which requires that you at least grant the nature of Mormon theology, if only for the sake of argument. In like manner, when I discuss Roman Catholicism, I admit up front the internal consistency of Thomism, and I make every effort to be respectful. The problem is the logical incoherence of that systematic theology, which is driving so many to atheism. Can I ask, have you ever read Romans 9? Even allowing for small translation errors here and there, how do you personally make sense of the message contained within? Why did God love Jacob and hate Esau, before either of them were born or had done anything? And remember, those two people represent nations, not just themselves. This doesn't sound at all like a God who is leaving anything to be decided outside of himself.I like the questions in Romans 9, and in the Book of Job, and the answers in Romans 11. Human cogitation on the things of God is very important, but not inerrant or infallible. Moreover, Paul even goes out of his way to advise us from time to time that he is speaking his mind, and not always the mind of God. 2
Rain Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) In other words, you believe that God will not be surprised by anything that proceeds out of this world. I really really wish I understood how you reconcile this with free agency. I know you think you have explained it, but I'm just not getting it.My daughter loves peanut butter. When I go to the store and let the kids pick what they want she always chooses peanut better. I could choose it for her if I was bringing it home to her and she would be glad I chose the peanut butter, but when we are out I let her and her siblings choose.The exception. She does not choose Girl Scout peanut butter cookies because she chose them one time and thought they were gross.I know when she will choose peanut butter and when she won't because I know her. I have lived with her for 16 years and have seen her make that choice again and again and when that choice failed her and we have had many conversations about it, but I still let her choose every time.As much as I know her my knowledge of her thoughts and her life before this is minuscule compared to God's knowledge of her. Knowing she will choose peanut butter is a no brainer compared to other choices in her life, but God, because of his knowledge of her can still let her choose and know exactly what she will choose. Edited January 21, 2015 by Rain 2
Calm Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) M168,Our decisions have reasons behind them based on consequences of those choices, thus moral agency....we are not free from the consequences of our choices. Some people think free agency implies making any choice one wants without being responsible for negative effects etc....think of driving 120 miles an hour through a school zone full of children. There will be moral consequences to that choice, one is not protected from them if one has free agency, but some people use the phrase that way or to imply that there is unlimited choice (think of insisting one wants avocado ice cream when offered vanilla, chocolate or strawberry) so moral agency is more accurate IMO."locked into"If for some reason Rain's daughter's nature is requiring her to only desire peanut butter, she is locked into preferring peanut butter over everything else and cannot change that preference and would never desire to do so either if God could help her change it.It is the discussion about if whether or not humans act like machines, are we programmed by our natures to behave a certain way given a set of soecific parameters or are our motivations something more that admits fluidity in some way. It is a philosophical position that we cannot prove or disprove IMO so I take no position on it in an ultimate sense.I believe our mortal natures are limited enough that we can say that for mortality (and this may be one reason God created the world limited as it is), but eternally human nature may be much more complicated and fluid.Do you believe that God's nature required him to become our creator? If not, why did he choose to do so? I am not talking about the consequences of his choice (it demonstrates his sovereignty for example) but why did he need to make the choice at all if he was the only existing being or even thing at some time or eternity in the past? Edited January 21, 2015 by calmoriah
mfbukowski Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 But God has known us since he gathered us to him as intelligences and clothed us in spirit as his children. And his own personal intelligence is such that he can comprehend us down to the last electron and proton. He does not have the limits a mortal parent has….so no false analogy. He is the perfect parent.Beautiful!
Calm Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) I feel like the perfect parent would have children that are a little more perfect.. If you want to be so literal about it. That would depend on his goal as a parent. If his goal is to allow his children to fully develop into the beings they want to be become as opposed to some cookie cutter life that he determines for them, then there would be as much variation as there are individuals due to the uniqueness of each. Plus even the most intelligent of children must learn in stages as they develop. An infant is going to poop diapers and spit up no matter how great of parents she has. I suspect mortality is more toddler stage for God's family than young adulthood. Edited January 21, 2015 by calmoriah 3
Calm Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Beautiful!That was one of my nicer phrasings. I think I will keep it. 2
mass168 Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 M168,Our decisions have reasons behind them based on consequences of those choices, thus moral agency....we are not free from the consequences of our choices. Some people think free agency implies making any choice one wants without being responsible for negative effects etc....think of driving 120 miles an hour through a school zone full of children. There will be moral consequences to that choice, one is not protected from them if one has free agency, but some people use the phrase that way or to imply that there is unlimited choice (think of insisting one wants avocado ice cream when offered vanilla, chocolate or strawberry) so moral agency is more accurate IMO."locked into"If for some reason Rain's daughter's nature is requiring her to only desire peanut butter, she is locked into preferring peanut butter over everything else and cannot change that preference and would never desire to do so either if God could help her change it.It is the discussion about if whether or not humans act like machines, are we programmed by our natures to behave a certain way given a set of soecific parameters or are our motivations something more that admits fluidity in some way. It is a philosophical position that we cannot prove or disprove IMO so I take no position on it in an ultimate sense.I believe our mortal natures are limited enough that we can say that for mortality (and this may be one reason God created the world limited as it is), but eternally human nature may be much more complicated and fluid.Do you believe that God's nature required him to become our creator? If not, why did he choose to do so? I am not talking about the consequences of his choice (it demonstrates his sovereignty for example) but why did he need to make the choice at all if he was the only existing being or even thing at some time or eternity in the past?I think it's a philosophical position that the Bible says a ton about. I don't find it difficult to take a strong position on, but agree to disagree, got it. No I don't think anything about God required him to create us. I think that he did it for his own reasons that we will never be sure of until we get to ask Him in heaven. The Bible gives a lot of hints that He delights exceedingly in the creation of mankind however. I heard a very interesting sermon on it just this Sunday in fact. What did God do on the 7th day? He rested. Why, was he tired emotionally or physically from his creation work? May it never be. He rested because he was SATISFIED in what he had just done. He looked upon his greatest creation that he made in His image, and had some kind of heavenly delight in everything under his sight. Just one man's opinion there of course, but made a lot of sense to me.
Calm Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 I think that he did it for his own reasons that we will never be sure of until we get to ask Him in heaven. Then think of human ultimate motivation in the same way as far as LDS belief goes because we too are eternal beings of the family of God. LDS believe God did it out of love for us: "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man"*. Some of us are even sure about it. *https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/1?lang=eng 1
theplains Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 LDS believe God did it out of love for us: "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man"*. Some of us are even sure about it. The 1997 version of Gospel Principles puts it more clearly. "All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become like him—a god. He has said, “Behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39)." The LDS Church removed the phrase 'a god' from the current version though. Regards,Jim
ERayR Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 The 1997 version of Gospel Principles puts it more clearly. "All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become like him—a god. He has said, “Behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39)." The LDS Church removed the phrase 'a god' from the current version though. Regards,Jim The committee is getting a bit timid.
Calm Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) Oh please, please stop telling us what we believe. (plains, not ERayR) "They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23)." https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng Edited January 22, 2015 by calmoriah 2
ERayR Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Oh please, please stop telling us what we believe. (plains, not ERayR) "They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23)." https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng You had me worried for a moment. 1
strappinglad Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Abe and Herb are out standing in a large field at noon on a beautiful summer day. Abe says to Herb, " What's that thing in the sky?" Herb replies, " It's the sun." " No it isn't." "Yes it is, why do you say it isn't?" " Because of the scripture in John chapter 9 which states that there comes the night in which no work can be done. I look out on this field and see no work being done , therefore it must be night and the sun doesn't shine at night" " Oh, I see" ,says Herb. " Actually you don't ",says Abe. " it's night and too dark" . On some rare occasions a thread seems to follow like this. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Abe and Herb are out standing in a large field at noon on a beautiful summer day. Abe says to Herb, " What's that thing in the sky?" Herb replies, " It's the sun."" No it isn't.""Yes it is, why do you say it isn't?"" Because of the scripture in John chapter 9 which states that there comes the night in which no work can be done.I look out on this field and see no work being done , therefore it must be night and the sun doesn't shine at night"" Oh, I see" ,says Herb." Actually you don't ",says Abe. " it's night and too dark" .On some rare occasions a thread seems to follow like this.Rare occasions? How about every single one? 2
theplains Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 He rested because he was SATISFIED in what he had just done. He looked upon his greatest creation that he made in His image, and had some kind of heavenly delight in everything under his sight. Just one man's opinion there of course, but made a lot of sense to me. I can't imagine God being delighted or satisfied in creating an Adam and Eve who were impotent and withoutjoy before the Fall. Seems like being made in the image of God exclude these two aspects. Regards,Jim
mfbukowski Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 I can't imagine God being delighted or satisfied in creating an Adam and Eve who were impotent and withoutjoy before the Fall. Seems like being made in the image of God exclude these two aspects. Regards,JimReally weird. No clue where you got this.
mass168 Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 Really weird. No clue where you got this.agreed.. Whaaa..??
mfbukowski Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 agreed.. Whaaa..?? Well you know none of these EV's agree with each other anyway. That's because the bible is inerrant
Robert F. Smith Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 I can't imagine God being delighted or satisfied in creating an Adam and Eve who were impotent and withoutjoy before the Fall. Seems like being made in the image of God exclude these two aspects. Regards,JimPerhaps not, Jim, but what if God created two children, innocent and impotent -- until they reached childhood's end. Wouldn't you see life as a process in such case, rather than a static, unchanging condition? There is being, and there is becoming. There is a big difference. What is the Creation and Garden story about anyhow? 1
mfbukowski Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) Perhaps not, Jim, but what if God created two children, innocent and impotent -- until they reached childhood's end. Wouldn't you see life as a process in such case, rather than a static, unchanging condition? There is being, and there is becoming. There is a big difference. What is the Creation and Garden story about anyhow?Ludwig Wittgenstein Culture and Value Page 28e Christianity is not a doctrine, not, I mean, a theory about what has happened and will happen to the human soul, but a description of something that actually takes place in human life. For 'consciousness of sin' is a real event and so are despair and salvation through faith. Those who speak of such things (Bunyan for instance) are simply describing what has happened to them, whatever gloss anyone may want to put on it http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Value-Ludwig-Wittgenstein/dp/0226904350http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_and_Value And yet indeed it "might have happened" just as it says- but we cannot know that, except by the spirit. But ultimately historicity of scripture is a religious belief, not a scientific one. The very fact that faith is required takes it out of the realm of science. (in the sense of provable through empirical evidence) Edited January 24, 2015 by mfbukowski 3
mfbukowski Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 The empirical evidence for religious belief is the kind of life believers lead. "By their fruits ye shall know them" is probably the only empirical fact in all of scripture. 2
theplains Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 What is the Creation and Garden story about anyhow? I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking me if its fiction or non-fiction. Thanks,Jim
Robert F. Smith Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) Perhaps not, Jim, but what if God created two children, innocent and impotent -- until they reached childhood's end. Wouldn't you see life as a process in such case, rather than a static, unchanging condition? There is being, and there is becoming. There is a big difference. What is the Creation and Garden story about anyhow?I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking me if its fiction or non-fiction. Thanks,JimWhat is the point of the story, Jim? Mark quotes Wittgenstein that the story is "a description of something that actually takes place in human life. For 'consciousness of sin' is a real event and so are despair and salvation through faith. Those who speak of such things (Bunyan for instance) are simply describing what has happened to them, whatever gloss anyone may want to put on it." Is Wittgenstein correct? Is this the correct way to interpret, not only the Bible, but also Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress? Are the Creation and Garden Stories allegories, metaphors, figurative, etc.? Or are they supposed to be scientific and historical texts? Edited January 26, 2015 by Robert F. Smith
Levi951 Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Just a thought I had as I was studying the scriptures the other day, and more specifically the Book of Mormon. Often times we as a people will scoff at the Protestant view of the Bible as the inerrant and complete Word of God. Are we not guilty at times of being open to errors in that canonical work, but not in the others? I fear that we treat the Book of Mormon, or the other revelations that we have included in the Standard Works as perfect, complete and whole. What's ironic is that the books themselves do not make that same claim. The Book of Mormon adds a clause to its preface stating that if there are errors in the book, they are not the errors of God, but man. This leaves ample room to accept an incomplete, imperfect scripture.2 Peter Ch 1: 18-21 Ch 2 1-3"18. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20. Knowing, this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.1. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be spoken evil of. 3. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not."
Calm Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Levi, generally speaking mods discouraged just posting scriptures without any discussion attached.
Recommended Posts