Ahab Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 Yeah but how can we know whether or not we are truly advancing? I know I am when I feel more spiritually enlightened as revelation flows down on me like the rain in the Pacific NW of America, but how is someone like consiglieri supposed to know when he is becoming more intelligent? Inspiring minds often get false knowledge as they seek to know more than they know!
consiglieri Posted December 16, 2015 Author Posted December 16, 2015 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Yeah but how can we know whether or not we are truly advancing? I know I am when I feel more spiritually enlightened as revelation flows down on me like the rain in the Pacific NW of America, but how is someone like consiglieri supposed to know when he is becoming more intelligent? Inspiring minds often get false knowledge as they seek to know more than they know! Well we are certainly in a pickle if we don't seek to know more than we know.
consiglieri Posted December 16, 2015 Author Posted December 16, 2015 18 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: And that critics don't give a flying rat's posterior whether any doctrine is true or false, but only whether they can use it against the Church. You have me confused with someone else, I think.
consiglieri Posted December 16, 2015 Author Posted December 16, 2015 5 hours ago, CA Steve said: I do have a question and it may be thread worthy. Doesn't this mean that LDS God is not omniscient? If not then why do we worship a being who is less than perfect? Because it's the only game in town.
consiglieri Posted December 16, 2015 Author Posted December 16, 2015 4 hours ago, CV75 said: I think D&C 59:4 offers some insight: “They that are faithful and diligent before [God]” shall be “crowned with blessings from above, yea, and with commandments not a few, and with revelations in their time…” When one enjoys a good relationship with God, the Gift and companionship of the Holy Ghost give ongoing commandments that bear good fruit and revelations that come when needed, all contributing to the privilege to advance like Him. When fallible prophets give commandments not a few and revelations in their time, he is able to leverage those for his advancement as well. So we know by our advancement. How is one's "advancement" measured? By Church office?
CV75 Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: How is one's "advancement" measured? By Church office? I don't measure it. It is between me and the Lord. I do see progress (in my memory, journals and comments from others) in becoming as a child, sanctified, justified, etc., having more charity, and in receiving more and more refined commandments and revelations in their time. Not that I'm all that far along, but there has been progress. I suppose I could go back and graph all these along a timeline and measure progress that way, but I'll wait until the books are opened I like surprises!).
Russell C McGregor Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 7 hours ago, CA Steve said: Robert! I have tried many times to explain this issue to other LDS people and never have I seen it so clearly and simply laid out. I wish I could give you more than one rep point for it. I do have a question and it may be thread worthy. Doesn't this mean that LDS God is not omniscient? If not then why do we worship a being who is less than perfect? No. Maybe the issue isn't that we don't get your Amazingly Profound Thinking on this subject. Maybe there is something you are overlooking. And it is this: LDS theology renders the classical problem of evil moot. We don't posit a universe that was created solely by God, in accordance with His free and untrammelled will, for no other reason than because He felt like it. Note that if there was such a universe, everything in it would indeed be a direct reflection of God's own character, and the evil found in that universe would show God to be deficient in some way. But in fact LDS theology posits a universe that God created for a specific purpose, and that had to allow for the interaction of other free beings. Beings that are morally imperfect, have limited power, and miniscule knowledge. And for this universe to fulfil its purpose, the freely chosen actions of those beings must have actual consequences. Some version of this theodicy has been proposed in defence of classical theism. But it fails, because all other beings in classical theism are themselves the purposeful creations of the Omni-everything God, who could presumably have created them to be as morally perfect as He is. But in Mormonism, other free beings are not God's purposeful creations, but His actual offspring. The problem of evil in classical theism sees humans as defective clay in the hands of a clumsy potter. In Mormon theism, however, we are something quite different: we are the wayward children whom God is teaching by an educational process that will take time. Only when the time process had reached its conclusion will creation be perfected, and evil will cease to exist. Thus, Mormon theology is impervious to the problem of evil.
consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Author Posted December 17, 2015 46 minutes ago, CV75 said: I don't measure it. It is between me and the Lord. I do see progress (in my memory, journals and comments from others) in becoming as a child, sanctified, justified, etc., having more charity, and in receiving more and more refined commandments and revelations in their time. Not that I'm all that far along, but there has been progress. I suppose I could go back and graph all these along a timeline and measure progress that way, but I'll wait until the books are opened I like surprises!). I kept asking these questions because I wanted to see where you would come down on this issue. I agree with you that ultimately the issue is one of self-measurement of "advancement" in light and knowledge which I understand to be a fundamental component of our individual spiritual journey.
consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Author Posted December 17, 2015 27 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Maybe the issue isn't that we don't get your Amazingly Profound Thinking on this subject. Russell has the monopoly on Amazingly Profound Thinking.
Teancum Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 44 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: No. Maybe the issue isn't that we don't get your Amazingly Profound Thinking on this subject. Maybe there is something you are overlooking. And it is this: LDS theology renders the classical problem of evil moot. We don't posit a universe that was created solely by God, in accordance with His free and untrammelled will, for no other reason than because He felt like it. Note that if there was such a universe, everything in it would indeed be a direct reflection of God's own character, and the evil found in that universe would show God to be deficient in some way. But in fact LDS theology posits a universe that God created for a specific purpose, and that had to allow for the interaction of other free beings. Beings that are morally imperfect, have limited power, and miniscule knowledge. And for this universe to fulfil its purpose, the freely chosen actions of those beings must have actual consequences. Some version of this theodicy has been proposed in defence of classical theism. But it fails, because all other beings in classical theism are themselves the purposeful creations of the Omni-everything God, who could presumably have created them to be as morally perfect as He is. But in Mormonism, other free beings are not God's purposeful creations, but His actual offspring. The problem of evil in classical theism sees humans as defective clay in the hands of a clumsy potter. In Mormon theism, however, we are something quite different: we are the wayward children whom God is teaching by an educational process that will take time. Only when the time process had reached its conclusion will creation be perfected, and evil will cease to exist. Thus, Mormon theology is impervious to the problem of evil. Russell so is the LDS God not omnipotent nor omniscient?
CA Steve Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 16 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Russell has the monopoly on Amazingly Profound Thinking. I suppose if I ask a question about theodicy he might then answer my question on omniscience? Probably too much to expect. And, if I dare ask, who is this "we" he speaks for? 1
Russell C McGregor Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: Russell has the monopoly on Amazingly Profound Thinking. It's better than having the monopoly on amazingly irrelevant cheap shots. But then, I guess nobody wants to challenge you for that.
Russell C McGregor Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 1 hour ago, CA Steve said: I suppose if I ask a question about theodicy he might then answer my question on omniscience? Probably too much to expect. And, if I dare ask, who is this "we" he speaks for? You previously asked, "Doesn't this mean that LDS God is not omniscient?" And I answered, "No." Who is this "we" for whom Russell dares to speak? Those Latter-day Saints who don't imagine themselves smarter or better-informed than the prophets. But who do seem to understand LDS doctrine better than the GSB tenants.
Russell C McGregor Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 1 hour ago, Teancum said: Russell so is the LDS God not omnipotent nor omniscient? I'll answer that question if you'll answer this one: Where are the words omnipotent and omniscient found in Scripture? The LDS God is not the God of classical theism, which is actually a theoretical construct, developed by pagan philosophers starting with Plato. IOW, He's not a set of conceptual absolutes. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not the God of the philosophers. Therefore, it isn't sufficient to dredge up a set of apophatic or omni-type adjectives. The scriptures describe God as having all power in terms of having the power to do whatever He intends to do, and all knowledge of what was, is and is to come. This is another way in which LDS theology is immune to the kinds of "problems" that have bedevilled classical philosophers for centuries, such as "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" (A schoolboy sophistry, since if God can't create it, then His creative power is limited, hence not omnipotent, but if He can't lift it, then His lifting strength is limited, so still not omnipotent.) The power LDS doctrine ascribes to God has been described as "maximal power." Which can, in practical terms, accomplish everything that theoretical omnipotence can. The theoretical omni's actually lead to a God who can't actually do anything. Since He is perfect in every way, it would be wrong for him to entertain any imperfect thoughts; therefore, He couldn't contemplate anything less than He is; therefore we would be beneath His notice. But Jesus said that not even a sparrow falls without God knowing. Furthermore, since the God of classical theism hasn't left anything undone -- because that would be imperfect -- then he cannot now do anything. Every act must satisfy a need, but a perfect being has no needs. Therefore, the God of classical theism can't create anything, because He has no needs for anything, including company. Why would he need the company of lesser, imperfect beings? Thus, this God, while theoretically omnipotent, is actually impotent: He can do nothing, because He has no motivation do do anything except eternally contemplate His own perfection. So if you insist on framing the question in terms of classical theism, I have to say, no: the LDS God is not omnipotent, nor is He omniscient. He is wiser and mightier than that.
Avatar4321 Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 On 12/11/2015 at 4:16 PM, consiglieri said: But faithful to whom? That is the question. God. It isn't really a tough question
Avatar4321 Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 On 12/11/2015 at 5:32 PM, consiglieri said: So how is one to tell the difference? By the gift of the Holy Ghost. Get it and many of your questions will resolve themselves
Avatar4321 Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 On 12/12/2015 at 6:53 PM, RevTestament said: In a sense you may be correct, but imho the president may indeed be "the prophet" just as Joseph Smith was. The first presidency is not just just an administrative appointee of the 12. Prophet would be whoever the Lord chose through Joseph Smith to prophesy. To put it succinctly this may or may not be the president imho. Indeed, as I recall last time I affirmed all the apostles as prophets and revelators, thus, any of them might receive revelation to be acted upon. The President holds the temporal keys and is responsible for their being exercised correctly. But imho you are brave to point out this little area. Nowhere does D&C state that only the president may receive revelation. When Joseph Smith was president, it was only he or whoso he appointed. The problem was that others were claiming to receive revelation who were not. D&C doesn't really solve that dilemma since the time of Joseph Smith. We are still left with judging the prophets by their fruits. I have not heard any of our general authorities claim God has spoken revelation to them since the time of Joseph Smith. They have gone in prayer to the Lord and sought for confirmation of things apparently. Never read D&C 136, 138, OF 1 or 2?
Avatar4321 Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 On 12/12/2015 at 0:15 PM, consiglieri said: Perhaps science may be seen as another form of revelation. But with science, it is man, not God, doing the revealing. That's just what the scientist thinks when he is full of himself
Avatar4321 Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 On 12/15/2015 at 10:00 AM, consiglieri said: I see something different when I look at the evening news . . . You've seen God on the news? Did I miss the second coming?
Robert F. Smith Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 16 hours ago, Gray said: ........................................................ I think the problem of evil is still a problem in LDS theology. God has the ability to intervene and yet does not. The problem is not as bad as it is with mainstream Christian theology, but it's still there. A good father cripples his children if he intervenes in all their affairs to keep them safe, e.g., always holding their hands as they cross the street. Children learn little when parents hover too closely and intervene in everything. All of us need experience in independent decision-making. We must be allowed to make mistakes. We may die horribly, and well before our time. Yet we will all live forever. In this life, we must have the opportunity to fail miserably, so that any success is an actual achievement. Only Satan desired a way in which there would be no opposition, but only one path and one result for all. Was that "good"? 1
Stargazer Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 On 12/15/2015 at 10:01 AM, consiglieri said: Coming from the presupposition that agency to act is a good thing, I find it problematic to think mortals have a power that God does not. I think we are getting confused about what it means to have agency. Of course God has agency, and God could choose to exercise that agency to do unjustly. But since that would lead to His fall from Godhood, He chooses to be just, and is infallible and just at all times. That is why he cannot give sin the least degree of allowance, and why it was necessary for a Savior to be provided. Christ meets the requirements of justice, being sinless and yet suffering the punishment for sin, and thus in Him lies the capacity to show mercy by letting us sinful (but repentant) souls into God's presence. Father, alone, could not allow us to come home! This is why Christ is so important. Now, God cannot act unjustly without losing His Godhood, but that doesn't mean He cannot, for example, have anything He wants for breakfast. He can choose a ploughman's breakfast, or a Denney's Grand Slam. He can choose to create a new Universe this week, or perhaps He might put it off until next month. I think that the array of choices that God has is quite unimaginable for us mere mortals.
Gray Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: A good father cripples his children if he intervenes in all their affairs to keep them safe, e.g., always holding their hands as they cross the street. Children learn little when parents hover too closely and intervene in everything. All of us need experience in independent decision-making. We must be allowed to make mistakes. We may die horribly, and well before our time. Yet we will all live forever. In this life, we must have the opportunity to fail miserably, so that any success is an actual achievement. Only Satan desired a way in which there would be no opposition, but only one path and one result for all. Was that "good"? But the problem with that arguments is we're given many examples of God intervening, both in scripture and in conference talks, in subtle and dramatic ways. God intervenes to direct people's attention to a quarter lying in the road. God intervenes by helping find lost items of importance. God intervenes to heal a woman with an issue of blood, or a leper. God intervenes and stop's Nephi's brothers from beating him. God intervenes with great signs in the heavens. In LDS theology, God has great leeway to intervene in various ways. But we also see God choosing not to intervene to help a child attacked by a wild animal, or to help a starving village, or warn someone away from a person who would turn out to be a sexual predator. The problem of evil is not solved in orthodox LDS theology. We have no good answer for why God chooses not to stop evil or harm in many cases. Quote According to this parashah, there are rewards and punishments awaiting us depending on whether or not we follow the commandments we have been given. You shall make no idols nor graven image, nor erect a pillar, nor shall you set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down to it; for I am the Eternal your God. You shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary; I am the Eternal. If you walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them; then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her produce, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit. (26:1 - 4) Not only are we told that the natural world will respond to our performance of religious obligations, but we will achieve those most sought after qualities of life: peace and safety from both human and animal enemies. And I will give peace in the land, and you shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid; and I will remove evil beasts from the land, nor shall the sword go through your land. (26:6) Of course, if there are rewards for fulfilling those commandments, there must also be punishments in store for those who do not follow them. But if you will not listen to me, and will not do all these commandments; and if you shall despise my statutes, or if your soul loathes my judgments, so that you will not do all my commandments, but that you break my covenant; I also will do this to you; I will appoint over you terror, consumption, and fever, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart; and you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. (26:14 - 16) The list of terrors that await disobedience is extensive. The land will no longer bring forth food. We will besieged by enemies and routed from our land. Nothing we do will succeed, and we will be diminished as persons and as a People. While we can understand that such threats might be designed to inspire adherence to community standards, it is challenging to believe that there is a Deity who rewards and punishes in these ways. From our standpoint, such a God who rewards and punishes seems a projection of our own ego consciousness onto the universe. Reward and punishment, as motivations for proper thought and action, are ego functions, reflections of the way we teach our children before they are ready to better understand and to make their own choices and decisions. If there were a God who could respond to human actions in this way, that God would have stopped the Shoah, the Holocaust, long before six million of us were murdered. That God would prevent natural disasters that claim thousands of innocents across the planet. In some ways, we might wish such a system of clear rewards and punishments operated in our world, but that would render us always children, never growing to take responsibility for our own life choices. The process of evolution would be eclipsed by the need to adhere to unchanging rules and regulations. - Rabbi Ted Falcon Edited December 17, 2015 by Gray
consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Author Posted December 17, 2015 12 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: It's better than having the monopoly on amazingly irrelevant cheap shots. But then, I guess nobody wants to challenge you for that. For the record, and to keep matters straight, you are the one who made that "amazingly irrelevant cheap shot" against CA Steve. I just quoted you. So no, I do not have the monopoly. Cheers!
CV75 Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 15 hours ago, consiglieri said: I kept asking these questions because I wanted to see where you would come down on this issue. I agree with you that ultimately the issue is one of self-measurement of "advancement" in light and knowledge which I understand to be a fundamental component of our individual spiritual journey. Yes, the issue of prophetic fallibility on matters of doctrine does come down to one of self-measurement as opposed to measuring their fallibility, because others’ fallibility has nothing to do with our advancement unless we allow ourselves to get distracted. I think it is along the same lines as not judging and instead forgiving others.
Russell C McGregor Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 3 hours ago, consiglieri said: For the record, and to keep matters straight, you are the one who made that "amazingly irrelevant cheap shot" against CA Steve. I just quoted you. So no, I do not have the monopoly. Cheers! But I didn't throw in the sarcastic sneer about anyone claiming a "monopoly." Which, incidentally, was false. But of course, that troubles you not at all. And I made a substantive contribution to the discussion. You merely wasted our bandwidth with a gratuitous personal slam. Your entire post was an amazingly irrelevant cheap shot. Amazingly, but not surprisingly.
Recommended Posts