bcuzbcuz Posted December 26, 2016 Posted December 26, 2016 11 hours ago, cdowis said: They were all atheists. Typically we were invited into a home to teach about once a month, and we gave them the "Reader;s Digest" version of Mormonism -- Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. We were able to get into a home about once a month, and maybe twice a year invited for a second visit. The typical missionary had one baptism for his entire mission. Now, forty years later, about six or more missions at that time have been combined into a single mission. My best companion, and by best I mean, very focused, intelligent, sharp sense of humour and extremely devoted. He spent 2 ½ years as a missionary in Sweden and did not have a single baptism. I was a very immature, less than focused missionary and led the mission in baptisms. The number of baptisms is not an indicator of anything other than dumb luck.
Physics Guy Posted December 27, 2016 Posted December 27, 2016 On 12/20/2016 at 11:20 PM, Calm said: In your theistic sense, is your definition of God "First Cause"? (This goes back to a long post on page 7.) A being who was not the First Cause could not really be God, to me, but if it turned out that the actual First Cause was merely the Anthropic Principle, or something like that, then I'd say that God did not exist. By First Cause I only mean the determiner of the laws of nature of this universe, and of the initial conditions of the universe. In whatever sense it might make sense to speak of "before" the creation, I believe God was there "then" as well. According to standard Big Bang cosmology, though, time itself began when the universe began, and so it's not clear how to talk about the temporal sequence of causes before the creation. I don't know how to define "God" precisely. Creating the universe, including defining the laws of nature, is part of God's job description. I also believe that the fact that the laws of nature lead to conscious beings like humans is not an accident, but something God included on purpose. I expect that God probably has other purposes for the universe as well, because the thing is an awful lot bigger than it would have to be, just to be the setting for our little human stories.
RevTestament Posted December 27, 2016 Posted December 27, 2016 1 hour ago, Physics Guy said: A being who was not the First Cause could not really be God, to me, but if it turned out that the actual First Cause was merely the Anthropic Principle, or something like that, then I'd say that God did not exist. By First Cause I only mean the determiner of the laws of nature of this universe, and of the initial conditions of the universe. In whatever sense it might make sense to speak of "before" the creation, I believe God was there "then" as well. According to standard Big Bang cosmology, though, time itself began when the universe began, and so it's not clear how to talk about the temporal sequence of causes before the creation. I know I am "butting in," but I no longer assume that the Bible teaches about the creation of the universe at all. I believe Genesis 1 is most likely describing the creation of our solar system and possibly our galaxy or "sky." I don't believe the ex nihilo idea of creation is described in the Bible at all since the earth was formed when the Lord moved His spirit across "the waters." Nor do I believe our present knowledge of physics has led us to an accurate theory of the creation of the universe in the Big Bang theory. It definitely has problems unexplained with our current knowledge of physics. Quote I don't know how to define "God" precisely. Creating the universe, including defining the laws of nature, is part of God's job description. I also believe that the fact that the laws of nature lead to conscious beings like humans is not an accident, but something God included on purpose. I have come to the realization that the only way to "define" God precisely is by the scriptures and His Word. All the rest is supposition, which I refuse to engage in anymore. Quote I expect that God probably has other purposes for the universe as well, because the thing is an awful lot bigger than it would have to be, just to be the setting for our little human stories. Moses 1:33 33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted December 28, 2016 Posted December 28, 2016 I hope it's all true. I'm horrified by the concept of if reincarnation is true. I don't want to be reborn and forget everyone I loved in this life and have to go through mortality again.
RevTestament Posted December 28, 2016 Posted December 28, 2016 14 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I hope it's all true. I'm horrified by the concept of if reincarnation is true. I don't want to be reborn and forget everyone I loved in this life and have to go through mortality again. Technically, reincarnation is to be reborn in this world as another human or creature. The Bible disproves this Doctrine in Hebrews. Our probation only allows us to live once in this world - then cometh the judgment. 2
JLHPROF Posted December 28, 2016 Author Posted December 28, 2016 6 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Technically, reincarnation is to be reborn in this world as another human or creature. The Bible disproves this Doctrine in Hebrews. Our probation only allows us to live once in this world - then cometh the judgment. Correct. There is no scriptural reason to doubt our ability to come to earth again in future worlds in the eternities millennia AFTER the judgment. Just as some of the early prophets and apostles taught. 2
RevTestament Posted December 28, 2016 Posted December 28, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Correct. There is no scriptural reason to doubt our ability to come to earth again in future worlds in the eternities millennia AFTER the judgment. Just as some of the early prophets and apostles taught. You are the only member of the church I have met who agrees with me in this. R there others? May I ask whether u ascribe to the belief that this world is the only world on which a Savior completed an atonement? Can I ask 4 CFRs on those apostles and prophets? Edited December 28, 2016 by RevTestament
JLHPROF Posted December 28, 2016 Author Posted December 28, 2016 17 minutes ago, RevTestament said: You are the only member of the church I have met who agrees with me in this. R there others? May I ask whether u ascribe to the belief that this world is the only world on which a Savior completed an atonement? Can I ask 4 CFRs on those apostles and prophets? I think there are probably those who still hold to the ideas taught by Brigham and his contemporaries that after achieving Godhood we would take upon ourselves mortality in future worlds as Adams. I do not believe that this world is the only world that had a Savior who completed an atonement. The Savior himself said he did nothing that the Father hadn't already done. As for CFR's? Most of those fall under the Adam-God heading which has been discussed to death on this board.
RevTestament Posted December 28, 2016 Posted December 28, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: I think there are probably those who still hold to the ideas taught by Brigham and his contemporaries that after achieving Godhood we would take upon ourselves mortality in future worlds as Adams. I do not believe that this world is the only world that had a Savior who completed an atonement. The Savior himself said he did nothing that the Father hadn't already done. How do u reconcile ur belief with statements of some GAs found in Mormon Doctrine? Am I to take your statements to mean there has been more than one Son? As 4 my CFRs see JS King Follett discourse and Matt 12:32, 16:28, 19:28, D & C 84:41, etc Edited December 28, 2016 by RevTestament
thesometimesaint Posted December 28, 2016 Posted December 28, 2016 Mormon Doctrine is not LDS Doctrine. In LDS Theology we are all sons and daughters of God. Thus have the potential to become like him. What we are not is the only begotten in the flesh son of God. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 1, 2017 Posted January 1, 2017 On 12/27/2016 at 5:28 AM, Physics Guy said: (This goes back to a long post on page 7.) A being who was not the First Cause could not really be God, to me, but if it turned out that the actual First Cause was merely the Anthropic Principle, or something like that, then I'd say that God did not exist. By First Cause I only mean the determiner of the laws of nature of this universe, and of the initial conditions of the universe. In whatever sense it might make sense to speak of "before" the creation, I believe God was there "then" as well. According to standard Big Bang cosmology, though, time itself began when the universe began, and so it's not clear how to talk about the temporal sequence of causes before the creation. I don't know how to define "God" precisely. Creating the universe, including defining the laws of nature, is part of God's job description. I also believe that the fact that the laws of nature lead to conscious beings like humans is not an accident, but something God included on purpose. I expect that God probably has other purposes for the universe as well, because the thing is an awful lot bigger than it would have to be, just to be the setting for our little human stories. Since even YOU had to define it. "Cause" is too ambiguous a term to ascribe to a particular ...... anything. What was YOUR personal cause? Your parents or the gleam in the eye of your 14th great grandfather? It always comes down to an infinite regress of what could be the first "cause" of any chain of causation. Postulating that there even was a first cause is impossible. Hume proved that in the 17th century God is eternal and organizes matter which is also eternal. Because we humans experience birth and death and therefore think in linear terms there is no reason to believe this is some sort of "eternal law"- it can be described as human psychology being projected on the universe. WE define what the "cause" of any event is.
Physics Guy Posted January 1, 2017 Posted January 1, 2017 David Hume was a smart guy. There've been more smart guys after him, though. If you're interested in cosmology, the Wikipedia article on it is a decent place to start. If you're not, that's cool, too. But I hope you don't really imagine that 18th century philosophy is the final word on the topic.
longview Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 On 12/28/2016 at 9:46 AM, JLHPROF said: I think there are probably those who still hold to the ideas taught by Brigham and his contemporaries that after achieving Godhood we would take upon ourselves mortality in future worlds as Adams. In a thread several moons ago, I asked if you believed that God can permit Himself to "re-enter corruption." I don't think I got a definitive answer. Can you also expand upon the following scriptures? Alma 11:45 45 Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption. Helaman 3:30 30 And land their souls, yea, their immortal souls, at the right hand of God in the kingdom of heaven, to sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and with Jacob, and with all our holy fathers, to go no more out. Moses 6:57 57 Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time.
Recommended Posts