Who is God

[stemelbow]

Just now, waveslider said:

The atheist is completely close minded, believing that there is no way that God exists, period. How much light does anyone receive without first being open to it? The light comes from God, being closed off to the possibility of God existing at all is like closing you eyes when someone turns on a light and complaining that they still can't see.

 

I'd disagree in two ways:

1, in my experience the atheist is not completely close minded

2.  One can receive light from God without knowing about Him or believing in Him.  In my way of thinking a person need not accept the notion of a Judeo Christian God in order to gain light in this world. 

[waveslider]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I'd disagree in two ways:

1, in my experience the atheist is not completely close minded

2.  One can receive light from God without knowing about Him or believing in Him.  In my way of thinking a person need not accept the notion of a Judeo Christian God in order to gain light in this world. 

1 If the atheist is not completely close minded toward the possibility of a God existing, then why aren't they identifying as agnostic instead?

2 I agree that we are all born with the Light of Christ, or in other words our conscience, but to say that someone who is closed off to the possibility of God existing has received more light than those who choose to follow that light to it's source, ie Mormons, is not a true statement.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, waveslider said:

1 If the atheist is not completely close minded toward the possibility of a God existing, then why aren't they identifying as agnostic instead?

I don't care what people identify as; therefore I haven't really thought of why.  I suppose because such a person doesn't believe in God, mostly. 

4 minutes ago, waveslider said:

2 I agree that we are all born with the Light of Christ, or in other words our conscience, but to say that someone who is closed off to the possibility of God existing has received more light than those who choose to follow that light to it's source, ie Mormons, is not a true statement.

I get where you stand.  I disagree.  Peace. 

[CV75]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

But, with that all said, why is it such an imperative in scripture that we believe god?  Are we all not the same in essence?  Is not God He who favors the atheist just as the Mormon?  'm convinced He must be, else God is not.  if he favors me I'm out. 

I think the imperative to believe is in scripture because i think it has been so commonly observed. I think a good conversation about this has to begin acknowledging that everyone believes in something. Every child that has learned from trial and error has experienced belief as a first step.

Since no child gets even this far in a vacuum, those who have gone before influence him according to their belief system(s), intentionally or not. As he branches out, he, like those who went before him, develops his own belief system(s) and favors and leverages those that work for his circumstances.

Getting as close to the original source of incipient belief as possible in an effort to understand where it leads, asking a young child about this state of mind will likely yield an unsatisfactory answer, and the older he gets, the less reliable that answer becomes as it becomes affected, whether for the questioner or the respondent or both, by a more developed and complex belief system and by an imperfect recollection or acknowledgement of changes along the way.

I think one acceptable way we can find out is to ask ourselves, by recreating the state of mind of a little child as much as our current belief system permits and re-experiencing that state with a good faith recollection and an honest evaluation of its history. Sometimes it can be helpful when two or more individuals engage in the same process with an open mind. I recognize there are elements of LDS teaching in this (becoming as a little child, remembering what was believed and known, two or three gathered, rituals, etc.), but I’m sure it can be secularized.

[waveslider]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't care what people identify as; therefore I haven't really thought of why.  I suppose because such a person doesn't believe in God, mostly. 

I get where you stand.  I disagree.  Peace. 

I see that our definition of, "atheist," is different, I just would call a person agnostic who doesn't believe in God, mostly. I can also agree to disagree no worried on that. Did you see these two videos yet, that give evidence that God exists?

1 hour ago, waveslider said:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s&t=15s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPkBEYsG6EQ&t=68s

 

I would like to hear your thoughts on them.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

So the explanation goes back to the notion of neutrality in the pre-mortal world means they had lesser existences in mortality type of stuff?  I thought that rather theoretical.  BY keeping our first estate, it seems you are suggesting the keeping of it was done to varying degrees.  Meaning some just barely made the cut and stuff.  How would we know that? 

Because this world is a type and shadow of eternity.  Not all are equally willing to keep the laws and ordinances of the gospel here.  There is no reason to assume that everyone who comes to earth kept the laws and ordinances there equally. 

But our memories are wiped of that previous world.  We have no idea if someone in a lesser condition here was less valiant in a pre-mortal world.  It's guesswork, it seems to me.  And wouldn't coming to earth be a new start?  give people more of a chance?

That's like saying "well, shouldn't everyone going to the next life be put in the top degree of the Celestial Kingdom as Gods to give them a new start and more of a chance".  It is illogical and not scriptural.  And is it really guesswork given the scriptures I've already quoted?  There are those who are born with a right to claim more blessings than others.

except, "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life" thus seemingly put to bed the notion that pre-mortal life degree of faithfulness effects our condition on earth.

Who said anything about race or skin color?  This doesn't in any way preclude the idea that our premortal actions influences our situation in mortality.
It's natural consequences.  All blessings are directly related to laws kept (D&C 130).
The blessing of a mortal existence was qualified for by everyone here.  That doesn't mean there aren't other blessings we don't merit because of our choices in premortality.  Just as there are those here who may accept Christ as Savior but are completely unwilling to keep any other laws and ordinances.  All who accept Christ as Savior and are baptized in this world or vicariously will enter the Celestial Kingdom.  Only those who live all laws and ordinances will rule and reign there.
There's no reason in scripture that I know of to think pre-mortality to mortality is any different in this pattern than mortality to immortality will be.

 

 

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Mormonism accepts premortality.

It is foolish to believe our post-mortal existence is determined by our mortal existence but that our pre-mortal existence has no bearing on our lives in mortality.

I agree.  "Who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind", asked the disciples to Christ, making i clear that they understood that our pre-birth actions affected us here in mortality.

 

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I agree.  "Who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind", asked the disciples to Christ, making i clear that they understood that our pre-birth actions affected us here in mortality.

But again, it isn't about the man being punished with blindness.
It is about laws kept.  God is perfectly just.  He doesn't punish out of being offended or reward as a respecter of persons.
It is all about what light we choose to accept and what we choose to reject.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It is true, the LDS view brings a different flavor to God that often puts the rest many accepted criticisms of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God.  I like that.  I struggle seeing the fine-tuning you mention, and the above mentioned Craig, often relies on as adequate evidence for God.  But in another sense I can pass it off as, "hey whatever floats your boat".  Fine-tuning seems to assume God, rather than posit any evidence for Him.  Why is there fine-tuning?  Well it must be God, how else could it be?  Not sure that works, since existence is so big we can't account for life not living elsewhere. 

William Lane Craig is committed to normative Christian theology, which makes the death of god a natural, logical consequence for independent thinkers.  His possible discussion of any scientific evidence is hollow only for that reason.  The fine-tuning argument is solely scientific.  It has no religious rationale.  The primary author of the book I recommended is an astrophysicist, and his is only the most recent declaration that our planet is a "Goldilocks planet," and that the same applies to the entire universe.  Everything is "just right."  How can that be?  Scientists have been asking that same question for generations now:  An excellent example is the similar arguments long ago from atheists Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.  They concluded that there must be a Designer.  Yet god becomes largely irrelevant when he is posited as merely a more advanced being than we are -- very advanced and "godlike," according to atheists like Richard Dawkins -- he is speaking of extraterrestrials who have presumably been advancing for thousands of years, a matter on which there is general agreement among astrophysicists.  Craig needs to take the LDS missionary lessons and get baptized.  He needs a successful theology, something which he does not currently have.  He is no doubt tone deaf to the need for change in his thinking.  Only the Holy Spirit could shift him off dead center (with emphasis on "dead").

[mfbukowski]

God is felt inside you.  He is looking in the wrong place.  We do not have his picture.

I'd love to participate but don't have more time, maybe later.

[VideoGameJunkie]

If you've been through an endowment session in the temple you know who God, Jehovah/Jesus, and Michael/Adam are.

[SeekerB]

In my life, I have example after example of instantaneous answers to prayers. Some required extensive preparation in advance of my prayer for it to be answered. Either I have powers to affect reality and the lives of people I never heard of, or there is a God. Here is an example. 16 years ago I was unemployed. I searched diligently for two weeks and had an appointment with a recruiter in a city some distance from my house. When the day came for the interview, I decided not to go, without a good reason for that decision, just a feeling. My wife was very upset. Anyway I decided to pray for help. During the prayer, a company came to my mind. It was located 80 miles away so I had not considered it. The thought I had was to see what opportunities that company had to offer.

Anyway, I got up, walked into the kitchen and the phone rang. It was a recruiter who stated that he had an opportunity for me at the very company I had thought of during prayer.  I said to myself, "I'm not stupid."  This was Wednesday. I had an interview Thursday, got a job offer Friday and started  Monday.

This was either an incredible set of coincidences, or God being directly involved in my life.  It is amazing things like this that happen over and over to those who believe in God that reinforce belief in His existence.  

[cdowis]

8 hours ago, SeekerB said:

In my life, I have example after example of instantaneous answers to prayers. 

I believe you need to recognize that this is one of the gifts of the Spirit, one of the talents, like singing, leadership skills, discernment, etc.  As with any gift, you should work to develop it, understand how it works, when to use it.  For example, sometimes the results are not immediate, but like digging a ditch.  Takes a long effort, takes time, and then, suddenly, you hear the Spirit voice say, "It is enough".

Don't be deceived in thinking that you are more spiritual than others because of the gift.  Like the beautiful voice, it's "just" a talent.

Edited December 28, 2016 by cdowis

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

William Lane Craig is committed to normative Christian theology, which makes the death of god a natural, logical consequence for independent thinkers.  His possible discussion of any scientific evidence is hollow only for that reason.  The fine-tuning argument is solely scientific.  It has no religious rationale.  The primary author of the book I recommended is an astrophysicist, and his is only the most recent declaration that our planet is a "Goldilocks planet," and that the same applies to the entire universe.  Everything is "just right."  How can that be?  Scientists have been asking that same question for generations now:  An excellent example is the similar arguments long ago from atheists Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.  They concluded that there must be a Designer.  Yet god becomes largely irrelevant when he is posited as merely a more advanced being than we are -- very advanced and "godlike," according to atheists like Richard Dawkins -- he is speaking of extraterrestrials who have presumably been advancing for thousands of years, a matter on which there is general agreement among astrophysicists.  Craig needs to take the LDS missionary lessons and get baptized.  He needs a successful theology, something which he does not currently have.  He is no doubt tone deaf to the need for change in his thinking.  Only the Holy Spirit could shift him off dead center (with emphasis on "dead").

I'm all for being righted regarding fine tuning.  When I get through my list I'll see about the book you recommend.  Thanks.

[stemelbow]

8 hours ago, SeekerB said:

In my life, I have example after example of instantaneous answers to prayers. Some required extensive preparation in advance of my prayer for it to be answered. Either I have powers to affect reality and the lives of people I never heard of, or there is a God. Here is an example. 16 years ago I was unemployed. I searched diligently for two weeks and had an appointment with a recruiter in a city some distance from my house. When the day came for the interview, I decided not to go, without a good reason for that decision, just a feeling. My wife was very upset. Anyway I decided to pray for help. During the prayer, a company came to my mind. It was located 80 miles away so I had not considered it. The thought I had was to see what opportunities that company had to offer.

Anyway, I got up, walked into the kitchen and the phone rang. It was a recruiter who stated that he had an opportunity for me at the very company I had thought of during prayer.  I said to myself, "I'm not stupid."  This was Wednesday. I had an interview Thursday, got a job offer Friday and started  Monday.

This was either an incredible set of coincidences, or God being directly involved in my life.  It is amazing things like this that happen over and over to those who believe in God that reinforce belief in His existence.  

I think this type of stuff becomes really unconvinging when you consider all those in similar situations and prayer didn't bring them anything.  Getting a job, is a dime a dozen, in terms of experience.  God may or may not be involved, but someone getting a job he thinks about or covets hardly provides evidence for God, because it's also true many people get jobs they want without praying at all. 

[stemelbow]

Quote

Because this world is a type and shadow of eternity.  Not all are equally willing to keep the laws and ordinances of the gospel here.  There is no reason to assume that everyone who comes to earth kept the laws and ordinances there equally. 

I'm not sure what you mean.  We were given one thing to accomplish--keep your first estate.  There was no degree in our keeping it indicated throughout scripture. 

Quote

That's like saying "well, shouldn't everyone going to the next life be put in the top degree of the Celestial Kingdom as Gods to give them a new start and more of a chance".  It is illogical and not scriptural.  And is it really guesswork given the scriptures I've already quoted?  There are those who are born with a right to claim more blessings than others.

 

SOunds like guesswork to me.

 

 

Quote

 

Who said anything about race or skin color? 

 

Well, in an official capacity the former leaders of the Church said so.  I think this piece indicates they were wrong in their assumption on that point.  Outside that I dont' know there's any other official capacity statement that supports your theory at all.  The only official capacity statement that would support your theory has been debunked. 

Quote

 

 

This doesn't in any way preclude the idea that our premortal actions influences our situation in mortality.
It's natural consequences.  All blessings are directly related to laws kept (D&C 130).
The blessing of a mortal existence was qualified for by everyone here.  That doesn't mean there aren't other blessings we don't merit because of our choices in premortality.  Just as there are those here who may accept Christ as Savior but are completely unwilling to keep any other laws and ordinances.  All who accept Christ as Savior and are baptized in this world or vicariously will enter the Celestial Kingdom.  Only those who live all laws and ordinances will rule and reign there.
There's no reason in scripture that I know of to think pre-mortality to mortality is any different in this pattern than mortality to immortality will be.

Methinks you're too quick to meld together two separate situations--the pre-mortal world, which we know little about and our life here. 

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, waveslider said:

I see that our definition of, "atheist," is different, I just would call a person agnostic who doesn't believe in God, mostly. I can also agree to disagree no worried on that. Did you see these two videos yet, that give evidence that God exists?

I would like to hear your thoughts on them.

I'll try to get into them. I gave both a quick skim and wasn't impressed.  Sounds like they come from a ID creationist perspective.  Not sure there's much standing there. 

Edited December 28, 2016 by stemelbow

[JLHPROF]

52 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure what you mean.  We were given one thing to accomplish--keep your first estate.  There was no degree in our keeping it indicated throughout scripture.

Sure there was.  And I've already provided scriptural evidence of this to which more prophetic teachings could probably be added.

Else how could some be recognized as noble and great ones (which is scriptural).
Just look at all the patriarchal blessings that describe some members as valiant in the pre-mortal existence.

See also:
Alma 1: 3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

If they were called and prepared from the foundation of the world because of their faith and works, where exactly do you think they exercised this faith and works before the world was?

[pogi]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

God is felt inside you.  He is looking in the wrong place.  We do not have his picture.

That is true that he is felt and experienced inside, but that experience can come from observing God in His majesty outside of us, as "all things testify of Him".  He is..."in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever (D&C 88:41)."

Quote

 

 45 The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.

 46 Unto what shall I liken these kingdoms, that ye may understand?

 47 Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.

 48 I say unto you, he hath seen him; nevertheless, he who came unto his own was not comprehended.

 49 The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him.

 50 Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound. (D&C 88)

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

If you've been through an endowment session in the temple you know who God, Jehovah/Jesus, and Michael/Adam are.

Is that like saying that I know who Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) is when I have seen Hal Holbrook do an hour-long stage version of him?  -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_rTMNnxwSE .  Or do I need to read rather widely in his written works?

The names or titles of the characters in LDS temple rites of passage have specific symbolic meaning:  God = "God."  Jehovah (YHWH) "He-who-creates (that which comes into existence)," Jesus (Yeshua) "Salvation."  Michael "Who is like unto God."  Adam "man."  Those are the primary dramatis personae (cast of characters), along with three from the NT who advise Adam & Eve -- all performed by actors who are communicating the nature of their characters according to a script prepared for them, a script which includes events which are deliberately figurative in nature, and characters who are included out of sequence with proper narrative chronology.  We know that we are performing a ritual, but what do we really know about the characters portrayed?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

That is true that he is felt and experienced inside, but that experience can come from observing God in His majesty outside of us, as "all things testify of Him".  He is..."in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever (D&C 88:41)."

 

 

Arguably old Joe Smith plucked that out of his head for suckers to believe.

Surely you have heard that argument before.

It's up to the spirit to verify any of it, or not. So much for your objectivity

Yes I have a testimony, but it's not objective.

I can't take it out of my pocket and show it to you so you get one too.

No decoder rings available in any body's cereal box, unfortunately, no glasses for you to put on to see it that way.

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Arguably old Joe Smith plucked that out of his head for suckers to believe.

Surely you have heard that argument before.

It's up to the spirit to verify any of it, or not. So much for your objectivity

Yes I have a testimony, but it's not objective.

I can't take it out of my pocket and show it to you so you get one too.

No decoder rings available in any body's cereal box, unfortunately, no glasses for you to put on to see it that way.

 

I agree with you.  I was simply making the observation that he wasn't necessarily looking in the "wrong places".  It is not about where you look as much as it is about how you look.  God is everywhere and thus can be internally experienced through external observation.  At least that is true from my observation of the heavens. 

Edited December 28, 2016 by pogi

[waveslider]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'll try to get into them. I gave both a quick skim and wasn't impressed.  Sounds like they come from a ID creationist perspective.  Not sure there's much standing there. 

These are fully accredited and published scientists who produced these documentaries if the helps you with the credibility issues.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree with you.  I was simply making the observation that he wasn't necessarily looking in the "wrong places".  It is not about where you look as much as it is about how you look.  God is everywhere and thus can be internally experienced through external observation.  At least that is true from my observation of the heavens. 

Semantics.

Where vs how? 

Does one look "IN" science or " through" science as a method?

Figures of speech.

 You won't find God through science or in science is that actually better?

Edited December 28, 2016 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You won't find God through science or in science is that actually better?

I do...profoundly so.  It is all about how we look.  My study of anatomy and physiological sciences was a profoundly spiritual experience for me.  It is critically important to know the distinction between where vs. how in the search for God.  

I can find God through science, in science, or whatever, just as easily as I can find him in, or through meditation.  It is how we apply our heart, more than what we are looking at or what we are doing.  God is everywhere and as such we are taught to gain learning from things in the earth, above the earth, etc... It is science.

Edited December 29, 2016 by pogi