Is god a mormon?

[rodheadlee]

50 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No one escapes death.

I believe he was talking about the 2nd death. Separation from God for all eternity. Separation from all other beings is the Outer Darkness. 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, ttribe said:

"Do unto others..." still applies to scholars, Robert.  Being a respectful grownup goes a long way in a discussion.

Some of the problem may be that we are speaking different languages.  There is the nice language of church and Sunday School, the language of faith and belief.  That language frequently entails "proof" of the Resurrection, or of the existence of God.  Scholars writing in academic journals or in learned conferences have  no time for such nonsense.  They generally leave behind the kind responses they may have for the callow undergrads in their college classes and instead carry on real, substantive discussions with colleagues.  Those exchanges with colleagues get to the nitty gritty.  Good manners only take us so far.  After that fails, there is a limit to the pretense.  One must finally get down to brass tacks.  For those who refuse, there isn't much hope.  Being a respecful grownup is no substitute for a real discussion.  That is instead a form of performance art unworthy of adult company.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, you’ve perfected the straw man, if nothing else. Cheers. 

Suit yourself.  Pretending can make the shadows go away just fine.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, ttribe said:

"Do unto others..." still applies to scholars, Robert.  Being a respectful grownup goes a long way in a discussion.

With you as a teacher of that principle?

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And it's not that it requires "blood sacrifice".  It's as scripture tells us that the "wages of sin is death".  Sin is literally anti-life.  When sin exists it results in death.  Even if God didn't enforce it death would be the natural consequence of sin.  Original sin (or transgression of eternal/natural law) is literally what made us mortal beings.  God had no say in the result, it wasn't a punishment or the wrath of a vengeful deity.  It simply was.

What God did have a say in was a plan to meet the demands of law without us remaining in the grave.

Not the scriptures per say.  Rather ancient writings from a small band of bronze age people that thought their God was selecting them as the chosen ones. So sure I get it .  Your Holy Books say you sin you die. So someone has to pay with death. So your God is not omnipotent enough to simply forgive the truly penitent. Someone has to die for sin. And simply any sin. IT seems like this is a system that gives you the disease and cure.

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Jamie said:

Your attempt to ask the same question in a different way is asking a different question, and it also doesn't indicate you understand the original question.  Let me see if I can do better at asking the original question in a different way now.  Do you think God could ever negate any action by pretending that action never happened?  If you think so then I think you either do not understand what forgiveness is, or you think God can somehow negate an action by pretending that action never happened.

I never asked for God to negate an action by pretending it did not happen.  think it is you who are missing  my point.  

[jkwilliams]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Suit yourself.  Pretending can make the shadows go away just fine.

The constant refrain that "you haven't read the literature" because you harbor some prejudice against the material is quite tiresome. Sure, the only reason Michael Coe didn't find Book of Mormon apologetics compelling is that he a priori rejected the premise as "ridiculous." 

In my experience, most people on this board and others like it do not have a good grounding in relevant scholarship. Those who find Book of Mormon apologetics so convincing, for example, have almost certainly never read anything about Mesoamerica beyond what they have read in Mormon apologetics. They find it compelling because Mesoamerican history is presented so that it fits in a Book of Mormon context rather than just letting it stand as it is. But if you step back from the apologetics and actually learn something about ancient America, you realize the Book of Mormon doesn't fit. Michael Coe rejected Book of Mormon "scholarship" because it doesn't work. I remember two BYU history professors I had asserting that the actual Mesoamerica was a poor fit indeed for the Book of Mormon. Were they biased? Had they not engaged the scholarship? 

Likewise, most people who find Book of Abraham apologetics even remotely plausible have no grounding in the relevant scholarship. Meanwhile, actual scholars, such as Robert Ritner, have engaged the apologetics and found them misleading and more than occasionally dishonest. Ah, you say, but he's prejudiced because he finds the premise "ridiculous." Even if that were so, it would not make the apologetics any more convincing. Years ago, Daniel Peterson told me I had no right to have an opinion about Book of Abraham evidence because I hadn't read "the relevant scholarship." I asked for a list, and he gave it to me. I had read every single one of them, and I told him so. I got crickets in response.

Dismissing people as not as--what, sophisticated, well-read?--as yourself is indeed a way to pretend and make the shadows go away. 

Edited June 2, 2021 by jkwilliams

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Exactly, but then you go and once again ignore your own assertion.  I am agreeing with you that the canons of logic require that we put aside metaphysics and non-falsifiable claims.  They are not subject to empirical or logical verification.  Once we have agreed on that, that leaves a great deal of territory to be covered by the STEM fields, or do you not understand the nature of science and logic?

So far as I can tell, you have neglected to take any claims in the LDS Canon seriously enough to subject them to science and logic.  Either that or you don't know how, and are unfamiliar with the literature on the subject.  You similarly seem to confuse LDS theology with normative Judeo-Christian theology, although they are fundamentally different.

When I write about religious beliefs, I do not make absolute statements about the ultimate nature of reality -- whether God exists or not, and what sort of person he might be.  However, you do traffic in such statements, as though you have all the final answers.  It might be nicer of you to at least make accurate statements about LDS beliefs, rather than the completely prejudicial and inaccurate statements you do make.

Many people have the unfortunate habit of assuming the infallibility of prophets, now or in the past.  For some reason, you have that same unfortunate habit.  The same applies to assumptions about Scripture, as though it is one undifferentiated mass of absolute knowledge -- instead of being a human production subject to human limitations (D&C 1:24, II Ne 33:10).  One expects that sort of fundamental mistake from evangelical Protestants, but never from actual LDS members.  One has to ask why we see that error so frequently on this board.  A good place to start a basic study of prophecy is in the Bible -- go methodically through the Bible, carefully studying the nature of each prophet.  Then tell me what you have learned.  Non-LDS scholars have actually done that.*  In fact, in my first course on the subject in 1966 at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, my Jewish professor covered that very subject.  It was an eye-opener.  However, that knowledge does not come by pretending or by attending LDS Sunday School.  One must come to grips with the hard data.  Only then can one begin to understand the issues.

* My first text on the subject was Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (1960).

Replies to bolded items:

No Robert I am familiar with the differences  between LDS teachings and Judeo--Christian teachings on the subject.  And while there are differences early LDS scripture, primarily the BoM and early D&C, are more "orthodox" in the Christian teachings they contain.  Both seem problematic and the later LDS nuances seem to provide more pitfalls. Honestly I can understand why many Protestants hold to Calvinism and the idea that humans are God's creation to simply do what he will with them like the potter does with his pieces of clay. 

 

I am happy to soften up my assertions.  However, as noted, most of  the Latter-day Saint here "traffic" in assertions of knowledge and knowing the absolute mind and will of "God." So why this would bother you is a bit puzzling to me. Feel free to point out specific inaccuracies in my statements that you seem to think I make. 

 

The last comment about infallibility of Prophets and scripture is a debatable topic.  It has seemed to me over the years, especially when I was involved in LDS apologetics, that this is just a simple get of jail free card.  It is invoked whenever anything difficult (like Adam God) is being explained away.  The things is that I have never expected infallibility.  But there are issues of great importance that it would seem that someone who claims to be a prophet ought to know about. One is the nature and character of God since this knowledge seems to be a critical issue for eternal life.  Further if LDS members have high expectations of accuracy from their prophets, seers and revelators as well as the canon they preach from much of that lays directly at their feet since they seem to demand unfailing loyalty and obedience. I could provide a litany of comments over the years that promote such an idea but I am sure you are very aware of them.  But you can start with Bensons 14 fundamentals to follow the prophet. This speech has been quoted a few times in General Conference over the past few years.

 

 

 

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Sin is not just a construct.  There is more  direct connection between violation of natural law and what God calls sin than you would like to think.

But you continue to ignore ttribe's assertion of "Your entire view on this is informed by your belief in a god.  Take that away, and it is absolutely obvious that 'sin' and its consequences have absolutely nothing to do with natural law."  

[CV75]

11 hours ago, ttribe said:

So, tell me then, what are the natural law consequences of sin?

That is just a matter of semantics. Give me your definition of "natural law", "sin" and "spiritual" and I will try to reply using your language to express this spiritual principle.

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It’s interesting to hear discussion of natural law when Joseph Smith taught that the only absolute was doing what God commands. So, that which is “sin” is not sin when commanded by God. 

And the concept of sin is very much culturally defined. If it were “natural,” it might be more consistent. 

I made this same argument on this thread and it ha been ignored.

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If it didn’t change our claim to continuing revelation would be in serious question.

It seems to me the doctrine about the nature of who God is and what God's attributes are should be fairly consistent don't you?  There was a time the LDS Church thought so and was critical of historical Christianity for their evolving creeds.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

It seems to me the doctrine about the nature of who God is and what God's attributes are should be fairly consistent don't you?  There was a time the LDS Church thought so and was critical of historical Christianity for their evolving creeds.

I remember being taught that policies change but doctrines do not. That would seem not to be the case.

[ttribe]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Some of the problem may be that we are speaking different languages.  There is the nice language of church and Sunday School, the language of faith and belief.  That language frequently entails "proof" of the Resurrection, or of the existence of God.  Scholars writing in academic journals or in learned conferences have  no time for such nonsense.  They generally leave behind the kind responses they may have for the callow undergrads in their college classes and instead carry on real, substantive discussions with colleagues.  Those exchanges with colleagues get to the nitty gritty.  Good manners only take us so far.  After that fails, there is a limit to the pretense.  One must finally get down to brass tacks.  For those who refuse, there isn't much hope.  Being a respecful grownup is no substitute for a real discussion.  That is instead a form of performance art unworthy of adult company.

I have more than a passing familiarity with the language of academic journals and 'learned' conferences.  Moreover, I am significantly experienced with the language used among qualified experts in a litigation setting, which is even more terse and blunt, in my opinion.  On the other hand, I am also aware of the need to adapt to my circumstances and surroundings.  This board is not populated in its entirety with people of the same background as you; their expectations for communication are going to be far different.  To paraphrase - "that which is [right] under one circumstance, may be and often is, [wrong] under another."  Just some food for thought, I suppose.

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

With you as a teacher of that principle?

Not at all.  I claim neither perfection nor superiority.  I am self-aware enough to admit I have violated my own advice on more than one occasion.  Nevertheless, the feedback I have received more often than not is that I have a reputation both personally and professionally for being a voice of reason.  Not always, of course, but a significant proportion of the time.  Like anyone, I have my triggers.  For example, when I see someone being arrogant, condescending, snarky, I tend to respond in kind.  This time, though, I think I'll let it slide.

[Jamie]

14 hours ago, ttribe said:

So, tell me then, what are the natural law consequences of sin?

Separation from God our Father, in every instance.  And the effect is cumulative, too, so the more someone sins the more they are separated from God our Father and from truly knowing and understanding the type of person he is.

Could you not have figured this out on your own?  What else could you have thought was a reasonable answer to your question?  No soup for you!?!?!

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Not at all.  I claim neither perfection nor superiority.  I am self-aware enough to admit I have violated my own advice on more than one occasion.  Nevertheless, the feedback I have received more often than not is that I have a reputation both personally and professionally for being a voice of reason.  Not always, of course, but a significant proportion of the time.  Like anyone, I have my triggers.  For example, when I see someone being arrogant, condescending, snarky, I tend to respond in kind.  This time, though, I think I'll let it slide.

Oh my.

[Jamie]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I never asked for God to negate an action by pretending it did not happen.  think it is you who are missing  my point.  

Then how else did you think God could forgive someone for something without satisfying the demands of justice?  Do you understand that the only reason God can forgive us through Jesus is because Jesus satisfied those demands of justice?

... not because of the blood of Jesus Christ, aside from the symbolism of his blood representing him giving his life, but because Jesus did everything God our Father told him to do.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Like anyone, I have my triggers.  For example, when I see someone being arrogant, condescending, snarky, I tend to respond in kind.  

I'm the same way. At some point, you have to realize that some people just aren't interested in mutual respectful conversation.

Edited June 2, 2021 by jkwilliams

[Stargazer]

On 6/1/2021 at 2:23 PM, Teancum said:

Has he?  How do you know this?  Who is his covenant people?  Is it the Jews?  The Latter-day Saints?  The Muslims?  What about people that lived 8000 years ago?  Who was the covenant people then?  How about 50,000 years ago?  Or were those humans something less?  It is pretty easy to claim to be God's chosen or so it seems.

Yes, yes, you're an atheist/agnostic. I get it. Quoting scripture at you is like citing the Urantia volume to an evangelical. Or trying to translate the Voynich Manuscript.

You don't know whether the people living 50,000 years ago were fully human, any more than I do. I don't know how long ago that Adam and Eve lived (though I'm quite certain it wasn't 6.000 years ago), but I do believe they existed as the founding couple, and that they covenanted with God. It is a matter of doctrine/belief, that God works through covenants with His children. But if you don't believe that God exists, then it's farcical trying to talk about it with you.

Oh, well.

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

So your God is not omnipotent enough to simply forgive the truly penitent. 

Sure he is.
But his forgiveness doesn't remove the requirements of justice and broken law.  Christ's sacrifice is NOT about gaining God's forgiveness of sin.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

But you continue to ignore ttribe's assertion of "Your entire view on this is informed by your belief in a god.  Take that away, and it is absolutely obvious that 'sin' and its consequences have absolutely nothing to do with natural law."  

I didn't ignore it.  I disagreed with it.
Sin and natural law are absolutely connected.  However as with most religious topics, the believer sees the connection, the unbeliever denies it exists.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Jamie said:

Then how else did you think God could forgive someone for something without satisfying the demands of justice?  Do you understand that the only reason God can forgive us through Jesus is because Jesus satisfied those demands of justice?

... not because of the blood of Jesus Christ, aside from the symbolism of his blood representing him giving his life, but because Jesus did everything God our Father told him to do.

Ask a Muslim if God can forgive them based on their repentance without a Savior.  Once again, and you seem to have difficulty understanding this, I am asking why an omnipotent God is tied to YOUR understanding of justification, mercy and atonement. I KNOW WHY you say and believe what you write above and I also understand it is just a matter of your faith. You seem incapable of examining whether or not that approach is reasonable, logical, makes sense, etc. 

[JLHPROF]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

There are two trains of thought in Latter-day Saint theology....one is God created everything. So in this case, God created laws like gravity. If God created gravity, is it not a natural law in your view?

But there is the version in Latter-day Saint theology where there are laws relating to eternal life that exist eternally in the same sense that they are coeternal with God. Most Saints who believe this likely also believe that gravity and similar physical laws are coeternal.  In this scenario, certain of the laws of eternal life are not dependent on the will of God. 

I'm definitely the latter.  Ex nihilo creation (of matter or law) isn't really in keeping with actual Latter-day Saint theology, even if there is a group that leans that way along with other more traditional Christian views. 

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, yes, you're an atheist/agnostic. I get it. Quoting scripture at you is like citing the Urantia volume to an evangelical. Or trying to translate the Voynich Manuscript.

You don't know whether the people living 50,000 years ago were fully human, any more than I do. I don't know how long ago that Adam and Eve lived (though I'm quite certain it wasn't 6.000 years ago), but I do believe they existed as the founding couple, and that they covenanted with God. It is a matter of doctrine/belief, that God works through covenants with His children. But if you don't believe that God exists, then it's farcical trying to talk about it with you.

Oh, well.

Yes, yes I know also  that you are indoctrinated with religious dogma that has no proof other than your feelings and faith.  But you are convinced you have the ultimate of God's truth. What a dilemma. Science has pretty much proven humans 50,000 years ago were as fully human as you and I.  So yea I do know they were fully human. 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Teancum

[Teancum]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I didn't ignore it.  I disagreed with it.
Sin and natural law are absolutely connected.  However as with most religious topics, the believer sees the connection, the unbeliever denies it exists.

Yet your conclusion is simply a matter of faith. Nothing else. So why should it be trusted?