bluebell Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 2 hours ago, Teancum said: So why would this God make it so difficult to understand and know who he is? I mean really if his "prophets and apostles" can't get is straight what good are they? Prophets and apostles serve specific purposes, mainly being a "watchman on the tower" and calling God's people to repentance. They aren't really there to give us a relationship with God (though they can help). As to why God would make it work to understand and know who He is, I have my thoughts on that but in my experience, they don't make a lot of sense until you get to that point personally. I've had to have some specific experiences with God before I could understand Him better, but seeking to understand Him better is what led to those experiences. It has been working through the difficulty that brought some of the answers as to why it's hard sometimes. I realize that that does not answer your question in any satisfactory way, but it's the only answer that I have. Michael Wilcox refers to the process as God waiting until we have a pocket for the answers to fit in, and that until we do what we need to do for that pocket to come into existence (with His help), the answers will never make any sense to us or be useful in any meaningful way. That has been my experience. Creating the pocket for some answers is hard, but the answers don't make any sense until the pocket is there. 3
bluebell Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: He said we can't presume that other people have a relationship with God, and those who don't develop such a relationship tend to be the ones who leave. I stand by my characterizing that as extremely arrogant. Lest anyone think I'm offended, I'm not, but I'm hoping people think a little before they post stuff like that. So you think it's less arrogant for him to assume something is true about someone he doesn't actually know? That seems so backwards to me. I think it's way more arrogant to presume things about people than to not presume them. 2
jkwilliams Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 Just now, bluebell said: So you think it's less arrogant for him to assume something is true about someone he doesn't actually know? That seems so backwards to me. I think it's way more arrogant to presume things about people than to not presume them. It seems we understand what he said differently. 1
Chum Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: It seems we understand what he said differently. Where I said "former believers" you read as "all former believers". Would you say that's true? If so, I'm not faulting that. I think the nuances of American English sometimes lend themselves to that presumption.
Teancum Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 On 5/30/2021 at 2:57 AM, mfbukowski said: What would happen, even in the face of doubt, if you decided to act AS IF there IS such a righteous Being, and do everything you could do to emulate those values such a Being would have? I did that. And then postulate that to actually BE such a Being, he or she would have to be able to communicate with his/her children, to coach them along the path to help them also be righteous? But He/She could not be too obvious in training the children, or it would not be meritorious for them to follow, they would be just little robots doing what they were told, while the ideal would be for them to be good on their own motivation. So how would you communicate with them? Perhaps just a still small voice, or a warm feeling would do the trick. I tried it And what happened changed my life. Don't follow people, follow your heart and the messages from that Being. I did that. For most of my 61 years. Ultimately it as fallen apart. But why that particular method? Anyone can act as if any thing supernatural exists and even convince themselves it does. This does not seem like a reliable method for actual discovery. It may make you happy but it does not make it so.
mfbukowski Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 34 minutes ago, Teancum said: I did that. For most of my 61 years. Ultimately it as fallen apart. But why that particular method? Anyone can act as if any thing supernatural exists and even convince themselves it does. This does not seem like a reliable method for actual discovery. It may make you happy but it does not make it so. Religion is about what gives you peace, and is based on hope for things unseen. Religion is about what gives you peace, and is based on hope for things unseen. Religion is about what gives you peace, and is based on hope for things unseen. Religion and science again? Oy vey! Look up the authorship of Lectures on Faith. I still don't understand your point. Adam-God is highly consistent with God being a glorified Human and scripural references to Jesus being the "second Adam". In the temple everyone is an Adam. Symbology and divine investiture.
Teancum Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Prophets and apostles serve specific purposes, mainly being a "watchman on the tower" and calling God's people to repentance. They aren't really there to give us a relationship with God (though they can help). I am not talking about a relationship. I am talking about how the attributes of God and who God is as well as the Godhead. The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God.” Yet for the LDS Church this has been a moving target.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 4 hours ago, Teancum said: Why did this God have to give his life for the "faithful." That is the central focus of the Gospel of Jesus Christ -- the personal self-sacrifice for sin, which alone can bridge the gap left by human flaws. Without an infinite atonement, all would be lost. The faithful merely give their assent to that offer. There is no other way.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 41 minutes ago, Teancum said: I am not talking about a relationship. I am talking about how the attributes of God and who God is as well as the Godhead. The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God.” Yet for the LDS Church this has been a moving target. The opposite is true. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is always the same, and the character of God is clear in that same Gospel.
bluebell Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 43 minutes ago, Teancum said: I am not talking about a relationship. I am talking about how the attributes of God and who God is as well as the Godhead. The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God.” Yet for the LDS Church this has been a moving target. Can we have a relationship with someone who we don't know? That's why I'm using the two concepts interchangeably. As for the bolded, JS said that during the King Follett sermon, which we have notes on but no direct transcript (though there isn't a lot of reason to doubt the accuracy of the notes we obviously don't know what parts were actual quotes and what parts were the notetaker interpreting what JS was saying into his own words, so we do have to be aware of that). You can read the first half of the sermon (the one with this quote in it) here. Which main points in that sermon about the importance of knowing God has become a moving target for us today? 1
Meadowchik Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: The opposite is true. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is always the same, and the character of God is clear in that same Gospel. Just curious, could you spell out that clear character? 1
CV75 Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 47 minutes ago, Teancum said: I am not talking about a relationship. I am talking about how the attributes of God and who God is as well as the Godhead. The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God.” Yet for the LDS Church this has been a moving target. The first principle of the Gospel is faith, here defined as knowing the certainty of the character of God. That squares with the faith-knowledge dynamic described in Alma 32, which establishes that faith and knowledge are two forms of the same thing, each indispensable without the other. It also squares with Romans 10:17,(faith comes by hearing -- presentation of knowledge -- and hearing by the word of God, or by Jesus whether that is from Him directly, the Spirit, or His servants) as related in the next paragraph of the KFD. So it is not a moving target. The remaining first principles and ordinances of the Gospel provide the gift and constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, and as we become more like Him, we share these attributes with Him more perfectly. It is similar to living with someone a long time and thus able to adopt the best in their character that they have to offer.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 5 hours ago, Teancum said: This is a nice thing to say to provide comfort to those who cling to faith when it is pretty clear nobody really knows who or what God is or what God intends or if God is even there. More and more it seems to me a vain and wasteful use of time and energy for humans to think they know the mind of a creator if one exists. God really is made in the image of humans. Karl Marx asserted that religion is the opiate of the people. Very intelligent people have averred that Man is the measure of all things, and that men typically create gods in their own image. However, assertion is not evidence. It remains bald assertion. You are confusing assertion with fact. A prosecutor declares to a jury that the defendant is guilty. The advocate for the defendant claims to that same jury that his client is innocent. You know very well that the jury can go either way. Does it make you uncomfortable to know that the jury will now deliberate on the matter? That they will now discuss the evidence pro and con? You may be uninterested in the verdict, since you have already decided the case.
Teancum Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Religion is about what gives you peace, and is based on hope for things unseen. Religion is about what gives you peace, and is based on hope for things unseen. Religion is about what gives you peace, and is based on hope for things unseen. Religion and science again? Oy vey! Look up the authorship of Lectures on Faith. I still don't understand your point. Adam-God is highly consistent with God being a glorified Human and scripural references to Jesus being the "second Adam". In the temple everyone is an Adam. Symbology and divine investiture. Religion is about more than the three items bolded above though in part they are about those things as well. Religion is not outside of the purvey of scientific inquiry. I don't buy your seeming position that it is some special realm in and of its own and cannot be subjected to scientific principles nor criticized if it does not stand up. Based on your approach anything that is some sort of quiet voice or warm feeling is valid so long as it gives us peace and happiness. I am well aware of the the authorship of the Lecture on Faith. I am also aware they were a valid part of LDS canon until 1921. What do you not understand? You know as well as I what BY meant about Adam God is not what you refer to.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Just curious, could you spell out that clear character? You don't actually need my words. You could declare it very well for yourself. Even primary children understand who He is. I'll quote Wendy McMahan: Quote “God is love.” (1 John 4:8) He is also gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, and abounding in love and faithfulness (Exodus 34:6). God the Father committed history’s most powerful act of love by sending His Son, Jesus Christ, to live among us, die for us, and forgive us........... "He first loved us.” (1 John 4:19). https://www.fh.org/blog/gods-story-gods-character-matters/ Aside from those personal characteristics, God also has anthropomorphic features which make of all of us the genus and species of God. We are truly of one family. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 14 minutes ago, Teancum said: ................Religion is not outside of the purvey of scientific inquiry. Correct. Religious claims are within the purview of scientific inquiry, but only if those claims are logically falsifiable. Normative Judeo-Christian claims are outside the realm of logic: Metaphysical claims are not subject to scientific evaluation. The LDS Canon of Scripture contains a great deal that is testable via science and logic, and LDS theology is not metaphysical, and is subject to forensic scientific and logical inquiry. Have you ever bothered to subject LDS claims to scientific inquiry? Quote Based on your approach anything that is some sort of quiet voice or warm feeling is valid so long as it gives us peace and happiness. People have the right to use whatever means they find adequate for their beliefs, and you have a perfect right to refuse to accept those ideas. That does not mean that they are wrong. Who set you up as the final arbiter? 14 minutes ago, Teancum said: I am well aware of the the authorship of the Lecture on Faith. I am also aware they were a valid part of LDS canon until 1921. The Lectures on Faith were authored primarily by Sidney Rigdon, who had Protestant theological training. 14 minutes ago, Teancum said: ....................You know as well as I what BY meant about Adam God is not what you refer to. Adam-God theory is heresy and has been rejected by the LDS Church. In his own time, Orson Pratt vigorously opposed Adam-God theory, much to Brigham's consternation. 1
Teancum Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: That is the central focus of the Gospel of Jesus Christ -- the personal self-sacrifice for sin, which alone can bridge the gap left by human flaws. Without an infinite atonement, all would be lost. The faithful merely give their assent to that offer. There is no other way. But why? If God is there why can he not just forgive if we offend. Why the demand for blood. This again seems more of a human construct and imposed on a God created in man's image. Edited June 1, 2021 by Teancum
Meadowchik Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: You don't actually need my words. You could declare it very well for yourself. Even primary children understand who He is. I'll quote Wendy McMahan: Aside from those personal characteristics, God also has anthropomorphic features which make of all of us the genus and species of God. We are truly of one family. I was interested in hearing it in your words. No worries if you don't want to answer.
Teancum Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 48 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Karl Marx asserted that religion is the opiate of the people. Very intelligent people have averred that Man is the measure of all things, and that men typically create gods in their own image. However, assertion is not evidence. It remains bald assertion. You are confusing assertion with fact. A prosecutor declares to a jury that the defendant is guilty. The advocate for the defendant claims to that same jury that his client is innocent. You know very well that the jury can go either way. Does it make you uncomfortable to know that the jury will now deliberate on the matter? That they will now discuss the evidence pro and con? You may be uninterested in the verdict, since you have already decided the case. I think the conclusion is based on a lot more than bald assertion. Let me ask you. What of the Greek Gods? Were they not made in the image of man? Do you accept them as deity? If not why?
Jamie Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 15 minutes ago, Teancum said: But why? If God id there why can he not just forgive if we offend. Why the demand for blood. This again seems more of a human construct and imposed on a God created in man's image. You don't seem to understand the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We are saved by his life, not his death. His blood was what gave life to his body, in addition to his spirit, the same as our blood gives life to our bodies while our spirit is in our bodies. And the reason God can't just wipe away our sins as if we never had sinned is because our actions must have consequences. There must be justice, and God must be a just God, otherwise he is arbitrary and we would not tolerate that.
Teancum Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Correct. Religious claims are within the purview of scientific inquiry, but only if those claims are logically falsifiable. Normative Judeo-Christian claims are outside the realm of logic: Metaphysical claims are not subject to scientific evaluation. The LDS Canon of Scripture contains a great deal that is testable via science and logic, and LDS theology is not metaphysical, and is subject to forensic scientific and logical inquiry. Have you ever bothered to subject LDS claims to scientific inquiry? People have the right to use whatever means they find adequate for their beliefs, and you have a perfect right to refuse to accept those ideas. That does not mean that they are wrong. Who set you up as the final arbiter? The Lectures on Faith were authored primarily by Sidney Rigdon, who had Protestant theological training. Adam-God theory is heresy and has been rejected by the LDS Church. In his own time, Orson Pratt vigorously opposed Adam-God theory, much to Brigham's consternation. Thank you. Purview..... Does it not seem convenient that so many religious claims are not falsifiable and that metaphysical claims are not subject scientific evaluation. It seems to me that such an approach opens up a Pandora's box of almost anything goes. What LDS claims have I subjected to scientific claim? The BoM, BoA, the nature of a corporeal God subject to the laws of physics, nature etc. People can believe whatever they want. I don't pretend to be the final arbiter at all. Why do you suppose that? This is a discussion board is it not? I am here discussing. I am open to being wrong or right or in between. Ultimately I am only an arbiter for what I believe. The main issue I have with religion, and in particular, the LDS religion and its adherents, is this insistence that THEY KNOW the mind and will of God, that they are his covenant people, special really and hold God's priesthood authority that nobody else does. If you think I act like the final arbiter on what people believe as well as what God is, says and does maybe some introspection on your own religion is in order. I am aware of Rigdon's involvement with the Lectures on Faith. So what? Did he not have the priesthood, was in the FP, considered a prophet, seer and revelator? They Lectures were canonized and accepted. I know most LDS defenders want to dismiss and marginalize them clearly because they are problematic regarding the topic of what are God's charecters and attributes. And then there is that pesky Lecture 5. As for AG, sure the Church rejects it. I know the history and trail behind this as well. It does not speak well that apparently BY, who all LDS prophets trace their authority through today, preached heresy and apparently did not know who God was.
CV75 Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: Just curious, could you spell out that clear character? There are so many personal qualities that makes God “God.” I like to begin with those qualities He asks us to receive by grace, which I think are well summed up in Mosiah 3:19 (“as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit …as a child doth submit to his father”); Mosiah 18:19 (“mourn with those that mourn; …comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places …[having] eternal life--”) and 3 Nephi 12:48 (“perfect”). I find the word search results of “perfect” in the Book of Mormon to be especially enlightening, and I’m sure the other standard works would yield similar results. But any quality we hear about must square with personal experience to mean anything, realizing that our experience with these qualities is also developmental and a function of opportunity. Sometimes it helps to do an introspective review of our experience.
Teancum Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Jamie said: You don't seem to understand the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We are saved by his life, not his death. His blood was what gave life to his body, in addition to his spirit, the same as our blood gives life to our bodies while our spirit is in our bodies. And the reason God can't just wipe away our sins as if we never had sinned is because our actions must have consequences. There must be justice, and God must be a just God, otherwise he is arbitrary and we would not tolerate that. I totally understand it. Why can't God wipe away our sins. Islam rejects the need for a vicarious sacrifice and finds the idea that God sacrificed His Son for our sins ludicrous. Look I can parrot and repeat all you can from the scriptures and the doctrine about the atonement. It still does not answer the why really. Edited June 1, 2021 by Teancum
Calm Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 3 minutes ago, Teancum said: Does it not seem convenient that so many religious claims are not falsifiable and that metaphysical claims are not subject scientific evaluation. If something is by nature an internal experience, it is not an issue of convenience or not that it is internal and therefore not observable by others.
JLHPROF Posted June 1, 2021 Posted June 1, 2021 1 hour ago, Teancum said: But why? If God is there why can he not just forgive if we offend. Why the demand for blood. This again seems more of a human construct and imposed on a God created in man's image. It's not about God's forgiveness. IE it's not just that he's offended. It's that sin breaks a law, an eternal law, that even God doesn't get to ignore. He provided a Savior to ensure that the justice aspect of eternal law is met while at the same time providing mercy to us foolish mortals that broke it. If forgiveness was simply a matter of God's discretion then sure, he could just forgive and forget and let the broken law go unsatisfied. But then he'd cease to be God.
Recommended Posts