Elder Kevin S. Hamilton emphasizes importance of Christ’s organized church

[pogi]

On 2/6/2023 at 10:58 AM, Navidad said:

I didn't omit it on purpose. I travel a lot. Whenever I think I am going home, that means I am going to wherever my wife is at that time. She is my center, my home. When I think of going to my spiritual home . . . it will be wherever Christ is - that is my center, my home spiritually. I was born in Indiana. We moved away when I was 1 year old. I have never been back there. I grew up in Pennsylvania. That is the closest thing to an earthly literal home I have. On the other hand after living here in Mexico full-time for seven years, here sounds like home. We lived in Florida for twenty two years. . . in San Diego for ten years. From whence have I come? I have decided that for me in this life, at this time - home is where my wife is. I hope that makes some kind of sense to you. I assume that going home when I die is to be where the center of my faith is - to Christ.

Thought I'd just provide the soundtrack for this beautiful sentiment

 

[Vanguard]

On 2/6/2023 at 10:36 AM, mfbukowski said:

All we can know is what APPEARS to be "causation" and cannot be shown to be anything but consistent correlation.

Love this one sentence. I have for many years believed we don't have explanations for anything but rather descriptions. Giving me a formula for gravity is simply a mathematical way of describing what we perceive and what we anticipate and not an explanation of anything. I've also wondered if this position of mine is easily refuted. ; )

Edited February 7, 2023 by Vanguard

[Chum]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Interesting topic and one about which we know very little. Let me think about it.

All I could ask.

[manol]

On 2/6/2023 at 2:48 PM, OGHoosier said:

Honestly, I love those and feel the Spirit rather strongly with regard to them. 

Then by all means, follow what the Spirit tells you!

On 2/6/2023 at 1:54 PM, Nofear said:

This is what I got from Bushman in Rough Stone Rolling. This article says much the same: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2017/10/the-triumph-and-glory-of-the-lamb-doctrine-and-covenants-76-in-its-historical-context?lang=eng

EXCELLENT article - THANK  YOU!!

I never thought of the connection the author makes between Section 19 verses 4-12 (wherein we learn that God's punishment is actually temporary) and Section 76 (wherein we learn that Heaven includes virtually everyone within its three degrees of glory).   In effect the temporary aspect of hell described in Section 19 is a precursor to the virtually-all-inclusiveness of Section 76, and I gather it was the quasi-universalism of Section 76 that many people had reservations about at the time.   Apparently Joseph Smith's grandfather and father were both a bit "ahead of the curve" with their own universalist leanings.

[speculation] If we start with Section 19 (punishments are temporary) and add to that Section 76 (the three degrees of glory) and then continue onward with that same direction, might the two lesser kingdoms also be temporary, assuming the individuals therein progress to the point where they fit the descriptions of the inhabitants of the next kingdom up? [/speculation]

Edited February 8, 2023 by manol

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Love this one sentence. I have for many years believed we don't have explanations for anything but rather descriptions. Giving me a formula for gravity is simply a mathematical way of describing what we perceive and what we anticipate and not an explanation of anything. I've also wondered if this position of mine is easily refuted. ; )

Nope! In fact it is the most prominent view today! The best it can be is essentially what you said.

You gotta get into philosophy, dude!  Seriously.

Eventually Pragmatism evolved into your view- that causation is a description. All science becomes a description of direct experience.  But Hume popped the bubble during the Enlightenment

"If Hume is right that our awareness of causation (or power, force, efficacy, necessity, and so forth – he holds all such terms to be equivalent) is a product of experience, we must ask what this awareness consists in. What is meant when some event is judged as cause and effect?  Strictly speaking, for Hume, our only external impression of causation is a mere constant conjunction of phenomena, that B always follows A, and Hume sometimes seems to imply that this is all that causation amounts to. (And this notion of causation as constant conjunction is required for Hume to generate the Problem of induction discussed below.)  Nevertheless, ‘causation’ carries a stronger connotation than this, for constant conjunction can be accidental and therefore doesn’t get us the necessary connection that gives the relation of cause and effect its predictive ability. We may therefore now say that, on Hume’s account, to invoke causality is to invoke a constant conjunction of relata whose conjunction carries with it a necessary connection."

Edited February 8, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

@OGHoosier 

@Kenngo1969

Red is a direct experience, as pure as we can "know" anything, sez I.

Propositions like description, are just words strung together to try to "correspond" to the real experience of red.

To test this, just try to describe red to a blind person.

Ain't no words whet can do dat!

Words do not correspond to direct experience, and so cannot be "true" except in Alma's sense, that they are "sweet" because they work well toward explaining other words. The description is Pragmatically useful.

But red is a direct, unspeakable experience 

 

 

[Nofear]

11 hours ago, manol said:

[speculation] If we start with Section 19 (punishments are temporary) and add to that Section 76 (the three degrees of glory) and then continue onward with that same direction, might the two lesser kingdoms also be temporary, assuming the individuals therein progress to the point where they fit the descriptions of the inhabitants of the next kingdom up? [/speculation]

No revelation has been given to the Church with regards to the possibility (or impossibility) of advancement between kingdoms ("kingdom hopping"). Different Brethren have had different opinions. For example, Melvin J. Ballard wrote a small booklet "Three Degrees of Glory" (https://archive.org/details/threedegreesofgl00ballrich/page/4/mode/1up?view=theater) where he argues against it. Others have been more open to it. I personally tend to side with advancement between kingdoms.

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 2/5/2023 at 10:53 PM, InCognitus said:

@Saint Bonaventure:  Before I respond to your post, I want to make it clear that I approach these discussions with you and other Catholics on the board not with the intent at disputing your position or in trying to prove you wrong on certain points (it's not a debate), but rather I do it to try to help explain my point of view relative to yours (I hope it's a discussion).  I completely value your point of view and your respectful approach to these discussions on this board, and I hope I never do anything here to take away from that.  I desire that we can both come to a better understanding of each other's positions.

I very much enjoy the conversations on this board and appreciate your thoughtful approach to your posts. From my point of view, many of the folks on this board are engaging in a productive and respectful interreligious/interfaith dialogue, and that's a pearl of great value. I've learned a lot about Latter-day Saints, and a few things about Mennonites and other traditions too.

I apologize for my delayed response. Between a little travel and a work situation, I wasn't on the board much this last week.

 

On 2/5/2023 at 10:53 PM, InCognitus said:

Hopefully I was clear in saying that I'm not trying to refute the idea that God exists outside of time.  But I am saying that within creation there is a timeline and series of events that take place within that timeline, and the verses I referenced seem to indicate that God had set some things in a specific order within that timeline so that it would accomplish his purposes, like Jesus being foreordained to be the sacrificial Lamb (at the beginning) and God promising eternal life (at the beginning).  I also find others who were foreordained to be born on earth at different stages of the timeline for specific purposes (especially with Jesus being born in the "meridian of time" and his second coming toward the end to help wrap things up).  I see those things as God's "plan" for how the events on earth would transpire to bring about his eternal purposes.  I'm not a philosopher (like mfbukowski ), so maybe I can't comprehend how those things are incompatible with a God who is outside of time (I might need help on that part).

From the perspective of a mortal--which is all I have--I can see how one could understand Creation as a plan. There's a sense in which one experiences the pilgrimage of life as a plan, as a faith journey, as a procession (there's a sense in which Catholics think in terms of procession in a foundational sense; the Son is eternally begotten by the Father, that is, the Son eternally proceeds from the Father; the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son, the Church is proceeding through history, the procession of the Mass, etc.).

For Catholics, though, one implication of God being outside of time is that God isn't limited by the linear timeline, so the future-oriented aspects of a plan don't make sense. One aspect of the miracle of the Incarnation is the intersection of our Lady's mortal timeline with God's eternal nature. In that sense I can imagine our Lady hearing the angel Gabriel and believing she was part of a plan, and at the same time for God the Incarnation is eternal, and it's not like God had to wait for it. 

On 2/5/2023 at 10:53 PM, InCognitus said:

I think I understand the argument presented above, but I don't see how creation ex-nihilo makes any difference to that argument (if that's what you are trying to say).  Let me try to explain how I see it:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause:   This is a relative statement and doesn't explain what doesn't begin to exist compared to what does begin to exist (or what that really means).  From my point of view, the elements are eternal (they never begin to exist).  Spirits or intelligences are eternal (they never begin to exist).  When the eternal elements are organized into specific structures or forms, they (the specific structures or forms) begin to exist and have a cause.
2. The cosmos (or universe) began to exist (consider, as evidence, cosmic background radiation, red shift etc.).   I agree on this point as explained in #1.
3. Therefore, the cosmos has a cause (God).   I also agree on this point as explained in #1.

The Kalam argument is just one way of arguing for God, and a way that can be consistent with Christianity and an ex nihilo Creation. I think it's an interesting argument, especially in its scientific version. It's not like my faith hangs on it, though.

In the version of the Kalam argument where God is outside of time, which is the only version that is, I think, consistent with Catholicism, God causes the cosmos to exist. If one accepts this idea, then one can start with two categories--cause and caused, or Creator and Creation, with 'cause/Creator' being eternal because it is, by definition, not created.

Catholic teaching presents Creation as a kind of procession, but one wherein, from the point of view of the created, there is first a creation from nothing (ex nihilo) to   something "without form and void" and then second, to something that takes form, that is ordered or organized (the Biblical Creation accounts that are detailed in days). There is a sense in which this approach makes Creation a process of temple building, and such an understanding might intersect LDS thinking. Here's a quote from Bergsma and Pitre, two Catholic theologians:
 

Quote

 

The Creation of the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis 1)

The book of Genesis begins with a grand prologue giving the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth within the framework of six days. This magnificent narrative, called the Hexaemeron (“Six Days”) by the Church Fathers, is one of the finest and most influential pieces of world literature and has lost none of its dignified beauty to the passing of the years, as anyone who has witnessed it read well during the Easter Vigil can attest.

“In the Beginning?” (Gen 1:1)
The first verse of the Bible is usually translated: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” However, the grammar of Genesis 1:1 is somewhat unusual. The word “beginning” lacks the article, so the Hebrew is literally “In beginning”. The word is also not in the expected grammatical case for its position in the sentence. For this reason, some scholars in recent years have advocated taking Genesis 1:1 as a subordinate clause introducing Genesis 1:2, giving the following in English: “When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless.” However, while this alternative translation solves some grammatical problems in v. 1, it creates others in vv. 2–3 by producing a sentence without a finite verb in the proper form. The traditional translation is supported by the vocalization and punctuation of the standard Jewish text of Scripture, the Masoretic Text, as well as every ancient translation (the Vulgate, Septuagint, Syriac Peshitta, and others). It is also reflected in the adaptations of the wording of Genesis found in non-canonical literature (the Book of Jubilees) and the Gospel of John, which imitates Genesis with “In the beginning was the Word”, not “When God began to create, there was the Word.” Therefore, although Genesis 1:1 displays some grammatical irregularity, there is no evidence that its meaning was in doubt in antiquity.

People naturally want to know how the six days of creation are to be understood in light of the claims of modern science, which views the origin of the universe as the matter of vast ages of time and an evolutionary process (see sidebar on p. 100). However, scientific concerns—at least as we moderns understand science—are not the primary interest of the sacred author. It is best to read the narrative in light of other ancient cosmogonies (accounts of the origin of the cosmos) and according to its own literary structure. When we do so, it becomes apparent that the sacred author has composed an elegantly balanced temple-building account that points to the liturgical orientation of creation.
The opening line of Genesis reads, according to the Hebrew Masoretic Text and all ancient versions: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1). The Hebrew language has no exact word for “cosmos” or “universe”. “The heavens and the earth” expresses the same concept by means of a merism—a figure of speech by which the parts are used to refer to the whole. (Interestingly, in all of ancient Near Eastern literature, the merism of “heavens and earth” as a reference to the cosmos finds a parallel only in ancient Egyptian texts.) This grand opening line serves as a summary statement and suggests the calling into existence of the cosmos without the presence of any preexisting substance. Indeed, the Hebrew word bara’, “to create” (Gen 1:1), is only ever used in the Bible with God as its subject and never with an accusative of material indicating a substance from which he created. However, the newly existent creation is not called into existence in a finished state; the sacred author notes that it was “without form and void” (Gen 1:2). In the Hebrew language, “without form and void” is an onomatopoeic phrase, tohu wabohu (“formless and empty”). These two privations—lack of form and lack of content—will be addressed systematically in the succession of six days.
In the first sequence of three days, God creates the forms of day and night (time), sky and seas (spaces), dry land and vegetation (habitat). Over the following three days, he populates these three realms with appropriate rulers: the sun, moon, and stars (markers of time); the birds and fish (who traverse the great spaces); animals (who dominate the land); and finally man (who rules over all). This process can be diagrammed as follows:

The Six Days of Creation as Temple-Building

“Realms” or “Domains” (Addresses “TOHU”, formlessness)

“Rulers” or “Denizens” (Addresses “BOHU”, emptiness)

Within this overarching framework, the creation of man is special. The narrative slows, and more is said about man than about anything else God has made. Man is said, first of all, to be made in the “image” and “likeness” of God (Gen 1:26). What does it mean to be in the “image” and “likeness”? Scholars have rightly pointed out that “images” (Hebrew tzelamim) of the emperors of the ancient Near East used to be placed throughout their realms to represent their authority. So the sacred author is suggesting that man is the representative of God’s royal rule on earth and the bearer of God’s authority. He is the divine vice-regent.
On the other hand, if we look ahead briefly in Genesis for insight, we read, “(Adam) became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image” (Gen 5:3). Taking this knowledge back to Genesis 1, we realize that “image” and “likeness” is also the implicit language of sonship. Adam is, in some sense, created as the son of God—a fact that will eventually be explicitly asserted in the New Testament (Lk 3:38). But in what sense is he a son? Antiquity knew two kinds of sonship: natural and adoptive. Is Adam the natural son of God? Apparently not, because, in sharp contrast to other ancient Near Eastern creation myths, there is no notion of man arising from some kind of sexual process among the gods or of being birthed from a goddess. Adam is not, therefore, a son of God in any natural sense: instead, he is a creature. Therefore, the sonship of Adam, described as “image” and “likeness”, can only be adoptive sonship. Significantly, in antiquity, adoptive sonship was established by means of a covenant. This is one of many reasons why, although the term “covenant” (Hebrew berith) is not explicitly used in Genesis 1–2, there are good reasons to suggest that an original covenant between God and Adam is implied by the creation narrative (see excursus on p. 104).
As the adopted son of God, Adam is blessed: “Be fruitful and multiply!” (Gen 1:28). He is also commissioned explicitly with vice-royal activity: “Fill the earth and subdue [Hebrew kavash] it; and have dominion [Hebrew radah] over the fish of the sea” (Gen 1:28). When these Hebrew words are compared with the same expressions used elsewhere to refer to the kingship of David and that of Solomon (2 Sam 8:11; 1 Kings 4:24), there are good reasons to conclude that Adam is being established as the first visible king over creation, who acts as representative of the invisible divine King (cf. Ps 8). This royal status and original blessing of Adam will continue to be an important theme throughout Genesis. Indeed, it is precisely this blessing and status that will be transmitted through the patriarchs and ultimately to Israel.
While the creation of man is dramatic, it is not the climax of the account of creation in Genesis 1. All things culminate on the seventh day, the Sabbath: the day of divine “rest”, the fundamental day of worship in Israel’s later liturgical calendar. This suggests all creation was ordered to the divine rest and worship of the Sabbath. Indeed, understood against the ancient Near Eastern background in which the cosmos was understood as a great temple and earthly temples were often built as a representation of the cosmos, the seven days of creation can be perceived as a temple-building account. The clear parallels between the creation of the cosmos in Genesis 1 and the building of the Tabernacle (Ex 35–40) and the Temple (1 Kings 6–8) will be explored later.

John Bergsma and Brant Pitre, A Catholic Introduction to the Bible: The Old Testament, vol. 1 (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2018), 95–98.

 

 

 

On 2/5/2023 at 10:53 PM, InCognitus said:

I'm not sure how the translation issue changes my main point of the verse, which is that God promised eternal life "ages ago" or at a point relative to the events of creation (for which there is a timeline within it).

Some translations, like the NKJV and NIV, translate this as "in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began", which is also perfectly acceptable to my point.

I'm not qualified as a translator, I just rely on the work of other, more qualified folks. There could be a point of agreement here, though, as Catholics (and Orthodox) do believe that, through God's Grace, man can be reconciled to God (the famous theosis passage in 1 Peter). An important difference, though, between Catholic and LDS thinking on this point is that man does not somehow become eternal. An essential understanding of 'eternal' in Catholic thinking is that 'eternal' has no beginning, hence God being outside of time etc. 

On 2/5/2023 at 10:53 PM, InCognitus said:

I think I've seen you explain previously your view that God created the matter first out of nothing, and then created other things from that matter.  But I think that explanation has issues, especially as expressed in the explanation you quoted in the bolded portion above, particularly with the assertion that the Hebrew word bara' infers a creation out of nothing "and never with an accusative of material indicating a substance from which he created."  

For one thing, I see the Hebrew word bara' in Isaiah 43:15, where God is saying he is the "creator of Israel" to be God creating a people group from among the pre-existing people of the earth, and the same word in Psalm 51:10 (or verse 12, depending your version), "Create in me a clean heart" to be David asking for God to cleanse him from his sins, and not to literally create a new heart for him out of nothing.  (And that doesn't account for other verses like Joshua 17: 15 and 18, and Ezekiel 23:47 where the word bara' is used without God as the subject of the verb.)

But I also see within Genesis itself, where the Hebrew word bara' is used when God says he "created" man in his own image, male and female (Genesis 1:27, Genesis 5:1-2), and the extended creation account explains that God created man "of the dust of the ground" (Genesis 2:7), from existing materials (or for Eve, from the rib of Adam).  I think the  creation ex-nihilo argument somewhat depends on the unproven (and unsustainable) assertion and presupposition that bara' means "out of nothing".

I think we may not be understanding one another here, and I will be glad for further discussion. For me, there's a distinction between God as Creator--think of the two-aspects of Creation I indicated above, 1) ex nihilo and then 2) ordering or organizing, and the kind of creation (small "c") that man does. One implication of this distinction is a deep understanding of the wrongness of idols. 

Here's what my lexicon has to say on bara', and on yasar, which might also be important to our discussion:
 

Quote

 

(bārāʾ). vb. to create. Used only of God creating, never of humans making things.
This verb is used only of creative acts performed by God. It appears five times in the creation narrative of Gen 1–2: God created (bārāʾ) the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1; 2:4), the creatures of the sea (Gen 1:21), humankind in his image (Gen 1:27), and creation as a whole (Gen 2:3). It also appears in other books, especially Isaiah. Isaiah says that after the exile God will create (bārāʾ) a cloud of smoke during the day and a flame of fire by night over Mount Zion (Isa 4:5). God created (bārāʾ) the ends of the earth (Isa 40:28); the heavens and earth (Isa 42:5; 45:18); human beings in general (Isa 45:12) and Israel in particular (Isa 43:1); light and darkness (Isa 45:7); and righteousness and salvation (Isa 45:8). He promises to create (bārāʾ) the new heaven and new earth (Isa 65:17). Psalms also speaks of God creating (bārāʾ) human beings (Psa 89:47); the heavens, angels, and lights of the sky (Psa 148:5); and north and south (Psa 89:12). David asks God to create (bārāʾ) a clean heart in him (Psa 51:10).

(yāṣar). vb. to form, fashion. To form from clay, molten metal, or other materials.
This verb is occasionally used for human actions, including fashioning (yāṣar) weapons (Isa 54:17) and idols (e.g., Isa 43:10). Several passages speak of a potter forming (yāṣar) vessels from clay as a metaphor for God creating people (e.g., Isa 45:9; 64:8). However, it is more often used of God forming things. It appears three times in the creation narrative, twice concerning the forming (yāṣar) of humans from the ground (Gen 2:7, and once of the forming (yāṣar) of animals and birds (Gen 2:19). Isaiah speaks of the forming (yāṣar) of human beings for his glory (Isa 43:7), to praise him (Isa 43:21), and in the womb (Isa 44:2, 24; 49:5); no other god was formed (yāṣar) before Yahweh (Isa 43:10). Jeremiah says that Yahweh forms (yāṣar) “all things” (Jer 10:16; 51:19) and specifically the “earth” (Jer 33:2). In Amos, God is the one who forms (yāṣar) the mountains (Amos 4:13). In the Psalms he is the one who formed (yāṣar) the land (Psa 95:5). He is the one who even forms (yāṣar) the “spirit of man” (Zech 12:1).

Michael E. Peach, “Creation,” ed. Douglas Mangum et al., Lexham Theological Wordbook, Lexham Bible Reference Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014).

 

Again, thank you for this very, very enjoyable discussion. I feel like I'm learning and benefitting and will be glad to continue it. 

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 2/6/2023 at 9:58 AM, Teancum said:

So if God exists does God have a cause?

I think OGHoosier's explanation is on point. A key for me would be 'begins,' as a God that 'begins' would not be an eternal God. 

[Nofear]

I find Galen Strawsen's Basic Argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson) rather robust. Though, philosophers do disagree (it's their job).

1. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
2. To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are—at least in certain crucial mental respects.
3. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
4. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.

Of course we could wrangle over such. Wouldn't get anywhere. Philosophers have literally spent millennia arguing over this topic. For my part, given that I do find his argument persuasive and believe in free will, how do I escape it? With creatio ex nihilo one can't truly "be ultimately responsible for the way your are". God made you that way. One can argue that one's "choices" made them that way, but one made the choices they made because of the way they are in a chain of events that ultimately will lead back to one's core -- the core created by God for which one had nothing to do with or any say in the matter whatsoever.

One interpretation of LDS theology gets around this by saying that a core fundamental part of our identity is self-existent and co-eternal with God (we use the word "intelligences" but I would argue that intelligences at the fundamental level aren't so intelligent). As a consequence, one is ultimately responsible, not because God made them that way, but because we fundamentally are that way*. Thus, Galen's Basic Argument is broken and accountability restored. That said, I know that some LDS philosophers exist who are deterministic compatibilists. So, my position isn't the only way/one (just the only sensible one, in my not-so-humble opinion).



* I suppose one could argue that one then isn't responsible because one simply is (and didn't "choose" that), but then no one is ultimately responsible for anything and responsibility loses all meaning.