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

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Every mistaken determinist raises the argument that "if God knows your future, then you are determined ", which of course makes no sense.  We would agree on that I think.

Yours is a good point but actually being ORDAINED to be anything is being PRE-ORDAINED.

We get around that one too, but ONLY because of pre-earth life, the lives of ALL began in the the pre-existence, we are ALL are co-eternal with God.  So it still could be that a person's righteousness in our LIVES BEFORE earth might qualify one to be a SAVIOR OR some other worker in the PLAN of salvation to be picked for a particular job, but of course when he gets here he might have changed.

If Lucifer was "sun/son of the morning" and yet fell, then one still obviously has the ability to NOT fulfill an ordination.

So pre-ORDINATION is not pre- DESTINATION.

Christ himself is one who was ordained but not destined! Also we know that because even Lucifer tried to make Him fall, so it must have been possible;

So the whole paradigm is still completely coherent logically.

"Truth" is another issue that can only be known thru testimony 

This is what I actually said, with bolding added.

I did notice one typo which I will leave in place, now that it has drawn attention 

This is the typo:

"Yours is a good point but actually being ORDAINED to be anything is being PRE-ORDAINED."

The error was that I left two words out: (underlined)

"Yours is a good point but actually being ORDAINED to be anything is anything but being PRE-ORDAINED."

Mea culpa

But if you take into account the rest of the post, I hope it still should have been clear.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What do you think “the first place”is?

I don't understand the question. I did not use that phrase

[InCognitus]

@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.

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

You may very well be right about his intention. Where I'm coming from is that a notion of planning doesn't make sense for a God who is outside of time. Maybe some shared ground could be that people could experience God's creation as a plan? I'm willing to explore that idea.

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).

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I may be misunderstanding, but I don't have any difficulties reconciling 1 Peter 1:19-20, Titus 1:2, or John 1:1 with a God who exists outside of time. Rather, I view God as creating time, and so don't entertain any infinite regression ideas. Famously, Saint Bonaventure articulated the Kalam argument for the existence of God, which in short proposes that:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The cosmos (or universe) began to exist (consider, as evidence, cosmic background radiation, red shift etc.).
3. Therefore, the cosmos has a cause (God).

I believe this is one of the stronger arguments for the existence of God as an uncaused cause. 

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.

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I think there may be a translation issue with the Titus passage in the KJV. I rely on people who understand Greek for these things, but my RSV translation (I have one with a Greek interlinear) indicates that a very direct translation is "promised a period of time before" or "promised ages ago" instead of "promised before the world began." Nevertheless, I believe in a God that is eternally present in every moment, past, present, and future, and so I don't see any theological issues. 

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.

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Something that might be clarifying is that while Catholics believe in creation ex nihlo, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters" (Gen. 1:1-2), Catholics also believe that, subsequently, creation is organized (i.e., creation is given form and content). Here's a quote to this effect:  

Quote

 

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.

John Bergsma and Brant Pitre, A Catholic Introduction to the Bible: The Old Testament, vol. 1 (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2018), 96.

I could say more here, but really I just hope that I'm not confusing things. 

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".

[InCognitus]

58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Agreed.

Yes, I well know the difference, and then there is Compatiblism, besides.

Just FYI, I though I clearly discussed the problem there ; that is philosophy sub-101, thanks for explaining it yet again.

Apparently I just do not communicate clearly with certain posters.

If you don't mind, please read my post in question, I am sure you will understand my position, or please tell me where I goofed. I trust your opinion and I am concerned if others might see it as my interlocutor has.

 

I confess, I haven't read the entire thread, I only noticed a few of the later posts in this thread today (I don't have much time to read the board during the week lately - hopefully that will change in two weeks). 

I saw where you explained that we don't believe in creation ex-nihilo in relation to the predestination vs. foreordination discussion, is that the post you had in mind?  I think I was responding to Nofear bringing up creation ex-nihilo (but I don't recall exactly).   Which post exactly do you mean?

[Bernard Gui]

42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't understand the question. I did not use that phrase

It is a phrase used twice in the Alma 13 verses I quoted.

Also, there is this…

Quote

Alma 40:11 Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life.

 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Famously, Saint Bonaventure articulated the Kalam argument for the existence of God, which in short proposes that:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The cosmos (or universe) began to exist (consider, as evidence, cosmic background radiation, red shift etc.).
3. Therefore, the cosmos has a cause (God).

I believe this is one of the stronger arguments for the existence of God as an uncaused cause. 

How does one determine which God is the God that caused everything?

When Jesus was on the earth, he existed in time and space.

Edited February 6 by Bernard Gui

[OGHoosier]

I will note that Latter-day Saint philosophers Joseph Lawal and Blake Ostler have criticized the Kalam Cosmological Argument along various lines of reasoning.

Blake Ostler, Do Kalam Infinity Arguments Apply to the Infinite Past?

Joseph Lawal, William Lane Craig's Attack on Latter-day Saint Cosmology (Part 1) there is no part 2.

The philosophical argumentation is extremely technical, so it isn't for the faint of heart, but between the two of them, they've cast enough doubt on the Kalam that I can't give it the benefit of the doubt. In philosophy, the benefit of the doubt is about all you can get, so the Kalam doesn't really do it for me.

Edited February 6 by OGHoosier

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I confess, I haven't read the entire thread, I only noticed a few of the later posts in this thread today (I don't have much time to read the board during the week lately - hopefully that will change in two weeks). 

I saw where you explained that we don't believe in creation ex-nihilo in relation to the predestination vs. foreordination discussion, is that the post you had in mind?  I think I was responding to Nofear bringing up creation ex-nihilo (but I don't recall exactly).   Which post exactly do you mean?

Thanks for your willingness to help out, but honestly I am also working on some important projects, and don't have time to work more on this misunderstanding.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I will note that Latter-day Saint philosophers Joseph Lawal and Blake Ostler have criticized the Kalam Cosmological Argument along various lines of reasoning.

Blake Ostler, Do Kalam Infinity Arguments Apply to the Infinite Past?

Joseph Lawal, William Lane Craig's Attack on Latter-day Saint Cosmology (Part 1) there is no part 2.

The philosophical argumentation is extremely technical, so it isn't for the faint of heart, but between the two of them, they've cast enough doubt on the Kalam that I can't give it the benefit of the doubt. In philosophy, the benefit of the doubt is about all you can get, so the Kalam doesn't really do it for me.

I know those articles.

It really doesn't work philosophically at all and Craig's thinking is not..... contemporary.

He seems to not understand contemporary analytic philosophy or philosophy of language iirc.

....Looked at the link, I was right.

"The first argument turns on an equivocation in the use of terms such as “number,” “more than” and similar terms. In particular the first argument mistakenly applies the meaning of terms used for finite mathematics such as “number,” “equal to,” and “more than” to transfinite set logic where these concepts mean something quite different. The first argument commits the fallacy of equivocation by adopting the logic that applies to individual members in finite collections to infinite sets. I also argue that neither premise of the second argument applies to the order of infinity involved in the infinite past and is, therefore, based on two false premises."

Edited February 6 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It is a phrase used twice in the Alma 13 verses I quoted.

Also, there is this…

 

Good point, I agree fully with you, and I think the post you quoted was not mine. 

 

[Navidad]

On 2/4/2023 at 6:09 PM, mfbukowski said:

So what IS your interpretation?

If someone is blessed/ ordained "before the foundation of the world", what else could that mean, other than that in some sense he was existent before the foundation of the world?

I am writing a book entitled "The Search for the Soul of Public Education: Dancing in the Mindfields." I have been writing it with lots of contemporary adaptations as events and issues have arisen. Before I ever put fingers to keyboard I prayed over the book. Before I ever had an outline for its construction, I asked God to bless it in the minds of the readers - that they would be open to whatever insights and interpretations it contains. The book existed in my mind before one chapter or one word was written. I guess that is my point about God and humans.  Humans did not have to physically exist as spirits (how about that for thought-provoking?) in order for God to bless or ordain them as part of their future destiny. The distance between the foundation of the world and 1949, the year I was born in the mind of an eternal God is a mystery to me. I see no sense in even trying to fathom it.

[Navidad]

On 2/4/2023 at 7:24 PM, mfbukowski said:

Ok, but 1- the paradigm says God does nothing " ex nihilo", so there's a conflict there.  He "goes down" because "there is matter there"- so creation is accomplished by organizing matter, not ex nihilo. That would be contradicting the overall paradigm.

2- He was not talking about a person with characteristics a,x,h and g, he was talking about needing Nofear, a real person with a name in 2023.

It would be predestination to make a person to order in 2023 just LIKE Nofear, when he can call pre-existing Nofear on his mission in 2023.

3. Nofear is a person, not just a bundle of characteristics!

Is it not possible that God in some way created the universes ex nihilo and yet, created humans from pre-existent universal matter like dust? I create my books ex-nihilo. I create cupcakes from all the recipes and ingredients. Maybe there is no difference, but I see one.

 

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is what I actually said, with bolding added.

I did notice one typo which I will leave in place, now that it has drawn attention 

This is the typo:

"Yours is a good point but actually being ORDAINED to be anything is being PRE-ORDAINED."

The error was that I left two words out: (underlined)

"Yours is a good point but actually being ORDAINED to be anything is anything but being PRE-ORDAINED."

Mea culpa

But if you take into account the rest of the post, I hope it still should have been clear.

I think we have a major challenge with the word "ordain" as used in the Bible. It comes from root words and semi-root words that had very different meanings. In the Bible we have root words in Hebrew, Greek, possibly Ugaritic (in the book of Amos for example), and Aramaic. We have semi-root words in Latin, Old English, and possibly others. When those diverse words (for "ordain" there were over 30) we have to figure out the original wording - what it meant, why a particular semi-root word was used and what it meant, and what the variations on the English word mean. That is why Biblical interpretation is so challenging and at the same time so much fun. It is not a matter of seeing the word "ordain' used, slapping your understanding of the word on it, and making a point of even more dangerous a doctrine. Or we often see the English word in one passage and then in a different passage and assume the same meaning. It is almost never that easy.

We don't have root and semi-root words for the Book of Mormon to which we can refer. Folks only struggle with the meaning of English words here and then. The correct interpretation of a word in the Bible is much more complex and differences vary widely. One of the biggest errors in in Biblical interpretation is saying, Well, the word ordain is used in Titus, Matthew, and Acts, therefore each use means the same as the other. That is rarely the case!

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

I think you may be confusing fore-knowledge with predestination. I do not believe they are one in the same. I am clearly not a Calvinist. I believe God knows what people will do and how they will respond. This is not because He makes them respond that way (predestination), but because as God, He knows how they will respond prior to responding, or frankly prior to even being. Foreknowledge has nothing to do with predestination in my mind. It is simply foreknowledge of event prior to their happening, not causing them to happen. 

If God knows the outcome as you describe what difference does it make? And why put sentient thinking beings through a mortality that for much of humanity is pretty awful?  Just send everyone to their reward and be done with it.

[CA Steve]

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

I think you may be confusing fore-knowledge with predestination. I do not believe they are one in the same. I am clearly not a Calvinist. I believe God knows what people will do and how they will respond. This is not because He makes them respond that way (predestination), but because as God, He knows how they will respond prior to responding, or frankly prior to even being. Foreknowledge has nothing to do with predestination in my mind. It is simply foreknowledge of event prior to their happening, not causing them to happen. 

If God can choose whether or not to create us, then, in His case, fore-knowledge and predestination are indistinguishable.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I create my books ex-nihilo. 

Not really.   It was organized from preexisting language and from preexisting research materials and a lifetime of preexisting experiences.  It written using preexisting technology, and produced with preexisting paper and ink.  
 

Thoughts and ideas don’t come from absolutely nothing.  There is always a trail of preexisting factors, language, culture, experiences, and influences that contribute; and the physical books themselves are composed of preexisting matter.  

Edited February 6 by pogi

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

• Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
• The cosmos (or universe) began to exist (consider, as evidence, cosmic background radiation, red shift etc.).
• Therefore, the cosmos has a cause (God).

So if God exists does God have a cause?

[OGHoosier]

21 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So if God exists does God have a cause?

I believe that, per the classical Christian view, God never began to exist, so He does not have nor need a cause. Only things which begin to exist at some point in time require a cause. Things which are self-existent, which always are and always have been, do not.

[Teancum]

6 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I believe that, per the classical Christian view, God never began to exist, so He does not have nor need a cause. Only things which begin to exist at some point in time require a cause. Things which are self-existent, which always are and always have been, do not.

And not my head really hurts.  😀

[manol]

On 2/3/2023 at 2:09 PM, helix said:

Matthew 10:34-38 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."

There are words attributed to Jesus which are imo inconsistent with who he is, as the Prince of Peace and the great teacher who gave us the Sermon on the Mount and who taught us to love our neighbor and so forth. The "I came not to bring peace, but a sword..." passage is an example of such. 

How do the words of that passage make you feel?  Do they invite you to love God (Moroni chapter 7)?  Does the Spirit bear witness to them (D&C 8-9)?  Do they taste delicious to your soul (Alma chapter 32)?  If not, then imo it is our job to reject them or at the very least put them on the back burner until we know for sure. 

Imo those words would never have been spoken by the Christ I have come to know, and were presumably written into his mouth by someone with an agenda.   

Edited February 6 by manol

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

If God knows the outcome as you describe what difference does it make? And why put sentient thinking beings through a mortality that for much of humanity is pretty awful?  Just send everyone to their reward and be done with it.

Great question. I wouldn't discount the idea that God desires fellowship, praise, communication, and interaction with His sentient creation. Without making Him dependent on us, I believe he grants us agency so we can please, disappoint and yes, surprise Him on occasion. Someone on this forum may see that as another nasty Greek incursion into my theology. So be it.

I would repeat that I think His knowledge of what happens has no impact on our ability to change, mold, and make our own circumstances. God is not a puppet-master. He is one who knows how the book will end, but still is impacted by reading it. The reality is what you said, "for much of humanity" life is "pretty awful." I suppose some have and do reject God because of that. I suppose some have and do reject Mennonitism because it has been awful for them. I suppose some reject the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the same reason. In a lesser way, same for being fans of the Phillies!

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, manol said:

Imo those words would never have been spoken by the Christ I have come to know, and were presumably written into his mouth by someone with an agenda.   

That is exactly how I feel when someone tells me that Christ said "that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight."

[manol]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

That is exactly how I feel when someone tells me that Christ said "that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight."

Me too!

What I love about Mormonism is that it does an excellent job of presenting the tools needed to follow Christ (such as the chapters cited in my previous post), even if its specific teachings are arguably a bit sketchy from time to time.  

In my opinion. 

(If we take the word "creed" to mean "a rigid formal statement of belief" [rather than "a religion"], then imo creeds can inhibit spiritual growth by imposing man-made constraints on our acceptance of what God may inspire or reveal.) 

Edited February 6 by manol

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

So if God exists does God have a cause?

Good one.

It's a circular argument.

God is already PRESUMED to be without a beginning, therefore there is no cause for his beginning.

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

to that God who gave them life.

Didn't that happen in Genesis 2:7? God formed humans and then breathed life into them? The words hayyah and  hayyim in Hebrew are used a lot in the Old Testament. It refers to life, living, living and flowing water, capturing people alive and then killing them, the living God, and on and on. Is it your belief that the spirit children of your faith had life? Or did life (hayyim) begin when they became human? Is Gen 2:7 some kind of a metaphor?