A Couple of Questions

[let’s roll]

As a means to try to frame a broader discussion of our post-mortal life, I’m interested in your thoughts on two questions: 

1. Which better describes your understanding of the principal purpose of mortality as it relates to the post mortal life of the righteous:

    a.  If we learn to navigate difficult and sorrowful situations in mortality, we enjoy an exalted life largely devoid of difficulty and sorrow, or 

    b.  We need to learn to navigate difficult and sorrowful situations in mortality because an exalted life requires managing an eternity of situations     more difficult and sorrowful than those we faced in mortality.

2. Why is knowing God and Jesus Christ the most apt description of life eternal?

Edited August 26, 2024 by let’s roll

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

As a means to try to frame a broader discussion of our post-mortal life, I’m interested in your thoughts on two questions: 

1. Which better describes your understanding of the principal purpose of mortality as it relates to the post mortal life of the righteous:

    a.  If we learn to navigate difficult and sorrowful situations in mortality, we enjoy an exalted life largely devoid of difficulty and sorrow, or 

    b.  We need to learn to navigate difficult and sorrowful situations in mortality because an exalted life requires managing an eternity of situations     more difficult and sorrowful than those we faced in mortality.

2. Why is knowing God and Jesus Christ the most apt description of life eternal?

Q1, b.

Q2, because They are the epitome of life eternal, and the best way to know is to be by becoming, which They enable.

[rpn]

My take is that in order to become like Them we have to know joy and sorrow and all the other differences, and also have experiences navigating resolutions so we have choices going forward.   Also the more, varied experiences we have the more options we can think of in resolving any new experience consistent with discipleship.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, let’s roll said:

If we learn to navigate difficult and sorrowful situations in mortality, we enjoy an exalted life largely devoid of difficulty and sorrow, or 

    b.  We need to learn to navigate difficult and sorrowful situations in mortality because an exalted life requires managing an eternity of situations     more difficult and sorrowful than those we faced in mortality.

 

Neither…I don’t see exaltation as devoid of sorrow according to scripture and it seems appropriate for gods to have such sorrow when they see others suffering at the very least.  However, I don’t think we will have a more difficult and sorrowful life than we have here and now because we will have much more capability and capacity to handle such things, so they won’t appear that difficult anymore.  We will also have each other to support each other in sorrow and I expect that will help a great deal as well. 

I think we have difficulties in this life because it is the only way we can discover what we truly want in our lives, what is important to us…the things that nothing would stop us from seeking if we knew how we could and even if we didn’t. 
 

If we need to become one with the Son and the Father in order to receive all that is theirs as they want to give us, including their abilities, we will know them as well as ourselves and with those capabilities be able to have the fullest lives possible throughout the eternities. 

Edited August 26, 2024 by Calm

[Dario_M]

Well.. i don't understand these questions to be honest. I never navigate in difficult and sorrowful sircomstances. Especially not after mortality when i'm allready dead. 

Edited August 27, 2024 by Dario_M

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, let’s roll said:

As a means to try to frame a broader discussion of our post-mortal life, I’m interested in your thoughts on two questions: 

1. Which better describes your understanding of the principal purpose of mortality as it relates to the post mortal life of the righteous:

    a.  If we learn to navigate difficult and sorrowful situations in mortality, we enjoy an exalted life largely devoid of difficulty and sorrow, or 

    b.  We need to learn to navigate difficult and sorrowful situations in mortality because an exalted life requires managing an eternity of situations     more difficult and sorrowful than those we faced in mortality.

2. Why is knowing God and Jesus Christ the most apt description of life eternal?

1a makes it seem pointless and 1b is pretty horrifying.

For 2 knowing God is knowing the kind of life He leads.

[OGHoosier]

17 hours ago, let’s roll said:

1. Which better describes your understanding of the principal purpose of mortality as it relates to the post mortal life of the righteous:

    a.  If we learn to navigate difficult and sorrowful situations in mortality, we enjoy an exalted life largely devoid of difficulty and sorrow, or 

    b.  We need to learn to navigate difficult and sorrowful situations in mortality because an exalted life requires managing an eternity of situations     more difficult and sorrowful than those we faced in mortality.

One very common thread in the Book of Mormon is the ontology of opposites. This is most clearly expressed in Lehi's farewell to Jacob in 2 Nephi 2:11

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility."

Lehi is here saying that things are defined by their opposites. The front of the coin only exists because the back also exists - if a coin has only one side, what is the point of calling that side the "front"? Life and death, corruption and incorruption, happiness or misery, sense and nonsense, they exist in a dyad, a "compound in one." They exnihilate - they bring each other into being. 

If there are no truly difficult or sorrowful situations, then you don't have joy, you have an undifferentiated mass of experience. Without contrast you can't know what it is that you have. Without proving contraries, truth is not made manifest.  

Imo the sufferings of this life exist to give the joy of the next life meaning. It stands to reason that God faces pains we don't in His role, but it also stands to reason that God has joy that we don't, and it may well be that the balance of joy to suffering in God's life is far more lopsided in favor of joy than ours, in which I would call exaltation a net gain. Even if we do live an eternity largely devoid of sorrow, the pains of this life will still function to give meaning to the joy we then experience.

As for question #2, honestly, I'm not sure and I don't think I have anything useful to say on the matter at this moment.

 

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not sure how to answer the query, frankly.  Alma told Corianton that the righteous are received into Paradise, which he said is a state "of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care and sorrow."  Alma 40:12.  Given the fact that even God weeps, (Moses 7:29), is paradise, then, a temporary respite (something like a vacation), until "The Boss" (God) says, "Okay, welcome back to the rat race!  Back to work!"?   Obviously, Christ's emotions ran the gamut, especially as He was working out the Atonement.  See Hebrews 4:15. 

The only thing I can say is I have difficulty comprehending how Eternity could be an emotional roller coaster and yet, at the same time, could be seen to be fulfilling or as any kind of a reward.  I don't think, though, that God is simply sneering at His children as He leans back and puts His feet on the desk and says [with a self-satisfied smirk], "Welp, I've got mine!  Good luck to all of you poor suckers down there!"  

Somehow, in a way that I don't understand (and that I doubt mere mortals even can understand, it would seem that He has mastered the delicate balance [indeed, to us, the seemingly impossible balance] of having empathy for the struggles of His children, on the one hand, and yet in having joy in His exalted existence (and in His children's progression toward such an existence), on the other.

 

Edited August 28, 2024 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

21 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

One very common thread in the Book of Mormon is the ontology of opposites. This is most clearly expressed in Lehi's farewell to Jacob in 2 Nephi 2:11

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility."

Lehi is here saying that things are defined by their opposites. The front of the coin only exists because the back also exists - if a coin has only one side, what is the point of calling that side the "front"? Life and death, corruption and incorruption, happiness or misery, sense and nonsense, they exist in a dyad, a "compound in one." They exnihilate - they bring each other into being. 

If there are no truly difficult or sorrowful situations, then you don't have joy, you have an undifferentiated mass of experience. Without contrast you can't know what it is that you have. Without proving contraries, truth is not made manifest.  

Imo the sufferings of this life exist to give the joy of the next life meaning. It stands to reason that God faces pains we don't in His role, but it also stands to reason that God has joy that we don't, and it may well be that the balance of joy to suffering in God's life is far more lopsided in favor of joy than ours, in which I would call exaltation a net gain. Even if we do live an eternity largely devoid of sorrow, the pains of this life will still function to give meaning to the joy we then experience.

As for question #2, honestly, I'm not sure and I don't think I have anything useful to say on the matter at this moment.

 

Alma's exhortation to Corianton may also have some bearing on the question in the opening post.  Here's an excerpt, from Alma 42:

Quote

 

12 And now, there was no means to reclaim men from this fallen state, which man had brought upon himself because of his own disobedience [that is, because of the fall of Adam];

13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

14 And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence.

15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.

16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.

17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?

18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.

19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?

20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.

21 And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?

22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

 

Too Long, Didn't Read: What is it that enables God to be both perfectly just and perfectly merciful?  The Fall and the Atonement work together in this regard.  Were it not for Christ's Atonement, after the Fall, inescapably, man would have been cut off permanently from God's presence.  The Atonement, however, enables man, as he repents, to be saved.

Edited August 28, 2024 by Kenngo1969

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not sure how to answer the query, frankly.  Alma told Corianton that the righteous are received into Paradise, which he said is a state "of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care and sorrow."  Alma 40:12.  Given the fact that even God weeps, (Moses 7:29), is paradise, then, a temporary respite (something like a vacation), until "The Boss" (God) says, "Okay, welcome back to the rat race!  Back to work!"?   Obviously, Christ's emotions ran the gamut, especially as He was working out the Atonement.  See Hebrews 4:15. 

The only thing I can say is I have difficulty comprehending how Eternity could be an emotional roller coaster and yet, at the same time, could be seen to be fulfilling or as any kind of a reward.  I don't think, though, that God is simply sneering at His children as He leans back and puts His feet on the desk and says [with a self-satisfied smirk], "Welp, I've got mine!  Good luck to all of you poor suckers down there!"  

Somehow, in a way that I don't understand (and that I doubt mere mortals even can understand, it would seem that He has mastered the delicate balance [indeed, to us, the seemingly impossible balance] of having empathy for the struggles of His children, on the one hand, and yet in having joy in His exalted existence (and in His children's progression toward such an existence), on the other.

 

I think you comprehend more than you think/comprehend  !!! There is no "emotional rollercoaster" because God is stable and is comfortable with consequences (I think we use the terms "reward" and "punishment" only as an earlier developmental stage of our working model -- D&C 19:7). Because he is stable and comfortable, He empathizes perfectly with the suffering while enjoying all He is willing to receive with His peers.

[Teancum]

On 8/26/2024 at 4:16 PM, let’s roll said:

As a means to try to frame a broader discussion of our post-mortal life, I’m interested in your thoughts on two questions: 

1. Which better describes your understanding of the principal purpose of mortality as it relates to the post mortal life of the righteous:

    a.  If we learn to navigate difficult and sorrowful situations in mortality, we enjoy an exalted life largely devoid of difficulty and sorrow, or 

    b.  We need to learn to navigate difficult and sorrowful situations in mortality because an exalted life requires managing an eternity of situations     more difficult and sorrowful than those we faced in mortality.

2. Why is knowing God and Jesus Christ the most apt description of life eternal?

None of the above. If we could all be honest about such thing, nobody really knows answers to any of these questions. One may have faith and belief but they do not know. For me such discussions are rather pointless and a waste of energy that could be better applied elsewhere. I wish I could get back all the thousands of answers I spent drilling into such things.  But that is just me, an evil apostate. 😁

[Teancum]

On 8/27/2024 at 9:49 AM, OGHoosier said:

One very common thread in the Book of Mormon is the ontology of opposites. This is most clearly expressed in Lehi's farewell to Jacob in 2 Nephi 2:11

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility."

Lehi is here saying that things are defined by their opposites. The front of the coin only exists because the back also exists - if a coin has only one side, what is the point of calling that side the "front"? Life and death, corruption and incorruption, happiness or misery, sense and nonsense, they exist in a dyad, a "compound in one." They exnihilate - they bring each other into being. 

If there are no truly difficult or sorrowful situations, then you don't have joy, you have an undifferentiated mass of experience. Without contrast you can't know what it is that you have. Without proving contraries, truth is not made manifest.  

Imo the sufferings of this life exist to give the joy of the next life meaning. It stands to reason that God faces pains we don't in His role, but it also stands to reason that God has joy that we don't, and it may well be that the balance of joy to suffering in God's life is far more lopsided in favor of joy than ours, in which I would call exaltation a net gain. Even if we do live an eternity largely devoid of sorrow, the pains of this life will still function to give meaning to the joy we then experience.

As for question #2, honestly, I'm not sure and I don't think I have anything useful to say on the matter at this moment.

 

I have come to the point that I do not at all agree with the premise of opposition in all things. Christianity, as far as I know, with the exception of Mormonism, believes God intended for humans to live in happiness in paradise and there would have been no opposition. So this idea seems unique to Mormonism. Does one really need to suffer in order to understand joy and happiness?  I don't think so. I know jumping off a five hundred foot cliff is going to hurt me. I don't need to experience it to know that. I don't need to have every disease known to man to understand not having that disease is a wonderful thing. I do think suffering can shape and  mold us to be better people if we let it. But some suffering situations can break and destroy people.  What purpose does cancer in a child serve?  Or the abduction and rape of a five year old?  If the answer is anything but none, it does not serve any purpose, then one should examine their moral compass.  Personally, I think if there is a God that puts us through all the suffering we go through, and there is plenty monumental suffering, just so we have meaning in the joy of some next life that we really don't know exists, well that is a pretty monstrous being. I don't inflict suffering on my children so they experience joy. And I try to help them avoid suffering if I can.

[Mfbnew]

On 8/27/2024 at 6:49 AM, OGHoosier said:

One very common thread in the Book of Mormon is the ontology of opposites. This is most clearly expressed in Lehi's farewell to Jacob in 2 Nephi 2:11

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility."

Lehi is here saying that things are defined by their opposites. The front of the coin only exists because the back also exists - if a coin has only one side, what is the point of calling that side the "front"? Life and death, corruption and incorruption, happiness or misery, sense and nonsense, they exist in a dyad, a "compound in one." They exnihilate - they bring each other into being. 

If there are no truly difficult or sorrowful situations, then you don't have joy, you have an undifferentiated mass of experience. Without contrast you can't know what it is that you have. Without proving contraries, truth is not made manifest.  

Imo the sufferings of this life exist to give the joy of the next life meaning. It stands to reason that God faces pains we don't in His role, but it also stands to reason that God has joy that we don't, and it may well be that the balance of joy to suffering in God's life is far more lopsided in favor of joy than ours, in which I would call exaltation a net gain. Even if we do live an eternity largely devoid of sorrow, the pains of this life will still function to give meaning to the joy we then experience.

As for question #2, honestly, I'm not sure and I don't think I have anything useful to say on the matter at this moment.

 

I can't give you "points" at this stage of my re-incarnation on the board but add me to the list of folks that do so.  Opposition in all things.   I mean what is the difference between a regular smiley and this:  "🙃" ? 😀?

Now THAT'S semiotics!  😀

 

[Stargazer]

On 8/26/2024 at 9:16 PM, let’s roll said:

As a means to try to frame a broader discussion of our post-mortal life, I’m interested in your thoughts on two questions: 

1. Which better describes your understanding of the principal purpose of mortality as it relates to the post mortal life of the righteous:

    a.  If we learn to navigate difficult and sorrowful situations in mortality, we enjoy an exalted life largely devoid of difficulty and sorrow, or 

    b.  We need to learn to navigate difficult and sorrowful situations in mortality because an exalted life requires managing an eternity of situations     more difficult and sorrowful than those we faced in mortality.

My feeling is that neither is the case. Many of us, in fact a large number of us, don't have much in the way of life experience because we die before we get any real experience at all. One of my great uncles, whose name was Mark, died when he was 10 years old during the post-WW1 flu epidemic. One of my granddaughters died at age 3 months due to crib death. Neither one learned to navigate difficult and sorrowful situations because their only sorrowful situation was dying before much in the way of understanding could occur. 

On 8/26/2024 at 9:16 PM, let’s roll said:

2. Why is knowing God and Jesus Christ the most apt description of life eternal?

Knowing them prepares us for life with them in eternity. In DC 19 the Lord says that "eternal punishment" is God's punishment. Because "Eternal" is His name. So by the same token "Eternal Life" is God's life.

[Mfbnew]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I have come to the point that I do not at all agree with the premise of opposition in all things. Christianity, as far as I know, with the exception of Mormonism, believes God intended for humans to live in happiness in paradise and there would have been no opposition. So this idea seems unique to Mormonism. Does one really need to suffer in order to understand joy and happiness?  I don't think so. I know jumping off a five hundred foot cliff is going to hurt me. I don't need to experience it to know that. I don't need to have every disease known to man to understand not having that disease is a wonderful thing. I do think suffering can shape and  mold us to be better people if we let it. But some suffering situations can break and destroy people.  What purpose does cancer in a child serve?  Or the abduction and rape of a five year old?  If the answer is anything but none, it does not serve any purpose, then one should examine their moral compass.  Personally, I think if there is a God that puts us through all the suffering we go through, and there is plenty monumental suffering, just so we have meaning in the joy of some next life that we really don't know exists, well that is a pretty monstrous being. I don't inflict suffering on my children so they experience joy. And I try to help them avoid suffering if I can.

Yin and Yang?

Heaven and hell?  Good and Evil?  Front and back?  Up and down?

"And I try to help them avoid suffering if I can."  So how does THAT show that you don't believe in opposition?

These "ideas" are semantic differences- it is all about words and how the human mind works.  EVERY religion - not just Mormonism- uses these principles.

It's not like "OPPOSITION" exists floating around in a dark cloud.   It's like saying that "MERCY" can somehow "PAY JUSTICE" for evil.   Mercy writes a check?  What does it look like?

These are SYMBOLS - nothing else- nothing to "believe in" or not.

In teaching your kids arithmetic I hope you teach them the difference between plus and minus!  😍

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Mfbnew said:

Yin and Yang?

Heaven and hell?  Good and Evil?  Front and back?  Up and down?

"And I try to help them avoid suffering if I can."  So how does THAT show that you don't believe in opposition?

These "ideas" are semantic differences- it is all about words and how the human mind works.  EVERY religion - not just Mormonism- uses these principles.

It's not like "OPPOSITION" exists floating around in a dark cloud.   It's like saying that "MERCY" can somehow "PAY JUSTICE" for evil.   Mercy writes a check?  What does it look like?

These are SYMBOLS - nothing else- nothing to "believe in" or not.

In teaching your kids arithmetic I hope you teach them the difference between plus and minus!  😍

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction….

Not claiming this means in terms of morality or anything but physical law at a basic level.  I just think this may be enough to qualify as opposition in all things without having to figure how it works anywhere else.  If we want to accomplish something, to change, to become a new being in a new place physically, we have to push against what we were in essence.

Edited August 28, 2024 by Calm

[Mfbnew]

16 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not sure how to answer the query, frankly.  Alma told Corianton that the righteous are received into Paradise, which he said is a state "of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care and sorrow."  Alma 40:12.  Given the fact that even God weeps, (Moses 7:29), is paradise, then, a temporary respite (something like a vacation), until "The Boss" (God) says, "Okay, welcome back to the rat race!  Back to work!"?   Obviously, Christ's emotions ran the gamut, especially as He was working out the Atonement.  See Hebrews 4:15. 

The only thing I can say is I have difficulty comprehending how Eternity could be an emotional roller coaster and yet, at the same time, could be seen to be fulfilling or as any kind of a reward.  I don't think, though, that God is simply sneering at His children as He leans back and puts His feet on the desk and says [with a self-satisfied smirk], "Welp, I've got mine!  Good luck to all of you poor suckers down there!"  

Somehow, in a way that I don't understand (and that I doubt mere mortals even can understand, it would seem that He has mastered the delicate balance [indeed, to us, the seemingly impossible balance] of having empathy for the struggles of His children, on the one hand, and yet in having joy in His exalted existence (and in His children's progression toward such an existence), on the other.

 

Dang, dude 😉 --that Hebrews 4:15 is a great one I had forgotten about.  Thanks for mentioning it!

 

[Mfbnew]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction….

Not claiming this means in terms of morality or anything but physical law at a basic level.  I just think this may be enough to qualify as opposition in all things without having to figure how it works anywhere else.  If we want to accomplish something, to change, to become a new being in a new place physically, we have to push against what we were in essence.

Well, yes and know. > No that is not a typo! It is an example of what happens when we mix "language games".

It is a question of the interpretation and understanding of language itself.   I cannot imagine what it means that "opposition" is a "physical" law.

I mean this thread itself is an example of "opposition".   I am not seeing a lot of physics going on here. 

 

[Mfbnew]

On 8/26/2024 at 1:16 PM, let’s roll said:

As a means to try to frame a broader discussion of our post-mortal life, I’m interested in your thoughts on two questions: 

1. Which better describes your understanding of the principal purpose of mortality as it relates to the post mortal life of the righteous:

    a.  If we learn to navigate difficult and sorrowful situations in mortality, we enjoy an exalted life largely devoid of difficulty and sorrow, or 

    b.  We need to learn to navigate difficult and sorrowful situations in mortality because an exalted life requires managing an eternity of situations     more difficult and sorrowful than those we faced in mortality.

2. Why is knowing God and Jesus Christ the most apt description of life eternal?

As for "1" I believe both principles make sense- as I am wont to say- for me, it is semantics.  BOTH principles are "true".

As for "2" my answer would be that we all - including atheists- have concepts of what is "good" and what is "evil", and that "there is "SOMETHING OUT THERE" - a force, a person, a place or who knows- there is SOMETHING bigger than us out there- the universe or whatever you want to call it - OR "GOD"that shows us- tells us through our feelings that some activities or descriptions are "better" than others.

Atheists are often - I would say "usually"- good and moral people who still have the values that those who are theists have- that there IS "something" good or "better" out there on which human morality is based.   It is wrong to murder babies for fun- or ANY innocent person- it is wrong to steal- it is wrong to take advantage of others... and on it goes.

So then what is the BEST ideal for humans to follow?

Some might say the "BEST" ideal is  "living in peace with others"- treating them as we would want to be treated- avoiding all things which that "voice" within us tells us is wrong or "bad".

Some people live up to these ideals better than others- but what would it be like to live the "BEST" rules - or what would constitute such a life?

What would such a life be like to actually LIVE the "BEST" and most moral life it is possible to live?   What would be the IDEAL LIFE?

And so we automatically are attracted to seeing an actual human being - being attracted to the BEST IMAGINABLE LIFE.

And so the answer to that question can be seen as "GOD", who is anthropomorphic.  

How can the best, IDEAL human not be seen as a human?  We may imagine how the "best possible" fruit would taste- how the "BEST" of anything be like to actually experience.

And so the idea evolves toward wondering about the "IDEAL" anything- and such a being - if there could be such a being- would be conceived as "God".  

But there is DEATH looming over us all!   What would be BETTER than dying- for the BEST HUMAN?  Well I suppose there would BE no such thing as "death"- an IDEAL PERFECT human would live forever- the BEST OUTCOME for the BEST PERSON.

So this is the way I believe the notion of the IDEAL HUMAN can evolve into the idea of ETERNAL LIFE continuing that eternal best life humans can imagine.

So I see the worship of Father and his Son, Jesus Christ is just that.   

Eternal goodness in life cannot be extinguished or it would not be the "ETERNAL BEST LIFE"

This creates the LDS paradigm of the best life, what it is like to live such a life which itself includes living that life ETERNALLY.

This to me, is a "logical" progression which I then take to be "true" as is suggested in Alma 32- that which is "sweet" and touches my heart- is true, and ETERNALLY TRUE.

Works for me.

But then the Universe, or Light of Christ, the ideal within me, or Holy Ghost or Holy Qualia- which I have not yet mentioned here-  confirm it strongly.

For me, it is the BEST of everything. 

More to come about what I mean about the "Holy Qualia".   For me this is simply a philosophical explanation for what LDS folks call the "Holy Ghost".

Read up on "qualia" and I think it will all make better sense.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

 

 

[teddyaware]

On 8/26/2024 at 4:16 PM, let’s roll said:

As a means to try to frame a broader discussion of our post-mortal life, I’m interested in your thoughts on two questions: 

1. Which better describes your understanding of the principal purpose of mortality as it relates to the post mortal life of the righteous:

    a.  If we learn to navigate difficult and sorrowful situations in mortality, we enjoy an exalted life largely devoid of difficulty and sorrow, or 

    b.  We need to learn to navigate difficult and sorrowful situations in mortality because an exalted life requires managing an eternity of situations     more difficult and sorrowful than those we faced in mortality.

2. Why is knowing God and Jesus Christ the most apt description of life eternal?

2. In accordance with the eternal laws righteousness, God is only able fully reveal who and what he really is — the full revelation of all the the hidden mysteries pertaining to his infinite and eternal divine nature — to those who are entirely willing and able to receive and comprehend that treasury of sacred knowledge, and then gladly accept the most solemn responsibility to fully internalize and live by the same holy principles of perfection themselves.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

Yin and Yang?

Heaven and hell?  Good and Evil?  Front and back?  Up and down?

"And I try to help them avoid suffering if I can."  So how does THAT show that you don't believe in opposition?

These "ideas" are semantic differences- it is all about words and how the human mind works.  EVERY religion - not just Mormonism- uses these principles.

It's not like "OPPOSITION" exists floating around in a dark cloud.   It's like saying that "MERCY" can somehow "PAY JUSTICE" for evil.   Mercy writes a check?  What does it look like?

These are SYMBOLS - nothing else- nothing to "believe in" or not.

In teaching your kids arithmetic I hope you teach them the difference between plus and minus!  😍

So good to see you on here MF!

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

Well, yes and know. > No that is not a typo! It is an example of what happens when we mix "language games".

It is a question of the interpretation and understanding of language itself.   I cannot imagine what it means that "opposition" is a "physical" law.

I mean this thread itself is an example of "opposition".   I am not seeing a lot of physics going on here. 

 

In the brain there is….the brain is all physics/chemistry

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Christianity, as far as I know, with the exception of Mormonism, believes God intended for humans to live in happiness in paradise and there would have been no opposition. So this idea seems unique to Mormonism.

Actually, several prominent Christian leaders have expressed agreement with the doctrine of felix culpa ("happy fault") - the idea that the Fall brought about net positive consequences and the Edenic state was not God's planned endgame before Adam and Eve mucked it all up. St. Ambrose back in the 4th century argued that the Fall brought man to a better condition than if it had never occurred. Even St. Augustine, generally regarded as the foremost expositor of the doctrine of original sin, held that "God judged it better to bring good out of evil than not to permit any evil to exist," a principle which St. Thomas Aquinas later built on. John Wycliffe taught that the Fall was fortunate and made the world better. 

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Does one really need to suffer in order to understand joy and happiness?  I don't think so.

Look at it this way. If all you've ever experienced is bliss - and I mean ever, you have never had a negative experience - how can you really call it "good", as opposed to just "how things are?" And if you were enjoying yourself, would you even know that you were enjoying yourself since you've never not enjoyed yourself? A world with no variation is truly value-neutral, having neither good nor evil. Therefore, evil must exist for good to exist, or else your reality is just an undifferentiated mass of experience with nothing to call good or evil. You could only call such a world "good" by comparing it to what we have here, which is cheating since you would be using the evil of this world as a referent.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I know jumping off a five hundred foot cliff is going to hurt me. I don't need to experience it to know that. I don't need to have every disease known to man to understand not having that disease is a wonderful thing.

Without experience, you might have knowledge of what those things would do to a forensic-jelly effigy of your body, but the value of that - the cognizance you feel in your gut, that pulls on your chest, the muscle memory, the "knowledge-how" - it wouldn't be there. However, if you need that "knowledge-how", then it follows that God has to let you fall to *some* degree.

Which then raises the question - how far is God allowed to let you fall? 15 feet? 20? Is He allowed to let the fall break bones, or only bruise? And if He restrained the world to bone breaking so that you couldn't die from fall damage, *would anything stop somebody in that hypothetical universe from complaining that that was too much?* After all, that would be the worst outcome available to them, the worst they could think of. Why wouldn't somebody make that argument? Would they be wrong to do so? If they would be wrong to do so, then are we somehow right in doing the same thing in our world? Where is the transcendent authority telling us that our world is impermissible for God but Broken Bones World is fine? I don't know, and I don't know how we could even know in principle. As a matter of evidence I think the problem of evil is moot.

But of course, nobody in real life thinks like this. Instead, we look at specific horrors and think, "I wouldn't allow this. How could any good person allow this? How could God possibly allow this?" As you have done: 

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

But some suffering situations can break and destroy people.  What purpose does cancer in a child serve?  Or the abduction and rape of a five year old?  If the answer is anything but none, it does not serve any purpose, then one should examine their moral compass.  Personally, I think if there is a God that puts us through all the suffering we go through, and there is plenty monumental suffering, just so we have meaning in the joy of some next life that we really don't know exists, well that is a pretty monstrous being. I don't inflict suffering on my children so they experience joy. And I try to help them avoid suffering if I can.

This is fundamentally a pastoral problem, not an evidential problem imo. It's more about people relating to God than His existence. There's actually a school of thought called antitheodicy which holds that theodical reasoning (trying to justify God's actions in the world) is itself evil, and I tend to agree with this: we don't have God's knowledge and consequently our reasoning is certain to be warped in some way and may even be used to justify evils. It is a fool's errand to try and replicate the thoughts of a superintelligence like God, so we should stick with our moral senses while acknowledging that God's literally multidimensional perspective might make Him aware of ultimate outcomes and tradeoffs we cannot see. Included in all of this is the doctrine of the Redeemer, who thinks that the world to come is so worth it that He decided to suffer everything He permits Himself. 

The scriptures don't talk much about theodicy but I find the Book of Job really interesting in this regard. My signature includes a quote from Job - it's one of my favorite books of scripture and one of the most profoundly wise texts that I have ever read. I love Job, among the shining jewels of Hebrew poetic thought. I would recommend the following essay from Interpreter to all: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/job-an-lds-reading-2/. 

Job is presented as an undeserving sufferer. His friends want to explain his misfortune and do so by deciding that Job must have sinned, he must have done wrong - it's inconcievable that God would allow the undeserving to suffer. Surely Job must have sinned. Job protests this, and in asserting his righteousness challenges God to conform to Job's understanding of Him and bless Him. Elihu barges in and declares that they're ALL wrong, they're all too fatalistic about God, God is clearly good and all of this borders essentially on treason (it's more complicated but this is how I read him.) Then God Himself speaks - and He doesn't explain Himself. He asks Job why Job thinks he is wise enough to discern God's purposes and then shows Job His face, and it is enough for Job. Job has spoken of things he could not understand, things too wonderful for him, things which he could not grok sufficiently to speak, a motif again and again in scripture. It is not surprising to me that a superintelligence is aware of realities that we cannot comprehend. Joseph Smith did say that you could learn more from staring into heaven for five minutes than from reading everything ever written on the subject, a sentiment expressed by just about every mystic ever. Like Job, I seek that communion myself, and believe it will be more satisfying than any half-baked justification I could concoct.

As a final point, I don't find anything noble or honorable in defiantly passing judgment on God. There might be a sense of catharsis that comes from declaring that God is a monster (implying of course that you are morally superior) but I cannot find such catharsis honorable for its own sake, and as previously expressed I do not think it is dispositive. Furthermore, it is a known fact that those in suffering often resort to God for comfort. Even if I couldn't relate to God's choices, I would rather allow them the consolation that their suffering is deeper and not simply an absurdity, rather than push my glasses up like a Redditor, confident that my propositional legibility is the most important thing, before telling them it was really all for nothing. If I wouldn't do it to their face - if I wouldn't stand outside a funeral chapel passing out flyers saying "IT WAS ALL ABSURD AND YOU HAVE NO HOPE" - then I wouldn't do it anywhere.

When I was growing up I went to early morning seminary. I enjoyed being the class know-it-all, and at one point I was discoursing (in the middle of class) on how a wind obviously did not part the Red Sea without bowling over the Israelites. Clearly it must have been some kind of gravitational manipulation or something. A dear friend of mine got frustrated and just shouted "GOD KNOWS MORE THAN YOU, [OGHoosier]!" Nobody's ever needed that lesson as much as I, and it's one of my cardinal principles.

[Mfbnew]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

So good to see you on here MF!

And good to see YOU as well!   You guys are almost my "family".

Well inlaws, anyway...    😉

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

Yin and Yang?

Heaven and hell?  Good and Evil?  Front and back?  Up and down?

Yes. So? 

18 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

"And I try to help them avoid suffering if I can."  So how does THAT show that you don't believe in opposition?

I did not specifically design suffering for them to experience opposition.  Suffering simply exists in the world we live in. IMO, the problem of evil and suffering is the strongest argument against a theistic God.

18 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

These "ideas" are semantic differences- it is all about words and how the human mind works.  EVERY religion - not just Mormonism- uses these principles.

Appealing to other religions does not help you.  So what if EVERY religion uses these principles?  I would expect most religions try to answer the problem of evil and suffering.  Whether the answers religion provides are good answers is really up for debate is it not?

 

18 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

It's not like "OPPOSITION" exists floating around in a dark cloud.   It's like saying that "MERCY" can somehow "PAY JUSTICE" for evil.   Mercy writes a check?  What does it look like?

I am not clear on your point.

18 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

These are SYMBOLS - nothing else- nothing to "believe in" or not.

Suffering is a symbol?

18 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

In teaching your kids arithmetic I hope you teach them the difference between plus and minus!  😍

Math is simply a law of the Universe.  It is a poor comparison to the topic at hand.