- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Tom Haws wrote:
OK, now. Tell us about heaven, Q89.
Here here! We definitely need more from you Q89. What do you see? Your question indicated a strong attachment to a particular view of the Bible (not matching “scripture”). Is that what bothers you?
Well I have thought that the best possiblity was that the father live just like Jesus. Came to an earth as God, left as God. I mean by definition there can only be one Universe, so in my opinion no one can be above HF since he is the Supreme being. questioning89 wrote:Well I have thought that the best possiblity was that the father live just like Jesus. Came to an earth as God, left as God. I mean by definition there can only be one Universe, so in my opinion no one can be above HF since he is the Supreme being.
But if Elohim came to some earth just like Jesus as an Only Begotten Son, then there must have been a Father for Him, who He must still be subject to, right?
One universe perhaps, but what of the multi-verse? Of course, we’re deep in speculation now. hawkgrrrl wrote:One universe perhaps, but what of the multi-verse? Of course, we’re deep in speculation now.
If there’s a multi-verse, that is why for us HF is the only God who matters to us. God did not want to bog us down in the details so he’s only told us about his universe and so he is the Supreme being for us because other universe’s wouldn’t have any bearing on our mortality would they? All speculation but one way of thinking about it.It’s important to note that this concept is mind and soul expanding. IMO, that is often the purpose of a deep mystery or paradox. It isn’t so much about an absolute concrete truth, but the spiritual and mental push-ups we sweat out as we contemplate the transcendent. It’s all speculation, like so many above have said. We are following an idea down a path.
Whether we want to say God had a creator, or that God is the beginning, we’re merely speculating about things we can’t prove. The entire concept of how life began is impossible to really wrap my mind around. If it was God, or the Big Bang, or both, how anything existed at all to begin with is still a concept I can’t grasp. The idea that God has a creator creates an infinite regress–who created God, who created God, who created God…? The idea that there is only one supreme creator is less of a contradiction, in my mind. wordsleuth, the FACT that we really don’t have any idea is what makes the hardcore denials of all but one option so tiring to me. There is NO “logical” answer to this particular question, so it is the ultimate example of living by faith – no matter what option one chooses, theistic or atheistic. That’s why I end up believing every single person simply has to choose in the end their own individual starting point – belief in some kind of higher, directed power / purpose or belief it its absence. Once that foundational reference point is established, the details of one’s “faith” can be fleshed into existence. Until that foundational reference point is etablished (and the underlying assumption recognized and accepted), I believe one’s perspective is not truly one’s own.
I’m not saying anyone has to struggle to establish that foundation. Many do with no struggle. What I’m saying is that those who never question and construct are participating in a collective, communal faith – rather than an individual one.
I also am not saying that an individual one is “better” or “higher” than a collective, communal one. What I’m saying is that each can be “true” or “right” or “correct” or “proper” for differing individuals – that just because I need an individual one doesn’t mean my wife or my children will need it. The communal one might be fine for them. That’s not my call to make; it is theirs. Letting go of the need to be right, and letting go of the need for others to be wrong, is a very liberating experience – no matter one’s ultimate conclusion.
Old-Timer wrote:wordsleuth, the FACT that we really don’t have any idea is what makes the hardcore denials of all but one option so tiring to me. There is NO “logical” answer to this particular question, so it is the ultimate example of living by faith – no matter what option one chooses, theistic or atheistic.
There may be no “logical” answer, but some answers are more rational/logical than others. If we accept the 5 senses at face value, then what we can “prove” scientific answers are the most logical, anything beyond that becomes a matter of faith. Is it more logical to think that the Christian God started the Big Bang or that the Big Bang happened on it’s own? Scientifically, the latter is more “logical”; that doesn’t make it better.
There are plenty of instances where “faith” in religion has caused unnecessary suffering and harm. It is important that we apply some level of rationality to our beliefs; people that want to create/believe in their own “realities” can do so, but when those beliefs cause them to push their ideas–laws, etc–on others, then it isn’t okay. While we may not know all of the FACTS, we know a lot, thanks to science. I don’t know of rational belief systems causing harm, but I do know of irrational beliefs causing harm. You’re right Ray, ultimately, we can’t prove whether God exists, or whether God has a God, but we can prove that the Big Bang happened. I don’t know of any harm that comes from splitting hairs about whether there is one God, or multiple Gods, but being irrational can cause harm–that is my main point. Most of the hardcore denials are found in the Church, not out of it, when it comes to our origins–and that is tiring.
Quote:Is it more logical to think that the Christian God started the Big Bang …
Although the Big Bang Theory is now well-established, it is, relatively speaking, recent. When I was a youth, Mormons who had any notions of then-current cosmology favored the Steady State Theory. The pre-existence, eternal progression, the whole “as God once was” business fitted rather well with it. CalTech was then the last redoubt.
I find it ironic that my little brother, as faithful a Mormon as ever lived, went to CalTech and helped put the last nails in the coffin of Steady State with his Ph.D. dissertation. Of course it didn’t dent his beliefs in pre-existence, eternal progression, or “as God once was” one bit.
Naturally,
R.O.
Captain Curmudgeon wrote:Quote:Is it more logical to think that the Christian God started the Big Bang …
Although the Big Bang Theory is now well-established, it is, relatively speaking, recent. When I was a youth, Mormons who had any notions of then-current cosmology favored the Steady State Theory. The pre-existence, eternal progression, the whole “as God once was” business fitted rather well with it. CalTech was then the last redoubt.
I find it ironic that my little brother, as faithful a Mormon as ever lived, went to CalTech and helped put the last nails in the coffin of Steady State with his Ph.D. dissertation. Of course it didn’t dent his beliefs in pre-existence, eternal progression, or “as God once was” one bit.
Naturally,
R.O.
Hey, Cap’n!! Good to hear from an old LDSnet acquaintance. Love the ‘naturally’ signoff😈 HiJolly
questioning89 wrote:So I was reading Mormon Doctrine and was reading talks by other leaders about the nature of God. Im not going to lie, I am very uncomfortable with the idea that God had a God, and that God had a God etc. I am very uncomfortable with the idea that God “became” God. I mean in my opinion it goes against the scriptures, and really no longer makes him the Almighty God. What do you guys think?
Just a thought…have you asked yourself why you believe what you believe about God? From where did you get your defintiion of what it means to be “almighty?” It seems to me that most of us come up with an image of God that sounds good to us, but few of us really ask why we believe what we believe other than it sounds good to us.When it comes down to it, I think there are really only four possible places that you can learn anything about God. They are: 1) personal revelation, 2) scriptures, 3) other inspired people, and 4) temple ordinances. I’ve never been able to come up with a fifth option. Maybe one of you can do so. Plus, some of you probably reject one or more of these sources, which limits us even more.
Most of what we believe about God originated from St. Anselm and other Christian philosophers, who defined God as “that than which no greater can be conceived.” From this basic definition, which, by Anselm’s own confession did not come from any of the sources mentioned above, came the entire notion that God must be this untouchable “Almighty God” that sits on the top of a topless throne and is so large he fills the universe but so small he can dwell in your heart, etc. To some extent, all of the creeds and the way modern Christianity in general views God stemmed from this basic philosophical creation of God, not from the scriptures themselves.
That said, it is actually this view of God (the view that He must be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, incorporeal, etc.) that causes so many of the philosophical quandries that tend to lead many people away from belief in God. For example, how can a god who is all good, all powerful, all knowing, and created everything from scratch (ex nihilo) allow evil to exist? Or, put another way, why would He create anything that had the potential of even remotely becoming evil?” There’s no real good answer for this when you view God the way most of the western world views him. It’s only when you start to limit God in various ways that this (and other) problems are ovecome.
When all is said and done, there’s no real evidence that Joseph Smith created his definition of a “limited God” in order to overcome these philosophical quandries. But, wherever he got his definition, the end result is that his view of God as not necessarily being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, incorporeal etc. addresses the problem of evil and other philosophical issues rather nicely. In the LDS view, God did not create anything from “nothing.” He just manages what already existed to the best of His ability. Nor is he able to do “anything.” Nor can he be in more than one place at one time. The list goes on and it really works fairly well.
Anyway, there’s obviously a lot more to this than I’ve conveyed, but I hope this helps a bit.
questioning89 wrote:So I was reading Mormon Doctrine and was reading talks by other leaders about the nature of God. Im not going to lie, I am very uncomfortable with the idea that God had a God, and that God had a God etc. I am very uncomfortable with the idea that God “became” God. I mean in my opinion it goes against the scriptures, and really no longer makes him the Almighty God. What do you guys think?
First of all, if it doesn’t sound right to you, dismiss it as a non-doctrinal teaching that may or may not be true and don’t lose any sleep over it. If this was official doctrine, we would be able to find it in the scriptures and not just in “Mormon Doctrine.” On the other hand, “Eternal Progression” is doctrine, which means that by the grace of God, we have been given the opportunity to become like Him. Using the same logic, but applying it in reverse, would lead us inevitably to the concept that God, too, became what He is because He too had a God that made it possible. It’s a doctrine that doesn’t bother me all that much, because I know that He is “the Almighty God” in terms of our relationship with Him. Remember, even Paul said that there are “gods many,” but then pointed out that to us there is only one God. What He may have been prior to when the clock started ticking is something that to me does not change what He is right now, and what He is right now is what really matters.
wordsleuth23 wrote:Whether we want to say God had a creator, or that God is the beginning, we’re merely speculating about things we can’t prove.
If we can’t prove anything about it then what difference does it make? Why not try to find some metaphorical meaning in it? Or just dismiss it as nonsense.WARNING: Conflation of comments:
wordsleuth23 wrote:There are plenty of instances where “faith” in religion has caused unnecessary suffering and harm. It is important that we apply some level of rationality to our beliefs; people that want to create/believe in their own “realities” can do so, but when those beliefs cause them to push their ideas–laws, etc–on others, then it isn’t okay.
This is a common theme for you. I feel like I can understand where you’re coming from as I was there not long ago. Do you know much about probability theory? Or how about bayesian inference and decision making? Do you know much about group psychology? I’d like to share some thoughts with you about this but don’t know where to start.I’d highly recommend reading
The Wisdom of Crowdsby James Suroweicki. It helped me become comfortable with uncertainty, and helped me realize the role each of use play in our “crowd.” I’m no longer so concerned with what everyone else is doing or thinking. Anyway, I did a pretty involved review of the book on this site which you can find here: http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=340http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=340” class=”bbcode_url”> jmb275 wrote:If we can’t prove anything about it then what difference does it make? Why not try to find some metaphorical meaning in it? Or just dismiss it as nonsense.
Some of it is nonsense, and should be dismissed. We don’t base American laws of a Hindu belief system. We eat Cows. I’m not looking to find metaphorical meaning in the idea of reincarnation, and if I am, I shouldn’t expect to see laws enacted that force other people to.
jmb275 wrote:I’d highly recommend reading
The Wisdom of Crowdsby James Suroweicki. It helped me become comfortable with uncertainty, and helped me realize the role each of use play in our “crowd.” I’m no longer so concerned with what everyone else is doing or thinking. Anyway, I did a pretty involved review of the book on this site which you can find here: http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=340http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=340” class=”bbcode_url”> Without delving into Suroweicki’s analysis, some things are obviously dumb. I’m not so concerned with what everyone else is doing and thinking, to a point. When people believe stem cell research is equal to killing babies, I have a problem. We’ve delayed massive funding in this area for nearly a decade. Stem cells are used from 3 day old embryos–that would be thrown away otherwise–that have 150 cells at this point. A fly has 100,000 cells. It is not the same thing as an abortion. Yet because people with influence and authority have some irrational beliefs, we have sadly postponed a great chance to reduce human suffering. This is an example of beliefs mattering. They can be extremely harmful. Another one is the treatment of gays. So many people hate gay people. Why? Because they believe gays are vile sinners. I’m not implying that the Mormon church hates gays, but they are full of it when they say the care about them. They fought prop 8 as hard as they’ve fought for anything, all the while, they kept saying they are for gay rights. Not long after prop 8, the Utah State Legislature brought up the idea of Civil Unions–a fair compromise to some. The Church was mum while the Bill died. The Church is the most powerful player in the State, and if they truly cared, they could have done something. No offense, but there arguments are hollow and bigoted. These kinds of beliefs matter. They hurt people unnessecarrily.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.