The God Within

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

I have been thinking about the concept of god amidst the tragedies of recent days. As well, I have responded on another board to a thread where others have wondered how god answers prayers and regulates rewards and punishments.

This is what I wrote in response to my musings: The God Within

Please let me know what you think.

Since you asked, and I trust you want an honest response, I will tell you I became truly distraught by what I read in your blog. I am sincerely saddened to see that the Godhead – taught plainly and consistently by the prophets, though rejected and tragically misunderstood – is not acceptable enough. You wrote “What I talk about here does not deny or address the existence of any god outside of ourselves,” but what actually follows in your blog really seems to suggest otherwise, though I could be misunderstanding.

I am not at all convinced that the occurrence of disasters, however horrific they are, somehow precludes God from being omnipotent, as He is the most powerful being in our universe. Can He not order that the agency of mankind shall often trump the prevention of disasters? This does not make him cruel; while we are rightfully disheartened to see children killed, God sees them suffer for a small moment and then receives them into His presence in glory and everlasting joy. Justice and mercy will eventually be meted to everyone, and our finite minds cannot now comprehend how perfectly that will be done.

I suppose it can be correct that “all perception of god happens within our own minds,” since all of our senses are registered in the mind, though the influence of the Holy Ghost can be felt in my entire being. This does not mean that God is merely in or around my mind. The idea that “the understanding and doctrines of an external god emerged from our conscious attempts to explain that which we do not understand” just doesn’t hit home for me.

Quote:

Quote:

[Anonymous]

🙂

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

🙂

🙄

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

Since you asked, and I trust you want an honest response, I will tell you I became truly distraught by what I read in your blog. I am sincerely saddened to see that the Godhead – taught plainly and consistently by the prophets, though rejected and tragically misunderstood – is not acceptable enough. You wrote “What I talk about here does not deny or address the existence of any god outside of ourselves,” but what actually follows in your blog really seems to suggest otherwise, though I could be misunderstanding.

I do not in any way proclude the idea that there are gods ‘out there’. I am focused on the divine interface, the manifestation of god within us. From a pure doctrinal point of view, i laid out 3 distinct ways that we have within us God’s presence: our divine nature, the light of christ, and the holy ghost. Let’s simply leave it at that.

Shawn wrote:

I am not at all convinced that the occurrence of disasters, however horrific they are, somehow precludes God from being omnipotent, as He is the most powerful being in our universe. Can He not order that the agency of mankind shall often trump the prevention of disasters? This does not make him cruel; while we are rightfully disheartened to see children killed, God sees them suffer for a small moment and then receives them into His presence in glory and everlasting joy. Justice and mercy will eventually be meted to everyone, and our finite minds cannot now comprehend how perfectly that will be done.

It is logically impossible to have an all knowing, all good, all powerful, and all present god and have disasters occur to people outside the context of their own free will. you can believe that all you want, but it isn’t inherent in what Joseph Smith said or taught. In fact, we LDS have a more limited view of god’s power, specifically that he is a physically present being, making his ‘presence everywhere’ not possible, and as well, he does not intervene in the free will of others, and of random acts of nature, as they affect YOU. If god was all powerful and all knowing, then he would be a monster to allow such evil to exist. There are many more problems with the Theodicy, but simply put, it’s a logical impossibility. LDS theology has one of the best answers to it, in terms of god’s limited power.

Quote:

I suppose it can be correct that “all perception of god happens within our own minds,” since all of our senses are registered in the mind, though the influence of the Holy Ghost can be felt in my entire being. This does not mean that God is merely in or around my mind. The idea that “the understanding and doctrines of an external god emerged from our conscious attempts to explain that which we do not understand” just doesn’t hit home for me.

fair enough. It doesn’t hit home for you. All truth is given to us — revealed as it were — line upon line and precept upon precept. And, that revelation occurs within the mind and heart. This is scriptural, and it is all I am saying. What we understand of god has to necessarily emerge in the constructs of our own understanding. And when we don’t understand, our mind, hating a vacuum, fills in the blanks — we make crap up. It’s a natural tendency. it’s what the original writers of the bible did with the creation account, or with the flood. It happens. And you know? It’s good enough to teach the moral message, so we live with it. God could have taught us about quantum mechanics, gravity, a proper understanding of the cosmos, but he didn’t. Why? who knows. But He certainly allowed Joshua to stop the rotation of the earth long enough to reap destruction on the amalekites. If you accept this stuff as literal, I really can’t help you. People make stuff up all the time.

Quote:

When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves. And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy. John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false. (D&C 130:1-3)

uh, huh. Got it. Didn’t say that the father and son dwell in a man’s heart, now, did I?

Quote:

Regarding the phrase the “kingdom of God is within you,” a significant and correct JST was applied to that verse. It reads “the kingdom of God has already come unto you” (Luke 17:21). The other footnote to that verse read “Many translations read ‘among’ because the pronoun ‘you’ is plural here in Greek.” Joseph Smith is not alone in rendering it that way…

I don’t need to hear the apologetic argument or interpretation of this scripture, thank you. I already understand all those translations, and in fact I read koine greek fluently.

Quote:

I agree that our divine nature comes from Heavenly Father, but I do not agree that “this mind within is god. Or, at least ‘a god’.” Though the Psalm includes “I have said, Ye are gods,” it reminds us in the next verse “ye shall die like men.” I am not a god, and there is not a god within me, any more than Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States on the day of his birth; he only had the potential to become President.

then you are denying your own divine nature, you are saying you don’t have the holy ghost with you, and you’re pretty much misinterpreting what Jesus said in John 10 and Psalms 82. You can do that. I’m ok with it.

Quote:

The Light of Christ is a force, for want of a better word, instilled in each soul; it is not actually a god within our minds. The influence of the Holy Ghost can dwell in us, but I do not “agree that there is a god ‘in here'” in the context of your post.

ok. we differ.

Quote:

As I see it, our literal Father in Heaven, an actual Man who occupies space with His body, the One who listens to my prayers and has restored limbs and diverted disasters; Jesus Christ, the literal Son of God and Creator of the world, who came among us and literally took upon Himself the sins of mankind, and was crucified and resurrected; and the Holy Ghost are much less speculatively-defined than this god you describe. The testimonies of all the prophets, and millions of others, go far beyond speculation.

none of that is evidence. We all have a common, shared mental architecture — this is a fact. We have a modular architecture that allows for separate entities to function within our minds. Our consciousness is but one of them. It wasn’t until very, very recently that we understand — even as little as we do — the processing architecture of the mind/brain. Because we have a distinct processing architecture for our consciousness versus our non-conscious mind, we ‘perceive’ thoughts coming into us as inspiration that are not consciously put there. This is a fact of how the brain works, and has always worked thus. We know that primitive cultures tried to explain stuff through ‘spirits’ etc. What I’m saying, clearly, is that whatever spirits there may be, they work through this non-conscious mental architecture.

A simple book to start with is “On Being Certain”, which explains a lot of how this works.

Quote:

wayfarer wrote:

But I want to emphasize that we don’t know. I don’t know. It’s a model that helps me understand the world.

Frankly, I have grown weary of hearing this. Of course, anyone can rightfully say “I don’t know,” but it is another matter to say “we don’t know.” How many scriptures must be contradicted to really believe that it’s not possible to know?

So, you’ve grown weary of it. Sorry about that. However, as a professional ontologist and epistemologist, I have to observe what the evidence provides us: we do not know. even if you had a manifest revelation, and some body in a cloud of light and glory came to you and told you “I am Jesus Christ”, you still would not “know” that he is such.

This is what I do for a living: I set up national identification programs around the world where people are claiming that they are X, and my job is to make sure that the claims are what they say they are. Their “Identity” is the ontological problem: who are they really? And the second problem is epistemology: How do we know they are X? The factuality of identity is quite complex — suffice it to say that even the most physical witness is subject to deception. And the scriptures make this quite clear as well.

With respect to all the scriptures you quote about ‘knowing’, our language is insufficient to turn the word ‘faith’ into a verb. “I faith X” would be a more accurate understanding of how these scriptures work, especially in greek.

Quote:

No one can know what I do or not not know, besides myself and God. I would sooner believe this computer is an apparition than disbelieve in Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. They are more real to me than this chair I am sitting on.

With love and respect, this is what I think and know.

And I’m glad you do. You have a personal witness to it. You have faith, and that is a very good thing. Nothing I have said should take that away from you.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

So, you’ve grown weary of it. Sorry about that. However, as a professional ontologist and epistemologist, I have to observe what the evidence provides us: we do not know. even if you had a manifest revelation, and some body in a cloud of light and glory came to you and told you “I am Jesus Christ”, you still would not “know” that he is such.

This is what I do for a living: I set up national identification programs around the world where people are claiming that they are X, and my job is to make sure that the claims are what they say they are. Their “Identity” is the ontological problem: who are they really? And the second problem is epistemology: How do we know they are X? The factuality of identity is quite complex — suffice it to say that even the most physical witness is subject to deception. And the scriptures make this quite clear as well.

With respect to all the scriptures you quote about ‘knowing’, our language is insufficient to turn the word ‘faith’ into a verb. “I faith X” would be a more accurate understanding of how these scriptures work, especially in greek.

When I was 16 years old, I was a walking skeleton living on marijuana, LSD, and crystal meth. I was ready to die and had a plan to put that into effect. I was rescued by Jesus Christ and the Atonement changed my being. I know He lives, regardless of what the philosophies of ontology and epistemology say about it. And just to be clear, I have never had a psychotic episode – I have only been diagnosed with conditions like depression and ADD.

The scriptures do make it clear that physical witnesses can be deceiving. We can conclude, therefore, that while some are false, there must also be affirming physical witnesses. If they were all deceiving, there would be no need to study how to discern them because they could all be tossed out.

I have not studied Greek or Hebrew, but it doesn’t make sense to translate a phrase about faith into a phrase about knowing. They are very different things, as you say, and it’s hard to believe a better word was not available. I am interested to know if I am wrong about this. Anyway, neither the Book of Mormon nor the Doctrine & Covenants were translated from one of those languages and they contain many passages to support the possibility of knowing. More importantly, the witness God sends directly to me requires no translation.

I feel I am being called a liar and my experiences are being spit on when you write “we can’t know” or “we don’t know.” I may be oversensitive, and I do not think you intend any malice, but I ask that you respect me and any others with similar sentiments enough to refrain from presenting your view as a categorical fact that applies to all of us. It seems there is something about that not in harmony with the spirit of this forum. Writing “I can’t know” or “I don’t know” a hundred times a day would not bother me at all.

[Anonymous]

Shawn, nobody is calling you a liar. I mean that seriously: Nobody is calling you a liar. We all see things differently, and we all interpret and define some things (even specific words) differently. At the heart, that appears to be the primary disconnect going on here – that specific words are being defined and interpreted differently by different people. In other words, it’s just a case of perspectives differing and people talking past each other to a degree.

Again, that happens all the time, since words actually do have different possible meanings. Dictionaries are full of examples of this.

Fwiw, I see this basic issue as the heart of lots of disagreements when talking about religion with people of different denominations and religions. There is SO much where Mormon and other Christian beliefs acutally are very similar (or even identical), but, in so many cases, the words used and the meaning attached to those words vary so much that people end up thinking we disagree about many things when we actually agree. It can be maddening to me, but I make myself remember that much of it is a semantic difference in wording – while much of it really is a difference in view and belief.

If you haven’t done so yet, I would suggest reading my fairly recent post entitled, “Thestrals, Dementers, Boggarts and Crises of Faith”. It tries to address some of what I just wrote about how people simply see things differently.

[Anonymous]

I want to better explain myself to everyone here. First, regarding this:

Shawn wrote:

You wrote “What I talk about here does not deny or address the existence of any god outside of ourselves,” but what actually follows in your blog really seems to suggest otherwise, though I could be misunderstanding.

I have considered the following:

wayfarer wrote:

For the sake of this discussion, let’s consider that the only god with which we have to do resides within six inches between our own ears, yet is distinct from our own consciousness. Regardless of whether this is an interface to some power beyond, I think it is accurate to say that all perception of god happens within our own minds.

I take note of the words “For the sake of this discussion” and I reckon the second sentence acknowledges there could be “some power beyond.”

The next paragraph in the blog includes “In my impression, historically, the understanding and doctrines of an external god emerged from our conscious attempts to explain that which we do not understand.” At first, I understood that to mean that the very idea of an external god originated from the minds of man; that man actually invented an external god that did not exist before. I see now that I misinterpreted it, as it is possible, in this scenario, that an external god existed from the beginning and doctrines of that god later emerged from the minds of man.

So wayfarer was right; he did not write anything that precludes the existence of gods “out there.” I apologize for saying otherwise.

wayfarer wrote:

Shawn wrote:

I suppose it can be correct that “all perception of god happens within our own minds,” since all of our senses are registered in the mind, though the influence of the Holy Ghost can be felt in my entire being. This does not mean that God is merely in or around my mind. The idea that “the understanding and doctrines of an external god emerged from our conscious attempts to explain that which we do not understand” just doesn’t hit home for me.

fair enough. It doesn’t hit home for you. All truth is given to us — revealed as it were — line upon line and precept upon precept. And, that revelation occurs within the mind and heart. This is scriptural, and it is all I am saying.

I would agree that revelation is received in the mind and heart, but the source of true revelation is something different.

wayfarer wrote:

Shawn wrote:

I agree that our divine nature comes from Heavenly Father, but I do not agree that “this mind within is god. Or, at least ‘a god’.” Though the Psalm includes “I have said, Ye are gods,” it reminds us in the next verse “ye shall die like men.” I am not a god, and there is not a god within me, any more than Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States on the day of his birth; he only had the potential to become President.

then you are denying your own divine nature, you are saying you don’t have the holy ghost with you, and you’re pretty much misinterpreting what Jesus said in John 10 and Psalms 82. You can do that. I’m ok with it.

I may be wrong here. I reckon the Holy Ghost, or a part of it, or its influence, is sometimes within me (and I would like it to be more often). I do believe in our divine nature, but I do not see how we can be called gods now. We can be “heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” We have divine nature and the potential to be gods.

Regarding my reference to D&C 130:1-3, there is more to it than the part about the Father and Son dwelling in a man’s heart. I provided the alternative interpretations of Luke 17:21 for everyone here to consider. There was no way for me to discern wayfarer’s understanding of the verse and I was not aware he reads Koine Greek fluently. I was taken aback by the responses to these.

A header in the blog post reads “The Mind Within is the Only God With Which We Have to Do.” I wrote before that “I suppose it can be correct that ‘all perception of god happens within our own minds,’ since all of our senses are registered in the mind…” Perceiving God might be like my brain registering the sighting of an apple on a table. The perception of the apple happens in my mind, but the apple is actually sitting on the table outside of my mind. I like this from the King Follett Discourse:

Quote:

…What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another….

I will post more about the characteristics about God later.

[Anonymous]

Only problem is President Hinckley sort of discounted the follett thing on Larry king

[Anonymous]

johnh wrote:

Only problem is President Hinckley sort of discounted the follett thing on Larry king

Annnnd here we go again. Have fun Ray..

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Inside joke John.

I think this is Ray’s top pet peeve thread topic….well that and WOW.

I’m sure Ray will provide you with a many numerous links.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Nope, cwald. I agree. Pres. Hinckley did “discount” the first part of the couplet that summarized the former teaching that God, the Father, used to be mortal. He didn’t reject it explicitly, but he did discount it – especially as an active teaching.

What he didn’t discount in any way is the second part of the couplet, unless it’s seen as inseparable from the first part (which is wayfarer’s position, but not mine).

No links this time.

[Anonymous]

Actually, the words “God himself was once as we are now” are not part of what I wanted to convey. Let’s forget about that for now and consider just the following:

Quote:

…God…interferes with the affairs of man. God…is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!.. if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man…

[Anonymous]

shawn,

These are very insightful posts. I do not have time to respond now, but in the main, we are in agreement.

If you note that Joseph Smith’s understanding of god was on a trajectory, did he land in King Follett upon the exact definition of what god is? Do you think his revelation was a completed work and at this time we have a complete and clear definition of the human nature of god, or of man’s divine nature for that matter?

[Anonymous]

I believe God is omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and I would like to explain why. This is not eloquent or powerful in convincing others, but I hope it makes sense to some.

Omniscience

God has all knowledge that is possible to possess. There is nothing that that He doesn’t know.

Quote:

…It is not because the Lord is ignorant of law and truth that he is able to progress, but because of his knowledge and wisdom. The Lord is constantly using his knowledge in his work. And his great work is in bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. By the creation of worlds and peopling them, by building and extending, he progresses, but not because the fulness of truth is not understood by him (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, Ch. 1).

Omnipotence

God has all power that is possible to possess. There is no being in the universe with more power. However, I suppose He can do only things that agree with His principles (He can’t lie, for example). Maybe God does not have the power to take away a person’s agency due to some universal, eternal law, or it is just against His principles, but he still has all power that is possible to possess.

Omnibenevolence

This is the difficult one. It helps me to consider that I knew what I was getting myself into when I was preparing to come to earth. I can’t think of any great similes, but maybe I have some decent ones. No model or comparison is perfect, and mine are no exceptions.

If I needed surgery to repair a vital organ, I would learn what the surgery entails and sign forms allowing a doctor to perform it. While under general anesthesia, I would not be aware of what is happening or remember my life to that point. Complications may arise, making additional work necessary. I would not be able to stop what is happening and it may turn out worse than anticipated. Eventually, however, I would heal and be better for having had the surgery.

Or consider a professional football player; despite the risk of injury and pain, he signs a contract to play because he figures the compensation makes it worthwhile. Another player hits him illegally and he is injured. The pain and recovery are worse than anticipated. He is eventually able to play football again, but is not fully compensated until after he retires.

Why didn’t God make it so the surgery was completed without complications? Better yet, why didn’t He prevent the need for it in the first place? This is how Lehi explained it:

Quote:

For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so,..righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad…Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God…And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away…(2 Nephi 20).

Essentially, moral goodness requires agency. How would it be if a man were stopped mid-swing by a supernatural force as he attempted to harm another? It seems that would affect the need for faith.

It also helps for me to consider the perspective of humanity if different from God’s. Suffering in life seems to go on for too long, but the duration of life is really a small dot on the continuum of time. While we are rightfully disheartened when children are killed, God sees them suffer for a small moment and then receives them into His presence in glory and everlasting joy. Perfect justice and mercy will eventually be meted to everyone.

Omnipresence

Please excuse me for quoting from Mormon Doctrine (1966 version). While not everything in the book is accurate, a lot of it is. I just think this explains it well:

Quote:

God is omnipresent (Lectures on Faith, p. 9); he is the Immanent God, the indwelling Presence in all immensity. “In him we live, and move, and have our being.” (Acts 17:28.) “He is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever.” (D. & C. 88:41.)

It is by reference to this true doctrine of omnipresence that the sectarian world attempts to justify its false creeds which describe Deity as a vague, ethereal, immaterial essence which fills the immensity of space and is everywhere and nowhere in particular present. God himself, of course, is a personal Being in whose image man is created. (Gen. 1:26; 5:1; Moses 2:26; 6:9), but he is also an immanent Being, meaning that the light of Christ shines forth from him to fill all space. This “light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space – The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.” (D. & C. 88:12-13.)

[Anonymous]

With those disclaiming limitations, I agree with you Shawn. I see “God” as a condition, not one entity – godhood, to say it in Mormon terms. Thus, the condition of being we call “God” is being everything it is possible to be.

My only additional comment is that I also believe we are gods / godly when we are everything we can be at any given moment – and I believe we understand our limitations so poorly (we see them so unclearly through our dark glasses) that we have a hard time realizing we really are gods in a powerful and important way even with our weaknesses and imperfect state. I believe we are “growing gods” much more than “future gods”.

[Author]

Posts