Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ray, that’s a very interesting post that got me thinking. I am an adoptee (from birth) and I just recently have had somewhat of a desire to find out exactly who my birth parents are. I was kinda disappointed as well to find that the records that I do have contain hardly any information at all. If I get the time and energy, I just might search out my birth parents. I do not look anything like the rest of my family (plus I’m at least 6 inches taller than everyone!) and it would be really cool to see someone that I’m genetically related to and share common physiological characteristics. In my family, (the one I know and call family) they all share very common hereditary characteristics; my brother looks just like my mom and dad and so forth. Also the idea of “home” has always been very interesting to me. My parents split up when I was younger and I spent time going back and forth between parent’s houses and they both moved around quite a bit so I never felt like I had a specific place I could call “home”. The closet thing I’ve had to that in my life is a friends house whom I spent a lot of time with and in consequence gained another mother and a few more siblings. But still that isn’t “my home”. Now that I’m in college I move around at least yearly to different apartments and condos and I can’t exactly call those places home either. The Israelites all throughout time continuing into modern times have longed for their “home” and desperately search it and even place theological significance behind it. I guess in some way genealogy and temple work, can help us better understand this concept of family and home. Never thought of it like that before.. I just thought of this, perhaps faith in Jesus is what saves us or produces salvation and knowledge literally is salvation. that would go along with john 17:3 “this is life eternal that they might know thee the only true god and jesus christ whom thou hast sent” I equate the word faith with the modern definition of the word confidence. someone told me the other day that their personal definition of confidence was “action without thinking” in the church it is taught, correctly i believe, that “faith is a principle of action” sure we can believe that service is a great thing but if we sit on our butts all day and never really go out and love or serve or be charitable to someone that belief is just in vain and hasn’t done us any good. we must use faith to go out and “become” or “be” what we believe god wants us to be and the only way to do that is through faith. i think that faith is the bridge between hope and charity. it is often said in the church that doubt is the opposite of faith. i’m not sure i entirely believe this. hope precedes faith and the thinking process is the hope part in my mind. the scriptures say that this hope must be anchored on the other side of the veil. i have lots of doubts about what’s on the other side of the veil and so resolving them is a necessity preceding my action. once i have resolved all “current” doubt i can then act in faith to produce a result. that result, if done in good faith, is charity or at least “brotherly kindness” which leads to true love. i then think that the action, if repeated, refined, exercised, and perfected will grow from charity to knowledge. in 2 peter, the apostle exhorts us to make “our calling and election sure” and he gives the formula to do this. “add to your faith virtue….and to brotherly kindness charity. for if these be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfriuttful in the knowledge of our lord jesus christ. the brother of jared had faith before he saw god, but after he saw god he no longer had faith, he knew. so the repeated action of righteous living created for the brother of jared a perfected way of life until he saw god which imo according to 1 john 3:2 requires us to be like him so that we may see him as he is. he had “become” godlike through faith. so in a nutshell i think it probably goes something like this
reducing iniquity (we can all do this on the basic level because we all have the light of christ) leads to hope(mere belief, longing, expectations) which must be formulated in the mind (resolving doubt, questions, concerns) and anchored on the other side of the veil, leads to faith (confidence) which produces an action of charity (love) repeaded charity (love) refines that love until it is perfect and it becomes a knowledge and we become “godlike” (charitalbe, loving, serving, sacrificing)
sorry lots of jumbled thoughts that changed as i wrote this
Maple Leaf, Post Nicene Creed Christianity. Read the early christian creeds, that’s how they describe God and it was a direct result of Greek philosophy attempting to define what God was and what he wasn’t. I’m sure that the very earliest Christians weren’t as influenced by Greek metaphysics as a few centuries later. Great thought Heber13, I totally agree and I have done a lot of the same things. Some things that were “facts” to me aren’t anymore and have been replaced by new ones and will probably be replaced again. I guess we just have to focus on the “facts” like you said of our own personal testimony and conviction. You said we need to be converted, convince ourselves of these facts and that’s really the only way. My “testimony”, if you can even call it that, has changed dramatically and constantly over the last few years. Although I’ve realized that for as long back as I can remember there is one thing that I’ve always believed and it’s the only thing I feel comfortable saying “I know” is true. I know that there is right and there is wrong. Morals do indeed exist. I don’t know all of them perfectly, perhaps I only know very few of them in part, but they do exist and if I discover them and follow them my life will be better. The one “right” that I’ve found works every time and in any situation is charity – thinking outside yourself and truly loving another individual despite their shortcomings or failings or how you think it will effect yourself. I have found that this is a fact. I don’t know if it will always produce immediate happiness, in fact I’ve found most of the time it’s extremely difficult but it always works (somehow) There are many other things that I believe in strongly or have strong opinions about but these two things, especially the first are absolute facts in my mind. This is what I try to focus on and when I don’t my life just doesn’t seem to go quite as well. cookie, i’m not trying to challenge you on this issue but you should know that with the philosophical position you have taken regarding omniscience you are going to run into a lot of problems and eventually you’ll probably end up with the same God contained in early christian creeds which was a product of Greek absolutism – impassable, immutable, timeless, and essentially impersonal. most LDS don’t take their philosophical assumptions very far for if they did many of them would wind up believing something completely against what Joseph Smith was trying to correct with the restoration. If you continue to take the stance that omniscience means knowing everything including the future you will wind up creating serious problems surrounding free will. It takes a lot to explain in detail what I’m taking about but here’s an article to consider: http://blakeostler.com/docs/Absurdities.pdf Blake Ostler’s three part series “Exploring Mormon Thought” are also a fantastic read, especially book 1 & parts of 2 if you’re still interested in the above topic
Rix, I think that’s exactly what I was trying to say. I do believe that there are objective factual eternal principles, obviously no one knows them all except God and he is the one who wouldn’t tell us to do anything against those. Of course I’m also assuming that God is real and omniscient. But you’re right, because we all see through the glass darkly many of our core beliefs are subjective and could possibly even be wrong. It’s through trial and error that we learn for ourselves which are true and which aren’t which could result in different conclusions from one person to the next. I was just lamenting over the fact that I have to learn them that way instead of a full-proof method that wouldn’t cause pain and sorrow, but that’s a part of life. This question brings up a lot in my mind. There is a recent youtube video of a man who is standing outside the SLC temple dressed in his complete temple outfit. He says that he’s doing it cause God told him to and doesn’t really know any other reason. Why must everything be so subjective? Is that necessarily a bad thing? I don’t know. I wish their was a sure-proof, objective way of finding spiritual truths but there isn’t always one. I’m sure God could tell us all to do something that’s maybe against official church standards because a lot of the standards in my mind are just generalities made by people with a lot of experience not necessarily divine mandates, but I don’t think that God would tell us to do something that is against an eternal principle I was just letting anyone with a traditional LDS faith know that the letter exists. I disagree with BRM for the same reasons you stated, it goes against all reason and logic. Just cause he is a apostle means nothing to me at this point. Apostle is just a calling just like I’m the single ward’s photographer. Brigham Young stated once (paraphrasing) that while he was just a mere elder he would frequently object to what GA were saying and said that he had the right to correct them if they were wrong and that any mere elder now had the right and responsibility to correct him being the prophet if he was wrong. EE in my opinion was at least more correct than BRM, it’s a shame that BRM couldn’t see that. Truth isn’t someone’s opinion,even God’s. Like I said doctrine isn’t arbitrary, it’s eternal and a fact regardless of whether or not you want to accept it. “It must be hard for those,..who take authority as truth instead of truth as authority”
I love this, I’ll have to read more Tolle. I do, however, believe that there are religious facts. Although I see most of scripture and history of our church as just stories, there are a few doctrines which I believe in which I personally know to work for me, therefore they are “facts” in my world. They work like electricity, my computer, the stove, etc. This is obviously subjective and unique to each person but really I don’t know exactly how electricity works. I don’t know the facts around it per say but I do know that it is a fact of life that I turn the switch and electricity travels through the wires and turns on my light. I also know that if I have hate inside of me I will be upset, angry, and in a bad mood. I know that I want to be happy so I try to put love and charity in my life. That might not be able to be proven by the scientific community but it is a formula proven by the sciences in my heart so to say. I think the only way that I can make morality real to me is if I consider morals as facts. This makes perfect sense in the LDS context because we believe that doctrines and morals are laws as true as gravity and that they aren’t just arbitrary rules invented by God but actually exist outside and even before God. The only difference is that at the present moment we can prove gravity scientifically, we can only prove morals and doctrines to ourselves. So applying this perspective back to what Tolle said if we look at morals as just arbitrary rules and regulations that we must follow to not make God mad at us then we create stories about how God struck down so and so for disobeying such and such and we’re in constant fear of displeasing God. But when we look at the doctrines as facts of life, God is real, I do have agency, Jesus is really there to help me, then we can do what Tolle is saying and be the awareness behind the facts – I am in a bad situation in life, therefore I will use Jesus’ atonement to get me out of it. Of course this causes the biggest problems in life as well when we have the wrong facts about say religion. If I really do think that it’s a fact God is telling me to destroy the Canaanites well that’s not very good for the Canaanites. Also if I really do think that gravity doesn’t exist and I can jump off any cliff and fly it’s not gonna be too good for me either. So getting the facts right is the real journey and it is pragmatic. Through trial and error we discover these things for ourselves just like Einstein found physical facts through trial and error.
There is a great article written by Eugene England titled, “The Perfection and Progression of God: Two Spheres of Existence and Two Modes of Discourse” that addresses your exact question. Basically the jist of it is that God can know everything and still be progressing at the same time. He starts his essay contrasting the many seemingly contradictory statements by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and many other prophets and apostles that seem to say either that God is progressing or that God knows everything. He then takes the task of showing how both of these statements can be true. He also attempts to show how the term “eternal progression” has changed over mormon history from meaning what we’re talking about now to only referring to increasing the number of his spirit children. Although sometimes early church leaders were referring to the modern church’s definition of the term most of the time they were talking about learning new truths.
Essentially in Mormon theology and in a nutshell it would work like this: D&C 93 states that all intelligence is within it’s own sphere therefore God can know everything pertaining to this sphere of existence and “know everything” because it’s everything we’re capable of knowing, and yet still be progressing in his knowledge in other spheres. A real life example of this is that I could know everything there is to know about algebra and at the same time have a limited but progressing knowledge of calculus. Nothing that I newly learn in calculus will contradict or destroy what I’ve learned in algebra and so although I’m still a novice in calculus I’m still perfect in algebra.
I should also note that Apostle Bruce R. McConkie thought that this paper was false and apostate even so much that he took the time to personally send Eugene England a letter explaining why he was wrong. A copy of this letter can easily be found on the internet.
From a philosophical standpoint this is a very important question. It encompasses also the question of God’s foreknowledge. In order to understand what people are saying when they ask this question we must define the terms used. Does “all knowledge” or “omniscience” mean simply knowing everything or does it mean knowing everything that is possible to know? I would agree with the latter. If you just give the blanket statement that God knows everything and there isn’t anything he doesn’t know it becomes very problematic. If this is the case then it is usually also assumed that God perfectly knows our future as well.
In a mormon context that would mean that even in the pre-mortal existence God knew exactly what kingdom of glory I’d eventually qualify for. It also suggests that Jesus suffered for each of our sins specifically because he knew exactly which sins that I would commit. It also means that God wouldn’t need to intervene in my life because he has already pre-planned his every move. I don’t know if we’d really feel comfortable with that position as you realize the implications of it. It virtually eliminates free agency all together. If God knows that I am going to rob the 7/11 at 11pm tonight then what God knows is a fact and God only knows facts as they are or will be. God cannot know an incorrect fact because that would make it so that he didn’t know everything. Therefore at 11 pm tonight I must rob the 7/11 or else that would render part of God’s knowledge incorrect. I therefore am left with no choice as to what I can or cannot do and without agency regardless of the fact that I have no idea what will happen in the future.
Therefore I am lead to believe that God knows everything that can be known but future contingent events, such as the results of agency, are not knowable and so therefore God can only estimate (albeit with incredible accuracy) the future but he is not 100% certain of it. He does however know every possibility of the future as he can foretell every decision I am capable of making. This is much more comforting as he may look at me and say John’s got a 10% chance of making it to the Celestial kingdom so he probably won’t make it but I’m gonna do everything in my power to help him get there and defeat the odds.
Therefore God is also progressing in knowledge in the sense that he learns the certainty of the future as it happens just like you and me (albeit again with much better memory retention than any of us) and from that knowledge he can plan accordingly and intervene where appropriate.
There are obviously a few problems with this position as well which I haven’t addressed, maybe some of you will pick up on them, but I do believe that for me taking this view point provides me a whole lot more comfort and makes me feel in a lot more control of my life
I like the way you put that rix. that’s what it is all about, unconditional love, love god, love your neighbor, by the way that last scripture isn’t qualified in anyway, it’s universal to me d&c 89 has some interesting passages that either aren’t read literally or we have just decided to skip over some of them. for example, vs 16-17 are talking about grains and their many uses. at the end of vs. 17 it states “…and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.” correct me if i’m wrong, but isn’t beer and other alcoholic beverages made specifically from barley? what other “mild drink” made from barley could he possibly be referring to? and if you imply that the comma doesn’t apply here and should be applied to “all usefull animals” then you’re telling me that god wants us to give beer to our horses? i don’t think so. from what i’ve read joseph smith was known to have a beer or two on ocassion and even smoked tabacco once or twice. also did joseph smith ever define “hot drinks” as being coffee and tea? i know it was officially accepted later in church history, i think i’ve heard under joseph f. smith, but did he ever claim to receive revelation as to this definition? coffee and tea have both been thought of to provide health benefits. i’ve seen that coffee’s claim to health remidies has been disputed but tea, especially green tea, is, i believe, universally accepted as beneficial. again correct me if i’m wrong, i’m just shooting stuff out there that i’ve heard, i’m not a md.
the part of eating meat sparingly and only in times of famine or cold is definently not practiced. you can be 400 lbs and totally out of shape and not drink coffee, tea, or alcohol, and still get a tr. there is something wrong with that. shouldn’t we also avoid excessive use of pharmacetical drugs? don’t mormon women take more anti-depressants than anywhere else in the nation? i’m sure pharmaceuticals are needed at times but from what i’ve seen where i live (happy valley) it’s total overkill. personally, i don’t care if joseph smith tried to sneak in the barley vs. as meaning beer, i know that it’s unhealthy. i believe that god has given us a good body and a sound mind and anything that distorts that or attempts to alter it is not ordained of god. we should seek to keep our bodies and minds in the best shape possible by eating right and exercising. that’s my word of wisdom. although i heard once from a jewish scholar answer a question about why jews don’t eat pork and he responded by saying that he loves the fact that god cares about what he is eating. so that’s a valid point as well.
there are a ton of scriptures that support this view. the first book i read, which in my opinion is the easiest to understand and my personal favorite, violence and the sacred by gil bailie, uses scripture references about half the time while the other half uses cultural references. the other books i’ve read rely almost entirely on scripture.i guess the reason why girard has raised some controversy is because he is christian and has applied his theories to the bible.
