posted
It might help explain why what Cain did was so bad. I mean, after all, plenty of people murder in cold blood and don't get the scolding he got. It wasn't *just* what he did, it was what was in his heart. Rotten to the core.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nah - I doubt anyone reported anything in that thread, and it certainly wouldn't have been entirely deleted even if someone did.
Frankly, I didn't like that thread very much and was glad it was gone. Mostly because it was a repetition of past threads that turn out the same way with the same participants. I found very little of it informative and even more of it offensive and hate filled.
quote:so, is it actually a fair representation of the LDS view of God that God is quantitatively and not qualitatively different in intelligence than us? That seems like a very odd way to talk about a being who is supposedly omniscient. DO LDS see omniscience as being a matter of just accumulating enough facts and not of an incomprehensible different order and type of intelligence?
No. God is considered both quantitatively and qualitatively more intelligent than mortals. This is because we are stuck in time and space with our way of thinking. God sees things beyond time and space as an eternal round. What was is, what is will be, and everything in between. It isn't about enough FACTS, but the ability to use those facts properly. A misapplication of those facts will keep you from achieving divinity. I can know everything there is to know, but if I can't use it than its of no use and perhaps even dangerous. Thus, if God was a liar or wicked or whatever, than he would no longer be God no matter how much information he aquired.
quote:The most intelligent being would just arrive at that level first.
I don't agree with this statement. I don't think God arrived at a particular level above a
certain level. I believe He arrived at THE preeminant level. Now, if He is able to go to
even higher levels is debatable, I think, but He arrived at a level that for whatever reason
makes Him what He is -- Period. He is, to me, trying hard to allow us to arrive at the same
level. Beyond that level of intelligence does not increase His, or for that matter our,
Godness.
I just don't see Free Will as having anything to do with deterministic congniscience in God.
No matter how much God can determine the outcomes of persons, they still are allowed to act
upon their own inclinations. For instance, God knew that Cain was a liar even before he was
born. He even knew, from LDS theology, that Satan would tempt Eve (and even counted on it,
using Satan's actions to forward God's plans). Still, God did NOT interfere or force them to
be who they were. Rather, he allowed them to be themselves knowing what they would do. I
personally think that lack of free will is related to determinism only if there is
interference and force involved. God didn't choose for them, they chose for themselves, with
God recognizing the paths that would be taken. By the way, one of my favorite Book of Mormon
scriptures, Alma Chapter 13, is a subtle play on the free will and determinism paradox.
quote:1) to receive a physical body, and 2) to be tested to see if we would choose good
above evil in a mortal state.
I think you have missed a third and relevant reason, although it could be related to number
two. We are here to enter into our own Covenant Family relationships the same as God already
belongs.
quote:I thought that, according to LDS theology, God's power came from his knowledge and is
an intrinsic part of who he is. If this is so, what gives God either the position or the
ability to do anything about this power in other people who would have the same
knowledge?
Very involved and complicated question. God's power may come from his intelligence (not
just his knowledge as i have explained above), but he gains his postion by the relationships
he creates. He is our God by way of the fact that He is our Father. We are related to Him
and therefore subject to Him because of that relationship. Thus, no matter how much power
another might gain, they are subject to God as a Parent. We may become God's ourselves, but
that can never supercede that our God is our Father.
And God is not God because He won. He is God because He followed the Laws of the Universe
that make Him God. He is trying on this planet to teach us those same laws, directly and
indirectly. If He didn't follow those laws, than he would no longer be God. Its not so much
giving us the keys and seeing if we are worthy of driving (although that is part of it).
Rather, it is helping us build our own engine a part at a time as much as we are capable of
until we can drive.
quote:What's the difference between a mortal body and an exalted one? I've heard the term
used a couple of times, but I don't know how to fit it into our discussion here, especially
with regards to the limits inherent in corporeal forms.
I think this is the problem you have been running into as a philosophical discussion. See, a
mortal body is what in LDS theology we are currently possessing on Earth. An Exalted Body is
so far above our present condition that all your ideas about IQ and Intelligence might be
irrelavant. In a word, it is both the body and the spirit (and not just one or the other) in
its most perfect and ideal state. It is an existance that is incorruptable and perhaps even
unimaginable. That is partly why this discussion has been so agreeable even if to you it
seems you have touched upon sensitive theological beliefs. Mormon doctrine leaves the
possible condition of God's corporality completely into question. The discussion you have
had is similar to many that have taken place within the faith.
quote:The main problem that I see with that argument is that the only source of information
we have on this is God. It's a circular argument. How do we know that God isn't
lying?
We don't know. In fact, the scriptures seem to indicate that believing that God doesn't lie is an article of Faith. I have run into several scriptures, in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, that show that the answer to that question is decided on a personal level. Perhaps it is because Faith in God is, by definition, Trust.
quote:But didn't Satan lie to Eve, way before Cain was born?
According to LDS theology there is no such thing as before being born. Cain and Satan always
were. As Spirits, Satan decided to openly rebel against God's plan of mortality. He believed
he had a better idea than God, possibly knowing that he didn't. Cain, as a liar even before
he was born, didn't rebel against God's plan of mortality long enough to be sent to Earth.
In other words, Where Satan was truthful enough to show his disfavor of God's plan long
before mortality, Cain kept quiet and allowed himself to come to Earth and then rebel.
By the way, I don't know how much I believe this. He might have agreed with the plan enough
to come to Earth, but not to the point of following God once mortal. He might have been a
liar about other things -- but not his desire to come to Earth. Besides, I think he will end
up in the same fate as Satan and forever lose his body; and worse.
posted
I am not completely sure how I ended up with the above text format, but not sure how to correct it. Wasn't intentional.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
skillz, So if we have full knowledge equivilent with God when we make this convenant and enter the veil of ignorance, don't we know how it's going to turn out? If so, why would the many people who apparently fail this test choose to undergo it?
- Quick aside on the nature of determinism. Determinism doesn't just mean that the outcome is fixed. The idea that a non-temporally bounded entity, such as in this case both God and we would be, has already observed the outcome of something doesn't mean that it is deterministic. A deterministic system is one where a given input invariably leads to a determined output. As long as humans have free will, they can't be described as deterministic, as the laws governing their behavior are not absolute. There is at least a part of them (the free willing part) that exists outside these laws and thus introduces indeterminancy into the system.
From a non-temporally bounded standpoint, the outcome of something is known because - if we impose an inappropriate temporal standpoint - it has already happened. In pretty much the same way that our own knowledge of history doesn't take away from the free will of the historical people, this knowledge wouldn't take away our future free will. Or at least that's the way I see it.-
As I see it, one of the points our discussion has centered around is the point at which we (or God back when he was like us) would go from the limited state that we now exist in into the "exalted" state that is his present and our possible future. Whether it be knowledge or wisdom or experience or corporeal form or whatever, I'm not sure that this transformation is logically possible. Skillz has come back with saying that we already have these requisite infinite qualities (and thus no actual transformation is necessary) but that we perceive our current state as limited because of the "veil of ignorance". - Interestingly enough, this acutally bears some interesting similarities to certain schools of Buddhist thought. - So, right now, we're looking at the possible pre-veil states and the consequences of this veil. I think it's an interesting conversation, mostly due to the thought that skillery is putting in.
I understand that this is a religious thing for mnay people and I have no wish to be offensive, but I do have to say that I don't find the "it just is", magical thinking arguments interesting. I'm a quasi-Daoist and an admirer to William of Occam, so I'm on board with the idea that logic is insufficient to describe absolute reality, but I think that it's generally important for productive and evocative discussion. So, I want to emphasize, I'm not ignoring your points because of a lack of respect, but because they're pretty much outside the bounds of what I'm looking at and I don't see them going anywhere that I’m interested in.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So if we have full knowledge equivalent with God when we make this convenant and enter the veil of ignorance, don't we know how it's going to turn out? If so, why would the many people who apparently fail this test choose to undergo it?
I believe that the only way for us to have obtained a body of physical matter was to agree to certain terms or to at least show support for a specific plan. A physical body must have been pretty enticing because we chose to get one even though we must have known that mortal physical bodies suffer pain, sickness, and death. Physicality may have offered the promise of a whole new range of things to act upon and a new range of stimuli to respond to. I don't think bodiless spirits have warm, fuzzy feelings, and I don't think they experience the joys of digging in the dirt or climbing trees.
I don't know much about determinism, but there is the notion among some LDS that God provides the optimum environment and combination of variables in this life for each of us, calculated to give us the maximum potential for growth. Whether we make it to godhood or not, we will all be better off for the experience and will all achieve some level of glory.
We may have known the outcome in advance, and God may have known the outcome in advance, but surely there was the realization that only God had the power to take us from where we were as bodiless spirits to the level of glory we envisioned for ourselves. And so trusting in God to give us the right mix of variables, tuned to our individual personalities, we took the plunge.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
skillz, I'm not sure that answers my question. You seem to be setting up a description where people don't fail this test or that failing the test leads to better consequences than never taking it. Is that an accurate description of what you're trying to say? If not, than I'm still wondering why people would choose to take a test that they know they are going to fail?
Also, if there is knowledge that people don't have, then we've gotten away from having absolute knowledge before we take on corporeal bodies. That's fine, but then we're abandoning the postulate that moving from a limited state to an absolute one is impossible, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Squicky, Somebody in this thread said something about a "test," but I never bought into that, and as far as I know, LDS doctrine doesn't specifically state that we are here to be tested.
I see it as more of an exercise. There is no pass/fail. LDS doctrine says that we are here to learn by our own experience. I think we are talking about corporeal (I like that word) experience. Everybody will be better off by going through the exercise.
Now here's the tricky part: it would seem that corporeal experience was not part of the absolute knowledge package. Is that possible? Can you know ahead of time what a fuzzy kitty feels like? Describe the flavor of salt. Does everybody perceive salt or the color blue the same way? Perhaps there is another kind of knowledge that can't be known absolutely.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry about that. "Testing" seemed to be the dominant metaphor that LDS use when talking about this. I shouldn't have automatically ascribed it to you.
I don't see why sense experience should be included in absolute knowledge. It's pretty equivilent to the workings of a computer. Input A traverls down electrical pathways and is processed by the brain to produce sensation B.
If we're talking about the more, shall we say, spiritual sensations of these things, like what it means to feel a fuzzy kittty, that's pretty much the type of absolute knowledge I'm really talking about. I can learn what it means for me in various situations, but that doesn't translate into absolute knowledge unless I know what it means to all possible entities in all possible situations. And I just don't see how we can go from just learning what feeling a fuzzy kitty means to me in some situations to knowing it absolutely. And to even begin this, we'd need to understand all the inifite paths there are to experiencing something.
It's like the old blind men and the elephant (they each feel different parts and so conclude that it's a different thing), but with infinite facets and also with infinite differening perspectives.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
