quote: He believed that ALL people should be saved EQUALLy. It sounded nice, but there were serious problems. First, mortals had to give up ALL free agency. Essentially they would become eternal servants. Second, God would have to give up His place and give ALL acknowledgements to Satan.
I don't quite understand why these two criteria are essential to saving all people equally.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And what's wrong with being in heaven but be unprogressed? isn't it better then being a little progressed but in a worse place then where you started in? and stay there forever?
I get it that if I know the truth (as knowledge and not faith) and still turns away from it then I won't be in heaven with the rest of you guys. But that is still very harsh, in the millions of years to come I can change my mind but won't have an option, it seems cruel to condemn (hope you got what this word suppose to be, will be nice if someone told me how to spell it correctly) a spirit for eternity because of one very poor choice?
Posts: 34 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>And what's wrong with being in heaven but be unprogressed?
It would like being four years old forever. As wonderful as my children are, as children, I don't want to stop them from growing up.
>>But that is still very harsh, in the millions of years to come I can change my mind but won't have an option, it seems cruel to condemn (hope you got what this word suppose to be, will be nice if someone told me how to spell it correctly) a spirit for eternity because of one very poor choice?
I don't think spirits will be condemned for one single poor choice, or even a multitude of poor choices. I think spirits will go where they go because that is where they choose to go-- that is the law they choose to live.
It isn't cruelty, it's justice.
And obviously, we're going to have to disagree here.
But have a nice slice of virtual pie on me, anyway.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: "Condemn” is the proper spelling.
cool, I have to say that english spelling doesn't always make sense and you have to learn it on a case by case basis, it's fine when you read because you don't actually pay attention to the spelling if it's a farmiliar word, but writing is a very different story. But the more you write the better your english will be.
Posts: 34 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK so I get the differnce between the devil and god accoring to LDS. But what is Satan's purpose now? if he's not really "evil" but merely disagree with god about what's best for the sould of men, why would he go about the tempt us all to sin? out of spite (again not sure if that's how you spell that word, I think I learnd that word from a Seinfeld episode when he tries to return something to a store out of spite. anyone alse think that show it WAY over-rated?).
Posts: 34 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>But what is Satan's purpose now? if he's not really "evil" but merely disagree with god about what's best for the sould of men, why would he go about the tempt us all to sin? out of spite
No, Satan really is evil. Unequivocably, even Tresopax-proof, evil. He seeks to make humanity miserable.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to admit two faults: In my first post I implied that Joseph Smith didn't teach that God was once as man is- turns out he did but not in the context of canonized scripture. I don't know why I continue to hedge on that.
Also, this isn't a fault so much as that I've come around to dkw's idea of evil somewhat more, that it exists but is not necessary. It is not required in the cosmic scheme, but there just happens to be a most selfish being and that is the devil.
I'm coming in on the end of things a bit here, but if there is no God and we are not purposed to be his fellow servants and co-heirs, then we are nothing but products of determinism on the molecular level and are slaves anyway, neh? I mean, is there a third option?
I have been thinking about this idea of free will a lot this week. But right now I choose to shower and be on time for work.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: then we are nothing but products of determinism on the molecular level and are slaves anyway, neh?
Except that as your "self" in that scenario is nothing but the product of genetics and environment, you are as "free" as your "self" can be. In other words, your "self" makes choices that may well be determined by physical law -- but as your self can only make choices according to physical law, that's a meaningless criticism.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
No, Satan really is evil. Unequivocably, even Tresopax-proof, evil. He seeks to make humanity miserable.
But he was once an angel, right? So how did he became evil and why? If it's to pose temptations to men, then he works with god as his counter-part, and wouldn't that make god evil also by agreeing to this? I mean he can get rid of the devil in a second but he won't. The devil seems to me like a way to clean god out of any blame, everything that is good is god and everything that is evil is Satan. If the idea of life is to progress I don't see the need for a devil. If our hard experiences are here to teach us then they are not evil at all, only seems evil to us here in a physical body who can't understand them. If life didn't have temptations and hardship it wouldn't be worth living and we all still be upthere, so why give Satan the credit for our most powerful lessons?
just thought it should appear on this thread: Posts: 34 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
HOW, I don't know; WHY, I think because he rejected love of his fellow spirit brothers and sisters in exchange for love of power over them. If you've read Phillip Pullman's masterful 'His Dark Materials,' the God character in the final book is a lot like the Mormon concept of Satan.
>>If it's to pose temptations to men, then he works with god as his counter-part, and wouldn't that make god evil also by agreeing to this? I
I don't think that the one (tempting men) leads to the other (co-operation with God).
>>I mean he can get rid of the devil in a second but he won't.
I go back and forth over this subject. What it boils down to, I think, is that Satan is eventually God's tool in the same way Judas was God's tool. I'm not entirely comfortable with the connotations, and I really haven't explored them all that deeply, but it jives with my world view this afternoon.
EDIT: By 'tool,' I don't mean that Satan and Judas were predestined to do what they did; I believe that they acted freely. But God also acted freely to bring their evil acts to accomplish much good.
Again-- I'm not really comfortable with all that this implies, but that's my explanation for right now.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But he was once an angel, right? So how did he became evil and why?
In LDS theology, Satan in the beginning was no more an 'angel' than any of us humans were before we lived on the earth. We are all spiritual children of God.
Satan was a particularly loud mouthed one who seemed to not really comprehend God's plan, or the need for suffering and personal progression, and instead of having Faith in his Father, chose to rebel against him, because he thought his plan was better. He also wanted all the credit for the final outcome - he was full of pride.
The problem is, his plan WOULDN'T work.
Nonetheless, He got a bunch of his (and our) brothers and sisters together to rally against the Father's plan. They refused to submit themselves to their plan, so God said, "Okay." - and now they don't ever get the opportunity to get bodies and to progress like we all can.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:"He believed that ALL people should be saved EQUALLy. It sounded nice, but there were serious problems. First, mortals had to give up ALL free agency. Essentially they would become eternal servants. Second, God would have to give up His place and give ALL acknowledgements to Satan."
I don't quite understand why these two criteria are essential to saving all people equally.
I don't know exactly either. In Mormonism the answer to your question would be a mystery, although the supposition is that Satan's plan actually wouldn't work anyway. God's way, in Mormon doctrine, was a tried and true program. Satans was more of a gamble.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"He believed that ALL people should be saved EQUALLy. It sounded nice, but there were serious problems. First, mortals had to give up ALL free agency. Essentially they would become eternal servants. Second, God would have to give up His place and give ALL acknowledgements to Satan."
I don't quite understand why these two criteria are essential to saving all people equally.
I don't know exactly either. In Mormonism the answer to your question would be a mystery, although the supposition is that Satan's plan actually wouldn't work anyway. God's way, in Mormon doctrine, was a tried and true program. Satans was more of a gamble.
Actually, I think that while the former (removal of agency) was part of Satan's Plan, the latter (all the glory) was something Satan just wanted.
Satan didn't like the idea aknowledged in the plan that some would fall away from path leading to the Ultimate Goal. This would happen because they had the right to choose - agency.
Satan wanted to remove all possibility of 'falling astray', so he submitted his plan, that to take away that nasty little agency, and basically force everyone through the factory-line-on-the-road-to-exaltation. And because everyone would be saved, in Satan's mind, it was his plan that allowed for it, so he wanted all the Glory.
The problem was, and one that Satan wouldn't seem to concede, was that he didn't get the point. Physically following the rules and the letter of the law wasn't what leads to the progression that results in readiness for exaltation - choosing to follow the path in the face of temptation and struggles was. Faith, the "principle of power", which is integral to the progression, would be completely absent in Satan's plan.
The plan simply wouldn't achieve the goal that Satan claimed it would. It would result in a bunch of non-progressable slaves of Satan.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be frank, I would say that the two opposing ideas were between Divine Democracy and Divine Totaltarianism. Also, God wanted to give us a chance to become like Him, but Satan wanted us to become His.
I have to agree that the first thing was about taking away free agency, while the second part was just Satan trying to supplant God. I have a feeling that it takes a prideful individual to come up with the totoltarian plan.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of the terminology used by Mormonism appears to be similar to what we get in the Eastern Orthodox church in Greece, Russia and a few slavonic and baltic states, for example I believe Mormons worship in Temples NOT churches. In Orthodoxy the worship is also in a Neos (temple in Greek), due to the ancient Pagan relationship which never really wore off. Also reading through the semantic differences between Mormonism and British Anglicanism, which I have been witness to, are very similar to the semantic differences to Orthodoxy and Anglicanism.
I was wondering if some of the core differences between the Eastern and Western Churches (Catholicism, Anglicanism, etc...) are also transferred into Mormonism, such as the Church being separate to the State: In Greece for example Christians are alien to the idea of considering religous arguments as part of politics and the state. That is why the Eastern Church exists in many countries with very opposed political aims, ie. Russia and the ex-soviet states. Also are all clergy in Mormonism of equal importance - no head of the church? This was, of course, one of the key splits between the East and West in the early Medieval Period, as well as clegical marriage.
If there are key similarities which were brought back in can someone tell me why? Or conversely, if these similarities are solely semantic why did the first mormons make such a point of using different terminology??
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Θησεύς (Theseus): A lot of the terminology used by Mormonism appears to be similar to what we get in the Eastern Orthodox church in Greece, Russia and a few slavonic and baltic states, for example I believe Mormons worship in Temples NOT churches. In Orthodoxy the worship is also in a Neos (temple in Greek), due to the ancient Pagan relationship which never really wore off. Also reading through the semantic differences between Mormonism and British Anglicanism, which I have been witness to, are very similar to the semantic differences to Orthodoxy and Anglicanism.
I was wondering if some of the core differences between the Eastern and Western Churches (Catholicism, Anglicanism, etc...) are also transferred into Mormonism, such as the Church being separate to the State: In Greece for example Christians are alien to the idea of considering religous arguments as part of politics and the state. That is why the Eastern Church exists in many countries with very opposed political aims, ie. Russia and the ex-soviet states. Also are all clergy in Mormonism of equal importance - no head of the church? This was, of course, one of the key splits between the East and West in the early Medieval Period, as well as clegical marriage.
If there are key similarities which were brought back in can someone tell me why? Or conversely, if these similarities are solely semantic why did the first mormons make such a point of using different terminology??
To answer your questions
Temples: Mormons go to chapels in order to attend church once a week just like anybody else. Although they do schedule other activities of a more social nature at the church, there is always sacrament meeting every sunday. Temples are entirely seperate buildings where specific ordinances are carried out. Similar to the temples in biblical times. People in the bible went to here the rabbai at the synagog and the attended the temple worship on specific dates to perform specific ordinances.
As for seperatiion of church and state. Mormons believe that the church is "the kingdom of God on earth" and that one day the church will be the soveriegn power over all the earth. BUT they also believe in being "subject to kings, majestrates.....and in upholding and sustaining the law." Therefore until the day that God himself comes down on earth and proclaims his kingdom the church instructs its members to keep and uphold all the laws of their respective countries. So though Mormons support legislation that is in allignment to their own beliefs, they also believe in granting everyone the freedom to of religion indeed we say, "Let them worship how where or what they may."
There is CERTAINLY a hierarchy within church leadership. We have a prophet supported by 2 councelors, as well as 12 apostles. Below them there are other quorums and positions that relay the instructions given them by these leaders. Descisions within the church are usually made on a group basis rather than an individual BUT the prophet has the final word as he speaks for God. One notable difference is that the prophet although loved and respected greatly is not venerated, or worshipped. When an apostle visits people shake their hands and converse with them without feeling any sort of inpropriety. Its important to Mormons to respect their leaders, but it is also considered important that leaders are our equals at least in the eyes of God. Lastly within Mormonism they have what is called a "Lay Clergy" which means NONE of the clergy are paid for their service. From the lowest bishop up to the Prophet none of these men are paid for their service. In the interest of accuracy it is true that some of the leaders spend ALL their time in the service of God and our given money to support their travel and lodging expenses but that is it. Every one of them can and do marry women, there is no vow of celebacy within the church except for the 19-25 year old missionaries around the world who vow to give up 2 years of their lives to the Lord.
I am not QUITE sure how to answer your question of terminology as I did not quite understand it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The necessity of a tempter is really just a simple question of balance. If man is placed into a neutral state (a requisite for being allowed to make choices)then God could not act to "attract" man to the good side- to do so would mean that man was no longer in a neutral arena, but rather one in which the field was tilted toward God. With Satan acting as a counterweight, God can attract man toward doing good while Satan can attract man to doing evil- as long as man is not forced into following one or another then the choice is his.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, that opposition is key to agency is pretty well established in 2 Ne 2. The is evil by default, but it is not "necessary" in my view. If it were, then God would bear the guilt for creating it.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If man is placed into a neutral state (a requisite for being allowed to make choices)then God could not act to "attract" man to the good side- to do so would mean that man was no longer in a neutral arena, but rather one in which the field was tilted toward God.
Leaving aside the issue of whether or not the field is tilted toward God in this scenario -- and I submit that, unless Satan is as powerful as God, it still is -- I'm not sure why God would not want to tilt the field in His favor, since there's no actual downside.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure why God would not want to tilt the field in His favor, since there's no actual downside.
If one of the prerequisites to accomplish his goals is that people's choices be as balanced as possible, and that they NOT simply follow Him around like a row of ducklings, then there WOULD be a downside.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course. And then everyone who fails to achieve Heaven is, of course, a necessary component of His plan. But we should remember, then, that their failure to achieve salvation is ultimately His fault, and moreover an integral part of His plan.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If "heaven" is impossible to achieve without free personal choice, how is it God's fault if He doesn't intervene, or makes sure to counterbalance His intervention, and someone doesn't make it? Wasn't it their decision, and not His? Was there anything He could have done to MAKE them go to "heaven" under those conditions?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: If "heaven" is impossible to achieve without free personal choice, how is it God's fault if He doesn't intervene, or makes sure to counterbalance His intervention, and someone doesn't make it?
Scott R frequently points out when we have conversations about predestination that he knows his children will ask for candy when he takes them past the checkout aisle. Let's say that Scott R is not an omnipotent God; like the Mormon God, he has no control over what happens to his kids when they ask for candy, and has no control over the candy that's there. But let's say that Scott R is one one-hundredth as powerful as the Mormon God, and could raise his children so that they never encounter candy and thus never desire it; he could also sign up for Peapod, and thus never have to bring his children through the candy aisle.
Let's also say that the consequences of asking for candy are fairly severe. In this allegorical universe, the checkout clerk will refuse to let a child leave the store once candy has been requested.
Assuming that Scott R, like God, knows the candy is there, and knows his children will demand it, and knows what will happen to them when they do, how can he in good conscience expose them to an environment that will result in their being unable to leave the store, especially when it is easily within his power to manipulate their environment to prevent this outcome while still preserving as much of an illusion of free will -- for make no mistake; it's an illusion either way -- as in the original scenario?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But if you add into this allegory the idea that someday, hopefully, his children will grow up into adults like him, and will need to be able to make good nutritional choices WITHOUT Scott deciding every moment what they are or are not exposed to, because they now see the world with the same kinds of grown-up eyes that he has ... what kind of terrible parent would he be to completely shield them from exposure to candy? They WILL see candy when they become adults, so in what way does he help them by pretending that candy does not exist?
That scenario is must closer to the Mormon view of the universe. We see a God that found the universe in a state of chaos and entropy, and has made it His purpose to raise beings like Him who are capable of experiencing joy, creating joy, and spreading joy to others. But whatever joy they might achieve, they will still have to live in a universe that is naturally filled with chaos and entropy. They will achieve "heaven" by overcoming these forces, not by having them magically removed.
We believe that God exists in a state that we could call "heaven", and yet, as the scriptures show, He struggles every day to help his creations overcome evil, and we believe He feels sorrow over our losses and joy in our successes. "Heaven" is not a vacation. It's simply another KIND of life — one with the potential for more freedom and more happiness than we achieve during mortality, of course — but also one that demands a great deal of preparation and maturity before anyone is ready to take part in it, and face the new struggles that define this new life.
Your analogy is a good one for most visions of God and Heaven that I've heard outside my faith, but I don't find it at all persuasive when it comes to my own beliefs.
quote:... for make no mistake; it's an illusion either way ...
For what reasons do you consider free will to be an illusion?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because if Scott knows -- as God is said to know -- that his kids are going to ask for candy based on their background and environment, and He makes no attempt to change their environment or their background to prevent this, their actual decision is as much a product of his inaction as their own "free will."
Unless of course Mormons also believe that God does not know which of us will manage to successfully save ourselves in this life. I haven't heard that stated before, but that would also remove this objection. In that scenario, God is basically a spiritual leader rather than a divine creator, though.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Oooh, you've invoked my name. I feel all colors of special.
:notafanboy,notafanboy,notafanboy:
>>and He makes no attempt to change their environment or their background to prevent this, their actual decision is as much a product of his inaction as their own "free will."
Well. . . my original anology was to explain how God could be omniscient without impinging on free will. I still think the 'kid in the grocery store' analogy stands for that particular purpose.
I think that you have to squeeze it a bit to make it work the way Tom has presented it-- as an allegory of existence and justification for pain/sin during mortality.
Kids have got to learn to be civilized. The point of taking them out (okay, not THE point, but one of them) in public is so that they learn the skills necessary to function in society. This is a rather apropos discussion-- I took my son out to the grocery store last night, and true to form, he asked for candy. I knew he would, but I also knew he had money of his own to buy it. We discussed which candy he could buy (he's partial to bubble gum, I think bubble gum is a sin against God and man), and we compromised on Starburst. He has learned, from other experiences, that the best way to go about this process is to not throw tantrums, not be whiny. Because he was doing so well, I seperated out my order from his-- so he paid the cashier himself, got his own receipt, etc.
He has learned how to purchase things at a grocery store. Or at least, he knows how to get me to LET him purchase things at a grocery store.
If he had thrown a tantrum, rather than being the sweet boy he is, do I bear responsibility for his misbehavior? Perhaps. I don't discount the possibility that even God is partly responsible for the current state of the world, if you really want to trace things back (though, I feel like if you do this, you're like the characters in 'Into the Woods,' blaming the Witch for growing the beans that grew the stalk, that let the Giant onto earth to murder and destroy-- when it was Jack and the others who had planted the magic beans that grew that specific stalk.)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:We see a God that found the universe in a state of chaos and entropy, and has made it His purpose to raise beings like Him who are capable of experiencing joy, creating joy, and spreading joy to others.
Well, this description certainly makes the Mormon God friendlier than the Catholic/Protestant God. I've never understood how anyone could love a God that would allow some of his people to suffer eternally with no chance of redemption even though he could do something different if he wanted to.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To avoid an argument, I’ll just assume you meant to say, “this description certainly makes the Mormon God friendlier than my understanding of the Catholic/Protestant God.”
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because if Scott knows -- as God is said to know -- that his kids are going to ask for candy based on their background and environment, and He makes no attempt to change their environment or their background to prevent this, their actual decision is as much a product of his inaction as their own "free will."
You assume that it is background or environment that makes these children want the candy. What if the desire to eat candy is inherent to the children? What if it is a part of their innermost nature that can only by changed by gaining experience with candy and then freely choosing to avoid it?
EDIT: I should point out that in the Mormon worldview, the innermost part of every intelligent being is unique and eternal. In other words, there is an important part of each of us that God did not make. He FOUND us, and is now trying to raise into something greater than what He originally discovered.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
