Why I am a Latter-day Saint

[Guest]

Do you see why I state that a more direct communication is not any more improbable than a 'sensation'? And why trying to rationalize a 'sensation' as the definitive answer from God just opens you up to an even greater level of guesswork and 'self-fulfilling' reasoning (circular argument)?

I've given this discussion a lot of thought. I've been assering that it's certainly possible that God simply cannot communicate with sound to as many people simultaneously as God can communicate with via the spirit. I've been asking myself, is this really the direction I want to take the discussion? I'm still not convinced that God's ability to create the universe (by some natural process) and God's ability to communicate by the spirit with large numbers of people simultaneously necessarily imply that God has the ability to communicate via audio with the same large numbers of people. But even if God did have the ability to communicate via audio with large numbers of people, I'm not convinced that God would choose to. Canpakes, you have described communication by feelings as inferior to communication by audio, but I don't see why God would not see it as perfectly adequate for God's purposes. If God has a complicated message to convey, then obviously there's something to be said for sending an angel to communicate that message with a prophet/spokesman. But once God has established an organization to take that message to the world, all God really needs to do is tell people yes or no, either God established some given organization as that message conveyor or God did not.

I don't see that trying to rationalize a sensation "as the definitive answer from God" opens me up to any guesswork at all. If God exists, God is certainly capable of giving a sensation that is clearly positive or one that is clearly negative. And how is anything "self-fulfilling" here? You keep trying to convince me that I'm using a circular argument, but you have not yet demonstrated where the circle is. Why should anyone believe I'm using a circular argument?

Well, notwithstanding other theories this introduces the LDS concept of the Holy Spirit being God's messenger and only being able to be in one person at one time. Refer to the mathematical problem of this above... and that's even before we get to the problem of how this definition of the Holy Spirit was derived.

How did you come to the conclusion that an LDS concept consists "of the Holy Spirit ... only being able to be in one person at one time"? I have been going to LDS Sunday School for fifty years, and I've never heard that concept brought up.

Presumably my "version of God could not"? I don't think that necessarily follows.

Then please present rationalization or reasoning as to why one is attainable and the other is not, per your interpretation of both options vis-à-vis God's abilities.

Then please? Are you saying that I have said, "I don't think that necessarily follows," and therefore I should be able to "present rationalization or reasoning as to why one is attainable and the other is not"? I have no idea how I would rationalize or reason "as to why one is attainable and the other is not"; what does that prove? If it doesn't necessarily follow, it doesn't necessarily follow, regardless of my ability to provide an argument for its opposite.

Do you disagree with my conclusion here about why I believe that you have stated these things? If so, why?

Because I've made it clear from very early on that I know God exists in the same sense that Euclid knew the truth of his famous parallel postulate. I based everything I said on my axiom just as Euclid based his geometry on his axioms.

This is an assumption, then, correct? The existence of God?

Yes, yes! How many times do I have to say it? It's an assumption. I take the existence of God on faith.

You have never explained how my reasoning is any more circular than Euclid's. All you have ever said, in an attempt to convince me that my reasoning is circular, is that I assumed God existed at the beginning of my reasoning, and I assumed God existed at the end of my reasoning. Similarly, Euclid assumed the truth of his axioms at the beginning of his reasoning, and he also assumed the truth of his axioms at the end of his reasoning. So why should I believe that my reasoning is any more circular than Euclid's was?

Not so. Euclid did not waste effort randomly assuming the existence of any characteristic or condition that he was 'proving' in any of his proofs. His assumptions were typically axioms (self-evident), and the structure of the proof relies on known and mutually-agreed-upon definitions. Euclid observed that a thing was true or that a relationship existed, then set about to map out (the 'proof' process) a set of steps or instructions that could be replicated by anyone with exactly the same results.

Except that his axioms didn't turn out to be as self-evident as he thought they were, did they? There's a reason I focused in on the parallel-point axiom, and not the other axioms Euclid relied on. Have you heard of non-Euclidean geometries, Canpakes? Scholars have put a lot of work into them. Can an axiom really be self-evident in one geometry while an axiom that contradicts it is self-evident in another geometry? That's what we have with Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries. If the parallel-point axiom is really all that self-evident, why is so much scholarly work put into investigating both what would happen if it was true, and what would happen if it was false?

I'll tell you one thing; the people who study non-Euclidean geometries would strongly object to you claiming they were using circular arguments, even if you could convince them that their axioms aren't self-evident.

You, by comparison, are assuming that God exists, and offer no verifiable or repeatable set of steps to determine either your initial assumption or your conclusion.

Nor do I suspect that you can come up with any "verifiable or repeatable set of steps to determine" whether the parallel-point axiom is true or false. All the geometrists have done is made an assumption, whether it's true or false, and have seen where the logic takes them. I've done the same thing with the question of the existence of God. Some people assume God doesn't exist, and I'd be interested to find out where a conscientious exploration of the consequences leads them. And I've assumed that God does exist. As far as circular reasoning goes, I'm doing nothing more than the geometrists have done. So I ask you once again, how have you come to the conclusion that my reasoning is any more circular than the reasoning of the geometrists, either Euclidean or non-Euclidean?

Your initial assumption has no concrete definition. Nor is the conclusion, or any step, or any result of a step definitively repeatable or verifiable by any other person. This is not a 'proof' and the claim that both use 'assumptions' therefore makes both your arguments and Euclid's equally valid is, in and of itself, an invalid argument that cannot overcome the circular nature of your core argument.

I never said that my arguments and Euclid's are "equally valid"; I said that my arguments are no more circular than Euclid's were, and that's completely true. Once again, you talk about "the circular nature of" my core argument, without ever explaining where the circle is. I will say it again; all you have ever said is that I assumed God existed at the beginning of my argument, and I assumed God existed at the end of my argument. Euclid and the non-Euclideans both did precisely the same thing; they assumed the parallel-point axiom (or, respectively, an axiom negating the parallel-point axiom) at the beginning of their arguments, and then they assumed the same respective axiom at the end of their arguments. So how do you arrive at the conclusion that my reasoning is any more circular than Euclid's (or the non-Euclideans')?

Anyone can construct an argument that superficially resembles the structure of a Euclidian proof, but doing so does not make the argument the same as a proof, or make it valid, or keep it from being circular.

True, a superficial resemblance to the structure of a Euclidean proof doesn't make the argument a proof, or make it valid, or keep it from being circular, but when the only attempt the critic has ever used to explain why the argument is circular applies just as well to Euclidean and non-Euclidean proofs as it does to the argument in question, then the accusation that the argument in question is circular falls kind of flat.

[_KevinSim]

Jesus of Nazareth said that those who sin are the servants of sin, and I think that's really true, and in addition pretty universally experienced; the human condition certainly seems to include (for pretty much everybody) getting addicted to behavior that does nobody any good and that we don't really enjoy; on the contrary, it repulses us. So, "proclaiming the gospel," to the extent that it frees non-Mormons from that sinful behavior, and therefore brings more joy into their lives, is indeed providing service to those non-Mormons.

That's eloquently written. However, the 'service' here is more of a simple presentation of a free-will option. I get what you are trying to say but this is a different state of service than, say, feeding a hungry family, or performing medical services for indigent folks, or engaging in a Habitat for Humanity build, to name a few examples.

I get what you are trying to say Canpakes, but when I said that Latter-day Saints see the purpose of this life to be service, and naturally extrapolate that the purpose of the next life will also be service, I'm including both service as you see it (feeding a hungry family, performing medical services for indigent folks) and service as I've described above (liberating people from sin).

Ordinances (like baptism and the temple endowment) are an important part of the process of that liberation, so "redeeming the dead" is also service.

I do not see why either is necessarily linked to 'freeing non-Mormon from sinful behavior'.

I think you're underestimating the power of spiritual symbols in people's spiritual progression. One is baptized once, one takes the sacrament each week, and both ordinances point that one in the direction of liberation.

I might note the paradox in trying to 'perfect' anything as regards bringing joy to one's life. There is a curve of diminishing results that can trigger a level of stress, guilt and self-flagellation not necessarily conducive to 'joy'. Perfection is not achievable, and use of the word is unfortunate, even as it is understood that this does not mean that any member is trying to be 'perfect' (cue lots of passages from Ephesians...).

"Perfection is not achievable"? I believe in a God who can perfect us. Do you really believe that God cannot perfect someone who is trying as hard as s/he can to do the will of God?

Interestingly, 138 is written in a way that suggests that baptism for the dead is not a necessary activity of the living nor the only method of achieving acceptability within the afterlife by God (which can also be suggested by Joseph Smith's claimed vision about his brother Alvin).

Baptism for the dead "not a necessary activity of the living"? How did you come to that conclusion?

Obviously I believe the existing data came from revelation from God. Why do you think it is contradictory or that it can't "work out as stated"?

Ponder the example of 'families forever', but only in the upper third of the Celestial Kingdom.

Related, ponder the absurdity that you cannot be in that level, regardless of how 'perfected' you are, if you enjoy coffee,

Not true. I enjoy coffee. Of course the only kinds of coffee I have ever drunk were fig coffee and wheat coffee (the latter of which is wonderful stuff, by the way), but fig coffee and regular coffee smell so much alike that I was sorely tempted for the year at the University of Washington when it was my job to make coffee in one of the dormitory cafeterias.

[_KevinSim]

It is a simple fact that if somebody (or some group of people) doesn't take action to preserve forever some good things, then there will come a time, sometime between now and 150 billion years from now, when there is a last generation of the human race (or perhaps more accurately, that the string of races that humans evolve into will come to an end). That generation won't reproduce. Some may not mind not reproducing, but for the majority at least it's going to be a very dark day. Are you really saying that we don't owe that future generation anything?

I'm not sure that this paragraph should be prefaced with "It is a simple fact..." as it's simply pure conjecture and personal testimony bearing.

Testimony bearing? It has absolutely nothing to do with testimony bearing. Bazooka, do you really think that the human race (or whatever race or races it evolves into) will last forever, without some people taking action to ensure it will last forever?

On what basis do we owe future generations anything?

April 2013 my oldest daughter left her boyfriend and moved back in with us, along with her five-month-old son. Now he's 20 months old. There are very few things I wouldn't do to help that little boy have a happy life. (I feel the same way about my two daughters and my son, by the way!) Do I owe my grandson anything? Maybe I don't think of it that way. I just love him that much. Why? It began because I love my daughter, and because he was important to my daughter. I guess I just don't know where to cut it off. I will probably not be as close to my grandson's children as I have been to him, but they will still be important to me, because they'll be important to him. And it goes on and on. I don't see how it can ever end.

Separately, I can't find where you answered my question "Do you believe you will need a series of secret handshakes and code words to get into heaven, regardless of the life you've led?"

Oh, I answered it all right. I put a lot of effort into answering that question. I told you about my father and his cancer, and about how I didn't see why the doctor couldn't just cure him, instead of putting him through so much agony with the chemotherapy. That was my answer to that question.

It's a good doctor who can explain to her/his patient in a general sense what the reasons are for different kinds of treatment. But it's a very foolish patient who shops between different doctors based on how much sense those explanations make. At some point we need to just trust our doctors to have done a thorough study of the problem they're treating, and to know the best course of action to take. This is true for biological and spiritual physicians.

[_Themis]

Not at all. God wants people to talk to Her/Him, to realize they can't know anything in the spiritual realm without input from Her/Him and therefore go to Her/Him for that information. If someone does go to God for that information, ready to base the whole rest of that someone's life on whatever answer God gives her/him, then God will give her/him an answer s/he can't mistake; anybody else God leaves to their own devices.

You say not at all about making assumptions and go right into all a number of huge assumptions.

I find it very hard to believe that people take questions like this to God on a daily basis.

Daily means that it is happening all over the world on a daily basis. Not that an individual is doing it every day. Some probably are. The point is that there are millions of sincere people praying and asking questions but get very different answers then you.

When did I say anything about knowing something absolutely? I'm not saying I didn't; maybe I did; I just am not aware that I ever said anything about knowing something absolutely.

You have been doing it with the angel example and that we cannot know for sure/absolutely as a way to get around my good example of a way God could communicate in a clear manner compared to your sensation with no meaning until you attach it. You want to ignore that you cannot know as well as you could with the angel.

The implication is that it is because we can interpret subjective feelings however we want that your clear ways "are so much above" them. I say that God is completely able to use subjective means to clearly give us yes or no answers to the questions we ask Her/Him, and that's all we need to establish whether or not God endorses one particular faith.

It's obvious an angel talking to you in your own language is way above having sensations you you have to interpret. If God existed he could, but he obviously is not doing so clearly. You even admit your experience came after some time asking him questions. Maybe if God could give a yes no sensation immediately after each and every question that might get a little closer to just talking to an angel. You still could maybe not be sure of wither as being from God, but the angel one would still be a much clearer way of doing things. Reality is that you have probably asked God many times with no sensation. It not a clear way of doing things.

And what good will that do, knowing "the message" with perfect clarity, but not knowing whether the message came from God or not?

The point is that it is a clear message. Your sensations is not, and you cannot know your sensation came from God, yourself or some other entity. You keep ignoring this. That makes you a hypocrite here.

There's some truth to what you say here. I don't know if I told this as part of my story, but the night I got my answer in Autum 1976 was the culmination of a long series of the questions you described. Having spent a little over three years in the LDS Church's seminary program, I was inundated with the idea that the way to find out if the LDS Church was true was to read the Book of Mormon, ponder on what I'd read, and then pray and ask God if the Book of Mormon was true; having done all that, God would most certainly reveal to me whether it was or not via the Holy Spirit. So I started a cycle; I'd read the Book of Mormon, ponder, and pray about it as prescribed; each time I'd get a little bit of a good feeling as an apparent response; each time I would think that was God telling me that the Book of Mormon was true; but each time I'd realize that I had wanted that response; I had wanted to have the feeling that indicated that the Book of Mormon was true; and each time I would realize in my heart of hearts that for that very reason I couldn't count on that answer having come from God; I realized that I could only count on an answer having come from God if I got to the point where I was just as much ready for a no answer as I was for a yes one. And then the cycle would start over again. It was a very frustrating experience. I kept doing it over and over again, even though the result was always the same.

Then in Autumn 1976 it occurred to me that maybe what I needed to do was ask the question in a hurry, without giving myself time to grow a desire for a yes answer. In the very moment I thought this, I threw my mind at God, putting everything on the line. I uttered no words, but the essence of my communication with God was, "Is it?" I wanted to know if it was true, and the it I was talking about was the LDS Church. So in the end I didn't even pray about the Book of Mormon; I skipped that step entirely and asked my question about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The rest I've already told you. I was completely overwhelmed by a rushing, shivering sensation that encompassed my whole body, several hundreds of times more intense than any of those good feelings I had had before when I prayed about the Book of Mormon. I found myself forced to the conclusion that God was telling me that the LDS Church was true.

So while asking a question when we want one particular answer does in fact keep us from being sure God has actually given us the answer we need, the challenge then is to get to the point where we're equally as ready to take either a yes or no answer to our question. It's a difficult challenge, but doable; I met it, and so can anyone who really, really wants to know the truth.

You got the sensation you were hoping for. I can understand the doubt from the lesser more ordinary sensations. It is a familiar story, and one best explained by what the body is capable of producing on it's own, but that is not the interpretation most want so they interpret it the way they do want. It's an emotional experience that tends to attach itself to that interpretation very firmly. Religious conmen have known this for a very long time.

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter to me whether it was self-generated or not.

This is why you will never know the truth.

God knew that if I, having asked that question, did not get a response, then I would never have any other opportunity to ever know anything for sure about Her/His will.

Another huge assumption you don't know. You are in the worst position to know for sure.

so that answer must have been the one God wanted me to have.

Must? Total BS. What's interesting is to watch a person convince themselves of what they believe and then go through a process to convince themselves they know. It's all built on a bunch of assumptions they don't know.

I am completely honest! How in the world am I to know that the only being that can send (apparent) angels to me is the good God that controls the universe?

I would say it's at least as good as getting a sensation, and more likely better, and you at least have a much clearer message.

If the angel of which you spoke were to appear to me and tell me that Scientology was in fact "the right and only true path to God," I'd be tempted to laugh in her/his face.

You have no idea how funny that is coming from someone who believes in what Joseph claimed. The point though is about the message being clear.

And therefore, when I asked that question, I can be sure that God did respond to it.

Sure as a feeling, not actually knowing at all. This is your main problem. You cannot know or be sure this way from a bunch of huge assumptions you have no idea are true.

[_Themis]

That depends entirely on whether there actually is a good God that controls the universe. If there is, and if my efforts result in putting me in communication with that God, then the possibility exists that I will do a much, much better job as preserving good things into the eternities than I could have by myself. In fact, I feel comfortable estimating that by myself I would not have helped preserve any good things into the eternities, while if I was working together with God, I could preserve at least some good things into the eternities.

On the other hand, if there isn't a God, then you are right to conclude that I would be accomplishing nothing. But so what? In such a case there wouldn't be any way I could have preserved any good things into the eternities, so I would have lost nothing.

You may scoff at my attitude, Themis, but I ask you, what is the alternative? If you yourself can't bring yourself to believe in God, or perhaps more accurately put, someone who is preserving forever some good things, then it falls to you to preserve forever some good things. The work of God must go forth, whether there actually is a God to carry it forth or not. Are you capable of carrying it forth by yourself? Or, to make it even more general, are you willing to work with a group of like-minded women and men who collectively take the responsibility to preserve forever some good things? If so, then more power to you. But I suspect that, like me, you will find the job too daunting. You may find the challenge beyond you, or even beyond the group of women and men you associate with. That being the case, you'd better hope that someone is up to the challenge because, as I said, the work must go forth. Future generations of the human race deserve for it to go forth.

You again make assumptions about the universe we really are not sure about. Going with the truth will be far better for humanity and your future posterity.

[_Themis]

Interesting pronoun that you used there, we. Are you saying that you're LDS, Themis?

Yes. Funny again to see you make so many assumptions. many members do not believe the church's truth claims. That does not mean I am going to leave it completely. I wish it could change at a faster rate.

Exactly! I've never said that I believe in God because there's a preponderance of evidence that God exists. I have fully admitted that, as far as I know, God might not exist. But what's the point of not believing that God exists? Sure, we may find that our beliefs align pretty well with what the evidence says, but what will be the result in the long run? Nothing of lasting good will come out of the human race. That just seems a little pointless to me.

You could pick any fairy tale you want. Your last two sentences is again an assumption you don't know. There could be no God, or there could be countess other possibilities. The problem is we know the evidence does not support the existence of the LDS God.

Preserve how long? Five billion years, past the destruction of Planet Earth? Possibly, though I don't see much evidence of attempts to so preserve things. But what about one hundred and fifty billion years, past the end of the heat death of the universe? Is anybody attempting to preserve some good things past that point? I sincerely doubt it.

You and I don't know, so I will avoid making assumptions you are so known for making over and over again and then treating as true.

Hardly the opposite. If as you say "God does not exist" the result in the end will be precisely the same; nothing good will be preserved forever.

You love those assumptions.

[_canpakes]

I've given this discussion a lot of thought. I've been asserting that it's certainly possible that God simply cannot communicate with sound to as many people simultaneously as God can communicate with via the spirit. I've been asking myself, is this really the direction I want to take the discussion? I'm still not convinced that God's ability to create the universe (by some natural process) and God's ability to communicate by the spirit with large numbers of people simultaneously necessarily imply that God has the ability to communicate via audio with the same large numbers of people. But even if God did have the ability to communicate via audio with large numbers of people, I'm not convinced that God would choose to. Canpakes, you have described communication by feelings as inferior to communication by audio, but I don't see why God would not see it as perfectly adequate for God's purposes. If God has a complicated message to convey, then obviously there's something to be said for sending an angel to communicate that message with a prophet/spokesman. But once God has established an organization to take that message to the world, all God really needs to do is tell people yes or no, either God established some given organization as that message conveyor or God did not.

OK, so God can tell people yes or no. God can do this by using, 'Yes', or 'No'. Otherwise, a feeling or sensation is not conclusive to anything other than the recipient's need to affirm what they may subconsciously desire.

I don't see that trying to rationalize a sensation "as the definitive answer from God" opens me up to any guesswork at all. If God exists, God is certainly capable of giving a sensation that is clearly positive or one that is clearly negative. And how is anything "self-fulfilling" here? You keep trying to convince me that I'm using a circular argument, but you have not yet demonstrated where the circle is. Why should anyone believe I'm using a circular argument?

Please explain what would make a feeling determinable as 'clearly positive' or 'clearly negative'.

How did you come to the conclusion that an LDS concept consists "of the Holy Spirit ... only being able to be in one person at one time"? I have been going to LDS Sunday School for fifty years, and I've never heard that concept brought up.

I could have phrased that better. Let's take text directly from Chapter 7 of Gospel Principles:

"The Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead (see 1 John 5:7; D&C 20:28). He is a “personage of Spirit” (D&C 130:22). He can be in only one place at a time, but His influence can be everywhere at the same time."

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-princ ... t?lang=eng

If the HG can only be in one place at one time and communication with the intended mortal depends upon this, then we have the mathematical limitations that I described earlier. If the 'influence' of the HG is capable of carrying targeted messaging then you are back to explaining why 'Yes' or 'No' is not something capable of being used, even as an 'internally discernable' message (within one's head), or external.

Are you saying that I have said, "I don't think that necessarily follows," and therefore I should be able to "present rationalization or reasoning as to why one is attainable and the other is not"? I have no idea how I would rationalize or reason "as to why one is attainable and the other is not"; what does that prove? If it doesn't necessarily follow, it doesn't necessarily follow, regardless of my ability to provide an argument for its opposite.

Yet, you are stating that you believe that non-verbal sensation is preferred or possible and that you do not believe that a verbal, definitive language-based response is not. I'm asking here why you believe so.

Because I've made it clear from very early on that I know God exists in the same sense that Euclid knew the truth of his famous parallel postulate. I based everything I said on my axiom just as Euclid based his geometry on his axioms... Euclid assumed the truth of his axioms at the beginning of his reasoning, and he also assumed the truth of his axioms at the end of his reasoning... (e)xcept that his axioms didn't turn out to be as self-evident as he thought they were, did they? There's a reason I focused in on the parallel-point axiom, and not the other axioms Euclid relied on... As far as circular reasoning goes, I'm doing nothing more than the geometrists have done. So I ask you once again, how have you come to the conclusion that my reasoning is any more circular than the reasoning of the geometrists, either Euclidean or non-Euclidean?

Any more circular? Are you sure that you want to put it that way? ; )

I never said that my arguments and Euclid's are "equally valid"; I said that my arguments are no more circular (underline added) than Euclid's were, and that's completely true.

OK, so be it. But you introduced the Euclidean gambit. My statement was that your argument was circular. You are admitting that it is circular with your statement above. However, it is noted that an argument can be 'logically valid' even if circular. As it is, your premise needs just as much proof as your conclusion; in short, it delivers nothing, which is what I am asserting about it and which makes it very different than Euclidean proofs.

Once again, you talk about "the circular nature of" my core argument, without ever explaining where the circle is.

Here you go:

God exists + (unprovable assertions which have no actual bearing on the initial assumption or conclusion) = God exists.

I will say it again; all you have ever said is that I assumed God existed at the beginning of my argument, and I assumed God existed at the end of my argument. Euclid and the non-Euclideans both did precisely the same thing...

Waitaminute... Euclid wrote proofs about God's existence? ; )

Silliness aside, Euclid has a much better track record of creating a useful or provable argument than you, even if you want to call some of his proofs 'circular'. To repeat myself:

Anyone can construct an argument that superficially resembles the structure of a Euclidian proof, but doing so does not make the argument the same as a proof, or make it valid, or keep it from being circular.

True, a superficial resemblance to the structure of a Euclidean proof doesn't make the argument a proof, or make it valid, or keep it from being circular, but when the only attempt the critic has ever used to explain why the argument is circular applies just as well to Euclidean and non-Euclidean proofs as it does to the argument in question, then the accusation that the argument in question is circular falls kind of flat.

Oh, all right, fine, then - it's circular, ineffective and fails to deliver your conclusion provably.

[_canpakes]

I get what you are trying to say Canpakes, but when I said that Latter-day Saints see the purpose of this life to be service, and naturally extrapolate that the purpose of the next life will also be service, I'm including both service as you see it (feeding a hungry family, performing medical services for indigent folks) and service as I've described above (liberating people from sin).

I don't see why either service set would be necessary in the afterlife. And 'liberating people from sin' is not a service that you or I can give.

One is baptized once, one takes the sacrament each week, and both ordinances point that one in the direction of liberation.

Still, we have the twin issues that the decision to eschew sin is that of the individual who would sin, and the ordinances described only serve as a reminder to not do so - if allowed to be interpreted in that manner by the individual. Full control remains with another, not you or I as a 'service' that we would perform.

"Perfection is not achievable"? I believe in a God who can perfect us. Do you really believe that God cannot perfect someone who is trying as hard as s/he can to do the will of God?

In theory, God could do as God wills, whatever that is. As relates to scripture recorded by man - 'no', not while mortal, if we take the Bible at face value and place any trust in the Atonement. Outside of faith, the answer is also 'no'. Why would that be the purpose of a mortal existence?

Baptism for the dead "not a necessary activity of the living"? How did you come to that conclusion?

Technically, 138: 30-31, v. 48 notwithstanding. JFS was doing his best to cement the rationale for temple work.

Not true. I enjoy coffee. Of course the only kinds of coffee I have ever drunk were fig coffee and wheat coffee (the latter of which is wonderful stuff, by the way), but fig coffee and regular coffee smell so much alike that I was sorely tempted for the year at the University of Washington when it was my job to make coffee in one of the dormitory cafeterias.

Coffee isn't specifically prohibited in the WoW anyway, nor are coffee-flavored foods like coffee ice cream, but try telling your Bishop that you enjoy either while in your next Temple Recommend meeting.

However, I do hope that you are enjoying your fig and wheat beverages (these sound interesting!) at room temperature or less, as hot drinks are not allowed per WoW text. No exclusions were given.

Beer is OK, though. Drink up! : )

[_Bazooka]

Separately, I can't find where you answered my question "Do you believe you will need a series of secret handshakes and code words to get into heaven, regardless of the life you've led?"

Oh, I answered it all right. I put a lot of effort into answering that question. I told you about my father and his cancer, and about how I didn't see why the doctor couldn't just cure him, instead of putting him through so much agony with the chemotherapy. That was my answer to that question.

It's a good doctor who can explain to her/his patient in a general sense what the reasons are for different kinds of treatment. But it's a very foolish patient who shops between different doctors based on how much sense those explanations make. At some point we need to just trust our doctors to have done a thorough study of the problem they're treating, and to know the best course of action to take. This is true for biological and spiritual physicians.

I'm still not sure if you've answered yes or no.

Why do you need to trust in doctors when the LDS Priesthood has the power and authority to heal the sick?

[_KevinSim]

Not at all. God wants people to talk to Her/Him, to realize they can't know anything in the spiritual realm without input from Her/Him and therefore go to Her/Him for that information. If someone does go to God for that information, ready to base the whole rest of that someone's life on whatever answer God gives her/him, then God will give her/him an answer s/he can't mistake; anybody else God leaves to their own devices.

You say not at all about making assumptions and go right into all a number of huge assumptions.

Well, no; what I really said was in response to:

Themis, why do you think that anything I have said is illogical?

I can tell you are a good person, but most of what you say on this topic is illogical. That you cannot see it may be a good question to explore. You want to assume your LDS God exists based on no good evidence. You assume he would not let you be self deceived by your self generated sensations. If you assume this, you have to assume he would also do the same for everyone else in the world.

I wasn't saying, "Not at all," about making assumptions; I was saying, "Not at all," about God needing to keep everyone in the world from getting deceived. God wants us to talk to Her/Him, to ask Her/Him enough questions that we can find out Her/His will. If we do that, God will make sure we get an unambiguous answer. If we don't do that, then we can deceive ourselves as much as we want, and God is under no obligation to show us the light.

I find it very hard to believe that people take questions like this to God on a daily basis.

Daily means that it is happening all over the world on a daily basis. Not that an individual is doing it every day.

It doesn't matter what it means; I still find it very hard to believe that people take questions like this to God on a daily basis.

Some probably are.

Interesting choice of word, probably. How did you conclude that "some probably are"?

The point is that there are millions of sincere people praying and asking questions but get very different answers then you.

That might be an interesting point, if you could give us some reason to believe that it is actually true. I put everything on the line; I asked God a question fully prepared for either a yes or a no answer; and I asked ready to base the whole rest of my life on whatever answer God provided, fully ready to use God's answer as the foundation for my own personal theology. And you say that "there are millions of sincere people praying and asking questions" like that, that get different answers from what I got? How do you know that there is one such person?

When did I say anything about knowing something absolutely? I'm not saying I didn't; maybe I did; I just am not aware that I ever said anything about knowing something absolutely.

You have been doing it with the angel example and that we cannot know for sure/absolutely as a way to get around my good example of a way God could communicate in a clear manner compared to your sensation with no meaning until you attach it. You want to ignore that you cannot know as well as you could with the angel.

Did I use those words, for sure or absolutely? If not, how did you come to the conclusion that I meant for sure or absolutely? The existence of other apparently supernatural powers is a possibility we should take into consideration whether we're trying to be absolutely sure about things or not.

The implication is that it is because we can interpret subjective feelings however we want that your clear ways "are so much above" them. I say that God is completely able to use subjective means to clearly give us yes or no answers to the questions we ask Her/Him, and that's all we need to establish whether or not God endorses one particular faith.

It's obvious an angel talking to you in your own language is way above having sensations you you have to interpret.

Why do you think it's so obvious? What's wrong with God communicating a yes with a good feeling, and a no with a bad feeling? What makes that so inferior to an angel using audio to tell the person verbally either "yes" or "no"?

If God existed he could, but he obviously is not doing so clearly. You even admit your experience came after some time asking him questions. Maybe if God could give a yes no sensation immediately after each and every question that might get a little closer to just talking to an angel. You still could maybe not be sure of wither as being from God, but the angel one would still be a much clearer way of doing things. Reality is that you have probably asked God many times with no sensation.

I asked many times if the Book of Mormon was true, yes. Each time the yes answer I thought I got from God, I couldn't count on, because I knew that I had wanted a yes answer; I hadn't been prepared for either a yes or a no answer. God gives us what we most need. If somebody isn't fully prepared to live the rest of her/his life based on whatever answer God provides, then that somebody doesn't need a response from God. On the other hand, if somebody is fully prepared to live the rest of her/his life based on God's answer, then s/he does need that response. When I got to the point where I was just as prepared for a no answer as I was for a yes answer, and I asked if the LDS Church is true, I got an immediate response on the first try.

It not a clear way of doing things.

It was pretty clear to me. What's unclear about an overwhelming positive feeling?

And what good will that do, knowing "the message" with perfect clarity, but not knowing whether the message came from God or not?

The point is that it is a clear message. Your sensations is not, and you cannot know your sensation came from God, yourself or some other entity. You keep ignoring this. That makes you a hypocrite here.

I maintain that I can know my sensation came from God, if there actually exists a good God who wants me to know Her/His will and who can answer prayer. Such a God, if S/He exists, certainly knows that if S/He doesn't give me an answer to my question that I can identify as coming from Her/Him, that I won't ever have any other way of knowing what God's will is in my life. Since God does want me to know Her/His will, God must answer my question. How does that kind of reasoning make me a hypocrite?

You got the sensation you were hoping for.

That's just my point! I was past hoping for that sensation! I had to get rid of hoping for that sensation before I could in good conscience conclude that God would give me an answer, one way or the other.

I can understand the doubt from the lesser more ordinary sensations. It is a familiar story, and one best explained by what the body is capable of producing on it's own, but that is not the interpretation most want so they interpret it the way they do want. It's an emotional experience that tends to attach itself to that interpretation very firmly. Religious conmen have known this for a very long time.

So what was God doing when I asked the question? Just sitting up there, wherever S/He sits, ignoring the question I asked Her/Him, letting me be deceived by my body's naturally generated emotional experience? God knew I was going to get that rushing sensation, and God knew I was going to treat it as Her/His answer to my question. God gave me no other answer to my question, so the rushing sensation must have been the answer God wanted me to have, to the question I asked Her/Him.

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter to me whether it was self-generated or not.

This is why you will never know the truth.

Why does this have anything to do with me ever knowing the truth? As I said in the previous paragraph, God knew I was going to treat the allegedly self-generated response as God's answer to me, so the response must have been the answer God wanted me to have, whether it was self-generated or not.

God knew that if I, having asked that question, did not get a response, then I would never have any other opportunity to ever know anything for sure about Her/His will.

Another huge assumption you don't know. You are in the worst position to know for sure.

I certainly have made assumptions; I've never denied making a few assumptions about God. But I don't think this one is. Themis, can you think of any other way someone can know anything about God's will in that someone's life?

so that answer must have been the one God wanted me to have.

Must? Total BS. What's interesting is to watch a person convince themselves of what they believe and then go through a process to convince themselves they know. It's all built on a bunch of assumptions they don't know.

I've assumed some things. I've assumed that God is good, that God wants each of us individually to know God's will, and that God has the capacity to answer prayer. But if you're going to have faith in God, what's the alternative? I can't think of any alternative that makes faith in God have any meaning at all. What good is there in believing in a God who doesn't want us to know Her/His will? Or in a God that doesn't have the capacity to answer prayer? What's the difference between a universe controlled by such a God and a universe controlled by no deity at all? So I ask you, Themis, if someone is going to believe in God, what is the alternative to making those three assumptions about God, that makes the deity the someone is believing in any kind of meaningful person at all, that that someone can do any kind of reasoning whatsoever about what such a God would do?