Formerly a real thread: Chat amongst yourselves (Shrug)

[_mentalgymnast]

I'm sorry if I've caused any distress or ill feeling, I did genuinely have a concern, and I don't want to be a bother.

Au contraire, I think your questions are fun to look at and consider. The thing to remember is that there are other folks within the LDS Church that are going to be a better resource for some of your questions than the missionaries. Don't bail simply because they can't satisfy all your needs. There are ALOT of us that struggle with many of these questions without being able to resolve them to the point that we are completely satisfied. But we are able to see the fascinating prospects that are part and parcel of Mormon theology and the 'restored gospel'.

You do have to put your wading boots on, however.

Regards,
MG

[_just me]

My problem with the Plan of Salvation is that it is based on a reality that doesn't exist. It simply isn't true that we all have agency/free will or whatever you want to call it.

Satan supposedly had the idea that we all be made to follow the path back to heaven. That was supposedly a bad idea. What would Satan have done to make us all choose right? Threaten death if we didn't obey? Make our brains incapable of sin?

God had the great idea that we all be thrown into a situation blind (no memory) and no guide other than other humans (also lacking memory). God would make rules, some conflicting, for us to obey but he wouldn't have a good way to get us these rules: We would have to rely on the arm of the flesh (a.k.a. other memory lost humans). Failing to follow the rules AND have faith in something you have no memory of would result in God murdering you (spiritual and sometimes physical death). Oh, and God would be incapable of saving anyone unless Jesus went all suicide by soldier. Because that makes sense. In this plan agency is supremely important. So, God said "obey me or I will kill you" which doesn't really sound like a choice to me.
Oh, and billions of humans would be born and die without any knowledge of this plan or the ability to choose faith in it. Millions would die young. Millions would have mental defects preventing them from agency. Millions would be born into societies where they are slaves, etc. Most of the people who have ever lived have been unable to read. Most of the humans who have lived on this rock have spent nearly every moment scraping by, barely surviving this existence.

Fail.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG: That's based upon Section 132, right?

I have a question: Not based upon, it's specifically what it says.

I wouldn't take Section 132 "to the bank". But that's probably another discussion...and I don't know that I'm expert enough to follow it through. But, I do know that Section 132 has proprietary issues. But, for better or for worse...it's in the canon.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

OTOH, if there IS a God, would it do you any good to believe in Him? What would come to you as a result?

Regards,
MG

Which God? Do you think God wants people to believe in any God without evidence that they actually exist? If yes, would God also want people to believe in any claim without evidence?

[_ldsfaqs]

So much to get through...

Everybody take a number.

If you do a cost-benefit analysis, you will probably find, considering your concerns and the high bar you set on truth, that the LDS Church will cost you a lot more than it will benefit you...

I'm aware of the commitment requirements, and the potential deficit my end, but equally if LDS is right, then I have an eternal soul to care about, and that's something I'm not prepared to risk.

I apologize for the multiple questions. Your situation piques my interest in that I can't figure out what it is you are looking for in Mormonism. When gramps suggested you teach a reverse lesson on the Adam-God theory and your response wasn't "Adam-God, what's that?", but "I'll let you know how it goes" it becomes a bit of head scratcher.

I know full well what Gramps is trying to do, I am aware of the Adam God Doctrine, and that it was overturned in 1976, so I know the church doesn't follow what was a paradoxical teaching, but the existence of the Adam God doctrine does still raise questions of the reliability of the prophets, so I might at some point reference it as regards this issue.

LDS doctrine is determined by a multi-pronged process so the people are not led astray.

- Scriptures
- Prophets
- Holy Spirit
- Common Consent.

All must agree with each other. The idea that a Prophet might error is nothing new, there are plenty examples of such in the Bible, including arguments between the Apostles, and Christ correcting the Apostles.
LDS don't consider prophets "gods", they are men called to the work, standing as watchmen. That doesn't mean we consider them infallible.

However, there is a bigger issue at play. 99% of what anti-mormonism claims our prophets say, etc. is utterly false, be it the so-called Adam/God doctrine, God having sex with Marry, blacks and the priesthood, etc. As someone who both converted to the church and left it and was anti-religion/anti-mormon, I actually know what I'm talking about. Removing context and key facts, information, spirit, etc. in judging various things gives a false conclusion.

1. Adam/God for example was never taught by Brigham Young in the way anti-mormons "THINK" he was saying.
It for example "what he was actually teaching" is STILL taught in LDS Temples.

2. No LDS leader implied or stated "sex". They said the "conception" occured how any one does, that Christ is literally God's son, that it was done through the Holy Ghost, and that Mary was still a Virgin. Obviously, if the conception occured by the Holy Ghost, and she was still a virgin, then that clearly doesn't mean "sex". It means a form of "spiritual invitro-fertalization".

3. Anti-mormons don't tell you (until I finally told them) that the Priesthood ban only applied to those of African Lineage, not "blacks". Blacks of the Islands, parts of Central/South America, India, etc. etc. WERE given the Priesthood, because they were considered to be of a different lineage. As you likely know, the Priesthood in Biblical times was highly restricted also, to where only one Tribe/Lineage was allowed to have it, and all others were banned. Further, Mormonism always taught against intolerance, racism, etc. Blacks and whites always worshiped together, never separate like most other religions. Even whites who were of African Lineage were denied the Priesthood. As you know, true racism when it concerns blacks, is if you're black.... racists don't care what your black lineage is.

It is true that some statements are either ethno-centrist or even racist. But it's a very large history, and very few actually exist given that history.
It is also true that various "theorys" were had why the ban, most wrong, if not all.
However, you'll note that when the ban was removed, what also was the state of racism at the time?
It ended..... at the same time.
Thus, while God never gave a clear reason for the ban, it seems clear that the ban existed because of the racism against primarily the black african.
If the Priesthood was of God, then clearly it wouldn't opperate where part of His children were under such a condition.

Some notes of history.... prior to the lifting of the ban.
JFK wouldn't have greatly respected the Church had it been racist.
One of the primary founders of the Black Panthers wouldn't have joined the church had it been racist.
The creator of the book and movie "Roots" wouldn't have come to Utah to be honored by the Church, had he considered the church racist.
Everyone has some skelleton's, but Mormonism actually has far less if one actually compares the history's of others to it. As it should be for a True religion. The ban itself however, wasn't based in racism, at least by the Church. If it had been up to the church, the ban would have been lifted long before. But the Church waited till GOD Himself to speak for it to be lifted.

These are just some highlights of what I learned, which resolved some big issues for me to return to the Church and know without a doubt that it was true, not another man-made religion.

Learn and experience objectively the church for yourself and then choose.
When I first joined the church thinking it was "good" (compared to many others I had been in) as a young man, I was in it 2 years before I got baptized.
When I was re-studying it after being anti-mormon, I went to everything I could, even meatings not meant for me, to learn it and feel it for about 1 year before I came back for good, resolving the issues I had, and comparing anti-mormonism next to LDS scholarship. It's easy to see the truth when you do that and have an open mind. Go to an LDS bookstore and study out of our best books, and see for yourself what is true.

Take care....

[_just me]

Whatever. I was taught that Heavenly Father forked Mary. I know tons of LDS who believe it. The reason she was still considered a virgin was that she hadn't been forked by a human man. I swear.

[_Gaelan_Ainsworth]

Why would I be taught that God became what he is, if he is meant to have never changed?

In my mind I look at the cosmos as being a work in progress. Evolution is a principal of 'reality' that is part of everything. For all intents and purposes, to us, God is an unchanging Being. But that doesn't mean that along the spectrum...yes, eternity IS a long time...God hasn't also moved from something 'less' to something 'more'. Or from one 'thing' to something 'different'. A static universe/cosmos doesn't make sense to me. A dynamic and changing universe/cosmos does.

This would be fine if scripture didn't dictate several times that god is eternally unchanging. For your explaination I would have to accept that scripture isn't literal, and if it is not literal I can derive no truth from it that holds any real meaning.

What is the point of a living prophet if they are fallible and human, capable of ignoring revelation, and making up revelation if the mood so takes them, without divine intervention?

To restore lost truths. To act as key holder for ordinances (salvation,temple). An organizational head and/or file leader to be at the apex of the hierarchy/kingdom. To call people to repentance, obedience to God's law/commandments.

This misses the point, I cannot trust the prophet to restore truths if I have to try to interpret whether the prophet is acting under true revelation, or is merely talking about his own interests.

What is the point of creation when an eternity exists outside of it, given that there is no guarantee I'll even hear about Jesus Christ? (Yes I know about baptism for the dead, if anything this strengthens my question, not answers it.)

If there hadn't been a creation, would you be asking this question? And would that matter?

if there was no point to creation, ofcourse I could still ask the question, the fact that I do, as far as I am aware, exist, necessitates that so does the universe, as for why it matters, it matters because if there is a point, and I miss the point, then I will lose out in the long run while all the lucky people get the point.

Again this misses the question, that being why creation was a necessity for God, if I'm guaranteed to be before him in the future, and given a chance to better myself to atleast some level, even if that means not attaining Celestial

Why would a just and loving being design Adam with a flaw that would cause the fall of mankind and the suffering of billions, just for the plan of salvation to work, and further how can one claim that Adam had Agency?

I would ask the question, "By what means is a "plan of salvation" able to begin or get a jump start?" Are there other ways of accomplishing the same thing? If I can't come up with a better way that is a 'one size fits all' then I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to God as He designed the beginnings of the 'human experience' on this earth.

You are but a man, God is all powerful, just because you cannot come up with a better solution does not mean that God can not. However even men can come up with better solutions, and have, for instance, a God that provides evidence, rather than hiding it. Instantly netting more followers.

The question though here is about why a perfect being would deliberately design an imperfect being to experience his creation, especially when his creation was meant to be perfect. The fall of Adam not only damaged humanity, but damaged creation, that's a big design flaw, which suggests God wanted to break everything. Had he not broken everything, there would be no need for salvation, He would be perfect, Creation would be perfect, and presumably life would be perfect.

Why does Satan exist, any powerful entity would remove opposition that was actually a threat, and opposition that isn't a threat isn't worth mentioning?

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here...but I'd entertain the possibility that 'Satan' is more or less a 'calling' designated 'driver' for those that are disrupting the plan of the Father. What goes on the temple seems to indicate that Satan is a 'nameplate' for an individual entity that is the CEO, you might say, of 'the threat' or 'the opposition', as you say.

What I mean here is that if I were to gain an adversary, someone who opposed me, someone who worked against me, but I was infinitely superior than them, I would make it so that they wouldn't be able to oppose me.

Why does Satan fight, when presented with an all-powerful being that can stop your plans, and an all knowing being that can know your plans, why even try to resist, any plan you have that would work is instantly stopped, any plan that wouldn't work won't be stopped, proving it doesn't work?

In Star Wars there is the Force and the Dark power. The two are always at odds. If God is a creator/organizer of worlds and the populating of the same, He is not acting in isolation without opposing forces of darkness/evil. The more interesting question, to me, is WHY would there BE forces of darkness/evil in the first place? Why can't everything just be GOOD? The answer to that question seems to be in front of us as we look at human history, however. There seem to be two opposing forces at work in the system.

I'm not asking for a dichotomy between good and evil, I'm asking why Satan would even bother getting up in the morning, Everything he does is guaranteed to end in failure, he is facing someone infinitely better and more likely to win, and has no chance of success.

How often do you do things that you have no chance of doing? The point of fighting is to change things, usually to get your ideas and authority accepted. Even debates replicate this to a point, but if you know you're going to lose, then there is no reason to fight, because the potential for reward is gone, and it's only going to cost you greatly to fight.

Does God interfere with his plan by answering prayer, given that he is meant to be unchanging, if he answers prayer, this suggests that there is no agency, for people just pray for what they were programmed to do so?

These are all great questions and they can't be answered, not even close, either here or ever...in any sort of complete/satisfying way...so I hope that's under consideration.

This is a question that I have looked at over and over again. I don't know of an answer that is completely satisfying. I do think, however, if we look at the concept of "all things being present before God" and "God knowing the end from the beginning"...that's a starting point for trying to resolve this dilemma. That and quantum mechanics and time/gravity astrophysics and all that stuff.

I can quite easily think through the mental gymnastics needed to follow a paradox or infinite regression to it's logical outcome.

Prayer is offered as a real way to change reality, perhaps most notably in Helaman 11:4 in which, because of the prayer of the faithful, God intervenes and literally changes war into famine.

If we are to have free will, as this is apparently necessary for our salvation, then I have to assume there is no plan for creation because a plan where the unchanging designer interferes would necessitate a change.

Alternatively we don't actually have free will, atleast in this one area, and what we pray for has already been decided for us, by God, to coincide with his plans.

Why is Satan the bad guy for wanting to not give free will, his plan would save countless more people, and we could still experience the physical bodies, the test of creation, and the non spiritual existence?

Good questions! From the LDS perspective it all has to do with HAVING free will and the exercise thereof. One way of trying to visualize is looking at totalitarian/communistic systems. Are those people better off than those of us blessed to living in a relative state of free choice/agency?

Totalitarian societies only look brutal because of the person in charge being corrupt. A truly good lord and master would be a wonderful person to live under without free will, because, in being truly good, any decision they make for me will have my interests in mind.

However let's consider the following analogy instead. You are told that if you are subservient and without free will for, say, 5 years, the other 65 of your life, you get to live in paradise. This is a good deal, aye?

70 years to eternity is a massive time difference, what is 70 years to the rest of existance, I would be prepared to live 70 years without free will if it guaranteed me the grace of God.

The best bit is, without free will, I wouldn't even know what I was missing.

Why would God allow his church to be corrupt for a century (or more)?

Jesus taught "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit." By it's very nature, however, a tree has to grow and mature before it bears fruit. Is it unreasonable to consider that along the way before the 'full corn shall appear' that there are going to be some blips and messiness along the way? As it it, the doctrine/practice and principles of the church have now come to a point in time, yeah correlation(?), where the tree is bearing fruit that is good/mature. But as I said earlier, if the nature of the universe/cosmos is that everything 'unfolds' or works through a process of evolution...it wouldn't surprise me if something is, as you say, "corrupt" before it matures.

"No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.
Why would God claim to reason as a man, then expect me to interpret bosom burning, signs, prophecies, and apparently ancient manuscripts?

[/quote]

Consider that the tree had already bore good fruit, then the next crop is infested with wasps, this is a more apt analogy. The first harvest gives you a better state to compare it to, and allows for a downwards corruption, rather than the growth into something better. With the specific issue I refer to in the question, one I posted a while back, deals with black people and the priesthood, in which it is claimed that until Brigham Young, black people did attain priesthood, but then until Kimball, no black person was permitted such. The span of over a century of a tree bearing no fruit, after it had already borne fruit.

He claims to reason with us as one man reasons with another. But God being God, I would assume He can only reason so far. At a certain point, it appears, we have to rely on other ways that God apparently 'communicates' with mankind.

Anyway, my two cents. It's fun to consider all this stuff. The thing is, the gospel itself is really kind of simple. That's what the missionaries are sent out to do. Again, don't expect them to be able to answer all of your questions. If you do, you'd be disappointed and want to quit.

Regards,
MG

God is all powerful, if he has to reason with me as a man, he could do so as the best of men, the most compelling orator, the most influential discourse, the most sensible and intelligent arguments. That is how men reason, and that is how the best of men reason well. To claim that something is beyond God, and that God would not be able to perform such a feat that mere men manage it, that puts into question the teachings before it puts into disarray my query.

Thank you for your time in answering all of my questions, I'm glad you took the effort to attempt to do so.

[_ldsfaqs]

Whatever. I was taught that Heavenly Father forked Mary. I know tons of LDS who believe it. The reason she was still considered a virgin was that she hadn't been forked by a human man. I swear.

Never known a SINGLE LDS save a couple nuts online that has believed that.
And I've lived in some 30 different wards/areas of the church.

This is an example of how the anti-mormon mind distorts reality. Even if what you say is true that you know some LDS who believe this, doesn't change the fact that it's simply a false view/interpretation, and not even representative of LDS thought. Again, I've been doing LDS scholarship for some 27 years, and lived all over the church.

It is all your imagination.

[_just me]

Whatever. I was taught that Heavenly Father forked Mary. I know tons of LDS who believe it. The reason she was still considered a virgin was that she hadn't been forked by a human man. I swear.

Never known a SINGLE LDS save a couple nuts online that has believed that.
And I've lived in some 30 different wards/areas of the church.

This is an example of how the anti-mormon mind distorts reality. Even if what you say is true that you know some LDS who believe this, doesn't change the fact that it's simply a false view/interpretation, and not even representative of LDS thought. Again, I've been doing LDS scholarship for some 27 years, and lived all over the church.

It is all your imagination.

Yep. It's all an illusion. Brigham Young didn't teach that God copulated with Mary. I didn't learn that from the book my parents had and talking to my father. Scratch that. He did. I did.

Of course it's not typically openly discussed. I mean, it's sacred. It's meat, deep doctrine.

I'll never forget the time the missionaries taught an investigator at my house when I was a teen and this very question came up. The missionaries started to deny and say they never heard of that. I was quick to inject that Brigham Young had indeed taught that. I didn't know there was anything wrong with that. I thought it was cool that I knew that.

[_DarkHelmet]

Whatever. I was taught that Heavenly Father forked Mary. I know tons of LDS who believe it. The reason she was still considered a virgin was that she hadn't been forked by a human man. I swear.

Never known a SINGLE LDS save a couple nuts online that has believed that.
And I've lived in some 30 different wards/areas of the church.

This is an example of how the anti-mormon mind distorts reality. Even if what you say is true that you know some LDS who believe this, doesn't change the fact that it's simply a false view/interpretation, and not even representative of LDS thought. Again, I've been doing LDS scholarship for some 27 years, and lived all over the church.

It is all your imagination.

If you've done LDS scholarship for 27 years and never came across this teaching, than you have only been studying the Primary manuals. I was taught this in Seminary. It certainly isn't talked about much because it caught us all off guard. The poor girls in the class were shocked. One of them argued with the teacher about it, and was about ready to cry. It's one of the deeper doctrines, but I was taught about it in seminary so it's not that deep.