Complex?

[Ego]

Ego, as a diest, why then a god at all?

Let me explain my position more clearly to try to answer this properly.

I was learning that there was something like a ‘God essence’ that was suggested by the scriptures and by the endowment in the Temple that all exalted beings seemed to inherit in order to be considered a God. To begin with a scriptural example, John 14:8-9 “Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

“Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father⁠; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?”

You will have to forgive my use of gnostic Christian literature for this next passage, but it conveys what is taught symbolically in the Temple but which would be insensitive to quote. It is in the Egyptian gospel of Philip himself that we read “One single name is not uttered in the world, the name which the Father gave to the Son; it is the name above all things: the name of the Father. For the Son would not become Father unless he wore the name of the Father. Those who have this name know it, but they do not speak it. But those who do not have it do not know it.” (And no, this is not talking about the names of ‘Jehovah’ and ‘Elohim’, this is talking about the Key-Words of the Priesthood).

I explained in “Formal Mormon Theology” that I believe the natural conclusion of Mormon theology is to posit that God and all the Gods in the infinite regression are subordinate to higher principles than themselves such as how Alma 42 says that God has to abide by the law of justice to remain God. After learning about the Platonic philosophy of the forms which best conceptualized that I shifted my view to think of this God-essence as something that a being had to be fully subordinate to to be considered a God. But after reading some various philosophies I became convinced of the One from Neoplatonism as the source of the forms. But if the One is invariable superior to any God, who must be subordinate to its laws of nature, physics, math, and logic, then I might as well consider that my God instead. So I positively believe in the One because strict materialism does not fit the evidence to me but I am neutral and rather agnostic as to the existence of a God subordinate to the One; I think such a God with personhood and consciousness is unfalsifiable.

So I am deist in that I do not believe the One ever contradicts its own nature and physics, and any personal God such as the Father or the Son could not either, but would at best operate entirely within natural means and laws.

How Adam and Eve fit into the whole thing is, as you have mentioned, a bit beyond our paygrade. I haven't stumbled upon any evidence that they existed as two individual human beings within the evolutionary line that extends back tens of thousands of years if not farther. I take it on faith that they did exist as the progenitors of the race of humans that modern humans are the result of.

I feel no obligation to hunt for Adam and Eve. Genesis to me is a book of mythology and I can appreciate it much better by reading it as such than by trying to take it literally.

Putting aside some of the other things you talked about in your post...whereas evolutionary theory, Adam and Eve, and associated conundrums can get us in a twist...I have another question. (by the way, thank you so much for your post, very interesting and informative as to your personal history).

What do you see as the outgrowth and meaning of "purpose" when it comes to mankind? If you are more or less a deist does that or does that not lead you to believe that mankind has purpose that has any kind of ultimate meaning not only here on planet earth, but in some form/kind of hereafter?

Regards,
MG

I don’t concern myself with an afterlife I cannot verify the existence of. For a time it was a super troubling topic for me, I suppose I can get into that some other time if people are interested to hear more of my life story. I feel very much like Marcus Aurelius; it’s out of my hands so I don’t need to bother with it.

As far as meaning and purpose goes? I'm an absurdist. The One is not obligated to provide meaning for my life so I create it for myself. That looks like taking care of my family and engaging in my passion for religion. I curiously came across the video of someone on YouTube who felt that all Mormons should be existentialists in this way because of the doctrine of agency. I appreciated that view.

[MG 2.0]

I don’t concern myself with an afterlife I cannot verify the existence of.

I know deism allows for that. My view is if there is a God that put things into motion and allowed for sentient life to exist and have the ability to yearn towards a creator/God, it would be a cruel joke for that God to snuff things out at death. I would think that a God who created all things would want those created beings to have the opportunity for continued existence after this short span of carbon based life.

And that He would want that companionship rather than existing alone in the universe.

Even without religious doctrines that allow for an afterlife it just seems to make common sense that if there is a creator that creator would not allow for or desire that his creations do not continue to exist after death.

Obviously if there is no creator God then it's all up for grabs. But if there is a creator God I think it is much more likely that we continue to exist after we die.

Even without hard fast proof.

Regards,
MG

[Chap]

I would think that a God who created all things would want those created beings to have the opportunity for continued existence after this short span of carbon based life.

And that He would want that companionship rather than existing alone in the universe.

Even without religious doctrines that allow for an afterlife it just seems to make common sense that if there is a creator that creator would not allow for or desire that his creations do not continue to exist after death.

That view is not entirely implausible, if it was to be agreed that some kind of vast personality, but sharing some human characteristics. had created and now sustains the universe. But:

(a) the precondition of such a creator is a very big ask;

(b) even granted such a creator, that's a long, long way from it actually being the case that he acts in the way you suggest.

A way of life that gives up the chances this life offers for some kind of human fulfilment, however imperfect, and banks everything on a life after death would be very unwise.

[Ego]

I don’t concern myself with an afterlife I cannot verify the existence of.

I know deism allows for that. My view is if there is a God that put things into motion and allowed for sentient life to exist and have the ability to yearn towards a creator/God, it would be a cruel joke for that God to snuff things out at death. I would think that a God who created all things would want those created beings to have the opportunity for continued existence after this short span of carbon based life.

And that He would want that companionship rather than existing alone in the universe.

Even without religious doctrines that allow for an afterlife it just seems to make common sense that if there is a creator that creator would not allow for or desire that his creations do not continue to exist after death.

Obviously if there is no creator God then it's all up for grabs. But if there is a creator God I think it is much more likely that we continue to exist after we die.

Even without hard fast proof.

Regards,
MG

To me God is only maximally powerful within what is possible given the laws that be. If it is possible to allow for an afterlife of souls I agree I think He would make it so, if it’s not possible then that’s the unfortunate end of it.
I’ve heard some naturalistic views that attempt to see what the nature of the soul it by using nature as an analogy but I’ve noticed these tend to construe things to fit their preconceived worldview.
I think there is merit to Pascal’s wager in that I ought to live a virtuous life that would grant me passage to heaven, but I also see the importance of the reverse of Pascal’s wager, that this life might be all there is so I would like to leave it better than I found it and I certainly don’t think that would count against anyone in an afterlife reckoning.

[MG 2.0]

A way of life that gives up the chances this life offers for some kind of human fulfilment, however imperfect, and banks everything on a life after death would be very unwise.

What are you referring to here?

Regards,
MG

[Ego]

A way of life that gives up the chances this life offers for some kind of human fulfilment, however imperfect, and banks everything on a life after death would be very unwise.

What are you referring to here?

Regards,
MG

I’m guessing the fairly normal things that people do which Mormons would label sin and hedonism.

[MG 2.0]

What are you referring to here?

Regards,
MG

I’m guessing the fairly normal things that people do which Mormons would label sin and hedonism.

Oh.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

What are you referring to here?

Regards,
MG

I’m guessing the fairly normal things that people do which Mormons would label sin and hedonism.

Yes, such as marrying who you love, working at something you love, associating with people who don't bake gender and race bias into their religion, raising your children outside of a cult, donating to legitimate charities and not to religions that break laws and hoard money, etc. Those types of things.