But this life is a test...for atheists

[_I have a question]

I don't think I understand the Mormon concept of "spirit bodies" versus bodies of flesh and bone. I'm not convinced it even makes sense.

But I'm open to suggestions that matter is somehow important to God. There's a lot of empty space in the universe, but after that there are a lot of atoms. I figure there must be something good about them. Though maybe it's just that God appreciates them for their own sake more than I do.

If we had to come to earth to get a body of flesh and bone, how did Heavenly Father get His?

22 The aFather has a bbody of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of cSpirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not ddwell in us.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 0?lang=eng

Does Heavenly Mother have a body of flesh and bone?
Why doesn’t the Holy Ghost have a body of flesh and bone?

[_Meadowchik]

I don't think I understand the Mormon concept of "spirit bodies" versus bodies of flesh and bone. I'm not convinced it even makes sense.

But I'm open to suggestions that matter is somehow important to God. There's a lot of empty space in the universe, but after that there are a lot of atoms. I figure there must be something good about them. Though maybe it's just that God appreciates them for their own sake more than I do.

It makes more sense when viewed as a motivating principle for polygamy. Why would polygamy be so important? It appears more important when it is not just a temporary principle, but a cosmic truth as an "everlasting covenant." It is a cosmic truth because it is modelled after God the Father and Heavenly Mother. In order to be exalted to the utmost, each of us must be partakers of the covenant, married as husband and wife. And since the gender ratios are not necessarily perfect, polygamy becomes necessary.

So, if God didn't have a body, then marriage as husband and wife for eternity would not make as much sense, and there'd be no argument for polygamy now.

This connection becomes even more obvious when you consider the (lack of) teachings of Heavenly Mother. We are told She exists and is our Mother in Heaven, but that's about all we have about her in the LDS cannon. The references to Her are slim to non-existence in church media regularly presented in church meetings. The most frequent excuse for her absence, as far as I know, is that we want to avoid misuse of her name or identity, so she is spoken of less, but this reasoning is unofficial and not verified by the church in general.

So, in other words, when looking at LDS cosmology as taught by the church, Heavenly Mother appears to be a rhetorial afterthought, a necessary piece of the larger machine but one that is largely ignored. This, to me, points to a doctrine born out of perceived necessity instead of revelation or a genuine religious experience.

[_Physics Guy]

I suspect that Mormon leaders avoid talking about Heavenly Mother in order to avoid having to say how many she is.

[_Meadowchik]

I suspect that Mormon leaders avoid talking about Heavenly Mother in order to avoid having to say how many she is.

That, too. Also because they're men.

[_Physics Guy]

Yeah, that's probably the main thing. They're just not really interested.

If the men did spend a lot of time talking about a divine female figure that might not work out so well either, though. If I try to imagine what spiritual life is like for Catholic women, I have to imagine the most exalted male figure in my cosmos being a virgin father whose ideal character has been defined by elderly nuns.

Would I rather have only a vague male figure who was rarely mentioned? Tough choice.

[_huckelberry]

One thing I do wonder is if Sister Perry considered the disadvantage that religious people are at by having their morality biased by threats of eternal damnation and eternal reward. In the comic Calvin and Hobbes, Calvin asks Hobbes if Santa expects him to just act good or to actually be good. Hobbes suggests that the correct answer is that Santa would prefer that we actually are good. That we do the right things for the right reasons.

I gather that you do not think the carrot of living in a community of people who care for each other against the threat stick of living with a group of people who do not care for each other is not a basis for morality. Instead getting a score of 95 and thinking yourself better than that other guy with a 70 score is the true basis of moral existence.

Though there are situations in life we experience as a test I do not believe test is a good summation our purpose here.

[_Finn the human]

It’s understandable that a theist might feel defensive about a god that I made up whose purpose for life is to cull for atheists to test their moral intuitions. Honestly, I feel a kinship to Joseph Smith who also probably made up some stuff but couldn’t deny what an omnipotent imaginary being revealed to him either. We all have our crosses to bear I guess.

[_huckelberry]

It’s understandable that a theist might feel defensive about a god that I made up whose purpose for life is to cull for atheists to test their moral intuitions. Honestly, I feel a kinship to Joseph Smith who also probably made up some stuff but couldn’t deny what an omnipotent imaginary being revealed to him either. We all have our crosses to bear I guess.

Best as I can tell at least I did not experience any defensiveness. I was wondering if you had a clear way of distinguishing the appearance of being good, acting as if good, from the real thing of being good.
Acting as if good and not being good is a manipulation of appearance for personal gain and is something both believers and atheist might do.

[_Finn the human]

Hey huckleberry, I shouldn’t have suggested that you were defensive. And I’ll stop with the parody that is indistinguishable from a sincere extreme view. From a utilitarian point of view, I don’t know how important it is to distinguish between acting good and being good. On a personal level though, do you agree with the following? Being good > acting good > selfish douchery > worse stuff. I think the goal should be to try to move to the being good area and of course we fall short, and of course we are all experts at justifying our behavior as noble or necessary or righteous.

I think the real thing of being good is doing what Jesus said about loving God and loving your neighbor (although I would say that Jesus was being redundant). I don’t know if there is a way to know if what Jesus said is an objective fact, but it makes sense to me.

[_huckelberry]

Hey huckleberry, I shouldn’t have suggested that you were defensive. And I’ll stop with the parody that is indistinguishable from a sincere extreme view. From a utilitarian point of view, I don’t know how important it is to distinguish between acting good and being good. On a personal level though, do you agree with the following? Being good > acting good > selfish douchery > worse stuff. I think the goal should be to try to move to the being good area and of course we fall short, and of course we are all experts at justifying our behavior as noble or necessary or righteous.

I think the real thing of being good is doing what Jesus said about loving God and loving your neighbor (although I would say that Jesus was being redundant). I don’t know if there is a way to know if what Jesus said is an objective fact, but it makes sense to me.

Finn , I do agree with these comments, and believe that the difference between being good and appearing good is clearly important.
My first comment I was thinking of the positive role religion may have in asking people to look closer at moral decisions they might incline to not want to consider. Religion can have negative roles as well. It might give a person protection to say I do this and that so I am morally great when that might be just appearance.

At least as dangerous or perhaps more is when religion generates unrealistic fear and confuses a persons moral thinking to the point that the person just does not do moral thinking.