tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post4897264225132757819..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: The Chain that Veils: A Word Play in Moses 7:26?Jeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger164125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-52156756700712346602016-04-13T19:58:21.629-05:002016-04-13T19:58:21.629-05:00Jesus didn't populate this world. We are not J...Jesus didn't populate this world. We are not Jesus's spirit children. We are his spirit siblings. So you are wrong there. The spirits populating this earth our Heavenly Father's children. Jesus couldn't have populated a planet with his own children in the pre-existence because he didn't have a wife. Therefore, by Mormon standards he couldn't have been God. <br /><br />Jesus did say he is subordinate. But that was while he was incarnated in the flesh. In the intercessory prayer, he said something to the effect of, "Now glorify me with that glory I had with you in the beginning." Paul says that the fulness of the divine nature is in Christ Jesus bodily. The fulness of divine nature. Not just a portion of it. Again,... I don't think you understand the concept of incarnation.<br /><br />If Jesus is Yahweh, and the Father is somebody else altogether, then what in the world do you make of Yahweh, through Isaiah, telling the Hebrew people that there are no other Gods in Heaven and Earth besides him, that he alone is God? Is Jesus denying the existence of the Father Elohim? <br /><br />(By the way,...Elohim is not a name. It is the generic Hebrew word for "god." It is used to refer to God and it is also used to refer to false gods. It means "god." It is NOT the name of the Father.) <br /><br />Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Perhaps he took his body again to remain the image of the invisible God. He shows us what we as humans need to be in order to become children of God. <br /><br />You don't believe God is invisible, despite the Bible making it very clear in several places that God is invisible, that no man has or can see God. You reject this notion because you accept Joseph Smith's 1836 version of the First Vision. In his first written version of this event he wrote in 1832, he never claimed to see two personages. He only saw "the Lord." In other versions, he saw "angels." Brigham Young even preached that God sent an angel to Smith to tell him that all churches were false. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Everything Before Usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-2581100829586995142016-04-13T17:05:23.990-05:002016-04-13T17:05:23.990-05:00Maybe it's just a semantic issue, but I feel l...Maybe it's just a semantic issue, but I feel like Jesus did a pretty good job creating and populating this world. However, while we're ranking "God-ness" so to speak, I will agree that Mormons view the premortal Jesus as subordinate to or less than the Father. I guess if that makes Him less "God," so be it. I don't see it that way, but I understand if you do. However, the idea of Jesus being less than the Father is biblical. He said as much Himself. So I'm not too worried about that.<br /><br />If other Christians don't want to include me in their ranks, that's okay with me. I'm not too concerned what they think of me, I'm much more interested in what Christ thinks of me. If He thinks I'm a Christian, that's good enough for me.<br /><br />I really do think I could have been a full participant in the creation, not on my own merit, but on God's. Being all powerful, He certainly could have made it possible for me to be a part of that. To say otherwise is to deny God's omnipotence.<br /><br />I am still curious as to your thoughts regarding the resurrection. If having a body wasn't a step forward- if flesh is a bad thing- why did the Savior take it again?Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-17994516727797665302016-04-13T13:55:00.551-05:002016-04-13T13:55:00.551-05:00Pre-mortal Jesus couldn't have all power, as y...<br />Pre-mortal Jesus couldn't have all power, as you said. How would he have created and populated his own world without his eternal mate, which he didn't have yet? He was limited. He couldn't have been fully God in the Mormon sense. Just saying it doesn't make it so. Prove it with the rest of your theology. The rest of your theology screams, "Jesus wasn't God!" <br /><br /><i>Would it be possible for me to be a God in the same sense? ...Of course I was/am nowhere near the same level as Jesus, but He certainly could have made me a full participant with Him. He is all-powerful, after all.</i><br /><br />You need to know that you cannot expect Christians to be okay with you calling yourself a Christian when you say things like that. Christians have real reasons for being hesitant to call Mormons Christian. It is because of stuff like this. Jesus created all things, both things in heaven and things on earth. He is the creator of all. He is the source of all things. He is the end of all things. Again...research what the Greeks meant when they said, "logos." It means a heck of a lot more than just "word." Jesus is that Logos...he is that aspect of God that makes sense and gives meaning to all things. He is the source of all things. The creator of all things. You could've been a full participant in that? Really? <br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />Everything Before Usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-29584428817095747332016-04-13T13:40:48.946-05:002016-04-13T13:40:48.946-05:00So you concede that an eternal being can have free...So you concede that an eternal being can have free will. The fact that I have free will, then, does not preclude me from being eternal, as you previously suggested.<br /><br />In what sense was premortal Jesus God? In the sense that He had all power, wisdom, knowledge, etc. I am not, as you say, a God yet, because I am not any of those things. <br /><br />I agree that you and I differ in our beliefs on the nature of God. I believe He and I are the same species. When Paul says "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring," I believe he is speaking literally. I don't believe he is speaking only of adoption, since his audience was not Christians. They could not have been included in "we" if adoption were meant, because they had not received Christ. <br /><br />Because I am the same sort of being as God, albeit nowhere near the same level, I believe that I can progress to become like God. I therefore also believe that progression is possible even for a God. Because of that, Jesus could be God, and also could progress. If having a body were not progress, I have to wonder why He even bothered to resurrect, or why that would be such an important part of the testimony of the Apostles. If flesh is such a bad thing, why take it up again? He could have manifested Himself to them as a spirit, and they could have still testified that death did not vanquish Him. Even though He too needed a body, I still see His incarnation as a condescension. He could have received a body in a royal court, with all His needs/wants met, living like a God. Instead, He came in the humblest of circumstances, was despised and rejected of men, etc. He condescended to take upon Himself a punishment that He did not deserve, so we wouldn't have to.<br /><br />Would it be possible for me to be a God in the same sense? You should be familiar enough with Mormon theology to know the answer to that. We believe there was more than one individual involved in the creation. This idea of multiple individuals is even hinted at in Genesis: "And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness (emphasis mine)..." This idea is reinforced heavily in Abraham when it says things like "they, the gods..." and then explains whatever it was they did. So would it be possible for me to be a god in the same sense? Sure. Of course I was/am nowhere near the same level as Jesus, but He certainly could have made me a full participant with Him. He is all-powerful, after all. Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-83280593735873258622016-04-13T11:42:39.945-05:002016-04-13T11:42:39.945-05:00Jesus is eternal because Jesus is God. You and I a...Jesus is eternal because Jesus is God. You and I are not God. We are not going to become Gods. God is fundamentally a being of a different type than you and I are. And God has always been of a different type than you and I. We are not of the same species.<br /><br />Only when you understand this does it even make any sense to talk about the incarnation, God becoming flesh. In Mormonism, God the Father was already flesh. He was ALREADY an incarnated being. But God the Son wasn't flesh. But in Christian doctrine. God is Spirit, just like Jesus says, so the incarnation really means something. It is the act in which God himself saves us. It is true condescension, because God did it for no other reason other than to save us. In Mormonism, Jesus became flesh, as Holland said, also to work out HIS salvation! It is not a truly condescending act, because Jesus God HAD to do it for his own salvation! <br /><br />God became flesh. That incarnated God is Jesus Christ, who is the Word, (which in Greek is Logos, and it means something very unique to the Greeks. Look it up.) Jesus Christ, as a human, had all the facilities and capabilities of human beings, including free will. If it were otherwise, God would not have become fully human. It would not have been a true incarnation. Jesus, as man, did make choices. He did exercise obedience. He was truly tempted in every sense of the word. <br /><br />I would encourage you to really spend some quality time studying Christian theology.<br /><br />Now...in what was is Jesus God before he has a body and before he has a wife? And...is it possible for you to be a God in that same sense? If not why not? Everything Before Usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-32311310486143812852016-04-13T10:31:27.409-05:002016-04-13T10:31:27.409-05:00I will answer your question when you answer mine. ...I will answer your question when you answer mine. Is Jesus eternal? Does He have free will? If He does not have free will, how did He make choices? How could He have been tempted if it was impossible for Him to even go there? How could He and His father have different wills if there was no free will for at least one of them?Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-48063135371330612842016-04-13T09:46:32.021-05:002016-04-13T09:46:32.021-05:00Given that I believe I always existed, yes, I beli...<i>Given that I believe I always existed, yes, I believe Jesus always existed.</i> <br /><br />In what way was Jesus God in the pre-existence and in mortality? And why are you not a God yet, if Jesus, who was just eternal as you are, has been God all along? This is what I can't understand about Mormon doctrine. Jesus is eternal, but he was also created by the Father at a certain point in time. Jesus is God even in the pre-existence, even when he doesn't have a body, nor a wife, but I can only become a God by getting a body and a wife. <br /><br />In what way do you, as a Mormon, believe Jesus is God, the YHWH of the Old Testament? <br /><br />(Sidenote: Actually, in the early days of the church the Father was YHWH, not Jesus. The Father was Jehovah, Jesus was the Son of Jehovah. Talmage is the one who finally formulated the current Mormon doctrine that Jesus is Jehovah. But this isn't what the early Mormons taught and believed.)<br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />Everything Before Usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-13488602747789426732016-04-12T18:21:04.661-05:002016-04-12T18:21:04.661-05:00"An eternal being can't be in possession ..."An eternal being can't be in possession of free will." Everything, are you saying that God cannot choose? That he cannot choose to say, change a commandment or a promised happening, or create His own plans? Do you not consider Christ to be eternal? Was His life free of choice? If He had no choice and no will, was His obedience no more meaningful than the obedience of a rock to gravity when I drop it?<br /><br />In my view, Ultimate Good is not a single needle to be threaded with only one color of thread, but a tapestry that can be woven with endless hues and unlimited design. It is a work of infinite art and joyous Creation, not a monotonic act of robotic optimization. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-67613869181305713132016-04-12T18:09:29.032-05:002016-04-12T18:09:29.032-05:00Ryan, well said. Eternal nature and free will are ...Ryan, well said. Eternal nature and free will are obviously not exclusive, and it's valuable to affirm that. The free agency of Christ, indeed, His _independent_ free agency, also should be considered. When He prayed unto the Father and said, "Not my will but thine be done," in the moment of choosing to take on the greatest, most dread burden of all, we see Christ making a personal and selfless choice, on which our fate hinged, a choice to surrender His own will to the will of the Father. Here we see choice, agency, and a unique identify, a distinct Being, working to become more fully One with the Father, as He began the infinite Atonement that changed everything for all of us. <br /><br />Paul tells us more about this moment in Hebrews 5:8-9:<br />8 Though he were a Son, yet <b>learned he obedience</b> by the things which he suffered;<br /><br />9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him....<br /><br />Christ's free agency was expressed by choosing to obey the Father. In his mortal journey, culminating with the Atonement, Christ learned obedience, full and perfect obedience, enabling Him to truly be the author of our salvation. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-80343336622013448842016-04-12T18:05:13.572-05:002016-04-12T18:05:13.572-05:00Given that I believe I always existed, yes, I beli...Given that I believe I always existed, yes, I believe Jesus always existed. The question is, do you believe Jesus is eternal? If so, did He/does He have free will?Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-121208651050331782016-04-12T17:37:28.093-05:002016-04-12T17:37:28.093-05:00Ryan...
When you say God changed and became morta...Ryan...<br /><br />When you say God changed and became mortal, are you talking about the Father or the Son? From your context, you seem to be talking about the Son. But then you say that "we agree that He has always existed..." <br /><br />The Son has always existed? Really? I thought you, as a Mormon, would believe that he was the first born of all the Father's spirit offspring. Everything Before Usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-68747080563932131482016-04-12T13:55:40.912-05:002016-04-12T13:55:40.912-05:00I simply reject your premise that eternity and fre...I simply reject your premise that eternity and free will are mutually exclusive. I reject the notion that God does not have free will. Although the scriptures refer to God variously as "an unchangeable being," "the same yesterday, today, and forever," etc, we know that can not mean He is an entirely static being. We know, for example, that He was able, in some sense, to change His nature. He came to earth as a mortal, capable of dying. Whatever He was before that, it was something other than that. Therefore, He changed. And He must have chosen to do so. No one made Him do it. He could have chosen not to. While in mortality, He made lots of choices. He chose to stay at the temple after Mary and Joseph left. He chose to heal various people (and presumably, not to heal others, since not everyone in the area was healed of all affliction). He chose to allow Himself to be crucified, and to rise again. We agree that He has always existed, and it is clear that He made choices. He must therefore be an eternal being with free will. Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-46724837200461529342016-04-12T09:51:44.118-05:002016-04-12T09:51:44.118-05:00If free will isn't given to us, but is an eter...If free will isn't given to us, but is an eternal aspect of our eternal existence, then we can't have free will at all. An eternal being can't be in possession of free will. To have no beginning and no end, but yet to have all that "time" available to make "good" and/or "bad" choices? Such a being isn't eternal at all. An eternal being couldn't act contrary to his nature and still be eternal. His very eternity makes it so that he simply is what he is. And what he is is good, but not good in relation to badness. Good, absolutely. And that is God.<br /><br />We can only have free will if we have a beginning, and in this beginning, free will is given to us by an eternal being. Everything Before Usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-34876406252749076862016-04-12T03:53:35.749-05:002016-04-12T03:53:35.749-05:00I'm not sure I agree with either of you, Ryan ...I'm not sure I agree with either of you, Ryan and Steven; but I'm not sure I can do any better. I don't feel I have a clear logical picture of what "free will" even means. On the one hand I want to say, with Ryan, that freedom means not being constrained by the past. Yet at the same time I agree with Steven, that it's not about being unaffected by my own desires, but rather about being able to enact them. <br /><br />My real point in this discussion is not that I understand free will, but that I don't see the connection between free will and eternal pre-existence, because if I accept eternal pre-existence, then all the problems of free will seem to remain — possibly with a few changes of terminology, but with the same pattern of issues still there beneath the new names. And conversely, anything I can say about eternal souls, to make free will sound both real and good, seems to be just as possible to say about created souls — again possibly with some changes in terminology, but with no real difference in the pattern of ideas.<br /><br />So as far as free will is concerned, we may all be in the same boat. What I'm saying more confidently is that it doesn't seem to me to be a major advantage of the doctrine of eternal pre-existence, that it does a better job of explaining free will.<br /><br />If I come to my senses in the afterlife and realize that pre-existent James Anglin really was the real me, then of course that might change my mind. For me, for now, that's just a speculation. It's not unlike the Buddhist notion of enlightenment including the remembering of all past lives. Now we see as in a glass, darkly; but then, face to face.<br /><br />There is a mainstream Christian notion that even if God created me at a particular moment in time, within the material universe, still the idea of who I would be was an idea of God's, and as such, eternal — whatever unimaginable thing that really means, when we are speaking of a transcendent God beyond all time and space. I think most theologians would still consider that this kind of potential pre-existence, as an idea of God's, is somehow not quite enough of an existence to count as pre-existence in the Mormon sense. <br /><br />I'm interested in these issues, but my strategy for investigating them is to do it professionally, as a physicist, in simpler cases. I work on the foundations of quantum and statistical mechanics, and so I am interested in the fuzzy fringes of determinism. I don't expect that anything I find will say anything directly about souls or free will, but I am hoping to get better logical clarity on what freedom might even mean, by finding analogies in the behavior of simple systems of particles.<br /><br />In some ways my attitude is optimistic, but in others pessimistic. I am hoping at some point to really learn something, but I am expecting the problem of free will to be at least as difficult and mind-bending as quantum mechanics.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-55312354846855556822016-04-12T00:17:02.165-05:002016-04-12T00:17:02.165-05:00*premortal, not premarital. Heh. *premortal, not premarital. Heh. Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-58733070511292681662016-04-12T00:15:38.752-05:002016-04-12T00:15:38.752-05:00My two cents (if it is even worth that)
I don'...My two cents (if it is even worth that)<br />I don't see eternal free will as making me a slave to some forgotten past self precisely because of what agency is. We are dynamic beings. One of the wonderful truths of the Gospel is that we can change. Whatever effect my premarital decisions may have had on my circumstances in this life (which I do not believe to be a simple matter) I can dictate what sort of person I am in this life. I may have brought some personality traits with me, but I get to choose what I do with them. Who I was yesterday need not determine who I am tomorrow.Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-72807579509333908152016-04-11T15:42:05.091-05:002016-04-11T15:42:05.091-05:00Haha, totally laughed. I can see how repulsive thi...Haha, totally laughed. I can see how repulsive this whole idea is to you. Especially with our differing viewpoints on pre-mortal spirits, etc. I can see why this would feel so foreign. I'm going to give a shot at an explanation in an attempt to naturalize this concept a little more for you (not that I think it will get us on the same page, but maybe help you understand a little better where I am coming from on this).<br /><br />Let's take freedom of will in this life for a moment (under the assumption we have it). I think when getting into the details of the deterministic nature of choices, people often start wanting a sort of freedom from will, instead of freedom of will. They suddenly feel like the claim is that they are a slave to themselves. While I suppose that's one way to look at it, I don't it's an accurate portrayal of the reality of free will. If you find yourself thinking along these lines, I think the question you should ask yourself is - do I really want to be free from my own wants and desires? Do I really want my choices to be governed by something other than what <i>I want</i>? I think if you honestly reflect on that question, the answer for most people is no. I do want what I want, and to be free to make choices according the whims or desires of my heart, not some other arbitrary force. We don't really want freedom from self, that we have desires and wants is the very thing that makes us a self in the first place. What we really want is freedom to be what we want to be, or that our will has freedom to express itself and choose, i.e. free will. Which is to say that our will, that roots in our nature, is free to determine our choices.<br /><br />Now to the idea of a pre-mortal you. I think I can appreciate how this idea could be very foreign to someone, after all we do not remember such a life if we did live it. I can see how you might say that person (your pre-mortal self) "might as well be an entirely separate being from me". But I think the reality will feel quite different once we come into remembrance of our pre-mortal lives. Because your deepest inner thoughts, feelings, and motivations all root in your spirit, there is nothing more "you" than your spirit. I think some of the greatest joy in this life can be felt when one really comes to discover oneself, how much more when unencumbered by these corruptible bodies will our joy be when we can truly see ourselves in completeness. The idea of an eternal spirit is that this is in fact the real you. That you have temporarily forgotten, but will once again see what it is that makes you tick. And just as in this life we wouldn't really want to be detached from our own wants and desires, I believe the same principle holds true. You are not a puppet or slave to yourself anymore than you feel like a slave now choosing to take a vacation and relax on the beach. Instead, you get to be you, and that is the ultimate freedom (at least in my mind).<br /><br />Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00758380516720231312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-40086884487928994562016-04-11T14:41:10.206-05:002016-04-11T14:41:10.206-05:00Steven, if you're interested in NDEs I can rec...Steven, if you're interested in NDEs I can recommend a work of fiction you might like: <i>Passage</i>, by Connie Willis. It won prizes as science fiction, but the only way in which that category really fits is that the book presumes some plausible but speculative mechanisms in NDEs. It's smart enough not to pretend it's really settling anything, but it's thought-provoking.<br /><br />I guess I'm just not seeing the link you see between freedom and eternity. It's a subtle issue. To me, the case in which human souls are co-eternal with God is one in which, however this somehow works, God's causal power is limited in order to leave room for human agency. Okay. But I don't see why God can't just voluntarily step back, at some point in time, and create this free agency at that point.<br /><br />Having said that, I'm actually not at all sure that I even know what free will means. If I try to be really specific, then perhaps my thoughts are closer to yours after all, because it seems to me that if nothing outside me determines what I choose, then my choices are still determined by my own nature. If that nature was itself determined by God, in creating me, then in effect we have Calvin's predestination. I can listen for a while to arguments that predestination isn't really as bad as it sounds, but in the end I still don't like it.<br /><br />But I still don't see how eternal pre-existence really helps with this. It may get God off the hook, but it still seems to leave the me of my current life as the helpless puppet of an eternal being, namely my own eternally pre-existing self. I have no memory of that pre-existing self, who has shaped my life beyond any power of mine to resist. This supposed eternal self might as well be an entirely separate being from me; saying that they are actually me seems to be just an arbitrary convention of terminology. In no practical way do I sense or feel that my own nature is my own pre-existent choice.<br /><br />Perhaps this all just seems different if you grow up with it. To me the Mormon theory would seem to mean that, instead of being (in the most ultimate sense) a child of God, I'm the puppet of a much lesser (though still eternal) god, who is perversely called "pre-existent me" even though I have no memory at all of ever being that "me". In effect this gets God off the hook for evil, but just in the polytheistic way, of saying that the good God is the chief god, but the chief god cannot fully control all the lesser gods, and they make mischief. <br /><br />I think that if I were ever convinced in this direction, I might prefer to go right back to paganism, and let my fate be decided by Apollo or Loki. Pre-existent James Anglin is just another shmoe among zillions. Apollo and Loki are on the lesser god A-list.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-91399548972316066272016-04-11T14:36:16.161-05:002016-04-11T14:36:16.161-05:00What do you think your motive was for applying tho...What do you think your motive was for applying those labels to me?Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00758380516720231312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-74752590748432805652016-04-11T14:21:54.526-05:002016-04-11T14:21:54.526-05:00Do you know what Luciferianism is? It is not Satan...Do you know what Luciferianism is? It is not Satanism. It is the belief that by experiencing the dualistic world of good/evil, we can become gods. That is Luciferianism. Lucifer is the light-bringer, the one who opened up the world of experience to Adam, Eve, and their posterity. He saved Adam and Eve from a controlled environment in which they could not think for themselves, lacking the necessary knowledge required for free-thinking and progression...the awareness of good and evil. See some similarities there? <br /><br />From Wikipedia: Although sometimes mistakenly associated with Satanism due to the Christian interpretation of the fallen angel, Luciferianism is a wholly different belief system[1] and does not revere the devil figure or most characteristics typically affixed to Satan. Rather, Lucifer in this context is seen as one of many morning stars, a symbol of enlightenment,[2] independence and human progression, and is often used interchangeably with similar figures from a range of ancient beliefs, such as the Greek titan Prometheus or the Jewish talmudic figure Lilith.<br /><br />They support the protection of the natural world. Both the arts and sciences are crucial to human development, and thus both are cherished. Luciferians think that humans should be focused on this life and how to make the most of it every single day. The ability to recognize both good and evil, to accept that all actions have consequences, both positive and negative, and to actively influence one's environment, is a key factor.<br /><br />For Luciferians, enlightenment is the ultimate goal. The basic Luciferian principles highlight truth and freedom of will, worshipping the inner self and one’s ultimate potential. Traditional dogma is shunned as a basis for morality on the grounds that humans should not need deities or fear of eternal punishment to distinguish right from wrong and to do good. All ideas should be tested before being accepted, and even then one should remain skeptical because knowledge and understanding are fluid. Regardless of whether Lucifer is conceived of as a deity or as a mere archetype, he is a representation of ultimate knowledge and exploration: humanity’s savior and a champion for continuing personal growth.<br />everything before usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-82873095797907453842016-04-11T10:38:52.509-05:002016-04-11T10:38:52.509-05:00EBU,
I agree that the situation you describe does...EBU, <br />I agree that the situation you describe does not solve the problem. I think you've posed many good questions, I actually agree with most of your implications, this is where I fall outside of mainstream thought (but I think more inline with Joseph Smith's original teachings). Maybe you forgot or didn't understand when I said it, but I reject the intelligence/spirit dichotomy, I reject spirit birth, or the idea that there was ever a time when a being's mind first came into consciousness. I have to say, I am quite turned off from speaking with you though when you have gone so far as to call me a "Luciferian". Even if I am totally wrong, I am sharing my honest sincere beliefs, and I think my intention for good is evident. I don't feel you've offered me the respect I deserve, and the same level of respect I've shown you. <br /><br />I feel a lot of anxiety in you, and I've only seen little of you, but it seems part of it may root in a sort of entitlement to be given all answers. Perhaps you feel Mormonism claiming to be the true church, owed you answers to all your questions, that there wasn't supposed to be contradictions and/or falsehoods taught/believed. I think if you honestly study your heart you'll recognize this is a very entitled position full of many unfounded assumptions. And I do not doubt you've also been genuinely hurt by the church and/or its members along the way. I do not excuse that, or say that the church and/or its people are not accountable for their part. At the same time, we all hurt one another as we are fallen and in a mortal world. The only way past it that I see, is owning our part, and then forgiving others when we are the victim. And if in the integrity of your heart you disbelieve the truth claims of the LDS Church, then allow yourself to leave it behind, knowing even if you are wrong you are being true to yourself and therefore justified before God. But this seeming need to hate, put down, and prove it wrong tells me there is something that your not being willing to deal with in yourself. I don't know you, I could be completely wrong in what I'm seeing or wrong about somethings and right about others. But this is what seems to be coming through from my vantage point, and I'm sharing it with you in my best effort to be helpful.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00758380516720231312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-3005211957259585792016-04-11T10:38:38.215-05:002016-04-11T10:38:38.215-05:00James,
Yes, I familiar with the skeptic interpreta...James,<br />Yes, I familiar with the skeptic interpretations of these phenomenon as well. I don't think NDEs/OBEs are some sort of full-proof evidence, and like I said not the main reason I believe in material living spirits. I personally find the evidence compelling though. Why atheists have these experiences just as frequently, being brought into the presence of a head being of light and love, when they do not believe in such things. I find the skeptic interpretations of the evidence to be a greater stretch than testimonies of countless individuals time and again who experience these and say they know they are real, and often say where they went actually feels even more real than life here. I suppose we could likewise discount our own experience that we are currently real, and that "life" and everything we think is real is just an illusion. But deep down we know that's not true, so when people say that their experiences felt even more real than this reality, that to me is compelling. But I concede it is not proof. And I'm fine that we interpret the evidence differently, I think both sides are rational with intellectually honest arguments.<br /><br />As for your mental experiment, I believe there is a flaw in it. It is true that you could imagine an eternal being with free-will and then cut off his past at a particular point and he would be free. And that might apply to reality if likewise a being was eternal and then actually had his past cut off. But if his past never existed first, and he was then created, this is a different story. Then there is a "cause" of his nature that is not his own. However, this idea that he can be cut out and put back in (my understanding of your idea of death and resurrection) in an endless chain (at least backwards) satisfies the "eternal" solution in my mind. Otherwise the problem of freewill & determinism remains as far as I have understood it. I am open to learning and acknowledge that some other solution might exist out there.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00758380516720231312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-36292855652903306192016-04-11T09:17:43.560-05:002016-04-11T09:17:43.560-05:00@Steven:
Thanks for the link on OBEs and NDEs. I&#...@Steven:<br />Thanks for the link on OBEs and NDEs. I've read a bit about them, and what I've read so far has instead tended to discount claims like Moody's. I don't know exactly what experimental errors might be involved on each side, but it's not often that enthusiastic amateur psychologists collecting anecdotes are careful enough to rule out prosaic explanations.<br /><br />It's not a level playing field where the spiritualistic explanation is a priori just as plausible as the material one, so you have to let yourself swayed by eyewitness accounts. The surprisingly grave fallibility of subjective recollections is well established, even on very simple things. (Try the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo" rel="nofollow">subjective attention test</a>, if you haven't seen it.) And the difficulties inherent in any theory of spirit-as-substance are really huge. If you're really serious at getting the truth, you have to be awfully darned hard-nosed about OBEs and NDEs.<br /><br />About free will, I'm afraid I have to agree with Everything Before Us. You're right that free will is kind of paradoxical, but I don't see how eternal pre-existence helps with this. Either I'm free, or I'm not; either I'm eternal, or I'm not. I don't see how either issue prejudices the other. I can imagine an eternal slave. <br /><br />I can also imagine an eternal universe in which a free-willed being exists throughout endless time. I can then imagine a copy of that universe in which that particular free-willed being is cut out of the universe after a certain time, so that the being had no beginning, but at some point dies. Or I can imagine cutting that being out before a certain time, so that the being is created at that time, and then lives forever afterwards, with free will. So the condition of being free does not seem to me to be dependent upon eternal existence.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-90322521220376212572016-04-11T08:56:38.199-05:002016-04-11T08:56:38.199-05:00The free will / accountability issue is that if we...<i> The free will / accountability issue is that if we are created, either God is ultimately responsible for our evil and good as our choices are the byproduct of our created nature, or our natures a randomly created, both of which put ultimate accountability on the creation act leaving us not ultimately accountable for our choices or who we are. </i><br /><br />Steven, the Mormon solution to this is no solution. If I am an eternal being, nothing created me. And my nature is therefore randomly determined. I just am what I am. I didn't do it. God didn't do it. It's random! <br /><br />And then, you have to consider that at some point, God took that eternal "intelligence" and turned it into a spirit being that can choose between right and wrong. And in that act, God did create me, and therefore he is accountable as Creator. <br /><br />You didn't solve the problem. You just put a blanket over it and said, "Look! Problem solved." Everything Before Usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-67749741385773507912016-04-11T07:48:06.048-05:002016-04-11T07:48:06.048-05:00Thanks James, nice thoughts as usual. I've en...Thanks James, nice thoughts as usual. I've enjoyed learning more about your perspective.<br /><br />Here are a couple of NDE links that might interest you in light of the above: <a href="http://www.near-death.com/religion/atheism/an-analysis-of-the-ndes-of-atheists.html" rel="nofollow">Analysis of Near-Death Experiences of Atheists</a>, and <a href="http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence/people-see-verified-events-while-obe.html" rel="nofollow">People See Verified Events While Out-Of-Body</a><br /><br />The free will / accountability issue is that if we are created, either God is ultimately responsible for our evil and good as our choices are the byproduct of our created nature, or our natures a randomly created, both of which put ultimate accountability on the creation act leaving us not ultimately accountable for our choices or who we are. Alternatively, our choices may not be deterministic based on our given nature at creation, and are random and unconnected. This leaves us without accountability either. A creation point cannot allow for both freedom of will and moral accountability. If our natures are uncreated and eternal existing, determinism and moral accountability can co-exist with the freedom of will. See <a href="http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2007/01/free-will-causality-character-and-moral.html" rel="nofollow">this</a> basic discussion on a Christian blog, or the subsection "With Free Will" halfway down the page <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism" rel="nofollow">here</a> for more on the subject. (or just search free will and determinism)<br /><br />Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00758380516720231312noreply@blogger.com