If it is prescribed by a doctor for the relief of a medical ailment, then it is okay - although, again, caution is necessary, because being addicted to prescription drugs isn't actually better than being addicted to illegal drugs.
Ask a Mormon, Part 4
- Thread starter Eran of Arcadia
- Start date
If it is prescribed by a doctor for the relief of a medical ailment, then it is okay - although, again, caution is necessary, because being addicted to prescription drugs isn't actually better than being addicted to illegal drugs.
The ability to do anything that can be done is the usual definition of omnipotence, so it seems to me that Eran's God is omnipotent, at least on the usual understanding of omnipotence. Most theists have not believed that God can do things that can't be done.
If you think that God can do even the logically impossible then theism breaks down, because there can never be an explanation (even in theory) for why God has made the choices he has made. He could, for example, always have made a better choice, even if no better choice is possible, because on this supposition God is not limited to what is possible. But to say that God could have done better than he has actually done seems to be unworthy of the concept of divine (moral) perfection. On this view, you're making God's power more important than any other divine attribute, and that seems a rather unchristian way of proceeding; God is supposed to be love, not unrestricted power. (I think it was Barth who said that this notion of unrestricted power is more appropriate for the devil than for the Christian God.)
The usual solution to the "rock too heavy for God to lift" is to say that such a rock is itself a logical impossibility, since there are no limits to what God can lift (he is limited only by the logical limits of possibility, not by weight). So such an object is intrinsically impossible, which means that even an omnipotent God cannot create one, because God cannot do what is intrinsically impossible.
Swinburne has an alternative answer: God can create a stone that's too heavy to lift. There is only a contradiction if he actually exercises that power and creates it. As long as he doesn't exercise the power, there exists no rock that he cannot lift, so there's no problem. I think the traditional solution is better, to be honest, because it seems odd that the presence or otherwise of a paradox of omnipotence should depend upon the exercising of that omnipotence itself.
If you think that God can do even the logically impossible then theism breaks down, because there can never be an explanation (even in theory) for why God has made the choices he has made. He could, for example, always have made a better choice, even if no better choice is possible, because on this supposition God is not limited to what is possible. But to say that God could have done better than he has actually done seems to be unworthy of the concept of divine (moral) perfection. On this view, you're making God's power more important than any other divine attribute, and that seems a rather unchristian way of proceeding; God is supposed to be love, not unrestricted power. (I think it was Barth who said that this notion of unrestricted power is more appropriate for the devil than for the Christian God.)
The usual solution to the "rock too heavy for God to lift" is to say that such a rock is itself a logical impossibility, since there are no limits to what God can lift (he is limited only by the logical limits of possibility, not by weight). So such an object is intrinsically impossible, which means that even an omnipotent God cannot create one, because God cannot do what is intrinsically impossible.
Swinburne has an alternative answer: God can create a stone that's too heavy to lift. There is only a contradiction if he actually exercises that power and creates it. As long as he doesn't exercise the power, there exists no rock that he cannot lift, so there's no problem. I think the traditional solution is better, to be honest, because it seems odd that the presence or otherwise of a paradox of omnipotence should depend upon the exercising of that omnipotence itself.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Well, I don't believe God to be constrained by the laws of physics since he created them. As for there being a "Better" option that God could do, isn't that a contradiction of terms if God is perfect?
Askthepizzaguy
Know the Dark Side
So, if they were wrong about this, then they wouldn't actually be communicating with God, and therefore the religion is false. Correct?
- Why do you believe one claim over the other? Why are you Mormon and not something else?
- Were you raised that way, or did you make a conscious choice to follow this religion?
- Why would he change his mind?
From my vantage point, it seems that the church does not actually receive communication from God, but in order to exist, it has to tell its members that. And in order to exist, its members have to believe that.
I do not believe God would change his mind regarding what is moral or immoral. If God for example thinks that polygamous marriage is okay, and then changes his mind, that sounds more like a human decision than a Godly one.
- Why would God contradict himself?
- Is possible the leaders of the church are lying to you? If so, are they doing it on purpose?
- You believe God communicates with you through the church. Why doesn't he communicate with you directly?
- How can you verify that it is God, and not Man, commanding you?
Okay, but what if the change in human society was to suggest that slavery was unacceptable, but in scripture it doesn't say anything about the immorality of slavery.
- Why would God not say that slavery was immoral and make the change happen himself, if he does not approve of other immoral behavior?
- What if God said that polygamy was okay, and then said it wasn't okay, after society deemed it to be unacceptable?
- Why would God's views change to conform to what people think? Isn't it more likely that the church changes to stay relevant? Isn't this more likely to be the work of man than God?
If your religion is true, there are no other Gods.
Some people believe that a non-Mormon Jesus appears to them. Others think that Mohammed is speaking to them. Some believe they can talk with Ganesha.
Your religion holds that these things are impossible. Are they delusional?
If Mormonism is the one true faith, then all other faiths are lies. It may be personal in terms of belief, but it deals with the nature of reality, and reality is the same for all of us, it isn't personal.
But your belief that Mormonism is "true" is in fact a judgment about their religion, which is that theirs is false.
Could they both be true? That seems logically impossible. Therefore your belief is that you are right and they are.... in fact, all of them are.... entirely wrong.
Am I missing a subtlety here? Correct me if I am wrong.
I am looking to find out what you believe about God.
I am not finding much in terms of specifics. I'm not concerned with importance, really, just what you believe.
If you believe it, and you have faith in it, then it is important to you.
- Do you not think it is important what God did with his time before he created the Universe? Are you not curious?
- Do you wonder what he looks like?
- Does he have a sense of humor?
- What does he do with his time, exactly?
Anything, anything at all, that you believe about this being, who is the person you believe to be the creator of everything, the master of the universe, your eternal lord, and final judge of your soul.
What is it you believe about him? Is it concrete, are there specifics? Do you ever question those beliefs? Do you even have beliefs about God, or do you prefer not to think about the specifics?
- Would God be in any way less glorious or wonderful if you knew specifics about him?
Do you not wish to picture this God specifically? If I believed in such a being, I'd want to know everything about him, and devote my entire life to learning more about him, since he is basically the only thing that matters in the entire universe.
Nothing else comes close. Everything else is like a single grain of sand on one moon of one planet in one solar system in one galaxy in all the vast universe, and God would be the rest of the universe, in terms of importance. If I believed.
- Why is it, do you think, that the description of God is so vague?
- Do you believe, if people were told something specific about God, it would cause them to not believe in him?
- Say for example, the leaders of your church revealed that he preferred to exist in a form that resembled a man with red hair and freckles. Would you believe it?
- Do you believe certain people would question the church more if they gave specifics about God?
My theory is that the reason why God is left "blank" is so that there isn't anything specific people can find unbelievable about him, so that he has wider appeal. One might call it commercially more appealing.
It is hard to say you don't believe in an amorphous God with few defining characteristics, but easy to say you fear/love/respect him for creating the universe.
It is much easier to say you don't believe in a God with three heads and breathes fire. It sounds ridiculous.
So, God is a male(ish) figure with no defining features, no race, no skin color, hair color, eye color, and vaguely looks human, but anything else about him is stuff that we don't know and widely disagree on. In fact many people disagree about all of this stuff already.
However, this vague parental figure is widely appealing to those who require one to feel secure about their own death, and are worried about an afterlife or lack thereof.
People find this figure comforting, and actually more believable and widely appealing if there is nothing specific about him. That is why I believe the church does not reveal specifics about him, in order to find him less disagreeable, as a marketing decision, in much the same way that certain companies don't advertise much or have names which reveal anything about their operations. They want to exist and be profitable without anyone asking questions or having any strong reaction to hearing their name.
Doesn't omnipotent literally mean all-powerful? An exact translation?
What is the difference in your mind.
All-knowing by definition means there is nothing God does not know. Therefore he cannot learn something knew, and doesn't have a lack of knowledge about the future.
When did God speak to you, and how?
Why, if God told you that your religion is correct, would he not tell others to convert to Mormonism?
Why would he allow for the fact that some people don't believe, and will therefore suffer in hell, when he could simply prove his existence by speaking to them as he did for you?
Why are you special enough that God speaks to you and not to me?
I sought God and tried to believe. I sincerely wanted to believe. I was a good person and offered to pledge myself to a church if he could help me choose the right one. I wrote letters to God and even prayed regularly.
Nothing ever happened.
Why does God speak to you and not to others?
Doesn't that violate free will, to prove to you that he is God, but not to me?
Why would he judge me for not believing in him if he made his existence so apparent to you, but not to me?
When has God directly answered any of your questions? What were the circumstances therein?
I think belief and faith are two different things.
I believe that it is going to rain in the next three weeks.
I don't have faith that it will, and wouldn't care one way or the other if it did or did not happen.
I also think faith and acting on faith, and belief and acting on belief, are very different things.
If I believe someone could be guilty of a crime, I might accuse them. But I would never have "faith" that someone is guilty of a crime, that's irrational and unfair.
Acting out of faith implies an irrationality that doesn't compute for me.
Acting on a belief is what we are all forced to do every day of our lives, religious or not.
Do you believe that if people pray to get well and they are sick, they might get well?
Even, as they say, miraculously well? Like recovering from a coma, or cancer?
Prayer can help with that?
Such as, to stop a genocide, or to stop cancer from spreading, etc, etc?
What are some things you can name that God intervenes with.
Cite examples, if you would.
That implies that he will never change his mind.
If that is the case then the future isn't set in stone.
That means humans could incinerate the entire world with nuclear weapons, or release a virus that erradicates our species.
We have that power.
God has told us how the world will end, but we can change that plan and defy God.
We literally have the power to prove God to be a liar.
We could detonate missiles and prove God wrong at any time. Any time at all.
Is that part of God's plan?
If it is, but the alternative (no nukes, no man-made virus) is also part of God's plan, then anything (literally anything) that happens is God's plan.
That doesn't sound like a plan at all. It sounds like there is no plan, but that God is saying that anything that happens is part of his plan.
That doesn't make sense. It sounds more like what humans would come up with to explain the following contradictions:
1. God knows everything and knows the future and has a plan for the future
2. God wants you to pray.... ostensibly, to change the future
3. We can change the future so much that the revelations God talks about never happen the way he says it will.
Therefore God has a plan, but it changes to fit whatever happened. That sounds like the exact same situation as if there was no God and no plan.
- What is the difference?
Why doesn't God ever heal amputees?
- Why does God only favor certain kinds of diseases to be cured through prayer?
Why can't a person be decapitated, and then prayer reverses it?
Why can't a person's limb be restored to them like magic, through the power of prayer?
- Why does a prayer being answered only happen in situations where it could be explained without prayer being involved?
- So why doesn't he like amputees?
Why doesn't he allow me to run at 50 miles an hour, to push someone out of the way of a moving vehicle?
Why doesn't he alter reality in any provable manner? Why is prayer only applicable in situations where the end result could be the same even if you didn't pray?
Why do statistics show that people do not recover faster or in higher percentages due to personal prayer, or organized mass prayer, than for others who do not believe and do not pray?
- If the same outcome can be (and is) achieved without prayer, why do we pray?
If the odds of success are not affected by prayer, aren't we simply rewarding God when things work out naturally, but not blaming him when they don't?
Isn't that like saying a positive proves God, but a negative also proves God, therefore there is nothing that can ever disprove God?
Doesn't that break down the foundation of proof?
Why do these miracles happen in the exact same frequency in countries which are not Mormon, Christian, or whatever?
Even if no one is praying and no one believes it, why does God still intervene at exactly the same ratio as he does for those who believe and pray?
- Doesn't that mean he's not actually intervening and prayer is meaningless?
The Bible specifically states in literal, unambiguous terms that through belief in Jesus, it will be possible to do anything. You can move mountains. Anything will be possible.
That implies that things will be possible that wouldn't otherwise be possible if you didn't believe.
What powers has your faith given you? When you pray, how have you affected the outcome of events in the world?
If impossible things aren't possible even with prayer, then what you're saying is that prayer works only if:
- It would be possible even without prayer
- It would be possible even if you don't believe
- It will happen at the same rate, around the world, involving people who don't pray and don't believe
I thought that prayer would mean God would play favorites, and answer your prayers, since you're praying, rather than answer the prayers that I am not praying for.
Miracles also never happen in circumstances where it wouldn't have been possible without God's interference.
Doesn't that seem a bit coincidental to you?
If a skyscraper disappeared for an entire day, and re-appeared, I would accept that there was the possibility that a God did it.
But the miracles in question always involve something less... I dunno, convincing.
- Why does God only perform miracles which still leave it ambiguous as to whether or not they are miracles?
Why does God reveal these miracles, which make people believe, in some circumstances, but he doesn't do it for everyone?
Isn't it unfair to punish a people who don't believe in him, when he has secretly told the answer to a very, very small group of people, and rewarded them for their belief, even though they didn't believe beforehand, but others searched for God their entire lives and never found him, and he is apparently going to punish them?
Is that fair or just? Why would God be unfair or unjust?
There's no question that your belief can make you change your behavior, but other than that, how have you tested your faith?
There is no scientific test you could take?
I could name several tests. Coincidentally, the church does not want you to test God, but they say they are unafraid to test your faith. What is the difference?
In the Bible:
Luke 12:33
Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.
Do Mormons only believe in the Book of Mormon, or is it a new testament of Jesus Christ?
Does this apply to Mormons?
How many people who believe in God or Jesus have done as he commands here, which is to sell your possessions and give to the poor?
Have you done as God has commanded, from your Holy Book? Why or why not?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/god_lie.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/contra/true.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/contra/precious.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/contra/free.html
If the Bible and the book of Mormon was made by God, and God speaks to the Church, why hasn't he clarified these points which contradict each other?
Why doesn't it mean God is lying when the Book of Mormon contradicts itself?
Why doesn't it mean God is lying when the things he say directly contradict other things he says?
Isn't that the definition of lying?
- Why doesn't he lie, if he's allowed to tell falsehoods?
- Why would he cause people to believe untrue things, isn't that the same as lying to them if he's forcing incorrect knowledge into them?
- Why do we believe God doesn't lie when we also believe he does lie for a purpose?
- Is there any other kind of inflicted suffering besides malevolent?
The Bible(s) have often spoke of wrath and pain and horror and punishment inflicted by God. We also experience pain and agony, and horrible deaths. We are told that there is a hell, where we will suffer beyond all imagination.
If God is pure benevolence and infinitely superior to us in wisdom and knowledge, why does he practice torture? Why does he torment us and allow us to suffer?
Isn't there a way he can teach us his lessons without being more cruel than all the mass murderers and serial killers and serial rapists throughout history combined?
- If he loves us, why does he treat us like neglected, tortured dogs?
- Do you believe in Hell?
- Do you believe that God is the reason people die, and before God punished us, we did not die?
- Do you believe that we experienced pain before God allowed us to?
- Do you believe that those who are judged to be unfit to enter heaven are justified in experiencing eternal suffering or hardship?
- Do you ever question God and wonder why he doesn't have a more enlightened view, if he is so amazing?
It seems to me you are attempting to reconcile conflicting beliefs, and you recognize the conflict and you're unable to resolve it.
I hope these questions do not come off as hostile.
I obviously do not believe, and I think that the God as you picture him is demonstrably or self-evidently not true. But, I also accept that I can be wrong, and I also accept that believing in God is okay.
I wonder if you have the same questions about God that I do, and if you've ever gotten the answers you seek. If so, what were they?
God never answered my questions, and I did ask him repeatedly. Why did he ignore me? Why does he answer your questions and not mine?
Do you want honest answers to all these questions, or are you just trying to prove me wrong? Because I cannot possibly answer all these questions here right now (and I doubt I can ever answer any of them to your satisfaction), but I do have answers to all of them.
Nonetheless, I will answer some of them.
Right.
Because when I prayed and asked God if it's true, I received an answer that it was.
Yes, and yes. I was raised Mormon but had enough exposure to other faiths (and they emphasize this in the church also) that I knew I had to determine for myself if it's true.
He didn't.
Well, anyone could say that about any religion/ideology they don't accept, but so?
What people don't understand is that our doctrine on plural marriage - "it's acceptable when God tells us it is, and not acceptable when He says it isn't" - has never changed.
Anything is possible, although by definition I don't think one can lie accidentally - it may not be true, but it's not a lie.
He does. Things the whole Church needs to know, He tells the prophet; things I, specifically, need to know, He tells me.
Right.
There is no such thing as a "Mormon Jesus" or "non-Mormon Jesus".
As I said, I have no grounds for saying what they are experiencing. I am sure they are not really speaking to Mohammed/Ganesha/whomever, but I can't say that they are delusional, or just mistaken, or even for sure that they are wrong.
Or just incorrect - it's not a lie if you say something you think is correct, no matter how wrong it may be.
Let me ask you - do you think all religions are lies?
Saying "I believe your religion is not correct" is different from saying "I am sure, and can say meaningfully, that you are deluded when you claim to have religious experiences of one nature or another".
Not "entirely wrong", only insomuch as they are different from us.
And this viewpoint of ours seems to upset a lot more people than I would have ever thought possible - in everything, if I believe X and you believe ~X, then of course I think you are wrong, so why should it only upset people when we say it?
Nonbelievers say this a lot - that people are only religious because they fear death.
Suffice it to say I don't think that applies to me.
Right.
Because when I prayed and asked God if it's true, I received an answer that it was.
Yes, and yes. I was raised Mormon but had enough exposure to other faiths (and they emphasize this in the church also) that I knew I had to determine for myself if it's true.
He didn't.
Well, anyone could say that about any religion/ideology they don't accept, but so?
What people don't understand is that our doctrine on plural marriage - "it's acceptable when God tells us it is, and not acceptable when He says it isn't" - has never changed.
Anything is possible, although by definition I don't think one can lie accidentally - it may not be true, but it's not a lie.
He does. Things the whole Church needs to know, He tells the prophet; things I, specifically, need to know, He tells me.
Right.
There is no such thing as a "Mormon Jesus" or "non-Mormon Jesus".
As I said, I have no grounds for saying what they are experiencing. I am sure they are not really speaking to Mohammed/Ganesha/whomever, but I can't say that they are delusional, or just mistaken, or even for sure that they are wrong.
Or just incorrect - it's not a lie if you say something you think is correct, no matter how wrong it may be.
Let me ask you - do you think all religions are lies?
Saying "I believe your religion is not correct" is different from saying "I am sure, and can say meaningfully, that you are deluded when you claim to have religious experiences of one nature or another".
Not "entirely wrong", only insomuch as they are different from us.
And this viewpoint of ours seems to upset a lot more people than I would have ever thought possible - in everything, if I believe X and you believe ~X, then of course I think you are wrong, so why should it only upset people when we say it?
Nonbelievers say this a lot - that people are only religious because they fear death.
Suffice it to say I don't think that applies to me.
I was talking about the laws of possibility, not the laws of physics. It is the laws of physics that prevent me from jumping out of the window and floating away; and on classical theism, God could override the laws of physics with a miracle. However, it is the laws of possibility that prevent there existing a person who is both over two metres tall and under two metres tall at the same time, because that is a plain contradiction. And on classical theism, God cannot create such a person, because God cannot do what is impossible in itself (as opposed to what is merely impossible given the laws of nature). God can actualise any being and any situation which is possible, but he can't actualise one that is impossible, i.e. that is self-contradictory.
Yes, but if you think God isn't bound by the laws of logic, you can't say something's impossible because it's a contradiction in terms. Because it's the laws of logic that tell us that contradictions in terms don't happen. That's my whole point. If God can do the impossible, then even if God makes the best possible choices, God could still have done better, even though that is impossible, because God can do the impossible. It may be a contradiction in terms, but on this conception of God, that's no problem for him. Moreover, if God can do the impossible then there is no basis for believing anything about him at all, because God could make your belief both true and false at the same time, even though it is impossible - even to the extent of making it true and false that he exists. So if God can do the impossible, theism collapses; atheism could be true even though it also false; and there is no basis for believing anything at all, because no matter how certain your reasons may be, God could just make it the case that you're wrong (or right and wrong at the same time, or neither, or anything). A God who transcends the laws of possibility is a totally irrational God. That is why most theists have always rejected such a conception of God.
GhostWriter16
Deity
@Plotinus- That's rather interesting. I've always just assumed that God can do anything, even if I can't understand how he does it. But I don't know that for a fact. I suppose its possible that the laws of possibility were created by God.
Askthepizzaguy
Know the Dark Side
I do want honest answers to all these questions.
I may be able to prove you wrong or highlight contradictions and things which I feel make no sense, but I cannot disprove God nor would I try.
I have these thoughts, these questions, as a non-religious person, formerly trying to be religious but I have given up.
I want to know if you have the same questions, if you've ever soul-searched and asked them, what your answers were, so I can better understand you.
If you've never asked those questions, or you got an answer, I would understand. If you asked those questions but have no answer, I wonder why you believe.
If you have answers I want to know them.
Alright. Do you mind if I follow up on these, or is this offensive that I am asking direct questions of your beliefs?
I felt this was an appropriate forum and thread for this discussion, and your invitation to ask seemed pretty open.
Askthepizzaguy
Know the Dark Side
- In what form was this answer delivered?
Describe in as much detail as you feel comfortable. I am very interested in this.
Direct communication with God, and getting answers, would make you sort of.... or exactly like a prophet, wouldn't it?
May I ask you questions that you can then ask God? He doesn't answer my questions. Why does he answer yours?
These are not sarcastic questions. If you truly believe God speaks to you, I wish to know how, and why he won't talk to me. Perhaps you can tell me his answers.
The point is, that is the case for every other religion except for yours, if you're correct.
And that's if you're correct. Which, given how 99.999% of other religions are just telling falsehoods, that means your religion is extremely special.
Why would God change his mind about what is moral?
That means God held an opinion that morality was one thing, and then later changed that opinion, which means at one time, God was wrong.
Like slavery.
I would argue the lie is both conscious and intentional, by at least some members. If they do not wholeheartedly believe it, for example, it becomes a lie for them to say they do. If they claim communication with God that they do not believe they have, that is also a conscious lie.
And a distinct possibility in the case of religion, because only one can be correct, therefore the others must have participants who are telling falsehoods. To what extent they are lies is left up to the motive of the person telling those falsehoods.
That makes you a sort of prophet.
I won't ask again, but see above: How does god talk to you.
Other Christians do not believe that Jesus is Mormon, therefore he's not a Mormon Jesus.
They do not believe that the Book of Mormon is accurate or divinely inspired, but they do believe in Jesus.
Are you stating categorically that you know their idea of Jesus is wrong?
How can you be sure they are wrong and that you are right, if your experiences are basically identical?
The reason you believe is because of your experiences. The reason they believe is because of theirs.
How do you KNOW you're not mistaken, but that they must be?
I challenge your use of the word "know" here.
I think all religions are opinions not based in fact, and I believe that even if one were true, all others would be at least partly wrong, and therefore incorrect.
The idea that all religions are equally valid only applies if they are all equally wrong.
But you say you know they are wrong, and you know you are right, when you believe they are wrong and believe you are right.
It doesn't upset me, my only issue is when people suggest that they know when instead they believe; stating opinion as fact.
That's fair enough, I don't claim to know your motivations, but many people make that bargain, Pascal's Wager, which goes something like: if I believe and I am wrong, then who cares, nothing happens. If I do not believe and I am wrong, then I might experience bad things in the afterlife.
I only bring it up because I have heard this from some of the more... fence-sitting religious people.
Now, you're obviously indicating that you're not a fence-sitter, you know that your religion is correct and that you directly speak to God and he speaks back.
I know you do not want to go over my list again, so I will condense it for you.
- Why would God not say that slavery was immoral and make the change happen himself, if he does not approve of other immoral behavior?
He made it very clear what other kinds of behaviors are immoral.
- Why is it, do you think, that the description of God is so vague?
I really want to know what your take on this is.
- Do you believe that if people pray to get well and they are sick, they might get well? Even, as they say, miraculously well? Like recovering from a coma, or cancer? Prayer can help with that?
- What are some things you can name that God intervenes with? Cite examples, if you would.
- Why is it considered a plan, that God has, if it includes every possible outcome? Is that not the same thing as if there was no plan and no God?
- Why doesn't God ever heal amputees? Why does a prayer being answered only happen in situations where it could be explained without prayer being involved? If the same outcome can be (and is) achieved without prayer, why do we pray?
- Why does God only perform miracles which still leave it ambiguous as to whether or not they are miracles?
- Do you believe in Hell?
Those are my real, serious questions. If I could get an answer from God about these things, I would ask him, and I did try. If you communicate directly to God, perhaps God could answer these questions of mine and pass them along to you or members of your church.
These are questions both about the nature of God and your belief in him. I understand if you feel they are tedious or unanswerable, that's fine; if you don't wish to answer then that's that. If you feel there are no answers, that's also fine. I wonder if you've ever thought about these questions, what answers you've come up with, and what answers your connection to God can provide.
If you'd like me to stop asking these questions, just say so and I will.
Okay, going forward I would prefer to be asked only one or two questions at a time, as it is a lot easier to answer than if I am responding to a huge post with dozens of questions - at least, easier for me.
Also, I prefer to answer questions that are about Mormonism as such - rather than about religion in general, or my own personal take on things in specific.
And don't mistake my inability to answer open-ended questions for ambiguity on the part of the LDS Church - for example, they have more specific views on the nature of God than most churches do, but it's hard for me at least to just list them all.
Also, I prefer to answer questions that are about Mormonism as such - rather than about religion in general, or my own personal take on things in specific.
And don't mistake my inability to answer open-ended questions for ambiguity on the part of the LDS Church - for example, they have more specific views on the nature of God than most churches do, but it's hard for me at least to just list them all.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Was Joseph Smith cool with being called "Joe" or did he dislike that nickname?
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
_random_
Jewel Runner
On this note, what role, if any, does mystery play in Mormonism?
I don't know what he, himself, thought of people who called him that - but he did go by Joseph, nothing else, so that's what it makes sense to call him. It would be like referring to "Jack" Adams or "Tommy" Jefferson - sure, some people use those nicknames, but they didn't.
By pointing out that the current stance is the earlier stance.
In other words, from the very beginning, all the scriptures that form the underlying doctrinal basis for the practice emphasized that it is to be practiced when God commands it, and not practiced when God commands it not be done. That is what happened here - Joseph Smith received revelation to practice it, in 1831, and Wilford Woodruff (a later prophet) received revelation to stop practicing it, in 1890.
I am not sure what you mean, exactly. There are things we don't understand, as they haven't been revealed to us yet; but that doesn't mean that they are forever beyond our comprehension, just that we can't or won't understand them NOW, or don't need to know them.
GhostWriter16
Deity
@Eran- I can somewhat sympathize with this (I would consider the same thing to have happened to many ceremonial laws when Christ came), that said I still don't totally get it.
I seem to remember you saying any polygamous marriages which were in practice at that time were to be stopped. If that is the case, is God not playing things off of each other, saying "You can marry more than one woman, but I may command you to divorce some of them?" Would this not create even more unhappiness and thus not be God's will?
Also, what about the command never to get a divorce except for sexual immorality?
Matthew 19 3-9:
I seem to remember you saying any polygamous marriages which were in practice at that time were to be stopped. If that is the case, is God not playing things off of each other, saying "You can marry more than one woman, but I may command you to divorce some of them?" Would this not create even more unhappiness and thus not be God's will?
Also, what about the command never to get a divorce except for sexual immorality?
Matthew 19 3-9:
It is true that ending the practice did cause problems for some people - so had introducing it in the first place. I don't know, however, what specific individual effects it had; nor whether it was understood by the participants when these marriages began that they might end with the end of plural marriage.
There are plenty of other situations besides adultery in which divorce may be necessary.
GhostWriter16
Deity
@Eran- Jesus says no. Was he wrong?
