Ask a Mormon, Part 4

[Eran of Arcadia]

I've never read it, but that's what I've heard.

Well, given how many translations, and interpretations of the Bible there are, and how it came to be written, there is no one proper way to read it that is clearly correct.

That seems awfully assumed to me.

What do you mean? The serpent said that eating the fruit would make Adam and Eve become like God, and in a sense it helped the process along, so he wasn't even wrong about that.

Do you believe that is the case?

No, it's quite unlikely.

Well, most major doctrines in the Bible are not simply stated once. But my point is, assuming Mormonism is correct, God knew some people would only accept the Bible, so why did he not put any implication of its doctrine in the Bible?

Salvation is not really based on how many correct doctrines one knows. After all, the majority of all the humans who have ever lived never so much as saw a Bible.

And like I said, a lot of the "implications" are there, if you are looking for them.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, given how many translations, and interpretations of the Bible there are, and how it came to be written, there is no one proper way to read it that is clearly correct.

I thought the Mormons accepted the King James Version specifically?

What do you mean? The serpent said that eating the fruit would make Adam and Eve become like God, and in a sense it helped the process along, so he wasn't even wrong about that.

Well, they became like God because they knew good and evil.

No, it's quite unlikely.

I would agree obviously.

Salvation is not really based on how many correct doctrines one knows. After all, the majority of all the humans who have ever lived never so much as saw a Bible.

I would agree on that.

And like I said, a lot of the "implications" are there, if you are looking for them.

Just for curiosities' sake, can you show me a couple?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I thought the Mormons accepted the King James Version specifically?

We use the KJV (in English) but don't claim it's the only accurate translation (or even the best translation).

Well, they became like God because they knew good and evil.

We also see it as the beginning of their mortal experience, and one's mortal life is an important step in the process of exaltation.

Just for curiosities' sake, can you show me a couple?

I don;t actually have the citations, but I think in Romans 6 (or 8?) it talks about inheriting all that the Father has, and in Revelations 3 it says that those who overcome do the same.

Honestly, I knew the exact verses as a missionary but since then it rarely comes up.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Something that would make me think that it is more likely that Mormonism is incorrect than correct.

• Incorrect on which points? All or some?

• Incorrect about god, incorrect on the mythology/history, incorrect on science, incorrect on what is ethical and moral, some, or all of the above?

• Would you accept Mormonism if some of it were literally proven to be incorrect?

What metric would you use for being right or wrong about a faith?

Hard to say, just whether it makes sense to me for starters, and whether I have any reason to believe it.

• Do you have any reason to believe that Mormonism is more correct than any other religion or non-religion?

• What are those reasons?

I would say that Mormonism isn't "100% correct" in the sense that there are important things we do not yet know about the nature of the universe, but I do believe that its claims are true.

• Which claims do you believe are true, and which do you believe aren't 100% correct?

Well, as I define it, faith isn't so much "believing in something without any proof/evidence" as "acting on a belief even if I am not 100% sure about it".

I disagree, I think faith and acting on faith are separate things, and I'm more concerned with the faith aspect.

I would define faith as belief in something without or in spite of evidence.

I would describe acting on faith as just what you said, acting on faith, and that's a separate category, and I'm going to reserve judgment on that until I examine the faith part first.

If the faith is good and justified, then acting on it is good and justified.

If the faith is bad and irrational, then acting on it is bad and irrational.

Honestly, I don't exactly know. If God Himself told me to join another religion I suppose I would, but I am not sure what would make me stop believing in God entirely. That doesn't mean I never would though.

Suppose "God" could convince you through facts, even if he never appeared to you.

• Do you believe that God is the truth, and that which is not true is not God?

• Belief in God is not something I would challenge, but I must ask you to first define God.

I know I am asking many, many questions here. I ask that you please answer them all, to the best of your abilities, if you have the time and inclination.

Well, I suppose that is one of the reasons for this thread.

I would agree.

 

[Plotinus]

Question then, if Hell is supposed to last only an age (Whatever length of time that is) then does that make Heaven finite as well?

No, because as I said, aionios denotes a long period of time which could or could not be infinite; to apply it to a particular period which is finite does not entail that any period to which it is applied is finite. (Similarly: if I call someone "good" I mean that they are very moral, but I do not specify whether this moral virtue is infinite or not. So I can call Gandhi "good", meaning that he was very good though his goodness was limited, and I can call God "good", meaning that he has unlimited goodness; the one use does not invalidate the other.)

And as I also said, there are places in the New Testament where aionios is used to refer to periods of time that have ended; it doesn't follow that everything to which the term is applied is supposed to have ended.

And if so, what happens after that?

As it happens, Christian orthodoxy holds that heaven is not everlasting. It's where your soul goes when you die (unless you go to hell or perhaps purgatory, of course). All of these states, according to Christian orthodoxy, are temporary, and they end when the world does, and when your soul is reunited with your resurrected body. Then comes the judgement and you are sent to your final destination.

Popular piety, and popular understanding of religion in general, confuses "heaven" and "hell" (which properly refer to the temporary states preceding the Last Judgement) with the lake of fire and the New Jerusalem spoken of in Revelation, which come after the Last Judgement. I think this is because many Christians today have rather forgotten that their religion teaches the resurrection of (all of) the dead, not simply the survival of the soul.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

• Incorrect on which points? All or some?

• Incorrect about god, incorrect on the mythology/history, incorrect on science, incorrect on what is ethical and moral, some, or all of the above?

• Would you accept Mormonism if some of it were literally proven to be incorrect?

The LDS Church claims that its leaders receive revelation from God, and have authority to act on His behalf that is found nowhere else. That is the claim that matters to me. Of course, if it turns out that the doctrine is incorrect (such as our views on the nature of God or what is and isn't a sin), that would mean that Church leaders don't receive revelation.

• Do you have any reason to believe that Mormonism is more correct than any other religion or non-religion?

• What are those reasons?

Personal spiritual experiences. That's the main thing, although there are other religions or ideologies I could never accept because I find them to contradict either themselves or other things I believe about the world. But there are some religions I don't believe but could if I felt I had a reason.

• Which claims do you believe are true, and which do you believe aren't 100% correct?

I didn't mean that the Church is making incorrect claims (although certainly its members - including its leaders - believe things that aren't true), just that we do not yet know everything there is to know about God.

I disagree, I think faith and acting on faith are separate things, and I'm more concerned with the faith aspect.

I would define faith as belief in something without or in spite of evidence.

I would describe acting on faith as just what you said, acting on faith, and that's a separate category, and I'm going to reserve judgment on that until I examine the faith part first.

If the faith is good and justified, then acting on it is good and justified.

If the faith is bad and irrational, then acting on it is bad and irrational.

I think that is just a difference of semantics, then; I have reasons/evidence (hardly objective proof, but that is true of a lot of things) for believing what I do, but I wouldn't call it faith if I merely accepted it as correct, then did nothing about it.

Suppose "God" could convince you through facts, even if he never appeared to you.

I am sure it is at least theoretically possible, I just don't know what form it would take, and I don't consider it likely unless my worldview changes drastically.

• Do you believe that God is the truth, and that which is not true is not God?

Not 100% sure what you mean, but I think so. God, after all, has a much, much better knowledge of how the universe works than any human does, so if He thinks something is a certain way, that's probably because it it.

• Belief in God is not something I would challenge, but I must ask you to first define God.

In what sense? We believe God to be a real, concrete, specific entity; and furthermore, one whom we resemble more than we may realize. (Some may say we anthropomorphize God, but if we are right, what really happened is that God "theomorphized" us.)

 

[GhostWriter16]

No, because as I said, aionios denotes a long period of time which could or could not be infinite; to apply it to a particular period which is finite does not entail that any period to which it is applied is finite. (Similarly: if I call someone "good" I mean that they are very moral, but I do not specify whether this moral virtue is infinite or not. So I can call Gandhi "good", meaning that he was very good though his goodness was limited, and I can call God "good", meaning that he has unlimited goodness; the one use does not invalidate the other.)

And as I also said, there are places in the New Testament where aionios is used to refer to periods of time that have ended; it doesn't follow that everything to which the term is applied is supposed to have ended.

That makes sense.

However, the Beast and the False Prophet were still there 1,000 years later. So how is it that that period is going to end?

As it happens, Christian orthodoxy holds that heaven is not everlasting. It's where your soul goes when you die (unless you go to hell or perhaps purgatory, of course). All of these states, according to Christian orthodoxy, are temporary, and they end when the world does, and when your soul is reunited with your resurrected body. Then comes the judgement and you are sent to your final destination.

Popular piety, and popular understanding of religion in general, confuses "heaven" and "hell" (which properly refer to the temporary states preceding the Last Judgement) with the lake of fire and the New Jerusalem spoken of in Revelation, which come after the Last Judgement. I think this is because many Christians today have rather forgotten that their religion teaches the resurrection of (all of) the dead, not simply the survival of the soul.

That is true, there is a current heaven and a new heaven. The new Heaven will be on Earth. And nobody is in Hell yet.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

The LDS Church claims that its leaders receive revelation from God, and have authority to act on His behalf that is found nowhere else. That is the claim that matters to me. Of course, if it turns out that the doctrine is incorrect (such as our views on the nature of God or what is and isn't a sin), that would mean that Church leaders don't receive revelation.

• Why does this claim matter to you?

The Catholic church also claims to have a direct line to God and a representative on Earth. The Muslim faith also teaches that Muhammed had a direct connection to God, and that there is a direct lineage after Muhammed which still has such a connection.

Jews believe that there will be a Messiah who will come and save them, but has not. They claim that there will be.

• Why do those claims not matter to you?

• Has the Mormon religion ever changed its views on what is moral or immoral, permissible or not?
  
• If the Mormon leaders have a direct connection to God, why would they change their views?
  
• Why would God, who is infallible and always right, ever change his mind or contradict himself?

Personal spiritual experiences. That's the main thing, although there are other religions or ideologies I could never accept because I find them to contradict either themselves or other things I believe about the world. But there are some religions I don't believe but could if I felt I had a reason.

Other people have spiritual experiences with other religions.

Many, many people believe in things that you do not.

• Why do they experience things which directly contradict your experiences, if there is only one God and one right answer?
  
• Are their experiences invalid?

I didn't mean that the Church is making incorrect claims (although certainly its members - including its leaders - believe things that aren't true), just that we do not yet know everything there is to know about God.

What do you believe there is to know about God?

Even in religion, he's a rather nebulous figure and little is talked about him directly. We are supposed to glorify him and worship him, but we don't know what he looks like, and we don't know what he did before he created the universe, and how long eternity existed before he decided to create the universe.

• Can you describe your own personal belief in God?
  
• Do you recognize that personal belief is wildly different from many other people's beliefs?
  
• Why is yours correct?
  
• If it is not correct, why do you believe it?
  
• If someone else's view was correct, how would you know?

I think that is just a difference of semantics, then; I have reasons/evidence (hardly objective proof, but that is true of a lot of things) for believing what I do, but I wouldn't call it faith if I merely accepted it as correct, then did nothing about it.

No, I don't think it is semantics. A belief that you can fly, for example, if the Bible says that anything you pray for can come true, is different from actually going up to the top of a building and jumping off, due to that belief.

• Do you literally believe in the power of prayer?
  
• Do you believe God intervenes in the events of the world?
  
• Do you believe there is a divine plan?
  
• Why would God change this plan?
  
• Why is there prayer if there is a divine plan? Isn't that contradictory?
  
• Do you literally believe that anything you pray for will happen, if God wills it to be so?
  
• Why doesn't prayer get answered consistently?
  
• If God is fair and just, why do good people have their prayers go unanswered, and "miraculous" outcomes happen for those who didn't believe beforehand, and didn't believe afterward?
  
• Where are there actual, documented miracles?
  
• If you believe in your faith, literally, how strong is that faith? Would you be willing to test your faith? Would you be willing to determine if your belief affects the outcome of your life, or the events of the world?

• If you believe in your faith, wouldn't you always act on it? Why would you act in a way that contradicts your faith, ever?

I am sure it is at least theoretically possible, I just don't know what form it would take, and I don't consider it likely unless my worldview changes drastically.

Okay.

Not 100% sure what you mean, but I think so. God, after all, has a much, much better knowledge of how the universe works than any human does, so if He thinks something is a certain way, that's probably because it it.

• Would God ever have any reason to lie? Why would God lie?
  
• Would God ever have reason to be malevolent? Why would God be malevolent?
  
• Would God ever say anything that was provably untrue, just to shake your faith in him? Why would he do that?

In what sense? We believe God to be a real, concrete, specific entity; and furthermore, one whom we resemble more than we may realize. (Some may say we anthropomorphize God, but if we are right, what really happened is that God "theomorphized" us.)

• Describe him for me. I understand he created the universe and all that. But what do you know about him?

As little or as much as you can, if you would please.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Why does this claim matter to you?

Well, because it is basically the cornerstone of the LDS Church.

The Catholic church also claims to have a direct line to God and a representative on Earth. The Muslim faith also teaches that Muhammed had a direct connection to God, and that there is a direct lineage after Muhammed which still has such a connection.

Jews believe that there will be a Messiah who will come and save them, but has not. They claim that there will be.

Why do those claims not matter to you?

I wouldn't say that those claims don't matter - rather that I don't believe them. Some of those I don't think I could ever believe, some at least in theory I could.

Has the Mormon religion ever changed its views on what is moral or immoral, permissible or not?

What is and isn't permissible has changed over time - this makes sense precisely because we receive revelation, so when God wants us to do or not do something, He can tell us.

If the Mormon leaders have a direct connection to God, why would they change their views?

If God gives us new information, that may change our views on something.

Why would God, who is infallible and always right, ever change his mind or contradict himself?

He wouldn't, although changes in what humans do might lead to Him changing exactly what He wants us to do.

Other people have spiritual experiences with other religions.

Many, many people believe in things that you do not.

Why do they experience things which directly contradict your experiences, if there is only one God and one right answer?

I am not sure that anyone has experiences that "directly contradict" mine - but even if they do, personal experiences are just that - personal.

Are their experiences invalid?

I have absolutely no grounds for judging other people's personal religious experiences.

What do you believe there is to know about God?

Even in religion, he's a rather nebulous figure and little is talked about him directly. We are supposed to glorify him and worship him, but we don't know what he looks like, and we don't know what he did before he created the universe, and how long eternity existed before he decided to create the universe.

Some of that, we still don't know, and won't until He tells us. I am not sure how important the specific examples you gave are.

Can you describe your own personal belief in God?

I believe Him to be all-loving, all-powerful (not, however, omnipotent as the term is usually used), all-knowing (whether this entails a perfect knowledge of what will happen in the future or just what can I don't know).

Do you recognize that personal belief is wildly different from many other people's beliefs?

Yes, of course.

Why is yours correct?

"Why it's correct" I don't think I can answer, if it's correct, it's correct because that's just how it is. Why I believe it's correct - because I believe that God told me it is.

If it is not correct, why do you believe it?

See above - I wouldn't believe something I thought not to be correct, though I might believe something that is actually incorrect, if I think it's correct.

If someone else's view was correct, how would you know?

If someone said, "you can ask God if X is correct, and if it is He will tell you it is", and I did and He did and it was - then I would think it was correct.

No, I don't think it is semantics. A belief that you can fly, for example, if the Bible says that anything you pray for can come true, is different from actually going up to the top of a building and jumping off, due to that belief.

You are just applying the word "faith" to a different part of the equation is all. I would call accepting what the Bible says as "belief", but actually jumping off the building "faith".

Do you literally believe in the power of prayer?

Yes.

Do you believe God intervenes in the events of the world?

At times, yes.

Do you believe there is a divine plan?

Yes.

Why would God change this plan?

He wouldn't.

Why is there prayer if there is a divine plan? Isn't that contradictory?

Because the Plan, sweeping as it is, is not so set in stone that it doesn't allow for the exercise of free will, or other human input.

]Do you literally believe that anything you pray for will happen, if God wills it to be so?

"If God wills it to be so" - which is the catch, because it then becomes hard to differentiate a prayer not being answered* because God felt that it is better that something else happen, versus a prayer not answered because God doesn't exist or doesn't answer prayers.

*That is, the desired outcome doesn't occur. God may answer prayers in an unexpected way that is nothing like what the person who prayed, wanted to happen.

Why doesn't prayer get answered consistently?

Because God is concerned with what is best for the person who is praying, and knows what this is better than they do.

If God is fair and just, why do good people have their prayers go unanswered, and "miraculous" outcomes happen for those who didn't believe beforehand, and didn't believe afterward?

Sometimes the "miracle" was simply the world operating the way the world operates; sometimes, what seems bad in the short term is best in the long term.

Where are there actual, documented miracles?

Well, I define a miracle simply as "divine intervention" - it doesn't involve "breaking the laws on nature" (which I consider to be logically impossible), and may not thus be possible to identify as a miracle.

As far as documentation - there are lots of documents that describe miracles. The Bible, for instance, is a series of documents that describes a number of episodes of divine intervention. But miracles are generally one time events, and not amenable to scientific study.

If you believe in your faith, literally, how strong is that faith? Would you be willing to test your faith? Would you be willing to determine if your belief affects the outcome of your life, or the events of the world?

I like to think I have tested my faith - when I sought answers from God about it. And my beliefs definitely affect the outcome of my life.

If you believe in your faith, wouldn't you always act on it? Why would you act in a way that contradicts your faith, ever?

I like to think I do, generally, act on my belief; when I don't, it isn't a case of me rationally deciding that my faith doesn't apply in that particular instance, or deciding to temporarily abandon it; it is a case of me being a weak, irrational human being.

As we all are.

Would God ever have any reason to lie? Why would God lie?

I don't think God would outright lie, although He might cause someone to hold an incorrect view if He felt it was better for them to think something that is false than to know the truth.

Would God ever have reason to be malevolent? Why would God be malevolent?

I don't suppose He would - He will allow us to suffer, but not out of malevolence.

Would God ever say anything that was provably untrue, just to shake your faith in him? Why would he do that?

I don't think God would say something that is provably untrue (unless, as above, He felt it would be best) - although He has undoubtedly said things that some people think are provably untrue . . .

 

[Plotinus]

However, the Beast and the False Prophet were still there 1,000 years later. So how is it that that period is going to end?

I didn't say that it is going to end, merely that the use of the term aionios does not mean that it isn't.

In any case, a period of a thousand years is not infinite, so I don't understand what relevance this point has.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Describe him for me. I understand he created the universe and all that. But what do you know about him?

As little or as much as you can, if you would please.

That's . . . a pretty broad question. Still, an overview:

God is, in essence, what humans can become. He is more than this, of course. But humanity's highest potential is to become like him. Thus we find all the debates on how to reconcile Christ's human and divine natures to be slightly irrelevant, because humanity and divinity are hardly opposites.

God organized the universe (out of pre-existing material) and created us (again, out of pre-existing material) and His greatest goal is to make us like Him - "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man", to use an oft-quoted LDS scripture. To achieve this He created the earth and put us here, allowing us to be subjected to all sorts of experiences that, good or bad, help us progress.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I believe Him to be all-loving, all-powerful (not, however, omnipotent as the term is usually used), all-knowing (whether this entails a perfect knowledge of what will happen in the future or just what can I don't know).

How can you be all-powerful but not omnipotent?

I didn't say that it is going to end, merely that the use of the term aionios does not mean that it isn't.

In any case, a period of a thousand years is not infinite, so I don't understand what relevance this point has.

Valid point.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

How can you be all-powerful but not omnipotent?

By being able to do everything that it is possible to do, but not anything that it's not possible to do. In other words, there are certain fundamental traits of the universe that God can't just circumvent.

 

[GhostWriter16]

By being able to do everything that it is possible to do, but not anything that it's not possible to do. In other words, there are certain fundamental traits of the universe that God can't just circumvent.

Isn't God the one who set up those laws in the first place?

What, in general terms, is God unable to do?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Isn't God the one who set up those laws in the first place?

Not entirely.

What, in general terms, is God unable to do?

Well, anything that is logically impossible. Such as make a rock so heavy He can't lift it, for example.

And - He cannot make us perfect simply by divine fiat. Or cause us to become perfect without some price being paid.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Not entirely.

Well, who did?

Well, anything that is logically impossible. Such as make a rock so heavy He can't lift it, for example.

As I heard preached in a Sermon a couple of weeks ago, the word "Cannot lift" is meaningless to God, he can speak to the rock and it will obey his command. Thus making the "Dilemma" irrelevant.

And - He cannot make us perfect simply by divine fiat.

I don't see why he couldn't. Though if he did that would be a denial of free will so he wouldn't.

Or cause us to become perfect without some price being paid.

Which was why Christ died, to make us have that possibility.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, who did?

No one, it's just the way things are.

As I heard preached in a Sermon a couple of weeks ago, the word "Cannot lift" is meaningless to God, he can speak to the rock and it will obey his command. Thus making the "Dilemma" irrelevant.

On the contrary - He made the rock, He lifted it, so thus He is incapable of making a rock He can't lift. It's a logical dilemma, not a limit on God's power.

I don't see why he couldn't. Though if he did that would be a denial of free will so he wouldn't.

I would gladly give up free will for salvation, and I am sure a lot of people would. But it's not possible.

Which was why Christ died, to make us have that possibility.

Right.

 

[GhostWriter16]

No one, it's just the way things are.

Well, I suppose we say the same thing about God's existence but, my mind cannot really comprehend this. If God (Or whoever was originally God in the case of the whole ascension to Godhood thing in Mormonism that I can't half understand), cannot change the universe, then how can we claim God is in control?

On the contrary - He made the rock, He lifted it, so thus He is incapable of making a rock He can't lift. It's a logical dilemma, not a limit on God's power.

Because the word "Can't lift" is not in God's vocabulary.

I would gladly give up free will for salvation, and I am sure a lot of people would. But it's not possible.

Well, if mankind were robots, what would salvation be worth? And are you saying God couldn't mind control you if he felt like it?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, I suppose we say the same thing about God's existence but, my mind cannot really comprehend this. If God (Or whoever was originally God in the case of the whole ascension to Godhood thing in Mormonism that I can't half understand), cannot change the universe, then how can we claim God is in control?

As I said, He can do everything that can be done.

Because the word "Can't lift" is not in God's vocabulary.

As in . . . God lacks the power to say it?

Well, if mankind were robots, what would salvation be worth? And are you saying God couldn't mind control you if he felt like it?

Right, God doesn't have the ability to make salvation meaningful while, at the same time, turning us into robots. This is not a thing that can be done.

 

[shadowplay]

I'm aware Mormons aren't allowed to consume alcohol. What about (medical) drugs that are potentially intoxicating? We're talking about something perscribed by a doctor for the relief of a medical ailment.