Seeker7

JUSTICE: Sorry! I didn't mean to sound sarcastic. The whole "need for faith" thing is an issue of genuine confusion for me, but I guess those questions are better left for a separate thread. Forgive me if I sounded condescending, though. The truth is, a lot of religious doctrines seem strange to me (which is probably the direct result of being brought up irreligious). I honestly had no clue what Mormons believed until I visited this forum and started doing research on the websites people provided for me. Everyone's been really helpful here, including you! So thanks again. :)

SKIPPY740: LOL. What can I say? Homer Simpson is a genius! Nah, just kidding. I understand what you mean. But don't you think it's a little bit iffy to compare finite consequences to infinite ones? I don't have any kids, though if I did, I would encourage them to keep trying for success despite their failures. But that's only because I know that the consequences of people's everyday failures in this life DO NOT LAST. From bad test grades to bankruptcy, there are ways to overcome our earthly failures. But what about when the consequences are infinite? There is no way to overturn an eternal judgment once it's been pronounced. In other words, THERE'S NO WAY OUT. That kind of situation is obviously very different from flunking out of calculus or cheating on your spouse. Once again using my imaginary kids as an example: If I knew there would be eternal, inescapable, unchangeable consequences for ANY of my children's actions, and if I also knew that some of them would fail, I would indeed tell them not to try. If I had kids, I'd love them, and I wouldn't want any of them to suffer. Yeah, forever! YIKES! But I can't! I don't remember any such thing. The Veil of Forgetfulness won't let me!

SOME SHORT RESPONSES TO PEOPLE'S ANSWERS: JUSTICE: Thanks for your response. I see. Why do you think God gave us the Bible and the Book of Mormon, then? And why do you think he communicates with people through prayer at all? By your logic, it seems God should hide himself from us completely. Then, we would have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever that he exists, and the need for faith would be even greater! YAY FAITH! BYTEBEAR: Any thoughts on how he got that way, and why his route was unavailable to the rest of us? Thanks! HIJOLLY: I disagree. Christ DID come into mortality to obtain a body. Therefore, it must have been necessary. Sorry; I'm still confused. You just said, "Christ was 'God' BEFORE mortality." Then, you made it clear that the rest of us weren't, and you said that the only way for us to achieve godhood is to become mortal. In your own words, "There IS 'no other way.'" But in the same exact post, you stated that the opposite was true of Jesus. You said he was God before becoming mortal, while at the same time stressing that mortality is necessary for divine progression. I still see a contradiction there. Heh, funny you should mention that... BLUEJAY: Aren't we all sons and daughters of God, though, just like Jesus? Why, then, did God not give us all the capacity to live without sin? It sure would've made things a lot less unpleasant! Yours, for foolishly thinking you could become as good as Michael Jordan, when you are physically incapable of doing so. (Michael Jordan is pretty awesome... ) It would only be Michael Jordan's fault if he was the one forcing you to strive for an unreachable goal. What if I'm severly dyslexic and I literally cannot read the map? Getting lost wouldn't be my fault, because I was physically unable to complete the task that was presented to me. I was bound to fail. I view sin the same way. Humans literally cannot avoid sin. We are physically unable to complete the task of living a sinless life. We are bound to fail. I think whoever gave us that impossible task in the first place is just as responsible for our failure as the person who gave a visual guide to a dyslexic person. TRAVELER: No I don't!

One thing I still don't fully comprehend: 1.) Why didn't God simply choose NOT to instate the Plan of Salvation? I understand that IF we are to become gods, we must abide by the eternal, unchangeable law, which dictates that a mortal existence is necessary for our progression (except perhaps in the case of Jesus, whom some say was a god prior to his mortality). But during our pre-mortal lives, weren't we happy? Weren't we god-like? What's the harm in simply remaining that way? God lost a third of his spirit children forever, simply by telling them about the plan. Still more will suffer in hell for their mistakes on Earth. And even those who don't go to hell will endure much suffering during their mortal lives. It seems to me that all this plan has done is create a huge amount of unneeded suffering, which will be worth it for some, but not all. We could've just remained in heaven with God, content and pain-free for all of eternity. Why was it BETTER to go through with the plan? If someone could help clarify that small point for me, I think my understanding of this subject will finally be sufficient. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE!

Thanks for all the replies, everyone. They've been really helpful to me. Here's a summary of the Plan of Salvation as I understand it now: 1.) Before being born into mortality, all human beings existed as spirit children, the literal offspring of God the Father. We humans are not creations of the Father, but rather procreations; and he, God, had no control over what we would be like once we became alive. 2.) There is an eternal, self-existent law stating that whosoever desires to become fully divine must be born into a mortal body and live a life of suffering, surrounded by evil and temptation. This way, humans will come to understand the difference between good and bad, and will learn the importance of doing righteous deeds. Also, enduring hardships enables people to truly appreciate times of joy. Our Heavenly Father did NOT create this law; in fact, he himself must abide by it and cannot change it. 3.) God presented this knowledge, which we now call the Plan of Salvation, to his spirit children in the pre-mortal existence. Part of the plan involved the intervention of a savior to sacrifice himself and atone for the sins of mankind. Jesus volunteered and told God, "Let your will be done." Lucifer also volunteered, but he said, "Instead, let's deny people their right to choose. We should force them to do the right thing so that all may be saved. Also, once this has been done, I would like you to give me the glory for saving everyone." But Lucifer's plan couldn't actually save anyone, because it violated an infinite, unchangeable law that even God the Father knew he must obey. Thus, Jesus was appointed as the savior instead. 4.) A great war was waged in heaven -- Lucifer and his followers pitted against God and the rest of his children. Eventually, Satan and his lot were cast out of heaven. All the human spirits who remained would eventually experience temporal birth as part of the test to achieve godhood. 5.) Adam and Eve were the first two humans on Earth. They lived in the garden in a state of innocence, not knowing right from wrong or good from evil. They didn't even know how to procreate, which was one of the commandments God had given them. The only way for them to keep God's commandment was to transgress a law and eat the forbidden fruit of knowledge, thus making it possible for all other human beings to be born. They did this deliberately and it was NOT considered a sin. 6.) The aforementioned atonement took place when Jesus died on the cross after living a perfectly sinless life. Jesus had to do this because it was another aspect of the eternal law that could not be broken. People's sins could not be forgiven any other way. Although, the matter of how Jesus was able to live a sinless life in the first place is subject to debate and is not fully understood. 7.) If we try our best to keep God's commandments while putting our faith in Christ's atonement, we too will become gods once we die, and we will present to our own offspring the same exact Plan of Salvation that we ourselves underwent -- once again in keeping with the eternal, unbreakable law. Does that sound right?

MISSHALFWAY: Hi! Thanks for the informative response. I appreciate you sharing your views. That’s an interesting thought! Thanks for explaining it to me. I hope you don’t think I’m saying tyranny is the way to happiness, though, because I’m not! I don’t think controlling people is always a good way to make them happy. I was mainly thinking of “forced choices” in this context: 1.) In the pre-existence, God sees that his children have reached a point beyond which they cannot progress without intervention. He knows of a way to let them grow beyond their current state. 2.) But God, being perfect and omniscient, knows that if he presents this plan to his children, some of them will dislike it and rebel against him. These people will suffer immensely for their wrongdoings. Others will agree to go along with the plan, but will fail the test once it’s applied to them. These, too, will suffer. And even those who do eventually pass the test and progress to godhood will also suffer, but only during their mortal lives, and not as greatly as the rest. In other words, God recognizes that the plan will cause much suffering, and it will be “worth it” for some… but not all. 3.) What is the moral thing to do here? Obviously I’m not God, so I can’t pretend to know better than he would, but I can tell you what I think based on my own morals (which supposedly come from God): The moral thing to do would be to cause the least amount of suffering; in other words, don’t instate the plan! Let your children continue to exist as they are – happy, but not fully happy; god-like, but not fully gods. Where’s the harm in that? You see, I think it would’ve been better to never even apply the test in the first place. I realize that might sound presumptuous of me, but when I think of all the misery this plan has made possible (if it’s true), I can’t help but think, “That doesn’t seem right!” Perhaps Lucifer did have selfish intentions when he offered to save everyone, but the outcome itself would’ve been beneficial to all – it would’ve been moral. I understand that you believe such a thing could never have happened. Perhaps not. But if it were possible, it would’ve been a better alternative. That’s all I can say. Thanks again for all your help!

TRAVELER: Thank you for the helpful post. I notice you haven’t said anything here about becoming mortal. You’ve only said that in order to have a fullness of joy and understanding like God, mankind must know the difference between good and evil. I think I understand your clarification well enough, but it does raise one question in my mind: If knowledge of good and evil is all that’s required for becoming like our Heavenly Father, why didn’t he simply teach us about it? I don’t see how gaining a mortal body would be a prerequisite for acquiring that information. Is it that we must experience good and evil for ourselves in order to truly understand their importance? That doesn’t seem reasonable to me either. I know exactly what cancer, starvation, drowning, zero-gravity, and old age are, but I’ve never experienced any of those things. I don’t think people have to experience all things for themselves in order to understand the basic concepts, and that includes good and evil. I think this ties in to what JUSTICE says: I’m not sure I understand how something like evil can be compared to the taste of a strawberry. Taste is a sense. I would agree that it can’t be fully, adequately described to someone who’s never experienced it – just like the color blue cannot be “explained” to a blind man. In fact, I wouldn’t know how to describe the color blue to anyone! What is blue? That’s the tricky thing about senses; they can’t be effectively described. They simply have to be experienced. Evil is not a sense, although it is something we experience with our senses. Evil can be described; it can be taught. For example, murder is one of the greatest evils. I’ve never experienced it, but I know exactly what it is. I would think that an all-powerful God would be able to teach his children about the concept of evil without actually making them suffer from it. And not only that, but also – being benevolent – I’d think he would want to! If this is about what men desire, then perhaps I should illuminate what I desire. I crave knowledge about the world around me, and the wisdom to make right choices. I want to be happy in life, and I strive to make others happy as well. I long to bring about peace, tolerance, and understanding in my fellow man. But what if, after serious reflection, I decide that your god probably doesn’t exist? What if I then choose not to live by his laws, even though I remain a relatively good person? According to this plan, TRAVELER, what will I get? Thanks again for your insights.

TUBALOTH: Thanks for your response. I’ll try to clarify my point as well as I can. You said: Perhaps a person who doesn’t make choices isn’t growing, but I think living in a state of perpetual sameness beats suffering in hell. Maybe you’re right. Maybe if somebody had said, “Too bad, guys. You don’t get to live mortal lives and progress to godhood. You’re just gonna have to stay here and exist the way you are now – happy, but not fully happy like God,” then we as spirit children wouldn’t have grown to full maturity because our agency had been taken away. But that doesn’t sound unpleasant to me. Does it sound unpleasant to you – being happy, but not totally happy? Now, imagine for a moment those who are sent to earth who choose to reject god and embrace atheism – those who do not live according to God’s laws, because they believe there is no God. What awaits them? Hell sounds like a terrible place to me. Why should a loving God want to risk any of his children ending up there? If I could force a choice upon someone that would save him or her from hell, I would do it. Perhaps the person wouldn’t achieve full happiness because of my intervention, but at least he or she wouldn’t receive torment. In my mind, it’s better to ensure that all will be content than it is to allow the opportunity for some to suffer and fall short of bliss – knowing full well that many will do so. Does that make sense?

HIJOLLY: Good to hear from you again! I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Your post was very useful to me, but there's one aspect I'm afraid I don't understand very well: Doesn't that single admission render all these other statements false? Clearly, if Jesus Christ was divine prior to his mortality, "the mortal body thing" is NOT necessary for a soul's development, and there IS indeed another way. Also: I'm confused. What does the word "unfair" mean to you? In my mind, God's Plan of Salvation seems an unfair concept because its requirements are disproportionate to the abilities of human beings. God wants us to accomplish that which is beyond our means; he would like us all to live sin-free lives. If we did so, according to this plan, we'd be guaranteed eternal celestial glory, and none of us would need Christ's atonement. (In fact, we'd all be eligible for "savior status" ourselves.) It is only because of our inability to avoid sin and resist temptation that Jesus Christ, our redeemer, was needed in the first place. God was aware that we'd need Jesus, so he made the atonement a part of his plan. Obviously, this means the standards are too high, as you said above. If we sin, a price must be paid; divine judgment is upon us. Wrongdoing merits some form of punishment, and the Bible says that this punishment is to be death. (Romans 6:23 -- "For the wages of sin is death...") Somehow it seems fair to you that human beings should be punished -- condemned to death or hell, even -- for failing to achieve the impossible? How can you admit that the standards by which human beings are judged are too high, and yet at the same time insist that the plan itself is fair? I'll borrow a quote from TUBALOTH to further illustrate my point: Unfair Aspect #1: God knew we would fail to live without sinning, because we are frankly incapable of doing so. We can't NOT sin. And yet, for some reason there must be punishment when we DO sin, which is something we can't avoid. Unfair Aspect #2: God also knew that once we failed to meet these ridiculously high standards, there would be nothing we could do to redeem ourselves. (Because apparently, repenting with a sincere heart, asking for forgiveness, and trying hard to do better isn't enough. I thought God was "merciful?") Thus, the atonement of Jesus Christ was necessary. BEING PUNISHED FOR FAILING TO ACHIEVE THE IMPOSSIBLE = UNFAIR Right...?

JUSTICE: Thanks for your response. I appreciate you sharing your understanding with me. This explanation was very useful to me. I am accustomed to thinking of God in the traditional mainstream Christian sense. The popular modern version of God did indeed create human beings like works of art, but I can see that the Mormon interpretation of God's nature is different. Thank you for clarifying that point. This aspect continues to confound me. I understand that according to LDS doctrine, Jesus chose to live a sinless life of his own free will. What baffles me is the fact that he was able to. All Christians I have ever spoken with insist that Jesus was the only human being ever to live a perfect life, and that no one else will be able to accomplish this feat. In short, it’s impossible for us. Yet somehow, it was possible for him. How and why? Did he receive that ability from God? If so, then why did God not simply gift the rest of us with that ability as well? And if Jesus's flawlessness did NOT come from God, does that mean he possessed it innately? Did he perhaps come by it some other way? If that is the case, the question still remains: Why was his level of perfection not made available to everyone else? What would be the point in taking a test with the answer sheet in front of you?I don't think that's a fair comparison. Being able to remember my pre-mortal existence wouldn't automatically supply me with the answers to all of life's problems; therefore, it wouldn't be the equivalent of taking a test with the answer sheet in front of me. It would be akin to simply knowing I'm taking a test in the first place. Thanks again for your helpful reply.

Sorry for the long delay! I had some important matters to take care of. I really appreciate all your responses. They're very well-thought-out, not to mention extremely helpful to me. I learned a lot from reading them. I think each of these deserves a thoughtful, individual response. I have each one typed out already, and will post my replies shortly. Once again, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

I feel that my understanding of the LDS "Plan of Salvation" concept might be flawed. Would anyone be willing to help me correct my views? My current comprehension of the subject is as follows: 1.) In the beginning, all human beings lived as God's "spirit children" in a type of pre-mortal existence, also called the first estate. 2.) God saw that although his children were happy, they did not have the "fullness of happiness" he himself enjoyed. The Heavenly Father wanted his children to experience the same complete joy that he did, and he decided that in order for that to be possible, all of his children would have to live mortal lives. So he came up with the Plan of Salvation. -- a). Why did God's children not have the "fullness of happiness" that he did? In other words, what was preventing them from being completely blissful? -- b). Why was a mortal body necessary for them to eventually achieve happiness and perfection? Isn't God omnipotent? Couldn't he have just made happy and perfect beings? -- c.) If a mortal body is needed in order to achieve a flawless, blissful, god-like status, does this mean that God himself was once mortal? Why and how? 3.) The Heavenly Father called a great gathering of all his spirit children, and presented to them the Plan of Salvation. Apparently, God was well aware that none of his children would be able to completely succeed in this plan, so he arranged for a "redeemer" or "savior" to sacrifice himself and pay for everyone's sins. -- a.) Doesn't the fact that a "savior" was necessary suggest that the plan itself was unfair, and that the standards were set too high? 4.) Two spirit children volunteered to take on the responsibility of the savior: Jesus and Lucifer. Jesus offered to carry out God's plan exactly as he had presented it. Lucifer, on the other hand, wanted to make sure that everyone would be saved by taking away their free will. In return, he asked for glory. A vote was held, and Jesus won the title of "redeemer". -- a.) What's so bad about eliminating people's free will, if the outcome is that all shall be eternally saved? -- b.) Why can't Lucifer be given the glory that he asked for? He came up with a more moral plan. 5.) There was a great war in heaven, and Lucifer was cast out, along with 1/3 of all the other spirit children. None of them would be born into mortal bodies, and none of them would receive a chance at redemption. 6.) The next step in the plan was The Fall. God placed Adam and Eve in the garden, the serpent tempted them, they both ate the forbidden fruit, and then they were cast out into a world of suffering and death. -- a.) Did Adam and Eve volunteer for this position as the first two human beings on earth? -- b.) Did they eat the forbidden fruit on purpose, so that sin could enter into the world and thereby further along the Plan of Salvation? Or did they not remember anything about their pre-mortal lives, just like the rest of us? -- c.) If The Fall was a necessary part of God's plan, and he wanted it to happen, did Adam and Eve really sin by eating the fruit? 7.) The Atonement was also part of God's plan. He arranged for Jesus to live a sinless life, so that he could be our perfect sacrifice. -- a.) If God gave Jesus the power to live a sinless life, why couldn't/didn't he just give that ability to the rest of us as well? -- b.) Why was it necessary for someone to die for all of humanity's sins anyway? Why can't God just forgive sins? Why must there be blood? 8.) The 2/3rds of us who agreed to go along with God's plan have received mortal bodies and been born into the world (although some are still waiting and some have passed on). That's why all of us are here right now. But a veil of forgetfulness was placed over us, so we can't remember anything about our pre-mortal lives. -- a.) Why are we not allowed to recall our pre-mortal lives? What would be the harm in that? What's the point of making us all forget? -- b.) Is it true that some people are born with less privileges than others because they behaved badly during the pre-existence? I'd really appreciate it if somebody would help me figure these things out. Thank you in advance.

GATORMAN: Sorry, but I disagree with that comparison. I know that car companies build vehicles with the understanding that someday they will break down. Humans are imperfect; therefore, we cannot construct flawless machines. Everything we make will require maintenance at some point. But how is this comparable to a perfect, omnipotent god creating people whom he knows will sin -- and not just expecting it to happen, but in fact planning on it? Because it is "part of the plan", right? Humans must endure suffering so they can learn to appreciate relief, and they must commit evil deeds so that they can learn the importance of doing good. "And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin" (2 Nephi 2:22-23.) My current understanding of LDS doctrine and the "Plan of Salvation" concept might be flawed. If so, perhaps you could help me understand it a little better. Here's how I currently see things: 1.) God knowingly created imperfect beings. 2.) He didn't just expect humans to sin during their mortal lives; he planned on it. 3.) He planned for humans to sin, so that they'd learn eventually to do good. He also planned for humans to sin, so that they'd come to him requesting "maintenance". 4.) God planned all this out so perfectly that he even had a redeemer in place, Jesus, whose grace was available to save those who fell short during their lifetimes. (In other words, everyone.) 5.) Thus, when we repent and turn to God for guidance and salvation, he is not surprised, nor is he dismayed, because he planned for this to happen. He planned for us to suffer so that we'd come to appreciate joy, and he planned for us to sin so that we'd know the importance of doing good. Using your car company comparison, the equivalent would be this: 1.) The Ford company built a bunch of cars that they knew were imperfect. They knew the cars would experience a lot of problems, and quickly break down. 2.) But they didn't just expect the cars to break down and fail; in fact, they planned on it. 3.) Ford planned for the cars to fail so that consumers would keep on coming back to them for maintenance, which helped generate a lot of money for the company. Furthermore, Ford knew that eventually the cars they sold people would stop working altogether, no matter how many repairs were made. And they planned on this happening, too, because they knew that when the consumers' cars broke down, they'd come back to Ford again to make new purchases. They wanted all this to happen. 4.) Ford planned everything out so perfectly that they had entire lineups of replacement cars waiting for those who came in to get rid of their broken vehicles. 5.) Thus, when people return to Ford for car maintenance or to buy a new vehicle altogether, Ford is not worried or surprised, because that is exactly what they planned on. They wanted people's cars to break down, so that the company could generate more money. In other words, they had a purpose in making flawed vehicles. If that were indeed the case with Ford, then yes, I would say that Ford created cars specifically to fail. I understand your point. But all I'm saying is, we wouldn't have to repent if we didn't sin. And can any of us avoid sin? Everyone seems to say no. I wouldn't punish a person for falling off a tightrope into the Pacific Ocean and then not repenting. I would at least give the poor individual another try, because such a feat would require a lot of practice. But we don't get any second chances at life, even though it's apparently just as hard to live a flawless (and therefore repentance-free) life as it is to avoid falling off the tightrope in the previous example. I appreciate your reply, but I still don't see how that's fair, and it still appears to me that God did indeed create people to sin. But as I said before, perhaps I'm just hitting a mental stumbling-block. Any further insights are welcomed. DESIREXNOEL: What is Kolob?

CHANGED: Thanks for the enlightening post! It was very interesting to read about your personal beliefs regarding the Big Bang and the origin of life on Earth (or lack of origin, as you put it), and to see how those beliefs tie in with LDS theology. Also, what you said about the Hebrew word "qen" was quite intriguing. I'd never heard that information before! Thanks again for sharing it with me. At this point, I would agree that matter/energy might not be the only thing that exists -- but then again, it might be. I try to remain open to all possibilities. I can say, though, that I usually prefer to stick with things I'm certain about, and matter/energy falls under that category because its existence can be proven. Anything else does not, because its existence is left up to mere speculation, "feelings", or faith -- all of which often lead people astray. If it metabolizes, reproduces, responds to its environment, grows and develops, and evolves over time, it's alive. I believe that there is but one life, and all living things share in it. I also believe that all life today has been alive since the first life. (The organism itself might be new, but DNA -- that which gives the organism life -- is very old.) Thus, all the cells in the human body contain the same life, which is also shared by all living things on the planet. Life is collective, and it began millions of years ago. We are vessels that carry a small portion of that life for a short time. I believe that death for the individual is not an end to life, since life continues to exist in all other forms of life, and will continue to do so as long as there is life. I hope that makes sense. =) Humans are alive. Robots are not. Humans also feel emotions, which machines are incapable of feeling. So do I, in the sense that I believe there are lots of organisms without flesh and blood that are still biologically alive. I'm not yet convinced that life is anything more than a series of finite chemical reactions. There might indeed be some sort of spiritual force accompanying those reactions; I've just never seen any evidence of such a thing. I hope my answers were helpful to you. Thanks again for the informative post!

I should probably clarify that statement a bit more. I know people who would consider such actions to be sinful if they took place between members of the same sex (holding hands, kissing, etc). But for heterosexual couples, it would be okay.