CommanderSouth

While I have been thinking about all that has been said, and how I have been thinking about this, the statement I made earlier about Ex Nihilo creation hit me like a sack of bricks. I have been putting it in my journal when you were posting this, and this was something that I wrote, as you were posting this (left in context, emphasis added)... "We don't believe he created the earth out of nothing, but we also don't bat an eye at saying he "created the earth". So if we don't believe in ex nihilo creation, why was I still trying to put God into that box. We don't believe he created the universe from nothing, so he couldn't have created the plan from nothing either. Now to what extent that means, and how it interplays I can't say. I can only say, God didn't create the plan of salvation "ex nihilo" any more than he did the universe. The prophet Joseph Smith said that "He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself" (King Follett Discourse). That process sounds an awful lot like temple ordinances. Things that use symbols to point to a higher meaning. Perhaps this life itself, and all the little bits and pieces of it, are pointing to a higher meaning.  Not knowing anything about the intelligences and spirits that God found himself in the midst of, perhaps the ones he found himself around would respond to these eternal truths in the process WE (being those he found himself in the midst of) call life. Perhaps life itself is a parable, a symbol, a type, a shadow, an ordinance pointing us to a higher truth we can only understand bit by bit. Line upon line, precept upon precept. Maybe in that way this truly is "God's plan", his way of getting us to where he is. Like Common Core math can teach relationships between numbers I didn't understand or have growing up, God is showing us HIS way to get US to exaltation. "

If the presumption is that there is only one way to exaltation, I would argue that the sermon does lend itself to the conclusion that the plan isn't "God's" but rather, self existent. ALL the conclusions, I will cede that it does not. I went back and was reading the sermon again, I would agree that it doesn't touch on God's mortal/premortal existence, ironically it even talks about God as having "power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself". But in that passage what I find interesting is the use of "institute" followed by "instruct". Institution of laws would seem to indicate creating the path itself but instruct would seem to indicate learning about something that is already extant. MAYBE what's being said is that there ARE principles upon which, one is exalted, but the "laws" being "instituted' are ones that "instruct" about the principles themselves. And if that is the case, it is makes me think of an earthly parallel, the temple ordinances. The ordinances themselves are built on eternal principles, but administration of them can change. Perhaps THAT is how it is meant. The "plan" that father created, is based on eternal principles that he did not create. In what is perhaps a ham handed analog, this life and the "plan" is all a temple ritual. It's a symbol of something else. It's LIKE something else, but it isn't the thing. There are aspects of it that are God's, and there are aspects of it that are unmade. These combined together, show that it's God's plan, even is ALL of the pieces didn't come from him. INSIGHT AHOY - I have no problem with calling the Earth "God's" and in fact, all creation, as "God's" but I openly admit he didn't create it from nothing. So, maybe the way to think is in that sense. We don't believe in ex nihilo creation, either in matter, or "the plan", though not doing so doesn't make the creation not "God's".

That's fair, and like the other point you made, more in line with what I actually think. I said "saved" but I really meant exalted. And when I think of him, I think of him as a savior, which gels in my mind with the "Christ does what the father does", but I would also think "Perfect, but not a savior" would be possible. And as you said too, there are other possibilities that we just can't grasp. I also respect the thought of not getting married to these things. I am very much just looking for a logical grasp of possibilities that don't seem self-contradictory.

I was looking to visit my favorite sounding board, and wanted to touch on a topic that I already have (Link) If anyone wants to read it, that is the link. But looking through it myself, I feel I am partway to where I need to be, but not quite there, and wanted to work through it with you guys, as it usually ends up helping! So, long and short. As of late I have been contemplating the nature of God. In my current thinking, he is either A) Self existing, truly omnipotent, and the source of all "Goodness", but in that way, "Goodness" is just his nature, and really a descriptor, and not a positive adjective. Goodness in this sense is arbitrary and just describing God. This is the God of the non-LDS (very broad strokes, and partly unfair, just using it for ease of description). B) God is an eternal being, an exalted man, possesses all Goodness, but goodness does exist apart from him. This is palatable to me because it takes the "unfairness" of existence out of his hands. Some things just are because they ARE, not because they were designed that way. This removes the incomprehensible parts of existence, really the problem of pain. If there is a truly omnipotent being, and things could have been different, why are they not. Thus, I believe this view posits God as an "effectively" omnipotent being, that is a being that can do all that can be done. This leads into my ongoing question. Why do we still call the plan of salvation, "God's" plan. God didn't make it, he couldn't, the King Follett sermon precludes it. He couldn't have been saved (to borrow from my Pentecostal upbringing) by his own plan. It's a chicken and egg scenario. With this in mind, it makes sense to me that it is his plan (and was my takeaway from the conversation linked) in that his touch, spin, and signature are on it. It's his variation. And perhaps this is the way it should be viewed, but I'm just trying to work through it, and sharpen and clarify the thought process. It also might be of worth to realize that we will become God's in the sense that we will be one with God the father, and if he is one with his father (turtles all the way down of course) then in a sense any time it is said that it is "God's" plan, it is true that heavenly father informed and kicked the ball down the hill, but that the plan in broad strokes, has always been. FWIW, I originally didn't have the last long sentence of the above paragraph written initially, and now that I'm seeing it, that feels like it might be the angle to go at it. In my favorite way of reasoning, reductionist, (I say this with sarcasm, because I always hated in 2 Nephi where Lehi goes "If C, then B, then A, thus God"), my understanding is this. I exist, ergo, something exists, which means something has to be eternal, either this existence, or God. If God exists eternally and is the SOURCE of reality in the sense that he created everything, including the rules, we are then potentially bound by the argument against his omnipotence, in that he is not good, because of the pain and suffering we see in the world. And those who argue for this, still have to limit his omnipotence by saying he can't subvert logical fallacies, such as a rock too heavy, or a burrito too hot. And with that defeat of true omnipotence, I move to the other argument, that he isn't. I believe our theology posits, that reality/eternity exists. There are principles that are "eternal" and eternal principles, I would argue, are unmade. If that is the case, then God exists separate and beholden to these principles. And our path is to follow him, in the way he has set forth, and thus become like him. It seems reasonable enough to say the end of all existence, the meaning, is to become like God. Which jives well with "This is my work and my glory." This was all written in one go, so I appreciate any feedback you guys have to help hone this, this is in a large degree train of consciousness, but I need help sorting it, so I'll stop now.

Something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately is whether or not God actually wants our worship, obviously, he wants our respect, he wants our gratitude, but does he really want the endless fawning? Perhaps this is a function of my own misunderstanding of what true worship is, or, perhaps, it’s a miscommunication on how society portrays worship. growing up protestant, Penecostal in this case, all I remember, is people, hands raised, waving back and forth slowly. Or speaking in tongues, depending on the service lol. This instilled in me, a vision of worship as endless praise, endless, speaking, gratitude expressed over and over without end. But my thoughts Lately have turned to the idea that perhaps it’s just living a righteous life, acknowledging his hand in your life, but not necessarily laying prostrate on the floor endlessly. in the way that I would worship my own father on earth. I want to do all that he has set me up to do, I also want to bring honor to his name I don’t wanna make him disappointed. And in doing this, this is the worship he wants and this way he isn’t the egomaniacal narcissist that a militant atheist would describe, he’s just a dad who loves his kids and wants them to do well, and they gave him honor by doing their best to do so. It ties into a thought that I’ve had lately that if you love me keep my Commandments it’s just a statement of if you love me trust me and in doing so we can fill the other part of that statement that if we do the will of the father we will know of the doctrine and our love for the father will grow. I understand these are basic statements but they haven’t came into my mind in this way before. And just figured it kick it around with one of my favorite sounding boards

I will have to check that out! And it's funny, I found Sanderson first, loved Elantris, stalled after the first Mistborn, but of my own laziness. But I had similar vibes from Sanderson. The hard magic of Elantris also brought the spirit, and for the same reason. God isn't magic. I think it's something he wants me to learn or something

I'm working on Children of the Mind now. I keep thinking he can't get any more deliberate and beautiful in his description of intelligences and the Skousen style of understanding of how all reality works. Yet he does, and I keep drinking deeply from it. A simple, profound, beautiful possibility of how things are. How eternal progression and embodiment might happen.

Which is to say, I have a few more chapters to read, but I am very excited about this one!

I feel ever so strange saying it, but I don't know that I've felt the spirit so strongly than I have while reading a decades old Science Fiction book. But as Card goes through the process of describing life and the "twining" of "philotic" connections, and the idea that a believable God would only be one that is parental in nature, I can't help but see the truth in it (to be fair I am reminded of the meme in which Lewis says if everyone doesn't know the Lion is Jesus he is going to cry, it seems like it's a hammer in it's bludgeoning nature). All of that is to say, while I am sure I am in an echo chamber in both the book and in the audience I speak to now. I am coming out of/going through some of the worst anxiety and depression in my life, and I can't say in words how helpful it is. It makes God real. While I can't take all of the insights in this book as Gospel, and would be foolish to do so, it gives me possibilities on how God might work, and makes him not magic, it just makes him real.

You beautiful <expletive deleted> I’m SO excited to go through these. Mobley VERY much helped shore up my early testimony.

I have been reading over this for the past few days and very much appreciate the insights. One (among many) things that stood out to me was the comment that "It may be that natural law doesn’t require a being or Being for its existence and operation in much the same way that gravity doesn’t." This thought is interesting as it shows the law of Gravity as a behavior, and a law. It exists as a relationship between things, and makes me wonder if that is how the law of God is. Not that it is right or wrong, but just how it IS. I understand going down this road can make good arbitrary, but in a way so does accepting God as the source of good, through it being his essence. In that way we are right by squaring ourselves up to reality and how things "really" are. In that way perhaps we become more like God. We end up with all the same reasons for worship, he is good, he is our father, and he deserves said worship. The thought comes to me that perhaps it is again a way of trying to keep God separated from us. If he isn't like us, if he is the unmoved mover, he can stand alone. Making us like him challenges that idea, and make him a part of something, and not the source of everything. That still doesn't diminish his perfection, it just puts our relationship with him in a different focus. While he may have brothers, or a father, or whatever, that is all sideways. He is perfect, and we are his children, and through the lens of a family we can see our relationship with him. All of that is to also say that in either case, umoved mover, or one God of many (though they be one), we still have something unfathomable to deal with, an eternal realm, whether it is the essence of God, or where he lives, it is outside of us, and is something we can't comprehend. We think of everything as causal, but to a being with no time, that logic falls apart. So as long as we understand there is an eternal SOMETHING, we can have faith. In fairness some of this is still percolating as I type, but I think that seems like a good thought.

I spoke of Catholicism as that is the other thought process I am considering. After seeing the authority question answered in the church, I have problems with the just "do whatever" nature of the protestant denominations (and I know that isn't a super fair way of wording it, but it makes my point). With that in mind the only other place I see as viable is Catholic.

And ironically the thought comes to mind, that "This is life eternal, to know thee the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent" and "It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself in the beginning. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong we may go wrong, and it will be a hard matter to get right." So in my mind, the question is, if God is obedient to law, then where did that law come from? I don't think that's a bad question to ask.

Because the relationship with your father doesn't explain the nature of existence itself. I understand that sliding the question one level up IS a valid thought process, but while we believe we know why we're here, we know why we're here at the expense of know why HERE is here. I get that in the end that there are some questions we can't grasp, but I would think the explanation of where existence comes from would be one we should be able to at least understand.

First and foremost, this is a developing thought process for me, so I am trying to hammer out what I actually think My main issue is that our thinking on God, as I now understand it, doesn't make him the unmoved mover, the necessary being, or the source of everything. I have always struggled with the seemingly nebulous definition we have for him (I say that in the sense that we say things, but if there is any pushback or push for real clarification, we acknowledge we don't really know). Glorified man, the Snow couplet, and literally our father. I understand these things, but it leads to other issues. Infinite regression is one usual issue that comes up with this line of thinking, but I just had a thought that there isn't necessarily a problem with it. Really if there are more than 3 people at the station of God (which is how I understand him), they are all eternal, all "one" and all exist apart from the existence we have, this eternal realm they exist in, THAT is the "necessary being" or the source from which we spring. This helps, and makes it a little more understandable. That being said, the euthyphro dilemma begins to come into play (Basically put, is something good because God wills it, or is it good and THEREFORE God wills it). That basic question of is God good, or is good God. Does goodness exist apart from God? If it does, then there's more going on out there than all of our existence coming from God. If good exists apart from God, what made it good, and the whole question of where do we come from shifts up a level. If, on the other hand, it's good because God wills it/God posses it/God IS it, then good becomes arbitrary, it isn't good because it's good, it's good because it's God's will, and then ANYTHING could have been good. So, if, as we seem to believe, good exists apart from God, that is, he is bound by good. Then he isn't the source of everything. He is a product of another existence. I know we can't fully understand his nature, but this logic train is causing me issues to the point that I am doubting the Church. Do we really believe the Snow couplet as presently considered? If there was a time that the father wasn't God, then he isn't the source of all, he is the product of something else bigger, and that poses a problem for me. I hope this isn't too much rambling, I'm just trying to settle this in my heart and mind (hopefully) once and for all.

So I was listening to Testimony meeting this week, and it struck me (as it has often) how strange it is to hear everyone over and over again say "I know the church is true", "I know the church is true", "I know Joseph Smith was a prophet", etc. I've been a member for over 10 years now and it still strikes me as "cultish" (I don't care for the word, but it's the one that most resonantes). I grew up outside the church (as some may know, Pentecostal), and I never heard this type of repetition. Am I thinking about this practice wrong, or perhaps is it just a cultural thing that we do, and not something to get too hung up on. IDK, I just have always found it odd TBH.

Something I’ve been pondering a lot lately Is the question of is all of “this” God’s plan? We talk about the plan of salvation, and describe it as God’s. But when we look at everything in light of the king Follet sermon, we realize that it really isn’t “God’s” plan at all, just what has to be done. This of course simply pushes the question one level up. Who created this “plan” and why. I have struggled with this as long as I can remember. The answer the church provides is more palatable than “God did It” but it still leaves so many questions.

And in fairness I feel like the word telepathy is rough as an analog. That being said when I mentioned physical law I wondered if that was the best word, I agree spiritual is likely better, I was more going after the actual reality of there being a firm law.

An interesting thought I had this week while driving home from a holiday visit. One idea that has been percolating in my mind lately is that God is real (amazing I know). With this being the case, while we don't understand all his ways, they are within the natural order of things, at least this is my feeling on the matter. That in mind, the thought came to me that while talking to my wife that the idea of spiritual communication is very similar to the idea of telepathy. Another thought that has been kicking around for me lately is that language is finite in its ability to communicate, which in turn always makes me think of Moroni lamenting his inability to articulate like the Brother of Jared. This idea manifested itself to me through the discussion of language (specifically Christ's role in it's development), which then got me thinking, the spirit speaks to our mind/heart, how is that not really just telepathy so to speak. I then went a bit further down the road with it and am now thinking that as we live righteously, we put ourselves in a position to "hear" the spirit better, and that isn't just a platitude, it's a physical truth. I say all of this because my whole life growing up as a Protestant was that God basically had no rules, he could just do anything and it was magic. The more I study, the more I think he is bound by rule just as we are. Granted this kicks the whole "who made the rules" can down the road another step, but it makes God far more approachable. Just wanted to throw this out to see what you guys thought about it.

And the cynic in me pops up again, but I was reading this at lunch today. But with Nephi writing this, how would he know these things, unless I am misunderstanding as I thought he lead his people (and not as a king), until he died. With this in mind how does this passage make sense? I do understand you could just play the "prophet" card, but it did strike me as a bit off.

And in fairness, if it all there to begin with, then there would be no need for a restoration. And further down that road, if the Catholic church really had fallen off the log, then something would have to be afoot, and it does seem understandable that a reformation probably wasn't enough.

I apologize if I should have found a better word, but I was applying it to the situation to explain the idea that from the perspective of pretestant christendom, X Y and Z happened, but moving from protestantism to a latter day saint understanding was tha maybe A B C Y and Z happened, but not X. It is the feeling of everything you thought you knew is being changed. And there isn't always historical backing to it. I'm not trying to say all of these things are fiction, just that from an outside perspective it can feel as if history is being rewritten. I understand "plain and precious" has to mean something, but that was the feeling I was trying to articulate.

It's also possible I'm just complaining, I worry about that sometimes...

I know this isn't the most elegant way to approach things, but honestly so often I feel like doctrinally/historically we have retconned so many things and I struggle to find the historical precedent. Perhaps I am not looking in the right places, but normal lamentations of the Book of Abraham aside, I think alot about the temple ordinances, especially for eternal marriage, and why we don't see it anywhere overtly in the bible. Even Paul (I believe it was) said it was better NOT to marry at one point. Perhaps I lack in study, but sometimes things like this give me pause and make me struggle with how much I can trust the history and archeology I see when compared with the Book of Mormon, doctrinal changes in the bible. I don't I feel like I'm rambling by now (thanks for staying with me), just feels weird sometimes.

I guess my biggest thing was when President Nelson said (my best paraphrase) that by embracing nicknames we had unwittingly acquiesced to Satan. I simply don't understand why the Lord would have let President Hinckley/Monson run such PR when we were actually letting the devil win (so to speak). To be probably more blunt than I should, I thought that was the point of having a prophet.