questioning_seeker
-
Posts
45 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by questioning_seeker
-
-
I guess the essence of my ponderings is the question of whether God does things without first revealing those things to the prophets. My guess is that He does, and if that is true, then it raises questions about the accuracy of our usual understanding/interpretation of Amos 3:7 which I believe is normally understood to mean that God does nothing unless He first tells His prophets.
-
No doubt God has something in store for you, you will be led to it when you are ready.
-
Merry Christmas and a happy new year to all.
Hi all
Here are some notes that I made during yesterday’s Sacrament meeting when a speaker referred to Amos 3:7. Being only brief notes, they are not as polished as they could be, but I think they are sufficient to give the gist of my thinking.
I'm not sure how to interpret Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord God will do nothing save He shall reveal His secret to His servants the prophets.” One interpretation of this scripture leads to the conclusion that the extent or number of God's daily activities, or possibly only those activities which are secret, are limited by what He can reveal to the prophet in a 24 hour period. I suspect there is a limit to how much revelation a prophet can receive in one day, given how many other daily activities he is involved in. This leads to one of only three conclusions: 1 God does things which He does not reveal to His prophets. 2 He reveals all His works and secrets to His prophets but perhaps very few of His works are secret. 3 God does reveal all His secret works and acts to His prophets but perhaps He does very few works.
I’d be interested in any feedback on these thoughts, or any comments which might explain how Amos 3:7 could be correct.
-
I look forward to keeping in tough with your learning journey Hala.
-
Just a quick question Lynn - how strong/noticeable is the Mormon presence in Independence?
-
I think God might have some difficulty in making round triangles or three sided squares
-
So do you believe Father to lack wisdom, or do you think he is not loving?
I think that if casting out His children was how God chose to respond to rebellion, then your question might have some validity. However, I think He was simply separating two incompatible groups, which would be an appropriate course of action if indeed the two groups truly were incompatible.
-
This is just an inconsequential comment, but knowing God's strongly held preference for modesty in dress, were Adam and Eve, by being naked, already acting in a manner inconsistent with God's preferences prior to taking the fruit? Probably the answer has something to do with God not having previously given them any guidance on how and how not to dress.
-
I see it as a difference in liberty vs Safety/Security. We have the very same issue ongoing in our world today. Some believe that liberty is the best thing. Liberty allows people to become the most they can be.
The Safety/Security people state that too much liberty opens up too much risk. Total liberty allows people to crush other people. It allows people to suffer needlessly. Such is a major debate in religion today (including Mormonism) on the problem with Suffering. Why does God allow mankind to suffer such heinous things, if he really loves them?
I see this as the argument in the premortal existence. One cannot have absolute security or absolute liberty without giving up the other. I see Satan as offering a plan where all would be saved without suffering. In exchange, the only choice given mankind would be what flavor of ice cream they want: chocolate or vanilla. Most liberty/agency is taken away in being secure and safe..
Ram, your comments bring to mind a question I have been thinking about for some months and which I would find profitable to discuss further, with you and others. The question is - to what extent, and by what means, are God's values discoverable by empirical means? It seems to me that liberty is one thing that a person or God could value, and security is another. Most people, and possibly God, value both, but it seems to me that in the pre-existence, God and we chose a plan that valued liberty more highly than security. Hence, my question - to what extent, and by what means can God's values be discovered, as they have been here to a slight degree, through means other than revelation. Its not enough to simply say yes, God values all and everything, that is an easy, meaningless answer. I think it is possible to explore and find answers to some sort of ranking of God's values - what does He value most, to what does He value least, and the relative ranking of every value in-between, and under what circumstances will one value be more influential on His actions and decision making processes than another value? We can make reasonable proximations about the values of our friends if we know them well enough, and by knowing their values, we can make reasonable guesses about how they will react in a given set of circumstances. To what extent, and by what empirical means, can we come to acquire the same understanding about God and His values and likely actions in a given set of circumstances?
-
Nonsense. They were not cast out of heaven and eternally damned merely because they chose wrongly. They were cast out and eternally damned because they openly rebelled against the Father of all. This was no mere "oopsie". This was rank rebellion, open defiance of God himself. Satan sought the Father's glory and openly rebelled, and those who were like Satan followed him.
There is no other reasonable interpretation of the scriptures. Those Latter-day Saints who hold to the idea that those cast out just "chose wrong" utterly miss the point, and completely fail to explain why those lost souls (and they are eternally lost) seek the destruction of us all. They openly rebelled and defied God the Father.
I don't think rebellion was the reason for the removal - I think it was a question of compatibility. Water and oil don't mix, just as those who favoured security of liberty didn't mix. The two groups could not dwell together, so one had to go. I think that a wise and loving heavenly Father could have found a more useful way of dealing with His errant children other than kicking them out. Rebellion is best dealt with through re-education than removal. I suspect it was reasonable in the pre-existence to hold and express and support and argue for alternative viewpoints, and that to do so does not constitute rebellion.
-
Our old architecture is important, especially now that the wardhouse building process has become so streamlined and generic.
How will we have any old architecture to admire in the future if we don't start building it now? (A flippant and silly comment, but I couldn't resist) :)
-
So LeKook, its been one month since your baptism, how are you travelling? How does the reality compare with the promises?
-
hmm, I look forward to reading the responses your post will attract. Welcome. :)
-
God can do and give what He wants, to whoever He wants, about anything at anytime, although He does tend to stick with His standard operating procedures and usual protocols.
-
I've always thought that the community should provide community facilities and that the church should provide church facilities. I don't see what the issue is here, and who are we to question or complain or adversely comment about where temples should be built? If the people of Provo feel the need for a new community facility, there are ways by which that purpose can be accomplished, and I would have thought that relying on the church to meet that need, if it is indeed a need, is not the best way. I know any new temple is a good thing but it seems to me that this is not even a Utah only issue, this is mostly just a Provo only issue, so why all the fuss?
-
Nicely written James, and you express a very similar viewpoint/understanding as my own
-
And I pray the Father in the name of Christ that many of us, if not all, may be saved in his kingdom at that great and last day. - (Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 33:12)
Of course Christ prayed that many of us, if not all, would be saved in his kingdom. I can't imagine Him doing otherwise, or only praying for just some of us. Of course, He also prayed (New Testament | Matthew 26:39) saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me" and that prayer was not granted.
I think most of us - if not all of us - will make it!
See (New Testament | Matthew 24:38 - 41)
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes...(New Testament | Revelation 21:4)
I we don't all make it, I don't see how all tears could be "wiped away"
needless to say, I have great faith in our Father's plan - I think we will all be doing the victory dance together (even if in the meantime a few fear-tactics have to be used to get us all in shape 
) jmo!enlightenment can only be gained one way - through painful personal experience....
there is no other way to gain it than what we have right here, right now.
9 And now, my son, I have told you this that ye may learn wisdom, that ye may learn of me that there is no other way or means whereby man can be saved, only in and through Christ. Behold, he is the life and the light of the world. Behold, he is the word of truth and righteousness. (Book of Mormon | Alma 38:9)
I understand that under the current set of rules governing mortality, there is no other way whereby we can be saved, only through Christ, but we are speculating here about a type of mortality that could have been quite different from the current version, and under this different version, there might have been 50 different ways by which we could have been saved.
-
I think some of us may be not be giving sufficient consideration to Lucifer's pre-mortal position. Wasn't he said to have had a fairly senior position in the pre-existence? If that is the case, first, he probably wouldn't have got to that position unless he was meeting certain righteous and worthy criteria, and second, if he was in a senior position, he possibly had (mostly) good intentions regarding his Plan B.
-
Hello from Sandy
Sandy? I thought you were Pam :)
-
Two lengthy comments to consider.
1) It seems to be that the choice between God and Lucifer’s versions of the plan came down to something like this:
God's plan: We will all have the opportunity to learn and grow by making wise choices. It will be tough and most of us will not reach the level of growth needed to return to our Father but we will be free to make our own choices, and by so doing, will learn and grow. Most of us will not make it but those who do will be much better off for having experienced mortality, and for those who do make it, there will be a nice reward. All of us will make some bad choices for which God's innocent Son will have to suffer difficulties.
Lucifer's plan: No choice, no pain or difficulties for anyone, no freedom, probably no growth, guaranteed return for everyone, and everyone gets to live with God.
Under God's plan, only a few of us get to make it back, albeit in a much more enlightened condition than when we left, and then we get to enjoy the nice reward for the rest of eternity. Under Lucifer's plan, all of us make it back, without having gained much enlightenment, and then we get back to enjoy the nice reward, but we have all eternity to gain the needed enlightenment that we missed out on gaining here on earth as a result of not having agency.
It might appear to some, that it makes much better sense for everybody, rather than a few, to make it back. We would then have all eternity to do the learning and growth that we are supposed to fit into just three score years and ten here in mortality.
2) It also seems to me that I can imagine a pre-mortal spirit sitting in the pre-existence trying to make up his mind as to which version of the plan to choose, and his thinking going something like this:
On the one hand, I have a plan under which I know most will fail, but for those very few who succeed, the rewards will be great. On the other hand, we have a plan whereby all will succeed, and the rewards probably won’t be as great. Which do I choose – the one that will save only a few, and give them a great reward, or the one that will save all, but possibly with a lesser reward. I’m going to choose the plan that offers the biggest reward, because I’m interested in, and attracted to big rewards, and if there are lots who fail to make it, well then that’s just too bad, but I’ll be ok because I have my big reward.
Knowing that many would fail, was our choice as to which version of the plan we wanted based in part on self interest?
These are not views that I subscribe to, but they are thoughts that occur to me from time to time and for which I have not yet worked out satisfactory answers, but I am curiously seeking for such.
-
Its also a great place to discuss ideas and questions. There are a lot of very well informed, knowledgeable people here who know how to consider and respond to a line of inquiry in a helpful and thoughtful manner.
-
I think all mums are single mums. How could the one mum ever be a double, or a triple mum? Is there such a thing? Ergo, if they are not double, they must be single. :)
-
So there was a plan and then there was an amended plan. That equals 2 plans,
I think Lucifer's proposal can be viewed as a fairly significant variation to the same script, with a major change in who would play the lead role. I don't think it makes much of a difference whether we see this as two plans or one.
-
From my viewpoint, free will, along with intellect, reason and the ability to love, is an attrribute of being created in the image and likeness of God.
This is just a moot point, and maybe it is only semantic, but I think that what we start out with is only the potential for love and reason and choice, and whether this potential actually grows into the ability to love and reason depends on the choices we make at some very early stage of our existence. I'm still thinking through the question of whether or not we come into existence with the ability to choose or only the potential to develop that ability. Possibly whatever we come into existence with might be described as a "proto ability" to choose.
This same scenario exists concerning the choice of Adam and Eve. If they had to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in order to have "free will choice" then how did they make the choice to disobey God in the first place? If they did not know that they were choosing to disobey God then no sin could have been imputed by their actions. This seems to me to be the same question.
I think Mormons say Eve transgressed rather than sinned, which almost sounds a little bit like lawyer speak. Maybe transgressing doesn't have as serious a set of consequences as sinning does but I'm only idly speculating here.
thought re accuracy of Amos 3:7
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
The replies to this question, and to many other questions, highlight the difficulties of scriptural interpretation. One particular approach to scriptural interpretation might result in a correct understanding of this verse, but the same approach might produce a faulty understanding when applied to another verse. Is there any non-spiritual means of determining which interpretive approach might apply to which verse? How can we know which is the correct tool to use for each particular verse? I suspect that sometimes, as Latter-Day Saints, we apply the interpretive tool that is most likely to produce the result that fits with our pre-conceived ideas, regardless of whether that is the correct tool to use.