askandanswer

I'm hoping that there will be much more to explore and consider from the input of others to this discussion and hopefully more contributions from yourself in response to the contributions from others.

Come on Gator, do you really believe that all of us on this forum don't know what your'e really like, and all the other kind of things you get up to? I'm sorry to break the news to you but I think you must be living in false hope my friend. Remember, its a small world and people gossip about what they see.

Certainly, and possibly, evil for the mortal version of that Being who is now our God, was based on the presence or absence of the will of that being who was His god. Perhaps evil can only be defined in terms of the will of a Ggod, regardless of which particular Ggod we are talking about. I suspect that our God became God in the same way that you and I can - by choosing good over evil, with good and evil being defined by the being to which He was subject at the time.

Thanks Rob. This seems to be a version of the argument that foreknowledge implies predestination. I have sometimes looked at these arguments and have found them to be difficult to follow and as yet, I don't have a firm view on them either way. However, it seems to me that if complete knowledge of everything that will happen means that one can only choose and do that which will bring about that which one knows will happen, I can still readily imagine that God, when deciding and planning out what the future would be, had a very wide range of choices to choose from. However, once having exercised that choice, yes, I can see how His range of future choices would then be more limited than what they were previous to deciding what the future would be. I also think its possible for God to know about and plan and prepare for a number of possible futures, and if there are multiple possible futures, I think that would then open up the possibility of choice. ( I must admit that my thinking on this last mentioned possibility is still a little under-developed). As to the idea that God created Lucifer knowing what he would become, I've just finished writing about that possibility in the last paragraph of my edited reply to Ed. The last paragraph of my reply to Ed was not included in my original reply so you might not have seen it yet.

We differ, starscoper, in that I am moving towards the conclusion that good and evil can only be defined in relation to the existence of God's will. To act according to God's will is good, and there is no other kind of good, to act against it is evil, and there is no other kind of evil, and on issues where God has not declared His will, eg, whether pink candy floss is better than green, then there is no good or no evil (and as a side thought, therefor no eternal benefits or spiritual growth to be gained by consistently choosing one colour over the other). If evil is an eternal reality, wouldn't that then suggest that there might be such a thing as absolute evil?

Ed, I'm hoping you might be willing to share your thoughts on what evil actually is. This is a side issue, but one's that I've just been reminded while reading Ed's reply, of a topic that my son and I have discussed once or twice before. If opposition is necessary for the proper exercise of agency, and if learning how to properly exercise our agency is one of the main reasons why we are here, and since Lucifer and his associates are doing such a fine job in providing the required opposition, does it then follow that Lucifer deserves some kind of reward in the next life for doing such a good job of providing something that is essential to our growth? And if it was not actually Lucifer providing that opposition, then it would have to be someone else, because opposition is necessary to the proper operation of the plan. My son sometimes postulates that Lucifer is some sort of sacrificial "fall guy" for God's plan, and thinks that when everything is over, God will pat Satan on the back and say well done, you did a good job in what you were supposed to do. This possibility is given a small degree of support by the fact that Lucifer will indeed be given a kingdom to reign over, and the same cannot be said of those who end up in the telestial or terrestrial worlds, although I imagine that the kingdom over which Lucifer will reign will not be a terribly desirable kingdom to have.

Tess, could you elaborate on this please, I'm not sure what you mean. What exactly do you mean by the absence of God? I believe that in some way, the power or influence of God is everywhere, and if that is true, ie, that God's influence was everywhere, and if it is true that evil is the absence of God, then there would be no evil, when clearly, there is. I'm finding it a little difficult to imagine a time or place where God's power and influence could not be. However, if you are talking about the actual physical presence of God, and if evil is defined as acting in opposition to God's will, well we know that Lucifer, in the presence of God in the preexistence, chose to oppose God's will, and not just Lucifer, but one third of God's spirit children. So on that occasion, there were a great many acts of evil done in the presence of God.

Rob, could you elaborate on this please? I don't think I follow your logic here and I can't see how you get from how God knowing something then leads to the creation of evil. I agree with you that peoples' decisions to choose to do good or evil is not predestined and that if this were the case it would impact on free will.

This line, by UT starscoper in the thread about physician assisted suicide prompted me to search for some musings I wrote for myself about the US constitution a year or so ago. "LDS theology pretty much holds that the the form of government we enjoy here in the U.S. is inspired, of course." I’ve often seen this statement, or ones like it, made in many other places and posts, but I’m wondering how carefully people have thought through what it might actually mean when we say that the US constitution was inspired. For example, I am fully confident that the Book of Revelations, as given by God to John, was inspired. I am not as confident that the Book of Revelations, as contained in the Bible, is a complete and accurate representation of the inspiration that God gave. It would seem that in some cases, there is at least a prima facie reason to believe that the written document containing, or based on, or resulting from, or related to, (whichever is the case) the inspiration that was received is a not a complete, truthful, accurate, faultless record of the inspiration that was received. Anyway, here are the musings I wrote to myself a while ago.I'm interested to hear what you think about this. 1. It is not clear how specific was the inspiration/revelation that led to the creation of the US constitution. The inspiration might have been something as general as a prompting that the constitution should allow men the means to protect themselves. Or it might have been something like the process by which the revelations that make up the Doctrine and Covenants were received – almost like direct word for word dictation from the Lord to the Prophet to the page. Or it could have been nothing more than a vague prompting to follow the ideas expressed by John Stuart Mill, Burke, Locke, and others. 2. Perhaps the end/written product is not an accurate reflection of the revelation that was given. We know that the Book of Mormon, referred to by Joseph Smith as the most correct book on earth, was translated by inspiration, but the finished, written product contained hundreds, maybe even thousands of errors that were not corrected for more than 150 years. Notwithstanding this multitude or errors, dozens, perhaps hundreds of prophets and apostles during that time continued to testify as to its truthfulness and divine origins. It may be that something similar happened with the writing of the US constitution. The inspiration was correct but perhaps there were errors in how it was expressed. This might have occurred because, as far as we know, the receivers of the revelation were not well experienced in receiving revelation. None of them held the Priesthood, and perhaps none of them had received a revelation before. This inexperience increases the possibilities or errors occurring. 3. The framers of the US constitution may have received revelation and inspiration as they worked on writing the constitution but they might have chosen to ignore, or not follow the revelation, or “interpret” the inspiration they received. When the Lord was engaged in setting up His spiritual kingdom on earth – the church – we know that there were at least two occasions when Joseph Smith ignored or did not follow the revelation he received: once when he tried to get the gold plates prematurely, despite being warned by Moroni not to do this, and later, when he gave 116 pages of translated manuscript to Martin Harris. Some also speculate that Joseph Smith declined for some years to act on the revelation allowing plural marriage. If a Priesthood-holding prophet with prior experience of receiving revelation can still ignore or not follow revelation, it is more likely that men who are not prophets and have no prior experience with revelation, might choose to ignore or disregard revelation that they do not agree with. 4. Just as the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth took many men many years, the establishment of the United States of America, and the writing of the US constitution took many men some time. Many of those men may have been good, righteous men capable of receiving revelation at the beginning of the process, just as Sidney Rigdon and James Strang were in the beginning days of the church. In their early days, these good men may have been inspired and contributed much of value to the processes they were involved in. However, just as Rigdon and Strang and others left the church and later worked against it, by the time it came to actually writing the final draft of the constitution, some of these previously good men might not have been as good as they once were. As happened with the establishment of the church, men who were once good and instrumental in the process might later have become bad and added their own damaging ideas. At one point there words were inspired, at another point they were not. The end result is that they may have diluted or distorted the final writing up of the US constitution because at the time of final writing, they were no longer the good men they once were. This could lead to a situation where some parts of the constitution may have been the added interpolation of men in the same way as blacks were prohibited from holding the Priesthood – a practice seemingly not inspired or doctrinal and something that may have seemed wrong but which the Lord allowed to continue. What do you think?

This questions occurred to me while reading the post by curious_mormon about who tempted Satan. Is there any such thing as absolute evil, or does evil only exist in relation to God’s will? If God has no particular will or preference for how many angels can be allowed to dance on the head of a pin, then perhaps it is no evil if 1 or 1000 angels dance on the head of a pin. However, if God suddenly decides and declares that only 2 angels may dance on the head of a pin then all of a sudden it becomes evil for any other number of angels, other than two, to dance on the head of a pin. Is there any evil in relation to matters on which God has no particular will? By having a will on a particular matter, is it only at that point that the possibility of evil in relation to that matter comes into existence? Taking things a step further, if this is true – that the possibility of evil comes into existence only once God has stated His will on a particular matter – then I guess it would also be true to say that that evil does not become a reality, or no evil is actually committed, until God’s will on that particular matter is violated. If this is true, and I’m inclined to think that there is reason to believe that it may be, then by creating the possibility of evil, and by giving, or allowing us the opportunity to choose and act, then this might point to the (for me) unexpected conclusion that God has been intimately involved in the creation of evil. This does not in any way detract from the fact that we are all individually responsible for any evil choices we make. (And I would never presume that any one on this forum would ever make such choices)

Wow! No - ah way! That just floats my boat I suspect his boat building skills were better than his navigation skills given that he seems to have crashed it into a mountain.

I appreciate the effort you have put into this but sorry Carb, I should have specified - I meant the diagram for your adopted family, not your biological family.

As I type this, I'm looking at my computer screen, which I think might be made of some sort of glass, and just over to the right is my bedroom window, which I often look through. My thoughts are that I'm so glad that the law has been updated, and that glass looking is no longer an offence. This law must have caused a great deal of difficulty for the glaziers of the time. Perhaps they all worked wearing blindfolds?

Carb, I'm having difficulty visualising the relationship you have described. Could you please explain it diagrammatically in the same way as Neuro has so kindly done?

I can do better than that - Joseph Smith is related to me

My fear is that I did not learn enough on my mission. I had a great mission, I loved it, and for sure it has had a lasting and powerful effect on my life. And for sure, I gained many many and greater understandings of things than what I had before my mission. However, due mostly to my slothfulness, but many other factors, such as time, competing priorities, a broader range of responsibilities now than what i had as a missionary, and perhaps the generally lower level of daily spiritual life that many of us live in after the spiritual highs of mission life, many of the understandings that I gained on my mission have not had as much or as long lasting an impact as they should have. The impact of lessons fade without repeated application, and my application has not always been as good as it should have been.

I‘m finding the whole idea of racism to be a difficult concept to think about. Here are some semi-random thoughts that have occurred to me after reading through bits and pieces of this thread. I’m not committing myself to any position here, I’m just thinking out loud and wondering about a few things. Now that Iv'e written and copied this into the forum, I realise its my longest post ever. Please read with patience. If I invite a Tongan friend for dinner and serve him Japanese food, am I being: a) Hospitable, because I am sharing a meal with a friend? b) Insensitive because I am ignoring his cultural preference for Tongan food? c) Colour blind, because I am acting as if his race is not relevant and acting as if he is just the same as me? If I serve him Tongan food, am I being racist, because I am making assumptions about his food preferences based on his ethnicity? Was God demonstrating a form of racism when He promised blessings to a certain group of people based solely on their blood lines? Or when He gave His Law to the Jewish people and no others and placed them in a pre-eminent position in relation to their neighbouring cultures and commanded them not to mix with others? We are all children of the same God, but note the differences in how God treated Ishmael and Isaac. (Genesis 17: 16 – 22) Does the whole concept of American exceptionalism contain elements of some form of racism, whereby some Americans, white, black, brown or yellow or whatever, seem to believe that they are exceptional simply because they are American? It is sometimes suggested in scripture and prophetic teaching that God gives truth to people in proportion to their ability to handle it and live according to it. This may be true. If it is, it immediately follows that there may be a qualitative difference between those individuals and nations and cultures that have more truth and those that have less. And if such qualitative differences exist, then this may provide a reason for differential treatment. Why was the gospel restored in America and not in Iceland or Japan or Russia? Probably the political structures and religious environment of America at that time had something to do with it, but possibly so also did the character and nature of the inhabitants of America at that time – some of them were ready for the truth and capable of living it. Joseph Smith, when explaining why so many of the people of England accepted the gospel when the first LDS missionaries arrived, declared that the blood of Joseph (or as it Ephraim?) runs rich in England. Does this imply some sort of difference between people of England and people not of England, or those of the tribe of Ephraim and those not of that tribe? It certainly seems that the extremely limited record we have of the Patriarchal blessings given by Joseph to his 12 sons in Genesis 49 suggests some significant differences between them, and these differences may have been carried down to today. Ephraim seems to have been given a leading role. Does this suggest some sort of positive discrimination in favour of Ephraim? Does it suggest that the those of the tribe of Ephraim are in some way different from those of other tribes? How much truth is there in the idea, that people who have characteristic A, are more likely to also have characteristics B, C and D and E, and that it is therefore a safe and reasonable generalization, although far from a definite and unchangeable truth, that when meeting a person with characteristic A, to keep in mind that they are also likely to have characteristics B, C D and E, and are therefore likely to behave in a certain way and should therefore be responded to accordingly? How low does the statistical correlation have to be between these characteristics have to be before we can ignore or discard such generalizations and how high does it have to be before we can accept such generalizations as a reasonable working principle, although still not an absolute truths? If it’s absolutely certain that 90% of people with purple skin behave in a selfish and greedy manner, would it be ok to treat them as selfish and greedy, and if so, would that be racist? It it was only highly likely, rather than absolutely certain, that 90% of purple skinned people were greedy and selfish should we be idealistic and treat them in the same way as non-purple skinned people or should we be practical and treat them as likely to be greedy and selfish? What if the correlation was 80% rather than 90%? Are there real and substantial differences between individuals, groups, races, countries and cultures? If there are, to what extent might or could or should these differences lead to different types of behaviours or different types of treatment, if at all? What sort of differences, if any, justify differences in treatment? At what point, if any, would or should it be appropriate to label any such differences in treatment as racism. Just as in this life, there will be enormous variation in the degree of obedience, valiance and commitment to the gospel that we all show, and consequently enormous variation in the exact nature of the final reward we will receive/be allocated to, so it is likely that in the pre-existence, that there was an equally great variation in the degree of commitment and obedience that we showed to God’s plan rather than Satan’s, and that this variation in commitment may have influenced where and when we have ended up in this, our second estate. Perhaps those who were less valiant than others in supporting God’s plan in the pre-existence, have ended up in times and places in this life where they are less likely to have unrestricted access to the fullness of the gospel in this life. This idea is supported by the occasional teaching that the seed of Ephraim were particularly valiant in the preexistence. If there is any truth in this idea, and there might not be, then it supports the idea that there are qualitative differences between people and cultures and that gets back to the question of whether qualitative or substantial differences between people justifies or requires or explains differences in treatment between different groups of people. After thinking this through my own views are that: There seems to be some reason to assume that people are not all the same and that real and substantial differences exist between different groups of people and between people of different cultures. This is not saying that some groups are better than others – that is a value judgment that I am not equipped to make – just that they are different from each other. The idea that all people are the same and should therefore all be treated the same is beginning to seem a little speculative and somewhat doubtful. Certainly we are all sons and daughters of God, but my sons and daughters are most definitely not the same as each other and I do not treat them the same although I love them all equally and try to do my best for each of them. There may be occasions and circumstances when, as a result of these differences, it may be helpful or prudent or sensible to keep these differences in mind when there is interaction between differing peoples or cultures. Exactly how you interact, and exactly how and how much these differences between culture and peoples should be taken into account, and how much it should influence our interactions is an individual matter, in which one should be guided by one’s experience and common sense. If it has been my experience that many people who possess a certain attribute, whether it be skin colour, height, eye colour, ethnicity or whatever, are also likely to possess certain other attributes, then it seems to be common sense to at least anticipate that when I meet a person with that certain attribute, to expect them to also have those certain other attributes that commonly seem to go with that first attribute. However, I should always keep in mind that this is a convenient, lazy, generalized way of thinking, and that I should be prepared to adjust my views at any time in the light of lived experience. Most importantly of all, most of this doesn’t matter if we remain focused on living the two great commandments to love God and love our neighbor. Just a few things to think about …………..

Favourite Holy Day? Sunday of course. And the best thing is, it comes every week, not just once a year.

I’m looking forward to endless amounts of rocky road ice-cream served with a perfectly balanced fruit salad. But heaven can wait – I’m working on making my home a heaven on earth now by including rocky road ice cream in my weekly shopping.

where's the icing?

It seems to me as if the process of emulating cartridges has some similarities to taking a photo of a picture you already own and have hanging on your wall, and then putting the photo of the picture in a frame and hanging it in another wall in your home. I can't see too much wrong with doing that.

For Gator