Doctor Steuss

Warning: I'm not exactly LDS in the fullest sense, so you may not want my responses... How old are you? 27 How long have you been associated to the Mormon Faith? Depends on your definition of "associated," but I guess 27 Years (give-or-take) Were you ever affiliated with any other type of Faith? If by "affiliated" you mean an official member, then no. If by "affiliated" you mean studied and/or attended gatherings/meetings, etc., then yes. Will you describe your understanding of Creation? The closest thing would probably be Theistic Evolution. Although I think the "theistic" element was probably rather benign for most of it. How would you describe the character of God? All that is good that is within us and much that is good that we have yet to understand nor comprehend. What do you believe about Jesus Christ? In my moments of belief, I believe Him to be YHWH (in most instances, although I think the OT authors jumbled Him and Eloheim up a bit sometimes), the only-begotton Son of G-d (in the flesh that is), the great I AM, the Savior of mankind. That and He's my brother. In my moments of disbelief. A very wise man. What are your hopes for eternity? That there is one. Who was Joseph Smith and what role does he play in your understanding of Scripture? In my moments of belief, he was a prophet of G-d. He plays a somewhat significant role in my understanding of scripture. There have been some non-LDS scholars who believe a closer look should be taken at Joseph in biblical studies. I think if nothing else, he had an amazing understanding of the bible and many could learn from him if they would just but their dogmatic ideologies and pride aside. What do you believe about the Bible? It has truth mixed in with error. Is it on the same plain with the Book of Mormon? Yep. Do you maintain ties to your ancestors in any way? Could you clarify this? What teachings do you follow concerning marriage? Not married. But when I do, I will try to follow the same as Adam and Eve (i.e. eternally man and wife). What role does your faith play in your political views? Little. Do you support Mitt Romney? No. Do you have a family doctor? Yes.

Bingo!

Mine is a man whose music amazes me, humility inspires me, and his search for spirituality during his life garners my respect.

This is maintained by "The Monk" (those who post at MA&D and elsewhere probably recognize that name). http://www.mormonmonastery.org/category/home-page/ Make sure to check out This page while you're perusing. Hugs, Stu

Zion, dear Zion. Why have thy posts grown so? *sigh*

I'm doomed...

Jonah 3:9.

Hi Doctor T. Here's another one that I often toy with (perhaps you have some insights). It is a common belief that no unclean thing can enter heaven. However, in Job 1:6 we find... Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. Whatcha think? PS. Eye halve a spelling chequer It came with my pea sea It plainly marques four my revue Miss steaks eye kin knot sea. Eye strike a key and type a word And weight four it two say Weather eye am wrong oar write It shows me strait a weigh. As soon as a mist ache is maid It nose bee fore two long And eye can put the error rite Its rare lea ever wrong. ---------- One more thing in regards to sin in heaven and agency. I came up with this metaphor last night; it’s kind of, ummmm… colorful, but hopefully it makes sense. If you put a plate of dog poop in front of me, I could choose to eat it. However, the chances of me choosing to eat it are zero. This does not negate my ability to choose to eat it, it only illustrates my utter distain for munching on doggy-doo. Sin is dog poop to those in heaven. Tah-dah!

By heaven, do you mean the pre-existence, or do you mean the kingdoms of glory? I think Alma 13 shows that we did sin in various ways and to various degrees in the pre-existence. As for can God sin, if He can't does He have agency, et al, I think it's unimportant to distinguish. Yes, God could choose to withhold blessings from a righteous soul when He had promised to bless him. But He never will, since its not in His nature to do so. The effective concern is "Will God ever sin?" The answer is "No," even though He has the power to choose to sin. I think this is essentially where my general thoughts tend to take me on the subject (and yes, I was referring to kingdoms of glory). I think that we will probably have the ability to sin if we wanted to, but by the time we reach our given glory (if we reach the CK), our nature and longing to avoid sinful acts will basically be solidified. This is also why I think those who actively seek to fight against G-d will continue to do so in the hereafter (thusly helping to understand how someone would refuse to accept the gospel when faced with the definitive knowledge of G-d’s existence).

We are all going to Hell (sheol and hades [depending on if you're Hebrew or Greek] is but a resting place for the dead). All of the "noise" in my head is making me a bit angry and irritable (and bitter), but all-in-all, I'm hanging in there. All things must pass…Thank you for your concern E. :)

Thank you Dr. T for your thoughtful reply. This in particular… “Posse non peccare and Non posse peccare” … has another avenue that I often contemplate on lazy days. Could G-d sin if he wanted to? If He can’t sin, then He doesn’t have the very free agency that He thought so important to give to us. But, if He can sin, then is He essentially worthy of our trust and faith? If the probability for Him to sin is a definitive zero, then is the possibility for Him to make that choice even there? And if the choice cannot be made, then does He really have the ability to choose? Such are the circular, round and round, things regarding the divine and eternities that make my brain stretch to uncomfortable contortions. Also, another noodle scratcher is... could we sin in heaven if we wanted to? What an enjoyable and fruitful thread this has become. My thanks be to you. :)

To an extent, even the “three kingdoms” (although technically there are more than three) to me doesn’t even sit well. Justice doesn’t seem to be served by having such a definitive line drawn in the sand. And the heaven/hell dichotomy seems to take this to the extreme. Where is the line drawn? If someone lives the life of a saint, it’s pretty sure they’ll be in the one and only heaven in the presence of G-d (which is the ultimate reward, and which is what makes heaven into a “heaven”). But, what if someone cheats on their spouse? Do they still get the ultimate reward of the one heaven? What if they cheat on their spouse, swindle a widow from their savings, and beat their children? Is that the line to where they can no longer go to the one and only heaven and are instead consigned to be tortured infinitely in “hell”? Where is the line? Why does someone who lives a less than stellar life get to be in the same one and only heaven as someone who led a life of sacrifice? Why does a mass murderer get to "accept Jesus" on his deathbed and end up in the same one and only heaven that those whom he murdered may be? It just seems like a dichotomy that goes against the very nature of fairness and justice. Only Sith deal in absolutes…

Good morning Dr. T., My mind is still having some issues today, so hopefully I will be able to explain this well. Creation ex nihilo (as I understand it) not only applies to creation (as in things physical), but also to the creation of man’s nature, soul, will, being, time, space, agency, conscious, etc. There is nothing that exists that G-d did not create from “nothingness.” As He created all things (both material and immaterial) from “nothingness” it seems like a logical conclusion that He could have created them differently. Those materials, souls, agencies, consciousness, dreams, aspirations, hopes, etc. that are flawed in any way could have been conceivably created without said flaws. This also ties into the concept of omnipotence. If there is nothing that G-d can’t do, and if He created all things from “nothingness,” then He is the ultimate cause of all things negative or positive (especially when we factor into the equation G-d’s omniscience). If He created Satan from “nothingness” and if He had the power to create Satan differently (i.e. give him a different nature, etc.) then conceivably He is ultimately responsible for all actions carried out by His creation(s). Now, this is where I’m going to move into personal speculation mode, and as such my thoughts probably won’t line up with “official” LDS thought… Now, if an LDS paradigm of pre-existent matter, “intelligence,” etc. it taken, there is still a problem. If there is nothing that G-d cannot do, then conceivably He could still take this pre-existent matter (both the immaterial and material) and alter it in such a way as to rid any imperfections. This is why I tend to think that there are things which G-d is incapable of doing; eternal laws which even He must abide by. Now some may gasp at this idea, but to those who gasp at the idea that there are things that G-d can’t do, I ask you one question: “Can G-d lie?” This is why I think that G-d being omnipotent (in the classic form of the word) can cause problems. I guess that essentially the problems don’t find their way in through the ex nihilo door, but instead through the omnipotence window. Even the conundrums that are found within an “out of nothing” creation of all things would essentially disappear if G-d was bound by laws that required Him to create from “nothingness” in a predisposed fashion. (I really hope that makes sense)… This is just one of the things that I think the “battles” with the Gnostics within early Christianity and the influx of Greek philosophy essentially caused more problems than it resolved. If omnipotence is changed slightly from “having all power” to instead “having all available power,” some of the issues tend to lose substantial gravity IMO. And in rereading my comments over the past two days, I see that I moved from ex nihilo to omnipotence to Gnostics to Greek philosophy… I really have some serious problems keeping the goal-posts stationary (sorry).

I won't get to the nitty-gritty as I'm having increasing trouble getting my brain to co-operate. But, hopefully this will help to line-up some of my potential comments when I respond to your question later. In the LDS paradigm (as I understand it), agency was something we had by our very nature, and was not something that G-d necessarily “chose” for us. Here is what has made me come to this conclusion. In the “war in heaven,” we chose whose plan we were going to follow (that of Christ and G-d, or that of Satan) -- this tends to make me think that “choice” was something we had by very nature. I don’t think Satan’s plan was to necessarily rid us of agency all-together, but to remove it during our mortal “probation” thusly guaranteeing that all would return to heaven (and most likely it would have greatly diminished the growth opportunities that are provided by our ability to choose while here). Also, your thoughts that G-d is the ultimate wisdom, etc., I think this is an acceptable way of looking at the potential problems as this is ultimately the way I admittedly view some things within my own belief system. As to how creation (read: “formation”) from pre-existent matter would change my argument... do you mind clarifying what aspect of my argument you’re wondering would change? [edited for clarity... hopefully]

You have no idea how much the above means to me. I get really self-conscious on days like this. I usually tend to shy away from dialogue with people when my mind is going off like a fourth of July spectacular, but today I decided to throw caution to the wind.Thank you so much CK. If you only knew how much this means on a day like today. Not only is there the potential problem of "who made us capable..." but the larger conundrum is:Who created Satan in the first place (and created the way that he did)? This is another problem as angels (which I believe most in the ex nihilo crowd think Satan is [i.e. a fallen angel]) didn't need to have the ability to rebel against G-d any more than we do. Satan could have conceptually been created much differently (i.e. he could have been another Michael).

But, if G-d created everything out of nothing, was all-knowing, all-powerful and agency did not exist before He created it, then by extension He is responsible for all actions that result from it. Also, “agency” does not presuppose that wrongful actions could be made per se if the creations are given a nature that has a predisposition to non-sinful actions. Did you create the goldfish? Could you have created the goldfish differently if you chose to? Did you have to give the goldfish the ability to swim left if it wanted to? I don’t see how it’s all that hard to understand either. I’m just trying to point out some of the sticky issues that are created from the ex nihilo paradigm. I’m by no means saying that my interpretation of the logical conclusions of this doctrine are necessarily the only ones (I am perfectly happy affording my brothers and sisters that adhere to this the option of “G-d’s ways aren’t our ways…”, etc.). I’m merely stating how it can potentially lead to a belief in justifiability for our incorrect actions. Much like some lean all the way to hyper-Calvinism and being “elect” despite any actions and/or beliefs (i.e. G-d will save whomever He wants, and had determined who He would save before they were even created). And, once again... my mind is racing today so I hope the above makes sense (such is the plight of being both a mild schizophrenic and bipolar type II).

Good afternoon Dr. T,For the most part, it only makes sense from a philosophical perspective. I'm sure there are other avenues that make this seeming outcome go away (from a theological perspective in lieu of a philosophical and/or logical one). But, hopefully this will help clarify how I'm "getting there": If G-d created everything out of nothing, and G-d is all-powerful (and all-knowing), then G-d is ultimately responsible for every creation and the way said creation acts and responds. Try to think of it this way. If I wanted to make a pot, and I knew ultimately how every material that I could create would respond… and I ultimately chose a material that was inherently flawed, then I would essentially be responsible for those flaws. But, if I had to form the pot from pre-existing materials, then any flaws would no longer be my fault (especially if I made a contingency to help counteract those inherent flaws [i.e. the Atonement, the Holy Spirit, the power of discernment, etc.]). But, if I had the ability and know-how to create the materials themselves (thusly eliminating even the necessity for any form of contingency plan), I would then become complacent in any shortcomings of those materials. I hope the above makes sense. My brain is kind of racing today and I’m having trouble expressing myself coherently. BTW, "most people I know who claim "God made them that way" don't even know what ex-nihilo is" -Stu

My comment here has nothing to do with the thread, but I just had to say that I totally disagree with your statement here shan. I literally hate it when people say, "God made me this way, it's just the way I am." It's such a cop-out! To ascribe our weaknesses to God is ridiculous. Hey, how are those chickens of yours. From an ex nihilo paradigm, I think the "God made me this way, it's just the way I am" is perfectly logical. From the non-ex nihilo paradigm, it is indeed a cop-out.

Maybe you should ask the Missionaries to give you a priesthood blessing. I know that such blessings often help for some people.

"It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine" -Joseph Smith

It’s more of an Opus Dei. This is the Illuminati: Dun, dun, dun...

The Genesis Group is an amazing organization with a rich history. It was formed under the direction of Harold B. Lee (with assistance from Boyd K. Packer, Gordon B. Hinckley, and Thomas S. Monson -- I believe in 1971). The current presiding General Authority for the Genesis Group is Merrill J. Bateman. I don't know much about the current president, Don Harwell. But the prior president, Darius Gray is one of the leading researchers (if not the leading researcher) in regards to Black members and the priesthood, and Black members in the early LDS church.

Marvin Perkins just sent this to me, and I thought others might be interested: http://www.blacksinthescriptures.com/ He says that orders for the DVDs won't ship until September 1st, but orders can still be placed at the website. And here's a little dilly from Deseret News (also provided by Brother Perkins): Priesthood for blacks is focus of film. For those who don't know, Brother Perkins is the Co-Chair of Public Affairs for theGenesis Group. Enjoy.

I’m just trying to figure out how many buffalo were roaming the plains of America in the 1800’s. In fact, I’m trying to figure out how many buffalo were hunted and killed by Native Americans… Oh wait… never mind, I found the answer: Zero. A bison, a bison. My kingdom for a bison.

I guess you just need to think about what is more important. Keeping it from her father (I assume in order to maintain her trust), or letting her father know? Two sides to the coin: Looking back on your youth, would you ultimately understand if you were "ratted out" (sorry for the saying)? or... Would you, as a father, hope that someone who saw your daughter going against your established rules would let you know? In the end, you know more about the family, girl, and circumstances than any of us; and it is you that must make the judgment call (personally though [given my first-hand experience with being a 14 year old boy, and what my mind was after], I would let the dad know).