Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'philosophy'.
I've reached a conclusion that I don't like based on the revelations. I've always liked the idea of being the literal offspring of God the Father, but now I'm not so sure. My question is if there's anything wrong with my conclusion. First, some statements of fact. Fact #1: God was once a man on an earth. Joseph Smith confirmed this in the King Follet sermon. Fact #2: Exalted couples continue to have offspring in eternity. (D&C 132:19, also in the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, trust me it's in there) Fact #3: Joseph Smith basically confirmed that God the Father is himself a Christ in the sermon in the Grove. I am merely saying it's a fact that Joseph Smith said it, not that God actually is a Christ (though I think he is.) Fact #4: God the Father, Jesus Christ, and man are all the same race of being. I.e. God is not different in kind from us. After all, he did say "Man of Holiness is my name." Now for some assumptions based on the revelations and logic which flows from them. Assumption #1: there's an infinite progression and regression of gods. (eg. Heavenly grandpa, Go as far back as you want) Assumption #2: God the Father's mortal life was that of a Christ. He lived without sin and was divine. Assumption #3: God cannot give the pains of atonement to Jesus unless he himself has experienced an atonement. I assume this for two reasons. Reason #1: omniscience wouldn't cut it, "now the spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the son of God suffer at the cording to the flash that he might take upon him the sins of his people" Alma 7:13, which could potentially mean that God the Father would have needed to know these things by experience in order to cause Christ's suffering in Gethsemane. Reason #2: All things being equal between God and Jesus as far as degree is concerned. Christ having experienced the atonement would logically make him greater than God, having more intelligence by virtue of his experience as Christ. And that doesn't sound right. Assumption #4: by reason of assumption #3, we can conclude one thing: that only a Christ can bring forth a Christ. Or in other words, a man who has not been a Christ does not have the intelligence required for such an endeavor. Now for the progression of logical steps which lead to the conclusion. Step #1: Exalted persons have spirit children, not children in the flesh. (being born in the flesh in the presence of God would be a state of damnation, like that of the garden of Eden) Step #2: Said spirit children cannot have a fullness of joy and cannot be gods themselves, unless they have bodies. Step #3: Said spirit children will therefore require a Plan of Salvation. Step #4: Said Plan of Salvation requires a Christ. Step #5: Problem; none of these perfected, exalted persons are capable of bringing forth a Christ, because an atonement for said Christ requires more intelligence than they possess. Step #6: Solution; Jesus Christ, Our lord, presents a Plan of Salvation, and brings forth his Christ. Which would make Jesus Christ the God of the children of the exalted of this Earth. CONCLUSION: Therefore, God the father is not the literal father of our spirits, but the redeemer of our parents in the spirit. Now, some contradictions. Jesus Christ is said to be the firstborn in the spirit, this first born status is relative. Meaning God had other children. Also, Joseph F Smith and his counselors declared that we are God's offspring. Another thing I'm not sure about is how a Christ atones for intelligences which are not yet born in the spirit but are later born in the spirit to parents who's earlier children have already been redeemed. This system of mine implies some kind of eternal progression of messiahs, and I have no idea how this really works. This entire conclusion rides on the idea that God needs to have experienced an atonement in order to give an atonement. (But then there's still the issue of Christ being "greater" than God) So if you would be so kind as to poke holes in my conclusion, I would be most grateful. Cheers
What should public policy on morality be based on? Since we live in a world where opinions abound, I was wondering what various people think would makean agreeable standard for determining what values of morality communities and law should define. How shouldor would such a thing be defined. I have a few thoughts, and their potential flaws. Authoritarianism: The standard is set by some authority (such as the bible, king, or law). The flaw is that there has to be an agreed upon authority, otherwise it won't work (unless you live in a dictatorship), and just because an authority sets a code of morality doesn't mean it will be right or good. Unless the authority is set, what is moral will continue to shift. Utilitarianism/Prioritarianism: A logical way to determine things based on maximum utility. However, this leaves to question what the best things are for utility. Sometimes the choices based on utilitarianism can lead to decisions that generally would not be seen as humane. Hedonism: Pleasure is good and should be maximized and sought after. This seems to be what society is trending towards. Current and past stands on morality can't all be encompassed by this. It doesn't take into account productivity of a society. It would not resemble current morals society seem to have roughly agreed upon. Non-Aggression principal: So long as it doesn't hurt others people are free to do as they choose. This doesn't account for a general belief in stopping people from destroying their lives via drugs, sex, suicide etc... Golden Standard: Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Even if all people did this, there would still be hurt feelings as not all people are sensitive to all of the same things. Majority rule: The majority of the community decide. The flaw is that minority opinions get silenced. I think most people apply a mix of these ideas, however when there is conflict between these ideas how would you resolve which one to follow, or how to act. Also I think to an extent many LDS moral beliefs are Authoritarian in nature, due to the fact that we follow what we believe God to have professed is good and right. Typically from what i've seen through history is that there are 2 major ways that are usually used to resolve issues on morality, culture, and differences in society. War, and Diaspora. There can and will be compromise on occasion. Generally though like minded people gather into new communities. The problem with this is that pretty much all land is regulated by various governments, there isn't many places new social groups can move to, other than concentrating within a pre-existing nation. I thought it was an interesting thought in that people have to work more to find compromise rather than moving away. Are morals an absolute truth that can be seen or derived, or relative, or arbitrary? What people belief can have a huge impact on how they approach these subjects. Any other ideas, or things that I have missed? I'm somewhat partial to the non-agression principal, yet with utilitarian exceptions.