Am I permitted to believe this and still be Mormon?

[Christyba75]

In many ways, my believe system has evolved to have more in common with the atheists and deists, but I still want to consider myself Mormon and not have cognitive dissonance, so can I believe this in order to reconcile my universal mental construct.

1. God is an extremely powerful being who looks like us and is concerned for our species welfare. He wants us to become like him. He is an alien who was involved with the establishment of life on this planet and he and his associates have a means of reading out minds and recording our thoughts.

2. If all my memories and thoughts are implanted in a new brain, a brain which did not have its own history, then that new brain and body would consider itself to be me, correct? That new copy of me, could then be considered to be a resurrected me, right? Especially if the old/current me were dead. (See “The 6th Day” starring Arnold Schwarzenegger).

Even though these concepts above are presented in a non-religious tone, is there anything mechanically in conflict with LDS theology?

[Just_A_Guy]

Weren't these concepts already addressed in the "who is God?" thread you opened here a couple of weeks ago?

The idea may or may not be perfectly in line with LDS teaching, but as Mormons we're free to believe what we want (within the confines of some specific professions of faith as found in the baptismal and temple recommend interviews). It's when we start taking speculative notions and publicly teaching them as fact, that we run into trouble.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[volgadon]

What I don't see in you hyper-evolved alien theory how sin and atonement fit into it all.

[NeuroTypical]

I'm wondering how you would define "athiests and deists".

[Christyba75]

What I don't see in you hyper-evolved alien theory how sin and atonement fit into it all.

Well, if we're being genuine, we must admit that to a religionist, the definition of sin is pretty vague. The traditional Mormon definition that I know and have taught in Gospel Doctrine classes is that sin is knowing the will of God and not doing it. This definition is just kicking the can down the road--we now need to explain how one knows the will of God. We can discuss that next if you'd like.

But I'll say that in most constructs (mine, traditional Mormons, and most religious people), sin is doing that which a bad. (We can define "bad" later). And the atonement is an episode which was designed to put us in a position so that we could each make decisions that if made for the good would allow us to reap the benefits of those good decisions, and not ultimately suffer bad consequences for our good choices. Does anyone have a problem with this explanation?

[Christyba75]

It's when we start taking speculative notions and publicly teaching them as fact, that we run into trouble.

What is meant by "trouble"?

[selek]

To be honest,

My first response was to hearken to 2 Timothy Chapter 3:

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves,covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

You seem to want to believe in God- but you want to define him in terms that are acceptable to the Pomp of Babylon.

You seem to want to believe in God- but you also want to avoid the jeering and mockery of the Great and Spacious building.

You definitions are (at best) a case of special pleading). At worst, they are blasphemous.

In no case do they accurately reflect LDS theology.

God is not an "alien". He is our Eternal Father.

He is not "interested in our species welfare"- he created us, nurtures us, and tests us that we might become as he is.

Your definitions imply that we are rats in his maze, rather than his sons and daughters- inbued with a spark of the divine, and divine in potential.

Your Schwarzenegger-esque speculation ignores a number of fundamental aspects of LDS theology, which (as a general rule) defines the soul of man as both spirit and body united.

I grant you that spirit and soul are used somewhat interchangeably- mostly as an artifact of translations done by others.

As spirits, we are incomplete. It is only when we become spirit mated with flesh that we become whole.

To suggest, as your speculation does, that our physical forms are then interchangeable and inconsequential is baseless, if not contrary to the Scriptures themselves.

Your analogies are a form of reductio ad absurdem, which seek to reduce the true relationship between mankind and God down to an unobjectionable lowest common denominator- truly "having the form of godliness, but denying the power thereof".

You are, in essence, denying the magesty and wonder of God in order to appear high-minded and learned in front of those who chose NOT to believe (and it is a choice).

You are striving to sacrifice wisdom itself achieve the appearance of wisdom- and placing the approval of fallen men before the justice of God.

Or as it was put in Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Chapter 1):

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Your speculation is both a repetition of history and a fulfilling of this prophecy. For although you profess to acknowledge God, you fail to glorify him AS God, and to dillute his glory and cheapen his throne to terms acceptable to fools and false prophets.

And no- one cannot teach heresy and yet proclaim himself to be a true, faithful Mormon.

Edited December 8, 2012 by selek

[Seminarysnoozer]

Well, if we're being genuine, we must admit that to a religionist, the definition of sin is pretty vague. The traditional Mormon definition that I know and have taught in Gospel Doctrine classes is that sin is knowing the will of God and not doing it. This definition is just kicking the can down the road--we now need to explain how one knows the will of God. We can discuss that next if you'd like.

But I'll say that in most constructs (mine, traditional Mormons, and most religious people), sin is doing that which a bad. (We can define "bad" later). And the atonement is an episode which was designed to put us in a position so that we could each make decisions that if made for the good would allow us to reap the benefits of those good decisions, and not ultimately suffer bad consequences for our good choices. Does anyone have a problem with this explanation?

Yes I have a problem with that. The "reaping the benefits" is in terms of being judged of our faithfulness and worthiness not a direct effect like planting a tomato seed and getting a tomato. There are some in this world that will receive the highest reward by simply believing in God whereas there are other who are given much and their stewardship will be something beyond just believing, possibly converting thousands is their stewardship. Where much is given much is expected.

We believe in receiving inheritance. Like earthly inheritance, by definition, it is something that is not directly earned but by worthiness and is greater than the effort. It is a gift, not a salary.

[Vort]

In many ways, my believe system has evolved to have more in common with the atheists and deists, but I still want to consider myself Mormon and not have cognitive dissonance, so can I believe this in order to reconcile my universal mental construct.

1. God is an extremely powerful being who looks like us and is concerned for our species welfare. He wants us to become like him. He is an alien who was involved with the establishment of life on this planet and he and his associates have a means of reading out minds and recording our thoughts.

2. If all my memories and thoughts are implanted in a new brain, a brain which did not have its own history, then that new brain and body would consider itself to be me, correct? That new copy of me, could then be considered to be a resurrected me, right? Especially if the old/current me were dead. (See “The 6th Day” starring Arnold Schwarzenegger).

Even though these concepts above are presented in a non-religious tone, is there anything mechanically in conflict with LDS theology?

To answer your title question: You are "permitted" to believe anything you want and still be a member of the LDS Church. The Church does not set limits on its members' beliefs. Now, if you want to hold a temple recommend or otherwise be in full standing, that requires that you hold certain beliefs, such as that Jesus is the Christ and God speaks to us through prophets.

As to your specific questions:

1. You seem to have an obsession with a naturalistic explanation of God as an alien. I personally think this is a wrong-minded way of approaching the problem. But in answer to the question, if an "alien" is defined as someone not born on Earth, then clearly God the Father was not born on earth and so qualifies.

2. I expect this is true, though honestly, there is zero chance I would look to an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie for a compelling model of reality. The "memories and thoughts" you speak of sound like a rather crude and inexact explanation of a person's premortally existent spirit.

[selek]

What is meant by "trouble"?

Do you want the short list?

Okay:

False prophecy

Blasphemy

Supplanting the foolish notions of men for the truth of God.

Pride

Hubris

Arrogance

Foolishness

Church Dissension

Apostacy

[Vort]

It's when we start taking speculative notions and publicly teaching them as fact, that we run into trouble.

What is meant by "trouble"?

Primarily that we divorce ourselves from the Spirit of God and his influence, and thus lose all power to bring ourselves or others unto Christ.

[Just_A_Guy]

We can define "trouble" later.

[Christyba75]

Thank you for taking the time and effort to reply. It seems like my posts inspire irritation and a little anger. I really don't mean them as such.

You seem to want to believe in God- but you want to define him in terms that are acceptable to the Pomp of Babylon.

If by "Pomp of Babylon" you mean reason, then yes.

You seem to want to believe in God- but you also want to avoid the jeering and mockery of the Great and Spacious building.

Who is jeering and mocking me?

You definitions are (at best) a case of special pleading). At worst, they are blasphemous.

Blasphemous?

In no case do they accurately reflect LDS theology. God is not an "alien". He is our Eternal Father.

Alien isn't an insult. It's a concept. I'm sorry, but by all reasonable definitions, Heavenly Father is an alien.

He is not "interested in our species welfare"- he created us, nurtures us, and tests us that we might become as he is.

Why argue when we're saying the same thing. If, instead of saying "interested in the welfare of our species", I'd said "wants to bless mankind" would you have accepted that?

Your definitions imply that we are rats in his maze, rather than his sons and daughters- inbued with a spark of the divine, and divine in potential.

I said nothing of rats or sparks

You may believe what you like- and call yourself what you like, but be warned: God will neither be fooled nor mocked .

I actually spent a good deal of time yesterday thinking about the phrase "God will not be mocked." The idea is mentioned in the scriptures and we hear it in the temple. It's not technically accurate. I'm confident that if a man or woman stands up and mocks God, that nothing will happen at that moment. The traditional response is that at some future time, God will get ya--if not in this life, then the next. So, without a confidence in an afterlife and a confidence on how to get to the good place and avoid the bad place, then religious morals are no better than humanist morals.

Thank you for the conversation. I hope it continues.

[Christyba75]

Yes I have a problem with that. The "reaping the benefits" is in terms of being judged of our faithfulness and worthiness not a direct effect like planting a tomato seed and getting a tomato. There are some in this world that will receive the highest reward by simply believing in God whereas there are other who are given much and their stewardship will be something beyond just believing, possibly converting thousands is their stewardship. Where much is given much is expected.

We believe in receiving inheritance. Like earthly inheritance, by definition, it is something that is not directly earned but by worthiness and is greater than the effort. It is a gift, not a salary.

Does this mean that if two identical twins did exactly the same things and thought the exact same things, that God may give one a greater inheritance than the other just because He wants to?

Another way of me asking the question is, does God violate the fairness principle? I assume not. I"m guessing that you're saying that God sees into the minds of some people and give them more because of their bad circumstances and others he rewards less because they squandered the gift.

The amazing thing I'm seeing here in this thread is that when I use modern, scientific, naturalistic language to describe scriptural concepts, it sure makes people angry. The mental images are the same, just the words are different, but not contradictory. Why is everyone so defensive and insistent that we use 17th century English, Middle eastern literary imagery, and Mormon-speak? I believe that God is real. Why can't he exist in the 21st century using modern terms? How is that blasphemous or irreverent?

[Christyba75]

[When we start taking speculative notions and publicly teaching them as fact] we divorce ourselves from the Spirit of God and his influence, and thus lose all power to bring ourselves or others unto Christ.

I do appreciate your willingness to engage in conversation, but when something like this is said, it's hard to believe that we'll be able to continue a rational conversation.

It sound like you're saying that if I start speculating on how the universe works without it being revealed* to me and if I share my ideas with others, that I will go to hell and take others will me.

*Must revelations come only though the brethren, or can God speak to me? I know the answer is that God can speak to me. I have felt the Spirit throughout my life and I continue to feel it now speaking truth to me, and I am confident that I am correct. Can't argue with that.

[Dravin]

If you truly believe there is no difference in your descriptions and what the scriptures, apostles, and prophets describe why have this thread? It's like asking if you are permitted to think of baptism as bautismo.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Dravin

[Christyba75]

To suggest, as your speculation does, that our physical forms are then interchangeable and inconsequential is baseless, if not contrary to the Scriptures themselves.

I implied interchangeable, but not inconsequential. Our resurrected and perfect body will be vastly different that our aged/decayed/cremated/bloodied body that we left behind. The differences between a resurrected body and a mortal body are probably greater than their similarities. Do we believe that our resurrected body will be made from the atoms of our former body?

Your analogies are a form of reductio ad absurdem, which seek to reduce the true relationship between mankind and God down to an unobjectionable lowest common denominator- truly "having the form of godliness, but denying the power thereof".You are, in essence, denying the majesty and wonder of God.

I'm questioning whether God requires that His mysteries/wonders must remain a mystery? If I can though my God-given reason find a place for mysteries in the world that He created, why can I not synthesize them? Why must I push the mysteries behind the curtain? Does it make it more special if God can go to the wall at the edge of the universe and open a door and step outside the universe? Does it make it more majestic if God's miracles are caused by unknowable forces? How can God ask us to know him, yet not make his ways knowable? He says, come unto me, yet when we use our minds to know him, we are smacked down by his followers. Mormons of all people should understand my desire to know God. The Catholics made him unknowable: a god without body, parts, or passions who is everywhere and in everything. To Mormons he is a glorified man, yet a man, with limbs, flesh, bone, a face, a place, and feelings. If Mormons are correct and if God is as knowable as they claim that he is, then why do we still hide him and get angry at an attempt to understand him. Admittedly, there are still many things about him and his ways that he has not revealed. They are unknown. And I am fine with that. My playfulness at guessing as to how they are filled, is just playfulness, not blasphemy! The most interesting thing I'm learning is how hostile everyone gets when I ask questions that I should not be asking. I'm threatened with hell fire for mocking God and preaching heresy. (I'm thinking of Thomas More, Martin Luther, Galileo).

[selek]

Thank you for taking the time and effort to reply. It seems like my posts inspire irritation and a little anger. I really don't mean them as such.

People always seem to assume that because I am blunt, that I am angry or irritated.

That is not the case. It is simply my habit to speak plainly.

If by "Pomp of Babylon" you mean reason, then yes.

No- I mean the cultish adherents who insist that "natural philosophy" is the end-all and be-all of the human quest for knowledge.

I mean those who reject God out of hand because he does not fit into their pre-defined, mechanistic ideology.

Dawkins is (was) a prominent cantor of that particular faith.

Contrary to their catechism- and your recitation of it- they do not hold a monopoly on "reason", despite the dogmatism with which they pretend otherwise.

Who is jeering and mocking me?

Clearly, you are adverse to offending those who considered themselves "learned".

You are trying to rationalize a belief in God to accomodate their catechism, rather than God's.

Blasphemous?

Yes- blasphemous: defined as follows,

blas·phe·mous(blsf-ms)

adj. Impiously irreverent.

[selek]

Alien isn't an insult. It's a concept.

It is a concept you are using incorrectly. More on that, below.

I'm sorry, but by all reasonable definitions, Heavenly Father is an alien.

Thank you for a clear statement of a priori dogmatism.

"all reasonable definitions" is both hyperbole and a rhetorical device. It is not a statement of fact.

"alien" is defined as follows:

a·li·en(l-n, lyn)

adj.

1. Owing political allegiance to another country or government; foreign: alien residents.

2. Belonging to, characteristic of, or constituting another and very different place, society, or person; strange.

3. Dissimilar, inconsistent, or opposed, as in nature: emotions alien to her temperament.

n.

1. An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen.

2. A person from another and very different family, people, or place.

3. A person who is not included in a group; an outsider.

4. A creature from outer space: a story about an invasion of aliens.

5. Ecology An organism, especially a plant or animal, that occurs in or is naturalized in a region to which it is not native.

The only possible definition by which God could be considered "alien" is the fourth- "a creature from outer space"- but that definition cannot be said to apply to the Earth or its creator.

In the first instance, we DO NOT KNOW God's origin. There is much speculation, but no fact available to classify his precise origins.

In the second, God is the creator of the Earth and all its inhabitants. By definition, it is peopled with people created in his likeness and image, and endowed with his potential.

Let's put it another way: you labor long and hard to build a house. You craft the walls, the ceilings, roof, doors, floors, and rooms. You stock it with furniture made by your own hands. You people it with your children and grandchildren.

Under what "reasonable" definition can you be considered "alien" to the home you have built?

Using that logic, under what condition can God be considered "not of this Earth"?

[selek]

Why argue when we're saying the same thing. If, instead of saying "interested in the welfare of our species", I'd said "wants to bless mankind" would you have accepted that?

No, I would not- for the reasons I have outlined above.

You are striving- consciously or not- to downplay and dismiss the sacred and familial relationship between God and man.

God is not a wandering stranger who paused to give alms to the beggar in the street, motivated by nothing more than perfect charity .

He is our FATHER IN HEAVEN- our Lord, our creator, our companion, guide, and stay.

I said nothing of rats or sparks

Which is why I said "implied" rather than "stated".

Your OP specifically requested that your "beliefs" be evaluated against LDS theology.

It is therefor incumbent upon us to evaluate the implications of your beliefs, as well.

Your beliefs, as stated, minimize the true nature of the relationship between God and man. They are, arguably, inaccurate, misleading, and even blasphemous, as defined above.

I actually spent a good deal of time yesterday thinking about the phrase "God will not be mocked." The idea is mentioned in the scriptures and we hear it in the temple. It's not technically accurate.

Really?

Pray, tell us how things really are, then oh great lawgiver!

I'm confident that if a man or woman stands up and mocks God, that nothing will happen at that moment. The traditional response is that at some future time, God will get ya--if not in this life, then the next. So, without a confidence in an afterlife and a confidence on how to get to the good place and avoid the bad place, then religious morals are no better than humanist morals.

Gotta love the circular reasoning and hyperbole involved here. "If God doesn't strike me down on my timetable, then there IS no God."

I will grant you one thing: the idea that God will not be mocked IS a statement of faith.

On the other hand, so are the statements "If I step off a thousand foot cliff, I will be killed" and "Two plus two is four".

All three statements are predicated on the UNPROVEN idea that the universe has immutable and observable rules of cause and effect.

[Christyba75]

If you truly believe there is no difference in your descriptions and what the scriptures, apostles, and prophets describe why have this thread? It's like asking if you are permitted to think of baptism as bautismo.

That's probably the best question I've read today.

I guess I was looking for someone rational who could guide me through this. I wasn't trying to make people angry, but it sure seems like I did. I wonder if those who are the most defensive about my statements are those who feel most threatened.

I'm also looking for real answers, not mumbo-jumbo. I've been a student of the scriptures all my life. I have read tons of book from BYU and Deseret Book. I lived in Utah most of my life and taught Gospel Doctrine. And it seems like as I hit middle age, I'm following circular logic: believe what God says because God says to believe what He says. My choices are to abandon logic and believe despite what my brain tell me or to find a way to accept the basic tenets of Mormonism within a rational view of reality.

Has anybody read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins? He's a somewhat hostile atheist, but his proposals have ZERO internal inconsistencies that I can find. Whereas religion has TONS, but we just ignore them. After reading "The God Delusion" I still wanted to believe in God, and only the Mormon view of God could possibly work, and only if I imposed a few constraints which I don't think LDS teachings strictly oppose. Has anyone else thoughtfully read this book? If you have, and you're still on this forum, I commend you, and I REALLY want to hear from you.

[selek]

I implied interchangeable, but not inconsequential.

Interchangeable implies inconsequential. If one body is as good as another, then a specific body is of no importance.

Our resurrected and perfect body will be vastly different that our aged/decayed/cremated/bloodied body that we left behind.

The key words there are resurrected and perfect[ed].

We are told that we will inherit the same body- restored and perfected, not a new one.

The differences between a resurrected body and a mortal body are probably greater than their similarities.

Speculative, at best. You have no way of accurately quantifying the differences.

Do we believe that our resurrected body will be made from the atoms of our former body?

Uncertain- we are assured, however, that we will be restored to our perfect frame.

I'm questioning whether God requires that His mysteries/wonders must remain a mystery?

By definition, the answer is no. We shall inherit all that the father has- that would seem to include an understanding of how the universe works.

If I can though my God-given reason find a place for mysteries in the world that He created, why can I not synthesize them?

The standard LDS answer would be "line upon line and precept upon precept". Why did you have to learn algebra before you could study calculus?

No one here will denigrate a sincere quest to understand the mysteries of God- but we will aggressively resist the attempt to cheapening those mysteries to the merely naturalistic.

Why must I push the mysteries behind the curtain? Does it make it more special if God can go to the wall at the edge of the universe and open a door and step outside the universe? Does it make it more majestic if God's miracles are caused by unknowable forces? How can God ask us to know him, yet not make his ways knowable? He says, come unto me, yet when we use our minds to know him, we are smacked down by his followers. Mormons of all people should understand my desire to know God.

No one here has smacked you down for trying to know God. All of the blowback you have received has been for attempting to "dumb down" what we know to make it palatable to those who reject the very concept of the divine.

The Catholics made him unknowable: a god without body, parts, or passions who is everywhere and in everything.

You will find I have little truck for Catholic bashing. You are also selective in your charge: you forget the last seven hundred years or so of Protestants and pagans attempting to do exactly the same thing- or worse, to redefine him to fit their prevailing orthodoxy.

To Mormons he is a glorified man, yet a man, with limbs, flesh, bone, a face, a place, and feelings.

This is misleading, at best.

Yes, to Mormons, God is a "glorified man"- but that is by no means ALL he is. He is GOD- something your minimalist approach consistently glosses over.

If Mormons are correct and if God is as knowable as they claim that he is, then why do we still hide him and get angry at an attempt to understand him.

Repeating a false accusation does not make it true.

No one here has gotten angry with you for trying to understand God. We have objected to your attempt to redefine and (arguably) to minimize him.

Admittedly, there are still many things about him and his ways that he has not revealed. They are unknown. And I am fine with that. My playfulness at guessing as to how they are filled, is just playfulness, not blasphemy!

You are shifting the goal posts (another common rhetorical trick).

Your OP asked us to evaluate your "beliefs" against those of the Church- now you are claiming it was all just idle speculation to begin with.

You have (at least twice now) accused us of being angry with you when we are simply analyzing your statements and offering correction.

You have (at least twice now) played the victim card when no one here has attacked you.

None of these indicate an interest in serious discussion.

Please come back when you're prepared to discuss the matter in good-faith.

The most interesting thing I'm learning is how hostile everyone gets when I ask questions that I should not be asking.

That is a falsehood.

No one here has taken you to task for "asking questions you should not have".

They have simply demonstrated where and why your assumptions are false.

[Dravin]

I'm also looking for real answers, not mumbo-jumbo.

And just what exactly are you calling mumbo-jumbo? The teachings of the scriptures and God's appointed servants? Something else?

[selek]

My choices are to abandon logic and believe despite what my brain tell me or to find a way to accept the basic tenets of Mormonism within a rational view of reality.

Has anybody read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins?

As predicted.

"Rational" has been redefined to mean "in accordance with the Gospel According to Dawkins".

Christyba75's story has now changed a third time.

As far as your claim about Dawkins inconsistencies, I find the qualifier "as far as I could find" to be interesting and revealing.

Google is your friend: just those three words "Richard Dawkins inconsistencies" turned up seven million hits, notably regarding his unwillingness to actually debate his belief.

But then again, false prophets invariably insist that their views are both self-evident and beyond questioning- just as has Christyba75.

Edited December 8, 2012 by skippy740
Removed comment on 'trolling' for a 2nd time.

[skippy740]

Thread closed pending moderator review.