Is there a GOD??

[Guest ghostwind]

As a scientist that believes in evolution there is a G-d – likely multiple G-ds. (...)

(...) If we assume that the universe was created on the “chance” of possibility – we must also assume that whatever is possible can and will occur.

Next if we believe in evolution we believe then whatever life or living being is possible (regardless of probability) we can believe that it either currently exist or by evolution will eventually exist.

Now consider the principle that whatever can exist can be made to exist. This is simple to understand – because whatever the parameters and principles that caused the universe to exist that by duplicating those exact parameters – we will duplicate the events through which our universe was created. If over so many billions of years man can evolve then we know that if all the principles by which man came into being were duplicated – man could be made to be.

If evolution is possible then it is possible for a being to evolve that is more intelligent than man and through that intelligence able to contribute and be a process of evolution. If by intelligence, evolution can be affected, then it must be possible over time for a being to evolve capable of intelligently duplicating the parameters by which the universe was created. This means that if G-d did not initially create the universe in which evolution takes place that it is inevitable that a G-d – a being of sufficient intelligence to create the universe will by the very theory of evolution eventually evolve and exist.

(...)

Thus it does not matter if you believe there is a G-d that created our universe if we are to argue any other viable possibility for the existence of our universe – we still end up with a possibility that a G-d will eventually exist. Both ways – there must be a G-d because there is no other possible result other than to conclude there is a G-d.

The Traveler

Interesting philosophy. So you think that evolution is the kind of motor creating beings of higher intelligence and then, when those beings reach a level of intelligence and knowledge to influence their own genetic development and to improve their intellectual abilities, they once will access to technologies to rule the laws of science and become some kind of "G-ds" duplicating the principles of creation. Okay, so far.

Thus, we should be aware of some kind of cosmic competition. And we should give up our anthropocentric view. There are uncountable stars, solar systems and galaxies in this universum. And there is a high probability that there are uncountable speciem in this universum, different in intelligence, knowledge, technology, empathy, cognition, physical and mental abilities, look, etc.

How can we reach a higher stage? Certainly not by wasting fossil energy and constructing drive mechanisms / motors based on the technology of yesterday. I think that the next step should be to find out more about the principles of subatomic phenomenons. How does gravity work? How can the theory of relativity and the quantum field theorie become united? When our knowledge and our technologies develop, and we reach a higher level or stage, our understanding in relation to God will change. Religion should not persist in any static concept.

Have you ever heard about Perry Rhodan? It's a German science fiction novel series started in the Sixtees. The idea / concept of cosmic evolution and development of a species is described in the following link:

Perry Rhodan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Anddenex]

What's particularly interesting is that the opinion held by the top leadership was made very public, but the opinion held by the dissenting leadership was circulated only in an internal memo.

Two thoughts disturb me a little: agenda and dissenting leadership only in an internal memo.

I have a hard time, myself, correlating an "agenda" with a First Presidency message, especially if this First Presidency message was again republished in 2002 for members to read again. If, Origin of Man was agenda driven, then this agenda must be assumed to exist still.

Why would the Church republish prophetic statements, signed by all three Presidency members, within their magazine that they know is read by members, if driven solely by agenda?

Are other First Presidency messages then driven by agenda, and how does a member determine which Presidency messages are driven by agenda, and which ones come from God?

I don't think it should be a surprise that dissenting remarks by other General Authorities were published in other areas. What is most important, the First Presidency, or the differences of opinions of other GAs? To me, the First Presidency is most important.

Anyway, the short of it is this--for scientific matters, I'll take the word of credible scientists publishing work under peer review over the word of prophetic statements. At the same time, I will acknowledge that scientific knowledge can (and likely) will change over time. And it may either confirm or contradict prophetic statements.

When evaluating prophetic statements, I will search for the principles that are relevant to spiritual progression. Railing against evolution seems pointless to me from a prophet because the HOW God created the world isn't the realm of religion. The realm of religion is the WHY God created the world. That is a question evolutionary theory and science has never attempted to answer.

This is where our minds are different unless we come to common ground regarding a prophetic statement. All truth is important to eternal progression. I am more concerned with truth, then I am with prophets words (i.e. Brigham Young "Adam God Theory") and credible scientific peer reviews.

If the prophetic statement is given as in a First Presidency message, as was the Origin of Man than I am more likely to give more credence to these words than any scientist.

[Guest ghostwind]

Anddenex:

If the prophetic statement is given as in a First Presidency message, as was the Origin of Man than I am more likely to give more credence to these words than any scientist.

Statements given in messages like the above mentioned will hardly ever correspond to scientific insights. I don't know about the "Origin of Man", but I can't imagine it's based on a scientific supposition. In my opinion, the Christian religion always lacks in explanations concerning important scientific related questions. This is what I generally would call some kind of stagnation, based on scriptures like the Bible and its partly more than two thousend years old contents... so I wouldn't be surprised one doesn't run very far in old shoes, but only about six thousand years back in time when the biblical "Genesis" was taking place.

Edited February 21, 2013 by ghostwind

[Seminarysnoozer]

If by intelligence, evolution can be affected, then it must be possible over time for a being to evolve capable of intelligently duplicating the parameters by which the universe was created. This means that if G-d did not initially create the universe in which evolution takes place that it is inevitable that a G-d – a being of sufficient intelligence to create the universe will by the very theory of evolution eventually evolve and exist.

If intelligence effects evolution then that is called creation. The creator can evolve without it's creations evolving. If I, for example, looked at the "evolution of computers" over time, seeing how they changed, I cannot say that computers will eventually evolve to be like their creator on their own. The creator of the computer still has to "create" more computers.

Likewise, LDS do not believe that the carnal man, or natural man could ever be like God without God creating another model (resurrection) that is capable of being like God. Our current body could not get there on its own.

[rameumptom]

It all depends on the definition of "intelligence." If intelligence is a part of the universe that fills it, and it does not come directly from the Creator (but only is influenced by him: intelligence cannot be created, but can be organized by God D&C 93:29-30).

We have two issues to consider then: First, did God create the universe, or is he part of this universe (as its components are co-eternal with him)? Second, if we believe in an "endless" chain of Gods (whatever that means), then did one originally evolve without the help of a Creator?

Of course, we could also ask: what came first, the co-eternal universe or God?

I have my thoughts on this, but will just leave the questions out there.

[Anddenex]

Anddenex:

Statements given in messages like the above mentioned will hardly ever correspond to scientific insights.

I understand this is how you feel, however I disagree with you. The gospel of Jesus Christ, God himself, are based in truth.

God can easily through his prophets deliver scientific insight, and also prove scientific theories inaccurate and wrong.

I could be wrong, however this statement implies, God is unable to reveal scientific matters. God is able to reveal anything, spiritual and scientific, to his children, especially to his prophets.

In the Book of Mormon, another record more than 2000 years old emphasized that the earth moved around the sun. Is not this scientific? A question then formed, how did the Nephites know the earth revolved around the sun?

I don't know about the "Origin of Man", but I can't imagine it's based on a scientific supposition.

It would be based on revelation. Revelation doesn't need to be based on scientific supposition in order to be accurate, it only needs to be revealed.

In my opinion, the Christian religion always lacks in explanations concerning important scientific related questions. This is what I generally would call some kind of stagnation, based on scriptures like the Bible and its partly more than two thousend years old contents... so I wouldn't be surprised one doesn't run very far in old shoes, but only about six thousand years back in time when the biblical "Genesis" was taking place.

Whether a record is 5000 years or 2000 years or 100 years old is irrelevant to truth. The simple question, is it true?

If something was written 10,000 years ago, and the record is true, then the age of the record matters very little and mentioning how old a record is is irrelevant.

Scientific related questions are unimportant to a person's salvation, thus it shouldn't surprise any of us, that the focus our any Christian religion isn't science, but salvation. Scriptures, although at times do contain scientific ideas, their emphasis is to provide knowledge regarding our Salvation.

Would God be able to reveal our origin, and if so who would he reveal it to? Amos 3: 7. The question then, was this First Presidency message revealed by God? If so, then this record provides us more insight to our origin than any scientific journal could provide.

[MarginOfError]

Two thoughts disturb me a little: agenda and dissenting leadership only in an internal memo.

I have a hard time, myself, correlating an "agenda" with a First Presidency message, especially if this First Presidency message was again republished in 2002 for members to read again. If, Origin of Man was agenda driven, then this agenda must be assumed to exist still.

Why would the Church republish prophetic statements, signed by all three Presidency members, within their magazine that they know is read by members, if driven solely by agenda?

Are other First Presidency messages then driven by agenda, and how does a member determine which Presidency messages are driven by agenda, and which ones come from God?

I don't think it should be a surprise that dissenting remarks by other General Authorities were published in other areas. What is most important, the First Presidency, or the differences of opinions of other GAs? To me, the First Presidency is most important.

The thing is that it is almost certain that when the Origin of Man was written, the authors had in mind that organic evolution was categorically false and that all creation happened spiritually and then physically in the form it exists as we know it. To them, it did not fit the Creation narrative, period. After the Roberts dispute, they walked that back to "Adam is the primal parent of our race." That's a pretty significant change. And that change was distributed by an internal memo by the First Presidency (not by BH Roberts).

So which First Presidency statement are we supposed to believe?

This is where our minds are different unless we come to common ground regarding a prophetic statement. All truth is important to eternal progression. I am more concerned with truth, then I am with prophets words (i.e. Brigham Young "Adam God Theory") and credible scientific peer reviews.

If the prophetic statement is given as in a First Presidency message, as was the Origin of Man than I am more likely to give more credence to these words than any scientist.

I'm more concerned with truth as well. But given that the First Presidency that wrote The Origin of Man was raised in a generation that railed against the heresy of Darwin's theories, I'm going to be suspicious of the merits of their arguments. Did they write the Origin of Man based on scientific review? Biblical review? If based on biblical review and inspiration, what of their later comment to "Leave Geology, Biology, Archaeology, and Anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research...?"

Advance 90 years into the future, what would you say now if a member of the First Presidency said he believed in Evolution? Is he now apostate for contradicting the original intent of The Origin of Man?

So yeah, when my spiritual leaders run off into the realms of science, I'm going to take what they say with a grain of salt. How do I tell the difference between what is inspired and what is their personal opinion or interpretation? I study it out for myself. Just like they tell us to do.

[HiJolly]

If intelligence effects evolution then that is called creation. The creator can evolve without it's creations evolving. If I, for example, looked at the "evolution of computers" over time, seeing how they changed, I cannot say that computers will eventually evolve to be like their creator on their own. The creator of the computer still has to "create" more computers.

Likewise, LDS do not believe that the carnal man, or natural man could ever be like God without God creating another model (resurrection) that is capable of being like God. Our current body could not get there on its own.

Yeah, take that, all you extropian faithless types!

HJ.

[mrmarklin]

Hello,

My husband decided that there is not prove that shows that God exist, he doesn't break any commanment but does not believe in God anymore and that has confuse me at times making me doubt of God existense as well.

I feel like my marriage is soulless

Please share with me your experience about why do you believe there is a God please.

There is proof of God, but one can only prove it to oneself, not others. The proof is a spiritual confirmation, that God will give anyone who tries to live worthy, have a mustard seed worth of faith and is willing to pray about it.

Unfortunately, I have met many people who are not willing to pray.

As far as external scientific proof, there is a lot of evidence, but no actual proof. The proof is and should be:) only spiritual.

[HiJolly]

Joseph Fielding Smith is the first person I know of to formally introduce the idea that there was no blood before the Fall, and I can't help but think his ideas were influenced by his father.

While Joseph Fielding Smith was undoubtedly influenced by his father, Joseph F. Smith, he was also influenced by one George McCready Price. Indeed, based on the evidence I think it would be fair to say JFS was a real fan of GMP's. Which is a sad thing, IMO. <sigh>

HJ

[Anddenex]

The thing is that it is almost certain that when the Origin of Man was written, the authors had in mind that organic evolution was categorically false and that all creation happened spiritually and then physically in the form it exists as we know it. To them, it did not fit the Creation narrative, period. After the Roberts dispute, they walked that back to "Adam is the primal parent of our race." That's a pretty significant change. And that change was distributed by an internal memo by the First Presidency (not by BH Roberts). So which First Presidency statement are we supposed to believe?

I agree, which then brings my mind to how the Church republished Origin of Man in 2002.

In answer to your question, I would respond, we accept the statement most recently published, which now would be the original statement by the First Presidency. At least this is what I see as important.

My next question, why do you feel the Church would publish Origin of Man again, if it was false?

Do you personally feel the agenda is still a driving force then?

I'm more concerned with truth as well.

I believe you are.

But given that the First Presidency that wrote The Origin of Man was raised in a generation that railed against the heresy of Darwin's theories, I'm going to be suspicious of the merits of their arguments. Did they write the Origin of Man based on scientific review? Biblical review? If based on biblical review and inspiration, what of their later comment to "Leave Geology, Biology, Archaeology, and Anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research...?"

Yes, they railed against the idea that scientific reviews presented that man was not made in the image of God, but were merely advanced bi-pedals, nothing more. Scientific reviews, which are now continually being used to disprove the Bible. In this light, yes, it makes sense why they would have written this article.

Revelation, when determining our heritage is both scientific and biblical (Although I think spiritual is a better word than biblical). Are we made in the image of God? Is Adam our primary parent? If so, how then would evolution play in our image of God?

Note, most of these question are rhetorical, and these are questions I continue to ask myself.

Advance 90 years into the future, what would you say now if a member of the First Presidency said he believed in Evolution? Is he now apostate for contradicting the original intent of The Origin of Man?

I will be dead, waiting in paradise for the Lord to call all of his children together for final judgment. Thus it won't matter to me anymore, I will already be on my way to becoming more like God.

On a more serious note, Article of Faith #11, he is welcome to his belief, thus it will not affect my testimony. Nope, our contradiction to statements do not make us apostate, our actions of disobedience do however -- but you know this already.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Yes, they railed against the idea that scientific reviews presented that man was not made in the image of God, but were merely advanced bi-pedals, nothing more. Scientific reviews, which are now continually being used to disprove the Bible. In this light, yes, it makes sense why they would have written this article.

Revelation, when determining our heritage is both scientific and biblical (Although I think spiritual is a better word than biblical). Are we made in the image of God? Is Adam our primary parent? If so, how then would evolution play in our image of God?

Note, most of these question are rhetorical, and these are questions I continue to ask myself.

The definition of "man" for us is a child of God spirit attached to a body that was made in the image of God. I think we all too often leave out the spirit part in that definition. There is no scientific article that is going to tell anyone what humanoid remains found used to have a spirit-child of God attached to it when they are only looking at the physical remains. The first man is the first one to have a spirit placed in that body and he was Adam. Where the body came from really doesn't matter because upon resurrection God has to use materials that are not found in the form of "dust". The body is made anew without it having to evolve in any way. So, if one believes in resurrection, one already believes that the creation of a body is possible without having to go through the steps of evolution.

The bringing back to life of Lazarus is also proof overlooked often that God has the power to create life. After 4 days dead the brain is mush, this is not like keeping someone on life support and then they come out of a coma. Lazarus was not on life support, his brain cells ruptured, destroyed by then. The connections in the Lazarus brain were all lost permanently and yet Jesus after 4 days was able to recreate the connections of the brain that took a lifetime to form, instantly, to make Lazarus his mortal self again and not some other personality.

[Traveler]

There are a few points that I would like to make to this discussion then I will be quiet. The first point I would like to make is that the greatest miracles that take place are not the supernatural unexplainable events that so many like to tout as the proof or evidence that G-d exists. The greatest miracles are the common or ever consistent order by which everything is and continually rolls on – seemingly on its own.

We can only begin and continue our observations of the universe with the understanding that everything that exists was not according to our design or efforts. There are in essence only two possibilities. Either all things are the course by which that which is possible must happen or it is the result of incredible and consistent manipulation of “things” by G-d. What we must observe is the result of very consistent forces over unimaginable sequences of time. It is my experience and observation that anything that is not carefully thought out and designed – just does not “function” on its own and if it by some accident does seem to function; that unless it is maintained it will deteriorate and cease to function as it was for a finite sequence of time. This is the essence of the second law of thermodynamics or the Law of entropy.

It is my personal belief that without the miracle of G-d that not even the simplest of sub atomic particles would reasonably “connect” resulting in anything resembling ordered and consistent matter, light or energy from which all things that exist has reliable order. I do not understand why so many only wish to see G-d in what they perceive to be supernatural or that which happens outside of the order by which all things have come into existence and continue on with precision and exactness. I do not believe that G-d ever violates his own principles by which he ordered and maintains for things to exist and be. In fact I do not believe that he can violate such principles that he establishes and still be G-d; thus I do not believe in the “supernatural” but think such thinking is both false and unproductive (which are in part definitions of evil).

In a previous post I put forward the notion that if one can justify or rationalize that this universe and mankind can evolve without G-d manipulating things – than by that rational and considering the possibilities of things that G-d will eventually result from such evolution. Thus I stated that even if one logically postulates that G-d did not initially exist; that G-d must by possibility eventually exist by the observable evolutionary process. I understand there is a problem with this premise – what I do not understand is the attack on the logic in reaching the conclusion.

In general I have come to believe that for many the existence of G-d (and other things they believe) is a forgone conclusion and thus they attack any logic that does not reach the conclusion they want. This gives me the impression that such individuals are not capable of rational discussion. That they are not making any effort to study out the principles in their mind or heart – that the only reason they listen to another point of view is to make exception and if necessary – create contention. Their conclusions may in some part be correct – but neither they nor anyone else will ever know because they refuse to scrutinize or observe reality – if it is not what they want to understand or come to believe.

Thus my argument is that there is no alternative to G-d. And if by some definition of reality someone can define the universe without G-d that by the very consistency of what they imagine – the conclusion is that a G-d is the most probable eventual conclusion. Therefore there is no logic in saying there is no G-d. I believe my argument is similar to Nephi’s – there are a number of scriptures but I will point to 2Nephi 11:4-11 with a special emphasis on the latter part of verse 4.

And so I end my post with a found thank you to the forum and wishing all well. If my posts are missed – know it is not because I have not enjoyed discussions or getting to know the good people of this forum. I cherish you all and will likely miss you all dearly as I must focus elsewhere for a time.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Isaiah 55: " 8 ¶For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

1 Corinthians 2:" 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

1 Corinthians 3: " 18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;"

Mosiah 4: " 9 Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend."

All the observable things of the world and the universe around us can be a testament to the existence of a God but we should always retain a profound reverence to realize that all the things around us do not represent the whole of God. The things around us are but a small portion of God's works and we as man cannot comprehend the fullness of his works and creation. The natural man is not capable of such things and thus it is necessary for us to be humble and not caught up in vain wisdom or the wisdom of man. Man can never reach God without the grace of God or without His gift. The key to obtaining the gift though is humility and reverence for God. All things around us and all truth we see can be a testament of the existence of God but that does not mean we can say the reverse - that all we see around us is the whole truth. There are things supernatural as we are currently lower than the Heavens. We are not currently equal to the Heavens. That is a false doctrine and a dangerous one that leads to vain wisdom and not the wisdom of God. We have to learn line upon line and we have not been given all truth as we do not yet merit it. It is only upon living righteously that we will merit such knowledge and only in God's time and wisdom would we receive such a fullness. It was not intended for us to receive the fullness of knowledge in this life as we are not capable of such in this current state. Man cannot understand things that are above nature, i.e supernatural. To deny it's existence though is to say that all things are available to us in our current state and this is false. Faith is required to comprehend all things and we cannot begin to comprehend them without faith. There is no "natural" path to those things.

[KevlarH]

Hey CTR4life. It is a common thought all of us at some time in our life think about. If you listen too much to those without faith, it can be a real downer and make you feel soulless as you put it. I could quote scriptures, but I'm sure you have heard most of them. The best way to know if their is a God, "is" to read the scriptures however, and do as the Bible and Book of Mormon states. That is to ponder the things you read, and come to a conclusion about it. Then to actually try to ask God (Believing he is there and will answer you) in prayer to let you know if he is (as you believe) real. Then ask him to let you know that the things you have heard and read are true. If you do so with real intent, having faith that you might receive an answer, I am sure you will get it. It will be a loving comforting feeling, beyond anything you have previously experienced, that will envelop you. If you get that, that is the Holy Ghost confirming it to you. Now, as for a temporal answer. Just go someplace peaceful and look around you as you ponder that question. Look at the wonders of nature. The trees, plants, and animals and ask yourself these kind of questions: Could these things really have come to exist by some big bang in the cosmos? Our bodies so perfectly suited for life. Our hands so perfectly suited for accomplishing tasks. Our hearts so full of feeling. Our minds able to comprehend and learn. Does it really make more sense to think we are part of an accident of the universe that somehow came perfectly together? Or are we part of a divine plan by a Heavenly being? Did the earth just happen to be in the only possible spot it could be in to sustain life, or was it placed there? I can't possibly see any other explanation for the wonders of life than that a God with powers beyond our understanding made all this possible. The idea that all of these perfectly placed things was just a fluke is to me what would make me feel soulless.

Edited February 27, 2013 by ldrkholt

[Upgrade]

When I was younger I considered myself an atheist. Throughout most of high school, I denied the existence of God. And then I started praying. If you pray with an honestly open heart asking for guidance to the truth, God will help you. He did that for me. I was instantly overcome by this amazing feeling, like a warmth or burning in my chest. I could hardly breathe and it was literally the best feeling I have ever had. I actually have this feeling now, as I type. I know this is God. There is no way I can give you physical evidence. I just know. You have to find that knowledge for yourself. And once you've found it, you can share that with your husband.

God bless the both of you, and I hope that you'll soon be guided to the answers to your question. :)

[Traveler]

Isaiah 55: " 8 ¶For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

1 Corinthians 2:" 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

1 Corinthians 3: " 18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;"

Mosiah 4: " 9 Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend."

All the observable things of the world and the universe around us can be a testament to the existence of a God but we should always retain a profound reverence to realize that all the things around us do not represent the whole of God. The things around us are but a small portion of God's works and we as man cannot comprehend the fullness of his works and creation. The natural man is not capable of such things and thus it is necessary for us to be humble and not caught up in vain wisdom or the wisdom of man. Man can never reach God without the grace of God or without His gift. The key to obtaining the gift though is humility and reverence for God. All things around us and all truth we see can be a testament of the existence of God but that does not mean we can say the reverse - that all we see around us is the whole truth. There are things supernatural as we are currently lower than the Heavens. We are not currently equal to the Heavens. That is a false doctrine and a dangerous one that leads to vain wisdom and not the wisdom of God. We have to learn line upon line and we have not been given all truth as we do not yet merit it. It is only upon living righteously that we will merit such knowledge and only in God's time and wisdom would we receive such a fullness. It was not intended for us to receive the fullness of knowledge in this life as we are not capable of such in this current state. Man cannot understand things that are above nature, i.e supernatural. To deny it's existence though is to say that all things are available to us in our current state and this is false. Faith is required to comprehend all things and we cannot begin to comprehend them without faith. There is no "natural" path to those things.

3,000 years ago was it supernatural for a person in America to talk to someone in Europe and Asia at the same time in conference? How about flying through the air over thousands of miles in a few hours? Is it not actual False Doctrine that such things are supernatural?

There is a problem in thinking that G-d is that which is supernatural and not possibly understood - as we learn we discover that many thoughts of the supernatural are more illusions, misconceptions and ignorance than enlightenment, understanding and wisdom. In fact I see nothing of G-d to remotely suggest that he is not a being completely devoted to true principles and correct law - I cannot think of a single thing that G-d has ever done, is currently doing or will ever do that is contrary to actual true and just laws and principles. Not one. There have been time when I thought he did - only to find out later when I have been better informed with better understanding - it was I that was mistaken - no law was broken. But if you have an exception example - I would consider it.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

3,000 years ago was it supernatural for a person in America to talk to someone in Europe and Asia at the same time in conference? How about flying through the air over thousands of miles in a few hours? Is it not actual False Doctrine that such things are supernatural?

There is a problem in thinking that G-d is that which is supernatural and not possibly understood - as we learn we discover that many thoughts of the supernatural are more illusions, misconceptions and ignorance than enlightenment, understanding and wisdom. In fact I see nothing of G-d to remotely suggest that he is not a being completely devoted to true principles and correct law - I cannot think of a single thing that G-d has ever done, is currently doing or will ever do that is contrary to actual true and just laws and principles. Not one. There have been time when I thought he did - only to find out later when I have been better informed with better understanding - it was I that was mistaken - no law was broken. But if you have an exception example - I would consider it.

The Traveler

I don't think any LDS would say "supernatural" means something that is opposed to true principles but would relate it to things that are beyond our current level of understanding. There is purpose in having things that are outside our scope of understanding, faith.

I don't think there is such a need to take a stand against the need for faith. Even Nephi was okay to move forward with his work without knowing why, (1 Nephi 9). We are told there are things that are sealed up until we have faith enough to receive them (Ether 4).

I can live my whole life and not receive the understanding that the brother of Jared received while in this life and still be just fine. To me, those things would remain "supernatural" but that of course depends on what is meant by supernatural. To me "supernatural" could mean - beyond the scope of our current understanding. I believe there are many things that will remain beyond the scope of our understanding for this life until mortality is over. "Supernatural" does not have to mean something that is contrary to the laws of nature and the universe. I agree with you in that it is just a point of reference between what is within our current capacity of understanding and what is not. That issue is what allows us to live the first principle of the gospel.

Even with our current level of medical science and understanding, there is no explanation how Christ brought Lazarus back to life after 4 days. This is way beyond our understanding and we are not expected to understand other than its lesson of faith. Christ was not trying to teach the principles of medical science or cell regeneration or neuroanatomy by raising Lazarus but to show that there are powers beyond the scope of this world available if we have enough faith.

[Justice]

What do you say?

Do you know right from wrong? How did you learn it?

Look inside yourself. How can any man know right from wrong if it were not a gift from God? The light of Christ, or the knowledge of good and evil, is given to every man born into mortality, not just to Adam and Eve.

If God does not exist, then we know nothing. If God does not exist, then we cease to exist when we die, and this existence is meaningless. If God does not exist, then there is no hope; no love; no family.

What do you say?

Does God exist?

[CTR4life]

Thanks all of you for your kind words, it has help me to remember what and why I do believe in.:)

[Traveler]

I don't think any LDS would say "supernatural" means something that is opposed to true principles but would relate it to things that are beyond our current level of understanding. There is purpose in having things that are outside our scope of understanding, faith.

I don't think there is such a need to take a stand against the need for faith. Even Nephi was okay to move forward with his work without knowing why, (1 Nephi 9). We are told there are things that are sealed up until we have faith enough to receive them (Ether 4).

I can live my whole life and not receive the understanding that the brother of Jared received while in this life and still be just fine. To me, those things would remain "supernatural" but that of course depends on what is meant by supernatural. To me "supernatural" could mean - beyond the scope of our current understanding. I believe there are many things that will remain beyond the scope of our understanding for this life until mortality is over. "Supernatural" does not have to mean something that is contrary to the laws of nature and the universe. I agree with you in that it is just a point of reference between what is within our current capacity of understanding and what is not. That issue is what allows us to live the first principle of the gospel.

Even with our current level of medical science and understanding, there is no explanation how Christ brought Lazarus back to life after 4 days. This is way beyond our understanding and we are not expected to understand other than its lesson of faith. Christ was not trying to teach the principles of medical science or cell regeneration or neuroanatomy by raising Lazarus but to show that there are powers beyond the scope of this world available if we have enough faith.

I think the problem is in the definition of supernatural. Just because a magician in Las Vegas can create an illusion that I do not understand - I personally do not think that they are supernatural or magical - just able in their craft to do things I do not understand.

Also I do not accept your logical inference that faith is directly associated with the supernatural - I believe it is possible to have faith in things that are not supernatural. And just because I do not understand something - does not make it supernatural to me. To prove my point - I do not think you understand me very well at all - am I therefore supernatural to you? Have you ridden the "Tower of Terror" in Disney Land California? Then you may not have realized it but you not only have faith in things you do not understand but you have faith in me and technology I designed - trust me with this one - it is not supernatural.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I think the problem is in the definition of supernatural. Just because a magician in Las Vegas can create an illusion that I do not understand - I personally do not think that they are supernatural or magical - just able in their craft to do things I do not understand.

Also I do not accept your logical inference that faith is directly associated with the supernatural - I believe it is possible to have faith in things that are not supernatural. And just because I do not understand something - does not make it supernatural to me. To prove my point - I do not think you understand me very well at all - am I therefore supernatural to you? Have you ridden the "Tower of Terror" in Disney Land California? Then you may not have realized it but you not only have faith in things you do not understand but you have faith in me and technology I designed - trust me with this one - it is not supernatural.

The Traveler

Traveler, thanks for your response. That is really great that there are people who understand things like you do and make our lives more comfortable, exciting and entertaining. Thanks.

The inference about faith taken is yours not mine. If I say Pediatricians are doctors I am not saying all doctors are Pediatricians. I said the "supernatural" requires faith but that is not to say all things requiring faith are "supernatural". I am sorry you took that inference.

I don't think I said that the "supernatural" is simply things we don't understand. What I was trying to say, but obviously not well enough, is the "supernatural" may be beyond our capacity of understanding as a mortal being, with the veil over our eyes and the veil of the carnal body limiting our understanding. Even the smartest and best educated physicians and medical scientists could not explain or begin to understand how Christ brought Lazurus back to life after 4 days. I don't think that information is needed for our salvation and yet faith in Christ is. He performed that miracle for the building of our faith. I don't think He performed that miracle to say - 'if you study really hard one day you might learn how to do this your self'. It was expressly for the purpose of Faith in Christ over all mortal and carnal things.

What I gather you are saying is that there is nothing out there that we can't understand if we looked hard enough. I disagree with that. We cannot see all of God's workings. Part of the reason some verses in the Book of Mormon or even the writings of Moses suggest it cannot be written is because as mortals we don't have the capacity to understand such things. When a person is transformed and brought into that realm, like the brother of Jared, then it is possible to have such understanding. Those things that are inaccessible due to a lack of capacity to understand such things in our given state are "supernatural". But supernatural is a perspective, there are parts of that perspective that we all share as mortal beings, as a whole because they are kept from our sight on purpose. The purpose being that this life is a test of faith. Once the test of faith is fully passed, as in the brother of Jared's case, then the capacity for understanding expands and things can be revealed that would otherwise be impossible to know. That is what I am suggesting.

Do you not think there are mysteries of God that can only be obtained from God and not from learning in this life?

[Traveler]

...

Do you not think there are mysteries of God that can only be obtained from God and not from learning in this life?

I do not believe that there is anything that is good, true, right, of good report or praiseworthy that we can learn in this life that can be obtained by any other means other than G-d. I am inclined to think that even in the next life all good things will come from G-d.

I just believe that all truth, knowledge and even faith is according to laws and principles by which G-d governs all things - even himself. To me supernatural means - not according to or contrary to the laws by which things are governed.

You have brought up Lazarus- but I cannot account for the parameters for his death or being restored by Christ. Except that his restoration was only temporary - because later Lazarus died just like everybody else. But I am certain and have faith that not one law or principle by which G-d maintains and orders this mortal existence was violated to any degree when Jesus restored Lazarus. I believe it was a miracle but I do not believe it was supernatural or contrary to G-d's laws by which he created nature to operate within.

The Traveler

[brycematheson]

I just can't accept that we're here by chance. It's not possible to me. What's the point? We're born, get married, have kids, work until we're 70, and then die? What's the purpose? There's more to it than that.

"But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." (Alma 30:44).

I love the story of Korihor, the Anti-Christ. It's just such a testimony to me that there REALLY is a God. There's no specific hardcore evidence that I can give you. But it's just a feeling that I have. And why doesn't God give us these huge overwhelming experiences to make known that he's real? He does. You just have to look for them. That's where the Faith part comes into things.

Elder Maxwell once said something along the lines of, "Why would God use a spotlight when a Flashlight will suffice?"

I wish you and your husband the best!

[Praetorian_Brow]

What does your husbands belief in God have to do with your feelings about him or commitment to him?

I was always confused as to why a lot of Mormon women were so fanatical about wanting their man to be Bible beaters, until I learned recently about the marriage vows. Then I made the connection in my head that a lot of people assume that their relationship or the regard of the other person is only as good as the other persons commitment to God, which is a tragic mistake as the assumption ignores the basics of the point of a marriage.

God exists because he says he does.