Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[I Have Questions]

I do have faith in and believe that the CofJCofLDS is God’s Kingdom on earth. That it has been restored through the instrumentality of the Prophet Joseph Smith. That the keys of authority which came to him now reside in President Russell M. Nelson. The Plan of Salvation and Exaltation is real and we continue to progress and exist as individuals after we die. Jesus Christ atoned for our sins and did that which no other could do. He was the spotless and perfect example for us to follow. The Priesthood has been restored and those men who have received it and live worthily hold the keys of blessing their own families and lead them in righteousness. God lives. Jesus is the Christ. The first principles and ordinances of the gospel bring us to the Covenant Path that will guide us towards salvation and exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom if we prove worthy. Satan is real. Evil is real. We are being tried and tested to see if we will stay true to what we’ve been given. To whom much is given, much is expected.

Your Primary President would be thrilled with that little wall of ambiguity. But I’m not sure you understand what you’ve said. When you say “Satan is real. Evil is real.” What do you mean, specifically?

[Physics Guy]

Holy Scripture has quite a lot to say about the game of building our own Gods. For example,

The person who made the idol never stops to reflect,
“Why, it’s just a block of wood!
I burned half of it for heat
and used it to bake my bread and roast my meat.
How can the rest of it be a god?
Should I bow down to worship a piece of wood?”
The poor, deluded fool feeds on ashes.
He trusts something that can’t help him at all.
Yet he cannot bring himself to ask,
“Is this idol that I’m holding in my hand a lie?”

The Biblical injunctions against idolatry are clearly talking about the literal project of making physical objects of worship, but it has always seemed to me that mental idolatry falls naturally in the same category. The temptation to make up our favourite imaginary friend or fantasy figure is practically inescapable for believers in any kind of god or God, but that's another religious Known Issue like hypocrisy. We're supposed to try hard to avoid it.

(The quoted verses are in the "New Living Translation", which appears to be quite a free translation. The King James Version of the same verses is harder to follow. These two verses are just part of a longer mocking rant by the LORD against idol-makers, and the gist of the whole seems to be captured pretty well by the lines as I've quoted them. The actual style of the original text seems to be more opaque, though. You've got to catch the LORD's drift.)

[MG 2.0]

OK. So the Build a God project isn’t going to fly. I suppose the one thing, at least for me, that comes out of this is that throughout history folks have had a tough time conceptualizing God. And more than that a God that could allow for the world being what it is.

What kind of God would do and/or be like that, right?

To me it seems readily apparent that any creator God that we could believe in would have to be one that allows for free will/agency to be primary in the operations of any sort of plan that may have ended up getting the final go ahead for planet earth. Why? Because that is what we see in the world that we live in. The earth itself works according to natural means/law and is what it is and does what it does. Human beings do what they do and choose good over evil, light over darkness, etc.

It is what it is.

God would have to be a being that allows for the mayhem and misery that we observe because there can be ‘no other way’. This is a God of love who wants us to learn from our own experience, the good from the evil.

That’s why, I think, it’s impossible (nothing against anyone personally) for any one of you to come up with a ‘perfect God’ that you could believe in. It would have to be a God that allows for those things that from our/your perspective seem to be unacceptable for a God to permit/condone.

The Mormon God (the term used here) is a God that fits in pretty dang well with what we see ‘on the ground’. Folks can pick the Mormon God apart and even have some serious questions for Him, but at the end of the day this God fits in with what we see in the main.

The scientist, the creator, the Father of our Spirits, the all knowing One, the judge of all. And the administrator of a plan of happiness/progress in which mankind as a whole is given opportunity for growth and progress through making choices and performing good works to help and bring themselves and others along. That’s the purpose of the LDS Church. And it’s all done in and through the Lord Jesus Christ. It is He that changed the world and has redeemed the world from a fallen state (that which we observe) to the possibility of something more, something better, than where we started.

Folks can try to dismantle, make light of, or look at the Mormon God as being another man made construction made from active imagination. But whatever God is, He is. And that God would have to, by definition, be a match for what we see and experience in the world.

Trying to reverse engineer and say that God could have created a ‘better world’ is kind of silly. Because that is not what we see. We have to match up what we see with what God is. And if God is a loving God then the only real explanation that makes sense, at least to me, is a God that has allowed for complete free agency and choice, all the way around and from top to bottom. Free will, all the way down.

A key factor, however, would be some kind of ‘fail safe’ which ultimately brings all things back together in one great whole of being and homeostasis. That’s what the Atonement of Christ is all about.

Anyway, I was interested in seeing if anyone could come up with something better than the Mormon God and it appears that it can’t be done.

So I guess I’ll keep attending church.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

That's too bad, MG. I was looking forward to engaging you, if only you'd been willing to meet me half way.

You demand that others make the effort that you yourself are not willing to make.

[huckelberry]

I don't see how the catholic position is a fallacious argument, if that's what is meant by sophistry. If anything, the argument is sound but is based on the assumed starting conditions which of course, they also set. I would say the complaint about their conclusions would be a reliance upon a religious version of an incompleteness theorem, even though followed by a nonfallacious argument.

This post may be a bit more of a reply to Res Ipsa, I took a few moments to review the Catechism comments to see if my thinking slipped off course. As Res Ipsa observed there has been a long time thinking about baptism and a certain amount of variety in specific thoughts. I think the faith of the community is the link to Gods will. That would not be God loosing control because that faith is fundamental to what God is trying to create within the human family. It is not a simple thing of passing individual but one of creating humanity anew through time.I do think it is clear that the positive results of baptism are a result of Gods will. (leaving open the possibility human rejection and negation as baptism is not a guarantee heaven more of a building block)

Marcus previous post had link to Catechism ,

1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith.54 But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God's Church?" The response is: "Faith!"

1254 For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism. For this reason the Church celebrates each year at the Easter Vigil the renewal of baptismal promises. Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.

1255 For the grace of Baptism to unfold, the parents' help is important. So too is the role of the godfather and godmother, who must be firm believers, able and ready to help the newly baptized - child or adult on the road of Christian life.55 Their task is a truly ecclesial function (officium).56 The whole ecclesial community bears some responsibility for the development and safeguarding of the grace given at Baptism.

.... The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59

VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she do

I do not see the kind of rigid link between ordinance and possible outcome that is in LDS thinking about baptism and marriage.

[huckelberry]

Res Ipsa, I get the impression that you worked very hard to fit that Catholic statement back into Mormon thought. Perhaps a small misunderstanding caused or contributed to the problem. In Catholic context, baptism does not require a priest. It can be done by anybody. It is not a power other than God. God can save unbaptized people if God wants to. The statement suggests that is a possibility for people who did not reject baptism.

Hi Huck! I was doing my best not to think like a Mormon. Honest!

I know I oversimplified when I just referred to Priest, but I was trying not to over complicate the point I was trying to make. Let me try again. Baptisms are performed by humans on other humans. So, what does it mean to bind salvation to the sacrament of baptism?

Res Ipsa, I should not dismiss your pointing out the amount of legal labor which has gone into the Catholic ideas about baptism.

I tried to be a bit clearer in my comments in post above quoting Marcus to expand her link to the Catechism

[Gadianton]

That’s why, I think, it’s impossible (nothing against anyone personally) for any one of you to come up with a ‘perfect God’ that you could believe in. It would have to be a God that allows for those things that from our/your perspective seem to be unacceptable for a God to permit/condone.

The Mormon God (the term used here) is a God that fits in pretty dang well with what we see ‘on the ground’. Folks can pick the Mormon God apart and even have some serious questions for Him, but at the end of the day this God fits in with what we see in the main.

The Mormon God doesn't fit with "what you see on the ground" any better than any other God. Making up a God to fit what one sees upon the ground according to their best understanding is dumb anyway. By all means, knock yourself out, you are in no way allergic to dumb.

How do billions of children dying in poverty as children prove this life is such a great chance to "learn and grow" -- that they all have a loving father up there? It makes no sense. You can believe it. Anyone and come up with all kinds of reason God needs to let small children starve, get kidnapped and tortured, and in huge numbers that makes it okay with them.

Here's the tale of the twelve officers, for the 100th time (thanks EA):

https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark-vuletic-five/

You have no excuse for exonerating God of evil that isn't covered by one of the twelve officers. Mormon beliefs reconciling evil aren't creative in the least bit. We're all aware of them. You aren't telling us anything we don't already know about what Mormons believe.

Have you ever heard the doctrine, MG, that parents who lose their children before age 8 (or very young) will raise them during the Millennium? How about the doctrine that children who die before age 8 go the Celestial kingdom?

[sock puppet]

Anyway, I was interested in seeing if anyone could come up with something better than the Mormon God and it appears that it can’t be done.

So I guess I’ll keep attending church.

Regards,
MG

No God would be better than the Mormon God, but keep attending, paying your tithing, and bowing your head and saying 'yes.'

[Gadianton]

Okay I'll bite. I'm going to build my own God.

God created the universe and is a physical being. He also created free will. God has created innumerable planets throughout the galaxies with beings in his own physical image. God looks somewhat like what we call spiders, but with each foot having opposing appendages that makes him dexterous. He can run very fast. His creatures who are fashioned in his likeness are the apex predators of their worlds. On one of these world, a world that has advanced to a high degree but by no means the highest of his creations, the scientists of that world experimented with terraforming and evolving entire ecosystems. It became an addicting practice, it was quite fascinating to see the variety of life that screwing around with various inputs resulted in. One of these planets is our planet. People have become the apex predators of this world. Though it took a long time to pull it off, it was quite the achievement by a rebel scientist who wished to show that somewhat advanced life could result with a different appearance from their own. Humans to them are ghastly, and this scientist was excommunicated from the Church for heresy, and for meddling with things that are unnatural. However, in his time, society had grown out of touch with a strict worldview of worship and so rather than destroy this abomination, it was decided to let it runs its course and die out in a few thousand years.

Our world is an aborted experiment that right-thinking folks turn their heads from in sheer revulsion. Only a few weird science-types ever appreciated us. Unlike the spider beings, we don't have souls and will just die out like roaches and that's that. The great "spider-verse" spanning billions and billions of worlds -- more than anyone can count, will continue on forever. Everyone will forget about this one tiny experiment that went awry and is meaningless to them and to the spider-like God of the metaverse.

So there it is. There is no reason to believe the Mormon god is the real god vs. this spider god. Granted, lying to yourself to believe in the Mormon God because it's better for you will get you into church, but your God doesn't explain this world one whit better than my spider god. In fact, mine is the better explanation for reasons that you shall prove shortly when you answer my questions above.

[MG 2.0]

Making up a God to fit what one sees upon the ground according to their best understanding is dumb anyway. By all means, knock yourself out, you are in no way allergic to dumb.

Free expression. A form of free will.

Regards,
MG