A couple months ago, the was a discussion at ZD about obedience and blessings. I said I thought there was a scripture which said God had to make exceptions for us when we fail to do what he says.

The scripture I was thinking of was D & C 103:31 which says:

Behold this is my will; ask and ye shall receive; but men do not always do my will.

In Context, this is the Lord telling Parley Pratt and others to get together a group of 500, as this is his will, but then he makes the above notation and haggles himself down to 100 men.

So the scriptures say seek and ye shall find, knock and it will be opened, ask and ye shall receive, except when people are involved, as they do not always do God’s will.

In context of the conversation at ZD this means that Man can force God to change his plans, as man disobeys God.

Interestingly, this scripture also implies that in this instance God did not know whether 500 men would or would not do God’s will in the future. A God “outside of time” would not have had such a problem, it seems to me.

Finally, this scripture, while not renouncing determinism, does imply we either are not or can not be completely determined by our God. This suggests Libertarian Free Will.

With respect to your questions regarding what constitutes Mormon Doctrine, your question is best answered by the Japanese “mu,” which means that the question is misinformed so it is better to withdraw the question. Like Judaism, and it appears earliest Christianity, there is neither “official Mormon Doctrine” nor council or creed that establishes such matters. Rather, there is a tradition of interpretation that is like the common law approach to deciding what constitutes the law. It is taken on a case-by-case basis guided by prior precedent of revelations, decisions and practices. So everything in the scriptures is “doctrine,” but of course that leaves open a lot of different approaches. It is well-settled that the doctrine of the Church is that Jesus is God’s Son and our Savior. What these basic affirmations mean is left open. It is basic that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God. What that means is left open to a range of interpretation. (more…)

Is anyone else uncomfortable with the assumption there are an infinite number of human spirits/intelligences in existence?

What I mean is, it seems like a pretty common assumption among Mormons that there are an infinite number of beginningless and irreducible spirits waiting to inhabit future worlds (or for those who like the popular tripartite model: an infinite number of “intelligences” who are waiting to receive spirit bodies and then inhabit future worlds). If time is also infinite, as most of us assume, and an infinite number of inhabited worlds have already passed then it seems the assumption is that all of the following things currently exist:

-An infinite number of pre-mortal spirits/intelligences (who have been waiting an infinite amount of time to get a mortal probation according to most Mormons)
-An infinite number of resurrected people (who lived as mortals on the infinite number of previous earth-like planets)
-An infinite number of resurrected planets (to house those resurrected people)
-An infinite number of exalted people (gods or Gods depending on your assumption I suppose)
-An infinite number of sons (and daughters) of perdition

Of course this all assumes there is an infinite amount of space and matter in existence as well.

I dunno, I just don’t dig the idea of being just one of an infinite number of us. I much prefer the notion of a finite amount of beginningless and irreducible matter and space (despite the implications of that idea) and a finite number of beginningless spirits/intelligences in existence.

What do you think?

One argument some make for the idea that Christ takes our punishment for us (like some form of whipping boy) in the atonement is found twice in the Doctrine and Covenants. It is found in D&C 76:107 and in D&C 88:106.

These read (with context)

D&C 76
These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work; When he shall deliver up the kingdom, and present it unto the Father, spotless, saying: I have overcome and have trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God.

D&C 88
And again, another angel shall sound his trump, which is the seventh angel, saying: It is finished; it is finished! The Lamb of God hath overcome and trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God

(more…)

In his Principles of Psychology, William James has a chapter exploring the nature of habits.

Point One: Habits are physical. If a substance can be shaped or manipulated and then hold its new configuration, it is capable of developing a habit. For example, “everyone knows how a garment, after having been worn a certain time, clings to the shape of the body better than when it was new; there has been a change in the tissue, and this change is a new habit.” Similarly, “when a bar of iron becomes magnetic or crystalline through the action of certain outward causes” it has developed a habit. The structure of these materials resists change, which is why the developement of a habit takes time. However, “when the structure has yielded, the same inertia becomes a condition of its comparative permanence in the new form.” (more…)

A while back, Jacob brougt up the idea of posting something devotional on sundays. It being conference weekend and all, I thought I’d make an effort. This is what I did between sessions.

On this blog there have been many stories or parables discussed. We have, of course, argued the intent of Packer’s Mediator. We have discussed “the parable of the bicycle”, and Geoff J has graced us with his own piano player parable,and another financial parable. In discussing the atonement in a recent thread, Blake brought up the idea of using the story of a Bishop who has a great capacity for empathy as a parable of the Atonement. Heck, I even once tried to compare the atonement to an eagle teaching her children to fly. (Sorry If I missed any.)
(more…)

I have long suspected that some of our creedal Christian friends have inadvertently begun worshiping the Bible itself in place of, or at least in addition to, the living God. Recently Aaron Shafovaloff (of the Fluffy Bunny Nice Nice Club) seems to have confirmed that suspicion for me in his case at least.

We were discussing how he knows the Bible is the word of God over at his blog and he kept saying things that made no sense at all to me. I kept asking things like “Did God tell you it is true or not”? And he kept saying things like “No, not in the way Mormonism talks about this “yes” answer.” Well his last comment finally started clearing up this issue for me. Here are some of his quotes: (more…)

This post is a summary of my third volume — and also responding to the rather uninformed banter I often hear from evangelicals regarding plurality of gods. My third volume is entitled: Exploring Mormon Thought: Of God and Gods. There are certain concepts that Joseph Smith elucidated at the very end of his life that challenged the tradition at its foundations. These concepts may be summarized as follows: (more…)

Sorry for the rambling nature of this. It’s been going through my head all day, and I post it now, incomplete as it is.

The Doctrine and Covenants contains an interesting parable that I noticed for the first time this morning. It’s short, and basically, Christ asks his children (all of us) to “esteem his brother [or sister, of course]” as themselves. He then says:

For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there—and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just?

(more…)

At the “Mormon Coffee” Blog I posted a response to a post about what LDS see as being objectionable with the creeds. The post asks: “My question is, specifically what teachings in the Apostles’ Creed do Mormons think God finds loathsome or disgusting? Don’t Mormons claim to also believe all the points of the Apostles’ Creed?” They pointed out that the Nicene Creed says very little that LDS ought to find objectionable. I posted a response — but I see that my comments are still waiting moderation though several posts that were posted after mine have already been posted. Apparently a well thought out response is objectionable to the blog’s controllers. So I am going to post my response here. (more…)

The automatic salvation of little children is hard to reconcile with the rest of what we know about the plan of salvation. If there is an “official” doctrine of the Church, it is that all little children are automatically saved in the celestial kingdom. Two representative examples are the EoM entry and BRM’s Ensign article on the same subject. However, it doesn’t take too much pondering of the “big picture” to wonder how this makes sense with the rest of our doctrine. (more…)