- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
Hawkgrrrl, where can I find the quote about hell = no longer progressing?? I hadn’t heard that before.
Here is a link to a Teachings of BY on lds.org:http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=bea7767978c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=88021b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=bea7767978c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=88021b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD I think it would be possible to take the interpretation that CK involves eternal increase (posterity) but overlook that he also says eternal progress (implying personal growth & development). Bible Dictionary on the topic:
http://scriptures.lds.org/bd/d/6http://scriptures.lds.org/bd/d/6” class=”bbcode_url”> There is a great article written by Eugene England titled, “The Perfection and Progression of God: Two Spheres of Existence and Two Modes of Discourse” that addresses your exact question. Basically the jist of it is that God can know everything and still be progressing at the same time. He starts his essay contrasting the many seemingly contradictory statements by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and many other prophets and apostles that seem to say either that God is progressing or that God knows everything. He then takes the task of showing how both of these statements can be true. He also attempts to show how the term “eternal progression” has changed over mormon history from meaning what we’re talking about now to only referring to increasing the number of his spirit children. Although sometimes early church leaders were referring to the modern church’s definition of the term most of the time they were talking about learning new truths.
Essentially in Mormon theology and in a nutshell it would work like this: D&C 93 states that all intelligence is within it’s own sphere therefore God can know everything pertaining to this sphere of existence and “know everything” because it’s everything we’re capable of knowing, and yet still be progressing in his knowledge in other spheres. A real life example of this is that I could know everything there is to know about algebra and at the same time have a limited but progressing knowledge of calculus. Nothing that I newly learn in calculus will contradict or destroy what I’ve learned in algebra and so although I’m still a novice in calculus I’m still perfect in algebra.
I should also note that Apostle Bruce R. McConkie thought that this paper was false and apostate even so much that he took the time to personally send Eugene England a letter explaining why he was wrong. A copy of this letter can easily be found on the internet.
From a philosophical standpoint this is a very important question. It encompasses also the question of God’s foreknowledge. In order to understand what people are saying when they ask this question we must define the terms used. Does “all knowledge” or “omniscience” mean simply knowing everything or does it mean knowing everything that is possible to know? I would agree with the latter. If you just give the blanket statement that God knows everything and there isn’t anything he doesn’t know it becomes very problematic. If this is the case then it is usually also assumed that God perfectly knows our future as well.
In a mormon context that would mean that even in the pre-mortal existence God knew exactly what kingdom of glory I’d eventually qualify for. It also suggests that Jesus suffered for each of our sins specifically because he knew exactly which sins that I would commit. It also means that God wouldn’t need to intervene in my life because he has already pre-planned his every move. I don’t know if we’d really feel comfortable with that position as you realize the implications of it. It virtually eliminates free agency all together. If God knows that I am going to rob the 7/11 at 11pm tonight then what God knows is a fact and God only knows facts as they are or will be. God cannot know an incorrect fact because that would make it so that he didn’t know everything. Therefore at 11 pm tonight I must rob the 7/11 or else that would render part of God’s knowledge incorrect. I therefore am left with no choice as to what I can or cannot do and without agency regardless of the fact that I have no idea what will happen in the future.
Therefore I am lead to believe that God knows everything that can be known but future contingent events, such as the results of agency, are not knowable and so therefore God can only estimate (albeit with incredible accuracy) the future but he is not 100% certain of it. He does however know every possibility of the future as he can foretell every decision I am capable of making. This is much more comforting as he may look at me and say John’s got a 10% chance of making it to the Celestial kingdom so he probably won’t make it but I’m gonna do everything in my power to help him get there and defeat the odds.
Therefore God is also progressing in knowledge in the sense that he learns the certainty of the future as it happens just like you and me (albeit again with much better memory retention than any of us) and from that knowledge he can plan accordingly and intervene where appropriate.
There are obviously a few problems with this position as well which I haven’t addressed, maybe some of you will pick up on them, but I do believe that for me taking this view point provides me a whole lot more comfort and makes me feel in a lot more control of my life
Quote:I should also note that Apostle Bruce R. McConkie thought that this paper was false and apostate even so much that he took the time to personally send Eugene England a letter explaining why he was wrong. A copy of this letter can easily be found on the internet.
Well that and a quarter will get you a really lousy cup of coffee. If BRM is so doggone smart, why did he publish an unauthorized book called Mormon Doctrine without sanction and over 1000 doctrinal errors? Furthermore, he believed the earth is literally 6,000 years old despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. There’s a difference between confidence and credibility. Apostles are absolutely fallible, dating all the way back to NT times, elsewise why so much controversy of opinion on matters like whether non-Jews could convert and whether they had to be circumsized if they did? These are settled controversies, as all are in time, but the fact that they were unsettled at one time goes to the heart of the issue. Apostles often have personal opinions that conflict. I’m no more impressed that BRM was right and EE was wrong just because BRM thought he was right. Everyone thinks they are right. Right?
I was just letting anyone with a traditional LDS faith know that the letter exists. I disagree with BRM for the same reasons you stated, it goes against all reason and logic. Just cause he is a apostle means nothing to me at this point. Apostle is just a calling just like I’m the single ward’s photographer. Brigham Young stated once (paraphrasing) that while he was just a mere elder he would frequently object to what GA were saying and said that he had the right to correct them if they were wrong and that any mere elder now had the right and responsibility to correct him being the prophet if he was wrong. EE in my opinion was at least more correct than BRM, it’s a shame that BRM couldn’t see that. Truth isn’t someone’s opinion,even God’s. Like I said doctrine isn’t arbitrary, it’s eternal and a fact regardless of whether or not you want to accept it. “It must be hard for those,..who take authority as truth instead of truth as authority”
jbelli21 wrote:“It must be hard for those,..who take authority as truth instead of truth as authority”
Oh, I love this. I really love this.
Wowza! So many responses! Thanks for your thoughts everyone. I’ve been reading them over for the past few days, and I noticed a thought that I’d like to touch on. Orson wrote:… Everything except the complete, exact and minute details of the future that is (or it would seem to nullify agency).
jbelli21 wrote:… taking this view point provides me a whole lot more comfort and makes me feel in a lot more control of my life
Does the idea of God being omniscient eliminate free will? I would say no.
Show of hands, how many of us have done something dishonest in our life times? (You. In the red. Don’t lie, put up your hand!
I, for example, used to sneak cookies (go figure…
Just because God knew what you were going to do, doesn’t mean you didn’t choose to do it. Omniscience doesn’t equal no agency.
cookie, i’m not trying to challenge you on this issue but you should know that with the philosophical position you have taken regarding omniscience you are going to run into a lot of problems and eventually you’ll probably end up with the same God contained in early christian creeds which was a product of Greek absolutism – impassable, immutable, timeless, and essentially impersonal. most LDS don’t take their philosophical assumptions very far for if they did many of them would wind up believing something completely against what Joseph Smith was trying to correct with the restoration. If you continue to take the stance that omniscience means knowing everything including the future you will wind up creating serious problems surrounding free will. It takes a lot to explain in detail what I’m taking about but here’s an article to consider: http://blakeostler.com/docs/Absurdities.pdf Blake Ostler’s three part series “Exploring Mormon Thought” are also a fantastic read, especially book 1 & parts of 2 if you’re still interested in the above topic
jbelli21 wrote:most LDS don’t take their philosophical assumptions very far for if they did many of them would wind up believing something completely against what Joseph Smith was trying to correct with the restoration.
Not that any of us are worried about stepping outside of Mormon orthodoxy.
Jbelli, could you explain what you mean by the early Christian view of God being “a product of Greek absolutism – impassable, immutable, timeless, and essentially impersonal”? My understanding of the early Christian view of God, based on the NT, was that they believed in a very personal God! So much that they believed eternal life = knowing God personally (John 17:3)!
Here’s what I think at the moment. I’ve enjoyed reading everyone’s comments. God is part of all creation. God is experiencing the creation through us. Therefore, God knows all there is to know AND will eternally progress because creation continues to progress.
Gospel of Thomas (77) Jesus said, “It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.”
Maple Leaf, Post Nicene Creed Christianity. Read the early christian creeds, that’s how they describe God and it was a direct result of Greek philosophy attempting to define what God was and what he wasn’t. I’m sure that the very earliest Christians weren’t as influenced by Greek metaphysics as a few centuries later. jbelli21 wrote:Maple Leaf, Post Nicene Creed Christianity. Read the early christian creeds, that’s how they describe God and it was a direct result of Greek philosophy attempting to define what God was and what he wasn’t. I’m sure that the very earliest Christians weren’t as influenced by Greek metaphysics as a few centuries later.
That’s a fair statement. But is it fair to suggest that an omniscient God can also be a personal God such as the early Christians believed in?
I’m reading “A New Witness for the Articles of Faith” by Bruce R. McConkie, and I came across an interesting quote on this very subject. For some reason I thought he would be in line with Woodruff on this issue, but apparently not! “Does God know all things? He does. Is there anything he does not know? There is not.
Is he progressing in knowledge and learning new truths? He is not. He is not a student God.His knowledge and supremacy are not limited to a sphere or realm beyond which there are higher spheres and greater realms. He is an Eternal God, an infinite being, an omniscient man, one in whose person all knowledge, all power, and all truth center.” -Pg 176, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith. Again, I think you can be a devoted student of the gospel and it’s still a toss-up as to which of these opposing views you will believe in. McConkie, the BOM, and the OT and NT seem to paint an omniscient unchanging God, whereas much of the early prophets and modern day members seem to take the view of an ever-learning God. I don’t think there is a “right” answer, unless you want to dispute the reliability of the sources that present whichever view you oppose. (I’ll go with the cannon every time).
Keep in mind that just because he may not be increasing in knowledge does not mean he is not increasing in other ways – God continues to create and gain eternal increase without having to advance in knowledge. So I think the eternal, all-knowing, unchanging God that McConkie describes is perfectly consistent with mormon theology on the nature of God, despite contradictions with other general authorities on the matter.
I can understand people progressing, but God? Seems a bit of a case of turtles upon turtles, if people understand my meaning.
How can you progress anymore when you’ve become omnipotent?Because at some point in the forever, you will reach that state.
SamBee wrote:I can understand people progressing, but God?
Seems a bit of a case of turtles upon turtles, if people understand my meaning.
How can you progress anymore when you’ve become omnipotent?Because at some point in the forever, you will reach that state.
Paradox is the key. Ambiguity is not our enemy. Embrace them both. Consult the right hemisphere of the brain!How can God create the universe by faith, when He knows everything?(and we know that if we know a thing, we no longer have faith re:BoM) HiJolly
I recently watched a (very cheesy) re-run of Star Trek: The Next Generation, an episode called Who Watches the Watchers. In this episode, a more “primitive” race of people called the Mintaukans discover that they are being observed by the crew of the Enterprise, so they assume that these space travelers are their mythological gods (called “the Overseer”). One of the Mintaukans is convinced he knows what “the Picard” (the “god” he saw) wants from them, and that if he angers the Picard by not doing what he thinks the Picard wants, he won’t get his dead wife back (which he just assumed the Picard could do for him). Of course, his assessment of what the Picard wants is all wrong and based on fear of outsiders and taking bad weather as a sign. Capt. Picard has to break the Prime Directive (again) to show the woman who is their leader that he is just a man like they are, and that he is simply from a more advanced culture, that while their advanced medicine and transportation seems miraculous to them, it is just advanced much more than theirs, and the Mintaukans will advance to that level of technology over time. But he points out the limits that he still has: he can’t bring someone back who is long dead (although they are healing people the Mintaukans would have considered dead). Basically, this is similar to how I view God, and it seems more confirmed by the early LDS church leaders, even if BRM contradicts it. But as I said, I prefer to understand God as an exalted
man, not as an exaltedman. I like the idea that he was human and become divine more than the idea that he IS divine; his humanity seems more relevant to me personally. Like the Mintaukan leader, I would be interested to know how to become like him (enlightenment, knowledge), not like the Mintaukan male, how to appease him so that I get what I want (reuinited with dead loved ones, safety from danger). Something about that seems like the basic argument here.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.