On the nature of God.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

We do believe that God is eternal.

I think we believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent in his realm, but that he operates under certain parameters. He can't violate certain laws. What laws those are exactly, I am not sure. This implies that God is part of a framework, which we don't yet understand.

We are taught that God violates certain laws, he ceases to be God. It just occurred to me that this implies that "God" is a role. When God does not act the role of God, he ceases to be God. Or in other words, if a benefactor starts doing evil things, he is no longer a benefactor, but he certainly still exists.

And what is it that is God's role? Or rather, the role that God the father must fulfill? Moses 1:39 in the Pearl of Great Price. To bring to pass the eternal life and glory of his children.

Of course, we also believe that all of us are eternal beings also. That we went from "intelligences" to "spirits." What that is exactly I am not sure.

Mike thoughts do a better job of explaining our beliefs. I think it's very important to reiterate what Mike mentions at the end -that we believe each one of is also eternal and that we are here on this earth living a mortal life because in a pre-existince life, as spirit children of our father in heaven we all made a choice to follow God's commandments.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by tooblue

It most certainly is taught -in the scriptures. We should not need to be spoon fed everything. The Power of the holy ghost will help us understand all mysteries: 1 Nephi 10:19

19 For he that diligently aseeketh shall find; and the bmysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the cHoly Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the dcourse of the Lord is one eternal round.

Could you show me where this is taught in the scriptures that is so super secret that it's not taught in general conference and Pres. Hinckley said about it "we don't know much about it. We don't talk about it."

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Mike thoughts do a better job of explaining our beliefs. I think it's very important to reiterate what Mike mentions at the end -that we believe each one of is also eternal and that we are here on this earth living a mortal life because in a pre-existince life, as spirit children of our father in heaven we all made a choice to follow God's commandments.

Waters' thoughts come close to approaching my own thoughts on the matter.

For me, omnipotence is largely a meaningless word because I can't comprehend it. It's like the classic "Can God make a stone so big he can't lift it" question that someone else already raised. When I think about omnipotence then all logic just goes out the window. The same goes for concepts like "eternity", "infinity", etc. I can't comprehend those terms in my mortal existence so they don't mean that much to me.

I believe that God has significantly more power than I do. Thus, from my current frame of reference he is omnipotent; however, like Mike stated, I think that God operates under some type of framework (not sure what that is) and thus, if constrained by a framework is by definition not omnipotent.

[ute4ever]

I've come up with a different approach, Lisa.

If you want to know the nature of God, look at mankind's behavior on message boards. Then know that God is not a mortal man, and he acts oppositely.

Have a nice day.

</soapbox>

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Could you show me where this is taught in the scriptures that is so super secret that it's not taught in general conference and Pres. Hinckley said about it "we don't know much about it. We don't talk about it."

So you would like to place the onus upon me or the brethren to further your understanding of the nature of God? In otherwords you would prefer others do the leg work. Enlightenment does not work this way. Put the scripture I quoted to the test and take full responsability for your own understanding. That is what I have been taught in Church, so therefore answers to such questions are available to anyone who goes to church to learn the gospel.

Furthermore, as you Quote President Hinckley you would do well to place his quote in context, and endeavor to use his exact words, fully explaining the nature of the question asked.

As you quoted; "We don't know much about it. We don't talk about it." Such an answer is not the same as; we don't ponder on such questions or we don't have access to answers to such questions.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Some of the difficulty for Mormons regarding questions about the nature of God are a result of the fact that Mormons don't have a formal creed. The fourth century Christians clarified thinking on these issues through the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by tooblue

So you would like to place the onus upon me or the brethren to further your understanding of the nature of God? In otherwords you would prefer others do the leg work. Enlightenment does not work this way. Put the scripture I quoted to the test and take full responsability for your own understanding. That is what I have been taught in Church, so therefore answers to such questions are available to anyone who goes to church to learn the gospel.

Furthermore, as you Quote President Hinckley you would do well to place his quote in context, and endeavor to use his exact words, fully explaining the nature of the question asked.

As you quoted; "We don't know much about it. We don't talk about it." Such an answer is not the same as; we don't ponder on such questions or we don't have access to answers to such questions.

No I'm certainly not putting the onus on you to teach me the nature of God. I feel very comfortable with my level of understanding. I use the scriptures, doctrine taught by living prophet(s) at general conference, and current official church publications as my guides, using the Holy Ghost and personal revelation to help me interpret for myself.

If you feel I'm missing the boat on an important doctrine, then the onus is not on you but as a brother in the gospel, maybe you could help me out.

I think Pres. Hinckley can speak for himself, and I don't know that you can write him off that easily. How do you know he wasn't saying "we don't ponder such questions" or "we don't have access to answer to such questions"? My stance isn't necessarily that that's what he meant but you might stop to think if you're stretching his words to fit your personal pet doctrines.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Furthermore, as you Quote President Hinckley you would do well to place his quote in context, and endeavor to use his exact words, fully explaining the nature of the question asked.

As you quoted; "We don't know much about it. We don't talk about it." Such an answer is not the same as; we don't ponder on such questions or we don't have access to answers to such questions.

Here's what he actually said, along with what he was actually asked:

Gordon B. Hinckley, as quoted in Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997:

"On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, [Hinckley] sounded uncertain, `I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it.'" [emphasis added]


Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follett discourse by the Prophet.

Hinckley: Yeah

Q: ... about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

Hinckley: I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it. [emphasis added]

And from his interview with the San Fransisco Chronicle:

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?
A: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, ``As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.'' Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.
Q: So you're saying the church is still struggling to understand this?
A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. Knowledge, learning, is an eternal thing. And for that reason, we stress education. We're trying to do all we can to make of our people the ablest, best, brightest people that we can.


Judging by these quotes I'd say Santos' opinion should not be dismissed so quickly.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by jay santos

No I'm certainly not putting the onus on you to teach me the nature of God. I feel very comfortable with my level of understanding. I use the scriptures, doctrine taught by living prophet(s) at general conference, and current official church publications as my guides, using the Holy Ghost and personal revelation to help me interpret for myself.

If you feel I'm missing the boat on an important doctrine, then the onus is not on you but as a brother in the gospel, maybe you could help me out.

I think Pres. Hinckley can speak for himself, and I don't know that you can write him off that easily. How do you know he wasn't saying "we don't ponder such questions" or "we don't have access to answer to such questions"? My stance isn't necessarily that that's what he meant but you might stop to think if you're stretching his words to fit your personal pet doctrines.

I'm not stretching his words. You quoted his words out of context as if they authoritatively prove a point about what is or is not being taught.

I was overly aggressive and condescending, and I apologize. However I feel very strongly that far too many of us (us as in us members), are too eager to turn to the brethren for a nicely packaged explanation, or proclamation, or new article of faith, or creed that concisely answers a mystery of the gospel.

When in fact the curriculum of the church is designed to encourage personal study in favor of nibbling on morsels of knowledge delivered from the pulpit. Those morsels are designed to compliment and complete a personal feast of scripture study and prayer.

IMO focusing on the morsels leads to dissatisfaction and criticism –and I am not suggesting that you have criticized or are dissatisfied. I simply wanted to set the study of such questions in a different light and suggest that our church curriculum greatly enhances the opportunity for eternal truths to be taught daily on a deeply personal and individual basis … and subtly suggest that I love and look forward to Sacrament meeting, Sunday school, and even Priesthood lessons.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Some of the difficulty for Mormons regarding questions about the nature of God are a result of the fact that Mormons don't have a formal creed. The fourth century Christians clarified thinking on these issues through the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

Perhaps because the value of such creeds is finite.