On the nature of God.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by tooblue

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.

I agree with everything you say here, completely.

I'm not sure why you would think that what I've said in this thread would suggest I would disagree with anything you say here.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

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.

My intent was to not to dismiss his opinion quickly and understand that is how I came across.

"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."

The church actively teaches about the nature of God and eternal progression! It is a fundamental tenant of our lessons and learing.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I agree with everything you say here, completely.

I'm not sure why you would think that what I've said in this thread would suggest I would disagree with anything you say here.

Perhaps I misread ... and I am certain that I used your comments as a springboard for my opinon on constantly blaming the brethren for any and every perceived shortfall in the church -which belongs to other discussions I often ignore.

[BarbaraGordon]

Wow. You know, it's really too bad you guys are so apathetic around here. If only a few of you could have an actual opinion on something.

Actually, this works out quite well. When you start arguing (talking? discussing? debating?) amongst yourselves I get a better picture of the ideas involved.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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.
...
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.

Okay, so God is limited by His own nature. If we assume that God is necessarily good, he is limited in that respect. I see what you're saying.

Now that would be an internal limit. Can God be limited by anything external to himself? These laws that he is subject to? Are they an extension of Himself? Or not? Or we don't know?

On the infinite nature of mankind, traditional Christian teaching is that also the human soul is eternal, but only from the point of creation on. They are not, in a sense, as eternal as God, Who predates creation.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by tooblue

For me it is not a question of whether or not God is Omnipotent. Ultimately, regardless of your religion, belief that he is absolutely omnipotent is a contradiction to the idea of free will, or what we in the LDS faith commonly refer to as agency -the right to choose for ourselves whether or not we will obey Gods commandments.

I don't believe omnipotence precludes free will, allthough there are many evangelical groups that deny the existence of free will. It could be argued that God has the power to abridge free will, but chooses not too. No?

[All-American]

Here's my shot at this. Hopefully, it's clear enough-- and hopefully, I'm not too far off the mark.

Joseph Smith taught that God has certain characteristics which allow us to have faith in Him. He is loving, he is truthful, he is unchanging, he is merciful, he is just, and no respecter of persons. These characteristics allow a rational mind to trust in God and have faith in Him.

I don't know that God ever compells-- rather, because of His nature, he commands and is obeyed. This obedience goes down to the elemental level. Thus when Jesus commands, the waves of the sea obey (as demonstrated by Him calming the storm in the Gospels). I do believe that the laws of nature are dictated by God, but that His power is derived from the fact that He is obeyed (not just by man, but by all of His creations) because of who He is, and what manner of being He is.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by grapevine

AS for Gordons talk remember he was talking to some gentile reporters. Didn't want to cast pearls before swine. Like Jesus not elaborating on marriage in Heaven to the sadducesses. Didn't believe in eternal marraige anyway. Careful not to cast pearls before swine.

That's a decent explanation. But I would think if that was all there was to his comments, he would have clarified the doctrine or had one of the apostles clarify the doctrine over the pulpit in general conference or through official church publications. I'm inclined to take him at face value. Or at a minimum, I'm inclined to view these doctrines as unimportant and insignificant compared to the rest of the restored gospel.

P.S. Grape maybe you should be allowed two monikers. One for when you want to be serious, so we don't feel wierd responding you in a serious way.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by All-American

Here's my shot at this. Hopefully, it's clear enough-- and hopefully, I'm not too far off the mark.

Joseph Smith taught that God has certain characteristics which allow us to have faith in Him. He is loving, he is truthful, he is unchanging, he is merciful, he is just, and no respecter of persons. These characteristics allow a rational mind to trust in God and have faith in Him.

I don't know that God ever compells-- rather, because of His nature, he commands and is obeyed. This obedience goes down to the elemental level. Thus when Jesus commands, the waves of the sea obey (as demonstrated by Him calming the storm in the Gospels). I do believe that the laws of nature are dictated by God, but that His power is derived from the fact that He is obeyed (not just by man, but by all of His creations) because of who He is, and what manner of being He is.

Sinner

Though I do like your thinking.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I don't believe omnipotence precludes free will, allthough there are many evangelical groups that deny the existence of free will. It could be argued that God has the power to abridge free will, but chooses not too. No?

Deep down and in very simple terms I feel that if God abridged our free will he would cease to be God, for he would contradict his own laws.

I believe that perfection is a choice. And that each of us may well progress to a point where we will have the opportunity to make that choice.