Seminarysnoozer

I think I understand it as much as it is supposed to be understood. That mortality is "time" and of course when we leave mortality it is called eternity. In and of itself though, that is not a discussion of the "passage of time" (having a past, present and future). In other words, just because God is not confined by mortality (time) does not mean that he does not experience the passage of time (as in having a past, present and future). "Time" can mean an era in which there is a beginning and an end (the opposite of eternal) or "time" can be used to describe having a past, present and future. They do not have to mean both within the same phrase. Like I said, I am okay with God being in his own dimension of time, whatever that is. That by itself doesn't change my testimony or understanding of the plan but a God who does not have a personal relationship with his children does. If this other dimension of time, whatever that is, does not allow for interaction and exchange with this world and this time dimension then that makes God a different type of God that could otherwise appear to man from one moment to the next. He is in the sacred grove and then he is not, time transpired. If you want to try to say that time didn't really transpire, that it is just our perspective, I don't know what that is and I have only heard people try to explain such a thing with man made theories and imagination. To be anointed for "time and all eternity" could not fit with mortality and immortality? Why does not "time" equate with mortality? Then, of course, God does not live within mortality, He doesn't live within "time" (mortality). Alma 42:4 " 4 And thus we see, that there was a time granted unto man to repent, yea, a probationary time, a time to repent and serve God." And Alma 12:24. D&C 132:7 explains that covenants made for "time" would end with death, clarifying the idea that "time" refers to mortality, ; " 7 And verily I say unto you, that the aconditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, boaths, cvows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and dsealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is eanointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by frevelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this gpower (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this hpower in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the ikeys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead." President Kimball said: "How conclusive! How bounded! How limiting! And we come to realize again as it bears heavily upon us that this time, this life, this mortality is the time to prepare to meet God. " “Here [on earth] we are limited in our visions. With our eyes we can see but a few miles. With our ears we can hear but a few years. We are encased, enclosed, as it were, in a room, but when our light goes out of this life, then we see beyond mortal limitations. … “The walls go down, time ends and distance fades and vanishes as we go into eternity … and we immediately emerge into a great world in which there are no earthly limitations comparable to ours as to time, distance, or speed” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 40–41). It seems pretty clear there that "time" often times refers to mortality, "this life". And "timeless" relates to "eternal". It does not mean a lack of the passage of time.

In addition to what has been said already I think another reason is that we will be judged by what is written. We are given a "fullness" as we are judged by a higher standard, in general. In the same way it allows us to do more to do "great and marvelous things", in the preparation for the second coming. Our doctrine and precepts are much more available and therefore judging this people based on what is written seems more reasonable than ever before. That is why, what is written is more specific and detailed, as opposed to having to obtain the detail from a religious leader expounding on the basic teachings. 2 Nephi 25:21 "Wherefore, for this cause hath the Lord God promised unto me that these things which I write shall be kept and preserved, and handed down unto my seed, from generation to generation, that the promise may be fulfilled unto Joseph, that his seed should never perish as long as the earth should stand. Wherefore, these things shall go from generation to generation as long as the earth shall stand; and they shall go according to the will and pleasure of God; and the nations who shall possess them shall be judged of them according to the words which are written." 2 Nephi 27:22 "Wherefore, when thou hast read the words which I have commanded thee, and obtained the witnesses which I have promised unto thee, then shalt thou seal up the book again, and hide it up unto me, that I may preserve the words which thou hast not read, until I shall see fit in mine own wisdom to reveal all things unto the children of men." Mormon 8:34 "Behold, the Lord hath shown unto me great and marvelous things concerning that which must shortly come, at that day when these things shall come forth among you. Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing."

Yes. Thanks. In that same quote it says "in ways that are not clear to us". So, when people claim that God does not experience the passage of time (which is a made up concept) they are giving an explanation of things that are not clear to us. We do know, from scriptures, that God's work and glory is tied into the passage of time, if that is how we understand the phrase "to bring to pass". I also believe that God answers prayers and I think there are many examples of that. So if God has a relationship with beings that experience the passage of time there is no reasonable explanation of how God can both not experience the passage of time and experience the passage of time. To me, that phrase "but also by being in the dimension of time" does not equate to a God that is outside the passage of time. It could easily mean that God is not in a period of time like we are, mortal. Fortunately, mortality is only for a period of time. I am glad there is "time" (in that sense of it being finite) attached to this existence. "Time" in this case meaning a beginning and an end, the opposite of eternal. God is in the dimension of eternities, which could easily include the passage of time. Just ask yourself, is there an end to God's works? Does He have more work to do? If you answer yes, you are admitting the fact that God experiences the passage of time. Timelessness is convenient to the belief that God has nothing more to do and therefore does not have a meaningful relationship with us. This is, in part, why I cannot accept this idea of timelessness.

I think there is a big leap from "time is not experienced the same way" and not experiencing the passage of time. I can easily accept the idea that time is not experienced the same way but believing that God exists out of the passage of time at the same time He experiences the passage of time with us. Beings are considered Eternal in many other respects, it is not dependent on whether time passes or not. If a being "inherits" all that was before him, then he receives all the works that were done before making him eternal, and if that being is sealed to his posterity then all works after are linked to that individual eternally, thus making that person eternal. We also know that our intelligence is eternal. There is no need to make a lack of the passage of time the dependent factor for being eternal. Do you believe that God's glory is stagnant? Or is it self-surpassing with each moment? If God's glory is stagnant then there is no need to create worlds or have offspring and there is no such thing as eternal increase. Did God take 7 days (or periods of time) to create the world? Or do you not believe that story because it requires the passage of time. Does God not recognize the good when it is done, the beauty of His creation after it is done? Do you not believe that God cast Lucifer out of His presence? How, if there is no passage of time, one moment he is in the presence of God and then he is not, or was he always out? The description in the Book of Abraham relating the passage of time of one of our days to 1000 years is metaphoric to not passing any time at all? If there is no passing of time for God, how is possible to be angry with Israel at one point then be pleased? That is a false description of what happened? "Works" require the passage of time. If God has done everything, there is no need for our existence and any interest in our existence. I believe in a God that loves us and cares about our success, which requires the passage of time, therefore God experiences the passage of time by having a relationship with beings that experience the passage of time. I can't separate those things.

Absolutely, but that does not say that God does not experience the passage of time. Just try to soak in the possibility that "all things are present" (meaning he can see all things that have past and he sees the future) as time is passing. That phrase does not equate to timelessness or that God does not experience the passage of time.

Are you suggesting that it is necessary to have a body to give the priesthood but a body is not required to receive it?

I appreciate your response. Tell me how you know with such certainty that the passage of time is limiting. In what way is it limiting? If anything, it seems that the passage of time is empowering. It is a way to accomplish things, to achieve, to do works, to realize things that were first created spiritually. It allows a way to move forward. Lets just assume for one second that "seeing" everything in the past present and future can be done while passing through time. Then, what specifically is limited by the passage of time for God? I would like to know how you arrived at that presumed idea from which your desire to make it plausible stems. If there is no actual benefit in not being limited by time (whatever that is) then why even consider it to be plausible?

D&C 130:7 But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. By the way, the word "continually" requires the passage of time. I think it is ironic that you use that scripture to suggest a lack of passage of time. From Merriam-Webster: "continually adverb 1 many times <grew up in a time when children were continually being told to mind their manners> Synonyms again and again, constantly, continually, frequently, hourly, much, oft, oftentimes (or ofttimes), over and over, repeatedly Related Words always, consistently, continuingly, continuously, night and day, perpetually, unceasingly, uninterruptedly; afresh, again, anew; commonly, habitually, ordinarily, regularly, routinely; intermittently, periodically, recurrently; generally, usually Near Antonyms now, now and then, occasionally, sometimes, sporadically; ne'er, never; once Antonyms infrequently, little, rarely, seldom 2 on every relevant occasion <the computer program continually updates the file with new information> Synonyms aye (also ay), consistently, constantly, continually, ever, forever, incessantly, invariably, night and day, perpetually, unfailingly"

I think that "seeing" the future is sufficient in taking away any "educated guesses". There would not be any gain in having a timeless God. The Book of Mormon quote everyone uses who takes that view "... and time only is measured unto men" is a description of the time on Earth is measured, it doesn't last forever, whereas, our existence outside this mortal probation is eternal. "Probation" by definition is a measured time. For God, there is no measured time, He is Eternal. This does not refer to a lack of passage of time. That, to me, is a bizarre and imagined interpretation of that scripture that is not based in any knowledge of matter of time that we have available to us. If we interpret that scripture based on the knowledge we have, which is the same argument you used to pass off the phrase "to bring to pass", as God using language which we can understand then we know from other scriptures that this life is only for a short period of time and will end, it is measured time. God is within a timeline or time frame or era that is a endless period, this does not refer to the lack of passage of time (which is a made up concept by man). And yes, it is very important for us to know that this time given to man on this Earth is a short and measured time, so we better repent while we have time, that is the significance of that scripture. And the scripture in D&C 130:7 is, again, simply discussing this amazing ability to "see" past, present, future continually but that does not confirm or suggest the man-made concept of stopping the passage of time. You ask a question that we don't have the answer for, which is "How...". You and others want to put an answer to that question by suggesting that God does not experience the passage of time. There is no proof or need for that if He can "see" all, continuously. So, again, without trying to speculate about the "how", why doesn't "seeing" all past, present, future suffice over some made-up need that time has to stop? What amazes me about this discussion is that there is some perception that God "has to" have this ability to stop time. Why? Because there is no other explanation available? I think that needs to be couched into the same idea that you used to push aside the importance of "to bring to pass" which is to not apply man made concepts onto Gods perception of time. Please understand that my belief is not based in an unbelief of the ability of God to stop time (because if He can He can, we don't know) but based in the understanding of joy that is obtained from knowing a job is done when it is done. I have, like most everyone in this world, have a sense of the happiness obtained from carrying out good works. You don't feel a sense of accomplishment when a job is done that isn't there until it is completed? Do we sanctify the victor as the victor before He is victorious? There would be no need to foreordain, just ordain. There would be no need to have many called but few chosen, just call the ones that will be chosen. If all is as if it was already done then there is no test and no glory from a job well done as it could never be done any other way. There is nothing but wasted effort if I say I can beat my 1 year old niece in a game of tennis, I can "see" that I can do that and then actually play the game. There is no victory in carrying out such a game. The game then is pointless. .... unless there is some value in actually saying "I did that" (past tense = passage of time) as opposed to "I could do that". This whole life is about completing certain tasks (works) and now you are wanting to say that for God there is no value in completing anything, that works mean nothing (as works require the passage of time)? That idea is foreign to me and sounds like nothing I hear in the gospel. I tend to believe that God also receives joy from good works. The lack of passage of time takes away the possibility for doing good works. I tend to believe in a living God, "living" requires the passage of time.

I guess I don't see it as being that complicated. The mechanics of how it happens are complicated and unknown but the issue of either God experiences the passage of time or He doesn't, I don't see that as being complicated. I don't think that part of the discussion requires discussing the mechanics of how it is done. In other words, I don't think it can be both, if that is what you mean by 'projecting onto God how we experience time' then I don't think there can be a discussion either way. We can't even "consider" the two scriptures you gave as it relates to time if there is no projecting or not projecting how we experience time onto God. I think all logic is thrown out the window if one says that God could experience the passage of time and also not. And, there is nothing gained in terms of our gospel from saying that God does not experience the passage of time but there is an important aspect of our gospel that relates to God experiencing the passage of time. That has to do with the purpose of this world and our relationship to God. I think it is reasonable to say though that either "bringing to pass" an event has significance or it doesn't. If it has no significance then it doesn't matter if God jumps around in time or is timeless or does not experience the passage of time. If "bringing to pass" has significance, then I think we would have to say that God experiences the passage of time as there is no other known way to "bring to pass" anything without having time pass. The significance of "bringing to pass" would be lost if there is not anything that occurs over time. ... then the scripture should read something like 'the work and glory of God is the immortality and eternal life of man, not "...to bring to pass...".

I think this is a safer and more accepted interpretation of that phrase. Anything beyond that requires applying physical science theories about time and space that may not even apply to spiritual matter. The application of the little knowledge we have of physical matter to the spiritual realm is highly speculative because it is even speculative for the physical realm alone. Another clue, that is along the lines of your post is that we believe in an emotional God, one that can express emotion. Emotion requires the passage of time as there is a change from one moment to the next. If all things are present in terms of time, then there would be no change in emotion, ever. The same expression would exist forever. There could, then be no expanding joy, it would stay the same. ... as we lived in God's presence, in His realm, we shouted for joy.

That is a good way to dodge the issue but I think the reason it comes back is because we are told that to God (not for us), His glory is dependent on the passage of time, "to bring to pass". We don't know how restrained if any He is by time but we are told that the passage of time is part of His glory, by those scriptures that reference statements like, to bring to pass. I would agree with your first paragraph that there is a paradox created by this made up idea that God lives without the passage of time (which of course is different than 'all things are present' in that all things present could just be seeing it and not living it). So, in that case, I think it is best to stick with the scriptures and what we are told, that God's glory is related to events that require the passage of time, the required "bringing to pass".

I think if you carefully look at what onefour1 was saying, there is a difference between recognizing events that have "transpired" versus seeing the future event that hasn't yet happened. It is difficult to talk about concepts that we don't know much about or how they could possibly work but I think what is being suggested is a qualitative difference between seeing something in the future versus knowing that something has already happened. onefour1's comments were about free will but I think it also applies to the process of "bringing to pass" anything. There seems to be a value in the fulfilling of an act beyond just knowing it will happen. When something has actually happened, whether it is seen or not previously, there is a change in perception of that event, knowing that something has been accomplished, that it has been "brought to pass" or "transpired". If seeing into the future is synonymous with "bringing to pass" then there is no value obtained at the moment it is completed or the moment it becomes an event "transpired". In the scriptures, it seems, there is a separation of these things as God's work and glory are described as "to bring to pass ...".

Well, I guess "reckless speculation" is a matter of opinion and that is very difficult to see where that line is. You specifically asked people to explain why they might believe it is something other than divine revelation. I think it is a good discussion, don't get me wrong. I just don't see how one avenue of speculation is "reckless" where another is not. Whether it is a "lightening rod of contention" has nothing to do with intentions, as you pointed out to me earlier. It only has to do with the potential for pointing out differences in beliefs I suppose, but the only way to know that is to put it out there and see what happens. In other words, if a person responds with saying that it is the devil communicating or ESP, would you then call it a "reckless speculation"? You invited those kinds of responses. The thing is, you said that I shouldn't even put it out there in the first place. I also believed that my discussion was one of "perception and belief", so that is not a very good qualifying or disqualifying criteria. One of your criteria was to suggest if it goes against mainstream or common LDS belief than it could be speculation, well, we can see by the results of the poll what is mainstream, so inviting anything other than that is inviting speculation, by that definition.

In another thread I was warned against speculation but here, are you inviting people to speculate? I am confused. Or does that standard only apply to LDS? Their explanations can only, at best, be speculation.

If one takes that hard of a stance in relation to the creation of the body then I would imagine that there would be the same perception about how the perfected body with resurrection is formed for the individual who has died thousands of years ago and their mortal body as dissipated to its basic elements and maybe even absorbed and incorporated (literally) into someone else' body. I think, most believe that God is capable of forming (creating) a perfected body with which the spirit will be put with upon resurrection. That doesn't seem to be too much of a problem. I am curious what you would call the production of a mycoplasma out of computer generated "off the shelf" DNA fragments forming a new organism that had never been on the planet before that is now capable of reproduction. The cell had no actual parent, just the knowledge of the fragments of the DNA from other organisms DNA and then manufacturing the DNA strand, from scratch, to form that new cell.

I am glad you like to bring up such topics. I think the trap that a lot of people fall into when discussing these things is that they try to apply the little bit of physical science knowledge we have obtained to the way God's realm works such as time-space concepts. We really do not know how the spiritual realm works, the fine material that exists there and the "physics" of such a place. Even if something is true in the physical science laws, there may be another whole set of physics that is not seen by us here to really comment on how that system works. This is why statements of "to bring to pass... " trumps any physics based argument about how God sees time. Even then, all of this is speculation ... so I'll leave it at that. And say, put the most weight in the scriptures description of these things.

In that sense, though, Cain and Abel were begotten from two parental bodies that were not "created" by God. The perfect versions of those bodies were created by God and placed in the Garden and then they changed as a result of the Fall. Exactly how they changed and to what degree is not really described but at least we can say it is not the same body that was created.

There was a program on cable last night called "Who is Jesus?" and I believe I heard them say that during that time only 50% of children lived beyond 5 years. Consider this too, if 1 out of 800 to 1000 births result in Down syndrome then just in one year alone, there are 131,400 souls going to the Celestial Kingdom from that group in one year. Adding that up alone over the years (not counting all those that die before the age of 8) that would be into the millions. I've attempted to calculate this before in another thread, now I can't remember where it is, but the number that die before the age of 8 is very high. It is more than the number of members we have in the church right now and probably higher than the number of members of the true church ever had throughout all eras until now (we don't know the percentage of membership as we approach the millennium and into the millennium). In the U.S. the percentage that die before the age of 8 is something like 0.000147.

I agree, and the reverse, I believe to be true too, that our purpose is to one day be connected to the eternal perfectness of God, to inherit all that God has and in that way it is possible to be perfect without beginning or end. I think the idea of shared glory, in other words, being "one" with God and Christ has its roots in the same concept that you are saying is one of the main tenets of LDS doctrine. As President Hinckley said; "Put on thy beautiful garments, O daughters of Zion. Live up to the great and magnificent inheritance which the Lord God, your Father in Heaven, has provided for you. Rise above the dust of the world. Know that you are daughters of God, children with a divine birthright. Walk in the sun with your heads high, knowing that you are loved and honored, that you are a part of his kingdom, and that there is for you a great work to be done which cannot be left to others." I believe having an eye single to His glory also includes His Kingdom and His work, thus, it includes all those that are part of this "divine birthright". The divine birthright is not one that is divided and wasted, as was the concern of the prodigal son. If we repent and live righteously then all will be offered and no inheritance is lost. I believe that concept to be a part of the eternal round, cycle, and that we are not necessarily the first round. It has happened before ... souls that have lost their inheritance, repented and then gained it all back as if it was never lost in the first place.

I appreciate your comments and concern, I have taken them to heart. Thank you. I think there requires a bit of understanding of intention to differentiate between speculation and pondering. I am honest in saying that my intention was to enlighten as to the might, power and majesty of Christ's atonement which is not to take away from God's might, power and majesty. Even though, I realize that I often hover on the cliff of speculation and sometimes slip down that slippery slope, I based those comments on scripture and testimony and not on imagination. I will try to be more careful with my words, it can be tricky. I have a strong testimony of D&C 58:42 "Behold, he who has arepented of his bsins, the same is cforgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more." And Jeremiah 31:34 "And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." As it pertains to the records of eternity, I believe these scriptures and I believe in the power of our Savior that it is certainly possible to have no sin remembered. To me, this is mainstream LDS doctrine. To say the opposite, which would be to say that it is impossible for God to have ever sinned, to me, would be discounting and going against these fundamental beliefs. I agree with this being speculation as to whether God did or didn't, this is why I thought I was being careful about saying it was possible without knowing or not. And I apologize for presenting it in a way that would seem like it is a statement of belief. In the same light, it is speculative to say that He didn't, to say that we "know" He didn't. He may or may not. As to the redeeming power of Christ, it can be full, complete, and eternal, from eternity to eternity (which cuts out the "time" in between). Our fundamental belief also is that we are sons and daughters of God and as such have noble potential to be like our Heavenly parents. A speculation that God could never be like us would go against that fundamental belief. All of us sin, so to make such a strong statement as to say that is impossible would cut out completely any chance that we are indeed His children with a potential to fully inherit all that God has. I admit that it is speculation to try to pin down the specifics of what it means to inherit all and to be "like" Him and to receive of His glory. But until it is specifically revealed I don't see how we can accept doctrine that would make that impossible. Any doctrine that makes it impossible for His children to receive all that He has would, to me, seem to be against fundamental LDS beliefs. Maybe I am wrong on this, but this is how I currently see it. I am wanting and willing to be corrected about such beliefs if they are false. I believe I am a daughter of God and not just a student of His and Christ's teachings. I appreciate your willingness to interact with me and I apologize for my defensive words. I will try to be more careful with speculative speech as I am still learning where that line is between contemplation, pondering, searching and speculation.

Well then, I think this is where you misjudged. I have said nothing against this idea. Because I believe (and I will make this perfectly clear so there is no repercussions for possibly misinterpreting my comments to be official doctrine of the church or anything like that - THIS IS MY OPINION) that the atonement of Christ makes perfect from all eternity to all eternity. I have said nothing against that doctrine and I certainly wasn't attempting to mislead anybody away from that doctrine. I will admit that I was speculating about how that could be possible and I will refrain from pondering such things 'out loud' anymore as that is what the moderators wish. I would suggest (again, MY OPINION, not official church doctrine) that to say that God in no way could have been the recipient of the redemptive power of an atonement would be called speculation as well, so you can't say that it could not be possible. All I said is that it was possible, not that it happened (again, this is my personal opinion that it could be possible within my personal understanding of the gospel which admittedly is not official doctrine or authoritative in any fashion). To discuss why I think it could possible cannot be done on this forum apparently, so even if you wanted to judge me about it and try to change my views (which I would otherwise humbly welcome such discussion), you couldn't, that is not allowed.

Thanks, I appreciate your answer. How does one differentiate, then, a question from speculation or even ponderings from speculation? How does opinion differ from speculation? Are we not allowed to give our opinion whatsoever on areas that are not revealed doctrine? I apologize then. For me, the process of proposing thoughts and ideas has been very educational. With responses, I further ponder my beliefs and have learned a lot in that process. I am saddened by the idea that I can't express opinion on this forum. From now on then, I suppose I will just cut and paste scripture and GA quotes (even though there is a web site that all that can be googled already) ... if there is no "speculation" or personal pondering allowed.

It is speculation that it "needlessly threatens people's foundational beliefs in God". I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. If you insist on calling it judgement, fine. I hope you don't get judged with that same measure of judgement. Wow! How many things we write about our beliefs are seen by other people as blasphemous? That cannot be the criteria for what we can and cannot write on this forum. Specifically, what foundational belief did I threaten? Name one. Even with what I said, God is eternally sinless, free of sin, perfect, clean, without sin, flawless and will always be. Specifically, what foundational belief in God was threatened? We can go on and on about foundational beliefs that are threatened if we are that picky. What about Kingdom progression when we know the final judgement is final? Just because this particular topic might rub you wrong, does not make it "exceedingly" unwise. Unless you tell me that you have had some revelation from God as a priesthood holder of authority that tells you otherwise, then I would ask for your forgiveness and change my view and faith about the topic. Otherwise, judging unrighteously is also exceedingly unwise.

Explain why this is "exceedingly" unwise if it is in support of the power of the atonement? People on this forum speculate about God being a timeless God, even though we know His glory is to "bring to pass" the immortality and Eternal life of man. How is that speculation or any other speculation that is brought up on many of these threads any different. Your judgement of what is "exceedingly" unwise is your opinion and speculation as well.