[Origin of "Keys" of the Priesthood]

Does anyone know where the term "keys" comes from when talking about the Priesthood? It looks like the biblical precedent is Matt 16:19, which talks about keys of the kingdom of heaven. The earliest reference to this I can find in modern scripture is April 1829 when the keys of the gift of translation are referred to (D&C 6:29)

I seem to remember somebody on this site saying Parley Pratt used the term and it was adopted by Joseph, but I don't recall any documentation around it.

[What is the significance of Covenants or being a "Covenant People" to you?]

This is a little (or a lot) late for your lesson, but I'm going to mention it anyway. The other aspects of covenants that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is the cyclical or generational (perhaps personal?) aspect. We are taught that God is unchanging and there are certain laws that he wants us to live by. That's all well and good, but you don't really have that guarantee until God himself reveals it to you. Yes, it is true that when we make a covenant that we are promising to live the same commandments that others have kept, which has secured for them the blessings the Lord has promised and delivered. But it is also true that their blessings are not our blessings until we enter into the same covenants. Think Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who all received the same covenant, with the same conditions and the same blessings, but still had to receive it for themselves. Think also of Enoch being promised that the Lord would destroy the world with a flood but preserve Noah. Noah still had to qualify and receive this promise himself.

I'll include a quote from Joseph Smith that leads me to this kind of thinking. He does not mention covenants, but he does talk about securing the same blessings of previous generations and the equal faithfulness and revelation required. Add the word "covenant" and you have what I stated above. Joseph Smith wrote the following to his uncle Silas:

This same might be said on the subject of Jacob’s history. Why was it that the Lord spake to him concerning the same promise, after he had made it once to Abraham, and renewed it to Isaac? Why could not Jacob rest contented upon the word spoken to his fathers? When the time of the promise drew nigh for the deliverance of the children of Israel from the land of Egypt, why was it necessary that the Lord should begin to speak to them? The promise or word to Abraham, was, that his seed should serve in bondage, and be afflicted, four hundred years, and after that they should come out with great substance. Why did they not rely upon this promise, and when they had remained in Egypt, in bondage, four hundred years, come out, without waiting for further revelations, but act entirely upon the promise given to Abraham, that they should come out?

...

I may believe that Enoch walked with God, and by faith was translated. I may believe that Noah was a perfect man in his generation, and also walked with God. I may believe that Abraham communed with God, and conversed with angels. I may believe that Isaac obtained a renewal of the covenant made to Abraham by the direct voice of the Lord. I may believe that Jacob conversed with holy angels, and heard the word of his Maker, that he wrestled with the angel until he prevailed, and obtained a blessing. I may believe that Elijah was taken to heaven in a chariot of fire with fiery horses. I may believe that the saints saw the Lord, and conversed with him face to face after his resurrection. I may believe that the Hebrew church came to Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels. I may believe that they looked into eternity, and saw the Judge of all, and Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant. But will all this purchase an assurance for me, and waft me to the regions of eternal day, with my garments spotless, pure and white? Or, must I not rather obtain for myself, by my own faith and diligence in keeping the commandments of the Lord, an assurance of salvation for myself? And have I not an equal privilege with the ancient saints? And will not the Lord hear my prayers, and listen to my cries as soon as he ever did theirs, if I come to him in the manner they did? Or, is he a respecter of persons - From History of Joseph Smith by His Mother (328-9)

[New Reality Show Features . . . Polygamists!]

Well, if we can't convince people that we're not polygamists, maybe the next best thing is to convince people that polygamy isn't always such a horrible thing.

I like being in an area where there is lots of national diversity. Sometimes during lunch someone bring up mormons and polygamy. I tell them we stopped doing that 100 years ago. Then I turn to someone from China (once it was the person that brought it up :)) and ask, "hey, weren't you able to have lots of wives in China?" They typically look a little embarassed about it and say, "yeah, but we stopped that about 100 years ago."

I don't ask to embarass or shame anyone who has had polygamy as a part of their history. My intention is to point out that it's not the big deal the west has made it out to be.

[Non-Jerusalem Jewish Temple]

I was recently thinking about some passages in Josephus' The Antiquities of the Jews that talk about a Jewish temple in Heliopolis, Egypt (13.3.1-2 & 13.10.4). Apparently, the Onion temple (named after Onias who built it) was patterned after the Jerusalem temple (I estimate it's about 100 BC), had a course of Levites and priests operating it, and was perceived as a fulfillment of Isaiah 19:19.

Do Jews view this temple as a valid temple accepted by the Lord (or at least acceptable to the Lord)? Or is this viewed as an apostate temple?

[Sacrament opening and closing prayers]

Yes, that was revelation that you should marry that sister.

And start filing the paperwork to adopt the priest that blessed the Sacrament.

[Christian shirts with crosses.?]

Honestly I would not wear a cross or hang them in my home. If the savior was killed with a knife or gun would we wear them around our necks? I am so thankful for the atonement but for some reason I tend to see it in the Garden. The cross to me reminds me of torture and death. I like to think of Christ alive and blessing the children.

The cross has become the symbol of Christianity for many reasons. Although it was a tortuous mode of capital punishment, the Savior himself encouraged his disciples to carry the shameful burden (Matt 16:24):

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Paul picked up this symbol and made it a central part of his sermons (1 Corinthians 1:17-18):

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

The cross was viewed as foolishness because (as you point out) it was an execution device. Not only was it a symbol of shame by Roman standards, but also Jewish (Deut 21:23).

His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God; ) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

This passage is the reason why the thieves' legs were broken. They needed to die before the night began (the point being that they associated crucifixion with hanging on a tree). The other consequence of this verse is that Jesus was considered cursed by God. Paul's Messiah was accursed. That's the foolishness of the cross. In modern scripture, we say that Christ "descended below all things" to lift us up at the last day. That is how Paul and modern Christians see the cross as the Power of God.

As Latter-day Saints, there are some reasons why we try to distance ourselves from the cross. We know from modern revelation that Gethsemane was an integral part of the Atonement. The Christ was not just suffering in anticipation of the hours ahead. For this reason, the sacred Garden should be remembered and reverenced. But the cross cannot be ignored. In the Garden the Son of God was strengthened by an angel; on the Cross, he was forsaken by his Father.

Because of its place in the Atonement, I think the symbol of the cross should have a place in our culture. To answer your question, if, as part of working out my salvation, Jesus suffered and died from electrocution, bloodletting, impaling, or by being pinned under a semi truck, I would have no objections to a symbol of it displayed in our church buildings (or on a t-shirt - OP).

[Is this blasphemous?]

If I consider time linear, why would I have more than one dimension for it.

The only two that I could think of is that the past are events recognized that cannot be altered in fact, only in terms of recognition and memory (which is not an issue for God of course) and future events which have not yet transpired and therefore only predicted (for God this may be a perfect prediction) which would make them events that we cannot say they have occurred yet. Maybe one could say there is such a thing as present, but the moment one says it is present, it is already past. To me, those are the only two dimensions of time, past and future. The important thing though, at least I believe, those two descriptions of time differ for God, the past events are things recognized and realized and the full glory for which can be appreciated. Future events, on the other hand can only be predicted and prophesied about but even God cannot gain the glory for future events until they become passed events, by definition.

It's a start. You've recognized that from our perspective, there are different properties for time based on before or after. This kind of thinking can lead to something like Narnia time where you have two timelines, but they are running in parallel. This is a good beginning. Now what I'm looking for is maybe more Army of the 12 Monkeys where one person has the ability to travel through time. Make the X-axis the way he views time. Then make the Y-axis time as everyone else experiences it. You will find that both axes have the same properties of being sequencial and they also have the same units. You could even map out the sojourner's life with respect to normal time. You will see that it follows the pattern of a math function, so that f(x) has one and only one value. blah blah blah more math blah blah boring stuff I find that this image is difficult for many people to grok, so I don't fault anyone for not getting it.

If you want, we can carry on this conversation through pm unless others on this thread find interest in this as well.

[When is it appropriate to remove your garments?]

Women are shaped differently from men. Heck, most women clothes are shaped differently from each other. There are so many different compound curves, diameters, and angles that I get dizzy just thinking about it. This is why there are companies that make huge sums making custom-fitted jeans women for women their jeans while most men get theirs off the rack in standardized sizes-- there just aren't as many variations in body shape and size among us menfolk.

Fixed that for you.

[I'm at the last stage of life...]

Hmmm, my former bishop, also a former member of my stake presidency, actually sometimes walks out of High Priests and sits in with the Elders. He finds that the High Priests go off-topic from the lessons much more than the Elders do. Our Elders Quorum actually gets some good gospel discussions in, and they are many times the most spiritual meeting of the block.

Yeah, I thought it was Elders' Quorum, High Priest Forum.

[Christian shirts with crosses.?]

Hmm...then let me ask you this question: "would the Savior wear it?"

Maybe not on the front, but I think I've seen pictures where he's wearing a cross on his back.

And "King of the hill" would be some great text for a Jesus shirt. It could be hill shaped with the three crosses on top and a crown around the middle one.

[Trying a Mens Group]

So why are you using an emoticon that looks like it could be from the 60's? Huh? Huh? Clarify please. Huh?

[VOICE=Optimus Prime]Many years ago, the Emoticons started a civil war and failed to shift the balance of power on Cybertron. The benevolent Autobots agreed that those who took an oath of peace would only be exiled while those who continued in the cause of war would be dealt with later. Already the Decepticons were moving in to strike down our defenses. They first freed the rebellious zealots and gave them a choice: assimilation or annihilation. They took their new acolytes and set their eyes on a new faction - the Perceptrons....[/VOICE]

I remember watching the newsreels of the Cybertron war back in the 80's. So I'm guessing that most of the rash emoticons from that era became Decepticons. Looks like the non-violent hippie emoticon was exiled here. So when I looked for an emoticon with outrageous clothes to accent my comment about hellish styles (wait - would that be Greek fashion?), I had to go all the way back to the 60's (because the outrageous outfits from the 80's were turned into Decepticons - you know, Kiss's guitars, Mercury's mike, that dude's stereo from Star Trek IV).

[Trying a Mens Group]

mordorbund - Is that Carmen Sandiego with the Eye of Mordor? And is your name a combination of Mordor and Broderbund?

Yup, it's the eye of Sauron, but you got the gist. You can come over and claim your prize any day after the 31st.

[Is this blasphemous?]

I don't think I am expressing myself well enough, I apologize for that. You started out saying that God could go back in time, or at least suggested that as a possibility as well as jumping ahead. If you are now saying God's time is also sequential then I have no argument with you. It is either sequential or He can jump around in time. What is it?

The importance of saying it that way is to support my very first comment that you reacted to which was God has one limitation and that is that He cannot realize something is done until it is actually done, whatever the time frame. In other words, He can't claim the credit for something that will be done in the future if it hasn't been realized or actualized yet, even if He can see it in the future. In other words, there is a value placed on actually completing the act.

With a timeless God though, I can see how one could say that the value of some future act (future to us) was already obtained by God, but then there would be no "bringing to pass" anything because for that type of God everything has already been brought to pass and His work would be over for Him. Do you believe in a God who's work is complete? If not, what is it that He has to complete, in your mind? .... if you say something to the effect of "letting us run the program through" then you are agreeing with me that there is some value to actually completing the project, which was my original statement.

I fear I am not communicating clearly. Let's start with this. Could you describe for me two orthogonal times? I mean the same way you would describe two orthogonal space dimensions (such as height and width)? Or in the same way you would describe "up" to flatlanders?

[Is this blasphemous?]

Mordorbund,

But how does one define "God time"? Is it sequential or non-sequential? If sequential, then we can surmise from our own experience things concerning his time. If it is non-sequential, then there are logic issues that cannot be resolved, even by God.

For example, if God literally sees all the future as being in the "eternal now", how is it that we can have free will and agency? If God has already seen everything I am going to do, whether he wills it or not, how is it that I can have true choice in the things I do? Suddenly, the universe becomes fixed, change and repentance are meaningless, because those who will repent have already done so in God's eyes. We literally hit the problems found in Calvin's TULIP. God has already chosen those who will be exalted, simply because he already knows what will happen. There is a limited atonement, as those who will not be exalted and those who will burn in Outer Darkness have already been preselected before they even reached mortality (according to our own understanding of time).

I'm pretty sure you already know the answer to this. If a non-member came to this site and asked how God can be fully omniscient, knowing the end from the beginning, and still permit us freewill, they would be referred to Talmage's statements on it. In essence, there is no contradiction here, because God knowing someone will choose poorly doesn't mean God forcing someone to choose poorly.

The only way to escape this is by creating a multi-verse solution. For each moment and each decision, there is a new universe created that breaks off from the existing one. Suddenly, each possible decision creates two parallel universes, each having taken a different road. However, now we have God judging us not on what we do on one world, but what we do on all worlds. Each of us would have an exalted version of ourselves (or an infinite number of exalted versions), and each would have an infinite number of us going to Outer Darkness and everywhere in between. There would then be universes where God is not our God, but some other divine being would be our God. And of course, there would be universes in which God does not exist, or God fails (as he would also in his journey have somewhere merited outer darkness), and the plan of salvation fail. Not a solution that inspires faith, as all falls into chaos, and you never know which universe you will end up in (or end up in all of them).

This goes against my premise that God's time is completely separate from our time. I'll deal with this in another post since it seems like I have not yet conveyed this point properly either to you or SeminarySnoozer.

Some LDS believe that God does not know the future. He knows all that is possible to know up to this very moment. God dwells in time, similar to ours. In this way, he can, as a master chess player, make determine many possible moves in advance, yet still the pieces on the chess board have free play/movement and can move according to the moment's actual circumstances. God is able to grow, because while he can anticipate future things, such as his own expansion of kingdoms, he has yet to experience them.

Are you among the Mormons that believe this?

The Lectures on Faith state that God creates through the power of faith. Yet, the Book of Mormon tells us that knowledge is not faith. If God absolutely knows all things in the future, then how can he exercise faith? He cannot.

In LoF God's Faith is equated with Power. You can't mix that Faith with the faith that we must exercise (the kind the rest of the lectures deals with).

So, there are philosophical issues concerning God that are yet to be discovered by mankind. Currently, the prophets teach as they understand the scriptures. The Lord has not specifically revealed to them whether God continues to learn, knows every detail of the future, etc. So they teach us as best they can. Brigham Young taught that God continues to learn and publicly chastised Orson Pratt for teaching what current prophets now teach. So the concepts are pliable - we have not yet been given the final thought on whether God is in, around or outside of time, what that time means, and whether God knows all things in the future (or how well he knows them).

I agree that there's plenty of room for discussion on this topic. My particular views may not be Truth, but I am convinced that it fits within the doctrines of the Church. Hemidakota's idea that God resides in the center of the galaxy also fits within the doctrines of the Church. I wouldn't be suprised if his model turns out to be more accurate than the one I currently have, just because I am aware that there's plenty of wriggle room on this. Are you willing to acknowledge the same?

[LDS Question from a Baptist]

When it comes to Mormon apologetics, you would probably do well to peruse the Neal A Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholorship. That's where LDS PhD's write papers about various LDS themes found in ancient cultures as well as literary criticism of our texts. I'm not up to date on all the latest finds, but I'll admit that American BofM archaelogy is difficult (there have been some promising finds for Lehi's route out of Jerusalem). The last I heard, although the plates were deposited in New York, Central America presents the best setting for BofM landmarks. Unfortunately, humid jungles are not optimal perservation conditions like the deserts of the middle east. We have found some things that corroborate the BofM story (themes that are found in the ruins that have been found as well as in the BofM, as well as physical artifacts mentioned in the book), but not enough to say difinitively that this is Zarahemla or this is Nephi's tomb.

The other point you mention has been wholly ignored by this thread so far. The angel of Galatians. My own response to that is to read it again and make a list of the characters and what they may do that's errant. We have Paul listing himself alongside the angel (and anyone else) preaching another gospel. This may be a liberty on my part, but I think that Paul continued to preach the gospel after writing that epistle. And we are told (in Revelations) that angels are involved in the work of the last days (there's even one specifically that carries the gospel). So simply having Paul or an angel speak to you, or testify to you, or even declare a gospel to you is not enough to cite this verse and dismiss the message. The issue is if he preaches another gospel to you. So every Christian (including both you and I) should counsel with the Holy Spirit and consider the message of the angel Moroni and see if this message is the original gospel taught by Paul and the other apostles, or if this message is another gospel. I leave that exercise to you and respect your decision. For myself, I sympathize with one of our hymns.

1. What was witnessed in the heavens?

Why, an angel earthward bound.

Had he something with him bringing?

Yes, the gospel, joyful sound!

It was to be preached in power

On the earth, the angel said,

To all men, all tongues and nations

That upon its face are spread.

2. Had we not before the gospel?

Yes, it came of old to men.

Then what is this latter gospel?

’Tis the first one come again.

This was preached by Paul and Peter

And by Jesus Christ, the Head.

This we latter Saints are preaching;

We their footsteps wish to tread.

[Trying a Mens Group]

If going around nude is paradise, I'll stick to hell with my clothes on thank you very much.

Please clarify. Does your wardrobe make it hell? Do we need to start a fresh thread on fashion advice for Pam?

[The Ultimate Villian]

A lesson to ComicCon hosts everywhere - KEEP YOUR ATMs WELL STOCKED!!

[Is this blasphemous?]

The example you give does not seem to fit with what you are saying about God not being bound by time. If you really mean that, then there is no "Monday" "Wednesday" or "Friday" for God. Seriously, try to relate that example without using any time reference at all such as "Monday" or " continue to work on the project through Wed, at which point you're done" and you couldn't do it. Because what you are saying doesn't make sense.

If God does not experience time at all, like you are trying to say, then there is no "Monday" or "Friday" for Him, His "Friday" was His "Monday" and every day for that matter. He wouldn't be working on another project running through the last one because for a timeless God, He has already run through it. Your example makes no sense to me unless you admit that God too has a time frame, that for God also things transpire. Until you admit that, you can't use the example you gave.

Remember that my argument is that we cannot necessarily place limitations on God just because we have that limitation. Specifically, we cannot assume that God is bound by our sequential time just because we are. So whether God is timeless or is in god Time independent of ours, both support my position. I don't need to use a more stringent support (remember this illustration is just a support) for my argument.

Now let's sort out this confusion remembering that I'm using two different times - god Time and our time - and they cannot be arbitrarily mixed (I tried to keep things distinct before by speaking expressly of stick people time and god time vs our time and God's time, but I'm going to mix them here because I have to go soon). My comments will be in blue.

If God is timeless, then everything that can be done and will be done from our perspective our time is already done to God god Time. If His work is to bring to pass the immortality and Eternal Life of man, for a timeless God, His work would be done from His perspective even it is isn't done for us yet because it hasn't been "run" like you say still in god Time. But even if you see it that way then you would have to say that all that God can achieve with our time He has already donein god Time, then there is no advancement in His gloryin god Time, for work that God did on us, He cannot expand His glory for his work on us at this pointin god Time because for Him all things are already done, there is no time.

If you are trying to say that it has to still be "run" in our time to finish the project, well that is what I said in the beginning, that God cannot recognize the glory of something that brings glory until it is actually completed, until it is "run". It doesn't actually have to be run. I was just using that term to make it easier to visualize. The stick people still have the same frame of reference with regards to time, and God has still finished his work (in god Time).

If you think that all of those "stick figure" animations are already completed to God and already "run" from God's perspective then by definition He has reached the fullness of His glory and cannot expand any furtherfor his work with us. There is no bringing to pass anything for Him, it is already brought to pass. What thing has not been brought to pass for God? If you say all things have been brought to pass already for God, then you also have to say that there is no expansion for God with regard to us, that there is no "works without end" capability for God with respect to us. It can only be applied to works that are not us - other Adams, other earths. [strikethrough]I don't see how we can have a God without time and have "works without end."[/strikethrough]

I would agree with what is stated above. Recall that there are many earths and many Adams. These may all be in our universe or another, it doesn't matter. I'm not saying absolutely that God's work with us is done (in god Time) - that's only true if this illustration happens to be Truth. What I am saying is that God's time (if there is a god Time) doesn't have to be our time. I don't actually have to defend this model (since it's only supposed to illustrate the time principle), but the more you ask about it the more I see it's implication in other ways. :)

Even if He can "inject Himself" into our time (whatever that means), still, at that moment, in His mind, all has been done. Or did He forget all of His experiences to that moment by "injecting" himself into our timeframe? He would still be the same person, even if that were possible, which we have no reason to think it is. Even if He were "injected" here, at any moment of our time, to Him, all would be done still, so there is no "bringing to pass" anything and there is no possible added glory to a God without time. Why would He say that that is "my work and my glory...", why not say "my work is over"?

My notion of God injecting himself into a lesser creation is that he projects a shadow of sorts. There was a post earlier about Flatland and what a 4-D shadow in 3-D looks like. I think of it something like that. So that in God time, he passes through the screens and leaves an impression of himself. That impression isn't really God (from the god perspective), but is as close to God as can be viewed by the stick people. So a theophany is a place/time where (our) time meets with timelessness (god Time). But the two diverge immediately before and after. At the (god Time) moment when God (or his shadow) is in our time, what he is saying is true for both frames of reference. It remains forever true for our time, although it has an expiration date in his.

Also, a God without time, could not experience growth or observe growth of any kind because it would be its full measure all the time. To me, a timeless God would take the purpose of our existence right out of the picture. There has to be some value to "running" through the program. If there is nothing learned or gained by the "run" (to bring to pass) then why do it?

There is lots to gain through the exercise of running the screens. Stick person Moses realizes his full potential and joins the exalted familiy. Stick person Enoch fills the measure of his creation. And for the screen god, he gains the accomplishment of a job well done (outside of stick people time).

[In need of some clean humor!]

2012 - The Year Krypton Invades...

[Is this blasphemous?]

One more comment about this ... I am curious what you think "to bring to pass ..." means to God. If one believes that God pops in and out of time at any point then there is no "bringing to pass" for Him. That statement would only apply to one who has a time line in which at one point the thing was not brought to pass and then after some point in time it is. Otherwise, there is no value to bringing to pass anything because to God it is already there and was already there. In other words, if one believes in a God without a time line then they would also have to believe that there is no added glory to His actions as to Him, He has already done them. Do you think God has reached His full measure of glory? If not, then how does glory increase to a timeless God? Everything that He will achieve to a timeless God, He has already achieved.

I hate to go back to my previous illustration, because it sounds like I'm trying to defend it as reality. But it can also illustrate what "bring to pass" means in the god context, as well as how glory increases to a timeless God. The thing to remember here is that we are dealing with two frames of reference - yours and the stick people. In the course of working on your project, you interacted directly with stick Moses and told him "my work and glory is to get all of you through the obstacle course." And just to emphasize it, you repeat it to stick Joseph. Now in your time, you said that on Monday. In stick world, you said that 4 million frames in, and 15 million frames in. You continue to work on the project through Wed, at which point you're done. You have optimized everyone's path through the obstacle course. Thursday morning you start work on another project (it's another obstacle course, but with a different set of stick people). To keep things simple lets say on Friday completed screens are automatically run (they don't really have to be, but doing so makes it easier to visualize what's going on). You're in another room working on other things (in your time) when the stick people hear, "my work and glory is to get all of you through the obstacle course."

So I can see where your confusion is. It's Friday. You've moved on from those stick people. You aren't working to get them through the obstacle course. You've already received your glory.

Is it a lie? No. It was very true when you said it on Monday. Now let's enter the stick people world (and their time). When they experience frames 1-1million, what is your work and glory? They don't know it yet, but it is to get them through the obstacle course (remember it is neither Monday nor Friday for them, but 1-1 million frames). So on until 4 million frames, what is your work and glory? Well now they find out that it is to get them through the obstacle course. Stick Moses reflects for a moment and sees how you really helped him by putting the right things in his path (you did this Mon-Wed, but stick Moses has no concept of this, it was 3.5-4 million frames for him). After reflecting on this stick Moses testifies that it true. It really is your work and glory (present tense) to get every stick person through the obstacle course.

When is your work done? For you, you finished it on Wed. But the stick people have no concept of Wed. For them, you're not done until the very last frame is run (you may even have done that first - writing THE END in large letters so there could be no confusion). And now for the finale - Both paradigms are correct, but you cannot conflate the two. In your time you've moved on from this project. In stick time, you are actively working towards your goal. But it would not be accurate to say that in stick time, you're really in the other room caring more about another project than this one.

Again, this is just an illustration. Bottom line - God is not bound by our time. For us, he is "bring[ing] to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." For us, he is "God Most High". I think we can take both of those literally without tying him down to our limitations.

[Is this blasphemous?]

In the last paragraph you use our experience to describe Gods action and yet your original premise is to keep an open mind about Gods possibilities because He acts in a different realm than ours. I don't think you can have it both ways.

I'm not trying to get it both ways. I've been arguing that just because we have a limitation, that doesn't mean God has the same limitation. Specifically, just because we experience only one of our moments at a time, doesn't mean that God experiences one of our moments at a time. Then I engaged you on the emotion front and made the same argument. Just because we can only have one emotional moment at a time (no matter how complicated) does not mean that God is limited to one emotional moment at a time.

I supported these two arguments by showing that we actually don't have those limitations, (and assuming that God is greater the us - which it looks like you agree to) so God probably doesn't have such limitations either. The specific supports was that 1) if we can grant sentience to animated creatures, we can see how it may be possible to be dealing with two different dimensions of time, and 2) without granting anything extra, we actually experience the same emotion multiple times in association with a single experience.

So I think I'm still riding the same train here.

I don't think any being can "weep" without experiencing something new or learning of something new unless that individual is "weeping" all the time and at the same time laughing and crying and smiling and frowning and compassionate and angry all the time all at once.

Hooray!! You get it! You really get it!!

If it is episodic, then by definition something changed. Either the knowledge of the event changed or He turned off his memory of everything to experience a surprise event again or it is like when I act surprised and excited when my kids get presents from "Santa" that I wrapped myself.

Yes, and with my example God experiences both. He both weeps and rejoices all the time (in our time), and he experiences episodic emotion (in our time) when he enters our time. Your point may very well be true that God only experiences episodic emotion, but I would qualify it as being episodic in his time (if there is such a thing) which means that it can be manifested differently in our time.

[Advice for the Advice forum]

heh. Someone posted 7 months later in the "Do not post on idle advice threads" thread. Now that's funny.

[Is this blasphemous?]

I've heard this kind of thing talked about many times even on this forum. The problem I have with this idea though is that if God really could go back in forth in time and see all things happen in "real time" then He would never express emotion (not saying 'have' emotion). The expression of emotion comes about by discovering something new or seeing it for the first time or feeling it for the first time. If God sees all before it happens there would never be any reason to weep or feel sorrowful or joyful for that matter because all those feelings are felt all the time, there would be no surprises or anything felt as if something just transpired. Do you believe in a God without passions or expressed emotions?

Yes God expresses his emotions. One of the most powerful examples is Enoch seeing God weep over the wickedness of the earth. Going back to my example, I said

Now when (according to stick people time) do you weep that some of them didn't complete the course? All the time. There is never a stick person time when you weren't weeping, and there was never a time when you weren't celebrating those that did complete it. When (according to stick person time) did a stick person observe you weeping? When you interacted directly with one of them and they recorded it.

Because God exists outside our time, saying he always weeps and always rejoices are both accurate statements. So what was Enoch describing? Either God entered into our time, or he lifted Enoch to his. At that moment, while discussing God's wicked children, Enoch observed God weep. So it is also an accurate statement to say that God weeped at that exact moment in our time (because he injected himself into that moment of time, and expressed emotion in that setting).

Now regarding the challenge that emotions only happen at the first encounter - I think your experience as well as mine will show that to be false. Anyone who has lost a loved one can tell you that they feel sorrow just thinking about it - even many years later. Nostalgia exists because we have emotions associated with memories. We are not experiencing a memory of the emotion, but a fresh emotion associated with the memory. I don't think God is different in this respect.

[Is this blasphemous?]

Good morning Mordorbund. Thanks for the answer. Though, we may not agree on the same interpretations that are written, it reveals that members are thinking beyond the ‘black box’ and allow the Spirit to work greater miracles.

Oh you flatterer

Could GOD live in the Universe and still be Omnipresent? I believe HE could. It is done through the world HE resides on is nothing more than an Urim Thummim. I believe you already know the operating principle of a UT. One can view the past and present.

Since you bring up the Urim and Thummim, I'll go ahead and mention a thought or two on it.

The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim.

The difference between how the two of us read this I think comes down to location. Sounds like you think it's somewhere in this galaxy (the center?), whereas I think it's outside the universe (in the Cosmos, as Sagan calls it).

This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s.

I think we agree in applying the principle of celestialized earth to the place where God resides. Just as UT earth is able to view all things pertaining to lower kingdoms, so God's residence enables him to view all things pertaining to lower kingdoms (including this earth).

Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known;

You state that God is part of a bigger collective, so if he is viewing higher kingdoms (higher than his, not ours), he is probably using his own personal UT. So if God resides in the middle of the Milky Way, where are these higher kingdoms? Are they in the middle of the universe, or outside the universe? Or are there higher orders of galaxies? For me, this personal UT is what we will use to view God's true residence because his residence will always be a greater kingdom than our own. I will explain with one more verse.

And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.

This verse, in connection with an image in Carl Sagan's Cosmos, gave me an understanding of God's kingdom in relation to our current kingdoms in relation to any future kingdoms we have. The image was a representation of a man passing between universes as part of a larger cosmos. If you haven't seen the image, you can probably relate better to the end scene of Men in Black. SPOILER ALERT! At the end of the movie, you find out that the sought-after galaxy was located right here on earth inside a cat's pendant. As the camera zooms out, you find out that our own universe is just one of many marbles in a larger cosmos.

God looks around the kingdom where he resides and finds that there is space there (of course there's space there, it's a kingdom). So he goes down and organizes the kingdoms he finds in that space (of course there's kingdoms there, it's a space). In time, one of these kingdoms is celestialized (this earth) and one of the inhabitants looks! and there is space there (of course there's space there, it's a kingdom). That inhabitant can then organize the kingdoms within that space (of course there's kingdom's there, it's a space). Because the inhabitants earth is celestialized, that person can view the lower kingdoms in the space. And because the inhabitant has a personal UT, that person can peek into God's kingdom.

If I was GOD, I could sit on my throne; still view my creation from where I sit. It is true; HE has messenger, watchers, and vast army of intelligence that honor this great MAN. They even gravitate to HIM and what to be next to HIM. Yet, HE lives under the laws of the Celestial realm and not physical as us. HE is not bound by any physical law but uses it to do HIS bidding. Even Christ walking across the water is a witness of one overriding our physical laws. There means of travel, communications, and living, is bound by this celestial law.

But this goes back to what I was saying. There are two separate laws coming into play here. We can say that

• These celestial laws are still laws of our universe, but we haven't learned to take advantage of them.

  In this case, if ever I learn to travel at the speed of light - look out God.

• These celestial laws are outside our universe.

  In this case we can only take advantage of these laws by moving outside our universe.

• Neither one of us is right and we need to keep looking.

Question is, if the Universe has boundaries, could GOD still be outside of such? I don’t believe it is so. I believe, we are part of the collective of GOD, which GOD is part of a bigger collective them HIMSELF.

Thanks again for your warm response...

I know it might not seem this way, but the key takeaway that I get from your post is that you truly think God is all-powerful. That is the main reason why I jumped in this thread to begin with. When given an option, I tend to side with a more powerful God rather than a less powerful one. We both agree that he is not bound by the physical laws. Where we differ is whether these laws are supplanted by "higher" laws in the center of the galaxy or outside of our universe altogether.

[Avatar]

About 4 months ago I attended a funeral where the fellow speaking said that the body was just a shell and that the actual person was in the Spirit World (it was an LDS service). This sounds similar to what you saw in Avatar. I can see where you both are coming from, and if this were a Sunday School class (or a funeral) I would let it slide. But since it's a discussion board... :)

Our experience is different from Avatar because for us the body is a part of our resurrected glory. It is not "just a shell", but somehow acts as a conduit (when inseperably joined with Spirit) for a fulness of Joy. Don't ask me what role the body plays in the eternities because I don't know (oh, except the resurrected kidney gives you the ability to fly).