Knowing the Unknowable God

[Snow]

In another thread a poster talked about a god that is unknowable, a mystery, beyond our understanding. I wonder if that is so:

"Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 17:3).

[BenRaines]

I hope that when that time comes I will be able to recognize God and his Son, Jesus Christ, by their countenance. I believe that I too will be able to know by spirit communicating with spirit.

I can not comprehend a God that I can not come to know.

Ben Raines

[dazed-and-confused]

therer is a spirit that lies within.........those can see will see.....those that hear will hear........unknowable?....yes, in His depth....but as the truth?.....if you have to question.....you dont get it.

[Just_A_Guy]

But, can we get this absolute knowledge of God before the final judgment? Before we have been (in this life, or the next) sealed up unto eternal life?

We can know many of God's attributes, but I think it's a bit dicey to assume that we know Him completely at this stage of our existence; and then to use such an assumption in order to stuff Him into some kind of box.

[dazed-and-confused]

jeez, louise.......it's ,like asking a first grader about high school math.......look...if you have faith that you dont get it all, but there is in fact something to get.......then you have to take it on faith that you will get it, eventually.......IF.....IF.....you seriously want to get it.

it's so simple.

if you dont get it, you dont get it!!

[Moksha]

I hope that when that time comes I will be able to recognize God and his Son, Jesus Christ, by their countenance.

Ben Raines

Look for the blond hair, blue eyes, white robes and halos.

:)

[Moksha]

Snow, we know about atoms because of artist's renditions and stuff written in books about them. But do we really know atoms? If the subject at hand was more ethereal than these atoms, and as an entity was even more universal, would that help in our quest to truly know it (or they)?

[Honorentheos]

In another thread, we were having a similar discussion that was not really on the topic of that thread itself. While I don't know if this is the quote in question mentioned in the OP as the original discussion began over the difference, or lack thereof, between something being unknowable and unproveable, it seems to be an extension of this thread rather than the other.

Anyway, the thread ended here -

Originally Posted by Justice in the other thread-

It is knowable. The pattern has been declared by God. He has told us how every sinlge person that has ever been born can come to know of His exitence for themselves. It starts with hope, it does not end there.

First I apologize as I am new to this forum and am feeling out how to have a respectful dialog without violating board rules or intentionally offending. If I do, please know it is unintentional.

I think that the problem you and I have is in found in your statement above. In it, you suggest that the proof of God's existence (unto knowledge, rather than belief I would add) is found in a pattern declared by God. Yet, don't we have to first believe that the pattern came from God to believe that if it is followed it will lead to knowledge of God?

And isn't that fairly circular in our reasoning?

For example, suppose you were not LDS and were exposed to similar truths and given a different pattern (similar to someone who was raised with beliefs in another religious system, christian or otherwise). Can you say that the pattern's success is predetermined by an outside source or by internal experience? I would contend that knowledge and belief in the pattern make using the pattern possible - which is a "justification" of one's beliefs but does not constitute knowledge outside of those beliefs. You acted in a certain manner and the desired outcome was achieved - justified! But your assurance that the pattern actually came from God rather than was the product of observation of human behavior (i.e. - a strong belief mixed with an earnest prayer supported by action will yield brain chemical response 'A') is not justified.

You don't "know".

I would like to think that we would hold such things as "truth" and actual knowledge to a higher standard than we do. I personally feel it cheapens both to be so loose in applying them in situations where it is not justified. I also think it can lead to emotional immaturity as well in that a person may stop utilizing their reasoning skills effectively in favor of this "belief yields justification = knowledge" pattern which does not describe the world we current reside in accurately at all.

I know some if not most here will disagree. And perhaps it is a matter of linguistics. But it is one of linguistic precision to better qualify one's definition of knowledge.

Otherwise, I think there is a reasonable analogy to be made in someone who is willing to date any ol' person based on reciprocated attraction-only. One should have standards regarding truth claims even more so than in other things.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

Look for the blond hair, blue eyes, white robes and halos.

:)

There were halos in the paintings?

[HEthePrimate]

Study me as much as you like, you will not know me,

for I differ in a hundred ways from what you see me to be.

Put yourself behind my eyes and see me as I see myself,

for I have chosen to dwell in a place you cannot see.

-- Jalaluddin Rumi, Divan-i Shams-i Tabrizi 1372: A1:168

Hell, I don't understand or truly "know" my own sister (or even myself, for that matter), let alone the Supreme Being. But if we are to have any hope of getting to know God better, it seems to me that imitating him is the best way.

HEP

[Justice]

Good topic Snow.

You don't "know".

Your entire post was interesting to read. I think you are doing a very good job of being respectful. And, I want to welcome you to this forum.

The points you bring up are very good ones. They are essential to our eternal destiny. These are the things we should be engaged in and spending our time pondering and considering.

I have observed some differences between how we understand things of this world and things of God. When we want to understand the things of this world we study that topic and acquire as much information about it as we can. We experiment with it; we destory it to see how it responds; we try to duplicate it; we look for mathemtical theories to support it. These ways do not work when we learn the things of God.

The things of God are revealed through 1 principle. Obedience.

Philip. 2:

12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

This scripture suggests working out our own salvation and obedience are related.

Alma 3: 26

26 And in one year were thousands and tens of thousands of souls sent to the eternal world, that they might reap their rewards according to their works, whether they were good or whether they were bad, to reap eternal happiness or eternal misery, according to the spirit which they listed to obey, whether it be a good spirit or a bad one.

This scripture expands that principle a little.

A companion scripture to the one we all know from the D&C about God's work and glory, here is a very interesting one:

D&C 11: 20

20 Behold, this is your work, to keep my commandments, yea, with all your might, mind and strength.

We learn the things of God through obedience.

D&C 130:

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

So, if we want to learn the things of God, or even God Himself, we must be obedient.

Unlike how we gain knowledge in the world, knowledge from God comes in His own way and in His own time. Let me explain this:

In His own way: If you want to learn math, you study math. But, if you want to learn the truth about the fall of Adam, you don't necessarily study the fall of Adam. You try your best to be obedient in all things, and as you read the scripture the truth of it will be made known to you.

In His own time: In order to learn multiplication, you have to learn and understand addition and sets. Then you are in a position to understand multiplication. With knowledge from God, or of God, you are revealed truths according to what you can understand, as He knows you are ready.

The big mistake people make is they use man's methods of learning physical things to learn the things of God.

God outlined how we come to know things of God. It is through obedience.

The hard part for anyone who begins to learn things of God is it seems irrational and illogical. This is where hope and faith come into play. But, like all eternal truth, whether you believe it or not, it remains true.

The reason many don't believe is because it seems too simple. "All I have to do is be obedient and the knowledge will come? Those two things aren't even related!" My answer is yes.

So, instead of endlessly discussing how we come to know God or the things of God, at some point we have to take Him at His word and strive to be obedient. That is when answers like this come, not in the debate, or even in the study.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Justice

[Guest anon88]

inappropriate

Edited August 27, 2009 by Gwen

[Guest]

I think Snow started this thread because of the discussion that started in the thread "Is LDS Faith Monotheistic?".

We were discussing the "Great Mystery" of the Trinity.

Let me get you a quoted synopsis:

First, I said this:

Okay lattelady... you must not have read my post a while back. You must be LDS if... you believe that Joseph Smith SAW the Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ standing side by side - both men looking just like mortal men. With that in mind - everything else in the Bible that touches on the Godhead becomes LITERALLY 3 persons - bodies and all!

That's the beauty of LDS - it simplifies the nature of God so that it is not the "Great Mystery" anymore!

So lattelady said this:

Anatess,

You said that the beauty of LDS is that it simplifies the "great mystery" of God. I'm not necessarily seeking to simplify Him. I know He cannot be simplified. He's God! The Bible teaches that He's beyond my understanding. The great mystery of Him, of the three in one is just as beautiful to me as the simplified version is to you. Your illustration of the three Bush men might help you understand God as YOU see Him, but it doesn't do God justice as I view Him as taught Biblically. The three Bush's cannot read one another's minds--they have no idea what one another is thinking. The three persons of the Godhead are ONE in every aspect, yet three. You asked me to explain what that meant (substance, form...what?)--it means they are One God in three persons. I already explained it as far as my human mind can comprehend it: God the Father, who is spirit; Jesus, who is also God, but became man when he was born of a virgin; and the Holy Spirit who is God but obviously Spirit and dwells inside the believer. They each have different roles, but they are all one God. I don't know how that is, but it is. I believe that scripture teaches it. My faith allows me to believe what my mind can't fully comprehend and my eyes can't see.

And I replied with this:

And this is one of the reasons why I'm not Catholic anymore. Your salvation hinges on something you are not expected to understand...

That, and the fate of those who die before they hear the word Jesus...

Did I get this right, Snow?

[Guest]

If I'm right on the above... then I think the focus of the OP is not on the commandments of God or the state of the celestial kingdom but of the nature of God Himself, right?

[Mason]

In another thread a poster talked about a god that is unknowable, a mystery, beyond our understanding. I wonder if that is so:

"Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 17:3).

Gospel of Thomas anyone?

[Moksha]

There were halos in the paintings?

Halos (as in a shining countenance) are found in a lot of Christian art. Perhaps symbolic of splendor beyond the human experience.

[HiJolly]

Gospel of Thomas anyone?

No thanks. I'd prefer Matt's translation of the Zohar.

HiJolly

[Honorentheos]

Halos (as in a shining countenance) are found in a lot of Christian art. Perhaps symbolic of splendor beyond the human experience.

Which explains the gleen on the penguin's face. :)

[Honorentheos]

Good topic Snow.

I think you are doing a very good job of being respectful. And, I want to welcome you to this forum.

Thank you, Justice. I appreciate the welcome. :)

I have observed some differences between how we understand things of this world and things of God. When we want to understand the things of this world we study that topic and acquire as much information about it as we can...These ways do not work when we learn the things of God.

The things of God are revealed through 1 principle. Obedience.

...

I'm not sure that I can express accurately my thoughts on this beyond my last post. That being that it is difficult to say that in one of the most important questions of our time, reasoning should not be a significant part of a process ...I don't know. It is probably best to pause from this train of thought for a moment. I guess I stand by my thoughts on justification being the better term for having followed through on an action and finding the expected result confirmed. Does it mean that the source was good? At least in the case of giving accurate instruction I would say so. But does it mean this source is evidence for the divine? I hope not. Otherwise the guys I knew in college who always told me that if I would only smoke weed with them I would "get it" were right - and I missed out on free highes and chemically enduced enlightenment. At least in this case, my rational outsiders perspective told me they were acting stupid when high and were just too out of it to realize it most of the time.

But in my career I have known many a pothead who still stands by the value of pot smoking and that doing so will give someone the inside knowledge they need to see why it isn't bad.

Is this a bad analogy? I guess since owning pot is a crime, and not just smoking it, one could say there is no analogy. And I would certainly not be upset if my daughter took up religious belief some day where as being a pothead would sicken me.

But try telling that to the potheads.

I guess I would ask a simple question - is it bad to say you don't know? Honestly. Is there a higher value on affirming knowledge in this case over lack of knowledge? Or is it more of a discussion on linguistics or experience?

I'm not asking you to confirm a lack of knowledge or otherwise, but I am just wondering.

In my case, I consider a sign of maturity to begin to say, "I don't know" with sincerity. Most of the highly intelligent people I am fortunate to associate with do so regularly and I have sought to emulate this to as great an extent as my pride will allow.

Personally, I know I place a higher value on saying I know, but have been in the process that this is really not the case at all. Seeking for knowledge within the vastness of human ignorance can be interesting and we all react differently. I'm sure I have much to work on, and this acceptance of my own ignorance is one of those processes I work on.

So when I ask, it is also with an attempt to acknowledge the beam in my own eye.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Honorentheos

[Justice]

I guess I would just point out the different between "the things of God" and "the things of the world." It is a very difficult concept to grasp at first.

I think the pot smoking is a good example for one reason. It is "of the world." So, in fact, it's actually an example of what I'm saying. Since it is "worldly," it cannot be used as an example of how to gain knowledge of God.

[Traveler]

G-d is unknowable and a mystery to those that do not keep his commandments.

I learned mathematics from those that were disciplined in mathematics. I learn of G-d from those that are G-dly. When truth is understood in the heart it is manifested deeds. We make ourselves liars and a disciple of a liar, if we believe we are one with a loving and compassionate G-d and our deeds are not loving and compassionate.

The Traveler

[Hemidakota]

But, can we get this absolute knowledge of God before the final judgment? Before we have been (in this life, or the next) sealed up unto eternal life?

We can know many of God's attributes, but I think it's a bit dicey to assume that we know Him completely at this stage of our existence; and then to use such an assumption in order to stuff Him into some kind of box.

Incorrect. We can know the Godhead in this life if we so chose.

[Justice]

G-d is unknowable and a mystery to those that do not keep his commandments.

Exactly what I have been trying to explain. People who claim you cannot know God have never put His prescibed method of learning who He is to the test.

Obedience.

You don't know at first, but you hope. If you do not hope, you have no reason to be obedient. But, if you can just muster hope, then you can exercise faith by being obedient. Once you attempt to be obedient you will be tried and tested.

1 Nephi 15:

25 Wherefore, I, Nephi, did exhort them to give heed unto the word of the Lord; yea, I did exhort them with all the energies of my soul, and with all the faculty which I possessed, that they would give heed to the word of God and remember to keep his commandments always in all things.

D&C 98:

14 Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord, that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Justice

[Justice]

Incorrect. We can know the Godhead in this life if we so chose.

Yes, that is the promise in the sacrament prayers. It can be done in this life. Proof is... some have done it.

[prisonchaplain]

I think Snow started this thread because of the discussion that started in the thread "Is LDS Faith Monotheistic?".

We were discussing the "Great Mystery" of the Trinity.

Let me get you a quoted synopsis:

First, I said this:

So lattelady said this:

And I replied with this:

Did I get this right, Snow?

Well...while I'm not well versed on Catholic theology, I do know that there tends to be more poetry, more devotional writing, and that there is a long and valuable tradition of meditation and reflective writing in it. When I read of mystery in Catholicism, I assume it means that God is greater and more than our capacity to understand. I do not take it to mean that we cannot understand the basics of what God has revealed in canon. I can understand the basics of both the Trinity and the LDS Godhead:

Trinity = 1X1X1 = 1

LDS Godhead = 1&1&1 = 1&1&1 working together

I doubt either teaching would suggest we have plummed the depths of God's nature, nor would either teach that God cannot be known.