Is this blasphemous?


PV2004
 Share

Recommended Posts

Melissa, remember, GOD is bound by HIS own laws and those that are given to HIM.

OTHERS: in retrieving the same understanding as the Prophet Joseph Smith and Sidney about our creation (See D&C 76), one needs to apply faith and a desire to know. When the spirit is mature enough, your testimony of such will be in harmony with Joseph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Snoozer, because I believe that God exists outside this universe, I also believe that he exists outside of time.

Let's play god for a moment. Let's say that you are god of the stick people (these are the stick people drawn on a piece of paper that are living. We will even grant them free will so there may be some "suprises"). Now, these stick people exist as animations, a series of still frames that you can fully see. You know the end from the beginning. Also, due to your god status, if you change something in one frame, all subsequent frames are updated. Finally, let's say that it is your work and glory to have the stick people finish an obstacle course with two walls. Oh, and we'll also say that in the rules of godhood over stick people you lose your glory if you intervene the same way twice, and you can't tear down any walls (this covers the "sure, god can, but he binds himself to his own laws" argument).

So you're looking at all the still frames, and you see where a stick person comes to the first wall. In fact, in subsequent ones, you see that there's a pile up at this wall. So you go back to an earlier frame and you draw a doorway in the wall. Now you move forward to where the first stick person comes to the wall (that now has a doorway) and you see it is followed by that person walking right through it. You check the later ones and you see there never was a pile up because everyone is moving through this wall smoothly.

Now you look at the still frame where a stick person comes to the second wall. He arrives there with a friend. You think for a minute and draw a rope going over the wall (in an earlier frame). For the stick people, this rope has always been observably there. Now when you look at subsequent frames, you see that the first person climbs the rope and makes it over. The second one decides this wall is too tough and sits down and gives up.

Do you see what just happened? Because you're working outside of the stick people's time, you can freely move backwards and forwards. Also, you are free to optimize it as much as possible (if the second person gave up because he didn't have strong enough muscles, maybe you draw smaller walls for him to climb to build his muscles). All this happens outside the stick people's frame of reference. It's not until you are finally finished and the animation is run that the stick people actually experience anything. But in this scenario, you can actually say you achieved your work and glory before any animation is run. You know how many stick people will complete the course and if you have a boss, you could be promoted based on the still frames alone.

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.

Now this is just an illustration and not meant to describe the reality of how God works. I just want to show that there are conceivable ways for God to work outside of time, and so we should be careful with assumptions about God taking up residence in our natural laws.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Melissa, remember, GOD is bound by HIS own laws and those that are given to HIM.

OTHERS: in retrieving the same understanding as the Prophet Joseph Smith and Sidney about our creation (See D&C 76), one needs to apply faith and a desire to know. When the spirit is mature enough, your testimony of such will be in harmony with Joseph.

Do you think God is also bound to doing the most efficient and direct things? In other words if there are two or more ways of doing something, lets say make a world with 80% water and 20% land was the most efficient thing to do, knowing all the variables and purposes, would He ever make a world with 85% water and 15% land just to be a little different? In other words would He ever do anything on a whim or to simply be 'creative'? Or is He bound to choosing the action that is the most efficient and direct every time He has to make that decision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He answers to no one, and nothing. He runs the show. He makes the rules. Doesn't matter if we think the rules are fair or not. None of us are big or powerful enough to argue. This world and this universe belong to him. The rules are set in place because they are HIS standards and preferences. They represent the way HE wants things to be.

Are you saying God set it up so His Son had to suffer an eternal torment for man to be saved? Are you also saying that God set up a system where all His children would not be saved?

I believe both of these consititue proof that God is not above the law, and that these laws and conditions were established before Him. He subscribes to them and has taken ownership of them, and follows them. But, they cannot be His own devices or He willed those things to happen.

It doesn't make any sense that God's work and glory would be to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, but the system He created does not allow Him to save all His children, and requires Him to sacrifice the most beloved of all His children. No, it makes much more sense that He simply has to follow those conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 saidBecause 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.

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 think the reason that we feel "emotional" when remembering something in the past is just that, it is "remembering." You can only remember something when you have forgotten it or at least it isn't always in the forefront of your working memory. That is the only way to have a change in one's emotional status. If the moment before God wept He was already knowledgeable of the event, why didn't He weep then or the moment before that. That doesn't make sense. We, on the other hand, put experiences out of our working memory for periods of time or look at things in a different light each time and may change our response. Whereas someone who has the ability to see all, in all time would not remember anything, it would just be pure knowledge all the time. And you and I do not know what that is like, if that really is how God operates. There would be nothing stirred up, there would be no rekindling of emotions, there would be no need to "remember the feeling."

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. 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 saidBecause 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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP here. Great discussion. I appologize because I haven't had a chance to read all the comments but after the few I did read, I realized I needed to change my thought process. From the comments (I am probably putting a few of the comments together), I have concluded that I was incorrect to a point. God can do anything, even brake the Law of Justice, just as we can smoke, drink or commit any any sin. However, because God's plan is to bring to pass the immortality and life of man, he can't break the Law of Justice in order to fulfull that plan. This just like us, if I want to be worthy to attend the temple and return to God, we can't drink, smoke or do those sins. Therefore we choose not to break those laws, just as He chooses not to break those laws. Even as God he has to have a choice.

Thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to add that it is never blasphemous to ask a question in honest inquiry. Well, for starters, I think it qualifies more as heresy than blasphemy, but I wouldn't put honest inquiry into the heretical category either. Honest inquiry is how we come to know, understand, and appreciate deity. It's what we do when we get the answers that determines if we are heretics of blasphemers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In another thread (maybe another forum) someone asked the age old question, "Is God so powerful that He can create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?" To that question, my brother (Finrock) answered, "If such a rock can be created, then yes."

Vanhin

Hey you. Are you following me??? ;)

That was me. My brother asked me that question back in 1976 and it's still a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blake Ostler's books on God are excellent in discussing what God can and can't do (esp volume 1).

For example, is God perfectly blissful? If he is, then how can he also suffer for mankind, cry in destroying man in the Flood, etc? There are some things God cannot do/be, otherwise he would no longer be God. For God to be totally blissful/happy would mean that he could no longer care for mankind. He would be the "unmoved mover." He could not love us, as that would require him caring for us, which would mean he would be saddened by the tragedies in our lives.

Instead, we see God as having infinite love and maximal bliss/happiness. This allows him to be extremely happy, yet still shed tears of sorrow when needed.

And no, God cannot create a rock that is heavier than he can pick up. That is a logical problem that cannot be resolved, even by God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And no, God cannot create a rock that is heavier than he can pick up. That is a logical problem that cannot be resolved, even by God.

The question posed was used to illustrate man's inability to comprehend everything about the nature of God and his tendency to ask questions that bear no relevance on our eternal salvation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

If God is timeless, then everything that can be done and will be done from our perspective is already done to God. 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. But even if you see it that way then you would have to say that all that God can achieve He has already done, then there is no advancement in His glory, He cannot expand His glory at this point 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".

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 further. 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, that there is no "works without end" capability for God. I don't see how we can have a God without time and have "works without end."

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"?

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blake Ostler's books on God are excellent in discussing what God can and can't do (esp volume 1).

For example, is God perfectly blissful? If he is, then how can he also suffer for mankind, cry in destroying man in the Flood, etc? There are some things God cannot do/be, otherwise he would no longer be God. For God to be totally blissful/happy would mean that he could no longer care for mankind. He would be the "unmoved mover." He could not love us, as that would require him caring for us, which would mean he would be saddened by the tragedies in our lives.

Instead, we see God as having infinite love and maximal bliss/happiness. This allows him to be extremely happy, yet still shed tears of sorrow when needed.

And no, God cannot create a rock that is heavier than he can pick up. That is a logical problem that cannot be resolved, even by God.

Sounds like a book series for me...

...I love it when people apply thought and reason to the scriptures.

People say it is "assuming" and therefore not true.

Well, I believe that if you ask the right questions in the right way you can eliminate possibilities. After having asked enough of the right questions and eliminated enough of the possibilities, you begin to get a picture of the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Edited by mordorbund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

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).

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. 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.

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We believe in Eternal Progression. God is all powerful and unchanging in respects to THIS world and everything that he has created. However, as to GODLY things he is still progressing and there may be things he is still learning. It's hard to wrap your head around sometimes. As to the question of it being blasphemous... that really depends on who you ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share