Playground Theology

[rameumptom]

Wow, lots of posts since last we met. But first a brief note on why I'm not a Chuckian just yet.

Fuzzy wuzzy was a bear

Fuzzy wuzzy had no hair

Fuzzy wuzzy wasn't fuzzy was he?

What does that have to do with anything? If your version of Chuck Norris delivered a roundhouse kick to my God and actually made contact, killing him instantly, then should we conclude that Chuck can kick the un-kickable and kill the un-killable? No, that's actually nonsense by definition. Instead Chuck would have proved that my God was not in fact what He said He was: neither immortal nor immaterial.

But your stance is nonsense. How would your God know that he is immune to Chuck Norris round house kicks, until it occurs? How does an immortal know he is "un-killable"? If you change the rules of a game in the middle of a game, then suddenly you are no longer playing a game.

If we hold that your god is completely perfect in all ways, then explain to me these things:

Can your god create a rock larger and heavier than he can pick up? Can he create a Chuck Norris that can round kick him to death? Can he be completely blissful and fully love his children at the same time?

If he cannot do these things, then he obviously is not as powerful as you think. And with your insistence on him being a most powerful being, perfect in every way, then your god fails as one to trust and worship.

I noticed that you did not respond to my earlier post regarding why the LDS version of the Godhead does not compare to the Trinity. Perhaps you would be brave enough Sir Robin as to respond to it, rather than bravely run away?

For your benefit, I repost it here:

It only seems greater because you use a different set of measurements than we do.

The Trinity is defined by many Trinitarians to be "without body, parts, and passions." That means we have a God without love, joy or kindness.

The Trinity is viewed as the Unmoved Mover. That is, he isn't touched by us in any way. He does not care or notice if we are happy or sad or angry. He only cares that His will is done in this experiment he began.

For many Trinitarians, it leads to Calvinism's TULIP. In this thought, few are saved by Christ, and God really doesn't care what we think about it. For almost all Trinitarians, it leaves open the question of salvation for those who have never heard of Christ. Does the unbaptized baby burn in hell, as insisted St Augustine? Do good people born in nations without Christianity rot in hell, simply because they did not hear the chance to know God?

The issues and problems go on and on, but I'll stop here. If God is so beyond our comprehension; if the Trinity is unlike us in all ways; then we can never truly be like the Trinity. We will resurrect, but the Trinity is still something different that we can never approach nor understand in this life or the next.

Whereas there is strength in the LDS Godhead. We can understand God. We are truly made of the same substance and stuff God is made of - because he created us literally in His image. We can understand God as anthropomorphic. We can understand Christ's resurrection without a requirement for duality (Council of Chalcedon), because it comes naturally. God is the Most Moved Mover, and therefore does feel our pain and sorrows. He cares, just as a good mortal parent cares about his children.

Because God also has a body, we can see that Christ's resurrection was literal, and not a symbolic act of dualism for a being without a tangible substance.

Again, I could go on and on in this regard.

It boils down to these questions: 1. Why should I worship a being who does not feel empathy nor love towards me? 2. If God is omnipotent, why did he make us out of a different substance, so we could never really be like Him? 3. If God loves us, why does he insist in keeping himself forever a mystery to us? 4. Is it better to be raised as a forever servant of God, or as a literal son and heir of God? 5. Why would I think God just if he tosses innocent babies into hell, as St Augustine insisted; or good people into eternal fire as John Calvin taught? 6. If God is not just, merciful, nor loving as a mortal parent can be; then why is he considered perfect and why should we worship Him?

For me, it isn't a matter of which God can beat up on the other. It is an issue of which God is most loving and caring towards his creation. If a God has no charity, or likes tossing babies into burning infernos, then it doesn't matter how powerful he is, I'm not going to worship him.

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

Old Fight Slogan: "Something Beats Nothing."

In any fight between matter (including energy) and spirit, my money is on matter.

[Rhi_Bran_y_Hud]

...

Here's my question, how can something exist if it's not made of matter?

Why can't it be? If matter itself has a creator/source, then that creator would have to be something other than matter.

Even our emotions and thoughts have substance as electro-chemical reactions within our minds.

Not so. The electro-chemical reactions are carriers, effects and sometimes the causes of our emotions and the pains we feel, but they are not the things themselves. If you really believed your emotions were the sum total of, or merely chemical reactions in and of themselves, and no more, then you would be a determinist like Stephen Hawking. Also, I don't think your girlfriend (fiance? wife?) would appreciate the idea that your feelings for her are no more than that... ;-)

Yet further, how can nothing Be the source of anything?

Never said God was made of nothing. Jesus said He is spirit, and what spirit is... well you got me, and the Bible never defines it, therefore I wouldn't even say that spirit is energy, but it is certainly not nothing.

Besides that, both matter and energy wear out if they are not sustained or regenerated: "in Him all things hold together." So if matter and energy cannot exist without being held together then they are not eternal in and of themselves, so God, cannot be "made of" either thing.

I understand that the triune God is one that exists outside our normal expectations of reality and existence, however Jesus did say that "This is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3)

The root of my question would then be this; If eternal life is expressly dependant upon our understanding of, or knowledge of, the one true God of creation, how then are we to lay hold upon that eternal life if the God in question exists outside our capacity to understand? Would that not thus place eternal life forever beyond our reach?

Yes, he does exist outside our frame of reference, and you yourself effectively summarized my answers above, but I thought your questions were definitely worth addressing in detail.

As for knowing: I believe I mentioned before, but I will say it again: "knowing" God does not mean I have to fully understand every aspect of His being... I am no where near fully understanding my wife--I could never sit here and say I've got her totally figured out--but I do know her. In fact I know her better than anyone else alive.

It is similar with God: I need only understand him insofar as He has revealed Himself (here we agree), and he hasn't really defined the exact nature of his being (here we disagree). I don't need to know it to know Him.

Conversely, if we look at the existence of the LDS idea of God, we see a supreme being to whom we owe our very existence (just as with the triune God), however the existence is one with which we have an immediate understanding, in principle at least.

And yet the LDS God would owe his existence to yet a higher power, would he not? If he is in indeed progressing? When you say that your God is the greatest you can only say so within a certain context. I can say mine is the greatest absolutely.

And yet, if LDS theology is true, (and I am correctly understanding that it teaches matter and intelligence are eternal things which God(s) organize into creation), then we actually do not owe our existence, ultimately, to God, but we are in and of ourselves eternal--thankful for being organized into a person--but already gods by nature, essentially independent from God.

But remember: matter is something that must be held together.

When the bible then says that we were created in God's image, and after his likeness, we can state that it is exactly what is being said. Believing that God has a physical body should not lead to any lessening of his power, perfection, or glory. For my own part, why should I posess something God does not have? (meaning a physical body)

How is having a body, having something more than an immaterial God? If anything, my physical body is a clear sign of my finiteness in contrast to His infinitude.

As for what the image of God is, I will say this: Solomon said that God himself (not just his power, influence or glory), but He himself cannot be contained within all creation (1 Kings 8:22-30). Is he a giant? No, I don't think you would say that. He himself, his actual presence is everywhere (Psalm 139), he cannot be that way if he is physical. If those things are true, then we are made in the image of God in a much more profound way than appearance.

To conclude, I am grateful to know people who are sincere followers of Christ, whatever the specific denomination. So long as we focus on following in His footsteps, we cannot fail to please Him.

me too.

[Rhi_Bran_y_Hud]

Hi Rhi- The King Follet Discourse is an interesting part of our history, but it is not part of our official canon of scripture...

:-) Why is this always the first response? If you say that about what Joseph seemed to think it was absolutely true then you have a problem with someone you hold a prophet.

[rameumptom]

Rhi,

Why would God have to be made from something other than matter? Where does this requirement come from? The Bible states God is Spirit, but it also says he is Love, Fire, and physical being with a face, back, arms, legs, mouth, etc. Why must he be something other than matter?

Also, where does it state in the Bible that Spirit (which God is), is not made of matter? Or that it is of a different substance than we are? All of that comes from Greek and Gnostic philosophy, not the Bible.

You cannot just make up rules from nothing, and then expect us to follow them. Otherwise your game is rigged, and you are cheating.

[Rhi_Bran_y_Hud]

I noticed that you did not respond to my earlier post regarding why the LDS version of the Godhead does not compare to the Trinity. Perhaps you would be brave enough Sir Robin as to respond to it, rather than bravely run away?

[really long post to respond to everything you had to say. the meat of it though, I is at the end in bold.]

I think you're the first one to pick up the Robin Hood allusion. Do you read Lawhead's books also? Anyway... you are right I did not respond to you, but not on purpose, I am grossly behind. Here goes...

your stance is nonsense. How would your God know that he is immune to Chuck Norris round house kicks, until it occurs? How does an immortal know he is "un-killable"? If you change the rules of a game in the middle of a game, then suddenly you are no longer playing a game.

When did I change the rules? My God is all-knowing, so he knows what he can resist, which is anything, so that makes it easy to remember. ;-)

If we hold that your god is completely perfect in all ways, then explain to me these things:

Can your god create a rock larger and heavier than he can pick up? Can he create a Chuck Norris that can round kick him to death? Can he be completely blissful and fully love his children at the same time?

You are right he cannot create those things, or a square triangle for that matter, for the reason that if He made it, he has power over it inherently; if what was once three sided is now four sided, it is no longer three sided. How does that make him less than infinitely perfect?

He can be completely blissful because even in his wrath there is reason for rejoicing: victory! And in His sorrow over our sin he sees our restoration.

If he cannot do these things, then he obviously is not as powerful as you think. And with your insistence on him being a most powerful being, perfect in every way, then your god fails as one to trust and worship.

How does he fail at being trustworthy and worthy of worship? I have a guess at where you're going with this, but I don't want to assume.

On to your previous post...

The Trinity is defined by many Trinitarians to be "without body, parts, and passions." That means we have a God without love, joy or kindness.

The Trinity is viewed as the Unmoved Mover. That is, he isn't touched by us in any way. He does not care or notice if we are happy or sad or angry. He only cares that His will is done in this experiment he began.

Unmoved Mover? Yes (the Rock Himself). But you misunderstand how the word "passion" is used there. It means he does not having sinful, sudden, changing emotions like we do. It is a great comfort to know that He is not at all like me in this way! But being infinite and perfect, you bet he feels, and loves completely, unswervingly... I would run out of adjectives!!! :-)

No, not an experiment, but His will will be done.

For many Trinitarians, it leads to Calvinism's TULIP. In this thought, few are saved by Christ, and God really doesn't care what we think about it. For almost all Trinitarians, it leaves open the question of salvation for those who have never heard of Christ. Does the unbaptized baby burn in hell, as insisted St Augustine? Do good people born in nations without Christianity rot in hell, simply because they did not hear the chance to know God?

Obviously, babies do not go to hell because they have not actually committed any sins, though they are born sinners by nature in Adam. Augustine was a theologian, not God's prophet.

I do hold to TULIP though (with some reservations about the "L" part, still working that out). Does anyone deserve to know God and be saved? Doesn't He have every right by justice to treat us as fully responsible sinners like the SEALs treated Bin Ladin? That is where repentance starts: the acknowledgment that we ("I" "you") deserve sudden death, and nothing else from God. Are there any good people, who by their conduct have earned a anything? Not before God.

This is a severe picture, but it is all the more reason to get out there and preach, giving those whom we've never had a chance to reach into the hands of a loving and sovereign God who may have already reached them another way.

So when He does send His message to someone it is pure grace. But you have a worse problem I think, which cannot be resolved. What do you do with all those decent people who have never heard your Gospel or had a chance to partake in your ordinances like eternal marriage?

Will they be relegated to the Terrestrial kingdom without a choice in the matter? "They will have an opportunity in the afterlife!" Then what was the point of this life? And if I don't need to believe the LDS gospel in this life (being honestly deceived, misinformed or ignorant) why do you exist as a church at all? Where is the urgency of your message? is this about salvation or self-progression?

You might say, "How they fought in the Pre-mortal Life determined their place in this life," (if I have that part right). So are you better than them? More valiant even from birth? More deserving of exaltation and therefore given a better shot at it?

A Calvinist entertains no such thought (though I am not saying you yourself actually have).

The issues and problems go on and on, but I'll stop here. If God is so beyond our comprehension; if the Trinity is unlike us in all ways; then we can never truly be like the Trinity. We will resurrect, but the Trinity is still something different that we can never approach nor understand in this life or the next.

Love exists because God is a community of 3. Trinity aside, we are creations and He is Creator. That by itself is an infinite gulf. Yet again, how does that prevent me from knowing him? How does that prevent my from loving Him? It certainly does not prevent him from loving me. If anything his infinitude makes his love for me possible!!! Why are so concerned with being a god just like him?

It boils down to these questions: 1. Why should I worship a being who does not feel empathy nor love towards me? 2. If God is omnipotent, why did he make us out of a different substance, so we could never really be like Him? 3. If God loves us, why does he insist in keeping himself forever a mystery to us? 4. Is it better to be raised as a forever servant of God, or as a literal son and heir of God? 5. Why would I think God just if he tosses innocent babies into hell, as St Augustine insisted; or good people into eternal fire as John Calvin taught? 6. If God is not just, merciful, nor loving as a mortal parent can be; then why is he considered perfect and why should we worship Him?

1. He does feel empathy and infinite love for you.

2. Why should he? Why would we need to be gods just like Him? Wasn't that our sin from the being?

3. He is a mystery and not a mystery. You can make very concise and true statements about him, yet never finish plumming the depths of what it means. I will have eternity to be with Him, and since He is infinite I will never run out of things to learn about him, or reasons to love Him.

4. Do you ever talk to evangelicals!? :-) I will always be His servant, yes. And also His adopted son, his priest, his king under him forever!

5. Augustine was wrong on babies for sure. There are no blameless "good" people who deserve heaven, but we all deserve hell. If you do not start there, the religion that follows is not Christianity.

6. Why do you accuse him of being unjust, without mercy, or unloving? Because He is all-powerful, yet does not always stop evildoers whom He will judge, and does not save every sinner, who by his own choices and by justice deserves hell? Yet even in LDS theology evil is perpetrated freely and there will be those who go to outer darkness. Have you resigned yourself to a God who means well but cannot stop somethings from happening even if he wants to? That, to me seems a bleak reality.

I will worship my God, because being Sovereign and infinite in both love and power, no evil happens that was not allowed by Him, and which cannot be undone and even used for our benefit. No person person ever went to Hell who was not justly condemned and fully responsible (Romans 1-2), and no sinner was saved based on any other fact than that God loved Him.

For me, it isn't a matter of which God can beat up on the other. It is an issue of which God is most loving and caring towards his creation. If a God has no charity, or likes tossing babies into burning infernos, then it doesn't matter how powerful he is, I'm not going to worship him.

And that is exactly where I was hoping this conversation would go.

[Rhi_Bran_y_Hud]

Old Fight Slogan: "Something Beats Nothing."

In any fight between matter (including energy) and spirit, my money is on matter.

but matter is being held together by whom?

[rameumptom]

When did I change the rules? My God is all-knowing, so he knows what he can resist, which is anything, so that makes it easy to remember.

This is a cheat. How does your God know he knows everything? What if there is a higher dimension above him, where in there is another god, say Chuck Norris, who looks down upon him surreptitiously? This is a Quantum Mechanics thing. He cannot know what is above him, just as we cannot peek into the 4th or 5th dimensions. All you can do is claim that he knows everything. But that does not make it necessarily so.

You are right he cannot create those things, or a square triangle for that matter, for the reason that if He made it, he has power over it inherently; if what was once three sided is now four sided, it is no longer three sided. How does that make him less than infinitely perfect?

So again, he is not all powerful, otherwise he could do the impossible. So your God is not as powerful as you claim.

He can be completely blissful because even in his wrath there is reason for rejoicing: victory! And in His sorrow over our sin he sees our restoration.

But he cannot be completely blissful and yet cry for his people at the same time. What of those who will not be restored? You insist he is all powerful, and yet he is gong to allow some/most of his children to burn in hell. Does he feel blissful over their destruction? If so, then he is not a God of love. If he loves them enough to truly feel sorrow for them, then he is not absolutely blissful. Again, philosophy proves a contradiction to the absolute Unmoved Mover God.

LDS belief is that part of what makes Him God is that he totally loves us. He has maximal bliss, but it is not a complete bliss. Otherwise, he would be uncaring and neglectful of His Creation. Loving his children is more important than being constantly blissful.

How does he fail at being trustworthy and worthy of worship? I have a guess at where you're going with this, but I don't want to assume.

If he is as powerful as you insist, then he has power to save all his children. Yet he chooses to allow most of his children to burn in hell for eternity. St Augustine insisted unbaptized little children will burn in hell. Calvin insisted that most will not be saved, that there is a limited atonement, and God will choose whomever he will to save, regardless of how much faith and good works we display.

Why have an all powerful God, who chooses to destroy most of his creation? That is not a being worthy of worship. It is only a being that should be feared.

Unmoved Mover? Yes (the Rock Himself). But you misunderstand how the word "passion" is used there. It means he does not having sinful, sudden, changing emotions like we do. It is a great comfort to know that He is not at all like me in this way! But being infinite and perfect, you bet he feels, and loves completely, unswervingly... I would run out of adjectives!!!

But this is not what is taught. I suggest you read the initial teaching of Aristotle on the Unmoved Mover. You can start here: Unmoved mover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

St Augustine picked up on Aristotle's concept and expanded upon it. God cannot be touched in any way by his creation. He touches his creation, they do not touch back. He has no passions, means he feels no love, pity, mercy, anger, etc. Those are just expressions made in the Bible as metaphor. But God feels nothing. He only contemplates himself.

IOW, a mortal parent shows more love and compassion than the God you describe.

No, not an experiment, but His will will be done.

Why do His will if he's uncaring and plans on destroying most of us anyway? Why follow a tyrant? As Unmoved Mover, it doesn't matter to him if I live or die. Who would want a God like that?

Obviously, babies do not go to hell because they have not actually committed any sins, though they are born sinners by nature in Adam. Augustine was a theologian, not God's prophet.

So, you are going to change the rules midstream? St Augustine wasn't a prophet, but most traditional Christians follow his teachings today. And, no, it isn't obvious that babies do not go to hell. At least not for those believing in the traditional God. So if you are a traditional Christian, then you need to defend traditional Christianity. However, if you are not, then you need to agree that the traditional view of God is incorrect. If that is so, then you may want to reconsider LDS theology regarding God. Again, he is the Most Moved Mover. And there are evangelicals and other traditional Christians that are beginning to think of God in that manner. Open theism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do hold to TULIP though (with some reservations about the "L" part, still working that out). Does anyone deserve to know God and be saved? Doesn't He have every right by justice to treat us as fully responsible sinners like the SEALs treated Bin Ladin? That is where repentance starts: the acknowledgment that we ("I" "you") deserve sudden death, and nothing else from God. Are there any good people, who by their conduct have earned a anything? Not before God.

This is true only if you believe we are depraved, and not the children of God. Why would God create something innately depraved? Why didn't he create us of his same substance, so we could have the spark of godliness in us? Why does an infant "deserve" death? And BTW, Jesus said that eternal life is to know the Father and Son (John 17:3), so yes, I'd say we not only deserve to know God, but we need to know God to be saved. The TULIP, predestination, and Calvinism is proof of the apostasy we teach. God is love, but the God of Calvin is not. He is uncharitable. He does not give free will to mankind, but still judges and condemns most, simply because He chooses to do so. They are not responsible for Adam's sins nor their own, but God still imposes punishment upon them. If you wish to have a God that equate to a Navy Seal, be my guest. I choose the God that loved the world so much that he gave his Only Begotten to save us (John 3:16). Interestingly, I do not see John giving a caveat in which God only loves a few in the world, and will burn the rest in hell, whether they seek him or not. How is that a God worthy of devotion? It is only a God to be feared!

This is a severe picture, but it is all the more reason to get out there and preach, giving those whom we've never had a chance to reach into the hands of a loving and sovereign God who may have already reached them another way.

So, what will you do for the billions that lived and died before Christ was born? How about the billions that have lived and died since without the chance to hear of Christ? Limited atonement. Only those lucky enough to hear the gospel, accept it, and then be chosen at the whim of God, will be saved? How is that a loving God? What is His definition of love, wherein that makes sense? A God to be feared? Of course! Loved and worshiped? Only if we love and worship a tyrant.

So when He does send His message to someone it is pure grace. But you have a worse problem I think, which cannot be resolved. What do you do with all those decent people who have never heard your Gospel or had a chance to partake in your ordinances like eternal marriage?

No. Pure grace is when God gives ALL his children the opportunity to hear the gospel message, and gives them as much opportunity to believe and repent as possible. It is when God creates several levels of heaven, so he can maximize salvation and minimize those who will forever be cast off. If you knew LDS teaching, you would know that we teach that after this life our spirits go to a Spirit World to await the resurrection. There are missionaries teaching Christ to all people there. For those who accept it, and receive the saving ordinances by proxy here on earth, they will receive salvation. THAT is a loving plan of God. All will have a chance at the ordinances, because they will eventually be performed for all those who want it. We perform those ordinances vicariously for the dead in our temples, and expect to do so through the entire Millennium until all who desire will receive. I'm thinking your version of salvation pales in comparison. In fact, I know it does. LDS version: all will hear the gospel and have a chance to receive ordinances. Calvin version: few will hear the gospel, and even fewer will receive salvation. Hmmmm. No brainer there.

Will they be relegated to the Terrestrial kingdom without a choice in the matter? "They will have an opportunity in the afterlife!" Then what was the point of this life? And if I don't need to believe the LDS gospel in this life (being honestly deceived, misinformed or ignorant) why do you exist as a church at all? Where is the urgency of your message? is this about salvation or self-progression?

You seem to misunderstand. The Terrestrial Kingdom IS a part of God's heavens! We are here to offer exaltation and Celestial glory to those who will accept it. The lesser glories are for those who do not desire a fullness of God's glories. But those are still a greater and more merciful plan than one where God will destroy any and every being who does not accept him, regardless of whether they had a chance or not.

You might say, "How they fought in the Pre-mortal Life determined their place in this life," (if I have that part right). So are you better than them? More valiant even from birth? More deserving of exaltation and therefore given a better shot at it?

No you do not have that right. All are given experience here. All sin, so all need the atonement. Our experiences help us learn faith and hope in Christ. All have a chance at Celestial glory, if they wish to choose it. And if they choose a lesser glory, then they will get that. But it is their choice. Meanwhile, in Calvinism, no one has a choice. You either receive the irresistible grace that forces one to be saved, or you are not. Slavery. Plain and simple slavery.

A Calvinist entertains no such thought (though I am not saying you yourself actually have).

Calvinists may not entertain those thoughts, but they are endemic to the teaching. Edited May 5, 2011 by rameumptom

[JudoMinja]

What do you do with all those decent people who have never heard your Gospel or had a chance to partake in your ordinances like eternal marriage?

Will they be relegated to the Terrestrial kingdom without a choice in the matter? "They will have an opportunity in the afterlife!" Then what was the point of this life? And if I don't need to believe the LDS gospel in this life (being honestly deceived, misinformed or ignorant) why do you exist as a church at all? Where is the urgency of your message? Is this about salvation or self-progression?

I wanted to address this question specifically, as you seem to misunderstand the way it works... (from an LDS perspective of course, you are free to continue disagreeing after you've gained a better understanding of our view on the matter )

Most importantly- what is the point of this life?

We are here to gain a body, experience, and have the opportunity to make choices. In the pre-existence, any choice we made was limited as we had yet to truly be tested. All we knew was heaven and God's presence- there was nothing better or worse for us to compare our spiritual lives. We were also incomplete, as we needed to gain a physical body to be able to progress any further in our knowledge and understanding. Our bodies bring new challenges and understanding as we are able to go through physical trials and hardships, to experience growth and limitations that give us a greater knowledge of ourselves and our own weaknesses. We have the opportunity to "master" the desires of the flesh and strengthen our spirits through the refiners fire of this life.

Yes, those who are never presented with the opportunity to learn of the Gospel in this life will have that opportunity in the next. That does not lessen the purpose of this life at all. It is about progression. We could easily have stayed with God in heaven and never come to this earth. It is not about being with God. If we were with God before, why would we leave if coming to earth did not give us the opportunity for something better? If it was "I want you to go to earth so that you can be tempted and choose for yourself if you want to come back to me- it will be hard and some of you will never even get the chance to hear the gospel. Most of you will end up with Satan, but the rest of you will get to come back to me, right where you are now." .... Doesn't that seem counter-productive? Clearly, we were lacking something in the pre-existence, something that could only be gained by leaving God's presence, and the result of our efforts will be something greater than just being with God again.

God wants us all to do our best and He wouldn't turn away someone who gave it their greatest effort but was just never given the opportunity to find the whole truth. We will continue to progress after this life. We will continue to learn and be presented with choices. That does not change the fact that this life was wholly necessary and we could not progress any further without coming to this earth. Our bodies and our physical experiences are a necessary part of our progression. Why would this be so, if our bodies did not somehow bring us closer to God? If our bodies and physical experiences on this earth are meant to help us learn of God and draw closer to Him..... perhaps he also has a body?

What you are struggling to understand about the progression of God touches on a comment I made in a different thread. The question there was about our ability to attain "God-hood" and whether God is himself an "exalted man". I'll repost that comment here-

The exact nature of God's past is still a mystery. That information has not yet been revealed. The statement you offered is as in-depth as such revelation gets. Anything further, is speculation.

I do not know if I would call God an "exalted man". Even if he had to go through a similar process to receive a physical body, that does not necessarily make him an "exalted man". Here is my own personal take on the matter- not doctrinal mind you but my educated opinion.

Intelligence is the only matter that has been and ever will be from beginning to end. Intelligence is the source of all creation. Intelligence is the source of spiritual and physical creation, all things having some manner and degree of intelligence. God is the collective organization of ALL intelligence. In a sense, this puts God more along the lines of a disembodied force- in and through everything- supported more by eastern religions such as Buddhism. However, this is not all that God is. God does have a physical body, as we do, but had to obtain that body in a manner similar to how we have attained our bodies. His body is the vessel for His collective intelligence, but because He is ALL intelligence He can be found in and through everything.

God knows all because he is all. We are a "part" of God yet seperate. Each of us existed as disembodied intelligence before God formed that intelligence into a spiritual entity- our spiritual birth. We were then able to grow in our own intelligence to a point, but further growth was not possible without the attainment of a physical vessel to contain and shape that intelligence as God was. "As God was, man now is. As God is, man may be." We are capable of gaining all that God has because intelligence is not like physical matter. When physical matter is divided, each piece is smaller than the whole. However, when intelligence is divided or shared, nothing is lost from the original source. God is the source. He is the beginning and the end. He is the Alpha and the Omega.

We will always be different from God in the sense that we cannot be that source. However, we can become our own sources of further spiritual and physical creations, should we build in intelligence enough to receive that glory or knowledge. In that sense, God will always be "the one true God", but we can become lesser God's to His greater, having the same knowledge, the same intelligence, and the same purpose but always worshipping the source of our own creation.

So what is the urgency of our message? The only thing urgent about it is the call to repentance, which is the same call as any other Christian religion. If we procrastinate the day of our repentance, that day will pass us by and the opportunity will be lost. Salvation (or resurrection- the rejoining of body and spirit and immortality), however, will be had by every man- even those who do not repent. This is because Christ's resurrection overcame death and gave this "free" gift to everyone. The repentance is a necessary part of our two-way promise with Christ- the atonement. We agree to cast off the natural man and strive to walk in His footsteps, to PROGRESS and seek perfection- and He in return makes up for our failings and weaknesses so that we can receive exaltation and eternal life.

If you just want to make it back to "heaven" (the terrestrial or telestial kingdoms of heaven, according to LDS doctrine), you do not need to accept our message. However, if you want to make it to the celestial kingdom and become a "joint-heir" with Christ and receive all that God has, our message contains to fullness of the gospel that will make such possible.

[ztodd]

:-) Why is this always the first response? If you say that about what Joseph seemed to think it was absolutely true then you have a problem with someone you hold a prophet.

I don't necessarily disagree with him, but whether I do or not, that has no bearing on whether I have a problem with him as a prophet of God. I believe that when he spoke as a prophet to declare doctrine for the church, then that would be true revelation from God. But if he simply gives his opinion on something, then I feel more ok about disagreeing with him. Prophets are still human, and are not always pronouncing doctrine with every word they say.

I would still definitely pray and study it out though before coming to that conclusion... and as far as this topic goes, I'll likely remain open-minded and open-hearted at least for this whole life, since such a topic as this requires far greater understanding than I have.

[hungrytrash]

Here's the thing. The triune God is a God without law. He can do anything short of something that would defy His perfection.

The LDS God, or rather, God, is a God of law. He creates laws, and He follows laws. God is bound by more laws than anyone else. But those laws are what give Him His glory, wisdom, love, joy, power, etc...

Anyway, the triune God isn't compatible with the universe, nor eternal law. The triune God would cease to exist the moment it was brought into the universe, or at the very least, be so bound that It would be unable to "fight". Another thing, God works through the priesthood, and holds all of the keys to it. The triune God, being lawless, would not preside, thus would be powerless under God. No one can exercise priesthood power or authority, save it is authorized by the proper keys. All keys come from God. Unless He gave His keys to the triune God and sanctioned His actions, the triune God would be powerless. And the triune God can't preside or possess those keys because He ignores eternal law.

The simplest answer is that they are not compatible within the same universe, and thus could never fight.

The wicked seek to be free of law. The righteous seek to be free of sin.

[RipplecutBuddha]

The wicked seek to be free of law. The righteous seek to be free of sin.

...through obedience to law.