All things are present with God

[jayanna]

Found something new, wanted to see what everybody thought.

I love it. Check it out the Pearl of Great Price student manual, Moses 1:6

The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual The Book of Moses

cool

[Forget-Me-Not]

Oh yes! Awesome inclusion! Thanks for posting that jayanna! :)

[jerome1232]

That was right on the spot about a few topics I've been pondering internally recently. Thanks!

[Vort]

Found something new, wanted to see what everybody thought.

I love it. Check it out the Pearl of Great Price student manual, Moses 1:6

The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual The Book of Moses

cool

It should be noted that neither Elder Maxwell's opinions in his book nor The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual that quotes Elder Maxwell's book constitute LDS doctrine. Many earlier leaders did not accept the idea that God somehow dwells "outside" our universe or time. That thought is actually not new, but very old, being a part of the neoplatonist ideals that corrupted Christianity nineteen hundred years ago.

I don't have a firm opinion on the matter, but I think it would be false to say that the Church teaches that God dwells outside time in a sort of eternal Now. Whether that idea has merit or not, I can't say.

[jerome1232]

It should be noted that neither Elder Maxwell's opinions in his book nor The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual that quotes Elder Maxwell's book constitute LDS doctrine.

Hey now, Elder Maxwell was my favorite Apostle. Naturally he spouted true doctrine every waking moment of his life on this earth.

[Guest gopecon]

Not to get into the "what is doctrine" debate all over again, but this is from a lesson manual of the Church that was approved by general authorities. While it might not be "official doctrine", this is about as close to official teaching as you get without being official.

[Windseeker]

“God does not live in the dimension of time as do we. We are not only hampered by our finiteness (experiential and intellectual), but also by being in the dimension of time.

This makes sense to me.

I did not think linear time exists in eternity, not as we know it on earth. In eternity which goes on forever what is a day? In eternity isn't it more of a place then a moment?

[Dravin]

It should be noted that neither Elder Maxwell's opinions in his book nor The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual that quotes Elder Maxwell's book constitute LDS doctrine. Many earlier leaders did not accept the idea that God somehow dwells "outside" our universe or time. That thought is actually not new, but very old, being a part of the neoplatonist ideals that corrupted Christianity nineteen hundred years ago.

M personal take is not "God exists outside of space time" but rather that God's omniscience makes the concepts of past and present meaningless distinctions. Kinda like if your satellite beamed all the channels into your brain a once (and you could process them) the idea of watching just one channel at a time on your TV (the present) doesn't particularly apply. The experience of time as we know it (or catching a show) becomes extremely different.

Time is obviously different then how we experience it, consider the power of the atonement to cleanse those before it even happened (from our perspective). I suppose you can parse that in two main ways. Either our concept of time is limited in how it relates to ultimate reality, or such things exist outside of time. Personally I'm inclined to parse it as the former, much like how I'm inclined to interpret miracles not as a circumvention of natural law but an application thereof beyond our understanding. That is to say God doesn't exist outside of time but we exist within and experience a limited facet of the whole.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Dravin

[qedd]

Not to get into the "what is doctrine" debate all over again, but this is from a lesson manual of the Church that was approved by general authorities. While it might not be "official doctrine", this is about as close to official teaching as you get without being official.

Doctrine shouldn't be confused with dogma. Being that doctrine is simply something that is taught, and that which is taught comes from the perspective, interpretation, and wording of fallible beings, it is possible for all or part of a given doctrine to be false. But that is missing the point of what the Church is bringing to the table: The Church teaches individuals how to discover and comprehend the truth for themselves, thereby enabling them to come unto Christ, find salvation, and pursue exaltation. Those quotes are a wonderful springboard for one to search out the truth for him or herself -- take them for what they are and go from there. It is lazy spirituality (if you can call it that) to let someone do all the thinking for you. As frustrating as it may be to some, I believe this is why there are so few "official" or final declarations of specific interpretations of truth (dogma) published by the Church.

[qedd]

This makes sense to me.

I did not think linear time exists in eternity, not as we know it on earth. In eternity which goes on forever what is a day? In eternity isn't it more of a place then a moment?

Linear time relative to what? If time is related to motion, or the transition from one state to another, then regardless of where you might find God, that He moves, increases in glory, and interacts with others and His environment means that He experiences time in some fashion.

[Seminarysnoozer]

It should be noted that neither Elder Maxwell's opinions in his book nor The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual that quotes Elder Maxwell's book constitute LDS doctrine. Many earlier leaders did not accept the idea that God somehow dwells "outside" our universe or time. That thought is actually not new, but very old, being a part of the neoplatonist ideals that corrupted Christianity nineteen hundred years ago.

I don't have a firm opinion on the matter, but I think it would be false to say that the Church teaches that God dwells outside time in a sort of eternal Now. Whether that idea has merit or not, I can't say.

I agree, coupled with his own statement, "Moreover, God, since ‘all things are present’ with him, is not simply predicting based solely on the past. In ways that are not clear to us, he sees rather than foresees the future, because all things are at once present before him."

[Martain]

It should be noted that neither Elder Maxwell's opinions in his book nor The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual that quotes Elder Maxwell's book constitute LDS doctrine.

This manual has been published directly by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be taught as doctrine to latter-day saints in institute classes. It has passed through a rigorous internal correlation department and then been approved of by the first presidency as part of that review process. This correlation process is specifically to ensure that the doctrines inside said publication are in strict accordance with the revealed doctrines of the Church.

Are you saying that the First Presidency, the entire correlation department of the church put forth manual material without verifying it's accuracy and with the intent that some may be doctrine and some may not and we will teach it to them and it be on their heads to determine every point whether it be true or not?

You are free to believe that it does not constitute LDS doctrine, yet I can not but conclude that it does.

[Vort]

This manual has been published directly by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be taught as doctrine to latter-day saints in institute classes. It has passed through a rigorous internal correlation department and then been approved of by the first presidency as part of that review process. This correlation process is specifically to ensure that the doctrines inside said publication are in strict accordance with the revealed doctrines of the Church.

Incorrect. The fact that Elder Maxwell's book is quoted demonstrates that the institute manual is not attempting to announce doctrinal interpretation. Rather, it provides the standard interpretations given through the years. This may seem a small point, but it is not. We do not believe in the inerrancy of tradition, as for example Catholicism tends to do.

Are you saying that the First Presidency, the entire correlation department of the church put forth manual material without verifying it's accuracy and with the intent that some may be doctrine and some may not and we will teach it to them and it be on their heads to determine every point whether it be true or not?

More or less. Of course, I would not put it in those terms. If you believe the First Presidency personally reads through every manual and carefully cross-checks its facts and doctrinal presentation, you probably have a naive view of how the First Presidency spends its precious time.

You are free to believe that it does not constitute LDS doctrine, yet I can not but conclude that it does.

And you are free to conclude whatever you want. But of course, neither my beliefs nor your conclusions establish truth.

[Martain]

Many earlier leaders did not accept the idea that God somehow dwells "outside" our universe or time. That thought is actually not new, but very old, being a part of the neoplatonist ideals that corrupted Christianity nineteen hundred years ago.

I don't have a firm opinion on the matter, but I think it would be false to say that the Church teaches that God dwells outside time in a sort of eternal Now. Whether that idea has merit or not, I can't say.

I agree and do not see how God having the ability to see the future requires him to dwell outside of time. He can just as easily dwell within time and yet still see the future.

Such doctrine as God dwelling outside of time is simply man's attempt to understand and rationalize how such a thing could actually be possible.

Doctrine: God knows all.

Doctrine: God knows the future and can see it.

Not Doctrine: God must therefore dwell outside of time.

[Seminarysnoozer]

One of the phrases that would seemingly go against the idea that God exists outside of time is, "To bring to pass ..." If that is His work, to bring the immortality and Eternal Life of man to pass, then that requires time to pass. Otherwise, His work is already done and then He has no work and our interpretation of where God's glory comes from would change.

[Martain]

I know you and I disagree on this Vort, that is indeed quite clear. Yet I do feel ever so strongly about this and I feel to try to explain it once more that perhaps I might convince you.

Our previous Prophet President Spencer W. Kimball spoke in conference where he quotes and validates as true the words of previous Prophet President Wilford who, in his closing years, made this statement:

“I ask my Heavenly Father to pour out his spirit upon me, as his servant, that in my advanced age, and during the few days I have to spend here in the flesh, I may be led by his inspiration. I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so he will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from his oracles of God and from their duty. …” (Reference)

I hope we at least agree on this point that this is official Church doctrine?

Now I expect you will easily recall a former thread where it was discussed whether or not the book "The Miracle of Forgiveness" authored and published by our former President and Prophet Spencer W. Kimball can be accepted as doctrine.

Can you honestly say that you could conceive a President and Prophet of this Church writing a book and publishing it as the President and Prophet of the Church without first getting approval from the Lord to do so? Do you think the Lord would approve the publication of a book that contained false doctrine?

Now should anything within that book prove false. To that extent it has lead the reader astray.

Therefore the Lord would have removed from his place as President of the Church this Prophet before he would have allowed him to publish such a book were it to contain error.

Since he did not, I therefore can justly conclude that it contains only truth. Or to say, that it contains only true doctrine.

My understanding is that in order for an item to be printed by "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", it must first pass through a specific process comprised of a review by the correlation department followed by the approval of the First Presidency.

Are you saying that my understaing is incorrect?

Were the First Presidency to approve of a work which contains incorrect doctrines, in so doing they would be leading the Church Astray for they are the ones accountible for the accuracy of the work.

We need not suppose that they must cross-reference the entire volume to ensure accurrate representation of the quotes. Such would indeed be naive. They simply must read it and receive approval from the Lord to sanction it.

That the Lord has not removed the Prophet from his place indicates that he has not lead the Church astray by approving as correct that which is false.

Therefore I conclude that the Manual in question does constitute LDS doctrine.

Now perhaps I have not convinced you Vort but at least I can honestly say I tried my very best to do so =).

[Traveler]

Back in my ancient past while studying at college (BYU) I had a few classes in quantum physics that dealt with time distortions. In general LDS seem to be more acceptable to discoveries in science as possible explanations for divine things. I do not know why but it seem to me that most Traditional Christians do not like science explaining anything associated with G-d. As a result most scientists have decided to disconnect and become atheists.

Theoretical Physics does allow possibilities in time distortions - including time travel. But there are problems with moving through time. The problems are someone changing something in the past that alters the present and future. There has been a lot of sifi stuff in books and movies dealing with this problem of time distortions allowing travel.

Because space time is not really linear we have discovered that there are distortions - some distortions like black holes are so pronounced that they create an event horizon that creates even more interesting problems with theoretical Physics. The speed of light is another time dissertation problems because as we approach light speed time approaches zero or no time. What then happens if something goes faster than light? One obvious answer is that we catch up will light from our own past. Not only can we therefore see our past - since time has stopped we end up (when we slow back down) in our own future. The theory of time space distortions bending as thought up by Einstein has been proven to be an accurate description of observable things going on in our universe.

I have used these principles with atheists to prove the existence of G-d. In other words if G-d does not exists yet then by the process of evolution science will at some point solve the dilemmas of space time. And assuming that such intelligence is possible and also benevolent and compassionate; evolving man becomes the definition of G-d - moving through time to create the best possible outcome for everyone. Including being able to travel back in time to capture the essence of those that have died in the past and allowing their conscious essence to continue. So my argument is that if someone argues that evolution can cause our current condition without G-d - that proves nothing because continuing evolution will produce G-d. So we either have G-d setting up everything from the beginning or we have G-d evolving and being able to fix everything that the absents of G-d would allow. Bottom line is - if evolution is really going on - the possibility of G-d existing only increases - not decreases.

For me I am quite content to understand that G-d is capable of manipulating space time. With that capability he is able to control everything in this universe. He becomes the owner and master of it all. And that is kind of what the scriptures are telling us.

At the same time I think there could be other possibilities. The fact that I think I understand one possibility open a very big door - I can be open to other possibilities - including the one I expect G-d will tell us all about sometime later. At which time I can either modify my understanding or just trash the whole thing.

The Traveler

PS - I love science and I love religion - anyone else love both?

[Traveler]

I know you and I disagree on this Vort, that is indeed quite clear. Yet I do feel ever so strongly about this and I feel to try to explain it once more that perhaps I might convince you.

Our previous Prophet President Spencer W. Kimball spoke in conference where he quotes and validates as true the words of previous Prophet President Wilford who, in his closing years, made this statement:

“I ask my Heavenly Father to pour out his spirit upon me, as his servant, that in my advanced age, and during the few days I have to spend here in the flesh, I may be led by his inspiration. I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so he will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from his oracles of God and from their duty. …” (Reference)

I hope we at least agree on this point that this is official Church doctrine?

Now I expect you will easily recall a former thread where it was discussed whether or not the book "The Miracle of Forgiveness" authored and published by our former President and Prophet Spencer W. Kimball can be accepted as doctrine.

Can you honestly say that you could conceive a President and Prophet of this Church writing a book and publishing it as the President and Prophet of the Church without first getting approval from the Lord to do so? Do you think the Lord would approve the publication of a book that contained false doctrine?

Now should anything within that book prove false. To that extent it has lead the reader astray.

Therefore the Lord would have removed from his place as President of the Church this Prophet before he would have allowed him to publish such a book were it to contain error.

Since he did not, I therefore can justly conclude that it contains only truth. Or to say, that it contains only true doctrine.

My understanding is that in order for an item to be printed by "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", it must first pass through a specific process comprised of a review by the correlation department followed by the approval of the First Presidency.

Are you saying that my understaing is incorrect?

Were the First Presidency to approve of a work which contains incorrect doctrines, in so doing they would be leading the Church Astray for they are the ones accountible for the accuracy of the work.

We need not suppose that they must cross-reference the entire volume to ensure accurrate representation of the quotes. Such would indeed be naive. They simply must read it and receive approval from the Lord to sanction it.

That the Lord has not removed the Prophet from his place indicates that he has not lead the Church astray by approving as correct that which is false.

Therefore I conclude that the Manual in question does constitute LDS doctrine.

Now perhaps I have not convinced you Vort but at least I can honestly say I tried my very best to do so =).

I will not say I disagre - but I will say I have a different opinion or view. Following a prophet is a covenant. A covenant is a very important thing. For example, marriage is a very important covenant.

Now it is hard to explain and can be easily misunderstood - but in marriage it is better (less likely someone is lead astray) if they are more concerned with being loving and compassionate than they are about always being right.

The is also a paradox with mercy and justice. But if we allow and respect love and compassiona above getting it right - perhaps you can understand my point of view better.

Back when I was learning to drive I was taught defensive driving. The statment made by my teacher was do not be dead right. If you insist on only doing what is right - you could get yourself killed.

So I try to imploy this understanding with prophets. That is not to concern myself with what is right as much as what a loving and compassionate and merciful G-d would have me do.

I am convinced that being of one heart and mind is more important than being right.

The Traveler

[jayanna]

Well, I for one, really appreciate finding this little nugget of info. I feel so much better with things explained concerning this. It has been hard for me to convey my past experiences concerning this. I have found that as I look back at those moments I learn more each time. I remember what I was shown with such clarity, and those questions that I asked and was answered, except for one which was answered only recently. I am relieved to read Elder Maxwell's testimony of this very thing and I know I'm not alone in it.

I thought I would post it in case there is anybody else out there with similar teaching experiences that could use some insight to how it worked. It is amazing and I know that someday we will all experience it and maybe use the ability often. It reminds me of the Earth being a great urim and thummim and looking down into it and seeing things that were, and are and will be. It is like you are standing and you look, you look down and there is something you are supposed to watch, in such detail that I thought I was there, but now that I think on it, I think it was so clear that it gave me the impression that I was there. But I felt no wind or temperature nor did I smell anything, and I was standing very high above, so I think it is what is described in D & C 130, and in Elder Maxwell's explanation.

I'm so happy I read it. I hope it can help others! I'm sure that if you don't understand now, you will when you need to. Just know that God is great, and so amazing, and all powerful and all knowing, and we are in good hands. :)

[Justice]

I like to view God as "in time and space" because of many thing I have read in the scriptures. For instance, God moved upon the face of the waters before He spoke and created. He started at one point, and then moved to another location. Even if near instant travel, one moment gave way to another. Then God spoke, which is but another moment. He moves through life just as we do.

The Book of Abraham speaks of how the plant and sun closest to Him is what governs time in other places such as earth. It takes the place He dwells 1,000 of our years to elapse one day.

I believe we have enough evidence to conclude that God exists in both time and space. The distinction, however, is that He is not bound by time or space. He does not age or decay, nor does space or distance prevent Him from going anywhere in a moments notice. He lives and operates differently in time and space than we do, but time does pass with Him. This is why life is made up of eternal rounds to Him.

[Seminarysnoozer]

For me I am quite content to understand that G-d is capable of manipulating space time. With that capability he is able to control everything in this universe. He becomes the owner and master of it all. And that is kind of what the scriptures are telling us.

If you (meaning anyone, not just 'you' Traveler) understand that God is capable of manipulating space time (whatever that made up concept is) do you think that He could receive the glory that comes from an act before the act is done. For example, has God already received the glory that comes from all the earth bound souls who will some day receive Eternal Life? Or, does it actually have to be brought to pass?

I think there are some laws that are universal and cannot be altered or they stop being laws even if there is mastery within the bounds of the law.

[jayanna]

Okay, maybe I have to start a new thread, but where is the doctrine that says God is increasing his glory. I can understand the idea of eternal increase, like in a population sense, but how does increasing population change the state of His being? I have seen this on here before, but I don't understand where it has come from.

[jayanna]

Perfect

Perfect

Complete, whole, and fully developed; totally righteous. Perfect can also mean without sin or evil. Only Christ was totally perfect. True followers of Christ may become perfect through his grace and atonement.

It is my understanding that God is perfect, being without sin or evil, complete, whole, and fully developed. I don't know where the doctrine is that says He will be more of a God than He already is. I have never heard this taught before I was on this site, and I don't know where this idea has come from. Although I have to admit that I have spent a lot of time in primary and in Gospel Principles, and have relied quite a bit on personal study, and it is quite possible that it is a lesson that I have missed due to callings involving teaching milk.

I have only heard increase in a sense of our knowledge of God increasing, population increase, or maybe increase ourselves to make ourselves better, possibly increase as in worldly resources, oh and our ability to use the power of God increasing, that sort of thing.

I have also been searching on LDS.org for more info on this and so far have come up with no lessons in manuals about it... could someone possibly offer a link to a lesson or talk?

[Blackmarch]

Found something new, wanted to see what everybody thought.

I love it. Check it out the Pearl of Great Price student manual, Moses 1:6

The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual The Book of Moses

cool

I've always wondered what it could mean. I'm open to quite a few different intrepretations, however the cut and dry of it is we do not really understand how everything is before God.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Okay, maybe I have to start a new thread, but where is the doctrine that says God is increasing his glory. I can understand the idea of eternal increase, like in a population sense, but how does increasing population change the state of His being? I have seen this on here before, but I don't understand where it has come from.

This is a great question. I think this is the root of the plan for happiness that we begin to understand the value of this by having certain responsibilities in this life, such as family. I believe the key to understanding this is to understand the value that comes from sharing the joy of other peoples success. If one loves their neighbor as much as themselves, then when the neighbor does well, we feel of their joy. It is like when my son does well on an exam in school, there is a sense of joy that I get from that even though I am not the one who took the test. When a person is selfish or self centered though, they cannot experience that joy. The joy of experiencing happiness with other peoples success is reinforced by covenants, this is why we are a covenant people. It is a way for God to participate, actively in our success. Even though God has achieved all, He can still expand His glory through this shared success, this is what makes it exponential endless. This is how an increasing "population" of souls sealed to Him, increases His glory.

One important aspect of this is the fact that we can share glory. Any idea that glory is personal, that it only belongs to one person, goes against the whole concept of what glory is. If we are fortunate to inherit the Kingdom of God, we would inherit all. We are not going to have our individual bank accounts, so to speak. This is a shared glory, and to what degree we share, will determine what Kingdom we end up in. This is why we are told to mourn with those that mourn. love our neighbor, raise a family etc. These are all traits that are important to develop to be in a Kingdom where glory is shared, where we are one. The variable method, which is limited in glory, is like the stars as one star differs from another.