All things are present with God

[Dravin]

Wow, risky business this thread. Now I'm caught in a time paradox and perhaps a predestination paradox! I feel like I'm reading How to Live Safely In a Science Fictional Universe again.

I'm nor sure if the time paradox comment is directed to me, but I wasn't trying to say your position was paradoxical in itself, I was trying to point out that like a time paradox any 'correct' answer is going to depend on what hypothetical constraints (or lack there of) you put on the system. I may have phrased it poorly.

[james12]

I'm nor sure if the time paradox comment is directed to me, but I wasn't trying to say your position was paradoxical in itself, I was trying to point out that like a time paradox any 'correct' answer is going to depend on what hypothetical constraints (or lack there of) you put on the system. I may have phrased it poorly.

I know, and I agree. I was just joking about the nature of the thread in general. .

[Seminarysnoozer]

Wow, risky business this thread. Now I'm caught in a time paradox and perhaps a predestination paradox! I feel like I'm reading How to Live Safely In a Science Fictional Universe again.

In short, I do not impose our unique time constraints on God. We experience time in a linear fashion. To us events are past, present and future. We have agency and God allows us the freedom to choose. Neither his foreknowledge nor his potential ability to see our experiences as present prevent us from choosing. I think I'll avoid speculating on how God's time relates to ours.

That is a good way to dodge the issue but I think the reason it comes back is because we are told that to God (not for us), His glory is dependent on the passage of time, "to bring to pass". We don't know how restrained if any He is by time but we are told that the passage of time is part of His glory, by those scriptures that reference statements like, to bring to pass.

I would agree with your first paragraph that there is a paradox created by this made up idea that God lives without the passage of time (which of course is different than 'all things are present' in that all things present could just be seeing it and not living it). So, in that case, I think it is best to stick with the scriptures and what we are told, that God's glory is related to events that require the passage of time, the required "bringing to pass".

[Seminarysnoozer]

I don't think the meaning of the phrase "All things are present with God" refers to a timelessness. I believe that because God is omnipresent, that all things are present before him. He is in all and through all things. Thus everything is present before God. Or in other words, All things are in the presence of God due to his omnipresence.

I think this is a safer and more accepted interpretation of that phrase. Anything beyond that requires applying physical science theories about time and space that may not even apply to spiritual matter. The application of the little knowledge we have of physical matter to the spiritual realm is highly speculative because it is even speculative for the physical realm alone.

Another clue, that is along the lines of your post is that we believe in an emotional God, one that can express emotion. Emotion requires the passage of time as there is a change from one moment to the next. If all things are present in terms of time, then there would be no change in emotion, ever. The same expression would exist forever. There could, then be no expanding joy, it would stay the same. ... as we lived in God's presence, in His realm, we shouted for joy.

[james12]

That is a good way to dodge the issue but I think the reason it comes back is because we are told that to God (not for us), His glory is dependent on the passage of time, "to bring to pass". We don't know how restrained if any He is by time but we are told that the passage of time is part of His glory, by those scriptures that reference statements like, to bring to pass.

I would agree with your first paragraph that there is a paradox created by this made up idea that God lives without the passage of time (which of course is different than 'all things are present' in that all things present could just be seeing it and not living it). So, in that case, I think it is best to stick with the scriptures and what we are told, that God's glory is related to events that require the passage of time, the required "bringing to pass".

I don't believe I said God lives without the passage of time. I would not assume that. More likely He understands the laws that govern time and works within those laws to accomplish his purposes. Because he can use the laws of time in ways we cannot comprehend I do not believe he is bound by time as we are. The way we experience time should not be projected on to how God experiences time (particularly in light of the scriptures and quotes we have). Thus, just because you or I see a paradox does not mean God experiences one. I therefore have tried to separate what we understand of time from what God may know of time. I give it as possible that he sees our time as always "present".

Scripture at best is not clear on the subject of how God experiences time. Consider these two examples in contrast to your "passage of time" comments:

the Lord showed Enoch all things, unto end of world, Moses 7:67: If he simply knows what will occur how can he show Enoch all things unto the end of the world? Is this just a hypothetical vision?

past, present, and future are continually before the Lord, D&C 130:7 Is this in thought only? The scripture specifically says "before the Lord" and would seem to contradict the idea of time passing as we know it.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I don't believe I said God lives without the passage of time. I would not assume that. More likely He understands the laws that govern time and works within those laws to accomplish his purposes. Because he can use the laws of time in ways we cannot comprehend I do not believe he is bound by time as we are. The way we experience time should not be projected on to how God experiences time (particularly in light of the scriptures and quotes we have). Thus, just because you or I see a paradox does not mean God experiences one. I therefore have tried to separate what we understand of time from what God may know of time. I give it as possible that he sees our time as always "present".

Scripture at best is not clear on the subject of how God experiences time. Consider these two examples in contrast to your "passage of time" comments:

the Lord showed Enoch all things, unto end of world, Moses 7:67: If he simply knows what will occur how can he show Enoch all things unto the end of the world? Is this just a hypothetical vision?

past, present, and future are continually before the Lord, D&C 130:7 Is this in thought only? The scripture specifically says "before the Lord" and would seem to contradict the idea of time passing as we know it.

I guess I don't see it as being that complicated. The mechanics of how it happens are complicated and unknown but the issue of either God experiences the passage of time or He doesn't, I don't see that as being complicated. I don't think that part of the discussion requires discussing the mechanics of how it is done. In other words, I don't think it can be both, if that is what you mean by 'projecting onto God how we experience time' then I don't think there can be a discussion either way. We can't even "consider" the two scriptures you gave as it relates to time if there is no projecting or not projecting how we experience time onto God. I think all logic is thrown out the window if one says that God could experience the passage of time and also not.

And, there is nothing gained in terms of our gospel from saying that God does not experience the passage of time but there is an important aspect of our gospel that relates to God experiencing the passage of time. That has to do with the purpose of this world and our relationship to God.

I think it is reasonable to say though that either "bringing to pass" an event has significance or it doesn't. If it has no significance then it doesn't matter if God jumps around in time or is timeless or does not experience the passage of time. If "bringing to pass" has significance, then I think we would have to say that God experiences the passage of time as there is no other known way to "bring to pass" anything without having time pass. The significance of "bringing to pass" would be lost if there is not anything that occurs over time. ... then the scripture should read something like 'the work and glory of God is the immortality and eternal life of man, not "...to bring to pass...".

[jayanna]

The idea that in time all things are ever present with God suggests that nothing is ever completed. why you don’t see it as a violation of free will? I am interested in your view point.

With regard to free will, it appears to me that if one’s life is already played out, then if he is doing it a second time to be exactly as the first, then there is no choice than to choose what was chosen the first time. Thus if the future already exists in reality, we have no other choice than to make the same decision as that future that has already been played out. This comes across as a weird form of determinism to me.

The fact that all things are present with God is not only an idea, it's doctrine.

Whether or not it affects free will is mention in the Pearl of Great Price lesson manual linked in the first post.

It says

God’s foreknowledge of all things does not hinder or limit our freedom to choose good or evil. Elder James E. Talmage, who was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, wrote: “Many people have been led to regard this foreknowledge of God as a predestination whereby souls are designated for glory or condemnation even before their birth in the flesh, and irrespective of individual merit or demerit. This heretical doctrine seeks to rob Deity of mercy, justice, and love; it would make God appear capricious and selfish, directing and creating all things solely for His own glory, caring not for the suffering of His victims. How dreadful, how inconsistent is such an idea of God! It leads to the absurd conclusion that the mere knowledge of coming events must act as a determining influence in bringing about those occurrences. God’s knowledge of spiritual and of human nature enables Him to conclude with certainty as to the actions of any of His children under given conditions; yet that knowledge is not of compelling force upon the creature” (The Articles of Faith, 12th ed., [1924], 191).

[Colirio]

And, there is nothing gained in terms of our gospel from saying that God does not experience the passage of time

For me, there are huge gains to be had from such a knowledge, the least of which being that Heavenly Father does not make "educated guesses" concerning the future.

As for the phrase, "bring to pass," would it not make sense that our Heavenly Father speaks to us in terms that we can understand? For instance, He speaks English to us, which is a lesser language than that spoken where He resides. Would He not then speak to us in terms that we can understand concerning time and space?

Regardless of my speculations on the matter, two things we can know for sure:

Alma 40:8 Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.

As per the original quote, I do not believe it would be included in the Book of Mormon, which was difficult to engrave due to the Nephites' awkwardness, if it were not important for us to know.

D&C 130:7 But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord.

This pertains directly to our potential to become like our Heavenly Father. How can future events be continually before a Being's face if they haven't happened?

As for trying to change your belief, this isn't really the intent of my post. I am merely pointing out that such a belief is not only plausible but can easily be supported scripturally.

[Seminarysnoozer]

For me, there are huge gains to be had from such a knowledge, the least of which being that Heavenly Father does not make "educated guesses" concerning the future.

As for the phrase, "bring to pass," would it not make sense that our Heavenly Father speaks to us in terms that we can understand? For instance, He speaks English to us, which is a lesser language than that spoken where He resides. Would He not then speak to us in terms that we can understand concerning time and space?

Regardless of my speculations on the matter, two things we can know for sure:

As per the original quote, I do not believe it would be included in the Book of Mormon, which was difficult to engrave due to the Nephites' awkwardness, if it were not important for us to know.

This pertains directly to our potential to become like our Heavenly Father. How can future events be continually before a Being's face if they haven't happened?

As for trying to change your belief, this isn't really the intent of my post. I am merely pointing out that such a belief is not only plausible but can easily be supported scripturally.

I think that "seeing" the future is sufficient in taking away any "educated guesses". There would not be any gain in having a timeless God.

The Book of Mormon quote everyone uses who takes that view "... and time only is measured unto men" is a description of the time on Earth is measured, it doesn't last forever, whereas, our existence outside this mortal probation is eternal. "Probation" by definition is a measured time. For God, there is no measured time, He is Eternal. This does not refer to a lack of passage of time. That, to me, is a bizarre and imagined interpretation of that scripture that is not based in any knowledge of matter of time that we have available to us. If we interpret that scripture based on the knowledge we have, which is the same argument you used to pass off the phrase "to bring to pass", as God using language which we can understand then we know from other scriptures that this life is only for a short period of time and will end, it is measured time. God is within a timeline or time frame or era that is a endless period, this does not refer to the lack of passage of time (which is a made up concept by man). And yes, it is very important for us to know that this time given to man on this Earth is a short and measured time, so we better repent while we have time, that is the significance of that scripture.

And the scripture in D&C 130:7 is, again, simply discussing this amazing ability to "see" past, present, future continually but that does not confirm or suggest the man-made concept of stopping the passage of time. You ask a question that we don't have the answer for, which is "How...". You and others want to put an answer to that question by suggesting that God does not experience the passage of time. There is no proof or need for that if He can "see" all, continuously. So, again, without trying to speculate about the "how", why doesn't "seeing" all past, present, future suffice over some made-up need that time has to stop?

What amazes me about this discussion is that there is some perception that God "has to" have this ability to stop time. Why? Because there is no other explanation available? I think that needs to be couched into the same idea that you used to push aside the importance of "to bring to pass" which is to not apply man made concepts onto Gods perception of time.

Please understand that my belief is not based in an unbelief of the ability of God to stop time (because if He can He can, we don't know) but based in the understanding of joy that is obtained from knowing a job is done when it is done. I have, like most everyone in this world, have a sense of the happiness obtained from carrying out good works. You don't feel a sense of accomplishment when a job is done that isn't there until it is completed? Do we sanctify the victor as the victor before He is victorious? There would be no need to foreordain, just ordain. There would be no need to have many called but few chosen, just call the ones that will be chosen. If all is as if it was already done then there is no test and no glory from a job well done as it could never be done any other way. There is nothing but wasted effort if I say I can beat my 1 year old niece in a game of tennis, I can "see" that I can do that and then actually play the game. There is no victory in carrying out such a game. The game then is pointless. .... unless there is some value in actually saying "I did that" (past tense = passage of time) as opposed to "I could do that". This whole life is about completing certain tasks (works) and now you are wanting to say that for God there is no value in completing anything, that works mean nothing (as works require the passage of time)? That idea is foreign to me and sounds like nothing I hear in the gospel. I tend to believe that God also receives joy from good works. The lack of passage of time takes away the possibility for doing good works. I tend to believe in a living God, "living" requires the passage of time.

[Seminarysnoozer]

D&C 130:7 But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord.

By the way, the word "continually" requires the passage of time. I think it is ironic that you use that scripture to suggest a lack of passage of time.

From Merriam-Webster:

"continually

adverb

1

many times <grew up in a time when children were continually being told to mind their manners>

Synonyms again and again, constantly, continually, frequently, hourly, much, oft, oftentimes (or ofttimes), over and over, repeatedly

Related Words always, consistently, continuingly, continuously, night and day, perpetually, unceasingly, uninterruptedly; afresh, again, anew; commonly, habitually, ordinarily, regularly, routinely; intermittently, periodically, recurrently; generally, usually

Near Antonyms now, now and then, occasionally, sometimes, sporadically; ne'er, never; once

Antonyms infrequently, little, rarely, seldom

2

on every relevant occasion <the computer program continually updates the file with new information>

Synonyms aye (also ay), consistently, constantly, continually, ever, forever, incessantly, invariably, night and day, perpetually, unfailingly"

[Colirio]

Well, that is my point exactly, SS.

You said that living requires the passage of time. The very same statement that is used to counter the belief that a Being is so quickened that all time is before Him at once is the same statement that can be used to counter the point that living "requires" the passage of time.

That point being an attempt to put restraints on the power and understanding of our Heavenly Father using our own limited understanding of the science of the eternities. Using the understanding of how this Telestial-esque existence works in order to understand how Celestial laws operate...

My point was not to convince you, merely to show that it IS plausible and has scriptural merit. It also has value in helping us understand how our Father in Heaven's power is not limited by the passage of time.

As for some taking the scripture as their basis for God existing outside of time, I do not believe that to be the case. They take an understanding of science and the principle of time dilation (due to our Heavenly Father being a quickened Being) and seek to understand how both could work together to come to a greater understanding of how an Eternal Being lives. All of the scriptures that are being quoted are simply to help understand how such is plausible.

It explains how all things past, present, and future are before God at once.

It explains how those who lived before the Atonement was accomplished could still have it applied in their lives.

It explains how God's knowledge of future events does not detract from our agency.

As for my own beliefs, I don't claim to know. I haven't been to heaven since this veil was put over my mind.

As for the TRUTH of the matter, it is probably something we haven't even begun to consider nor comprehend.

[Seminarysnoozer]

My point was not to convince you, merely to show that it IS plausible and has scriptural merit. It also has value in helping us understand how our Father in Heaven's power is not limited by the passage of time.

I appreciate your response.

Tell me how you know with such certainty that the passage of time is limiting. In what way is it limiting?

If anything, it seems that the passage of time is empowering. It is a way to accomplish things, to achieve, to do works, to realize things that were first created spiritually. It allows a way to move forward.

Lets just assume for one second that "seeing" everything in the past present and future can be done while passing through time. Then, what specifically is limited by the passage of time for God? I would like to know how you arrived at that presumed idea from which your desire to make it plausible stems.

If there is no actual benefit in not being limited by time (whatever that is) then why even consider it to be plausible?

[jayanna]

IF you read the lesson it clearly says that God does not live in the dimension of time as do we. It describes our experiencing of time as being 'hampered'.

From the manual:

Neal A. Maxwell, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, explained: “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. 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” (Things As They Really Are [1978], 29; see also Alma 40:8; D&C 130:4–7).

Concerning God’s knowledge of all things, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “Without the knowledge of all things God would not be able to save any portion of his creatures; for it is by reason of the knowledge which he has of all things, from the beginning to the end, that enables him to give that understanding to his creatures by which they are made partakers of eternal life; and if it were not for the idea existing in the minds of men that God had all knowledge it would be impossible for them to exercise faith in him” (Lectures on Faith [1985], 51–52; see also D&C 88:41; 93:8–36).

It is this knowledge of all things that is so pivotal, without it we would not have a plan, there would not have been God sending his precious children into the world to gamble on whether or not the whole thing would work. He has Knowledge of all things, not an educated guess, or a hope.

[Colirio]

In what way is it limiting?

The passage of time limits one to control over the present only.

I would like to know how you arrived at that presumed idea from which your desire to make it plausible stems.

Kicking and screaming.

I actually didn't care for the idea when it was first presented as my finite mind had trouble comprehending it. "How could the passage of time not exist for God as it does for me?" "How can time NOT pass while God watches our time pass?"

The idea finally started to settle when I realized that Celestial law is a couple of degrees removed from the Telestial-esque laws we experience now.

The idea of something lasting eternally also began to settle for me when I began to see that time is not experienced the same way for a quickened Being. If such an One were quickened to the point that all time was before them at once, that Being would be considered eternal as they are present during all time. The would be no beginning and no end for such.

As I said earlier, you certainly don't have to accept it the way I see it as I will READILY admit that I am viewing the Eternities with a fallen and veiled mind!

[Seminarysnoozer]

IF you read the lesson it clearly says that God does not live in the dimension of time as do we. It describes our experiencing of time as being 'hampered'.

From the manual:

Neal A. Maxwell, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, explained: “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. 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” (Things As They Really Are [1978], 29; see also Alma 40:8; D&C 130:4–7).

Concerning God’s knowledge of all things, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “Without the knowledge of all things God would not be able to save any portion of his creatures; for it is by reason of the knowledge which he has of all things, from the beginning to the end, that enables him to give that understanding to his creatures by which they are made partakers of eternal life; and if it were not for the idea existing in the minds of men that God had all knowledge it would be impossible for them to exercise faith in him” (Lectures on Faith [1985], 51–52; see also D&C 88:41; 93:8–36).

It is this knowledge of all things that is so pivotal, without it we would not have a plan, there would not have been God sending his precious children into the world to gamble on whether or not the whole thing would work. He has Knowledge of all things, not an educated guess, or a hope.

Absolutely, but that does not say that God does not experience the passage of time.

Just try to soak in the possibility that "all things are present" (meaning he can see all things that have past and he sees the future) as time is passing. That phrase does not equate to timelessness or that God does not experience the passage of time.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The idea of something lasting eternally also began to settle for me when I began to see that time is not experienced the same way for a quickened Being. If such an One were quickened to the point that all time was before them at once, that Being would be considered eternal as they are present during all time. The would be no beginning and no end for such.

I think there is a big leap from "time is not experienced the same way" and not experiencing the passage of time.

I can easily accept the idea that time is not experienced the same way but believing that God exists out of the passage of time at the same time He experiences the passage of time with us.

Beings are considered Eternal in many other respects, it is not dependent on whether time passes or not. If a being "inherits" all that was before him, then he receives all the works that were done before making him eternal, and if that being is sealed to his posterity then all works after are linked to that individual eternally, thus making that person eternal. We also know that our intelligence is eternal. There is no need to make a lack of the passage of time the dependent factor for being eternal.

Do you believe that God's glory is stagnant? Or is it self-surpassing with each moment? If God's glory is stagnant then there is no need to create worlds or have offspring and there is no such thing as eternal increase.

Did God take 7 days (or periods of time) to create the world? Or do you not believe that story because it requires the passage of time. Does God not recognize the good when it is done, the beauty of His creation after it is done?

Do you not believe that God cast Lucifer out of His presence? How, if there is no passage of time, one moment he is in the presence of God and then he is not, or was he always out?

The description in the Book of Abraham relating the passage of time of one of our days to 1000 years is metaphoric to not passing any time at all?

If there is no passing of time for God, how is possible to be angry with Israel at one point then be pleased? That is a false description of what happened?

"Works" require the passage of time. If God has done everything, there is no need for our existence and any interest in our existence. I believe in a God that loves us and cares about our success, which requires the passage of time, therefore God experiences the passage of time by having a relationship with beings that experience the passage of time. I can't separate those things.

[jayanna]

I was referring to the first sentence of the first quote, "God does not live in the dimension of time as do we." as well as the following sentence, "We are not only hampered by our finiteness, but also by being in the dimension of time." They seem pretty clear to me.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I was referring to the first sentence of the first quote, "God does not live in the dimension of time as do we." as well as the following sentence, "We are not only hampered by our finiteness, but also by being in the dimension of time." They seem pretty clear to me.

Yes. Thanks.

In that same quote it says "in ways that are not clear to us". So, when people claim that God does not experience the passage of time (which is a made up concept) they are giving an explanation of things that are not clear to us. We do know, from scriptures, that God's work and glory is tied into the passage of time, if that is how we understand the phrase "to bring to pass". I also believe that God answers prayers and I think there are many examples of that. So if God has a relationship with beings that experience the passage of time there is no reasonable explanation of how God can both not experience the passage of time and experience the passage of time.

To me, that phrase "but also by being in the dimension of time" does not equate to a God that is outside the passage of time. It could easily mean that God is not in a period of time like we are, mortal. Fortunately, mortality is only for a period of time. I am glad there is "time" (in that sense of it being finite) attached to this existence. "Time" in this case meaning a beginning and an end, the opposite of eternal. God is in the dimension of eternities, which could easily include the passage of time.

Just ask yourself, is there an end to God's works? Does He have more work to do? If you answer yes, you are admitting the fact that God experiences the passage of time. Timelessness is convenient to the belief that God has nothing more to do and therefore does not have a meaningful relationship with us. This is, in part, why I cannot accept this idea of timelessness.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer

[jayanna]

I can see that you do not understand this concept. When we are sealed for time and eternity, it is because after there is no more time, there is eternity. Time ceases to be, and there is a state of eternity. God is in this dimesion, mentioned in the quote from the lesson manual. Also in D& C 88 God is in the bosom of eternity, HE is in the midst of all things, all things are present with Him.

That is why it is said, anointed for "Time and also for eternity" they are separate states of being.

Meanwhile, no I do not understand your changeable God theory. I really am trying to understand it, but it seems to be beyond me. As far as I know we have and unchangeable God, as expressed in several places such as Moroni 8:18, but that is a different thread altogether.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I can see that you do not understand this concept. When we are sealed for time and eternity, it is because after there is no more time, there is eternity. Time ceases to be, and there is a state of eternity. God is in this dimesion, mentioned in the quote from the lesson manual. Also in D& C 88 God is in the bosom of eternity, HE is in the midst of all things, all things are present with Him.

That is why it is said, anointed for "Time and also for eternity" they are separate states of being.

Meanwhile, no I do not understand your changeable God theory. I really am trying to understand it, but it seems to be beyond me. As far as I know we have and unchangeable God, as expressed in several places such as Moroni 8:18, but that is a different thread altogether.

I think I understand it as much as it is supposed to be understood. That mortality is "time" and of course when we leave mortality it is called eternity. In and of itself though, that is not a discussion of the "passage of time" (having a past, present and future). In other words, just because God is not confined by mortality (time) does not mean that he does not experience the passage of time (as in having a past, present and future). "Time" can mean an era in which there is a beginning and an end (the opposite of eternal) or "time" can be used to describe having a past, present and future. They do not have to mean both within the same phrase.

Like I said, I am okay with God being in his own dimension of time, whatever that is. That by itself doesn't change my testimony or understanding of the plan but a God who does not have a personal relationship with his children does. If this other dimension of time, whatever that is, does not allow for interaction and exchange with this world and this time dimension then that makes God a different type of God that could otherwise appear to man from one moment to the next. He is in the sacred grove and then he is not, time transpired. If you want to try to say that time didn't really transpire, that it is just our perspective, I don't know what that is and I have only heard people try to explain such a thing with man made theories and imagination.

To be anointed for "time and all eternity" could not fit with mortality and immortality? Why does not "time" equate with mortality? Then, of course, God does not live within mortality, He doesn't live within "time" (mortality).

Alma 42:4 " 4 And thus we see, that there was a time granted unto man to repent, yea, a probationary time, a time to repent and serve God." And Alma 12:24.

D&C 132:7 explains that covenants made for "time" would end with death, clarifying the idea that "time" refers to mortality, ; " 7 And verily I say unto you, that the aconditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, boaths, cvows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and dsealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is eanointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by frevelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this gpower (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this hpower in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the ikeys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."

President Kimball said: "How conclusive! How bounded! How limiting! And we come to realize again as it bears heavily upon us that this time, this life, this mortality is the time to prepare to meet God. "

“Here [on earth] we are limited in our visions. With our eyes we can see but a few miles. With our ears we can hear but a few years. We are encased, enclosed, as it were, in a room, but when our light goes out of this life, then we see beyond mortal limitations. …

“The walls go down, time ends and distance fades and vanishes as we go into eternity … and we immediately emerge into a great world in which there are no earthly limitations comparable to ours as to time, distance, or speed” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 40–41).

It seems pretty clear there that "time" often times refers to mortality, "this life". And "timeless" relates to "eternal". It does not mean a lack of the passage of time.

[jayanna]

Jesus was born in the meridian of time. Time will cease to be once all the things this world was meant for have been accomplished. "And Eternity" refers to that state that we will be in after time is done away with.

For there to be a meridian, there has to be a beginning and an end.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Jesus was born in the meridian of time. Time will cease to be once all the things this world was meant for have been accomplished. "And Eternity" refers to that state that we will be in after time is done away with.

For there to be a meridian, there has to be a beginning and an end.

As we exist in the eternities do you think we will perceive past, present and future?

And what does "eternal progression" mean if there is no progression of time?

Edited January 3, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer

[Seminarysnoozer]

"The Book of Moses informs us that the great work of the Father is in creating worlds and peopling them, and "there is no end to my works, neither to my words," he says, "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man," and in this is his progression.

"Commenting on this the Prophet Joseph Smith has said: 'What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same [that is Christ must do the same]; and when I get my kingdom. I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I [Christ] will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children.'

"Do you not see that it is in this manner that our Eternal Father is progressing? Not by seeking knowledge which he does not have, for such a thought cannot be maintained in the light of scripture. It is not through ignorance and learning hidden truth that he progresses, for if there are truths which he does not know, then these things are greater than he, and this cannot be. Why can't we learn wisdom and believe what the Lord has revealed? (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.7)

In this light, are all the Kingdoms that could be presented to our Eternal Father already presented if there is no time? As Joseph Smith said "I shall present it to my father" is false because it is already presented? If there is no passage of time then there is no Eternal progression.

In the sense that there is no beginning and end within the eternities there is no "time". We can't separate the concept of 'passage of time' from there being no beginning and end?

[jayanna]

there is a beginning and end of time, that's what

Jesus was born in the meridian of.

eternity doesn't go linear, it goes in a round. O

It goes in a circle.

You are completely exhausting me, seminary...do you take some kind of medication that makes you so tenacious? I'm not even sure what your last two sentences mean. Is that last question a question?

The place where God is, there isn't any time, it's all present. I've been there and I'm telling you that this lesson explains it so well and makes me understand what I was seeing better. I know that you don't understand it, but just becuase you can't understand it doesn't make it wrong. The Lord only speaks in the past tense so that you and I can undestand it better, becuase we are in the dimension of time and are linear minded. All things are present before Him. I know that this lesson is true, not because of reasoning, or quotes or speculation which derives from rationalizing what I want to believe. This manual has got it right.

[Seminarysnoozer]

there is a beginning and end of time, that's what

Jesus was born in the meridian of.

eternity doesn't go linear, it goes in a round. O

It goes in a circle.

You are completely exhausting me, seminary...do you take some kind of medication that makes you so tenacious? I'm not even sure what your last two sentences mean. Is that last question a question?

The place where God is, there isn't any time, it's all present. I've been there and I'm telling you that this lesson explains it so well and makes me understand what I was seeing better. I know that you don't understand it, but just becuase you can't understand it doesn't make it wrong. The Lord only speaks in the past tense so that you and I can undestand it better, becuase we are in the dimension of time and are linear minded. All things are present before Him. I know that this lesson is true, not because of reasoning, or quotes or speculation which derives from rationalizing what I want to believe. This manual has got it right.

Sorry to exhaust you, lol. I guess I keep going back because I don't think we are talking about the same things.

I believe the lesson to be correct too, it is just a matter of what a person interprets "time" to mean and in what context.

Either a.) "time" in this sense means a period that has a beginning and end, thus the opposite of eternity.

or b.) "time" within the context of talking about spiritual matters refers to the "passage of time" which allows for the ability to complete a task, as it is in the past. The ability to have a past, for example "a job well done", "works", "to have posterity", "eternal increase".

or c.) it means both a and b --- This is what I think you are having a hard time seeing, the separation of these two contexts of "time"

If you look at what it means to not have "time" in those two senses, a and b, then for a.) to not have "time" simply means eternity. In my opinion is all that is meant by a being that is timeless or that is eternal.

For context b.), what would timelessness mean in that context? It would mean the inability to say that a job is done, the inability to complete a task as it can never be in the past. "Works" would never be done. God could not participate in the passage of time with us then. There could not be progression if there is no passage of time as there would be no difference from one moment to the next. God becomes static in that sense. Even if you were to use the analogy of a round, there is still an implied passage of time as one goes around the circle. The passage of time could still occur just like the hands of a clock go around in a circle. To say that it is one eternal round does not say that there is no passage of time. That is a leap into a man made, made up concept.

How else can we put the words "eternal" and "progression" together in the same phrase unless what that means is to experience the passage of time without having a beginning and end? Otherwise the words would be "eternal stagnation". Brigham Young spoke of either having increase or decrease, there is no standstill. If there is either increase or decrease then time passes. To define increase or decrease one has to pick two points in time, that defines time and the passage of time.

You say that the Lord only speaks of the past for us to understand it better that He doesn't experience a past. Then you are saying that He doesn't experience the completion of any task, there is no job well done, there is no accomplishment or realization of anything. To know that something is done after it is done to me is a valuable thing. I believe in a God that is emotional and answers our prayers, both of which require the passage of time. Joy is felt in knowing that we have done what we said we would do, after it is done and along each little step towards those goals there is a sense of taking a step, meaning there is a past to build upon.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer