Limiting God

[prisonchaplain]

There are many ways that one person attempts to communicate that they disagree with another person. Strange as it may seem - sometimes when we express ourselves or try to communicate what we really believe we do so by contrasts. When expressing beliefs by contrasts it is very easy for one person to misunderstand what the other person is actually saying.

Let me try to give an example from this forum. This thread was started by PC trying to draw a logical criticism because he believes some criticisms of what he believe of G-d would limit G-d and in reality, if true, would deprive G-d of the definition of being infinite. The strange thing is that between PC and my self - I believe that PC has also created a limited G-d in order to sustain or support his beliefs in G-d. Let me illustrate:

In the decision between the Evangelical and LDS concepts of G-d there is a difference in that LDS doctrine and belief teaches that sanctified and exalted saints of G-d will become like G-d so indistinguishable or "one" with G-d that they are in reality G-ds. In other words that G-d has power, knowledge and ability to replicate his kind or species and this is the intimate purpose of his creation. PC responded in essence that G-d is "limited" in his power of creation and cannot replicate his kind or species because in PC's mind there can only be one G-d - thus limiting G-d in my mind.

What I find so ironic is that now he uses the very argument that I though would obviously defeat his concept to prove that another concept concerning G-d is flawed and therefore cannot be an accurate or a complete, true and actual representation of the loving and all powerful G-d that really must exists.

Hmmmmm - because of my respect for PC - this causes we to take a step back and wonder - how may of my arguments have I failed to apply to elements of my own beliefs?

The Traveler

In the context of this thread, I would have to ask what I would do if I became convinced that God was indeed creating gods who would become Gods. Could I accept that, and if I did, what would it mean for me? What would I have to give up to embrace this truth?

For Traveler, the question would be reversed. If scripture or prophetic revelation clearly indicated that God could never be "reached" by us--that no other being would ever become what he currently is, could that kind of "eternally limiting and limited" God be accepted and worshiped?

[prisonchaplain]

I'm not sure about you all, but I find it kind of sad that some would even question heavenly fathers standing as a righteous being. Only the adversary would want people to question as if to chanllenge his laws which is above all laws. If you cannot agree with mankind laws what makes you anymore capable of abiding with heavenly father's? Heavenly father is an all knowing god and to say he is limited is to say your limiting his righteous influence in your life.

This is the crux of the string. How dare anyone question God? It used to be that these kind of questions were really targeting Church doctrine. Today, however, I'm convinced that a fair number have accepted the post-modernist rejection of absolute truth. It is these that are actually questioning God's righteousness, quite directly.

[bytebear]

No pain in the outer darkness? No "wailing and gnashing of teeth?" If you say "no more suffering, tears or death" it will sound too much like the heavenly reward described in Revelation.

Of course there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. But that's what people do who cannot bear to give or receive love. They cannot simply bear God's love, because all they know is hate. So they are left to their hate.

[bytebear]

In the context of this thread, I would have to ask what I would do if I became convinced that God was indeed creating gods who would become Gods. Could I accept that, and if I did, what would it mean for me? What would I have to give up to embrace this truth?

For Traveler, the question would be reversed. If scripture or prophetic revelation clearly indicated that God could never be "reached" by us--that no other being would ever become what he currently is, could that kind of "eternally limiting and limited" God be accepted and worshiped?

There are many "gods" but only one GOD. We know of three persons who are God (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). We are commanded to be one with God, and we have that potential. God is not a single person but God is One. We worship the Father because he is the father of our spirit. We worship the Son because he atoned for our sins. Interestingly we don't worship the Holy Ghost (at least not individually). But we do worship God generally, but we do not worship any other "gods" individually.

[Traveler]

In the context of this thread, I would have to ask what I would do if I became convinced that God was indeed creating gods who would become Gods. Could I accept that, and if I did, what would it mean for me? What would I have to give up to embrace this truth?

For Traveler, the question would be reversed. If scripture or prophetic revelation clearly indicated that God could never be "reached" by us--that no other being would ever become what he currently is, could that kind of "eternally limiting and limited" God be accepted and worshiped?

It is interesting to me that this is exactly the same problem faced by the Jews in the scripture of John Chapter 10 concerning the idea of a man becoming one with G-d. What limits do we put on that concept? The Jews recognized that being one with G-d would of necessity make someone a g-d; a concept that Jesus did not deny or correct. In essence what one person may think limits G-d another counts as blasphemy without such a limit. The real question is how we resolve or limit the power of G-d that makes us “one” (even as, or in the same manner as the son is with the Father).

The Traveler

Added - The scriptures are true in that there is only one G-d to redeem fallen man - when man fell - he fell from the society of heaven and lost the relationship to G-d but by the mercy of G-d was given one G-d as a mediator with the Father.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Traveler

[annewandering]

Accepting truth doesnt mean sacrifice does it? Unless it is sacrificing a way of living not in keeping with what you know is truth.

If it were actually you, PrisonChaplain, then it might be difficult. It would mean a life and career change. I think it would be very hard for a religious leader to learn he is wrong to that degree.

[Tyler90AZ]

Suffice to say that there are more than a few today who would describe even one soul being tortured for all eternity as immoral and unacceptable. The LDS view seems better to such folks, but not "good enough." If God forces one sentient being to suffer for not bowing to him, in their minds that God is evil.

An example of somebody who could possibly be in Outer Darkness would be JS. A person would need perfect light and then complete rejection to be condemned to Outer Darkness. I would be willing to bet it has happened under a hundred times throughout history, if at all.

You say you're okay with that and unsympathetic to these tortured souls. I have even more tortured souls in the hell I see in the Bible. So, how do we reconcile these doctrines to the one who challenges our God's goodness? And how do you reconcile those parts of the Church you don't agree with?

It all comes down to faith... If I believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true then everything that comes from it must be true.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Tyler90AZ

[prisonchaplain]

Accepting truth doesnt mean sacrifice does it? Unless it is sacrificing a way of living not in keeping with what you know is truth.

If it were actually you, PrisonChaplain, then it might be difficult. It would mean a life and career change. I think it would be very hard for a religious leader to learn he is wrong to that degree.

There was early in my visits here (LDStalk back in the day) when I wondered about this. Then again, who does not sacrifice to follow truth? Family relationships can suffer, jobs can be lost. What if the Master says, "Go, I'm sending you." I have the blessing of education, and so could follow truth wherever it leads me and survive. Most clergy could become teachers. Some would gain better hours, and more than a few would get better pay.

The early disciples faced martyrdom and exile, surely I could live with a change of profession. No, the real sacrifice for any convert is to grapple with being wrong once...well what if this is wrong too? Also, those relationship challenges can be overwhelming--especially within family. Every convert faces sacrifices eventually. However, to proclaim "I once was lost but now am found!" makes all those losses and heartaches pale in comparison. To know that one has embraced the eternal Truth of the universe--folks like Stephen joyfully died for that!

[prisonchaplain]

It all comes down to faith... If I believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true then everything that comes from it must be true.

There it is. I am convinced that God is pure good and pure truth. So, if he created a hell, whether for "less than 100 souls," or for the millions I suspect may end up there, the answer is the same. God knows what He is doing. He is good and He is truth. On the day of judgment--when we see as He sees--there will not be one objection raised. Instead, when we realize God's holiness and righteousness, we will be in amazement and awe at the extent of his mercy and extravagant love for us.

If heaven is real, then I accept that hell is hot.

[annewandering]

I think hot would be easier than what they will endure, knowing they gambled on winning everything and they lost before they even started and in fact lost everything.

[Traveler]

There it is. I am convinced that God is pure good and pure truth. So, if he created a hell, whether for "less than 100 souls," or for the millions I suspect may end up there, the answer is the same. God knows what He is doing. He is good and He is truth. On the day of judgment--when we see as He sees--there will not be one objection raised. Instead, when we realize God's holiness and righteousness, we will be in amazement and awe at the extent of his mercy and extravagant love for us.

If heaven is real, then I accept that hell is hot.

If G-d is pure good and pure truth then when we are sanctified (made pure in Christ) and come to a knowledge of truth ( as Jesus said we would if we continue "follow" him) then by your defenestration of G-d we would be G-ds.

My point is that what ever we use to define G-d as unique in order for there to be a G-d we must possess to be "one" with him. Thus we also by any definition of G-d that can be determined by and consistent with scripture to be one with G-d we become also G-d.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

"I cannot believe in a God who would torture souls in hell for all eternity."

"I don't believe in the God of the Old Testament. He's angry, and orders killing."

"If the _____ (evangelicals, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, whatever religion one disagrees with...) are right about _____ (hell, predestination, etc.) then I won't believe in God..."

I'm not targeting anyone in particular. Instead, I'm concerned about something I see happening more and more. Instead of the typical young person searching for truth, it seems that many people are on a search for a God or religion that suites their personality, or their personal beliefs. Perhaps it's an outgrowth of post-modernism. After all, if there is no absolute truth, but religion can comfort, all I need to do is find one that fits my predispositions.

THOUGHTS?

I don't know if it is happening more and more, it seems to have happened all along and will continue to happen.

Our past President Hinckley explained; "Realizing the importance of knowing the true nature of God, men had struggled to find a way to define Him. Learned clerics argued with one another. When Constantine became a Christian in the fourth century, he called together a great convocation of learned men with the hope that they could reach a conclusion of understanding concerning the true nature of Deity. All they reached was a compromise of various points of view. The result was the Nicene Creed of A.D. 325. This and subsequent creeds have become the declaration of doctrine concerning the nature of Deity for most of Christianity ever since."

As stated there "All they reached was a compromise of various points of view." What were those points of view? I would think it was as you described, "a search for a God or religion that suites their personality, or their personal beliefs."

They knew of the importance of knowing the true nature of God because of scriptures like John 17: " 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

[Seminarysnoozer]

Suffice to say that there are more than a few today who would describe even one soul being tortured for all eternity as immoral and unacceptable. The LDS view seems better to such folks, but not "good enough." If God forces one sentient being to suffer for not bowing to him, in their minds that God is evil.

You say you're okay with that and unsympathetic to these tortured souls. I have even more tortured souls in the hell I see in the Bible. So, how do we reconcile these doctrines to the one who challenges our God's goodness? And how do you reconcile those parts of the Church you don't agree with?

I think part of how we reconcile this is to know that we chose this pathway. It would seem much more cruel and illogical to be "tortured" for something you never wanted to do in the first place. LDS believe this was part of the discussion before even coming here. We believe that all that are here wanted to be here. This is why covenants under priesthood authority are so important to us. If one willfully takes on a covenant with God then they willfully submit to all its possible outcomes. Which all of us have done before coming here. To break that covenant is to go against one's own word and promise which in turn deserves a certain punishment. If there is no punishment then there cannot be a reward and the covenant means nothing. To us, covenants are very important and should be done at an age of choice and responsibility.

Is it "torture" if one takes a test and there is a possibility of not passing the test? If there is no chance for failing the test then there is no chance of passing the test. And if one cannot pass or fail the test then there is no reason to have the test in the first place and there would then be no purpose to our existence. If there is no purpose to our existence then that would necessitate believing in a God that does things without purpose and that would be a harder God to believe in then one that "tortures" for a reason, and lives by certain unchanging laws. If this then that. It would be hardest to believe in a God that is driven by whim or boredom or spontaneous randomness without purpose.

[prisonchaplain]

If G-d is pure good and pure truth then when we are sanctified (made pure in Christ) and come to a knowledge of truth ( as Jesus said we would if we continue "follow" him) then by your defenestration of G-d we would be G-ds.

My point is that what ever we use to define G-d as unique in order for there to be a G-d we must possess to be "one" with him. Thus we also by any definition of G-d that can be determined by and consistent with scripture to be one with G-d we become also G-d.

The Traveler

There is a tremendous irony here. You are advocating the eventual deification of Christ's followers, and I am lamenting that God's critics are pretending that they have the authority to judge God today.

[Sicily510]

Accepting truth doesnt mean sacrifice does it? Unless it is sacrificing a way of living not in keeping with what you know is truth.

If it were actually you, PrisonChaplain, then it might be difficult. It would mean a life and career change. I think it would be very hard for a religious leader to learn he is wrong to that degree.

Alma 41

“Wickedness Never Was Happiness”

Book of Mormon Seminary Student Study Guide - Alma 41 - "Wickedness Never Was Happiness""Wickedness Never Was Happiness"

This is essential to gods law, how many past stories do we have to read in the bible to learn that people rebuked heavenly father and see even to this day the same thing testified. Why is heavenly father in so many primitive cultures? If greek had god's they must have came upon a gospel in those days, but they used their own understanding to interpret heavenly father. In the islands they believe in gods but it was to there own interpretation as well who heavenly father was. Heavenly father exist but for some he's a myth for others he is a way of life.

The translations are to my own understanding, you may correct me if you feel that it's not.

Psalm 141:5

Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head; for yet my prayer also shall be in their calamities.

Translation:

Let a righteous man strike me--it is a kindness; let him rebuke me--it is oil on my head. My head will not refuse it. Yet my prayer is ever against the deeds of evildoers;

This applies to all of us, to accept the church to help us change for righteousness and also pray that these leaders may continue to have the spirit with them as well.

Proverb 1:7

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Translation:

The reverence of the Lord is the beginning of discernment, being spiritual; knowledge: but fools despise education, learning, understanding, the gift of holy ghost and problem solving.

Proverb 1:8

My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:

Translation:

My son, hear the education of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy family, children, and duties.

Proverb 1:9

For they shall be an ornament of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck.

Referenced to Proverb 25:12

As an earring of gold, and an ornament of fine gold, so is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear.

Referenced to Proverb 3:22

So shall they be life unto thy soul, and grace to thy neck.

Proverb 1:10

My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.

Translation:

My son, if sinners entice you, do not give in to them.

Referenced to Psalms 1:1-2

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

Translation:

Happiness is the man that chooses to walk in the counsel of heavenly father, and does not share fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. And does not sit with the vain people and go with dissemblers. Happy is the man who rejoices the law of the Lord and lives it day and night.

Would like to referece Alma 41:11

And now my son, all men that are in the state of nature, or I would say, in a carnal state, are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; they are without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God; therefore, they are in a state contrary to the nature of happiness.

I can testify that this is real...this is now so many agnostics, atheist, and carnal state men/women. I live in the bay area I see people who choose to live in their iniquities and still say that they follow heavenly father, I myself am imperfect that I need to reprove and thus it is possible through Jesus Christ. I must always remind myself of Jesus Christ and the examples he provided to live happier. If he sacrificed his life why can't I sacrifice my sins/iniquities and change for righteousness?

referenced to Ephesian 5:11

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

Temptation is everywhere it's on tv, at school, even in churches. In order to solve these problems it starts with ourselves we must live righteously in order to be examples to the children and those who don't have the knowledge of such law and ordinances. That's what I say about America change doesn't start with the president it starts with "We The People" being involved in governing our nation.

referenced to Psalms 26:4

I have not sat with the vain persons, neither will I go in with dissemblers.

There are people who are bitter and always trying to speculate and judge. I don't like to affiliate myself in that environment, the gossips, the social media. I like to enlighten people with intellectual and sincere conversations where we can grow spiritually.

Referencing Jeremiah 15:17

I sat not in the assembly of the mockers, nor rejoiced; I sat alone because of thy hand: for thou has filled me with indignation.

This is the media t.v. these days..man I see tv everywhere!! I don't even have to own a tv just to see an assembly of mockers. I will say one of them is Bill Maher (not a fan, he has no self-respect to care for others respect.) This is why it's important to be involved in a community public service. I am a part of a committee that informs citizens why it's important to vote, and why they should read about the candidates so they can make a smarter decision on who they want to vote for.

Proverb 1:30

They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.

Translation:

They rejected my advice and paid no attention when I corrected them.

As heavenly fathers children we have the right to be educated and corrected when needed, it's a god-given principle.

These are the many verses that displays the loving grace of our heavenly father, we could be compelled and should have when distruction was at hand. However being born into a foolish world only the few will inherit heavenly fathers plan if they seek dilligently and pray steadfast in these latter-days always remembering our savior Jesus Christ and exemplifying the teachings.

[Sicily510]

Oh I must not forget Proverb 18:12

Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honour is humility.

referencing Proverbs 29:23

A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit.

That's as is fully understandable if you have the spirit.

Alma 7:23-24

And now I would that ye should be humble, and submissive and gentle; easy to be entreated; full of patience and long-suffering; being temperate in all things; being diligent in keeping the commandments of God at all times; asking for whatsoever things ye stand in need, both spiritual and temporal; always returning thanks unto God for whatsoever things ye do receive.

And see that ye have faith, hope, and charity, and then ye will always abound in goods works.

[mnn727]

I will be the first to admit that I am somewhat of a cafeteria Mormon. Mainly in regards to policies and traditions rather than doctrines. The solid doctrines I am very close to 100% on, however the doctrines and or teachings based on traditions or interpretations not so much.

How do I justify it? Based on my witness from the Spirit. As I grow spiritually I have in the past and probably will continue to have a greater understanding than I do today. I can remember one thing that I fought for years, then one day it just 'popped' and today I can't for the life of me figure why I fought it so much (other than I didn't understand it correctly)

* * *

I left the Protestant Church of my youth in part over your exact first statement of "I cannot believe in a God who would torture souls in hell for all eternity." with another part added to it ".... for never having the opportunity of hearing about Jesus"

I do not consider being cut off from the presence of God in the Outer Darkness to come anywhere close to the Protestant eternal torture of 'burning in Hell forever'

Edited June 4, 2012 by mnn727

[Vort]

I will be the first to admit that I am somewhat of a cafeteria Mormon...How do I justify it? Based on my witness from the Spirit. As I grow spiritually I have in the past and probably will continue to have a greater understanding than I do today. I can remember one thing that I fought for years, then one day it just 'popped' and today I can't for the life of me figure why I fought it so much (other than I didn't understand it correctly)

How many incidents do you remember where you believed and defended Church doctrine, only one day to have it just 'pop' that you were wrong and the doctrine you defended was false?

Cafeteria Mormonism is a dangerous gospel hobby, indeed. All would do well to avoid it.

[mnn727]

How many incidents do you remember where you believed and defended Church doctrine, only one day to have it just 'pop' that you were wrong and the doctrine you defended was false?

Cafeteria Mormonism is a dangerous gospel hobby, indeed. All would do well to avoid it.

I would argue that unquestioned faith in a dogma, even this Churches dogma, is a lazy persons religion. How many times have you heard a teacher (or someone in a class) claim something that turned out to be not what the Church teaches, just because they never bothered to check what they heard. I would rather be on bended knee for a decade or even two learning a principle than to just accept it without giving it any thought even if I think its a little strange or weird or goes against what I think is right.

----

There is part of my post that you cut that is very relevant to my point of view - I copy it here "I will be the first to admit that I am somewhat of a cafeteria Mormon.Mainly in regards to policies and traditions rather than doctrines. The solid doctrines I am very close to 100% on, however the doctrines and or teachings based on traditions or interpretations not so much."

Edited June 4, 2012 by mnn727

[Vort]

I would argue that unquestionable faith in a dogma, even this Churches dogma is a lazy persons religion.

That's a false dichotomy. The opposite of faithless questioning of everything you don't like is not uncritical acceptance of everything you're told.

[mnn727]

That's a false dichotomy. The opposite of faithless questioning of everything you don't like is not uncritical acceptance of everything you're told.

I really think we're much closer than you make it Vort. Do you automatically believe everything you're told in Church?

The Prophets have told us to gain a witness for ourselves and almost every Prophet since Joseph Smith has worried and said that they hoped we didn't follow them blindly.

[mnn727]

Let me ask a question. Do you believe in a universal flood? that the entire Earth was covered by water?

Its in both the Bible and the BoM, and many Prophets and Apostles have made that claim.

Have you questioned that doctrine? if you have questioned it or believe in the limited flood theory, then I would say you're a Cafeteria Mormon also. To me that's an example of a 'doctrine of tradition' rather than a 'solid doctrine': and that I can accept or reject it and still be a good member.

Edited June 4, 2012 by mnn727

[JesusParadox]

That's a false dichotomy. The opposite of faithless questioning of everything you don't like is not uncritical acceptance of everything you're told.

It sounds like you are saying exactly what he means. MMN, is the type of guy who has questions regarding some policies and traditions. Clearly he is not faithless, as he believes in the gospel and even admits it will probably click eventually. We are taught to gain knowledge and a testimony of everything in the church. We are not taught to just accept everything without studying it out. Calling somebody who does not question* a Mormon is a paradox.

*Somebody who studies out what he is taught and desires to gain a true testimony.

[Vort]

I really think we're much closer than you make it Vort. Do you automatically believe everything you're told in Church?

I expect you're right. Our preferred mode of expression hides that.

For example, I would never characterize myself as a "cafeteria Mormon", any more than I would characterize myself as a child abuser (even though I don't think corporal punishment is by definition an awful thing) or a Communist (even though I don't believe unfettered free market capitalism exists or is a particularly worthy goal). I strive for precise description, but I also recognize the power and value (and mainly, the inevitability) of popular usage. The phrase "cafeteria Mormon" means something ugly and unvirtuous just as surely as the phrase "Gay Pride" does, never mind how the individual words might parse.

[Traveler]

There is a tremendous irony here. You are advocating the eventual deification of Christ's followers, and I am lamenting that God's critics are pretending that they have the authority to judge God today.

In essence are we not all critics of the G-d in which we do not believe? I am reminded of when I first moved back to Utah to work I met at work a most interesting fellow, that was the president of the Utah chapter of atheists.

I am not sure exactly how it happened but we began to debate publicly (during our lunch hour) the existence of G-d. We actually drew several hundred after a while to listen to the debate. After several weeks; seeming to go no where and finding that my opposition did not seem to understand or respond to my arguments - I ask him to define G-d.

Well that went on for a while but finely when he stated in clear terms his definition of G-d, I conceded the debate and pronounced him the clear winner because I did not believe in any such a being any more than he did.

Since I believe G-d is forgiving, loving and just - therefor there are things that I do not believe G-d will do because he is forgiving, loving and just. But my point in this discussion is that if being forgiving, loving and just is a weakness or limits G-d then I am one who has so limited G-d. I also believe that all things good should be everyone's goal - Something we should desire; not just for ourselves but for all. In reality my belief in G-d is in every way what I think we all should be.

I believe everything that G-d teaches - he is. And I also believe that he does not lie to us and hides from us what he really is. I believe he is honest and teaches us of him that we will be in his likeness and his image. Or as Trinitarians would say of G-d - that we become the same essence as that which defines G-d. We become one with G-d - believing that G-d does indeed have the power to --- As John Chapter 10 verse 33 accuses Jesus of being able to make a man a G-d.

The Traveler