Do LDS members believe God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent and all-holy?

[Irishcolleen]

The question about whether God was spirit of flesh & blood made me wonder about this. Non-LDS Christians believe these are essential characteristics of God. Please explain your answer so I can understand any similarities or differences we may have.

Please excuse my typing. I meant members. I have no idea what a momber is. My right and left must have switched places while i was typing.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Irishcolleen
Atrocious spelling and typing

[Just_A_Guy]

Omnipresent? No; as an embodied Being God can only be in one place at one time. The Holy Spirit, however, can make itself felt in a variety of locations at once. The analogy we used when I was a missionary was that the sun is in only one place; but its light and warmth can be felt all over the world by anyone who doesn't isolate themselves from it.

Omniscient? Yes.

Omnipotent? I don't remember the standard LDS response; but I personally believe God is bound by a specific set of laws; so I would have to answer "no".

All-holy? Er . . . I guess. What precisely do you mean by this?

[Vort]

Omnipresent: Yes, through the power of the Holy Ghost, God is omnipresent. But God is physically localizable, just like you and me, so he is not "omnipresent" in the sense that he sort of exists everywhere.

Omniscient: Yes, God knows all things.

Omnipotent: Yes, God can do all doable things. Note that there are some "things" which are simply not doable, because they are not really "things", but meaningless word constructs. For example:

• Can God create a stone so large he cannot lift it?
  
• Can God cause something to exist at some point in space and time and, simultaneously, cause it NOT to exist at that point in space and time?
  
• Can God save a man in his sins?
  

All these things are undoable by God, not because God is too impotent to do them, but because they have no meaning. They are merely word constructs that sound meaningful but are not.

All-holy: Yes.

[Irishcolleen]

All-holy = righteous and perfect in every way.

[SpiritDragon]

what Vort said.

[FunkyTown]

Yep. Yep. Yep.

I agree with all those things.

[Dravin]

We do in a sense, or at least I do, but we tend to attach difference senses to the terms.

Omnipotence - I tend to parse this as the power to do all things that are possible. The concept of omnipotence that means God can do anything conceivable or inconceivable runs into issues with things like Alma 11:37 or Titus 1:2.

Omniscient - I believe this is the case. Indeed, the Topical Guide has an entry concerning this characteristic of God - God, Omniscience of .

Omnipresent - No, based on D&C 130:22. Unless one means God in the sense of the Godhead and then I suppose one could argue for it. Or one could argue for it based on that omnipresence being represented by the light of Christ or his Spirit (or other possibilities not mentioned). Which brings up a fundamental point, God is not a particularly precise term. One can ask if God died on the cross in Judea ~2,000 years ago, and one can answer both yes and no. God the Father did not die on the cross, Jesus who is also God did. Likewise, what exactly one means by omnipresence can be its own discussion. One could go pretty deep and nuanced when considering the questions, their answers, and their implications.

All-Holy: Yes. This one is actually the most straight forward one.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Dravin

[Guest]

My answer:

Yes to everything including Omnipresent. We tend to think of our physicality as the mortal body. We really have no concept of the physical properties of a Spiritual Body aside from it being made of flesh and bone. I have no problem thinking that a Spiritual Body can be omnipresent from the mortal perspective. We just don't understand how that actually happens.

I interpret D&C 130:22 not that the Father or the Son have missing physical qualities that disables them from being omnipresent and that the Holy Ghost somehow is the only one that has this quality. I don't subscribe to that. I subscribe more that the Plan of Salvation imposes the limit on the Father and the Son to be present in mortal beings while they are in their fallen mortal state. So, it's not that they can't. It's that they won't.

[Connie]

What Vort said. I actually studied this topic out and taught a family home evening lesson on it last month. My kids liked learning about such big words. Here are some of the resources i used:

Omnipotent

Omnipresent

Omniscient

http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/36863_eng.pdf?lang=eng (entry on God the Father)

Gospel Principles Chapter 1: Our Father in Heaven

Bible Dictionary: God

Topical Guide: God (particularly the topics God, Omniscience of; God, Power of; God, Wisdom of; God, Presence of; God, Spirit of; God, Perfection of; and others)

Edited January 30, 2014 by Connie

[Dravin]

I subscribe more that the Plan of Salvation imposes the limit on the Father and the Son to be present in mortal beings while they are in their fallen mortal state. So, it's not that they can't. It's that they won't.

Omnipresence isn't about ability, it's about actuality. Something that is omnipresent is everywhere simultaneously, if they aren't everywhere simultaneously then they aren't omnipresent. It doesn't matter if that's because they can't or because they won't. If there is somewhere they are not then they aren't omnipresent.

It sounds like you are saying the Father and the Son aren't present in mortal beings while they are in their fallen mortal state (for example, myself). If the Father and Son aren't present in me then that is somewhere they are not present and therefore they are not omnipresent. For them to be omnipresent they have to be present in me, a mortal being in his fallen mortal state, in some capacity at this very moment.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Dravin

[Quin]

Yep. Yep. Yep.

I don't subscribe to the belief that having a physical body limits Heavenly Father in any way, nor do most LDS I know (although I suppose some might). It's part of the omnipotence thing. We're limited by physical bodies, but he wouldn't be omnipotent if he were as well.

Q

[mrmarklin]

Yep. Yep. Yep.

I don't subscribe to the belief that having a physical body limits Heavenly Father in any way, nor do most LDS I know (although I suppose some might). It's part of the omnipotence thing. We're limited by physical bodies, but he wouldn't be omnipotent if he were as well.

Q

It's interesting that you bring this up. In general, I think that the average LDS is taught that having a body of flesh and bone enhances God's power and abilities and that Satan, not having a body is diminished.

God is perhaps omnipresent in this sense IMHO: Moses Ch 1

27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the Spirit of God

[Irishcolleen]

Quin & mrmarklin, could you elaborate, please?

[Traveler]

Omnipresent: Not really - although I believe G-d's influence is felt everywhere in this universe to one degree or another - I do not believe that any unholy thing can exist in his presents. Therefore, where ever there is unholiness - G-d is not present.

Omniscient: I believe G-d know all concerning this universe which he created. Beyond this universe and its dimensions I would not know - It makes no sense that G-d himself would know of anything he does not know. Therefore - it would not be possible for man to think otherwise concerning the omniscience of G-d.

Omnipotent: Defiantly not. I believe that in order to be omnipotent would also require to be responsible for all things that occur. I do not believe that G-d could judge us for what he is responsible (omnipotent) over.

All Holy: Yes - and since G-d is "all holy" anything that is not holy cannot be in his presents without having to immediately be removed from his presents - which means that there is no way one can believe that G-d is omnipresent and All Holy and be honestly seeking truth. Of necessity they have been deceived by some very cleaver misdirection (falsehood or lie) to think such a thing.

The Traveler

Edited January 30, 2014 by Traveler

[Vort]

Quin & mrmarklin, could you elaborate, please?

I am neither, but let me give it a shot.

Suppose you were a primitive savage, living strictly off the land, using simple tools like rocks for hunting and such. Now suppose you saw someone with a tool the likes of which you had never seen: A spear! With such a weapon, this man can do things you can hardly dream of doing, such as killing an animal larger than yourself, or even defending yourself from wild cats.

Now you see someone with an even more important technology: Fire! You have seen fire before, but you avoid it because it will kill you. But this guy is not afraid of fire. On the contrary, he uses it to do all sorts of cool and useful things, such as stay warm on cold nights, or cook things to make previously inedible roots into food.

Now you see someone with a bow and arrow.

Now you see someone with a forge.

And so forth.

In each case, the wonderment you experience is because these people have learned to control and influence their environment for the benefit of themselves and others.

There was a time when we were spirits. How do spirits control matter? Well, they don't. Of course, spirits are a type of matter, but not a type that can exert influence over what we now call "matter". But our Father and Creator was a material being, able to exert his will over the physical world. He could pick up a rock and throw it. He could command oceans and mountains. This control was in large part because he himself had physicality. He had a physical body, and therefore he was part of physical existence.

So here we are. We have bodies, and with them we can exert great control over our world and those here with us, for good or for evil. We do not have the power of God, of course; or at least, we don't have it in full. But we can move and think and act and choose, all of which are Godly traits. Our physical bodies greatly increase our domain of action.

Do our bodies limit us? In some ways, perhaps. Our ability to move might be much more restricted than in our spiritual state. It's likely that our thoughts and spiritual perceptions are slowed and dampened by our physical bodies -- part of what we should be learning in this life is (probably) how to mitigate those effects. Obviously, our physical bodies subject us to a whole range of temptations that we did not have to deal with as spirit beings; overcoming these is undoubtedly an important reason for our lives.

But whatever their limitations, our bodies are gifts from God and make us more like God. God's physical reality allows him to act in and be the Master of the physical realm.

(These are my own thoughts and ideas, not necessarily those of anyone else or of the LDS Church.)

[The Folk Prophet]

Omnipotent: Defiantly not. I believe that in order to be omnipotent would also require to be responsible for all things that occur. I do not believe that G-d could judge us for what he is responsible (omnipotent) over.

This only works if you redefine omnipotent from what everyone else who says it actually means. "Can do" does not have to equal "did do".

I think a better argument against it would be something along the lines of, can God (according to Mormon theology) create something out of nothing? I think it's common LDS understanding that there are universal laws that even God must follow. Within these laws He is omnipotent. But He cannot break them. So it really depends on how strictly one defines omnipotence.

[Vort]

I think a better argument against it would be something along the lines of, can God (according to Mormon theology) create something out of nothing? I think it's common LDS understanding that there are universal laws that even God must follow.

I completely agree that this is a common LDS understanding, but I do not accept it. I don't necessarily say it's false, only that I'm not convinced it is true.

For example, saying that God does not create something from nothing is no kind of violation of God's omnipotence, nor is it a statement of some überlaw. It is a reflection of reality -- and, contrary to popular non-LDS belief, God does not determine the underlying foundation of reality.

On second thought, that does sound like an underlying law of sorts, doesn't it?

[The Folk Prophet]

I completely agree that this is a common LDS understanding, but I do not accept it. I don't necessarily say it's false, only that I'm not convinced it is true.

For example, saying that God does not create something from nothing is no kind of violation of God's omnipotence, nor is it a statement of some überlaw. It is a reflection of reality -- and, contrary to popular non-LDS belief, God does not determine the underlying foundation of reality.

On second thought, that does sound like an underlying law of sorts, doesn't it?

Like I said, it all depends on what your definition of is is.

[Traveler]

This only works if you redefine omnipotent from what everyone else who says it actually means. "Can do" does not have to equal "did do".

I think a better argument against it would be something along the lines of, can God (according to Mormon theology) create something out of nothing? I think it's common LDS understanding that there are universal laws that even God must follow. Within these laws He is omnipotent. But He cannot break them. So it really depends on how strictly one defines omnipotence.

I do not believe that it is I that is trying to redefine omnipotent. The word comes from the Latin Omni Potens which means all power or all powerful. It also means the most powerful. Even in common law (tradition) as well as order by law - the individual holding the most power in a circumstance under their control is the more or most responsible.

For example Utah State law says that regardless of state statutes and regulations that if a driver of a vehicle on public roads clearly has the ability (power) to avoid an accident and refuses to do so they can be held accountable regardless of what other laws are broken. The amount of liability (responsibility) is according to the power any individual has concerning the circumstance.

But there is more - for example if an official of the state - holding power granted by the state - such as a policeman. If such an individual clearly observes criminal action and is able to prevent the crime but refuses to do so - allowing the crime to proceed - they are considered under the law to be an accessory to the crime. And if,as a magistrate of the law is likewise so involved in the commission of a crime, they must be excluded from any judgments in such chase based on what the law deems "conflict of interest".

It is very simple - Those with power are also those with responsibility. Therefore, saying G-d is all powerful is saying G-d is all responsible. I really like LDS theology because in essence we understand that G-d (Jesus) is most responsible and at the judgement he will be know to us as our advocate with the Father. As advocate he takes upon him responsibility for our sins. But the scriptures are clear that even Jesus through the atonement is not all responsible - that it is possible that we also hold responsibility for our works. That responsibility reflects the power we have - In LDS theology this power that we hold is called Agency.

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

But there is more - for example if an official of the state - holding power granted by the state - such as a policeman. If such an individual clearly observes criminal action and is able to prevent the crime but refuses to do so - allowing the crime to proceed - they are considered under the law to be an accessory to the crime. And if,as a magistrate of the law is likewise so involved in the commission of a crime, they must be excluded from any judgments in such chase based on what the law deems "conflict of interest".

Why am I reminded of the Seinfeld series finale?

[Traveler]

I completely agree that this is a common LDS understanding, but I do not accept it. I don't necessarily say it's false, only that I'm not convinced it is true.

For example, saying that God does not create something from nothing is no kind of violation of God's omnipotence, nor is it a statement of some überlaw. It is a reflection of reality -- and, contrary to popular non-LDS belief, God does not determine the underlying foundation of reality.

On second thought, that does sound like an underlying law of sorts, doesn't it?

I submit that it is silly, especially in light of modern science understanding the relationship between matter, energy and light to say that G-d (a being of unlimited or infinite power and light) creates from nothing. Obviously G-d's power and light existed prior to any creation - to then say he creates from nothing - is the same as to say G-d (at minimum his power and light) also was nothing. It must needs be that G-d creates from his power and light and a honest reading of scriptures testifies clearly that such is the case. Which of necessity, for one to believe in G-d and creation - they must - if they are honest and understands truth, know that G-d must create from something - and that something is his power and light. I really do not understand why anyone with understanding of G-d and even a remote understanding of science would miss such an obvious connection to reality.

The Traveler

[Blackmarch]

The question about whether God was spirit of flesh & blood made me wonder about this. Non-LDS Christians believe these are essential characteristics of God. Please explain your answer so I can understand any similarities or differences we may have.

Please excuse my typing. I meant members. I have no idea what a momber is. My right and left must have switched places while i was typing.

Omnipresence: physically no, but his power and influence is. often an analogy to a lightbulb is used- the light bulb takes up a definite amount of space, yet still the whole room is influenced and affected by it.

Omniscience- yes

Omnipotent- yes

[jordanfloyd]

2 Nephi 9:20 clearly states that "he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it." So yes LDS members do believe that God is omniscient. If it were not so then having faith in him would be very difficult. Ask yourself if you could have Faith in a being who was anything but omniscient? For me it brings comfort and great confidence to know that everything I bring to him in Prayer is met by the all-knowing being who loves and cares for us deeply as individuals. And because he is all knowing he can pursue "His work of bringing to pass our immortality and eternal life." (Elder Neal A. Maxwell) 

[Guest]

This is all covered in Chapter 1 of Gospel Principles:

 

 

God is perfect.

He is a God of righteousness, with attributes such as love, mercy, charity, truth, power, faith, knowledge, and judgment.

He has all power.

He knows all things.

He is full of goodness.

 

God is the Almighty Ruler of the universe.

God is the Supreme and Absolute Being in whom we believe and whom we worship.

 

Because we are made in His image, we know that our bodies are like His body.

His eternal spirit is housed in a tangible body of flesh and bones

 

Does that answer all your questions?