zil Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) Prisonchaplain is the one that holds God is self-sufficient. Your quarrel is with him. You're misunderstanding. I agree that God is self-sufficient, and so should every member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - it's what we teach. My whole post was to argue in favor of that point and _against_ the idea that God is NOT self-sufficient. Edited January 21, 2016 by zil prisonchaplain 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted January 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 Unfortunately, that doesn't wash because if he is self-sufficient, he has no needs, no wants. There is nothing that could make him better off than he ever was. I just disagree with the definition. Self-sufficient means one can take care of his own needs. It does not mean there are no wants, or no desire to strive--for example, to create. Traveler and zil 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etz Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) Check Anselm for the definition of a se.It's most certainly not a Mormon idea, and I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we believe it. Edited January 21, 2016 by etz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted January 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) Prisonchaplain is the one that holds God is self-sufficient. Your quarrel is with him. This may be an aside, but it is interesting to me that, as a non-member, with no LDS roots or history, I have encountered very little personal "quarrel" here. "Things that make you stop and go ... " Edited January 21, 2016 by prisonchaplain zil and Vort 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 It's most certainly not a Mormon idea, and I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we believe it. Bruce R. McConkie, "The Seven Deadly Heresies""Heresy one: There are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths. "This is false—utterly, totally, and completely. There is not one sliver of truth in it. It grows out of a wholly twisted and incorrect view of the King Follett Sermon and of what is meant by eternal progression." Neal A. Maxwell, All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience (you'll have to buy it, it's a book)“Those who try to qualify God’s omniscience fail to understand that He has no need to avoid ennui by learning new things. Because God’s love is also perfect, there is, in fact, divine delight in that ‘one eternal round’ which, to us, seems to be all routine and repetition. God derives His great and continuing joy and glory by increasing and advancing His creations, and not from new intellectual experiences.“There is a vast difference, therefore, between an omniscient God and the false notion that God is on some sort of post-doctoral fellowship, still searching for additional key truths and vital data. Were the latter so, God might, at any moment, discover some new truth not previously known to Him that would restructure, diminish, or undercut certain truths previously known by Him. Prophecy would be mere prediction. Planning assumptions pertaining to our redemption would need to be revised. Fortunately for us, however, His plan of salvation is constantly underway—not constantly under revision. …“In a very real sense, all we need to know is that God knows all!” (All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience [1979], 14–15, 21). Lectures on Faith (again, you'll have to buy it)“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” ([1985], 51–52). ScripturesGod, Perfection ofGod, Omniscience ofGod, Attributes ofGod, Power ofI'll pause here to quote one of my favorite scriptures, 2 Nephi 27:20-21 (emphasis mine) 20 Then shall the Lord God say unto him: The learned shall not read them, for they have rejected them, and I am able to do mine own work; wherefore thou shalt read the words which I shall give unto thee.21 Touch not the things which are sealed, for I will bring them forth in mine own due time; for I will show unto the children of men that I am able to do mine own work. Which scriptures say God is not self-sufficient? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etz Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) So you're stuck explaining why a God who has neither wants nor needs, who cannot be improved by any action, actually does anything. When you can do that, rather than cite authority, that will be interesting. After all, against Bruce R. McConkie, one may cite Brigham Young to the exact opposite effect, as even McConkie admitted. Who outranks who? An Apostle, or the President of the Church? Which of the two cannot lead the Church astray? Edited January 21, 2016 by etz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted January 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 Who outranks who? An Apostle, or the President of the Church? Which of the two cannot lead the Church astray? My church has leaders too. We view them with a lot of respect, though not with the same spiritual callings LDS perceive theirs to have. Nevertheless, I can imagine that if a member chose to quote words from one of our pioneer leaders and use them as an accusation against current leadership...well, as they say in Georgia, "That dog don't hunt!" Yikes LeSellers 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etz Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 All the leaders in question are no longer "current." I appreciate your censure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 So you're stuck explaining why a God who has neither wants nor needs, who cannot be improved by any action, actually does anything. When you can do that, rather than cite authority, that will be interesting. After all, against Bruce R. McConkie, one may cite Brigham Young to the exact opposite effect, as even McConkie admitted. Who outranks who? An Apostle, or the President of the Church? Which of the two cannot lead the Church astray? I don't need to explain why God does anything - He's done that himself in the scriptures (which, by the way, were written by His servants, Apostles and Prophets). Moses 1:39 comes to mind, and I provided links to pages which link to lots of others. "One may cite Brigham Young" - if you are asserting the Brigham Young disagreed with Neal A. Maxwell, Bruce R. McConkie, and whoever wrote Lectures on Faith (which most scholars agree Joseph Smith approved), then please do so, including the source, as I did. Otherwise, you're just typing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etz Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) Some men seem as if they could learn so much and no more. They appear to be bounded in their capacity for acquiring knowledge, as Brother Orson Pratt, has in theory, bounded the capacity of God. According to his theory, God can progress no further in knowledge and power; but the God that I serve is progressing eternally, and so are his children: they will increase to all eternity, if they are faithful. - President Brigham Young, JoD 11:286 Edited January 21, 2016 by etz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 Some men seem as if they could learn so much and no more. They appear to be bounded in their capacity for acquiring knowledge, as Brother Orson Pratt, has in theory, bounded the capacity of God. According to his theory, God can progress no further in knowledge and power; but the God that I serve is progressing eternally, and so are his children: they will increase to all eternity, if they are faithful. - President Brigham Young, JoD 11:286 Thank you. Intriguing that this appears to be contrary to the Lectures on Faith. It also appears contrary to those scriptures which describe God as knowing all things. I'll trust the scriptures first. I simply cannot find a way around them, and the logic of Lectures on Faith and Neal A. Maxwell - you can't be omniscient unless you know all, you can't be omnipotent unless you know all. (As for "bounding" the knowledge of God - by definition, infinite knowledge (omniscience) is unbounded.) I suppose one could argue that there might be new knowledge (e.g. if God doesn't know yet that he'll create the umpteenth world from the most recent one He created, then one could argue that when He decides to create it new knowledge will come into existence). I'm not convinced that's true, but one could argue it. I find it interesting that when it comes to "eternal progression", this Brigham Young quote is the first and only I've ever seen that suggests God is "progressing" - all else I've ever heard or read in the church (for decades now) has been that God is perfect and all-knowing now. Progressed in the past, certainly. Will increase in glory through his children, certainly. But not becoming more perfect (an oxymoron, really), more knowledgeable, etc. Anywho, thanks for providing your source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 Essentially you're saying that self-sufficiency equates to "lack of needs or wants" Zil, This is an interesting phrase when looking at etymology. "Lack" is often used in place of "need" or "want". But decidedly, "lack" does NOT mean "desire". God doesn't "lack" anything. He desires to bring about our immortality and eternal life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etz Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 To have desires is to indicate a lack - a lack of whatever one desires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 To have desires is to indicate a lack - a lack of whatever one desires. You, my friend, are a walking contradiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etz Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) Well, I try very hard to not be. But, as someone of my acquaintance once pointed out, only Jesus was free from internal self-contradiction (glorified in all truth, and in him is no darkness). A state very much to be envied. So, when I find my internal contradictions, I try to get rid of them. Edited January 21, 2016 by etz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 And you aren't even aware of it... Yup. Figures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etz Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 I understand that in a culture where contention is frowned upon, you have to be real careful to appear innocent even while sticking people in the back but gee, I thought the righteous were bold as lions. Why not be bold and if you think you see a contradiction, explaining its nature and letting the target defend him / her self? Isn't that fair? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeedleinA Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) Here is a contradiction for you. What does it mean to speak evil of someone, one wonders? Since "you" wonder what it sounds like to speak evil of someone, here "you" are on another forum: "Remember: are you on our side or not? If you are, get back in line, know your place!If you are not, you are a poor, deluded damnable fool who simply cannot see our greatness and glory!" You can pretend to be concerned for our souls, but in reality it is just pretending. Appears you just like going around different forums trying to stir things up. Yawwwwnnnnn Edited January 21, 2016 by NeedleinA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etz Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 Whom have I spoken evil of, friend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 This thread has me confused. zil and BeccaKirstyn 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted January 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 Well, Folk Prophet, uh...err... we're talking about the meaning of life, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefche Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 This thread is about the Monty Python movie, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 Speaking of Monty Python... Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations. And now for something completely different... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21, 2016 Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 ... even while sticking people in the back ... Hmm. I talk right in front of him. And he accuses me of sticking him in the back. And he doesn't understand how he's a contradiction. He calls people "damnable fools" and then asks where he spoke evil of anyone. And he doesn't see a contradiction. Wayne: So, Garth, would you categorize this as a "Bizarro world" comment, or a "Twilight Zone" moment?Garth: If it's a Twilight Zone moment we wouldn't know how to handle it. If it's a Bizarro comment, then we just need to twist it around. Ahh. "Damnable fool" means "I love you and am concerned about you." OK. checks out. "Sticking someone in the back" means "speaking right in front of him." Yup. checks out. Wayne: Thank you, Garth. It looks like we've taken a step into Bizarro world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted January 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 Well, Folk Prophet, uh...err... we're talking about the meaning of life, right? Ha! Your feeble attempt to reclaim this thread totally failed! Wait...did I just mock myself? I need therapy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.