The Worship of God


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So what happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?  Can God create an immovable object?  The fact that some things are logical impossibilities creates the reality that nothing is truly omnipotent.

You're talking about terminology.  I'm talking about language.  Earthly kings were often called "omnipotent".  And while sci-fi is by defintion "fiction", I invoke it not to declare reality or truth, but to get alternative trains of thought going.

If you have all power, you are omnipotent.  If you have less than all power, you are NOT, by definition, omnipotent.  If you want to talk about entities who have less than all power, or variable degrees of power, then you are not talking about omnipotent beings.  If one entity is omnipotent and another entity is omnipotent, then they have equal power - per force, namely, all of it.

None of that creates a "reality that nothing is truly omnipotent".  What it creates is a reality where "omnipotent" is not equal to "not omnipotent".
To say that two beings can both be omnipotent and yet have varying amounts of power is a contradiction, and contradictions cannot exist.  If they have varying power, at least one of them is not, after all, omnipotent.

As for earthly kings: calling someone something does not make them that thing.  God say's he is omnipotent.  I believe Him.  I do not believe there is another omnipotent being in the universe which is also in competition with God, because it's a logical impossibility: if omnipotence comes from having all knowledge and acting in harmony with it, then to act counter to God (or for God to act counter to another omnipotent being) would mean they are not both acting in harmony with all knowledge, and thus they cannot both be omnipotent.

(Words are only in the way when you try to use them against their definition, or without both parties using the same definitions. I assert that omnipotent is not a word with variable meaning, let earthly kings self-aggrandize all they want.)

If you want to talk about fictionally "omnipotent" beings, then we're going to need to know what that means fictionally - we're going to have to define the universe in which these fictionally "omnipotent" beings exist.*  But I don't think we're going to learn much from that about God's omnipotence here in the real universe with its eternal truths...  Maybe I'm confused about what you're trying to discuss.

*It took me over two hours to explain to my husband a universe I created, so if we're gonna do this, we might all need a Mtn Dew, or something...  It might be easier if rather than using a superlative or exclusive descriptor like omnipotent, you chose a different word which more accurately represented the level of "powerful" you mean.

As for "So what happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?" - Ella Fitzgerald answered this best of all:

I fully acknowledge that I know a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of available knowledge and I could be all wrong about what the scriptures mean when they say God is omnipotent, but until He tells me otherwise, I choose to believe that it means he has all power, that there is no power he does not possess in full, and that an infinite number of beings can also possess all power in full, without any of them being diminished (quite the opposite), and that by nature they will not be in competition with each other (were they, they would not be omnipotent).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Faapefuoe said:

 What are your beliefs relating to our relationship with our Heavenly Father?

 

This is actually a very interesting questions.  My church is part of the Evangelical movement, so we are prone to focus on Jesus. If we are "witnessing" we ask, "So, do you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?" THEN, as a Pentecostal, I focus on the Holy Spirit. After service, we hear remarks like, "Wow, the Holy Spirit was sure present today!" Not that He isn't always--but the presence was very overt. SO, here I am asked about Father.  The answer remains, "Yes, definitely." I pray to him, ask of him, speak words of praise about him, and he responds. Generally, though, when I receive those spiritual responses my reflex is to believe it is the Spirit that has impressed me with an answer.  Then again, what do you expect from a Trinitarian? :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

You may have missed my point.

[Insert ready-made marriage-joke response] :-)

 

Why could or why should there not be any other being(s) like G-d?  Why would G-d not want other beings like himself?  And if he has the power to do so - why doesn't he and if he does not have such ability he is not omnipotent - Why would anyone not believe that G-d is engaged in such a marvelous and wonderful work? And that he would think of those so engaged with him as his children.

 

The Traveler

 

I believe the standard answer is that there can only be one who is ALL. We certainly reflect God's attributes, as He made us. However, according to traditional Christian teaching God is All-powerful, knowing, and everywhere-present. There can only be one like that. If there are two, I would suppose neither could be "all."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to go all psychological at this point. Up until about the 1980s, the skeptic's questions, like, "Can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it?" struck me as mockery. They did not believe in God, so they made up sophomoric questions to cause us who witness to stumble. The inquiries were not sincere, but being sincere people, we tried to respond as if they were.

This is a different kind of questioning. It's not mockery of God, of his existence. It is intended, rather, as a logical questioning of the traditional belief about God's three omnis. After all, if God is OMNIpotent, then exaltation would seem to be impossible. So, God must become "omnipotent."  Oh sure, He's all powerful--but not like that.  In fact, if we become like him, doesn't that make him even greater (eternal progression?). But alas, if He can become greater, than He certainly is not OMNIpotent. 

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@zil,

I get what you're saying.  But I suppose I haven't properly verbalized the difficulty I'm having with this.  The bottom line is that I don't think we really have a clear idea of the literal meaning of omnipotence.  We have some idea of what the etymology means and so forth.  But what is it really?  It's like saying we know what "infinite" really is.  I don't think we can comprehend that.  We have no basis for comparison.  We say the universe is infinite.  But it isn't really. We talk about it and use it in mathematical theories, etc.  But can we count to infinity?  Of course not.  That's kind of the point.

So, the remaining comparisons (lesser beings who are exhalted) are also, likewise, incomprehensible.

While we cannot count to infinity, God can.  While we can't accurately describe omnipotent, God can.  That's why He's able to say He's omnipotent.  But we still don't really understand it.

And I don't know why you so easily dismiss the fictional parallels.  Again, I'm NOT saying it's true.  I just use fiction to expand my mind to be able to comprehend things that the mundane world tends to have troubles with explaining.

In mathematics you can add infinity + infinity and still get infinity.  But if you multiply infinity x infinity you get infinity ^2.  It's along those lines.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

I'm going to go all psychological at this point. Up until about the 1980s, the skeptic's questions, like, "Can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it?" struck me as mockery. They did not believe in God, so they made up sophomoric questions to cause us who witness to stumble. The inquiries were not sincere, but being sincere people, we tried to respond as if they were.

PC,

I'm guessing my post was the impetus for this memory.  In fairness, we get the same thing when Anti-Mormons take a passage our of the BoM about Justice and Mercy that says that if God were not just, He would cease to be God.  This is mainly from the "All-merciful God" protestants who ignore the justice aspect.  They say that we don't believe in an omnipotent God or an all-merciful God because He has to adhere to justice.  If He "has to", then he isn't omnipotent.  So goes the logic...

As to your second paragraph, I hope I at least pointed things in the right direction when I pointed out the bit of infinity math.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

There can only be one like that. If there are two, I would suppose neither could be "all."

IMO, this is only valid when dealing with finite quantities.  The attributes of God are infinite, but increase-able. If I love someone and you love someone does that mean I sudden love them less and that if you would just stop loving them, I could love them more?  Better example: If I know something, and share it with you, do I know less?  Do you have less than all the knowledge (about that thing) which I have?  Both of us can have all of that particular knowledge at once; neither is diminished.  All does not have to be exclusive, indeed, by its nature, it's inclusive; only in finite things are we forced to use it in an exclusionary fashion.

44 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

We say the universe is infinite.  But it isn't really.

Are you so sure?  Been to the edges have you?  What's on the other side of those edges? :)

47 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

And I don't know why you so easily dismiss the fictional parallels.

To me, it's either this universe, in which God and his truth rules; or it's a universe where God is not.  In other words, I cannot imagine this universe without God, nor a (significantly) different universe with God.  This is why my fiction is set in a different universe - if it weren't, the gospel of Jesus Christ would have to be central to everything, and I could not use things which I know are totally fictional and incompatible with that reality (call it a mental problem for Zil).  To me, fiction is first entertainment, and second a means of exploring human behavior.

When I want to increase my understanding of God, I turn to the scriptures, not to fiction.

21 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

BTW, how do you embed a video? 

I just pasted the URL, as if it were text.  The system converted it into an embedded video automatically.  Now I need to go listen to Ella, again! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, zil said:

Are you so sure?  Been to the edges have you?  What's on the other side of those edges? :)

I was referring to the current understanding of the universe according to man's understanding.  It is incomprehensibly big.  But the number of fundamental particles is numbered.  And there is an end.

28 minutes ago, zil said:

To me, it's either this universe, in which God and his truth rules; or it's a universe where God is not.  In other words, I cannot imagine this universe without God, nor a (significantly) different universe with God.  This is why my fiction is set in a different universe - if it weren't, the gospel of Jesus Christ would have to be central to everything, and I could not use things which I know are totally fictional and incompatible with that reality (call it a mental problem for Zil).  To me, fiction is first entertainment, and second a means of exploring human behavior.

When I want to increase my understanding of God, I turn to the scriptures, not to fiction.

So no credit for the "mind-expanding" aspect, eh.  Oh well.  To each his own.  Or her own as the case may be.  I well know the power of scriptures.  But there are some times when I just get stuck in a rut of thought.  And scriptures alone don't work for me.  So, I'll use fiction.  I'll look at other religions.  I listen to classical music -- as well as some "less appropriate" music.  Yes, I listen to some heavy metal.  I read highly impressionistic poetry.  I use all sorts of devices to just get out of the mundane.  Heck, I even come onto this board!  How crazy is that, eh?  

When I get out of that rut, then I go back to the scriptures to come to conclusions.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So no credit for the "mind-expanding" aspect, eh.

Exploring human behavior can indeed be mind-expanding, I just don't use fiction as a way to understand God.  I can't say I've ever put down a fictional book and felt like I had a better understanding of God, the Savior, or the Plan of Salvation.  Maybe it's because of the fiction I choose.  I do, sometimes, come away with a better understanding of human behavior*, of concepts like freedom, acceptance, tolerance, and such*.

When I need something to break me out of my own rutted understanding of God, I read Nibley, and Maxwell, and sometimes MormonInterpreter.com and sometimes SquareTwo.com.  In other words, I read the writings of other people who are trying to understand God and His plan for us.

*Yes, I recognize that in coming to understand these things, I can understand God, perhaps, a little better, but it's indirect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

PC,

I'm guessing my post was the impetus for this memory.  In fairness, we get the same thing when Anti-Mormons take a passage our of the BoM about Justice and Mercy that says that if God were not just, He would cease to be God.  This is mainly from the "All-merciful God" protestants who ignore the justice aspect.  They say that we don't believe in an omnipotent God or an all-merciful God because He has to adhere to justice.  If He "has to", then he isn't omnipotent.  So goes the logic...

As to your second paragraph, I hope I at least pointed things in the right direction when I pointed out the bit of infinity math.

Thank you--especially for the infinity of math examples--it does help me get the LDS thinking. If I've shared in some of the reasoning used by antis, understand those folk would use it against me too (free-will Christians are attacked for undermining God's sovereignty, and for saying we have a part in our own salvation because we can choose it). So, I'd only respond that the line of reasoning can be pushed to hard, but just as I realize that my belief in free will makes the predestination folk uncomfortable, I'm sure you understand that the teaching of exaltation does the same to most traditional Christians. It doesn't prove you wrong, just shows why we struggle with the teaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zil said:

*Yes, I recognize that in coming to understand these things, I can understand God, perhaps, a little better, but it's indirect.

Well, it's not about understanding God, indirect or otherwise.  It is about getting out of a rut.

Now that I think about it, I suppose it really is a personal thing for me because of my tendency toward "perseverent thinking", and therefore a personal solution.  So I have no problem with others not being able to relate.

I find that fiction, especially that which is clearly discernible as not of this world, is helpful.  Those ideas that you suggest, certainly sound like they'd be great.  But for me, they tend to compound the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Thank you--especially for the infinity of math examples--it does help me get the LDS thinking.

I submit that  no one, not even particle physicists, understands infinity or the concepts that get one towards it. There is no "before", there is no "after", and there is no beginning nor end. An infinite number of hotel rooms, each full, can accommodate an infinite number of new guests. There is a negative infinity, just as there is a positive infinity, and an infinite number of fractions between 0~1. Mathematicians have names for some infinities beginning with א0 (alef sub null) and going on to א (alef sub infinity).    

God, for us, is God, and there is no Other, nor will there ever be Another. That does not preclude there being Gods elsewhere and elsewhen. Yes, God has a Father, and Christ a GrandFather. There are an infinite number of metaverses, each with an infinite number of universes within. And, however many Gods there are, each has an infinity of metaverses to create and populate.

Our universe is "flat", much like a pancake. Its outer boundaries are very, very large, but not infinite. It's top and bottom are large, too, but much, much smaller. Are there other universes "above" and "below" ours? I think so, and many astrophysicists think so, too. But we don't know because we don't get any information from them — no light, no gravity, nothing we can recognize. Are these the universes of other Gods, part of our Father's metaverse, or …

I don't understand any of this.

Lehi

 

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This OP's question gives each of us a little reason to squirm.  We know ourselves, with all our shortcomings and personal failings, and we rely upon Christ's grace to save us.  I've never known a serious latter-day saint who walks around saying, "When I become a god, I'm going to do things like this and this."  We don't really think about what exaltation will be like, except perhaps having our family relations forever.

We don't tend to dwell upon what our relationship with future spirit children and what our knowledge, power, and character will be like in a million years or a billion years into eternal life.  We anticipate that we will be like our Heavenly Parents, but it seems unimaginable that our mortal spirit children will look up to us worshipfully.  Nevertheless, that's how it may be.

I imagine that my earthly relationship with my own father could be a likeness.  I looked up to my father when I was a child and eventually he treated me like I was his peer when I became an adult.  Nevertheless, my admiration and devotion to him never diminished, even when I was grown up.  I suppose, a zillion years from now, our Father will regard us as "adult" children who can do everything he can do now, but I expect that our devotion and worship of him will be even greater and more perfect than now.  

It's just too overwhelmingly glorious to contemplate for long.  The celestial heavens are likely filled with exalted beings that are bound in eternal families, working together to exalt us lower beings.  It's a more glorious heaven than we can imagine.  It makes heaven all the more personal and connected.  Meanwhile, we tend to focus on the day-to-day challenges of living life in faith, seeking grace, and trying to love one another.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

 

I believe the standard answer is that there can only be one who is ALL. We certainly reflect God's attributes, as He made us. However, according to traditional Christian teaching God is All-powerful, knowing, and everywhere-present. There can only be one like that. If there are two, I would suppose neither could be "all."

Again you have missed my rhetorical point.  The problem as I understand and rhetorically argue engages the fallen human understanding, logic and lust for power.  That when we center our worship and understanding first on power (over love) we create misunderstanding and flawed logic.  For example G-d has relegated power to man to choose sin, be a fallen being and die.  If there is power that others actually and really have – G-d does not have “all” power.  This is the crux of why such an argument is flawed.  Also scripture tells us that in the resurrection we will inherit “ALL” G-d has (including power or the scriptures lie).  The flaw is in not understanding that love (specifically G-dly love) is greater than “all power” which is made subject to such love and not over such love.

 

My final point is that those that worship "All Power" over love cannot and will not understand or experience the full extent of G-d’s love and will always be led astray by the lust for “All Power” – example Lucifer (Satan).  The lust and belief in “All Powerful” is the great heresy against the truth of love – and the truth of that principle was once your signature line at the end of all your posts.

 

 

The Traveler

 

 

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that God delegates His power to us is interesting. Perhaps more interesting is the notion that since we have the power to choose evil, and God, who is pure goodness, does not...well there is an interesting angle. Still, most traditional Christians do not lust for "all power."  At our best, we hunger and thirst for the power of Father's love! Further, all power, without love, would be very lonely. However, since God is love, we do enjoy eternal fellowship with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

The idea that God delegates His power to us is interesting. Perhaps more interesting is the notion that since we have the power to choose evil, and God, who is pure goodness, does not...well there is an interesting angle. Still, most traditional Christians do not lust for "all power."  At our best, we hunger and thirst for the power of Father's love! Further, all power, without love, would be very lonely. However, since God is love, we do enjoy eternal fellowship with him.

God has all power because He always chooses Good.  If we become like Him and also always choose Good, then we share everything (including power) with Him.

If anyone in this life is given a sliver of God's power and then chooses evil, the power and authority vanished from him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

The idea that God delegates His power to us is interesting. 

I don't know why that is interesting.  Wasn't the statue of Christ with no hands a protestant thing?  The message being "You are the only hands I have".

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Evangelicals and other creed-based Christians, this whole topic is akin to blasphemy because, as the Pharisees said of Jesus, we think to make ourselves God's equal (in some future time).  The belief in the Trinity came about to resolve controversies over God's nature.  Was there one God or three?  They chose (with some degree of intrigue) to go for the answer that there could only be one God who necessarily must possess all power and none other.

Latter-day saints know from modern revelation that the Trinity is a false doctrine and that there are indeed three Gods who are organized into one Godhead.  Thus, the example for us regarding our eternal relationship with God is Jesus Christ.  We follow his path.  He lived before he was born into mortality.  

Jesus prayed to his Father. He did the Father's will in submission.  He honored the Father's authority.  He was baptized.  He submitted himself to the Father in all things and received ALL that the Father hath.  

Was there any power or authority that God did not confer upon his Beloved Son?  Was there any good thing he withheld from Jesus that he alone might be Sovereign?  In all things, the Son glorifies the Father and the Father glorified him.  We cannot imagine that they would ever be contrary to one another.  

For what my opinion is worth, if God can do that with one of his children, he can do it with all those who follow Jesus.  Therein is the "abomination" that is contained in the creeds--that God's nature is obscured and prevents mankind from learning its true potential in God's purposes.  The heavens are filled with more infinite light and glory that we can possibly imagine from an entire race of glorified, exalted beings, who call God their Father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I don't know why that is interesting.  Wasn't the statue of Christ with no hands a protestant thing?  The message being "You are the only hands I have".

Not sure about the statue you reference, but I find this conversation about the nature of God's power to be a real mind-stretcher.  :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SpamLDS does a great job of interacting with traditional Christian teaching. It is difficult for Trinitarians, like myself, to imagine God allowing the kind of exaltation LDS believe.  It is refreshing to have folk here attempt to explain it to me, and to not apologize for the doctrine. Some LDS shy completely away, perhaps believing that folk like me can't help but despise a belief they find a precious treasure. I give Traveler top kudos for how he glories in this particular teaching. Hey...it's either true or not. No sense in being moderate about it.  :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

SpamLDS does a great job of interacting with traditional Christian teaching. It is difficult for Trinitarians, like myself, to imagine God allowing the kind of exaltation LDS believe.  It is refreshing to have folk here attempt to explain it to me, and to not apologize for the doctrine. Some LDS shy completely away, perhaps believing that folk like me can't help but despise a belief they find a precious treasure. I give Traveler top kudos for how he glories in this particular teaching. Hey...it's either true or not. No sense in being moderate about it.  :-)

PC, have you seen the official LDS.org article about becoming like God?  https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng  (I'm guessing you've seen before, but just in case you haven't). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

It is difficult for Trinitarians, like myself, to imagine God allowing the kind of exaltation LDS believe.  

It seems like someone else already brought up their own children as an analogy.  If we had the ability to decide such things, what kind of life would we "allow" our earthly children.  As long as my child is good and trustworthy don't I share my car, kitchen, credit card and everything else with them. Don't we want them to have every good thing? 

Or, do I want them to be less than me? Should they feel guilty if they think their life should be as good as mine? They certainly don't deserve as much pay as me.  

 

Which Father is/has love? The one that wants me to have all or the one who wants me to have less? If the analogy is connected to our Heavenly Father and I believe in a God of love then it is difficult for me to imagine a Father who doesn't want to give you everything.

 

9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

 

Can the above scripture be applied to this discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The passage ends up being about the gift of the Holy Spirit, in particular. Our sticking point is the line between the godlikeness traditionalists expect to experience in heaven. After all, we will see like Jesus, judge angels, face an eternal future, etc. vs. the godbecoming that LDS envision as a possibility for those worthy of exaltation.  Part of the disconnect has to do with our beginnings. Traditionalists believe we were created at conception. LDS believe in an eternal pre-existence. This difference prepares the way for our divergence on what lies ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share