Help With Mormon Question

[Adomini22]

So.... I though most answers were good ones..... I dont imagine that God thinks of a nice sports car, snaps his fingers, and Viola!!!!......... thats what I thought when I was 6...

[a-train]

Perhaps we think it is a sin to say that God cannot do something. Whether because of law or the limitations of power or ability, it is perceived that to say God cannot do a thing is sinful. We had better get Paul then, because he said God 'cannot lie' in Titus 1:2.

Let this not turn this into a word game. Can God walk on 'nothing'? If it is REALLY 'nothing' how do we know it is being walked upon? Can He walk on something that doesn't exist? Just the same, if God commenced some work on 'nothing' which yielded the earth, can we really say that he worked on it when it doesn't exist?

The statement: 'God formed the earth from nothing.' sounds true at first. But word it this way and it all goes wrong: 'God formed nothing into the earth.' What did He form? Nothing.

Now look at these two: 'God formed the earth from matter.' Now word it the other way: 'God formed matter into the earth.' What did He form? Matter.

It's all a word game.

Indeed it is a righteous intention to say that we cannot limit God. But reality has some definition. If there are no laws at all, no dimensions, no characteristics, nothing for God to operate on or with, can He operate?

Can God see 'nothing'? Can He touch 'nothing'? Can He eat 'nothing'? Can He create 'nothing'? I would say the answer to all these is yes, but they all mean God is NOT seeing, touching, eating, or creating. While we honor God in all His endeavors, it is the things that He DOES that make Him great.

-a-train

[sarah_22]

"With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:26).

Whose to say that something that seems logically impossible to us isn't impossible for God?

Also, what exactly is the difference between 'eternity' and 'eternities'? I hear eternities used quite a bit in mormon literature.

[Adomini22]

"With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:26).

Whose to say that something that seems logically impossible to us isn't impossible for God?

Also, what exactly is the difference between 'eternity' and 'eternities'? I hear eternities used quite a bit in mormon literature.

No one is limiting God. Do you read what A-train wrote? Yeah, what he said. As for eternities, I hear that all the time with all sorts of stuff. I even hear that in fantasy books. never heard that before?

[Snow]

If God has laws, and on some levels he does, then he must abide by them. Otherwise, he would not be God. Because God cannot lie, cheat, decieve, etc. What God says must come to pass......

I don't know why could lie if he wanted to. Clearly God of the Old Testament both deceived and cheated. Also, both ancient and modern scriptures have God saying all sorts of stuff that does not come to pass.

Good example of mine.... Garden of Eden. God told Adam that in the day he eats the forbidden fruit, he shall surely die. Did he die that same day? No. Did God lie? No. It is written that a day with God is 1000 years. Did Adam die the "day" he ate the fruit? Yes. He did. Adam did not reach 1000 years. He reached like 960 or something....but no mortal can ever reach 1000 years on this earth. The bounds have been set. If someone would be here longer than 1000 years, they would have to be transfigured/translated. No mortal can live 1000 years.......... God also placed Cheribum with a flaming sword to guard the tree of life, because if Adam had partaken of it, Gods plan would come to naught, and his words wouldnt be true, hence, God would not be God..... so means are taken to ensure that his words come to pass.....

So God uses words in a way that does not reflect what we understand of the words? Day doesn't mean day; day means millennium. Hmmm. How do you that when he said day he didn't really mean goat or coat or happiness or Big Mac?

[CrimsonKairos]

God cannot save us if we don't repent.

That is a huge limitation. Does that make God less glorious?

Does that reflect more on God's lack of power, or does it speak of His adherence to law?

[Adomini22]

Snow, I am so surprised that you claim to be LDS. Do you care to explain how God lies and cheats? Thats kinda funny you say that? How can you have faith unto salvation towards a being that lies and cheats? i cant wait to see how you will respond to that one......

God says what it is.....because he says what it is..... It is written(in the bible) that one day with God is 1000 years. Also, maybe because god said that to adam before the fall, which would still be gods time in the Garden of Eden...... Adam knew what he was talking about. Any questions?

[john doe]

Maybe because he meant a spiritual death? Or maybe he meant that, since Adam's body was then mortal after he partook, a physical death. Mortal bodies are in a constant state of decay, thereby, technically, dying. I'm not saying I know the answer, but those would be my first two thoughts.

[a-train]

"With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:26).

Whose to say that something that seems logically impossible to us isn't impossible for God?

Also, what exactly is the difference between 'eternity' and 'eternities'? I hear eternities used quite a bit in mormon literature.

GOD is to say what he can and cannot or does and does not do. That is the point. The ex nihilo concept did not come from God, but the imagination of man. Through revelation, by prophets of God, just as God gave us the ten commandments, He has given us the doctrine that He has eternally lived within an eternal enviroment which He governs and operates to accomplish great and wonderful works.

If you are curious about what revelations the LDS people look to precisely to get this doctrine here is an example:

In heaven, before the earth was created, there was a great convocation of the spirits of all mankind with God referred to as the Grand Council by LDS wherein: 'there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;' (Abraham 3:24)

The one like unto God here mentioned was none other than Jesus of Nazereth. The point in question is, of course, the mentioning of the materials used in the creation of the earth.

The question becomes: 'Who are we to say whether God can use pre-existing material to create the earth or not?' Wouldn't saying that He could not use pre-existing material be just as limiting as saying he had too?

-a-train

[a-train]

For the most part, eternity and the eternities are virtually the same thing. I think the 's' is simply there to demonstrate the utter infinity of the matter.

There are those of the mindest that each passing of a planet through the creative process, it's probationary state and into it's final eternal destination would be considered 'an eternity', but this would be speculative.

Also, it is said that we pass from 'eternity to eternity'. Moses 7:31 contains an example of this phrase. It is here in this probationary lifetime that we are said to be passing from 'eternity to eternity'. From one infinite state to another so to speak. As if our pre-mortal state was one eternity and our final return back to the presence of God is another. In this life, we cannot see or experience either eternity. We are seperated therefrom by a 'veil'. We, in this very temporary and limited state are said to be outside of eternity. We left eternity and will go back, we are travelling from eternity to eternity.

I think the terms eternity and eternities are somewhat more expressive than definitive and we need not be too constrictive with their use or application.

-a-train

[sarah_22]

"We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;' (Abraham 3:24)"

So, what if there was no more space? Would God just be out of luck and have to recycle matter??Do you see how to me that seems strange? It's like he's dependent on the universe (Thank goodness there was enough space and matter left over or else this universe wouldn't exist.) I would prefer to think of God as never having to 'look' for enough space in order to make something.

"We, in this very temporary and limited state are said to be outside of eternity."

"Here is time, where is eternity? It is here, just as much as anywhere in all the expanse of space.." (Brigham Young, Pre-existence; The Plan of Salvation.)

Some interesting statements that I stumbled across:

"Given the logic of the LDS system, it is not at all clear that the mormon God can even be self-existent. For, the mormon God is necesarily embodied and thus depends on matter to exist. If matter had not existed God would not have existed. This makes matter more ultimate than God. He is further dependent on the existence of laws of nature and eternal principles in order to exist and rule."

"The Mormon god is contingent or dependent on matter rather than its creator."

[a-train]

God doesn't run out of space. His real estate is endless. The eternal enviroment, the universe which God governs is without end.

Let me ask you this: Was there ever a time that God did NOT govern a universe?

And yes, of course we are IN eternity. Eternity is all of time and space and of course we are there in it at all times. The various uses of the term are expressive as I stated before. It depends upon the context.

So are you saying that Jesus didn't need matter to have a body and live among men? Did Jesus NOT need a body to be crucified? Did he not need a body to walk on water? What about water? Did He not need the water in order to walk on it? What is more 'ultimate', a lifeless body of water or the God walking on it, the water that is calmed or the God that calmed it?

-a-train

[the Ogre]

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

I think it is important to start here. Very simple KJV of the events. There is some more. But briefly the statement is a claimant of fact. Not a process or definition of either ex nihilo creation or any other methodology.

So we begin here.

My opinion? I'm a smart person and not stupid enough to ignore science unlike many people in the pandenominational pseudo-sciensphere (PPS; a world of people who love the works of science [TV, computers, medicine, etc.], but hate the works of G-d by men and hate the words of science, but love the words of G-d by men [even when empty and hypocritical]) and realize G-d is able to work through all people to accomplish H-s goals. Science says there are some possibilities that are worth considering though they are still theory, so I think why not check it out. Many people say G-d only created the universe ex nihilo and that scientists are a bunch of pagans. These same people would put G-d in a box, restricting H-m to only one way (particularly when Genesis is not particular). I think if one only looks at Genesis, then either way is possible.

So then what about the LDS position. I would like to say that there are lot of LDSs who feel both ways even if the LDS canon seems to lean in one direction. Now the interesting point: LDSs believe in prophets, continuing revelation and the existence of other scripture beyond that of the PPS's accepted canon.

If some people think that means that LDSs are making it up as they go, I then say fine; enjoy your narrow minded ignorance and limited world-scope, but realize, LDS beliefs are LDS beliefs and not yours.

So what about the following quote:

"We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;' (Abraham 3:24)"

I like the scripture that says:

Ephesians 2:

(8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast. (10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

The reason I like both scriptures together is the pronoun "We." Scripture indicates this is between G-d, the G-dhead, and those that help. I would like to point out that "We" are the workmanship of G-d to accomplish H-s work. So yeah, yeah, I do things for those around me and in church and spray-painting trains to say 'J-sus Saves' on trains (dash included) and in helping create the universe, but that ultimately even if "I" do these things, since G-d created me to accomplish H-s work, it is as if H- did it through me whether I was there or not. Like a waffle-head hammer or can of spray paint, my role is important, but my will is pointless (those of you who want to argue agency, keep your pants on, one has to choose to be a hammer or a can of spray paint).

So then where did these materials come from? I don't know.

I don't think Abraham mentions it either.

Does it mean the L-rd recycled it from other worlds (my Dad's personal theory), created it in the way science seems to think it happened (BTW, unorganized matter sounds like Nebula star-gardens, big areas of unorganized matter), or ex nihilo. Is it possible the L-rd used a method not mentioned? Sure. H- might have, he doesn't seem to mention it anywhere however. (The big bang theorists seem to think that the first matter created was like a giant neutron-or something like it-and that an injection of energy got the process going; maybe G-d and his helpers kicked this thing and helped mold it until blip-blip-blop we showed up--who knows.)

Personally, I don't think it matters. I'm a Latter-day Saint who thinks we don't have all the answers yet, but one of these days we will (you know, the role of prophets and all that). Now how are we going to learn all this? Think again the Ephesians section. G-d made us to work. All the work done by us is then in effect the work of G-d, we were predestined to it just like the letter to the Ephisians says like Abraham 2 does and last it doesn't matter to the tools what they do, all glory to the Cr-ator. I just do, recognizing that what I do is not my work, but G-d's. I hope that I will be worthy of H-s favor and that is why I believe in grace through faith and nothing else.

Maybe the tools talk sitting in the tool-box and that way we might learn from the phillips-head how it all happened.

Regarding workers or assistants, the PPS seems too Sadduciac in their pronouncements and ought to reconsider. Now could G-d create without workers? Yep. I'm not one of those to put G-d in a box.

[Brother Dorsey]

"We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;' (Abraham 3:24)"

So, what if there was no more space? Would God just be out of luck and have to recycle matter?? Do you see how to me that seems strange? It's like he's dependent on the universe (Thank goodness there was enough space and matter left over or else this universe wouldn't exist.) I would prefer to think of God as never having to 'look' for enough space in order to make something.

Actually God is not dependant on the universe...he created it from an infinite amount of unorganized matter....the key word here is infinite, like He is. You are thinking in the finite. Your limited thinking is limiting God to a finite amount of matter from which to create. In God's realm there is an infinite amount of matter for which his infinite power can control and organize to his delight and glory. Always has been, always will!

Some interesting statements that I stumbled across:

Stumbled across?....copy and pasted from anti-mormon web site is more like it.

"Given the logic of the LDS system, it is not at all clear that the mormon God can even be self-existent. For, the mormon God is necesarily embodied and thus depends on matter to exist..

I see...and you think that God doesn't have a body? He's a disembodied entity? A God of no substance? And because God doesn't have a body he doesn't need matter because, well, to you He is made of nothing correct?

If matter had not existed God would not have existed.

You actually believe this is what the LDS teach?

This makes matter more ultimate than God.

Now that is a really logical statement <sarc>, that's like saying that clay is more important than the potter who creates from it!

He is further dependent on the existence of laws of nature and eternal principles in order to exist and rule."

This anti-mormon garbage you are spewing is way off base....God created the laws and eternal principles and therefore He is subject to those same laws and principles. Otherwise He would not be God.

"The Mormon god is contingent or dependent on matter rather than its creator."

LOL...that statement really made me laugh......it would be like me saying to you..."Your god has no body, he is made of nothing, he creates from nothing, he must be nothing so thererfore he doesn't exist".

[sarah_22]

"Now that is a really logical statement <sarc>, that's like saying that clay is more important than the potter who creates from it!"

Of course the clay is more important. The potter could make nothing without the clay!

"Given the logic of the LDS system, it is not at all clear that the mormon God can even be self-existent. For, the mormon God is necesarily embodied and thus depends on matter to exist..

"I see...and you think that God doesn't have a body? He's a disembodied entity? A God of no substance? And because God doesn't have a body he doesn't need matter because, well, to you He is made of nothing correct?"

I never said God was made out of nothing. If he had a body though, according to mormism the only way that he would have attained it was from his father who 'organized' him.

If matter had not existed God would not have existed.

"You actually believe this is what the LDS teach?"

Yes..If the eternal matter had not been there for Gods' God then he never would have been able to "organize" his spirit child (Our God)..thus he would not exist. Making the mormon Gods dependent on eternal matter.

"Your god has no body, he is made of nothing, he creates from nothing, he must be nothing so thererfore he doesn't exist".

Actually I believe my God can take any form he likes..for nothing is impossible with "my" God.

"This anti-mormon garbage you are spewing is way off base....God created the laws and eternal principles and therefore He is subject to those same laws and principles. Otherwise He would not be God."

Actually..He obeyed eternal laws to become the God that you now know. These eternal laws were governing other Gods long before our God was "organized".

[the Ogre]

Actually I believe my God can take any form he likes..for nothing is impossible with "my" God.

I'm wondering, who is it that owns G-d? Hmmm . . . you do, that is interesting!?!

I've heard the potter and the clay one before. Bakers and the cake. Writers and the novel. An analogy that is weak. Believe what you want.

Now are you one of those that digs so deep to wonder if Adam had a navel. You seem to think that LDSs think G-d had one (your comment about G-d being created).

I'm really wondering if you are capable of connecting this to salvation. I mean, how does this argument help anyone gain salvation? So far, you seem to be perpetuating an aura of discord. Is discord the purpose of religion? The purpose of your religion?

So who came first? The Baker? The Cake? Or the Leavening?

[Snow]

Snow, I am so surprised that you claim to be LDS. Do you care to explain how God lies and cheats? Thats kinda funny you say that? How can you have faith unto salvation towards a being that lies and cheats? i cant wait to see how you will respond to that one......

Adomini,,

I am so suprized that you claim to be LDS (I assume) when you have never read the Old Testament. See 1 Kings 22, Ezck 12, II Thess and Gen 32.

BTW Adomini, you might try reading what I wrote instead of reading into what I write what you want to see. I didn't say that God lies and cheats as you falsely proclaim. I said that the God of the OT - that is as described in the OT - deceives and cheats. I didn't write it so you are barking up the wrong river.

[a-train]

I must be on ignore, my questions went unaddressed.

-a-train

[Adomini22]

<div class='quotemain'>

Snow, I am so surprised that you claim to be LDS. Do you care to explain how God lies and cheats? Thats kinda funny you say that? How can you have faith unto salvation towards a being that lies and cheats? i cant wait to see how you will respond to that one......

Adomini,,

I am so suprized that you claim to be LDS (I assume) when you have never read the Old Testament. See 1 Kings 22, Ezck 12, II Thess and Gen 32.

BTW Adomini, you might try reading what I wrote instead of reading into what I write what you want to see. I didn't say that God lies and cheats as you falsely proclaim. I said that the God of the OT - that is as described in the OT - deceives and cheats. I didn't write it so you are barking up the wrong river.

Ok, so if I read this right, you are saying that God doesnt lie or cheat, just the God in the OT..... nice.

Oh, and on a minor point, its barking up the wrong tree, not river. But its ok, I know its late...

I must be on ignore, my questions went unaddressed.

-a-train

I hear ya. I believe that God has always governed a universe..... I wonder what others would say.

[Snow]

God says what it is.....because he says what it is..... It is written(in the bible) that one day with God is 1000 years. Also, maybe because god said that to adam before the fall, which would still be gods time in the Garden of Eden...... Adam knew what he was talking about. Any questions?

Oh brother.

The author of Genesis wrote that in that day (of eating the fruit), you shall surely die and then 1000 years later the author of Peter said that 1000 years is like a day to the Lord. Adam didn't say anything.

Ok, so if I read this right, you are saying that God doesnt lie or cheat, just the God in the OT..... nice.

Only if you read at a 6th grade level. For us adults it's more than obvious that the point is not that God lies and cheats but rather that the human authors of the OT wrote passages where in they represented God to deceive, to cheat, to be immoral, to commit atrocities, to be spiteful etc.

I'm not exactly sure why you need this explained to you...

Some interesting statements that I stumbled across:

"Given the logic of the LDS system, it is not at all clear that the mormon God can even be self-existent. For, the mormon God is necesarily embodied and thus depends on matter to exist. If matter had not existed God would not have existed. This makes matter more ultimate than God. He is further dependent on the existence of laws of nature and eternal principles in order to exist and rule."

"The Mormon god is contingent or dependent on matter rather than its creator."

I guess your point is that anything you stumble upon must be true.

It's a rather banal point.

[Adomini22]

Wow Snow, looks like I must have hit a nerve..... I wonder, is it that easy? No worries, I dont push.

"For us adults it's more than obvious that the point is not that God lies and cheats but rather that the human authors of the OT wrote passages where in they represented God to deceive, to cheat, to be immoral, to commit atrocities, to be spiteful etc."

Ah, now your view is explained. Well, thanx for taking above that 6th grade reading level for a moment.

[the Ogre]

Only if you read at a 6th grade level. For us adults it's more than obvious that the point is not that God lies and cheats but rather that the human authors of the OT wrote passages where in they represented God to deceive, to cheat, to be immoral, to commit atrocities, to be spiteful etc.

I'm not exactly sure why you need this explained to you...

Hi Snow,

I like that you make the distinction here. The humanity of OT texts is fascinating and one of the areas of long term interests for me. Thanks for clarifying for the other poster. It is an interesting notion that the religious narratives of the distant past had no problem attributing characteristics normally associated with the guile that now can not be attributed to G-d without instant condemnation and shunning.

Aaron the Ogre

[Dr T]

Hello all. This is a fun topic. First thing to note is we see God differently.

Hello Sarah,

I’d have to start with an important topic and have you come to your own conclusion on this but this is where I've come down on this issue. I've posted this before and it might be familar to many of you from that post sorry for repeating this for some. I’ll tell you quick story; there is a pastor at Southwest Community Church in Palm Dessert, CA that often says, “That word is 'all' and do you know what 'all' means in the Greek?" and he would answer by saying, "All means all, that’s all, all means.” I really liked that phrase for a while. If we actually take a look in the Bible however, we see that “all” does not always mean “all” as in "every single thing”. Here are some examples:

Mat 8:16 When evening came, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed; and He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were ill.

There were ill people in Israel who were not healed.

Mat 9:35 Jesus was going through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness.

There were cities and villages to which Jesus did not go.

Mat 10:22 You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.

They were not hated by everyone.

Mat 13:32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

This is an old chestnut. There are orchid seeds smaller than the mustard seed.

Mat 14:35 And when the men of that place had knowledge of him, they sent out into all that country round about, and brought unto him all that were diseased ...

What about people who could not be moved?

Mat 21:10 And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?

Are we to believe that even infants will say it?

Mat 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

People pray constantly for world peace.

Mat 27:22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? [They] all say unto him, Let him be crucified.

No exceptions?

Mat 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood [be] on us, and on our children.

Again, no exceptions? Not even suckling babies?

Mar 1:37 And when they had found him, they said unto him, all [men] seek for thee.

Even Romans who did not know of His existence?

Luk 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

How likely is it that everyone in the world would speak well of someone?

Jhn 3:26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all [men] come to him.

Herod didn't.

Jhn 4:29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?

That would have taken a very long time. Do you really thing "all" things?

Jhn 8:2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

I'm sure some people didn't come.

Jhn 10:8 all that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

Even Moses was a thief and a robber?

Jhn 11:48 If we let him thus alone, all will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

Clearly not all would; the one speaking was not likely to believe in Him.

OK, enough of that but do you see how "all" does not always mean all? I list those because it is important to understand what you are saying. I do see God bound by certain things. He is bound by his essense, for example. When you quote the verse saying “all things are possible…” cannot it mean, “all things that are possibly done”? For things to be done that are impossible to do, that makes absolutely no sense. Those things then, would not be impossible. This is an absurdity just like the old question of a rock being too big to lift or as Snow’s example of the steak being too big. Those are as nonsensical as other statements such as these:

"Can God make this question into a declarative sentence?"

"Can God change the subject of this sentence to 'Jello'?"

"Can God make this sentence so long that he cannot read it?"

"Can God make the slithy toves gyre and gimble in the wabe?"

“Can God create a rock so invisible that it casts a shadow two nanoseconds long?”

These examples are absurd and therefore not worthy of pursuing and even more silly to say, “Yes God could if He really wanted to.” Sorry if that was offensive but some of the above arguments are, although admirable in a “that’s cute” sort of way, just as silly as the questions themselves.

[sarah_22]

Actually I believe my God can take any form he likes..for nothing is impossible with "my" God.

"I'm wondering, who is it that owns G-d? Hmmm . . . you do, that is interesting!?!"

I was being facetious, since he said "your" God.

Dr T: Thank you for your post. I still don't see how it answers my questions though

"For things to be done that are impossible to do, that makes absolutely no sense."

And...why would creating matter be impossible?I would like to think that the God I worship is above our logic. What seems impossbile to us isn't to him, his ways are not our ways.

Why would it be impossible for God to either chose to create matter or chose to organize matter that was there.

[Dr T]

Hi Sarah,

You said,

And...why would creating matter be impossible?I would like to think that the God I worship is above our logic. What seems impossbile to us isn't to him, his ways are not our ways.

I agree that God created the world from nothing (spoke it into existence) vs. organizing something that he did not create. God is bound by logic. He is bound to certain things. I wish I could spend more time but it will have to wait. By saying "the God I worship is above our logic" does not follow. By describing God, we use logic which you are saying does not bind him. He is the greatest, most powerful, perfect, etc. being. He is beyond normal laws of physics as can be seen through the miracles. He presented as a burning bush that did not consume, came back from the dead, walked on water, etc. That is not the issue. I'll post more later.