Mark 6:4-6

[laronius]

Askandanswer's post on Mark 6:7 led me to read the preceding verses leading to a different question.

4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. 5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. 6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

Do you think this was a self-imposed limitation or does this fall under the category of limitations to God's power to do whatever He wants because He would "cease to be God" should he act contrary to eternal law?

[Vort]

4 hours ago, laronius said:

Do you think this was a self-imposed limitation or does this fall under the category of limitations to God's power to do whatever He wants because He would "cease to be God" should he act contrary to eternal law?

There are any number of things that God cannot do. Or, to be more precise, there are any number of non-things that God cannot do, because they aren't really things. They are word constructs that sound meaningful but are not.

God cannot make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, because the statement implies that there is a weight limit to God's strength—a falsehood. God cannot save people in their sins, because the very meaning of the word "salvation" precludes sinfulness; sins are the very things that God is saving people from, so it's meaningless to speak of salvation in sin. In my understanding, God cannot do mighty works among the faithless and wicked, because the working of mighty things precludes faithlessness and wickedness (or perhaps faithlessness and wickedness preclude mighty works). It's like salvation in sin. It's not a real thing.

[Ironhold]

5 hours ago, laronius said:

Askandanswer's post on Mark 6:7 led me to read the preceding verses leading to a different question.

4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. 5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. 6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

Do you think this was a self-imposed limitation or does this fall under the category of limitations to God's power to do whatever He wants because He would "cease to be God" should he act contrary to eternal law?

The Jewish leadership of the day were convinced that the Messiah would be a military leader from a noble family who would lead a bloody revolution against Rome that would make Israel its own nation again. 

So when they found themselves being lectured by a carpenter from Podunkville who preached societal reform and spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven in theological terms, they were confused. They didn't understand what was going on, let alone how Jesus could speak with such power and authority. 

[CrimsonKairos]

Faith is the fuel which powers miracles.

 

No faith, no fuel: no miracles.

 

To perform a miracle in front of the faithless would be to make inescapable their condemnation for not believing in the presence of such evidence.

 

Jesus was ever careful to reveal his Light only fully in the presence of those who sought it and were prepared for it, including transmitting celestial truths through parables, because we are judged based on the Light we have.

To give Light to those unprepared and unable to abide it would be cruel indeed.

[Jersey Boy]

13 hours ago, laronius said:

Askandanswer's post on Mark 6:7 led me to read the preceding verses leading to a different question.

4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. 5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. 6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

Do you think this was a self-imposed limitation or does this fall under the category of limitations to God's power to do whatever He wants because He would "cease to be God" should he act contrary to eternal law?

In order for these people to be healed of their ailments and witness great miracles, it was necessary for them to first exercise faith in Christ. But since they had little to no faith Christ and his the healing power, his miraculous power was largely withheld from them. 

[askandanswer]

There is no theological or scriptural basis for the following, but I can imagine a situation whereby Christ was operating under instructions from His Father, and one of those instructions to Christ being something like, don't do anything unless there is sufficient faith, or only do miracles that are proportionate to the faith of the recipients.  

[askandanswer]

 

Mark 9: 23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are ^apossible to him that ^bbelieveth.

It may be that belief is a necessary precursor for a later action. The lack of initial belief may create some limitations on the possible range of later actions. 

 

 

[zil2]

No time to explain further - gotta get ready for church - and not sure I really can, but I think faith is much more foundational (basic, simple) and much more profound, extending far beyond the idea of "belief-driven action" (while that the same time, being exactly and only that).  Without faith, none of us would or could do a single thing.  With it, we can do far greater than most of us, myself included, do.

[Traveler]

On 2/3/2023 at 10:47 AM, Vort said:

There are any number of things that God cannot do. Or, to be more precise, there are any number of non-things that God cannot do, because they aren't really things. They are word constructs that sound meaningful but are not.

God cannot make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, because the statement implies that there is a weight limit to God's strength—a falsehood. God cannot save people in their sins, because the very meaning of the word "salvation" precludes sinfulness; sins are the very things that God is saving people from, so it's meaningless to speak of salvation in sin. In my understanding, God cannot do mighty works among the faithless and wicked, because the working of mighty things precludes faithlessness and wickedness (or perhaps faithlessness and wickedness preclude mighty works). It's like salvation in sin. It's not a real thing.

I have pondered the difference between what cannot be done and what will not be done.  There is no difference in the result.  We sometimes hear someone say, "I cannot do that".  But in reality, they choose not to do it.  There is another logic paradox.  If there are two options in a choice – once a choice has been made we cannot have the fruits of the other choice without invalidating the first choice and losing those fruits.  But is that because we cannot have both fruits or because we will not have both fruits?  Because G-d has chosen to be G-d and embrace light and truth – then he cannot lie or he will not lie.  Either way he does not lie.

I like your reference to salvation being void of sin.  The word salvation is related to salvage.  If we salvage a ship wreck we gather that which is of value and leave behind all things that do not have value.  This would explain why a son of perdition cannot be saved or salvaged.  Perdition means total and complete ruin and therefore there is nothing to be salvaged.  This also explains why we cannot be saved without repentance.  In some languages the translation of repentance is to turn away from.  If there is a sin from which we cannot turn away, then we cannot be salvaged (salvation).

 

The Traveler

[askandanswer]

On 2/3/2023 at 10:12 PM, laronius said:

Do you think this was a self-imposed limitation or does this fall under the category of limitations to God's power to do whatever He wants because He would "cease to be God" should he act contrary to eternal law?

I’ve sometimes thought about the possibility of a transaction between God and unspirited intelligences whereby God said to the intelligences give me power over you and I will enable your organisation and progression. And the intelligences said ok, yes, but if you ever do anything outside of this agreement we will take back from you the power we have given you and that will be the end of our arrangement. Or, in other words, you will cease to be our God.

This is total speculation, but perhaps not impossible, and it does explain how, under some circumstances, God could cease to be God in relation to one particular group because of not obeying a particular eternal law. Other than the existence of natural consequences for non-obedience, I cannot see any other “enforcer” being involved in handing out penalties for breaches of eternal law other than a party who was involved in the creation of that law and on whose consent the existence of that law depends. 

[CrimsonKairos]

To me it’s more likely He just loved them and immersed them in Light and they said, “More please!”

And God said, “You got it.”

And here we are. 😁☀️

[zil2]

22 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I’ve sometimes thought about the possibility of a transaction between God and unspirited intelligences whereby God said to the intelligences give me power over you and I will enable your organisation and progression. And the intelligences said ok, yes, but if you ever do anything outside of this agreement we will take back from you the power we have given you and that will be the end of our arrangement.

What power do you imagine they had to give?  If you mean "we will choose to obey you as our God, unless..." - your wording doesn't convey that well.  Otherwise, what power?

Either way, I think Joseph Smith disagrees with you:

Quote

“The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.”

If God (resurrected, exalted) is more advanced than mortal, and mortal is more advanced than spirit, and spirit is more advanced than intelligence, then your logic escapes me.  It would be more like Joseph Smith describes, the more advanced offering a path to the less advanced.

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I’ve sometimes thought about the possibility of a transaction between God and unspirited intelligences whereby God said to the intelligences give me power over you and I will enable your organisation and progression. And the intelligences said ok, yes, but if you ever do anything outside of this agreement we will take back from you the power we have given you and that will be the end of our arrangement. Or, in other words, you will cease to be our God.

This is total speculation, but perhaps not impossible, and it does explain how, under some circumstances, God could cease to be God in relation to one particular group because of not obeying a particular eternal law. Other than the existence of natural consequences for non-obedience, I cannot see any other “enforcer” being involved in handing out penalties for breaches of eternal law other than a party who was involved in the creation of that law and on whose consent the existence of that law depends. 

That’s Cleon Skousen’s view, IIRC.  I came across of a speech of his (translated into Portuguese) on my mission, where he lays it all out.  I find it very attractive in a lot of ways; but one question it begs is:  If God governs only by the consent of the governed, then by what power did He cast out out Satan and by what power does He hold Satan (and everything else) in subjection, and by what power does He reveal Himself to the eternally faithless/rebellious at the last day to sit in judgment of them?

I’m inclined to think God and Christ are governed more by the eternal good and wise attributes of their own characters, than by some sort of social contract betwixt Them and the rest of creation. 

[zil2]

39 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I find it very attractive in a lot of ways

I'm curious what you find attractive about it.  When I start pulling it apart to think about what it would suggest, about the consequences of such a reality, God pretty much ceases to be God.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That’s Cleon Skousen’s view, IIRC.  I came across of a speech of his (translated into Portuguese) on my mission, where he lays it all out.  I find it very attractive in a lot of ways; but one question it begs is:  If God governs only by the consent of the governed, then by what power did He cast out out Satan and by what power does He hold Satan (and everything else) in subjection, and by what power does He reveal Himself to the eternally faithless/rebellious at the last day to sit in judgment of them?

I’m inclined to think God and Christ are governed more by the eternal good and wise attributes of their own characters, than by some sort of social contract betwixt Them and the rest of creation. 

Seems like Nibley once commented on how the old Catholic theologists made a great deal of hay about how God's glory is imperfect as long as even one of his creations does not acknowledge his supremacy. I would think eternal honor would be based on something intrinsic to the exalted rather than a popularity contest where everyone has to agree that you're the prettiest. This is why I have always taken the scriptural teaching that "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess..." as a statement that all who gain any salvation will have to confess the Christ and acknowledge his atoning sacrifice, without which they will not gain any degree of salvation.

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, zil2 said:

I'm curious what you find attractive about it.  When I start pulling it apart to think about what it would suggest, about the consequences of such a reality, God pretty much ceases to be God.

He ceases to be sovereign, to be sure.  But there was something about the legalism and (for lack of a better word) communitarianism involved, that I found appealing.  

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

He ceases to be sovereign, to be sure.  But there was something about the legalism and (for lack of a better word) communitarianism involved, that I found appealing.  

Hmm.  I'm waiting to learn what power these folk have that they can offer to God and potentially later take away from Him.  The answer to that determines whether the concept removes God's power or just gives people the ability to remove themselves from God's rule.  A&A's wording makes it seem as if he imagines them having some power God doesn't have - and I'm sure you've already followed that into the Lectures on Faith conclusion - if He's lacking one power, how do we trust in him completely?

[mikbone]

7 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I’ve sometimes thought about the possibility of a transaction between God and unspirited intelligences whereby God said to the intelligences give me power over you and I will enable your organisation and progression. And the intelligences said ok, yes, but if you ever do anything outside of this agreement we will take back from you the power we have given you and that will be the end of our arrangement. Or, in other words, you will cease to be our God.

 

D&C 93:30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

Skousen -  “They obey God because they want to, not because they have to.”

I think you have it backwards.  

The intelligences saw the integrity, strength of will, and love of the Father and asked to be able to follow him.  

If The Lord decided to change; abandoning his integrity, passions and ideology… He would likely lose many of his followers and thus power.

 

The Way of Kings - Brandon Sanderson

"Authority doesn't come from a rank"

“Where does it come from?”

“From the men who give it to you. That’s the only way to get it.”

 

Its not the agreement that gives Elohim his power.  

Its the honor that he commands by nature of his Perfection.

 

This is what Lucifer wanted.  He erroneously believed that honor could be given away.   It can’t.  Honor can only be earned.  

D&C 29: 36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;

 

[Just_A_Guy]

19 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Hmm.  I'm waiting to learn what power these folk have that they can offer to God and potentially later take away from Him.  The answer to that determines whether the concept removes God's power or just gives people the ability to remove themselves from God's rule.  A&A's wording makes it seem as if he imagines them having some power God doesn't have - and I'm sure you've already followed that into the Lectures on Faith conclusion - if He's lacking one power, how do we trust in him completely?

Well, and the Skousen paradigm to which I’m responding to suggests that on an atomic (subatomic?) level, the elements themselves have a limited form of intelligence and agency; and that God’s power over the elements stems from the elements honoring God and choosing to obey His commands because of His willingness to perfectly balance the eternal principles of justice and mercy.

Edited February 12, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[zil2]

14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, and the Skousen paradigm to which I’m responding to suggests that on an atomic (subatomic?) level, the elements themselves have a limited form of intelligence and agency; and that God’s power over the elements stems from the elements honoring God and choosing to obey His commands because of His willingness to perfectly balance the eternal principles of justice and mercy.

I'm OK with said paradigm:

Quote

D&C 121:46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

...scriptures talk about the elements obeying God, not being manipulated by Him.  Sure, maybe that's just a linguistic or cultural thing, but I tend to think otherwise.  I rather like the idea of dirt having some element of intelligence and agency - though whether every particle of dirt or every electron is its own entity, I don't venture to guess.  And I can't quite say why I like it beyond it being consistent with (a literal interpretation of) scripture and my own tendency to talk to inanimate objects...

Back to A&A's proposal, I think the sequence is right - God has and offers (we did not come looking, God came to us).  IMO, the Joseph Smith quote I cited and Abraham 3 support that conclusion.  But I don't see it as God asking for anything from us, but doing as He does now: "Here is the covenant, you can accept it or reject it."  I can imagine there are intelligences who rejected it, just as there were spirits who rejected it (assuming intelligences have will or agency, which is a guess since we really don't have a clear understanding of what is meant by intelligences as a pre-spirit entity or substance or resource or energy or whatever).

[askandanswer]

3 hours ago, zil2 said:

Hmm.  I'm waiting to learn what power these folk have that they can offer to God and potentially later take away from Him.  The answer to that determines whether the concept removes God's power or just gives people the ability to remove themselves from God's rule.  A&A's wording makes it seem as if he imagines them having some power God doesn't have - and I'm sure you've already followed that into the Lectures on Faith conclusion - if He's lacking one power, how do we trust in him completely?

Perhaps agency would have been a better word than power. The same argument holds no matter the details of what was exchanged. Perhaps it was the case that an agreement was made by which a relationship was formed, and if one party goes outside the agreement, the relationship becomes void to those who were a party to it. This idea does seem to have some similarity with the idea of progress via covenants.  

Edited February 12, 2023 by askandanswer

[askandanswer]

2 hours ago, zil2 said:

I'm OK with said paradigm:

...scriptures talk about the elements obeying God, not being manipulated by Him.  Sure, maybe that's just a linguistic or cultural thing, but I tend to think otherwise.  I rather like the idea of dirt having some element of intelligence and agency - though whether every particle of dirt or every electron is its own entity, I don't venture to guess.  And I can't quite say why I like it beyond it being consistent with (a literal interpretation of) scripture and my own tendency to talk to inanimate objects...

 

Here is something that I transcribed from CD Number 2, Track 1, of the CD set They Knew the Prophet a few weeks back. This is someone recounting what Joseph Smith taught. I will need to listen to the last track of CD 1 to find out whose words these are. It may shed some light, or add more to the mystery, to the question of whether every electron is its own entity. 

That all light and heat are the glory of God, which is His power that fills the immensity of space and is the life of all things and permeates with latent life and heat every particle of which all worlds are composed, that light, or spirit, and gross matter are the two first great primary principals of the universe, or of being, that they are self existent, co-existent, indestructible and eternal, and from these two elements both our spirits and our bodies were formulated. He taught that all systems or worlds were in revolution, the lesser around the greater

[askandanswer]

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

D&C 93:30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

Skousen -  “They obey God because they want to, not because they have to.”

I think you have it backwards.  

The intelligences saw the integrity, strength of will, and love of the Father and asked to be able to follow him.  

If The Lord decided to change; abandoning his integrity, passions and ideology… He would likely lose many of his followers and thus power.

 

The Way of Kings - Brandon Sanderson

"Authority doesn't come from a rank"

“Where does it come from?”

“From the men who give it to you. That’s the only way to get it.”

 

Its not the agreement that gives Elohim his power.  

Its the honor that he commands by nature of his Perfection.

 

This is what Lucifer wanted.  He erroneously believed that honor could be given away.   It can’t.  Honor can only be earned.  

D&C 29: 36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;

 

As I was reading this, I started to ask myself questions as to whether perfection, honour, integrity, etc, are subjective. I'm not sure of the answer. Would an intelligence recognise those characteristics, and is God's perfection and honour the same as every/any other kind of honor (misspelled for @Carborendum's reading comfort  ) and perfection. 

The answer to these questions might not have an immediate impact on our day to day lives but they might assist in the development of a better understanding of the nature and character of God. 

[mikbone]

2 Ne 2:14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

 

Helaman 12: 6 Behold, they do not desire that the Lord their God, who hath created them, should rule and reign over them; notwithstanding his great goodness and his mercy towards them, they do set at naught his counsels, and they will not that he should be their guide.
7 O how great is the nothingness of the children of men; yea, even they are less than the dust of the earth.
8 For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God.
9 Yea, behold at his voice do the hills and the mountains tremble and quake.

[person0]

14 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

. . . one question it begs is:  If God governs only by the consent of the governed, then by what power did He cast out out Satan and by what power does He hold Satan (and everything else) in subjection, and by what power does He reveal Himself to the eternally faithless/rebellious at the last day to sit in judgment of them?

If I'm not misunderstanding you, I think the resolution from within the Skousen model would essentially be the idea that God already has a complete monopoly on power, and so rejecting Him would leave one with absolutely nothing.

For me, the principal takeaway from the Skousen view is that God's power is not magic (which is the way most faithful people in the world seem to view it).  Whether or not he muddies some of the other details is less relevant to me.  I believe it is true, in some form, that God's power and dominion are directly linked to His perfection and to the honor, respect and obedience to Him because He can be trusted to always remain constant.  By extension, clarity is then added to the belief that we can become like him and inherit all he has when we attain the same degree of perfection based on the such a principle.  Likewise, by extension, exercise of the priesthood enables man to perform the works of Christ, based on His attributes, when in accordance with his will.

12 hours ago, Vort said:

I have always taken the scriptural teaching that "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess..." as a statement that all who gain any salvation will have to confess the Christ and acknowledge his atoning sacrifice, without which they will not gain any degree of salvation.

Me too!  I think we had a whole thread discussing that a couple years ago or so.