Dredging up my own thoughts... "God's Plan"

[CommanderSouth]

I was looking to visit my favorite sounding board, and wanted to touch on a topic that I already have (Link)

If anyone wants to read it, that is the link.  But looking through it myself, I feel I am partway to where I need to be, but not quite there, and wanted to work through it with you guys, as it usually ends up helping!

So, long and short.  As of late I have been contemplating the nature of God.  In my current thinking, he is either A) Self existing, truly omnipotent, and the source of all "Goodness", but in that way, "Goodness" is just his nature, and really a descriptor, and not a positive adjective.  Goodness in this sense is arbitrary and just describing God.  This is the God of the non-LDS (very broad strokes, and partly unfair, just using it for ease of description).  B) God is an eternal being, an exalted man, possesses all Goodness, but goodness does exist apart from him.  This is palatable to me because it takes the "unfairness" of existence out of his hands.  Some things just are because they ARE, not because they were designed that way.  This removes the incomprehensible parts of existence, really the problem of pain.   If there is a truly omnipotent being, and things could have been different, why are they not.  Thus, I believe this view posits God as an "effectively" omnipotent being, that is a being that can do all that can be done.

This leads into my ongoing question.  Why do we still call the plan of salvation, "God's" plan.  God didn't make it, he couldn't, the King Follett sermon precludes it.  He couldn't have been saved (to borrow from my Pentecostal upbringing) by his own plan.  It's a chicken and egg scenario.  With this in mind, it makes sense to me that it is his plan (and was my takeaway from the conversation linked) in that his touch, spin, and signature are on it.  It's his variation.  And perhaps this is the way it should be viewed, but I'm just trying to work through it, and sharpen and clarify the thought process.  It also might be of worth to realize that we will become God's in the sense that we will be one with God the father, and if he is one with his father (turtles all the way down of course) then in a sense any time it is said that it is "God's" plan, it is true that heavenly father informed and kicked the ball down the hill, but that the plan in broad strokes, has always been.

FWIW, I originally didn't have the last long sentence of the above paragraph written initially, and now that I'm seeing it, that feels like it might be the angle to go at it.  In my favorite way of reasoning, reductionist, (I say this with sarcasm, because I always hated in 2 Nephi where Lehi goes "If C, then B, then A, thus God"), my understanding is this.

I exist, ergo, something exists, which means something has to be eternal, either this existence, or God. 

If God exists eternally and is the SOURCE of reality in the sense that he created everything, including the rules, we are then potentially bound by the argument against his omnipotence, in that he is not good, because of the pain and suffering we see in the world.  And those who argue for this, still have to limit his omnipotence by saying he can't subvert logical fallacies, such as a rock too heavy, or a burrito too hot.  And with that defeat of true omnipotence, I move to the other argument, that he isn't.

I believe our theology posits, that reality/eternity exists.  There are principles that are "eternal" and eternal principles, I would argue, are unmade.  If that is the case, then God exists separate and beholden to these principles.  And our path is to follow him, in the way he has set forth, and thus become like him.  It seems reasonable enough to say the end of all existence, the meaning, is to become like God.  Which jives well with "This is my work and my glory." 

This was all written in one go, so I appreciate any feedback you guys have to help hone this, this is in a large degree train of consciousness, but I need help sorting it, so I'll stop now.

[zil2]

45 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

He couldn't have been saved (to borrow from my Pentecostal upbringing) by his own plan.

For all we know, God the Father didn't need to be saved any more than Jesus Christ needed to be saved.  (And I personally think there are more than two options: needs to be saved, or is a Savior.  At the very least, there ought to be a third, "perfect, but also not a Savior" - for all we know.)

If the King Follett sermon argues against the plan being created initially by God, it does so not because God may have needed to be saved, but because God existed before attaining Godhood and prior to that, he had (presumably) not yet progressed far enough to have anticipated Godhood and a plan of salvation.  But this is also speculation.  We know nothing of God before he was God - if there even was a before (after all, when Christ was mortal, he was also God, and before Christ was mortal, he was God, and we don't know anything really from before that).  So see below.

49 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

Why do we still call the plan of salvation, "God's" plan.  God didn't make it, he couldn't, the King Follett sermon precludes it.  ... it makes sense to me that it is his plan ... in that his touch, spin, and signature are on it.  It's his variation.  ... in a sense any time it is said that it is "God's" plan, it is true that heavenly father informed and kicked the ball down the hill, but that the plan in broad strokes, has always been.

The King Follett sermon doesn't give near enough details for all these conclusions.  We have no idea what God's mortal or pre-mortal existence was like.  We know nothing of prior generations, nor parallel.  We simply know nothing.  Maybe it's God's variation on the eternal plan of salvation that's always followed everywhere from eternity to eternity, or maybe it's God's very own creation for his children.  We don't know.  While I don't really have an issue with exploring possibilities, I would caution against "logic-ing" out things that haven't been revealed, and even more against getting emotionally or intellectually attached to them - such attachments often lead people astray.  Being willing to accept that there are things we don't know and likely won't know in this life, and trusting God anyway, is part of building faith.

Indeed, I think it's worth pondering on why God has revealed next to nothing outside of the basic requirements for following said plan of salvation.

55 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

defeat of true omnipotence

IMO, the hypotheticals you presented don't defeat true omnipotence, they just show a lack of understanding of the word.

57 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

I believe our theology posits, that reality/eternity exists.  There are principles that are "eternal" and eternal principles, I would argue, are unmade.  If that is the case, then God exists separate and beholden to these principles.  And our path is to follow him, in the way he has set forth, and thus become like him.  It seems reasonable enough to say the end of all existence, the meaning, is to become like God.  Which jives well with "This is my work and my glory."

This seems reasonable and consistent with Church teachings.

[CommanderSouth]

10 minutes ago, zil2 said:

If the King Follett sermon argues against the plan being created initially by God, it does so not because God may have needed to be saved, but because God existed before attaining Godhood and prior to that, he had (presumably) not yet progressed far enough to have anticipated Godhood and a plan of salvation.

That's fair, and like the other point you made, more in line with what I actually think.  I said "saved" but I really meant exalted.  And when I think of him, I think of him as a savior, which gels in my mind with the "Christ does what the father does", but I would also think "Perfect, but not a savior" would be possible.  And as you said too, there are other possibilities that we just can't grasp.  

I also respect the thought of not getting married to these things.  I am very much just looking for a logical grasp of possibilities that don't seem self-contradictory. 

[CommanderSouth]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

The King Follett sermon doesn't give near enough details for all these conclusions.  We have no idea what God's mortal or pre-mortal existence was like.  We know nothing of prior generations, nor parallel.  We simply know nothing.

If the presumption is that there is only one way to exaltation, I would argue that the sermon does lend itself to the conclusion that the plan isn't "God's" but rather, self existent.  ALL the conclusions, I will cede that it does not.  I went back and was reading the sermon again, I would agree that it doesn't touch on God's mortal/premortal existence, ironically it even talks about God as having "power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself".  But in that passage what I find interesting is the use of "institute" followed by "instruct".  Institution of laws would seem to indicate creating the path itself but instruct would seem to indicate learning about something that is already extant.

MAYBE what's being said is that there ARE principles upon which, one is exalted, but the "laws" being "instituted' are ones that "instruct" about the principles themselves.  And if that is the case, it is makes me think of an earthly parallel, the temple ordinances.  The ordinances themselves are built on eternal principles, but administration of them can change.  Perhaps THAT is how it is meant.  The "plan" that father created, is based on eternal principles that he did not create. 

In what is perhaps a ham handed analog, this life and the "plan" is all a temple ritual.  It's a symbol of something else.  It's LIKE something else, but it isn't the thing.  There are aspects of it that are God's, and there are aspects of it that are unmade.  These combined together, show that it's God's plan, even is ALL of the pieces didn't come from him.  INSIGHT AHOY - I have no problem with calling the Earth "God's" and in fact, all creation, as "God's" but I openly admit he didn't create it from nothing.  So, maybe the way to think is in that sense.  We don't believe in ex nihilo creation, either in matter, or "the plan", though not doing so doesn't make the creation not "God's".

Edited October 3, 2023 by CommanderSouth
Clairification

[zil2]

Perhaps consider also that we all the time refer to "my way of doing X" when in reality, we likely learned it from someone else and we're not likely the only person who does it that way.  And yet, because it is the way I do X, I call it "my way".

[CommanderSouth]

50 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Perhaps consider also that we all the time refer to "my way of doing X" when in reality, we likely learned it from someone else and we're not likely the only person who does it that way.  And yet, because it is the way I do X, I call it "my way".

While I have been thinking about all that has been said, and how I have been thinking about this, the statement I made earlier about Ex Nihilo creation hit me like a sack of bricks.  I have been putting it in my journal when you were posting this, and this was something that I wrote, as you were posting this (left in context, emphasis added)...

"We don't believe he created the earth out of nothing, but we also don't bat an eye at saying he "created the earth".  So if we don't believe in ex nihilo creation, why was I still trying to put God into that box.  We don't believe he created the universe from nothing, so he couldn't have created the plan from nothing either.  Now to what extent that means, and how it interplays I can't say.  I can only say, God didn't create the plan of salvation "ex nihilo" any more than he did the universe.  The prophet Joseph Smith said that "He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself" (King Follett Discourse). That process sounds an awful lot like temple ordinances.  Things that use symbols to point to a higher meaning.  Perhaps this life itself, and all the little bits and pieces of it, are pointing to a higher meaning.

Not knowing anything about the intelligences and spirits that God found himself in the midst of, perhaps the ones he found himself around would respond to these eternal truths in the process WE (being those he found himself in the midst of) call life.  Perhaps life itself is a parable, a symbol, a type, a shadow, an ordinance pointing us to a higher truth we can only understand bit by bit.  Line upon line, precept upon precept.  Maybe in that way this truly is "God's plan", his way of getting us to where he is.  Like Common Core math can teach relationships between numbers I didn't understand or have growing up, God is showing us HIS way to get US to exaltation. "

Edited October 3, 2023 by CommanderSouth
Clarification

[CommanderSouth]

I think I/anyone who goes down this path, should also be careful, because Bruce R McConkie's words come to mind too.  In the Seven Deadly Heresies, he speaks against the idea that (and I paraphrase) "that eternal progression means God is ever learning new truths.  This could mean that he will one day find a "better" plan of salvation"  I don't want to put forth this idea to think the plan is so malleable that there is a "better" way.  I think I'm saying more that one group might respond to THIS parable and another to THAT parable, while neither is better.

I think if you take the parallel too far you introduce that.  But I think you stay safest if you compare it to a temple ordinance.  It's something that can change in administration, but not in the truths and principles involved.  Like when Joseph asked Brigham to streamline the endowment.  We know there are parts that can change, but the essence cannot.  There are eternal parts, and administrative parts.  And perhaps THAT is the best way to understand the "plan" as being "God's".  While I'm not married to it (though as of now, I feel it's very plausible), it's satisfying enough to put me at ease, and know that there ARE plausible understandings.

I want to say I can condense this into the following:

We don't believe in "ex nihilo" creation.  God didn't create the Earth from nothing, but it is still his creation.  We know that certain things, such as intelligence and light/truth ("glory") exist co-eternally with God.  We also know that God "has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself".  It is therefore plausible, that the plan of salvation is the outcome of "God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory" used said "power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself" in creating a plan, similar to how church leadership has "created" temple ordinances.  The difference between these being that God has done this with a perfect knowledge.  He has done this with an exalted perspective.  As the Prophet Joseph Smith didn't say that "Elohim" did this, he didn't attempt to separate the father from his exalted state.  So his plan would be different from the "man made" temple ordinances as much as our bodies are different from his, they have a similar form, but his is perfect.  I won't carry the analog further, though perhaps one could.  I say all of it to say, that there can be multiple ways to share the same truths, and in the same vein, perhaps there are multiple ways to share the exalting truths, the eternal principles, and God's "plan" is his way of doing that for us, knowing the language we speak, and what will make the most sense for us, because he speaks after "our manner of language" (D&C 1:24, among others).

I think I'll go to bed now, and leave all of this to settle.

Edited October 3, 2023 by CommanderSouth
Adding claification.

[CommanderSouth]

Sorry for so many posts so quickly, but I would like to quip.  I understand Brother Joseph a bit better now.  As when Sidney Rigdon finished the vision dripping in sweat, the Prophet said, "You'll have to forgive Brother Rigdon, he isn't as used to this as I am".  I can say, I'm not as used to this as Brother Joseph either.  I feel like this topic, even though it was a lot of me talking to Zil2, (ty for the help) and myself, I feel exhausted chewing through this.  I really feel like I'm in a better place mentally about this topic now, and also spiritually, as I did feel guided in this possibility.  Both of which are something I need in my life right now, and I am grateful to the Lord for.  If anyone has any other viewpoints, please share, it's been so helpful!

[laronius]

I have often thought that if the plan of salvation were an equation, we, meaning mankind, would be the variable. The varying personalities and characteristics of individual and perhaps even generational "intelligences" could possibly require a tailoring of that plan of salvation to maximize our progress. The principles don't vary but perhaps their application does. It also may be that with our earth being inhabited by both the Savior and Satan the details of the plan for this earth may be somewhat different than that if other Earths.

[askandanswer]

I sometimes think that the version of the plan of salvation that currently shapes our existences is our God's approach to achieving an objective that can be achieved in more than one way. Other versions may achieve the same objective in different ways. 

Edited October 3, 2023 by askandanswer

[Vort]

12 hours ago, zil2 said:

For all we know, God the Father didn't need to be saved any more than Jesus Christ needed to be saved.

What would God possibly need to be saved from? He is a perfect, all-powerful being with no sin or stain, the true Master and Creator of the entire universe. To borrow Emma Smith's phrase, the thought makes reason stare.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

To borrow Emma Smith's phrase, the thought makes reason stare.

Wasn't that Eliza R. Snow?

1 hour ago, Vort said:

What would God possibly need to be saved from? He is a perfect, all-powerful being with no sin or stain, the true Master and Creator of the entire universe.

But if that famous couplet is correct that God was once as we are, and we (who need saving) may one day be as God is, then, frankly, we don't know whether, at some point in his progression, God needed saving.  We can infer much, but I'm not aware of revelations to make it certain.  What little we know suggests that God did not need a Redeemer.  And we have nothing to suggest he did other than logical deduction from that couplet that it's one of the possibilities.  But I still assert that we do not know.  I'm not bothered either way.  He is God, and that's all that matters to me, not how or when he got to be God.

(If one wishes to assert that God was always a God (exalted, omniscient, omnipotent, perfect, etc.), then the couplet is false.  And I'm OK with that, too, BTW.)

[mikbone]

Intelligencies exist one above another, so that there is no end to them.’ If Abraham reasoned thus— if Jesus Christ was the son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? and where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor?

History, 1838–1856, volume F-1 [1 May 1844–8 August 1844], p. 103, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed October 3, 2023, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/

[Vort]

39 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Wasn't that Eliza R. Snow?

Oh, yeah, shame me for my misattribution. Very nice. As Joseph Smith said in General Conference, "Stop it."

[zil2]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Oh, yeah, shame me for my misattribution. Very nice. As Joseph Smith said in General Conference, "Stop it."

:/ I didn't mean to, sorry.  Was just checking if you were thinking of the hymn, or if there was some other source I didn't know about.  Sorry.

[Vort]

41 minutes ago, zil2 said:

(If one wishes to assert that God was always a God (exalted, omniscient, omnipotent, perfect, etc.), then the couplet is false.  And I'm OK with that, too, BTW.)

Not to get out in the weeds, because I've always been happy to allow the couplet to stand alone and let the Spirit dictate meaning as needed, but the model of either-wicked-man-or-perfect-God is a false dichotomy. Christ was like us, yet still and always the Eternal God and Father of heaven and earth.

[Vort]

Just now, zil2 said:

😕 I didn't mean to, sorry.  Was just checking if you were thinking of the hymn, or if there was some other source I didn't know about.  Sorry.

Oh, don't apologize. It was a joke. You were right to call me on my misattribution. I'm just slightly embarrassed that I typed that off without, you know, thinking about it.

[zil2]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Christ was like us, yet still and always the Eternal God and Father of heaven and earth.

Even before he was the first of God's spirit children?  Could be, I don't know.  I'm not sure that jives with other things we do know, but there's enough that we don't know to allow for almost anything.

[Traveler]

Just for fun – taking this in a different direction – thanks to the James Webb telescope.   Most likely there was not a Big Bang nor a period of “inflation” as previously theorized.  String theory is having a resurgence.   Along with new explanations the idea of additional dimensions is being put forward.  I find the concept (based in string theory) of 3 additional dimensions to our current 3 + 1 dimensions most intriguing leaving us with a total of 6 + 1 dimensions.

To explain – the 3+1 concept is the standard Euclidean space dimensions; the adding the +1 is the current model of space time.  The 3 additional dimensions works out mathematically.  Some of the other theories include string theory and the concept of multiverse.

I have long considered the concept of spirit matter being defined by dimensions in addition to the standard Euclidean space plus time (Einstein).  This fits nicely with the scripture that G-d is spirit (eternal) intelligence and the D&C revelation that the uniting of spirit and physical matter (that is in essence unstable) is the fullness of joy.  In other words, subjecting that which is physical to that which is spiritual is eternal life.  Subjecting the spiritual to that which is physical is therefore an unstable condition and is titled death.

The ancient term for perfect is somewhat different from our modern understanding that implied completeness.  In essence the perfection of G-d is His completeness.  I am thinking such completeness includes both the physical and spiritual.  When Jesus spoke of being perfect, he did not speak of himself but of the Father.

In summary – I believe the Plan of Salvation is in essence a plan of completeness.  I find it interesting that all explanations (in the LDS community) always begin with a creation of our earth and solar system (which takes place in a pre-existence) and ends with a resurrection completing the eternal union of the spiritual and physical.  Woven into the tapestry of the Plan of Salvation is the most critical notion of Agency.  The notion of Agency is that intelligence (our individual light of truth) must invest with G-d to complete the plan.  This indicates that the great (greatest of all) nature of G-d is the gift of Agency – which is the divine sacrifice of G-d in order that others (G-d’s children) can become that which they desire most.  This divine sacrifice is called the Atonement of Christ and is expressed in both the Father and the Son.

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

21 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

This leads into my ongoing question.  Why do we still call the plan of salvation, "God's" plan.  God didn't make it, he couldn't, the King Follett sermon precludes it.  He couldn't have been saved (to borrow from my Pentecostal upbringing) by his own plan.  It's a chicken and egg scenario.  With this in mind, it makes sense to me that it is his plan (and was my takeaway from the conversation linked) in that his touch, spin, and signature are on it.  It's his variation.  And perhaps this is the way it should be viewed, but I'm just trying to work through it, and sharpen and clarify the thought process.  It also might be of worth to realize that we will become God's in the sense that we will be one with God the father, and if he is one with his father (turtles all the way down of course) then in a sense any time it is said that it is "God's" plan, it is true that heavenly father informed and kicked the ball down the hill, but that the plan in broad strokes, has always been.

 

I do not know all things.  I do not know how the plan was created or how it was created, only that it is our Father's Plan of Salvation for us.

Now, if it was how you describe (whether I agree or not) I have a parallel where it would STILL be his plan.

Say I was a new Professor (and I was...years ago...so no longer a new Professor) and had no idea what order to teach the first class I was going into.  I needed some pattern or some way to go about it.  I COULD create my own, or I could turn to other Professors in the department and ask their ideas.  If an elderly Professor who was about to retire gave me their entire course curriculum with the lesson plans and other materials and I used that as my plan...adjusting it as per what I needed for the class...whose plan is the class following at that point?

I am the one using the plan and having it as the outline and direction for the class.  It's not the older professor who is using it.  As far as the students know, this is the only plan they know the class is using.  As far as they can see, this is my plan that the class is following.  I would posit they are correct.  Now that I am using this as my plan on how my class will go, it IS my plan.

My class, my decisions, my teaching, my plan.

Just a thought on your thoughts on this. 

Edited October 3, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

7 hours ago, zil2 said:

Wasn't that Eliza R. Snow?

But if that famous couplet is correct that God was once as we are, and we (who need saving) may one day be as God is, then, frankly, we don't know whether, at some point in his progression, God needed saving.  We can infer much, but I'm not aware of revelations to make it certain.  What little we know suggests that God did not need a Redeemer.  And we have nothing to suggest he did other than logical deduction from that couplet that it's one of the possibilities.  But I still assert that we do not know.  I'm not bothered either way.  He is God, and that's all that matters to me, not how or when he got to be God.

(If one wishes to assert that God was always a God (exalted, omniscient, omnipotent, perfect, etc.), then the couplet is false.  And I'm OK with that, too, BTW.)

 

I do not know the source of it off the top of my head, but there is the statement that it is eternity is like a ring, one eternal round. 

There have also been thoughts that time does not exist in eternity. 

One way of viewing it is that things repeat in a cycle over and over again.

Another, is that there is only ONE circle and you can go anywhere within it.  If that is the case, you get the paradox where it could be that the creator created themselves.

The honest things is we do not know (and at this stage, probably do not need to know) the answers to these questions.  Just as you say, we do not know.

We don't know anything about what came before the pre-mortal existence, and in general, before the War in Heaven. 

[Traveler]

57 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I do not know all things.  I do not know how the plan was created or how it was created, only that it is our Father's Plan of Salvation for us.

Now, if it was how you describe (whether I agree or not) I have a parallel where it would STILL be his plan.

Say I was a new Professor (and I was...years ago...so no longer a new Professor) and had no idea what order to teach the first class I was going into.  I needed some pattern or some way to go about it.  I COULD create my own, or I could turn to other Professors in the department and ask their ideas.  If an elderly Professor who was about to retire gave me their entire course curriculum with the lesson plans and other materials and I used that as my plan...adjusting it as per what I needed for the class...whose plan is the class following at that point?

I am the one using the plan and having it as the outline and direction for the class.  It's not the older professor who is using it.  As far as the students know, this is the only plan they know the class is using.  As far as they can see, this is my plan that the class is following.  I would posit they are correct.  Now that I am using this as my plan on how my class will go, it IS my plan.

My class, my decisions, my teaching, my plan.

Just a thought on your thoughts on this. 

I like this idea that we make the plan our own.  Perhaps this is, at least in part, what is meant by taking unpon us His name?

 

The Traveler

[mikbone]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I do not know the source of it off the top of my head, but there is the statement that it is eternity is like a ring, one eternal round. 

I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man— the immortal part— because it has no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two, then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again and it continues one eternal round, so with the spirit of man— as the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning it will have an end. All the fools, and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end, and if that doctrine is true then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right I might with boldness proclaim from the house tops, that God never had the power to create the Spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself. 

History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844], p. 1974, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed October 3, 2023, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-e-1-1-july-1843-30-april-1844/346?highlight=ring one eternal round

Edited October 4, 2023 by mikbone

[zil2]

9 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man— ...

I expect JJ was remembering "the course of the Lord is one eternal round"  1 Ne. 10:19, Alma 37:12; D&C 3:2.

[CommanderSouth]

Ironically the wedding ring I wear is a Deseret book version of the JS ring. I lost my then current ring in the snow. We went to DB and I found that one and liked it because I knew what it was, but mostly no one else would