Does God Need Us?

[OUmd]

A speaker in SM today made the comment that God doesn't need us, but that we need Him. I don't know why, but this statement bothered me and I don't believe it.

I can't imagine that our Father in Heaven does not need us as much as we need Him. If His "work" is to bring us eternal life of course He "needs" us. I believe that as we progress, He progresses and as such if we did not progress neither would He. I liken most of the gospel and the plan of salvation to my own life and family. I need my kids, often more than I think they need me.

Any thoughts? Was this speaker's comment based on any doctrinal reference or merely personal opinion? I could certainly understand why she may have said it, but deep down I believe it is completely false.

[Bernard Gui]

How does this compare:

Do I need my children?

No, I do not need my children, but my children need me.

IMO, it's an irrational question.

Bernard

[OUmd]

Did you read my post or just the title? I stated the opposite of you, I do believe that I do need my children in some ways more than they need me.

So my beliefs are irrational? (it's ok with me for you to believe that they are, I am asking if there is doctrinal reference to the initial statement).

Edited September 19, 2011 by OUmd

[KevinG]

I have said similar things making the point that God does not require us to run his church, but he offers up the opportunity to work as His agents to bring about His purposes. Hopefully that is what the speaker was trying to say (I don't know I'm not him).

In a broader sense God has included us as His purpose so He does need us to fulfill that purpse. Much in the same way a professor does not need students to create a curricula or discover new knowledge, but the professor does need students if his goal is to teach and grow their knowledge.

Your OP does make me think I should be careful of the context and the understanding of my audience when I say things like the referenced speaker.

[TAO]

Yes, God needs us. "For behold, this is my work and my glory, to bring to past the immortality and eternal life of man." He needs us... we are his purpose, the true receptor of the meaning of his actions. We... are his =). And it makes me very happy to have a God like him, that it does =D.

On the other hand, he is so much greater than us it is stunning. And he wants us to be great like him. It IS his work, and his glory, and his power... and what truly makes him our father. Because he cares... and... he needs us. Just as much as we need him. And he loves us. Even more than we love him, I would say, much of the time. =D

Hope this helps... well... not sure if it is right or not, but, oh well XD.

Best Wishes,

TAO

Edited September 19, 2011 by TAO

[mapman]

I guess the answer depends on what is meant by "does God need us?" Need us for him to exist? Need us for him to be God? Obviously he doesn't need us for him to exist since we all have existed for eternity. But I think that he needs us for him to be God since the purposes of the Gods require other individuals, as has been pointed out above. Also the whole concept of being God implies that you are God over other individuals.

[Bernard Gui]

Did you read my post or just the title? I stated the opposite of you, I do believe that I do need my children in some ways more than they need me.

So my beliefs are irrational? (it's ok with me for you to believe that they are, I am asking if there is doctrinal reference to the initial statement).

Noooo...I was trying to support you! Sorry I wasn't clearer. I'm not aware of any LDS doctrine that even hints at this. Some biblical

reference could possibly be cited, such as Psalm 39...

New American Standard Bible

5“Behold, You have made my days as handbreadths,

And my lifetime as nothing in Your sight;

Surely every man at his best is a mere breath.

6“Surely every man walks about as a phantom;

Surely they make an uproar for nothing;

He amasses riches and does not know who will gather them.

7“And now, Lord, for what do I wait?

My hope is in You.

8“Deliver me from all my transgressions;

Make me not the reproach of the foolish.

9“I have become mute, I do not open my mouth,

Because it is You who have done it.

10“Remove Your plague from me;

Because of the opposition of Your hand I am perishing.

11“With reproofs You chasten a man for iniquity;

You consume as a moth what is precious to him;

Surely every man is a mere breath.

12“Hear my prayer, O LORD, and give ear to my cry;

Do not be silent at my tears;

For I am a stranger with You,

A sojourner like all my fathers.

13“Turn Your gaze away from me, that I may smile again

Before I depart and am no more.”

So, we are merely a breath, I suppose.

But how can there be a shepherd without sheep, or a Father without sons and daughters,

or a lamb slain from the foundation of the world without sins for which to atone?

Bernard

Edited September 19, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[mbh26]

There are a lot of things stated from any pulpit that simply aren't right when you actually think about it. IMHO you're not an apostate because you disagree with the speaker on this particular point he was making. I used to strain way to much at the fact that I'd hear things from time to time that I didn't believe. I don't argue those points in Church anymore either.

[Questing Beast]

A speaker in SM today made the comment that God doesn't need us, but that we need Him. I don't know why, but this statement bothered me and I don't believe it.

I can't imagine that our Father in Heaven does not need us as much as we need Him. If His "work" is to bring us eternal life of course He "needs" us. I believe that as we progress, He progresses and as such if we did not progress neither would He. I liken most of the gospel and the plan of salvation to my own life and family. I need my kids, often more than I think they need me.

Any thoughts? Was this speaker's comment based on any doctrinal reference or merely personal opinion? I could certainly understand why she may have said it, but deep down I believe it is completely false.

And I believe that assertion is correct. "Need" is a purely anthropomorphic concept. It is obvious, that God the Father, if once a mortal like we are, is not the Cause of Existence in the first place. That Cause cannot "need" in any human sense of the word.

I heard two things yesterday in high priest group that are false doctrine: "If we don't exist, God doesn't exist; God cannot exist without us". And, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." I kept my mouth shut. But in my mind I said: "The artist exists before the work of art is created. And Gordon Bitner Hinckley said, more than once, that he did not know much about that assertion that God was once a mortal man, and he didn't know anyone who did know anything about it. So why don't you keep false doctrines out of the discussion?" But then, the speaker is this old guy, a former teacher, who prides himself on keeping things stirred up, so that the brethren will "start" to do a little thinking in class, instead of just sitting there. Heh, he'd probably think, by my silence, that I am just sitting there thoughtlessly: when in reality, week after week, I find it challenging to remain silent and not interject what I am really thinking about his silly commentaries and assertions....

[altersteve]

And I believe that assertion is correct. "Need" is a purely anthropomorphic concept. It is obvious, that God the Father, if once a mortal like we are, is not the Cause of Existence in the first place. That Cause cannot "need" in any human sense of the word.

You bring up the "Cause of Existence" thing in every single thread you post in. It makes me think you're subtly trying to convince us of something. Latter-day Saints emphatically disagree with you when you say that God the Father is not the "Cause of Existence," even if He passed through mortality and was once "like us" (whatever that means), so unless you explain your line of reasoning then it will never be as "obvious" as you claim it is.

Edit: Sorry, I don't mean to derail the thread.

Edited September 19, 2011 by altersteve

[Storm Rider]

And I believe that assertion is correct. "Need" is a purely anthropomorphic concept. It is obvious, that God the Father, if once a mortal like we are, is not the Cause of Existence in the first place. That Cause cannot "need" in any human sense of the word.

I heard two things yesterday in high priest group that are false doctrine: "If we don't exist, God doesn't exist; God cannot exist without us". And, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." I kept my mouth shut. But in my mind I said: "The artist exists before the work of art is created. And Gordon Bitner Hinckley said, more than once, that he did not know much about that assertion that God was once a mortal man, and he didn't know anyone who did know anything about it. So why don't you keep false doctrines out of the discussion?" But then, the speaker is this old guy, a former teacher, who prides himself on keeping things stirred up, so that the brethren will "start" to do a little thinking in class, instead of just sitting there. Heh, he'd probably think, by my silence, that I am just sitting there thoughtlessly: when in reality, week after week, I find it challenging to remain silent and not interject what I am really thinking about his silly commentaries and assertions....

You seem to often tell us of what you think your fellow HPs are thinking of you and your more elevated thoughts. This seems very disingenuous to me and loaded with enough pride to cause you significant problems. Do you really think you are so coy that there are others that are oblivious of your true self? Here is a hint: you are breathing your won ether way too much. It is time to stop playing games and be honest with yourself and with others. If you can contribute to the discussion, then do so. If you just want to demean them, then you have cause to hold your tongue.

[Questing Beast]

You bring up the "Cause of Existence" thing in every single thread you post in. It makes me think you're subtly trying to convince us of something. Latter-day Saints emphatically disagree with you when you say that God the Father is not the "Cause of Existence," even if He passed through mortality and was once "like us" (whatever that means), so unless you explain your line of reasoning then it will never be as "obvious" as you claim it is.

Edit: Sorry, I don't mean to derail the thread.

This isn't a derail, since it comes out of the assertion that "God needs us": even that we need to exist in order for "God" to exist. They are related concepts.

A smaller concept says that "God" is an empirical, physical, homo sapiens male.

Going back as far as Mormon cosmology allows, the theology asserts that "God" and all other "intelligences" have always existed and cannot be created. This raises the question of cause. If the "intelligences" are "all matter" as Joseph Smith taught, then we are left with the concept that matter was and is and will always be uncaused, ergo matter Is the source of existence in the first place. This makes "God the Father" merely the most eminent intelligence around, not the cause of existence in the first place. To have one intelligence assert itself to be the most intelligent ever, anywhere, anytime, is the problematic part: because, as Joseph Smith taught in the Lectures on Faith: if we do not believe that God the Father is the most powerful and singular Deity in all of existence, forever and ever, then we cannot have ultimate faith in him. We must believe that no other being can possibly rival (much less, exceed) God the Father in intelligence, power and righteousness, etc. If we do not, then we cannot have the faith to be saved by God the Father. The resulting lack of faith will result in our becoming cast off forever, even becoming sons of perdition and "inheriting" Outer Darkness forever, etc.

All of that is incredibly small peanuts compared to a concept of "God" that apprehends "eternity" and "infinity" in a non space-time state: where all things, both creation and annihilation; both Existence and non existence; both Void and Multiverse coexist. This apprehension of "God" cannot be exceeded by a greater intelligence: or by any "other" at all. The Cause of Existence in the First Place IS Existence: plainly and simply the Cause that explains everything existing at all.

The greater concept says that everything manifests from "God" (Existence in the first place). Where our species is particularly concerned, this raises the question of purpose. And as our 'satiable imaginations constantly bother over the question of purpose, it seems that at least one huge concept for ourselves existing is to become like "God". That destiny is shared by most religions.

It follows, that the greater concept asserts that "God" does not, in this world, allow that anyone would ultimately be lost. Why would "God", who has "all things before [his] face continually", deliberately manifest as an eternally damned soul? Yet this concept exists, ergo it is a reality: because it is impossible for finite minds to imagine infinitely impossible things. So there is a venue allowing for sons of perdition. But since there is no space-time with "God", simultaneously sons of perdition are "saved" from their darkness, their Nothing, Void and Annihilation, to be continually, individually, willfully joined to "God" as soul-mates. Without both states there is no definition of Existence. As the scriptures say about the illustration of the concept/doctrine, vis-a-vis Adam and Eve: "And they would have had no Joy, knowing no misery, being in a state of innocence forever". And father Lehi said that "without opposition in all things they would have been created as a thing for naught." In fact, without opposition existence, even God, would not be; all things "must vanish away."

So the greater concept is right there in the scriptures, and most people don't even see it: "God" is all things continually, even Void and the Multiverse together. Only "God" comprehends it all. "He" refers to it as seeing "the beginning from the end thereof"; or "All things are before my face continually". And, "There is nothing that enters into the mind of God, but that he does it." Etc. To have the very thought results in its reality. This includes infinitely more than we can possibly imagine! And I can imagine both Void and Multiverse at the same "time", so the apprehension of this concept must mean the reality of it: because "God's" mind is infinitely more than my mind: or all of our minds combined: and "we" are infinite in number: yet "God" causes all existing things from a state that is not space-time, i.e. all things "there" expand in number infinitely, yet Exist simultaneously as the Cause - including Nothing and Void and Annihilation. Without those opposites, Existence of "things" would be impossible. You can't have a something without the reality of Nothing. But we are not Nothing: but rather its exact opposite.

So we have this genetic memory of what Nothing is: from which is spawned our terror of annihilation or eternal Void. If not for the will of "God", we would not Exist at all. In "that world" (or venue) we, nor creation supporting us, do not exist: and "God" is willfully Void continually and forever.

Yet we do Exist: and we know this is not a given: it is an act of love by "God". Our 'satiable imaginations (our genetic memory) apprehend the opposite: we call it Void, Nothing, annihilation, etc. And we reject it; we rebel against the very concepts. No one is immune, not even "sons of perdition". That's why early Mormons, including B. Young, taught the occasional "heresy" of universal salvation, eventually: even if it required that a soul "return to its essence and start over"....

[Questing Beast]

You seem to often tell us of what you think your fellow HPs are thinking of you and your more elevated thoughts. This seems very disingenuous to me and loaded with enough pride to cause you significant problems. Do you really think you are so coy that there are others that are oblivious of your true self? Here is a hint: you are breathing your won ether way too much. It is time to stop playing games and be honest with yourself and with others. If you can contribute to the discussion, then do so. If you just want to demean them, then you have cause to hold your tongue.

When did I ever describe my thoughts as "more elevated"? I would be in trouble if my thoughts made me feel superior. But one speck of dust cannot elevate itself above the other dust specks.

I express myself HERE, not there, because in the church house is not the place to digress into metaphysical pondering: we have been instructed to teach the first principles and ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And I get annoyed when others give into a need to hear their own voices, and speak nonsense, even "false doctrine" that I know to be such (I gave two examples of this just today).

It would be prideful of myself, and worse than disingenuous, to take other people's time and spout my ideas, no matter how "elevated" I personally feel that they are. But HERE, I can spout all I want, while I am at liberty that is: the mods can always lock me out....

[AddamS]

For what it's worth; my opinion is that the line between "want" and "need" is pretty wide and blurry in our everyday use, so it's hard to know what the speaker meant without the context of the rest of his speech or further explanation.

Hypothetical example: A family's sole survivor of the holocaust didn't "need" to have his family live or spend the whole of his life ouside of prison-camps. As the man in the example is alive, obviously he didn't need these things to survive. However; his quality of his life would have been infinitely better without said tragedy.

You don't need your spouse, your children, your other loved ones, etc... to survive. You only want them to, But some wants are so crucial to fullfillment you might as well call them "needs".

[Questing Beast]

That's how I see "God" wanting to create. Being in the Darkness with Nothing is BORING. Yet being that way makes fecund creation meaningful and valuable. It is the constant "law" of opposites again. You have to know the one side to fully appreciate and want the other.

So "God" does this: infinitely becomes free will possessing (sapient) beings who are cut off from full awareness of what "God" Is; seeking forever to know that fullness, to join with it, soul to soul as it were. The Full Awareness, the Infinite that knows all things continually, seems to prefer this never-ending process, continually adding to it: because to do so is glorious fun. And that is what anyone wants. What could be more purposeful than that?

We NEED to have fun. If something is not fun then it is without meaning. We can endure for a dismal mortal span, if we must. But by the end of it, we are weary of the whole thing. It isn't fun, and it is over, and well and good that it is over. Why do the scriptures describe the afterlife as a "rest from all care and sorrow"? Because for most of us most of the time mortality is a futile battle to find and enjoy fun. For many in many circumstances, the concept of seeking fun out of life is almost a foreign concept, hardly imaginable. Life is just too hard, terribly painful and brutal and short.

But once we get out of it, and back to being immortals, the contrast must be positively profound. And it seems that "God" wants us this way. If that is the same thing as "needs us", then I can agree with that definition of need....

[Maidservant]

I think someone already kind of mentioned this . . . but 'need' in terms of causality or ontological and theological terms?

Or 'need', emotionally?

I think the first question is irrelevant to me or to the reality of the relationship between God and man. We are all just people. We all exist together.

On the second . . . I know my Father in heaven needs me.

Once I had a dream. In the dream, the Savior had arrived for his second coming. I realized what was happening, and so I began to experience so many emotions, including a little shame that he would see everything on me (as if he didn't already) and I was a little nervous to think about being in his presence. However, the most overriding emotional experience and realization I had was that I could not allow Jesus to be looking about the crowd looking for me and find me missing. I couldn't do that to him. I didn't want him to be wanting me, and then not having me be there. So I set aside any other shame I had (not to hold on to that in pride), and I went out of my house to where he was so he could see I was there, so he wouldn't miss me, so he could be fully happy since I had come to him.

[OUmd]

I think someone already kind of mentioned this . . . but 'need' in terms of causality or ontological and theological terms?

Or 'need', emotionally?

I think the first question is irrelevant to me or to the reality of the relationship between God and man. We are all just people. We all exist together.

On the second . . . I know my Father in heaven needs me.

Once I had a dream. In the dream, the Savior had arrived for his second coming. I realized what was happening, and so I began to experience so many emotions, including a little shame that he would see everything on me (as if he didn't already) and I was a little nervous to think about being in his presence. However, the most overriding emotional experience and realization I had was that I could not allow Jesus to be looking about the crowd looking for me and find me missing. I couldn't do that to him. I didn't want him to be wanting me, and then not having me be there. So I set aside any other shame I had (not to hold on to that in pride), and I went out of my house to where he was so he could see I was there, so he wouldn't miss me, so he could be fully happy since I had come to him.

I agree that the question of "need" could be a question of semantics. However, I have been trying to think of situations where he would not need us. Superficially (He still exists, if I didn't) I can, but not when I really evaluate it.

Theologically - we are His work. If we didn't exist, He would have no purpose. I imagine, as God, He wouldn't cease to exist but I believe His work or progression would be limited. We have probably all heard leaders tell us that the work will go on "without us", but at some level this is even false. He may have not needed Joseph Smith, the individual for example, but He would have eventually needed someone to use to usher in the restoration. He needs prophets, apostles, bishops, EQ presidents, RS presidents, etc. Again, He may not need individuals, but He needs men and women to the point that if collectively the human race turned his back on Him, His work would indeed be halted.

Emotionally/spiritually - this is where I agree with your thoughts the most. I believe He needs us emotionally just as much as we need Him. I think this is what made me so surprised at this speaker's comments. Her comments were made in reference to the atonement in that we needed God more than He needs us (and in fact, He doesn't need us) because of this principle. Again, I can appreciate what she was trying to imply, but again, I believe this is so untrue. The Savior went through all of our pains during the atonement. He is emotionally tied to us, just like (and even more so) how I am emotionally tied to my children and suffer when they suffer.

Isn't the thought that we don't need each other the main point of Satan? It is interesting how simple "teachings" that we all hear (and sometimes continue to preach) could be totally untrue when evaluated more closely, but yet again what is "truth".

[Questing Beast]

The contrast of Void and Infinite Creation shows the "need" that God has. Yes, "God" Exists regardless. But the inarguable fact of OUR Existence is proof that "God" values Creation over Void. If it were not so, there would be Nothing....

[seriously honestly]

A speaker in SM today made the comment that God doesn't need us, but that we need Him. I don't know why, but this statement bothered me and I don't believe it.

I can't imagine that our Father in Heaven does not need us as much as we need Him. If His "work" is to bring us eternal life of course He "needs" us. I believe that as we progress, He progresses and as such if we did not progress neither would He. I liken most of the gospel and the plan of salvation to my own life and family. I need my kids, often more than I think they need me.

Any thoughts? Was this speaker's comment based on any doctrinal reference or merely personal opinion? I could certainly understand why she may have said it, but deep down I believe it is completely false.

Acts 17

...Since [God] is Lord of heaven and earth, he doesn’t live in man-made temples, ²⁵ and human hands can’t serve his needs—for he has no needs. He himself gives life and breath to everything, and he satisfies every need.

God doesn't need us (He doesn't need anything), but because of His love, He desperately wants us.

[OUmd]

Acts 17

...Since [God] is Lord of heaven and earth, he doesn’t live in man-made temples, ²⁵ and human hands can’t serve his needs—for he has no needs. He himself gives life and breath to everything, and he satisfies every need.

God doesn't need us (He doesn't need anything), but because of His love, He desperately wants us.

Interesting and great find.

Wouldn't wanting vs. need imply selfishness? Is God selfish? I believe He is the antithesis of selfishness to the point that I believe that over coming selfishness is our greatest purpose.

[seriously honestly]

Interesting and great find.

Wouldn't wanting vs. need imply selfishness? Is God selfish? I believe He is the antithesis of selfishness to the point that I believe that over coming selfishness is our greatest purpose.

Well I don't know about selfish, but He has described Himself as being a jealous God

But in all seriousness, I don't see how His desire for us would imply selfishness.

[Calm]

There are righteous desires that I would say are not based in selfishness unless one defines selfishness as doing anything that makes us feel better.

If something has the same or greater benefit for someone else, if we are doing something because we want others to be happier and the side effect is that we feel better about ourselves or happier ourselves I do not see that as selfishness.