Mormonism'S Anthropomorphic God: Why Is This A Problem For Other Theists?

[Log]

Rob,

I think the operative word in Wade's inquiry is "ridiculing." I certainly am not ridiculing whatever anyone who uses the word "omniscience" means.

Omniscience as used by person A is not necessarily identical in content to omniscience as used by person B. I don't know if there is a difference between what some LDS would call omniscience and what you would call omniscience. I simply note that what I think you mean by omniscience has insuperable Biblical problems that, understandably, you are loathe to address among this audience; likewise, if some LDS mean by omniscience what you mean, they too have the same problems, and more besides.

It is a plain fact that most LDS have not, and do not, give abstractions like omniscience, free will, and agency much thought, and have uncritically adopted many concepts from orthodox theists such as yourself. These, and other similar beliefs, I call "folk doctrines." That many LDS incorporate folk doctrines into their teachings, of being of whatever calling and in whatever publication they may, does not give the imprimatur of the Church to that doctrine.

As Joseph Smith said, "I do not like [people] being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine."

Edited March 22, 2012 by Log

[wenglund]

Already done that. The doctrine is God's omniscience, and the documentation demonstrating that the doctrine is taught by numerous Mormon prophets and apostles was provided earlier in this thread.

I am sorry, but you failed to satisfy the key components of the CFR, specifically evincing that it is "doctrine," what exactly that alleged doctrine entails, and more importantly, that we are ridiculing it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 22, 2012 by wenglund

[Rob Bowman]

Log,

You still have an unanswered CFR from me. Telling me not to be lazy and to look it up myself is not an acceptable answer. I have waited nearly a full day for someone to point this out to you, apparently in vain.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

I am sorry, but you failed to satisfy the key components of the CFR, specifically evincing that it is "doctrine," what exactly that alleged doctrine entails, and more importantly, that we are ridiculing it.

The earlier post to which I linked in response to your CFR gives you the first two pieces of information for which you asked. It shows that omniscience is a doctrine taught by the LDS Church, and it gives the LDS Church's own definition of omniscience.

As for my complaint that some of you boys are ridiculing it, see posts #322, #337, #341, #345, and #346.

[Log]

Log,

You still have an unanswered CFR from me. Telling me not to be lazy and to look it up myself is not an acceptable answer. I have waited nearly a full day for someone to point this out to you, apparently in vain.

Hey Rob,

Do you have a problem with your internet access where you cannot go to http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/ and run a search for "omniscience" yourself?

Your CFR is answered therein, but you have already said it doesn't matter as you yourself have already noted that BYU personnel do not represent the Church - so one wonders out loud why you are hypocritcally pursuing this asinine CFR at this point. The Church does not "officially" teach what you term "omniscience.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Log

[Log]

¹¹ However, it is the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that the propositions "There will [at some time] be nothing more to be learned [by God]" and that "the Father and the Son do not progress in knowledge and wisdom because they already know all things past, present and to come" are "false doctrine." The First Presidency under Brigham Young declared these propositions false in a First Presidency statement printed in the Millennial Star 27 (21 October 1865): 660; and Messages of the First Presidency, ed. James R. Clark, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), 2:234.

[Rob Bowman]

Log,

You wrote:

Do you have a problem with your internet access where you cannot go to http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/ and run a search for "omniscience" yourself?

Do you have a problem with your internet access, that you cannot go to the site and find the article you claimed was there and for which I issued a CFR?

You wrote:

Your CFR is answered therein, but you have already said it doesn't matter as you yourself have already noted that BYU personnel do not represent the Church - so one wonders out loud why you are hypocritcally pursuing this asinine CFR at this point. The Church does not "officially" teach what you term "omniscience.

It isn't hypocritical of me to ask you for a specific reference that supports your assertion, even if I personally think your assertion is irrelevant to establishing the larger claim about what the LDS Church teaches.

Here is what you had claimed:

To support this, I simply note that the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, formally affiliated with the Church (Drs. Peterson or Hamblin can correct me if I am mistaken), have published articles in which the notion that "the Church teaches omniscience" is specifically denied.

I did exactly what you said: I did a word search for omniscience at the Maxwell Institute website. I found not even one article specifically denying that the LDS Church teaches omniscience.

The CFR remains.

[Log]

Log,

It isn't hypocritical of me to ask you for a specific reference that supports your assertion, even if I personally think your assertion is irrelevant to establishing the larger claim about what the LDS Church teaches.

Yes, it is, for precisely the reason you just stated.

I did exactly what you said: I did a word search for omniscience at the Maxwell Institute website. I found not even one article specifically denying that the LDS Church teaches omniscience.

The CFR remains.

You'll note I cited it in full above this post, which was posted only a second before this post.

Strangely, I found it by ... running a word search for "omniscience." How is it that you failed to find it?

[Zakuska]

...

Well thats pretty much case closed. The first presidency has declared that God is constanly learning and never will stop learning. as "offical binding Doctrine".

Thanks log.

[Rob Bowman]

I see you posted a quotation from Blake Ostler right at the same time I was posting. Blake's quotation is more than a century out of date, well past the shelf life of most "official" LDS doctrinal statements. What Ostler fails to do is to show that the LDS Church presently denies omniscience.

The CFR still stands.

[Log]

I see you posted a quotation from Blake Ostler right at the same time I was posting. Blake's quotation is more than a century out of date, well past the shelf life of most "official" LDS doctrinal statements. What Ostler fails to do is to show that the LDS Church presently denies omniscience.

The CFR still stands.

There has been no other "official" statement on the topic. Your CFR is dead. Should you disagree, ask the mods.

[wenglund]

The earlier post to which I linked in response to your CFR gives you the first two pieces of information for which you asked. It shows that omniscience is a doctrine taught by the LDS Church, and it gives the LDS Church's own definition of omniscience.

It really doesn't satisfy the CFR. It mentions how many search hits are returned for certain related words on the Church's web site, how the word "omniscient" is defined, and the frequency of certain words in the Topical Guide. What it doesn't show is that these words or concepts, or rather the interpretation thereof in absolute rather than relative senses, is doctrine.

I am not concerned with what a non-LDS, evangelical may presumptuously assume is LDS doctrine. What I am looking for is an authoritative LDS declaration. Good luck with that.

As for my complaint that some of you boys are ridiculing it, see posts #322, #337, #341, #345, and #346.

I see pointed questions being asked, but no ridicule.

So, again, CFR.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I see you posted a quotation from Blake Ostler right at the same time I was posting. Blake's quotation is more than a century out of date, well past the shelf life of most "official" LDS doctrinal statements. What Ostler fails to do is to show that the LDS Church presently denies omniscience.

The CFR still stands.

CFR that your opinion, as a non-LDS, is privileged over LDS when it comes to determining the shelf-life of LDS doctrine and whether our LDS references satisfy what we LDS have said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Log]

The claim I made, that got the CFR, was "[T]he Neal A. Maxwell Institute, formally affiliated with the Church (Drs. Peterson or Hamblin can correct me if I am mistaken), ha published articles in which the notion that 'the Church teaches omniscience' is specifically denied."

Ostler's article suffices as proof of my claim.

It's very disappointing. I keep wanting Rob to mean well, as he's generally civil.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Log

[Rob Bowman]

Guys, this is silly.

“For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it” (2 Ne. 9:20).

“And I do this for a wise purpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord which is in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord knoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he worketh in me to do according to his will” (Words of Mormon 1:7).

"This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things" (Alma 13:7).

"For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing" (Moroni 7:22).

"But they [the angels] reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord" (D&C 130:7).

"God the Father is the Supreme Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things" ("God the Father").

"Much of the world today does not have this knowledge of God, and even in latter-day Israel there are those who have not perfected their understanding of that glorious being who is our Eternal Father. To those without this knowledge we might well say: 'Why dost thou limit the glory of God? Or why should ye suppose that he is less than he is? Hast thou not known? Hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, is infinite and eternal; that he has all power, all might, and all dominion; that he knows all things, and that all things are present before his face?'" (President Joseph Fielding Smith, "The Most Important Knowledge," First Presidency Message, Ensign, May 1971).

"Our Father in Heaven uses His knowledge to help us. He knows everything that has happened in the past. He knows everything that is happening now. And He knows what will happen in the future. He knows the thoughts of all of us. Because He knows all things, He knows what we need to make us happy" (Gospel Fundamentals, ch. 1).

"'That is why God tries all of us. It is not for His own knowledge; for He knows all things beforehand. He knows all your lives and everything you will do. But He tries us for our own good, that we may know ourselves'" (George Q. Cannon, in Conference Report, Apr. 1899, 66, quoted in Old Testament Seminary Student Study Guide [2002], 27–29).

"The Lord knows all things, including the future" (Old Testament Student Manual Kings–Malachi [1982)], 253–59).

Isn't this sufficient to establish as fact that the LDS Church, in its scriptures, general conferences, and curriculum manuals, has for a very long time and currently does teach that God is omniscient, meaning that he knows all things including all things that will happen in the future?

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

CFR that your opinion, as a non-LDS, is privileged over LDS when it comes to determining the shelf-life of LDS doctrine and whether our LDS references satisfy what we LDS have said.

I don't claim that my opinion is privileged over Mormons' opinions in this matter, so your CFR is invalid.

[Log]

Isn't this sufficient to establish as fact that the LDS Church, in its scriptures, general conferences, and curriculum manuals, has for a very long time and currently does teach that God is omniscient, meaning that he knows all things including all things that will happen in the future?

To put it bluntly, not necessarily.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Log

[wenglund]

Guys, this is silly.

“For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it” (2 Ne. 9:20).

“And I do this for a wise purpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord which is in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord knoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he worketh in me to do according to his will” (Words of Mormon 1:7).

"This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things" (Alma 13:7).

"For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing" (Moroni 7:22).

"But they [the angels] reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord" (D&C 130:7).

"God the Father is the Supreme Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things" ("God the Father").

"Much of the world today does not have this knowledge of God, and even in latter-day Israel there are those who have not perfected their understanding of that glorious being who is our Eternal Father. To those without this knowledge we might well say: 'Why dost thou limit the glory of God? Or why should ye suppose that he is less than he is? Hast thou not known? Hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, is infinite and eternal; that he has all power, all might, and all dominion; that he knows all things, and that all things are present before his face?'" (President Joseph Fielding Smith, "The Most Important Knowledge," First Presidency Message, Ensign, May 1971).

"Our Father in Heaven uses His knowledge to help us. He knows everything that has happened in the past. He knows everything that is happening now. And He knows what will happen in the future. He knows the thoughts of all of us. Because He knows all things, He knows what we need to make us happy" (Gospel Fundamentals, ch. 1).

"'That is why God tries all of us. It is not for His own knowledge; for He knows all things beforehand. He knows all your lives and everything you will do. But He tries us for our own good, that we may know ourselves'" (George Q. Cannon, in Conference Report, Apr. 1899, 66, quoted in Old Testament Seminary Student Study Guide [2002], 27–29).

"The Lord knows all things, including the future" (Old Testament Student Manual Kings–Malachi [1982)], 253–59).

Isn't this sufficient to establish as fact that the LDS Church, in its scriptures, general conferences, and curriculum manuals, has for a very long time and currently does teach that God is omniscient, meaning that he knows all things including all things that will happen in the future?

You still don't get it. What is at issue isn't the omniscience of God, but whether that omniscience is absolute or relative. None of these quotes settle this issue, and certainly not to doctrinally certainty. We LDS understand this about our own faith. and we don't appreciate you, as a non-LDS, who doesn't understand this, presuming to tell us otherwise. Silly, indeed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I don't claim that my opinion is privileged over Mormons' opinions in this matter, so your CFR is invalid.

If so, and by virtue of this, then your CFR to Log has been more than satisfied.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 22, 2012 by wenglund

[Rob Bowman]

Words apparently mean nothing to you two, even if they are the words of your own scriptures and prophets. I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to reason with you.

[Log]

Words apparently mean nothing to you two, even if they are the words of your own scriptures and prophets. I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to reason with you.

Rob,

It is interesting that the First Presidency under Brigham Young, knowing full well the scriptures, issued the statement they did.

These scriptural statements don't necessarily mean what you, Rob, interpret them to mean. On the other hand, I notice that you refuse to directly address the Bible when it clearly says God doesn't know something, as it does more than once.

May I suggest, therefore, you set your own house in order before presuming to clean ours?

[wenglund]

Words apparently mean nothing to you two, even if they are the words of your own scriptures and prophets. I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to reason with you.

Words, even in our scriptures and from our prophets, are subject to differing interpretations. We LDS are rightly in the best position, better than non-LDS, to decide for ourselves among the interpretations. What has been a waste of time is trying to reason with someone who doesn't get this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LeSellers]

I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to reason with you.

You are not alone.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Log,

You wrote:

On the other hand, I notice that you refuse to directly address the Bible when it clearly says God doesn't know something, as it does more than once.

The Bible never says that God doesn't know something. It may say things that you think imply a lack of knowledge, such as when God asks a question or when God says something like "now I know," but it never says God doesn't know something.

[Log]

Let's take that and see what it implies.

Biblical Support for the Open View of God

The biblical record gives strong indications that God's knowledge of future free acts is not complete. For example, when God speaks in scripture he uses terms implying uncertainty such as if (Heb. 'im) or perhaps ormaybe (Heb. 'ûlay). Other scriptures demonstrate that though God had expressed an intention to carry out a certain judgment, God changes his mind when the people repent. Certainly it is impossible to change one's mind if one already knows what will occur.

Some rather strong indications exist in scripture that God does not know all future contingents. First, even though some scriptures present Jesus as omniscient, it is clear that others do not.²² Indeed, Jesus seems to have expected the kingdom of God to come in power and glory before the end of his present generation, even before all of the seventy returned from their missions throughout Judea.²³ But it makes no sense to argue that Jesus must have known that the kingdom was not coming that soon because he was omniscient, for the scripture expressly states that the Son of Man did not know when the kingdom would come. Jesus does not know all things.

In the Hebrew scripture, the word 'ûlay meaning "perhaps" or "maybe" is used in divine speech. For instance, God is portrayed as saying:

Son of man, prepare for yourself an exile's baggage, and go into exile by day in their sight. . . . Perhaps [

'ûlay

] they will understand, though they are a rebellious house. (NSV Ezekiel 12:2-3)

Thus says the Lord: Stand in the court of the Lord's house, and speak. . . . It may be [

'ûlay

] they will listen, and every one turn from his evil way, that I may repent of the evil. (RSV Jeremiah 26:2-3; for other uses of

ûlay

, see Jeremiah 36:3, 7; 51:8; Isaiah 47:12; Luke 20:13).

How shall we understand such passages? Terence E. Fretheim, professor of Old Testament at Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary, suggests that it "seems clear from such passages that God is quite uncertain as to how the people will respond to the prophetic word. God is certainly aware of the various possibilities regarding Israel's response. One might even say that God, given a thoroughgoing knowledge of Israel, knows what its response is likely to be. . . . Yet, in God's own words, God does not finally know."²⁴ That Fretheim is correct, and that God actually was uncertain as to what Israel would do, is supported by RSV Jeremiah 3:7 and 19:

And I thought,

"After she has done all this she will return to me";

but she did not return. . . .

"I thought

how I would set you among my sons,

and give you a pleasant land,

a heritage most beauteous of all nations.

And I thought you would call me, My Father

and would not turn from following me.

Surely, as a faithless wife leaves her husband,

so have you been faithless to me, O house of Israel."

Fretheim observes of this passage; "Here God is depicted as actually thinking that the people would respond positively to the initial election, or that they would return after a time of straying. But events proved that God's outlook on the future was too optimistic. The people did not respond as God thought they would. God's knowledge of future human actions is thus clearly represented as limited."²⁵ Perhaps those holding that God has absolute foreknowledge will interpret this passage in a manner consistent with the belief that God actually knew what Israel would do and assert that we have an example of the dreaded anthropomorphism of the Old Testament in this passage. Fretheim observes that such readings "buy us an absolute form of omniscience at the price of placing the integrity of the text and coherence of all of God's words in jeopardy: does God mean it or not? These texts show that Israel's future is genuinely open and not predetermined. The future of Israel does not only not exist, it has not even been finally decided upon. Hence, it is not something that even exists to be known, even if the knower is God."²⁶ It seems to me that the only way to preserve the integrity of this text is to admit that God experienced, nay suffered, disappointment when he discovered that Israel would reject him, especially after expecting that Israel would love him as a son loves a father.

Exodus 32:7-14 (cf. Deuteronomy 9:13-29), where God is portrayed as changing his mind after a consultation with Moses, is of similar import. Yahweh told Moses that he intended to destroy Israel for having made the golden calf, and Moses objected and actually argued that such a course would be unworthy of God. As Childs observed, the key to understanding the encounter is God's response to Moses: "Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against [israel] (v. 10)";²⁷ God had actually formed an intention to execute wrath; it was something that "he thought to do" (v. 14). This passage shows that, while God had decided to destroy Israel, "the decision had not yet reached an irretrievable point; Moses could conceivably contribute something to the divine deliberation that might occasion a future for Israel other than wrath."²⁸ Remarkably, Moses persuaded God to recant what he had decided to do: "And the Lord repented of the evil He thought to do unto His people" (v. 14). The most faithful way to understand this passage, it seems to me, is to view Yahweh as having formed an intention to do one thing—and thus at one time believing that he would do it—and at a later time changing his mind and coming to believe something different. Yet if God did not know at the time of his conversation with Moses whether Israel would be destroyed, then certainly there were a good many things about the future that he did not know. Some Mormons may point out that when Joseph Smith revised the Bible, he changed all of the passages suggesting that God repented—implying that such changes were made because the Prophet Joseph Smith believed that repentance could not be appropriate to a being that cannot possibly be mistaken about any belief or sin in any way. Nevertheless, the Joseph Smith translation of this passage makes God's change of mind even more explicit, and thus recognizes that God changed his mind: "The Lord said unto Moses, If they will repent of the evil which they have done, I will spare them. . . . Therefore, see thou do this thing that I have commanded thee, or I will execute all that which I had thought to do unto my people" (JST Exodus 32:13-14).

Still other passages suggest that some predictions of future events are conditional and that God does not know precisely what will happen, though he intends to persuade people to freely repent. A good example of such a conditional prophecy is found in RSV Jeremiah 22:4-5: "If (im) you will indeed obey this word, then there shall enter the gates of this house kings who sit on the throne of David. . . . But if (im) you will not heed these words, . . . this house shall become a desolation." Numerous similar conditional prophecies occur throughout the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon, and modern Mormon scripture. Is the if in such passages to be taken with full seriousness? For example, the book of Abraham suggests that one of God's purposes in establishing his plan and this earth was to learn something about humans: "We will make an earth whereon these may dwell; and we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them" (Abraham 3:24-25). It seems to me that this passage doesn't make any sense at all if the future is already determinate and God already knew from all eternity exactly what we will do without actually "seeing if" persons will do what he has commanded. Indeed, the very earnestness of mortality in Mormon thought derives its force from the view that the future is genuinely open and as yet undecided and therefore truly up to us to declare to God who we will be—a fact he is waiting with loving interest to discover along with us. God is waiting on us to see if we will be faithful.

One final type of text may be taken as evidence that God's knowledge is dependent on what actually happens. In the book of Jonah, the prophet Jonah declared that "yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown" (Jonah 3:4). In response to this proclamation, the city of Nineveh proclaimed a fast and repented of its evil ways. "The word of the Lord" came to the king of Nineveh: "Who can tell if (im) God will turn and repent, and turn away from His fierce anger, that we perish not?" (Jonah 3:9). In response to the repentance of the people of Nineveh, God changed his mind and decided not to do what he had declared he would do: "And God saw their works, and they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said he would do unto them; and he did it not" (Jonah 3:10). Jonah's response was undoubtedly similar to what a believer in absolute foreknowledge might experience when expectations about God have been shattered by concrete dealings with God involved in an open future that can have results unanticipated even by God: Jonah was "very angry" with God. Jonah complains: "O Lord, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? . . . I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil" (Jonah 4:1). This picture of God presented by patience, kindness, and mercy is possible only within a genuine relationship in which all responses and outcomes are not already determined before the responses and decisions are made. Moreover, if such decisions are not already made, then how can it be that God infallibly knows beforehand what the decision is? Perhaps the book of Jonah can teach us something about God—maybe even something unexpected and outside our preconceived notions about how God must be. As Abraham Heschel commented, "This is the mysterious paradox of Hebrew faith: The All wise and Almighty may change a word that He proclaims. Man has power to modify His design. . . . God's answer to Jonah, stressing the supremacy of compassion, upsets the possibility of looking for a rational coherence of God's ways with the world."²⁹

As Clark Pinnock asserted:

According to the Bible, God anticipates the future in a way analogous to our own experience. God tests Abraham to see what the patriarch will do, and then says through his messenger, "

Now

I know that you fear God" (Gen. 22:12). God threatens Ninevah with destruction, and then calls it off when they repent (Jonah 3:10). I do not receive the impression from the Bible that the future is all sewn up and foreknown. The future is envisaged as a realm in which significant decisions can still be made which can change the course of history.

30

Edited March 22, 2012 by Log