Are You Being Led Astray By Lds Shepherds?

[Stargazer]

 

Is that what you're asserting? That we need the atonement because we offend God? That makes no sense at all.

Absolutely, that's the reason we talked about Christ being the ultimate sacrifice for sin a ways back. What do you think the reason is?

 

This word "offended" just doesn't do anything for me. Does God get "offended"? I know I can get offended, but somehow I just can't picture God getting that way.

 

God cannot make any allowance for sin, but that's not the same thing.  I just wonder how God can be offended by sin when He knew absolutely that sin was going to happen when He sent us here.  God cannot allow a sinner to come into His Kingdom, but you must know that he would like to have all of his children back, if at all possible.  Christ's Atonement makes it possible for this to happen.  If we do not take advantage of that Atonement, then we can't come home.  And in fact we will have to suffer for our own sins if we don't accept the Atonement.  And if we do suffer for our own sins (lake of fire sort of experience) then even in that case we cannot come home because while we have paid for our misdeeds, we have still not been cleaned, and our uncleanliness makes us unable to come home. 

 

Christ's Atonement is necessary to enable us to be clean, not to un-offend God.

 

But you can believe sin offends God if you wish, and that the Atonement un-offends God.  I sure it makes no difference in the end.

[Tacenda]

Just watched a snippet of a former LDS bishop on a You tube say that he believes this scripture among many, in the BOM which is Moroni 8:18 that says "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." 

 

He since left the church when he asked his SP and Bishop if this is true or is God changeable and progressed to Godhood.  I guess this led him out of the church apparently.  I know this has been discussed before but was hoping one of you could again answer to it's discrepancy or non discrepancy if that is the case. 

[mass168]

Just watched a snippet of a former LDS bishop on a You tube say that he believes this scripture among many, in the BOM which is Moroni 8:18 that says "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." 

 

He since left the church when he asked his SP and Bishop if this is true or is God changeable and progressed to Godhood.  I guess this led him out of the church apparently.  I know this has been discussed before but was hoping one of you could again answer to it's discrepancy or non discrepancy if that is the case. 

There were several theories advanced to why this was not a discrepancy. I personally didn't buy any of them. They involved things such as changing the dictionary meaning of the word eternity, or saying that context reduces this to less than an all-inclusive statement. I really don't feel this is one of those verses where the context makes a large change to the face-value meaning. The language is very clear, and points to God being unchangeable in any way. Additionally, if you believe the official version (from LDS.org) of the BOM translation, there really doesn't seem to be much leeway in ascribing a different meaning than the one that is "plainly" evident here. 

[bluebell]

There were several theories advanced to why this was not a discrepancy. I personally didn't buy any of them. They involved things such as changing the dictionary meaning of the word eternity, or saying that context reduces this to less than an all-inclusive statement. I really don't feel this is one of those verses where the context makes a large change to the face-value meaning. The language is very clear, and points to God being unchangeable in any way. Additionally, if you believe the official version (from LDS.org) of the BOM translation, there really doesn't seem to be much leeway in ascribing a different meaning than the one that is "plainly" evident here. 

 

If God is unchangeable in anyway, then how does that work with the concept of the Trinity?  Was Christ always fully man, even before his birth?

 

(because there's another non-lds Christian on a different thread arguing right now that Christ wasn't always man...)

Edited January 3, 2015 by bluebell

[mass168]

If God is unchangeable in anyway, then how does that work with the concept of the Trinity?  Was Christ always fully man, even before his birth?

 

(because there's another non-lds Christian on a different thread arguing right now that Christ wasn't always man...)

I'm not currently discussing the trinity. I have stated my position throughout this thread that the trinity is a concept that is very confusing to me. What I am discussing is the fact that the LDS system of believing in eternal progression, and having a scripture like Moroni 8:18 is even more confusing and contradictory. Especially given the nature of the BOM, how it was translated, as opposed to the Bible. 

[JLHPROF]

Just watched a snippet of a former LDS bishop on a You tube say that he believes this scripture among many, in the BOM which is Moroni 8:18 that says "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." 

 

He since left the church when he asked his SP and Bishop if this is true or is God changeable and progressed to Godhood.  I guess this led him out of the church apparently.  I know this has been discussed before but was hoping one of you could again answer to it's discrepancy or non discrepancy if that is the case. 

 

I thought I already addressed this scripture here:

 

Quote

 

Mormon speaking says:

 

17 And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation.

18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

19 Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy.

 

So of the plain old dictionary meanings of unchangeable whichever one we use should be related to God's lack of partiality and his characteristic to be merciful to all his children.

 

1. Liable to change; capricious; fickle: changeable weather.

2. Being such that alteration is possible: changeable behavior.

3. Varying in color or appearance when seen from different angles: changeable silk.

 

Common sense would tell you this scripture refers to #1 - capricious, fickle.  That is the definition that relates to his fairness which is the topic of the chapter.  It refers to his being bound by law to be just and merciful and to his being a God of order, not subject to whims.

 

Also, common sense would likewise tell you that a truly omnipotent being couldn't be unable to accomplish #2 - an inability to change anything about himself.

 

Simply put, there is absolutely NO conflict between Moroni 8:18 and the doctrines of the King Follett Discourse.  At least, not for those able to read a verse in context of the chapter.

 

It's either that or Mormon didn't know what he was talking about...he's as fallible as any other man I suppose.

[mass168]

I thought I already addressed this scripture here:

 

Quote

 

So of the plain old dictionary meanings of unchangeable whichever one we use should be related to God's lack of partiality and his characteristic to be merciful to all his children.

 

1. Liable to change; capricious; fickle: changeable weather.

2. Being such that alteration is possible: changeable behavior.

3. Varying in color or appearance when seen from different angles: changeable silk.

 

Common sense would tell you this scripture refers to #1 - capricious, fickle.  That is the definition that relates to his fairness which is the topic of the chapter.  It refers to his being bound by law to be just and merciful and to his being a God of order, not subject to whims.

 

Also, common sense would likewise tell you that a truly omnipotent being couldn't be unable to accomplish #2 - an inability to change anything about himself.

 

Simply put, there is absolutely NO conflict between Moroni 8:18 and the doctrines of the King Follett Discourse.  At least, not for those able to read a verse in context of the chapter.

 

It's either that or Mormon didn't know what he was talking about...he's as fallible as any other man I suppose.

The best I can do, "reading this is context," is the following:

 

Mormon is discussing how it is an abomination for little children to be baptized. He points out a reason, that God has been following the same rules forever, "from all eternity to all eternity." These rules say that little children cannot repent, and are therefore shown mercy, etc. If God has been following the same rules forever, they never changed. This is consistent with the idea that He Himself is unchangeable.

 

I do not see a reason anywhere in this thought experiment, to make a leap and say that God is changeable. 

 

Even the following thought (which is perhaps JLH's best argument), is undefined: "Also, common sense would likewise tell you that a truly omnipotent being couldn't be unable to accomplish #2 - an inability to change anything about himself"

 

God is perfect. He does not need to change. He has not ever changed. Therefore it makes no sense to even talk about Him being unable to change. 

[JLHPROF]

The best I can do, "reading this is context," is the following:

 

Mormon is discussing how it is an abomination for little children to be baptized. He points out a reason, that God has been following the same rules forever, "from all eternity to all eternity." These rules say that little children cannot repent, and are therefore shown mercy, etc. If God has been following the same rules forever, they never changed. This is consistent with the idea that He Himself is unchangeable.

 

I do not see a reason anywhere in this thought experiment, to make a leap and say that God is changeable. 

 

Even the following thought (which is perhaps JLH's best argument), is undefined: "Also, common sense would likewise tell you that a truly omnipotent being couldn't be unable to accomplish #2 - an inability to change anything about himself"

 

God is perfect. He does not need to change. He has not ever changed. Therefore it makes no sense to even talk about Him being unable to change. 

 

Yet he has talked about it in exactly the same context before:

Malachi 3

5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts.

6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

 

Once again, in this chapter, just like in Moroni 8, God connects his unchangeabe characteristics directly to the manner in which he judges man.

In Moroni he says he is "unchangeable" BECAUSE he is impartial in his judgements and merciful to little children.

In Malachi he says he is "unchangeable" BECAUSE he will judge the wicked and is merciful to the sons of Jacob (those who fear him in the covenant).

 

So I say again, unchangeable has nothing to do with his being unalterable or eternal in these scriptures.  Unchangeable specifically refers to his not being capricious or fickle, or impartial.  These scriptures do not conflict with the King Follett doctrine in any way.  They are about God's consistency and mercy in judgement, not some imaginary unaltered eternal existence.

[mass168]

Yet he has talked about it in exactly the same context before:

Malachi 3

5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts.

6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

 

Once again, in this chapter, just like in Moroni 8, God connects his unchangeabe characteristics directly to the manner in which he judges man.

In Moroni he says he is "unchangeable" BECAUSE he is impartial in his judgements and merciful to little children.

In Malachi he says he is "unchangeable" BECAUSE he will judge the wicked and is merciful to the sons of Jacob (those who fear him in the covenant).

 

So I say again, unchangeable has nothing to do with his being unalterable or eternal in these scriptures.  Unchangeable specifically refers to his not being capricious or fickle, or impartial.  These scriptures do not conflict with the King Follett doctrine in any way.  They are about God's consistency and mercy in judgement, not some imaginary unaltered eternal existence.

I see no reason why Malachi 3:6 cannot be applied to God in a general sense. This verse declares that God has chosen a people from the beginning of eternity to be His people, the sons of Jacob. Likewise I see no reason that Moroni 8:18 cannot be applied generally. 

[JLHPROF]

I see no reason why Malachi 3:6 cannot be applied to God in a general sense. This verse declares that God has chosen a people from the beginning of eternity to be His people, the sons of Jacob. Likewise I see no reason that Moroni 8:18 cannot be applied generally. 

 

Of course you see no reason.  It matches your argument if you apply them in a general manner instead of in the context in which they were written.

If you apply the appropriate context, you have no argument.

[mass168]

Of course you see no reason.  It matches your argument if you apply them in a general manner instead of in the context in which they were written.

If you apply the appropriate context, you have no argument.

Forgive me, I understood your last argument to be saying I should apply limits to the scope of these verses because of their context. I do not see the context in either case to be limiting. It may be a subject where we have to agree to disagree I suppose. 

[Bobbieaware]

Forgive me, I understood your last argument to be saying I should apply limits to the scope of these verses because of their context. I do not see the context in either case to be limiting. It may be a subject where we have to agree to disagree I suppose.

The uncreated Spirit of Divine Intelligence (Holy Spirit) that progressively fills the sincere disciple of Christ with more and more spiritual light and truth had no beginning, will have no end and does not change. As the disciple of Christ continues to grow in the grace and knowledge of God, by and through the uncreated and unchanging Spirit of Divine Intelligence that dwells within him he becomes more and more like God in thought, word and action.

Ultimately, when this dynamic process of spiritual growth and increase in the knowledge and power of God comes to its glorious conclusion, the disciple is filled to eternal fullness with the uncreated and unchanging Spirit of Divine Intelligence and, like Christ, the will of the disciple is "swallowed up in the will of the Father" (see Mosiah 15) and he is therefore able to speak and rule as the living embodiment and perfect representative of that unchanging Divine Intelligence that always was and does not change, and this because he has been fully transformed into God's image by the Spirit of God. So though the "outward man" changes, the Spirit of a God that dwells within the disciple does not change but "grows brighter and brighter until the perfect day" when he becomes the embodiment and perfect representative of that Holy Spirit of Divine Intelligence that always existed and does not change.

"But we all, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of The Lord" (the Apostle Paul)

Edited January 4, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[mass168]

The uncreated Spirit of Divine Intelligence (Holy Spirit) that progressively fills the sincere disciple of Christ with more and more spiritual light and truth had no beginning, will have no end and does not change. As the disciple of Christ continues to grow in the grace and knowledge of God, by and through the uncreated and unchanging Spirit of Divine Intelligence that dwells within him he becomes more and more like God in thought, word and action.

Ultimately, when this dynamic process of spiritual growth and increase in the knowledge and power of God comes to its glorious conclusion, the disciple is filled to eternal fullness with the uncreated and unchanging Spirit of Divine Intelligence and, like Christ, the will of the disciple is "swallowed up in the will of the Father" (see Mosiah 15) and he is therefore able to speak and rule as the living embodiment and perfect representative of that unchanging Divine Intelligence that always was and does not change, and this because he has been fully transformed into God's image by the Spirit of God. So though the "outward man" changes, the Spirit of a God that dwells within the disciple does not change but "grows brighter and brighter until the perfect day" when he becomes the embodiment and perfect representative of that Holy Spirit of Divine Intelligence that always existed and does not change.

"But we all, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of The Lord" (the Apostle Paul)

This explanation sounds a lot more like an EV understanding of God. But it is focused on the disciple, not the creator. I would still ask how you make sense of Moroni 8:18. Why does it single out God, and not the Holy Spirit, with your thought in mind?