The 'light Of Christ' And The Three Omnis

[mfbukowski]

It's my understanding that LDS theology rejects the classic Christian understanding that Heavenly Father is Omniscient (all knowing at all times), Omnipresent (simultaneously everywhere in all times) and Omnipowerful (at all times all powerful). 

 

Heavenly Father is not omniscient because he is still growing in knowledge and continues to progress.

Heavenly Father is not omnipresent because he has a physical body which can only be in one place at a time.

Heavenly Father is not omnipowerful because he must submit to the laws of the Priesthood and did not always have whatever power he has now.

 

My experience has been that LDS will affirm these attributes of Heavenly Father while in initilal discussion with orthodox Christians in order to pave the way to the doctrinal meat that teaches that Heavenly Father merely appears to hold these attributes but they in fact are not accurate descriptions of Him given the plan of salvation that stretches back before he was a god. Feel free to correct me in my understanding, I'm not posing this description as an authority on Mormon doctrine only as a set up for a different question.

 

I'm interested in the LDS concept of the "Light of Christ". Would you say any of the "omnis" apply to the Light of Christ?

 

Thanks!

First of all, any implicit rejection of the "omnis" is strictly semantic.

 

No one thinks there are "things" God does not know, or powers he does not have.  He need not be present to know what is happening any more than I need to be present at the scene of a plane crash to know it is happening.

 

His "internet" is just much better than ours, with a neural interface directly into every brain on earth

[mfbukowski]

Good points, but there is a logical way to think of all God can do. I think in terms of God being able to do all that can be done, so that if he can't do it, nobody can. So in that sense, God can do all things, whether with or without tools or by having someone or something else do it for him. Kinda like how I can find a way to breed puppies.

Uh oh.

 

We agree yet again, but I am not sure of the puppies part. 

[JLHPROF]

I think you have the concepts of "can not" and "will not" confused. God gave us agency. Can he take it back? I have no idea. Will he? No.

 

I don't think God gave us agency.  I think eternal law gives us agency and God enforces said law.  And God cannot violate law without ceasing to be God.

[mfbukowski]

I think you have the concepts of "can not" and "will not" confused. God gave us agency. Can he take it back? I have no idea. Will he? No.

A lot of these "problems" are purely semantic.

 

"Take away" agency?

 

A single celled organism will move away from pain and toward food.  Arguably it makes "decisions" and acts upon them.  Whether or not one wants to call that "agency" is purely up to whoever is dreaming up the idea he wants to express.

 

Still though, it's only about words and definitions.  I know this is not news to you, I am "just sayin".

[mfbukowski]

I don't think God gave us agency.  I think eternal law gives us agency and God enforces said law.  And God cannot violate law without ceasing to be God.

I think that is one way of saying what I said in post 29.

 

If you want to call that a "law" I have no problem with it, but really that is just an abstraction for the fact that every living creature makes decisions and carries them out.

[The Nehor]

I don't think God gave us agency. I think eternal law gives us agency and God enforces said law. And God cannot violate law without ceasing to be God.

God appears to disagree with your understanding:

D&C 101:78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

2 Nephi 2:16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself

Moses 4:3 Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him

Edited December 31, 2014 by The Nehor

[JLHPROF]

God appears to disagree with your understanding:

D&C 101:78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

2 Nephi 2:16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself

Moses 4:3 Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him

 

God only "gave" us agency in that he created/fathered us as beings who, like himself, are subject to the eternal law of agency.  It is not a gift that God gives and takes.  If God didn't give us agency as part of the natural process of our creation, we wouldn't exist and God would cease to be God (because he would be God over nobody).  Free agency is the condition into which we are created.

We were intelligences, or the spirit of truth, and truth is independent in the sphere in which it is placed.  By organizing our intelligences God made us independent, at least within the guidelines of our existence.

 

Kind of like I say I gave my son life. Did I really? Well, I sort of did.  Really the law of nature gave him life.  I just brought him into being in mortality (with my wife doing most of the work of course).  Life was a gift from me to him, but his receiving it was a result of an unalterable law.  He couldn't come into mortality without it.  I couldn't have him and refuse to give him life.  I don't have the right to take away his life either or I will lose any right I have as his father.

[pogi]

God only "gave" us agency in that he created/fathered us as beings who, like himself, are subject to the eternal law of agency.  It is not a gift that God gives and takes.  If God didn't give us agency as part of the natural process of our creation, we wouldn't exist and God would cease to be God (because he would be God over nobody).  Free agency is the condition into which we are created.

We were intelligences, or the spirit of truth, and truth is independent in the sphere in which it is placed.  By organizing our intelligences God made us independent, at least within the guidelines of our existence.

 

Kind of like I say I gave my son life. Did I really? Well, I sort of did.  Really the law of nature gave him life.  I just brought him into being in mortality (with my wife doing most of the work of course).  Life was a gift from me to him, but his receiving it was a result of an unalterable law.  He couldn't come into mortality without it.  I couldn't have him and refuse to give him life.  I don't have the right to take away his life either or I will lose any right I have as his father.

 

What would have happened if Lucifer's plan (no agency) won out?

[JLHPROF]

What would have happened if Lucifer's plan (no agency) won out?

 

Never could have happened.  Do we really think that it was an option?

God "chose" the other plan because Lucifer's would have violated the eternal law.  Eternal law (like agency, justice, mercy etc) can be broken, but God was never going to allow it to happen.

In fact we only have record of one eternal law ever being allowed to be transgressed (think trees and snakes).

 

Lucifer's plan is like a 3rd party presidential candidate...he can bluster all he wants, lead many people to follow him, but you know darn well he's never getting elected.  It goes against the natural order. 

Edited December 31, 2014 by JLHPROF

[pogi]

Never could have happened.  Do we really think that it was an option?

 

God "chose" the other plan because Lucifer's would have violated the eternal law.  Eternal law (like agency, justice, mercy etc) can be broken, but God was never going to allow it to happen.

 

In fact we only have record of one eternal law ever being allowed to be transgressed (think trees and snakes).

 

So it is possible or it isn't possible to exist without agency?  Obviously God wasn't going to choose that plan, but was the plan possible if God chose to cease to be God?

Edited January 1, 2015 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

So it is possible or it isn't possible to exist without agency?  Obviously God wasn't going to choose that plan, but was the plan possible if God chose to seize to be God?

 

Well, let's see - scripturally the results of breaking eternal laws are pretty massive.

The result of breaking it in the Garden was the fall which required an infinite sacrifice to undo.  The result of God violating it would be for him to cease to be God.  If eternal families didn't exist the earth would be utterly wasted.  If the law of justice was not satisfied by Christ's atonement ALL mankind would remain in the grave - no resurrection.

 

These are big deals.

John Taylor said "The principles of the gospel being eternal, they were framed and originated with the Almighty in eternity before the world was according to certain eternal laws, and hence the gospel is called the everlasting gospel"

 

The very gospel itself when it was established by God was created to follow these eternal laws.  Break them, no gospel.

 

So is it possible to exist without agency?  I honestly don't know.  I doubt it.  I think that such a situation would violate natural/eternal law and would bring about chaos and destruction we can't even imagine.

[pogi]

WeSo is it possible to exist without agency?  I honestly don't know.  I doubt it.  I think that such a situation would violate natural/eternal law and would bring about chaos and destruction we can't even imagine.

 

Yet the fact that God had a choice with consequences for breaking such a law, suggests that it can be broken - that we can exist without agency.  If it was not a possibility or an option, there would be no consequence for choosing it.   I suspect that life without agency would be much like life was in the garden of Eden without Lucifer - no happiness, misery, joy, sorrow, pain, pleasure, etc. as the BOM states.

 

The funny thing is, if Satan wanted to remove agency, he could do it in theory.  All he would have to do is stop tempting us.  The scriptures say that we must be enticed by one or the other in order for us to use our agency to act.

Edited January 1, 2015 by pogi

[bluebell]

So it is possible or it isn't possible to exist without agency?  Obviously God wasn't going to choose that plan, but was the plan possible if God chose to seize to be God?

 

And if it's not even possible, was lucifer (and his followers) just that dumb?

[Ahab]

Well, let's see - scripturally the results of breaking eternal laws are pretty massive.

The result of breaking it in the Garden was the fall which required an infinite sacrifice to undo. The result of God violating it would be for him to cease to be God. If eternal families didn't exist the earth would be utterly wasted. If the law of justice was not satisfied by Christ's atonement ALL mankind would remain in the grave - no resurrection.

These are big deals.

John Taylor said "The principles of the gospel being eternal, they were framed and originated with the Almighty in eternity before the world was according to certain eternal laws, and hence the gospel is called the everlasting gospel"

The very gospel itself when it was established by God was created to follow these eternal laws. Break them, no gospel.

So is it possible to exist without agency? I honestly don't know. I doubt it. I think that such a situation would violate natural/eternal law and would bring about chaos and destruction we can't even imagine.

No agency = no choice/option, with no opposition. Good and evil would no longer exist in those terms and instead everything would be either good or evil. Different names referring to the same thing. God and Satan would be in agreement with each other, with neither being in opposition to each other, with both being either good or evil. Hard to imagine, but that is what it would have meant. God would have given his glory to Satan so they would both be equal in glory, either with both having none or both having all. It would all be the same. Like Satan still wants things to be now. Do whatever you want. There is no sin. There is no right or best way to be. It's still amazing to me that anyone would fall for those lies and that whacko way of how things would be if there was no good or evil to choose between.

[The Nehor]

God only "gave" us agency in that he created/fathered us as beings who, like himself, are subject to the eternal law of agency.  It is not a gift that God gives and takes.  If God didn't give us agency as part of the natural process of our creation, we wouldn't exist and God would cease to be God (because he would be God over nobody).  Free agency is the condition into which we are created.

We were intelligences, or the spirit of truth, and truth is independent in the sphere in which it is placed.  By organizing our intelligences God made us independent, at least within the guidelines of our existence.

 

Kind of like I say I gave my son life. Did I really? Well, I sort of did.  Really the law of nature gave him life.  I just brought him into being in mortality (with my wife doing most of the work of course).  Life was a gift from me to him, but his receiving it was a result of an unalterable law.  He couldn't come into mortality without it.  I couldn't have him and refuse to give him life.  I don't have the right to take away his life either or I will lose any right I have as his father.

 

So God was mistaken when he claimed he gave us agency?

 

Your comparison to your son doesn't really work either. If it worked then you could claim you gave your son agency.

[JLHPROF]

So God was mistaken when he claimed he gave us agency?

 

Your comparison to your son doesn't really work either. If it worked then you could claim you gave your son agency.

 

No, people are mistaken in their reading of the word "gave".  As I said, I "gave" my son life, but really it was natural law that gave him life.

God gave us agency.  Absolutely he did.  But HOW did he give it to us?  By creating us creatures that have it as a natural part of our existence.

[mfbukowski]

What would have happened if Lucifer's plan (no agency) won out?

I see "Lucifer's plan" as addiction which is overcome by "laws" we set for ourselves.

 

Kind of like being on a constant "diet".   We can be addicted to junk food and without control, which leads to death.  Or we can make rules for ourselves and overcome the natural man and eat healthy food and live.

 

But of course there are higher level "addictions" which also enslave us, like belief in certain "false" points of view which lead us away from principles which promote life, and toward behaviors which promote death, spiritual or otherwise.  An example would be scientific reductionism- that "knowledge" can only be obtained through empirical evidence.  Such a belief leads to atheism, and in in an extreme case, the idea that since moral behavior has no objective standards, only strength and might is important- and it is fine to use other people to achieve one's own selfish ends.  So ultimately that leads to death as well- and regarding people as objects, the total opposite of, say, Buber's "I-Thou" relationships.

[The Nehor]

No, people are mistaken in their reading of the word "gave".  As I said, I "gave" my son life, but really it was natural law that gave him life.

God gave us agency.  Absolutely he did.  But HOW did he give it to us?  By creating us creatures that have it as a natural part of our existence.

I disagree completely.

[CV75]

No, people are mistaken in their reading of the word "gave".  As I said, I "gave" my son life, but really it was natural law that gave him life.

God gave us agency.  Absolutely he did.  But HOW did he give it to us?  By creating us creatures that have it as a natural part of our existence.

I think there is a difference between “will” (determination) and “agency” (ability and privilege, or freedom). Elder Maxwell taught that our will (determination) is the only uniquely personal attribute we have, being the only thing God did not give us: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/swallowed-up-in-the-will-of-the-father?lang=eng

“In conclusion, the submission of one’s will is really the only uniquely personal thing we have to place on God’s altar. The many other things we “give,” brothers and sisters, are actually the things He has already given or loaned to us. However, when you and I finally submit ourselves, by letting our individual wills be swallowed up in God’s will, then we are really giving something to Him! It is the only possession which is truly ours to give!” But this possession is not agency.

Agency on the other hand is “the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves… With it, we are “free to choose…” https://www.lds.org/topics/agency?lang=eng We use this ability and privilege according to our will.

D&C 29: 36 and Moses 4:3 indicate we possessed agency in the pre-mortal world.

D&C 93: 31 shows how “condemnation” is a state in opposition to “agency” and that each state is realized according to the will of the spirit to receive the light. This demonstrates that the will drives the extent to which the gift of agency is received and used. Verse 29 shows how we are coeternal with God, but verse 30 shows that He was the one who placed us in a sphere to act. If agency is existence (God’s existence), then condemnation would be non-existence (Lucifer’s existence)—each by degree, of course. The first estate became a condemnation for those who would not choose to enter the second estate with the pre-mortally endowed gift of agency.

D&C 101: 78 makes it clear that God gave us moral agency, connected with our mortal probation in preparation for the Day of Judgment. Since it pertains to “futurity,” it has to do with faith, which is also a gift from God. This may be why He gave man his agency in the Garden of Eden (Moses 7: 32), following the pre-mortal estate, and that knowledge was given prior to agency.

So it seems to me that God gave us agency in the first estate, and gave it again in the second estate. But in either estate, He can only give it if we ae willing to receive it, and it is our will that is innately ours (not our agency).

[Dando]

so excited to see three pages of responses. So disappointed to not see many answers about whether or not the 3 omnis apply to the Light o fChrist.

[mfbukowski]

so excited to see three pages of responses. So disappointed to not see many answers about whether or not the 3 omnis apply to the Light o fChrist.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64715-accepting-explanations-of-mysteries/?p=1209451445

[CV75]

so excited to see three pages of responses. So disappointed to not see many answers about whether or not the 3 omnis apply to the Light o fChrist.

I suggest asking questions to expand on the answers that do speak to the Light of Christ and get the thread where you want it to go.

[Teancum]

It's my understanding that LDS theology rejects the classic Christian understanding that Heavenly Father is Omniscient (all knowing at all times), Omnipresent (simultaneously everywhere in all times) and Omnipowerful (at all times all powerful). 

 

Heavenly Father is not omniscient because he is still growing in knowledge and continues to progress.

Heavenly Father is not omnipresent because he has a physical body which can only be in one place at a time.

Heavenly Father is not omnipowerful because he must submit to the laws of the Priesthood and did not always have whatever power he has now.

 

My experience has been that LDS will affirm these attributes of Heavenly Father while in initilal discussion with orthodox Christians in order to pave the way to the doctrinal meat that teaches that Heavenly Father merely appears to hold these attributes but they in fact are not accurate descriptions of Him given the plan of salvation that stretches back before he was a god. Feel free to correct me in my understanding, I'm not posing this description as an authority on Mormon doctrine only as a set up for a different question.

 

I'm interested in the LDS concept of the "Light of Christ". Would you say any of the "omnis" apply to the Light of Christ?

 

Thanks!

 

 

I do not think your conclusion are by any means gospel except for perhaps omnipresent but LDS will state that is accomplished by the influence of the Holy Ghost or light of Christ.

 

McConkie taught that God is omniscient and that it is a heresy to claim he is growing in knowledge.  Maxwelll the same and he loved the Omni's stating that all things are before God because God is not bound by time or space but in "One Eternal Now."

 

I think many would dispute that God is not omnipotent as well and would argue that He has all power there is to have.

[mfbukowski]

I do not think your conclusion are by any means gospel except for perhaps omnipresent but LDS will state that is accomplished by the influence of the Holy Ghost or light of Christ.

 

McConkie taught that God is omniscient and that it is a heresy to claim he is growing in knowledge.  Maxwelll the same and he loved the Omni's stating that all things are before God because God is not bound by time or space but in "One Eternal Now."

 

I think many would dispute that God is not omnipotent as well and would argue that He has all power there is to have.

Yep that's not a bad way of saying it.

God's intelligence organizes space through the light of Christ- the LOC is the same as God's intelligence. God knows all there is to know- nothing else "exists" because we measure existence by what is known.

We can't know what we don't know. We can't know logical contradictions like "making a rock so big God can't lift it"- those are semantic games.

The entire Creedal concepts of omnipotence and omnipresence make no sense logically- they are word games only.

God knows all that there is to know through his intelligence- ie the light of Christ, and by knowing it, he can "be" there. He knows all that "is happening"- every thought, every event- in the universe and is "there" through his intelligence as we can imagine we can "be" at a news event by watching it on the internet. Yet of course he knows all the thoughts of each participant, and can see all angles at once, as we could not via a camera, etc.

So the whole controversy about omnipotence etc is a sham. Word games.

[Dando]

I do not think your conclusion are by any means gospel except for perhaps omnipresent but LDS will state that is accomplished by the influence of the Holy Ghost or light of Christ.

 

 

So LDS accept that the Light of Christ is omnipresent.

 

Could/Would LDS say that the power Heavenly Father uses be the Light of Christ as well?  Does all knowledge come from the Light of Christ?