consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Author Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: But I didn't throw in the sarcastic sneer about anyone claiming a "monopoly." Which, incidentally, was false. But of course, that troubles you not at all. And I made a substantive contribution to the discussion. You merely wasted our bandwidth with a gratuitous personal slam. Your entire post was an amazingly irrelevant cheap shot. Amazingly, but not surprisingly. You are right, Russell. You certainly have the moral high ground on this one. Edited December 17, 2015 by consiglieri
Teancum Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 16 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: I'll answer that question if you'll answer this one: Where are the words omnipotent and omniscient found in Scripture? The LDS God is not the God of classical theism, which is actually a theoretical construct, developed by pagan philosophers starting with Plato. IOW, He's not a set of conceptual absolutes. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not the God of the philosophers. Therefore, it isn't sufficient to dredge up a set of apophatic or omni-type adjectives. The scriptures describe God as having all power in terms of having the power to do whatever He intends to do, and all knowledge of what was, is and is to come. This is another way in which LDS theology is immune to the kinds of "problems" that have bedevilled classical philosophers for centuries, such as "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" (A schoolboy sophistry, since if God can't create it, then His creative power is limited, hence not omnipotent, but if He can't lift it, then His lifting strength is limited, so still not omnipotent.) The power LDS doctrine ascribes to God has been described as "maximal power." Which can, in practical terms, accomplish everything that theoretical omnipotence can. The theoretical omni's actually lead to a God who can't actually do anything. Since He is perfect in every way, it would be wrong for him to entertain any imperfect thoughts; therefore, He couldn't contemplate anything less than He is; therefore we would be beneath His notice. But Jesus said that not even a sparrow falls without God knowing. Furthermore, since the God of classical theism hasn't left anything undone -- because that would be imperfect -- then he cannot now do anything. Every act must satisfy a need, but a perfect being has no needs. Therefore, the God of classical theism can't create anything, because He has no needs for anything, including company. Why would he need the company of lesser, imperfect beings? Thus, this God, while theoretically omnipotent, is actually impotent: He can do nothing, because He has no motivation do do anything except eternally contemplate His own perfection. So if you insist on framing the question in terms of classical theism, I have to say, no: the LDS God is not omnipotent, nor is He omniscient. He is wiser and mightier than that. Hmmm well you have reduced about 2000 years of philosophical and theological discussions to the ash heap in just a few paragraphs. And while the scriptures may not use the omni words there are certianly a plethora of passages which teach the concept of a God that is all powerful and all knowing even the LDS scriptures. There are also LDS scriptures which talk of God being outside of time and space. Neil Maxwell was fond of this idea and said God was a One Eternal now! Further many LDS leaders seem quite fine using the omni words. For example see the second Lecture on Faith: We here observe that God is the only supreme governor, and independent being, in whom all fulness and perfection dwells; who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; without beginning of days or end of life; and that in him every good gift, and every good principle dwells; and that he is the Father of lights: In him the principle of faith dwells independently; and he is the object in whom the faith of all other rational and accountable beings centers, for life and salvation. http://lecturesonfaith.com/2.php And Elder McConkie: He is omniscient. He has all wisdom, all knowledge, and all understanding….There is no truth he does not know, no wisdom hidden from his view, no laws or powers or facts for him to discover in some distant eternity. His wisdom and knowledge are absolute and have neither bounds nor limitations. He knows all things now; he is not progressing in knowledge; he is not discovering new truths; there are no higher spheres than the one in which he now walks. Were it otherwise he could not be the Creator of galaxies unnumbered; were it otherwise, he could not hold the universe in his hands and govern and control all things. Indeed, his glory and greatness and goodness exist and are because he knows all things and is the source of all truth. And if such were not the case, men could not exercise faith in him unto life and salvation, for they would know that he might someday discover some truth that would destroy immortality, or eternal life, or the whole scheme and system of things. Author: Bruce R. McConkie, Source: A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, 52-53 And Elder Maxwell God‘s attributes of omniscience and omnipotence no doubt made the plan of salvation feasible. But it was His perfect love which made the plan inevitable. And it is His perfect patience which makes it sustainable. Do we not, again and again, get breathtaking glimpses of God‘s perfect patience in the execution of the plan of salvation, concerning which He has said that his “course is one eternal round” (D&C 3:2)? https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/neal-a-maxwell_patience/ God is omniscient.There are no corners so dark, no canyons so remote, no automobiles so hidden, no homes so tight and shut in that the all seeing one can penetrate and observe. As quotes in the paper: https://journals.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/RelEd/article/viewFile/2155/2030
Russell C McGregor Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 30 minutes ago, Teancum said: Hmmm well you have reduced about 2000 years of philosophical and theological discussions to the ash heap in just a few paragraphs. Good. One of the great (and unappreciated) achievements of the Restoration is to render speculative theology rather irrelevant. Not to mention, to dispose of the problem of evil. 1
Teancum Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 18 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Good. One of the great (and unappreciated) achievements of the Restoration is to render speculative theology rather irrelevant. Not to mention, to dispose of the problem of evil. I think you have more work to do on both topics. As others have pointed out here even with the LDS Theology that you think dismisses the omni's ( it doesn't really) there are still major holes in regarding the problem of evil and suffering, albeit less than other Christian traditions have.
Zakuska Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 18 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Good. One of the great (and unappreciated) achievements of the Restoration is to render speculative theology rather irrelevant. Not to mention, to dispose of the problem of evil. The problem of Evil still exists though. If God can eject evil out of his presence... (ie cast it into outer darkness along with the sons of perdition). Then one of the Omnis is violated because there would exist a place where God does not exist or his presence be felt.
Russell C McGregor Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 47 minutes ago, Zakuska said: The problem of Evil still exists though. If God can eject evil out of his presence... (ie cast it into outer darkness along with the sons of perdition). Then one of the Omnis is violated because there would exist a place where God does not exist or his presence be felt. Theoretical omnipresence is not an LDS teaching. The problem of evil is irrelevant in the light of revealed truth. 1
CV75 Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 49 minutes ago, Zakuska said: The problem of Evil still exists though. If God can eject evil out of his presence... (ie cast it into outer darkness along with the sons of perdition). Then one of the Omnis is violated because there would exist a place where God does not exist or his presence be felt. “The light [exists] in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not…” He shines, and thus darkness can't make it stahp.
Ahab Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 God as a kind of being is not only male and female but also good and evil, even though generally we refer to God as only the good or most bestest males and females while using some other usually derogatory word to refer to the evil males and females and often don't even think of the evil people as the same kind of being as God even though he is the father of us all. My point being that even in outer darkness the power of God (as a kind of being) is felt. The flip side of God, not the good but the bad and most evil of our kind of being. The dark side of God, if you will. And instead of feeling peace and joy they mainly just wail and mourn and generally feel miserable in the perspective of the good guys. So yeah, we are there too. Our kind is everywhere.
Monster Posted December 20, 2015 Posted December 20, 2015 I think they are just the same as everyone else. They are a product of their culture and life experience. So Of course they can be wrong. In fact this group tends to be wrong quite often.
consiglieri Posted December 21, 2015 Author Posted December 21, 2015 I think you could cite to the Church essay on the Priesthood Ban in support of this point, Monster.
RevTestament Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Avatar4321 said: Never read D&C 136, 138, OF 1 or 2? D&C 136 is an exception - thanks for pointing that out. 138 is his interpretation of a vision apparently. Woodruff had a vision too. Visions are revelation, but not necessarily the same thing as hearing the dictation of the Lord word for word. Again, I am not saying the Lord has not led His Church - I am just saying the revelation type changed.
thesometimesaint Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 On 12/11/2015 at 2:15 PM, consiglieri said: Even if the First Presidency declare it a doctrine? This sounds like a tough game to win. Not even then. It is only doctrine with unanimous agreement among the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, First Quorum of the Seventies,and sustained by all Church members in General Conference.
JLHPROF Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 13 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Not even then. It is only doctrine with unanimous agreement among the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, First Quorum of the Seventies,and sustained by all Church members in General Conference. Which still has no relationship to whether something is actually true.
thesometimesaint Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Which still has no relationship to whether something is actually true. Agreed. But then having an open canon has its advantages.
BCSpace Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 On 12/11/2015 at 2:43 PM, consiglieri said: There seems to be a belief prevalent among Latter-day Saints that prophets are infallible on matters of doctrine. I think this view is demonstrably incorrect, but wanted to hear what others think on the issue. All the Best! --Consiglieri I would have to agree. Prophets are not infallible on doctrine. Hence, the Church itself has officially stated: "With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications." So if you want to be sure if what a prophet has stated is doctrinally accurate, check the official publications of the Church (of latest date).
Recommended Posts