A Different God?

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

 

This "conclusion" might actually mean something, if not for the fact that you don't believe Joseph's First Vision even happened.

I don't know if you even believe there is a God, but it's apparent you don't believe that He appeared to Joseph.

 

You give yourself away at every turn, Russ.

My personal beliefs have nothing to do with my textual analysis.  This is a red herring.

I am using tried-and-true rules in my analysis, such as looking at the document itself to see how it defines terms, and by using the earliest version as being likely the most reliable.

You are allowing your personal beliefs to control your textual analysis.

Which is demonstrated by the fact that in order to confirm your personal beliefs, you are willing to violate pretty much every rule of scholarly textual analysis.

 

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

 

My personal beliefs have nothing to do with my textual analysis.  This is a red herring.

I am using tried-and-true rules in my analysis, such as looking at the document itself to see how it defines terms, and by using the earliest version as being likely the most reliable.

Pleeze. This is absolute nonsense ==>> your personal belief system has everything to do with your  analysis.   And i quote

"While strictly true, it is hard to consider the appearance of a second glorified being standing beside Jesus as an incidental detail that slipped Joseph's mind  "

I do not find it "hard" at all, since the entire dialogue, after the introduction, is between JS and the Lord.  For all we know, the Father may have disappeared after giving the announcement.  And you are clearly arguing, since it was NOT an incidental detail, there is only ONE explanation == that he made it up.  You mind is unable to comprehend that there is any other explanation, based on your belief that JS was a phony.

I understand the difference between fact and opinion, and you have the temerity to boldly proclaim that your personal opinion represents facts.  And then try to hide behind clever phrases like "red herring".

PLEEZE, you obviously believe that we are ignorant fools.  

 

Edited April 23, 2016 by cdowis

[Storm Rider]

Consiglieri provides an excellent example of the different between a man of faith and a man with little or not faith - something less than a doubting Thomas.  Thomas wanted evidence to prove the resurrection, but at least he willingly followed the Savior.  There is a wide divide between doubt and faith - and no, doubt is not a part of or a function of faith.  Doubt is juxtaposed to faith and always has been.  

Taking pride in doubt is not the roll of a disciple of Christ.  Having doubt is a motivation for humility and fear.  

[stephenpurdy]

Consiglieri:  "While strictly true, it is hard to consider the appearance of a second glorified being standing beside Jesus as an incidental detail that slipped Joseph's mind  "

 

I can think of some things that the writers of the New Testament gospels left out that were not "incidental details".

Or, if you want to consider another perspective, when my kids asked me about my wedding night with their mother, I told them about all kinds of things that were great , like which family members were there, what kind of food we ate at the reception, etc. ... , but believe me that I left out some "details" about that night ... and it is not because those details "slipped my mind". 

 

The idea of Joseph seeing two personages may not have seemed significant to Joseph at first, because he probably didn't even know that his vision disagreed with most Christians, who do not imagine God and Christ to be distinct personages.  Furthermore, his personal journal was more focused on his search for the personal forgiveness of his sins through Christ, while the explanation to the public was more focused on the ideas that were important for the church or the whole world.  There is no contradiction, and I find this issue to be a ... well, a non-issue.

 

As for the topic of this thread, here are a couple that you may be interested in reading:

 

 

-stephen

[boblloyd91]

On April 22, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Pa Pa said:

About 10 to 15 years ago in an interview...when I pointed out years ago on a board that attracts our faith, as well as many others. Some said things like, "I used to love him so much, but that is over". Or comments like how, "he has bought into a lie and now a servant of Satan". Others tried to attribute it to old age, because how could someone has done so much for God, now speak such lies. Such is the sad state of affairs in the world of Evangelical apologetics...no one is going to heaven but those who believe as we do. Not to mention the Calvinism sweeping through such Churches, that God has already decieded who will be saved who he will, and that their is no such thing as "Free Will", and if not chosen, we cannot accept Christ, because we can't. So all who do are responding to "irresistible Grace", and are doing so not by choice, but by a loving force. It is a heartbreaking doctrine where we are little more than puppets, by the way not a doctrine Billy Graham believed, he believed that all who desire to come unto Christ will be accepted. John Calvin who came up with this doctrine even had anabaptist who opposed this doctrine drowned in the sea. Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant movement, when the Jews would not accept it, wrote such hateful and damning writings, that Hitler used them to justify the Holocauste, the killing of 6,000,000+ Jews. Thankfully their a great many Christians and denominations who reject Calvinism. Try googling "Billy Graham-Mormons" and see if you can find the interview. Billy Graham is a great man...growing up, we watched him every time he was on the TV. Probably who the first sermons I ever gave was in or at the Baptist pulpit, but God led me to a Mormon pulpit...something I will doing this Sunday with my wife also. Anyway, hope you will find it. 

Bill (Papa) Lee

Thanks for that. I must say that I believe Evangelical Anti Mormonism is not nearly as influential as it used to be, with faith declining overall in the US. It's more those who are secular in their philosophy that seem to be posing a bigger threat these days

[Russell C McGregor]

On 4/22/2016 at 10:59 AM, consiglieri said:

If you actually look at the document, you will see Joseph Smith defines "Lord" as Jesus Christ.

Having already noted that you are flat wrong on that assertion, I'd like to point out something else:

On 4/22/2016 at 10:59 AM, consiglieri said:

. . . I cried unto the Lord for mercy

Did he?

On 4/22/2016 at 10:59 AM, consiglieri said:

while in (the) attitude of calling upon the Lord

In what form?

Remember, this is the first time Joseph had tried praying vocally.

In accordance with the Bible, to whom would Joseph have been taught to pray?

What are the first two words he would most likely have used?

Who was "the Lord" to whom he prayed?

Don't try to dodge the question, as you habitually do. Just try giving an honest answer, just this once, and I'll never ask you for another one.

 

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

Thanks for that. I must say that I believe Evangelical Anti Mormonism is not nearly as influential as it used to be, with faith declining overall in the US. It's more those who are secular in their philosophy that seem to be posing a bigger threat these days

We are materialists and humanists.

The only difference between us and secular humanism and secular materialism is that we believe that spirit actually IS matter and that God is a Man, and so we are theistic humanists.

We believe in becoming the best humans we can become and our Ideal Human is our Heavenly Father.  

There is a huge growth in secular ideas which parallel religious ideas, and even secularists see the need for some kind of beliefs which give them meaning in life.  Just look at all the New Age stuff you find along with the Mindfulness movement, etc. These folks are hungry for some kind of spirituality that makes sense to them.

We can be it.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/13/2016 at 11:49 PM, mfbukowski said:

................................................................................................................................

.................Bruce R. McConkie...............................

Quote

Heresy one: There are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths.

This is false—utterly, totally, and completely. There is not one sliver of truth in it. It grows out of a wholly twisted and incorrect view of the King Follett Sermon and of what is meant by eternal progression.

God progresses in the sense that his kingdoms increase and his dominions multiply—not in the sense that he learns new truths and discovers new laws. God is not a student. He is not a laboratory technician. He is not postulating new theories on the basis of past experiences. He has indeed graduated to that state of exaltation that consists of knowing all things and having all power.

The life that God lives is named eternal life. His name, one of them, is “Eternal,” using that word as a noun and not as an adjective, and he uses that name to identify the type of life that he lives. God’s life is eternal life, and eternal life is God’s life. They are one and the same. Eternal life is the reward we shall obtain if we believe and obey and walk uprightly before him. And eternal life consists of two things. It consists of life in the family unit, and, also, of inheriting, receiving, and possessing the fullness of the glory of the Father. Anyone who has each of these things is an inheritor and possessor of the greatest of all gifts of God, which is eternal life.

Eternal progression consists of living the kind of life God lives and of increasing in kingdoms and dominions everlastingly. Why anyone should suppose that an infinite and eternal being who has presided in our universe for almost 2,555,000,000 years, who made the sidereal heavens, whose creations are more numerous than the particles of the earth, and who is aware of the fall of every sparrow—why anyone would suppose that such a being has more to learn and new truths to discover in the laboratories of eternity is totally beyond my comprehension.

Will he one day learn something that will destroy the plan of salvation and turn man and the universe into an uncreated nothingness? Will he discover a better plan of salvation than the one he has already given to men in worlds without number?

The saving truth, as revealed to and taught, formally and officially, by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the Lectures on Faith is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He knows all things, he has all power, and he is everywhere present by the power of his Spirit. And unless we know and believe this doctrine we cannot gain faith unto life and salvation.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_seven-deadly-heresies/

............................................................................

No, we are not about to become Evangelicals.  We are headed proudly in the opposite direction.

People in droves are turning to "secular religions", precisely because the philosophical base for creedal christianity is no longer relevant or understandable, and in my opinion, has been refuted.

We live at an important time in church history.  It is a time to choose to go forward and finally adopt philosophical views consistent with the Restoration, or go backward into 800 year old scholasticism and the belief in "ontological" semantic "mysteries"

I think that you are right, Mark, and it occurs to me that Elder McConkie had (ironically) adopted the mainstream Protestant and Catholic view on the nature of God, in addition to incorrectly attributing the Lectures on Faith to Joseph Smith.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[boblloyd91]

53 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think that you are right, Mark, and it occurs to me that Elder McConkie had (ironically) adopted the mainstream Protestant and Catholic view on the nature of God, in addition to incorrectly attributing the Lectures on Faith to Joseph Smith.

That's interesting...who wrote the lectures on faith? Didn't know that.

[mfbukowski]

43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think that you are right, Mark, and it occurs to me that Elder McConkie had (ironically) adopted the mainstream Protestant and Catholic view on the nature of God, in addition to incorrectly attributing the Lectures on Faith to Joseph Smith.

I agree, but I think he was just reflecting what thinking was current for the time and especially in his family and in laws.

The church went into a defensive mode, I am convinced, for at least a hundred years, which tried to make us more Protestant without even necessarily realizing they were doing so.  The full impact of what the Restoration implies regarding "ontology" and the nature of truth was never really thought through sufficiently.

If there is One Absolute Truth about "Objective Reality"  that is just plain not compatible with truth that is in independent "spheres" (D&C 93), personal revelations which might vary from person to person (James 1:5, Moroni 10:4-5) or a truth which grows "sweet" to the individual based on personal experience, and then "grows" in your heart and not in your reason.  That growing process itself violates that principle.  Absolute ineffable truth does not "grow". (Alma 32)

It just is incompatible.  And you cannot have a transcendent God- Spirit who is everywhere and because transcendent, and Absolute, still in some sense can be changed in our prayers.  Transcendent spirits filling the universe do not change because a child has asked them a special favor.  Such entities do not allow "miracles" which violate their own eternal laws which are supposed to be unchanging.  And most importantly, they cannot be described as a "caring Father who knows his children's hearts and intents"

Christianity tried to make it so by making Plato consistent with the Bible- unsuccessfully.  Ineffable immaterial "substances" are not "Fathers" in any description I can imagine.  Unchanging substances which are always perfect and always have been perfect and unchangeable do not answer the prayers of lowly humans.  How could such an entity move from state one (Entity prior to request) to state 2 (Entity after request) and remain "unchanged"?  How could such an entity be "outside time" if there were changes between T1 and T2?

And most importantly how could a Platonic Form take on a body and not be debased by becoming "material"?  How could "he" take on a fallen body and be tempted if he could not have actually sinned?  If by his "nature" he was perfect, and therefore unchanging, he could not possibly even be temped to even sin.  Even a temptation is in itself a change of thought- a visualization of a scenario perhaps as suggested by Satan where Christ was instantly in control of all the nations of the world?

How could even that much of a change- an actual temptation- affect a perfect unchangeable being?  It could not.  Christ could not have been such a being. 

But few historically followed the implications of these ideas to see how incompatible they were.

[cdowis]

20 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

That's interesting...who wrote the lectures on faith? Didn't know that.

I did a google search and found this.

No clear evidence documents who actually wrote the lectures. Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. Joseph Smith's close involvement with the lectures is suggested by Willard Richards's history, which reports that Joseph was "busily engaged" in November in making "preparations for the School for the Elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God" (HC2:169-70). The same source indicates that in January 1835 Joseph was engaged in "preparing the lectures on theology for publication" (HC 2:180). From these references and other circumstances it seems evident that the lectures were prepared and published with Joseph Smith's approval (Dahl and Tate, pp. 7-10; 16, n. 8).

Until 1921 the "Lectures on Faith" were printed in almost all the English-language editions of the Doctrine and Covenants, and in many, but not all, non-English editions. An introductory statement in the 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants explains that the lectures were deleted because "they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons" (see Doctrine and Covenants Editions). The decision may also have been influenced by what many readers have perceived as conflicts between statements about the Godhead in the fifth lecture and certain later revelations (D&C 130; Dahl and Tate, pp. 16-19). Others have found these conflicts to be more apparent than real and have attempted reconciliations (R. Millet, in Dahl and Tate, pp. 221-40).

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Lectures_on_Faith

Edited April 25, 2016 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, boblloyd91 said:

That's interesting...who wrote the lectures on faith? Didn't know that.

They were largely composed by Sidney Rigdon.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree, but I think he was just reflecting what thinking was current for the time and especially in his family and in laws.

The church went into a defensive mode, I am convinced, for at least a hundred years, which tried to make us more Protestant without even necessarily realizing they were doing so.  The full impact of what the Restoration implies regarding "ontology" and the nature of truth was never really thought through sufficiently.

If there is One Absolute Truth about "Objective Reality"  that is just plain not compatible with truth that is in independent "spheres" (D&C 93), personal revelations which might vary from person to person (James 1:5, Moroni 10:4-5) or a truth which grows "sweet" to the individual based on personal experience, and then "grows" in your heart and not in your reason.  That growing process itself violates that principle.  Absolute ineffable truth does not "grow". (Alma 32)

It just is incompatible.  And you cannot have a transcendent God- Spirit who is everywhere and because transcendent, and Absolute, still in some sense can be changed in our prayers.  Transcendent spirits filling the universe do not change because a child has asked them a special favor.  Such entities do not allow "miracles" which violate their own eternal laws which are supposed to be unchanging.  And most importantly, they cannot be described as a "caring Father who knows his children's hearts and intents"

Christianity tried to make it so by making Plato consistent with the Bible- unsuccessfully.  Ineffable immaterial "substances" are not "Fathers" in any description I can imagine.  Unchanging substances which are always perfect and always have been perfect and unchangeable do not answer the prayers of lowly humans.  How could such an entity move from state one (Entity prior to request) to state 2 (Entity after request) and remain "unchanged"?  How could such an entity be "outside time" if there were changes between T1 and T2?

 

 

In all fairness to Elder McConkie, if one uses the LDS scriptures as THE authoritative guide (and, after all, isn't that what we're supposed to do?) it seems to me no member of the Church is justified in declaring anything other than that God is infinitely and eternally omniscient and that he does, in fact, know all there is to know. In this regard, the Lectures on Faith emphatically declare that no one can exercise saving faith in God unless he is convinced God does possess all knowledge and wisdom and that there is nothing save he knows it. Now this doesn't mean I'm not keeping an open mind, but until there are scriptures added to the Stamdard Works that assert God doesn't know all things, my official stance will be to stick with the scriptural status quo. Is see no compelling need to go out on this particular limb of speculative theology and thereby give the enemies of the Restoration much cannon fodder by gratuitously contradicting the plain meaning of many verses of scripture. 

20 O how great the holiness of our God! For he knowethall things, and there is not anything save he knows it. (2 Nephi 9) 

Edited April 25, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

 

In all fairness to Elder McConkie, if one uses the Standard Works as the authoritative guide (and, after all, isn't that what we're supposed to do?), there appears to be nothing contained within those sacred writings that justifies any member of the Church sayi

 

In all fairness to Elder McConkie, if one uses the LDS scriptures as THE authoritative guide (and, after all, isn't that what we're supposed to do?) it seems to me no member of the Church is justified in declaring anything other than that God is infinitely and eternally omniscient and that he does, in fact, know all there is to know. In this regard, the Lectures on Faith emphatically declare that no one can exercise saving faith in God unless he is convinced God does possess all knowledge and wisdom and that there is nothing save he knows it. Now this doesn't mean I'm not keeping an open mind, but until there are scriptures added to the Stamdard Works that assert God doesn't know all things, my official stance will be to stick with the scriptural status quo. Is see no compelling need to go out on this particular limb of speculative theology and thereby give the enemies of the Restoration much cannon fodder by gratuitously contradicting the plain meaning of many verses of scripture. 

20 O how great the holiness of our God! For he knowethall things, and there is not anything save he knows it. (2 Nephi 9) 

Where did I say anything against this?

Look at every word and just look at what the words say, and do not connect them with what you think they say because you have been taught to take propositions about religion as a package.

I said nothing about omniscience here.

God knows "everything" because he has defined it by the Word.  John 1.

Words are important. They set the boundaries of what we can say about what we know

Edited April 25, 2016 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

They were largely composed by Sidney Rigdon.

I still say Lecture 6 reads differently.  I am of the personal belief that Joseph had more input on that one.  It is far less academic and reads far more inspired.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

I did a google search and found this.

No clear evidence documents who actually wrote the lectures. Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. Joseph Smith's close involvement with the lectures is suggested by Willard Richards's history, which reports that Joseph was "busily engaged" in November in making "preparations for the School for the Elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God" (HC2:169-70). The same source indicates that in January 1835 Joseph was engaged in "preparing the lectures on theology for publication" (HC 2:180). From these references and other circumstances it seems evident that the lectures were prepared and published with Joseph Smith's approval (Dahl and Tate, pp. 7-10; 16, n. 8).

................................................................................

Of course they were published with Smith's approval, but there is no evidence at all that he authored any of them, in whole or in part.  From the Joseph Smith Papers Project of the LDS Historical Department, online at http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835?p=1&highlight=lectures on faith , 

Quote

As the bipartite title “Doctrine and Covenants” suggests, the new book was made up of two parts. The first part, on “the doctrine of the church,” comprised a series of seven doctrinal lectures on the subject of faith, first prepared as a course of instruction for the School of the Elders held in the second Kirtland printing officein the winter of 1834–1835. Lecture one was contemporaneously published as a broadside and lectures five and six were published in the May 1835 issue of the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate, but there is no known manuscript copy of any of the lectures. Although no JS-era published version states who authored the lectures, they were traditionally attributed to JS. Modern scholars, however, largely agree that Rigdon authored most or all of the lectures.14

note 14.  See, for example, Reynolds, “The Case for Sidney Rigdon as Author of the Lectures on Faith.”; Reynolds, “Authorship Debate Concerning Lectures on Faith,”; Partridge, Notes on the Authorship of the Lectures on Faith,; and Phipps, “Lectures on Faith: An Authorship Study.” 

 

Edited April 25, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

35 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

In all fairness to Elder McConkie, if one uses the LDS scriptures as THE authoritative guide (and, after all, isn't that what we're supposed to do?) it seems to me no member of the Church is justified in declaring anything other than that God is infinitely and eternally omniscient and that he does, in fact, know all there is to know. In this regard, the Lectures on Faith emphatically declare that no one can exercise saving faith in God unless he is convinced God does possess all knowledge and wisdom and that there is nothing save he knows it. Now this doesn't mean I'm not keeping an open mind, but until there are scriptures added to the Stamdard Works that assert God doesn't know all things, my official stance will be to stick with the scriptural status quo. Is see no compelling need to go out on this particular limb of speculative theology and thereby give the enemies of the Restoration much cannon fodder by gratuitously contradicting the plain meaning of many verses of scripture. 

20 O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it. (2 Nephi 9) 

You are arguing for the Scriptures as "the authoritative guide," just as the Protestants do -- rejecting as they do the Roman Catholic sacred deposit of the faith (the traditional magisterium) as the source for understanding the meaning of Scripture.  You likewise argue for the plain meaning of those Scriptures, and even cite the Lectures on Faith as authoritative.  LDS theology, on the other hand, opts for the guidance of the Holy Spirit as the authoritative interpretive guide for the Saints, because the Holy Spirit is the source of Holy Scripture.  In Mormonism, this interpretive method is often mediated via prophetic voices, which in turn must be verified by the Holy Spirit to each individual.  This (except for Pentecostals) the Protestants and Roman Catholics forcefully reject.

English use of terms such as "omnipotent" are originally taken from ancient texts, such as LXX and NT Greek pantokrator "almighty" (2 Sam 7:8,25,27; 1 Kings 19:10; 1 Chron 21:12), as in kyrios pantokrator "Lord Almighty" (2 Sam 5:10, Rev 19:6), and theos pantokrator "God Almighty" (Jer 3:19). King Benjamin uses the Egyptian term translated as English "omnipotent" in a ritual context in Mosiah.  We need to explore the underlying Hebrew first, which is "YHWH God of Hosts," "YHWH of Hosts," "YHWH Elohim," etc.  Indeed, the KJV English translation of Hebrew Shadday in Gen 49:24 as "Almighty" is an error (G. E. Mendenhall, Ancient Israel’s Faith and History, 117-118).   There is simply no warrant for such translations, and they are based on Greek theological concepts, the same absolutist concepts which underly normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology today.

You cite Jacob using similar absolute phrasing in 2 Nephi 9:20, but there is no reason to think that he is doing anything more than using poetic and symbolic language to speak of the relative greatness of God, which means hyperbolic phrasing (exaggeration for effect).  Otherwise, since LDS theology posits possible apotheosis for humans, the notion of omnipotence becomes self-contradictory, aside from resulting in all manner of paradoxes (e.g. can God create a stone so heavy that he can't lift it?).

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

 

In all fairness to Elder McConkie, if one uses the LDS scriptures as THE authoritative guide (and, after all, isn't that what we're supposed to do?) it seems to me no member of the Church is justified in declaring anything other than that God is infinitely and eternally omniscient and that he does, in fact, know all there is to know. In this regard, the Lectures on Faith emphatically declare that no one can exercise saving faith in God unless he is convinced God does possess all knowledge and wisdom and that there is nothing save he knows it.

FWIW I totally believe that.

God organized everything we are capable of knowing about through his intelligence and the Word.  

If he organized with his intelligence, he knows about it.  Simple as that as far as I am concerned.  But that has nothing to do with being an ineffable immaterial substance- that is usually part of the "omniscience omnipotent" stuff

There is no need to postulate any immaterial substance to get "all knowing" and "all powerful".  He knows everything because he organized it.  That's like saying the main architect on a building project knows every nook and cranny of his project- because he created it!!  That is pure human knowledge- not immaterial substance knowledge.

He has every ability we are able to understand because he like us is a "human"- so he has all abilities we can know or talk about = "omnipotent"

He is "omnipresent" in intelligence which is essentially the Light of Christ which permeates space and time.  That is the same as saying that his intelligence knows every "thing" because he is the architect of every "thing" though his intelligence.  His intelligence is "everywhere" simultaneously as perhaps we might be able to see the contents of a snow globe or some such thing all at once, or know everything about a room we are sitting in, and what is in all the drawers etc.  Our intelligence permeates the room because we put the stuff where we wanted it for our own purposes.  In a sense my intelligence is "in the third drawer in the dresser" because my intelligence knows everything in the third drawer.- so my mind- the light of my intelligence - is in that third drawer and all the others.

But of course that ain't MY office- which is a mess and I am always losing stuff I had in my hand 5 minutes ago.

Slight contrast.

[Bobbieaware]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

FWIW I totally believe that.

God organized everything we are capable of knowing about through his intelligence and the Word.  

If he organized with his intelligence, he knows about it.  Simple as that as far as I am concerned.  But that has nothing to do with being an ineffable immaterial substance- that is usually part of the "omniscience omnipotent" stuff

There is no need to postulate any immaterial substance to get "all knowing" and "all powerful".  He knows everything because he organized it.  That's like saying the main architect on a building project knows every nook and cranny of his project- because he created it!!  That is pure human knowledge- not immaterial substance knowledge.

He has every ability we are able to understand because he like us is a "human"- so he has all abilities we can know or talk about = "omnipotent"

He is "omnipresent" in intelligence which is essentially the Light of Christ which permeates space and time.  That is the same as saying that his intelligence knows every "thing" because he is the architect of every "thing" though his intelligence.  His intelligence is "everywhere" simultaneously as perhaps we might be able to see the contents of a snow globe or some such thing all at once, or know everything about a room we are sitting in, and what is in all the drawers etc.  Our intelligence permeates the room because we put the stuff where we wanted it for our own purposes.  In a sense my intelligence is "in the third drawer in the dresser" because my intelligence knows everything in the third drawer.- so my mind- the light of my intelligence - is in that third drawer and all the others.

But of course that ain't MY office- which is a mess and I am always losing stuff I had in my hand 5 minutes ago.

Slight contrast.

Who in the world is postulating that only an "immaterial substance" can be be all-knowing and all-powerful? Certainly not I! I'm wondering why you seem to think the divine attributes of omniscience and omnipotence necessarily correlate to the apostate sectarian notions of Immateriality? The LDS scriptures clearly set forth a material God and yet unambiguously declare that God to be all-knowing and omnipotent. I'm wondering if your apparent hair-trigger reaction, that seems to immediately associate divine omniscience and omnipotence with sectarian notions of immateriality, has something to do with your training in philosophy. 😊

61 Therefore it is given to abide in you; the record of heaven; the Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment. (Moses 6)

So that I might better understand where your philosophically trained mind is coming from, does the above verse of LDS scripture in any way indicate the Comforter (the Holy Ghost) is an immaterial being? If not, why do you seem to think that my declaring the material LDS God to be all-knowing and all-powerful must in any way tip the hat and lend credence to the Platonic concept of an immaterial God? After all, most non-LDS sectarians will readily admit tha material resurrected Christ possesses "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Are you saying that for some reason philosophy compels one to accept the idea that by very nature a material God can only be relatively omnipotent and omniscient when being compared to beings of a much lower order of spiritual knowledge, power and intelligence?

Edited April 25, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Who in the world is postulating that only an "immaterial substance" can be be all-knowing and all-powerful? Certainly not I! I'm wondering why you seem to think the divine attributes of omniscience and omnipotence necessarily correlate to the apostate sectarian notions of Immateriality? The LDS scriptures clearly set forth a material God and yet unambiguously declare that God to be all-knowing and omnipotent. I'm wondering if your apparent hair-trigger reaction, that seems to immediately associate divine omniscience and omnipotence with sectarian notions of immateriality, has something to do with your training in philosophy. 😊

61 Therefore it is given to abide in you; the record of heaven; the Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment. (Moses 6)

So that I might better understand where your philosophically trained mind is coming from, does the above verse of LDS scripture in any way indicate the Comforter (the Holy Ghost) is an immaterial being? If not, why do you seem to think that my declaring the material LDS God to be all-knowing and all-powerful must in any way tip the hat and lend credence to the Platonic concept of an immaterial God? After all, most non-LDS sectarians will readily admit tha material resurrected Christ possesses "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Are you saying that for some reason philosophy compels one to accept the idea that by very nature a material God can only be relatively omnipotent and omniscient when being compared to beings of a much lower order of spiritual knowledge, power and intelligence?

Relax.

We are misunderstanding each other. No problem.

[mfbukowski]

I was arguing against the sectarian position and somehow you ended up thinking I was arguing against you.

[Bobbieaware]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Relax.

We are misunderstanding each other. No problem.

Hi Mark. I was hoping the addition of that smiley face would communicate I was relaxed, but I guess it didn't work. I'll enlarge my emoticons from now on so that they'll make a bigger impression. 

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Hi Mark. I was hoping the addition of that smiley face would communicate I was relaxed, but I guess it didn't work. I'll enlarge my emoticons from now on so that they'll make a bigger impression. 

I originally quoted mcconkie on the other thread to show that we believe that God progresses through the addition of Kingdoms to Heavenly father's Kingdom.

Here I was also making the point that I believe that Mcconkie confused sectarian notions with true LDS Notions.

Somehow the two arguments got conflated. I'm also dictating this so excuse errors and capitalization Etc.

[Bobbieaware]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I originally quoted mcconkie on the other thread to show that we believe that God progresses through the addition of Kingdoms to Heavenly father's Kingdom.

Here I was also making the point that I believe that Mcconkie confused sectarian notions with true LDS Notions.

Somehow the two arguments got conflated. I'm also dictating this so excuse errors and capitalization Etc.

I often misunderstand even what I think, so take no offence.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/23/2016 at 7:34 AM, consiglieri said:

 

My personal beliefs have nothing to do with my textual analysis.  This is a red herring.

 

Ah yes, perfect textual analysis not influenced one bit by the author, Absolute Truth revealed!

Consig should be the prophet!  He has done what no one else has ever done!!  Total Objectivity has been achieved in textual analysis!  It's a miracle!