The Destruction of God?

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. To be “worshipable” there must be entities that do the worshipping. As we evolve into Godhood through aeons of time do you believe we eventually gain that “worshipability?” 

I am not sure having entities to worship one is necessary...couldn't God care for us without letting us know he was involved at all?  There does seem to need to be entities for God to care for, though...if being God means being just, merciful, loving.

Can a person be a good person if he was stranded on an island with no semi-intelligent life (cats, dogs, parrots, etc) even to interact with or to even think about?  And they didn't anthromophize plant life or nonorganic materials? (I can sort of see a person who went about trying to destroy any life or any form of order because they believed it harmed something being evil.)

I think someone completely paralyzed, unable to speak or communicate in any way can still be a good or evil person by how they choose to think about those surrounding them, but if there is no one to think about in terms of how one would interact---would one try to make their existence better, not care, or try to make them suffer---can one do good or evil?

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Lehi clearly states that without opposition, the attributes that make God God would be destroyed. It intrigues me that he could countenance that thought. 

How do you think God’s existence depends on opposition?

I don't think his existence as an individual depends on opposition, but his attributes that make him God must require something to be acted upon in justice, mercy, and love...and if there is no need for justice, mercy, or love, how can one act with such?

Edited February 5, 2018 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/2/2018 at 12:56 PM, Bobbieaware said:

No, because God has complete, absolute and ultimate control over all things that pertain to the principle of opposition in all things. In the LDS ontology, there is no separation between God and the law, for God is the law...

9 Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life. (3 Nephi 15)

The law doesn’t control God because the law and God’s mind and will are one and the same.

Such notions as God saying "I am the law," are likely meant in the same sense as "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."  They are metaphors.  God was not always God, but at one time a man.  He had to learn and advance to godhood, where mastery of law was essential.  God is bound by eternal law, just as surely as he is bound by our obedience to the law (D&C 82:10).

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/2/2018 at 5:13 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Do I understand this correctly?

The law is greater than God. For law to exist, there must be obedience, and for obedience to exist there must be agency.

Is agency greater than law? Were God to violate agency, he would cease to be God. Thus agency is the greatest of all?

That would be un-me, or my annihilation. Chaos versus order.

Satan opted for lack of opposition in that he planned to save everyone by doing away with free agency, and no one would be lost, which meant that all the horrible consequences listed by Lehi would be realized for Satan and his vast host -- as they head for destruction and Outer Darkness (a kind of compound in one, with the absence of any differentiation).

ETA:  I now see that nuclearfuels already pointed this out.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/3/2018 at 12:09 AM, Bernard Gui said:

We are ranging far into the rough. I would prefer to swing for the green. Can God cease to be God as per Lehi and Alma because of a lack or loss of those attributes and virtues specified by Lehi? I realize this is in the realm of serious speculation, but at least two prophets who saw God and lived broached the idea.

You might want to think of such attributes as analogous to the laws of physics, which demand differentiation (opposition) in all things.  The nature of the universe is such that those attributes and their opposites are artifacts of free agency, and without which there could be no free agency.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/3/2018 at 1:47 PM, Bobbieaware said:

How do you know I didn’t understand a single thing you wrote when we’re only on item one of your post?

The thing I find so  mystifying is that as a result of spending some quality time focusing on how the word thing (things) is used in the scriptures, I’ve discovered that throughout holy writ the very things you steadfastly maintain aren’t actual things are invariably described as being actual things by the prophets. For example, the scriptures refer to justice and mercy as being real things that actually exist within the eternal framework of opposition in all things, and that both of these things have their opposite, injustice and implacable vengeance respectively.

The fact is that justice and mercy are so real and so powerful that only an atoning sacrifice of infinite and eternal suffering, endured by God himself, could bring harmonious coexistence to these two very powerful and demanding opposing forces. The prophets teach that us that thoughts are things, ideas are things, human qualities are things and divine attributes are things that exist as powerful motivating forces that course through the human brain with millions of electrical impulses.

But if we can’t even agree that when Lehi speaks of all things having their opposite, including Almighty God himself, then it hardly seems possible that we can have a coherent and edifying discussion. But I’m still willing to try..

I pointed out years ago, that one Hebrew word, dabar, means both "thing" and "word."  Which makes sense in that a word can describe a material object or an immaterial concept.   "Textual Criticism," in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon (Provo, FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 77-79, online at https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1110&index=20 .

Quote

There is an interesting confusion between things and words at 2 Nephi 6:8 and 33:4. While the Printer’s Manuscript reads things at both locations, all editions (except the 1830 at 2 Nephi 33:4) have changed this to read words. Either variant is a good reading, and the Hebrew word debarim is accurately translated either “things” or “words.” 

 

Edited February 5, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/3/2018 at 8:44 PM, mfbukowski said:

Perhaps he means this  http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/Eternal_Progression.html

.........His knowledge is spoken of as being “infinite” (Psa 147:5)..................

Yes, but the Hebrew does not use that technical term, but rather the generic ein mispar "uncounted, unnumbered."  God is never referred to in "omni-" terms in the OT.  Indeed, He is anthropomorphic.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What is the source of opposition to God?............................................

Satan.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Lehi clearly states that without opposition, the attributes that make God God would be destroyed. It intrigues me that he could countenance that thought. 

How do you think God’s existence depends on opposition?

Yes, I think as much as ours does, especially if one holds that He came about in the same way His children do. I'm not sure Lehi was thinking in those terms, though. I think he meant that without opposition, nothing makes sense, and that would mean that God does not or would not exist, at least as far as we are concerned.

PS I think D&C 93:30 is the root of explaining the relationship between agency (in which opposition is a component function) and existence. All gods perform this placement of truth, and do it for others as it was done for them. Without someone else's acting and organizing, which entails the management and reconciliation of opposition, we would not exist. Without our doing the same, some things and people would not exist.

I am on vacation so may not be peeking in too often until the end of the week...

Edited February 5, 2018 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is the quote referring to the eternal progression of God or of man? Does the evolution stop once man reaches a certain level of progress?

Uh ok, I will spill the beans now.  IN MY OPINION God IS mankind.  What the church worships is HUMANITY as exemplified by the MAN OF HOLINESS.  We worship the FAMILY as an ideal paradigm in the Godhead and what could be the ideal society in our church.  We are Adam and Eve and we are Gods in embryo- all of us because we all fall and can become ideal humans because being ideal humans entails both fall and glorification through creating our own worlds without number.  You cannot create worlds without progression out of the dirt and then into the stars.

We are in a constant state of progression or are in a state of regression.  You see both kinds of humans in this world.  God is the Ideal Human.  Is there an actual Divine Person we worship as our "Father"?  I say yes undeniably.

How do I know that? Because I feel it in my heart- there is an Intelligence I take to be human deep within me- or outside- but it seems to know things I cannot know- with whom I can communicate.  It gives me answers to my problems, gives me peace, and answers and help when I pray.

Of these things I am certain.

Philosophically, I can take that pure experienced phenomenon and interpret it in many many ways, of which the LDS has the best possible interpretation, in my mind and at my present state of progression.

So for me the answer to the first question is "yes", with all the ambiguity that attends that simple answer.  Both- God and Man are inseparable because God IS MAN metaphorically and actually.

The answer to the second question is "no" because the evolution does not stop at a certain level of progress.  It is DIVINE PAIRS of men and women "all the way down" (and up!!) into infinity. 

At least as far as we can push the paradigm..... 

 

Edited February 5, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Bobbieaware]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Such notions as God saying "I am the law," are likely meant in the same sense as "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."  They are metaphors.  God was not always God, but at one time a man.  He had to learn and advance to godhood, where mastery of law was essential.  God is bound by eternal law, just as surely as he is bound by our obedience to the law (D&C 82:10).

So let’s go to your suggested likely possibility. If the Lord’s testimony concerning his own divine attributes is only meant to be taken metephorically, does this mean he isn’t quite the omniscient and omnipotent being he appears to be saying he is? For example, when he testifies he’s the light of the world, are the following words of holy writ also only meant to be taken metaphorically? 

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. (D&c88)

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

So let’s go to your suggested likely possibility. If the Lord’s testimony concerning his own divine attributes is only meant to be taken metephorically, does this mean he isn’t quite the omniscient and omnipotent being he appears to be saying he is? For example, when he testifies he’s the light of the world, are the following words of holy writ also only meant to be taken metaphorically? 

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. (D&c88)

Yes, and that applies across the board.  Otherwise we end up with a paradoxical and ridiculous notion of God -- which has long been provided us by normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim dogma, and which leads to the death of God (since few can bring themselves to believe in the Absurd).

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, but the Hebrew does not use that technical term, but rather the generic ein mispar "uncounted, unnumbered."  God is never referred to in "omni-" terms in the OT.  Indeed, He is anthropomorphic.

One cannot progress without room to do so.    "Behold- here is matter unorganized"- if there is matter unorganized, then it is "unknowable"- precisely BECAUSE it is now unorganized.  It doesn't exist yet!  It is without name, cannot be classified, known, or analyzed, nor published in scientific literature because it is yet "unknown"

 So "God knows all there is to be known" because God organizes what IS knowable.  God's human mind is the most intelligent possible human mind and is always discovering/organizing what to us is "truth".  What is knowable is not fixed, because new worlds are always being created.  He organizes through the Word- which is how knowledge is communicated.  If we do not have a word for "day" we do not have "knowledge" of what a "day" is.  The cycle of darkness and light- God organized and CALLED it the "first day" = social constructivism through language!

So yes God "knows all" but is constantly organizing more which can become known.   Think of Einstein raised to infinity.  Einstein "organized" the theory of relativity about which we are still learning, and he organized it creating a new paradigm- a new way of organizing information about the universe.  So Einstein and all of us in our own lives are mini-gods organizing our worlds without number, but Einstein's "world" is big enough to not even be fully explored by all science yet.

And so with God, on an infinitely bigger scale!  He organizes the Paradigm of all possible paradigms in his "worlds without number"

So yes, he is "omniscient" in the sense he knows all that can possibly be known, but yet is always adding to what can eventually be known, named, classified, and analyzed which is what constitutes what we call "knowledge"

One cannot have omni-SCIENCE when science is not yet done!   

(nor will it ever be......  )

 

Edited February 5, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Bobbieaware]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and that applies across the board.  Otherwise we end up with a paradoxical and ridiculous notion of God -- which has long been provided us by normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim dogma, and which leads to the death of God (since few can bring themselves to believe in the Absurd).

 Across the board, really? So there isn’t a real and actual light of Christ, a light that is just as real as the light that enables you to read this post. that proceeds forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space? And is the pillar of divine.light that the Prophet Joseph Smith saw when the Father and the Son appeared to him also just a metaphore?

16 ... I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! (Joseph Smith History)

 

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

So let’s go to your suggested likely possibility. If the Lord’s testimony concerning his own divine attributes is only meant to be taken metephorically, does this mean he isn’t quite the omniscient and omnipotent being he appears to be saying he is? For example, when he testifies he’s the light of the world, are the following words of holy writ also only meant to be taken metaphorically? 

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. (D&c88)

DC 93

Quote

36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.

God's intelligence permeates the universes and so organizes them in a way that we could understand them through our intelligences.

But since HE is always creating and organizing more, it is more correct to say that "He organized all that is organized".

We can only know what He has organized.- in principle but of course we still have just a small understanding of what He HAS actually organized.

So yes, he knows all that can be known, but He is always creating what is now "unknowable" to us.

That is the problem with seeing knowledge as a completed "thing" and not as an act of progression.   That is pagan Greek philosophy.   But there is no sense in taking that discussion farther, we have tried.

If God is always creating, there must be "stuff" which is unorganized and therefore unknowable and which cannot be classified etc. at least by mankind.

"Dark matter" is by definition that which has not yet been infused by "light" or "intelligence". 

 

Edited February 5, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

On 2/4/2018 at 11:19 PM, Calm said:

I am not sure having entities to worship one is necessary...couldn't God care for us without letting us know he was involved at all?  There does seem to need to be entities for God to care for, though...if being God means being just, merciful, loving.

Can a person be a good person if he was stranded on an island with no semi-intelligent life (cats, dogs, parrots, etc) even to interact with or to even think about?  And they didn't anthromophize plant life or nonorganic materials? (I can sort of see a person who went about trying to destroy any life or any form of order because they believed it harmed something being evil.)

I think someone completely paralyzed, unable to speak or communicate in any way can still be a good or evil person by how they choose to think about those surrounding them, but if there is no one to think about in terms of how one would interact---would one try to make their existence better, not care, or try to make them suffer---can one do good or evil?

The point was being made that the attributes of justice, mercy, wisdom, etc., are what make God God because they make him worthy of worship. This would have no meaning unless they were directed at inferior entities. What would be the nature of moral opposition on a deserted island? All efforts would be made to ensure self-preservation and survival. Life would have to be sustained by taking other lives. How would justice, mercy, wisdom, etc., be relevant?

While we will certainly be accountable for our thoughts, if all we are capable of is thought, not action, can we be good or evil?

Quote

A good man out of the good treasure of the heart brings forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things.....For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he...

Apparently yes. But I think this presumes interaction with fellow human beings. 

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Satan.

....doing what has been done in other worlds. But Satan is part of creation, which without opposition could not happen.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

....doing what has been done in other worlds. But Satan is part of creation, which without opposition could not happen.

Well, yes, but Satan is coeternal with God, as are we all.  He has a spirit body encasing his intelligence.  He chose to be the opponent of God (free agency you know), in a universe which is already ruled by the Law of Opposition.  Indeed his name is really a title, "Adversary, Opponent," and is normally accompanied in Hebrew with the definite article, has-Satan, "The-Opponent."**  That is his job, and it is absolutely essential in both a real and ritual sense.  His performance in the Garden is a ritual, as it is in Job.*

*  Richard Medina, “Job’s Entrée into a Ritual of Mourning as Seen in the Opening Prose of the Book of Job,” Die Welt des Orients, 38 (2008):199, “Through stylized movements, acts and speech, they enter into the liminal state . . , decouple from the sphere of day-to-day life and adopt a transitory ritual identity.”

**  Cf. Robert F. Smith, “Śaṭan: Notes on the Gods,” 2012 (version 2), online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/58985133/Satan-Notes-on-the-Gods .

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You might want to think of such attributes as analogous to the laws of physics, which demand differentiation (opposition) in all things.  The nature of the universe is such that those attributes and their opposites are artifacts of free agency, and without which there could be no free agency.

.....the nature of HOW WE SEE the universe is that those attributes and their opposites are artifacts of free agency....

And we see them as Human sons and daughters of the Human Man of Holiness as his children, in the only way we COULD see them!

Gosh I wonder why? 

We see the "laws" our Human intelligence creates because the laws were created by the Human Intelligence of our "Father".  We see it as He sees it because we are Him. 

shhhhhhh- don't tell anyone... 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

57 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

 Across the board, really? So there isn’t a real and actual light of Christ, a light that is just as real as the light that enables you to read this post. that proceeds forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space? And is the pillar of divine.light that the Prophet Joseph Smith saw when the Father and the Son appeared to him also just a metaphore?

16 ... I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! (Joseph Smith History)

One presumably reads carefully enough to distinguish between metaphorical and real references.  One must distinguish, for example, between the actual, physical country France, and the metaphorical claim by the late Charles de Gaulle, saying Je suis la France "I am France."  [if you are really sharp you will see right away that his very name de Gaulle means "of France," so that he meant the phrase to be taken both literally and figuratively, a pun]

Thus, when Jesus declares himself to be the Light of the World, we do not take that to mean that he is sunlight, but a very different kind of light, a holy light which can penetrate our souls.  Yet he is not the light, but rather it is a power which he has and can project.  Similarly, the Holy Spirit has a spirit body, but he can also project power over vast distances and to vast numbers of people simultaneously.  How that is done, and what sort of power it is, we do not understand.  The "Force" in the Star Wars series is similarly employed.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. To be “worshipable” there must be entities that do the worshipping. As we evolve into Godhood through aeons of time do you believe we eventually gain that “worshipability?” 

That will be up to the entities, if there are any!  I mean agency and all....

But remember if we are all "Adam' and "Eve"s and have new unknown names, what will it matter if "Bernard" (assuming that is not your real name) is worshiped ?

In that same sense we are all "Adam" we are also all "God" imo.

Think of the Family Called God, Father Son and Holy Ghost, whatever other name/title she may have.   WE can be part of that family council of the God Family.

Did at some point they have the names Fred and Louise?    Who knows?

It is all reality, it is all metaphor since anything in language IS metaphor.   Few people realize that all communication is symbolic because when we say "chair" chairs to do not pop out of our mouths.  We turn things into grunts in the air and expect them to conform to the grunts!  If we call the grunts "things" and we have a grunt called "God" then God becomes only a grunt.   Sorry but that is the truth.  G-O-D is  a word, nothing more, nothing less and yet we try to fathom the reality with only grunts.

All was organized by the Word who was made flesh and dwelt among us...  

Words can't handle any of this.   They were made for earthly things, like fixing your truck. and going to buy some bread.  THAT is about all that words are good for. 

We call it Babel, but in fact that is what we do here- babble with confounded words.

Now THAT is straight Wittgenstein.

We are all symbols to others who cannot be known  directly unless we know each other's spirits, and that is a rare thing indeed limited to spouses and a few close others in our personal families, including the REAL God within us.

 

Edited February 5, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One presumably reads carefully enough to distinguish between metaphorical and real references.  One must distinguish, for example, between the actual, physical country France, and the metaphorical claim by the late Charles de Gaulle, saying Je suis la France "I am France."  [if you are really sharp you will see right away that his very name de Gaulle means "of France," so that he meant the phrase to be taken both literally and figuratively, a pun]

Thus, when Jesus declares himself to be the Light of the World, we do not take that to mean that he is sunlight, but a very different kind of light, a holy light which can penetrate our souls.  Yet he is not the light, but rather it is a power which he has and can project.  Similarly, the Holy Spirit has a spirit body, but he can also project power over vast distances and to vast numbers of people simultaneously.  How that is done, and what sort of power it is, we do not understand.  The "Force" in the Star Wars series is similarly employed.

I see the light as intelligence and perhaps that makes it easier.  God's intelligence permeates the universe because he knows all his creations, yet there are more being created continually

DC 93

36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.

[Exiled]

What if the devil didn't want to entice people to do wickedly any more?  What if he refused to play along in order to frustrate God's purposes?  Would God step in at that point or hire someone else to offer the evil alternative so his purposes wouldn't be thwarted?

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

So let’s go to your suggested likely possibility. If the Lord’s testimony concerning his own divine attributes is only meant to be taken metephorically, does this mean he isn’t quite the omniscient and omnipotent being he appears to be saying he is? For example, when he testifies he’s the light of the world, are the following words of holy writ also only meant to be taken metaphorically? 

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. (D&c88)

Think about this

We take experiences of things and turn them into noises in the air, and noises in the air are NOT the things in themselves- right?  We call those noises "words" and they are symbols of the things, right?

And now we take those noises in the air, like the noise "G"- kind of a gutteral forcing of air from our throat, the "o" kind of a relaxing of the throat and then the harder sound "d" where we slap our tongues against our front teeth.  Put them together and we get the sound of the symbol "God".

What do those noises have to do with our experience of the wonder of "God"?  So we take one symbol - a pronounced word - and then we make a symbol of that symbol and put it in squiggles on a page which say "God" all of which is supposed to "represent" our direct experience of our creator- a term which is itself a symbol.

I would suggest that all words are like that, all words are "metaphors"

What do these squiggles have to do with the reality, shown beneath the squiggles?   Where is that correspondence?   Is it in the world or is the correspondence in your mind, metaphorically linked to the "reality" which is also really "in your mind" as a perception of your  brain?   Where IS the "reality" of what this "thing"/ experience IS?  What is "the thing" REALLY?  Does the word capture the reality of the thing?  Are they interchangeable?   If they are not in such a simple case what of the sentence " Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—" ?  Incidentally those hebrew characters are pronounced "adom"- what does that do to the interpretation?

red  אָדֹם أحمر 赤

Edited February 5, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Josh Khinder]

On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 11:41 AM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Light, dark. Life, death. Peace, war. Joy, sorrow. Faith, fear. Good, evil. Without opposition, we would have no contrast, and no way to understand the world, be it physical or Spiritual. Even the elements around us would be unrecognizable, hot or cold, the earth and the universe, as we would have no frame of reference. Because God is all knowing, and he is so because of his wisdom, he more than anyone understands this "law". It is choice that makes all things possible or impossible. Without it, we could not know or even worship him, and it is this "choice" that allows us to understand and overcome opposition, and makes us "free agents". If this opposition did not exist, there would be no need of God, much less his wisdom.  

Mormon leaders have taught God is not all knowing

God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end." Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses Vol. 6:120

"Jan 7-8, 1960 - First Presidency decides that Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine “must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation.” They are exasperated that McConkie and his publisher released the book without pre-publication publicity or notifying First Presidency. Even his father-in-law, senior apostle, Joseph Fielding Smith, “did not know anything about it until it was published.” This is McConkie’s way to avoid repetition of Presidency’s stopping his pre-announced Sound Doctrine three years earlier.

 

Committee of two apostles (Mark E Petersen and Marion G Romney) reports that McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine contains 1,067 doctrinal errors. For example, page 493 said: “Those who falsely and erroneously suppose that God is progressing in knowledge and gaining new truths cannot exercise sufficient faith in him to gain salvation until they divest themselves of their false beliefs.” However, McConkie is affirming doctrine of omniscience officially condemned by previous First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1865.”

 

 

 

Edited February 5, 2018 by Josh Khinder