The Destruction of God?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

As a hypothetical, it would be reductio ad absurdum. As an "actual," it is reflective of Satan's plan.

As a hypothetical it is actually a self contradiction.  God become evil?  By definition, that is a contradiction!

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

As a hypothetical it is actually a self contradiction.  God become evil?  By definition, that is a contradiction!

Yet Lehi and Alma propose it.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Let’s go one step at a time. The scriptures teach us within Christ “dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” In direct connection with his possession of the all fulness of the Godhead bodily, the resurrected Lord testified that the Father had given unto him “all power in heaven and earth.”

I'm not sure what Col 2:9 means here, and it uses the technical Greek term pleroma "fulness," which is so popular with the Gnostics, and which is used so obscurely in verse 10 as "fulfillment."  The element "head" in "Godhead" also misleads, since the actual meaning of Greek theotetos is more like Gottheit "Godness, Deity, divinity, divine-nature."  Good modern translators render it more correctly as "In him, in bodily form, lives divinity in all its fulness" (NJB), or "For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily" (NRSV).

Verse 10 continues that thought, saying "and in him you too find your own fulfillment (pleroma), in the one who is the head of every sovereignty and ruling force" (NJB).  By being the body of believers, His Church, the B𐐬dy of Christ, we participate in that same "fulness" (1 Cor 12:12ff, concluding the analogy with the human body there in verse 27 with the statement that we are part of Christ's Body).  Are we literally therefore Christ's body?  Of course not.

Quote

 In light of the of the foregoing testimonies of scripture concerning the extent of the power of Christ, do you believe he has the ability, if he so chooses, to extend the light that Joseph beheld emanating from the bodies of the Father and the Son into an area much larger than the Sacred Grove? In other words. if the Lord wanted to bathe the entire area of metropolitan of Salt Lake City in the same heavenly light, do you think he is able to do it? .....................................

Divine glory seems to be accompanied by light or a strong glow, such as Moses exhibited on his face when he came down from the mount, just because he had been in the divine presence -- so much so that he had to wear a veil (Ex 34:29-35).  Just so, on the Mount of Transfiguration, Peter, James, and John observed Jesus shining bright, along with Moses & Elijah (Matt 17:2, Mark 9:3, Lk 9:29-32). I see no problem with any degree of extension of that "heavenly light," as you call it, and it is not meant as a metaphor.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Josh Khinder]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Convinced himself and billions of his Father’s children. I think there is much more at play than self-deception.

As we pray, “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.”

Remember , not all the human race are children of God, Romans 9:8 . Only those adopted into his family, Romans 9:4  

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What are you saying? Everyone knows the midi-chlorians are what make it all work. 

Well, at least the midi-chlorians were the means of access to the Force.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Josh Khinder said:

Remember , not all the human race are children of God, Romans 9:8 . Only those adopted into his family, Romans 9:4  

Those become his heirs.  The rest choose to be illegitimate.

Both are still offspring.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would you say then that Satan’s role as the Champion of Opposition was cast before his spiritual embodiment?  At what point did he exercise that agency? Does this have to happen every time a new world is created?

In the Sunday School lesson on the Fall last week the comment was made (it is often made in such discussions) that Satan was fooled by God because he erroneously thought that enticing the humans to disobey would ruin the Plan. Or, that Satan’s Plan was foiled because he didn’t really know of the efficacy of the Atonement. It occurred to me that this could not be the case because he was in on the planning from the start and was quite aware of what was at stake...enough so to present a counter plan. Since he did not suffer the veil of forgetfulness (unless he is an idiot), he knew perfectly well what the outcome would be. His own words reveal his knowledge of the Law of Opposition. 

So, the question is, what is his motivation to be the contrarian? What’s in it for him? Revenge? Spite? A moment in the spotlight?

BTW, he is very good at his job.

Yes, he is a Son of the Morning, a very bright one.  However, that very privileged status may have been his ultimate undoing.  Envy at being Second may have played a part, but he was not as clueless as he seems.

The Council in Heaven and the Fall are the two crucial considerations for us:  Satan offered a fool-proof plan in which he would not have to get crucified and in which God's power would save everyone by fiat.  Some would argue that such overestimates God's power, since He must abide by the Law.  But Satan tapped into a major flaw in the accepted Plan:  It left everything dependent on one guy, Jesus.  What if Jesus failed to come through?  After all, for Jesus to become the Savior of all mankind, he had to have free agency, had to have the opportunity to fail, or no value would accrue to the Atonement.  What if Jesus were as cowardly as Satan, or one of us?  What if he couldn't take the pain?  What if he could not remain a sinless sacrifice?  Then truly all would be lost.  Everything.

Satan bet that Jesus would fail.  He couldn't imagine anyone being able to do the job.  And then he'd be able to say, "I told you so."  And a third of the host of heaven agreed with him.  That is a vast number, Bernard.  Those were high stakes.  And they all knew God the Father, and were in his glorious presence.

[Bernard Gui]

32 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, at least the midi-chlorians were the means of access to the Force.

And a cause for embarrassment. 

[Exiled]

19 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

There would still be agency and opposition. His very existence depends on them. 

Opposition from where, from God? The devil probably figured out pretty early that playing along wasn't the smart move. So do you think it's possible that God plays good and bad roles simultaneously or has agents assigned to do so? If God is the author of both the good and the bad, how can he claim perfection, by fiat?

[Bobbieaware]

36 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Opposition from where, from God? The devil probably figured out pretty early that playing along wasn't the smart move. So do you think it's possible that God plays good and bad roles simultaneously or has agents assigned to do so? If God is the author of both the good and the bad, how can he claim perfection, by fiat?

Existence is predicated and can only be affirmed upon real opposition, not fake or some sort of staged, play-acting opposition. God is truly good and Satan is truly evil. That’s the way it is and the only way it can be. 

The reason why a number of intelligences inevitably go over to the dark side is because, at least on the surface, God’s plan of salvation seems so harsh, heartless and impossibly demanding that those who fall are absolutely convinced there has to be a better way to bring salvation, a plan that isn’t so fraught with serious potential risks, brutal oppositional forces and manifold miseries .The only problem is that their plan of less than full opposition in all things can’t work and, at least theoretically, it’s implementation, as Father Lehi said, would cause all things to vanish into nonexistence. Those who fall into the dark side are as convinced that they are right and that God is a tyrant as is a thoroughly convinced communist who believes free enterprise under the US Construction is a system of slavery.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Josh Khinder]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Those become his heirs.  The rest choose to be illegitimate.

Both are still offspring.

Please give me book, chapter and verse where unbelievers are children of God 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Josh Khinder

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'm not sure what Col 2:9 means here, and it uses the technical Greek term pleroma "fulness," which is so popular with the Gnostics, and which is used so obscurely in verse 10 as "fulfillment."  The element "head" in "Godhead" also misleads, since the actual meaning of Greek theotetos is more like Gottheit "Godness, Deity, divinity, divine-nature."  Good modern translators render it more correctly as "In him, in bodily form, lives divinity in all its fulness" (NJB), or "For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily" (NRSV).

Verse 10 continues that thought, saying "and in him you too find your own fulfillment (pleroma), in the one who is the head of every sovereignty and ruling force" (NJB).  By being the body of believers, His Church, the B𐐬dy of Christ, we participate in that same "fulness" (1 Cor 12:12ff, concluding the analogy with the human body there in verse 27 with the statement that we are part of Christ's Body).  Are we literally therefore Christ's body?  Of course not.

Divine glory seems to be accompanied by light or a strong glow, such as Moses exhibited on his face when he came down from the mount, just because he had been in the divine presence -- so much so that he had to wear a veil (Ex 34:29-35).  Just so, on the Mount of Transfiguration, Peter, James, and John observed Jesus shining bright, along with Moses & Elijah (Matt 17:2, Mark 9:3, Lk 9:29-32). I see no problem with any degree of extension of that "heavenly light," as you call it, and it is not meant as a metaphor.

As far as I am concerned, the modern rendering of Col 2:9 you offer means exactly the same thing the King James Version does. I say this because speaking of the infinite and eternal nature of deity in all its fulness is a perfectly acceptable reworking of the King James rendering — they mean the same thing. The only way one might find a difference between the two renderings is if he believes the term deity doesn’t refer to a being who possess all power in heaven and on earth.

16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father;

17 And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him. (D&C 93)

I’m delighted to learn you don’t believe the supernal brightness of heavenly light that emanates from the bodies of the Father and the Son, and their ability to project that light wherever they will, is not metaphorical. More later.

 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Opposition from where, from God? The devil probably figured out pretty early that playing along wasn't the smart move. So do you think it's possible that God plays good and bad roles simultaneously or has agents assigned to do so? If God is the author of both the good and the bad, how can he claim perfection, by fiat?

I have wondered if it is Satan's calling to be Satan.

We hear a lot about multiple probations and how Christ will be a Father, that Adam is the Father and that the Holy Ghost will eventually be a savior and go through all the stages.

So I can just hear it.  "Hey Lucifer- Your turn!   It's a lousy job but someone has to be the Opposition"

I was on a debate team in college.  You always have to be able to argue both sides. 

 

[CV75]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The naming function is what is it is all about.  Creation in language is creation in knowledge.  Without names of things we cannot share information.  Ultimately naming everything creates an artificial human world which we take to be the "natural" world and we end up living in that human created world.  This is what Mormonism celebrates really- the creation of the world through intelligence and communication by a God who is human.  It is metaphor and "truth" at the same time.  "The glory of God is intelligence, = light and truth"

By the WORD were all things created.  The world as we know it is a socially created world of language and human communication through culture.  This is a fabulously Mormon universe and I think honestly you are one of the few around here who get it. It seems many here are still caught up in sectarian dualism and see this scientifically

Adam's naming function reminds me of what the Lord does when He names us. What Adam did materially to organize life on earth to fulfill the measure of its creation, the Lord does spiritually through associated covenants which progressively define what we do and inform what we home. The children of God are the only ones who become greater by intent (covenant).

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you see it as an actual?

Not as an actual outcome or possibility for any God. I don't think it is something that ever happened. Existence is too basic a reality to have not happened or to have stopped happening.

I see Lehi's wording as an actual description of Satan's ambition. I say ambition because he doesn't really have a plan anymore. He truly doesn't know the mind of God, and we do to some extent by virtue of the light of Christ that is in us, which Satan lacks. The fact that Satan exists and yet God continues to exist (and would exist without Satan) shows that He can be opposed but not defeated. God would also exist without Satan because opposition does not require a negative of reciprocal degree, only something that He is not, and He had this when we were innocent spirits. Oddly enough, He had this when there was only a Firstborn.

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have wondered if it is Satan's calling to be Satan.

We hear a lot about multiple probations and how Christ will be a Father, that Adam is the Father and that the Holy Ghost will eventually be a savior and go through all the stages.

So I can just hear it.  "Hey Lucifer- Your turn!   It's a lousy job but someone has to be the Opposition"

I was on a debate team in college.  You always have to be able to argue both sides. 

 

I think the only opposition that was necessary was a Child-God without a body on one hand and His God-Father with a body on the other hand. Neither could progress without these opposing realities and the parties having faith in each other. As more children came along, more degrees of variation and deviation in the quality of faith in God-Father were possible, but not inevitable and not requisite for opposition and agency to result. He always had faith in the gods that any of us could become as we exercised faith in Him.

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

As far as I am concerned, the modern rendering of Col 2:9 you offer means exactly the same thing the King James Version does. I say this because speaking of the infinite and eternal nature of deity in all its fulness is a perfectly acceptable reworking of the King James rendering — they mean the same thing. The only way one might find a difference between the two renderings is if he believes the term deity doesn’t refer to a being who possess all power in heaven and on earth.

Of course it does not mean "exactly" the same thing for the reasons I gave, and we do not quite understand the nature of the pleroma in each case.  What I gave were not "reworkings" of the KJV.

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father;

17 And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him. (D&C 93)

I’m delighted to learn you don’t believe the supernal brightness of heavenly light that emanates from the bodies of the Father and the Son, and their ability to project that light wherever they will, is not metaphorical. More later.

Of course, as long as you are able to correctly distinguish between figurative and literal in the various texts you read, you will probably get closer to the true meaning in each case.

[Bobbieaware]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course it does not mean "exactly" the same thing for the reasons I gave, and we do not quite understand the nature of the pleroma in each case.  What I gave were not "reworkings" of the KJV.

Of course, as long as you are able to correctly distinguish between figurative and literal in the various texts you read, you will probably get closer to the true meaning in each case.

What is the difference In meaning between “the whole fullness of deity bodily” and “the whole fullness of the Godhead bodily?”

In the context of Christianity, what’s the difference between the Christian deity comprised of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and the Christian Godhead comprised of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

Both expressions simply mean,  “all the fulness of God.” No?

To you, does the term deity refer to someone or something that’s less than ‘the infinite and eternal God who knows all things and has all power in heaven and on earth?’

 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Exiled]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have wondered if it is Satan's calling to be Satan.

We hear a lot about multiple probations and how Christ will be a Father, that Adam is the Father and that the Holy Ghost will eventually be a savior and go through all the stages.

So I can just hear it.  "Hey Lucifer- Your turn!   It's a lousy job but someone has to be the Opposition"

I was on a debate team in college.  You always have to be able to argue both sides. 

 

Maybe "opposite guy" is a priesthood calling and lucifer isn't what he is portrayed to be like you say. I wonder how that applies to those pesky "anti-mormons" who always want to say the cup is half empty? Maybe they actually are providing a good service to the saints in making sure there is a definite black and white choice? As God needs Satan, so do Mormons need their anti brethren. 

[CV75]

44 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Maybe "opposite guy" is a priesthood calling and lucifer isn't what he is portrayed to be like you say. I wonder how that applies to those pesky "anti-mormons" who always want to say the cup is half empty? Maybe they actually are providing a good service to the saints in making sure there is a definite black and white choice? As God needs Satan, so do Mormons need their anti brethren. 

All God needs for opposition is an intelligence that is not as far along the path as He. Relative to each other, even on the eternal round, one finds himself in the "before" position in opposition to the one in the "after" position. Not all opposition is mutually destructive; most is quite functional and mutually beneficial. I don't think that opposition in the form of Satan per se was essential. Some have suggested that under certain conditions, an Adam and an Eve could have become mortal and still less developed than God and in need of a Redeemer, without a corresponding Satan. As lesser intelligences, they would have found enough trouble on their own once in a mortal probationary state. The temptations would simply arise from their lack of development and intelligence, and the influence of other lesser intelligences. This world might be fairly unique, at least part of a minority among among God's created worlds, having a history of a war in heaven and a Satan that was exiled to this world. The devil may have had a knowledge of what had been done elsewhere, but no role in or opportunity to interact with Adams and Eves as he did here.

Its not like Batman creating the Joker...:)

Edited February 7, 2018 by CV75

[Josh Khinder]

13 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

Please give me book, chapter and verse where unbelievers are children of God 

Have received one yet 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

What is the difference In meaning between “the whole fullness of deity bodily” and “the whole fullness of the Godhead bodily?”

In the context of Christianity, what’s the difference between the Christian deity comprised of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and the Christian Godhead comprised of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

I tried to explain that the word "Godhead" is a very poor and misleading translation for what is better as Gottheit, etc., and -heit in German does not suggest "head."  There are actually quite a few cases  in which the German scholarship has been badly interpreted by speakers of English (Jehovah is another atrocity).  You apparently missed my poor attempt to correct the "Godhead" mistake.

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Both expressions simply mean,  “all the fulness of God.” No?

No.  It is not limited to God (or a group of gods).  As I pointed out briefly, pleroma "fulness" in the NT refers to the totality of divinity (whatever that is) in both Christ and (since he is in heaven) in his church (as the receptacle of that pleroma) -- the Body of Christ, and not necessarily the basar/corpus of Communion, but rather the body of believers in whom that same pleroma is to be found. However, there is one more problem with that concept, because Greek philosophical norms have it that Christ has the ideal, perfect pleroma (in heaven), which is expressed in ordinary life (on Earth) in less perfect ways.  Heavenly archetypes are merely reflected or expressed by less real phenomena on Earth.  This means, as Carl Jung expressed it, that "since the infinite and eternal possess no qualities," i.e., "both thinking and being cease," the pleroma is therefore "both nothing and everything."

As you may know, while on Earth, Christ "emptied" himself of all divinity (Philippians 2:7).  This is  known as the kenosis or kenoma, which is the opposite of pleroma.  He did this to subject his will to that of the Father.

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

To you, does the term deity refer to someone or something that’s less than ‘the infinite and eternal God who knows all things and has all power in heaven and on earth?’

Based on what I have just said (above), D&C 20:17 can be seen as a powerful statement meant to be taken as a poetic expression of that archetypal, unchangeable deity -- using formulaic phrases which are not otherwise explained.

[Robert F. Smith]

49 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Maybe "opposite guy" is a priesthood calling and lucifer isn't what he is portrayed to be like you say. I wonder how that applies to those pesky "anti-mormons" who always want to say the cup is half empty? Maybe they actually are providing a good service to the saints in making sure there is a definite black and white choice? As God needs Satan, so do Mormons need their anti brethren. 

Hugh Nibley thought anti-Mormons to be essential, and that they kept the Saints on their toes.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Maybe "opposite guy" is a priesthood calling and lucifer isn't what he is portrayed to be like you say. I wonder how that applies to those pesky "anti-mormons" who always want to say the cup is half empty? Maybe they actually are providing a good service to the saints in making sure there is a definite black and white choice? As God needs Satan, so do Mormons need their anti brethren. 

The opposing forces within the eternal framework of opposition in all thing are real, not contrived or illusory. God really is the embodiment of all good and is a being of perfect love. Meanwhile, Satan is the embodiment of authentic evil and is filled to the maximum degree possible with genuine implacable hate.

Existence cannot be affirmed upon pretended opposition, otherwise, as father Lehi said, all things would vanish into nonexistence and God would cease to be God. Just ask the Savior of mankind if the infinite and eternal sufferings for sin and wickedness he had to endure in his atoning sacrifice had their origin in  a cleverly disguised charade with benign actors only pretending to be evil hiding in the background. The one-third host who were cast out of heaven didn’t turn around with a wink and a nod as they descended into hell. And ask any human being who’s been tortured to death by a desperately evil man if wickedness is nothing more than an angel of light wearing a Frankenstein's monster mask.

This kind of dangerous speculation is what the apostle Paul called “looking past the mark.”

Edited February 7, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Exiled]

9 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

The opposing forces within the eternal framework of opposition in all thing are real, not contrived or illusory. God really is the embodiment of all good and is a being of perfect love. Meanwhile, Satan is the embodiment of authentic evil and is filled to the maximum degree possible with genuine implacable hate.

Existence cannot be affirmed upon pretended opposition, otherwise, as father Lehi said, all things would vanish into nonexistence and God would cease to be God. Just ask the Savior of mankind if the infinite and eternal sufferings for sin and wickedness he had to endure in his atoning sacrifice had their origin in  a cleverly disguised charade with benign actors only pretending to be evil hiding in the background. The one-third host who were cast out of heaven didn’t turn around with a wink and a nod as they descended into hell. And ask any human being who’s been tortured to death by a desperately evil man if wickedness is nothing more than an angel of light wearing a Frankenstein's monster mask.

This kind of dangerous speculation is what the apostle Paul called “looking past the mark.”

My problem with taking this literally is that God depends on Satan.  If Satan leaves the game, then God ceases to be God.  So, if Satan does the logical thing and refuses to entice God's creations to do evil, doesn't Satan win?  God would then cease to be God or God would have to create another "Satan" to perform the role, as opposition is necessary for the plan to work.  I know Dan Vogel points out that Joseph Smith supported a God that deceives for the higher good and he cites many examples in the scriptures like God having Abraham lie about Sarah in order to save Abraham's life and D&C 19 where God says that endless punishment isn't really endless at all but the word "endless" is used misleadingly to promote repentance.  Perhaps this is true?  It is a game and is designed to prove us?  Maybe God wants us to figure this out and rise above black and white thinking to something higher?