CV75 Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 1 hour ago, changed said: I guess I'm just not convinced there is only "one path" up the mountain, or that the refinement process could not be more delicately completed... Some do seem to undergo a delicate process, but it took the same Atonement of Christ to realize it and all will have to face the same conclusions to live with Him irrespective of their relative ease.
Walden Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 14 minutes ago, CV75 said: They always existed. He created for them an invitation to follow Him, and sometimes they accept it and then change their minds, and then repent and change their minds again. Always existed? I thought in the beginning there was God, and then everything flowed out after that. If God didn't create these intelligences, then they always existed alongside God?
Walden Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 2 hours ago, CV75 said: I think He is relatively omniscient, and perfectly so as far as we are concerned. Yes, He can be "surprised," as He was with the brother of Jared seeing His finger. He knew it was possible, but didn't expect it. I think we can develop faster and in different ways than the opportunities He lays out for us to achieve a marginal level of progress which propels us to higher levels. To me, being omniscient isn't so much knowing a singular path for the future in granular detail (though to us it may seem that way), but knowing how to respond to and prepare for the unexpected decisions of the less-than-omniscient beings to whom He gave agency, and whose paths are invited to merge into His. I didn't realize that one could be "sort of" omniscient....I assumed either one is all-knowing, and thus omniscient, or one does not know everything, and thus is not omniscient.
changed Posted October 5, 2018 Author Posted October 5, 2018 2 hours ago, CV75 said: Some do seem to undergo a delicate process, but it took the same Atonement of Christ to realize it and all will have to face the same conclusions to live with Him irrespective of their relative ease. to live with Him... hard to talk yourself into wanting to live with someone who does not seem to provide much protection or support... 1
CV75 Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 3 hours ago, Walden said: Always existed? I thought in the beginning there was God, and then everything flowed out after that. If God didn't create these intelligences, then they always existed alongside God? That is how I’ve heard it to be taught, once we discuss the pre-mortal estate in more detail. "The beginning" refers to the beginning of our mortal reference point in time and space inasmuch as we can identify it. 1 hour ago, Walden said: I didn't realize that one could be "sort of" omniscient....I assumed either one is all-knowing, and thus omniscient, or one does not know everything, and thus is not omniscient. One man’s omniscience is another’s “sort of” omniscience. I think the more omniscient one is, the more flexibility, context and nuance he allows for various meanings and usages 😊 1 hour ago, changed said: to live with Him... hard to talk yourself into wanting to live with someone who does not seem to provide much protection or support... But He did provide that very protection and support in a setting “from before the foundation of the world,” so it makes sense that it would be fully realized in a setting after the “end of the world.” Ultimately, once we regain that perspective without the "veil," we will all relate to how appropriate that really turns out to be.
MiserereNobis Posted October 6, 2018 Posted October 6, 2018 2 hours ago, CV75 said: more omniscient This is like saying "more perfect." By definition, you are either omniscient or not.
MiserereNobis Posted October 6, 2018 Posted October 6, 2018 A (perhaps) interesting corollary to the idea of killing your child before they grow up and turn into a monster. In the LDS view, don't all children who die before the age of 8 go to the celestial kingdom? And if the celestial kingdom is the greatest thing we can attain, wouldn't it be a great gift to kill someone before they turn 8? Parents often say they would give their lives to save their children. Wouldn't giving up eternal life to assure your child eternal life fall into the same category?
bluebell Posted October 6, 2018 Posted October 6, 2018 10 hours ago, Anon the Great said: I agree with your reasoning until you drag the endpoint of outer darkness into the discussion. Your mind believes in the LDS revelations and one scripture that was added to the Bible to create the idea that we suffer forever in hell or outer darkness. Maybe you have never asked this question before, but it has very significant ramifications. I am simply inviting you to think about it, but I can say the answer is in the Bible, but the idea you believe was promoted after the 16th century, which can be proven by the theologians. The question is if Christ suffered for less that a day for the sins of the whole world, and yet, if we commit a sin and don't believe in Him, we will suffer for eternity in outer darkness (Mormons) or hell fire (Christians). Something is not making rational sense. This question will lead us to the right meaning of the cross that Paul taught. That’s not the Mormon belief though. 2
CV75 Posted October 6, 2018 Posted October 6, 2018 (edited) 21 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: This is like saying "more perfect." By definition, you are either omniscient or not. One man’s perfection is another’s “sort of” perfect. I think the more perfect one is, the more flexibility, context and nuance he allows for various meanings and usages 😊 Jesus did this when He said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Not only is this a command to attain perfection through Him, but His acceptance of our willingness to become so in our imperfection, rendering us perfect or at least perfect enough (for now). By definition, "omniscient" means knowing all, and knowing and all mean different things depending on the person and the context. Edited October 6, 2018 by CV75
CV75 Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 7 hours ago, Anon the Great said: Look at the context in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus it referring to be perfected in love, which is something humans can achieve as mortals. John wrote about this perfected love that has no fear. Yes, as mortals, which is not the same as achieving it as immortals. This is why it wasn't until after His resurrection, Jesus was able to say, and said, "Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect." (3 Nephi 12:48). That which God pronounces perfect in one sphere can be made more perfect, in comparison, in another. As Moroni 10:33 explains, that perfection in Christ by grace in mortality leads to perfection in the remission of sins, sanctification, spotlessness and holiness in the resurrection, which comes later: "And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot."
Recommended Posts