Fundamental Mormon Claims

[_bcspace]

I wonder then if you could be so kind as to clarify LDS doctrines and fix my forty years of perplexity in regard to the basic gospel preached by Jesus Christ and ignored by all things LDS. Why is this skated over and not taught proficiently and the accomplishment of the same manifested in an manner that bespeaks competency? How is an imperceptible process not making more of less of it?

DCP is right. The doctrines are clear and consistent. For example:

As the Holy Ghost dwells in us, His purifying presence burns out the filthiness of sin. As soon as the commitment is made, the cleansing process begins”

[_Markk]

Hi BC,

Did you take a look at GTTA? would you agree with this...

"**The Order of Gods.** God has had no beginning and will have no end. From the first, by the exercise of his will, he has constantly acquired new knowledge and thereby new power. Because of the wisdom which he has gained, and the love thereby begotten for the unnumbered hosts of striving intelligent beings, he formulated the plan which will lead them readily and correctly in the way of continued progression. In so far as man accepts the plan of salvation he is being educated by God, to become even as God is. God and man are of the same race, differing only in their degrees of advancement. True, to our finite minds, God is infinitely beyond our stage of progress. Nevertheless, man is of the order of Gods, else he cannot know God."

MG

[_bcspace]

Did you take a look at GTTA?

I did sign up but am still unable to read it. Seems like it's checked out already.

would you agree with this...

"**The Order of Gods.** God has had no beginning and will have no end. From the first, by the exercise of his will, he has constantly acquired new knowledge and thereby new power. Because of the wisdom which he has gained, and the love thereby begotten for the unnumbered hosts of striving intelligent beings, he formulated the plan which will lead them readily and correctly in the way of continued progression. In so far as man accepts the plan of salvation he is being educated by God, to become even as God is. God and man are of the same race, differing only in their degrees of advancement. True, to our finite minds, God is infinitely beyond our stage of progress. Nevertheless, man is of the order of Gods, else he cannot know God."

Doesn't seem different from extant LDS doctrine. That God was once a mortal man is official doctrine, never denied by Hinckley etc.

[_Markk]

Doesn't seem different from extant LDS doctrine. That God was once a mortal man is official doctrine, never denied by Hinckley etc.

I had it checked out, Try again.

Do you believe the quote? It is from a early priesthood manual by Widtsoe.

Do you believe that God is growing in power and knowledge? DCP once told me that God does not know what man will do in his decision making...ie., He can not read mans mind, would you agree with that?

GBH just wasn't sure the church taught it, at least on two occasions that I am aware of if I remember correctly. I also remember allot LDS folks agreeing with GBH that it was not a teaching.

MG

[_Daniel Peterson]

DCP once told me that God does not know what man will do in his decision making...

I think the future is genuinely undetermined, and, thus, not knowable in detail. Not even by an omniscient being. Even such a being can only know things that are knowable.

ie., He can not read mans mind

That's a non sequitur, I never said it, and I don't believe it.

[Guest]

DCP once told me that God does not know what man will do in his decision making...

I think the future is genuinely undetermined, and, thus, not knowable in detail. Not even by an omniscient being. Even such a being can only know things that are knowable.

ie., He can not read mans mind

That's a non sequitur, I never said it, and I don't believe it.

I do not believe you can separate the two in this context. I'll ask you the same question I asked you back then, which you never replied..." then how does God know the future in the context of man's decision making...i.e., How did God/Christ know that Peter would deny Him 3 times." He either knew the future, or Peter's free agency was messed with by God. This is a simple example, we can certainly come up with scores of others.

From a LDS perspective how did God know all the pieces would fall in place for the Book of Mormon story to unfold as it did...i.e., a book that could not be read? Or the sticks in Ezek.? Allot of things had to happen in order for it to play out the way it did if God did not know what these men, and women, would do...again, unless it was by predestination, and these men and women had no choice? I'm not sure you're ready to fall into the reformed camp yet Dan, I know you're not a fan of Calvin.

{edit} What about the LDS patriarchal blessing...are these just guesses? While we most likely disagree with the definition of the biblical teaching of God's "foreknowledge", what is your interpretation of this doctrine.

Right or wrong this is certainly a fundamental difference in our respective faiths.

Here is a teaching of the church in a 1915 priesthood manual...A Rational Theology As Taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," by John A. Widtsoe. It was published for the Use of the Melchizedek Priesthood by the General Priesthood Committee in 1915)

Would you hold the line that it might be through the Holy Spirit that God can know the future for "future type revelations?"

**By the Holy Spirit.** God is a personal being of body—a body limited in extent. He cannot, therefore, at a given moment be personally everywhere. Time and space surround him as they surround us. It is difficult to believe that God can in person answer the numberless petitions reaching his throne. Nevertheless, it is known distinctly that God, by his power, will and word is everywhere present. It is almost as difficult to believe that, in spite of the hosts of heavenly beings, personal administrations are possible in the great majority of the countless petitions to God. God must be, therefore, in possession of other agencies whereby his will may be transmitted at his pleasure to the uttermost confines of space. The chief agent employed by God to communicate his will to the universe is the holy spirit, which must not be confused with the Holy Ghost, the personage who is the third member of the Godhead. The holy spirit permeates all the things of the universe, material and spiritual. By the holy spirit the will of God is transmitted. It forms what may be called the great wireless system of communication among the intelligent beings of the universe. The holy spirit vibrates with intelligence; it takes up the word and will of God as given by him or by his personal agents, and transmits the message to the remotest parts of space. By the intelligent domination and infinite extent of the holy spirit, the whole universe is held together and made as one whole. By its means there is no remoteness into which intelligent beings may escape the dominating will of God. By the holy spirit, God is always with us, and "is nearer than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet." The intelligent earthly manifestations of the holy spirit are commonly spoken of as the natural forces. It is conceivable that the thunders and the lightnings, the movements of the heavenly bodies, the ebb and flow of the oceans, and all the phenomena known to man, are only manifestations of the will of God as transmitted and spread by the measureless, inexhaustible, infinite, all-conducting holy spirit.
By the holy spirit, which fills every person, man may obtain information from God. By its means come the messages which transcend the ordinary methods of acquiring knowledge. By it man may readily communicate with God, or God with him. When a person utters his prayer in faith it is impressed upon the holy spirit, and transmitted, so that God may read the man's desire.
This doctrine of a rational theology has been duplicated in a modest way by the development of wireless telegraphy. According to science, the universe is filled with a subtle substance called the ether, on the waves of which the message is spread throughout the universe to be taken up by any person who has the proper receiving apparatus.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think the future is genuinely undetermined, and, thus, not knowable in detail. Not even by an omniscient being. Even such a being can only know things that are knowable.

Hello,

I just had a double take moment.

V/R
Dr. Cameron

[_Daniel Peterson]

I do not believe you can separate the two in this context.

I believe that they can be separated.

That is my belief, so I'll thank you, next time you're purporting to explain what I believe, if you get it right.

I'll ask you the same question I asked you back then, which you never replied..."

I don't recall seeing this question before.

then how does God know the future in the context of man's decision making...i.e., How did God/Christ know that Peter would deny Him 3 times." He either knew the future, or Peter's free agency was messed with by God. This is a simple example, we can certainly come up with scores of others.

It's actually one of the best examples for your position, and one of the best challenges to mine.

I do believe that God knows the thoughts of our hearts, so that's one contributing factor. However, I also think it just possible that this wasn't even a prophecy but, rather, a command: Peter needed to survive in order to rally and lead the other apostles in Christ's absence. His usual courageous impetuousness had to be restrained. And he hated it. Hence the weeping.

How, more generally, does God know the future, given human decisions? First, he knows everything that there is to be known. (He knows us, for example, far better, far more comprehensively and insightfully, than even the most observant parent knows even the most unpredictable child.) Second, he is unfathomably intelligent and wise. This makes him an infinitely good chess player -- and really good chess players, even on the human level, can and do foretell and forearm against contingencies. Third, he is very, very powerful. Some prophecies are, it seems to me, largely or even wholly announcements of what he intends to do. And that is completely within his power.

From a LDS perspective how did God know all the pieces would fall in place for the Book of Mormon story to unfold as it did...i.e., a book that could not be read? Or the sticks in Ezek.? Allot of things had to happen in order for it to play out the way it did if God did not know what these men, and women, would do...again, unless it was by predestination, and these men and women had no choice?

See above.

I'm not sure you're ready to fall into the reformed camp yet Dan, I know you're not a fan of Calvin.

I admire certain aspects of Calvin's thinking. (I've published, to the best of my recollection, only one item -- a Meridian magazine column -- on Calvin, and it was very positive.) But you're right: I don't buy predestination, and I reject TULIP.

What about the LDS patriarchal blessing...are these just guesses? While we most likely disagree with the definition of the biblical teaching of God's "foreknowledge", what is your interpretation of this doctrine.

See above.

Right or wrong this is certainly a fundamental difference in our respective faiths.

Probably.

Here is a teaching of the church in a 1915 priesthood manual...A Rational Theology As Taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," by John A. Widtsoe. It was published for the Use of the Melchizedek Priesthood by the General Priesthood Committee in 1915)

I think Elder Widtsoe was on to something, and I like A Rational Theology very much, but I would quibble with his exact formulation.

I don't see the distinction between Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit as sustainable in the scriptures that we have. Ghost and spirit are simply, respectively, Germanic and Latinate synonyms. However, the distinction might be a useful one, provided that we don't try to read it into earlier canonical texts.

The concept of the "ether" (or "luminiferous aether") was on its way out in 1915, though some have sought to revive it. I'm hesitant to tie theological concepts to scientific theories that might or might not survive new discoveries.

Would you hold the line that it might be through the Holy Spirit that God can know the future for "future type revelations?"

I don't know precisely how God knows. To know that, I would need to be very close to being God, and I'm not.

[_Markk]

I believe that they can be separated.

That is my belief, so I'll thank you, next time you're purporting to explain what I believe, if you get it right.

I honestly do not see how you can separate the two, if I misinterpreted your ideology here, I apologize.

However, I also think it just possible that this wasn't even a prophecy but, rather, a command: Peter needed to survive in order to rally and lead the other apostles in Christ's absence. His usual courageous impetuousness had to be restrained. And he hated it. Hence the weeping.

Come on Dan, that is not what the text says, it is an argument of silence and pure eisegesis. This kind of reasoning would destroy prophetic scripture...i.e., "That many will receive the mark of the beast." Are you saying that Jesus/God knows this WILL happen because it is a commandment?"..." He commanded the Roman soldiers to gamble for His robe?" You have opened a can of worms with that argument that I doubt even you could honestly defend...but?

How, more generally, does God know the future, given human decisions? First, he knows everything that there is to be known. (He knows us, for example, far better, far more comprehensively and insightfully, than even the most observant parent knows even the most unpredictable child.) Second, he is unfathomably intelligent and wise. This makes him an infinitely good chess player -- and really good chess players, even on the human level, can and do foretell and forearm against contingencies. Third, he is very, very powerful. Some prophecies are, it seems to me, largely or even wholly announcements of what he intends to do. And that is completely within his power.

You are clearly out of your comfort zone here Dan, and this goes back to my statement that "you guys" have a tough time with theology, even your own. It is much easier to spin history, rather than to systematize your theology... in that LDS theology is evolving, growing, assimilating, and for lack of a better term, being circumcised or cut away from.

Joseph Smith wrote:

Therefore, God's omniscience is not solely a function of prolonged and discerning familiarity with us -- but of the stunning reality that the past and present and future are part of an "eternal now" with God! (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 4:597.)...

Neal Maxwell Wrote;

You are asking about the foreknowledge, or omniscience of God. This notion comes from the Lord's own words when he introduced himself to Abraham, saying: "My name is Jehovah, and I know the end from the beginning ..." (Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 2:8)

This is what Elder Neal A. Maxwell wrote about the Lord's foreknowledge (a long but very good quotation):

"Rather than questioning God's foreseeing of "all these things" in each of our lives, this perfected quality in God should fill us with wonderment and send us to our knees. Worshipful acknowledgment of an omniscient God will cause us to cooperate in the stretching of our souls. ...

"Since we cannot fully comprehend any one of God's perfected attributes, we surely cannot comprehend them in the aggregate. But we can have faith in Him and in His attributes as He has described these to us. This is what He asks of us. We may say that this is a lot to ask, but anything less will not do.

"Because of His omniscience and foreknowledge, God is, therefore, able to see His plan unfold safely. If He were less than omniscient and did not, in fact, operate out of perfect foreknowledge, His plan of salvation would by now be in shambles.

"The Father needed to know, for instance (and know long before assignments were given in the premortal world), that Jesus Christ would not break in Gethsemane or upon Calvary, refusing to yield up His special life. He needed to know that Joseph Smith could sustain all of the pressures that would be brought to bear upon him without coming apart. He needed to know that certain of the translations of the Book of Mormon would be lost and that substitute plates needed to be ready to fill in the gap. (Words of Mormon 1:6-7; D&C 3:10.) God even knew centuries before that the great restoring latter-day prophet would, like his father, bear the name of Joseph and not Walter. (2 Nephi 3:15.)

"One might multiply examples of this foreknowledge which grows out of God's omniscience, end upon end. Suffice it to say, we are safe in knowing that one of the perfected attributes of our Father in heaven is knowledge. No wonder the Prophet Joseph taught that if men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves.

"God is never surprised (fantasy stories to the contrary) by unexpected arrivals in the spirit world because of unforeseen deaths. But we must always distinguish between God's being able to foresee and His causing or desiring something to happen, a very important distinction! God foresaw the fall of His beloved David but did not cause it. (See D&C 132:39.) Sending for Bathsheba was David's decision, and even her battle-weary husband Uriah's sleeping loyally by David's door was not enough to bring a by then devious and determined David to his senses. (2 Samuel 11:9.)

"By foreseeing, God can plan and His purposes can be fulfilled, but He does this in a way that does not in the least compromise our individual free agency, any more than an able meteorologist causes the weather rather than forecasts it. Part of the reason for this is our forgetfulness of our earlier experiences and the present inaccessibility of the knowledge and understanding we achieved there. The basic reason, of course, is that, as we decide and act, we do not know what God knows. Our decisions are made in our context, not His.

"Some find the doctrines of the omniscience and foreknowledge of God troubling because these seem, in some way, to constrict their individual agency. This concern springs out of a failure to distinguish between how it is that God knows with perfection what is to come but that we do not know, thus letting a very clear and simple doctrine get obscured by our own finite view of things.

"Personality patterns, habits, strengths, and weaknesses observed by God over a long period in the premortal world would give God a perfect understanding of what we would do under a given set of circumstances--especially when He knows the circumstances to come. Just because we cannot compute all the variables, just because we cannot extrapolate does not mean that He cannot do so. Omniscience is, of course, one of the essences of Godhood; it sets Him apart in such an awesome way from all of us even though, on a smaller scale, we manage to do a little foreseeing ourselves at times with our own children even with our rather finite and imperfect minds.

"Ever to be emphasized, however, is the reality that God's "seeing" is not the same thing as His "causing" something to happen.

"We must not approach God as if He were somehow constrained by finite knowledge and by time. ..." (All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience, pp.18-20)

I understand that there are different camps withing LDS history on this, what cf would you use for your " God can only know what is knowable" theory?

While I disagree with most the LDS views theology proper, I agree with NM here in overall theory.

More later

MG

[_bcspace]

Do you believe the quote? It is from a early priesthood manual by Widtsoe.

I had no problem with it.

Do you believe that God is growing in power and knowledge?

Relative to man? No, God is already omni relative to man. Relative to the Gods? Yes.

DCP once told me that God does not know what man will do in his decision making...ie., He can not read mans mind, would you agree with that?

I believe God can read man's mind past and present and know to within a great deal of accuracy what a man will decide.

GBH just wasn't sure the church taught it, at least on two occasions that I am aware of if I remember correctly.

I know exactly what you are refering to. You don't seem to remember correctly at all. At worst GBH was thinking out loud as he formulated an answer that didn't put milk before meat. His formulated answer did not include not being sure the Church taught it.

I also remember allot LDS folks agreeing with GBH that it was not a teaching.

As I said before, such LDS would be considered unbelieving apostates or new members in every area of the Church.