If the Book of Mormon is true...

[_jon]

Daniel, you will see from my listings that when a reasonable argument is presented I give it a fair hearing and have even shifted my ground as a result.

I may be acerbic and sometimes inappropriate, but immovable - no.

[_stemelbow]

Before we get sidetracked...

The Book of Mormon says God is unchangeable.

As does the D&C and New Testament.

The current Mormon doctrine says that God was once a man and has, therefore, changed.

Is God unchangeable?

I don't think the unchangeable refers to his whether God had been exalted though. It seems to be suggesting, at least I see it to God's ability to be, unlike humans, very consistent in what he teaches and proclaims. What's your impression fromthe context?

[_jon]

I don't think the unchangeable refers to his whether God had been exalted though. It seems to be suggesting, at least I see it to God's ability to be, unlike humans, very consistent in what he teaches and proclaims. What's your impression fromthe context?

I think the Church paints itself into corners by being unnecessarily prescriptive. I think this is one of those occasions.
I don't think we know wether God is unchangeable or not.
Is He consistent? Well Man's interpretation of Gods will isn't consistent.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Okay, then, here's my take on it, very briefly:

God's unchangeability, as announced in the scriptures, does not mean absolute immutability.

This is obviously not the case because the scriptural God is a person, and personality necessarily entails change. (An utterly immutable person wouldn't be a "person" at all, but something more akin to a rock. A completely unchanging person is a contradiction in terms.)

So what does it mean?

My sense is that it means that God is morally trustworthy. He will not swerve from what he has said. His promises can be believed. His purposes and character will not change. He is reliable, dependable. What he swears to do, he will do. Confidence in God's unchanging nature, in this regard, is essential to having faith in him. Metaphysical immutability, besides being irreconcilable with the scriptural data and theologically unnecessary (another point, which I haven't developed here), is not.

[_jon]

Okay, then, here's my take on it, very briefly:

God's unchangeability, as announced in the scriptures, does not mean absolute immutability.

This is obviously not the case because the scriptural God is a person, and personality necessarily entails change. (An utterly immutable person wouldn't be a "person" at all, but something more akin to a rock. A completely unchanging person is a contradiction in terms.)

So what does it mean?

My sense is that it means that God is morally trustworthy. He will not swerve from what he has said. His promises can be believed. His purposes and character will not change. He is reliable, dependable. What he swears to do, he will do. Confidence in God's unchanging nature, in this regard, is essential to having faith in him. Metaphysical immutability, besides being irreconcilable with the scriptural data and theologically unnecessary (another point, which I haven't developed here), is not.

I don't think that is unreasonable.
But I would challenge what we think we know about God's character because we are reliant on man's interpretations.
How do we know God?
1. Through scripture - like it or not, scripture is the word of men. It can be contradictory, confusing, inconsistent and sometimes, fairly plainly just wrong.
2. Through our Church leaders - again, sadly, like it or not, believe they speak to God or not, but our leaders are men and subject to inconsistencies in interpretation.
3. Through prayer - well, we can all interpret prayers the way we want to.

I think we allocate too much responsibility in this world to God and as such we set Him up to fail, to be inconsistent. I like Stephen Hawkings take on it, that God set the laws of nature (physics etc) and then doesn't interfere physically.

[_Fence Sitter]

Okay, then, here's my take on it, very briefly:

God's unchangeability, as announced in the scriptures, does not mean absolute immutability.

This is obviously not the case because the scriptural God is a person, and personality necessarily entails change. (An utterly immutable person wouldn't be a "person" at all, but something more akin to a rock. A completely unchanging person is a contradiction in terms.)

So what does it mean?

My sense is that it means that God is morally trustworthy. He will not swerve from what he has said. His promises can be believed. His purposes and character will not change. He is reliable, dependable. What he swears to do, he will do. Confidence in God's unchanging nature, in this regard, is essential to having faith in him. Metaphysical immutability, besides being irreconcilable with the scriptural data and theologically unnecessary (another point, which I haven't developed here), is not.

Is this part of why other Christians have a problem with calling us Christian, because we make God a 'person'? I think when you look very closely at the LDS God you find he is not omniscient, omnipotent nor omnipresent.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't think that is unreasonable.
But I would challenge what we think we know about God's character because we are reliant on man's interpretations.
How do we know God?
1. Through scripture - like it or not, scripture is the word of men. It can be contradictory, confusing, inconsistent and sometimes, fairly plainly just wrong.
2. Through our Church leaders - again, sadly, like it or not, believe they speak to God or not, but our leaders are men and subject to inconsistencies in interpretation.
3. Through prayer - well, we can all interpret prayers the way we want to.

Yes, everything is filtered through human minds, human passions, etc. We "see through a glass, darkly," as Paul put it.

I think we allocate too much responsibility in this world to God and as such we set Him up to fail, to be inconsistent. I like Stephen Hawkings take on it, that God set the laws of nature (physics etc) and then doesn't interfere physically.

I can't be a deist because I'm convinced of the Incarnation of Christ. I don't think that God intervenes constantly, but I believe that he sometimes does. And, in the Incarnation, he intervened in a major way.

Is this part of why other Christians have a problem with calling us Christian, because we make God a 'person'?

No, I think the vast majority of other Christians also believe God to be personal, or a person. We're far from alone in that.

I think when you look very closely at the LDS God you find he is not omniscient, omnipotent nor omnipresent.

I agree, at least in the sense that classical theism uses those terms.

This isn't a major or often-given reason that we're termed "non-Christian," though a few intellectually inclined critics may see it as a reason to do so. It is a genuine difference with mainstream Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, though.

[_jon]

Dan, I don't know that a God who picks and chooses when to intervene sits particularly well with the view that God is consistent.

For instance, if the recent story of the missionary being nibbled on by a lion was an example of God intervening to save his life, then why wouldn't God intervene to save the life of the missionary that was shot in South Africa (a while back)? We are left trying to explain the reasons why in one case and why not in the other. Or the default position of God works in mysterious ways.

Instinctively I know God is even handed and for me, religious attempts at explaining God's actions always end up inconsistent.

(we will have to get back to banterish sparring soon or people will start to talk...)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Dan, I don't know that a God who picks and chooses when to intervene sits particularly well with the view that God is consistent.

A consistent rule can result in varying effects. And we can't know that a rule isn't consistent if we don't know what it is.

For instance, if the recent story of the missionary being nibbled on by a lion was an example of God intervening to save his life, then why wouldn't God intervene to save the life of the missionary that was shot in South Africa (a while back)? We are left trying to explain the reasons why in one case and why not in the other. Or the default position of God works in mysterious ways.

I prefer the latter.

I can imagine a genuinely, consistently merciful, just, and wise person treating people differently for a number of reasons. I don't pretend to know what they are.

Instinctively I know God is even handed and for me, religious attempts at explaining God's actions always end up inconsistent.

I seldom attempt to explain God's actions. My suspicion is that he's wiser and smarter than I am.

(we will have to get back to banterish sparring soon or people will start to talk...)

You're a vile jerk.

Does that help?

[_ldsfaqs]

The statement "The Fullness of the Gospel" has TWO CONTEXTS within the Church.

The first context is in reference to the "Good News". That is that Christ came, to save us, asked us to be as he is etc.

The second context is in reference to all doctrines, practices, and ordinances of the Gospel of Christ as Restored to the earth.

It's really that simple. No need for conspiracy theory's or other anti-mormon degrading malarkey otherwise.