Certain people can't ever get it right

[huckelberry]

Thanks Chap and Gadianton for digging up that early Mormon reference. It is a clear use of traditional theology about Gods knowledge and time. My fading memory of statement by Aquinas on this connected to his view that events all flow from the mind of God and flow back to that source. This has some suggestion, perhaps not required that events are finite and eternity is in God. I think that indicates that Gadianton was correct to doubt whether the phrase fits into the rest of Mormon thought. Well perhaps careful construction could house the various ideas.

[Chap]

Thanks Chap and Gadianton for digging up that early Mormon reference. It is a clear use of traditional theology about Gods knowledge and time. My fading memory of statement by Aquinas on this connected to his view that events all flow from the mind of God and flow back to that source. This has some suggestion, perhaps not required that events are finite and eternity is in God. I think that indicates that Gadianton was correct to doubt whether the phrase fits into the rest of Mormon thought. Well perhaps careful construction could house the various ideas.

During my searching I found that Neil Maxwell referred to 'eternal now' several times, for what it (or he) is worth ...

https://math.byu.edu/~grant/avoc/religion/nam.txt

1979
----

"The Lord Himself said that He `knoweth all things, for all things
are present' before Him. (D&C 38:2.) We read, too, that `all
things are present with me, for I know them all.' (Moses 1:6.)
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 A.
Maxwell, All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience, pp. 7,8.)

"Since-unlike for us enclosed by the veil-things are, for God, one
"eternal now," it is to be remembered that for God to foresee is
not to cause or even to desire a particular occurrence-but it is
to take that occurrence into account beforehand, so that divine
reckoning folds it into the unfolding purposes of God." (Neal A.
Maxwell, All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience, p. 12.)

"Several cautionary notes are necessary-even urgent. We may be
surprised at the turn of events, but God in His omniscience never
is. He sees the beginning from the end because all things are, in
a way which we do not understand, present before Him
simultaneously in an `eternal now.' Further, the arithmetic of
anguish is something we mortals cannot comprehend. We cannot do
the sums because we do not have all the numbers. We are locked in
the dimension of time and are contained within the tight
perspectives of this second estate." (Neal A. Maxwell, All These
Things Shall Give Thee Experience, pp. 37.)

1983
----

"But modern revelations make it abundantly clear that God is not
`in time' in the manner that we mortals are. This is precisely
what some able and perceptive commentators have surmised as they
have wrestled sincerely with this dilemma, though without `plain
and precious' modern scriptures. For example, the philosopher
Boethius described in the fifth century how `God is outside of
time and does not foresee the future; rather, he sees it in an
"eternal now" that is equally present to all parts of time. God
did not know yesterday what I will do tomorrow; he sees timelessly
in eternity "what I am doing" in the future just as he sees what I
am doing now. We must be careful not to conclude that since past,
present, and future are equally present to God, they are equally
present to each other. Both space and time are real, not just
illusions, but God created them both and is not bound by either.'
Besides, we mortals make our decisions within our framework of
understanding, not God's. The modern revelations give needed
clarification and confirmation concerning God's omniscience
through these significant insights when laid alongside those from
the Bible: `His understanding is infinite.' (Psalm 147:5.) `God .
. . knoweth all things.' (1 John 3:20.) `And hath made of one
blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the
earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the
bounds of their habitation.' (Acts 17:26.) `O how great the
holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not
anything save he knows it.' (2 Nephi 9:20.) 5`The Lord knoweth all
things from the beginning; wherefore, he prepareth a way to
accomplish all his works among the children of men; for behold, he
hath all power unto the fulfilling of all his words. And thus it
is. Amen.' (1 Nephi 9:6.) `In the presence of God . . . all things
for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are
continually before the Lord.' (D&C 130:7. See also 88:41.) `All
things are present before mine eyes.' (D&C 38:2.) `All things are
present with me, for I know them all.' (Moses 1:6.) These verses
confirm what has been referred to as `the eternal now'-within
which God exists, so that He sees rather than foresees." (Neal A.
Maxwell, Plain and Precious Things, p. 57.)

2003
----

"Our own intellectual shortfalls and perplexities do not alter the
fact of God’s astonishing foreknowledge, which takes into account
our choices for which we are responsible. Amid the mortal and
fragmentary communiques and the breaking news of the day
concerning various human conflicts, God lives in an eternal now
where the past, present, and future are constantly before Him (see
D&C 130:7)." (Neal A. Maxwell, "Care for the Life of the Soul",
Ensign, May 2003, p. 70.)

Maxwell's reference to Boethius (c. 477 – 524 AD) may be this part of the Consolation of Philosophy (V, 432-433 in Loeb Classical Library edition):

Omne namque futurum divinus praecurrit intuitus et ad praesentiam propriae cognitionis retorquet ac revocat nec alternat, ut aestimas, nunc hoc nunc illud praenoscendi vice, sed uno ictu mutationes tuas 155 manens praevenit atque complectitur. Quam comprehendendi omnia visendique praesentiam non ex futurarum proventu rerum, sed ex propria deus simplicitate sortitus est. Ex quo illud quoque resolvitur quod paulo ante posuisti indignum esse, si 160 scientiae dei causam futura nostra praestare dicantur. Haec enim scientiae vis praesentaria notione cuncta complectens rebus modum omnibus ipsa constituit, nihil vero posterioribus debet.

For the divine perception runs ahead over every future event and turns it back and recalls it to the present of its own knowledge, and does not alternate, as you suggest, foreknowing now this, now that, but itself remaining still anticipates and embraces your changes at one stroke. And God possesses this present instant of comprehension and sight of all things not from the issuing of future events but from his own simplicity. In this way that too is resolved which you suggested a little while ago, that it is not right that our future actions should be said to provide the cause of the knowledge of God. For the nature of his knowledge as we have described it, embracing all things in a present act of knowing, establishes a measure for everything, but owes nothing to later events.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

So, God is a 4th dimensional being. Cool.

- Doc

[huckelberry]

I do not know if it adds anything to the discussion but personally I have , it seems always, to find the idea of God being outside of time in a way that all time is visible to God as absurd. I am inclined to think it is a mistaken speculation. Of course I am not one who knows for sure about such things.Aquinas constructs an extensive thought experiment in support of the idea. I do not find it aesthetically attractive.

[Lem]

I do not know if it adds anything to the discussion but personally I have , it seems always, to find the idea of God being outside of time in a way that all time is visible to God as absurd. I am inclined to think it is a mistaken speculation. Of course I am not one who knows for sure about such things.Aquinas constructs an extensive thought experiment in support of the idea. I do not find it aesthetically attractive.

Fair warning, I am an atheist, so I am not speaking of a god being outside time, but regarding the general concept, have you read Ted Chiang's short story, "Story of Your Life" ? The 2016 movie Arrival was based on this work. Chiang's writing is so poignant and thoughtful, and yet, his works definitely qualify as hard science fiction. His thoughts on this are fascinating, and I thought the movie captured his position really well. To me, still in the realm of fiction, but fascinating to contemplate.

[Chap]

I do not know if it adds anything to the discussion but personally I have , it seems always, to find the idea of God being outside of time in a way that all time is visible to God as absurd. I am inclined to think it is a mistaken speculation. Of course I am not one who knows for sure about such things.Aquinas constructs an extensive thought experiment in support of the idea. I do not find it aesthetically attractive.

I'm an ex-theist*. I'll let you into a terrible secret: when I was a (classical western, sort of Episcopalian) Christian I found many of the things that my fellow believers said about our deity absurd. I dealt with that by saying that it was not to be expected that our finite human understanding could compass the reality of the divine, but thanks to the incarnation of our deity in Jesus we had been given a human-friendly route to approach, and in some way to comprehend, the divine.

Now I am no longer a Christian, or any kind of theist. That has freed me to say that I find that any attempt by tiny human insects working with a little blob of grey electric porridge in their skulls to say anything at all about the supposed entity that is over and above the cosmos of which they form a part and which he created and sustains, and which includes not only the laws of physics but even the structures of logic is simply laughably presumptuous. It's like imagining a character like Zelda forming an idea of what it is like to be the creator of a video game. It was, in part, that realisation that led me out of theism - a system which, taken seriously in its classic form, seems to me to be necessarily empty of non-contradictory and non-tautological propositions.

That, I must concede, is where Mormonism wins big time: Heavenly Father is an exalted human with a material body, who did not create the cosmos, but lives in it like we do. Such an object of worship (if he exists) can be spoken of in ways that might potentially convey real and verifiable information about him.

Now aren't you sorry you apostasized? You had it easy.

*A person who no longer believes in what we may call for short a 'personal' deity - one who does things, loves or does not love certain things, people, or actions, cares about what might happens in the world he created, listens to people who talk to him, and so on.

[huckelberry]

I do not know if it adds anything to the discussion but personally I have , it seems always, to find the idea of God being outside of time in a way that all time is visible to God as absurd. I am inclined to think it is a mistaken speculation. Of course I am not one who knows for sure about such things.Aquinas constructs an extensive thought experiment in support of the idea. I do not find it aesthetically attractive.

Fair warning, I am an atheist, so I am not speaking of a god being outside time, but regarding the general concept, have you read Ted Chiang's short story, "Story of Your Life" ? The 2016 movie Arrival was based on this work. Chiang's writing is so poignant and thoughtful, and yet, his works definitely qualify as hard science fiction. His thoughts on this are fascinating, and I thought the movie captured his position really well. To me, still in the realm of fiction, but fascinating to contemplate.

Lem, I have not read the story. Curiosity caused me to review Wikapedia for some clue. I find my mid stuck in the rut that says where light lands is determined by the fastest route. Or perhaps cause and effect are linked in a fashion where no space expist between the two. I do not see a path for seeing a determined future or preventing humans from making different decisions with more knowledge of outcomes than they would with less.

[mentalgymnast]

I ask this from a perspective of looking at time as part of an eternal now

The Mormon "eternal now" idea is sheer nonsense. Feel free to show otherwise by defining it.

I’ve been away from my iPad for a few days, just coming back. Looks like a lot has happened on this thread. My expression of eternal now and it’s meaning parallels some of the things that gadianton and others have posted. Thanks for doing the footwork this time around. Elder Maxwell’s comment:

We cannot do the sums because we do not have all the numbers.

...resonates with me. Back to the Sorites Paradox. We literally do not have the numbers of grains of sand in a heap, and yet we know a heap when we see it. And there is not just one ‘measurement’ that makes a heap. Different heaps have different grain counts. If we take a grain away from any one heap do we still have a heap? Of course. Unless we continue to subtract and at some point subjectively determine that we don’t. But relative to other heaps we may still have a heap. It’s all relative.

We don’t have all the numbers, and when we think we do, we don’t. We can’t measure eternity if it is one eternal round AND WE DON’T HAVE ALL THE NUMBERS. If I’m not mistaken, I think physics guy, with all of his expertise, is pretty much saying this. Aren’t our numbers/measurements contingent on spatial characteristics of a three dimensional structure? What happens when you get ‘outside’ (is that even the right word to use?) of the constraints of this structure? Do our numbers (knowing that it is debatable as to what a number even is or represents) even have meaning at that point?

Does God play three dimensional golf like we do? I doubt it. But he may play golf. Would it look like golf to us? Are there are a lot of other things He does differently? We place our understanding as a template on top of God to then try and understand Him...and eternity. So to say that God is in and through all things and ‘lives’ in the eternal now is not an unreasonable idea to put out there. And it just so happens that LDS doctrine fits in nicely within that paradigm. Look at the Book of Mormon for instance. God knew Mary’s name before she was ever born in the flesh,etc.

One might assume that He does have all the numbers. It is humbling to consider that we don’t. Isn’t it?

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

That, I must concede, is where Mormonism wins big time: Heavenly Father is an exalted human with a material body, who did not create the cosmos, but lives in it like we do. Such an object of worship (if he exists) can be spoken of in ways that might potentially convey real and verifiable information about him.

Now aren't you sorry you apostasized? You had it easy.

Chap,
I think Mormons notice the advantage that you point to here. It is of real importance to believers. However it is a blit less simple. You noted in finding the eternal now quite that there is some overlap however. I remember in more in a thing called lectures on faith which is no longer Mormon scripture. At least in my ancient memory there is a pointing to an eternal glory with is the source or basis of divine power. That idea has much in common with classic theism. It is the answer to what is the source of divine power for a being once mortal like us.

I think your point is solid that anything in proximity to peoples idea of God is something beyond our understanding and ability to deliniate.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

... an eternal glory with is the source or basis of divine power.

What the hell does that mean?

- Doc