Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[Res Ipsa]

You're plowing old ground that we've been over. It's a dilemma that is built in to any claim that (1) God is omniscient; (2) Humans have free will; and (3) this life is an obedience test. You're not going to solve that by asking me questions.

It does you no good asking me about real choices. I've already told you that I'm agnostic on the issue of free will.

OK. I interested, however, in how non religious folks might describe the ‘perfect God’. Without changing anything in the world or humanity as it is.

Because it is what it is.

So what kind of God would fit in with a world such as it is?

Just a mind exercise.

Regards,
MG

You're asking me a nonsense question. Seriously. Us non-believers don't sit around designing hypothetical gods that we don't believe in. Unless they are fiction writers. It's like asking me to describe the "perfect" Santa Claus or the "perfect" Fairy Queen.

[MG 2.0]

OK. I interested, however, in how non religious folks might describe the ‘perfect God’. Without changing anything in the world or humanity as it is.

Because it is what it is.

So what kind of God would fit in with a world such as it is?

Just a mind exercise.

Regards,
MG

You're asking me a nonsense question. Seriously. Us non-believers don't sit around designing hypothetical gods that we don't believe in. Unless they are fiction writers. It's like asking me to describe the "perfect" Santa Claus or the "perfect" Fairy Queen.

OK. Maybe someone else will respond. I am asking for an exercise in imaginative thinking.

Sometimes folks will become non religious because of the evil in the world, physical suffering, etc.

I’m interested in finding out if anyone has played around with “God” and what type of God they could believe in, knowing that the world is what it is.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

I don't understand what you mean.

School of the prophets. Early 20th century adjustments. Jehovah. Elohim.

There was a guy from BYU a number of years ago that wrote a long book on the evolution of the LDS views towards God. I read the book but can’t remember his name right now.

Edit: just remembered. Charlie Harrell

https://gregkofford.com/products/this-is-my-doctrine

Regards,
MG

Thanks!

[Marcus]

In Mormonism, God participates with humans in a Universe He did not create and according to rules He did not make.
God cannot create or destroy matter.
God did not create our intelligences/spirits which are co-eternal with Him.
Human males can wield the same power God has (the priesthood) and can constrain Him with it.
And, divinization is still a thing in Mormonism. "You get a world and I get a world and everybody gets a world..."
Compare that God with one on whom everything depends and whose will controls everything.

So, yes, I do think the Mormon god is impotent.

The part about the human ability to constrain God doesn't ring a bell. Where is that found?

That triggered a memory about being able to compel god or something so I looked it up. I think it was based on this:

"I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise."
D&C 82:10

[MG 2.0]

School of the prophets. Early 20th century adjustments. Jehovah. Elohim.

There was a guy from BYU a number of years ago that wrote a long book on the evolution of the LDS views towards God. I read the book but can’t remember his name right now.

Edit: just remembered. Charlie Harrell

https://gregkofford.com/products/this-is-my-doctrine

Regards,
MG

Thanks!

It was a tough read. I had to do ‘dig deep’ in trying to fit the pieces of the puzzle together on that one! One of the most challenging books I’ve read.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

The part about the human ability to constrain God doesn't ring a bell. Where is that found?

That triggered a memory about being able to compel god or something so I looked it up. I think it was based on this:

"I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise."
D&C 82:10

Thanks. I took a look. That looks like a covenant to me. God is bound to keep his part of the covenant if we keep ours. I don't equate God saying he lives up to his end of an agreement as the power to constrain God.

[MG 2.0]

That triggered a memory about being able to compel god or something so I looked it up. I think it was based on this:

"I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise."
D&C 82:10

Thanks. I took a look. That looks like a covenant to me. God is bound to keep his part of the covenant if we keep ours. I don't equate God saying he lives up to his end of an agreement as the power to constrain God.

Pi A.I.:

In the LDS perspective, when we speak of God being "bound" or "obligated" to provide certain blessings, it's not meant to suggest that God is being limited or constrained in any way.

Rather, it's a way of emphasizing the reliability and consistency of God's promises, and the idea that God is faithful to his word and will fulfill his obligations when we fulfill ours.

LDS teachings also emphasize the idea that God is all-powerful and all-knowing, and that his will and purposes are ultimately beyond our full understanding.

So while God may be "bound" to fulfill certain promises, this doesn't mean that he is limited or constrained in his power or ability to act in other ways. Rather, it's a way of emphasizing the importance of our own obedience and faithfulness in accessing the blessings that God has promised us.

Now the second anointing seems to be something else. I think that was brought up earlier.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

That triggered a memory about being able to compel god or something so I looked it up. I think it was based on this:

"I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise."
D&C 82:10

Thanks. I took a look. That looks like a covenant to me. God is bound to keep his part of the covenant if we keep ours. I don't equate God saying he lives up to his end of an agreement as the power to constrain God.

I don't either, but I remember someone teaching it as though 'man could compel god' that way. Maybe in seminary?

[Gadianton]

I read this as a reductio ad absurdum argument: if there were no repentance, that would mean that God would cease to be God. But that would be absurd because God does not cease to be God. Therefore, there must be repentance.

My post wasn't really dependent on this scripture, it was just nice to have. The post was about what it would mean for God to have freewill with a glorified body.

Reading the verses again, after how many years or decades, it's obvious you are right. If God were to make PI 4.7 he would cease to be God. I'll have to play my Chapel Mormon credibility card now, that I clearly recall this verse used to make the point that God could fall if he didn't keep his footing on that razor's edge.

[Fence Sitter]

Thanks. I took a look. That looks like a covenant to me. God is bound to keep his part of the covenant if we keep ours. I don't equate God saying he lives up to his end of an agreement as the power to constrain God.

I don't either, but I remember someone teaching it as though 'man could compel god' that way. Maybe in seminary?

There are three people involved in a temple marriage, the couple and the officiator. The couple are equal partners with God in a covenant and are not the ones constraining God. The officiator, on the other hand, is not making any agreement or covenant with God. He is exercising the priesthood to seal the couple together and God is constrained to accept that sealing.