The Limits of God's Power

[Moksha]

The limitations of God's power is beyond me. I'm still back trying to better understand the nature of God. I know that God is good, but trying to put that into a full context in my understanding and to enact that understanding in my life is such a task.

When Snow writes, "Another way to look at it is that God's essential nature is moral, good, just..." it rings true. When he speaks of God being internally consistant with goodness as part of his essential nature, that rings true as well. I think he is onto something.

[Dr T]

That's what I think too and what I mean by only being bound by His nature.

[Gatorman]

Pam - No more argumentative than Snow's original post. No, I am not posting this simply to argue with Snow.

That being said, back on topic. This statement will seem harsh, but it is what I believe and it is NOT meant as an attack on anyone. I believe that ANYONE trying to limit Heavenly Father to a set of definitions limited on our understanding of science, morality, the world, history, or anything, does not understand the nature of Heavenly Father.

Our understanding of morality is limited. Snow hypothesizes that Heavenly Father would not have killed the children of Egypt, because he is 'good'. I look at that occurence and say, 'What a miracle. Heavenly Father kept his promise to look out for the people of Israel. He performed an act that should have made clear his existence to the Egyptians. And, he kept his word to Pharoah. He said that he would do unto Pharoah whatever Pharoah chose to do next. Pharoah chose the punishment. I love my children and sometimes they require punishments that are 'mean' to them. And, often, they don't understand what is going on or why I can be so 'mean'. They only understand it based on their knowledge and learning so far. But, since I have grown up, I have learned that my parents were not mean. They did what seemed mean to my limited knowledge at the time, but, which I understand completely differently based on my further light and knowledge.

To me, the idea of Heavenly Father's power being limited just grates. It is again based on our understanding of the world. Guess what? We are flawed, simple, stupid, animals, compared to Heavenly Father. Our understanding of the world is so flawed and wrong, that, in the hereafter, we will see how silly we were. The idea of a 4 sided triangle is not a matter of definition to me. It is a matter that I believe that Heavenly Father is omnipotent. He could do whatever he wanted, if he so chose to. Of course, if in the end I am wrong, it will not limit my faith in him I just refuse to try to constrain Heavely Father and make him less than he is or can be. I choose to excercise my faith in him greater than my faith in myself and my own knowledge.

Now, ideas that Heavenly Father is constrained, that he can not or has not performed the miracles the scriptures teach us about because it does not line up with science, etc, smacks of a greater faith in science and in man than in Heavenly Father. I have never suggested science is bad or that it should be ignored. But, you will also NEVER find me suggesting that science should disprove scripture, disprove the nature of Heavenly Father, or disprove faith. And, to put it bluntly, these topics SUGGEST exactly that. If it is not the intent of posters who post these types of statements, then, they may desire to look at what they are accomplishing, rather than their intent. Because it may be based on ignorance, I post the following to help, not attack. Snow, these posts suggest to myself and others that you place science and your own understanding as higher and superior to Heavenly Father. Your posts suggest that Heavenly Father is not the great Heavenly Father we are taught he is and that we should attempt to constrain his ability and power to our own understanding of him. If I were to go by your posts of this nature alone, I would be stuck assuming that you were not only a non believer, but, that your mission in life was to try to destroy the faith of other people, to try to make them look foolish and stupid, and to cast their beliefs into doubt. I believe the scriptures warns us to be careful that our actions NEVER do that, even when it is not our intent. I am not saying that this is your intent. I am simply stating that it is an unintending consequence. So far, my faith has protected me from that unintended consequence, which I am grateful for. I say this, not simply because it is what I feel, but because I have spoken with others who have stated it just as plainly as I do. And, I also read posts by some people and see the same thing. Now, I know that this is likely not what your intent is, because the moderators would have long ago stopped someone who was truly trying to do this. It is why I do comment on your posts and get as serious about them as I do. I can not let stand your suppositions without stating my position, so others, who might have their faith shaken, can understand that, as intelligent as you post and as knowledgeable as you appaer to be, there are other ways to look at things which may be right. Your posts come off as if you are sure in your perfect knowledge of the world, as if you are a scholar and a scriptorian. But, at the same time, based on the posts alone, it appears as if for all your knowledge, you don't have a true faith in our Heavenly Father. I choose to believe that is because of the limitations of forum posting which removes some of our normal, human communication queues.

I had not meant this to be this long. I do not mean this as an attack. I simple am trying to share how your posts come across to many, so you may choose your course. In the end, it is your course. And, I am sure I come across as a simpleton and a fool to you. I probably seem like I refuse to look critically at the scriptures and to question. And, it is for this reason that I choose to believe it is simply how you come across on the forum, and not because you are the type of person your posts suggest. Because, Snow, I am not as simple, foolish, or dogmatic as you would probably believe.

[mdfxdb]

I just read through this thread, and maybe I don't fully understand what the posters are saying, but i'll give the gist of my understanding. It has been stated that God is omnipotent, and as such he can do crazy things like make 4 sided triangles. I firmly believe that God is omnipotent, but he is in fact constrained by natural laws that either have always existed, or he created. God himself clearly states there are things he cannot do or he would cease to be God. For example, can God defy gravity? I think the answer is no. Take that as you will, but fill in any other natural law and ask yourself if God can change them. I believe he cannot. However, God does know how to work within the constraints of natural laws to accomplish the things he would have done, just as man has learned to do. We can fly, does any one doubt that God can fly? We have learned to work with the laws of gravity, and overcome the constraints presented to us in order to accomplish flight. Why can't God do the same thing, and still have to obey the laws of nature? Saying that God can and does have a better understanding of the laws of nature, and knows how to overcome their constraints is not saying God is not Omnipotent. It is saying he has greater understanding of those things. We do not need to have a perfect knowledge of how he does everything in order to believe he is Omnipotent.

[rameumptom]

Originally Posted by Moksha

The limitations of God's power is beyond me. I'm still back trying to better understand the nature of God. I know that God is good, but trying to put that into a full context in my understanding and to enact that understanding in my life is such a task.

When Snow writes, "Another way to look at it is that God's essential nature is moral, good, just..." it rings true. When he speaks of God being internally consistant with goodness as part of his essential nature, that rings true as well. I think he is onto something.

To an extent this is correct. However, we have to distinguish between what we mortals consider as good, and what God considers as good.

Many parents lavish wonderful things upon their children, thinking they are doing good for and by those kids. Some parents are extremely protective of their kids, trying to prevent them from experiencing pain and suffering. Other parents see the need for kids to suffer from their poor choices, so they can grow up to be responsible and capable.

Which way is good?

Is God's "essential nature" such that he is completely blissful? If so, then how can he also weep over our sins? God cannot be totally at bliss and compassionate at the same time. Instead, his "essential nature" is to maximize whatever decision or emotion to the divine goals of his work and glory: the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39).

At times, God reaches his goals by lavishing gifts upon his children. Other times, he must destroy and punish. All of this is done in order to achieve his overall goal of saving his children. In this, he must give up some personal bliss, in order to show compassion. He must also give up always lavishing only good gifts on his children, in order to refine them and save them. A loving father chastises his children.

Snow cannot fully grasp this, which is why he refuses to believe that a good God can destroy a nation, or a person. Or have Moses and Joshua and Nephi do it.

Yet all of this is aimed at saving souls in the long run. A child that grows up in war-torn Somalia, or in the famines of Ethiopia, may seem like evidence that God is not good nor just. After all, why let some children starve or be raped and enslaved, etc., while Bill Gates' children will never go without? Yet, if we look at God's eternal plan, then all tears are wiped off, and all suffering will be replaced with joy a hundred-fold over. THEN we see God's true goodness, justice and love. These sufferings are but a moment, the Lord told Joseph Smith, and then comes the rewards and blessings. Only after such trials can we truly appreciate the release from all struggle and bondage that Christ's atonement gives us. We see the need to embrace the atonement, not just to repent of our own sins, but to be healed of all the evils imposed upon us by this world.

In this, God is good, just, compassionate. And in this is his eternal power.

[Dr T]

Originally Posted by mdfxdb

I just read through this thread, and maybe I don't fully understand what the posters are saying, but i'll give the gist of my understanding. It has been stated that God is omnipotent, and as such he can do crazy things like make 4 sided triangles. I firmly believe that God is omnipotent, but he is in fact constrained by natural laws that either have always existed, or he created. God himself clearly states there are things he cannot do or he would cease to be God. For example, can God defy gravity? I think the answer is no. Take that as you will, but fill in any other natural law and ask yourself if God can change them. I believe he cannot. However, God does know how to work within the constraints of natural laws to accomplish the things he would have done, just as man has learned to do. We can fly, does any one doubt that God can fly? We have learned to work with the laws of gravity, and overcome the constraints presented to us in order to accomplish flight. Why can't God do the same thing, and still have to obey the laws of nature? Saying that God can and does have a better understanding of the laws of nature, and knows how to overcome their constraints is not saying God is not Omnipotent. It is saying he has greater understanding of those things. We do not need to have a perfect knowledge of how he does everything in order to believe he is Omnipotent.

I disagree with that MDF. I do not see God constrained to physical laws. I see Him as "supernatural" and therefore miraculous. Walking on water, controlling the storm with his words, burning bush without it being consumed, rising from the dead, healing the ill, etc. I do not see Him bound in that way.

[mdfxdb]

Just because we cannot expain scientifically what or how God does something does not mean he is not constrained by physical laws. There are no such things as miracles, only those things which are beyond our current understanding. To say that we can understand perfectly, and explain scientifically how he does those things would be arrogance on our part to even try to attempt, but that does not negate the laws of nature. Something as simple flight would have been considered a miracle in the not to distant past, does this negate physics, or gravity? I would state that we have harnessed our understanding of the restraints of those laws in order to achieve our objectives. God works in the same way. Do you not think that if he chose he could explain exactly how he does what he does? Or do you think he would just shrug and say "I don't know it's a miracle"?

[Moksha]

Erratic morality enshrouded by mystery sounds a bit like something one could derive from a literary analysis of War and Peace. The old Ebenezer Scrooge might even chalk erratic morality up to a spot of bad mustard. Perhaps Dr. Spock might link it to overly zealous potty training.

But mystery! Giving a green light to erraticism in God via a lack of understanding of Divine nature, really seems to be rooted in trying to justify troublesome scriptural passages. If one needs these questionable Biblical actions to come from God rather than Man, then God must be forced into an apologetic mystery to enable this idea. Is it fair to God? Is it a true picture of God?

[Snow]

Originally Posted by rameumptom

To an extent this is correct. However, we have to distinguish between what we mortals consider as good, and what God considers as good.

Many parents lavish wonderful things upon their children, thinking they are doing good for and by those kids. Some parents are extremely protective of their kids, trying to prevent them from experiencing pain and suffering. Other parents see the need for kids to suffer from their poor choices, so they can grow up to be responsible and capable.

Which way is good?

Is God's "essential nature" such that he is completely blissful? If so, then how can he also weep over our sins? God cannot be totally at bliss and compassionate at the same time. Instead, his "essential nature" is to maximize whatever decision or emotion to the divine goals of his work and glory: the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39).

At times, God reaches his goals by lavishing gifts upon his children. Other times, he must destroy and punish. All of this is done in order to achieve his overall goal of saving his children. In this, he must give up some personal bliss, in order to show compassion. He must also give up always lavishing only good gifts on his children, in order to refine them and save them. A loving father chastises his children.

Snow cannot fully grasp this, which is why he refuses to believe that a good God can destroy a nation, or a person. Or have Moses and Joshua and Nephi do it.

Yet all of this is aimed at saving souls in the long run. A child that grows up in war-torn Somalia, or in the famines of Ethiopia, may seem like evidence that God is not good nor just. After all, why let some children starve or be raped and enslaved, etc., while Bill Gates' children will never go without? Yet, if we look at God's eternal plan, then all tears are wiped off, and all suffering will be replaced with joy a hundred-fold over. THEN we see God's true goodness, justice and love. These sufferings are but a moment, the Lord told Joseph Smith, and then comes the rewards and blessings. Only after such trials can we truly appreciate the release from all struggle and bondage that Christ's atonement gives us. We see the need to embrace the atonement, not just to repent of our own sins, but to be healed of all the evils imposed upon us by this world.

In this, God is good, just, compassionate. And in this is his eternal power.

That's funny ram. I don't grasp how killing innocent babies, raping, stealing, kidnapping, and enslaving is all GOOD, but you (and gatorman) do.

You think your ideas have merit. Try this... next Fast and Testimony Meeting, get up and say something like: I bear fervent witness, that in the right set of circumstance, human slavery and rape are perfectly good options. I testify that, if the situation calls for it, killing babies is an act of goodness and love.

Let me know how that goes.

[Snow]

Originally Posted by Moksha

Erratic morality enshrouded by mystery sounds a bit like something one could derive from a literary analysis of War and Peace. The old Ebenezer Scrooge might even chalk erratic morality up to a spot of bad mustard. Perhaps Dr. Spock might link it to overly zealous potty training.

But mystery! Giving a green light to erraticism in God via a lack of understanding of Divine nature, really seems to be rooted in trying to justify troublesome scriptural passages. If one needs these questionable Biblical actions to come from God rather than Man, then God must be forced into an apologetic mystery to enable this idea. Is it fair to God? Is it a true picture of God?

That's the answer to everything - appeal to the dogma of mystery. It's not subject to facts, it's not subject to reason or logic, it's not subject to ethics, it's not subject to science or history or anything real.

In the mind of the dogmatist, evidence AGAINST the dogma simply gets repackaged as evidence FOR the dogma.

For example... It's doubtful that God killed innocent people because God is just and compassionate... becomes in the mind of the dogmatist: SEE! God loved them so much that He did them the favor of killing them so they wouldn't have to grow up in a bad home.