J
Jerusha
Guest
I am asking this to be irritating. Please do not take egregious offense. Does this refer to Mormon “Royalty”?
- Status
F
Finrock
Guest
Hello ParkerD. I’m glad you are well!
Thanks for reading and responding to my post and I appreciate your thoughts. I just had a couple of questions to ask so I don’t misunderstand what you are saying. First, do you believe that Jesus was omniscience during his mortal life? Secondly, to address the quote above from your post. If I understood you correctly, I think you are saying that Jesus did certain things not because he needed to, but to be an example. Kind of like his example of being baptized by John the Baptist to fulfill all righteousness. Is that right? If this is what you mean, then I agree that definately in some of the things that Jesus said and did he was doing it to be the best example, but in other things, this isn’t as clear to me. For instance, in the case where Jesus stated that “the Father is greater than I”, it seems that if Jesus knows that he is really as great as the Father, then saying that he isn’t is simply false modesty, which is another form of lying. I know you aren’t saying that Jesus is lying, but, at least do you see how it could be understood that way?
I suppose I should explain how I reconcile the subordination that Jesus shows during his mortal life. I believe that during Jesus’ mortal ministry, he did not have of the fulness of the Father’s glory. Definitely he was anointed and had a special relationship with the Father that none other had. However, like us, he had to learn and progress during mortal life. Not all things and not all comprehension was given to Jesus. Like us as we mature, “…Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” (Luke 2:52). Part of what I think makes Jesus’ life so special and meaningful is that he was subject to the same weaknesses and trials that we were. He was fully a man and had to grow up and learn as men do. Because he was under the same conditions as we are, it makes the concept that we can be like him meaningful. Like you explained, I aslo agree that Jesus showed us the best example. But for the example to be meaningful or even attainable by us, it had to be given under the same conditions that we are under. He showed us that we can live righteously given our fallen state and he became a part of that fallen state, not because of sin on his part, but in order to fulfill his calling as Savior and the pre-eminent example, as you stated. He lived and grew by faith, as we do and should, until his knowledge became perfect. In short, I believe Jesus’ knowledge, power, and strength, particularly dudring his mortal life, came from the Father because of his righteousness and perfection, and not from himself.
I think this is relevant because if Jesus truly is to be an example to us, then the example must be attainable to us and relevant to us in the same way it was to Jesus. If it is true that Jesus received his knowledge, power, and strength from his Father through perfect obedience and faithfulness, then in the same way we can receive knowledge, power, and strength from Jesus through obedience and faithfulness to Him.
Or, another way to put this, if Jesus received his knowledge, power, and strength through himself and he is our perfect example, then we should expect to receive our knowledge, power, and strength from within ourselves. But, we already know that we don’t receive our knowledge, power, and strength from within ourselves, but from God. Therefore Jesus’ example isn’t applicable to us or Jesus didn’t receive power from within himself. We are led to conclude that Jesus’ example is applicable to us, therefore it must be the case that Jesus didn’t receive knowledge, power, and strength from within himself. Hence, his subordination, because Jesus received his knowledge, power, and strength from the Father.
Anyways, I got all logical in this post, I know, and I apologize. It isn’t a perfect tool, but perhaps it is helpful in this case to illustrate my point. Last thing, just to put this out there again: I’m not being dogmatic and I am not expecting you to agree with me. I’m motivated by a desire to have a interesting dialogue, to learn, and to understand. Thanks again for the dialogue.
Kind Regards,
Finrock
P
ParkerD
Guest
Finrock,Hello ParkerD. I’m glad you are well!
Thanks for reading and responding to my post and I appreciate your thoughts. I just had a couple of questions to ask so I don’t misunderstand what you are saying. First, do you believe that Jesus was omniscience during his mortal life? Secondly, to address the quote above from your post. If I understood you correctly, I think you are saying that Jesus did certain things not because he needed to, but to be an example. Kind of like his example of being baptized by John the Baptist to fulfill all righteousness. Is that right? If this is what you mean, then I agree that definitely in some of the things that Jesus said and did he was doing it to be the best example, but in other things, this isn’t as clear to me. For instance, in the case where Jesus stated that “the Father is greater than I”, it seems that if Jesus knows that he is really as great as the Father, then saying that he isn’t is simply false modesty, which is another form of lying. I know you aren’t saying that Jesus is lying, but, at least do you see how it could be understood that way?
I suppose I should explain how I reconcile the subordination that Jesus shows during his mortal life. I believe that during Jesus’ mortal ministry, he did not have of the fulness of the Father’s glory. Definitely he was anointed and had a special relationship with the Father that none other had. However, like us, he had to learn and progress during mortal life. Not all things and not all comprehension was given to Jesus. Like us as we mature, “…Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” (Luke 2:52). Part of what I think makes Jesus’ life so special and meaningful is that he was subject to the same weaknesses and trials that we were. He was fully a man and had to grow up and learn as men do. Because he was under the same conditions as we are, it makes the concept that we can be like him meaningful. Like you explained, I also agree that Jesus showed us the best example. But for the example to be meaningful or even attainable by us, it had to be given under the same conditions that we are under. He showed us that we can live righteously given our fallen state and he became a part of that fallen state, not because of sin on his part, but in order to fulfill his calling as Savior and the pre-eminent example, as you stated. He lived and grew by faith, as we do and should, until his knowledge became perfect. In short, I believe Jesus’ knowledge, power, and strength, particularly dudring his mortal life, came from the Father because of his righteousness and perfection, and not from himself.
I think this is relevant because if Jesus truly is to be an example to us, then the example must be attainable to us and relevant to us in the same way it was to Jesus. If it is true that Jesus received his knowledge, power, and strength from his Father through perfect obedience and faithfulness, then in the same way we can receive knowledge, power, and strength from Jesus through obedience and faithfulness to Him.
I’m motivated by a desire to have a interesting dialogue, to learn, and to understand. Thanks again for the dialogue.
Kind Regards,
Finrock
I don’t believe that the baby Jesus or the twelve year old Jesus was omniscient, and He was “fully man” from the standpoint that He did need to grow in knowledge by study and by faith, by observation and by experience. But He grew in those areas so fast! By the time He was twelve, I think He knew more than any other person who has ever lived in their fullest point of knowledge as adults. I think that is evident in His teaching the Jewish scholars in the temple. Then He grew in wisdom and knowledge beyond even that, such that when He was thirty I think He could read people’s thoughts, He knew Satan’s intentions, and He knew perfectly what His role was because of understanding perfectly the scriptures as well as receiving personal revelation as He read and observed and was spiritually receptive. So I think that at age thirty, He was omniscient and was fully God, as He had been in the pre-mortal world. He was “God with us” literally.
I don’t think He wants us to compare our mortal experience with His in the sense of progressing so quickly the way He did, nor certainly in thinking we have to be perfect or anywhere near perfect. I think He wants us to learn patience in our weaknesses, patience in how we view others, and patience in growing to understand our relationships with Him and with Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost. I think He wants us to allow Him to change us by fully turning to Him with all of our hearts and no private agendas, relying on Him because He knows absolutely what is best for us to grow in our mortal experience. Our experience in no way compares with His, particularly in that during the atonement He experienced every single one of all of humankinds’ most difficult and trying experiences.
The Father is greater than the Son because the Son did everything He did in pre-mortal life through observing what the Father did, and learning perfectly by that observation as well as by understanding truth by His own observation. He also understood that in mortal life He had a mortal body and not a resurrected body, plus the temptations of the flesh which His Father does not have to deal with, so He could say honestly, “The Father is greater than I” even though He could know within Himself that He was God, was omniscient, and because of His perfection including perfect faith, He was omnipotent also.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Yes, Jerusha, I believe that you are indeed asking this to be irritating.I am asking this to be irritating. Please do not take egregious offense. Does this refer to Mormon “Royalty”?
As to ‘royalty,’ I wouldn’t say it was MORMON ‘royalty,’ snarky comments aside.
F
Finrock
Guest
This sounds reasonable. I think I can agree with this.
I agree with you here too even though my post may have sounded otherwise. Our mortal progression as we emulate the Master, will not be at the pace or at the level of Him, but it will have all the same elements, if we accept to follow Him. Our sacrifice cannot even be compared to His. Our service will not equal His. Our authority to act will come from Him as His authority to act came from the Father. In short, I believe what we are striving for and what we should be, is a micro version of Jesus in our own sphere.
I can appreciate your perspective. Thank you for sharing it.
And thank you for taking the time to converse with me. I appreciate your thoughts, not just here, but in all your posts that I have read.
Kind Regards,
Finrock
S
Scriptorian
Guest
It applies to God.I am asking this to be irritating. Please do not take egregious offense. Does this refer to Mormon “Royalty”?
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
Is this why most say Mormons are not Christian.
S
Scriptorian
Guest
Hey, my friends. I hope you don’t mind if I join in on this for some brief thoughts.
His understanding of things spiritual no doubt was astounding and unparalleled. But I cannot say whether the Savior’s knowledge at twelve would have been greater than that of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Elijah, John the Baptist, Peter, John the Revelator (still alive by the way…
), Paul, or Joseph Smith at the end of their lives. I suppose it is possible… but unknown.
I am also not sure I would make the jump to complete omniscience and omnipotence when he was thirty either. Is having all authority the same as omnipotence? I tend to believe that omniscience is required for omnipotence. Christ did have all authority both in heaven and on earth, but I don’t think he was omniscient yet. Or I should say, I don’t know if the veil was completely removed from his mind yet. Is that possible in mortality?
Two reasons (and I know I am on sacred ground here…). First, he was surprised at the severity of the atonement. Even Jesus, the greatest of all, pled to the father that he would not shrink from such an astoundingly difficult and important sacrifice. I believe that if he was completely omniscient, he would have known.
Second, I believe that for the atonement to have been complete, one of the things that Christ must understand and experience was the horrible feeling of guilt in the face of the unknown. Was this a taking away of his knowledge for a time, or was it that even he did not know all things quite yet? There is a depth we cannot understand behind the words, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
It is interesting that you say this, Parker. I agree that he progressed much faster than anyone, of course, but there are things that a twelve year old must go through as part of mortality that I do not believe were taught any sooner than anyone else. Otherwise, I think Christ would have been robbed of one of the most sacred of gifts, childhood.
His understanding of things spiritual no doubt was astounding and unparalleled. But I cannot say whether the Savior’s knowledge at twelve would have been greater than that of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Elijah, John the Baptist, Peter, John the Revelator (still alive by the way…
), Paul, or Joseph Smith at the end of their lives. I suppose it is possible… but unknown.He most certainly was “God with us” during his ministry, but was he not also Immanuel when he was born? I don’t think Godhood was predicated on his knowledge, but on his foreordination from the foundation of the world. I believe his incomparable knowledge was the result of his divinity not the cause of it.
I am also not sure I would make the jump to complete omniscience and omnipotence when he was thirty either. Is having all authority the same as omnipotence? I tend to believe that omniscience is required for omnipotence. Christ did have all authority both in heaven and on earth, but I don’t think he was omniscient yet. Or I should say, I don’t know if the veil was completely removed from his mind yet. Is that possible in mortality?
Two reasons (and I know I am on sacred ground here…). First, he was surprised at the severity of the atonement. Even Jesus, the greatest of all, pled to the father that he would not shrink from such an astoundingly difficult and important sacrifice. I believe that if he was completely omniscient, he would have known.
Second, I believe that for the atonement to have been complete, one of the things that Christ must understand and experience was the horrible feeling of guilt in the face of the unknown. Was this a taking away of his knowledge for a time, or was it that even he did not know all things quite yet? There is a depth we cannot understand behind the words, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
I completely agree here.
Now you bring up an interesting point that is worth continued discussion here. What is the result of perfect faith? Is it knowledge? Is perfect knowledge the same as “all-knowledge?” Can Christ be omniscient and have faith? Can only Christ have perfect faith?
S
Scriptorian
Guest
“Not Trinitarian” does not equal “not Christian.”
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Yeah, it does.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Scriptorian,Hey, my friends. I hope you don’t mind if I join in on this for some brief thoughts.
It is interesting that you say this, Parker. I agree that he progressed much faster than anyone, of course, but there are things that a twelve year old must go through as part of mortality that I do not believe were taught any sooner than anyone else. Otherwise, I think Christ would have been robbed of one of the most sacred of gifts, childhood.
His understanding of things spiritual no doubt was astounding and unparalleled. But I cannot say whether the Savior’s knowledge at twelve would have been greater than that of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Elijah, John the Baptist, Peter, John the Revelator (still alive by the way…
He most certainly was “God with us” during his ministry, but was he not also Immanuel when he was born? I don’t think Godhood was predicated on his knowledge, but on his foreordination from the foundation of the world. I believe his incomparable knowledge was the result of his divinity not the cause of it.
I am also not sure I would make the jump to complete omniscience and omnipotence when he was thirty either. Is having all authority the same as omnipotence? I tend to believe that omniscience is required for omnipotence. Christ did have all authority both in heaven and on earth, but I don’t think he was omniscient yet. Or I should say, I don’t know if the veil was completely removed from his mind yet. Is that possible in mortality?
Two reasons (and I know I am on sacred ground here…). First, he was surprised at the severity of the atonement. Even Jesus, the greatest of all, pled to the father that he would not shrink from such an astoundingly difficult and important sacrifice. I believe that if he was completely omniscient, he would have known.
Second, I believe that for the atonement to have been complete, one of the things that Christ must understand and experience was the horrible feeling of guilt in the face of the unknown. Was this a taking away of his knowledge for a time, or was it that even he did not know all things quite yet? There is a depth we cannot understand behind the words, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
I completely agree here.
Now you bring up an interesting point that is worth continued discussion here. What is the result of perfect faith? Is it knowledge? Is perfect knowledge the same as “all-knowledge?” Can Christ be omniscient and have faith? Can only Christ have perfect faith?
Thank you for adding your thoughts along with Finrock. I enjoy reading your posts each time you have added your perspective.
Since we know from the book of Abraham that Jesus as the Firstborn in the pre-mortal life that we were all a part of, was the foremost intelligence and was full of light and truth as a Spirit Son of God, then I come to the conclusion that His spirit in mortality was so attuned to light and truth that He could make the kind of quick progress I wrote about. He may or may not have had the kinds of visions that Enoch and the brother of Jared had by age twelve, but I feel like if we were to attempt to graph His progress in understanding as a youth, His point on the “curve” at age twelve would be above anyone else’s who ever lived even if we graphed their progress in understanding as of the end of their life. He was on a far more quickly rising curve than anyone else, because of what He brought with Him from the pre-mortal world that would have been stimulated by reading the scriptures, by prayer, by pondering and meditation, by observation, and by interacting with others. The Jewish scholars were “astounded” by Him at twelve. He was speaking on their level, yet knew so much more than they knew that He was teaching them things they had never considered.
I think Christ’s incomparable knowledge was indeed the result of His divinity from pre-mortal life, but He needed to have the veil of forgetfulness completely and thus “grow” in knowledge in this life just as we grow in knowledge, yet His growth would be magnified by His capability as the most supremely intelligent Spirit to have ever come to earth. I think He needed to grow such that when He completed the atonement, He had grown to the point of being God on earth, God with us, He who could suffer the incomprehensible magnitude of His suffering which only God could do.
So I think at age thirty when Christ began His ministry, He had attained omniscience and omnipotence by virtue of His perfect living and His supreme understanding of this mortal world through all the means possible, including revelation. The veil can be unveiled by those whose faith is great enough, as noted in the experience of the brother of Jared. I think He would have had a similar vision by age thirty, and could foresee the pain of the atonement but yet in seeing that one particular supreme act He was going to go through, He was not feeling the pain yet and that pain was the one element of omniscience that was veiled from His experience.
I’ll add more after a family errand. 'Beautiful evening here.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Scriptorian,
Continuing:
One of the experiences that Christ had that I think gives us a glimpse of “where He was” with respect to omniscience and omnipotence, was when Satan tempted Him. If Satan could get Him to doubt Himself for even a second or to take pride in Himself for even a second, then He would lose His perfection and the coming infinite atonement would not be possible. Satan said “if thou be…” thus implying that maybe Christ would doubt Who He was, yet at twelve He had said He knew who His Father was, and needed to be “about His Father’s business.” Christ did not doubt, showed no pride in Himself, and sustained His path of perfection when He was tempted by Satan.
Authority comes through demonstrated faith (“a principle of action and of power in all intelligent beings”–Lectures on Faith) and through demonstrated love that is also conveying complete agency allowed within the actions of other spirit or mortal beings. Christ had complete authority because He had perfect faith in His Father and in Himself as a Divine Being who had been born into mortality yet had surmounted every challenge and had re-learned in the flesh every principle pertaining to omnipotence. He also had perfect love, and was able to know exactly what answer to give with any question He was asked that would fully acknowledge the agency of the person asking the question, including keeping silent if that was the best response to help that person progress or to not receive more knowledge than would be for their best good.
Another errand…
Continuing:
One of the experiences that Christ had that I think gives us a glimpse of “where He was” with respect to omniscience and omnipotence, was when Satan tempted Him. If Satan could get Him to doubt Himself for even a second or to take pride in Himself for even a second, then He would lose His perfection and the coming infinite atonement would not be possible. Satan said “if thou be…” thus implying that maybe Christ would doubt Who He was, yet at twelve He had said He knew who His Father was, and needed to be “about His Father’s business.” Christ did not doubt, showed no pride in Himself, and sustained His path of perfection when He was tempted by Satan.
Authority comes through demonstrated faith (“a principle of action and of power in all intelligent beings”–Lectures on Faith) and through demonstrated love that is also conveying complete agency allowed within the actions of other spirit or mortal beings. Christ had complete authority because He had perfect faith in His Father and in Himself as a Divine Being who had been born into mortality yet had surmounted every challenge and had re-learned in the flesh every principle pertaining to omnipotence. He also had perfect love, and was able to know exactly what answer to give with any question He was asked that would fully acknowledge the agency of the person asking the question, including keeping silent if that was the best response to help that person progress or to not receive more knowledge than would be for their best good.
Another errand…
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
It strikes me as rather odd that 3 LDS would hold a discussion about the finer points of LDS doctrine on a Catholic board, isn’t there some nice LDS board for this??
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I think the conversation should be packaged and titled: “Why Mormonism Can’t Be Taken Seriously”It strikes me as rather odd that 3 LDS would hold a discussion about the finer points of LDS doctrine on a Catholic board, isn’t there some nice LDS board for this??
P
ParkerD
Guest
Scriptorian,
So I think Christ was omniscient yet had perfect faith as a principle of power and action and also perfect faith in His capacity to endure the atonement (even though the magnitude of the pain and guilt feelings surprised Him, as you expressed, because that was a level of pain that could only be understood during the experiencing of it).
Humankind are asked to have perfect faith in Christ, for a far different reason: our faith in the atonement enables us to really deeply trust Christ to do for us what He has promised, so that we can give our hearts completely to Him and be changed beings, led along a path of change throughout our lives as He molds us and magnifies our comparatively miniscule efforts and abilities, and saves all who willingly do that into eternal life in the hereafter as He has promised.
To others who may read these exchanges:
Sorry if you thought we have been out of place here. I have personally thought the questions raised have a bearing on the topic of the Godhead. Have a good Sunday, and a good week.
So I think Christ was omniscient yet had perfect faith as a principle of power and action and also perfect faith in His capacity to endure the atonement (even though the magnitude of the pain and guilt feelings surprised Him, as you expressed, because that was a level of pain that could only be understood during the experiencing of it).
Humankind are asked to have perfect faith in Christ, for a far different reason: our faith in the atonement enables us to really deeply trust Christ to do for us what He has promised, so that we can give our hearts completely to Him and be changed beings, led along a path of change throughout our lives as He molds us and magnifies our comparatively miniscule efforts and abilities, and saves all who willingly do that into eternal life in the hereafter as He has promised.
To others who may read these exchanges:
Sorry if you thought we have been out of place here. I have personally thought the questions raised have a bearing on the topic of the Godhead. Have a good Sunday, and a good week.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Is it really omniscience if you don’t know without experiencing it??
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
When ever I’ve read this kind of discussion among LDS (B-Net, MAAD and NOM) I’ve been left with “Well I can’t believe** that**”
S
Scriptorian
Guest
Those are kind of my thoughts as well, Z. I don’t think it diminishes Christ in the least to say that before he was born he was omniscient, after he was resurrected he was omniscient, but while he was mortal, he was always subject to at least some obscurity and the veil of mortality. I suppose it is a matter of opinion.
Another interesting question, though, is how did Christ keep himself from “showing” his glory? Anytime any prophet has been in the presence of the Lord for any length of time, they are transfigured and soon begin to glow in their appearance. Moses for example had to literally veil his face when he came down off the mount.
Jesus was likewise transfigured while on the mount. How did he suppress or contain this at other times? He was, after all, the Messiah, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, God incarnate. He was also more “in the presence of God” than anyone who has ever lived. How did he keep others from being overwhelmed by his glory? Is it something to do with a mortal body vs. an immortal one?
Any thoughts?
By the way, Parker, I agree with your interpretation of the faith of Christ. Principle of Action and Power.
J
Jerusha
Guest
I have them on ignore. And I am no longer even curious. Same old same old. :juggle:
D
dianaiad
Guest
…and those who say this are incorrect.
- Status