The Godhead being one in purpose.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Yeah, yeah, we know the Seven Deadly Heresies speech, not that I put any stock in it. McConkie also did a lot that discredits him in my book. So if you're relying upon McConkie, you're not on firm ground.

McConkie said a lot of hooey about the priesthood ban.

McConkie misrepresented the Adam-God concept when President Kimball asked him to disclaim it.

McConkie overstepped his bounds in writing MoDoc and committed lots of errors, so just because McConkie and the fundies said, doesn't make it so. JFS and McConkie are modern day Irenaeuses', who would say what they wanted in order to win the argument.

Nothing inherently wrong with positivism, but if you're a strict positivist, that says a lot.

I have yet to see a convincing argument debunking McConkie's assertion about a "self-surpassing" Deity. I don't care if McConkie was wrong about every other thing he wrote or not, I think his arguments on this particular point are solid enough.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I have yet to see a convincing argument debunking McConkie's assertion about a "self-surpassing" Deity. I don't care if McConkie was wrong about every other thing he wrote or not, I think his arguments on this particular point are solid enough.

His lack of credibility on other points gives me cause for concern on this point. And Professor England did a good job arguing otherwise. In one respect, I must admit that I don't know, but if somebody claims to know with a certainty, then that creates reason for me to doubt. Now if JS were speaking to me and adamantly made that assertion, that is one voice who would have credibility with me. But McConkie's domineering tone and approach causes me to doubt whatever he touched. With that stated, McConkie may be correct, but for those to assert McConkie debunked it completely or whatever Chino stated, is not true for me and perhaps others.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I have yet to see a convincing argument debunking McConkie's assertion about a "self-surpassing" Deity. I don't care if McConkie was wrong about every other thing he wrote or not, I think his arguments on this particular point are solid enough.

Hell yeah.

[Archaea]

http://books.google.com/books?id=L6I...hl=en#PPR18,M1

An interesting book on the subject.

comment on Whitehead.

http://www.anthonyflood.com/hartshor...lintuition.htm

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

His lack of credibility on other points gives me cause for concern on this point. And Professor England did a good job arguing otherwise. In one respect, I must admit that I don't know, but if somebody claims to know with a certainty, then that creates reason for me to doubt. Now if JS were speaking to me and adamantly made that assertion, that is one voice who would have credibility with me. But McConkie's domineering tone and approach causes me to doubt whatever he touched. With that stated, McConkie may be correct, but for those to assert McConkie debunked it completely or whatever Chino stated, is not true for me and perhaps others.

I read England's paper on that and I think it's a very poor argument. Don't ask me to cite chapter and verse on England's paper now because it's been a year or so and it certainly wasn't worth remembering.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

http://www.anthonyflood.com/hartshor...lintuition.htm

got blocked by work firewall for racism and hatred.

[Archaea]

And Paulsen makes the "openess" discussion more lucid:

MR: There have been a number of discussions recently among evangelical Protestants about the nature of God's being. Some theologians, commonly called "Open Theists," are asserting that God grows in knowledge in response to the actions and choices of his creatures. Does the LDS doctrine of God allow for a similar view of God's growing and changing according to time and circumstance?
DP: Latter-day Saint scriptures resonate with the openness teaching that God in his love endowed his human children with moral agency.19 Thus, we are free to choose either eternal life or eternal captivity. In endowing us with freedom, God has thus chosen to be neither all-determining nor all-controlling. He responds to our free desires, decisions, and deeds creatively, lovingly, and persuasively and works cooperatively with us in achieving his purposes. Thus, we agree with openness thinkers that God is the most moved mover.
The Book of Mormon powerfully portrays the tender and profound passibility of God the Son. Consider two examples. The first is a prophetic foretelling of our Lord's incarnation in the flesh. Alma, an ancient American prophet, wrote (ca. 120 BC):
And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people. And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities (Alma 7:11-12).
The second is an eyewitness account of a visit of our resurrected Lord to a gathering of ancient Americans. As his visit was drawing to a close, the Lord advised the multitude that he was leaving. But "cast[ing] his eyes round about again on the multitude, [he] beheld they were in tears, and did look steadfastly upon him as if they would ask him to tarry a little longer with them." Discerning their desires, the Lord lingered, responding: "Behold my bowels are filled with compassion towards you." He inquired if there were any sick among them and told them, "Bring them hither and I will heal them, for [...] I see that your faith is sufficient that I should heal you." As he healed them they "bathe[d] his feet with their tears." Then Jesus invited them to bring their little children to him, and he prayed for them. The record continues: "no one can conceive of the joy which filled [their] souls." Seeing that their joy was full, Jesus said, "Blessed are ye because of your faith. And now behold, my joy is full. And when he had said these words, he wept." Then he "took their little children, one by one, and blessed them, and prayed unto the Father for them. And when he had done this he wept again." (3 Ne. 17:1-25; emphasis added).
Our resurrected Lord planned to leave earlier, but lingered because he discerned that the people wanted him to stay. And when their joy was full, then his joy was full. Throughout the Book of Mormon narrative we see portrayed the tender and profound passibility of God the Son, who is in the express image of his Father's person (Heb. 1:1-3). As openness thinkers teach, God does lovingly respond to the desires, decisions and deeds of his children.
But does God also, as openness theologians suggest, continue to grow or progress? Joseph Smith taught:
What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself.20
Notice that this statement implies that divine persons progress. Joseph Smith did not see divine perfection as a state of static completeness, but as a dynamic life--one of unending growth and progress. God, qua God, is eternally self-surpassing in some respects.
But in what respects? Most would likely agree, as Joseph clearly taught, that God is eternally self-surpassing in glory, dominion, and kingdom. Likewise all (or nearly all) would probably agree that God is eternally self-surpassing in creativity and creative activity.
But does he grow in knowledge? On this point, the Church has no official position and faithful Latter-day Saints often disagree. Some very influential LDS thinkers, including two men who served as Church President, Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff, have affirmed that God is eternally self-surpassing in both knowledge and power. President Young taught that "the God I serve is progressing eternally [in knowledge and power], and so are his children; they will increase to all eternity, if they are faithful,"21 and, in agreement with President Young, President Woodruff explained, "If there was a point where man in his progression could not proceed any further, the very idea would throw a gloom over every intelligent and reflecting mind. God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end [...]"22

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferen...eph_Smith.html

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I read England's paper on that and I think it's a very poor argument. Don't ask me to cite chapter and verse on England's paper now because it's been a year or so and it certainly wasn't worth remembering.

Then read Paulsen's argument above on it. Paulsen in his interview admits both points of view, namely yours and Chino's as well as the other viewpoints, including those held by JS, BY and WW.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I have yet to see a convincing argument debunking McConkie's assertion about a "self-surpassing" Deity. I don't care if McConkie was wrong about every other thing he wrote or not, I think his arguments on this particular point are solid enough.

It's been a long time since I looked at McConkie's comments on this (10 years, maybe), but the idea that he has accurately understood, let alone "debunked," a legit philosophical notion of "self-surpassing deity" would take much more work than I am aware of McConkie putting into the subject.

And Chino being introduced to process philosophy in a class, while worthy, hardly qualifies him to make a definitive pronouncement on the subject.

I'm not going to make one either, but I will say this: I've been studying it for a long time, have integrated it into my doctoral work, and am competent on the subject.

There are many intriguing and compelling ideas in process philosophy. In my field it's a great way to slice the gordian knot that the Marxists and Psychoanalysts have tied themselves in. It's a fresh alternative to trying to synthesize Marx's flows of capital and interest with Freud's flows of desire. Deleuze's iteration of it is the most compelling argument against fascism I have ever encountered.

[Tex]

I think we're dabbling here in areas we cannot possibly comprehend. Not to say I'm critical of the effort to do so, but I don't expect much from the attempt.

"Does God grow in knowledge?" Is that a question that is remotely possible to answer?