Share This Episode
Outer Brightness  Logo

Mormon Exaltation Dilemmas, Pt. 2 (w/ Aaron Shafavoloff)

Outer Brightness /
The Truth Network Radio
September 19, 2021 8:55 am

Mormon Exaltation Dilemmas, Pt. 2 (w/ Aaron Shafavoloff)

Outer Brightness /

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 169 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

September 19, 2021 8:55 am

This week we continue our discussion with Aaron Shafavoloff about his article Dilemmas of Mormon Exaltation. We cover wrap up a dicussion of his second dilemma, "2. Expanding Godhead vs. overlapping godheads" and cover his fourth dilemma "4. Exhaustible vs. infinite pool of coeternal intelligences," and wrap up with his thrid dilemma "3. Shared vs. independent dominion between gods."

Insight for Living
Chuck Swindoll
The Verdict
John Munro
Delight in Grace
Grace Bible Church / Rich Powell
Summit Life
J.D. Greear
Clearview Today
Abidan Shah

Your answering right and and back firefighters. This would be into your discussion with Chuck Wallace about his article titled dilemmas of Mormon exultation.

We wrap up our discussion of the second to limit expanding on adverse overlap.

God has been we cover his fourth dilemma exhaustible versus infinite pool of cold eternal intelligences and finally recover his third dilemma shared versus independent dominion between God's.

I think we have some scriptural hats that Christians will have their own kind of eternal progression in heaven. That's much greater than I would say the borings you monitor progression. I'll never so is bringing my view that Britain's use that all the gods are always progressing and other attributes and is this trip that modern's standardized elitist view note BH Roberts and at the APs the cocky and how that throughout model played out as the gods mesh and assured Roberts.

All disputes are at least McConkie did and is represented by others, like Joseph Smith when the gods maxed out in their internal attributes.

If if mean progression in Brigham's view is your trailing God on an escalator you'll you'll someday reach where he's at today but he'll go beyond that and it's interesting because if you're both increasing your both thirsty for something they're both not yet satisfied with what well you're reaching for something better and in your not really satisfied with who your God is today. Ultimately and just keep going and going and going and in the in the end, when God himself is maxed out and in your exultation you max out and you become equal with God in your internal attributes and that you you stop progressing because God is not infinite. Will Christians.

At least I think have available to them the best of both meaning well sort of credit that I put this in the Christian view, God is infinite, so if were going to eternally progress max out at Ephesians 2 says that Christ was raised seated is shown as grace, that we might be shown the the paraphrasing here, the endless riches of the kindness of Jesus Christ and later pulses oh and in Romans O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God who is known the mind of the Lord.

Whether it's it's inexhaustible. So for Christians if were going to interpret eternally progress. There's no threat of bumping up against the limits of God and saying all maggots. I've I've learned everything there is to know about God. I've enjoyed everything there is to enjoy about God neither is there the sense that God himself is growing. We have an infinite God so God's not know on escalator. He's not growing and learning.

He's not getting better. So Christians have the best of of it and we also have a satisfaction and contentment. It's not if there's not this eternal was like Mormonism makes the problem of a certain reading of Ecclesiastes. Even worse is that you Ecclesiastes, cut it, it gets this fulfillment in Scripture with the resurrection, and with the person of Jesus and contentment and satisfaction in God's goodness and his creative purposes and that's how it how it works out canonically in the bigger picture. I think there is a point within Ecclesiastes that God is God, he can do the wants, even frustrates the affairs of man to remind us that were not God and he is God, or human.

And he's not.

Anyway, all that to say their friend Alex had have a friend Alex who he was when he was on his mission.

He was just like thinking existentially one night about the system of God. God's helping then become God's loving and become gods and he just had this sudden realization of dread. What's the point of all that is not really satisfying to know to have a personal relationship with the God who is overall.

Wow, what a privilege that Mormons seeing them in if you could hide to: that we don't know when the generations of the gods began to be and so, in effect, Mormons are saying we don't have a relationship with the very first God and Christians are saying. Not only is inexhaustible. Not only is he infinite. Not only is invisible. Not only is the source of everything good and true and beautiful. Not only is he himself the standard of what is good and true and beautiful. You can have a relationship with him and not some downstream demigods Superman cosmic regional patriarch deity. That is a poor hand-me-down deity that I love the and there were mine went for my mind went with that as does first Corinthians 2 verse nine. You know that is written, I have not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man the things which God hath prepared for them that love him right and if if if if Mormonism were true, and it's a restoration of what came before, including plural marriage and the plurality of gods and you know God's helping mad men become gods and so on and so forth. If that's all true than than first Corinthians chapter 2 verse nine has to be false by because I have Stephen here hath heard and been measured.

Those things have entered into the heart of men right marriage, though such a thing so yeah and those are great points that the thought that I had to do was that your dilemma you know if if Jesus goes on to say start another Godhead, so you know that there's there is overlap in God heads a theory you don't live the Christian hope is always to know to one day have a fullness of communion with God. You know, like where are our understanding of God is failed at this point it's it's obscure to have a very incomplete understanding of who God is and exiting into fellowship with him, but in heaven there will be no limits. You know there'll be no barriers will be completed with God. But in the other.

If Jesus is the father of his own creation were only get you know it will be like you not being the child of divorced parents, you know you'll only see your dad on weekends or something like that when Jesus comes to visit because he got his other kid story about so there is this barrier of communion between Christians in heaven and Jesus if he's off doing his own thing. As part of a different Godhead and so I don't know that's it's unexciting to me. I mean, I think I've heard someone say that hassle Jesus 10. He can teleport instantly no place to place. You know he can be here and there but but but the same time, there will be times where you know you're separated from them. And so when you have the bride separated from his bridegroom and there's a longing there's a loss. There is something missing. Let's thoughts it came to my mind, specially if God is not omnipresent so Mormons mock ups and Mormons. In general, not necessarily as individuals on Marcus, but Mormonism than some of its representative's. They mock the omnipresence of God looked like. He some sort of thin gas that's distributed throughout the universe were just some idea without a mind or he's just enough diffused well the Christian classic doctrine of omnipresence is it's much more exciting than than a distributed gas it's it's divine simplicity with with omnipresence of God is fully present everywhere but is not contained anywhere anything he's fully present. He's not partially present a God who can be contained is a God that can't be fully present, God is not fully responsible for the existence of everything outside himself God who isn't sovereign over absolutely all things that can't be fully present anywhere where is our God, even before the incarnation was fully present with his people, and I can enjoy that presence now with him but it gods a distant, alien whose just sending his effects from afar from trillions of billions of miles away from some planet whizzing next to coal up whatever that is, if he's just sort of like emanating from there's like it's home-based and he's he's sending his vibes as rays of light are his chain of effects in physical material effects across the universe to me and that I'm just kind of saying hi know from afar. That's what what what is initially presented as a more personable God and Mormonism when it's inspected becomes grossly impersonal.

One of the other dilemmas I have on the list.

The larger list is that of eternal law where Mormonism has this eternal law that precedes or predates the gods did something that all the gods are conforming to its of this. I think the rules of the universe, but this law of how things should be ethical prescriptions how things are new Than the nature of cosmic reality. Also that law isn't owing to any personal being. So ultimately it's an impersonal law. Ironically, without body, parts or pap, or passions, and it is it is a I heard some Mormons call a governing force even a force that governs the universe. That's incredible this impersonal lawless impersonal Platonic form eternal law without body, parts or passions that is not owing to any ultimate personal deity is governing the whole universe, so you have a problem there where it's either this Platonic form which I mean, this is incredible because organism has depicted our God as without body, parts or passions, and therefore they reason, impersonal abstract and relatable and not personal. They but they have this eternal lawsuit, so Mormons will symbol may be maybe every generation of the gods serve reinvents the law. Could it just sort of happens to emerge in a consistent way and it's not it's not a Platonic form. It doesn't really exist to just sort of emerges over and over again.

Whatever the case, if you're still stuck with this universe that is of such a nature that this law keeps emerging but it's not really owing to any ultimate personal deity or somebody's personal. It's an idea without a mind it's idea without a mind owing to the ideas that ultimately is the source of the idea. So not sure we get on that, but I know Orson Pratt talks about how when we worship God were not actually worshiping one particular person Orson Pratt held the view that when we worship God were worshiping the sum of all divine attributes possessed by all the gods that anyone Mormons have appreciation for the system of the cosmos in the gods and exultation me when early we really start peeling back the layers, it's likely got this impersonal law in these gods enacted I could detour with one more on the list you have these pools of the pool intelligences, presumably one pulled of the multiple categories or pools are collections of intelligences.

These co-eternal intelligences and it raises all sorts of questions about how did our particular heavenly father getting matched with certain intelligences like is it accidental that Matthews and been coeternal identity personal intelligence Natural heavenly father is it it wasn't necessary that was it necessary and fitting is suitable, eternally that y'all were matched for eight or was it accidental amusing accidental in the philosophical sense like it wasn't necessary, was an essential could you have been matched up with a different heavenly father.

If there's no ultimate personal God, sort of playing matchmaker between the new gods in the new and in the old intelligences. It's it's this kind of impersonal force payment. Maybe that segue into the third, the limits listed had some interesting thoughts about that now like I could solve determinism you got got Mormonism wants to know how things go. Certain waste as a completely inexhaustible pool of intelligences so I can plug whatever one's wealth plan, you know, just just what he wants if she had that level of foreknowledge.

Yeah exactly fluffy noses eternal even you have that but that's yet another topic. Doug was a yes. So get 1/3 dilemma so shared versus independent dominion between God's. I thought this was interesting one. So I would like to share this with that. That is, there yeah I'm I mistook that site, but the third one and I missed never to my head quickly.

There's another dilemma. Sorry for the positive of the infinite supply refinance applied intelligences.

That week I click on that. If you like. Yet, because that is true, but your tech must begin level only. If you don't mind if you haven't had listed there. So if there's an infinite supply of intelligences that are coeternal and that's a fixed number and there's no way to add to the number of intelligences, which is the standard model is the Joseph Smith model were not created and not destroyed, then all of these gods who are increasing in number are pulling from the infinite supply collection of intelligences. There will always be an infinite number ready available and therefore there always be an infinite number of intelligences that never had a chance.

And so it's it's it's their doomed are some intelligences that will never be adopted if you will, into the eternal family is always there's always more, always more but if you have a fixed number intelligences. Then you exhaust the supply at some point and you have to deal with this problem that God is unable to create more intelligences and so you kind of max out and there's no more opportunities for new gods to beget children who can become to God's that's over it, you're done. There's no more now.

Another option is to say that maybe heavenly parents.

They get new spirit intelligences from the matter of intelligence. So this is a different model.

This is Britain's model where intelligence singular is a substance that's the material of the universe that from which new new identities can be begotten by heavenly parents sexually, but that's not the Joseph Smith model and that's not the BH Roberts model that try to synthesize the Joseph model Joseph Smith models that we are coeternal we had a beginning and this is this is to say that this is really really interesting because Mormons will often say that they're proud of and they're happy and delighted in the fact that we have literal heavenly parents, and it raises the question of what he might literal because in the Joseph Smith model.

The BH Roberts model in the gospel principles model technically heavenly father isn't my father if he you get me. He's the father of my spirit, body, and he is my sort of adoptive father and that he took me on relationally took me in and cared for me, but is really not the origin of me if I coeternal my ego my identity. My personhood is not owing to the fatherhood of God it predated me being sexually begotten into a spirit body by heavenly parents. When Mormons use act 17 where it says in God we live and move and have our being the very offspring of God, I'll think their thinking clearly about this. Paul is going way beyond one theology here Paul is thinking that we can use the offspring language, inasmuch as we have our very being in him we live and move and have our being. But if the Mormon standard model is right. My inner core, coeternal being is not owing to God and therefore God's fatherhood is a relevant to my core existence. So I mean he end up having to say that God isn't the father everybody on this planet. He's the father of the spirit, body and sirens plant history of adoptive relational father but is not the actual origin, father of of our ourselves.

I forget what abscess I forget the path we were down at that. I don't like that that's really interesting to you were talking earlier about how the notes the latter-day Saints can have this this gospel principles view of of their system right but it gifts it washes up against the shore of their actual theology and then what you just described, as it is a perfect example of that right with that with the idea that over literal children of God and and and what that what that says to the Mormon mind is I've got a father in heaven just like my father Scheer who loves me and provide everything for me.

But when you asked the question. Like you said what do you mean by literal and then you start looking deeply at what latter-day St. theology of Scripture says you don't end up with literal father as you want to take Brigham's view that we had our personal real beginning at the sexual begetting of that the conception of heavenly parents that that we were not coeternal identities brings views that we actually had our personal beginnings and our heavenly parents with you just have to save Joseph Smith is wrong and I mean I did excuse raising the question of if you don't trust your profits if you don't trust a subset of your profits on these issues. Why should I or doesn't D. Maybe I'm wrong but I spent I've seen to remember the section were touched by intelligences induction covenants. It implies that we had some kind of individuality or personality, even as intelligences FOIA so it is as I understand an early Mormonism.

This demarcation between intelligences and spirits was not yet developed. It's just that were coeternal spirits and spirits and intelligences are synonymous at this point and then Brigham has a sort of spin on everything which is really an Adam got framework lot of modern LDS theology is a downstream to the variation echo even that if spirit birth as developed by mean this was shaped by either Adam God or shaped by the rejection of Adam got the Jehovah Elohim naming conventions for father and son is in part a reaction to know it's a rejection of the naming conventions that Brigham Young had for Elohim, Jehovah and Adam and email it to say you have this mess is available online about this once by Van Hale think like officer Stinson historical work on this. This really really helpful articles about how Joseph Smith had a more simple view that the spirits were coeternal Brigham Young had a view that spirits that that and we had a beginning and BH Roberts later tried to synthesize the view of Smith and Young and that's the main dominant model we have today okay yeah I was really aware that there is that synthesis of those two views going back to what it means to be father you know it. It the more we talked about the more it seems like with taking the whole scope of LDS belief. It just seems like God's existence is really not that different from ours in the LDS belief because God cannot create anything from scratch. Humans cannot create anything from scratch.

God cannot creates children from scratch has to take pre-existing chaotic no matter to greater physical bodies. Yesterday the existing intelligences in our spare bodies just as human fathers cannot create children from scratch in the sense of you know we create their their entire spirits and bonds.

No spirits came God. The bodies came from, you know are biological processes. I guess based on the energy we get from food. I guess you know so we can't really create anything. Scratch. This is God.

There's really no difference between how God creates children and we create children.

It's interesting that in the Christian tradition. There's two views on whether we like when I say that my my dad is my dad. Do I mean that he is the dad of my body or do I mean that he's also the data me and there's two different Christian views on this and I'll tip my hand toward once called soul creationism is that God directly creates the soul and that was begotten between parents is the body that enclosed the school. III don't do not favor that you should. I don't how to pronounce. This will traduce unison to see is the view that in God's providence between parents is begotten the whole self. So my dad is really my dad. I was begotten of my parents, so they're not just the parents of my flash the parents of me and one of the motivating factors I have for adopting a second position is that I don't want to be a Gnostic. I don't want to think of the body as an add-on to my humanity. My body was integral to my original existence which is interesting here because you know I think this puts Christianity in a better position to honor the human body because it's not as though I existed for eternity as an intelligence and then at some later stage.

I had a body and attacked on of the spacesuit or expert of a trans humanistic no auxiliary add-on. My body was integral to my myself from the very beginning my whole self was begotten by my parents providentially through the creative care of my God, so it's good is good from the beginning it was and that it was an upgrade and or an add-on to have a body. It was original for the human existence of a body that something I haven't quite really thought about a lot I understand are passages that seem to indicate that God is obviously at work in creating us in the womb. He's getting us together in the wellness OS to solve so Michael K-1 means that can be understood spiritually and physically ending. I breathe life into Adam in the beginning, you know, so he obviously didn't have a spare from a policy other sent yet I whole issue electrically and recently got into it. I think I got it I could be wrong about it but that's my tentative position. Just going back to the to the dilemma that there is really no difference and you know and how God creates. And man creates in terms of children as I thinking of taking a pre-existing spirit or something and entities of God takes a pre-existing intelligence forms into spirit man takes a pre-existing spirit for the child and so it really is just an instance matter and spirit are the same kind of thing in the and Mormonism you know spirit is just for highly refined road it just we are. We talked with Jackson about how there's like the light of Michael Manning God we really think about all this noise in the LDS perspective, the gap keeps getting smaller and smaller and smaller in terms of difference between man and God.

So it's it is kind of underwhelming when you really think about that just a thing about how if you've got a root in the LDS perspective release from our perspective is very small jaw like to move on to the Dominion aperture is less. The third owner aha yes I had not gotten this numbered nine this one, we've got the question of when newly exulted God's have their own worlds planets peoples material through playground sand to work with and have their own section of the multi-verse with boundaries that that's thirst a cold call that a domain with jurisdiction is different divine jurisdictions or different domains of the modern multi-verse is a question of is the domain that I develop is the plot of land if I could speak simply is not also under the dominion of my God. In other words, in my a steward of God's own domain. Another way of saying this is heavenly father's domain, a subset of him in the grandfathers domain is heavenly father stewarding was given to him, but is still under the domain of heavenly grandfather and his businesses travel up in this scenario you know God's really the under steward is the under shepherd he's newly not the supreme sovereign over his own domain.

So there's a couple different spinoffs or variations of this one is that when God helps others become gods. These new gods develop their own domains that are exclusive to and separate from heavenly father's domain so is additive the you know they find a difference of uncharted territory. Now some waterlogged rest of the chaotic multi-verse and they suck eminent know that that hasn't been claimed yet is like unclaimed territory of the multi-verse Star Trek stuff yeah yeah that I don't know God is yet put dominion over so in this model, you've got got different gods with different domains that are exclusive from each other but with this ends up implying is that the New Testament is wrong in depth New Testament says that God has eternal dominion it's without boundaries or limits, but you essentially have in the in this one model of independent domains you have.

You have boundaries you have borders and then it starts raising questions of Blake. What happens if a God visits the domain of know his spirit cousin for his great uncle Mike, how do you like how you conduct yourself like in on it. In America, like when you were asserted in the on earth know if you're an ambassador and you go visit say Bangladesh are no rush. Remembering you visit some political figure their governing figure is acute. You participate in the in the decorum and the respect and the courtesies that are appropriate to that domain to show submission to in deference to people that are in charge there does God do that when he visits first of a family reunion about the domains of other gods, they miss the bigger right rewinding his problem here is that if you give exclusive domains that are detached from each other and God doesn't really have eternal and unlimited dominion is partial dominion and II would add a letter dominion. This quickly is if there is an infinite amount of dominion out there in our God doesn't have all of it, then it stands there in if there's an infinite I mean if other gods have been at this longer than our God has, it stands to reason our God proportionately speaking to the ratio hasn't infinitesimally small dominion compared to the dominions of other gods, so if you would ask what percentage of all divine dominions does our God have all of them and you have to say something much less than hundred percent much less 9% because most of them aren't his.

So you have all sorts of problems here were God's there's there's there's domains were God that does not have dominion over God's domain is comprehensive. Note there is a Christian conscience either either straightforward Christian conscience or latent Christian conscience that God has exclusivity over his own domain. We Christians believe that God is exclusively sovereign over his own domain. God is a sharing his domain with other deities is not reporting to a superior deities on the use of his land, God, God is he that I love is the book of Hebrews. There's no greater name by which he could swear. So when God makes a promise he swears by himself in the IT appeals to his own self's own name is no greater name it and so you you got answer the question if I become a God and I have my own domain. Is it a subsection of God's will domain. Another question had a popsicle out is well. Maybe God had one woman talking about this. Maybe God sort of grants you a plot of his domain.

So when you become a God, you take a portion of what was God's domain and you it becomes yours like you know a father granting a portion of his land to his son.

So what was under God's dominion is if you're into the exclusive model here is different in a shared Mahler exclusive model what was in regards dominion. No longer is under God's dominion.

It's given to his children.

In fact, all of exulted God's just keep taking more of his domain and the more successful is the more domain it gives out, and you're no longer really able to say with a good conscience that God has eternal dominion over all without limits without boundaries without exceptions maybe were just eternal sharecroppers select act yeah this is much more satisfying. We think about this all being under God's domain death has just thinking about you know if God had to have an auditor come in to make sure you know is not cooking the books.

You know or recognize everything is in order. Pretty weird thing about it doesn't solve the problem to say, well, all the gods are perfectly ethical and therefore the cooperative.

Don't compete with each other. That really doesn't really solve the concerns of bringing after them and really, how can you make that claim. If you're if you're latter-day St. right because in your cosmology.

Lucifer rebels and he he's able to do so because of kind of the supreme concept of latter-day St. cosmology right because season is a self existent being is he's able to rebel against God because he has own free will and so how can you say okay wall.

The gods are completely ethical. If if a self existent being is able to rebel rent farming so I latter-day Saints will say that once exalted, they won't fall in Luther Luther Lucifer wasn't on.

I know that some of them would say the same thing from our Mormons would equate to Tibbett that is a loser wasn't exulted and so he he was not of the sort of deity that you would fall. Will that raises more questions about why on heck are you adopting this classical theism notion that God necessarily is prevented from sinning and in the future.

Why, why wouldn't you be open if you're so committed to libertarian free will. Among all the deities, why, why is that stripped away the if you're defining freedom is the perpetual inability to to just choose something other than what you're choosing, then why, why not say that God can sin course I meant Christian. I think Gottfried differently than the net but that there are some latter-day Saints historically who have played out the scenario thinking through what would happen if God fell and they have surmised that God if he fell would basically be replaced. Someone would take his place. Someone else in the Godhead wouldst do. Been sweep in a note take his place in his replaceable and that and that in that scenario, and that in the fall of Lucifer in the Council in heaven. Latter-day St. cosmology raises perhaps a dilemma.

You could add your list of it's not over already under longer list is that is the fall of Lucifer in that scenario a sin is that is that rebellion against God to stand and if so, then you have a simple, being in the presence of God which latter-day Saints would say is impossible right if you're not completely perfected and exalted, you can't enter into the very presence of God in the highest level of the celestial kingdom and so if in the pre-existence. Latter-day St. field resistant latter-day Saints were able to stand and consume existent better than why were they able to be in the presence of God. At that point yes also raises questions and thinking maybe this is off topic but never latter-day Saints had a good and evil are eternal and less depositional things we haven't eat evil is is has been around longer than God has been God.

It's more eternal than God's cockiness and his exultation is not evangelistic of something else, and it's not something that our particular God can defeat.

That's incredible. That evil is this multi-reversal reality that none of the gods have kind of a final fix her final dominion over centered in Christ is said to reconcile all things to himself in heaven and earth and stands to reason that at reconciliation. In one sense for the for the elect's salvation, but for a subset about the other parts of creation to treat you it's it's Christ making things right now.

It is not necessarily salvation for others. That's it sees he's making all the wrong things right. Will the God of Mormonism doesn't ultimately make all wrong things in the molten on multi-verse right evil has a kind of power over God and if God is if if there must be opposition in all things that God was dependent on evil to obtain his own virtues and that makes God no dependent on evil that has been an innovative MMA offense latter-day Saints.

By bringing this up, but that the line that that Lucifer speaks in the temple ceremony to to Jehovah when he's punishing them there. Why are you punishing me. I'm only doing what is been done on other worlds as skylight if it is just one eternal round again and again and again and evil can't be eradicated then and what purpose would there be any kind of punishment in the weather it's the eternal times latter-day Saints define eternal order or the eternal kindest questions to find eternal elite.

We had a conversation today with. He's a latter-day St. I heard of archery a core I think you should deftly check out that every once we drop it though because a lot of the questions we had about the problem of evil and law were actually more from a classical theist perspective because he says that there is no law without a lawgiver, so there is no eternal law that preexist God. So you say that God created. The law is like okay well I mean that's all I would as I would explain it. That's not Mike told latter-day St. probably would. Yeah, I remember my bottom of the early because we're talking about evil existing outside of God that God can't destroy or affect alter ego actually said that he doesn't necessarily see evil is something that must coexist. God so there could be a point in time in the future you know after the judgment and things like that were evil doesn't exist inside… I found that interesting because I even asked about that in the book of Mormon is says enough. There must necessarily be opposition in all things, and he said that, I think he gave a response, basically saying that back to you related to. Specifically, this temporal existence till after the earth is done with that ergonomic new heavens and new earth loan needed more so yeah there's there's a lot of things that punished him but just from going back to a generic LDS perspective and picking back to how I would've answered a result of latter-day state. I don't really know how would I would respond to this idea of shared versus independent because like you said we had had this implicit*whenever we read the Bible is a God has all the menu has all power know all things subsisting on by his power, this*says the fine print. Well, that's only related to this creation is a thing that Jesus's atonement is infinite, but only for everything that he created and so everything outside. That's not really our problem is a story about as I think this that's Probably a lot latter-day St. skillet that is just kind of no agnostic. We just on the shelf and out of sight out of mind kind of thing is that something you've experienced when he talked to Ari's answer yeah I use this line in respondent like told story like like me saying that my wife is the best cook in the universe for me and insisted it's it's you could say Matthew Eklund is the smartest person in the entire galaxy in this zoom recording yeah it it's like you. You will latter-day Saints. They want the big no unlimited language. They want the supremacy language for God, then they have a latent Christian conscience that that's appropriate for speaking about God and they take what's supreme and innate with with a little preposition a reduce it down to something that's petty, pitiful, small, and what it does is it ends up making us the reference point for God's guidance or God's greatness.

He's great for me. He's great relative to me. He's helpful to me, like I become the center of the universe, for God isn't being worshiped for who God is. He's working worshiped for you know who he is in relationship to me like it it it does. It is a really important distinction.

There I have a list of other dilemmas that I can blow through a quick if you want, with much less explanation to leave that to you. It's up to you, Paul. How much time do you have left and are going to get to it. Good Asher was gonna say it to cut LS Sectional My My Personal Experience Because like I Said, I Found Your Channel to Debate Set and a Dialogue That and It Seemed like for Several Years, Allred and James Lightner Having Dialogues at the University Tower.

I Graduated and That's Just Crazy Because I Guessing Them in the Same Auditorium That I Took Courses in Those Chemicals. And I Was Disappointed I Am in New York Now. I Could Attend out I Would've Attended a Fire but They Were Talking about Christ and the Creator and Member James. I Just at That Time I Was Doubting I Wasn't Quite Sure What I Would Want to Believe That He Talked about Colossians Chapter 1 Knowledge Ct. appearances. Christ, he is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation by him all things are created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things are created through him and for him in the way that Dr. White kind of are set out as he says well you know all this latex know he's he's exhausting all language available to show just how expansive and unlimited God's dominions is for by him all things are created. Let's already is in heaven on earth. Less reiterating his things are either in heaven or on earth, visible and invisible. Again, something neither visible or invisible. So he's just making absolutely clear. There is absolutely nothing that God does not has not created and does not have authority over it does not sustained by his power, and when you try to suck my thumb and got a really good point there that I really didn't have any kind of rebuttal to always really got a blister point that as part of my journey doubting and rethinking about how everything works that God is just a supreme being of all creation.

So as I would cut the addict of Gallic – the unit is more of a cheeky context. It made a confrontational context but if you went to a family reunion of the gods and someone popped in the door and said the most high. Please stand up. Who should stand up for someone flew in and said he will up with the creator of everything on heaven and earth, visible and invisible to the thrones or dominions or principals can spout his or rulers or authorities everything that's ever been created with the creator of everything that's ever been created.

Please stick and up who at eight family reunion of the earliest gods ought to stand if there's no good answer that there's no supreme deity does not truly supreme deity that I've become on the shared versus independent dominion thought in a Latter Day Saints optimal point to know Matthew 2818, where Jesus says, in all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. I have a Latter Day Saints quote that you miss a state like that that happen to the point in time. During Jesus incarnation, he did not have all power and authority until she had completed his work here and so you think. Not thinking about that in terms of shared person dominion will if all authority in heaven and earth has been given to Jesus at the point in time is that all authority and dominion over Elohim's dominion over what his father's dominion United Canada becomes reductionist when we start to think what that might mean guy from a Christian point of view it's it's the incarnate Christ taking on eternal will PIPs is taking kingship dominion, authority and a practical incarnate way bed and didn't Latter Day Saints miss that because they don't have the concept of Tunisia.

Later Christ right now that you like to go through that list yeah you on the issue creation. We were just speaking about the earlier is really helpful for me to think about how creation you've got God's God as creator the Christian worldview is pretty incredible because he created universal. You could call them essences so you know, Matthew is a human positive human errands, a human to be human. The idea idea of humanity. The essence universally speaking of humanity. The category of humanity itself was created by God. Right.

The idea of humanity is God's idea, so it merely instantiate humans Matthew Paul Aaron. He created the idea even I've humanity and so I I'm an instance where I exist and I have essence that God created both my existence and my essence and I have potential.

That's part of what needs to have parts I have. I have potential. It's not yet been actualized will who I am at what's been actualized, owing, owing to God and my potential as owing to God existence is going to God I essences owing to God. Mormonism can't come close to that because the idea of being human wasn't God's idea, and I existed before God had a say in that I'm coeternal of Mormon is true the dominant model of it anyway and matter in the universe is eternal and has this potential to it that God did not create it create the matter and he didn't create the potential that was inherent to mount matter or to the cosmos, select the furniture of the Mormon multi-verse of the essences in existence.

The primal existence is in the in the through the inherent potential of what might be in the universe the morning. God isn't the Mormon gods are responsible for any effect. It's not merely that they didn't create matter, they didn't create the ideas that are fundamental to the Mormon multi-verse or the existence of beans or the potential inherent to those beings so that a Christian God is responsible as creator for all of that's incredible.

I mean it that it it it's God's idea that males and females be males and females that humans be humans. The diversity of of creation that the cornucopia of beauty that is in creation has all God's idea, if none of these in a hand-me-down artist and not know I can thank God for my very existence. I can give them the glory that he created me he didn't just help actualize what was inherently potential to me eternally. He created me he is Geico migrate potential in my actualize its existence to him in my essence. All right that's it for this episode. Firefly's next McCarran will be back with us to discuss a number of other dilemmas that he is documented, but not your work into an article see them.

Thank you for tuning into this episode of the outer brightness podcast. We'd love to hear from you. Please visit the out of brightness podcast page on Facebook.

Feel free to send us a message there with comments or questions by clicking send a message at the top of the page. We would appreciate it if you give the page alike. We also have an outer brightness group on Facebook can join and interact with us and others. As we discussed the podcast past episodes and suggestions for future episodes, etc. you can also send us an email outer brightness Hope to hear from you soon. You can subscribe to outer brightness wherever you listen to podcasts. If you are benefiting from our content please write a review to help us spread the word subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit that notification will use it for out of brightness is graciously provided by the talented Breanna Flournoy and Adams Road. You can learn more about Adams Road. By visiting their ministry. Page at Adams Road. is diseased in my cheeses now learning moon said Jesus will lose the names and that they see and they and they know the saying a is the and is in and the a a a and a and a a is is is is is is being a

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime