I remember being taught the concept that God knows everything from start to finish and therefor he never changes his mind. That if god was to change his mind about something he would not know all things and therefor would stop being god. Anyone know where to find this?

My thought is that modern Mormonism changes the rules, the beliefs, the racism, etc all the time. Does this mean the Mormon god has ceased to be god?

Another possibility: God also knows when, where, and why He will change things. Then He can still know everything, still change things, and still be all-knowing, all-powerful God.

Regarding any changes to rules, beliefs, and so on - certain other faiths (outside of Mormonism) hold this concept of 'temporary' Truth and 'eternal' Truth, of 'changeable' Truth and of 'unchangeable' Truth, of 'mundane' Truth and 'transcendental', or of 'material' Truth and 'spiritual' Truth. In all cases, the former can be changed, and indeed is meant to be changed or adapted, according to time, place, and circumstances. Examples of this could be how religious protocols and procedures are followed. The latter, however, does not change, or cannot be changed. Examples would include the nature or existence of God. The Vedic tradition of ancient India and faiths that sprung from it (including the Hare Krishna faith and Hinduism) are amongst those who hold this view.

Hare,

Isn't all that delineation of truth merely a longer way of saying "the truth is whatever I need it to be at this moment"?

The existence of God stays the same but the explanations of circumstances, the rules of behavior, the "why" for whatever we're discussing, our expectations ... they are whatever 'truth' we need to claim them to be to sort out our own meaning.

To a limited extent, yes. The aspects of Truth that truly can be 'whatever I need it to be at this moment' would fall under the category of 'temporary', 'changeable', 'mundane', or 'material' Truth, whereas the unchanging factors such as the existence of God would be 'eternal', 'unchangeable', 'transcendental', or 'spiritual' Truth.

Regarding explanations of circumstances specifically, there is some degree of absoluteness. That is, either something did or did not cause something else to happen. So that might fall under the category of 'unchangeable' Truth. That said, some faiths believe that it is even possible to spiritually advance to some degree while having some measure of mistaken belief in things contrary to certain aspects 'unchangeable' Truth while retaining belief in other aspects of the Truth as you progress forward on in your spiritual journey.

Much to squishy for me...

Lol. It can get a bit complex. Then there's the argument as to what exactly consists of 'unchangeable' Truth that must never change and what else truly can change ...

You forgot to put © by your upper case truth.

Lol.

Life is squishy, but it is much too squishy for fundamentalists and their belief systems that require rigid adherance to eternal laws and ordinances, that are conatantly under a state of change.

Duplicity and duality the standards of fundamentalist religions.

Why do you insist on spamming off topic like this? What does the Hare Krishna faith have to do with a discussion of the attributes of the Mormon god? I mean, it just feels like the exact same interjection of the stealth preaching that Mormon missionaries try all the time when they "visit" other churches or "just want to chat".

It was on topic - about whether a God who changes His mind can still be God. My post was simply shedding light on another perspective. (And it's not unique to the Hare Krishna faith, although it is shared by this faith.)

There ARE perspectives other than the Mormon, Judeo-Christian, and atheist/agnostic/humanist/secular views, held by many on this board. My posts on such topics merely shed light on alternative viewpoints. Eastern faiths in general (and there are several other Eastern faith adherents on this board) tend to share several elements of belief or perspective, which those not exposed to or unfamiliar with these viewpoints might not be aware of or have thought about.

Yeah, and on a topic specifically discussing the Mormon perspective on Mormon teachings, other perspectives are off topic. RTFP, a cursory glance of the OP does not make it so that everything you post is immediately on topic. This isn't the first time in the past hour you have been wildly off topic while jumping to gods defense based solely on a cursory glance at the OP without reading or actually understanding the whole thing.

The very first sentence of the OP was about God in general and not just the Mormon God.

Meant first paragraph of the OP.

A perspective that is completely invalid considering the basic details of Mormonism that were even presented in the OP, but also a perspective that is conveniently shared by a faith which you have repeatedly proselytized on this board. Just sayin'

Mere sharing isn't proselytization. And this forum is an EX-Mormon board - almost everyone on this board (aside from TBM lurkers and maybe some NOMs) hold views that are partially or completely 'invalid considering the basic details of Mormonism'.

You are missing the point. I still don't think that you get that this is a topic about Mormon god. Not Hare Krishna god, not catholic god, not god in general or abstract, but about ONLY Mormon god. As such, your comment here about trying to be tolerant and inclusive of other views is completely irrelevant.

And "mere sharing" is exactly what every Mormon says when they want to bag their missionary moment for the week that they can share at church.

The first sentence of the OP talked about God in general, not specifically the Mormon God. (Also, many monotheistic faiths outside of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam don't believe in 'this faith's God' as being separate from 'that faith's God'. Rather they accept that all worship of God is of the one God that exists. But that's beside the point.)

Meant first paragraph.

The last sentence made it clear that this was all about Mormon god. Also, this is an exmormon site as you so conveniently point out, meaning that almost universally when someone is talking about "I was always taught x about god" then they mean Mormon god. However, these truths aren't useful to someone with an agenda. Do you realize how much you are turning the board off to the faith you are trying to push, because I would wager you aren't having the effect you are gunning for with your deceitful sales tactics.

Yep. No way are you proselyting. No idea how anyone would ever get that out of your posts. Patronize much?

And there's a huge difference between thinking 'hey, this is what I believe, and I'd like to discuss this' or 'this is what some people believe, and I thought it's relevant to bring up' and thinking 'hello, I'd like to share with you my faith, with the hope that my doing so will make you believe in it'. The latter is what missionaries do, and that is proselytization. The former is sharing.

I see prevarication is common to both groups. Interesting.

mormon doctrine, as usual, teaches two opposing doctrines and then apply them as needed:

1) God never changes. His eternal doctrines and ordinances have been revealed in this world in order to bring men and women back to him. The benefit of the church is that it delivers the unaltered doctrine from God, without any man made meddling. Hence this is the reason why God will not change his stance regarding gay marriage. The complete, full gospel is upon the earth. The prophet speaks for God, therefore his teachings are eternal.

2) God continues to change... reveal, take away and clarify doctrine. This is essential in order for mormons to continue to receive revelation, line upon line, until they have it all. We don't understand or know much, in fact we want to forget most doctrine, its all a mystery and after this life, if we do everything the leaders say, we will get our answers. This is how God changed the negro doctrine and polygamy. The prophet is mere man doing his best. The new prophet's doctrines superseded the previous one.


Use #1 doctrine when:

Trying to claim p-hood authority. When trying to convert people. When explaining doctrine they have not gotten around to change yet.

Use #2 doctrine when:

There are questions that they don't have answers for. The previous answers have become socially unacceptable. When people are walking out the door. When the doctrine become illogically comical.

So mormon doctrine regarding the nature of god can be summed up to: "God never changes, except when he does"



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2014 02:28AM by erictheex.

^ This is an excellent summary, and really explains why Mormonism is such a mindfuck; they're teaching the fine art of living with cognitive dissonance from birth.

If you think about it, they do this same thing with pretty much everything. Polygamy is the celestial order of marriage, but we don't teach that, because God wants us to be monogamous. Prophets are infallible, and when they speak the thinking has been done, and they will never lead the church astray... except when they are fallible, and when they lead the church astray because they're just men. And then just alternate as needed, lather, rinse, repeat.

I'm kind of amazed that any of us ever found our way out of that convoluted web of insanity.

The matter is really simple: God does change his mind. Remember Jonah? God changed his mind and didn't immediately destroy Nineveh. The question of God changing his mind involves the whole process of prayer. If God would not consider or reconsider what he intends to do, prayer would be valueless. Instead, prayer is valuable. However, it is of little value to TSCC. The false claims, false doctrines, and patently false scriptures made it difficult for any Mo leader to have any prayer results. I do believe some, perhaps even most, benefit from prayers - but the leaders do not benefit except to the extent they thrive by members thinking TSCC is why prayers are answered and thus get money from the sheeple to waste on malls and so forth. Those leaders will pay in the end.

He never changes his robe either. Talk about a beatific aroma. It's not the visage of God, but the smell that will cause a man's bowels to loose. Imagine a sulfuric ammonia urine stain odor, and you're halfway there. Jesus and H.G. are always yelling, "open a window, old dude!"

God doesn't sweat he glistens. Also he farts rainbows. No smell there.

Another example: Genesis 18, Abraham convinces God to give Sodom another chance. Too bad, Sodom failed anyway.

God wanted Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, God doesn't want Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. God commands polygamy, God forbids polygamy. God bans black people from having the priesthood, God lets black people have the priesthood.
I don't think "never" means what Mormon god thinks it means.

1. God did not want Abraham to sacrifice Isaac but was testing him.
2. God never commanded polygamy.
3. God did not forbid polygamy.
4. God never banned black people for the priesthood (though the priesthood no longer exists).
5. As per earlier post: God does change His mind but the above are not correct examples.
6. A god who did not change his mind would be unable to answer prayers.