condescension of God?

[SpiritDragon]

We read in the scriptures in various places about the condescension of God. Surely this is not a reference to a prideful God who is always being "high and mighty" or otherwise prideful. So I looked a little further into the idea and wikipedia suggests the word is synonomous with accomodation in a religious context which "is the theological principle that God, while being in his nature unknowable and unreachable, has nevertheless communicated with humanity in a way which humans can understand and respond to. The concept is that scripture has accommodated, or made allowance for, the original audience's language and general level of understanding."

 

I'm just curious what others think the condescension of God is referring to?

[Dravin]

To quote Merriam-Webster:

 

1: voluntary descent from one's rank or dignity in relations with an inferior

 

Link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condescension

[Latter Days Guy]

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/12/the-condescension-of-god?lang=eng

[SpiritDragon]

To quote Merriam-Webster:

 

 

 

Link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condescension

 

Good old merriam-webster... I guess I checked the wrong online dictionary. Mine only showed arrogant attitudes, which happened to already be the understanding of the word I had.

[Quin]

Condescend has traditionally meant the opposite of what it's used for these days. It was a good, even a GREAT thing, and was used almost entirely in a status-quo abandoning practice.

Like President Monson calling you to wish you a happy birthday... When there is NO expectation of his doing such a thing... For several hundred years would be described as "What a great man! He condescended to call me, me! I've never even met him, and he took the time out of his busy schedule to call me, and not only that, but we talked for a good 10 minutes! He asked for my advice! What great condescension he showed me!"

Condescension was either someone from on high (be it parent child, boss employee, nobility commoner, leader follower) lowering themselves to the equal of their subordinate OR bestowing of a favor upon them above and beyond what was called for.

In modern vernacular, Gilbert & Sullivan (and a few others) used condescension so HILARIOUSLY (in sarcasm), that the sarcastic meaning has stuck. And stuck hard following the democratic & communistic revolutions that happened all around the world. (With the idea of everyone being equal, it's impossible for there to be a status differential. Yet, we all know status still exists; parent child boss employees, etc... Even if clas structure has been knocked sideways).

Q

[Maureen]

Simply put the condescension of God is when God became man in the form of Jesus.

 

An LDS explanation is this:

 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Condescension_of_God

 

M.

[Traveler]

I believe that the condescension of G-d specifically refers to the sacrifice and atonement of Jesus Christ.  It is a reference to Jesus descending beneath all things to suffer all things both physical and spiritual that man suffers or can suffer.  This was done that man may be lifted up to the highest exaltation and be one with G-d. 

 

One of the problems I have with the doctrine of some Christian sects is that Jesus was fully both man and G-d.  My problem is that if Jesus retained the status of being fully G-d then there was no actual condescension but rather a mascaraed of a G-d pretending to be man.  My understanding is that there was an actual condescension – not a half and half pretense.  

[Seminarysnoozer]

I believe that the condescension of G-d specifically refers to the sacrifice and atonement of Jesus Christ.  It is a reference to Jesus descending beneath all things to suffer all things both physical and spiritual that man suffers or can suffer.  This was done that man may be lifted up to the highest exaltation and be one with G-d. 

 

One of the problems I have with the doctrine of some Christian sects is that Jesus was fully both man and G-d.  My problem is that if Jesus retained the status of being fully G-d then there was no actual condescension but rather a mascaraed of a G-d pretending to be man.  My understanding is that there was an actual condescension – not a half and half pretense.  

I think it is explained fairly fully in Mosiah 3; "5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the ^aLord ^bOmnipotent who ^creigneth, who was, and is from all ^deternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a ^etabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty ^fmiracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the ^gblind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

 6 And he shall cast out ^adevils, or the ^bevil spirits which dwell in the hearts of the children of men.

 7 And lo, he shall ^asuffer ^btemptations, and pain of body, ^chunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can ^dsuffer, except it be unto death; for behold, ^eblood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his ^fanguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people."

 

A half-half status would be a condensation from his original 100% spirit form.  Half-half is like 50-50%.  50% spirit, 50% body but more likely some other unknown ratio.  Whatever the ratio it was unlike the 100% spirit form.  He was half and half, he dwelled in a tabernacle of clay, even though the other half - the tabernacle of clay was not like yours and mine, as he was the only begotten.  His spirit status remained the same, the heights of His spiritual glory remained within His spirit but the sum of the two, as we are dual beings in mortality, was a lower status. When He forsake the body, was crucified, He gave up the half that was holding Him down and then He ascended as His spirit remained the glorified spirit He was and always was; "who was, and is from all eternity to eternity". He couldn't have done what He did without the tabernacle of clay. His resurrected body no longer has blood, which allowed him to "anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people."  He gave up the blood, which is our example to do the same.  This is why we eat and drink of his blood every week to remember that goal.

[james12]

Abinadi taught us, "I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son" (Mosiah 15:1-2) Christ, before coming down to earth was of a different status, a different order or rank entirely, called by Abinadi "the Father". He was and is greater than us. He is the first born in the spirit and the only begotten in the flesh. He is creator and ruler. His condescension is that he gave up such glory to enter a new condition, an abject and dependent state known as "the Son".

 

The status of the Father goes back to another order of existence, obviously way back there. He [the Son] was coceived by the power of God, a godly power which is not of this earth and has nothing to do with this earth at all. This is a place where men dwell in perishable flesh, a condition designated as "the Son." Not second rate, but completely dependent. (Teachings of the Book of Mormon - Semester 2, Hugh Nibley, p 83)

 

A God has come down from eternal realms of glory and laid aside his crown for me and you! He, the rightful ruler of the world, will suffer! This is who Nephi speaks of in 1 Ne 11:26-33.

 

But Nephi also relates to us of another, "And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit, and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of time the angel spake unto me saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms" (1 Ne 11:19-20). God, the Eternal Father, has come down. He is no more subject to the condition called "the Son" but is, and always will be Father. He is the Father of Jesus. 

 

It seems I can just barely glimpse it, just barely understand. How I wish I could see more. 

[Blackmarch]

We read in the scriptures in various places about the condescension of God. Surely this is not a reference to a prideful God who is always being "high and mighty" or otherwise prideful. So I looked a little further into the idea and wikipedia suggests the word is synonomous with accomodation in a religious context which "is the theological principle that God, while being in his nature unknowable and unreachable, has nevertheless communicated with humanity in a way which humans can understand and respond to. The concept is that scripture has accommodated, or made allowance for, the original audience's language and general level of understanding."

 

I'm just curious what others think the condescension of God is referring to?

IN general, Coming down to us on our level in some form or another. However in terms of the gospel it would seem to me more about Christ becoming a mortal man, and having to go below us all to lift us.

[Traveler]

I think it is explained fairly fully in Mosiah 3; "5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the ^aLord ^bOmnipotent who ^creigneth, who was, and is from all ^deternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a ^etabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty ^fmiracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the ^gblind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

 6 And he shall cast out ^adevils, or the ^bevil spirits which dwell in the hearts of the children of men.

 7 And lo, he shall ^asuffer ^btemptations, and pain of body, ^chunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can ^dsuffer, except it be unto death; for behold, ^eblood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his ^fanguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people."

 

A half-half status would be a condensation from his original 100% spirit form.  Half-half is like 50-50%.  50% spirit, 50% body but more likely some other unknown ratio.  Whatever the ratio it was unlike the 100% spirit form.  He was half and half, he dwelled in a tabernacle of clay, even though the other half - the tabernacle of clay was not like yours and mine, as he was the only begotten.  His spirit status remained the same, the heights of His spiritual glory remained within His spirit but the sum of the two, as we are dual beings in mortality, was a lower status. When He forsake the body, was crucified, He gave up the half that was holding Him down and then He ascended as His spirit remained the glorified spirit He was and always was; "who was, and is from all eternity to eternity". He couldn't have done what He did without the tabernacle of clay. His resurrected body no longer has blood, which allowed him to "anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people."  He gave up the blood, which is our example to do the same.  This is why we eat and drink of his blood every week to remember that goal.

 

I am having a hard time with the idea that G-d remains omnipotent and at the same time is able to suffer.  By the very definition of "Omnipotent" and "suffer" the two cannot refer to the same being and maintain any semblance to what the two terms actually mean; the two are mutually exclusive.  If G-d were to suffer to any degree then he, by definition, is not omnipotent or infinitely powerful.  G-d would not and could not be any more powerful than that which caused him to suffer.

 

If as you imply his unchanged spirit remained infinite it would not matter what his dual physical body was or could add to or subtract as long as it was finite – the sum of the two would still be infinite and there would be no actual condescension.  By the very definition of infinite nothing could be added or subtracted that would or could change the sum.  If there was a change then by the simplest of rhetorical logic – we would have iron clad proof G-d is not infinite and all-powerful. 

 

What could be temptation to an all-powerful being?  The three temptations of Christ in the wilderness would be laughably absurd.  There is no way that not eating for any amount of time would make an all-powerful being hungry.  It would mean that hunger is more powerful than the being that becomes hungry.  And giving anything to an omnipotent being is a ruse of logic.  Even jumping off anything would not even need angles to save an omnipotent being that would never need to rely on other beings for anything - ever.  Is the gravity of earth greater than the power of the G-d that created the entire universe?

 

Without condescending from “all powerful” and “omnipotence” the life of Jesus recorded in scripture becomes nothing but an absurdly silly meaningless and pointless charade.  The condescendence of G-d is the most stunning act of love, compassion and suffering that I cannot wrap my mind around what mankind means to the omnipotent G-d.  I just do not understand why anyone would take anything away from what an incredible sacrifice was made.  But most of all – I do not understand such a G-d – especially that such a G-d would ever send someone off to hell that cared at all or understood at all what G-d has done already has done for them.   And rebelling against such a being makes no sense to me – even a selfish rebellion makes no sense.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I am having a hard time with the idea that G-d remains omnipotent and at the same time is able to suffer.  By the very definition of "Omnipotent" and "suffer" the two cannot refer to the same being and maintain any semblance to what the two terms actually mean; the two are mutually exclusive.  If G-d were to suffer to any degree then he, by definition, is not omnipotent or infinitely powerful.  G-d would not and could not be any more powerful than that which caused him to suffer.

 

If as you imply his unchanged spirit remained infinite it would not matter what his dual physical body was or could add to or subtract as long as it was finite – the sum of the two would still be infinite and there would be no actual condescension.  By the very definition of infinite nothing could be added or subtracted that would or could change the sum.  If there was a change then by the simplest of rhetorical logic – we would have iron clad proof G-d is not infinite and all-powerful. 

 

What could be temptation to an all-powerful being?  The three temptations of Christ in the wilderness would be laughably absurd.  There is no way that not eating for any amount of time would make an all-powerful being hungry.  It would mean that hunger is more powerful than the being that becomes hungry.  And giving anything to an omnipotent being is a ruse of logic.  Even jumping off anything would not even need angles to save an omnipotent being that would never need to rely on other beings for anything - ever.  Is the gravity of earth greater than the power of the G-d that created the entire universe?

 

Without condescending from “all powerful” and “omnipotence” the life of Jesus recorded in scripture becomes nothing but an absurdly silly meaningless and pointless charade.  The condescendence of G-d is the most stunning act of love, compassion and suffering that I cannot wrap my mind around what mankind means to the omnipotent G-d.  I just do not understand why anyone would take anything away from what an incredible sacrifice was made.  But most of all – I do not understand such a G-d – especially that such a G-d would ever send someone off to hell that cared at all or understood at all what G-d has done already has done for them.   And rebelling against such a being makes no sense to me – even a selfish rebellion makes no sense.

His spirit remains eternal just like our spirits remain eternal, they are not destroyed in the process unless we let them be.  We can be in the flesh without being of the flesh. I think you have a hard time with that concept.  What does it mean to you to be in the flesh but not of the flesh?  How is that possible?

 

While one is in the flesh one has to live according to the flesh but at the same time one does not have to become of the flesh.  That is what the gospel does, it protects us from having to be "of the flesh".  Jesus forsake the things of this world including his own flesh.  He is our example.  Those that do not forsake the flesh take it in and become like it, carnal and natural.  Christ' spirit did not take any of those features in as its own despite having to experience them thus remaining pure.  Exposure to evil does not make one automatically evil.  One has to take in those characteristics as their own just like one would have to do to become more Christ like. 

 

Let me ask you this, does the veil permanently affect the character of the spirit that is behind it or only temporarily lessens its ability?  Once the veil is removed, is a spirit changed because of the veil itself or is any change only related to choices that are made while behind the veil.  I think you are implying that putting oneself behind the veil would change the character of the spirit, as you have so implied in other threads regarding spiritual separation from God. I believe the light of Christ allows us to not be so affected, which allows for this life to be a probationary period and not a sentence. This life is not a permanent effect, it is temporary, and even for Christ was temporary.

 

This life is like a flight simulator.  If we crash the plane on the flight simulator it is not the end of the world for us. We can learn from our mistakes.  If one goes onto the flight simulator and doesn't crash the plane (i.e - Christ, in this metaphor) but is able to appreciate all of our crashes for having done it himself, is not lessened by the experience just because he didn't crash the plane.  He doesn't remain in "flight simulator" status when the program is stopped and neither do we.

 

I think the other thing to keep in mind is that Christ is our brother.  He had not yet gone through all the steps to be exactly like God as He is now.  This life propelled him above his previous status.  If one does not believe that then that person does not appreciate the necessity of the resurrected, glorified body to become like God.  One of my speculations (this is not gospel doctrine) is that possibly one of the things a body allows for that the spirit alone has a more difficult time with (maybe) is empathy.  Christ had not yet received a fullness of the Father's status until after the resurrection with a glorified body.  Christ had to take the "flight simulator" class, the preparatory class to have the real plane later.

 

As L. Tom Perry said; "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. [Luke 2:51–52]

Using these attributes that described the Savior as he grew to manhood seems to be a good measure for your progress at this special time in your lives.

When the scriptures record that Jesus increased in stature, he was perfecting his physical body to house his eternal spirit."

 

In other words, this life, for Jesus was a movement forward, "increase in stature and in favour with God".  This life for Christ was not a backward movement.

[Traveler]

His spirit remains eternal just like our spirits remain eternal, they are not destroyed in the process unless we let them be.  We can be in the flesh without being of the flesh. I think you have a hard time with that concept.  What does it mean to you to be in the flesh but not of the flesh?  How is that possible?

 

While one is in the flesh one has to live according to the flesh but at the same time one does not have to become of the flesh.  That is what the gospel does, it protects us from having to be "of the flesh".  Jesus forsake the things of this world including his own flesh.  He is our example.  Those that do not forsake the flesh take it in and become like it, carnal and natural.  Christ' spirit did not take any of those features in as its own despite having to experience them thus remaining pure.  Exposure to evil does not make one automatically evil.  One has to take in those characteristics as their own just like one would have to do to become more Christ like. 

 

Let me ask you this, does the veil permanently affect the character of the spirit that is behind it or only temporarily lessens its ability?  Once the veil is removed, is a spirit changed because of the veil itself or is any change only related to choices that are made while behind the veil.  I think you are implying that putting oneself behind the veil would change the character of the spirit, as you have so implied in other threads regarding spiritual separation from God. I believe the light of Christ allows us to not be so affected, which allows for this life to be a probationary period and not a sentence. This life is not a permanent effect, it is temporary, and even for Christ was temporary.

 

This life is like a flight simulator.  If we crash the plane on the flight simulator it is not the end of the world for us. We can learn from our mistakes.  If one goes onto the flight simulator and doesn't crash the plane (i.e - Christ, in this metaphor) but is able to appreciate all of our crashes for having done it himself, is not lessened by the experience just because he didn't crash the plane.  He doesn't remain in "flight simulator" status when the program is stopped and neither do we.

 

I think the other thing to keep in mind is that Christ is our brother.  He had not yet gone through all the steps to be exactly like God as He is now.  This life propelled him above his previous status.  If one does not believe that then that person does not appreciate the necessity of the resurrected, glorified body to become like God.  One of my speculations (this is not gospel doctrine) is that possibly one of the things a body allows for that the spirit alone has a more difficult time with (maybe) is empathy.  Christ had not yet received a fullness of the Father's status until after the resurrection with a glorified body.  Christ had to take the "flight simulator" class, the preparatory class to have the real plane later.

 

As L. Tom Perry said; "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. [Luke 2:51–52]

Using these attributes that described the Savior as he grew to manhood seems to be a good measure for your progress at this special time in your lives.

When the scriptures record that Jesus increased in stature, he was perfecting his physical body to house his eternal spirit."

 

In other words, this life, for Jesus was a movement forward, "increase in stature and in favour with God".  This life for Christ was not a backward movement.

 

 

Sometimes you seem to interpret things that are a surprise to me and I am not sure if I understand what you are saying or trying to say.  For example I am not sure what you mean by "backward movement".  I would think death is quite a backward movement - are you saying that Jesus really did not die?  In general I believe condescension would imply at least a temporary backward movement.   

 

Also I would think wisdom has some spiritual quality.  Are you saying the wisdom of Christ spoken of in the scripture you quoted, was not related in any way to his spiritual wisdom but only worldly (carnal and sensual wisdom only)?  Are you saying in some roundabout way that Jesus (his spirit) was not omnipotent (perfect) prior to his coming to earth?

[Traveler]

....

 

Let me ask you this, does the veil permanently affect the character of the spirit that is behind it or only temporarily lessens its ability?  Once the veil is removed, is a spirit changed because of the veil itself or is any change only related to choices that are made while behind the veil.  I think you are implying that putting oneself behind the veil would change the character of the spirit, as you have so implied in other threads regarding spiritual separation from God. I believe the light of Christ allows us to not be so affected, which allows for this life to be a probationary period and not a sentence. This life is not a permanent effect, it is temporary, and even for Christ was temporary.

 

....

 

This looks a little like a "trick" question.  So I would say this - obviously the veil, which would be of temporary duration during our mortal experience, was intended to have an eternal affect on the character of the spirit children of G-d.  Why should anyone think otherwise of things that G-d would have us most choice spirits experience.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Sometimes you seem to interpret things that are a surprise to me and I am not sure if I understand what you are saying or trying to say.  For example I am not sure what you mean by "backward movement".  I would think death is quite a backward movement - are you saying that Jesus really did not die?  In general I believe condescension would imply at least a temporary backward movement.   

 

Also I would think wisdom has some spiritual quality.  Are you saying the wisdom of Christ spoken of in the scripture you quoted, was not related in any way to his spiritual wisdom but only worldly (carnal and sensual wisdom only)?  Are you saying in some roundabout way that Jesus (his spirit) was not omnipotent (perfect) prior to his coming to earth?

I suppose I am trying to convey a bigger picture view, the result of Christ coming here was a step forward for all including Himself.

 

As far as the other issue of omnipotent, my views as to what that means may be different than most and I don't want to derail the thread.  The short answer is that when we become glorified beings we will have access to ALL.  By having access to all one becomes omnipotent.  We sometimes refer to this as the keys and authority of the Priesthood.  The omnipotent status is not so much a description of self as it is with whom an individual associates.  When asked about doing difficult things such as a camel passing through the eye of a needle, Jesus responded; " 27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, ^aWith men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are ^bpossible."   It matters who you are with.

[Traveler]

I suppose I am trying to convey a bigger picture view, the result of Christ coming here was a step forward for all including Himself.

 

...

 

I am more confused now than before concerning your point of view – Sorry, I must be missing something of critical importance.  Though my questions may seem harsh – I am trying to get to the justification in your reasoning. Does this mean that you do not believe in the principle of sacrifice - because in the big picture one is just selfishly getting more for themselves?  Or that the scriptures are incorrect (incorrect little picture view) in teaching the condescension of G-d?  Jesus was only making himself greater because he saw the bigger picture?  So that it is possible that his actual motivation was his own increased glorification in the bigger picture?

[Windseeker]

I am having a hard time with the idea that G-d remains omnipotent and at the same time is able to suffer.  By the very definition of "Omnipotent" and "suffer" the two cannot refer to the same being and maintain any semblance to what the two terms actually mean; the two are mutually exclusive.  If G-d were to suffer to any degree then he, by definition, is not omnipotent or infinitely powerful.  G-d would not and could not be any more powerful than that which caused him to suffer.

 

It looks like you are as puzzled as Enoch was at seeing a G-d who suffers. He asks G-d three times not ‘Why’ but ‘How’ he can weep. And keep in mind this is pre-condescension.

 

Moses 7

 28 And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains?

 29 And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?

 30 And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and thy bosom is there; and also thou art just; thou art merciful and kind forever;

 31 And thou hast taken Zion to thine own bosom, from all thy creations, from all eternity to all eternity; and naught but peace, justice, and truth is the habitation of thy throne; and mercy shall go before thy face and have no end; how is it thou canst weep?

 32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

 33 And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood;

 

 

 

 

Certainly we are taught that G-d is full of compassion and one definition of compassion is “to suffer together”.

 

To me it’s simple, G-ds love is greater than ours and so is his suffering.

 

If not then perhaps we have his nature wrong and he truly exists without body, parts or passions.

[Maureen]

...If not then perhaps we have his nature wrong and he truly exists without body, parts or passions.

 Body, parts or passions just means that God does not require things outside of himself to exist. He does not require air to breathe, food to eat, sleep or warmth to exist. God is existence itself. 

 

M.

[Traveler]

It looks like you are as puzzled as Enoch was at seeing a G-d who suffers. He asks G-d three times not ‘Why’ but ‘How’ he can weep. And keep in mind this is pre-condescension.

 

 

 

Certainly we are taught that G-d is full of compassion and one definition of compassion is “to suffer together”.

 

To me it’s simple, G-ds love is greater than ours and so is his suffering.

 

If not then perhaps we have his nature wrong and he truly exists without body, parts or passions.

 

Thank you Windseeker!  May I shake your hand!!!  I agree and I believe that what you have provided is proof that G-d condescends not just for some brief moment but eternally from his omnipotence in order to suffer.  And for the very reason you have highlighted - because he loves his children and so suffers for that cause which he makes greater than himself.

 

For this cause of love he asks us as well to suffer with him.

[Traveler]

 Body, parts or passions just means that God does not require things outside of himself to exist. He does not require air to breathe, food to eat, sleep or warmth to exist. God is existence itself. 

 

M.

Existence is not the question - the question is how can an omnipotent being suffer?  The answer Windseeker give was in essence that he makes love greater than himself therefore, for reason of that love he condescends - to suffer because of his love for us.  Without which, he could not suffer.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I am more confused now than before concerning your point of view – Sorry, I must be missing something of critical importance.  Though my questions may seem harsh – I am trying to get to the justification in your reasoning. Does this mean that you do not believe in the principle of sacrifice - because in the big picture one is just selfishly getting more for themselves?  Or that the scriptures are incorrect (incorrect little picture view) in teaching the condescension of G-d?  Jesus was only making himself greater because he saw the bigger picture?  So that it is possible that his actual motivation was his own increased glorification in the bigger picture?

You are trying to imply that I suggested purpose in His act when I didn't.  I just said that was the result.  His purpose is to show love to His Father as our sacrifice should always be with "an eye single to the glory of God."  Christ is our example in that regard. God's purpose is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man.  So, it comes full circle.  When we sacrifice with an eye single to the glory of God, the result is joy and happiness, more than what we sacrificed. That applies to Christ as well. "The principle of Sacirfice" as you are questioning is based in the purpose, with an eye single to the glory of God not whether quantity gained is greater or less than what was put in. Yes, I believe in that principle.  The "principle of sacrifice" does not apply to anyone who is not doing it with an eye single to the glory of God.  That kind of sacrifice does not count for anything.

 

I think you are confused because of your perception of sacrifice.  According to LDS.org, sacrifice is defined as; "To sacrifice is to give up something valuable or precious, often with the intent of accomplishing a greater purpose or goal."

 

D&C 98: "13 And whoso ^alayeth down his life in my cause, for my name’s sake, shall find it again, even life eternal.

 14 Therefore, be not ^aafraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord, that I will ^bprove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, ^ceven unto death, that you may be found worthy."   The Lord instructs us that if we lay down our life, give everything we have, we will get it back, "Therefore, be not afraid... even unto death..."  He instructs us to reason this way.  The key, though, is to do it "for my name's sake".  Nothing is lost in the process, it is only gained.

[Windseeker]

 Body, parts or passions just means that God does not require things outside of himself to exist. He does not require air to breathe, food to eat, sleep or warmth to exist. God is existence itself. 

 

M.

 

Hi Maureen,

 

However other people interpret "body, parts, and passions" I know I don't agree with it when it comes to describing the God I worship. When you say that God is existence itself it strikes me as a little "new age" and I wouldn't define him that way.

 

The Passions was my focus anyway, and in summary I agree with The Traveler that he chooses to be full of compassion and love which also means he can respond to the choices me make, whether that is to experience Joy or Grief (suffering). 

 

I think the original idea of describing him as being without passion was to reconcile his immutability.

[Windseeker]

Thank you Windseeker!  May I shake your hand!!!  I agree and I believe that what you have provided is proof that G-d condescends not just for some brief moment but eternally from his omnipotence in order to suffer.  And for the very reason you have highlighted - because he loves his children and so suffers for that cause which he makes greater than himself.

 

For this cause of love he asks us as well to suffer with him.

 

I'd like to shake your hand too. It's the first time in memory I think you acknowledged my existence.    

 

 

I'm used to getting ignored on the Traveler/Seminary Snoozer threads.  

[Seminarysnoozer]

It looks like you are as puzzled as Enoch was at seeing a G-d who suffers. He asks G-d three times not ‘Why’ but ‘How’ he can weep. And keep in mind this is pre-condescension.

 

 

 

Certainly we are taught that G-d is full of compassion and one definition of compassion is “to suffer together”.

 

To me it’s simple, G-ds love is greater than ours and so is his suffering.

 

If not then perhaps we have his nature wrong and he truly exists without body, parts or passions.

I agree.  This is a concept, though, that I don't think Traveler is admitting to, which is that the last shall be made the First.  Because the Lord descended bellow all He is made the First.  That is not to speak of the "why", I agree it is because he follows the first and second greatest commandments which is to love God with all your heart (an eye single to the glory of God - like I have been stating) and the second is to love thy neighbor as thy self.  When applying those two commandments one becomes humble and is a servant to those she loves, suffering together.  This is our example and how we all can become exalted.  The end result is exaltation, to rise above our previous status by descending.  This is the way for us.

 

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, “The condescension of the Father of our spirits, in providing a sacrifice for His creatures, a plan of redemption, … ought to inspire everyone who is called to be a minister of these glad tidings, to improve his talent that he may gain other talents, that when the Master sits down to take an account of the conduct of His servants, it may be said, Well done, good and faithful servant.”  As the Father and Son both condescended from lofty and glorious stations to fulfill Their missions, we also can become the true servants in doing Their work, following Their example."

 

The Lord's instruction to Joseph Smith when he was suffering in jail, falsly accussed; " 7 And if thou shouldst be cast into the ^apit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the ^bdeep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to ^chedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of ^dhell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee ^eexperience, and shall be for thy good.

 8 The ^aSon of Man hath ^bdescended below them all. Art thou greater than he?"

 

In other words, the Lord's love serves another purpose which is to be an example to us on how to become like Him and our Father in Heaven.  To become like our Heavenly Father, to ascend to such heights and "to be for thy good."  Some of the words associated with Christ’s condescension that we are to learn and emulate are; descend, love, mercy, grace, suffering, submission, obedience, service, sacrifice, redeem, humility, minister, judged, and slain.

 

Nephi was asked by an angel "“Knowest thou the condescension of God?"  He answered he didn't know and then he was told.  He was told not only to be in awe of such sacrifice but to learn that that is the only way to exaltation, to reach greater heights. That is Gods work and therefore Christ work and if we want to enjoy similar happiness then we follow that example. To be in awe of His great love is step one for us, to be all amazed that He would do such a thing, the intention of such an example, though, is that we emulate that same love so that we may be exalted in Him.  This is the bigger picture. It is to answer the question, why is love the greatest commandment?  It is the way to eternal life.

 

Traveler said; "I am having a hard time with the idea that G-d remains omnipotent and at the same time is able to suffer.  By the very definition of "Omnipotent" and "suffer" the two cannot refer to the same being and maintain any semblance to what the two terms actually mean; the two are mutually exclusive.  If G-d were to suffer to any degree then he, by definition, is not omnipotent or infinitely powerful.  G-d would not and could not be any more powerful than that which caused him to suffer."

 

I am trying to explain how the suffering is an act that makes one greater, not lesser.  The dissconect is in not realizing that the expression of love in this way makes one greater, more like God.

[Traveler]

Hi Maureen,

 

However other people interpret "body, parts, and passions" I know I don't agree with it when it comes to describing the God I worship. When you say that God is existence itself it strikes me as a little "new age" and I wouldn't define him that way.

 

The Passions was my focus anyway, and in summary I agree with The Traveler that he chooses to be full of compassion and love which also means he can respond to the choices me make, whether that is to experience Joy or Grief (suffering). 

 

I think the original idea of describing him as being without passion was to reconcile his immutability.

 

Again I must say excellent insight.  Historically we see from scripture that early Christianity was philosophically attacked and influenced by Hellenistic thinking of the ancient Greeks.  In essence what I think happened is that Christianity following the apostolic era tried to make the philosophical foot fit the shoe rather than the other way around in Christian concepts of G-d and other essential doctrine.  Believing first that G-d is omnipotent and then trying to reconcile his divine place over man with his immutability.

 

However, Christ taught the principle that the greatest (in heaven) is the servant – and demonstrated this in the washing of the apostles’ feet.  Again, demonstrating the continuing principle of divine condescension as an actual principle and attribute of G-d.  The philosophical problem of condescension is the paradox that actual service requires that in principle the cause is greater than the servant – which serves the cause.

 

Fortunately for LDS we have the scripture in Moses that defines this cause to which G-d is dedicated (Moses 1:39)

 

 

For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.