Is God "in" or "out" of time?

There are 3 possible relationships between God and time:

(1) God has always existed outside of time.

(2) God first came into being in time and then moved outside of time.
This option gives rise to other possibilities such as (2a) God existed outside of time, while time was co-eternal with God, and then he chose to enter it or (2b) God enters and leaves time at will periodically.

(3) God exists in time.

(1) and (2) assume what I will call Divine Timelessness. This is the idea that it is possible for a being to be “in time” or “outside of time”. This assumes that being “in” or “out” of time are meaningful concepts. I will argue that these concepts are meaningless which means that option (3) is the only viable explanation for God.

Argument 1
In the book A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking explains that according to the general theory of relativity, space and time are dynamic quantities:

"When a body moves or a force acts, it affects the curvature of space and time - and in turn the structure of space-time affects the way in which bodies move and forces act. Space and time not only affect but also are affected by everything that happens in the universe. Just as we cannot talk about events in the universe without the notions of space and time, so in general relativity it became meaningless to talk about space and time outside the limits of the universe."

This means that space cannot be separated from time. If God is in the universe, then He must also be in space and in time. But some people argue that God is not only outside of time, but also outside of space. This proposition, if it were true, would render God causally inert. In other words, God would be unable to cause anything to happen in the universe. Why is this so? Let me first define time. Time is a measuring system used to identify the sequence of events. We could also say that time is the relative speed of a sequence of events. If God time did not apply to God, then a sequence of events would not apply to God. If God wanted to cause something to happen in the universe, He would have to then participate in the sequence of events and therefore He would by definition be subject to the measuring system of sequences of events that we call "time". If God could withdraw himself into some state in which time did not apply, then He would be completely alone and He could not cause anything to happen in time or space.


Argument 2
Often, the imperfections of our language lead to confusion. We use the words “inside of time” and “outside of time” just like we use the words “thoughts inside our minds.” If thoughts are inside a mind then we could cut open the head and pull the thought outside of the mind. This is not what we mean by the phrase "inside of the mind". We only use these words as a figure of speech to mean, “I am thinking.” The phrase "inside of the mind" is a grammatical remark. Grammatical remarks are sentences that simply have a correct grammatical structure. Confusion occurs when grammatical remarks pretend to be empirical remarks. Empirical remarks are propositions that correspond to reality. We easily recognize that the grammatical remark, "outside of color" is not an empirical remark because that phrase cannot refer to anything in the real world. But we often get confused with phrases such as "outside of time". I argue that this phrase is meaningless as an empirical remark. I have no idea what it could possibly mean.


Conclusion: Since Divine Timelessness is a meaningless concept, we are left with option (3). Therefore, God exists in time. He has a past, a present, and a future.

Addressing possible objections to conclusion:

• A possible response is, "It is a mystery." But this is simply another way of saying, "It doesn't make sense, but I believe it anyway." This explanation does not satisfy. It is more likely that we have simply become confused in our thinking through our language, than to assume that the impossible is possible within some magical universe.

• In the scriptures, it says, "All things are before him." This has been interpreted to mean that even the future is before him. If "all things" means that the past, present, and future are before him, then time must not apply to God. But I believe that this is an incorrect interpretation since I believe that that phrase is meaningless. The phrase “all things are before” is only meaningful if we interpret it to mean that all things are before Him in the present. The past, present, and future are not things that could possibly be “before” Him (meaning “in front of” Him) nor could it be “after” Him, or “adjacent” to Him. Again, the confusion begins when we mistake grammatical remarks for empirical remarks.

• Alma 40:8 say that “all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.” This is perhaps the strongest ammunition that a believer in the LDS tradition has to justify a belief in Divine Timelessness. But does it really mean that time does not apply to God? When interpreting scripture, one must look at the context as well as all other verses to interpret correctly. If one were to interpret this scripture to mean that time does not need to apply to God, then it seems that one must ignore D&C 130:4-5 which says that God’s time is according to the planet which he resides. This verse clearly implies that time applies to God. Either these 2 verses contradict each other or Alma 40:8 does not actually support Divine Timelessness. If they contradict, then the verse in D&C 130 takes precedence since modern revelation is more trustworthy than ancient revelation (as Brigham Young suggested). It would not bother me at all if Alma 40:8 was one of those "mistakes of men." However, I do not believe that discrediting this verse is necessary. I simply believe that it cannot be interpreted to suggest Divine Timelessness. I do not think it would be difficult to create ad hoc explanations of this verse that would make it consistent with D&C 130.

Contend Against No Church

In Doctrine and Covenants 18:20, the Lord says to the missionaries, "Contend against no church save it be the church of the devil."
As Latter-day Saints, we don't actively fight against other churches even though other churches attack us. Other churches have made cartoons and documentaries that misrepresent and attack our beliefs. Other churches send professional protesters to protest outside of our Conference Center in Salt Lake City.

The true church does not need to attack any other church. Instead we support other churches in a spirit of brotherly love. During the tsunami in Indonesia in 2005, we gave out 1000s of copies of the Koran to villages that were hurt the most by the tsunami. Here in Utah, the LDS church donated $25000 for the building of the Krishna temple in Spanish Fork. Many LDS volunteers personally helped build the Hindu temple. We work with many leaders of other churches to help build communities.

The LDS church has many disagreements with other churches about the nature of God and other doctrines. So why would we help other religions?
The answer is partly contained in the previous post. We believe that God gives light and knowledge to all peoples, even other churches. Those people will be judged for how they respond to the knowledge that they have been given. Helping other churches brings more light and truth to people and prepares them to receive more by showing that the LDS church is a church of love and service.

All Truth Belongs to the Mormons

In the previous post, I said that we receive knowledge a little bit at a time. When we act on knowledge, we prepare ourselves to receive more knowledge. Knowledge has been described in the scriptures as light and truth. Light has a strong metaphor for seeing. We use the word "enlightened" to denote a high level of understanding.

The truths that are most important are the truths that help us fulfill God's purposes. His main objective is to enable us to become like Him. We do not need to have all truth to do accomplish this. Our limited minds could not comprehend all truth anyway. We only need certain truths (such as the knowledge of the Atonement) that will lead us to do certain things (repent and be baptized). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church to have every one of these truths. God leads the church through prophets to keep the truths pure because man is easily confused by mixing these doctrines with the philosophies of man. (Ephesians 2:20) No other church has prophets authorized to speak on behalf of God. Though they may have leaders that are partly inspired by God. The fact that the LDS church contains all of these truths does not mean that it has every truth, nor does it mean that it is the only one with truth.

God gives light and truth to all nations, but he gives them as much as they are ready to receive. (Alma 29:8) A 1978 First Presidency message of the church states: "the great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals." Many religions and philosophies have parts of the truth. Any truth that they have belongs to us, the Mormons. We claim all truths found in any religion whether it is Hindu, Buddhist, or Islam.

The Process of Knowledge

Knowledge is a process. God is a powerful source of truth. We can gain knowledge when God reveals it to us. The process of receiving truth from a divine source is called revelation. Different types of revelation include: (1) testifying, (2) prophesying, (3) comforting, (4) uplifting, (5) informing, (6) restraining, (7) confirming, and (8) impelling. Recently my very close friend had a spiritual experience where she was comforted during a time of great despair. This spiritual experience was essentially a form of revelation—knowledge.

Sometimes we will receive unconditional revelation. Alma's spiritual experience in the Book of Mormon is an example of this. But most of the time we receive revelation upon certain conditions. One condition is the willingness to act upon the knowledge that we are given. Therefore, we increase knowledge through an integration of knowledge and behavior. The root of the word integration is the same for the word "integrity". Having integrity means speaking, thinking, and acting in harmony. This is essential to developing character. Character and knowledge have a reinforcing pattern. Acting on knowledge develops our character and strengthening our character leads to more knowledge by preparing us to receive revelation.

If we are not willing to incorporate new knowledge into our lives, new knowledge will only condemn us. We are accountable for the knowledge that we receive. Those with more knowledge are more strictly judged than those with less knowledge. Alma 32:19 says, "And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?"

God has given us faculties of logic and reason to expand our knowledge. Logic is the ability to generate conclusions based on premises or assumptions. For example:

(1) All Asians eat rice.
(2) Vanny is Asian.
(3) Therefore, Vanny eats rice.

(1) and (2) are premises; (3) is the conclusion. If the premises are true, reason confirms that the conclusion is true and we have increased our knowledge. But reason cannot validate its own premises and therefore it is only as good as its premises. If one starts with false premises reason is useless in the pursuit of expanding knowledge. Truth can be rendered reasonable, but it does not arise from reason alone.

Revelation from God provides premises from which we can discover more truth. We can receive this revelation personally or impersonally through witnesses. The first thing that investigators of the church are asked to do is to read the Book of Mormon and to ask God if it is a true book. If the Book of Mormon is true, then it must follow that Joseph Smith (who translated the book by the power of God) was a prophet. If Joseph Smith was a prophet, then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must logically be the only true church—meaning that it accurately represents the state of things as they really are. One must also conclude that IF the Book of Mormon is false, then Joseph Smith was one of the greatest liars and charlatans who ever lived. The church he started is a lie, which means that the members of the LDS church are grossly mistaken about their convictions.

God cannot contradict himself, therefore 2 religions that contradict each other cannot both be true. Various churches may share many great and important truths, but only one church can be directed by God Himself—everything else is a human counterfeit.

Those who honestly seek for knowledge will receive it. According to 2 Nephi 28:30 " thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have."

Individualism and the Gospel

Today in church the sunday school teacher shared a story about when he was investigating the gospel. Even though he was starting to change his life for the better, his family was completely opposed to his interest in the Gospel. His family was Catholic. As he described it, there was war in his family. His Aunts wrote him negative letters, his parents and siblings yelled at him for his interest. As he was thinking about being baptized, he wondered why there was so much contention surrounding his decision. He was frustrated and tossed his brand new scriptures on his bed. They happened to flip open to Matthew 10:34-37 which said.

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."

From this verse, he realized that he had to make his own decision despite the consequences.

These verses emphasize individual salvation. We are not saved by our culture or community. We are saved individually by living the principles of Christ. As Jeffrey R. Holland said in the October 2010 confererence, "The personal value, the sacred splendor of every one of you, is the very reason there is a plan for salvation and exaltation. Contrary to the parlance of the day, this is about you."

Finding Good Books

The other day, my friend Matt Lind asked me how I choose books to read and/or purchase. Since then, I have thought more about this question. I post it here because of the oft-quoted scripture in section 88 of the Doctrine and Covenants that reads, “… seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom. …” (D&C 88:118.) Here are my thoughts:

I first found out about my favorite author, Thomas Sowell, by reading his columns in the Deseret News. I liked some of his columns so much that I would cut them out and save them, though I never owned a book of his until there was a free book givaway online—it was "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One" which was a great read though I can't remember what I had to do to get the free book.

If I really love an author, I read whatever else that author has written. For example, since I started reading Thomas Sowell I have purchased over 15 of his books. I own some of his books in both audiobook format and traditional paper. I use this same effect for college courses and online videos. I do a lot of research about the professor before I take their class. If I have some extra time or if I need some filler credits, I will retake a course from a good teacher no matter what the subject.

As for videos, if I find great speaker, I scour the web searching for any other videos that feature that speaker. When I first saw Bjorn Lomborg's TED talk, I immediately looked for other videos about him. From that point, I purchased his book "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming (Vintage)" which is one of the best book purchases I have made. Another TED speaker is Steven Pinker. I now have 3 of his books. His books are not only fun but provide good cerebral exercise even though I disagree with much of what he writes. Milton Friedman is another great speaker whose videos persuaded me open my wallet. I have since purchased 4 books by Milton Friedman among which is Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition—a great read. On the website Uncommon Knowledge—where great authors and thinkers are interviewed—I found out about "Victor Davis Hanson" who mainly writes about war and war history.

Sometimes my professor or teacher will recommend or require books to read for the course. Dr. Kearl, my econ 110 teacher had us read "Armchair Economist: Economics & Everyday Life" by Steven Landsburg. I now have 3 of Landsburg's books, 2 of which (including Armchair) were awesome. One of my design teachers, Eric Gillett, recommended "The Brand Gap: Expanded Edition" by Marty Neumeier. I liked it so much that I bought "Zag: The Number One Strategy of High-Performance Brands" by the same author.

Blogs and websites are a great way to find good books and authors. I found Tyler Cowen's blog by simply looking for the best blogs on economics. I have been interested in books that he has recommended which I may read in the future, but I really loved his own book, "Create Your Own Economy: The Path to Prosperity in a Disordered World" which is one of the most original-feeling books that I have ever read. I first heard about it on his blog, but I wasn't convinced to purchase it until I heard him talk about it on a youtube video. I think I got it the day it came out.

Recommendations or gifts from friends are always great. I still remember my friend Andrew Cottle saying, "You have got to listen to this" when he lent me the audiobook "Atlas Shrugged". I had never heard of Atlas Shrugged until then. I am currently rereading it and blogging about it chapter by chapter on the Gentlemen's Renaissance Man's Book Club for Men blog. One of the founders of the GRMBCFM and close friend Scott Lind has recommended some great books—among them are "The Theory of the Leisure class" and "Writing with Style: Conversations on the Art of Writing (3rd Edition)."

Listening to live speakers gives me added energy and interest in books. When Arthur Brooks came to speak at BYU for a devotional, he talked about his book, "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism". It gave such fascinating facts and figures that I also bought "Gross National Happiness: Why Happiness Matters for America--and How We Can Get More of It." Both books are great references for writing.

Radio talk shows interview authors that interest me. I can't think of any books that I really loved, that I first heard about on a radio talk show. Though many times my interest in books has been strengthened after I hear about an author or book a second or third time on a radio talk show.

I find many good books simply cited or quoted in the books I read. I will eventually read "Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention" by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi since he was quoted in at least 6 of the books that I read this year.

Browsing Barnes and Nobles or Borders is always fun. I usually find books that relate to topics that I have been thinking about for a long time.

Part of finding books to read is simply finding the time to start books. The best advice that I have ever heard about reading books is by Tyler Cowen who said, “We should treat books a little more like we treat TV channels.” Many readers have the urge to finish whatever they start. This urge is non-productive. “People have this innate view — it comes from friendship and marriage — that commitment is good. Which I agree with,” he says. That view shouldn’t, he says, carry over to inanimate objects.” If we find that the book we are reading is uninteresting or has low relative value, we should immediately stop and read something else. What we have read is a sunk cost as they say in economics. We should begin reading with the question, "Is this the best available thing in the world that I could be reading right now?" It is okay to start a lot of books and not finish most of them.

Doing Well to silence the ignorant

I just read a profound verse. 1 Peter 2:15: "For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men".

There is much ignorance in the world. I myself am very ignorant even though I study daily. When I read the above verse, I thought of the ignorant arguments of modern-day atheists such as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, Steven Pinker and others. Even though these men are very learned, their arguments against religion are ignorant because they have never given religion a fair trial. They rightly attack many false beliefs that too many religious people hold, but they commit the fallacy of composition by supposing that all religious people hold the same erroneous views. Their suppositions about the world lead them to believe that faith and revelation are foolish things. They have influenced many people—sometimes for better, but mostly for worse.

There are many people who are persuaded by atheist arguments. Sometimes these people (atheists, agnostics, secularists) are our very good friends and acquaintances. However if they are honest, these people cannot help but see that we have achieved what they want if we live the gospel. Here are some examples of the differences between religious people and non-religious people.

• A 2004 study has shown that 43% of religious folks said they were "very happy" with their lives as opposed to 23% of secularists.

• When you account for variables, a religious person is 13 percentage points more likely than the nonreligious person to say he or she is very happy. The difference is even higher for Mormons.

• 36% of people who prayed everyday (regardless of whether they attended church services) said they were very happy versus 21% of people who never prayed.

• Religious people are significantly happier than atheists and oddly enough atheists are happier than agnostics of which only 12% are happy.

• Religious people are more educated and less ignorant of the world around them than people who do not go to church.

• When accounting for variables a college graduate is 7% more likely to be a churchgoer than the nongraduate.

• A religious person is 38% more likely than a non-religious person to give charity and they give away 4X more money per year.

• Religious people are 52% more likely than non-religious people to volunteer.

• They are 16% more likely than non-religious people to give explicitly to nonreligious charities and 54% more likely to volunteer for these causes.

• They are far more likely to donate blood.

• More likely to give food or money to a homeless person.

• More likely to return change mistakenly given by the cashier.

(These figures and accompanying explanations are found in the book Gross National Happiness by the economist Arthur Brooks.)

If we are engaged in "well doing" we will silence the ignorance of foolish men. If they really want what our lives embody, they will be persuaded to learn about our faith. Reasoning with these people will not budge them, but what you are, if you are what you ought to be, will call into question all they have come to believe about religion. I personally want to live my life in such a way that people will say, "There must be something special about Mormonism because Gavin is a Mormon."