Those are some very weird and nonsensical questions, fatboys. The presupposition behind them seems to be that God experiences time and existence as we do, whereby He would 'gain' knowledge (despite already possessing all of it, as you say), and 'know' that slamming your finger in a door hurts, and that this knowledge is what gives Him the 'right' to judge us.
To tie it in with BigDaddy4's link, it would seem that the Mormon religion is incapable or unwilling to distinguish between the Creator and the created. As per the link: "God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them."
So even the (supreme? first?) God of Mormonism, the one who gave the law to the 'weaker intelligences', nonetheless advanced to that position by the accumulation of power, glory, and intelligence.
Perhaps this theology is at the root of questions like yours, fatboys, but from a Christian perspective they are wildly inappropriate and strange. The god revealed in those questions is not the almighty Pantocrator of Christianity, who rules over all, is the creator and just judge of everything, and is forever perfect and lacking in nothing.
In this you are deviling into the mysteries, at the point where we don't know.
There is a little bit of a struggle between the theologians like McConkie(s) and the more intellectual types at BYU. Joseph McConkie, Bruce's son, wrote a commentary on the Doctrine and Covenant. In it he disputed the idea that God had to learn anything for he is the the one who wrote the laws of physics, he said the idea was built on fallacy in the halls of intellectualism (that was a paraphrase). He and Professor Eugene England had a little of a debate where he said,
"In his response, McConkie stated that his father, Elder McConkie, and grandfather Joseph Fielding Smith, taught of a God that is
not progressing and whose perfection is absolute. “Though I accord a man the privilege of worshipping what he may, there is a line—a boundary—a point at which he and his views are no longer welcome.” Joseph concluded: “I do not see the salvation of BYU in the abandonment of absolutes, and with the prophets whose blood flows in my veins, I refuse to worship at the shrine of an ignorant God.”
then this;
on 1 June 1980, Elder Bruce R. McConkie delivered at a BYU Devotional, a lecture entitled “The Seven Deadly Heresies.” The primary “heresy” Elder McConkie warned against was the belief that “God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truth. This is false, utterly, totally, and completely.” He further stated that we cannot be saved unless we believe that the “truth as revealed to and taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.” McConkie belittled those who think otherwise as having “the intellect of an ant and the understanding of a clod of miry clay in a primordial swamp.”
They both had sharp tongues!
But the prophet ,Pre. Kimball, took McConkie aside and he had to say, well this is my opinion.
So you see, we see through a glass darkly.
England's idea goes like this; (and it faintly Gnostic)
"I think [Joseph Smith] eventually saw no inherent contradiction between the Lectures (on Faith) and his later understanding of God as having “all” knowledge and power, sufficient to provide us salvation in our sphere of existence (and thus being “infinite”), but also as one who is still learning and developing in relationship to higher spheres of existence (and thus “finite”)...."
Where we believe there are Father's of Gods and this has been going on for an unknown infinite period of time our Father and God has all knowledge pertaining to creation as we know it but there are higher levels of glory and spheres which we do not comprehend and our God is learning about them, the possibility is infinite. To put God in a box is to limit his infinite existence.
Br McConkie's idea is based on this;
Luke 11:34
34 The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light;
and Joseph Smith expansion of that passage in the D&C 88
Doctrine and Covenants 88:11 -67
And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—
And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that
body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things.
and
D&C 121
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled
only upon the principles of righteousness.
As a being becomes more righteous God's light begins to fill his whole soul driving all darkness out of him and as that happens the person begins to have his understanding quickened and he begins to comprehend all things. It's not a matter of book learning but of becoming sanctified and thus perfectly righteous.
John 17
19 And for their sakes
I sanctify myself, that
they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one;
There is a oneness which occurs between the Gods where they become one in knowledge and perfections.
Now it doesn't matter which one is right perhaps there it truth in the middle ground. I'd be interested in what my fellow Mormons think on the subject.
http://www.eugeneengland.org/a-prof...and-and-bruce-r-mcconkie-on-the-nature-of-god
