altersteve Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 Rob, having "the same" glory that God has, or even having a "fullness of glory," does not mean that we are "equal" in glory with Him.
Rob Bowman Posted October 4, 2011 Author Posted October 4, 2011 volgadon,You wrote:Is the Jewish idea that God will give righteous men their own planets to rule over ancient or medieval in its theology?You might want to consult Bill, who has already lectured me about the cosmological ignorance of ancient Jews and Christians. To my knowledge ancient Jews did not have a concept of other "planets" where people might live. To ancient peoples, the "planets" were wandering stars (planet meant "wanderer"). The Mishna saying you cite does not say that the righteous will be given their own planets, nor that they will be given their own earths (the closest equivalent term, I think, to "other planets" in our sense), but that they will be given 310 "worlds" each. It is possible that the term means something like "planets" in our modern sense, but I'm not sure.I think you are also reading something into the text that isn't there when you speak of the righteous receiving 310 planets "to rule over." In the sense that the 310 worlds have been given to him and are therefore his possession, one might speak of the righteous man ruling over those worlds. But the text says nothing about the population of these 310 worlds. It does not indicate whether this enormous domain is populated by rational beings at all (other than the righteous individual), let alone that it is populated by the righteous man's "spirit children." The import of the 310 worlds may not have anything to do with ruling; it might be expressing the vastness of the realm in which the righteous person can enjoy life. There is another Jewish bit of lore according to which Eden had 310 worlds; the saying you cited may be a colorful way of saying that each righteous person (with his wife) will have his own Eden (just as Adam and Eve had Eden to themselves before their sin). The point may be the vastness and richness of the blessings the righteous will receive, not the idea of the righteous man being deified to exercise divine rule over his own little galaxy.I am also not sure as to whether the statement is ancient. According to Louis Ginzberg in The Legends of the Jews (1925; Johns Hopkins, 1998), the passage that you cite from the end of the Mishnah "does not belong to it, but is a later insertion" (5:12). I have not been able to find any other comments confirming or disputing Ginzberg's statement, and I do not have enough information to substantiate an independent opinion on the matter. If Ginzberg is correct the statement might date from the middle of the first millennium or possibly a bit later, but this would be a guess at best. If Ginzberg is incorrect the statement would be ancient; if he is correct it might barely be ancient or it might be early medieval.
Rob Bowman Posted October 4, 2011 Author Posted October 4, 2011 Steve,You wrote:Rob, having "the same" glory that God has, or even having a "fullness of glory," does not mean that we are "equal" in glory with Him.The statements I quoted indicate that the exalted will have "the same glory," "full" glory, "all glory," "in every respect," "even as our Father in Heaven." This would all appear to add up to the conclusion that the exalted will be as glorious as possible, and as glorious as the Father. Consider also the following statements (emphasis added):"They who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn; and they see as they are seen, and know as they are known, having received of his fulness and of his grace; And he makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion" (D&C 76:94-95)."The Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Phillipians, says, 'Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.' 'Oh blasphemy!' the narrow-contracted bigot will cry, 'blasphemy! Paul, you naughty fellow, you had better take that back.' What, to exhort your brethren to cultivate the same mind and feeling, and desire and ambition, as were in Christ Jesus, who, when he found himself in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God! What an idea! Does not every father expect his son to grow up and become his equal? and does not every son born aspire to become like his father? And the child looks in the face of the mother, as the dearest creature it knows anything about, regarding her perhaps as perfect; her word is law, it knows no other. 'Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.' And as he thought it not robbery to be equal with God, when he found himself in the form of God, don't you think differently. Why? Shall we not rob him? Oh no, we could not do it. Giving does not impoverish him, withholding does not enrich him" (Erastus Snow, JD 19:328)."He, as their God, ordained a way whereby they might advance and become like Him, making possible the final attainment of a glory described as the fulness of the presence of the Father, where He makes us equal with Himself, and places in our hands the possession of all things" (Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report, Oct. 1906, 71)."Men and women, like Christ, are made in the image and likeness of God; it is not robbery to be equal with God (Philip. 2:6), and like any father, our Heavenly Father wants his children to become and be all that he is" (Robert L. Millet, The Mormon Faith, 176).Now, Steve, I have given plenty of references to support my understanding. You have given none, but fallen back on the claim that your view is "obviously" the right view. In the light of the quotations I have presented, it is far from obvious that your interpretation is correct. The CFR that I issued you remains unanswered, and you should answer it.
wenglund Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 The bottom line as I see it: if one reasonably understands the word deification to mean become a God or Gods (which is how Dr. Peterson likely meant it), and if one reasonably views the first millennium C.E. as ancient (which is how Dr. Peterson likely viewed it), then one will reasonably consider Dr. Peterson's brief newspaper article as reasonable, and may appreciate it for what it is and does.However, others are free to semantically flog the article and strain at every gnat to the point where the article is lost to recognition and its simple beauty and edification vaporized.To each their own.Thanks, -Wade Englund- 1
Rob Bowman Posted October 4, 2011 Author Posted October 4, 2011 Wade,You wrote:The bottom line as I see it: if one reasonably understands the word deification to mean become a God or Gods (which is how Dr. Peterson likely meant it), and if one reasonably views the first millennium C.E. as ancient (which is how Dr. Peterson likely viewed it), then one will reasonably consider Dr. Peterson's brief newspaper article as reasonable, and may appreciate it for what it is and does.No one disputes that Dan understands deification to mean becoming a God. If it is "reasonable" to understand ancient to mean any time through the end of the first millennium, why stop there? If I quoted Anselm of Canterbury to show that a particular idea was "ancient," would that be unreasonable?You wrote:However, others are free to semantically flog the article and strain at every gnat to the point where the article is lost to recognition and its simple beauty and edification vaporized.To each their own."To each their own" is arguably appropriate if the subject matter is "beauty," but not appropriate or relevant if the issue is truth. No offense to Dan, but I don't think he intended his article to be seen as a work of "simple beauty." I think he was presenting an argument.
KevinG Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 The bottom line as I see it: if one reasonably understands the word deification to mean become a God or Gods (which is how Dr. Peterson likely meant it), and if one reasonably views the first millennium C.E. as ancient (which is how Dr. Peterson likely viewed it), then one will reasonably consider Dr. Peterson's brief newspaper article as reasonable, and may appreciate it for what it is and does.However, others are free to semantically flog the article and strain at every gnat to the point where the article is lost to recognition and its simple beauty and edification vaporized.To each their own.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Spot on. It gets frustrating to discuss things of this nature when it seems the response is just a game or play with words. I provided several comments and scriptural quotes that approached a meaningful description of what is admittedly a speculative in LDS doctrine (meaning we don't have all the answers to the full nature or our eternal destiny) and yet it was ignored. Given the practice of our critics taking statements of this nature and presenting them as "what Mormons really believe" without the details, history, context or accompanying discussion- I sense a game of gotcha rather than any real attempt to understand or accurately portray our beliefs. 1
KevinG Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 Given your position"To each their own" is arguably appropriate if the subject matter is "beauty," but not appropriate or relevant if the issue is truth.I am not surporsed that your perspective on LDS scholars is...I think he was presenting an argument.
Rob Bowman Posted October 4, 2011 Author Posted October 4, 2011 DaddyG,You wrote:We never claim we will become greater than the Father who is perfect. That is an anti-Mormon canard - if I had more time I'd look for a refutation of it but it may simply be the charge is so silly that it has not deserved that much attention.No, the idea that Mormons claim they will become greater than the Father is not an anti-Mormon canard. It is an anti-anti-Mormon canard. That is, it is a claim that non-Mormons do not make about Mormon doctrine that some Mormons, like you, find convenient to attack instead of the actual criticism that non-Mormons make of Mormon theology. It is a convenient straw man of Mormon fiction designed to make criticisms of the Mormon doctrine look "silly," as you put it.
Rob Bowman Posted October 4, 2011 Author Posted October 4, 2011 DaddyG,You wrote:I provided several comments and scriptural quotes that approached a meaningful description of what is admittedly a speculative in LDS doctrine (meaning we don't have all the answers to the full nature or our eternal destiny) and yet it was ignored.Your point in that post seems to have been that Mormons don't believe that they will ever surpass the Father in glory. As I have just pointed out in a separate post, no one claims otherwise about Mormon belief. I didn't respond because I didn't disagree.You wrote:Given the practice of our critics taking statements of this nature and presenting them as "what Mormons really believe" without the details, history, context or accompanying discussion- I sense a game of gotcha rather than any real attempt to understand or accurately portray our beliefs.You might try practicing what you are preaching by trying a little harder not to misrepresent our criticisms of Mormon doctrine. For example, neither I nor any other evangelical critic claims that the LDS Church teaches that the exalted will surpass the Father in glory.
Ares Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 DaddyG,You wrote:No, the idea that Mormons claim they will become greater than the Father is not an anti-Mormon canard. It is an anti-anti-Mormon canard. That is, it is a claim that non-Mormons do not make about Mormon doctrine that some Mormons, like you, find convenient to attack instead of the actual criticism that non-Mormons make of Mormon theology. It is a convenient straw man of Mormon fiction designed to make criticisms of the Mormon doctrine look "silly," as you put it.Wrong:"The Mormon worships God the Father because he is the god of this planet, but other planets have other gods equal to or even greater than God the Father." (catholiceducation.org)
Ares Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 Rob - I normally don't get involved in discussions but your word play is getting tedious.Please address our posters with the respect you insist upon receiving yourself.-Ares
Rob Bowman Posted October 4, 2011 Author Posted October 4, 2011 Ares,You wrote:Wrong:"The Mormon worships God the Father because he is the god of this planet, but other planets have other gods equal to or even greater than God the Father." (catholiceducation.org)Even without looking for this quotation, I would be willing to bet that this statement is referring to gods that were gods before our God the Father, and not referring to any of us becoming greater than our own God.You wrote:Rob - I normally don't get involved in discussions but your word play is getting tedious. Please address our posters with the respect you insist upon.I don't know to which post or statement of mine you are referring, but I will try to be polite.
KevinG Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) DaddyG,You wrote:No, the idea that Mormons claim they will become greater than the Father is not an anti-Mormon canard. It is an anti-anti-Mormon canard. That is, it is a claim that non-Mormons do not make about Mormon doctrine that some Mormons, like you, find convenient to attack instead of the actual criticism that non-Mormons make of Mormon theology. It is a convenient straw man of Mormon fiction designed to make criticisms of the Mormon doctrine look "silly," as you put it.If you didn't think this was a Mormon belief why did you take someone to task for claiming we would never be as great as God the Father? I truly don't understand what you point was.- - -Is the lack of clarity between "being as great as the Father eternally vs. being greater than the Father is now?" That is the only thing I can think of that wasn't clear. Edited October 4, 2011 by DaddyG
Rob Bowman Posted October 4, 2011 Author Posted October 4, 2011 DaddyG,You wrote:If you didn't think this was a Mormon belief why did you take someone to task for claiming we would never be greater than God the Father? I truly don't understand what you point was.I didn't take anyone to task for claiming that you would never be greater than God the Father. I disagreed with his claim that in LDS doctrine you can never be as great as God the Father.Please let me know if I have clarified the matter sufficiently.
KevinG Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) BTW -Ares already addressed it, and I'll avoid piling on but I've been told by more than one Evangelical that I believe Joseph Smith and Mormons believe they are or will be greater than Christ.Its not just a fantasy on my part that someone claimed it of the Mormons. Edited October 4, 2011 by DaddyG
KevinG Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) DaddyG,You wrote:I didn't take anyone to task for claiming that you would never be greater than God the Father. I disagreed with his claim that in LDS doctrine you can never be as great as God the Father.Please let me know if I have clarified the matter sufficiently.Clear. Sorry I misunderstood you.Do you understand the LDS concept that as we are glorified by the father through Jesus Christ, this in turn glorifies the Father more? I think it is an important concept that critics abuse to imply we put ourselves on par with our God, when that is not what those teachings intend.Here is the parallel: I can become a great man, and achieve different things than my earthly father did. But I will always be his son and my very existance is owed to him. Edited October 4, 2011 by DaddyG
Rob Bowman Posted October 4, 2011 Author Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) DaddyG,You wrote:BTW -Ares already addressed it, and I'll avoid piling on but I've been told by more than one Evangelical that I believe Joseph Smith and Mormons believe they are or will be greater than Christ.Its not just a fantasy on my part that someone claimed it of the Mormons.Well, you misunderstood me to have said this (glad we cleared that up), and Ares almost certainly misunderstood the Catholic website to say something like this, so it's quite possible that you misunderstood those evangelicals as well. But I wasn't there and can't know what they did or did not say. There are no doubt evangelicals woefully ignorant of what Mormonism teaches, just as there are Mormons woefully ignorant of what evangelicalism teaches. But I have never heard it from evangelicals, whereas I have often heard Mormons attack this misunderstanding even in contexts where no one but them is bringing it up, just as happened here. Edited October 4, 2011 by Rob Bowman
LeSellers Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) the idea that Mormons claim they will become greater than the Father is not an anti-Mormon canard. It is an anti-anti-Mormon canard. That is, it is a claim that non-Mormons do not make about Mormon doctrine that some Mormons, like you, find convenient to attack instead of the actual criticism that non-Mormons make of Mormon theology. It is a convenient straw man of Mormon fiction designed to make criticisms of the Mormon doctrine look "silly," as you put it.It would be an effort in massive frustration to count the number of times I have been accused, as a Saint (although they usually call me a "Mormon"), of emulating Satan. He, as you recall from your professional studies in the Bible, tried to replace God, to become superior to Him, to cast Him down.If we Saints, in a common take on our doctrine of deification./theosis, are following Satan's lead, then it seems the restatement of this charge as "'Mormons' believe they will become greater than God" is, in fact, a canard, an oft-repeated (howsoever false and distorted) claim made against us.Lehi Edited October 4, 2011 by LeSellers
KevinG Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 DaddyG,You wrote:Well, you misunderstood me to have said this (glad we cleared that up), and Ares almost certainly misunderstood the Catholic website to say something like this, so it's quite possible that you misunderstood those evangelicals as well. But I wasn't there and can't know what they did or did not say. There are no doubt evangelicals woefully ignorant of what Mormonism teaches, just as there are Mormons woefully ignorant of what evangelicalism teaches. But I have never heard it from evangelicals, whereas I have often heard Mormons attack this misunderstanding even in contexts where no one but them is bringing it up, just as happened here.Respectfully Rob- you don't represent all Evangelicals. Either I'm lying or an Evangelical has told me I believe I can be greater than God. And yet I have still failed to create a website or ministry to discuss how Evangelicals teach falsehoods.
Rob Bowman Posted October 4, 2011 Author Posted October 4, 2011 Lehi,You wrote:It would be an effort in massive frustration to count the number of times I have been accused, as a Saint (although they usually call me a "Mormon"), of emulating Satan. He, as you recall from your professional studies in the Bible, tried to replace God, to become superior to Him, to cast Him down.If we Saints, in a common take on our doctrine of deification./theosis, are following Satan's lead, then it seems the restatement of this charge as "'Mormons' believe they will become greater than God" is, in fact, a canard, an oft-repeated (howsoever false and distorted) claim made against us, and frequently so.Actually (since you bring it up), being a professional biblical scholar does help in situations like this one. No biblical text ever says or suggests that Satan sought to overthrow God or make himself higher than God. The usual passage that has been taken as revealing Satan's fall is Isaiah 14, which doesn't actually mention Satan by name ("Lucifer" in 14:12 is a mistranslation, retained in the Book of Mormon and in the JST, incidentally). But assuming for the sake of discussion that Isaiah 14 does refer to Satan's fall, it does not say that he tried to vaunt himself over God, but only that he wanted to "be like the Most High" (14:14).So even your inference from putting the accusation of some Mormons that you are emulating Satan together with what the Bible says about Satan's fall does not support your conclusion that they are accusing you of trying to become greater than God.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 DaddyG,You wrote:I didn't take anyone to task for claiming that you would never be greater than God the Father. I disagreed with his claim that in LDS doctrine you can never be as great as God the Father.Please let me know if I have clarified the matter sufficiently.How could we ever be as great? I have a son who is now a father, though we both hold that title he will still never be the same age I am while we both live. God continues to create to expand the universe and will continue to do so if we are "gods" someday.
Rob Bowman Posted October 4, 2011 Author Posted October 4, 2011 DaddyG,You wrote:Respectfully Rob- you don't represent all Evangelicals. Either I'm lying or an Evangelical has told me I believe I can be greater than God. And yet I have still failed to create a website or ministry to discuss how Evangelicals teach falsehoods.I'm certainly not accusing you of lying. But if you ever catch an evangelical saying this in writing or on audio recording, let me know.
Rob Bowman Posted October 4, 2011 Author Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) DaddyG,You wrote:Do you understand the LDS concept that as we are glorified by the father through Jesus Christ, this in turn glorifies the Father more? I think it is an important concept that critics abuse to imply we put ourselves on par with our God, when that is not what those teachings intend.I have provided a lengthy list of quotations from LDS sources all the way from D&C to Gospel Principles to support my understanding of the LDS position. I issued a CFR to Steve, who disagreed with me, that he has refused to answer. Would you care to respond to it? Edited October 4, 2011 by Rob Bowman
KevinG Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 DaddyG,You wrote:I have provided a lengthy list of quotations from LDS sources all the way from D&C to Gospel Principles to support my understanding of the LDS position. I issued a CFR to Steve, who disagreed with me, that he has refused to answer. Would you care to respond to it?I responded to it already with a thorough list of references from LDS authoratative teachings and scriptures. See my linked sources.We have established agreement that the LDS view says we will never be greater than our Father in Heaven. I contend that our teachings also show that because the Father is glorified by His creation and our exaltation through Jesus Christ, God will always progress ahead of us in glory and exaltation- and that we won't ever "catch up" in that sense (nor would we desire to do so).God is eternally our God and our blessings and gifts flow through Him, no matter how much of His glory He chooses to bless us with.I cannot speak for Steve but I believe that was his point all along.
KevinG Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 DaddyG,You wrote:I'm certainly not accusing you of lying. But if you ever catch an evangelical saying this in writing or on audio recording, let me know."Mormons think there is a purpose for our creation greater than the Glory of God…" from a site called JdiscipleNot a direct "mormons can be greater than god" quote but frought with implications.
Recommended Posts