89 replies to this topic

[mfbukowski]

"One" is one.

Don't let this guy confuse you by dividing one into a hundred different segments.  It says we will be ONE and that is what it means.  One this way and one that way?  That is not ONE.

Read John 17- it says ONE.  That's it.

He can't even explain how his Trinity is "One" and now he is trying to confuse you into explaining and slicing and dicing what he cannot explain himself.

Just ignore it.

[mfbukowski]

Zeta-Flux, on 29 August 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

Even the Son is not one with the Father in every way (even in the trinitarian understanding--The Father is not the Son, and vice versa).

But reading between the lines, it seems that your claim implicitly rests on the premiss that being in the Godhead makes them one in a way that they would not be otherwise.  This rest on a small confusion: the term Godhead (as we apply it) only refers to their current respective positions in the hierarchy of priesthood, and not directly to an aspect of oneness.  We can all enter the hierarchy.  To extend the metaphor from before, we can all be members of the stake, and have callings, and be one with one another.  The fact that I'm a secretary and not part of the Stake Presidency in no ways means I'm less one with the stake.  But, it also doesn't mean I'm the President.  I have my own role.  Just as the Son is not the Father.

You got it bruthha!

[zerinus]

Rob Bowman, on 29 August 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

jwhitlock,

I addressed John 17 in my response to Bill Hamblin, mentioned in the thread he started about Witherington's blog.

That is a dodge. John 17 gives the complete answer to your question. If you think that it doesn't, it is up to you to present your arguments here in a cogent fashion so it can be discussed, not sending people on a wild goose chase reading lengthy articles about something else which they may not have an interest in reading.

Edited by zerinus, 30 August 2012 - 06:04 AM.

[zerinus]

Walden, on 29 August 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

Serious question here: is it a mormon belief that the members of "the godhead" are still progressing, or have they reached a point of perfection from which there can no longer be any progression?

It is not Mormon doctrine that God is still progressing.

[zerinus]

Walden, on 29 August 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

Sure, I understand that god must be busy, and is therefore not stagnant. I just didn't know whether mormons consider god to be continually progressing or if he had reached a state in which there can be no progression, for everything is known, every power mastered, every truth revealed and nothing left to learn. Personally, that sounds like a rather dreary existence, to know that one has reached a state from which there is nothing more to learn, master, study, etc.

Luckily you are not God. I think that God is very happy to be God.

[zerinus]

Rob Bowman, on 29 August 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

Then you agree with me that exalted humans cannot become one with the Father and the Son in every way, but only in some or many ways. If we agree on this much, then the rest of the discussion is about distinguishing in what ways humans can and in what ways they cannot become one with the Father and the Son.

This is an important conclusion, because it means that we can agree that John 17:20-23 does not mean that believers may become one with the Father and the Son in every way that the Father and the Son are one with each other. The text therefore cannot be treated as an obvious proof text for deification; we will need to look at the context to determine in what way Jesus meant for his disciples to be "one."

The text of John 17 says "as we are [one]," which speaks for itself.

Edited by zerinus, 30 August 2012 - 06:02 AM.

[zerinus]

Rob Bowman, on 29 August 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

Obviously, you have not read what I have written about John 17. I certainly don't think the apostles were to become one in substance. The point I am making here is that the Father and the Son are "one" in some ways that human beings never will or could be. We can be one with each other and with the Father and the Son in some ways as they are, but not in all ways. John 17 is talking about being one in ways that human beings can be one, not about being one in every way that God is.

The text says "as we are [one]," which speaks for itself. Their one-ness is a separate issue from their forming a Godhead. We can be one with them in exactly the same way that they are one with each other, without at the same time forming a Godhead with them. In other words, their one-ness is an essential prerequisite to their forming a Godhead; but their forming a Godhead is not a prerequisite to their one-ness. They need to be one in order to form a Godhead; but they don't need to form a Godhead in order to be one.

Edited by zerinus, 30 August 2012 - 06:02 AM.

[zerinus]

Rob Bowman, on 29 August 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

Then you agree with me that exalted humans cannot become one with the Father and the Son in every way, but only in some or many ways.

Exalted humans can be one with the Father and the Son in every way; see my previous post.

[Bart Burk]

mfbukowski, on 29 August 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

"One" is one.

Don't let this guy confuse you by dividing one into a hundred different segments.  It says we will be ONE and that is what it means.  One this way and one that way?  That is not ONE.

Read John 17- it says ONE.  That's it.

He can't even explain how his Trinity is "One" and now he is trying to confuse you into explaining and slicing and dicing what he cannot explain himself.

Just ignore it.

I agree with you completely!

[why me]

I think that the idea of a heavenly mother is a wonderful one. And it does make sense. Why would heavenly father be alone? Why would god be alone? I think that it is wonderful that the lds believe in heavenly parents. It should give comfort to all and I think that this aspect of eternity needs to be spoken about more often. When we die we go to meet our heavenly parents. Now that does sound nice.

[KevinG]

Walden, on 29 August 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

Sure, I understand that god must be busy, and is therefore not stagnant. I just didn't know whether mormons consider god to be continually progressing or if he had reached a state in which there can be no progression, for everything is known, every power mastered, every truth revealed and nothing left to learn. Personally, that sounds like a rather dreary existence, to know that one has reached a state from which there is nothing more to learn, master, study, etc.

Like any loving parent God is continually glorified as He brings His children to perfection.

[shalamabobbi]

why me, on 30 August 2012 - 06:07 AM, said:

I think that the idea of a heavenly mother is a wonderful one. And it does make sense. Why would heavenly father be alone? Why would god be alone? I think that it is wonderful that the lds believe in heavenly parents. It should give comfort to all and I think that this aspect of eternity needs to be spoken about more often. When we die we go to meet our heavenly parents. Now that does sound nice.

Yes the idea that God the Father is a bachelor is kinda creepy isn't it?

Edited by shalamabobbi, 30 August 2012 - 07:44 AM.

[shalamabobbi]

Rob Bowman, on 29 August 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

To use this text to justify irrationality is...well, irrational.

http://www.city-data...ieve-young.html

Oh the irony..

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 29 August 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

shalamabobbi,

Perhaps it's because I'm tired, but I just don't get it. If members of the stake cannot become members of the stake presidency, then they cannot become one with the stake presidency in every sense in which the stake presidency members are one with each other.

I am unaware of any scripture that says that we will be one with God in every single way that Jesus is one with the Father.

I think the operative word is "like". We will become one with the Father like Jesus is one with the Father.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 29 August 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

CV75,

You wrote:



Then you agree with me that exalted humans cannot become one with the Father and the Son in every way, but only in some or many ways. If we agree on this much, then the rest of the discussion is about distinguishing in what ways humans can and in what ways they cannot become one with the Father and the Son.

This is an important conclusion, because it means that we can agree that John 17:20-23 does not mean that believers may become one with the Father and the Son in every way that the Father and the Son are one with each other. The text therefore cannot be treated as an obvious proof text for deification; we will need to look at the context to determine in what way Jesus meant for his disciples to be "one."

Correct. I have never made the argument that they will be one in every way. But we do have to ask the question, "In what ways are we to be one with the Father"?

[KevinG]

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 30 August 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:

But we do have to ask the question, "In what ways are we to be one with the Father"?

For 500 points:  "What is knowledge Alex?"

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Zeta-Flux, on 29 August 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

Even the Son is not one with the Father in every way (even in the trinitarian understanding--The Father is not the Son, and vice versa).

But reading between the lines, it seems that your claim implicitly rests on the premiss that being in the Godhead makes them one in a way that they would not be otherwise.  This rest on a small confusion: the term Godhead (as we apply it) only refers to their current respective positions in the hierarchy of priesthood, and not directly to an aspect of oneness.  We can all enter the hierarchy.  To extend the metaphor from before, we can all be members of the stake, and have callings, and be one with one another.  The fact that I'm a secretary and not part of the Stake Presidency in no ways means I'm less one with the stake.  But, it also doesn't mean I'm the President.  I have my own role.  Just as the Son is not the Father.

Yes, I quite agree with you here. Perhaps I will just sit back and watch and learn. I seem to be making not very good arguments as others so.....

[Walden]

Storm Rider, on 29 August 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

God is God. It is not LDS doctrine that God "progressed" to be God. He has always been God just as Jesus has always been a member of the Godhead. You are confusing God's creation with himself. God created us and gives us the opportunity to progress eternally.

How has god always been god? Did he just appear/come into existence from nothing? If there was nothing before there was god, how did god come into existence?

[Bart Burk]

Walden, on 30 August 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

How has god always been god? Did he just appear/come into existence from nothing? If there was nothing before there was god, how did god come into existence?

That's no different than an LDS person asking, "Where did the first God come from?"  Ultimately, God is God and it is fruitless for us to even ask the question where He came from.  It is better just to accept that He is.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 29 August 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

Quite some time back, the moderators imposed a restriction on me providing a link to any of the hundreds of pages on the website of the Institute for Religious Research, where I work, because one page on the site contains temple ceremony material.

Then you know what the solution to your problem is.