Mark Beesley Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Round and around we go. In 1835 Joseph Smith declared that the "Godhead" is TWO beings, the HG being their combined influence. The Father (back then) had no physical body; but the Son did so (Lectures on Faith number Five)....Not exactly.1. We do not know who authored each of the Lectures.2. Lecture Fifth declares that the Godhead consists of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and then proceeds to attempt to explain how, in light of three beings, we can speak of One God.3. The description of the Father as Spirit does not descirbe His body, rather His personage. What is the difference? I am not entirely certain I can explain it. Whoever wrote Lecture Fifth tried to, but it has seemingly confused some and I think I shall not add to the confusion.
Questing Beast Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 ... The nature of God is pretty well established and defined (ie. not debated) in mormonism. That Christianity has endured and entrenched is not surprising at all, given the way it historically was spread, adhered and enforced.Ach! I deleted my post/response.Oh well, I was repeating myself to a great extent anyway.Your humanistic God is not new. It formed the main issue at the Council of Nicaea and was called Arianism (making the Son to be the greatest creation, not God himself).Mormons don't debate theology IN church. But look at the proliferation of discussion on the Internet. This is just in the beginning stages.Christian history is mostly progressive. If it had not been progressive we would not be where we are today; free to argue and deny religion to any degree we choose, without fear. Broadbrushing statements as facts are merely assertions. And the true picture is always complicated....
thesometimesaint Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Questing Beast:The Arianists didn't fair to well at/after the Counsel of Nicaea either. We are a restoration Church we do not claim that all or even most of our ideas are original to us.
Questing Beast Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Questing Beast:That doesn't make any sense. Jesus has a body of flesh and bone. That doesn't seem to stop him from being God.I have a body, and I am "God" too. So are you. I am not a pantheist though. I don't believe in sapient matter never created always existing. "God is seen in all things" is interpreted by me to mean that nothing Exists without originating from "God". So my saying that "I am God manifesting" isn't taking on airs! It is just stating a fact of origins. (Medieval "Free Spiritualists" went too far with it as antinomian cultists; imagining that their thoughts were actually "God" thinking, since they had been reabsorbed back into the whole being that God is; ergo, they could not think or do anything contrary to "God's" will/thought; and to even question themselves was admitting that they had not in fact attained to innocence as they claimed, etc.)Of course having/manifesting a body doesn't stop anything. But to assume that a corporeal Being is ALL that Jesus and the Father are is putting finite limits on them. Why do we have to comprehend them in order to have an intimate relationship? You have intimate relationships with your infants, and they feel this, but do not comprehend your knowledge or experiences, etc. "God" chooses to manifest as one of us, or as many of us. "God" is not limited to one body or gender.Now, "God the Father" as explained by Joseph Smith, IS one person, gender-specific, and immortal: all knowing, powerful and present (by influence at least) while at the same time being a glorified homo sapien. As I've said, this is not THE "God" that I intend to worship. I cut straight to the Cause of that god's and my existence and worship there....
blueadept Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 saemo:So are we.From the LDS mindset....of course and are proud of it. Catholics tend to be a bit more humble and avoid inferring such a thing. It's a safer position in the grand scheme of things.
thesometimesaint Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 blueadept:I am in awe of God, and am humbled that I can become like him someday.
blueadept Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 blueadept:I am in awe of God, and am humbled that I can become like him someday. A simple concept for LDS that Catholics prefer to avoid like the plague IMHO. Perception is rather important.Didn't Eve want to be like God as well? How did that turn out?
Mark Beesley Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 From the LDS mindset....of course and are proud of it. Catholics tend to be a bit more humble and avoid infer such a thing. It's a safer position in the grand scheme of things.Why is it safer to doubt the promises of the Holy Scriptures?
blueadept Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Why is it safer to doubt the promises of the Holy Scriptures?There's only One God. The thought of being compared in same breath as that......no thanks. Our Saints achieved (heaven) where I hope to be one day. The perfect example of course is Jesus. I'll worry about living a Christ-like life now. What I will actually be in heaven is of little matter now.LDS and EV's IMO, worry to much of what they will be in heaven since they are already 'saved.' I'm more worried about keeping my salvation and not losing it. It's all about what you're worried about.My LDS wife was worried about Exaltation therefore made a few changes in her life.I'm content in worrying about my salvation and continue to honor my covenants regardless of my wife's choices.
mapman Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Oh really? You are saying the idea of 1 God but 2 Gods with independent bodies, minds, and spirits is less confusing? Granted, we need to give the LDS credit - they have not been around as long as the Catholics to iron this stuff out. The day will come... eventually... then we might be able to refer to the SLC Creed and compare it quite nicely to the good work done by the ecumenical council.Yep. The Nicene trinity can be reduced to a set of contradictory statements:To me, that is very confusing. The only way that could be possible is if logic doesn't work the same way with God.The Mormon understanding of God makes perfect sense. They are so united in purpose and attributes that they function as one God. That is a perfectly coherent.
thesometimesaint Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 blueadept:All sin and fall short of the glory of God. It is not till we're safely dead that that isn't the problem. But Christ has paid the price for all that want it. I have no fear that I'll make it to heaven, but my goal is the highest degree there.
blueadept Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Yep. The Nicene trinity can be reduced to a set of contradictory statements:To me, that is very confusing. The only way that could be possible is if logic doesn't work the same way with God.The Mormon understanding of God makes perfect sense. They are so united in purpose and attributes that they function as one God. That is a perfectly coherent.Looks like Modalism (which has been thrown in my face) which is a heresy.Mormons have this LARGE desire to humanize God. So be it.
blueadept Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 blueadept: I have no fear that I'll make it to heaven, That's the difference!!....Catholics have no problem in approaching our salvation 'with fear and trembling' of losing it.
cion Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 To me, that is very confusing. The only way that could be possible is if logic doesn't work the same way with God.The Mormon understanding of God makes perfect sense. They are so united in purpose and attributes that they function as one God. That is a perfectly coherent.How is this any easier?
thesometimesaint Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 blueadept:I have a bigger desire for God to humanize man.
mapman Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 The so-called ontological divide is a philosophical problem not a metaphysical one. It is making a problem where none exists, imho. If we assert something, and this creates a problem, it is our fallacious assertion that is the problem.Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "metaphysical."All throughout Christian history there have been countless millions who hold a corporeal Being in their mind as the manifestation that "God" is reaching to them through. Mormonism has brought forth nothing new.That's right. It's a restoration of what the earliest Christians taught."Incomprehensible" how exactly? To me it makes almost perfect sense. I can rectify Mormon theology with the Trinity as given by the Nicene Creed (and visa versa) without the least difficulty.1+1+1=1. That is incomprehensible.Elsewhere, I have mentioned my childhood difficulty with the finite Mormon God the Father; he could not possibly be the Cause of Existence in the first place. Being finite, the Mormon God the Father is just one of "us", not the creator of Existence.Precisely my point: contradiction, inconsistency, abound here. You cannot assert "God was once a mortal and is now a glorified man"; or even, "God has a body as tangible as man's", and with that physical brain inside that immortal brain pan, control the entire cosmos of the multiverse, and be responsible for its existence as well. The "God" described in TPoGP is merely one of us, more advanced but not the Cause of Existence; we are told that intelligence and matter have always existed and cannot be created. God the Father is one with that uncreated Existence. As I said, Mormon theology and cosmology doesn't answer anything; it simply makes the terrible questions even bigger. By trying to be specific about the Infinite, Mormon theology/cosmology creates a self-limiting exegesis.The scriptures never say that God is the cause of existence and I think that it is more satisfying having a God that is one of us and can relate to us.I used to believe that too. But look at it: "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made... We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who in unity with the Father and Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets."This is a clear, sincere effort to articulate something Infinite going on. Yet it does not make the mistake of being too specific about what cannot be known: and that is infinity. God's manifestations, as determined in the scriptures, is ALL that is addressed in the doctrine of the Church. The rest is for mystics to explore by themselves. But Mormonism contrasts: it spells out a specific, finite Godhead doctrine and says, "Go no further than this." Thus it opens questions wider and answers nothing....Could you explain more fully how Mormonism puts limits on God? He can do anything that it is possible to do, knows everything that it is possible to know, and is as powerful as it is possible to be, His influence filling the entirety of space.
mapman Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 How is this any easier?I already told you. The Godhead isn't one substance, but three individuals. They function as one God because they are working together in perfect unity. They are of one heart and one mind. So what is so difficult about that?
cion Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 I already told you. The Godhead isn't one substance, but three individuals. They function as one God because they are working together in perfect unity. They are of one heart and one mind. So what is so difficult about that?It's not hard if you say there are 3 Gods. Don't try to say there is one God. The Godhead is not "God". If you say the Godhead is "God" then you have 1+1+1=1.
Mark Beesley Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 There's only One God. The thought of being compared in same breath as that......no thanks. Our Saints achieved (heaven) where I hope to be one day. The perfect example of course is Jesus. I'll worry about living a Christ-like life now. What I will actually be in heaven is of little matter now.LDS and EV's IMO, worry to much of what they will be in heaven since they are already 'saved.' I'm more worried about keeping my salvation and not losing it. It's all about what you're worried about.My LDS wife was worried about Exaltation therefore made a few changes in her life.I'm content in worrying about my salvation and continue to honor my covenants regardless of my wife's choices.Your response addressed what you want to achieve and what you think others want to achieve. It does not explain why it is safer to believe the way you do than the way you thing think we do.Christ charged us with being as perfect as God. Is it safer to accept anything less?Paul promised that through faithfulness we might become joint heirs, of God, with Christ. Is it safer to strive for anything less?So, I repeat my question: Why is it safer to doubt the Holy Scriptures?
blueadept Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 So, I repeat my question: Why is it safer to doubt the Holy Scriptures?I don't want to be another Eve who wanted to be a God which is the reason she ate the apple
thesometimesaint Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 blueadept:It was probably a pomegranate. Why would Eve(or her descendants) not be subject to perfectibility through Christ just like it says in John 17?
blueadept Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 blueadept:It was probably a pomegranate. Why would Eve(or her descendants) not be subject to perfectibility through Christ just like it says in John 17?Permit me to gather my notes at home that addresses why Catholics have issues with OSAS and I'll try to address your issue as I understand it tonight. Unless 3DOP beats me to it. It's always blown me away how Catholics are concerned with their salvation while most LDS feel confident of their salvation and are more concerned with their Exaltation.....Mindboggling
Mark Beesley Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 I don't want to be another Eve who wanted to be a God which is the reason she ate the appleHow about being another Adam who wanted to be obedient to the commandment that he and Eve multiply and replenish the earth, which is why he ate the apple . . . The account of Adam and Eve in the garden is largely figurative and is probably not very useful in arguing that we should despise our heritage as children of God. If anything, it shows that we are indeed destined to become as God is, but that there are no shortcuts. It is an eternal process and cannot be acheived by simply taking a bite of an apple.
todd520 Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 The Nicene trinity is confusing because it is incomprehensible. If God exists then He should follow the rules of logic that apply to all things that exist. In contrast, the Mormon view of God is perfectly comprehensible and thus allows us to have more confidence in Him and a closer relationship.I can't help but think of D.I.D when I try to imagine the trinityDissociative Identity DisorderTrying to claim separate persons but not separate beings doesn't make sense, unless you are in the original Star Trek series.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.