blueadept Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 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.Try this analogy and think of a cube where each side is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. From this analogy...1x1x1 does equal 1.
TAO Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 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.It's not that there are three Gods. It's that there are three people who share the title of God for us. =)In that sense, they are three separate individuals, but one God (shared title).Best Wishes,TAO
USU78 Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 Try this analogy and think of a cube where each side is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. From this analogy...1x1x1 does equal 1.Sort of a modality thing, I guess.USU "Thought that was a heresy, but maybe I'm just not following . . . especially since that multiplication thing doesn't apply to counting" 78
USU78 Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 Didn't Eve want to be like God as well? How did that turn out?Pretty dang well . . . we now have, after all, a world in which such a thing as "blueadept" is possible. Before the Fall? Not so much.
LeSellers Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 Try this analogy and think of a cube where each side is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. From this analogy...1x1x1 does equal 1.However, God, being infinite, is hardly representable by "1". Better by "?". And ?*?*? ? 1, nor does it equal ?. ?n is not subject to the rules of ordinary mathematics, since ? is, itself, a concept, not a number. Lehi
cion Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 TAO,The title "God" is not meaningful like the essence and being of God is. Why would a person worship a title?
ChristKnight Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 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.Actually the diagram is orthodox Trinitarianism. It merely repeats what is found in the Athanasian Creed.
cion Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 From this thread, I see the following:1. We want the Trinity doctrine without saying it2. We want one God and are embarrassed to admit to more than one God3. We are proud of having more than one God, 2 of which have exalted bodies of flesh and bone
todd520 Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 From this thread, I see the following:1. We want the Trinity doctrine without saying it2. We want one God and are embarrassed to admit to more than one God3. We are proud of having more than one God, 2 of which have exalted bodies of flesh and boneI disagree1. I greatly prefer the Godhead over Trinity. I can understand 3 beings united in purpose better than 3 personalities (one of which has flesh and blood) that are actually one unified being2. All of Christianity has this challenge. Articulating the Trinity is a weak workaround but the problem still remains with the distinct 'personalities' Not unique to LDS3. Again all Christians are proud of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Not unique to LDS
TAO Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 TAO,The title "God" is not meaningful like the essence and being of God is. Why would a person worship a title?You aren't supposed to be worshiping the title. It's just their name.Kinda like how people who are adopted out will call both of his female parents 'Mom'. Also, sometimes people will call their aunt's 'mom', because they have taken on that responsibility. Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost all share that title of God, because they do some very godly things. I love them for it! =D
Calm Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 TAO,The title "God" is not meaningful like the essence and being of God is. Why would a person worship a title?And "God" is just a word that is a convenient way to discuss that individual we worship.
Questing Beast Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "metaphysical."An asserted realm or dimension that is not part of the space-time we know and does not follow the laws of thermodynamics, etc.That's right. [The LDS Godhead doctrine] is a restoration of what the earliest Christians taught.As there is NO evidence in any extant scripture dating back as far as we can find that Joseph Smith's LAST theology is that of the primitive Christian "church", that is only an assertion. Rather Joseph Smith's LAST theology seems to derive directly from certain Cabala concepts. Iirc, at the time of the KFD he was studying Hebrew from a Jewish "doctor" of religion, who was also knowledgeable in Jewish Cabala.1+1+1=1. That is incomprehensible.Written that way, sure it is. But, 1=? or ?=1 is inclusive of 1+1+1, or any number. The Trinity simply shows how "God" manifests: through individual personae originating from the same Cause. Nothing more has been shown and no details have been forthcoming. Argument vis-a-vis the Trinity or theology under any title is just homo sapiens speculating.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 read the scriptures and get a different impression. When in the Gospel of John it says "Without the Word nothing was made that is made"; this can be taken empirically (the observable universe) or to mean the existence of EVERYTHING. As the concept of Existence in the First Place is infinitely bigger than a mere universe (one of an infinite number, "worlds without end"), it could mean that "God" as represented speaking of "himself" in the scriptures is not a man, since such a concept IS understandable: and the scripture says that "God" is not comprehensible and is in fact infinite. Now, you can argue that "worlds without number have I created, they are numbered to me but not to man" means something else, e.g. is talking "down" to a Bronze Age savage in terms he can understand; but that today we have an expanding scientific mathematics that CAN theoretically "number" the worlds that "God" has created. Or you can take what it says to mean that "God" is literally infinite, and therefore incomprehensible.It may not seem as comforting (cozy) to view "God" as such, compared to a glorified God-man. But there is no arguing that you are settling for (satisfied with) a much lesser being to worship than that is possible to imagine.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.I probably answered this in the above verbiage. But to add something more: Mormonism is polytheistic, which to my mind inserts uncertainty: How many "gods" are there really? How does "our god" stack up to the others? Can we have full faith in a god that is only part of an always-existing "chain" of gods and universes, for example? It is illogical to believe that one of an infinite "number" of gods can know everything about the extent of it all, since the always-existing "chain" is infinite and this "god" is not.If we imagine, instead, that "God" is in complete awareness of every jot of matter that makes up the multiverse - and that it is increasing infinitely - then it IS possible to have faith in the total knowledge, presence and power of such a Being.So, I want to worship the Being that "God the Father" worships. Mormonism says I shouldn't, and even that I can't....
thesometimesaint Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 Questing Beast:We are NOT polytheist. There is ONLY ONE God whom we worship.
Questing Beast Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 Questing Beast:We are NOT polytheist. There is ONLY ONE God whom we worship.I've argued this endlessly elsewhere. You will NOT convince a non Mormon with that reasoning. The definition of polytheism is belief in multiple gods; worship has nothing to do with it. And Mormonism definitely teaches multiple gods. Little "g" gods don't matter; they are still "gods"; which is what each temple marriage is striving for....
thesometimesaint Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 Questing Beast:Telling someone else what they believe is NEVER good form or manners.The early Christians were called polytheists by their detractors. You'd be hard pressed to convince a Jew, or Muslim that Christianity is not polytheistic. See 1 Corinthians 8:5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
Questing Beast Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 If the word has a definition, then "polytheist" definitely applies to Mormonism. What is the problem? It's not as if Mormonism NEEDS validation from any other religion. It is distinct enough to qualify as the FOURTH of the great "Abrahamic religions": Judaism, Christiantiy, Islam and now Mormonism....
LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 I've argued this endlessly elsewhere. You will NOT convince a non Mormon with that reasoning. The definition of polytheism is belief in multiple gods; worship has nothing to do with it. And Mormonism definitely teaches multiple gods. Little "g" gods don't matter; they are still "gods"; which is what each temple marriage is striving for....Henotheist is more appropriate than polytheist, we believe in many gods, (and believe that we can become gods) but only worship one God and only will ever worship one God.
Questing Beast Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 The worship of one or none does not change the definition of "polytheism". Belief in two or more gods is all that is required. Mormonism has an infinity of them....
LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 The worship of one or none does not change the definition of "polytheism". Belief in two or more gods is all that is required. Mormonism has an infinity of them....Polytheists do not always worship all the gods equally, but can be Henotheists, specialising in the worship of one particular deity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism) belief in or worship of more than one god (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polytheism)You are right you can define polytheism simply as the belief in more than one god, as the first half of the definition from Merriam-Webster states. This is an incomplete definition though, an important part of polytheism is the implied worship of multiple gods. This is represented in the second half of the definition from Merriam-Webster and from the information from Wikipedia. In common usage calling someone a polytheist implies the worship of multiple gods, so to call the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints polytheist is completely incorrect, we worship one god and one god alone. As Wikipedia explains a henotheist worships one particular deity over the rest. We most definitely believe in gods, we know that we can become gods, and as Latter-day Saints we should never be ashamed of the revelations we have that clarify our nature and the nature of Heavenly Father as our supreme and all powerful God. We are most definitely not polytheist in the nature that is used in most circles. I agree also thought that LDS is not monotheist at all, neither is most of Christianity.
Jeff K. Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 The worship of one or none does not change the definition of "polytheism". Belief in two or more gods is all that is required. Mormonism has an infinity of them....Kind of like saying marriage and plural marriage are the same thing?Or is the avoidance of the polytheism solved by the trinity aspect? Making it a semantic argument and not a doctrinal one?
USU78 Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 I've argued this endlessly elsewhere. You will NOT convince a non Mormon with that reasoning. The definition of polytheism is belief in multiple gods; worship has nothing to do with it. And Mormonism definitely teaches multiple gods. Little "g" gods don't matter; they are still "gods"; which is what each temple marriage is striving for....QB's ignorantly (or mendaciously) constructed strawman isn't particularly persuasive of his viciously antiMormon position.USU "Suspects QB understands "Traditional Christian" Deification . . . and "Tradition Christian" Angelology . . . quite well" 78
TAO Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 The worship of one or none does not change the definition of "polytheism". Belief in two or more gods is all that is required. Mormonism has an infinity of them....Well then the Bible would be polytheist, wouldn't it? It has many scriptures which use the word 'gods', so it would constitute that.In fact... the scriptures don't actually have a problem with polytheism... they have a problem with worshiping more than one God.
Pahoran Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 If the word has a definition, then "polytheist" definitely applies to Mormonism. What is the problem? It's not as if Mormonism NEEDS validation from any other religion. It is distinct enough to qualify as the FOURTH of the great "Abrahamic religions": Judaism, Christiantiy, Islam and now Mormonism....That's a notorious and thoroughly discredited canard. Mormonism is not the "fourth" anything; it is a subset of Christianity.Whether you like it or not.Regards,Pahoran
44Foxtrot Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 That's a notorious and thoroughly discredited canard. Mormonism is not the "fourth" anything; it is a subset of Christianity.Regards,PahoranMost Christians with whom I have discussed the point here in Florida would disagree with you on this issue. Given the FLDS in the news over the last few years and the portrayal of Mormons on Big Love (very popular here), most non-Mormons I have spoken with see the Mormon Church as a cult and definitely not "true" Christian.
ed2276 Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 I haven't read through all the posts in this thread, but Cion already mentioned Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as having god status, per D&C 132. David Bokovoy, Kerry Shirts, and others have done work showing that there is a Heavenly Council of the Gods; so, other than the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost there appear to be others who hold/held status as gods.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.