Principalities, Thrones, And Dominions?

[inquiringmind]

Do you believe that when the Bible says all was created by Him and for Him, that it means that God was created by Christ or that Christ was created by Christ? If not, then there is at least one "thing" mentioned in the Bible that was not created by Christ so that requires a less rigid definition of "all things" that you appear to be applying here.

The word translated "by" is "en."

Strong's Concordance defines it as follows:

a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality

http://www.studyligh...cgi?number=1722

So if The God created all thru Christ (instrumentally), than of course "God" would be excluded.

The question is whether Paul is saying that all that is not "God" was created through Christ, and whether that's what Mormon's believe.

Think it through.

If it was true that God has a father, wouldn't that imply a whole heavenly "Empire" full of "Royalty"?

Note I said IF

And wouldn't "Heavenly Mother" be a Queen, and Heavenly Father's "Father" a King (with a Throne above and before our God's throne, and not created by Him thru Christ)?

...it is taught that matter and intelligences were not nor can be created but have always existed

So in accepted Mormon doctrine, there would seem to be Royalty, personal entities (all personal entities in fact, if intelligence implies personality, and if "intelligences were not nor can be created"), and substances (i.e. matter) that were not created by God thru Christ.

That seems (to me, at this time) to be different from what Paul is saying here in Col. 1:16..

That is not Inq at all. He does listen.

Thank you.

I don't know if I always listen, but I try sometimes.

I've used the word "if" several times on this thread, and I don't mean to offend anyone.

I'm just trying to think these things thru.

[bookofmormontruth]

That is not Inq at all. He does listen.

I agree, it is refreshing to have someone ask respectfully and have a friendly discourse.

It does make me curious about Inquiringmind. Maybe I have missed it, but why all the questions and trying to "think things thru"? If you don't mind answering of course.

[inquiringmind]

I agree, it is refreshing to have someone ask respectfully and have a friendly discourse.

It does make me curious about Inquiringmind. Maybe I have missed it, but why all the questions and trying to "think things thru"? If you don't mind answering of course.

Personal loss, personal doubt, unusual experiences I don't fully understand, and the very big difference between what I've always believed God to be (to the extent I believed in His existence), and what The LDS tell me He is.

[bookofmormontruth]

Personal loss, personal doubt, unusual experiences I don't fully understand, and the very big difference between what I've always believed God to be (to the extent I believed in His existence), and what The LDS tell me He is.

We can only tell you so much which I hope has helped in some way.

More importantly is to find out on a personal level and to develop a personal relationship. Then the "understanding" starts to flow.

[mfbukowski]

The word translated "by" is "en."

Strong's Concordance defines it as follows:

http://www.studyligh...cgi?number=1722

So if The God created all thru Christ (instrumentally), than of course "God" would be excluded.

The question is whether Paul is saying that all that is not "God" was created through Christ, and whether that's what Mormon's believe.

And wouldn't "Heavenly Mother" be a Queen, and Heavenly Father's "Father" a King (with a Throne above and before our God's throne, and not created by Him thru Christ)?

So in accepted Mormon doctrine, there would seem to be Royalty, personal entities (all personal entities in fact, if intelligence implies personality, and if "intelligences were not nor can be created"), and substances (i.e. matter) that were not created by God thru Christ.

That seems (to me, at this time) to be different from what Paul is saying here in Col. 1:16..

You nearly have it, and it isn't different from what Paul is saying at all.

Let me tell you what I think, but let me tell you I am impressed that you have seen this and asked this question. It goes to the root of what I believe are areas of Mormon theology which need further exploration and definition.

Long post, but I think it will help if anyone actually reads it; but I am mostly writing it for me.

I am not sure if you have seen my other posts, but checking my siggy might help you understand what I mean better.

There are two ways things can be "created" by human beings- and remember that for us, God is a human being.

We live in a world of raw materials- "matter unorganized" which comes to us in various ways through sensory means, and which then goes into our brains and we make order out of that "matter unorganized"- that is, our brains "create" or organize all of that sensory data into something we can speak about using language. Through language, we have "organized" the world of economics, art, religion, chairs, tables, cars, given names to places, invented maps to say "where" they are etc. We as puny naked little primates cannot survive without our culture- we indeed ARE our culture- how your parents raised you was programmed by the way she lived culturally; and were it not for their culture you would not be here.

That way of seeing it is the major insight- it is a summary of a few modern philosophical positions which see it that way, all boiled down into a couple of sentences.

So the ways we "organize" ("create") things are (1) by "discovering" things we didn't know before by putting them into a cultural context

Columbus is said to have "discovered" America even though there were people already living there for thousands of years, because his travels put the "New World" into the context of Europe- though obviously that "world" was not "new" at all. It was "new" because it had just, in a sense, been "created" in a European context, in which it suddenly flashed into "existence". America did not "exist" in Europe until Columbus "discovered" it and then it became the "new world".

Pluto was a planet, now it is not, because it has been redefined- it's culturally understood context has changed. "New" species of fish have been "discovered" in fish markets in Asia- they suddenly "exist" to science, so they are "new species" to science.

Another way to "create" (2) is to take materials, like wood or whatever, and to use tools and instruments to make, say, a chair. Chairs have specific purposes, and the tools have purposes, and so we in effect use one tool (a saw and glue) to "organize" a "sitting tool" defined by the word "chair".

Or Donald Trump can "build" a building without ever picking up a hammer- through instrumentality. He gives the order, the architect makes the plans, the suppliers order the steel, the construction guys go to work etc. The tool of the "building" is "organized" culturally into another huge "tool" which allows people to have "offices" "housing" their insurance business, say, or other highly complex cultural entities, none of which would "exist" without Trump. Yet of course Trump himself is a product of culture, his parents and circumstances as much as you are.

So to get to the point, I think if you take these two ways of "organizing" things, one by discovery, the other through instrumentality (and I don't mean to suggest there is a dichotomy here between the two- I don't think there really is) all of your "problem" with our theology can be resolved.

If Trump "organizes" through instrumentality, he is not excluded from his parents or the law- the culture- the "kingdoms principalities and powers" which both created him, and through which he himself creates.

One could say that "all things which are created (in a human context) were created by man"; or in this instance, through the person known as Jehovah- Christ. And Christ was "organized" by his father in the same sense Trump was etc etc etc.

It is all true in a given context of generations of humanity.

Creation is interaction between the organism and the environment- and then guess what- both are changed by the act of creation. It is a dynamic process.

I pick up a rock and knock it against another rock, and both of those rocks are affected by my actions. Now I use those rocks to make an obsidian knife, which I use to cut down a tree, which is now no longer exists, make a spear and thrower, and then use that to kill a deer. The deerskin becomes "clothes". More cut saplings make a shelter. We now have "food clothing and shelter"- a culture, all "organized" by my brain or mind.

And that interaction is the same even though it becomes more complex. I phone a guy about some lots he has to sell, and before long, there is a building with my office on those lots, and some condos that I might live it. It's no longer rocks against rocks, but it is the same process. I have interacted with the environment, it has interacted with me, and a "new world" is created, in which others can live and work and continue creating their worlds.

So I have changed the environment, and the environment has changed me. It is an interaction. THAT is the essence of Mormon theology.

God organizes his world including his children, and we interact with him through prayer, and he communicates with us through revelation.

And we can "grow up" and become like him.

This is the essence of how linguistic and cultural constructivism can be seen as central aspects of Mormon theology. THAT is why I am LDS, at least that is the "rational" part of it- personal revelation is the rest.

That's why I have said that if God is a man, then humanism is theology.

But of course not everyone here would agree.

[ERayR]

Personal loss, personal doubt, unusual experiences I don't fully understand, and the very big difference between what I've always believed God to be (to the extent I believed in His existence), and what The LDS tell me He is.

I don't mean to give offence and I don't want to take offence, especially where none was intended, but I do get a little edgy when it seems like someone is trying to tell me what I believe. I appologize if I offended you and hope your search is fruitful.

[volgadon]

Regarding thrones, I think that this quote from p. 67 of Arthur Green's Keter is relevant. It describes the heavenly enthronement of David, something I posted on this board. "What is different is that the enthronement is that of David in the heavenly bet ha-midrash, rather than that of God in the seventh heaven! There is great religious daring in this text, one that is willing to take the qedushah/coronation of God and apply it to the king of Israel. David, or his future descendant to come, is no longer merely the anointed representative of God on earth; here he participates quite fully in the ritual event of cosmic kingship..."