TAO Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) In another thread Log posted this:...the Book of Mormon teaches of a Most High God, which contradicts an infinite regression of Gods...In this thread, I feel that I must CFR Log that infinite regression contradicts the Most High God.I believe that Heavenly Father is our Most High God. But I am not making the assumption that he has not a Father.The verses do not say whom he is Most High God over, so I am asking Log to please detail why he thinks that it is unlimited, that Father has not a Father.Thank you, and everyone stay respectful please in responses =).Best Wishes,TAO Edited July 5, 2011 by TAO
Log Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 I must CFR this. I am putting it in another thread though, hope you don't mind =).http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=84010fd41d93b010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&hideNav=1&pageNumber=1&maxResults=20&NARROW_BY=SCRIPTURES%2FBOM&query=%22most+high+god%22&bucket=Scriptures&dateFrom=&dateTo=&AUTHOR_CATEGORY=&AUTHOR_NAME=&FORMAT=&dateFromDisplay=&dateToDisplay=&findByAuthor=For at least one God of progression to, say, level X, there is not another God of progression to level X + 1. That's what it means to be the Most High God. QED.
TAO Posted July 6, 2011 Author Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) http://classic.lds.o...=&findByAuthor=For at least one God of progression to, say, level X, there is not another God of progression to level X + 1. That's what it means to be the Most High God. QED.And yet, here we see that Christ is referred to as the Most High God.Alma 26:14Yea, we have reason to praise him forever, for he is the Most High God, and has loosed our brethren from the achains of h***.and then we see the Father referred to as the Most High God.And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God; for he is God over all the aearth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou bbelievest in the Son of the most high God; wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired.Thus, if Father and Christ can both be most High Gods, what's to say Father and his Father (if such exists) are not both Most High Gods as well? I do not think this is too illogical as similarly, the Father and the Son share the same title of God for us =). On a different level, of course, but both necessary Gods =D. And both full of purpose.Best Wishes,-TAO Edited July 6, 2011 by TAO
BCSpace Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 "Most High God" is merely contextual as there exists other real and divine Gods in LDS theology but with them we have nothing to do. Also, the Alma 26:14 reference in Log's link is to Jesus Christ, not the Father. The BoM Student Manual, whcih is official doctrine, asks this question regarding the verse:"What evidences do you find that Ammon’s rejoicing was in the Savior’s power and mercy, rather than boasting of himself?"
Log Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) And yet, here we see that Christ is referred to as the Most High God.and then we see the Father referred to as the Most High God.The verse does not make that identification. And, contra BCSpace, the manual is not doctrine either.Is it blasphemy, or shall I be burned at the stake, for suggesting the manual is possibly incorrect? Edited July 6, 2011 by Log
TAO Posted July 6, 2011 Author Posted July 6, 2011 The verse does not make that identification.Actually, it does... it says 'son of the most high God' here. Meaning Father, right?And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God; for he is God over all the aearth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou bbelievest in the Son of the most high God; wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired.and here.... it says that the most high God 'loosed our brethren from the chains of h***'... meaning Jesus Christ, no?Autn:reference - http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/26/14#14 Yea, we have reason to praise him forever, for he is the Most High God, and has loosed our brethren from the chains of h***. Is it blasphemy, or shall I be burned at the stake, for suggesting the manual is possibly incorrect?Nope, no burning involved whatsoever. You are correct, it is not doctrine. But I believe the manual is correct in this instance.Humble Wishes,TAO
Log Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) Actually, it does... it says 'son of the most high God' here. Meaning Father, right?Uh? I don't believe that it does say that in Alma, no. It says that in Nephi.and here.... it says that the most high God 'loosed our brethren from the chains of h***'... meaning Jesus Christ, no?Possibly not.You are correct, it is not doctrine. But I believe the manual is correct in this instance.That is your privelege. It may even be correct, but it is not clear, within the material referenced, that it is Christ being spoken of.And, if we had an unambiguous reference to Christ, not as the Son of the Most High God, but as Most High God (which unambiguous reference we apparently do NOT have), what exactly would that mean with respect to the infinite regress of Gods theory? Edited July 6, 2011 by Log
TAO Posted July 6, 2011 Author Posted July 6, 2011 Uh? I don't believe that it does say that in Alma, no. It says that in Nephi.We were talking about the phrase 'the Most High God', so I figured I could use any one.Possibly not.That is fine.That is your privelege. It may even be correct, but it is not clear, within the material referenced, that it is Christ being spoken of.Of course. And I wouldn't want them talking about it really directly unless they had a talk with God about it and they got his okay... which of course they will if they ever do have a talk on it, which could happen =P.And, if we had an unambiguous reference to Christ, not as the Son of the Most High God, but as Most High God (which unambiguous reference we apparently do NOT have), what exactly would that mean with respect to the infinite regress of Gods theory?Not much. It just shows that 'The Most High God' can be a relative position... Heavenly Father is my Most High God... but someone might be his =). Not sure though, again, never fleshed out completely, and probably shouldn't be.
Log Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) We were talking about the phrase 'the Most High God', so I figured I could use any one.Well, you should choose one which says, of Christ, directly, that he (Christ) is the Most High God. The one you cited explicitly didn't, but rather called him the Son of the Most High God.Not much. It just shows that 'The Most High God' can be a relative position... Heavenly Father is my Most High God... but someone might be his =). Not sure though, again, never fleshed out completely, and probably shouldn't be.I had a discussion on that topic tonight. If God F were the Most High God, that would preclude God G from being the Most High God as well. That's just what the means in English when used in that manner. Edited July 6, 2011 by Log
TAO Posted July 6, 2011 Author Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) Well, you should choose one which says, of Christ, directly, that he (Christ) is the Most High God. The one you cited explicitly didn't, but rather called him the Son of the Most High God.And in 'the son of the most high God', the 'most high' is God the Father, the son being Jesus Christ. Thus, I think both can be called 'most high'.I had a discussion on that topic tonight. If God F were the Most High God, that would preclude God G from being the Most High God as well. That's just what the means in English when used in that manner.Not particularly, I must disagree, sorry. When Genesis is translated, it uses the words 'head of the gods'. But that doesn't mean he is the only head... he is the head of the Gods that matter to us. Thus, he is the most High God to us, because only he matters to us. Edited July 6, 2011 by TAO
BCSpace Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 And, contra BCSpace, the manual is not doctrine either.So you believe the Church intentionally teaches nondoctrine in it's cirriculum? Interesting. Your bishop, stake president, or any visiting GA will disabuse you of that notion. That is, if you care to actually find out.But in any case, the verses in Alma are quite clear it's not speaking of God the Father.
Log Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 And in 'the son of the most high God', the 'most high' is God the Father, the son being Jesus Christ. Thus, I think both can be called 'most high'.It is a shame he never is, in the scriptures... unambiguously.Not particularly, I must disagree, sorry. When Genesis is translated, it uses the words 'head of the gods'. But that doesn't mean he is the only head... he is the head of the Gods that matter to us. Thus, he is the most High God to us, because only he matters to us.Sure, if you change the scriptures to say what you think, then they say what you think.
Log Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 So you believe the Church intentionally teaches nondoctrine in it's cirriculum? Interesting. Your bishop, stake president, or any visiting GA will disabuse you of that notion. That is, if you care to actually find out.Dear Bishop, are the manuals doctrinally infallible?But in any case, the verses in Alma are quite clear it's not speaking of God the Father.No, actually, the verses in Alma are not quite clear it's not speaking of God the Father.
TAO Posted July 6, 2011 Author Posted July 6, 2011 It is a shame he never is, in the scriptures... unambiguously.Bible, perhaps? I will have to check later. It does not matter much to me anyways, as I am not in the business of convincing you too much.Sure, if you change the scriptures to say what you think, then they say what you think.You need to look a bit more into scripture translation. And yes, it was Joseph Smith who said the one verse in Genesis means, when translated from Hebrew, 'head of the Gods'.I can provide a source if you would like, but I am really sleepy right now, so perhaps tomorrow =). *yawns* =PBest Wishes,TAO
TAO Posted July 6, 2011 Author Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) No, actually, the verses in Alma are not quite clear it's not speaking of God the Father.BCSpace is going to CFR you here, just to tell you, okay =P. I would put more support behind it, because he is very good at ripping through ideas that aren't perfect. 0.o =/. Edited July 6, 2011 by TAO
Log Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) Bible, perhaps? Nope. Christ is consistently the Son of the Most High God, and not the Most High God.You need to look a bit more into scripture translation. And yes, it was Joseph Smith who said the one verse in Genesis means, when translated from Hebrew, 'head of the Gods'.Yep. Which is what I said. That would be the head of the Gods (Bible according to Joseph Smith), not the head of our Gods (you). Edited July 6, 2011 by Log
TAO Posted July 6, 2011 Author Posted July 6, 2011 Nope.*shrugs* If you only want to go on the Bible, you are limiting yourself greatly.Yep. Which is what I said. That would be the head of the Gods (bible), not the head of our Gods (you).You didn't understand the context of the quote. The place it is talking about is the use of 'Eloheim', which is a plural verb. It is translated in most Bibles to mean 'God', but in actuality, it means 'Gods'. In the verse, the 'Head of the Gods' calls the Gods together to create something. In this sense, I am saying that 'Head of the Gods' is a relative position, because part of the duties of exaltation is to receive a stewardship in God's kingdom and take care of it. Thus, we become the 'head of the gods' for our children (spiritual, do not talk about it much). Or at least that was the connection I was trying to make with it.
Log Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) *shrugs* If you only want to go on the Bible, you are limiting yourself greatly.Actually, my original post concerned itself solely with the Book of Mormon, but it so happens that the Book of Mormon consistently identifies Christ as the Son of the Most High God exactly as the Bible does.The post as it currently exists captures my thoughts on this topic more fully.It would of course be easier if I just inserted words or deleted other words so that the scriptures would say what I want them to say, but I don't think that's kosher. Edited July 6, 2011 by Log
inquiringmind Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 and here.... it says that the most high God 'loosed our brethren from the chains of h***'... meaning Jesus Christ, no?That could also refer to the Father (who so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son.)And isn't there a passage in Hebrews (toward the end of the 6th chapter, I think) that says the God of Abraham swore by Himself, because there was no one greater to swear by?
TAO Posted July 7, 2011 Author Posted July 7, 2011 That could also refer to the Father (who so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son.)In that sense, yes it could.And isn't there a passage in Hebrews (toward the end of the 6th chapter, I think) that says the God of Abraham swore by Himself, because there was no one greater to swear by?When Jesus does a work, it is of the Father also, so it would apply to them both, I believe.
BCSpace Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 (edited) BCSpace is going to CFR you here, just to tell you, okay =P. I would put more support behind it, because he is very good at ripping through ideas that aren't perfect. 0.o =/.I could do that, but I think the evidence speaks for itself. Most High God can refer to Jesus. And even if it didn't, we still have the twin doctrines that God was once a mortal man (and therfore has a father) and that other real and divine Gods co-exist (cf 1 Cor 8:5-6).Is it blasphemy, or shall I be burned at the stake, for suggesting the manual is possibly incorrect?Depends on the doctrine in question, but you could lose your salvation over gospel hobbies stemming from your disagreement with doctrine. It's better to admit that you disagree with doctrine rather than stating erroneously that doctrine is not doctrine. Edited July 8, 2011 by BCSpace
inquiringmind Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 (edited) http://classic.lds.o...=&findByAuthor=For at least one God of progression to, say, level X, there is not another God of progression to level X + 1. That's what it means to be the Most High God. QED.But didn't JS say that the Father had a Father?I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven. "In order to do that," said he, "suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist--two men on the earth, one wiser than the other, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist. Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them. If Abraham reasoned thus--If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, section six, pg. 373.)http://www.boap.org/...achings/T6.htmlIsn't he here teaching an infinite regress of Gods? Edited July 9, 2011 by inquiringmind
Recommended Posts