John 5.19

[diglot]

CFR that the idea I've described "isn't present whatsoever." Prove it.

I don't have to prove it. You are the one making the positive assertion that it is found in that verse. The burden of proof lays with you.

Edited October 27, 2011 by diglot

[altersteve]

I don't have to prove it. You are the one making the positive assertion that it is found in that verse. The burden of proof lays with you.

You made the claim that it "isn't present whatsoever," completely discarding what I said without actually responding to it. But all John 5:19 says, actually, is that Christ received His power from His Father. The rest is simply reasoning in light of what modern prophets have taught, reasoning that I find to be very sound. But like zerinus said:

Now I agree that it is a bit unreasonable to expect a non-Mormon to accept this as doctrine; and it is not a reasoning I would employ to persuade a non-Mormon to accept LDS beliefs. It is okay for a Mormon to accept this as doctrine, because it requires a leap of faith to accept it, and a Mormon can be reasonably expected to make that leap of faith. But it is unfair to expect it from a non-Mormon; and I personally would not employ such an argument while debating with non-LDS. I would find other biblical reasonings that would better resonate with their theological background, than quoting them a difficult-to-perceive reasoning that Joseph Smith preached to his faithful followers, but which would require a leap of faith to accept by non-LDS.

For that reason, no Latter-day Saint should have any reason to prove this, because other Christians will simply disagree with us anyway.

[altersteve]

Basically, John 5:19 does not explicitly teach that the Father sometime, somewhere, and somehow took on mortality, but it does support the idea if read in light of this LDS doctrine.

[diglot]

You made the claim that it "isn't present whatsoever," completely discarding what I said without actually responding to it. But all John 5:19 says, actually, is that Christ received His power from His Father. The rest is simply reasoning in light of what modern prophets have taught, reasoning that I find to be very sound.

Very well, you accept what the modern-day prophets have taught and think it is fine to read it back into John.

Evangelicals do the same thing. They accept what the early church fathers and the ecumenical councils taught regarding the Trinity, and they read it back into the text of the Bible.

Personally I think it is much more sound to let a text speak for itself without reading into it the later accretions of theological thought.

Edited October 27, 2011 by diglot

[diglot]

Basically, John 5:19 does not explicitly teach that the Father sometime, somewhere, and somehow took on mortality, but it does support the idea if read in light of this LDS doctrine.

Thankyou

[Storm Rider]

To not be progressing is to be damned, by definition, and I doubt you'd agree God is intellectually or mentally damned.

That is complete nonsense. God is God; there is no progressing left for him; any other understanding is heresy.

The document from whence these were gleaned is interesting. Ref: https://docs.google....C-crtbdmw&pli=1

As to how God can be progressing in knowledge, I suggest it is because intelligences have libertarian free will, and that what may be termed "complete" knowledge of the future is logically impossible. But that's probably a topic for another thread.

This says nothing. God is not learning; he already has achieved everything.

[Log]

stuff

When you read the referenced document, wherein the prophets of God have explicitly taught that very idea you label as "complete nonsense", then you will be in a position to give a relevant reply. Good day, sirrah!

[Calm]

Diglot, I would like to explore the various interpretations more before making a more committed commitment, but at this time I would take that verse as illuminating part of the relationship between the Father and the Son that is more fully explored in the King Follett Discourse as well as elsewhere in LDS doctrine. Even if all it teaches is that Christ is continuing God's work and that God's work is ongoing, that still is a significant consideration in my view when it comes to LDS doctrine which teaches what God's efforts are all directed towards. I am not saying that it is evidence for the LDS POV, just that it gives added dimension to something we have very little information about.

The verse made it easier----I thought---to explain the LDS POV to nonLDS but if that is how nonLDS view it, then it is better to simply use strictly LDS sources.

[jo1952]

Very well, you accept what the modern-day prophets have taught and think it is fine to read it back into John.

Evangelicals do the same thing. They accept what the early church fathers and the ecumenical councils taught regarding the Trinity, and they read it back into the text of the Bible.

Personally I think it is much more sound to let a text speak for itself without reading into it the later accretions of theological thought.

The difference that is not covered in your above comment is that the Bible teaches there WILL be more prophets beyond the prophets of what later became the Bible. Inasmuch as it is the Holy Ghost who leads to all Truth, God always used prophets to be His mouth piece to specifically guide His children. Unfortunately, man has not always listened to the prophets; not in ancient days, and again not in these latter days. We can see that Jesus chastised the Pharisees because they had taken the words spoken by His prophets and had not interpreted them correctly and indeed had added to them to the point that they were "teaching as doctrine the commandments of men".

Now, inasmuch as Orthodoxy does not recognize (and readily admits) that there have been no prophets called of God since those in the Bible, we have no other choice than to recognize that the communication they may or may not have used for interpreting canon would have been with the Holy Ghost. I do not think that man has a good historical record of being in-tuned with the Holy Ghost - especially not those who are teaching what the prophets taught. We can see by reading the NT that even the Apostles argued over what should be taught. This arguing is a manifestation that they were NOT all receiving the same revelations from the Holy Ghost (after all, they were still each being individually taught what Father deemed they were ready to receive--so this makes sense to me that they WOULD argue). In fact, man continues to repeat history over and over again. Getting back to Orthodoxy, I therefore cannot help but reasonably think that man, especially those who choose to become teachers of what the prophets taught, have taken the same road the Pharisees of ancient days did. Thus, what is being taught today cannot help but be teaching at least some doctrine as the commandments of men. The LDS, OTOH, readily and openly admit that prophets HAVE been called of God in these latter days, and it is these prophets who are teaching what God is telling them to teach.

Just as the prophets of the NT, Jesus in particular, not only added to what had been previously prophesied by OT prophets, He CLARIFIED what had been taught by OT prophets. I have every reason to believe that the same pattern would continue in these latter days; i.e., prophets today will not only add to what has been previously prophesied by both OT and NT prophets through new prophecy (indeed, Jesus taught us in His words that He had not taught us everything, but only what the Father told Him to), but they will also CLARIFY what has been taught by previous prophets -- including clarifying what Jesus taught (He was the greatest prophet of all).

With all due respect, therefore, the Evangelicals are NOT doing the same thing as the LDS are doing. The EV's are working with scripture in the same manner as the Pharisees did since they are interpreting scripture without assistance from prophets to clarify canon; whereas the LDS are interpreting scripture WITH the assistance of prophets. The Holy Ghost works with each of us on an individual basis. He is the ONLY one who can reveal and/or confirm Truth to our spirits. Since we are not all at the same point on our journey, nor are we all at the same level of understanding, God (as taught in the Bible that there would be) is providing prophets to perform as His mouth piece to His children. Since Orthodoxy readily admits that there are no prophets today, they accept no mouth piece of God from whom to receive new prophecy OR to clarify the words spoken by ancient prophets.

I would offer that since Orthodoxy had already claimed no further prophets have walked the earth since Jesus and the ancient Apostles, that the Trinity Dogma was reached WITHOUT the assistance of prophets. As such it is unavoidably subject to the same interpretation errors of which Jesus rebuked the Pharisees when He told them that they "teach as doctrine the commandments of men".

To summarize, the LDS DO recognize prophets are being used in these latter days as spoken of in the Bible. Orthodoxy does NOT. ALL the earth has access to the Holy Ghost. However, we are ALL at different points in our journey, and at our own level and ability to understand. Since our walk is a walk in faith, and taking into consideration that we ARE at different points on the path back to Father and that Father will only allow the Holy Ghost to reveal to us what HE deems we are ready to receive, it is impossible to come to the conclusion that we would ALL have the exact same Truth or amount of Truth revealed to ALL of us at any exact given time. Thus He uses prophets as His mouth piece to guide and direct His children in addition to the Truth we have revealed to each of us personally through the Holy Ghost.

Regards,

jo

[Maidservant]

What is the meaning of the verb εργαζεται ("is working") in reference to God? There was a popular Rabbinic idea that God never ceased from working after creation, but has been actively working all this time in maintaining the cosmos. I don't think, however, that this is the Johannine understanding of the working of God. The usage of "work" in relation to God throughout the Gospel (e.g. 4.34, 6.29, 10.37-38) is identified with redemptive works. In other words, Jesus is answering their accusations against breaking the Sabbath by saying, "Hey! It isn't breaking the Sabbath to participate in the same saving works that the Father performs". Later on in the Gospel, the author has Jesus using this same logic to silence further accusations of his working on the Sabbath (in 7.22-24) - Jesus exposes the hypocrisy of their accusations of breaking the Sabbath by stating that they think it is OK to circumcise on the Sabbath, yet it is not OK for him to heal someone's entire body on the Sabbath. In other words, Jesus is stating in vv. 16-19 that his works (or healings) are in fact keeping with the true meaning/spirit of the Sabbath. This is the purpose behind the phrase, "the Son can do nothing on his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing". i.e., the author is providing reasoning for Jesus healing on the Sabbath, not that Jesus is about to let himself die because he saw the Father doing it.

How on earth anyone can derive from John 5.19 that the Father was once a man who died, was resurrected, and exalted to Godhood, is beyond me.

For what it's worth, I have always been uncomfortable with taking as a necessary or truthful the idea that Jesus saw or "saw/knew" Heavenly Father living a Savior role in Heavenly Father's mortal life, and yes, the use of this scripture as the proof text of that.

Although my reasons are different than yours and ones you are not likely to resonate with. I don't know why I have to believe that only a man who fulfilled the "Savior" mission is the only one worthy [?] to be doing a future "Heavenly Father" role; nor do I think it makes sense to say that the reason Jesus would be our Savior would be based on his Heavenly Father having done the exact same thing; Jesus would have been willing and able to do this mission anyway, which makes it incidental and coincidental if by some chance Heavenly Father had been a Savior in his earlier progression and therefore nothing to remark on or nothing to create scripture or doctrine upon. I think that it is not the gospel to require this kind of detail to be true, that it is a forcing of meaning, as you say.

I think you described it quite nicely about what this verse means. Jesus said those words in the same sense that any one of us could say it, for example, if we were doing healing kind of work on the Sabbath or etc. We would be doing what we see the Father doing, doing the Father's work. We should all show the Father with our works (Matthew 5:16).

I also love that Rabbinic idea .

Forgive me, but I got hung up on the assumption you made above. As a LDS I believe that God the Father was always God. There was never a time when he was not God. Just as Jesus was always a member of the Godhead and came to earth, it is evident IMO that the scriptures tell us that the Father did something very similar. God does not individually progress, his glory expands, but he does not progress. We progress through the Atonement of Jesus; we become one with the Father and the Son and will serve him eternally in whatever capacity they choose for us. Peace,

This is a fine way to believe. But not all LDS believe this. I do not believe it the way you have described. There is a very wide spectrum. There even are LDS who believe that God our Heavenly Father has never gone to an earth for a life, that he is just God Almighty as traditional Christianity might understand him (only with a body which is unexamined where that came from, and a separate personage from the Son and the Holy Ghost); which I think is perfectly acceptable in terms of the articles of faith, the temple recommend interview questions and the scriptures as they stand.

But of course there is some value in exploring these issues and getting a clearer picture one way or the other. I myself love doing that.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Maidservant