Calm Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Joseph Smith fully expected they would have there own gods...I would like issue a CFR for this one.
frankenstein Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Yes, because you twist what is taught, what is doctrine, and what is not nor ever has been. Nice dodge though.Talking with you seems very unproductive. I don't think it is worth more time. Cheers,Read chapter 47 from the Gospel Principles manual, Joseph Smith is quoted "It is the first principle of the gospel to know the character of God...that He was a man just like us, lived on an earth."what has jaybear twisted concerning the LDS church teaching God was once a man?
altersteve Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Read chapter 47 from the Gospel Principles manual, Joseph Smith is quoted "It is the first principle of the gospel to know the character of God...that He was a man just like us, lived on an earth."what has jaybear twisted concerning the LDS church teaching God was once a man?You and he both left out the "just as Jesus Christ himself did" part. That's very important. The Church does not teach the Father was once exactly like us. All that is taught is that He had a mortal experience. That's it. People who go further than that are speculating and, yes, twisting.
frankenstein Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 You and he both left out the "just as Jesus Christ himself did" part. That's very important. The Church does not teach the Father was once exactly like us. All that is taught is that He had a mortal experience. That's it. People who go further than that are speculating and, yes, twisting.Argue with the correlation committee not me.Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46).Joseph Smith is talking about 3 personages:ManJesusGod the Father of us all.So No, I left nothing out that was not important to the baseless accusation against Jaybear. However, Joseph Smith "He [God] was once a man like us." Whether Joseph Smith used the term "exactly" is a strawman and an intentional smoke and mirror to avoid the issue at hand.
frankenstein Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 It seems rather arrogant and ignorant to twist defintions so much just to fit a doctrine that could not understand how Jesus could be divine and still not be a God.before you start name calling you might want to brush up on what the LDS Church teaches.What is also boggling is for you to tell me what my doctrine is. LDS doctrine is NOT that God was once a man like me.Are you sure about that? You might want to read Chapter 47 in the Gospel Principles manual, I'll save you some time, skip to the near end of the Chapter. Joseph Smith says it himself "He was once like us." And in the singular form, one can rightly say "He was once like me."Your constant, consistent willingness to assume the worst of LDS as a people and the doctrine of the LDS Church jsut sort of discount all of your opinions, but as I say, you are still good for a few laughs in the New Year. Cheers,Jaybear correctly states what is taught by the LDS Church - this teaching, correlated and published by the Church would be Doctrine.
altersteve Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) Argue with the correlation committee not me.Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46).Joseph Smith is talking about 3 personages:ManJesusGod the Father of us all.So No, I left nothing out that was not important to the baseless accusation against Jaybear. However, Joseph Smith "He [God] was once a man like us." Whether Joseph Smith used the term "exactly" is a strawman and an intentional smoke and mirror to avoid the issue at hand.But he also said that God was on an earth "the same as Jesus Christ himself did." This implies that He had the same type of mortal experience that Christ had, which would mean that He did not have the same type of mortal experience that we have. He later went on to say that Jesus received the power to lay down His life from His Father, implying that His Father had the same power, which in turn would imply that the Father was still God during His mortal experience, just as Jesus Christ was God during His mortal experience.People need to learn to read the King Follett discourse in context and actually make an effort to learn what Joseph was teaching. Edited January 11, 2012 by altersteve
frankenstein Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 frankenstein:See 1 Corinthians 8:5 I have stated from my first post in this thread that thanks to FAIR, the LDS can rightly be considered polytheist. I believe there is more than once reference in the Bible that state "Lord of Lords" or "God of Gods".
frankenstein Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 But he also said that God was on an earth "the same as Jesus Christ himself did." This implies that He had the same type of mortal experience that Christ had, which would mean that He did not have the same type of mortal experience that we have. He later went on to say that Jesus received the power to lay down His life from His Father, implying that His Father had the same power, which in turn would imply that the Father was still God during His mortal experience, just as Jesus Christ was God during His mortal experience.People need to learn to read the King Follett discourse in context and actually make an effort to learn what Joseph was teaching.When the Follett discourse becomes Doctrine then perhaps. Until then no one has shown that Jaybear has "twist what is taught, what is Doctrine"Based on the Doctrine from Officially published teaching materials, Jaybear is correct, and has not twisted anything concerning God was once a man teaching.Can you show where Jaybear twisted the God was once a man teaching?
altersteve Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 When the Follett discourse becomes Doctrine then perhaps. Until then no one has shown that Jaybear has "twist what is taught, what is Doctrine"Based on the Doctrine from Officially published teaching materials, Jaybear is correct, and has not twisted anything concerning God was once a man teaching.Can you show where Jaybear twisted the God was once a man teaching?Can you show me where I claimed Jaybear was twisting anything?All I said was that it is important to point out what Joseph actually said, and what Gospel Principles quotes Joseph as saying. Gospel Principles does not leave out the part that compares the Father's mortality to the Son's, so what it's saying is that He was a man like us in the same way that Jesus Christ was a man like us.Either way, the teaching is that God was "once a man" because He, like Jesus Christ and like ourselves, passed through mortality. Plain and simple. We know no details beyond that.
frankenstein Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Read chapter 47 from the Gospel Principles manual, Joseph Smith is quoted "It is the first principle of the gospel to know the character of God...that He was a man just like us, lived on an earth."what has jaybear twisted concerning the LDS church teaching God was once a man?You and he both left out the "just as Jesus Christ himself did" part. That's very important. The Church does not teach the Father was once exactly like us. All that is taught is that He had a mortal experience. That's it. People who go further than that are speculating and, yes, twisting.Can you show me where I claimed Jaybear was twisting anything?read the middle quote, the flow of the discussion is me asking what jaybear twisted, you respond saying jaybear and myself left important things out, you closed this statement by saying "yes, twisting." I can only assume from your comment that you read all of jaybear "god/man" comments and your response was to support the baseless accusation made by storm rider.So in the end, it appeared as though you agree with stormrider, that jaybear was "twisting".
altersteve Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Nope, that's not what I said. I didn't say leaving things out means Jaybear was twisting, I said that whoever goes beyond the simple teaching that God was once a man is twisting. And I never accused you or Jaybear of doing that.
Jaybear Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) I haven't twisted, speculate or offered my personal spin on any teachings.I simple stated that your Church teaches that "God was once a man."Moreover, you are flat wrong when you say ....You and he both left out the "just as Jesus Christ himself did" part. That's very important.Jaybear earlier (Post 86): "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did... "Based upon the responses I received to my posts, I can only conclude that there is another Jaybear out there. Edited January 11, 2012 by Jaybear
altersteve Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) I haven't twisted, speculate or offered my personal spin on any teachings.I simple stated that your Church teaches that "God was once a man."I agree. I simply said that those who go beyond saying that "God was once a man" are speculating, so I never accused you of such.Moreover, you are flat wrong when you say ....Jaybear earlier (Post 86): "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did... "Based upon the responses I received to my posts, I can only conclude that there is another Jaybear out there.Oops, sorry, didn't see that. My bad. Edited January 11, 2012 by altersteve
cdowis Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) Cdowis have your written FAIR to tell them how insulting their article is. By definitions posted by FAIR the LDS are polytheists, we LDS. believe in the future existence of Gods but we only worship One God. Jaybear has used the same sedition as FAIR.Frankly,I was unaware of the status of FAIR on doctrinal issues. If someone writes a FAIR article, does this constitute an authorative source, compared, for example, to a post in this forum.It seems to me to be very silly to ask me to write a response to "FAIR". If the *author* of this article is willing to enter into a discussion on this issue, I would be happy to "write" him in this forum. I have already given my thoughts on the subject, so I invite "FAIR" to join the discussion.I note that this author, writing under the auspice of FAIR, gave permission to the entire antiMormon community to call us polytheists. That was a very nice gift to the enemies of the church and I hope they will write a thank-you letter to show their appreciation.I guess that is the best I can do by way of an apology. Does that make you feel better? Edited January 11, 2012 by cdowis
Storm Rider Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Argue with the correlation committee not me.Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46).Joseph Smith is talking about 3 personages:ManJesusGod the Father of us all.So No, I left nothing out that was not important to the baseless accusation against Jaybear. However, Joseph Smith "He [God] was once a man like us." Whether Joseph Smith used the term "exactly" is a strawman and an intentional smoke and mirror to avoid the issue at hand.Oh, so we are going to selectivelly choose what you think is doctrine? Sorry, that does not fly, but it is a nice way to frame erroneous arguments.
supersnail Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Response to various recent posts...1) The fact that Mormons believe in the existence of more than one thing they are calling "god" is not in dispute. The issue is whether the technical term, polytheism, which *is* a technical term and must be understood in the context of its field, appropriately describes Mormonism. (And by "field," I don't mean postmodernist literary study where words such as "polytheism" may be used in an affirmative/celebratory, purposely unorthodox and ironic way.) Rather than limiting themselves to a commentary on the Mormon view of deity and the Godhead using more specific terms or terms that clarify the meaning of "polytheism" to laypersons, critics of Mormonism are quick to utilize the word "polytheism," for particular reasons. Use of the word can take the place of close examination of Mormonism or take the place of explicitly addressing the topic of idolatry in ways that pertain to the accuser's own religion, but it conveys the impression that Mormons are worshiping more than one god and that these gods are false. Going beyond the one-dimensional definition used to justify immediately branding Mormonism polytheistic, "polytheism" conveys the notion that Mormons are idolaters. This is a serious accusation.2) I don't believe that Mormonism is henotheistic, but whether henotheism should be regarded as a subcategory of polytheism or a subcategory of monotheism (if it is to be considered a subcategory of either) is a matter of some disagreement among scholars. That by itself shows that the issues involved are more complicated than the use of a dictionary definition of "polytheism" to quickly settle things suggests. The Wikipedia henotheism entry, used by someone else as a source in this discussion thread, itself notes that henotheism has been considered a form of monotheism. If critics of Mormonism who were unaware of any of this want to backpedal and stick with the monotheism/polytheism binary they were more familiar with, by all means. The use of "henotheism" admits that "monotheism" has a meaning not fully articulated in some dictionary definitions.3) Argument-by-dictionary isn't a good approach, and the approach has already been abandoned by some Evangelicals who are engaged in a dialogue with Mormonism on more reasonable grounds. For example, common dictionary definitions of even the word "God" are influenced by Platonism. If Evangelicals debating the idea of a finite God, for example, wanted to try to decide the matter quickly, they could point to a dictionary definition to make the accusation that Mormons don't believe in "God" at all, but some take seriously the issues Mormonism raises and know they can't be dismissed. It isn't equivocating for Mormons to disagree with Platonic views of God, and it isn't equivocating to disagree with the incorrect use of a term, "polytheism," whose full meaning has obviously been collapsed.No doubt the devotees of Merriam-Webster's are very clever, but not all criticisms of Mormonism are of the same quality, and the differences suggest a more correct approach.4) In case anyone missed what I said before (), I don't claim special insight into the subjective mindset of Latter-day Saints posting here. I only know what is doctrine and what I can see and hear. The clear teaching of the LDS Church is to pray to the Father in the name of His Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Isn't prayer one of the most important forms of worship? It is communication with the Father Himself, itself. Even the words at sacrament meetings are addressed specifically to "God, the Eternal Father," which isn't surprising. The blessing of the sacrament is a prayer. In other words, most of Latter-day Saints' outward expressions of worship on a day-to-day or weekly basis are consciously and explicitly directed at Heavenly Father, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not sure other forms of worship mentioned, such as administering to the sick, can really be described as worshiping two (or three) beings as if different sets of commandments were being fulfilled. If you privately think you pray to Jesus Christ instead of praying to Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ, that's something else, and I'm sure many non-Mormon Christians wouldn't blame you for it.That said, I believe I'm just as qualified, as any Jewish or Muslim outsider similarly concerned with idolatry and the correct use of the terms "polytheism" and "monotheism, to say that Mormonism is the most monotheistic Christian denomination.Jesus Christ's role is divine, but unique, and there's a reason for doings things in the name of Jesus Christ. Whether you believe that revering, adoring, extolling, following, having faith in, and believing in Jesus Christ, and believing in his atonement and resurrection, is precisely the same thing as worshiping him as a distinct being or not, Jesus Christ's commandments in no way conflict with, or differ from, the Father's commandments. Keeping those commandments is the essence of worshiping God, not reciting what you think are the right words, for example.Trinitarians claim to worship up to three persons, usually two, of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is excluded even though the Holy Spirit is considered God, which is somehow just one individual being. The LDS doctrine of praying to one distinct being, God the Father, who presides over one Godhead consisting of Himself and two other divine beings perfectly united with him, is clearer to me.5) The difference between Trinitarians worshiping two or three persons with the assertion that they are worshiping just one god called "the Trinity," and Mormons worshiping Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ, isn't going to be enough for *any* non-Trinitarian to conclude that Mormonism is polytheistic in comparison. They could just as easily conclude, by comparing teachings on the Godhead and worship, that Trinitarian Christianity is polytheistic.When it comes to Roman Catholics, non-Catholic Christians have no problem looking beyond literal self-description (the Nicene Creed) and dictionary definitions to find evidence of idolatry and polytheism. When it comes to Mormonism, suddenly and conveniently the dictionary definition is sufficient. The judgment that one religion is more polytheistic/monotheistic than another inherently depends on what one thinks is being worshiped and what one counts as an idol. If Mary and Catholic saints weren't perceived/interpreted as being worshiped by critics of the Catholic Church, which has nothing to do with what Catholics call "god" because Catholics don't call Mary and saints "gods," the charge of polytheism wouldn't arise in the first place. I say this not to argue that the Catholic Church is polytheist, but just to point out that "polytheism" has long been used by Protestants in a sense not contained in a necessarily incomplete dictionary definition. If any Protestant wants to disown the idea of Catholic polytheism, feel free, but it is disingenuous for anyone who maintains that Roman Catholicism is polytheistic to pretend to a different understanding of "polytheism" when it comes to Mormonism.6) Non-Mormon Christian critics of Mormonism who use a dictionary definition of "polytheism" to accuse Mormonism of polytheism have divorced polytheism from the issue of idolatry. As such, those critics deserve every last bit of criticism as being idolaters from Jews and Muslims. Such Christians evidence a lack of concern for the seriousness of idolatry, and thus their claims to being the true monotheists of the world are pretentious.If it weren't for accusations that Mormonism is polytheistic or statements implying that Mormonism is polytheistic, this thread might not exist in the first place. If critics keep pushing the issue, their own religious and nonreligiously expressed polytheism stands to be exposed.The argument could be made that Mormonism is one of the most developed instances of ethical monotheism and belief in one personal God. The accusation that Mormonism is polytheistic is intellectually frivolous and obscures the moral, anti-idolatrous and relational aspects of monotheism. I don't expect Wikipedia to make the argument that Mormonism is the most monotheistic, but the notion that Mormonism is a representative example of henotheism or modern-day polytheism, though it may be sincere, isn't thought out.It may be presumptuous to expect the average atheist to be very concerned with the difference between monotheism and polytheism. It's strange to see some atheists make a big deal about the alleged polytheism of Mormonism. It's also strange because it seems American and British atheists are inclined to favor neopaganism and imported polytheism over religions claiming to be monotheistic.The idea that polytheism is just belief in the existence of more than one god is shared not just by critics of Mormonism, but also by many atheists and open advocates of polytheism. Think about why that is. 2
AngelPalmoni Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 God the Father was the Christ of the previous Plan of Salvation, Christ will be the Next God the Father... we ,God willing, will be on the council of gods in the next plan. Christ ,as God the Father in the next plan, his first born spirit child will be the next Christ...Just don't ask where the Holy Ghost Fits in because it is a 3 act play.
Pahoran Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Response to various recent posts...1) The fact that Mormons believe in the existence of more than one thing they are calling "god" is not in dispute. The issue is whether the technical term, polytheism, which *is* a technical term and must be understood in the context of its field, appropriately describes Mormonism. (And by "field," I don't mean postmodernist literary study where words such as "polytheism" may be used in an affirmative/celebratory, purposely unorthodox and ironic way.) Rather than limiting themselves to a commentary on the Mormon view of deity and the Godhead using more specific terms or terms that clarify the meaning of "polytheism" to laypersons, critics of Mormonism are quick to utilize the word "polytheism," for particular reasons. Use of the word can take the place of close examination of Mormonism or take the place of explicitly addressing the topic of idolatry in ways that pertain to the accuser's own religion, but it conveys the impression that Mormons are worshiping more than one god and that these gods are false. Going beyond the one-dimensional definition used to justify immediately branding Mormonism polytheistic, "polytheism" conveys the notion that Mormons are idolaters. This is a serious accusation.[snip to save bandwidth...]The idea that polytheism is just belief in the existence of more than one god is shared not just by critics of Mormonism, but also by many atheists and open advocates of polytheism. Think about why that is.I regret that I am out of rep points for today. Thank you for that well-thought-out post.Regards,Pahoran
Storm Rider Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 God the Father was the Christ of the previous Plan of Salvation, Christ will be the Next God the Father... we ,God willing, will be on the council of gods in the next plan. Christ ,as God the Father in the next plan, his first born spirit child will be the next Christ...Just don't ask where the Holy Ghost Fits in because it is a 3 act play.This has nothing to do with LDS doctrine or theology.
altersteve Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 God the Father was the Christ of the previous Plan of Salvation, Christ will be the Next God the Father... we ,God willing, will be on the council of gods in the next plan. Christ ,as God the Father in the next plan, his first born spirit child will be the next Christ...Just don't ask where the Holy Ghost Fits in because it is a 3 act play.I disagree. This is the kind of speculation that I try to avoid, since we have no revelation on this. I don't think there was a "previous Plan of Salvation." I accept the doctrine that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is all-encompassing, and that it applies to past, current, and future worlds. While I'm open to the idea that I might be wrong, this is all I need to believe until the Lord decides to give us further information.
Anakin7 Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 From my lights True LDS Doctrine/Teaching/Thought/Practice/Walk/Run is that we believe in the Godhead [used to describe to the common man/woman] But to a Theologian/Scholar/Minister/Pastor/Priest/Reverand I use - " Anchient/ Monarch /Eastern/Economic/Social/Godhead/Trinity.In His Debt/GraceAnakin7LDS JEDI KNIGHT
frankenstein Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Oh, so we are going to selectivelly choose what you think is doctrine? Sorry, that does not fly, but it is a nice way to frame erroneous arguments.I am pretty sure that Official published teaching manuals of the LDS Church are to be considered Doctrine. You have yet to show what jaybear twisted. The LDS Church teaches that God was once a man like us, that He God lived on an earth; that the Church teaches this is fact, the entire Church body was taught this in December 2011. So your angst and disparaging of jaybear and myself is completly unwarranted and unfounded. As we both have shown what the Church teaches.
seriously honestly Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Ask him is he believes the Father is god, Jesus is god, the Holy Ghost is god. If he tries to argue they are one ask him if he is a modalist. In the end (assuming he is rational) he should realize that they are in some sense one and in some sense three. So he is in some sense a polytheist. They are not all individual Gods though.
seriously honestly Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Met with my Baptist Minister friend again while waiting for my wife while she was working. [To let you all know he portrays a christlike charitable attitude, not the street preacher mentality]. He still believes we are polytheists [He pulled out his dictionary and read/said the meaning of "a belief in multiple gods"]. And he stated since LDS believe [As with Joseph Smith's statement] that God The Father has a Father which goes back adinfinentum with no end] we are polytheists. I read to him the F.A.I. R wiki article - http://en.fairmormon..._God/Polytheism . He read it and stated from what I remember that we were re defining polytheism and it shifts the meaning within the article.Any thoughts about this ?. Thanks in advance. Any comments links would be welcomed. Christlike posts please because I may share this with him. Thank you in advance. In His Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS JEDI KNIGHT I think Mormonism is closer to henotheism than it is polytheism.
Recommended Posts