Mormonism'S Anthropomorphic God: Why Is This A Problem For Other Theists?

[CV75]

These three reasons prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus was not and could not be praying for his disciples to become one in every way that Jesus is one with the Father.

Do you think this line of reasoning pertains to Matthew 5:48 as well?

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

• One way that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one is that they are one Godhead. No LDS has claimed otherwise.
  
• Believers will never be part of the Godhead. No LDS has claimed otherwise

Actually, in the heat of debate I've had a couple of Mormons try to claim otherwise on this second point, but you are right to reject such a claim. As I said, these first two statements are premises with which I expect reasonable Mormons to agree.

You wrote:

• Therefore, believers will never be one with the Father and the Son in the way of being one Godhead. No LDS has claimed otherwise.
  
• Therefore, there is a way in which the Father and the Son are one that believers will never be one with them. That is a non sequitur, and is not substantiated by the Sciptures
  

It isn't a non sequitur; it's simply reaffirming what the previous statement says, a statement you say no LDS would deny! If believers will never be one with the Father and the Son in a specific way, then there is at least one way in which they will never be one with them. They can, of course, be one with them in some ways, but not in all ways.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

You asked:

Do you think this line of reasoning pertains to Matthew 5:48 as well?

Yes. Jesus is not saying that human beings will attain all of God's perfections, but that human beings are to become perfect human beings. As perfect human beings, they will share some of God's perfections, but not all. In context, again, Jesus tells us what sort of perfection he has in view: the moral perfection by which God loves even his enemies and blesses them with good things despite their rebellion against him (vv. 44-47). We are to be perfect in love just as the Father is. Interesting that love is the context in both passages, don't you think? If you want to apply verse 48 to the whole chapter, moral perfection is still the point, because throughout the chapter Jesus is talking about moral character--not being angry with one's brother, not looking on a woman with lust, not breaking up one's marriage, etc. So in that broader context Jesus is saying that we are to be morally perfect just as the Father is morally perfect.

What do you think?

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

It is still a non sequitur. IE. I am my fathers son. I will always be my fathers son. He will always be my father. I will never be my father. That fact does not in any way impede me for being a father also with the same rights, powers, and authorities.

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

It is still a non sequitur. IE. I am my fathers son. I will always be my fathers son. He will always be my father. I will never be my father. That fact does not in any way impede me for being a father also with the same rights, powers, and authorities.

You're changing the subject. The issue is whether believers can be "one" with the Father and the Son in every sense. You agreed that they cannot and then claimed it was a non sequitur to claim that they cannot.

In context, is Jesus praying for his followers to become exalted to godhood? I pointed out two exegetical reasons to think otherwise. What exegetical reasons do you have for thinking he was praying for them to become gods, if that's what you want to claim? And how do you respond to the two exegetical reasons I gave for my conclusion?

[KevinG]

There is a lot of room in the statement becoming a joint heir with Christ, between inheriting the love of the Father and joining the Godhead.

In LDS belief we understand that we will become like our Father, but that is not defined in specifics.

If God wants us to join Him in creating worlds and becoming Saviors to our own creations then it will be. Even then we would not replace the Father who is always our Father. If God simply wants us to join Him in equal love then it will be, but that does not mean we cannot join Him in his work.

Please don't ask us to define something we don't have full definition to then argue that this speculation is LDS doctrine. That is falacious along wtih the argument from extremes (all or nothing).

[maklelan]

Regarding John 17:20-23, my point is simple. Jesus is not saying that believers will be "one" with him in every way that he is one with the Father.

I don't see any indication that John promotes multiple ways Jesus is one with God.

This is simple to prove on Mormon premises alone:

I'm more interested in the biblical sense.

In context, Jesus tells us what "oneness" he and the Father have that is available for believers to share. It is the oneness of love (read the whole of verses 21-26 to get that full context).

Actually it's a oneness of glory, with love as the catalyst for the endowment of that glory. Glory is the subject of the entire chapter (cf. vv. 1, 4, 5, 10, 22, 24). Love is the reason for the oneness of glory (cf. vv. 23-26). V. 22 points out that Jesus gave the his followers the glory that God gave to him, and that that is what brings about the oneness. That's an unambiguous statement. Jesus' followers have the glory Jesus has, and thus they qualify to be one with God and Jesus as they are one. Elsewhere in the NT we read on several occasions that Christians will be glorified. In vv. 21 and 23 Jesus points out that the oneness brings about awareness that Jesus was sent by God, and that Jesus and his followers are loved by God. A oneness of love in and of itself does not accomplish this unless some product of that love is manifested. V. 23 also puts the shared love of God in the past tense, with the prayer for oneness in the future. The oneness is not a oneness of love. The text is clear that it is God's glory, given to Jesus and then to his followers, that is manifest to the rest of humanity, and that this is what catalyzes the oneness for which Jesus prays.

This is a oneness that believers can share with the Father and the Son. It is also a oneness that believers can share in this life, which is the point of Jesus' prayer.

He wants his followers to be one so that the world may know that the Father sent him. Jesus' followers cannot fulfill that purpose after they die and are "exalted"; that will be too late to help the world see that the Father sent the Son. So Jesus must be referring to a oneness that is realizable and perceptible in this mortal life. Again, that oneness is the oneness of the love that the Father and the Son have for one another.

The oneness of glory is far better situated to the context. The notion of a oneness of love is complicated by it.

I have just given two exegetical reasons from the immediate context in John 17 for my conclusion, in addition to the deductive argument presented above. These three reasons prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus was not and could not be praying for his disciples to become one in every way that Jesus is one with the Father.

Again, I only see one level of oneness being promoted by John. Jesus and the disciples are just the object of God's love, but God's glory is something that is manifested by each of them. They participate in it and share, they don't just receive it.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

You are incorrect it is the same subject, but under earthly conditions.

In LDS belief we have the opportunity to become like God. We don't know the full extent of that "like", but from the Scriptures we will be joint heirs with Christ, to sit with him on his thrown and be crowned with righteouness. That there will be no end of our dominion. That being said we will always serve God, he will always be our God.

Edited March 20, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[CV75]

Yes. Jesus is not saying that human beings will attain all of God's perfections, but that human beings are to become perfect human beings. As perfect human beings, they will share some of God's perfections, but not all. In context, again, Jesus tells us what sort of perfection he has in view: the moral perfection by which God loves even his enemies and blesses them with good things despite their rebellion against him (vv. 44-47). We are to be perfect in love just as the Father is. Interesting that love is the context in both passages, don't you think? If you want to apply verse 48 to the whole chapter, moral perfection is still the point, because throughout the chapter Jesus is talking about moral character--not being angry with one's brother, not looking on a woman with lust, not breaking up one's marriage, etc. So in that broader context Jesus is saying that we are to be morally perfect just as the Father is morally perfect.

What do you think?

I don’t think Jesus is referring to the Godhead in His Intercessory prayer (the Holy Ghost is not mentioned), so the oneness He is referring to must involve His familial and covenantal relationship with the Father. I think this is reflected in the idea of Zion, which is patterned after God’s family on earth and in heaven (at least this is what I get from such scripture as Psalms 84:7; Isaiah 4:3 and 12:16; Jeremiah 3:14). I think these relationships are cultivated by degrees in this life and the next until they are perfected, according to one’s adherence to the first and latter principles and ordinances of Christ’s Gospel. I think moral perfection follows this same pattern, and that God’s love is reflected in both attributes (oneness and perfection). So I would go so far as to say that oneness with God and perfection go hand in hand.

[Vance]

Regarding John 17:20-23, my point is simple. Jesus is not saying that believers will be "one" with him in every way that he is one with the Father. This is simple to prove on Mormon premises alone:

So, you don't believe what was said, Got it.

²⁰ “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, ²¹that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. ²² I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— ²³ I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

What part of "just as" and "as we are" is so difficult to understand?

One way that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one is that they are one Godhead.

The "Godhead" isn't mentioned and is therefore, NOT part of the context. So this is simply a red herring.

Believers will never be part of the Godhead.

The "Godhead" isn't mentioned and is therefore, NOT part of the context. So this is simply a red herring.

Therefore, believers will never be one with the Father and the Son in the way of being one Godhead.

Therefore, this is a red herring.

Therefore, there is a way in which the Father and the Son are one that believers will never be one with them.

Therefore, this is a redherring.

Grant the first two statements as the premises of the argument, and the conclusion follows with deductive certainty.

False premises.

Your argument fails.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Vance

[wenglund]

Regarding John

In context, Jesus tells us what "oneness" he and the Father have that is available for believers to share. It is the oneness of love (read the whole of verses 21-26 to get that full context). This is a oneness that believers can share with the Father and the Son. It is also a oneness that believers can share in this life, which is the point of Jesus' prayer. He wants his followers to be one so that the world may know that the Father sent him. Jesus' followers cannot fulfill that purpose after they die and are "exalted"; that will be too late to help the world see that the Father sent the Son. So Jesus must be referring to a oneness that is realizable and perceptible in this mortal life. Again, that oneness is the oneness of the love that the Father and the Son have for one another.

Even if one interprets this passage narrowly to just mean that we can become one in love with the Father and Son (the passage also refers to joy, sanctification, truth, glory, not of this world, and perfect in one), it still has deifying implications. Since the love that the Father and Son have is a Godly love and a perfect oneness in Godly love, or in other words it is a love had by Gods, a love not of this world (verse 14) which loveth its own (John 15:19), then for us to become one in love, and perfect in that oneness with the Father and Son, we must be not of this world, but become Gods.

Now, whether our becoming Gods in love and perfect in that oneness of Godly love is something that may occur in this world or "the world to come," is not clear. At the very least, I see no reason that either world couldn't come to know that the Father sent the Son, as evinced by the perfect oneness in Godly love of believers, following the death and resurrection of those believers. After all, it was by virtue of Christ's own death and resurrection that "the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do." (Jn 14:31)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

KevinG,

You wrote:

There is a lot of room in the statement becoming a joint heir with Christ, between inheriting the love of the Father and joining the Godhead.

In LDS belief we understand that we will become like our Father, but that is not defined in specifics.

In evangelical belief we also understand that we will become like our Father, so that is not the issue. The specifics are where the issue will in fact be found.

You wrote:

Even then we would not replace the Father who is always our Father.

Why do Mormons so often make this point in discussions like this one? Did anyone here suggest that Mormons think they will replace the Father or that he will no longer be their Father? Have critics of Mormonism ever published statements making these misrepresentations of Mormon belief?

[thesometimesaint]

Why do Mormons so often make this point in discussions like this one? Because it is often thrown at us that we believe we will replace God.

Did anyone here suggest that Mormons think they will replace the Father or that he will no longer be their Father? On this particular thread? No, but I've been here for a while and yes it has.

Have critics of Mormonism ever published statements making these misrepresentations of Mormon belief? Yes. See http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Video/The_God_Makers/Cartoon

Edited March 20, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

I don't see any indication that John promotes multiple ways Jesus is one with God.

I didn't say he does.

You wrote:

I'm more interested in the biblical sense.

As am I, but I am trying to reason with traditionally minded Mormons who read ideas of exaltation to godhood into the biblical text that are not there.

Regarding the oneness for which Jesus prayed in John 17, you wrote:

Actually it's a oneness of glory, with love as the catalyst for the endowment of that glory. Glory is the subject of the entire chapter (cf. vv. 1, 4, 5, 10, 22, 24). Love is the reason for the oneness of glory (cf. vv. 23-26). V. 22 points out that Jesus gave the his followers the glory that God gave to him, and that that is what brings about the oneness. That's an unambiguous statement. Jesus' followers have the glory Jesus has, and thus they qualify to be one with God and Jesus as they are one. Elsewhere in the NT we read on several occasions that Christians will be glorified. In vv. 21 and 23 Jesus points out that the oneness brings about awareness that Jesus was sent by God, and that Jesus and his followers are loved by God. A oneness of love in and of itself does not accomplish this unless some product of that love is manifested. V. 23 also puts the shared love of God in the past tense, with the prayer for oneness in the future. The oneness is not a oneness of love. The text is clear that it is God's glory, given to Jesus and then to his followers, that is manifest to the rest of humanity, and that this is what catalyzes the oneness for which Jesus prays.

Let's get the text in front of us:

"I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them" (John 17:20-26 ESV).

If we are to pit glory and love against one another as if one must be the dominant theme of the passage rather than the other, then love would "win," although I don't see a need to argue in that way. John 17 should be read in the context of the entire Upper Room Discourse (John 13-17). Throughout this lengthy part of the Gospel, love is quite obviously a dominant theme. The word love itself occurs 34 times in these five chapters (John 13:1, 23, 34, 35; 14:15, 21, 23, 24, 28, 31; 15:9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19; 16:27; 17:23, 24, 26) and 23 times in the rest of the book. Glory is of course also a significant theme; the words glory and glorify occur 16 times in these five chapters (John 13:31, 32; 14:13; 15:8; 16:14; 17:1, 4, 5, 10, 22, 24) and 17 times in the rest of the book. So both receive some emphasis in John 13-17, but love clearly more so. In any case, a careful exegesis of the chapter will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the "oneness" for which Jesus prays here is a oneness of love.

First, Jesus says here that he has given (past tense, specifically perfect indicative) to the disciples the glory the Father had given to him (v. 22a), so they already have this "glory," whatever it is.

By the way, if they already have this glory, it cannot be referring to exaltation to godhood sometime in the future after they are resurrected to immortality. One could speculate that it will eventually lead to that exaltation, but the text does not say so. I'm pointing this out so that Mormons here won't misunderstand this "glory" to refer to their concept of eternal progression or exaltation.

Now, Jesus says that he gave his disciples this glory "that they may be one even as we are one," and so forth (v. 22b-23). Love is not the catalyst for the glory, as you put it; rather, the glory is the catalyst for the oneness. The disciples already have the glory; Jesus is praying that the glory will result in their becoming one in the desired sense, whatever that is. Jesus does not pray that the disciples may come to have glory just as he and the Father have glory; he does not pray this because, he says, he has already given the disciples the glory he came to give them.

Second, Jesus explains that the oneness is in fact a oneness of love. He concludes his prayer by praying "that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them" (v. 26). Notice how this prayer parallels the prayer "that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me" (vv. 22b-23a). Jesus actually prays here that the Father's love for the Son will be in the disciples. In both cases he prays "that" something "may be" (hina followed by the verb in the subjunctive), something that is not yet but he prays will be true about the disciples during their moral lives. In both cases Jesus prays that this may become the case, and "I in them" (ego en autois). Christ will be truly "in them" as this oneness is realized in their lives, as the Father's love for the Son comes to be in them as well. In context this "oneness" appears then to be equated with love.

Third, the crucial reason that Jesus gives for his prayer should be given careful notice: "so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me" (v. 23b). This is not the first time that Christ spoke about the world knowing because of something about the disciples. Toward the beginning of the discourse Jesus tells them, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another (John 13:34-35 ESV). When the disciples have love for one another, that will have the result that people in the world will know that they are followers of the one who came to bring the Father's love. But this is just what Jesus prays for in John 17:23--that the world may know that the disciples are people who have experienced the Father's love for the Son whom they are following. By the love of the disciples for one another, the world will know that they are people who have experienced his love, which is the love that the Father and the Son have for one another. This thematic connection proves that it is a oneness of love that Jesus prays the disciples will have, a oneness of love that will persuade people that the love of the Father and the Son is real.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

Why do Mormons so often make this point in discussions like this one? Because it is often thrown at us that we believe we will replace God.

Did anyone here suggest that Mormons think they will replace the Father or that he will no longer be their Father? On this particular thread? No, but I've been here for a while and yes it has.

Have critics of Mormonism ever published statements making these misrepresentations of Mormon belief? Yes.

CFR. The web page you cited gave no examples of critics of Mormonism alleging that exalted saints will replace the Father or that when they become gods the Father will no longer be their Father.

[mfbukowski]

Regarding John 17:20-23, my point is simple. Jesus is not saying that believers will be "one" with him in every way that he is one with the Father. This is simple to prove on Mormon premises alone:

• One way that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one is that they are one Godhead.
  
• Believers will never be part of the Godhead.
  
• Therefore, believers will never be one with the Father and the Son in the way of being one Godhead.
  
• Therefore, there is a way in which the Father and the Son are one that believers will never be one with them.
  

Grant the first two statements as the premises of the argument, and the conclusion follows with deductive certainty.

In context, Jesus tells us what "oneness" he and the Father have that is available for believers to share. It is the oneness of love (read the whole of verses 21-26 to get that full context). This is a oneness that believers can share with the Father and the Son. It is also a oneness that believers can share in this life, which is the point of Jesus' prayer. He wants his followers to be one so that the world may know that the Father sent him. Jesus' followers cannot fulfill that purpose after they die and are "exalted"; that will be too late to help the world see that the Father sent the Son. So Jesus must be referring to a oneness that is realizable and perceptible in this mortal life. Again, that oneness is the oneness of the love that the Father and the Son have for one another.

I have just given two exegetical reasons from the immediate context in John 17 for my conclusion, in addition to the deductive argument presented above. These three reasons prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus was not and could not be praying for his disciples to become one in every way that Jesus is one with the Father.

Learn something about the Church of the Firstborn and the Patriarchal order. Good luck on that one.

Our Father will always be as infinitely far "ahead" of us as we are now but saying we will not be part of the Godhead is like saying your descendants will not be part of your family.

Good luck with that one too. You really need to learn something about the church before you go off with your black and white definitions.

[Rob Bowman]

• One way that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one is that they are one Godhead. No LDS has claimed otherwise.
  
• Believers will never be part of the Godhead. No LDS has claimed otherwise
  
• Therefore, believers will never be one with the Father and the Son in the way of being one Godhead. No LDS has claimed otherwise.
  
• Therefore, there is a way in which the Father and the Son are one that believers will never be one with them. That is a non sequitur, and is not substantiated by the Sciptures
  

It took only five hours and a Mormon in this forum has already contradicted you. Some Mormons are indeed willing to say that exalted saints can become part of the one Godhead.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

Now you are just dissembling

No LDS has denied that we are/will be part of the family of God. All members of the Godhead will always be infinitely far ahead of us. God will always be our God.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

So, you don't believe what was said, Got it.

It's comments like this one that discourage me from making any effort to reason with you.

You wrote:

The "Godhead" isn't mentioned and is therefore, NOT part of the context. So this is simply a red herring.

Believers' deification, exaltation, or becoming gods is not mentioned and is not part of the context. So reading these ideas into John 17:21-23 is mistaken, by your own standard.

QED.

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

Now you are just dissembling

That's ridiculous.

You wrote:

No LDS has denied that we are/will be part of the family of God.

I never said otherwise.

All members of the Godhead will always be infinitely far ahead of us.

You really need to have a huddle with the other Mormons here who insist that the text must mean that we will become everything that God is. Your argument is actually with them, not with me.

You wrote:

God will always be our God.

Again, I never suggested that any Mormon thought otherwise.

[wenglund]

Rob,

I didn't read Dan as pitting love against glory, nor was he speaking to the frequency of occurrence of those two words. Instead, he was considering both in terms of means/end. To me, he seemed to suggest that love is a means to achieving the end that is God's glory. Love is the means for becoming one in glory with the Father and Son.

And, while the glory may have been given them at the time, this does not mean that they then had then fully received it. After all, according to Jn 16, the "Comforter," or in other words the Spirit of righteousness and judgment and truth and love, was not to come unto them until after the Son had gone away unto the Father, Without this Spirit of love, how could the disciples have attained a perfect oneness in Godly love?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 20, 2012 by wenglund

[Log]

Is being in the Godhead a way in which Christ is one with the Father? I would have said no, as membership in a common set is not how one uses the word "one", but it seems everyone else has swallowed it, so why don't I?

Derp.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Log

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

I didn't read Dan as pitting love against glory, nor was he speaking to the frequency of occurrence of those two words. Instead, he was considering both in terms of means/end. To me, he seemed to suggest that love is a means to achieving the end that is God's glory. Love is the means for becoming one in glory with the Father and Son.

And, while the glory may have been given them at the time, this does not mean that they had then fully received it. After all, according to Jn 16, the "Comforter," or in other words the Spirit of righteousness and judgment and truth and love, was not to come unto them until after the Son had gone away unto the Father, Without this Spirit of love, how could the disciples have attained a perfect oneness in Godly love?

They couldn't. Jesus was praying for them to experience this oneness of love in the future, after the coming of the Holy Spirit.

[Vance]

It's comments like this one that discourage me from making any effort to reason with you.

What can I say. You, like nearly all of the anti-Mormons I have met, simply say that the verses quoted don't mean what they say.

If that bothers you, then change your ways.

Believers' deification, exaltation, or becoming gods is not mentioned and is not part of the context. So reading these ideas into John 17:21-23 is mistaken, by your own standard.

It is true that those terms are not used, but then again, those are NOT the only terms available to describe that notion.

If you think that the "Godhead" is in the context, perhaps you could explain why you think that. But you will have to have a compelling argument. Something I doubt you can provide.

QED.

Not at all. QED.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Vance

[mfbukowski]

It took only five hours and a Mormon in this forum has already contradicted you. Some Mormons are indeed willing to say that exalted saints can become part of the one Godhead.

No contradiction whatsoever. You just don't get this family stuff do you?

The objective is to have all mankind sealed into one huge family, all exalted. Remember God's work and his glory is to bring to pass the immortality AND eternal life of man

That means everyone exalted. It won't happen that way, because some/ many/very many will not make it. I am not the judge of that. But that is the objective.

You come with your preconceived notions and then look for contradictions where there are none. It's all black and white with fundamentalists

Edited March 20, 2012 by mfbukowski