Mormonisms Local God

[Anakin7]

Recentley while in conversation with a Southern Baptist Minister he stated that The God of Abraham who is The ground of ALL Being is superior to the local god of this universe worshipped by LDS. I have in the past mentioned to him of my "possible" belief in the " multiverse" cosmology of other Universe realities [something I am not that knowledgable on]. Which he criticizes because our Heavenly father is a subordinant god to another god ad infinentum [ He has not come out and stated this to me but I believe he observes our doctrine as such. Any thoughts ?. Thank you for any thoughts.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[The Nehor]

"My God can beat up your God" is not a good argument for defining what God is.

Maybe point out that his conception of God comes from a pagan and not Jesus?

[TAO]

Just tell him you disagree with him. Not much more to say than that.

[mfbukowski]

Where is anything written that the God we worship is a "local God"??

I certainly don't believe that. That's ridiculous. The God I worship is the God of everything everywhere.

Where is there one scripture that says that??

And why are you accepting some Baptist minister's explanation of your doctrine?

Edited September 7, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Rivers]

Where is anything written that the God we worship is a "local God"??

I certainly don't believe that. That's ridiculous. The God I worship is the God of everything everywhere.

Where is there one scripture that says that??

And why are you accepting some Baptist minister's explanation of your doctrine?

Its not in our canonized scriptures anywhere. This is King Follett Discourse material which has not been canonized.

[thesometimesaint]

I always love it when someone else tells me what I believe. NOT.

Edited September 7, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Anakin7]

Where is anything written that the God we worship is a "local God"??

I certainly don't believe that. That's ridiculous. The God I worship is the God of everything everywhere.

Where is there one scripture that says that??

And why are you accepting some Baptist minister's explanation of your doctrine?

I did mention to him I possibly could believe in the multiverse cosmology which he took as to infinite gods in infinent universes

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[mfbukowski]

And let that Baptist minister tell you what the "ground of all Being" MEANS.

I guarantee it. That phrase doesn't even mean anything

Jibberish is the only answer you will get- vague generalities with nothing clear behind it.

Then if you ask questions he will say "It's all a mystery- we cannot understand God."

That is your answer right there- he doesn't even know what it means!

My God is smart enough to teach his little children (us) in terms we will understand- and I understand the Mormon descriptions and explanations for God. The others make no sense whatsoever and those who espouse them don't understand them any better- they just pretend it is all too profound for us to understand.

What God does and how he does it IS indeed too profound for us- unquestionably. But explaining it in terms we understand? That is another issue. That's why Jesus taught in parables- he taught profound principles in a simple way. And I believe that is what God does as well. If he cannot communicate to us- how can he possibly teach us anything??

.

[mfbukowski]

I did mention to him I possibly could believe in the multiverse cosmology which he took as to infinite gods in infinent universes

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Well there's nothing wrong with that- but what you are doing is saying that belief in God is somehow scientifically provable if you go down that road.

You are now trying to come up with a scientific explanation for how God works. Good luck with that! (It can't be done)

[The Nehor]

Ask him why he lets Plato have more influence on his conception of God then Jesus.

[mfbukowski]

The other thing about multiverse theories is that by definition they seek to explain things in terms that can never be proven absolutely. Anything outside this universe (what happens in them) can never be known.

We cannot ever know that some being called Xlozk performed the ritual of tyolmw with Ktkoan.

Even if it is in some sense "true" that multiverses exist- knowing what happens in them is an insurmountable problem because we would have to be in both universes at the same "time"- whatever that means- to know what was happening there.

So my original statement of it is still true- God is God of everything (we can know about) everywhere (that we can know about)

And if the good pastor thinks he knows what happens in other universes so that he can say that God is the "ground of all Being" he is wrong.

It would be the biggest scientific find in the history of mankind to know that there were other universes and that we can communicate with them and that our God is also their God.

Such a possibility is inconceivable- but notice that as soon as that happens, assuming it could ever happen, suddenly what we know about that universe expands to be included in the set of what mankind can know, so even in that case, God is still God of all we can know!

But suppose that other universe has a "different God"- the theology still remains as we know it now with other denominations who say we worship "another God"! We have just shifted the discussion from a "local God" to a "God of two universes"- it is still the same discussion. So we would have the same argument with the residents of universe 2 that you are having with the Baptist pastor, and there still would be no answer. The argument would still be if God is the God of "all being" or if he is a "local God"

It's semantic- there IS no "real answer" to this question. It is about how we define God- not about what God "really is"- which we cannot really know anyway because we know only what he teaches us and our interpretation of those teachings.

So the bottom line is that there is no end to this discussion- either way, God is a God of everything everywhere. If he wants to say he is the "ground of all Being" fine- if that makes sense to him.

But don't let him make you think that is somehow "better" than what you believe- you can explain what you believe and he cannot.

[zerinus]

Recentley while in conversation with a Southern Baptist Minister he stated that The God of Abraham who is The ground of ALL Being is superior to the local god of this universe worshipped by LDS. I have in the past mentioned to him of my "possible" belief in the " multiverse" cosmology of other Universe realities [something I am not that knowledgable on]. Which he criticizes because our Heavenly father is a subordinant god to another god ad infinentum [ He has not come out and stated this to me but I believe he observes our doctrine as such. Any thoughts ?. Thank you for any thoughts.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

The God of Mormonism is the God of Abraham, and the ground of all being.

[MiserereNobis]

Its not in our canonized scriptures anywhere. This is King Follett Discourse material which has not been canonized.

Does this mean that you do not accept the King Follett sermon as the truth? Was Joseph Smith preaching the truth in that sermon or not? Or in the Sermon in the Grove?

Did Joseph Smith teach falsehood?

And if he did, why did all of the LDS prophets after him, until fairly recently, openly reiterate the teaching that God was once man and has his own God?

I find it interesting that you dismiss Joseph Smith's teaching on something as basic as the nature of God is being non-canonical, when Joseph Smith himself said that the first principle of the Gospel was the true understanding of the nature of God.

+ PAX

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Recentley while in conversation with a Southern Baptist Minister he stated that The God of Abraham who is The ground of ALL Being is superior to the local god of this universe worshipped by LDS. I have in the past mentioned to him of my "possible" belief in the " multiverse" cosmology of other Universe realities [something I am not that knowledgable on]. Which he criticizes because our Heavenly father is a subordinant god to another god ad infinentum [ He has not come out and stated this to me but I believe he observes our doctrine as such. Any thoughts ?. Thank you for any thoughts.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

I am not sure what I believe anymore...but where in LDS teaching is God "subordinate"?

[zerinus]

I am not sure what I believe anymore...but where in LDS teaching is God "subordinate"?

Have you read the Book of Mormon lately? I highly recommend you to do that. The Mormon God is the God of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. That is where the God of Mormonism is revealed; and that is where you will learn all that is known about Him.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Have you read the Book of Mormon lately? I highly recommend you to do that. The Mormon God is the God of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. That is where the God of Mormonism is revealed; and that is where you will learn all that is known about Him.

No I have not unless it had to do with my lessons before I quit. I am too filled with anger right now...but I have read them all many times.

[mfbukowski]

Does this mean that you do not accept the King Follett sermon as the truth? Was Joseph Smith preaching the truth in that sermon or not? Or in the Sermon in the Grove?

Did Joseph Smith teach falsehood?

And if he did, why did all of the LDS prophets after him, until fairly recently, openly reiterate the teaching that God was once man and has his own God?

I find it interesting that you dismiss Joseph Smith's teaching on something as basic as the nature of God is being non-canonical, when Joseph Smith himself said that the first principle of the Gospel was the true understanding of the nature of God.

+ PAX

Oh my.

An escapee of CAF. And a follower of Pius X? I think you will have a fun time with Zerinus- though you probably already know each other.

For those Mormons who are not aware of such things, Pius X is remembered as an extremely traditionalist Pope who opposed modernism in any form.

Pius:

In Catholic terms, think of the King Follette as discourse as statements which Joseph made which were non-canonical.

It happens even in a Catholic context.

I can think of a few things that Pius XII said around the time of WWII that were not exactly Catholic teachings- if you want to bring those up, of course we can.

Edit: I thought I would add a link so that all would be aware of the probable beliefs of our new friend.

http://en.wikipedia....y_of_St._Pius_X

I mean especially when we are discussing canon and all, I think this becomes relevant.

Edited September 8, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Does this mean that you do not accept the King Follett sermon as the truth? Was Joseph Smith preaching the truth in that sermon or not? Or in the Sermon in the Grove?

Did Joseph Smith teach falsehood?

And if he did, why did all of the LDS prophets after him, until fairly recently, openly reiterate the teaching that God was once man and has his own God?

I find it interesting that you dismiss Joseph Smith's teaching on something as basic as the nature of God is being non-canonical, when Joseph Smith himself said that the first principle of the Gospel was the true understanding of the nature of God.

+ PAX

It is a teaching but non-canonical.

You know, kind of like Limbo, or Augustine's teaching that unbaptized babies go to hell.

[3DOP]

Does this mean that you do not accept the King Follett sermon as the truth? Was Joseph Smith preaching the truth in that sermon or not? Or in the Sermon in the Grove?

Did Joseph Smith teach falsehood?

And if he did, why did all of the LDS prophets after him, until fairly recently, openly reiterate the teaching that God was once man and has his own God?

I find it interesting that you dismiss Joseph Smith's teaching on something as basic as the nature of God is being non-canonical, when Joseph Smith himself said that the first principle of the Gospel was the true understanding of the nature of God.

+ PAX

St. Pius X,

I think you will find that our Mormon friends believe that even Joseph Smith is subject to a rule which says that a prophet is only a prophet when he speaks as one. Reiterated beliefs of subsequent prophets are fallible. With regard to the doctrine, of God as a man, you will probably find a good many Mormons still believing in it, but perhaps decreasingly. It might be a bit like our teachings on Our Lady as the Mediatrix of all graces. It has been widely taught going back at least to St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and some would have the Church affirm it definitively. I think other Catholics, influenced by a desire to be more acceptable to non-Catholics have distanced themselves from the teaching, and speak little of it even if they believe it. This behavior is very similar to what President (the previous one to Monson, I forget his name) said on the Larry King Show. I think he said that they don't emphasize it very much.

If I were Mormon, I'd go with the King Follet Discourse and tell everybody. But on the other hand, I am a Catholic who doesn't want to deemphasize our Lady. I just don't see watering down the product as a way of evangelization, either for Mormons or Catholics. If I believed in a Restoration, why would I think that it would be more plausible if it more closely resembles the Apostasy? In my opinion, the closer LDS get to us, the less appeal their message carries. I don't mind if they want to distance themselves from the doctrines that distinguish them. If many no longer believe God was once a man like us that's fine with me. Likewise, I think Protestants don't mind when we are silent about or distance ourselves from traditional doctrines of our Lady. Not that it makes the Catholic faith more appealing. It simply justifies the Reformation in their minds.

[3DOP]

Oh my.

An escapee of CAF. And a follower of Pius X? I think you will have a fun time with Zerinus- though you probably already know each other.

For those Mormons who are not aware of such things, Pius X is remembered as an extremely traditionalist Pope who opposed modernism in any form.

Pius:

In Catholic terms, think of the King Follette as discourse as statements which Joseph made which were non-canonical.

It happens even in a Catholic context.

I can think of a few things that Pius XII said around the time of WWII that were not exactly Catholic teachings- if you want to bring those up, of course we can.

Edit: I thought I would add a link so that all would be aware of the probable beliefs of our new friend.

http://en.wikipedia....y_of_St._Pius_X

I mean especially when we are discussing canon and all, I think this becomes relevant.

A traditionalist is by definition one who insists upon retaining that which has been once held. St. Pius X was the model for tradition while making improvisations that could seem liberal. To be traditional does not mean that there is no thinking or development. It means that the past is important. The modernism that he fought was the queen of heresies and it is founded upon a naive disdain for those who preceded us with a cavalier view to make all things bow to the zeitgeist (spirit of an age). Modernism is little more than a banal following of pop culture. It is the death of beauty and profundity in theology, liturgy, and private devotion. Modernism replaces truth based on faith with truth based on politics. Of course modernists will happily stain a great pope's reputation with charges of "hyper-traditionalism". But St. Pius X led a liberalization of the age at which young people could receive holy communion and urged that the faithful should receive much more frequently, even daily. True tradition is flexible and breathes such new life into the Church which is why Pope Pius X was canonized. The modernism he opposed is death.

His feast was celebrated on Monday and I have been soliciting his help all week long. It seems wonderful that on Saturday he should show up on the LDS board!

3DOP

[thesometimesaint]

PopeStPiusX:

The KFD contains much that is true, but it is not canonized. Much like the Pythagorean Theorem is considered true, but is not part of our canon.

[supersnail]

Recentley while in conversation with a Southern Baptist Minister he stated that The God of Abraham who is The ground of ALL Being is superior to the local god of this universe worshipped by LDS. I have in the past mentioned to him of my "possible" belief in the " multiverse" cosmology of other Universe realities [something I am not that knowledgable on]. Which he criticizes because our Heavenly father is a subordinant god to another god ad infinentum [ He has not come out and stated this to me but I believe he observes our doctrine as such. Any thoughts ?. Thank you for any thoughts.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

I used the word "local" a couple times in some polytheism threads a year or so ago. I did so while making an even-if kind of argument, as I often do. In fact, in one case I was replying to you. I linked to this reply a week ago in yet another polytheism thread.

I recognize that arguments like that have the potential to be misunderstood, and I hope that's not what happened here.

I'll make this short and sweet. "Universe" not only does not appear in the standard works. The word is not in the King Follett discourse or the Sermon in the Grove either. Neither "planet" nor "universe" is in the King Follett discourse or the Sermon in the Grove.

Edited September 9, 2012 by supersnail

[DarkScythe]

No I have not unless it had to do with my lessons before I quit. I am too filled with anger right now...but I have read them all many times.

Get a hobby to vent your anger. Unfocused Anger will make people stupid.

[MiserereNobis]

Oh my.

I'm glad to have made you sigh

An escapee of CAF.

I am not on CAF, though I do read posts there sometimes.

And a follower of Pius X?

I am a follower of Christ and His Holy Church, which includes the communion of saints, of which Pope St. Pius X is one. He is an excellent example for us in these modern times.

I think you will have a fun time with Zerinus- though you probably already know each other.

I hope I can have a fun time with everyone. I do not know Zerinus.

In Catholic terms, think of the King Follette as discourse as statements which Joseph made which were non-canonical.

Ok, though I hope you can see how to a non-Mormon the idea that the prophet of the restoration could make statements of such importance as to the nature of God and these statements be dismissed by later generations as not being necessary to believe.

It happens even in a Catholic context.

The Catholic rules on whether or not a statement of the Holy Father is fallible or infallible are very clear, including what level of assent the faithful are required to hold in regards to those statements. Are there equivalent rules for LDS? What makes a statement of the prophet canonical or binding on the faithful?

I can think of a few things that Pius XII said around the time of WWII that were not exactly Catholic teachings- if you want to bring those up, of course we can.

Certainly, Popes have said and done all sorts of things. But as I said above, there are clear rules for what constitutes an infallible declaration by the Pope. What Pope Pius XII said does not fall into that category.

Also, you must admit that statements from your prophets about the nature of God would seem to be important -- the nature of God is a basic doctrine for any religion. I'll repeat myself: I find it strange that statements from Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets about something so important as the nature of God can be dismissed as non-canonical and that Mormons can disagree with their leaders on something so fundamental.

Edit: I thought I would add a link so that all would be aware of the probable beliefs of our new friend.

http://en.wikipedia....y_of_St._Pius_X

I mean especially when we are discussing canon and all, I think this becomes relevant.

Your link is for the Society of St. Pius X, not for St. Pius X himself. Just because I chose his name (his feast day was on 9/3) and honor him does not mean that I am a part of the Society of St. Pius X.

+ PAX

[MiserereNobis]

A traditionalist is by definition one who insists upon retaining that which has been once held. St. Pius X was the model for tradition while making improvisations that could seem liberal. To be traditional does not mean that there is no thinking or development. It means that the past is important. The modernism that he fought was the queen of heresies and it is founded upon a naive disdain for those who preceded us with a cavalier view to make all things bow to the zeitgeist (spirit of an age). Modernism is little more than a banal following of pop culture. It is the death of beauty and profundity in theology, liturgy, and private devotion. Modernism replaces truth based on faith with truth based on politics. Of course modernists will happily stain a great pope's reputation with charges of "hyper-traditionalism". But St. Pius X led a liberalization of the age at which young people could receive holy communion and urged that the faithful should receive much more frequently, even daily. True tradition is flexible and breathes such new life into the Church which is why Pope Pius X was canonized. The modernism he opposed is death.

This is an excellent description of tradition and modernism. Thank you!

His feast was celebrated on Monday and I have been soliciting his help all week long. It seems wonderful that on Saturday he should show up on the LDS board!

Ha! I, too, have been asking for his intercession with a novena leading up to his feast day and prayers after. It is one reason why I chose his name here.