Mormonisms Local God

[MiserereNobis]

No thanks. I prefer to keep using what I refer to as common sense.

That's too bad. Here's what the amazon.com blurb has to say about this good book:

From Brian Greene, one of the world’s leading physicists and author the Pulitzer Prize finalist The Elegant Universe, comes a grand tour of the universe that makes us look at reality in a completely different way.

Space and time form the very fabric of the cosmos. Yet they remain among the most mysterious of concepts. Is space an entity? Why does time have a direction? Could the universe exist without space and time? Can we travel to the past? Greene has set himself a daunting task: to explain non-intuitive, mathematical concepts like String Theory, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and Inflationary Cosmology with analogies drawn from common experience. From Newton’s unchanging realm in which space and time are absolute, to Einstein’s fluid conception of spacetime, to quantum mechanics’ entangled arena where vastly distant objects can instantaneously coordinate their behavior, Greene takes us all, regardless of our scientific backgrounds, on an irresistible and revelatory journey to the new layers of reality that modern physics has discovered lying just beneath the surface of our everyday world.

Show More

Show Less

[3DOP]

Pope St. Pius X,

Wow. I don't know anything about science and not much more about philosophy. Now bukowski and I almost always butt heads when I try to talk about substance after they bring up the word. You seem to understand this Wittgenstein that he knows and talks about. Great! He is yours. Hehe. Don't burn out my friend. If I posted at your rate I'd be at 50,000 posts by now!

The Feast of the Holy Name of our Lady today. Mary. Mary. Mary.

God bless,

3DOP

[mfbukowski]

The Feast of the Holy Name of our Lady today.

Wow - is that a new one? I don't remember that one.

[spartacus]

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

Obviously, I am coming into this conversation late. So if the below has already been discussed, feel free to simply point me to about where in the 250+posts it was. I would be curious to see what was shared.

I have seen discussions about this between LDS and traditional Christians before. From that I can say that traditional Christians think of God as "The Ultimate" and that all that exists has its origin in Him (The Bible speaks of everything being made through and for Christ) - this would include everything we know about and everything we don't - including multiverses. There are LDS statements, both by official teachings, and individual believers, that speak of God not "creating" but "organizing" pre- and self-existent matter. For the traditional Christian this is a huge step down in their eyes. This may be only as far as it goes depending on the LDS view proposed - in this case, that God is the "God of gods" and is "ultimate" except that matter exists independent of him.

If the LDS view also includes the idea that God developed, whether from the top intelligence among all others (us), and/or was once a man who was later exalted, then this view presupposes a system or "universe" in which there are principles that transcend God, through which and "in obedience" to them He attained exaltation and became "God". So, again, in traditional Christian view this would lower God further as being, in their words, "a creature" of this system, rather than the "Creator" of the system.

This is my understanding of possible views on both sides. Hope it helps.

Edited September 13, 2012 by spartacus

[3DOP]

Wow - is that a new one? I don't remember that one.

The Feast of the Holy Name of Mary. Hey buk, It seems that the feast which began to be recognized in the 16th Century, was at first incorporated into an Octave (eight days) celebration.

There are always little legitimate tweaks going on here and there.

It was therefore in the order of divine Providence that devotion to the most holy name of Mary should spread simultaneously with the cultus of the adorable name of Jesus, of which St. Bernardin of Siena was the apostle in the fifteenth century. In 1513 the Church of Cuenca in Spain was the first to celebrate, with the approbation of the Holy See, a special feast in honour of the name of Mary...we find the feast of the holy name of Mary extended to the universal church in the year 1683.

Our Lady justifies her beautiful title by partaking in the warlike exploits of the King of kings her Son. The city of Vienna having been delivered by her, contrary to all hope, from the power of the Crescent, the venerable Innocent XI made this feast the memorial of universal gratitude to the liberatrix of the west.

Two glorious triumphs, two victories won under the protection of our Lady, have rendered this present day illustrious in the annals of history.

Manichaeism, revived under a variety of names, had established itself in the south of France, whence it helped to spread its reign of shameless excess. But Dominic appeared with Mary's rosary for the defense of the people. On September 12, 1213, Simon de Montfort and the crusaders of the faith, one against forty, crushed the Albigensian army at Muret...Nearly five senturies later, the Turks, who had more than once caused the west to tremble, again poured down upon Christendiom. Vienna, worn out and dismantled, abandoned by its emperor, was surrounded by 300,000 infidels. But another great Pope, Innocent XI, again confided to Mary the defence of the baptized nations. Sobieski, mounting his charger on the feast of our Lady's Assumption hastened from Poland by forced marches. On the Sunday within the octave of the Nativity (of our Lady), September 12, 1683, Vienna was delivered...

---Dom Gueranges, The Liturgical Year, vol. 14, p. 173, 191, 192

I am not sure at what time the feast was elevated to a third class feast on September 12. In the 19th Century, when the Liturgical Year was written, it was still celebrated as a part of the Octave of the Nativity. At the latest, The 1962 MIssal and Calendar, which is still in effect for Roman Rite Catholics of the Traditional Latin Mass, celebrates her feast on September 12. But one can see from the history known to Dom Gueranges why this day has been chosen for the feast since at least 1962.

3DOP

[altersteve]

Wait a minute, your god is not everywhere and everywhen. He's on/near Kolob, right?

He is everywhere through His glory, through the power of the Holy Ghost, through the Light of Christ, and through all His creations. He is everywhen because all things are present before Him. And I don't personally believe the statement that Kolob (whatever that is) is "near" Him is a literal explanation of where God is; I don't believe God is in this universe, but that doesn't mean He isn't "somewhere."

[altersteve]

How exactly is one "spiritually begotten"? I know how people are physically begotten, and it involves sex and childbirth. What is the spiritual process you speak of?

We don't know the process by which our spirits came into existence.

[3DOP]

We don't know the process by which our spirits came into existence.

altersteve...hey.

If you read the whole discussion, your remark makes Pius X's point if I understood him correctly. You don't know. He is having a discussion with someone (LDS) who seems unwilling to accept the idea of true mysteries that cannot be understood through common sense. He has tried with science and philosophy and I think very well. Now he is appealing to your own religious views. He is not arguing that you are wrong. Pius X brought that one up only to show his LDS interlocutor that Catholics are not the only people with mysteries. I think to be consistent, all parties must admit that there are realities that are revealed in general but unrevealed in detail that lie beyond our common sense intellectual capacity.

3DOP

Edited September 13, 2012 by 3DOP

[Darren10]

The same gas they put into the Pope-mobile

LOL!!!

[altersteve]

altersteve...hey.

If you read the whole discussion, your remark makes Pius X's point if I understood him correctly. You don't know. He is having a discussion with someone (LDS) who seems unwilling to accept the idea of true mysteries that cannot be understood through common sense. He has tried with science and philosophy and I think very well. Now he is appealing to your own religious views. He is not arguing that you are wrong. Pius X brought that one up only to show his LDS interlocutor that Catholics are not the only people with mysteries. I think to be consistent, all parties must admit that there are realities that are revealed in general but unrevealed in detail that lie beyond our common sense intellectual capacity.

3DOP

Hey 3DOP,

I have been following the discussion and I totally agree, there are things that we simply cannot understand, no matter how much "common sense" we try to use to figure it out. We're mortal human beings and God is the Creator of the universe and all that exists within it. It's obvious to me that we will not, no matter how hard we try, be able to comprehend everything He does or how He does it, nor will we always understand His reasons for doing things. I was simply answering Pius' question.

[3DOP]

Hey 3DOP,

I have been following the discussion and I totally agree, there are things that we simply cannot understand, no matter how much "common sense" we try to use to figure it out. We're mortal human beings and God is the Creator of the universe and all that exists within it. It's obvious to me that we will not, no matter how hard we try, be able to comprehend everything He does or how He does it, nor will we always understand His reasons for doing things. I was simply answering Pius' question.

Hey 3DOP,

I have been following the discussion and I totally agree, there are things that we simply cannot understand, no matter how much "common sense" we try to use to figure it out. We're mortal human beings and God is the Creator of the universe and all that exists within it. It's obvious to me that we will not, no matter how hard we try, be able to comprehend everything He does or how He does it, nor will we always understand His reasons for doing things. I was simply answering Pius' question.

Good deal Steve. That's how I was seeing it. I'm with you then too.

[Darren10]

I understand that this is the LDS view, so of course I will respectfully disagree. However, I'm not sure how having two beings that are two separate gods is the purest form of monotheism there is, since two gods means more than one god and monotheism means that only one god exists. Monotheism doesn't mean that multiple gods do what they do for the glory of one god. It means only one god exists.

The context by which I wrote about the purest form of monotheism is that in LDS theology, *all* glory is rendered to the Father. Even the worship the LDS offer to Jesus is given to the Father and by Jesus Himself. Since LDS theology believes that the Father is His own being, not a being in three persons, but numerically one being, than the fact that He receives all glory is the truest form of monotheism possible. I the Trinitarians belief, yes one numerical being receives the glory but that one numerical being *must be* thought of as one being but three persons, is by its nature a pluralistic belief about God's existence. What I am declaring is the strict sense of the Greek "monos". That means numerically one. As soon as one says there is one numerical being yet in three persons than te latter part nullifies the purest meaning of "monos". While I agree that the traditional meaning of monotheism is a belief in only one numerical God I contend that as soon as any sense of a pluralistic existence is applied to that one being than. The pure meaning of "monos" does not apply.

Besides, I do not think that anywhere in the scriptures will you find a strictly numerical oness applied to the three persons of the Godhead. Not in the Greek or Hebrew. It seems that such a view is applied to the oness of the Father, the Son, and, the Holy Ghost was done after the apostolic era when direct revelation from God Most High to man ceased.

As far as justifying the Holy Trinity as being mindboggling, I will agree with you there. Mindboggling doesn't mean it isn't true, however. As I have been laboring to point out to Ahab, there are many things in modern physics that are absolutely mindboggling.

In fact, I would assume that something as incredible as the nature and being of God would be mindboggling, at least for a human mind.

And this is all fascinating as well.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Darren10

[MiserereNobis]

The context by which I wrote about the purest form of monotheism is that in LDS theology, *all* glory is rendered to the Father. Even the worship the LDS offer to Jesus is given to the Father and by Jesus Himself. Since LDS theology believes that the Father is His own being, not a being in three persons, but numerically one being, than the fact that He receives all glory is the truest form of monotheism possible. I the Trinitarians belief, yes one numerical being receives the glory but that one numerical being *must be* thought of as one being but three persons, is by its nature a pluralistic belief about God's existence. What I am declaring is the strict sense of the Greek "monos". That means numerically one. As soon as one says there is one numerical being yet in three persons than te latter part nullifies the purest meaning of "monos". While I agree that the traditional meaning of monotheism is a belief in only one numerical God I contend that as soon as any sense of a pluralistic existence is applied to that one being than. The pure meaning of "monos" does not apply.

If Jesus and the Holy Ghost were not gods, then your explanation would make sense. However, LDS theology posits the existence of at least two other gods, so you've got three gods. The fact that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are subordinate to the Father and render glory to Him doesn't change the fact that there are still three gods. Three does not equal "monos" so I still do not understand how having three gods, even if two are subordinate, is the purest form of monotheism.

I could understand an argument that the purest form of monotheism would be one being, one person, but you are contending that the purest form of monotheism is three beings, three persons. That does not compute, unless the definition of monotheism is changed to mean there is one chief god to whom all others are subordinate. That, however, is twisting the word monotheism way too far.

I think the LDS church should proudly proclaim its doctrine of the plurality of gods and not try to hide itby changing the meanings of traditional Christian terms. If it is true, you might as well state it directly

Edited September 13, 2012 by PopeStPiusX

[Anakin7]

From my Lights True LDS Doctrine,Teaching,Thought, Walk, Run, Practice are Anchient Eastern Economic Social Godhead Trinitarians.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited September 13, 2012 by Anakin7

[mfbukowski]

I think the LDS church should proudly proclaim its doctrine of the plurality of gods and not try to hide itby changing the meanings of traditional Christian terms. If it is true, you might as well state it directly

We do, and we would not be having this discussion if we didn't.

But of course we think that you believe in three gods as well, but cover it with the confusing language of essences, substance and being. So right back atcha!

[MiserereNobis]

We do, and we would not be having this discussion if we didn't.

Most Mormons back-pedal if you tell them they believe in more than one god, such as Darren10 saying that the LDS theology is the purest form of monotheism.

But of course we think that you believe in three gods as well, but cover it with the confusing language of essences, substance and being. So right back atcha!

Ha!

[mfbukowski]

Most Mormons back-pedal if you tell them they believe in more than one god, such as Darren10 saying that the LDS theology is the purest form of monotheism.

But he was right as well. "God" is one committee of three persons. God is a collective noun. "I saw the deer crossing the road". How many deer were there? There could have been one or several.

[USU78]

Interesting... are you LDS? The words you are using are very Trinitarian. Yes, God the Father and God the Son are of the same substance. It is an error to conflate their Persons (honestly, many objections I have received from the LDS concerning the Trinity do just that -- conflate their Persons and then try to show how they are not the same Person). They are of the same substance, the same Being -- God -- but are three separate Persons. Is this what you are saying?

Now, saying they are of the same genus is not saying they are of a unique substance, the substance of God, so perhaps you could elaborate on that.

Of course I'm a Mormon type person. The "we" I referred to in my post means "we Mormon type people."

"Substance" is an extrabiblical concept and term. We don't feel any need to be bound by it, but I speak to you in your own language so as to make our understanding, based upon both scripture and events during the Restoration [the First Vision and Stephen's Last Vision, for example] to demonstrate that both Father and Son are distinct individuals, each being G-d in His own right.

Just as First Temple Judaism was decidedly not radically monotheistic, recognizing many divine beings, including G-d/JWHW/Eloheim and, perhaps, the Master as the Great Angel, we acknowledge that via deification, all mankind may become as G-d is: i.e., a g-d, though He remains our G-d and Father forever, as does His Son Who bought us.

Ours is a simple view: G-d, Angels and Men, all of the same species, though we be but a faint spark, while He is the flame that warms the universe.

[Ahab]

I have been told very directly on this forum that what you are saying is not LDS doctrine, but simply speculation. What is your take on that? Is it doctrine or speculation?

It's doctrine, and my take on my some people say it is not is because they don't believe that it is.

I'm using Book of Abraham terminology:

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;1.22: Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones

Organization of intelligence comes from your scriptures.

You said unorganized intelligences. Now you're talking about how God organized the intelligences that already existed before the world was, referring to this one we are on now before God created it for us.

Eternity also means a timeless state. Look it up in the dictionary

That definition is silly. It's just in there because some people use the word in that way, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.

Doesn't everything in your common day experience have a beginning, middle, and end?

No, not at all. Look at anything around you, anything at all, and then think about how that thing got there. Everything comes from something else, and everything in everything has always existed.

I, since I don't rely solely on common every day experience, can imagine otherwise, but I'm asking you.

I don't see why you would want to dismiss your common every day experiences. I gain more knowledge by considering what I see around me every day.

You said some sentences that ask more questions ad infinitum. If what you said is the nature of god, your god is a simple one.

What I said is in harmony with what the nature of God is. I didn't say there wasn't anything else to know about him, or his nature.

How exactly is one "spiritually begotten"? I know how people are physically begotten, and it involves sex and childbirth. What is the spiritual process you speak of?

You think you know how pepole are physically begotten, huh. Tell me, what is it that gives life to our bodies? Do you realize sexual relations between a male and a female doesn't always result in pregnancy, even if they try repeatedly for a very long time? Are you aware of something called still birth, where the body of a a baby can be born without being alive? How exactly do you think people are "physically" begotten? It's not as simple as you may be thinking about. Who is it who gives us our life, and not just a "physical" body? Also, try to understand that our spirits are composed of matter, and thus they are also physical, in some sense.

What you just said is not literal, but metaphoric. Jesus is a Word because He is a messenger is a metaphor. So no, you do not take it literally.

What do you think a word is? And he's not just "a" word, but "the" word, or Word, referring to the Word of God, which means he is the literal embodiment of everything God has ever said and now says and will ever say, in some sense. Try thinking of what someone means when they say they give you their word about something, and what that means. Jesus is the Word of God.

What in common sense, in common every day experience, tells you that something can be in more than one place at the same time?

How big do you think a place is, exactly? How many places do you think you occupy now?

Can you see how each part of you is in a different place now? How many places would you say you are in, if you were to add all of them up? How about a moment later? Can you see how you could be in even more places then, like maybe by walking?

How about when you are in your house? Can you see how you can be in that place even though you may not be standing in every place within in it at a particular moment in time? How about including your yard, and your town, and your state, and your nation, and your world, and the universe? Where are you now? How many places are you in?

[MiserereNobis]

"Substance" is an extrabiblical concept and term.

Certainly, but so are many LDS terms. We both believe that the Bible is only part of the foundation of the Faith, not the whole Faith, so we don't have to be strictly bound to Biblical terms, like our poor protestant brothers try to be.

We don't feel any need to be bound by it, but I speak to you in your own language so as to make our understanding, based upon both scripture and events during the Restoration [the First Vision and Stephen's Last Vision, for example] to demonstrate that both Father and Son are distinct individuals, each being G-d in His own right.

The Trinity does not deny that the Father and the Son are distinct individuals, as long as individual refers to person and not being. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are of the same substance, and that substance is the Being of God, and there is only one Being that is God.

Ours is a simple view: G-d, Angels and Men, all of the same species, though we be but a faint spark, while He is the flame that warms the universe.

And herein lies another great difference between Christianity and Mormonism. The Christian view is that God, angels, and humans are ontologically different. We are not different species, or different genus, or order or phylum or class or family or kingdom. We are made of different stuff entirely. I think this idea can be hard for us moderns to comprehend because we have a worldview of scientism that assumes there is only one substance in the world and that substance is physical. I would guess that LDS share this view, especially since spirit, in the D&C, is defined as matter.

[Darren10]

If Jesus and the Holy Ghost were not gods, then your explanation would make sense. However, LDS theology posits the existence of at least two other gods, so you've got three gods. The fact that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are subordinate to the Father and render glory to Him doesn't change the fact that there are still three gods. Three does not equal "monos" so I still do not understand how having three gods, even if two are subordinate, is the purest form of monotheism.

It is monotheism for in LDS theology the Father is purely monos. He is numerically one. Not one of three who are collectively the one numeric being. The same can be said of the remaining two divine persons ofthe Godhead according to LDS theology. The Son is one monos being. He is not a "second person" of three who collectively make up one monos being. Likewise the Holy Ghost is one monos being; not a "third person" of three who collectively make up one numeric being. So, according to LDS theology the Father is one monos being. He is the Father and that's it. He stands alone, by Himself, as a separate and didstict *being* from all else. That is purely monos. The son is a distinct and separate being from all else. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and there is no other. In LDS theology He may be called "Father" titularly but in His existence, He is His own being. He is a purely monos being. The Holy Ghost is also a separate and distinct being from all else. As far as I know, according to LDS theology, He is NOT the Father, nor the Son and is NOT called, nor even called titutlarly as "Father", "Son", or "Lord" as far as I know. The Holy Ghost is His own being. That is purely monos.

My primary argument above is that purely monos means numerically one. With that said what cannot be "purely monos" is the declaration that God is numerically one being *in three divine persons*. I'm not trying to ignore the traditional meaning of "monotheism" though, yes, I guess you can say that I'm parsing the word monotheism. That is a belief in only one numeric God. For trinitarian Christians that one numeric God is supreme, omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. He is uncreated and everlasting. To the LDS that fits quarely with God the Father. He is omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, and uncreated. But trinitarians *must* believe that this monos God is in three persons. The mere fact that trinitarians necessitate belief in God as anything more than [numerically] one in any sense, also necessitates them to depart from pure monotheism. Islam and Judaism today very much believe in a strict/ pure monotheistic God as well as the LDS inthe sense of the Father receiving all glory. But unlike the two other Abrahamic religions, the LDS also include the Son and the Holy Ghost into the Godhead (just as the Bible teaches; ergo.; no "Holy Trinity" declared in the scriptures) but nonetheless it is the Father and the Father alone who is highest and supreme above all. More poignantly, the Father in LDS faith is NOT onyly one person of three making up one numeric being but He and He alone *IS* that one numeric being as supreme. Thus the LDS faith is purely monotheistic.

I could understand an argument that the purest form of monotheism would be one being, one person, but you are contending that the purest form of monotheism is three beings, three persons. That does not compute, unless the definition of monotheism is changed to mean there is one chief god to whom all others are subordinate. That, however, is twisting the word monotheism way too far.

Adding the qualifier "pure" to monotheism I think justifies that stretch. Granted, my arguments are a novel approach to the confinnig the LDS faith as monotheistic. But truth be told, "monotheism" is not concretely defined other than its traditional use. The same is true with just about any word. But the LDS are truely monotheistic in worship since in its theology there is no room for whom to worship. Even in prayer the LDS follow a strict patter of adress ing the Father in the name of the Son and believe in the power ofthe Holy Spirit for a two-way communication with the Almighty in prayer.

Note here that there is n anomaly. Not a bad one or incorrect one, just a sudden "twist" in prayer in the Book of Mormon. Shortly after Jesus visited the Nephites at the temple, He commanded them to pray to Him. But here I would say that is the son of God was literally before you and command you to pray ot Him, the I suggest that you, well, pray to Him. Here I think is a manifestation of Jesus representing the Father which is perfectly acceptable in LDS theology, particularly the Book of Mormon. Notwithstanding this particular event, as previously mentioned, the LDS pray only to the Father through the Son. I don't know how common, orthodox, or "official" it is to pray to the Holy Spirit but I have read prayers by Catholics addressing God as "Holy Spirit". In LDS theology this would not be acceptable.

I think the LDS church should proudly proclaim its doctrine of the plurality of gods and not try to hide itby changing the meanings of traditional Christian terms. If it is true, you might as well state it directly

the great obsidian-loving mfbukowski beat me to the punch here. There is no ambiguity from the LDS that we believe in more than one God. And frankly this goes to the heart of my arguments regarding pure monotheistic worship. (And I've thought about this for a very long time). There are those who outcast Mormons as Christians by pointing out that the LDS are polytheistic and therefore cannot be Christian. The irony is that (and this has been pointed out many times by posters on Mormon Dialogue) that neither Christians are monotheistic according to Judaic and Islamic beliefs. While I'd say that Islam theologically has little to no impact on Christian theology, Judaic theology absolutely does. I've dialogued with Christians who claim their monotheism is the same as Judaic monotheism. While I perfectly understand, as well as fully believe, that Christianity is a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and that Jesus Christ is the manifestation of God's love for us as well as being God on earth, Christianity's monotheism is NOT the same as Judaic monotheism. Case in point, Judaism rejects Jesus as God. Right there creates a significant difference in the two views of monotheism and Christianity's trinitarian monotheism is actually considered polytheism according to orthodox Jews today.

[Ahab]

If Jesus and the Holy Ghost were not gods, then your explanation would make sense. However, LDS theology posits the existence of at least two other gods, so you've got three gods. The fact that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are subordinate to the Father and render glory to Him doesn't change the fact that there are still three gods. Three does not equal "monos" so I still do not understand how having three gods, even if two are subordinate, is the purest form of monotheism.

I think a lot of this confusion would be avoided if we simply tried to use more politically correct speech, but some people, including some LDS, do not care whether or not they are being politically correct. They'd just rather speak in their own way to share their own beliefs and if anyone doesn't take the time to try to understand the heart of their message they may not get it, and the speaker may not even care if the hearers get it.

In my idea of politically correct speech, I say, and often have said, that when using the word "God" to refer to a particular kind of being, there is only one God... regardless of how many persons are that kind of being.

One God, and more than one person who is God.

Even Catholics should be able to understand and accept that idea, although they consider only 3 persons to be that kind of being.

I could understand an argument that the purest form of monotheism would be one being, one person, but you are contending that the purest form of monotheism is three beings, three persons. That does not compute, unless the definition of monotheism is changed to mean there is one chief god to whom all others are subordinate. That, however, is twisting the word monotheism way too far.

You seem to want to use the word “being” to refer to only one “person”, but try to think outside of that box. How about considering the term “human being” to refer to all who are that kind of being, referring to all of them simply as human. How many kinds of beings do you think are the one we call the "human" being? There is only one, but with more than one person.

One more point. Try thinking of the kind of being God is as the ultimate kind of being in all of existence, regardless of whether a person who is God is subordinate to another person who is also God. Thus, one God is not subordinate to another God. Rather, one person who is God is subordinate to another person who is God, with both persons being the same kind of being.

There is only one God. I know of no other.

I think the LDS church should proudly proclaim its doctrine of the plurality of gods and not try to hide it by changing the meanings of traditional Christian terms. If it is true, you might as well state it directly.

There is only one kind of being which is the ultimate kind of being in all of existence, but that doesn't mean there is only one person who is God. Even you know that much, which is why you shouldn't have any problem saying more than one person is God.

[mfbukowski]

And herein lies another great difference between Christianity and Mormonism.

I guess you know that that terminology is unnecessarily inflammatory?

I don't care frankly, but hereabouts them's fightin' words.

[MiserereNobis]

I guess you know that that terminology is unnecessarily inflammatory?

I don't care frankly, but hereabouts them's fightin' words.

Yes, you are right, and that's not a fight for this thread

How about "the difference between traditional Christianity and Mormonism"? Would that keep us from being derailed?

[USU78]

And herein lies another great difference between Christianity and Mormonism. The Christian view is that God, angels, and humans are ontologically different. We are not different species, or different genus, or order or phylum or class or family or kingdom. We are made of different stuff entirely. I think this idea can be hard for us moderns to comprehend because we have a worldview of scientism that assumes there is only one substance in the world and that substance is physical. I would guess that LDS share this view, especially since spirit, in the D&C, is defined as matter.

Well . . . there is no scriptural basis that I'm aware of that compels me to accept that ontological difference . . . or to accept that Christianity is anything other than a set of which the LDS are a subset . . . speaking of not being bound by Evie Protestant provocations.

USU "John 17" 78