Mormonisms Local God

[thesometimesaint]

But what exactly is your theology? I've been told on this thread that the very distinctive theological teachings of the LDS church are non-doctrinal, which makes it hard to say that they are part of Mormon theology.

God is beyond our comprehension -- that is why it is a mystery. There is no concept or idea with which we can tie Him down. Yes, He is smart enough to explain it to us dummies, but He is also smart enough to tell us that His explanations can only go so far because He is so far beyond us because we are dummies. Think of quantum physics. The model of the atom is just that -- a model -- that helps us understand/visualize things that are really only understandable mathematically. God knows us Himself well enough and us well enough to give us the best model to understand Him -- this is the model of the Trinity. But He is a mystery to our minds, because our minds work with concepts, ideas, language, etc, and God cannot be bounded such things. That is why statements made about God are often paradoxical, because in the attempt to resolve the paradox we often catch a glimpse of something beyond concepts.

You are right; Mormons are very practical people, which shows up in a disdain for the mysterious and in a lack of mystics, those who have a non-conceptual experience of God and then try to explain it to us using the best concepts available.

A God without mystery is not a very big god indeed.

If you want to know our theology read the Standard Works of the Church.

I don't get your hang up about the KFD. It is not doctrine, nor is not part of the Standard Works of the Church. There is more than plenty to keep anyone learning about our distinctive theology just in the Standard Works of the Church for a long time to come. It took the Roman Catholic Church more than a couple of hundred years to admit that Galileo was right. Should we therefore hold you responsible for what you currently don't believe?

That isn't what the Bible says. It says that we are to KNOW the one true God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent. There is a whole lot I don't know, but I assume that if I'm to become perfect like my Father in Heave is perfect. I can't leave a whole lot to mystery.

[zerinus]

I can understand the comparison to the Holy Father, but I'd like to highlight your use of the word "advice." Teachings about the basic nature of God seem to be much more than simple advice -- they appear to be foundational doctrines of any religion.

I agree; see my previous posts.

This actually helps me understand the slipperiness of LDS doctrines. They are very hard to pin down. But if Mormonism focuses on orthopraxis, I can understand why. Tell me, do many Mormons agree with your idea that doctrines are not as important as practice?

I disagree with that entirely. Mormon doctrine is not "slippery". It is quite clear-cut. And it is as important as practice.

I think there are other explanations as to why Mormons cohere in their beliefs. For example, your Sunday block meetings are basically three hours of catechism.

Again, I cannot agree. Our Sunday services are more participatory than other churches for example.

[MiserereNobis]

The doctrine of the deification of man and plurality of gods is canonized. See my previous post.

Hmmm, some people here seemed to be saying that the plurality of gods was not canonized. Perhaps I misunderstood them.

Answered in my previous post. Just to add for clarification, if I disagreed with something that was said in general conference, nothing would happen to me. Even if I openly expressed my disagreement nothing would happen to me. But if I pro-actively tried to preach and promote my contrary ideas, and tried to persuade others to my view, then some kind of action might be take against me. I don't think that in the days of Peter, if someone disagreed with peter, he would have been disciplined or exed. The same applied to the LDS Church. Even if somebody disagreed with something written in scripture, I don't think that any action would be taken against him. I think that the same principle would probably apply to the Catholic Church. You tell me if I am wrong.

Generally speaking, the same applies in Catholicism. Of course, the ideal is that all Catholics would believe Catholic doctrine, but a privately held contrary belief is not punished. However, to receive the graces of the sacraments, one must to the best of one's ability believe and act in accordance with the Church. This is incumbent upon the individual -- there is no equivalent of a temple recommend, though in the case of blatant public scandal the priest can withhold the sacraments from an individual.

[MiserereNobis]

Also, St. Pius, there is a lot of people posting... don't feel obliged to respond to everyone, k? =)

Oh, I'm having a good time and I've got another 30 minutes before I've got to go

[mfbukowski]

I disagree with that entirely. Mormon doctrine is not "slippery". It is quite clear-cut. And it is as important as practice.

The disagreement I have with Zerinus is typical of disagreements which active LDS can have on these issues, and still both be considered faithful members of the church.

Of course he might disagree with that, knowing Zerinus.

[MiserereNobis]

I disagree with that entirely. Mormon doctrine is not "slippery". It is quite clear-cut. And it is as important as practice.

I probably shouldn't have used the word "slippery." I'm sorry about that. I just meant that for many people it is very hard to determine what Mormon doctrine is. It appears that either the doctrine changes or that the focus of the LDS church switches from one doctrine to another. That's what I meant. I found the idea of a focus on orthopraxis over orthodoxy to be one way to explain this.

Again, I cannot agree. Our Sunday services are more participatory than other churches for example.

Well, what I meant is that most of the block service is spent listening to talks or engaging in class discussions over the ideas/doctrines/practices of your church. That is like catechism; the members are being taught Mormon beliefs and practices.

[zerinus]

It seems to be the logical conclusion of the doctrine of exaltation. If exalted humans become gods and keep the eternal cycle of creation, redemption, and exaltation going, then there must be other gods. The only way for there not to be other gods would be if Eloheim was the first, but once humans here are exalted then there will be other gods in the future. This seems to be the point of the first verse of "If You Could Hie to Kolob," yes?

Men can be exalted and become gods, which means that there can be (and are) more than one God. But that is a different thing from talking of "the cycle of creation, redemption, and exaltation". Nothing is said in LDS scripture of a "cycle of redemption". Jesus is the Saviour and Redeemer of all of God's creation. There will not be another.

I assume that as an official published hymn of the LDS church, it has been doctrinally approved by the proper authorities.

That is more than I assume! I don't like the idea myself.

[MiserereNobis]

Men can be exalted and become gods, which means that there can be (and are) more than one God. But that is a different thing from talking of "the cycle of creation, redemption, and exaltation". Nothing is said in LDS scripture of a "cycle of redemption". Jesus is the Saviour and Redeemer of all of God's creation. There will not be another.

My understanding was that when humans are exalted, they will engage in the act of creation -- creating spirit children and worlds for those spirit children to receive bodies so that those children can themselves become gods. Is this not correct? And if it is correct, wouldn't those children require a redeemer just as humans now do? Would there need to be another atoning sacrifice for them, or would Jesus' sacrifice cover their sins, too?

[mfbukowski]

If they have grown up as a practicing Catholic, then they have gone through the Catechism. So at least they have been taught about the Trinity. If they ever go to a Catholic school, or Sunday school, they will certainly learn about it there, too. When they read the Book of Mormon, they would not be disabused of Trinitarianism, unless they were paying very close attention to realize that it actually teaches modalism, which is slightly different.

That presumes that practicing Catholics understand it, which they don't, since here even PiusX tells us it is a "mystery". The nature of a mystery is that it cannot be fully explained. They try to do so with Neoplatonic philosophy which we know on this board really doesn't explain much.

I'm talking about Hinckley's response to the San Francisco Chronicle, where he said, "Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about."

And you disagree with that statement? Would you say that you know "very much" about God's ancestry, or how it is that he became God? We are about as well off on that subject as the Catholics are on how you get the body blood soul and divinity of Christ himself- literally- into a piece of bread.

I'll make you a deal. You explain one, and I'll take the other. When we're done, neither of us will know more about either one than we do now, unfortunately

It's all a "mystery" after all. So who says we have no similarities with our Catholic brothers?

[zerinus]

I suppose a Catholic equivalent would be something like the apparition of Our Lady at Fatima in Portugal. One does not have to believe that She appeared there to be Catholic, though almost all Catholics do. But it still seems odd to me that something as foundational and important as the nature of God would be non-doctrinal and optional for belief.

So, just to be sure I understand clearly, you are saying that the only doctrines of the LDS church are those found in the standard works?

The standard works are the ultimate yardstick by which the valid of a doctrine can be assessed.That of course means that one needs to know that standard very well to be able to apply it in that way.

[MiserereNobis]

And you disagree with that statement? Would you say that you know "very much" about God's ancestry, or how it is that he became God? We are about as well off on that subject as the Catholics are on how you get the body blood soul and divinity of Christ himself- literally- into a piece of bread.

Well, the Real Presence doesn't "get" into the bread, the substance of the bread changes into the Real Presence...

I'll make you a deal. You explain one, and I'll take the other. When we're done, neither of us will know more about either one than we do now, unfortunately

It's all a "mystery" after all. So who says we have no similarities with our Catholic brothers?

I'm glad that you recognize that the nature of God is a mystery. We can understand some parts, but it is beyond our comprehension to understand Him completely.

[mfbukowski]

My understanding was that when humans are exalted, they will engage in the act of creation -- creating spirit children and worlds for those spirit children to receive bodies so that those children can themselves become gods. Is this not correct? And if it is correct, wouldn't those children require a redeemer just as humans now do? Would there need to be another atoning sacrifice for them, or would Jesus' sacrifice cover their sins, too?

In fact, I would argue that we are creating right now- making sense of things and taking them from "matter unorganized" into something rational is what humans do. And I also believe that is what God does on a larger scale.

That is because we truly are gods in embryo. We do that on a small scale, God does it on a universal scale. Using Catholic terminology perhaps, we have the same nature, but what he does is infinitely above what we do.

But that is theology according to Bukowski and no one else.

[Ahab]

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

Any person who is God is the same kind of being, thus the same God... if using the word "God" to refer to a kind of being.

Just throw that out there and see if it sticks.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

Well, the Real Presence doesn't "get" into the bread, the substance of the bread changes into the Real Presence...

Yeah, I know, but trust me, that doesn't help much.

It is perfectly analogous to keeping the "substance" of lead and changing only it's "accidents" into gold- the whole basis for "trans-substan-tiation" and also alchemy

I've read my Aquinas and that's one of the reasons I'm not Catholic.

There have been some improvements to philosophy in the last 800 years or so.

Edited September 10, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

And you know where "hocus pocus" comes from too- right? I won't get into that here!

[Ahab]

In fact, I would argue that we are creating right now- making sense of things and taking them from "matter unorganized" into something rational is what humans do. And I also believe that is what God does on a larger scale.

That is because we truly are gods in embryo. We do that on a small scale, God does it on a universal scale. Using Catholic terminology perhaps, we have the same nature, but what he does is infinitely above what we do.

But that is theology according to Bukowski and no one else.

You're getting warmer, if not spot on.

Sometimes I can't be totally sure because of some of the words you use.

[MiserereNobis]

I've read my Aquinas and that's one of the reasons I'm not Catholic.

Ha! The Angelic Doctor didn't do it for you, eh?

There have been some improvements to philosophy in the last 800 years or so.

Perhaps, but postmodern philosophy is quite a mess, too.

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps, but postmodern philosophy is quite a mess, too.

It's about all we've got until we create a new world or two

[zerinus]

But what exactly is your theology? I've been told on this thread that the very distinctive theological teachings of the LDS church are non-doctrinal, which makes it hard to say that they are part of Mormon theology.

"Distinctiveness" is not a useful term with which to define somebody's doctrine. The doctrines of the deification of man and plurality of god is distinctive. The three degrees of glory is distinctive. Polygamy is distinctive. Temple ordinances are distinctive. And I could think of more. It is best to talk of specific doctrines.

You are right; Mormons are very practical people, which shows up in a disdain for the mysterious and in a lack of mystics, those who have a non-conceptual experience of God and then try to explain it to us using the best concepts available.

A God without mystery is not a very big god indeed.

To a degree I am inclined to agree with you.

[mfbukowski]

You're getting warmer, if not spot on.

Sometimes I can't be totally sure because of some of the words you use.

Like what?

[zerinus]

Just because you don't understand the explanation doesn't mean that the person explaining it doesn't understand it. The fault could be with you, right?

Also, don't forget the great example of the faith of the father of the possessed boy.

Mark 9:23-24: And Jesus saith to him: If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. And immediately the father of the boy crying out, with tears said: I do believe, Lord: help my unbelief.

We can choose to believe things we don't fully understand and then, with tears, ask God to strengthen our belief and understanding. If I have to have perfect understanding in order to believe, my number of beliefs (religious or otherwise) would be pretty darn small. I might go so far as to say that you believe many things in the LDS faith that you do not completely understand, such as the nature of God.

I think it would be quite prideful for anyone to say that they perfectly understand the nature of God.

Thank you. In general I am inclined to agree.

[zerinus]

I find this interesting. The hymn book is officially approved by the First Presidency, right? And I would guess the Quorum of the Twelve has something to say about it, too. I can't imagine them allowing hymns that would go against Mormon doctrine. Am I missing something here?

I am sure the hymns have been vetted for doctrinal correctness, as the other Church publications have been; but that does not mean that they are doctrinally bullet proof.

[Ahab]

Like what?

Huh? Do you mean what part of what you said did I have trouble totally understanding so as to be totally sure you are totally correct?

Well, let's start with what you said, first, in reverse order:

But that is theology according to Bukowski and no one else.

For one thing, if your theology (understanding of God) is true our Father would also agree with you, so it wouldn't be just you and no one else.

You also said this:

In fact, I would argue that we are creating right now- making sense of things and taking them from "matter unorganized" into something rational is what humans do. And I also believe that is what God does on a larger scale.

This part I totally agree with.

That is because we truly are gods in embryo.

Or what I would call "God" although we're not as perfect as the person we usually call our Father, and Jesus, are yet.

We do that on a small scale, God does it on a universal scale. Using Catholic terminology perhaps, we have the same nature, but what he does is infinitely above what we do.

On this part I'm very unclear about what you meant. Are you talking about the difference between what we are and what we do?

[mfbukowski]

Just because you don't understand the explanation doesn't mean that the person explaining it doesn't understand it. The fault could be with you, right?

Of course! But if that person was also using philosophical models which few else have understood in the last 800 years, it might not be out of line to think that maybe there was a problem with the model itself

Also, don't forget the great example of the faith of the father of the possessed boy.

Mark 9:23-24: And Jesus saith to him: If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. And immediately the father of the boy crying out, with tears said: I do believe, Lord: help my unbelief.

We can choose to believe things we don't fully understand and then, with tears, ask God to strengthen our belief and understanding. If I have to have perfect understanding in order to believe, my number of beliefs (religious or otherwise) would be pretty darn small. I might go so far as to say that you believe many things in the LDS faith that you do not completely understand, such as the nature of God.

I think it would be quite prideful for anyone to say that they perfectly understand the nature of God.

Of course- I have no problem with that- you are right.

That said, though, in my not so humble opinion, for me, I think it is up to each of us to make sense of this for ourselves with guidance from God himself and not accept models of any kind unless God himself has told us that the model is one we should use.

Who else should we trust to tell us about the nature of God but God himself? And if he has taught you in language differently than he has taught me in language- we are back to your first point above.

Just because you don't understand the explanation doesn't mean that the person explaining it doesn't understand it.

The explanation which works for you may not be the explanation that works for me. In my opinion it is finding an explanation which works is what is what important. "The unexamined life is not worth living", to coin a phrase

I think that is what the afterlife is for- sorting this all out when we have more information, after we have done the best we can here.

But of course that view also just happens to conform to LDS "doctrine" whatever that means

[zerinus]

Hmmm, some people here seemed to be saying that the plurality of gods was not canonized. Perhaps I misunderstood them.

Have a look at D&C 76:50-70. For better information read the entire section.