Mormonisms Local God

[mfbukowski]

God is not somewhere. He is outside of space and time. I know that you disagree with this because if God has a physical body then He has to be somewhere with that body. My point was to show that when Mormons say they believe in God the Father, they mean something different when Catholics say they believe in God the Father. That's all.

So where is Jesus with his resurrected body? Is he not with the Father?

[KevinG]

So where is Jesus with his resurrected body? Is he not with the Father?

Just not consistent with my concept of an eternal God...

[zerinus]

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.

That is probably because you do not have an in depth understanding of it. That understanding can best be gained by an in depth study of LDS scripture. It cannot be gained by reading other books; and listening to critics can be misleading.

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.

You are probably right. I think I misunderstood.

[Ahab]

...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.

I think there are times when we should be able to give someone more than just one rep point for a post. Don't you?

I think I may have to petition a moderator to resolve this.

Of course, we both know God can speak to us through other people, but I'm pretty sure your point is that we should ask God to confirm that what is being said is true regardless of whether or not some people refer to those words as "scripture" or "official teachings of the [insert name here] Church ".

[zerinus]

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?

No, that is not correct doctrine. Nothing is said about becoming "gods of our own planets" and creating "saviors" for them. That is Mormon false doctrine, not Mormon doctrine!

[thesometimesaint]

Oh, come now, we don't need that tone here, do we? You know I'm a Catholic -- why be provocative?

That is, according to the LDS interpretation of Jesus in the Bible.

Our personal preferences really don't matter. It is truth that matters.

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?

Again, it's the LDS interpretation of the Godhead as described in the Bible. All Christians disagree with that interpretation.

Right, and the Topical Guide, forgot about those.

Indeed. I think the focus on orthopraxis over orthodoxy is fascinating -- it helps explain much about LDS beliefs (the difficulty of pinning them down) to those who focus on orthodoxy. In Catholicism, we say lex orendi lex credendi: the law of prayer is the law of belief. The way we pray (liturgy, praxis) influences and is influenced by the way we believe. So I guess you could say that we focus both on orthopraxis and orthodoxy.

Thanks!

No Catholic disputes the account of Jesus' baptism. What you are showing here is a misunderstanding of the Holy Trinity. There are three Persons, but only one Being (one Essence). You have assumed that person is equivalent to being/essence, which is not correct.

Clearly He is not. He is God the Son. Again, you are showing a misunderstanding of the Holy Trinity.

I'm not sure how Jesus' ressurection proves that God the Father has a physical body. I think you might have left out something in your argument here.

I never said I believed the Articles of Faith, just that I knew them. I also never tried to tell you what they meant. You are coming at me with standard responses to anti-Mormon stuff that I have not done.

God is not somewhere. He is outside of space and time. I know that you disagree with this because if God has a physical body then He has to be somewhere with that body. My point was to show that when Mormons say they believe in God the Father, they mean something different when Catholics say they believe in God the Father. That's all.

That didn't answer my question. My question was what is the authoritative method for determining doctrine in the LDS church and is that method the same as determining canon?

No offense was intended. Merely a fact. Jews and Muslims are today strictly monotheistic. Christians of whatever flavor are not. Simply labeling it a mystery just doesn't help.

What else would I have? What else but your Catholic understanding of those verse would you have?

Agreed, and we disagree on what that truth says. If any man lack wisdom let him ask of God. I've done that to my satisfaction. I can only assume you have done the same.

Why would I want to forget about any of it? I certainly don't, but it is still not doctrine. Anymore than the Pythagorean Theorem is a doctrine of the Church. BTW it is still true.

It really doesn't matter to me if any or no other Christians agree. The Godhead is in the Bible while neither the Trinity nor the required of one substance/essence is.

You mistake what I said and what LDS believe. I didn't say we believed ONLY in orthopraxy. Works without faith is equally dead being alone. Does a man lighting a candle stick it under a bushel? What happens to salt that has lost its savor? It is good for nothing and is cast out. The Bible is replete with examples of needing both.

The Holy Trinity is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. Nor is of one "Essence". Those are additions added during the Counsel of Nicaea.

Yes he is the Son of God the Father. Clearly a distinct and separate being. Again neither the Trinity nor the required postulates is anywhere in the Bible, and Christians for the first 300+ years of Christianity didn't believe in it either.

Spirits don't have physical bodies, as per Jesus.

Where in the Bible, or any LDS Scripture, can I find that God is outside of time and space? How could I possibly communicate with such a being?

I wouldn't/don't expect a Catholic to believe our Articles of Faith. However if you are looking for an understanding of what LDS believe it is best not to lean unto your own understanding but ask.

Whether you believe William Jefferson Clinton was slime ball of a US President, and I believe he was the greatest thing since sliced bread of a US President we're still talking about the same person.

How doctrine and canon is determined in the Church is the same process. The Prophet receives Revelation for the whole Church, the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelves Apostles, and the First Counsel of Seventies counsel together and must unanimously agree. Then it must be put to the whole Church in General Conference for their sustaining. Then and only then does it become doctrine and is placed in our canon. We individually are called upon to ask God if that Revelation is true. To find out for ourselves.

[Tacenda]

No, that is not correct doctrine. Nothing is said about becoming "gods of our own planets" and creating "saviors" for them. That is Mormon false doctrine, not Mormon doctrine!

Seriously?

[mfbukowski]

Just not consistent with my concept of an eternal God...

But you know, according to Heraclitus, that is not too far off! And besides they verify that as doctrine weekly and we raise our arm to the square and accept it don't they?

What am I talking about? In I think every Ward I have ever been in, before they change someone in a calling they say "Well we know that the only constant is change..... and so we are releasing Sister Jones as Primary Chorister......"

So if your lava lamp is not an example of constancy in change I don't know what is!!

[mfbukowski]

I think there are times when we should be able to give someone more than just one rep point for a post. Don't you?

Heck yeah! But only for my posts!!

Of course, we both know God can speak to us through other people, but I'm pretty sure your point is that we should ask God to confirm that what is being said is true regardless of whether or not some people refer to those words as "scripture" or "official teachings of the [insert name here] Church ".

Yep - that's what I meant! God has to tell you that your church is correct in the first place or what's the point? Who else would you ask which church is true???

Why should you believe any other human being? They don't know anything more than you do!!

[KevinG]

Seriously?

Seriously. Any specifics on what happens to us as a part of exaltation is merely speculative and non-doctrinal. What we do know is that we will return to our Father in Heaven, dwell with Him and receive His blessings as joint Heirs with Christ.

Beyond that any "details" are non or even false doctrines. Not that it keeps our critics from spinning anti-Mormon gold from the bits of speculative hay we leave laying around.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

To say that the Trinity is a mystery or paradox is not the same thing as saying that Catholics do not understand it. Quantum mechanics is a paradox as well (Is it a wave, or is it a particle?), but scientists understand it very well. The concept of Trinity is no more problematic than other words in the English language, like "presence" or "being." Mormons use terms like "glory," "intelligence," "light," and "spirit matter" in sentences as though they know what they are talking about. Any concept, if you examine it closely enough, begins to fall apart. Nevertheless, that is what our knowledge consists of.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[mfbukowski]

No, that is not correct doctrine. Nothing is said about becoming "gods of our own planets" and creating "saviors" for them. That is Mormon false doctrine, not Mormon doctrine!

Agreed.

[mfbukowski]

Any concept, if you examine it closely enough, begins to fall apart.

Precisely my point. That is deconstruction at its best. That is why we each need to follow our own revelations, and build our own worlds as it were.

Largely that whole point is why I am a Mormon. No other system which includes God in it (whom I believe I have directly experienced) teaches anything like that. God is a man who does what we do- create our own worlds- but he does it (I believe ) on the level of universes while we do it in our own little heads- for now at least, and perhaps we can become like him.

Edited September 10, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

God is not somewhere.

He is somewhere, otherwise he is nowhere and doesn't really exist in reality.

He is outside of space and time.

Which would be nowhere, as if there is no place where God is.

I know that you disagree with this because if God has a physical body then He has to be somewhere with that body.

Exactly. Otherwise what? He's nowhere and no part of him/them exists in reality.

My point was to show that when Mormons say they believe in God the Father, they mean something different when Catholics say they believe in God the Father. That's all.

I think that's enough for most people to see the differences in our beliefs.

My question was what is the authoritative method for determining doctrine in the LDS church and is that method the same as determining canon?

The "method" is to commune directly with God to find out what he knows and wants his Church to teach both inside and outside the Church.

And yes, the "method" is the same for both doctrine and canon, although not everyone in the Church has God's authority to set policy for the whole Church.

[Ahab]

Why should you believe any other human being? They don't know anything more than you do!!

Oh, they can. Lots of people have learned more from God than some other people.

The key is to learn from God regardless of whether or not some other people already know what you are still trying to learn.

[KevinG]

The "method" [of determining doctrine] is to commune directly with God to find out what he knows and wants his Church to teach both inside and outside the Church.

And yes, the "method" is the same for both doctrine and canon, although not everyone in the Church has God's authority to set policy for the whole Church.

Well said.

[mfbukowski]

Not that it keeps our critics from spinning anti-Mormon gold from the bits of speculative hay we leave laying around.

The problem is that we answer questions they haven't even thought up yet.

And then the language gets in the way- they think we are talking about getting our own planet while we are talking about the nature of creation itself.

Everyone takes us too literally while we are talking about larger issues with deficient language, using metaphors. No wonder no one understands us, for all our attempts at clarity.

We speak clearly about things they have never thought about. I honestly think that. Who has ever asked what God did for eternity before he decided to organize this world?

Only Mormons. So we come up with an answer- that he was once like us- and we get flak for it, when their religions don't even ask the question much less come up with some kind of metaphorical answer.

We should ask anyone who talks about us worshiping a "local god" to explain precisely what it was God was doing for an eternity before he decided to create the world, and WHY he did so in the first place?

I would ask our Catholic friends, but I already know they haven't an answer and I don't want to be rude Well at least not directly rude

[mfbukowski]

Oh, they can. Lots of people have learned more from God than some other people.

The key is to learn from God regardless of whether or not some other people already know what you are still trying to learn.

Yeah but the only way you can know if they have learned more than you or if what they tell you is correct is if you ask God yourself.

Back later

[TAO]

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

Good! It's important to have a good time, that it is! =D

Edited September 10, 2012 by TAO

[Ahab]

Yeah but the only way you can know if they have learned more than you or if what they tell you is correct is if you ask God yourself.

That still doesn't mean other people can't know more than some other people, though.

I'm sure there are lots of people in the universe who already know what I am still trying to learn, and even some people who have thought of some questions that I haven't thought of yet.

[MiserereNobis]

When you respond, it would be helpful if you placed your response after the point you are responding to. It makes following the conversation (and responding back) much easier. Thanks!

No offense was intended. Merely a fact. Jews and Muslims are today strictly monotheistic. Christians of whatever flavor are not. Simply labeling it a mystery just doesn't help.

Hmmmm. Mormons are always getting upset at people telling them what they are and what they believe, and yet here you are telling Christians that they are not monotheists. We are monotheists. There is only one God. God said so Himself. I'll take His word for it.

What else would I have? What else but your Catholic understanding of those verse would you have?

That's my point exactly. If you just point to a verse and say, "it's right here" it doesn't really do much persuading, because I can simply point out that it is your interpretation. It would be more helpful and persuasive if you were to offer arguments.

Agreed, and we disagree on what that truth says. If any man lack wisdom let him ask of God. I've done that to my satisfaction. I can only assume you have done the same.

Ah, which brings up another issue. How can two people ask God which Church is His and come up with two different answers? Obviously one or both of us is wrong. There is more to finding truth than just asking God. We have to ask Him to help us and then we also have to do our own homework and use the gifts of reason and intellect that He created for us to us.

It really doesn't matter to me if any or no other Christians agree. The Godhead is in the Bible while neither the Trinity nor the required of one substance/essence is.

But you're not a Bible only believer. The unique doctrines of the LDS church are not in the Bible. I'll grant that you can point to parts of the Bible that hint upon those doctrines, just as Catholics can do with unique Catholic doctrines.

And let's not forget that the Bible was compiled and canonized by the Catholic Church

The Holy Trinity is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. Nor is of one "Essence". Those are additions added during the Counsel of Nicaea.

It's strange -- I feel like I'm talking to a Bible-only Protestant. There are more religious truths than just the Bible. I think we both can agree to that, even if we disagree what those truths are.

Yes he is the Son of God the Father. Clearly a distinct and separate being.

He is clearly a distinct Person, not a separate Being.

Where in the Bible, or any LDS Scripture, can I find that God is outside of time and space? How could I possibly communicate with such a being?

Well, you're not going to find it in LDS scripture, because the LDS church believes that God is in time and space. As far as communicating with such a being, being outside of time and space does not limit God, it frees Him to be everywhere and everywhen. All time is the present moment for Him. All space is the present location for Him. He is in all things and through all things. There is nowhere I can point to where God is not.

These concepts may seem new and strange to you, because your religion and theology doesn't think about such things. It also doesn't have mystics and their experiences to try to explain such things. The writings of the Catholic mystics are replete with such descriptions.

I wouldn't/don't expect a Catholic to believe our Articles of Faith. However if you are looking for an understanding of what LDS believe it is best not to lean unto your own understanding but ask.

I have been asking. But I also have an intellect that I can use to try to put two and two together.

Whether you believe William Jefferson Clinton was slime ball of a US President, and I believe he was the greatest thing since sliced bread of a US President we're still talking about the same person.

Sure, but what if I were talking about William Jefferson Clinton, the guy I grew up with who now lives in Chicago, and you are talking about William Jefferson Clinton, the president? We might be using the same name, but we are talking about two different people.

How doctrine and canon is determined in the Church is the same process. The Prophet receives Revelation for the whole Church, the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelves Apostles, and the First Counsel of Seventies counsel together and must unanimously agree. Then it must be put to the whole Church in General Conference for their sustaining.

So the members can veto the prophet's proclamation of a doctrine? That's interesting... why is that? I don't remember Isaiah saying, "If you all agree with me, then a child will be born unto a virgin"

We individually are called upon to ask God if that Revelation is true. To find out for ourselves.

This makes sense -- we each need to seek the truth. However, whether or not we find it doesn't change the fact that something is true.

[MiserereNobis]

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.

The problem here is that the models we are talking about, you and I, were not given to us directly from God, but from God to another human than to us. Your model for understanding God comes from the LDS church, mine from the Catholic. Now, we both believe that our model ultimately originated from God, but you have to admit that there has been an intermediary person or persons between God and us.

Who else should we trust to tell us about the nature of God but God himself?

I think we both agree that God teaches us best about Himself. I think we both also agree that God does that through the proper channels. We just disagree on what those channels are. For you, it is the prophet and apostles. For me, it is the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him.

"The unexamined life is not worth living", to coin a phrase

Now don't go off and drink hemlock on us, ok?

[MiserereNobis]

No, that is not correct doctrine. Nothing is said about becoming "gods of our own planets" and creating "saviors" for them. That is Mormon false doctrine, not Mormon doctrine!

I've sat in the living room of a large Mormon family and heard them making jokes about what they are going to do when they get to create worlds (one woman said she's going to have women lay eggs instead of having to go through pregnancy and childbirth). Were they misinformed as to their own doctrine?

[KevinG]

I've sat in the living room of a large Mormon family and heard them making jokes about what they are going to do when they get to create worlds (one woman said she's going to have women lay eggs instead of having to go through pregnancy and childbirth). Were they misinformed as to their own doctrine?

No they were making jokes.

Kind of like Catholics making quips about Priests dipping into the sacramental wine, or that wonderful Monty Python sketch about every sperm is sacred when the Protestant man informs his wife that they can copulate as many times as they want without creating children "in theory".

Edited September 10, 2012 by KevinG

[MiserereNobis]

Why should you believe any other human being? They don't know anything more than you do!!

There are plenty of human beings who know more than I do on a given subject. C. S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, makes an excellent argument along these lines for why we should pay attention to what theologians have to say. For some reason lots of people think that when it comes to theology, there are no experts. It's simply not true. Theologians focus their time and energy on trying to understand and make sense of God. It would be silly to just dismiss that outright. Please note: I'm not saying that they are right, I'm simply saying we should pay attention to what they say, just like we pay attention to what a doctor says, even if at the end we disagree with him.

As far as God and His nature, I'll trust what God Himself said and taught to His Apostles, which is held in the Deposit of Faith and protected from fatal error as promised by Jesus.