Mormonisms Local God

[mrmandias]

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

If you want to trade snark for snark, you could point out that Mormonism's inferior God is capable of raising mankind to godhood, while the Ground of Being apparently isn't . . .

[mfbukowski]

Well, perhaps now you can sympathize with how Catholics sometimes feel when they try to describe the Trinity

Catholics. See below.

We asked the question and came up with the metaphorical answer. See below.

Why? Well, see below

Ha! Honestly, that was too much. Catholics asked and answered this question centuries ago, a good 1500 years before Joseph Smith. What was God doing before the creation of space and time (the time part is important -- you can't measure God in years or ages). Well, let's start by looking at the Nicene Creed that is recited every Sunday at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made."

God the Father was speaking His Word, God the Son, before all ages and worlds, before any creation. There was only God and He was contemplating Himself. That contemplation is His Word, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. The Love that flows between God the Father and God the Son is the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, God the Holy Ghost.

And why did God create the world? That's answered in question 6 of the Baltimore Catechism: "6. Q. Why did God make you? A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven."

The questions you are asking about God are new in the sense that noone has asked them in your way because noone has believed in a God like yours before. But the question about what was God doing before the creation of time and space and the universe and why He created things in the first place has long been a part of Catholicism.

Yes I know. I studied all that when I was seven years old. Thanks for the answer though, even though it never worked for me and I suppose I will tell you why with all the charity I can muster at the moment. It has been a tough day

I really don't know why it took God an eternity to contemplate himself. It makes no sense to me. But I suppose it is not supposed to being a mystery and all.

"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made."

First of all that is a different translation than I am used to- I am old enough to have memorized it in Latin as an altar boy, but it will do.

We also believe that Christ was "begotten" as a spirit child before all ages but all that Neoplatonic substance stuff really makes no sense. And of course we also believe that all that was made was made by the Word- indeed that is straight from John 1.

But to be honest, this really doesn't explain much in my opinion. I have a major problem with the whole idea of "substance" which to me is a meaningless word in this context. We can go into it if you want, but I don't think we will make much progress convincing each other on that- 3DOP and I have gone around and around on that one.

And my conception of God does not include him needing to create little things like us to show forth his goodness because he needs to be worshiped. But that last part is basically what we already believe, that he made us to be happy with him in the Celestial Kingdom.

I'll buy that part!

Now if it said something about his plan of happiness which he made before all time which we were created to follow so we could be happy with him, now that might be closer to something that would work for me.

But notice it leaves quite a bit of that out- doesn't it?

Thanks anyway, but I think I will stay Mormon.

[mfbukowski]

You didn't create that.

(oops sorry political)

How about there is a difference between ex nihilo creation and organizing matter?

One makes sense and the other doesn't?

[Calm]

I really don't know why it took God an eternity to contemplate himself. It makes no sense to me.

Why would the perfect Being need to contemplate himself? Or even if he didn't need to, why would he? Wouldn't his awareness of himself already be complete in every nonmoment of his existence outside of space and time?

How can one even contemplate outside of space and time?

con·tem·plate

   [kon-tuhm-pleyt, -tem-]

verb, con·tem·plat·ed, con·tem·plat·ing.

verb (used with object)

1.

to look at or view with continued attention; observe orstudy thoughtfully: to contemplate the stars.

2.

to consider thoroughly; think fully or deeply about: tocontemplate a difficult problem.

3.

to have as a purpose; intend.

4.

to have in view as a future event: to contemplate buying anew car.

verb (used without object)

5.

to think studiously; meditate; consider deliberately

http://dictionary.re...contemplate?s=t Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[Cobalt-70]

If you want to trade snark for snark, you could point out that Mormonism's inferior God is capable of raising mankind to godhood, while the Ground of Being apparently isn't . . .

Yes, but to be fair, their God is capable of creating the entire universe ex nihilo.

[mfbukowski]

What I meant is that sense in your religion God exists within time and space, you don't have theologians contemplating and understanding what it would mean to exist outside of time and space. Or am I wrong here -- do LDS people think about what it would be like for God to be outside of time and place?

I don't think it is possible to think that way since we are beings which exist in space and time and we cannot divorce ourselves from it. There are many philosophers who would agree with that.

One might delude oneself into believing that it is possible if one's religious faith depends on it, but I (and many others) don't think it is possible.

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited September 11, 2012 by mfbukowski

[TAO]

But your very conception of praying to God comes from someone.

Well of course. But that goes for every idea.

However, I wouldn't say it came from the church. You see; I think the form of prayer doesn't matter; it's the ideas behind it. If I prayed differently, with the same true intentions in my heart, I'd probably still get a similar answer. Say with meditation, or what not.

Why didn't you do a voodoo ceremony to summon up a dead spirit to tell you if Mormonism was true?

Because I didn't feel like it.

You were already following concepts from intermediaries.

Well of course. But you don't need to do so.

Imagine taking adults who had no knowledge of religion and telling them: Go pray and come back and tell us what the nature of God is. Do you think they'd all come back with the same answer, or an answer at all?

Why not ask them something simpler? Who said prayer was the only way to unlock it? Ask them to search for a God. And ask them to look for an answer. That is, I think, enough.

Also, note that you were praying and asking if something was true. You weren't praying and asking for the truth directly, but a confirmation of something. It's the difference between asking "what is 2 + 2" and "does 2 + 2 = 4?"

Mmmm... partially. You see, the answer he gives is so much more than 4. It's like understanding what 4 is, not just that 2+2 = 4. It's much more edifying than that. In addition, usually my mind goes back and forth between the two options... so it'd be like asking "does 2 + 2 = 4?...does 2 + 2 != 4... (repeats)? And then eventually, I feel strongly enough about an option to make an opinion. Just a mind habit... but yeah. I don't only check for a confirmation. I also check with the alternative.

I think this is too simplistic for such deep questions as to the nature of God. Did you ask God what His nature is and He told you? Or did you ask God if what the LDS church teaches on the nature of God is true?.

I asked God, to, if he existed, to show me he existed. He did such. Then, I asked him concerning the truthfulness of the simple aspects of the church; that is the gospel essentials. He answered. Then, I asked him whether I should follow the prophet? He answered. And over time, I've asked him about other things I've had questions about.

Curiously enough, if you want to know, I didn't understand truly about his nature until much later. I mean, yes the church teaches you about it, but you don't know it... like know know it if you know what I mean. But then, I obtained an experience which showed me that. I'm sure you could say I already had a dispsoition by the ideas that I was taught in the church, however, the experience was so strong and defined it so clearly, that I can't really say that it mattered. I don't think I was even expecting to get such an experience that time... it just happened.

And of course, I keep verifying a lot of this stuff as I go, even after I've learned it. There are times where I ask God again, "am I going in the right direction? Or am I not?" And he will answer not only with an answer, but with a feeling concerning where I am wrong, if I am wrong. Other times he'll say I'm fine. I try and keep the important things on a very accurate basis, I guess, you could say. But, after that experienced, I have never questioned how the Godhood existed or worked. It's just too clear to question.

If it's the latter, then there was an intermediary: the LDS church

Nah, I learned too much from that experience, for it to be an intermediary. Of course, that's solely relating to that experience. The initial experience, where I asked God's existence, you could say it was related; the Book of Mormon helped me not to be so skeptical of the idea of asking God, even though it was already in my head. But it too, also had foundation outside of it; it was too strong and clear, and revealed too many things to me to just simply be that. The rest of the experiences are just based upon that founding one.

To you, too!

Thanks!

-TAO

[mfbukowski]

Why would the perfect Being need to contemplate himself? Or even if he didn't need to, why would he? Wouldn't his awareness of himself already be complete in every nonmoment of his existence outside of space and time?

How can one even contemplate outside of space and time?

http://dictionary.re...contemplate?s=t

Completely agree on both points. We cannot conceive of what it would be to be outside of space and time and I am not the only one who thinks so.

But I'll think about that in a minute or two.

Let's see.... where do I start. Oh that is linear isn't it?

That's the point of course! Oh wait - a point- that was a spatial metaphor wasn't it?.....

Edited September 11, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Completely agree on both points.

Wasn't intending to make a point, lol. Those were real questions, not rhetorical ones. I wanted to hear an explanation of what contemplating himself meant because it doesn't make sense to me at this point. I assumed it might make sense to someone else though.

I agree with you that we can't understand what "outside of space and time" means though we can say what it doesn't mean..."time" or "space". I have to invent a term to describe it...."nonmoment" and can't use terms like "began" to refer to such contemplative experience. It was very frustrating figuring out to to phrase the question to avoid using inappropriate assumptions, Perhaps there is some analogy that can be made that may approximate the meaning...at least as someone else chooses to interpret the phrase.

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Yes, but to be fair, their God is capable of creating the entire universe ex nihilo.

Or at least they think so which is all that really matters I suppose.

[zerinus]

Ha! Honestly, that was too much. Catholics asked and answered this question centuries ago, a good 1500 years before Joseph Smith. What was God doing before the creation of space and time (the time part is important -- you can't measure God in years or ages). Well, let's start by looking at the Nicene Creed that is recited every Sunday at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made."

God the Father was speaking His Word, God the Son, before all ages and worlds, before any creation. There was only God and He was contemplating Himself. That contemplation is His Word, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. The Love that flows between God the Father and God the Son is the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, God the Holy Ghost.

That is very nice sounding philosophically, but what basis does it have in truth, in scripture, in revelation, in the word of God? I don't see none. How do you determine that it is true? I don't see that you can.

Edited September 11, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

It goes as deep as your willing to take it. Obviously, from your tone, you are not willing to give it much thought, so it's not going to seem very deep for you.

God was not bored or lonely, nor did He have any need. He is perfect -- there is nothing that He doesn't need -- and He is perfect love.

Knowing God and loving God is perfect happiness. God made us to be happy. Heaven is called the Beatific Vision -- it is the eternal (timeless) vision of the Presence of God. That will be perfect happiness, knowing Him, loving Him, and being in His Presence, which will be an amazing transformation of who we are. C. S. Lewis uses the analogy of toy soldiers turning into real people. That's the purpose and that is what is behind those words.

You didn't "make" your kids, God did. Humans reproducing is not like God creating. That is specifically why the Creed speaks of begetting vs. making.

I know that C. S. Lewis is popular among Mormons -- I was told at one point he was the most quoted non-Mormon at General Conference. I suggest you (and others here having a hard time understanding the Christian doctrines on God) pick up a copy of Mere Christianity and read it to understand the Christian view of God, the creation, and our purpose. It is very short and easy to read He intentionally shied away from areas of disagreements among Christians in order to present a Christian view, not a Catholic or Anglican or whatnot one. In fact, you can read it or listen to it online here. You can even read single chapters to get the gist of a doctrinal idea without having to have read what comes before. Check out Book 4 in particular, as he deals there with the nature of God and the reason for creation.

I could point you toward a specifically Catholic book if you'd like, but I thought Lewis might be a better introduction.

+ PAX

That is all very nice sounding philosophies of course, without a basis in revelation. Allow me to tell you the Mormon answer to that question, based on revelation. There is a verse in the book of Moses which says, "This is my work and glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man". So God made us for His own glory. Joseph Smith is also reported to have said (paraphrasing from memory), "Happiness is the purpose of our existence, and will be the end thereof if we pursue the course that leads to it". So you got that bit of it right. Mormonism also teaches that there is something in man, an essential part of him, that was not created at all. It is as eternal as God is. That gives man a whole lot more dignity (in my estimation) than the idea that he was made out of nothing. It gives him an independence of mind and thought that he could not have had if he was made of nothing. It means that he can really decide his own destiny by choosing the happiness that God has prepared for him, or choose an alternative path if he prefers it that way.

Edited September 11, 2012 by zerinus

[mfbukowski]

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.

Well oddly enough, I did have these views first and then found the church. So I am not sure that applies to me.

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.

Not really. If I do not have spiritual verification I believe nothing from anyone, but I am weird. I have spent 40 plus years studying epistemology which really is because my first reaction to anyone who says anything to me is "How do you know that is true?" and if they don't have answers, I don't listen for very long.

But I am definitely a little weird. I put things together as I see them and then ask God if I have it right. If he says no, I re-do it until he says I have it right. But I do listen to a lot of philosophers I like.

Definitely weird I know.

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

Can't stand the stuff!

Besides it's against the Word of Wisdom.

Edited September 11, 2012 by mfbukowski

[zerinus]

Yes, that means we are talking about two different gods. The belief of Joseph being a prophet or not is accidental to his identity. If he were sitting in the room, we could both point to him and say, "Joseph Smith [true/false] prophet." But if there were a god sitting in the room with a physical body, I could not point to that god and say, "that's the god I believe in."

+ PAX

So I take it you don't believe in Jesus then, because He was a God sitting in a room sometimes, and continues to be a God sitting in a room sometimes.

[MiserereNobis]

First of all that is a different translation than I am used to- I am old enough to have memorized it in Latin as an altar boy, but it will do.

The official translation recently changed. I thought I'd go with that, since it is official and all. I attend Latin Mass, and I think it is much clearer in the Latin: Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum, Fílium Dei Unigénitum, Et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula.

"Saecula" can mean ages and world ("et in saecula saeculorum" is usually translated to "world without end"), which makes the point even more clear.

There are many wonderful reasons why Latin is the language of the Church -- it is theologically precise, for one.

I'm glad to hear you were an altar boy I serve in the Gregorian chant schola and choir. Chant is so beautiful...

[MiserereNobis]

So I take it you don't believe in Jesus then, because He was a God sitting in a room sometimes, and continues to be a God sitting in a room sometimes.

Yes, the analogy is flawed. Of course I believe in Jesus -- you don't have to go and say something silly like I don't just to point out a problem in my analogy. The issue here is one of immanence and transcendence. Throughout this discussion I have been focusing on the transcendence of God, partly as a counter-balance to the LDS's overt focus on His immanence. Yes, Jesus had a physical body, but Jesus was also 100% God (transcendence, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, God the Son) AND 100% human (immanence, incarnation).

Anyways, I think this thread has run its course for me. Thanks for the great chats everyone and I'm sure we'll go at it again on other threads

God bless!

+ Pax Christi sit semper vobiscum

[mfbukowski]

The official translation recently changed. I thought I'd go with that, since it is official and all. I attend Latin Mass, and I think it is much clearer in the Latin: Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum, Fílium Dei Unigénitum, Et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula.

"Saecula" can mean ages and world ("et in saecula saeculorum" is usually translated to "world without end"), which makes the point even more clear.

There are many wonderful reasons why Latin is the language of the Church -- it is theologically precise, for one.

I'm glad to hear you were an altar boy I serve in the Gregorian chant schola and choir. Chant is so beautiful...

Absolutely and to be honest I think that is about the only thing I really miss- and oddly I also miss litanies- it is quite an amazing experience to be in a group of people using language in an almost hypnotic way so that the responses almost lose all meaning and you are simply swept up in the activity itself. There was one I recall where the response was "Have mercy on us!" and the priest would go down the list of those saints who were to have mercy on us (as I recall) and the response became rythmic and almost musical and then the "on us" part of the phrase got louder and louder and became "Havmer-cyONus" - it's amazing how language morphs into music when the same phrase is repeated again and again.

But chant and litanies as a device for meditation has little to do with theology unfortunately. Sigh. I just do my meditation myself now, in more of a Jewish tradition of meditation I have found. But that is another story!

As far as the Latin is concerned, I agree with you and have always thought about the Latin for "per omnia saecula saeculorum" which is usually translated simply as "forever and ever" but literally means something quite different! I have found in that context that it is interesting that the LDS speak of the "worlds without end" which God has created when I hear that phrase now, and that gives it an entirely different twist.

And I must confess that I always stay up past midnight on Christmas eve to hear the Latin mass on TV from St Peter's.

But all that substance and essence stuff- sorry- I just can't take it!

I'm going to suggest you read a paper that I have found fascinating which relates to all this and indirectly to the apostasy as well- I am not sure how much you know about the LDS temple, but it is a fascinating take on the LDS perspective on how the author believed that the mass evolved from lost esoteric rites in the early church.

In my opinion it is a must-read for any Catholic who is interested in Mormon topics and especially Catholics who actually understand the Latin mass, if nothing else, than to refute the article. It seems that the Latin mass is disappearing which I think is a tragedy just from an anthropological perspective if nothing else.

But here is the paper: https://ojs.lib.byu....iewArticle/5185

Edit: That link doesn't appear to be working but this one does: https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/21.1WellnitzCatholic-0af55761-eccd-4d09-8707-9ab79854cbdf.pdf

Edited September 11, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

+ Pax Christi sit semper vobiscum

When I was a young child, phone numbers started with a word prefix and consisted of 4 digits following the prefix. My first phone number which I memorized at the age of 5 in case I ever got lost was TAylor 2489

I always thought that God's phone number was ETcomspiri 220.

You may be the only one here who will get that joke!

Et com spiritu tuo!

[zerinus]

Yes, Jesus had a physical body, but Jesus was also 100% God (transcendence, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, God the Son) AND 100% human (immanence, incarnation).

Okay, what is He now, with His resurrected body? Is He immanent or transcendent or a mixture of both or neither?

Anyways, I think this thread has run its course for me.

Not for me! I ain't done yet.

[MiserereNobis]

When I was a young child, phone numbers started with a word prefix and consisted of 4 digits following the prefix. My first phone number which I memorized at the age of 5 in case I ever got lost was TAylor 2489

I always thought that God's phone number was ETcomspiri 220.

You may be the only one here who will get that joke!

Et com spiritu tuo!

I know I said I was done with the thread, but I had to thank you for the good laugh at this joke

And I agree, it is quite sad that the Traditional Latin Mass has seen such hard times over the past 40 years. Things are changing, however, and more and more parishes are offering the Traditional Mass. I've been pretty much attending only the Latin Mass for 2 years now. Theology and religion aside, I would hope that people could see it for a beautiful artistic expression (the chant, the incense, the vestments, the bells, the liturgical language, the stained glass, the candles, the statues, etc), much like I can appreciate the fantastic architecture and beauty of LDS temples (well, except for the one in Provo... ha).

Thank you for the link to the article, too. I'll check it out.

God bless!

[Calm]

(well, except for the one in Provo... ha).

If they have altered the one in Ogden, there is hope for Provo.

http://www.lds.org/c...lery=ogden-utah

PS: I was hoping for a bit more discussion about God's contemplation of himself and what this means. Pretty please.

If you doubt my sincere interest, just ask 3DOP, I am fascinated by all things Catholic. The Catechism was my bedtime reading for about a year and I only ceased that because my friend took back her copy. And if I had more guts about ordering things online, I would have owned my own copy eons ago.

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

If they have altered the one in Ogden, there is hope for Provo.

http://www.lds.org/c...lery=ogden-utah

PS: I was hoping for a bit more discussion about God's contemplation of himself and what this means. Pretty please.

If you doubt my sincere interest, just ask 3DOP, I am fascinated by all things Catholic. The Catechism was my bedtime reading for about a year and I only ceased that because my friend took back her copy. And if I had more guts about ordering things online, I would have owned my own copy eons ago.

https://www.pcpbooks.net/docs/baltimore_catechism.pdf

If that doesn't put you to sleep, just read Ether.

[mfbukowski]

One of my favorite quotes from the above:

30. Q. Can we fully understand how the three Divine Persons are one and the same God?

A. We cannot fully understand how the three Divine Persons are one and the same God, because this is a mystery.

One could argue that this is the entry that eventually made me a Mormon, AND an atheist before that.

Edited September 11, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

https://www.pcpbooks...e_catechism.pdf

If that doesn't put you to sleep, just read Ether.

For bedtime reading I prefer something I can hold in my hands, if only because a computer screen tends to keep me awake...though I have found out lately reading old Pearls Before Swine and other comics online makes me sleepy after an hour or so.

These days, if I want to read the Catechism I just go to the Vatican site...it's even bookmarked.

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah