Bart Burk Posted September 21, 2012 Author Posted September 21, 2012 So in your thought process and Alan's, would that make you gods with the little "g"?That's the way I would look at it. And I think it is one way to look at Abraham 3-5. The Gods included the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as well as all of us preparing the earth for inhabiting. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost were Big G and we were little g. At least that is the conclusion I had begun to entertain when I was still a Mormon.
Lachoneus Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 The line has to stop somewhere. "Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them." Joseph Smith, 6 History of the Church 476 (16 June 1844).Hyrum Smith taught that 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 and John 5:18-19 lead to the conclusion that there is a “whole train and lineage of gods” (Hyrum Smith, George Laub Journal (27 April 1843)).“There are Lords many, and Gods many, . . .. But to our branch of the kingdom there is but one God, to whom we all owe the most perfect submission and loyalty; yet our God is just as subject to still higher intelligences, as we should be to him" (Orson Hyde, 9 Millennial Star (#2) 23-24 (1 Jan 1847))."Joseph says there are Gods above the God of this universe as far as he is above us, . . ." (Isaac & Sarah Scott (G. F. Partridge, ed.), “The Death of a Mormon Dictator: Letters of Massachusetts Mormons, 1843-1848,” 9 The New England Quarterly (#4) 583, 593-605 (December 1936)).
Tacenda Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 Well Lachoneus's post just shot the lower "g" god out of the park.
Bart Burk Posted September 21, 2012 Author Posted September 21, 2012 Well Lachoneus's post just shot the lower "g" god out of the park.How did he do that? Looks like a lot of second hand accounts to me. Joseph Smith's quote doesn't address anything about how many Gods there are. There could be a whole train and lineage of Gods which included Heavenly Father and those who he created as spirits who descended from him through little g gods. Would you really build your theology on a letter from Isaac and Sarah Scott?
Ahab Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 In my view, the person we address as Father in our prayers does not have a father. To me it just doesn't make sense.Then why do you believe that?The line has to stop somewhere.Why? What good reason is there for thinking it should? The truth is that life has always existed and each kind of being has always perpetuated itself in whatever way each kind of being does that. Some species, like some lizards, have the functions of both males and females, without needing one of the other sex to procreate, and then there are species like ours which requires both a male and a female with each fulfilling a certain role in the perpetuation of life process.At least you make more sense than those who believe some person who is God came to be God before anyone else who ever did that, as if there was only one person or one couple who started our species. Your idea at least maintains the idea that life doesn't begin at some point, but is instead only perpetuated.I see the Father as a great-grandfather of sorts. The original one.So you think there was only one person who was God and nobody else was that kind of being. And then I suppose you think that one created the other 2 along with creating all of the rest of us too? I think I get your idea. It's just wrong. There was never a "first" one, or even a first couple. There have always been parents just as much as there have always been children.Our actual father (perhaps Adam, perhaps not) is a link in the chain just as we will be if we gain our exaltation. I am firmly convinced that if we obtain exaltation and get involved in creating and peopling worlds, our spiritual offspring will pray to the same person we pray to. They will not pray to us.Prayer is basically talking to God, and yes they will be talking to us just as much as they'll be talking to who we came from.We're all in this together.
mfbukowski Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 It is interesting that all of these discussions seem to revert back to the nature of the Godhead. Perhaps that is because there is really no way to discuss something which the LDS don't really know much about -- the state of God the Father prior to the beginning of this universe. The traditional Christians don't have that problem since for traditional Christians God the Father is the same now as He has always been and always will be.You don't have the problem because you have no explanation for it.He is the same for us as well. You know a river can be the same for eternity while changing from moment to moment if there is no constant but change itself. That is what process theologians think, even your Teilhard de Chardinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin 1
thesometimesaint Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 Bart Burk:We don't. The doctrines of the Church reside in the Standard Works of the Church. None on that list is part of the Standard Works of the Church.
Ahab Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) Bart Burk:We don't. The doctrines of the Church reside in the Standard Works of the Church. None on that list is part of the Standard Works of the Church.Says you and others who agree with you. There are lots of us who don't agree with you, though, and I suppose you think all of us are the heretics.Interesting how it works that way, isn't it.p.s. I see that you didn't say "only" when you said they reside in the standard works of the Church, but I think you were implying it anyway. If I was wrong about that, I apologize about that. I'm simply saying that our Lord's doctrine which is the same doctrine of his Church reside in many other scriptures other than those in the "standard" works. Edited September 21, 2012 by Ahab
mfbukowski Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 One of the wiser comments I have read on this board. Thanks Nehor. MWThe problem here is how one determines if an idea is from God or not. If some are and some are not, how does one pick which to follow or not?You can't pray about it- because how do you know if THAT answer is from God or not? It becomes an infinite regress.The only one who can judge if an idea is from God or not is the person receiving it- and then it becomes an Alma 32 deal. If the idea becomes sweet to you- it is from God. But what if it conflicts with someone else's idea "from God"?Ultimately we all just have to follow our consciences which brings us full circle back to the start. We are pretty much alone and in our own heads about judging this stuff.
Ahab Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) The problem here is how one determines if an idea is from God or not. If some are and some are not, how does one pick which to follow or not?By getting to know God until you know the difference between God and Satan, or between good and evil.You can't pray about it- because how do you know if THAT answer is from God or not? It becomes an infinite regress.Yes you can pray about it. Satan is the one who tries to tell us we can't pray to know something, or that prayer doesn't help. You should pray (talk) to God about it and listen to what he tells you. That way it's an infinite progression.The only one who can judge if an idea is from God or not is the person receiving it- and then it becomes an Alma 32 deal.Bullpucky again. God knows if the idea was his, too, and so can anyone else who gets it.If the idea becomes sweet to you- it is from God.Sweet as in good, and it helps to know what good is. It's not necessarily something you will like, but it will be good, and all good things come from God.But what if it conflicts with someone else's idea "from God"?Be careful that you don't just "think" it conflicts with what God has said, because maybe your thinking is wrong. If it actually does conflict with something God has said, though, as in being contradictory even when different circumstances are taking into account, then you can figure God didn't say it, and instead it came from Satan. Just be careful not to jump to any conclusions, because what you're concluding may not be what God was saying when he said what he said. I usually double check with him, and sometimes even triple check with him, to make sure I understand what he meant, with him actually telling me what he meant.Ultimately we all just have to follow our consciences which brings us full circle back to the start. We are pretty much alone and in our own heads about judging this stuff.Sheesh. Come on, mski. We can have God with us to not only help us "figure" this stuff out, but to actually tell us how it all works and what he means when he says something. Edited September 21, 2012 by Ahab
MiserereNobis Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 You don't have the problem because you have no explanation for it.He is the same for us as well. You know a river can be the same for eternity while changing from moment to moment if there is no constant but change itself. That is what process theologians think, even your Teilhard de Chardinhttp://en.wikipedia....hard_de_ChardinTeilhard de Chardin is a very controversial theologian and should not be used as indicative of Catholic Church. From that wikipedia article you linked:Some of his ideas came into conflict with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. He was reprimanded and his works were denounced by the Holy Office.The Holy Office, for those that do not know, is the Holy Office of the Inquisition. His works were declared heretical. So please, don't hold up Teilhard de Chardin as someone who has Catholic beliefs
mfbukowski Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 Says you and others who agree with you. There are lots of us who don't agree with you, though, and I suppose you think all of us are the heretics.Interesting how it works that way, isn't it.p.s. I see that you didn't say "only" when you said they reside in the standard works of the Church, but I think you were implying it anyway. If I was wrong about that, I apologize about that. I'm simply saying that our Lord's doctrine which is the same doctrine of his Church reside in many other scriptures other than those in the "standard" works.Oddly enough, those who think that only the Standard Works are canon tend to be those who think traditional Mormon beliefs which are NOT in the Standard Works are not "doctrinal" and therefor subject to one's opinion.People like that- who honor others opinions - tend NOT to see others as "heretics", ever.It is usually only the folks who believe that every Word published in Ensign is canon, who think that others are "heretics" for not believing every Word in Ensign, and who project their own zeal to condemn "heretics" on others who don't think that way at all. 1
mfbukowski Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 Sheesh. Come on, mski. We can have God with us to not only help us "figure" this stuff out, but to actually tell us how it all works and what he means when he says something.I know. You missed the point. But it always boils down to your knowing that God is speaking to you. You can't get around that.
zerinus Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) Understand that to create is to organize and sometimes change a thing or things, rather than to make it from out of nothing. We all have a Father who created our spirit, including the spirit of Jesus, but none of us were created from out of nothing. We're all created from the essence of our Father(s) and Mothers, and Jesus created us when we were born again through him at which point he also became a Father to us. Jesus is our brother, but he is also our Father if we have been born again through him, just as we have brothers who are or can also become our father/Father.Does that mean that you do not believe in these scriptures then any more:Mosiah 26:22 For behold, this is my church; whosoever is baptized shall be baptized unto repentance. And whomsoever ye receive shall believe in my name; and him will I freely forgive.23 For it is I that taketh upon me the sins of the world; for it is I [Jesus] that hath created them; and it is I that granteth unto him that believeth unto the end a place at my right hand.Ether 3:15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I [Jesus] have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine [Jesus’] own image.16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I [Jesus] created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.D&C 93:9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him. Edited September 21, 2012 by zerinus
Ahab Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 Oddly enough, those who think that only the Standard Works are canon tend to be those who think traditional Mormon beliefs which are NOT in the Standard Works are not "doctrinal" and therefore subject to one's opinion.People like that- who honor others opinions - tend NOT to see others as "heretics", ever.It is usually only the folks who believe that every Word published in Ensign is canon, who think that others are "heretics" for not believing every Word in Ensign, and who project their own zeal to condemn "heretics" on others who don't think that way at all.The standard works and the canon are synonymous. The point I'm making is that the doctrine of our Lord's Church isn't limited to only the canon, because it also includes all other scripture, including doctrine explaining and adding to the doctrine in the standard works. Think of it like a car having "standard" features while other features offered by the manufacturer which can be added as options, except that the options in this case are a reflection of how much truth we want to add to our knowledge. All of our Lord's doctrine is true, but not everyone is going to choose to accept all the truth that is now available or will become available in the future.
mfbukowski Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 Teilhard de Chardin is a very controversial theologian and should not be used as indicative of Catholic Church. From that wikipedia article you linked:The Holy Office, for those that do not know, is the Holy Office of the Inquisition. His works were declared heretical. So please, don't hold up Teilhard de Chardin as someone who has Catholic beliefs Yes I know. But I had hoped you read farther in the article which said :However, some of Teilhard's views became influential in the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. More recently, Pope John Paul II indicated a positive attitude towards some of Teilhard's ideas. In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI praised Teilhard's idea of the universe as a "living host".[2]After I left the church, for a while, Teilhard was about my only hope that there might be some truth left in Catholicism. Ultimately, after quite a journey it was he who led me ultimately to Mormonism.So I guess I understand your objections.
Ahab Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 I know. You missed the point.But it always boils down to your knowing that God is speaking to you. You can't get around that.If that was all you meant, then I'm in 100% agreement with that.I think you were trying to tell me more than that, though, and I think you may have missed some of my points.
mfbukowski Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 The Holy Office, for those that do not know, is the Holy Office of the Inquisition.I just liked quoting that. It has a certain ring to it.We don't have one of those. 1
mfbukowski Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 If that was all you meant, then I'm in 100% agreement with that.I think you were trying to tell me more than that, though, and I think you may have missed some of my points.Nope.That's about all I was saying. If you don't know when God is speaking to you, you are definitely in trouble.
Ahab Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 Does that mean that you do not believe in these scriptures then any more:I still believe in those scriptures. What makes you believe I might not? What points did I raise which you seem to think are conflicting?
MiserereNobis Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 Yes I know.But I had hoped you read farther in the article which said :After I left the church, for a while, Teilhard was about my only hope that there might be some truth left in Catholicism. Ultimately, after quite a journey it was he who led me ultimately to Mormonism.So I guess I understand your objections. Ha! Yes, Teilhard has led many souls away from the Catholic Church And yes, I know about Teilhard. There is an excellent book on the Jesuits that I have read that uses him as one example of the loss of orthodoxy among the influential Jesuits.And while the Pope might have made some off-hand remarks about Teilhard, the official statement from the Magisterium still stands -- his works remained denounced.
Ahab Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 I just liked quoting that. It has a certain ring to it.We don't have one of those. We do have people who ask questions, though. It's just that we don't hang people or burn them with faggots.
Ahab Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 Nope.That's about all I was saying. If you don't know when God is speaking to you, you are definitely in trouble.I agree, again.Shame on me for ever thinking we don't agree, huh.
MiserereNobis Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 I just liked quoting that. It has a certain ring to it.You make me giggle, mfb. Thanks! It has been renamed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which definitely isn't as cool. I think the best name was the pre-1900s name: Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition.Now that's an entity that means business We don't have one of those. Clearly and unfortunately, which is why you and Ahab and zerinus have nowhere to go to determine what is LDS doctrine and what is not...
zerinus Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 "Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them." Joseph Smith, 6 History of the Church 476 (16 June 1844).Not according to the book of Anraham:Abraham 3:19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.
Recommended Posts