Questing Beast Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 Just passing by, out of idle curiosity, I wandered into this topic.Much discussion about gender-specific gods/goddesses, and whether or not we ought to worship them, or one over the other. 'Tis moot: none of these anthropomorphic deities are the Necessary Cause of existence in the first place, ergo they are no more than manifestations of that singular Cause. There cannot be a "heavenly mother" that is the object of ultimate worship, anymore than a "heavenly father", as a man, is the object of ultimate worship. The representation of the Ultimate Cause is not the object of worship. I pray to the same God that Heavenly Father and my Heavenly Mother pray to. This is why I find it difficult to engage in LDS corporate prayer anymore. My concept of "God" has grown too big to focus upon a corporeal "God the Father", when I know that Joseph Smith's GtF was once "As man is..." And all of Existence was not created nor can be, making GtF out to be one of "usen". I can't pray to that.
Darren10 Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 Just passing by, out of idle curiosity, I wandered into this topic.Much discussion about gender-specific gods/goddesses, and whether or not we ought to worship them, or one over the other. 'Tis moot: none of these anthropomorphic deities are the Necessary Cause of existence in the first place, ergo they are no more than manifestations of that singular Cause. There cannot be a "heavenly mother" that is the object of ultimate worship, anymore than a "heavenly father", as a man, is the object of ultimate worship. The representation of the Ultimate Cause is not the object of worship. I pray to the same God that Heavenly Father and my Heavenly Mother pray to. This is why I find it difficult to engage in LDS corporate prayer anymore. My concept of "God" has grown too big to focus upon a corporeal "God the Father", when I know that Joseph Smith's GtF was once "As man is..." And all of Existence was not created nor can be, making GtF out to be one of "usen". I can't pray to that.There's a good reason why Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith is not canical. Books like that I find theologically questionable in reliability so far as what doctrines were taught in the past. I don't even think we know the setting behind Joseph Smith saying that God was once like a man. Perosnally, if God were, fine with me; I still pray to and worship Almighty God, who is God the Father in the Bible. Personally though, God the Father could very well have been the first being to ave ever existed. If He were and Joseph Smith was teaching that He wasn't (and, again, who knows what the setting of this doctrine accredited to Joseph Smith was?) than Joseph Smith would have been wrong.
Questing Beast Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 Sure we know the setting for the "couplet": it was the sermon at King Follett's funeral. "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's", bit, got into the D&C within weeks of the same time. The Lectures on Faith (1835 to 1921), Lecture Five, specifically states that the Godhead is TWO personages, Father and Son, and that the Father is "a personage of spirit, glory and power"; and that the Son is "a personage of tabernacle". The Holy Spirit is the mind of the Father and the Son which is one; and this Holy Spirit bears record of them. In the questions and answers at the back, it is further emphasized that there are "Two: the Father and the Son" in the Godhead. With the later emphasis that the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit constitute the Godhead". The contradiction is clearly a mystery in 1835. But by 1843 the Godhead is three distinct "personages"; with only the Holy Ghost being a "personage" of Spirit: no longer merely the combined, One mind, of Father and Son.So I am convinced that Joseph Smith was "wrong", but prefer the word "mistaken"; about a great many things. It is the common lot of mortal man seeking the Infinite.It boils down to dogmatic anthropomorphic deities are not the biggest concept for "God" that it is possible to imagine, ergo they are not to be worshiped in the place of the greatest concept possible to imagine....
Darren10 Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 (edited) Sure we know the setting for the "couplet": it was the sermon at King Follett's funeral. That's my point. King Follet's report I find highly unreliable. What we have today is a compliation of about 4-5 different accounts blended together bwith the finasl editor at liberty to take out or add content and he saw fit. We don't know the exact content or setting when Joseph Smith spoke regsarding the passing away of his friend King Follet."The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's", bit, got into the D&C within weeks of the same time.That does not mean He was a man like us but, again, if He were, that's fine. That does not change at all whom you nor I worship.The Lectures on Faith (1835 to 1921), Lecture Five, specifically states that the Godhead is TWO personages, Father and Son, and that the Father is "a personage of spirit, glory and power";Oops!!!With the later emphasis that the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit constitute the Godhead". The contradiction is clearly a mystery in 1835. But by 1843 the Godhead is three distinct "personages"; with only the Holy Ghost being a "personage" of Spirit: no longer merely the combined, One mind, of Father and Son.Mystery to me too but this latter interpretation sounds about right.So I am convinced that Joseph Smith was "wrong", but prefer the word "mistaken"; about a great many things. It is the common lot of mortal man seeking the Infinite.Perhaps he was. Most definitely when he did not speak as a prophet, only speculated as a mortal man according to his understanding of the infinite at the time of his speculation, I've no doubt he made several mistakes. I can relate as I've made mistakes as well.It boils down to dogmatic anthropomorphic deities are not the biggest concept for "God" that it is possible to imagine, ergo they are not to be worshiped in the place of the greatest concept possible to imagine....I entirely disagree. Anthropomorphic deities are a testimony that the deities are not so far removed from man as traditional Christianity has evolved to declared. Also, the logic is faulty. Fatally faulty in fact. Tell me, who's the greater creator? The one who creates his creatures to overcome their own problems and weaknesses all on their own or the one whose creatures need to depend on the creator to overcome their weaknesses? Edited January 1, 2013 by Darren10
Calm Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 Yes, they are, including living revelation, just like in times of old.do you believe that all revealed knowledge of the past has been re-revealed or rather the necessary principles? 1
Calm Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 Sounds pretty clear to me. The fullness of the gospel was restored in part via the Book of Mormon. This does not mean that we know all things pertaining to the Kingdom of God but its fullness has been restored. All things of old are as they should be today. That's what a *restoration* is. Furthermore, a "restoration" does not exclude further additions which is what the Ninth Article of Faith teaches.so are you defining "fulness" as "completeness" or "only what is necessary for salvation"? 1
Calm Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 (edited) Valentinus et al;http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction?lang=engThat's from the Book of Mormon which has been translated from the gold plates. So much for needing the sealed or even lost portion of the plates.But Joseph Smith did say we would be learning significant portions of what is needed for exaltation after death (see my sig for reference or the Gospel Principles manual chapter on exaltation) so there is apparently something out there currently unknown that we will need for exaltation.How do you define "the gospel"? Edited January 1, 2013 by calmoriah 1
Calm Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 I entirely disagree. Anthropomorphic deities are a testimony that the deities are not so far removed from man as traditional Christianity has evolved to declared. Also, the logic is faulty. Fatally faulty in fact. Tell me, who's the greater creator? The one who creates his creatures to overcome their own problems and weaknesses all on their own or the one whose creatures need to depend on the creator to overcome their weaknesses?and yet man needs Christ to overcome our problems and weaknesses.
thesometimesaint Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 Huh? Didn't I say that living revelation was restored, just like in times of old? Hold on a sec. Let me check............Why yes, yes I did: http://www.mormondia...entry1209207822And what does the 9th Article of Faith?Why that sounds like living revelation to me. This does NOT obligate one to conclude that all things have not been restored, only that revelation may indeed come pertaining to the kingdom of God. Take the Proclamation to the World, for example. It teaches us no new doctrine, only a consolidation of what has already been revealed into a warning to the world. While the Proclamation is modern-day revelation, it's doctrines are not and still it is an important revelation pertaining to the kingdom of God.I think you and Valentinus need to start a new post about how wrong I am. You seem to be weirding out with him. No wonder he liked your post. ; > )That doesn't make any sense. Either we are open to new revelation or we're not, either we have a closed canon or we don't.Valentinus is more than capable of supporting his own ideas without help from me. 1
Questing Beast Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 @Darren10: "Tell me, who's the greater creator? The one who creates his creatures to overcome their own problems and weaknesses all on their own or the one whose creatures need to depend on the creator to overcome their weaknesses?"The way you worded that question is a problem: it presumes "either or" must be the reality. The greater concept accepts both: "God" is the Source of all existence in the first place, while also being intimate enough with every living thing that its ultimate destiny is to contribute to Joy by being joyful....
thesometimesaint Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 QB:In LDS Theology God isn't the source of all existence. We are co-eternal with God.
Calm Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 (edited) That doesn't make any sense. Either we are open to new revelation or we're not, either we have a closed canon or we don't.I am getting that Darren believes...rightly...that the fulness of the gospel has been restored and therefore anything included in the gospel has already been revealed therefore anything revealed in the future will not be part of the gospel even if it is truth.Is this close, Darren?Me, I believe the "fulness" is actually a subset of the gospel, that part relating to salvation and that which is currently necessary for exaltation, but not everything included in the gospel. For my reasoning, I point to the fulness of time being a particular time period, not all of time/history. Edited January 1, 2013 by calmoriah 1
pogi Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 This link explains the term "fullness of the gospel" well:http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/gospel/fullness_eom.htm
Calm Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 Which leaves open the possibility for revelation on Heavenly Mother...perhaps that pertains to her part in our exaltation as opposed to Christ's work.
thesometimesaint Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 I am getting that Darren believes...rightly...that the fulness of the gospel has been restored and therefore anything included in the gospel has already been revealed therefore anything revealed in the future will not be part of the gospel even if it is truth.Is this close, Darren?Me, I believe the "fulness" is actually a subset of the gospel, that part relating to salvation and that which is currently necessary for exaltation, but not everything included in the gospel. For my reasoning, I point to the fulness of time being a particular time period, not all of time/history.Sorry I'm even more confused than before. Sure the Gospel has been restored in that the authority to act in the name of God is once again with man. But it is oxymoronic to claim on one hand that God has more to revel about himself, and his Kingdom; and at the same time claim that we already know all there is to know about God and his Kingdom.
ERayR Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 I am getting that Darren believes...rightly...that the fulness of the gospel has been restored and therefore anything included in the gospel has already been revealed therefore anything revealed in the future will not be part of the gospel even if it is truth.Is this close, Darren?Me, I believe the "fulness" is actually a subset of the gospel, that part relating to salvation and that which is currently necessary for exaltation, but not everything included in the gospel. For my reasoning, I point to the fulness of time being a particular time period, not all of time/history.From the 1981 version of the introduction to the Book of Mormon(the one in the front of my Book of Mormon) It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.
halconero Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 (edited) Just passing by, out of idle curiosity, I wandered into this topic.Much discussion about gender-specific gods/goddesses, and whether or not we ought to worship them, or one over the other. 'Tis moot: none of these anthropomorphic deities are the Necessary Cause of existence in the first place, ergo they are no more than manifestations of that singular Cause. There cannot be a "heavenly mother" that is the object of ultimate worship, anymore than a "heavenly father", as a man, is the object of ultimate worship. The representation of the Ultimate Cause is not the object of worship. I pray to the same God that Heavenly Father and my Heavenly Mother pray to. This is why I find it difficult to engage in LDS corporate prayer anymore. My concept of "God" has grown too big to focus upon a corporeal "God the Father", when I know that Joseph Smith's GtF was once "As man is..." And all of Existence was not created nor can be, making GtF out to be one of "usen". I can't pray to that.To be utterly frank I can most definitely pray to "that."An anthropomorphic deity, with which I share genetic, emotional, spiritual and mental characteristics is the God I choose to worship.I worship my earthly father in the sense that I talk to him, reverence him, seek counsel from him, try to emulate him and recognize him as the source from which I sprang. That is the same relationship I have with my Heavenly Father, and the one I hope to have with my Heavenly Mother (with whom, now that I think about it, I need to develop a stronger relationship). Just because something may be the "bigger" more "ultimate cause" doesn't mean that it automatically merits my worship.Molech or Baal may be "real" and more "powerful" than my God-who-was-once-mortal, but I'll be damned if ever worship them, knowing their natures and the type of worship they demand.To sum this up briefly: Nature, not existence, relationship, not power are what causes me to call upon Heavenly Father. Edited January 1, 2013 by halconero 3
Darren10 Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 do you believe that all revealed knowledge of the past has been re-revealed or rather the necessary principles?I think along the lines that if something in the past was lost and necessary for our salvation, such as baptism for the dead, it has been revealed. All the saving ordinances necessary for salvation as in times of old have been re-revealed today. I believe that whatever may be necessary for the future or to add upon what we have today (or to simply explain what we have today) will be revealed in the Lord's due time, when He sees fit to reveal. As for the necessary principles, yes, they have been re-revealed me thinks.
Darren10 Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 so are you defining "fulness" as "completeness" or "only what is necessary for salvation"?Ummmm, "yes"? ; > )
Darren10 Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 I am getting that Darren believes...rightly...that the fulness of the gospel has been restored and therefore anything included in the gospel has already been revealed therefore anything revealed in the future will not be part of the gospel even if it is truth.Is this close, Darren?Me, I believe the "fulness" is actually a subset of the gospel, that part relating to salvation and that which is currently necessary for exaltation, but not everything included in the gospel. For my reasoning, I point to the fulness of time being a particular time period, not all of time/history.The first portion of your post is very accurate. As for the latter part I'm of the thinking that *all* saving ordinances and doctrines of the past have been restored. If previously by "complete" you mean we have "everything" we need now, than no, I do not believe that the gospel is "complete". As an example for both 'fullness' and "complete" I'll include the example of Heavenly Mother. I say that her exclusion in today's worship is as it was in the past. Just like today we are NOT to include her in our prayers, neither should God's covenant people of the past. Also, just like she is not part of temple worship today, nor was she,nor should she have been, included in true temple worship of the past. If there comes a time when we should include her in our prayers and temple worship than such will be revealed to us by the Lord's living prophets. And that's perfectly fine with me.
Darren10 Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 To be utterly frank I can most definitely pray to "that."An anthropomorphic deity, with which I share genetic, emotional, spiritual and mental characteristics is the God I choose to worship.Amen!!! Keep preaching, brother.
Damien the Leper Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 I really hope we aren't headed in the direction of the Arianism heresy.
ERayR Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 I really hope we aren't headed in the direction of the Arianism heresy.The winners (right or wrong) define heresy. One mans heresy is another's sound doctrine. That is why revelation is essential.
Darren10 Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 I really hope we aren't headed in the direction of the Arianism heresy.Why would we be?
Darren10 Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) This link explains the term "fullness of the gospel" well:http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/gospel/fullness_eom.htmI've always found Light Planet to be a reliable source of information to explain the LDS faith.Here's from the LDS Dictionary regarding the "Restitution / Restoration".It means a reestablishment of the gospel of Jesus Christ on the earth in the last days, with the powers, ordinances, doctrines, offices, and all things as they have existed in former ages. It means a gathering together of the house of Israel from its scattered condition. Thus it is frequently spoken of as the restitution (or restoration) of all things, as in Acts 3:19–21. The time in which all these things are accomplished is called the dispensation of the fulness of times (Eph. 1:10; D&C 27:6, 13).http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/restitution?lang=eng&letter=r Edited January 2, 2013 by Darren10
Recommended Posts