Heavenly Mother

[fearlessheart]

of course we have a Heavenly Mother and we as latter-day saints accept this doctrine. and its mentioned in my patriarchal blessing.

[Questing Beast]

QB:

In LDS Theology God isn't the source of all existence. We are co-eternal with God.

Precisely. And that's that the problem. God the Father is just one of us. It doesn't matter that he "organized matter and the intelligences": if God the Father did not create them, did not Cause Existence In The First Place, then GtF is not "God" he's just A god; and so am I and you and every other sapient being. If I am capable of being somewhat ungrateful for being a corporeal being, and a spirit being before that, to the point that I want to bypass GtF and worship the Cause of all our Existence instead of "Daddy in Heaven", how is this wrong? Does GtF worship his Father? I seriously doubt it. Does GtF not worship anybody or anything? I seriously doubt it. Unless GtF is a megalomaniac who does not see anything in Existence to worship because he's too full of himself, after having created all of this universe from the "raw materials", so to speak. But if the raw materials are just lying around already, so to speak, then shouldn't GtF be searching for the Cause of their Existence? I think so. If I am doing that already/still, why wouldn't GtF be doing it? And if he says to me someday/already, "Nobody knows where the so-called raw materials/intelligences came from; this is how it's always been done": my response is: "Then worship the greatest concept for Existence In The First Place that you can come up with; it's a sure bet that whatever the Necessary Cause Is, it Is Infinitely Intelligent". How can anyone argue with that?...

[Questing Beast]

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.

To respond briefly: then we apparently have a different definition/expectation of what "worship" is. Communicating with GtF is NOT worship, no matter how intimate. In fact, the more intimate, the less worshipful it becomes. "Reverential" is more like it. I revere my wife sometimes ("familiarity breeds contempt" also plays here, regrettably, which I do my best not to feel, but fail at sometimes): I revere womankind categorically; but I would never worship any of them. If the Necessary Cause manifested to me as my eternal soul mate in woman form I would worship that....

[Damien the Leper]

The winners (right or wrong) define heresy. One mans heresy is another's sound doctrine. That is why revelation is essential.

I'm not of the opinion that Arianism, Tritheism, and Modalism are "sound doctrine". From Genesis to Revelation, a One God is repetitiously and resoundingly proclaimed and reaffirmed.

[Calm]

I really hope we aren't headed in the direction of the Arianism heresy.

Not sure who the "we" is referring to (mankind in general?), but LDS do not believe that the Son of God is a created being who has not always existed so at least that part of "we" you needn't worry about.

[halconero]

To respond briefly: then we apparently have a different definition/expectation of what "worship" is. Communicating with GtF is NOT worship, no matter how intimate. In fact, the more intimate, the less worshipful it becomes. "Reverential" is more like it. I revere my wife sometimes ("familiarity breeds contempt" also plays here, regrettably, which I do my best not to feel, but fail at sometimes): I revere womankind categorically; but I would never worship any of them. If the Necessary Cause manifested to me as my eternal soul mate in woman form I would worship that....

Then define worship. I look to my dictionary and see that to worship is to reverence, to honour and to pay homage to something. I look to my ability to speak Spanish and French and the verbs "to worship" are both adorar (Spanish) and adorer/faire ses dévotions (French), both connotative of "to adore" "to show devotion."

Can we show any of these things without communication with Deity? How can I reverence, honour, pay homage to, adore, or show devotion to something without it? Surely I can do it through action and deeds in their name, but even so there is a level of recognition that in itself must be recognized.

Salvation and Exaltation are utterly dependent on intimate familiarity with God.

John 17:3 - And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Referring back to French and Spanish:

These translations more accurately reflect the original Greek word for "to know," which is "ginosko.

In both languages the verb "to know" has been split in two: Savoir and Connaître (French) and Saber and Conocer (Spanish).

Savoir and Saber reflect a factual knowledge of something. Hence to "know" God in this sense would be to know of Him, to recognize that He exists and to know a lot of facts about him.

Connaître and Conocer reflect an intimate familiarity, the knowledge of a persons personality and who they are on a deeper-than-factual basis.

This is reflected in this verse. In fact the verb used here is the same used in other places win the Bible where a man "knows" his wife, though our relationship with him is not of a sexual nature, but of the same level of intimacy. Some might say blasphemy but I testify beautiful. The scriptures teach us over and over that eternal life is based on familiarity with God, even to the comparison of our relationship with him to the intimate relationship shared between spouses (hence the multiple references to God as the bridegroom and the Church as the bride).

While I respect your belief, to practice it myself seems to me somewhat revolting and sheer lunacy. For me it would be like holding my ultimate ancestor in higher esteem than my own father.

Mormonism, is, in the end, a religion of the family, for the family. It is based on, and ultimately exalts the formation and strengthening of familial relationships, both with Deity and among our own family. The more I study sacred texts, both inside and outside the standard works, the more I study science and the cosmos, the more I study my family and friends and the more I study myself the more I realize that our ultimate happiness in this life and in the next is predicated on the ultimate intimacy of souls with knowledge, emotion and each other. It is the steady breaking down of mystery rather than the creation of it.

In fine, my God is a god with body, parts and passions.

[Damien the Leper]

What I mean is that the Son is not in any way shape or form a created being. He is coequal and co- eternal with the Father and the Spirit who are one God.

[Darren10]

Precisely. And that's that the problem. God the Father is just one of us.

Absolutely not. At least not in LDs theology. While we of the LDS faith do believe that man and God are of the same substance called 'intelligence", God the Father is NOT "just one of us". Here are a couple of scriptural passages regarding the doctrines I'm speaking about:

...if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

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.

Abraham 3:18-19.

Here man learns that he is an intelligence like God but God is the greatest intelligence. In fact, he is the greatest intelligence "than they all".

In verses 22-25 we read:

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

Here we read that God created us not ex nihilo but via ex materia (which you'll stilll find taught amongst certain Orthodox Jews to my understanding) and that man is subject to God's will. Such is the design and purpose of mortality. We also read one intelligence stood "like unto God" and that wouldf be Jehovah who in LDS thinking is Jesus Christ. Thus Jesus Christ stands greater than all man and things while God the Father stands above all.

Cross reference this with Nephi's great vision in 1 Nephi 11:6:

6 And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God; for he is God over all the earth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou believest in the Son of the most high God; wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired.

Here the Father is declared as the "most high God" and that Nephi's faith (as should all ours) be placed on Jesus Christ as "Son of the most high God".

In LDS theology, the Father and the Son are above all and the Father is literally above all else. This is a far cry from declaring that God the Father is "just one of us". In my view, this unique aspect of LDS theology best explains why Judaic and Christian scriptures (which the LDS uses as I'm sure you know) call man "gods". It does so in Psalms 82 qualifying them as gods for being sons of the most high God and jesus Himself reiterates this fact in John 10 within the context that even the unbelievers are gods for they are sons of the most high God.

By separating God's material ("immaterial") from man's material astrays man from his true nature. Decalring the materials of God the Father and the Son as the same as man's or rather, that man was created with the same material which God's exists does not at all diminish God but rather clarifies the purpose of mortality better than any other theology out there.

It doesn't matter that he "organized matter and the intelligences": if God the Father did not create them, did not Cause Existence In The First Place, then GtF is not "God" he's just A god;

As shown, god the Father is the most high God above all. That's not saying little about Him. In fact, this exalts God far above man. All of this returns us to my previous post. You are essentially arguing that we must worship God as the ex nihilo Creator for an ex nihilo Creator is greater than an ex materia Creator. This, Questing Beast, is why threw out a question used to argue for Deism. Who is the greater creator, he whose creatures need to depend on the creator to grow (can't solve their own problems) or he whose creatures may grom independent of their creator (can and do solve their own problems)? The answer is clearly the latter yet you and I know full well that we *must* depend on the Creator to grow. While in this sense Deism is philosophically sound, it is doctrinally flawed. Likewise, those who reason ex nihilo do so with absolutely no biblical obligation to believe in an ex nihilo creation. By absolutely rejecting ex materia you're essentially adding new doctrines to the Bible.

and so am I and you and every other sapient being.

As shown above that is bibically true.

If I am capable of being somewhat ungrateful for being a corporeal being, and a spirit being before that, to the point that I want to bypass GtF and worship the Cause of all our Existence instead of "Daddy in Heaven", how is this wrong? Does GtF worship his Father? I seriously doubt it.

Huh? Who knows if God the Father even has a Father? Nobody knows that and since you're somebody, how can you?

Does GtF not worship anybody or anything? I seriously doubt it.

Not according to any LDS doctine I know of. This includes theStandard Works, messages from the First Presidency, and the temple account of the creation. According to these doctrines, God the Father *IS* the first of all creations.

All in all I think you've severly gone down a path of reasoning which neither you nor I are qualified to understand. I highly doubt anyone understands what exactly is "the beginning" though doctrinally-speaking (LDS doctines) it clearly begins with God the Father. And we learn of the Father primarily through learning of the Son. We keep our faith centered on Him, not on obscured philosophical reasoning.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

I'm not of the opinion that Arianism, Tritheism, and Modalism are "sound doctrine". From Genesis to Revelation, a One God is repetitiously and resoundingly proclaimed and reaffirmed.

Also in the Book of Mormon.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/11.44?lang=eng#43

http://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query="one+god"&collection=scriptures&testament=Book+of+Mormon

[Darren10]

What I mean is that the Son is not in any way shape or form a created being. He is coequal and co- eternal with the Father and the Spirit who are one God.

That's what the creeds say definitively, not the scriptures.

[Damien the Leper]

That's what the creeds say definitively, not the scriptures.

Then I guess you aren't reading the Bible that proclaims one God. Unless you might be trying to be coy and referring to the Virgin Birth.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Valentinus

[Darren10]

Valentinus;

Again I've no idea what your reasoning is. The Bible speaks of one the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost God as does the Book of Mormon. It is not the Bbile, nor the Book of Mormon which obligates people to believe that this means there is only one numeric God. Rather, it is the post biblical creeds which declares there to be only one numeric God. There is no ancient scripture (nor moder for that matter) which declares God numerically one.

And I've no idea what you mean about being coy nor me refering to the virgin birth. Being coy is hardly a traite which you or anyone else here could place upon me based on anything I've posted on this forum, nor did I refer to in any way the virgin birth. Heck, that wasn't even on my mind until you mentioned it.

[Darren10]

Rats, I think the software for this forum cut short my link to the Book of Mormon referencing "one god". So instead of connecting to my advanced search, it only connects to an open search. Phooey.

[Damien the Leper]

Deuteronomy 4: 35, 39

Isaiah 43:10, 44:6-8

Psalm 90:2

John 8:58

John 1:1

John 14-16

[Damien the Leper]

Foundational Truths:

1) There is ONLY one God

2) There as are 3 distinct Persons called God

3) Those 3 Persons are co-equal and co- eternal

Edited January 3, 2013 by Valentinus

[Questing Beast]

Then define worship. ...

If you KNEW your "ultimate ancestor" why would s/he not hold an ultimate place of veneration? Your own Father would certainly venerate him/her above his own immediate "parents". In your illustration you tacitly accept that knowing our "ultimate ancestor" is impossible, so let's settle on GtF instead, since he's here for us to worship. I can't buy that. If GtF is "all knowing" then the Necessary Cause is intimately known by, and worshiped by, GtF, and by all of Joseph Smith's other "Gods" going back "forever".

Worship as veneration is fine; as long as the object/person of our worship is kept in place: i.e. there are levels of worship. I am sure that I venerate God the Father. But it can't be the same thing as seeking intimate knowledge of the Necessary Cause. If the NC is manifesting as GtF, then Joseph Smith got that part wrong, didn't he? Because he said that GtF Is the only God of creation, and yet he also said that GtF is a glorified man, or at least Is a Man of flesh and bones as we are; implying a state of being and progression similar to ours as "children". That is why GtF is one of us and not the Cause Of Existence In The First Place: which Cause, imho, ought to be the ultimate source of worship, not any lesser gods....

[ERayR]

Foundational Truths:

1) There is ONLY one God

2) There as are 3 distinct Persons called God

3) Those 3 Persons are co-equal and co- eternal

Valentinus this bullet point summary could well be used o summarize LDS beliefs of God. On its surface there is nothing any Mormon could or would argue with. The discrepancies and confusion comes when you start defining who/what God is. Will you please post your definition of who/what God is?

[Questing Beast]

...

All in all I think you've severly gone down a path of reasoning which neither you nor I are qualified to understand. I highly doubt anyone understands what exactly is "the beginning" though doctrinally-speaking (LDS doctines) it clearly begins with God the Father. And we learn of the Father primarily through learning of the Son. We keep our faith centered on Him, not on obscured philosophical reasoning.

"God" can qualify anything. As my thinking continues to seek out "God" it does not seem invalid to ask these kinds of questions.

Mormonism is the product of Joseph Smith's religious questions having (tentative) answers applied to them. Compare Lectures on Faith with his theology of 1843 and the progression of his theological pondering is instructive. This is not "line upon line, precept upon precept", it is "this line and precept have replaced the earlier line and precept". There is no way that directly contradictory and mutually exclusive statements defining "Godhead" can be kept together: 1843 replaced 1835; yet 1835 was kept around as contradictory "canon" until 1921 (when Lectures was quietly dropped from the scriptures).

If GtF is the most intelligent being we know of, even as asserted, "more intelligent than they/we all" (I assume, combined intellect is being spoken of here), that still does not answer the ultimate question, "why existence at all instead of nothing?" Some uncaused Cause is responsible for the existence of eternal matter and intelligence. As intelligence cannot be a trait not possessed by the Necessary Cause, it follows that that intelligence trumps GtF's intelligence, even if his intelligence is greater than the combined total of our intelligences. So why would GtF not revere the NC above all other intelligence? That is all I am asking to do: I don't want to pray to a lesser god; I want to know and pray directly to THE "God"....

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus this bullet point summary could well be used o summarize LDS beliefs of God. On its surface there is nothing any Mormon could or would argue with. The discrepancies and confusion comes when you start defining who/what God is. Will you please post your definition of who/what God is?

First, #2 doesn't allude to the fallacy of 3 beings, 1 god(head). In fact, the 3 points reject Modalism, Arianism and Tritheism.

For me, God is not created or an exalted being. He has been God from eternity to eternity. Because God is love (1 John), He created humans because without an object to love and be loved by then love would not exist.

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus;

Again I've no idea what your reasoning is. The Bible speaks of one the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost God as does the Book of Mormon. It is not the Bbile, nor the Book of Mormon which obligates people to believe that this means there is only one numeric God. Rather, it is the post biblical creeds which declares there to be only one numeric God. There is no ancient scripture (nor moder for that matter) which declares God numerically one.

And I've no idea what you mean about being coy nor me refering to the virgin birth. Being coy is hardly a traite which you or anyone else here could place upon me based on anything I've posted on this forum, nor did I refer to in any way the virgin birth. Heck, that wasn't even on my mind until you mentioned it.

Also, Jesus' baptism in Luke doesn't allude to a Tritheism.

[ChristKnight]

First, #2 doesn't allude to the fallacy of 3 beings, 1 god(head). In fact, the 3 points reject Modalism, Arianism and Tritheism.

What is the difference between three "beings" and three "persons"? What is "being" referring to, and what is "person" referring to, and where, if anywhere, are these concepts taught in the Bible (if you believe such concepts are Biblical)?

[3DOP]

What is the difference between three "beings" and three "persons"? What is "being" referring to, and what is "person" referring to, and where, if anywhere, are these concepts taught in the Bible (if you believe such concepts are Biblical)?

In credal formulae, every single thing is not a being. Being refers to a unified nature. That is why in biology we reproduce "after our kind" according to our natures. It isn't a new kind of nature that comes into existence in biological reproduction. The same one nature is always reproduced in a different animal, plant or person. If Jesus is truly the Son, we HAVE to insist that He has the Father's being, the one divine nature. Otherwise his sonship to the Father is less authentic than that which holds in biology.

We can see very clearly the difference between being and person when we move away from the creeds relating to the divine nature and look at the Council of Chalcedon. The same formula is used to show Christ's unity with man through human nature. They even use the word translated consubstantial. Jesus is consubstantial with us through his humanity. One nature/being can be human, divine or angelic, with multiple persons.

Of course this is repetitious, but its a New Year so...there goes. Have at it.

3DOP

[ChristKnight]

In credal formulae, every single thing is not a being. Being refers to a unified nature. That is why in biology we reproduce "after our kind" according to our natures. It isn't a new kind of nature that comes into existence in biological reproduction. The same one nature is always reproduced in a different animal, plant or person. If Jesus is truly the Son, we HAVE to insist that He has the Father's being, the one divine nature. Otherwise his sonship to the Father is less authentic than that which holds in biology.

We can see very clearly the difference between being and person when we move away from the creeds relating to the divine nature and look at the Council of Chalcedon. The same formula is used to show Christ's unity with man through human nature. They even use the word translated consubstantial. Jesus is consubstantial with us through his humanity. One nature/being can be human, divine or angelic, with multiple persons.

Of course this is repetitious, but its a New Year so...there goes. Have at it.

3DOP

So "being" refers to "nature"? So when it is said that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one Being" or "of one being", that means they are of the same [divine] nature?

If so, would this be the same as saying that there is one human nature? Would it be analogous to the statement that Christ is consubstantial with the Father in His divinity, and consubstantial with us in His humanity? If so, how do you view that in relation to the difference between the LDS view of the Godhead and the traditional Trinity?

[halconero]

If you KNEW your "ultimate ancestor" why would s/he not hold an ultimate place of veneration? Your own Father would certainly venerate him/her above his own immediate "parents". In your illustration you tacitly accept that knowing our "ultimate ancestor" is impossible, so let's settle on GtF instead, since he's here for us to worship. I can't buy that. If GtF is "all knowing" then the Necessary Cause is intimately known by, and worshiped by, GtF, and by all of Joseph Smith's other "Gods" going back "forever".

Worship as veneration is fine; as long as the object/person of our worship is kept in place: i.e. there are levels of worship. I am sure that I venerate God the Father. But it can't be the same thing as seeking intimate knowledge of the Necessary Cause. If the NC is manifesting as GtF, then Joseph Smith got that part wrong, didn't he? Because he said that GtF Is the only God of creation, and yet he also said that GtF is a glorified man, or at least Is a Man of flesh and bones as we are; implying a state of being and progression similar to ours as "children". That is why GtF is one of us and not the Cause Of Existence In The First Place: which Cause, imho, ought to be the ultimate source of worship, not any lesser gods....

At one point did I say it was impossible? I believe that it's entirely possible to know one's "ultimate ancestor." That's not my point.

My point is that even if there is a "Necessary Cause" that does not necessarily mean that I must worship it/him/her more than my Father. I believe that worship of my "Immediate Cause" is much more important.

I have a much stronger relationship with my parents than my grandparents. I was raised by my parents, nourished by them, taught by them in a way that I wasn't by my grandparents. I love my grandparents, revere them and seek counsel from them, and heck, if Heavenly Father has a Father (which I personally believe he does, but such is not official doctrine of the Church) maybe I'll have the same relationship with Him.

There is also no fundamental law saying that something which is created (theologically speaking Mormons would say "organized") is lesser than the thing that created it. It cannot be greater, but it most certainly doesn't have to be lesser.

I think where our opinions fundamentally differ is the view of an anthropomorphic deity. I don't want to put words into your mouth so correct me if I'm wrong.

[3DOP]

Of course they are biblical concepts. The words are not present because of the way the Scriptures were written my multiple authors over centuries in everyday language. But there is nothing sinister about using philosophical terms, and even coining a vocabulary. That is what we do when we want precision in any field. Theology is the ultimate science. Do we dismiss other sciences because the use words and phrases not common outside the discipline? Why do we make new words to describe physical creation? You don't find those words except in texts and journals that are understood by those with a mind to study. Same thing here.