Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 That should be evident within my post. Darren is stretching the definition of one to advance a certain argument. I don't accept monolatry or henotheism to be accurate. It is odd that some may conflate God with godhead. They are not synonymous.Elohiem or Elohim means God of gods...In the beginning Elohiem created the heaven and the earth. It is the opening of all known scripture, we are just taught saying so is a sin.
Bart Burk Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 I guess I don't know what you mean by "Heavenly Mother" than. If she was mortal, what makes her heavenly (divine)? And if she was heavenly, what made Christ able to succumb to mortality if both of his parents were divinely immortal? She had no claim to divine parentage as Jesus.I guess I don't know what you mean by "Heavenly Mother" than. If she was mortal, what makes her heavenly (divine)? And if she was heavenly, what made Christ able to succumb to mortality if both of his parents were divinely immortal? She had no claim to divine parentage as Jesus.She could have reached a level of perfection in the pre-existence that would have allowed her to assist in creating spirit children. Mormons do not claim to have a knowledge of how spirit children were organized from pre-existent matter. Jesus was involved in creation before he obtained a body. It would be possible for anyone to have been involved in creation the way that Mormons view pre-existence. Perhaps we all cooperated someway in creation in the context of Mormon doctrine. Christ's birth to a virgin was a unique sign of his divinity. There is no reason Mary couldn't have been born to two earthly parents and still be divine because in Mormonism God and human beings are of the same species anyway. As a Catholic these ideas don't make much sense to me, but a Mormon could easily speculate in this direction. For Catholics Mary is called Heavenly Mother because as the Mother of Christ she is the mother of the Church who resides in heaven. Pre-existence is not a Catholic belief.
Damien the Leper Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Elohiem or Elohim means God of gods...In the beginning Elohiem created the heaven and the earth. It is the opening of all known scripture, we are just taught saying so is a sin.Keep in mind that Jacob made El Elyon his Elohim. What that means is that Jacob was forsaking any and all other gods. He was essentially declaring a monotheism.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Keep in mind that Jacob made El Elyon his Elohim. What that means is that Jacob was forsaking any and all other gods. He was essentially declaring a monotheism.I understand, I am a father and a grandfather, although there are many others, I am the only father (and Pa Pa ) to my children and to my grandchildren. They can acknowledge the existence of others without disrespect to me, calling someone else father (with the exception of my daughter-in-law and son-in-law) would be a sin.
ERayR Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 But when scripture says ONE GOD and reaffirms it, there isn't an allusion to other gods as part of some pantheon. I have to reject such notions because I don't see Biblical evidence for it.Quoting the Book of Mormon to me isn't going to hold water because I don't recognize it as scripture. However, if you could provide a Biblical response that would suggest as you quote then I would be willing to consider the argument.That is why one needs to have an understanding of what is meant by God. So far I have not seen any one giving a cogent description of "God". 1
Questing Beast Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 ...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.There is no way that a finite being can be equal to an Infinite Being. No matter how "godlike" the finite being is the Infinite Cause is greater. Even allowing that God the Father Is God the Cause of Existence only manifesting in flesh and bones, that manifestation is only that: not the entire Being of the Necessary Cause: GtF resides within space-time as we do. He says that "all things are before my face continually" (words to that effect), and that there is not anything that he does not know the end from the beginning. But that is still a finite being speaking; encased in flesh and bones as we all are. LDS theology places us as equally immortal with GtF and the Son. The universe itself is immortal, but existing from moment to moment. When GtF says that he knows all things and the end from the beginning this knowledge would come from outside of space-time, i.e. from the Necessary Cause. That would mean that the greater perspective of Existence is transferring that perspective to a manifestation within space-time: the greater is in contact with the lesser as needed or desired.So yes, I do have a problem with anthropomorphic deities. "God" manifesting as one of us to engage intimately with us is a concept worthy of ultimate worship. I am not interested in worshiping the manifestation, but the Cause behind it....
Damien the Leper Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 I understand, I am a father and a grandfather, although there are many others, I am the only father (and Pa Pa ) to my children and to my grandchildren. They can acknowledge the existence of others without disrespect to me, calling someone else father (with the exception of my daughter-in-law and son-in-law) would be a sin.That is not the same. Jacob was condemning the belief and worship of other gods (pagan or otherwise) by Israel. There is no reason to suggest that Jacob believed in some eternal lineage. That would be presumptuous.
Damien the Leper Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 That is why one needs to have an understanding of what is meant by God. So far I have not seen any one giving a cogent description of "God".The Bible has clearly defined who and what God is. That is good enough for me.
Questing Beast Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 you're arguing the unmoved mover which is also a philosophical argument used for Deism. I think you've made philosophy your doctrine which i find unfortunate and I think will cause to never find answers regarding God. According to LDS doctrines, God the Father is the first of all things, period. Regardless of what were discussed or declared in Lectures of Faith, the doctrines still stand.As I have never studied philosophy I can't very well be going after "them". I suppose it is possible to "reinvent the wheel" endless times. But if that occurs, wouldn't it be evidence of a universal truth? A wheel no matter how many times invented afresh is always a wheel and functions as such. A correct philosophy, regardless of incorrect uses made from it, remains a correct philosophy no matter how many times it is "invented" afresh by separated minds.It makes no difference what assertions "LDS doctrine" makes. If the questions raised by such assertions are unanswerable then the doctrine is incomplete or even flawed. Where I find LDS theology flawed and incomplete is Joseph Smith's last declarations about "God" in the Book of Abraham and D&C 130:22, which is directly related to what he said vis-a-vis the King Follett sermon: God is a glorified man who has attained his kingdom. Brigham Young said that God the Father is the only God with which we have to do; and he and the other early GAs taught the multiplicity of gods doctrine and asserted that we who pass through the temple ordinances worthily are being added to that endless "chain" of connections to all the gods. The doctrine utterly ignores the ultimate question of "why existence instead of nothing?" So GtF cannot possibly be "the first of all things": at most that assertion is contextual to this universe only....
Sky Posted January 4, 2013 Author Posted January 4, 2013 The Trinity is apprehendable but incomprehensible. There is only one God. Remember, this is about Him and not us. The more we try to make God like us the further away we get from truly understanding Him.I hope to not misrepresent your position, but I think it's actually the opposite - the more we try to make God dissimilar to us (or more abstract), the less likely we are to truly understand Him. If human beings are the spirit children of our Heavenly Father (Elohim), and created in His image, as LDS doctrine teaches, then God must be kind of like us, don't you think? Wouldn't knowing this be an important first step to reaching a better understanding? It doesn't have to be incomprehensible. That is one of the problems with the post-Biblical creeds.Which is easier to understand - the Trinity being three persons in one substance, or the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being three separate personages united in a single purpose (to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man)? I'll go with the latter. The Scriptures say in John 17: 3: And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent.Then there is 3rd Nephi 27:27: What manner of men (and women) ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am. But since you won't accept anything from the Book of Mormon, there is John 5:48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.My point in sharing these scriptures is that they all seem to discredit the idea of a distant, abstract, incomprehensible, not-like-us God.
Questing Beast Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Becsue there is an opposition in all things.Do you see what you are asserting? You are admitting that non existence is real, because existence is real. Actually I agree with you: but that is not any part of Mormon doctrine....
Questing Beast Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 ...I say worship the father with all your heart and soul and answers to His nature will come. They will come in the lord's own time and not necessarily during this mortal life.I agree. And my love for God is not a worry of mine. It is a question but only one of many. "Worship" is a problematic word. I can have respect for and affection for and gratitude for GtF and the Son without blocking out all my questions about how they got to be in the positions of "godhood" that they occupy. If I can think it makes no sense to tell myself to stop thinking, or to put it off till later....
Damien the Leper Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) I hope to not misrepresent your position, but I think it's actually the opposite - the more we try to make God dissimilar to us (or more abstract), the less likely we are to truly understand Him. If human beings are the spirit children of our Heavenly Father (Elohim), and created in His image, as LDS doctrine teaches, then God must be kind of like us, don't you think? Wouldn't knowing this be an important first step to reaching a better understanding? It doesn't have to be incomprehensible. That is one of the problems with the post-Biblical creeds.Which is easier to understand - the Trinity being three persons in one substance, or the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being three separate personages united in a single purpose (to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man)? I'll go with the latter. The Scriptures say in John 17: 3: And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent.Then there is 3rd Nephi 27:27: What manner of men (and women) ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am. But since you won't accept anything from the Book of Mormon, there is John 5:48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.My point in sharing these scriptures is that they all seem to discredit the idea of a distant, abstract, incomprehensible, not-like-us God.But no one is claiming that he is a distant God.The Bible isn't saying what you seem to be suggesting. Edited January 4, 2013 by Valentinus
Sky Posted January 4, 2013 Author Posted January 4, 2013 But no one is claiming that he is a distant God.The Bible isn't saying what you seemTo be suggesting.I was pointing out that the post-Biblical creeds say that God, or the Trinity, is incomprehensible, and therefore distant and abstract. And the scriptural passages that I shared seem to contradict this. I thought I made this clear. 1
Darren10 Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 I agree. And my love for God is not a worry of mine. It is a question but only one of many. "Worship" is a problematic word. I can have respect for and affection for and gratitude for GtF and the Son without blocking out all my questions about how they got to be in the positions of "godhood" that they occupy. If I can think it makes no sense to tell myself to stop thinking, or to put it off till later....Here's another good scripture for you. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.John 17:3http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/17?lang=eng&query=life+eternal#There's no mention anywhere in scripture to worsh any being / person beyond the Father. The Father IS the beginning and since all is for His work and glory He is also the end as the great mediator between ,an and the Father, Jesus is also the beginning and the end. Worshipping the Father through the son is true worship. There is nothing beyond it. Attempting to identify some for, of divine beyond the Father is way beyond anyone to comprehend; even if there is something (which I am fully open to accept if there is something). I think that your attempts to worship something beyond the Father is impossible to do true worship is to worship The Father through the Son.
pogi Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 The Bible has clearly defined who and what God is. That is good enough for me.I trust that we have both read the Bible Valentius. All Christian sects read and believe in the Bible, yet none of us can agree on who and what God is. Doesn't seem to be very clear after all.God is not clearly defined in scripture, nor can he be written in word.
Darren10 Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 But no one is claiming that he is a distant God. The Bible isn't saying what you seemTo be suggesting. Exactly. As Sky points out, it is the trinitarian creeds which very much distances God from man; not the Bible. More in a bit when I can get onto my computer.
Damien the Leper Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 I was pointing out that the post-Biblical creeds say that God, or the Trinity, is incomprehensible, and therefore distant and abstract. And the scriptural passages that I shared seem to contradict this. I thought I made this clear.But the Trinity is apprehendable. Scripture proclaims one God and makes clear who and what God is. The creeds reaffirm what scripture says.
Damien the Leper Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Exactly. As Sky points out, it is the trinitarian creeds which very much distances God from man; not the Bible. More in a bit when I can get onto my computer.Then provide scriptural evidence that proves a tritheistic perspective. If you read the scripture citations I provided before, you'll realize that there isn't any sub- conditional statements such as "except for other creator God's of other planes of existence". That would be a severely reaching and unbiblical assumption.
pogi Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) Then provide scriptural evidence that proves a tritheistic perspective. If you read the scripture citations I provided before, you'll realize that there isn't any sub- conditional statements such as "except for other creator God's of other planes of existence". That would be a severely reaching and unbiblical assumption.Are the saints who are commanded to be one, one saint or multiple? Edited January 4, 2013 by pogi
Damien the Leper Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 I trust that we have both read the Bible Valentius. All Christian sects read and believe in the Bible, yet none of us can agree on who and what God is. Doesn't seem to be very clear after all.God is not clearly defined in scripture, nor can he be written in word.No. Jehovah's Witnesses subscribe to the Arian heresy. LDS adhere to a Tritheistic model. Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Orthodox, Coptic, Reformed all believe in a Triune God.
Damien the Leper Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Are the saints who are commanded to be one, one saint or multiple?You're conflating the numeric and unity understandings of one.
Damien the Leper Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) http://youtube.com...h?v=ZOwjvILiSms Edited January 4, 2013 by Valentinus
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 That is not the same. Jacob was condemning the belief and worship of other gods (pagan or otherwise) by Israel. There is no reason to suggest that Jacob believed in some eternal lineage. That would be presumptuous.And we do not worship other Gods, just acknowledge the possible existence of others...we would need their names to worship them.
pogi Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) You're conflating the numeric and unity understandings of one.Are you sure that you are not confusing the numeric and unity understandings of one? We are commanded to be one AS they are one.In fact Paul went as far as to say: "So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another"(Romans 12:5). Kinda sounds like your idea of the trinity, many personages in one being.Numerically speaking, we are one body in Christ? Hmmm... Edited January 4, 2013 by pogi 1
Recommended Posts