Orson Pratt On The Oneness Of God

[wayfarer]

I have a feeling the LDS Church as an institution would be very uncomfortable with preaching anything about God beyond Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And I'm not sure in this day and age the LDS Church would want its members speculating about anything beyond Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I don't think they would want the members to go beyond the lesson manual. I believe that's a good thing.

To be clear, yes -- Members of the church are not to preach or teach in a church setting anything beyond current Doctrine as reflected in the lesson manuals. Always a good reminder on a thread that is not at all about what we currently teach, but rather, how Orson Pratt's discourse on the oneness of god fits into a theological (philosophical) framework about mormonism -- something we don't discuss in a church setting -- and yes, that is a good thing.

As for "I don't think they would want members to go beyond the lesson manual" -- This would not be in harmony with the Book of Mormon, Alma 12:9-10, which states:

...It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and

he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full

.

(Alma 12:9-10)

"the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men" -- "the lesser portion of the word" -- these are the current teachings of the Church. The term "Doctrine" is "what is taught", and therefore, Church Doctrine is what the church teaches.

we are not talking about "Church Doctrine" here. We are discussing theology -- a philosophical framework for understanding the ontology of God, with the treatise by Orson Pratt as a starting point. We are entitled as LDS to seek an understanding of the greater mysteries this offers, provided we don't harden our hearts to them.

Is there any mystery of God greater than the very nature and ontology of God? Joseph felt it important enough to dedicated two of his last sermons to the topic. Brigham Young declared that it was critical that LDS accepted Adam as God. Joseph and Brigham's viewpoints differed, but not their encouragement of saints to seek an understanding for themselves of God's very nature.

[Ahab]

Is there any mystery of God greater than the very nature and ontology of God?

Actually, it's very sad that to some people that is a mystery at all. It should be known to all, from the least to the greatest, but Satan is hard at work trying to keep all people from knowing even that very basic information. To some it seems like "deep" doctrine, and I suppose in a sense it is because it is as fundamental as the foundation of any teachings of or about God. But it isn't meant to be a mystery. Our Father wants us to know him, and knowing the kind of being he is helps us to know how we can approach him and learn from him to become more and more like him. That's what "worship" is all about, ya know. It's about emulating the object of our worship so that we can have as much of that in us as is possible, as we become more and more like him.

Joseph felt it important enough to dedicated two of his last sermons to the topic. Brigham Young declared that it was critical that LDS accepted Adam as God. Joseph and Brigham's viewpoints differed, but not their encouragement of saints to seek an understanding for themselves of God's very nature.

Adam is God but not the same person as our Eternal Father in heaven, aka Elohim. Adam was named Michael in his premortal state, and we now use the name Elohim to distinguish our Eternal Father from Adam. We should all know how we came from Adam, as his children, even though Adam was also a child of our Eternal Father. It's very very basic information that all of us should know.

[Bart Burk]

I guess if I were a non-member without any knowledge of Mormonism, and I wound up here through a Google search, this entire discussion might turn me away from Mormonism altogether since it brings up more questions than answers.

[wayfarer]

If you really would analyze it you would find that we disagree on almost nothing except your self-identification as "middle way".

And we've agreed to disagree on the latter point, deferring that discussion to a diet coke session...

I would not find any discussion of universal attributes useful for anything, except as used in this sentence. How would one know if any of these kinds of propositions were true? The very notion that anything has "universal attributes" is found only in Neoplatonism.

Yes I know. And while we tend to reject neoplatonism (or at least I do), I see that Orson Pratt more or less went there, without actually using the term "universal". (iirc).

But that a given concept is (1) only found in one place, and (2) that place isn't the most reliable, does not necessarily mean that we should summarily reject the concept. I do not tend to use universals at all -- having no substance nor actually embodying any law, the universal is not very useful. I see another model at play, which I will get to below. I would disagree that the concept of universals or universal attributes is only found in neoplatonism. In Mingxia -- the "School of names" (ancient chineses semantic philosophy), the phrase "the white horse is not a horse" has everything to do with whether the instance of a white horse, having both the attributes of "white" and "horse" cannot be equivalent (exactly and reflexively the same) to the universal 'horse'. This doesn't translate well, because the words actually are "白马非马 - bai ma fei ma": "white horse not horse", with an implicit 'is' indicating ontological equivalance or congruence, and no article in front of the second horse.

I've always thought that the mingxia semantic word games were a bit obtuse.

If you get spiritual confirmations of such ideas, and they make your life better, then I have no problem with them. How's that for a smart-aleck answer?

No issues or worries there. But there is something to these statements. Something more significant and profound, that to me, explains much of what we struggle with in this world. Suspending disbelief for a moment, let's explore some premises:

1. The "power of god" precedes the "being of God". That is to say that the Power of God has always existed -- it is eternal, unchangeable, omnipotent.

2. A God is a being who possesses the "power of God".

3. Multiple beings who possess the "power of God" must operate in unity of mind and purpose -- there cannot be competition amongst those possessing the power of god.

So, what do these premises do for me? As Christians, and mostly as LDS, we believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are gods, fully and completely. For the most part we will agree that all three gods are equal, but more importantly, we say that they are one in mind and purpose. There is no competition or dissention amongst them. Premise 3 is accurate and in harmony with LDS standard Church Doctrine and gospel teachings.

Premise 2 is completely definitional. A being who possess the power of god must be god.

As for Premise 1 -- the most important, it's not as clear that we discuss this within current church doctrine. There are two evidences of this:

a) God the Father was once a "Man" - "like us". Was there a god before him? Unclear. Speculative. Unknown. But we do know that he wasn't god and now he is god.

b) Jesus, prior to this life, did not have a physical body (mortal or exalted). at some point, Jesus became god in some way as a premortal spirit. we don't know when, but we can say that the power of god preceded the existence of Jesus in the state of being god.

So, when we look at these three premises, where do we get to?

1. If the power of God, as per Section 88, is all the laws and tendencies of the universe: the Way things work. Or, for short, "The Way". It is the "intelligent design" of the universe. Those things that work in harmony with the laws and tendencies of the universe tend to live and thrive. Things that work against the Way tend to fail and die.

2. A God, as a possesser of the power of God, is in perfect harmony with the Way.

3. A God, need not always have been god in time. Thus, Elohim, could have once been a mortal man, but having become exalted, and called to the Calling of God the Father, he "became" God Most High, at least to our point of view.

4. Jesus became "A God" after God the Father per our Doctrine. We aren't sure when.

5. For reasons I cannot explain, once a being becomes a God, possessor of the Power of God, he can claim the full heritage of "God" from beginning of time to the end, from eternity to eternity. Thus, God the Father is god from everlasting to everlasting. Jesus Christ is God the Son from everlasting to everlasting. This may be justified in the notion that "eternal" is a name of god, therefore "eternal life" is the life God lives.

6. Jesus and the Psalmist referred to humans, in some special way, as being Gods, with the qualifier as they were they to whom the Word of God came. See Psalms 82 and John 10. In Psalm 82:6-7, it says, "Ye are gods, and all of you are children of God most high, but ye shall die like men". Evidently this indicates that in some way, mortal men can become, temporarily "a God". Using the rules above, this would mean that at such a moment, the Man is at one with the Power of God -- in perfect harmony with the Way.

7. Jesus equated himself with "The Way". This is no different than saying that he possesses the power of god and therefore is God.

Thoughts?

Edited February 22, 2013 by wayfarer

[wayfarer]

I guess if I were a non-member without any knowledge of Mormonism, and I wound up here through a Google search, this entire discussion might turn me away from Mormonism altogether since it brings up more questions than answers.

Perhaps. But for others it may resonate. Theology is not what we teach -- any church teaches -- in sunday school. If you have questions, then ask the questions.

[wayfarer]

Adam is God but not the same person as our Eternal Father in heaven, aka Elohim. Adam was named Michael in his premortal state, and we now use the name Elohim to distinguish our Eternal Father from Adam. We should all know how we came from Adam, as his children, even though Adam was also a child of our Eternal Father. It's very very basic information that all of us should know.

I would agree that Adam is God in some material way. But when we go to standard LDS doctrine of "what is taught" in light of the Wentworth letter (Article of Faith 1), we're somewhat constrained as to who we refer to as "God" in the standard definition of things. Adam doesn't fit into the Godhead, at least by any current understanding thereof. It's like an extra counselor in the first presidency of the heavens...where does he fit?

So yes, Adam is (likely) a God, and Adam is our (gggg+) Father. He is a Father God, but never "God the Father". If we're limited to the triune god, then the doctrine doesn't make sense. If we understand Orson Pratt, in my opinion, then it makes a whole lot of sense.

[Bart Burk]

Perhaps. But for others it may resonate. Theology is not what we teach -- any church teaches -- in sunday school. If you have questions, then ask the questions.

I suspect Prpotestants do teach theology in Sunday School. And we discussed theology when I was attending RCIA. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is fairly heavy on theology.

[Ahab]

I would agree that Adam is God in some material way. But when we go to standard LDS doctrine of "what is taught" in light of the Wentworth letter (Article of Faith 1), we're somewhat constrained as to who we refer to as "God" in the standard definition of things. Adam doesn't fit into the Godhead, at least by any current understanding thereof. It's like an extra counselor in the first presidency of the heavens...where does he fit?

He fits in as one of the many persons who is the same kind of being as those 3 you are referring to as the Godhead. It's not as if there are only 3 persons who are God... despite what people with false ideas of what God is will tell you. The word "God" can be used correctly in several ways and one of those ways is in reference to the kind of being our Father in heaven is. We are that kind of being, and so is Adam. And Adam stands at the head of his own family incluiding all of his children and grand children and great grandchildren and great... great grandchildren... as far as his lineage will go, forever and ever. He has that honor as our parent, along with his wife named Eve. It's not as if the only 3 God-persons who matter or make any difference are confined to those 3 persons you refer to as the Godhead. Are you getting the picture yet? We should know where we came from, and how Adam fits in the picture.

So yes, Adam is (likely) a God, and Adam is our (gggg+) Father. He is a Father God, but never "God the Father". If we're limited to the triune god, then the doctrine doesn't make sense. If we understand Orson Pratt, in my opinion, then it makes a whole lot of sense.

He is our Father, but not the Father of our spirits, because that was created by the person we refer to as our Eternal Father in heaven. And not from out of nothing, but from a part of himself, something like how mortal children are created from the elements in their parents, both male and female. Our spirit can undergo changes, though, and ni that sense we can all be born again, both in our spirit as well as our (other) physical body. It's a wonderful thing to be able to understand all of this, and how it all fits together, but this is all really just very basic information that should make as much sense to us as the birds and the bees. The point is to become as good as we can be while knowing what is possible for our kind of being.

[CV75]

How about the best in all of us? How about any good in any of us? If there is any good in us, we got it from God, or at least he helped us to develop it in us. Even if we don't realize it or think of it this way, when we see anything praise worthy in anyone, we are praising God for it because it is God working in us which makes us as good as we are, and were, and will be.

We still are not to worship it.

We are already "God" by virtue of beinge the same kind of being as our Father in heaven. You can use your little g if you want to, as if it makes any difference, but really it doesn't affect what we are and will be at all.

Being the same kind of being (why not just say offspring or children?) does not make us Gods.

Such silliness. Please excuse me for being frank and calling it as I see it.

ignorance is more like it, and I'll excuse that!

I always do, and I was telling the truth, which is the same truth you will hear from God on this issue.

ignorance is more like it, and I'll excuse that!

Well, I suppose I could do that, to some extent, but thenI'd be thinking of myself at my very best self in my ultimate state of existence while knowing I can someday be exactly like our Father in heaven. I'd still want to be careful to give the credit to our Father or Lord or the Holy Ghost for what he or they did, though.

That is not the same as actually being God.

Yes, I agree that we need some way to distinguish each person who is God from all the others persons who are God, too. We are all the same kind of being as he is, though, even if we're not all the same kinds of persons since some of us are good and others are evil.

But you said up above that even the evil people are God as well. Why distinguish if we are all God?

Enmeshed? What do you mean by that? You mean how our spirit can still be separated from our mortal body, while his body is no longer mortal and his spirit can never be separated from it? Yes, I can see that as a difference, but I prefer to think about how we are and can continue to be more and more like him.

By enmeshed, I mean entangled. Unable to distiguish between beings or between good and evil beings; after all, they are all one God and God is in them and vice-versa. By entangled I mean that good and evil are locked together as one God. Or that good and evil people are locked together as one God. Or that fallen beings and exalted beings are are locked together as one God. For example, your entire case.

[Ahab]

We still are not to worship it.

Then there would be an element of God we would not be worshipping. As Orson said, God is love, so when we love we are emulating (worshipping) God's love by loving whoever we love. It's not just a concept we are to adore, and it's not as if love resides only with God and extends to nobody else. When anyone loves, they are worshipping God, because God is love and he loves just as we do when we love others as he does.

Being the same kind of being (why not just say offspring or children?) does not make us Gods.

Yes it does, and for the record I'd rather say persons who are God rather than Gods.since I'm talking about the same kind of being.

ignorance is more like it, and I'll excuse that!

Heh, no, I know what I'm saying and I'll shooting it to you straight as can be.

That is not the same as actually being God.

When you said "God" then, where you thinking only of our Father in heaven, or were you extending that to any person who is the same kind of being he is?

But you said up above that even the evil people are God as well. Why distinguish if we are all God?

Because some of us are good and some of us are evil. We're all still the same kind of being as our Father in heaven, though.

By enmeshed, I mean entangled. Unable to distiguish between beings or between good and evil beings; after all, they are all one God and God is in them and vice-versa. By entangled I mean that good and evil are locked together as one God. Or that good and evil people are locked together as one God. Or that fallen beings and exalted beings are are locked together as one God. For example, your entire case.

But I can distinguish by discerning the different factors involved. We're all the same kind of being but we're not the same in every particular. Consider a spectrum of light to darkness with people at some point in the spectrum. Some are at the highest point in the spectrum and some are as dark as dark can get... and no I'm not referring to skin color or whether or not a person's spirit glows like a light bulb. The spectrum of light is in reference to intelligence, and while everyone in the spectrum is still the most supreme kind of intelligent being there is, there are some who are more intelligent than others of the same kind. Our Father in heaven and our Lord are now at the highest point in the spectrum, while Satan is now in ultimate darkness. We mortals on Earth now are still somewhere in the middle, either moving closer or further away from being like our Father in heaven.

[CV75]

When you said "God" then, where you thinking only of our Father in heaven, or were you extending that to any person who is the same kind of being he is?

Isn’t it obvious? This seems to be the focal point of your objections to my posts. When I use “God” in this thread, I do mean Heavenly Father in most cases, members of or the united Godhead in some cases, but in no case do I mean the whole mortal human family. One of the ways we worship Him is to do those things that allow us to become like Him, but those who become like Him do not increasingly worship themselves or each other. In fact, they only worship Him all the more. Like Jesus.

[mfbukowski]

And we've agreed to disagree on the latter point, deferring that discussion to a diet coke session...

Yes I know. And while we tend to reject neoplatonism (or at least I do), I see that Orson Pratt more or less went there, without actually using the term "universal". (iirc).

But that a given concept is (1) only found in one place, and (2) that place isn't the most reliable, does not necessarily mean that we should summarily reject the concept. I do not tend to use universals at all -- having no substance nor actually embodying any law, the universal is not very useful. I see another model at play, which I will get to below. I would disagree that the concept of universals or universal attributes is only found in neoplatonism. In Mingxia -- the "School of names" (ancient chineses semantic philosophy), the phrase "the white horse is not a horse" has everything to do with whether the instance of a white horse, having both the attributes of "white" and "horse" cannot be equivalent (exactly and reflexively the same) to the universal 'horse'. This doesn't translate well, because the words actually are "白马非马 - bai ma fei ma": "white horse not horse", with an implicit 'is' indicating ontological equivalance or congruence, and no article in front of the second horse.

I've always thought that the mingxia semantic word games were a bit obtuse.

No issues or worries there. But there is something to these statements. Something more significant and profound, that to me, explains much of what we struggle with in this world. Suspending disbelief for a moment, let's explore some premises:

1. The "power of god" precedes the "being of God". That is to say that the Power of God has always existed -- it is eternal, unchangeable, omnipotent.

2. A God is a being who possesses the "power of God".

3. Multiple beings who possess the "power of God" must operate in unity of mind and purpose -- there cannot be competition amongst those possessing the power of god.

So, what do these premises do for me? As Christians, and mostly as LDS, we believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are gods, fully and completely. For the most part we will agree that all three gods are equal, but more importantly, we say that they are one in mind and purpose. There is no competition or dissention amongst them. Premise 3 is accurate and in harmony with LDS standard Church Doctrine and gospel teachings.

Premise 2 is completely definitional. A being who possess the power of god must be god.

As for Premise 1 -- the most important, it's not as clear that we discuss this within current church doctrine. There are two evidences of this:

a) God the Father was once a "Man" - "like us". Was there a god before him? Unclear. Speculative. Unknown. But we do know that he wasn't god and now he is god.

b) Jesus, prior to this life, did not have a physical body (mortal or exalted). at some point, Jesus became god in some way as a premortal spirit. we don't know when, but we can say that the power of god preceded the existence of Jesus in the state of being god.

So, when we look at these three premises, where do we get to?

1. If the power of God, as per Section 88, is all the laws and tendencies of the universe: the Way things work. Or, for short, "The Way". It is the "intelligent design" of the universe. Those things that work in harmony with the laws and tendencies of the universe tend to live and thrive. Things that work against the Way tend to fail and die.

Those things that work in harmony with the laws and tendencies of the universe tend to live and thrive. Things that work against the Way tend to fail and die.

I agree with that, but I do not see it as at all mysterious- in fact Darwinian evolution could be described in the same way. Organisms which adapt to their environments, "work in harmony with the laws and tendencies of the universe" so it is not surprising that they "tend to live and thrive"

If you have not read the Didache, I suggest you do so, because this really places these concepts in early Christianity- it speaks of the Way of Life and the Way of Death in much of the same way you have here. To me this is a most remarkable vindication of Joseph's Restoration- to understand that these concepts unquestionably existed in Early Chistianity.

2. A God, as a possesser of the power of God, is in perfect harmony with the Way.

God either inherits the laws or creates them for himself- and then lives in harmony with them. To cease to follow these laws would be a contrdiction and so he would cease to be God

3. A God, need not always have been god in time. Thus, Elohim, could have once been a mortal man, but having become exalted, and called to the Calling of God the Father, he "became" God Most High, at least to our point of view.

4. Jesus became "A God" after God the Father per our Doctrine. We aren't sure when.

5. For reasons I cannot explain, once a being becomes a God, possessor of the Power of God, he can claim the full heritage of "God" from beginning of time to the end, from eternity to eternity. Thus, God the Father is god from everlasting to everlasting. Jesus Christ is God the Son from everlasting to everlasting. This may be justified in the notion that "eternal" is a name of god, therefore "eternal life" is the life God lives.

6. Jesus and the Psalmist referred to humans, in some special way, as being Gods, with the qualifier as they were they to whom the Word of God came. See Psalms 82 and John 10. In Psalm 82:6-7, it says, "Ye are gods, and all of you are children of God most high, but ye shall die like men". Evidently this indicates that in some way, mortal men can become, temporarily "a God". Using the rules above, this would mean that at such a moment, the Man is at one with the Power of God -- in perfect harmony with the Way.

7. Jesus equated himself with "The Way". This is no different than saying that he possesses the power of god and therefore is God.

Thoughts?

Straight up?

These are all metaphors to make what is beyond our understanding at least a little bit understandable, and we humans just kind of make them up as we go, in scriptural cases, and in some personal cases, as directed by the Holy Spirit, and oftentimes not at all.

Neoplatonism or the idea that universals "exist" in some sense other than linguistically does not make sense as far as I am concerned any better in Chinese, I would suppose than it does in Greek or English. Because a word is an abstraction, that doesn't mean it names a thing that is some kind of "abstract thing".

Because some actions are called "good" and we can speak of "goodness" does not mean that there exists floating around somewhere some Idea of Goodness, some ineffable but "real" thing which actually exists in some Realm of Universals.

As far as the power of God preceding the being of God, frankly I am not sure what that means. To me it seems that a power is some ability that a person has. I have the power to get up and walk across the room- until I am old and feeble and cannot do that anymore, yet one may have power in one's Priesthood long after the infirmities of age have limited our powers to do physical things.

I get nervous when people start talking about "being" anyway since that is so much like talking about "Goodness" I am not sure what that is, other than a noun which is defined as "the quality of being good" and saying something like "power precedes being"- it is just a little too abstract for my little brain and I am not sure WHAT is happening!

I think exaltation is not unlike what we do here as humans but stretched forward into eternity. I try to be a little better every day at doing the things I am supposed to- those things which I think will make me more "avanced" as a human. I try to keep away from things I feel are not good for me and to do those things which I know I should do but cannot seem to get done. After a billion or so "years" in earth reckoning maybe I will be pretty good at those things and other cosmic principles I learn along the path. Maybe then I will be close to exaltation- if I even make it into those who are judged to be capable of achieving it. But of course all of this would be impossible anyway without what we call the "grace" of Christ. To even have this as a possibility - that a worm like us could become like God- is a supernal gift we will never understand until maybe we get close to pulling it off.

So in the meantime, because God has told me this is the path he wants me on, I stick to the path and see where it leads. I'll let you know how it turns out in a billion years or so- but who knows we might be right next to eachother still sorting this stuff out then, or not as it all works out.

So I just don't try to puzzle too much about getting the wording right on things that are so far beyond my understanding that it is like trying to teach a housefly or a human embryo just implanted about Quantum Mechanics. I just know that language isn't much good for this stuff, and that language is all we have to think with, and our own personal experiences as inputs. Pretty poor tools to work with thinking we will ever actually ever be able to get to "things as they are"!

So here we are scratching around with nothing but fingernails, teeth, eyes noses and mouths grunting around, in our little worlds trying to become gods.

That we think we have actual prospects of doing so is a miracle in itself and and the ultimate gift if we can actually pull it off.

Did I miss anything?

Edit- I think I messed up the formatting on that quote above and got the quotes in the wrong boxes or something.

Sorry. Too tired to figure it out- I hope this makes sense. Just let me know if you have questions.

Edit 2- Oh and if Orson Pratt was a Neoplatonist, that's not his fault. Most everyone in his time was. But I am convinced Joseph was actually light years ahead of the others- he anticipated philosophical principles that really did not appear for a hundred years and are still with us today.

But that is for another day I suppose

Edited February 24, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I guess if I were a non-member without any knowledge of Mormonism, and I wound up here through a Google search, this entire discussion might turn me away from Mormonism altogether since it brings up more questions than answers.

Well it happens. That is what is said of apologetics in general- it turns more people off than on.

But trust me, you should see how CAF looks to Mormons. You ain't gonna convert any Mormons to Catholicism based on that website, I can promise you.

[Bart Burk]

Well it happens. That is what is said of apologetics in general- it turns more people off than on.

But trust me, you should see how CAF looks to Mormons. You ain't gonna convert any Mormons to Catholicism based on that website, I can promise you.

Not based on CAF alone, but it did help me clarify a few things before I became Catholic.

[Ahab]

Isn’t it obvious?

I was hoping you'd see my point while answering that question.

This seems to be the focal point of your objections to my posts.

Only when you don't seem to see the connection between us and how we can be like him, even if only a little bit.

When I use “God” in this thread, I do mean Heavenly Father in most cases, members of or the united Godhead in some cases, but in no case do I mean the whole mortal human family.

Why not, in some cases? We are his children. What's stopping you from seeing how we can also be like him, in some ways, at least sometimes? The best in all of us comes from him as he helps us to be more like him, even when we don't realize he is the one we are trying to be like when we try to be as good as we can be.

One of the ways we worship Him is to do those things that allow us to become like Him, but those who become like Him do not increasingly worship themselves or each other. In fact, they only worship Him all the more. Like Jesus.

You're looking at it backwards. Those who become like him are increasing more like him who we are worshipping. That is what worship is all about. It is us trying to become more and more like him. Worship is emulation. Worship is a process of becoming the object of our worship. He is who we are trying to be like. Just like it happened to Jesus, it can also happen to us. He wasn't trying to become the object of anyone's worship except for the fact that he was trying to become more and more like our Father in heaven. And in doing that he became what we can also be as we are the best we can be.

We've already got the advantage of being the same kind of being he is. Now we just need to be perfect as our Father in heaven.

[CV75]

I was hoping you'd see my point while answering that question.

I see your points but for the purposes of the OP, they run contrary to the point that no matter how much we become like God, we will not cease to worship Him and we will not commence to worship each other, ourselves, or those things that emanate from God or gods. When you speak of emulation, we can only rightly admire and emulate the godliness in each other by keeping in mind that God is the one who gives anyone a measure of godliness, and He alone is worthy of worship. Even Jesus continues to worship Him, even having been given all that the Father has. In any case it is wrong to worship things, powers, attributes, etc.; but it is only right to worship the Person of God.

[Ahab]

I see your points but for the purposes of the OP, they run contrary to the point that no matter how much we become like God, we will not cease to worship Him and we will not commence to worship each other, ourselves, or those things that emanate from God or gods.

The latter part of your statement is where you are off. Read the OP, with the comments from Orson, again. It's not just the person of our Father we are worshipping when we worship him, but all that he stands for, all that he represents, all that makes him as he is which is why we worship him.

Do you appreciate love? Do you strive to love more than you love right now? Well, God is love, even to people who don't make that connection between that attribute/power or him, so when anyone loves they are worshipping God by loving/ emulating/ trying to be more like God in how he loves who he loves.

When you speak of emulation, we can only rightly admire and emulate the godliness in each other by keeping in mind that God is the one who gives anyone a measure of godliness, and He alone is worthy of worship.

The latter part, again, is where you are off. Not he alone, because there are others like him in some way and when there is that unity there is that oneness of all who are like him. Try harder not to contradict yourself.

Even Jesus continues to worship Him, even having been given all that the Father has.

Yes, and it is true worship of him as he is which is what makes Jesus as he is. He's not faking it. It's shown by who he is.

In any case it is wrong to worship things, powers, attributes, etc.; but it is only right to worship the Person of God.

Think about it some more. You're very close but you're still missing the big picture, or it seems so by the words you are using.

[CV75]

It's not just the person of our Father we are worshipping when we worship him, but all that he stands for, all that he represents, all that makes him as he is which is why we worship him.

This may be what you are trying to say, but I do not think it is a correct thing to say. The reasons we worship Him should not be the things we worship. We are to worship Him. See D&C 84:98-102 (especially verse 102). It begins with, “…all shall know me …and shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, and shall see eye to eye, and shall lift up their voice, and with the voice together sing this new song…” This new song worships the Lord, not the things He has done and not the things ascribed to Him; these are acknowledged separately.

Those who know God worship Him better than those that do not; those who worship only the things that come of Him simply do not know Him and are not worshiping Him correctly. They might as well worship the sun, which He made. But I’ve said that before, so going forward I’ll only address new points that need to be made to new arguments on your part.

[Ahab]

This may be what you are trying to say, but I do not think it is a correct thing to say. The reasons we worship Him should not be the things we worship. We are to worship Him. See D&C 84:98-102 (especially verse 102). It begins with, “…all shall know me …and shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, and shall see eye to eye, and shall lift up their voice, and with the voice together sing this new song…” This new song worships the Lord, not the things He has done and not the things ascribed to Him; these are acknowledged separately.

Every person is the sum of all of his (or her) parts and passions, as well as each part and passion, itself. You can't separate a preson from all that they are and represent. If you don't believe that, try it. When you say you worship God, himself, what do you mean, exactly? What are you thinking about, as him? What is the "him" you are thinking about? What is it that makes him both who and what he is? You can't do it, can you.

Those who know God worship Him better than those that do not; those who worship only the things that come of Him simply do not know Him and are not worshiping Him correctly.

Then tell me what you know about him, if you think I don't know. What is it about him that makes you want to worship him, and in what way do you worship him? Pretend I don't know and that I need someone like you to tell me.

They might as well worship the sun, which He made. But I’ve said that before, so going forward I’ll only address new points that need to be made to new arguments on your part.

I've already made my own point as clear as I know how to, so I'll now also stop repeating myself.

[CV75]

Every person is the sum of all of his (or her) parts and passions, as well as each part and passion, itself.

You are making my argument for me: As you say, God is not any one part of Himself but the sum of all. Why would we worship his power or light any more than we would worship His foot? We worship the whole Person, not aspects of Him. Of course we can only worship the best we know how, which may lead some to worship inappropriately.

Then tell me what you know about him

This is the whole crux of the problem: The key to eternal life is to know Him (John 17:3), not know about Him. This is why I take the position that it is better to worship Him than to worship the things about Him.

[Ahab]

You are making my argument for me: As you say, God is not any one part of Himself but the sum of all. Why would we worship his power or light any more than we would worship His foot? We worship the whole Person, not aspects of Him. Of course we can only worship the best we know how, which may lead some to worship inappropriately.

Yes, he is the sum of all, but the sum is the total of his individual parts and passions and qualities and attributes and everything else there is which makes him who he is and if you were to start to describe him or his attributes you would be starting with something, other than just saying it's him.

... and the only way to worship him inappropriately is to think something is associated with him when it is not.

This is the whole crux of the problem: The key to eternal life is to know Him (John 17:3), not know about Him. This is why I take the position that it is better to worship Him than to worship the things about Him.

I realize the latter part of what you were saying, but when I asked you that question I was asking you to tell me about him, as if you could tell me. And I asked you what do you know about him because I wanted to hear you say something you know about him, rather than you telling me how I can get to know him. I already know HOW to get to know him, and I already know a lot about him, or in other words, I know him to some extent by knowing many things about him and who he is.

Anyway, nevermind. I'm now done talking to you about him and how we can know him. Maybe he's not something two people like us are even meant to be able to discuss.

[CV75]

I wanted to hear you say something you know about him

Understanding that to know Him is better than knowing about Him, one thing I know about Him is that He loves me, and I know this because He has brought me light, and by this means has made Himself known to me. I worship Him for that (and for many other reasons), but I do not worship the light or the rescue or even knowing Him.

[Ahab]

Understanding that to know Him is better than knowing about Him, one thing I know about Him is that He loves me, and I know this because He has brought me light, and by this means has made Himself known to me. I worship Him for that (and for many other reasons), but I do not worship the light or the rescue or even knowing Him.

Maybe it would help you understand me if you do as I do, which is to substitute the idea of worshipping him with idea of trying to be like him. Imitation is the most sincere form of worship, when someone really wants and sincerely tries to be like someone else. Not faking it, but actually trying and wanting to be like the object of our worship. That's what worship is all about, to me. And that process gets down to the nitty gritty details while trying to see how everything works together.

[Tacenda]

You are making my argument for me: As you say, God is not any one part of Himself but the sum of all. Why would we worship his power or light any more than we would worship His foot? We worship the whole Person, not aspects of Him. Of course we can only worship the best we know how, which may lead some to worship inappropriately.

This is the whole crux of the problem: The key to eternal life is to know Him (John 17:3), not know about Him. This is why I take the position that it is better to worship Him than to worship the things about Him.

Great and important thoughts maybe even a saving principle here.

[CV75]

Maybe it would help you understand me if you do as I do, which is to substitute the idea of worshipping him with idea of trying to be like him. Imitation is the most sincere form of worship, when someone really wants and sincerely tries to be like someone else. Not faking it, but actually trying and wanting to be like the object of our worship. That's what worship is all about, to me. And that process gets down to the nitty gritty details while trying to see how everything works together.

Yes, one way to worship God is to come to know Him by emulating His attributes so as to become like Him, which begins with the faith and humility to keep His commandments, or to abide in the measure of light that He gives us. But emulation is only a step or an aspect leading to worship, because the actual "becoming" is the worship itself. In other words, we emulate and then we become like Him through His grace.

Another way to put it is that I am a god in embryo, a product of an ongoing holistic process where things work together properly as a whole. I am not an atomistical being lacking a clear foundation and becoming like God in a lopsided, fragmented way--this is not how God builds us up. The godliness in us is whole; the fallen man is not.

The holistic nature of becoming like God is noted in Ephesians 4:15-16. We are to “…grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.” I take this to have spiritual as well as physical application. Also note that in Jacob 5, the fruit is not good unless the roots and the branches and the grafts are in synch—when one attribute grows stronger than another, the fruit gets corrupted. In any case, the Holy Spirit, another Personal Being, guides us through this process (Eph 2:22; 4:23, 30). This is why it is important to worship God in the Spirit, where all of His "parts" are perfectly integrated, or are the "fulness" of who He is.

D&C 93 helps us “understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness.” Note that the process of worship in this section is explained in terms of keeping us on track with His fullness, and not just those aspects we choose to identify and worship.

Edited February 27, 2013 by CV75