Orson Pratt On The Oneness Of God

[Ahab]

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.

The emulation and becoming happen at the same time, at least for me. Paul talked about adding to our virtues, growing from knowledge to brotherly kindness to, well, I don't have the scripture right in front of me but he makes it plain that we grow one step at a time, from one thing to another thing, as we work on specific attributes and qualities we want to incorporate into our lives from the one(s) who can teach us how to become that way. We don't go from 0 patience to 100% perfectly patient as our Father, but as we strive to become more patient, he helps us to be more that way. And the same principle holds true for every other attribute we strive to develop to perfection. Knowledge here, and some more knowledge there, until we actually get to the point where we know everything our Father knows and just as he knows it. It's going to be so totally awesome when I make it that far, if I do.

[CV75]

The emulation and becoming happen at the same time, at least for me. Paul talked about adding to our virtues, growing from knowledge to brotherly kindness to, well, I don't have the scripture right in front of me but he makes it plain that we grow one step at a time, from one thing to another thing, as we work on specific attributes and qualities we want to incorporate into our lives from the one(s) who can teach us how to become that way. We don't go from 0 patience to 100% perfectly patient as our Father, but as we strive to become more patient, he helps us to be more that way. And the same principle holds true for every other attribute we strive to develop to perfection. Knowledge here, and some more knowledge there, until we actually get to the point where we know everything our Father knows and just as he knows it. It's going to be so totally awesome when I make it that far, if I do.

To me, emulation is to being as faith is to knowledge. One follows the other and they cannot occur simultaneously. I see emulation as the exercise of faith, and the "becoming" the fruit of that faith, just as knowledge is the fruit of faith. Similarly, emulation, or the trying of or experimenting with a godly trait, is the faith and "becoming" is the miracle.

The fact that we develop line upon line, precept upon precept, shows that faith and knowledge (or emulation and becoming) follow one another. Scripturally speaking:

“For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith (D&C 98:12)… here a little, and there a little; giving us consolation by holding forth that which is to come, confirming our hope… glory, and salvation, and honor, and immortality, and eternal life; kingdoms, principalities, and powers! (D&C 128:21-23).” So faith holds forth in hope the eternal life which is yet to come. Another way of putting this is, faith currently shows what is yet to be realized (and likewise emulation shows what is yet to be realized).

[Ahab]

To me, emulation is to being as faith is to knowledge. One follows the other and they cannot occur simultaneously. I see emulation as the exercise of faith, and the "becoming" the fruit of that faith, just as knowledge is the fruit of faith. Similarly, emulation, or the trying of or experimenting with a godly trait, is the faith and "becoming" is the miracle.

The fact that we develop line upon line, precept upon precept, shows that faith and knowledge (or emulation and becoming) follow one another. Scripturally speaking:

“For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith (D&C 98:12)… here a little, and there a little; giving us consolation by holding forth that which is to come, confirming our hope… glory, and salvation, and honor, and immortality, and eternal life; kingdoms, principalities, and powers! (D&C 128:21-23).” So faith holds forth in hope the eternal life which is yet to come. Another way of putting this is, faith currently shows what is yet to be realized (and likewise emulation shows what is yet to be realized).

Maybe you're getting caught up in semantics, because to me emulation is just about being like or trying to be like. Is God good? Yes which is why I am good, or try to be good. Does he love? Yes, which is why I also love, or try to love, even as God loves me and I can see God love other people. He's my Daddy, and I love him for who he is and what he does. He is who I want to be like, as well as anyone else who is also like him, like Jesus, for another example. And President Monson? Yes, he is like God too, at least in some way, although he's not done trying to be like our Father just as I'm not done yet, either. In fact, we will never be done. It's going to be a never ending process of me wanting to be like him, and them, even after I already exactly like how they are. Why would I ever want to be any different? They are the best we can be, and there is nothing better. You call that praise? You call that worship? I call it me just being the way I really want to be. There is nothing better I can be.

[chochmah]

Wayfarer responded:

"I like where you're going with this -- very, fascinating material. Did this reasoning come from somewhere? I see your references and quotes of Nibley, et. al, and your allusions to the Temple -- it was really an interesting read.

Question for you -- as I have asked before. Does the existence of truth and intelligence, or even, as you equate it, to the "Power of God" -- does this imply that the Power of God precedes the existence of "a God"?

**********************************

Here are some thoughts on that subject. They are incomplete and others are more informed than I, but here it goes:

The starting point is D&C 130:18-19 where in discussing this intelligence employs an interesting and perhaps enlightening word: "whatever PRINCIPLE of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life, through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much more the advantage in the world to come." [emphasis added]

Why does the Lord use the word "principle" here? What does it perhaps mean? How is it helpful to understand this scripture? Does it suggest there might be more at play than how most of us read it at face value?

Brigham Young perhaps offered further insight in this regard: "The principle of intelligence is within us. Who planted it there? He who made us. [He gave us-our intelligences a spirit body] That which you see developed in the children of men (you may call it disposition, or whatever else you please,) is the force of the mind or the spirit, and the [physical] body is a tabernacle organized for its temporary habitation." JD 7:286. Here intelligence is not being used in the sense of knowledge.

It is interesting that he doesn’t say that the intelligence is the mind or spirit, but the "FORCE of the mind or spirit." The intelligence governs the spirit body. [The minority view of Joseph Fielding Smith is contra - that the intelligence was re-morphed so to speak into the spirit body] The intelligence which is housed by our spirit body and which is in turn housed by our physical body, is without beginning.

That intelligence is described as a "PRINCIPLE." Though distinct with its own agency and identity, our intelligence is a principle in the sense that it is part of a divine substance that others share. That intelligence can grow as we through diligence and obedience strive to unite ourselves with the divine attributes of the godhead, which we can acquire through the gifts of the spirit, power in the priesthood, etc.

It exists without beginning and yet it is capable of enlargement.

The principle of intelligence if "planted" in us [our spirit body] by God, then is not our intelligence that is the essential "us" that is without beginning and existed before there was a spirit body to house it. What is it then?

The 1828 Webster s dictionary (which would have reflected the language of the early brethren of our dispensation) offers several definitions concerning the word "principle" including:

(1) As a verb: To establish, fix, or establish in the mind or character any attribute or tenet, whether good or bad.

(2) The cause source or origin of something.

(3) The primordial substance. We have already seen that this principle of intelligence is a divine power or force which was ever divine. It was godly before the God the Father became a God.

(4) Foundation or ground.

(5) General truth. Here again, we see the link with this principle of intelligence with the concept of truth as something more than a collection of facts.

(6) The basis of a system. We have seen truth or the principle of intelligence as being a force of order. Order allows systems to exist in a world of chaos.

This third definition seems to be consistent with how principle was used in the Doctrine and Covenants and by Brigham Young. Intelligence existed, it seems, before anything else.

This intelligence is light per D&C 93:29.

In that same section we further learn that truth is equated with light. D&C 93:36. In fact from my modest studies it seems that virtually all forms of divine power are in some way linked with light.

Glory is equated with light. D&C 93:36.

God is light. D&C 88:11. Elder Orson Pratt spoke on the meaning of God’s light and how it is shared in JD volume 19, pages 280-294, which was delivered at the Fourteenth Ward Assembly Rooms, Salt Lake City, in 1878.

"Inasmuch as God is represented to be a being full of truth, full of knowledge and intelligence, having almighty power, we would naturally suppose that he was also a God of light, that is full of the principle of light; and that there is nothing too deep for him to understand, or too great for his understanding to comprehend or reach. He being full of light, there can be no darkness in him. Indeed, he is spoken of by James as the "Father of lights." In other words, his offspring, his children, his sons and daughters, partake of a portion of that light which dwells in the Father; the same as our children, born unto us, partake, in some respects, of the light and intelligence which dwells in their parents."

Light dwells IN God. Divine light is not reflected but is the essence of who he is. How does he share it?

From him we obtain light as sons and daughters. Those who are reborn by the covenants of the temple become sons of light. It seems the process of rebirth allows this light to come to us. With each covenant there is a rebirth and this includes the sealing power. With each additional covenant we can obtain and impart more light.

We too as physical parents can impart some measure of light to our sons and daughters to a much lesser degree. The act of conception and/or birth seems to allow for this. The sealing would magnify it.

Life is light. D&C 93:29.

Benjamin F. Johnson, a close associate of the Prophet Joseph Smith, recorded in this vein:

"The keys to all this knowledge were first committed to the Prophet Joseph, as a part of the gospel, for the world’s benefit, for all of which he was derided. He was the first in this age to teach "substantialism," the eternity of matter, that no part or particle of the great universe could become annihilated or destroyed; that light and life and spirit were one; that all light and heat are the "Glory of God," which is his power, that fills the "immensity of space," and is the life of all things, and permeates with latent life, and heat, every particle of which all worlds are composed; that light or spirit, and matter, are the two first great primary principles of the universe, or of Being; that they are self-existent, co-existent, indestructible, and eternal, and from these two elements both our spirits and our bodies were formulated, and he gave us to understand that there were twelve kingdoms, or planets revolving around our solar system, to which the Lord gave an equal division of His time or ministry and that now was His time to again visit the earth. He taught that all systems of worlds were in revolution, the lesser around the greater. [benjamin F. Johnson, Letter to George F. Gibbs, 1903, cited in LeBaron, E. Dale. "Benjamin Franklin Johnson: Colonizer, Public Servant, and Church Leader." M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1967. 325-46.]

Truman Madsen became increasingly thoughtful in his final years. "In mankind, the true, the good, and the beautiful are not only reflected but come to life, and again the scriptures teach of the inseparable connection - in fact, the eventual union in their highest forms - of light and life. ‘In [Christ] was life; and the life was the light of men’ (John1:4). And it is His light that ‘giveth life to all things’ (D&C 88:13). And in man the inclusive all refers to the life of the mind and all the creative and responsive forces that are interwoven in him. A modern revelation speaks not only of the classic symbol ‘eternal life’ but also of ‘eternal lives’ (D&C 132:22-25), the plural emphasizing expansion and intensification of the lives within the whole person." Madsen, The Radiant Life. There is a plurality of lights coming within us to give us these eternal lives. This will be addressed further in the chapter o-Mind of God.

The word is light. D&C 84:45-46.

Knowledge, understanding is light. D&C 77:4, Doctrine and Covenants 88:11; and 2 Corinthians 4:6.

Elder Orson Pratt spoke of how exalted beings are able to communicate with one another in the universe instantaneously by means of divine light. "Now, supposing we were immortal beings, and we stood upon one celestial world, away in a distant part of space, and others dwelling upon another celestial world innumerable miles distant from us, there may be a process by which we could communicate one to another, and ideas be exchanged, from world to world, without adopting the slow progress of communication by light or electricity. Well, says one, "I thought that light was transmitted more rapidly than anything that we could conceive of." Light proceeds from one luminary to another, at the rate of 185,000 miles per second. Can anything be swifter than this? Do you suppose the Lord would reveal all his resources to us? I think not; I believe that when the children of men become immortal and eternal, their privileges will be enlarged; and those powers of nature, and laws of which we have such a limited understanding, will become greatly multiplied and enlarged. There may be a process of communication by means of celestial, heavenly light, that will far outstrip the natural light which proceeds from yonder luminaries in our heavens. It may be that this natural light travels very slowly, compared with the light that proceeds forth from celestial worlds, wherever they may be situated. Then again, if immortal beings on celestial worlds can hear, and see, and communicate with each other, would it not be just as pleasant as though they were associated together in the same room? What difference can it make, seeing that distance is no impediment to them?" Orson Pratt; JD 19:279-294.

Priesthood is light per D&C

Mercy, virtue and compassion are all forms of light per B. Grant Bishop’s interpretation of section 88:40: For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things." cited in The LDS Gospel of Light, page 7.

This is consistent with the kabbalistic tree of life, where many of these virtues are identical with those of the tree of life. They are all virtues of light. See the chapter o-Tree of Life for an analysis of D&C 88:13 which links these attributes with the Jewish mystical tree of life.

Love is Light. If God is light (1 John 1:5) and from the same book, God is love (1 John 4:8; 1 John 4:16), then light is love. Did the author by the proximity of these statements intend we learn this truth?

Law. "I am the law, and the light." Doctrine & Covenants 29:31-32.

Temple. "The prophet Joseph Smith told the saints that the temple was a place to ‘receive the ordinances, the blessings, and glories (light) [of] God, (History of the Church 5:427) ‘the glories (lights) of his Kingdom,’ and the ‘perfect order.’ (History of the Church 5:423) Christ taught that ‘ye are to be taught from on high. The temple is to have a perpetual light in it per Exodus 27:20 and Leviticus 27:2-4. The menorah was never extinguished in the temple, as it was a symbol of a source of light. "The temple’s function is symbolically portrayed as giving light, not receiving it from elsewhere. [Jacob Neusner, Genesis Rabbah, 1, 3:4] ‘The ancient said: "Whoever builds windows in this house, makes them wide outside and narrow inside, that they should bring in the light. Not so in the temple; because there the light was within, and shone forth on to the whole world." "As oil gives light - so the temple gives light to the world."’[Zev Vilnay, The Sacred Land, Philadephia, PA: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1973, page 82.]"

Ordinances. Nibley writes in this regard, "... for who does not ‘receive the light’ through these ordinances ‘will not receive it in the other place,’ while he who does receive it ‘cannot be held back, and will be beyond the reach of all his enemies even in this world. And when the time comes for him to go out of this world he has already received the truth in the images.’" Hugh Nibley, The Expanding Gospel in Temple and Cosmos, citing Gospel of Philip 86:5-10.

Even the process of becoming a son or daughter in a covenantal sense is closely tied to the receipt of divine light. The brilliant LDS scholar, Eugene Seaich after comparing the ancient temple rites across time and cultures, notes this in A Great Mystery. He writes that light flows down from above in the temple and penetrates and unites with the light in man who is there as a temple initiate, and it results in beggetting sonship in him. Seaich, page 2.

The Spirit Body is light. In the writings of Philo we learn that man’s soul (spirit body in LDS parlance) originated as a ray. On the Creation of the World, 146 cited in Eugene Seaich, A Great Mystery, page 159.

Angels and their divine powers are described as being associated with the first divine light. The heavenly hosts, including Gods, angels and some of humanity were part of the primal light described in connection with Day One of Creation. Bradshaw, Temple Themes in the Book of Moses, page 53. Bradshaw speculates that this may have been uncreated light.

Howard Schwartz provides a brief explanation.

"Everyone is familiar with the words of Genesis 1:3, And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. But the ancient rabbis, who scrutinized the words of the Bible for every hidden mystery, wondered what light this was. After all, God did not create the sun, the moon, and the stars till the fourth day. So what was the light of the first

day?... The rabbis conclude that the two lights — that of the first day and that of the fourth — are different. The light of the first day is a primordial light, what is called the or ha-ganuz, or hidden light. This resolves the problem. But it also raises a whole series of new questions — What was the nature of that sacred light? Where did it come from, and where did it go? These questions have been debated among the rabbis for many centuries, and they arrive at a variety of explanations.[Howard Schwartz "Tree of Souls," p. Lxxii]

Rabbi Azriel of Gerona, a leading Kabbalist of the generation before the Zohar had the following to say about the hidden light.

"This first light (primal light) is like the light of thought in which a man sees all that he wishes to look at... and this is the light of wisdom which would rest upon the prophets and crown them with its light, and they would see visions by power, visions of whatever could be, from one end of the world to the next. As long as the soul is pure it shows in her its power and increases, shining brighter and brighter. This light is set apart for the righteous, as they possess a clean and pure spirit, and this light is called the light of life.[isaiah Tishby, "Commentarius in Aggadot, auctores R. Azriel Geronensi" p. 111]"

Creation is associated with light as well. God created light we read in the scriptures.

"I form the light, and create darkness. Isaiah 45:7.

"And they divided the light, or cause it to be divided, from the darkness." Abraham 4:4.

This notion of light being associated with the power to create is an important notion which we will build upon in sacred places.

Even the process of conceiving and giving birth is linked with light in some cultures. "‘Dar la luz,’ the Spanish term meaning ‘to give birth’ is literally translated as to give light or to bring to light. Echoing this concept, the South American Kogi Tribe uses one word, munsá, to mean both dawn and vagina." The Sacrament of Birth by Analiesa Leonhardt, SquareTwo, Volume 3, Number 1, (Spring 2010).

A mother brings a fetus from dark to light.

A mother brings divine light as well in her role as a mediator of divine power.

Margaret Barker, in her article, The Images of Mary in the Litany of Loreto, published in usus antiquior, Volume One, Number 2, July, 2010, 110–131 draws upon the rich temple treasures from the Gospel of Philip. That indicates that we are born and reborn from light.

The physical forces of the cosmos are governed by light we learn from facsimile two.

Our efforts to live up to our covenants bring light. The poetic Orson F. Whitney in his epic poem Elias inquired what made some men greater than others,

"But truth taught charity, gave to me,

As face to face one sees familiar friend,

Why men are not alike in magnitude,

Some souls, than others, have more summits climbed,

More light absorbed, more moral might evolved,

Dowered are they with wealth from earlier spheres;

Hence wiser, worthier than those they lead."

Whitney, Elias, Canto I.

The more summits we have climbed in our personal eternal progression, the more light will fill our souls.

The light of Christ is unsurprisingly light as well. Matthew B. Brown in his book, Receiving Gifts of the Spirit, writes, "The question of how spiritual gifts are delivered from Deity to mortals is an interesting one. It appears that in order for the Holy Ghost (who is a spirit personage) to bridge the gap between the celstial world where He resides and the telestial world in which we dwell, He utilizes the omnipresent spiritual power known as the Light of Christ. Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote that ‘the light of Christ (also called the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of the Lord) is a light, a power and an influence that proceeds forth from the the presence of God to fill the immensity of space.’ This light, said Elder McConkie, ‘is the agency of God’s power and the law by which all things are governed. It is also the agency used by the Holy Ghost to manifest truth and dispense spiritual gifts to many people at one and the same time.’[McConkie, New Witness for the Articles of Faith, page 70; See also Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, second edition (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), page 314, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, volume 2, page 371]" Brown at page 10, Covenant Communications, 2005.

Even the very heavens are described as the "world of light." Heber C. Kimball once asked a gathering of Saints, "Are you faithful to your vows?" And he explained that "if you are, you will have dreams, and visions, and revelations from teh world of light, and you will be comforted by night and by day. But if you do not fulfill your covenants you cannot enjoy these blessings." [JD 3:112] cited in Matthew B. Brown, Receiving Gifts of the Spirit, Covenant Communications, 2005, pages 10-11.

God rules with light from the heavens, for the greater light shall rule the day and the lesser light shall rule the night.

The attributes of Christ and even the atonement of Christ are forms of light. As Elder B. H. Roberts of the Seventy (1857–1933) observed:

'The man who so walks in the light and wisdom and power of God, will at the last, by the very force of association, make the light and wisdom and power of God his own — weaving those bright rays into a chain divine, linking himself forever to God and God to him. This (is) the sum of Messiah’s mystic words, "Thou, Father, in me, and I in thee" — beyond this human greatness cannot achieve.'" (January 2005 Ensign, Allegiance to God, D. Todd Christofferson citing B. H. Roberts, "Brigham Young: A Character Sketch," Improvement Era, June 1903, 574; also see October 2010 General Conference, Reflections on a Consecrated Life).

Testimony or better conversion is light. Think of the parable of the ten virgins where the lamp = testimony and oil of light = conversion.

The legendary astrophysicist Stephen Hawking made clear that all matter is light: "As physicists have split the atom into small and smaller particles, they have discovered to their surprise that there is no final ‘tiniest part’ of nature. Rather, there are forces best described as wave\lengths of electromagnetism, or light. These pieces of light serve as the fundamental building blocks for everything. What this theory tells us is that everything we consider to be real actually breaks down into simple light, in all of its various wavelengths." Morse, Melvin, Transformed by the Light [New York: Villard Books, 1992], page 135.

All matter is light!

All spirit is matter, but more refined we learn from Joseph Smith. Joseph Fielding Smith, comp., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1972), see pages 207, 301-2 (hereafter cited as TPJS). See also D&C 93:33.

Therefore, all spirit is light, and all divine powers are a form of light.

While much more could be written it seems that divine light may be a type of grand unifying theory of divine power. Nibley in Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri at 111 notes that "... light is the universal attribute of divinity ..."

Lenore Leet in her Book, Kabbalah at page 111 states that "at the vibratory level, all things are infinite and one." Light is a form of vibration. Consequently, if these Jewish mystics had vestiges of truth, we see that divine light may be the grand unified theory of the gospel. It operates not only to explain all divine power, but to unify all righteous beings with God to the degree that light is obtained. This then leads us to begin to consider whether the atonement then would need to be related in some way to the notion of light.

According to Jean Chevalier, Dictionary of Symbols, Penguin Books, page 601, the primal opposition in the many creation accounts was between light and darkness.

This allows us to consider the atonement in greater depth. "God is a being connected to the entire universe, giving light and life to all elements and matter, understanding and feeling the sorrows and joys of billions of humans at the same moment. Yet God is a separate individual with a glorified body, isolated in time and space." The LDS Gospel of Light by B. Grant Bishop at 28.

The blessing of the atonement may ensue to us by virtue of this shared light.

It may also give insight into the way in which he was able to feel all of the frustration, pain, and sorrow of all nature.

Bishop writes of God the Father becoming a god: "Beginning as an intelligence, just as we did, God used his inherent agency to obey the eternal nature of light [the divine power known as the primal light], choosing it instead of darkness, being added upon until his eternal intelligence, with his spirit and flesh, melded with eternal light [primal intelligence-primal light]. He became light and assume the qualities of eternal light. Since God did not create light or darkness [since the divine power known as the primal intelligence existed as a God or force of godhood long before God the Father became a God], but became light though his obedience, it follows that Lucifer did not create evil, but became darkness by being disobedient and loving darkness. His being is evil and darkness, just as God’s being is goodness and light." Bishop at 122.[bracketed added]

That primal first light will return. "Rabbinic tradition explained that the wicked are not worthy to enjoy this light of God’s presence, [which light was part of if not essence of the creation], therefore it [this primal light or emanations of it] was stored away after the seventh day of creation to be enjoyed later by the righteous in the Messianic Age. [Zohar 1, Be-Reshit 1:31b, page 192, translated by D. C. Matt; see Jacob Neusner; Genesis Rabbah 1, 3:6, page 30; Rashi, Genesis Commentary 1:4; pages 5-6] A corresponding light was said to fill the place of God’s presence in the temple: ‘The brightness of the Holy of Holies was the light of Day One, before the visible world had been created... Those who entered the Holy of Holies entered this palce of light, beyond time and matter, which was the presence of the ‘king of kings and Lord of lords who alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light.’ [1 Timothy 6:16] This was the place of glory to which Jesus knew he would return after the crucifixion, ‘the glory which I had with thee before the world was made.’ [John 17:5] In the Gospel of Thomas, Christians are described as the new high preisthood who enter the light, and Jesus instructed his disciples to say to the guardians (the cherub guardians of Eden?) ‘We came from the light, the place where the light came into being on its own accord and established [itself]...’ [Margaret Barker, The Revelation of Jesus Christ: Which God Gave to Him to Show to His Servants What Must Soon Take Place, Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 2003, page 22; Hugh W. Nibley Message, second edition, page 440-441; See H. Koester, et al., Thomas, 50, page 132]" [bracketed added]

The light of the first creation will return in the millennium.

That light was also present during the creation of this earth.

That light is present in the temple currently. There we experience the presence of God. Which God. We experience the presence of Christ, of God the Father, and of the primal intelligence-primal light as well. If the temple gives the first blessings of Godhood, and God the Father became a God by having this primal light-primal intelligence bestowed upon him, then it would follow that we would have to receive increments of this light in the temple as well.

We go to the temple to receive the divine attributes of light to move us further toward godhood. There we ritually reenact the creation account for many reasons. The ritual reenactment of the creation in the temple will bring us the power from the first light. The Temple: Symbolism, Ritual and the LDS Perspective

by Kevin K. Winters; Eliade, Mircea, The Myth of the Eternal Return or, Cosmos and History, trans. Willard R. Trask (New York: Princeton University Press, 1991), see page xiv; Brian M. Hauglid, in Donald W. Parry, ed., Temples of the Ancient World: Ritual and Symbolism [salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Company, Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, published in 1994], see Hugh Nibley in One Eternal Round at page 102. Claude Levi-Strauss cited in Hans H. Penner, Language Ritual and Meaning, Numen 32 (1985): 4. pages 639-640; Christenson, Allen J., in The World Tree in Maya Theology, reprinted in Tree of Life: From Eden to Eternity, Deseret Book and Maxwell Institute, 2011, page 163; Blake Ostler page 5 of "Atonement and the Sacred Thou."

If we are faithful in obtaining this further light (by returning to the temple and re-obtaining the primal light as we renew our covenants there) the first endowment will culminate in the near unconditional promise of the second.

The Ein Sof is the primal divine light that existed in the beginning before there was anything else. It is the further light we strive for as we ritually in the temple go back to that primal time.

What is our intelligence? LDS scholar and former BYU religion professor, Hyrum Andrus distinguishes between two kinds of intelligence:

"There is the primal intelligence within us - the light OF truth. The Prophet Joseph in speaking of the intelligence was referring to the individual life and personality within man, not merely of the elements out of which man is organized. This is who we are and have always been. However, there is another meaning of intelligence." [We’ll call this the primal intelligence]

"The intelligence by which primal life may be glorified - light AND truth. Is this the light which we can further obtained by going to the temple and seeking greater light and knowledge? Is this the awakening of the image or symbol or pattern within us? There is a second type of intelligence, which radiates from God, and draws us back to him." [We’ll call this the radiant intelligence as it allows light or divine power to radiate between beings]

Andrus, Hyrum L., God, Man and the Universe, chapter 7

In 1884, Elder Charles W. Penrose taught: "But if God is an individual spirit and dwells in a body, the question will arise, ‘Is He the Eternal Father?’ Yes, He is the Eternal Father. ‘Is it a fact that He never had a beginning?’ In the elementary particles of His organism, He did not. But if He is an organized Being, there must have been a time when that being was organized [into a spirit body]. This, some one will say, would infer that God had a beginning. This spirit which pervades all things, which is the light and life of all things, by which our heavenly Father operates, by which He is omnipotent, never had a beginning and never will have an end. It is the light of truth; it is the spirit of [primal] intelligence. We are told in the revelations of God to us that, ‘Intelligence of the light of truth never was created, neither indeed can be.’ And we are told further, that this Spirit, when it is manifest, is God moving in His glory. When we look up to the heavens and behold the starry worlds, which are kingdoms, we behold God moving in His Majesty and in His power. Now, this Spirit always existed; it always operated, but it is not, understood, and cannot be comprehended except through organisms. If you see a living blade of grass you see a manifestation of that Spirit [radiant intelligence] which is called God. If you see an animal of any kind on the face of the earth having life, there is a manifestation of that Spirit. If you see a man you behold its most perfect earthly manifestation. And if you see a glorified man, a man who has passed through the various grades of being, who has overcome all things, who has been raised from the dead, who has been quickened by this spirit in its fullness, there you see manifested, in its perfection, this eternal, beginningless, endless spirit of intelligence. Such a Being is our Father and our God, and we are following in His footsteps. He has attained to perfection. He has arisen to kingdoms of power ... He is a perfect manifestation, expression and revelation of this eternal essence, this spirit of eternal, everlasting intelligence or light of truth. It is embodied in His spiritual personality or spiritual organism.... That spirit exists wherever there is a particle of material substance; that spirit is round about it, and in it, and through it; but that we may comprehend it, it must be manifested through organisms."

See Elder Charles W. Penrose, Journal of Discourses, Volume 26, pages 18-30.

Elder Penrose of the twelve later taught in similar vein and indicates that this primal power that constitutes godhood is priesthood: "The individual, the organized person may have had a beginning [as a spirit body], but that spirit [radiant intelligence] of which and by which [he or she was] organized never had a beginning. [The elements of which that spirit body is composed is eternal] That priesthood which is the power of government [power of order or organization] in the heavens, never had a beginning, and it will never come to an end. The works of that eternal spirit of intelligence [radiant intelligence], the great Eternal god [this radiant intelligence itself is a power of Godhood without being a personage of godhood], manifested to us in our Father and through Jesus Christ, never had a beginning." Journal of Discourses 26:27. [bracketed material is not original to elder Penrose]

There is a primordial spirit of light or truth. Since god the Father possesses a fulness of that light he is a god.

Finally returning to Pratt. Pratt further teaches concerning intelligences: "All these Gods are equal in power, in glory, in dominion, and in the possession of all things; each possesses a fullness of truth, of knowledge, of wisdom, of light, of intelligence; each governs himself in all things by his own attributes, and is filled with love, goodness, mercy, and justice towards all. The fulness of all these attributes is what constitutes God. "God is Light." "God is Love." "God is Truth." The Gods are one in the qualities and attributes. Truth is not a plurality of truths, because it dwells in a plurality of persons, but it is one truth, indivisible, though it dwells in millions of persons. Each person is called God, not because of his substance, neither because of the shape and size of the substance, but because of the qualities which dwell in the substance. Persons are only tabernacles or temples, and TRUTH is the God, that dwells in them. If the fulness of truth, dwells in numberless millions of persons, then the same one indivisible God dwells in them all. As truth can dwell in all worlds at the same instant; therefore, God who is truth can be in all worlds at the same instant. A temple of immortal flesh, and bones, and spirit, can only be in one place at a time, but truth, which is God, can dwell in a countless number of such temples in the same moment. When we worship the Father, we do not merely worship His person, but we worship the truth which dwells in His person. When we worship the Son, we do not merely worship His body, but we worship truth which resides in Him. So, likewise, when we worship the Holy Ghost, it is not the substance which we alone worship, but truth which dwells in that substance. Take away truth from either of these beings, and their persons or substance would not be the object of worship. It is truth, light, and love that we worship and adore; these are the same in all worlds; and as these constitute God, He is the same in all worlds; and hence, the inhabitants of all worlds are required to worship and adore the same God. Because God dwells in many temples, He frequently speaks to us, as though there were many Gods: this is true when reference is made to the number of His dwelling places; but it is not true, and cannot be true, in any other sense. Therefore, in all our future statements and reasonings, when we speak of a plurality of Gods, let it be distinctly understood, that we have reference alone to a plurality of temples wherein the same truth or God dwells. And also when we speak of only one God, and state that He is eternal, without beginning or end, and that He is in all worlds at the same instant, let it be distinctly remembered, that we have no reference to any particular person or substance, but to truth dwelling in a vast variety of substances. Wherever you find a fullness of wisdom, knowledge, truth, goodness, love, and such like qualities, there you find God in all His glory, power, and majesty, therefore, if you worship these adorable perfections you worship God. Orson Pratt, The Seer, Volume 1, January, 1853, 1:24.

Certainly we worship God the Father. However, if Pratt is correct and this line of thinking is not off the mark, then there is a primordial divine light which antedated the Father. When Pratt writes, "Persons are only tabernacles or temples, and TRUTH is the God, that dwells in them" it is in this vein. God the Father cannot dwell within us but the primordial divine light certainly can.

There is much more in my notes. This is a brief, quickly thrown together sampling of them.

　

[CV75]

Maybe you're getting caught up in semantics, because to me emulation is just about being like or trying to be like.

If "trying" and "doing" ("being") were really just the same thing, then "all we can do" and grace would be the same thing also.

[Ahab]

If "trying" and "doing" ("being") were really just the same thing, then "all we can do" and grace would be the same thing also.

Trying is something we do, so when you're trying to be nice, and I mean really trying and not just saying you're trying, then you're actually being nice because you're trying to be that way. You can't do anything you do without trying. It's a necessary part of doing.

And, yeah, we do our part, and God does his part. That's always been the way it works and should work.

[CV75]

Certainly we worship God the Father. However, if Pratt is correct and this line of thinking is not off the mark, then there is a primordial divine light which antedated the Father. When Pratt writes, "Persons are only tabernacles or temples, and TRUTH is the God, that dwells in them" it is in this vein. God the Father cannot dwell within us but the primordial divine light certainly can.

My 2 cents: The "primordial divine light" would be God's Father, as far as God is concerned. As far as we are concerned, God the Father is our primordial divine light. Any Father cannot dwell within His children, but the Holy Spirit of that respective Godhead can (D&C 130:22). We are the tabernacles of our spirits, and by the action of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (granting agency/Father, providing atonement/Son, sanctifying spirits/Holy Ghost), our spirits attain a fullness and become Spirits (like Jesus--D&C 93:9).

[CV75]

Trying is something we do, so when you're trying to be nice, and I mean really trying and not just saying you're trying, then you're actually being nice because you're trying to be that way. You can't do anything you do without trying. It's a necessary part of doing.

And, yeah, we do our part, and God does his part. That's always been the way it works and should work.

Then you must see the difference between emulating and being, and faith and knowledge. You said, "You can't do anything you do without trying." Likewise, you can't become like God without emulating Him, and you can't know anything without exercising faith.

This would be the difference between worshiping by emulating God (a focus on His attributes) and worshiping by being like God (a focus on His Person), and so throwing out the false worship of His attributes themselves altogether!

[Ahab]

Then you must see the difference between emulating and being, and faith and knowledge.

No, I see them both as the same, or aspects of the same thing.

Faith is not a perfect knowledge, but it is knowledge as knowledge is generally understood. When you're sure of something, you say you know it, and that's because of your faith.

You said, "You can't do anything you do without trying." Likewise, you can't become like God without emulating Him, and you can't know anything without exercising faith.

Right, and both work together at the same time.

This would be the difference between worshiping by emulating God (a focus on His attributes) and worshiping by being like God (a focus on His Person), and so throwing out the false worship of His attributes themselves altogether!

To better say what I said before, emulating is the same thing as being like, including trying to be like. You can also use the word copying, or imitating, or impersonating, or taking his name upon yourself as if it's your name... the right way. I'm not talking about a false imitation or a false copy or a false or corrupt imitation of what or who he is and what he is like. A true, authentic, approved of, signed, stamped, sealed copy of him, just as the original is. That is what we are to be, and should be, as those who worship him.

[CV75]

No, I see them both as the same, or aspects of the same thing.

Faith is not a perfect knowledge, but it is knowledge as knowledge is generally understood. When you're sure of something, you say you know it, and that's because of your faith.

Right, and both work together at the same time.

To better say what I said before, emulating is the same thing as being like, including trying to be like. You can also use the word copying, or imitating, or impersonating, or taking his name upon yourself as if it's your name... the right way. I'm not talking about a false imitation or a false copy or a false or corrupt imitation of what or who he is and what he is like. A true, authentic, approved of, signed, stamped, sealed copy of him, just as the original is. That is what we are to be, and should be, as those who worship him.

If you think faith and knowledge are only the same thing, I refer you to the Bible Dictionary as a start for the scriptural references on these two godly attributes. There is a reason why “imperfect” knowledge refers to faith while “perfect” knowledge refers to knowledge—it is because these two qualities of knowledge and how they are used, while divine, are still very distinct from each other.

We worship with both faith and knowledge, so I’m not sure what this has to do with your idea that worshipping God and worshipping His attributes is the same thing, and that the latter is actually a correct form of worship.

God presents and enables for us all the divine attributes for our blessing, and that is one reason I worship Him and not the attributes and not the blessings. It seems you would instead worship those attributes by adopting them, rather than worship God by adopting them, or at least you equate the two. But the revealed order is to worship the Father.

Emulation is a valid form of worship as long as it is God that is being emulated. For example, we emulate God by letting our light shine. He gives us the light and we emulate Him by letting it shine, not by hiding it. We do not emulate light by becoming the actual light that comes from God—that is putting the cart before the horse. Only when we let the light He gives us shine (step one--after all, He started it all) can we then be that light to others (step two)--and so on as we are consequently given more light. But they important thing here is that in both cases we are doing what God does, not what light does (for it can do nothing without an agent to direct it, and God is that agent).

[Ahab]

If you think faith and knowledge are only the same thing, I refer you to the Bible Dictionary as a start for the scriptural references on these two godly attributes.

I was saying both are knowledge, not that both are exactly the same thing.

There is a reason why “imperfect” knowledge refers to faith while “perfect” knowledge refers to knowledge—it is because these two qualities of knowledge and how they are used, while divine, are still very distinct from each other.

They're both still forms of knowledge, though. Having faith is to have knowledge, even though it's not a perfect knowledge.

We worship with both faith and knowledge, so I’m not sure what this has to do with your idea that worshipping God and worshipping His attributes is the same thing, and that the latter is actually a correct form of worship.

Both are correct forms of worship. One doesn't exclude the other. God is the sum of his attributes, and his attributes can be focused on individually as well as collectively. I think you do that yourself even though you may not realize it.

God presents and enables for us all the divine attributes for our blessing, and that is one reason I worship Him and not the attributes and not the blessings. It seems you would instead worship those attributes by adopting them, rather than worship God by adopting them, or at least you equate the two. But the revealed order is to worship the Father.

Again, to worship is to emulate, so to "worship an attribute" is simply to "emulate that attribute". To love, because he loves. To show mercy, because he shows mercy... and without robbing justice. To be like he is, in all of his attributes, and in each one of his attributes too.

Emulation is a valid form of worship as long as it is God that is being emulated. For example, we emulate God by letting our light shine. He gives us the light and we emulate Him by letting it shine, not by hiding it.

Right, good examples.

We do not emulate light by becoming the actual light that comes from God—that is putting the cart before the horse.

That's not even possible. The light that comes from God (our Father) is always the light that comes from our Father, and not us. The light from us may become the same kind of light, and the same intensity as the light from him, but the light from us is not the same thing as the light from him because his light emanates from him and our light emanates from us, in that context you were speaking of, even though the light may be exactly the same except for that one aspect. It's like saying we'll never become our Father, and it is true that we won't because we will never actually be him, but we can become a Father like he is, and exactly like he is, while we are our own person(s).

Only when we let the light He gives us shine (step one--after all, He started it all) can we then be that light to others (step two)--and so on as we are consequently given more light. But they important thing here is that in both cases we are doing what God does, not what light does (for it can do nothing without an agent to direct it, and God is that agent).

I think I understand you, and I agree. I have never been talking about becoming the same person as our Father. Just the same kind of person, while we're already the same kind of being he is. We are God in the sense that we are same kind of being as our Father, but we're not him, and we're not as perfect as he is, yet, either.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

If you think faith and knowledge are only the same thing, I refer you to the Bible Dictionary as a start for the scriptural references on these two godly attributes. There is a reason why “imperfect” knowledge refers to faith while “perfect” knowledge refers to knowledge—it is because these two qualities of knowledge and how they are used, while divine, are still very distinct from each other.

We worship with both faith and knowledge, so I’m not sure what this has to do with your idea that worshipping God and worshipping His attributes is the same thing, and that the latter is actually a correct form of worship.

God presents and enables for us all the divine attributes for our blessing, and that is one reason I worship Him and not the attributes and not the blessings. It seems you would instead worship those attributes by adopting them, rather than worship God by adopting them, or at least you equate the two. But the revealed order is to worship the Father.

Emulation is a valid form of worship as long as it is God that is being emulated. For example, we emulate God by letting our light shine. He gives us the light and we emulate Him by letting it shine, not by hiding it. We do not emulate light by becoming the actual light that comes from God—that is putting the cart before the horse. Only when we let the light He gives us shine (step one--after all, He started it all) can we then be that light to others (step two)--and so on as we are consequently given more light. But they important thing here is that in both cases we are doing what God does, not what light does (for it can do nothing without an agent to direct it, and God is that agent).

Worshiping one's attributes instead of the entire person who has the attributes is an objectification of the attributes and is idol worship and not worship of God at all.

I will give a perhaps somewhat crass example to make the point. What is it that drives the legendary quality Marilyn Monroe's story has? Is it her "attributes" or her as a person? This is a clear case I think where the person gets lost in the "attributes".

Not a good thing. It is in fact the kind of thing which makes pornography pornographic.

In my opinion, we need to worship Heavenly Father for all of what he is.

[Ahab]

Worshiping one's attributes instead of the entire person who has the attributes is an objectification of the attributes and is idol worship and not worship of God at all.

Good grief.

How do you define "worship"? Did you see how I said that to me worship is all about emulating, as in trying to be like?

If you worship God, any at all, you are worshipping his attributes. You may think only collectively, but individually too.

If you don't think so, prove me wrong. How do you worship all of him while not worshipping a part of him, too. Now focus on only that part of him you are worshipping, while you think you're only worshipping him collectively, and tll me more about that one part you are focusing on. What attribute did you think of? His love, maybe? His knowledge? His wisdom? Let's talk about whatever you just thought of. If you thought about love, now tell me how you can love more like he does. If you love, you are also loving as he loves in some way. You can't even love without loving as he does. Love is what we call that thing that he does, which we can also do, as long as we love as he does. Anything else isn't even love, really, even though some people may call that love.

Your crass example isn't even worth thinking about.

[CV75]

Both are correct forms of worship. One doesn't exclude the other. God is the sum of his attributes, and his attributes can be focused on individually as well as collectively. I think you do that yourself even though you may not realize it.

Not when you are worshiping a Person. A Person is not an attribute of Himself. He is the whole Person, and when it comes to God, all His attributes are integrated. We may try to separate them out in order to learn about or teach about Him, but ultimately they are one great whole. And we do not worship these artificially-individualized constructs because we do not worship things (just in case I did not mention that!).

That's not even possible. The light that comes from God (our Father) is always the light that comes from our Father, and not us. The light from us may become the same kind of light, and the same intensity as the light from him, but the light from us is not the same thing as the light from him because his light emanates from him and our light emanates from us, in that context you were speaking of, even though the light may be exactly the same except for that one aspect. It's like saying we'll never become our Father, and it is true that we won't because we will never actually be him, but we can become a Father like he is, and exactly like he is, while we are our own person(s).

I happened to be reading in D&C 88 this morning: Verses 12 (“…light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space”) and 33 (“…he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift.”) show that a) God Himself does not fill the immensity of space but His light does, and b) there is a clear distinction between what is given and the Giver. So why worship what God gives, and not God Himself? To rejoice in a gift and/or in God is one thing, but to Whom we give thanks is another. If I am rejoicing in His gift, I am worshiping Him. If I am thanking the gift, I am not.

I think I understand you, and I agree. I have never been talking about becoming the same person as our Father. Just the same kind of person, while we're already the same kind of being he is. We are God in the sense that we are same kind of being as our Father, but we're not him, and we're not as perfect as he is, yet, either.

That’s fine, and I agree, but that is not the point I was making (see my remarks about worship).

[CV75]

Worshiping one's attributes instead of the entire person who has the attributes is an objectification of the attributes and is idol worship and not worship of God at all.

I will give a perhaps somewhat crass example to make the point. What is it that drives the legendary quality Marilyn Monroe's story has? Is it her "attributes" or her as a person? This is a clear case I think where the person gets lost in the "attributes".

Not a good thing. It is in fact the kind of thing which makes pornography pornographic.

In my opinion, we need to worship Heavenly Father for all of what he is.

Since it seems you’re making the same kinds of points I have been, I’ll only add that these are some of the reasons why I worship Heavenly Father is a “who” and not as a “what.” I refer to Him as Heavenly Father, and even as "My" Heavenly Father, but not as a Heavenly Father.

[CV75]

Good grief.

How do you define "worship"? Did you see how I said that to me worship is all about emulating, as in trying to be like?

If you worship God, any at all, you are worshipping his attributes. You may think only collectively, but individually too.

If you don't think so, prove me wrong. How do you worship all of him while not worshipping a part of him, too. Now focus on only that part of him you are worshipping, while you think you're only worshipping him collectively, and tll me more about that one part you are focusing on. What attribute did you think of? His love, maybe? His knowledge? His wisdom? Let's talk about whatever you just thought of. If you thought about love, now tell me how you can love more like he does. If you love, you are also loving as he loves in some way. You can't even love without loving as he does. Love is what we call that thing that he does, which we can also do, as long as we love as he does. Anything else isn't even love, really, even though some people may call that love.

Your crass example isn't even worth thinking about.

But you don't emulate an attribute. You emulate the person that has the attribute, and give God the glory, or worship Him alone, not the attribute or the person with the attribute.

[mfbukowski]

I like the word "certainty" as opposed to "faith vs knowlege".

I think that puts it on a continuum that makes some sense. "Faith" is something unseen for which one has hope. One is uncertain about obtaining it, but hopes that it will happen, yet it connotes a certain sense that it will indeed happen. "I have faith it will all turn out all right" conveys this degree of certainty. The sentence means that the outcome is uncertain, yet I believe that things are looking good that the desired end will come to pass.

On the other hand "know" conveys my personal subjective certainty that something is the case. "I know that if you do that, this will happen" is a statement of certainty of the outcome.

So one can say clearly I think that "I know that God has spoken to me" means that I have total certainty that this is what actually happened to me- that God spoke to me and gave me a testimony. It is a degree of certainty beyond the statement "I have faith that God spoke to me".

So yes, if we define these words in terms of certainty clearly one can have a "perfect knowlege" in the sense of "perfect certainty" as opposed to "faith" which could be seen in terms of "imperfect certainty" or "imperfect knowledge".

I almost always use the word "certain" or "certainty" instead of "knowledge".

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/dewey.htm

[mfbukowski]

How do you define "worship"? Did you see how I said that to me worship is all about emulating, as in trying to be like?

Did you notice that my post was not addressed to you? Why do you think I disagree with you?

I am against worshiping attributes as opposed to worshiping the whole person. Is that what you are proposing?

Logic is not a team sport- because I commented to CV doesn't mean I am against you.

Edited February 28, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

But you don't emulate an attribute. You emulate the person that has the attribute, and give God the glory, or worship Him alone, not the attribute or the person with the attribute.

I love, while knowing it is God who teaches and is still teaching me love is. But let's separate this a bit more from myself, now. I've seen other people love who don't know as much about God as I do, from other perspectives. People who don't know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, for example, or may not even know that Jesus Christ was his son who he sent to Earth to redeem us and teach us all about God and how to know God including everything there is to know about God. People like that still love, and I mean truly love, even though they don't know as much about God as I do. And I even know some who love who aren't even sure that God really exists, or at least that's what they say, and yet they still love to some extent as God loves. What's up with that? How is that possible? How can they love if they don't know what love is, and what is God if not love?

See now? There are many ways we can worship God and sometimes even without realizing we are. How does the scripture put it? Anyone who has seen the operations of nature has seen God moving in his majesty and power, and yet some don't see him or recognize him when he is standing right in front of their face. The still worship God, to some extent, though, even though they don't always know to associate a specific person with God. He is in everything that is good, and there isn't anything good that has nothing to do with God. Some people just don't know what they are worshipping when they do worship him.

[CV75]

I like the word "certainty" as opposed to "faith vs knowlege".

I think that puts it on a continuum that makes some sense. "Faith" is something unseen for which one has hope. One is uncertain about obtaining it, but hopes that it will happen, yet it connotes a certain sense that it will indeed happen. "I have faith it will all turn out all right" conveys this degree of certainty. The sentence means that the outcome is uncertain, yet I believe that things are looking good that the desired end will come to pass.

On the other hand "know" conveys my personal subjective certainty that something is the case. "I know that if you do that, this will happen" is a statement of certainty of the outcome.

So one can say clearly I think that "I know that God has spoken to me" means that I have total certainty that this is what actually happened to me- that God spoke to me and gave me a testimony. It is a degree of certainty beyond the statement "I have faith that God spoke to me".

So yes, if we define these words in terms of certainty clearly one can have a "perfect knowlege" in the sense of "perfect certainty" as opposed to "faith" which could be seen in terms of "imperfect certainty" or "imperfect knowledge".

I almost always use the word "certain" or "certainty" instead of "knowledge".

http://www.marxists....ks/us/dewey.htm

I can easily (certainly?) substitute "certainty" for either "faith" or "knowledge" in many instances, and also add that I am certain "enough," just for added flavor (or an appeal to grace)!

[CV75]

See now?

Yes. You have been agreeing with me all along, just haven't realized it!

[Ahab]

Did you notice that my post was not addressed to you? Why do you think I disagree with you?

Because you were and still seem to be disagreeing with what I had been trying to explain to CV.

I am against worshiping attributes as opposed to worshiping the whole person. Is that what you are proposing?

Yes, and I'm stating it as a matter of fact. You can worship the attributes of God, even without realizing certain attributes are his attributes. Anyone who loves is worshipping God even if they don't claim to be worshipping God, or even if they deny that they are, because you can't love without knowing what love is and God is the quintessential epitome of true love.

Logic is not a team sport- because I commented to CV doesn't mean I am against you.

Yes, it is a team sport. If you are using the same logic I'm using, then we're on the same team, and if you are opposed to the logic I'm using, then we're not on the same team. We are what we stand for.

[Ahab]

Yes. You have been agreeing with me all along, just haven't realized it!

Heh, that's what I've been thinking about you too, even though you have said things I don't agree with.

Can we worship God in only some of his attributes, and not all of them? Yes or No. I say Yes. How do you say, now?

Better to be 100% like him than only 30% or 60%, though. I'm striving to be ALL that he is.

[mfbukowski]

I would even submit that defining God by his alleged attributes - like "omniscience" etc is actually this same kind of objectification. He is not a bundle of abstract attributes. This process leads to things like making his "being" or "essence" a unifying feature, for example, of the trinity when in fact such an attribute is just a linguistic abstraction.

[Ahab]

I would even submit that defining God by his alleged attributes - like "omniscience" etc is actually this same kind of objectification. He is not a bundle of abstract attributes. This process leads to things like making his "being" or "essence" a unifying feature, for example, of the trinity when in fact such an attribute is just a linguistic abstraction.

I think you're thinking of people who don't realize he is a person and instead think he is only those attributes they associate with God, but he still has those attributes even though they don't realize he is (also) a person, who has those attributes.

Like people who say God doens't have a body, and instead just think of him as love and wisdom and those omni-whatevers. They're right about his attributes being love and wisdom,. though, so they're not totally wrong. They just don't acknowledge God as a real person, with a real body, just as real as ours is. If they had to take a test on their knowledge of God they wouldn't be getting 100% on their score, that's all. But who of us really knows 100% about God at this point anyway.