The Increasing Size Of The Tent Of Mormonism

[Tacenda]

I appreciate the compliment though today I don't feel all that smart. Can you point me to where it explains along the lines of "the actual Father came down". I have not read the whole thing...and cannot today due to stuff I won't go into because it will sound too much like whining....but there was this part which sounds to me quite different: I can't set you straight if I don't understand your position.

I c/p from the article, hope it helps.

-The Apostle Paul wrote, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh . . . " (I Timothy 3:16). Confessedly, by common consent the Incarnation of Jesus Christ is outside the range of human natural comprehension and apprehension. It can be made known only by Divine revelation in the Holy Scriptures, and to those only who are illumined by the Holy Spirit. It is a truth of the greatest magnitude that God in the Person of His Son should identify Himself completely with the human race. And yet He did, for reasons He set forth clearly in His Word.

-John 1:14 cannot be fully appreciated apart from verse one: ''In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . And the Word became flesh." He who was one with the Father from all eternity became Man, taking upon Him a human body. He ''was with God'' (vs. 1); He ''became flesh" (vs. 14). He “was with God”' (vs. 1); He ''dwelt among us'' (vs. 14). From the infinite position of eternal Godhood to the finite limitations of manhood! Unthinkable but true!

-Before His Incarnation Jesus Christ was ''in the form of God'' (vs. 6). From the beginning He had the nature of God, He existed (or subsisted) as God, and that essential Deity which He once was could never cease to be. If He seems Divine, it is only because He is Divine. He is God.

-(1) ''He made Himself of no reputation." God emptied Himself! He did not lose His Deity when He became Man, for God is immutable and therefore cannot cease to be God. He always was God the Son; He continued to be God the Son in His earthly sojourn as Man; He is God the Son in heaven today as He will remain throughout eternity. He is ''Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever". Hebrews 13:8

(I like the following because it shows that even before JC or God came, the people that didn't have a witness of him/them, can witness through nature.)

-Do not plead innocence for the man who does not possess a copy of God's Word. All men have a Bible bound with the covers of the day and the night whose print is the stars and the planets. What is knowable about God has been displayed openly, and any man who suppresses the truth does it "without excuse." Nature reveals the supernatural, and creation reveals the Creator. Read Psalm 19:1-6 and you will see that the heavens are personified to proclaim the glory of their Creator. Day and night pass on their testimonies giving clear evidence of the existence of the One who made them.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

I c/p from the article, hope it helps...

He always was God the Son; He continued to be God the Son in His earthly sojourn as Man; He is God the Son in heaven today as He will remain throughout eternity. He is ''Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever". Hebrews 13:8

Okay, I think I can see where you are inferring that it is the Father that is coming down, but my opinion (if you want it, feel free to ignore as this is your journey, not mine ) is that you are reading more into it than is meant due to the Trinitarian language that is being used and that the segment that I left above as well as quoted in my own post is key to understanding what they are teaching in the article.

[Tacenda]

The link seems all about God the SON becoming man.

Ok, am I daft? So all this time, short time, I've held that God came down....not a created being, Jesus Christ our brother. What am I getting wrong? You and Cal are far superior in the brain category so I'm really trying as hard as I can, to get it. So maybe what you're saying is that Jesus is God because he was a man before and became a God? I see now how that could be Mormonism! It's been difficult, sorry.

[volgadon]

Ok, am I daft? So all this time, short time, I've held that God came down....not a created being, Jesus Christ our brother. What am I getting wrong? You and Cal are far superior in the brain category so I'm really trying as hard as I can, to get it. So maybe what you're saying is that Jesus is God because he was a man before and became a God? I see now how that could be Mormonism! It's been difficult, sorry.

I truly am not attempting to Mormonise Trinitarian understandings (and I don't consider myself superior to you in intellect). I am merely pointing out that in your link, it isn't God the Father who is incarnated, but God the Son. I also posted the pages from Kalistos Ware's book to show thta some trinitarians are perfectly fine with saying that God the Son became our brother when he became man.

[ChristKnight]

Ok, am I daft? So all this time, short time, I've held that God came down....not a created being, Jesus Christ our brother. What am I getting wrong? You and Cal are far superior in the brain category so I'm really trying as hard as I can, to get it. So maybe what you're saying is that Jesus is God because he was a man before and became a God? I see now how that could be Mormonism! It's been difficult, sorry.

I may be wrong, but from this quote, it seems as if you're confusing a few things when trying to understand how orthodox (small "o") Trinitarians understand this. Basically, yes, "God came down". But "God" in that phrase is not referring to God the Father. It is referring to God the Son. Trinitarians believe that "God" eternally exists as three distinct Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Each Person can be referred to as "God", since they each possess Divinity fully. They can also be collectively referred to as "God". This all depends on the context. Therefore, when you read the article you linked to, it is most certainly correct that God Himself came down and incarnated as Jesus Christ. However, they are not talking about the Father, but the second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, who, along with the Father and the Holy Ghost, has existed eternally as God.

Hope that helps.

Edited July 12, 2013 by ChristKnight

[Stone holm]

Okay, I think I can see where you are inferring that it is the Father that is coming down, but my opinion (if you want it, feel free to ignore as this is your journey, not mine ) is that you are reading more into it than is meant due to the Trinitarian language that is being used and that the segment that I left above as well as quoted in my own post is key to understanding what they are teaching in the article.

I agree. Christ was a god before He was born, just as the Holy Ghost is a god who has not yet been born, but that does not mean that Heavenly Father came down and became a mortal in the form of Christ. It appears that some spirits are so exceptional that they can achieve the status of godhood before their birth. That I believe is what Mormonism teaches. Yet, even Christ had reason to want a physical body....and there was something going on, which is not real clear, that occurred after the resurrection since He told Mary to "touch me not for I have not yet ascended unto the Father" -- but later allowed Thomas to stick his finger in the hole in His side.

[Calm]

I agree. Christ was a god before He was born, just as the Holy Ghost is a god who has not yet been born, but that does not mean that Heavenly Father came down and became a mortal in the form of Christ. It appears that some spirits are so exceptional that they can achieve the status of godhood before their birth. That I believe is what Mormonism teaches. Yet, even Christ had reason to want a physical body....and there was something going on, which is not real clear, that occurred after the resurrection since He told Mary to "touch me not for I have not yet ascended unto the Father" -- but later allowed Thomas to stick his finger in the hole in His side.

I agree. I also believe that "God" means at different times different things and in a certain way, Christ, the Father and the Spirit have been God for every moment of their existence...because whatever quality that allowed them to assume the roles of Creator, Son, Father, Spirit, Saviour, Comforter, etc. was in them as part of their eternal individual nature. And I see it as likely that we do not have that same quality eternally in ours but through our spiritual births as the Father's children, our adoption by the Son as his children and our acceptance of and exaltation through the Atonement we make partake of that divine nature and thus become one with God and receive all that he has desired to give us.

So I believe that God the Father and God the Son and God the Spirit are the eternal God in that sense no matter what process they have gone through or may go through receiving a physical body or growing from grace to grace or whatever other progression they may have gone or will go through.

Edited July 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

I agree. I also believe that "God" means at different times different things and in a certain way, Christ, the Father and the Spirit have been God for every moment of their existence...because whatever quality that allowed them to assume the roles of Creator, Son, Father, Spirit, Saviour, Comforter, etc. was in them as part of their eternal individual nature. And I see it as likely that we do not have that same quality eternally in ours but through our spiritual births as the Father's children, our adoption by the Son as his children and our acceptance of and exaltation through the Atonement we make partake of that divine nature and thus become one with God and receive all that he has desired to give us.

So I believe that God the Father and God the Son and God the Spirit are the eternal God in that sense no matter what process they have gone through or may go through receiving a physical body or growing from grace to grace or whatever other progression they may have gone or will go through.

I don't think I can go all the way with you there. If "God once was as we are now" then it takes a very loose definition of godhood to say that He was always a god.

[Calm]

I don't think I can go all the way with you there. If "God once was as we are now" then it takes a very loose definition of godhood to say that He was always a god.

But there are so many ways he could have been like we are now, it doesn't say he was identical to what we are in every way.

The scriptures teach us that intelligences come in varying degrees of ability and God was the greatest of all those intelligences....which means whatever made him the greatest was with him for all of his existence, as an intelligence/spirit/mortal man/exalted God.

If one defines God as "the greatest of all the intelligences"....which seems reasonable to me...in that way we can say God has eternally been God.

Edited July 13, 2013 by calmoriah

[Brian 2.0]

I agree. I also believe that "God" means at different times different things and in a certain way, Christ, the Father and the Spirit have been God for every moment of their existence...because whatever quality that allowed them to assume the roles of Creator, Son, Father, Spirit, Saviour, Comforter, etc. was in them as part of their eternal individual nature. And I see it as likely that we do not have that same quality eternally in ours but through our spiritual births as the Father's children, our adoption by the Son as his children and our acceptance of and exaltation through the Atonement we make partake of that divine nature and thus become one with God and receive all that he has desired to give us.

So I believe that God the Father and God the Son and God the Spirit are the eternal God in that sense no matter what process they have gone through or may go through receiving a physical body or growing from grace to grace or whatever other progression they may have gone or will go through.

I'm with Stone on this. If our Heavenly Father was literally "always a God" from eternity to eternity... then you or I or whomever gets exalted in the Celestial Kingdom and starts having eternal increased would also have to be considered as "always been a God."

And maybe you do mean this when you say 'always a God'

[Questing Beast]

... Christ was a god before He was born, just as the Holy Ghost is a god who has not yet been born, but that does not mean that Heavenly Father came down and became a mortal in the form of Christ. It appears that some spirits are so exceptional that they can achieve the status of godhood before their birth. That I believe is what Mormonism teaches. Yet, even Christ had reason to want a physical body....and there was something going on, which is not real clear, that occurred after the resurrection since He told Mary to "touch me not for I have not yet ascended unto the Father" -- but later allowed Thomas to stick his finger in the hole in His side.

Yes, what is going on is inconsistency. And growing theology. The BoM clearly states that God existed alone (since no others are mentioned at any point). The "spirit of the Lord" is God manifesting without a physical body, e.g. to the brother of Jared. Mormon doctrine states that the God of the OT is Jesus Christ before he took upon himself flesh, it is not GtF. And when the BoM says that God himself came down, condescended, and took upon himself flesh, he became the Son persona. And after he worked the atonement he returned to heaven a resurrected being, and thus because of the flesh he was the Son, and because of the atonement he was the father of salvation, or became "the Father and the Son": Very different from Trinitarian doctrine in that specific "dual nature" doctrine: And further afield yet from JS's last theology, which has the Godhead more or less evolving into gods (if we accept the Follett Discourse, which, of course, we are not required to do); but at the very least has GtF tabernacled in flesh, then the Son also after his resurrection, and the HG remains a spirit being. So in some ways the current Mormon Godhead is closer to Trinitarian notions, and further afield, since non Momons cannot forget the Follett Discourse's assertion that GtF was once a mortal man and not always God. If you could get rid of that hurdle, Mormonism's Godhead is almost identical with Trinitarian thought. But the BoM with its "dual nature" one God is closer by accepting that God has always been God. Mormon theology would become "Trinitarian" by dropping, entirely, all references to GtF as ever going through mortality like we do, and becoming a god, like we will. And if Mormonism did drop that bit of doctrine, what would that change about how we view eternity and our destiny to become "gods"? I don't see a problem developing from a clarification that JS positively spoke out of line when he said that "God is a glorified" mortal man who learned how to become our god....

Edited July 13, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Stone holm]

Yes, what is going on is inconsistency. And growing theology. The BoM clearly states that God existed alone (since no others are mentioned at any point). The "spirit of the Lord" is God manifesting without a physical body, e.g. to the brother of Jared. Mormon doctrine states that the God of the OT is Jesus Christ before he took upon himself flesh, it is not GtF. And when the BoM says that God himself came down, condescended, and took upon himself flesh, he became the Son persona. And after he worked the atonement he returned to heaven a resurrected being, and thus because of the flesh he was the Son, and because of the atonement he was the father of salvation, or became "the Father and the Son": Very different from Trinitarian doctrine in that specific "dual nature" doctrine: And further afield yet from JS's last theology, which has the Godhead more or less evolving into gods (if we accept the Follett Discourse, which, of course, we are not required to do); but at the very least has GtF tabernacled in flesh, then the Son also after his resurrection, and the HG remains a spirit being. So in some ways the current Mormon Godhead is closer to Trinitarian notions, and further afield, since non Momons cannot forget the Follett Discourse's assertion that GtF was once a mortal man and not always God. If you could get rid of that hurdle, Mormonism's Godhead is almost identical with Trinitarian thought. But the BoM with its "dual nature" one God is closer by accepting that God has always been God. Mormon theology would become "Trinitarian" by dropping, entirely, all references to GtF as ever going through mortality like we do, and becoming a god, like we will. And if Mormonism did drop that bit of doctrine, what would that change about how we view eternity and our destiny to become "gods"? I don't see a problem developing from a clarification that JS positively spoke out of line when he said that "God is a glorified" mortal man who learned how to become our god....

The finger that the Brother of Jared saw was that of Jesus Christ which was clearly explained. Not following you here.

[DBMormon]

Back on topic People

[Stone holm]

Back on topic People

Sorry, thought the topic included having concepts of God inconsistent with the fundamental teachings of the Church.

[Questing Beast]

So did I. Oh well.

My point is that the BoM theology is closer to mainline Christianity's Trinity by asserting that God is the only one, but manifests as the Son because of the flesh and the atonement. But LDS theology (i.e. 1843 style) is closer by asserting that all three in the Godhead are separate persons: where LDS theology went awry was in asserting that GtF was once a mortal man who worked out his own salvation and then became "God" to his own creation, and that Mormons can do likewise. Pure heresy to any normal thinking Christian....

[thesometimesaint]

Speculative a

So did I. Oh well.

My point is that the BoM theology is closer to mainline Christianity's Trinity by asserting that God is the only one, but manifests as the Son because of the flesh and the atonement. But LDS theology (i.e. 1843 style) is closer by asserting that all three in the Godhead are separate persons: where LDS theology went awry was in asserting that GtF was once a mortal man who worked out his own salvation and then became "God" to his own creation, and that Mormons can do likewise. Pure heresy to any normal thinking Christian....

We believe in the Godhead. Which is not the same thing as the Trinitarian concept of God. The rest is speculative at best.

[Stone holm]

So did I. Oh well.

My point is that the BoM theology is closer to mainline Christianity's Trinity by asserting that God is the only one, but manifests as the Son because of the flesh and the atonement. But LDS theology (i.e. 1843 style) is closer by asserting that all three in the Godhead are separate persons: where LDS theology went awry was in asserting that GtF was once a mortal man who worked out his own salvation and then became "God" to his own creation, and that Mormons can do likewise. Pure heresy to any normal thinking Christian....

Don't actually see that as going awry. The idea of "God" coming down to satisfy a rule which He Himself made is only slightly better than sending His Son down to satisfy a rule which He Himself made -- neither make a whole lot of sense, so I'll stick with Mormon theology.

[DBMormon]

Ok, continue on, nothing to see here.

[Stone holm]

Don't actually see that as going awry. The idea of "God" coming down to satisfy a rule which He Himself made is only slightly better than sending His Son down to satisfy a rule which He Himself made -- neither make a whole lot of sense, so I'll stick with Mormon theology.

The point is that we have certain core teachings which if you ignore then you have expanded the tent , but its no longer Mormonism. That is, of course, not the only way to expand the tent. The biggest way available right now is to abandon some of the political baggage tied to economic ideologies, that we can do without converting the tent into something other than Mormonism. But it does require that we take a harder and more expanded look at what we call morality.

[Thankful]

Are we children of God? I believe so, and our theology teaches it. If so, is a baby still a human being? Is a puppy still a form of "dog"? Is a kitten still a form of "cat?" Then why are not the "children of God" still some form of God eternally?

Why can we not progress to become Gods and Godesses and STILL be able to say we were ALWAYS Gods and Godesses? Who's to say God can't be a glorified being who progressed to be God, but was also always a God in his essential nature? What if time is only finite on this mortal sphere? Might we not all be progressing toward being God and also ALREADY be Gods, if that is part of our essential nature? Just some thoughts...

[EllenMaksoud]

Greg Prince

Terryl Givens

Richard Bushman

All active LDS whose views are nuanced and not traditional.

Whether not believing a historical BOM, defining "True and Living" way different then the Church's traditional explanation, and other flexible ways of fitting in the tent of mormonism that are markedly different then what we have been taught in generations past.

This type of preaching would have meant Church discipline 20 years ago.

Today one can speak of allowing gays full fellowship in the church, speak of allowing sisters priesthood, define the church in ways it has never described itself or it's truth claims, and still be an active member in full fellowship.

I see this tent enlarging as positive, as allowing others to hang on in spite if the difficult issues and still lead with faith. While we have to hang onto some things - BOM as scripture, Articles of Faith, belief that leaders are called of God and led by revelation, I also am grateful to rid ourselves of some of the nonsense

What think you?

At some point the "gay" issue will be solved. I do not have proof as to whether it is sin, or if it is genetics, though personally I lean toward genetics, having seen far too many tears of the heartbroken people and loved ones who face this everyday. If we were not so busy with the war machine creating more enemies through out the world, we'd have money for pure research. Oh, sorry, wars make money, research does not.

As far as women even needing the priesthood, are they NUTS? There is just so much to do, don't you dare give me yet another job!

Edited July 20, 2013 by EllenMaksoud

[Thankful]

P.S. I see widening the "tent" as a good thing in terms of love and acceptance. But I do not think we need to widen the tent on our doctrine.

I fully accept that I have some unorthodox views. I want to be loved and accepted as the heretic I am. But when I teach, I stick with the manual (whatever my personal beliefs).

I think the church has the right and the responsibility to gatekeep and preserve essential doctrines. We have some beautiful, unique doctrines that don't need to be tossed out.

But ALL need to be truly free to come and be accepted- not just in word but in the ways we treat each other. We need to start living our beliefs about the first and second great commandments. We need to worry less about regulating others and more about loving them.

[Erin15]

What think you?

This cycle has been repeated countless times in every dispensation. It is nothing new, nor it is unexpected.

The attempt to mix the poilitcal and social views of the world with the gospel will pollute the hearts and minds of those who attept to do so. At some future point, there will be a breaking. Those loyal to Christ will stay in the church, those loyal to the philosophies of the world will not.

The church will loose a lot of members, and the work will go on regardless as it always has.

It is simply the way of things. We know how this will end, We know what the winning side will be.

The only question before us is: Which side do we each chose to be on?

[DBMormon]

This cycle has been repeated countless times in every dispensation. It is nothing new, nor it is unexpected.

The attempt to mix the poilitcal and social views of the world with the gospel will pollute the hearts and minds of those who attept to do so. At some future point, there will be a breaking. Those loyal to Christ will stay in the church, those loyal to the philosophies of the world will not.

The church will loose a lot of members, and the work will go on regardless as it always has.

It is simply the way of things. We know how this will end, We know what the winning side will be.

The only question before us is: Which side do we each chose to be on?

What makes one loyal? If one is unorthodox to the some of the majority held beliefs but they lead with faith and seek out the Christ, are they out looking in.

[Stone holm]

What makes one loyal? If one is unorthodox to the some of the majority held beliefs but they lead with faith and seek out the Christ, are they out looking in.

I think I asked the question on another thread whether there was such a thing as the loyal opposition, what is different here?