Who Is The Biblical God?

[JLHPROF]

Wow, just read the lesson on Exaltation, what an eye opener. My parents failed to teach me this one. Of course my mom was the stalwart and dad was really just in it to please her. But this lesson passed by me. Is this still in the Deseret Bookstore? It's all there, everything we believe in. Now to someone like Ellen, seems unfair for her to have gone through all the steps but still not get the TR.

 

For me the most important line in this entire lesson is actually:

"What Is Exaltation?

Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives." pg 47.

 

To me, this is where the deepest truths and most interesting doctrines of the gospel are found.  That's why we are taught that "This is life eternal, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent".   All our discussions (arguments) are really moot.

The only doctrine that is eternally significant and that matters in the end is "How does God live and how can I get closer to that way of living?"

[telnetd]

Now to someone like Ellen, seems unfair for her to have gone through all the steps but still not get the TR.

 

She said she rejects the Deity of Jesus, thus also rejecting

the Book of Mormon teaching in regards to this. She may 

get a TR only if her bishop does not ask these types of

questions.

 

Gail

[Maidservant]

However, how LDS deal with sin, the process by which Jesus heals us, how we obtain unity with Christ and Father... the internal processes of becoming "worthy" just felt inadequate.  My heart turns away from God so easily and frequently, and I trample on my Lord  and His sacrifice so often, sometimes in deed and more often in thought.  I will never be worthy to enter into the presence of Father no matter how hard I try to change myself, my behavior.  He just loves me, and He dies for me even when I turn away, and I hope He will bring me home to Him through His steadfast love.  This feels right to me.

I do not experience my priesthood covenant(s) as a process of worthiness at least not in the sense of God 'approving' or 'disapproving' of me.  Perhaps an older sense of 'worthiness' in that we are vessels of God and of love and we must, by process, be able to hold that and be that--beings of love.  I also don't experience my journey in my covenant or my membership in the church or etc etc as a process of saving myself.  I, too, know that Jesus has no intention of ever letting me out of His Hand.  I can not 'mistake' or 'sin' my way out of belonging to him, because he will always come after me and bring me back to love and to eternity.  I consider my walk in the gospel and my community with the Saints to be primarily about the here and now--being upheld, protected, taught, loved and have an opportunity to learn, serve, etc.  I am MUCH less concerned about my fate after my death--I trust that all will be well for me and for all on the earth, who have lived by the light they have.

 

I say this not that I have the right way of looking at it versus all else, but simply to say that you, by your experiences and your own study, can come to understand your relationship to your Savior, your Father and to your eternal condition in other ways than the one you expressed and still be 'Mormon'.  What you expressed is a paradigm or tradition that you hold--I'm not sure it's the gospel.

[Vance]

I believe God is embodied figuratively speaking, whilst you believe God is literally embodied.

I have yet to see a compelling presentation showing Biblical support for the "immateriality" of God.  Do you think you could provide one?

[danieldemol]

I have yet to see a compelling presentation showing Biblical support for the "immateriality" of God. Do you think you could provide one?

MF has said;

Anyway we are obviously not communicating well so it might be best just to drop the subject anyway.

Stoneholm has said;

... which brings me back to an earlier question why would we seek the answer to the original post via Bahai teachings. I mean no disrespect to the Bahai, but it does not seem an obvious source for this type of analysis.

If you wish to have this discussion on this thread, I will agree on the following conditions;

1) MF & Stoneholm indicate agreement for us to discuss it here

2) You must indicate your agreement that a *perception* of a presentation as being compelling is in the eye of the beholder and that only an objective (read perfectly just) judge could objectively state whether such a presentation is truly compelling or not as opposed to simply being perceived one way or the other without necessarily being aligned to the objective truth.

[danieldemol]

Alternatively we could discuss it by PM

[Stone holm]

MF has said;

Stoneholm has said;

If you wish to have this discussion on this thread, I will agree on the following conditions;

1) MF & Stoneholm indicate agreement for us to discuss it here

2) You must indicate your agreement that a *perception* of a presentation as being compelling is in the eye of the beholder and that only an objective (read perfectly just) judge could objectively state whether such a presentation is truly compelling or not as opposed to simply being perceived one way or the other without necessarily being aligned to the objective truth.

 

I am not a moderator, feel free to discuss whatever you like.  Who is the God of the Bible -- I suspect depends on which lenses you are wearing at the time.  I suspect that a Bahai lens is very, very different than a Mormon lens or even a general Christian lens.  But have at....

[Vance]

MF has said;

Stoneholm has said;

If you wish to have this discussion on this thread, I will agree on the following conditions;

1) MF & Stoneholm indicate agreement for us to discuss it here

2) You must indicate your agreement that a *perception* of a presentation as being compelling is in the eye of the beholder and that only an objective (read perfectly just) judge could objectively state whether such a presentation is truly compelling or not as opposed to simply being perceived one way or the other without necessarily being aligned to the objective truth.

I would think that IF you had a compelling presentation you would jump at the chance to provide it.  So I am getting the impression that you are looking for excuses because you don't have one.

 

It doesn't surprise me, really.  As I said, I have yet to see one.  And I don't think it is possible to compile one.

[Stone holm]

I would think that IF you had a compelling presentation you would jump at the chance to provide it.  So I am getting the impression that you are looking for excuses because you don't have one.

 

It doesn't surprise me, really.  As I said, I have yet to see one.  And I don't think it is possible to compile one.

Wow the quote reiteration really put words into my mouth that I never uttered.

[danieldemol]

I would think that IF you had a compelling presentation you would jump at the chance to provide it. So I am getting the impression that you are looking for excuses because you don't have one.

It doesn't surprise me, really. As I said, I have yet to see one. And I don't think it is possible to compile one.

Quite to the contrary, it is very compelling, and I have not provided excuses, simply given you a choice between receiving it privately without pre-condition, or receiving it publicly with a very very easy pre-condition which doesn't involve forcing it down MF's throat if he doesn't want to hear it.

That is a courtesy, not an excuse. Should courtesy be belittled?

[mfbukowski]

MF has said;

Stoneholm has said;

If you wish to have this discussion on this thread, I will agree on the following conditions;

1) MF & Stoneholm indicate agreement for us to discuss it here

2) You must indicate your agreement that a *perception* of a presentation as being compelling is in the eye of the beholder and that only an objective (read perfectly just) judge could objectively state whether such a presentation is truly compelling or not as opposed to simply being perceived one way or the other without necessarily being aligned to the objective truth.

I don't give a care - it's up to the OP not me.

 

But that's a really silly definition of objective truth.  I see "compelling" movies all the time which are totally fictitious.

 

And you can never get outside of perceptions anyway to see if they "align" with truth, because all you have is your perceptions.  Somehow you would have to see "truth as it is" AND see "your perceptions" AND say "Yep! They align!"  That's impossible.  If you can see truth "as it is" then you don't need to worry about perceptions or if they are correct- you just see the truth.

 

For me perceptions ARE the truth- the only truth we can possibly know.

 

But knock yourself out if you want to- you can rattle your gums all you like- maybe I will participate maybe I won't.

 

And how are mortals supposed to know what a perfectly just judge would say anyway?   There are so many holes in that

[Stone holm]

I don't give a care - it's up to the OP not me.

 

But that's a really silly definition of objective truth.  I see "compelling" movies all the time which are totally fictitious.

 

And you can never get outside of perceptions anyway to see if they "align" with truth, because all you have is your perceptions.  Somehow you would have to see "truth as it is" AND see "your perceptions" AND say "Yep! They align!"  That's impossible.  If you can see truth "as it is" then you don't need to worry about perceptions or if they are correct- you just see the truth.

 

For me perceptions ARE the truth- the only truth we can possibly know.

 

But knock yourself out if you want to- you can rattle your gums all you like- maybe I will participate maybe I won't.

 

And how are mortals supposed to know what a perfectly just judge would say anyway?   There are so many holes in that

Took you long enough.

[mfbukowski]

I would think that IF you had a compelling presentation you would jump at the chance to provide it.  So I am getting the impression that you are looking for excuses because you don't have one.

 

It doesn't surprise me, really.  As I said, I have yet to see one.  And I don't think it is possible to compile one.

Agreed.

I still don't know what "compelling" is supposed to mean.  Some of those zombie movies are pretty "compelling".

[mfbukowski]

2) You must indicate your agreement that a *perception* of a presentation as being compelling is in the eye of the beholder and that only an objective (read perfectly just) judge could objectively state whether such a presentation is truly compelling or not as opposed to simply being perceived one way or the other without necessarily being aligned to the objective truth.

I mean just really look at what is being said here:

 

 

a *perception* of a presentation as being compelling is in the eye of the beholder

 

AND, at the same time,

 

that only an objective (read perfectly just) judge could objectively state whether such a presentation is truly compelling or not as opposed to simply being perceived one way or the other without necessarily being aligned to the objective truth.

 

So the perception is in the eyes of the beholder

 

AND

 

a pefectly just judge could tell if it really was in the eye of the beholder or not.

 

Huh?

[danieldemol]

I don't give a care - it's up to the OP not me.

I haven't heard the OP object so far

 

I see "compelling" movies all the time which are totally fictitious.

And you can never get outside of perceptions anyway to see if they "align" with truth, because all you have is your perceptions.

An acknowledgement of precisely what has been quoted in the above is all I asked from Vance in pre-condition 2) and nothing more

Edited October 22, 2013 by danieldemol

[Vance]

Wow the quote reiteration really put words into my mouth that I never uttered.

Sorry about that.

[Vance]

But that's a really silly definition of objective truth.  I see "compelling" movies all the time which are totally fictitious.

 

Perhaps "compelling" is not the best word.  How about, "reasonable" or "plausible" or "credible"?

 

Ah, they are just words anyway.

 

Edited to add,

Or "cogent"?

Edited October 22, 2013 by Vance

[Vance]

Quite to the contrary, it is very compelling, and I have not provided excuses, simply given you a choice between receiving it privately without pre-condition, or receiving it publicly with a very very easy pre-condition which doesn't involve forcing it down MF's throat if he doesn't want to hear it.

That is a courtesy, not an excuse. Should courtesy be belittled?

So,  I have to agree to some pre-conditions BEFORE you provide your "very compelling" presentation here?

 

As I recall the OP said "So it's all come down to this: whose version of God is best represented by the Bible alone?"

 

I would think that your "very compelling" presentation of the Biblical origins (or support of, as the case may be) the concept of "immaterial" God would be very much in line with the OP's request.

 

I have to say, from here, it looks like you are just making more excuses.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Vance

[danieldemol]

So, I have to agree to some pre-conditions BEFORE you provide your "very compelling" presentation here?

As I recall the OP said "So it's all come down to this: whose version of God is best represented by the Bible alone?"

I would think that your "very compelling" presentation of the Biblical origins (or support of, as the case may be) the concept of "immaterial" God would be very much in line with the OP's request.

I have to say, from here, it looks like you are just making more excuses.

From my perspective, it appears you are too proud to admit that what constitutes "compelling" is a subjective matter of personal opinion.

Jesus said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep", not, "I am not sent but to engage in choir singing and point scoring", thus I see no value in engaging in discussion with the proud who are unlikely to admit any truth even to the extent of a mustard seed should it come from a contrary opinion.

Of course if the OP requests the evidence (thereby indicating they are still interested in this thread) I will accept to present it without any pre-condition, it is not my wish to lay burden on the thoughtful.

[Vance]

Like I said,

I have to say, from here, it looks like you are just making more excuses.

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps "compelling" is not the best word.  How about, "reasonable" or "plausible" or "credible"?

 

Ah, they are just words anyway.

 

Edited to add,

Or "cogent"?

Those are all good words for arguments - I wasn't objecting to that usage at all

 

 

2) You must indicate your agreement that a *perception* of a presentation as being compelling is in the eye of the beholder and that only an objective (read perfectly just) judge could objectively state whether such a presentation is truly compelling or not as opposed to simply being perceived one way or the other without necessarily being aligned to the objective truth.

 

My objection was the whole notion that there COULD be anything like "truly compelling" in an objective sense.

 

That's absurd.  There IS no difference between an argument being "perceived" as "compelling" and it being "actually compelling".  What compels one person may not compel another.

 

That's like saying is that REALLY your favorite ice cream flavor or do you just THINK it's your favorite?  There IS no such thing as objectivity in what subjectively one person finds "compelling"

 

And yes, I agree he is dancing around.  There ARE no "arguments" for anything immaterial.  That's like making an argument for the existence of nothing.

 

It's just jibberish.  It would truly take a Scholastic philosopher to make such an argument.    There is a reason that scholasticism is extinct everywhere but in Catholic universities.  Yes it is taught in history of philosophy classes, just like one teaches about alchemy in a history of science class, but of course no one practices it.

[mfbukowski]

From my perspective, it appears you are too proud to admit that what constitutes "compelling" is a subjective matter of personal opinion.

 

OK

 

I admit it.  I have no clue what you guys are fighting about.  Truth itself is in the eye of the beholder, so of course what is compelling is also.  But what is the importance of these words?

 

You still have not made any case compelling or otherwise for immateriality. 

[mfbukowski]

From my perspective, it appears you are too proud to admit that what constitutes "compelling" is a subjective matter of personal opinion.

Jesus said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep", not, "I am not sent but to engage in choir singing and point scoring", thus I see no value in engaging in discussion with the proud who are unlikely to admit any truth even to the extent of a mustard seed should it come from a contrary opinion.

Of course if the OP requests the evidence (thereby indicating they are still interested in this thread) I will accept to present it without any pre-condition, it is not my wish to lay burden on the thoughtful.

HUH?

[savedbygrace]

I am reading your thread on one screen and making my comments on another, so what I say may seem a bit disjointed.

 

It took you 17 1/2 years to read the Bom?

 

In my estimation, there is one God. I don't agree with the trinity. There is God, and then there is something that goes on that we can't quite explain that some call the holy spirit. Others don't try to define it. Some say the Holy Spirit is an Angel.

 

As far as Jesus Christ is concerned, he is real, but he is not God, and not the God of the Old Testament. I have heard some dispensationalists say that the Priest Melchizedek was Jesus Christ. Well, what ever.

 

If you go to the 10 commandments, God is the one and only true supreme God. The first commandment is the reason I have issue with the lyrics to "If I could hie to Kolob". "Find out the generation where Gods begin to be". You know what, it is just a song, not part of doctrine. There is One supreme God.

 

To be clear, I am not endowed. This idea that God is in the Temple, well, I'm not convinced.

Ellen, I can't understand how you can have been baptised into the Mormon faith and yet you seem to know so little LDS theology on the God head. How can you hope/wish to go to the temple if you don't have at least an accceptance of the Mormon view of God? Is it that you don't  know/understand, or that you choose to believe what suits you best?. Is it the Mormon church's social structure that is the attraction rather than its doctrines? It took 2 years for me to become catholic, I had to be sure of what I believed, and the church was in no rush to let me in until I had been well catechised. If I had not been able to accept the teaching of the catholic church I could not have joined, I wouldn't have felt at liberty to pick and choose what to believe. Maybe you need to discuss these things with your bishop, perhaps some extra teaching will help you to accept your church's theology

[EllenMaksoud]

Ellen, I can't understand how you can have been baptised into the Mormon faith and yet you seem to know so little LDS theology on the God head. How can you hope/wish to go to the temple if you don't have at least an accceptance of the Mormon view of God? Is it that you don't  know/understand, or that you choose to believe what suits you best?. Is it the Mormon church's social structure that is the attraction rather than its doctrines? It took 2 years for me to become catholic, I had to be sure of what I believed, and the church was in no rush to let me in until I had been well catechised. If I had not been able to accept the teaching of the catholic church I could not have joined, I wouldn't have felt at liberty to pick and choose what to believe. Maybe you need to discuss these things with your bishop, perhaps some extra teaching will help you to accept your church's theology

Nope, I'm good. Why would you think I know so little about Mormon Doctrine? Maybe I just don't agree with some things?  Are you Mormon?  I'm taking a lot of medicine for a disease. Do you think I am confused?

 

As to the Temple, I can do God's will with out it. I'm not called to go there.

Edited October 23, 2013 by EllenMaksoud