A Different God?

[Calm]

https://www.lds.org/topics/mother-in-heaven?lang=eng

"While there is no record of a formal revelation to Joseph Smith on this doctrine, some early Latter-day Saint women recalled that he personally taught them about a Mother in Heaven.3 The earliest published references to the doctrine appeared shortly after Joseph Smith’s death in 1844, in documents written by his close associates.4The most notable expression of the idea is found in a poem by Eliza R. Snow, entitled “My Father in Heaven” and now known as the hymn “O My Father.” This text declares: “In the heav’ns are parents single? / No, the thought makes reason stare; / Truth is reason—truth eternal / Tells me I’ve a mother there.”5

Subsequent Church leaders have affirmed the existence of a Mother in Heaven. In 1909, the First Presidency taught that “all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity.”6 Susa Young Gates, a prominent leader in the Church, wrote in 1920 that Joseph Smith’s visions and teachings revealed the truth that “the divine Mother, [is] side by side with the divine Father.”7 And in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” issued in 1995, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles declared, “Each [person] is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny.”"

Footnotes indicated several scriptures, then references to 1911, 2011,1992, 1845, 1996-7, 1909, 1920, 2001, 2010, 1964, 1991, 1910, 1995,

Looking at the google results, there are magazine/conference hits from each decade since 70s and we might have earlier if I can remember where to find the older stuff, bedtime for now.  For example:  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/04/the-women-of-god?lang=eng

[flameburns623]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

These are differences in intellectual maturity, according to the Perry Scheme.

What religion you live by and where you are on the Scheme are independent variables. https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry.positions.html

It's a question of how you see belief itself, not what you believe. 

Maturity level aside, within most religious traditions, what "progressives" and "conservatives" do tends to be markedly different. I'm most familiar with Catholicism so will reference them in what follows.

Back in the 1980's,  I remember several polls which touted a measure of spirituality. Evangelicals heralded these polls because they purportedly showed that they were "more spiritual" than those who attended more 'liberal' traditions.

The problem is that the markers used to measure this were skewed towards conservative definitions of spirituality.

Frequency of prayers, for example, were sought. As opposed to asking about meditation or quiet time. Catholic progressives might not recite the Rosary or the Act of Contrition or some similar traditional daily prayer. But they might meditate daily, or use the Enneagram or Prayer Labyrinth technique.

Mass attendence might be measured: but progressive Roman Catholics might eschew regular Mass yet attend other sorts of events that had a high degree of spirituality. (Mass-attending Catholics, like Chapel Mormons, tend to be more conservative and to articulate/reinforce traditional or conservative thinking: this would likely discourage Catholic liberals).

I attended several Pax Christi events in the 1980's: the ones I attended had about 30 minutes of prayer and scripture. There was even a Mass-like blessing of a loaf of bread and wine, with everyone tearing a fist-sized chunk of the bread.

This wasn't a true celebration of Mass, and the blessing was as likely to be said by a nun or a layperson as by a priest, but the whole thing was very much like a religious service. I'm told that various sorts of Catholic progressive gatherings continue to similarly incorporate aspects of spirituality and worship where practical.

Spiritual reading was presumed to mean the Bible or traditional hagiography: Robert Frost or Ludwig Wittgenstein would not "count".

Nor would "buying green", or reducing one's carbon footprint, or supporting progressive social or political events. Yet, these sort of things might well flow out of and be inspired by the warp and woof of a progressive's spiritual life.

BTW: don't assume that all Roman Catholics "believe in the Eucharist", at least not in the way the historic RCC defines it. There are progressive Catholic priests who have concelebrated Mass alongside Lutherans and Anglicans and who might very well concelebrate it with YOU, if you but knew the liturgic rubrics well enough. 

I've never met a progressive Latter-Day Saint in person. I am not calling you, or anyone else here, a theological or any other kind of 'liberal'.

I note, however, Mr. Bukowski, that you acknowledge that you don't talk about certan aspects of your personal faith in High Priesthood Meetings. Suggesting that you realise that while the water of your faith is drawn from the same Source as your colleagues, you draw it from wells unfamiliar to them.

That somewhere on this forum you advised that folks stick to the Church Manuals during regular Church discussions, as opposed to speculative or controversial secondary materials. Not to lie to or deceive people, but to allow folks to come to grips with difficult material as they need to, in their own time.

And I know that, (shifting focus from you personlly MFBukowski), there is a qualitative difference in how many here talk about their LDS faith, contrasted to how the same comes up during Fast & Testimony Meetings.

Labels and descriptors can help sort those qualitative differences out. Such labeling should not be pejorative or demeaning or belittling, but it is useful that the labels are employed.

Categorizing does not "create cliques" incidentally: in my discipline of sociology, it describes those 'cliques' or other distinctive subgroups where they  exist already and are observable.

Edited April 12, 2016 by flameburns623
Typos

[flameburns623]

On 4/1/2016 at 9:08 PM, Steve Noel said:

I am reading Stephen E. Robinson's "Introduction" in the book How Wide the Divide? (co-authored w/ Craig Blomberg). I am very impressed and, in all honesty, convicted by some of what he writes about evangelicals. That being said, I find the difference of perspective concerning the nature of God between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints to be so significant that it is difficult to see how we can be talking about the same God. Robinson states, "We believe that God and humans are the same species of being..." (18). I cannot think of a more significant difference between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. For here the most basic of distinctions, the Creator - creature distinction, is erased. Blomberg calls this "the heart of traditional Christianity's disagreement with Mormonism" (96). 

Given that this divide is very wide, would you say that evangelicals and Latter-day Saints believe in, worship, pray to, etc. the same God?

Taking us back on topic.

This came across my Facebook feed thanks to Bill Reel/DBMormon. It is a blog by Muow, suggesting that Latter-Day Saints are moving closer to a mainstream understanding of God:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/mormons-approaching-orthodoxy

Edited April 12, 2016 by flameburns623
Typo

[Steve Noel]

1 hour ago, flameburns623 said:

Taking is back on topic.

This came across my Facebook feed thanks to Bill Reel/DBMormon. It is a blog by Muow, suggesting that Latter-Day Saints are moving closer to a mainstream understanding of God:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/mormons-approaching-orthodoxy

Thanks for sharing this. I have seen several Evangelical scholars that believe this to be true. 

[igonzals]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

Thanks for sharing this. I have seen several Evangelical scholars that believe this to be true. 

Steve,

Are there evidence for Father's Person as Truly Man (Anthropos) in the Bible itself to give more credit at least to "As man now is, God once was"? (Beyond catholic and protestantism oppositon in theological essays. I understand all those strong arguments)

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Maturity level aside, within most religious traditions, what "progressives" and "conservatives" do tends to be markedly different. I'm most familiar with Catholicism so will reference them in what follows.

Back in the 1980's,  I remember several polls which touted a measure of spirituality. Evangelicals heralded these polls because they purportedly showed that they were "more spiritual" than those who attended more 'liberal' traditions.

The problem is that the markers used to measure this were skewed towards conservative definitions of spirituality.

Frequency of prayers, for example, were sought. As opposed to asking about meditation or quiet time. Catholic progressives might not recite the Rosary or the Act of Contrition or some similar traditional daily prayer. But they might meditate daily, or use the Enneagram or Prayer Labyrinth technique.

Mass attendence might be measured: but progressive Roman Catholics might eschew regular Mass yet attend other sorts of events that had a high degree of spirituality. (Mass-attending Catholics, like Chapel Mormons, tend to be more conservative and to articulate/reinforce traditional or conservative thinking: this would likely discourage Catholic liberals).

I attended several Pax Christi events in the 1980's: the ones I attended had about 30 minutes of prayer and scripture. There was even a Mass-like blessing of a loaf of bread and wine, with everyone tearing a fist-sized chunk of the bread.

This wasn't a true celebration of Mass, and the blessing was as likely to be said by a nun or a layperson as by a priest, but the whole thing was very much like a religious service. I'm told that various sorts of Catholic progressive gatherings continue to similarly incorporate aspects of spirituality and worship where practical.

Spiritual reading was presumed to mean the Bible or traditional hagiography: Robert Frost or Ludwig Wittgenstein would not "count".

Nor would "buying green", or reducing one's carbon footprint, or supporting progressive social or political events. Yet, these sort of things might well flow out of and be inspired by the warp and woof of a progressive's spiritual life.

BTW: don't assume that all Roman Catholics "believe in the Eucharist", at least not in the way the historic RCC defines it. There are progressive Catholic priests who have concelebrated Mass alongside Lutherans and Anglicans and who might very well concelebrate it with YOU, if you but knew the liturgic rubrics well enough. 

I've never met a progressive Latter-Day Saint in person. I am not calling you, or anyone else here, a theological or any other kind of 'liberal'.

I note, however, Mr. Bukowski, that you acknowledge that you don't talk about certan aspects of your personal faith in High Priesthood Meetings. Suggesting that you realise that while the water of your faith is drawn from the same Source as your colleagues, you draw it from wells unfamiliar to them.

That somewhere on this forum you advised that folks stick to the Church Manuals during regular Church discussions, as opposed to speculative or controversial secondary materials. Not to lie to or deceive people, but to allow folks to come to grips with difficult material as they need to, in their own time.

And I know that, (shifting focus from you personlly MFBukowski), there is a qualitative difference in how many here talk about their LDS faith, contrasted to how the same comes up during Fast & Testimony Meetings.

Labels and descriptors can help sort those qualitative differences out. Such labeling should not be pejorative or demeaning or belittling, but it is useful that the labels are employed.

Categorizing does not "create cliques" incidentally: in my discipline of sociology, it describes those 'cliques' or other distinctive subgroups where they  exist already and are observable.

I have no problem with this in theory, but what you may not understand is that here, they DO create cliques

 

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Thanks for sharing this. I have seen several Evangelical scholars that believe this to be true. 

While I cannot say that the teaching is emphasized or discussed much, it is still there, and the membership is quite aware of it. It is not rescinded nor declared not to be doctrine. 

I would say this and polygamy are the two subjects many potential Christian converts have a hard time accepting or assimilating - for most it is too much, and they just kind of shut down, and won't listen as it's "Mormon" crazy talk. Possibly starting with Hinckley, or possibly before, I would say this subject was "toned down." 

When I joined the Church I certainly knew about the Church's "theosis" teachings, but films like the "God Makers" I would characterize as inaccurate and unfair, and that those who made it do not understand the oracles of God. After  years in the Church, I would say I know a little about this subject, but I will not say that my belief is Church doctrine - I would say it comports with scripture.

The early Christian Church ie Pre-Nicene, does not have a great body of evidence for any consensus views on the nature of God, but a reoccurring them was theosis. This changed after the Nicene Creed put the begotten nature of Christ out of reach and out of debate as something which happened before all ages or worlds rather than on a day when the One said "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee." The Nicene Creed did away with the idea that the Son had a beginning, and evidence shows many bishops realized their mistake and tried to ameliorate it in later councils which of course are not accepted as "Ecumenical." Since the possibility of following Christ was stamped out under threat of excommunication in the state church, the idea of theosis got replaced eventually with the idea that the Roman pontiff was the ruler for Christ on the earth. Arius was branded as someone who taught Christ was "created." In possibly the only surviving letter of his teachings, however, Arius does not say this. He taught that Christ was begotten. Plainly according to the scriptures Christ heard those words at the time He was begotten, and so already existed. In other words He was "adopted" as the begotten Son of the Father by this covenant. Scriptures say that the Father glorified Him because He eschewed evil, and "being made perfect, He became the author of our salvation." Hebrews. Scripture also calls Him our "fellow." LDS teach that He is our brother. So, Jesus is our spiritual brother, and if many of the earliest Christians are believed he could have once been like us. And yes, Satan too was once a morning star as spoken of by Job, who failed in his mission or rejected the path, and became Satan. In other words Satan was once our brother, but as Lucifer, a name which means star of the morning, he fell from the grace of God as metaphorically taught in Isaiah. Now he is our adversary and not our brother nor the brother of Jesus, so in this regard the common evangelical hype is not true since Satan long ago stopped being our spiritual brother.

I postulate that God did not create Satan, and the Bible does not teach this. In LDS theology there is no theological conundrum as to why God would create Satan. The Bible merely says that the serpent was more cunning than all the creatures God had created. In other words God created the creatures, but Satan was more cunning than any of God's creation. Athanathianism teaches that Satan tried to trick Adam into believing that he could be like God, and this was the horrible lie. But according to Gen 3:22, eating of the tree of the knowledge of  good and evil did make Adam and Eve like YHWH Elohim. The lie was that they would not die. So from the beginning we are beginning to see that "orthodoxy" has changed the picture of things as they are taught in the Bible. 

As a spirit being Satan came into this world after it was created. Nor do scriptures teach that God created the universe ex nihilo. In the beginning the earth was without form and God moved His Spirit across "the waters" from which the earth was formed. No mention that the waters were created from nothing. The earth was formed out of the waters. This too comports with LDS belief. I view the heavens created as being the residence of the spirits to come to earth. In the scriptures, men are represented as stars. During the siege of Antiochus Epiphanes the Jews fell and were stomped on, as stars of the hosts got stamped on in Daniel 8:10, and as the righteous are made shine as the stars in Daniel 12:3.

Now here is a conundrum for orthodoxy - if God created everything in the beginning, and Christ created all things with Him, where did you come from if you did not preexist? Didn't God already create everything? Were you created when you were born, or did God breathe your spirit into you when your body was created for your spirit to return to God who gave it, Ecclesiastes, rather than "made it." Who are the hosts of heaven in Genesis? A close analysis of the scriptures reveal a lot of things "orthodoxy" may not have right. They appear to be simply presumed by orthodoxy.

Well, I have much more to say on this subject, but suffice it to say that the key to this "mystery" was revealed in Jesus Christ, the revelator of the Father and our chief cornerstone,  who as a man was resurrected, to become the inheritor of the Holy mountains of the Father per Isa 65 and the only inheritor of the glory of the Father per 42, and indeed the only man from earth per scripture to be called the Eternal Father, Isa 9:6, at the end of this world. It is this man who showed the way to the holiest of all and reserves a place room for us in the house of Elohim. In this light the words of Bruce McKonkie in his last talk that Christ was made like unto His resurrected Father, makes crystal clear sense. Although D&C adopts the typical English translation of "gods", I would say that Elohim is more accurately described as house/family of immovable forces/stone. YHWH Elohim as translated in the English Bibles into LORD God, means something like I am the Life/Word of the family/house of immovable forces. 

Maybe it is one for Ripley's....

[igonzals]

Rev,

As you say, for me it's very interesting the fact of one heavenly angel (Lucifer) has changed its nature until became a demon (Satan) because evil was acting inside him. ¿Angels and demons are same "species of being"? For me it's obvious they are but in a different "state", like books of Alma and Abraham use the term. Then the opposite figure of Satan in the holistic scenario, Jesus, as angel and man, it's natural for me to think in his theosis process from his role as servant prior to his birth as The Angel of Yaveh at pre-existance and ending in his resurrection. He has become deificated in his human nature, but he preserves his common "race" with angels and men.

In addition, I think we must define that, independent of begetting Christ as his First Son, Jesus has been allways God (John 1:1, Mos. 3:5, D&C 76:4). Joseph Smith pointed to this idea (and I don't know why detractors ussually jump it when analyses his position) when he said "At the beginning three personages made a covenant... God the First: the Son...". God, a Fully Deity nature,  is the base of, is the prior if we could use that word, is a not created/organized/adopted nature, having not a starting point, a precedent for the nature of being Son. 

Consecuently I think the expression used by our scriptures about his sonship with the Father was "Begotten ... from the beginning" (D&C 76:13, Moses 5:9, Alma 13:9) is very exact and indicates a sense of eternal condition at the same time that was adopted (actually a mistery for me). But the base of the nature of Son is the nature of God, is his fully divinity. And the question arise: God nature in Jesus, being eternally and inherent, is the same nature of the deificated man/angel Jesus divinity? I think it is, mainly because he talk about a deep and perfect Unity with Trinity at his last speech (John 17), but I don't have any strong evidence at scriptures to assure this (not yet :=) ). This for me is only the problem. It's a big deal for me.

At this point we allways arrive to the necesity to go to the Father's Person. I read that Joseph Smith to solve this issue went to focus in Father Person: the Origin-of-the-Cause Person in the Holy Trinity. Is He only God or God and Man like his Son? Are there a strong biblical evidence to asume that?

Of course all the metaphorical Old Testament antropomorphism quotes - that classic are used by missionaries and GAs - are not conclusive for me. And if we are honest are very far from that point. Even for me the John 5 texts used by JS at King Follet sermon are ambiguous and darkenly interpretated. I say thay John 5 passages are not so literal for the problem.

But in my personal study I found myself thinking in this theological issue and am reading John 8 when light came. For me that text is undoubtable literall that God the Father is truly Antrophos in all sense as his Son is.

We read:

"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me."(John 8:17-18)

The law requires of two true anthropos. In that scene we see Jesus, with flesh and bones, a truly man. The second to fulfill entirely that requirement must BE the Father.

Father is True God and a True Man. If it's not to be the testimony of Jesus is insuficient.  And if He, the Father, being the Origin of all and being a Man, then his humanity must be from allways, holly and perfect, and we conclude men are same specie of being than He is, only in a fallen and very lower state.

Regards in Christ for all. I hope to have enriched your analysis with this little droplet of water.

PS: Thanks for your pacience with my english. Language is first of all a mean of communication. :=)

[RevTestament]

37 minutes ago, igonzals said:

Rev,

As you say, for me it's very interesting the fact of one heavenly angel (Lucifer) has changed its nature until became a demon (Satan) because evil was acting inside him. ¿Angels and demons are same "species of being"? For me it's obvious they are but in a different "state", like books of Alma and Abraham use the term. Then the opposite figure of Satan in the holistic scenario, Jesus, as angel and man, it's natural for me to think in his theosis process from his role as servant prior to his birth as The Angel of Yaveh at pre-existance and ending in his resurrection. He has become deificated in his human nature, but he preserves his common "race" with angels and men.

The angel of YHWH as Jesus is a common orthodox position, but is defeated by the NT which has the angel of the Lord announcing Jesus's birth, and says that the angel of YHWH was in the burning bush. 

Quote

In addition, I think we must define that, independent of begetting Christ as his First Son, Jesus has been allways God (John 1:1, Mos. 3:5, D&C 76:4). Joseph Smith pointed to this idea (and I don't know why detractors ussually jump it when analyses his position) when he said "At the beginning three personages made a covenant... God the First: the Son...". God, a Fully Deity nature,  is the base of, is the prior if we could use that word, is a not created/organized/adopted nature, having not a starting point, a precedent for the nature of being Son. 

Consecuently I think the expression used by our scriptures about his sonship with the Father was "Begotten ... from the beginning" (D&C 76:13, Moses 5:9, Alma 13:9) is very exact and indicates a sense of eternal condition at the same time that was adopted (actually a mistery for me). But the base of the nature of Son is the nature of God, is his fully divinity. And the question arise: God nature in Jesus, being eternally and inherent, is the same nature of the deificated man/angel Jesus divinity? I think it is, mainly because he talk about a deep and perfect Unity with Trinity at his last speech (John 17), but I don't have any strong evidence at scriptures to assure this (not yet :=) ). This for me is only the problem. It's a big deal for me.

I agree that the son was begotten from the beginning of this world. 

As to being the same from eternity to eternity, the Bible plainly says that the Father made Him higher than the angels, and that He is the Father's inheritor, and that He is to inherit a new title - is that remaining the same? Is He the same spirit He has always been? yes. The thing is that eternity does not always apply to time - it can apply to scope as in an eternity of distance. see DC 19:4-7. Further, Melchizedek became without beginning or end by inheriting an everlasting priesthood. See Hebrews. 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

[salgare]

17 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Nobody was "excommunicated for teaching about a Mother in heaven." That is a standard anti-Mormon falsehood. The couple in question (there were two of them) were excommunicated for advocating direct prayer and worship of a Mother in heaven.

Call for Reference! CFR ....

Even you should be able to tell the difference.

Sorry Sal, but since I didn't raise Givens, I'm not obligated to address any questions you may have about him.

The CFR rule only applies to the poster who makes a claim. It's not a license for you to demand that we all jump when you bark.

I never called for any reference, it was a call for integrity, to see if you are willing to stand up in public for what you believe.  To see if you agree with and support these philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.

I never expected that you would or bothered making the request further.

 

comments added in blue

[salgare]

18 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

I have to concur.

...

First flame, I would like to thank you for spending the time to see where I was coming from, ask some questions and then make an analysis and comment.  Your comment was direct, informed and spot on.  Not something I’ve taken lightly.  I do view the Church as being very damaging to them, and hence my warnings to them.  Thank you good sir, you have my respect.

 

SORRY MESSED UP QUOTES

 

Rev said:

 

“Take a look at what you just did - you are trying to rub it in Russell's face - doesn't it occur to you that is why "everyone gets so uptight?"

 

I have a long history with Russell, not just here but on the board not to be named as well as a private by invite only board that used to be ran by the NOM Liz (Dan was also a member of this group).

 

“everyone” should consider what I’ve been saying to Calm elsewhere about “the enemy of my enemy” and understand/know where people are really coming from before supporting and defending them.

 

Hamba Tuhan said:

 

“So are you asserting, for example, that the Gospel Principles manual -- which you have elsewhere in this forum characterised as junior high school-level 'milk' owing to correlation, and which the Church uses to instruct all of its adult converts and returning members -- at some point stopped teaching that we are children of 'heavenly parents'?”

 

I’m pointing out that in the late 1980’s and early 90’s that GBH and others were busy trying to Mainstream the Church and at the time were willing to sacrifice two members who were exposing this mother in heaven “meat” to the public and they wanted it down the memory hole.  The explosion of the internet in the beginning of the next century foiled this effort and they finally admitted to it, what two years back?

 

Hamba Tuhan said:

 

“You actually know of people who were punished for merely teaching that we have a Mother in Heaven??? Could you please identify some of these people for us? I'm afraid that I don't believe you.”

 

If you want to see the truth about the excommunications   I highly recommend spending the time to listen to the entirety of the following interviews.  Please note my CFR from Russell on this topic for his misinformation.

 

 Search Mormon stories for “077-083: “Understanding the September Six” — Paul Toscano Parts 1 – 7”

 

Start at 20:00 into Part 5.  If you are not interested in JD’s attacks against him, skip to 31:00 for more input on the Mother in Heaven.  However to skip these segment is to miss why the Church wanted to suppress this teaching at the time.  Also listen to the first 2:00 of Part 6 for the truth for why they were excommunicated for teaching of a Mother in Heaven. 

 

Funny side note: JD was obviously on his active swing at this time and is quite aggressive to Paul, taking the Church’s stance.

 

Now back to topic and following with the Mother in heaven concept

 

Elohim (from Hebrew) is interpreted by Mormons (used to be anyway) as:  Elo == God and him made it plural.  God the Father (King and Priest) and God the Mother (Queen and Priestess).  Priest and Priestess cover priesthood powers and the theology side of the fence where King and Queen cover the theocracy side, both of which titles were achieved on a different world in which they were born and lived in mortality proving worthy of the progression to God Head (highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom). 

 

A God Head is composed of a Father and Mother (Elohim), a Christ and Holy Ghost.  These names refer to role titles not individuals.  Various individuals fill the roles at different times.  For example God the father takes the role for the mortal Jesus at which time Jesus picks up the role of Father until the work is done.  These Gods are generational where my Father in heaven (“the only God in whom I have to do”) will provide for me to be an Adam if I prove worthy of being a King and Priest in this life.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2016 by salgare

[Steve Noel]

10 hours ago, igonzals said:

Steve,

Are there evidence for Father's Person as Truly Man (Anthropos) in the Bible itself to give more credit at least to "As man now is, God once was"? (Beyond catholic and protestantism oppositon in theological essays. I understand all those strong arguments)

I am probably not the one to direct you to Bible evidence for the Father being an exalted man. A Latter-day Saint may want to direct you to the texts that they think teach this in the Bible.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Steve Noel

[Russell C McGregor]

 

3 hours ago, salgare said:

Nobody was "excommunicated for teaching about a Mother in heaven." That is a standard anti-Mormon falsehood. The couple in question (there were two of them) were excommunicated for advocating direct prayer and worship of a Mother in heaven.

Call for Reference! CFR ....

Okay.

http://www.millennialstar.org/discourses-in-mormon-theology-margaret-toscano-article-review/

http://www.the-exponent.com/heavenly-mothers-day-my-search-for-the-mother/

Here is what she said:

"I opened my mouth to pray quietly, and this is what came out: 'MaMa! MaMa!' I didn’t intend to pray to the Mother, but my soul cried out to her."

Clearly you are trying to maintain your propaganda claim that Hanks and the Toscanos were excommunicated merely for "talking about" Mother in Heaven. If that is your claim, then it's your turn: Call for References, please.

Support or withdraw.

The notion that anyone could be excommunicated for merely discussing the subject is either idiotically stupid or maliciously false.

So which is it?

3 hours ago, salgare said:

I never called for any reference, it was a call for integrity, to see if you are willing to stand up in public for what you believe.  To see if you agree with and support these philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.

 

I never expected that you would or bothered making the request further.

I do stand up for what I believe.

Under my own name, too.

But I've said nothing about Givens. So your "call for integrity" is as arbitrary as it is arrogant.

And it's quite extraordinarily arrogant.

 

 

[Russell C McGregor]

3 hours ago, salgare said:

I have a long history with Russell, not just here but on the board not to be named as well as a private by invite only board that used to be ran by the NOM Liz (Dan was also a member of this group).

 

“everyone” should consider what I’ve been saying to Calm elsewhere about “the enemy of my enemy” and understand/know where people are really coming from before supporting and defending them.

 

Thank you, Sal. (Or would you prefer that I call you Backslider?)

And that is why I identify you and others like you as anti-Mormons. I think it's only fair that everyone know where you are really coming from.

 

[salgare]

2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Okay.

http://www.millennialstar.org/discourses-in-mormon-theology-margaret-toscano-article-review/

http://www.the-exponent.com/heavenly-mothers-day-my-search-for-the-mother/

Here is what she said: as

"I opened my mouth to pray quietly, and this is what came out: 'MaMa! MaMa!' I didn’t intend to pray to the Mother, but my soul cried out to her."

I'm sorry that single sentence of her personal experience does not qualify for "advocating direct prayer and worship of a Mother in heaven".  In comparison to this single sentence (prayer mentioned, worship not mentioned in your quotes or anywhere else) there are volumes that show what she really advocated, and what she was excommunicated for.  It was not prayer to and worship of a Mother in heaven.  As usual you are pushing misinformation.

Clearly you are trying to maintain your propaganda claim that Hanks and the Toscanos were excommunicated merely for "talking about" Mother in Heaven. If that is your claim, then it's your turn: Call for References, please.

I believe I used the words she was excommunicated for "teaching about Mother in Heaven" and in fact teaching about how women were involved with priesthood in the early Church, equal priesthood in the temple, the Snow couplet and the hymn and pushing for a women's priesthood organization within the church.  That is what got her excommunicated.

Up thread I have already given first hand references for proof to Hamba Tuhan that the root cause of Paul's excommunication was over refusing to restrain his wife from teaching about our Mother in Heaven.  Her is another first hand account of what Margret was excommunicated over. 

in mormon stories, search for "065: Women in the LDS Church Part 9 – Margaret Toscano on the Church, Priesthood and Mother God"

Support or withdraw.

First I have no need to provide a reference as you falsely stated my claim.  No that is not what I claimed.

On the other hand, you have failed to provide a reference showing that either of them were excommunicated for "advocating direct prayer and worship of a Mother in heaven".  Please provide a reference for your statement or retract it.

The notion that anyone could be excommunicated for merely discussing the subject is either idiotically stupid or maliciously false.

So which is it?

Hopefully we have already covered your attempt at misinformation and redirection of trying to move the goal post to "merely discussing".  They were both clearly excommunicated for publicly teaching truths which the Church did not want taught anymore, at least not at that time.  But thanks for continually showing your true nature.

I do stand up for what I believe.

You have not yet done so with those questions

Under my own name, too.

CRF, I must have missed it.

But I've said nothing about Givens. So your "call for integrity" is as arbitrary as it is arrogant.

You have hurled all kinds of insults at me in my suggestions of differences between oldschool, correlated and Givens underground and so the request for you to answer questions in direct relationship to the Givens underground is not arbitrary.

And it's quite extraordinarily arrogant.

Pot, meet kettle

 

2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Thank you, Sal. (Or would you prefer that I call you Backslider?)

And that is why I identify you and others like you as anti-Mormons. I think it's only fair that everyone know where you are really coming from.

Sal is ok, I like Sal.  I was rockslider (still am on board not to be named and NOM) and ccrw here before (both perma banned).  I would prefer Rockslider, but once again thanks for showing your true nature and where you are coming from.

flameburns623 made me think here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67331-a-different-god/?do=findComment&comment=1209613306

I'll own the label anti-mormon as I do want my posterity out of it and I believe LDS.inc is wicked and destructive for several different groups of individuals.  I have never, under any of my names or various sites varied in this, and in fact sited where I stand in this very thread.  I'm sorry for you, that as clear as I've always been with all, including you that you must still accuse me of deception.  To some integrity is important, to others not so much.

 

 

[Russell C McGregor]

15 minutes ago, salgare said:

I'm sorry that single sentence of her personal experience does not qualify for "advocating direct prayer and worship of a Mother in heaven".  In comparison to this single sentence (prayer mentioned, worship not mentioned in your quotes or anywhere else) there are volumes that show what she really advocated, and what she was excommunicated for.  It was not prayer to and worship of a Mother in heaven.

 

As everyone who knows anything at all about religious topics realises, prayer is a form of worship. In fact, it is arguably the pre-eminent form of worship.

And Ms Toscano is clearly arguing that such a thing is appropriate.

IOW, she is advocating for it.

15 minutes ago, salgare said:

  As usual you are pushing misinformation.

As usual, you are projecting.

17 minutes ago, salgare said:

I believe I used the words she was excommunicated for "teaching about Mother in Heaven" and in fact teaching about how women were involved with priesthood in the early Church, equal priesthood in the temple, the Snow couplet and the hymn and pushing for a women's priesthood organization within the church.  That is what got her excommunicated.

Call for references, please.

Nobody has ever been excommunicated for "teaching about" anything in this Church; and nobody ever will. People are excommunicated for what they teach others to do.

Mister Toscano and Mrs Toscano, like Mister John Dehlin and Miz Kate Kelly were not excommunicated for their views, but for what they were advocating. You know this as well as I do. 

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I am probably not the one to direct you to Bible evidence for the Father being an exalted man. A Latter-day Saint may want to direct you to the texts that they think teach this in the Bible.

If you know your Hebrew the very name of the Father is descriptive.

John 12:28

28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

Here is some more:

John 5:19

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Fatherdo: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

John 16:25

25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

[salgare]

Moderation team,

I called for a reference from Russell for his post on this thread;

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67331-a-different-god/?do=findComment&comment=1209613307

In particular the following statement;

"Nobody was "excommunicated for teaching about a Mother in heaven." That is a standard anti-Mormon falsehood. The couple in question (there were two of them) were excommunicated for advocating direct prayer and worship of a Mother in heaven."

He has failed to provide any reference that indicates this is what they were excommunicated over.  I have provided significant first hand evidence that shows the root cause of Paul's excommunication was refusing to restrain his wife from teaching about our Mother in Heaven and that his wife was excommunicated for publicly teaching about women and the priesthood in the early history of the Church, women priesthood and the temple, Snow couplet and Hymn and pushing for women to be given priesthood organization in the modern Church.

He is now calling me back for reference on the exact references I just gave.

I've never been here to see this rule come to logger heads.  I maintain my stance and apparently Russell is going to maintain his.  Is there a process in the rules where someone objective makes a call on the references we both have provided?

 

self reported

Edited April 13, 2016 by salgare

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Taking us back on topic.

This came across my Facebook feed thanks to Bill Reel/DBMormon. It is a blog by Muow, suggesting that Latter-Day Saints are moving closer to a mainstream understanding of God:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/mormons-approaching-orthodoxy

I do not question for one minute Mouw's expertise on these matters, but the truth is, in not being a Mormon, he doesn't quite get the meaning of all this and his analysis is confused by his lack of understanding here.  In fact the King Follette discourse, if anything, is stronger in the Mormon understanding than it ever has been, and no, we are not moving closer to a view of God which we consider to be apostate, which creedal christians still affirm.

Let's look again at the famous couplet and see what it is saying

Quote

As man now is, God once was;
As God now is, man may be.

I believe that Mouw's article is based on a semantic misunderstanding of the words above because he does not sufficiently understand the Mormon context in which these words are spoken.

Let's take the second statement first and let me emphasize two words to better reflect how we understand that statement.

"As God NOW is, man MAY become."

That does NOT mean that any man will ever be equal to the person we term Heavenly Father, simply because He himself is now progressing and will continue progressing.  No matter how fast we progress AFTER having attained eternal life (exaltation)- for any of us, probably what we now call "thousands of years" from now, at least,- our Heavenly Father will still be progressing beyond what he is now.  And yet he has been exalted for eons of "time" meaning that we theoretically have trillions of years to "make up" in progression.

I have stated this in simple terms as literal information for literalists.  As president Hinckley correctly stated- "We don't know much about this", and no, we don't.

So theoretically and making the analogy literal, we would have to stop God's progression, though he has made "worlds without number" dead in its tracks, AND progress several trillion years before we were his "equal".  But of course we cannot do that.  So "in fact" while, literally interpreted, we are progressing our several trillion years, Heavenly father will also be progressing, and so will always remain infinitely, for all practical purposes, "ahead" of us in the horse race, due to his "head start".

So yes, on that understanding, "As God NOW is, man MAY, theoretically after trillions of years of progression, become".

So he will always remain our Father, and virtually infinitely "head" of us, always.

And how does God progress?

I seldom quote Bruce R. McConkie, but at this time I think it is appropriate since I am presuming a literalistic vocabulary, consistent with his.

Quote

 

Heresy one: There are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths.

This is false—utterly, totally, and completely. There is not one sliver of truth in it. It grows out of a wholly twisted and incorrect view of the King Follett Sermon and of what is meant by eternal progression.

God progresses in the sense that his kingdoms increase and his dominions multiply—not in the sense that he learns new truths and discovers new laws. God is not a student. He is not a laboratory technician. He is not postulating new theories on the basis of past experiences. He has indeed graduated to that state of exaltation that consists of knowing all things and having all power.

The life that God lives is named eternal life. His name, one of them, is “Eternal,” using that word as a noun and not as an adjective, and he uses that name to identify the type of life that he lives. God’s life is eternal life, and eternal life is God’s life. They are one and the same. Eternal life is the reward we shall obtain if we believe and obey and walk uprightly before him. And eternal life consists of two things. It consists of life in the family unit, and, also, of inheriting, receiving, and possessing the fullness of the glory of the Father. Anyone who has each of these things is an inheritor and possessor of the greatest of all gifts of God, which is eternal life.

Eternal progression consists of living the kind of life God lives and of increasing in kingdoms and dominions everlastingly. Why anyone should suppose that an infinite and eternal being who has presided in our universe for almost 2,555,000,000 years, who made the sidereal heavens, whose creations are more numerous than the particles of the earth, and who is aware of the fall of every sparrow—why anyone would suppose that such a being has more to learn and new truths to discover in the laboratories of eternity is totally beyond my comprehension.

Will he one day learn something that will destroy the plan of salvation and turn man and the universe into an uncreated nothingness? Will he discover a better plan of salvation than the one he has already given to men in worlds without number?

The saving truth, as revealed to and taught, formally and officially, by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the Lectures on Faith is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He knows all things, he has all power, and he is everywhere present by the power of his Spirit. And unless we know and believe this doctrine we cannot gain faith unto life and salvation.

 

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_seven-deadly-heresies/

So God progresses precisely by having more children to add to his kingdoms of glory, to reduce it to it's literalistic basis, and not in any other way.  Others may see this differently, but all agree that no one now alive will ever in principle be able to become equal with God- as God is at any time.

It is as if we are all on an elevator, including God.  God is standing on a step ladder of infinite height.  Pretend it's "Jacob's ladder".  I honestly believe this is one of the the meanings of that parable.  With us, the ladder is on the same elevator.  So as we rise on the elevator, God also rises precisely BECAUSE of our progression, as his children.  We are adding to his progression by progressing ourselves.  We can therefore never be "equal" to him as our own kingdoms, if theoretically we would be worthy to attain such, add to HIS progression.

That is our understanding of the second part of the couplet.

So yes, President Hinckley was perfectly well justified in quoting it.

Remember these quotes were made 20 years ago, and things have changed, in my estimation, yet what President Hinckley  said is still true about the first half of the couplet, though our theology has advanced.This is from the Mouw article.

Quote

A few months later, in the August 1997 issue of Time magazine, Hinckley was once again asked about the “God the Father was once a man” teaching. He responded, “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. . . . I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.” When Time was later asked about the ellipses in the quoted comment, Richard Ostling, the person who conducted the actual interview, provided a transcript from his notes that included these sentences that were a part of the original response: “I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know the circumstances under which that statement was made.”

 

Many have attributed to President Hinckley all kinds of nefarious motives for this statement, falsely.  No, it does not represent any kind of repudiation of the belief- it states precisely, I am sure, the president's honest view and understanding.  In the past, it was not emphasized, but now it is much better understood.  In fact, "understanding the philosophy" behind the statement is becoming less controversial and it is being taught more now than ever before.

20 years ago, Mormons wanted desperately to be considered "Christians".  We see ourselves as the ORIGINAL believers in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ but that the term "christian" has essentially been stolen from its true original meaning, which we represent.  As such, in the last 20 years, wanting to belong to the "Christian Club" is about as important to Mormons as sitting at the "cool kids" table in high school.  It is my belief that we simply no longer feel the pressure that perhaps President Hinckley felt to be a member of the club.  We have developed on our own views which clarify our position philosophically, so that the "understanding of the philosophy" mentioned by the President has changed.

The truth is, we, in my opinion, cannot possibly sustain the creedal notion of an "ontological difference between the creator and the created".  This notion comes from an Augustinian notion that the human body is degraded because it is made of matter, and that things spiritual are "better" (keeping it simple) than things physical.

We do not believe in "the creation" in that sense.  We are materialists, with the proviso that spirit infuses all matter and is not at all separate from it.  As such the "ontological difference" between matter and spirit has always been a false dichotomy.

Human beings consist of matter infused with spiritual matter, and as creators, we create things like chairs and tables and houses which are also material, and "DEFINED" and designed spiritually before they are made actually in matter.  When you draw a plan of  house you are essentially "creating it spiritually" before it is created in the material of lumber and brick. "In the beginning was The Word"- the design and intellectual construction- before things exist materially.  Kant spoke of the construction of things as we know them as a mental process- one "synthesizes" a house by experiencing it mentally.  Without the mental construction a house is not a "house" - it is a pile of undefined matter- of "stuff".

We do not believe that matter is degraded, or the human body is degraded.  That finally comes from Platonic philosophy, which is pagan.

Teryl Givens, among many others, elsewhere, gives a concise analysis of the history of the idea in his book "Wrestling The Angel"

The fact is that Mormonism is a philosophical cousin with many contemporary ideas about the nature of man and the nature of truth.  It is my belief, that if we could fully develop these similarities and abandon our mistaken protestant and therefore Catholic, creedal roots, we could become the "stone cut without hands" and roll forth and convert the earth.

The truth is that most of the earth now worships mankind- that is essentially what secular humanism.  Humanism seeks to exalt man- and in another sense, so do we!.

Humanism, it is said, creates God in man's image, affirming the basic principle that there is no ontological difference between man and God, because God is a mental construction of man.

We "simply" reverse that understanding and say that man is the mental construction of God, himself an exalted man, and as his children there is no "ontological difference" between God and man.

I certainly would not like to be "ontolgically different" than my children! There is no logical way for a father to be ontologically different than his children without semantically  confusing and abstract formulations.

I see us as "Theistic Humanists" in every way, and many many others, including Givens and others, see us the same way.  I am only mentioning Givens because he seems to be a popular name hereabouts.

The root cause of atheism is this odd notion of an "ontological gap" between God and man, and such a gap vanishes within contemporary philosophy.  Some of our leading philosophic theologians in the church are Phenomenologists, as is for example James Faulconer.  I would say that virtually all the "new" philosophical voices in the church derive from either Pragmatism or Phenomenology, very closely related ways of viewing the world.

Such views are simply anathema in Bible colleges and not taught.  That is their decision, so be it.

But even atheists like Dawkins believe, and have been quoted as saying, that they could believe in a God who "evolved" as humans have evolved.  Another atheist, Richard Rorty, has said that he could believe in a God who is a "friend" of mankind and not some detached "Being" completely "other" than mankind.  A third famous atheist, Thoms Nagel, has had to assert that he "wishes" that there is no God, because try as he might, he cannot "prove" God's non-existence, and in fact believes his existence to be somewhat likely.  In other words, the Chairman of NYU department of philosophy, an admitted atheist has to take it on faith- a "wish"- that there is no God.  To me, that is something "hoped for, but not seen".

The notion that God was once a man stands as a possibility which we now see might appeal and in fact does appeal to some, like me, for that matter.  It is the perfect extension of humanism, the idea that we are here to "be all we can be" and fill our highest potential, or as a Mormon would say to "fill the measure of our creation and have joy therein".  The US Army even endorses that idea.  

Yes, twenty years ago, we as a church had not explored that idea and we are just starting in earnest to see it.  We didn't teach it, nor did we understand the philosophy very well.

But that is changing and changing fast.

No, we are not about to become Evangelicals.  We are headed proudly in the opposite direction.

People in droves are turning to "secular religions", precisely because the philosophical base for creedal christianity is no longer relevant or understandable, and in my opinion, has been refuted.

We live at an important time in church history.  It is a time to choose to go forward and finally adopt philosophical views consistent with the Restoration, or go backward into 800 year old scholasticism and the belief in "ontological" semantic "mysteries"

[Steve Noel]

Thanks for all the responses here. I am unfollowing this thread now.

[Guest]

To the OP...

Yes we worship the same God, there is only one God to whom we all can Pray. 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

Thanks for all the responses here. I am unfollowing this thread now.

Thanks for dropping in Steve. You have been/are certainly non-confrontational - I can't say I have always been the same at sites I have visited as I often do challenge traditional views/theology/ etc., but I hope others can see me as being as respectful as you. May the Lord bless you in your righteous endeavors whether you continue your visits or not...

[Calm]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

 

No, we are not about to become Evangelicals.  We are headed proudly in the opposite direction.

 

Got to admit when I read stuff like the below, I really wonder what LDS he is talking to:

"My own sense is that many in the LDS community, including several of its leaders, recognize that the first half of the Snow couplet, the statement about God having been like man, is incompatible with what they genuinely want to sing about: spiritual reliance on the all-sufficient Savior. They also see that it works against the spiritual outlook they want to nurture in new generations of Mormons."

[Russell C McGregor]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Got to admit when I read stuff like the below, I really wonder what LDS he is talking to:

"My own sense is that many in the LDS community, including several of its leaders, recognize that the first half of the Snow couplet, the statement about God having been like man, is incompatible with what they genuinely want to sing about: spiritual reliance on the all-sufficient Savior. They also see that it works against the spiritual outlook they want to nurture in new generations of Mormons."

Wow. Who is that one from?

Whoever wrote that is seriously out of touch.

 

[Calm]

Mouw:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/mormons-approaching-orthodoxy