A Different God?

[mfbukowski]

How does an essence have energies?

[RevTestament]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have had direct experience of God and I know he is not out there in a world which cannot be experienced.  I talk to him and he talks to me.  Words cannot possibly "correspond" to "God".

If it makes you feel better to say Mormons worship a different God, go ahead.  I can go with that if you like.  I do not like being called a "christian" since the word has been co-opted.  Take your pick- both are right, neither is right.  False dichotomy. Apples and oranges. 

I would like to hear your testimony of God sometime mfb - unless you consider that private.

I have given some thought as to what I like to be called. It seems to turn off fellow members when I say I do not like to be called "Mormon." The issue as I see it is that tends to become "Mormon Church" which is a no-no for me. Further, I do not follow Mormon - He has never made Himself known unto me. I follow Christ, but you are right that the "Christian" term has kinda been co-opted. It is not terribly descriptive of our faith either since we are different from the original Christians who did not use temples, and did not have the new covenant, and became somewhat unguided after they lost the apostles. I have found that I rather like being called LDS Christian, although other "Christians" often don't like calling me that - some will, some won't. It is descriptive of my Church, and kinda tells me something about those who won't call me LDS Christian. They are usually closed minded, and not receptive to the gospel from "the likes of me." I have also found that those who insist that I worship a "different God" are also those who will not call me LDS Christian and do not respect me. The only reason I debate with such people is for the benefit of others online. I don't bother in a live debate. Sometimes it is a conversation starter. I generally only discuss the gospel with those who respect others enough to listen to them. This last summer I had a nice conversation with Baptist gentleman who was "street preaching" as I went to a pageant. Another who later joined us seemed to like to hear his own voice. You can feel the difference between the spirit in each. It seems the earliest Christians said they were followers in the Way, but these days, that would probably cause people to think "cult."

[Spammer]

50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

My dear friend Spammer, 

Love ya dude, but ... wow.

Those distinctions are  pretty.....vague, and let's just say I do not understand a word of it.

In a nice way.

Just keep it a "mystery" beyond language and we will get along fine.

They kicked Neoplatonism out the front door but forgot to close the windows and left the back door wide open.  It was in the language, in the culture and in the politics, in the way people thought- it was inescapable.

It was the "political correctness" of its day.  Your whole post is neoplatonic in linguistic style!  "ESSENCE"?  Three persons in one "essence" or one person in three essences- or whatever?  Transcendent in one way and immanent in another?  That's like black in some ways and white in others.  They are contradictory statements..  "A" in some ways and Not A in others.

Very sorry- no clue what that means 

Like terms, but different content. Language is malleable like that. Essence, substance, nature, whatever. They're interchangeable terms used to describe something ineffable, interchangeable because none of them can approach a reality that exists beyond language. That reality can only be experienced and has been by the Holy Fathers and saints of the Church, who employed terminology derived from their culture (naturally) to describe those experiences of the immaterial, divine reality that's somehow both one and multiple. I ground my faith on the validity of those experiences, which in turn are grounded on the objective validity of the Church that assembled the Bible (the objectivity of which I take on faith, and grounded on my reading of ancient history). Personal testimony plays no role for me.

That's how I make it work. I'd be an atheist, otherwise. I have to arbitrarily pick, based on my assessment of who is the most likely candidate, a human authority and subjectively ascribe to it the role of objective arbiter appointed by God to that purpose. I accept the language used by the Church, grounded on the experiences of fathers and saints, because I accept the authority of the Church, the same ancient authority that set the scriptural canon. I see no good reason to accept the authority of the Church's conciliar decisions regarding the canon and reject its authority regarding the doctrine of the Trinity and the language employed, without ending up in a swamp of circular reasoning. I personally break the vicious cycle and find intellectual satisfaction by accepting that the same ancient church thst set the canon and established the Trinitarian doctrine is God-appointed to be the objective, go to source for resolving all disputes arising due to clashing experiences and personal testimonies. And yes, I realize that my review of ancient history is properly understood as a subjective review of other human subjectivities. The problem is, if God didn't appoint a human authority, however subject to contingency and subjectivity, who will be guided and established by Him to be the objective authority to lead us into truth, then we're all lost, stuck with the uncertainty caused by the impossibility otherwise of objectively determining whether personal testimony corresponds with external reality. It's an inescapable result, unless God gives us a final arbiter. For me, that arbiter is the ancient Catholic Church, not a personal testimony. 

Edited April 2, 2016 by Spammer

[Spammer]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The whole problem is that portions of Judaism were monotheistic at a certain point of history.

The comes Christianity, which makes Jesus God as well.  "OOPS how do we fit this in with monotheism?

Contradictory language!  That will do the trick!  And look over here- the Greeks have all this "essence stuff from Plato- let's just use that!"

The Mormon, restored answer is that God is a family name.  In my family we are all Bukowskis.  Six persons, one family named Bukowski.

Three persons, titled "God".  Father and son, Holy Ghost.(We won't get into HM and the HG being Wisdom to complicate it  )  But one family- that's the point.

Simple. Clear.  Council of Gods.

Ahhh.  Peace.  

Lol, I'm glad it works for you. It just opens up other intellectual cans of worms for me, not least of which is the inevitability of an infinite regress of finite, caused, material beings and all that entails. Throw in BoA issues, polygamy, priesthood bans, prophets who contradict each other, the circular logic entailed by reliance on personal testimony to find objective truth, etc, etc, and I end up with massive cog dis. The opposite of peace.  Not trying to be controversial, here.  I'm just laying out why Mormonism stopped working for me.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, Spammer said:

Like terms, but different content. Language is malleable like that. Essence, substance, nature, whatever. They're interchangeable terms used to describe something ineffable, interchangeable because none of them can approach a reality that exists beyond language. That reality can only be experienced and has been by the Holy Fathers and saints of the Church, who employed terminology derived from their culture (naturally) to describe those experiences of the immaterial, divine reality that's somehow both one and multiple. I ground my faith on the validity of those experiences, which in turn are grounded on the objective validity of the Church that assembled the Bible (the objectivity of which I take on faith, and grounded on my reading of ancient history). Personal testimony plays no role for me.

That's how I make it work. I'd be an atheist, otherwise. I have to arbitrarily pick, based on my assessment of who is the most likely candidate, a human authority and subjectively ascribe to it the role of objective arbiter appointed by God to that purpose. I accept the language used by the Church, grounded on the experiences of fathers and saints, because I accept the authority of the Church, the same ancient authority that set the scriptural canon. I see no good reason to accept the authority of the Church's conciliar decisions regarding the canon and reject its authority regarding the doctrine of the Trinity and the language employed, without ending up in a swamp of circular reasoning. I personally break the vicious cycle and find intellectual satisfaction by accepting that the same ancient church thst set the canon and established the Trinitarian doctrine is God-appointed to be the objective, go to source for resolving all disputes arising due to clashing experiences and personal testimonies. 

I understand that and honor it completely.  I completely understand different vocabulaires and different contexts.  That's why I said it would be better to say it was a "mystery" than try to explain it.  It is worse than if you were posting in German and I was answering in English, because then at least we would expect that mutual understanding would be difficult.  In this case with each of us allegedly speaking the same "language", there is no communication because we expect communication to be perfect.

I hope our EV friends can understand that, but I fear they cannot.  That indeed is the problem.

You cannot understand different uses of the same language if you believe that language "corresponds" to some absolute reality.  That erases the need for them to try to understand, because if the Bible itself is ambiguous, there can be no "absolute truth".

Absolute truth requires absolutely perfect language, and absolutely perfect understanding of a world beyond the mere appearances of this world.  It is like putting on a blindfold and telling others what you "see" as absoute truth.

But I think we have lost our EV friends in this discussion.

[Spammer]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I understand that and honor it completely.  I completely understand different vocabulaires and different contexts.  That's why I said it would be better to say it was a "mystery" than try to explain it.  It is worse than if you were posting in German and I was answering in English, because then at least we would expect that mutual understanding would be difficult.  In this case with each of us allegedly speaking the same "language", there is no communication because we expect communication to be perfect.

I hope our EV friends can understand that, but I fear they cannot.  That indeed is the problem.

You cannot understand different uses of the same language if you believe that language "corresponds" to some absolute reality.  That erases the need for them to try to understand, because if the Bible itself is ambiguous, there can be no "absolute truth".

Absolute truth requires absolutely perfect language, and absolutely perfect understanding of a world beyond the mere appearances of this world.  It is like putting on a blindfold and telling others what you "see" as absoute truth.

But I think we have lost our EV friends in this discussion.

Agreed, 100%.  Sorry I keep using the same old Greek-philosophical terminology.  Unfortunately, that's the language the Church uses to describe something no thorough Greek neoplatonist would agree with.  We coopted their language and gave it a different content.  It was a missionary tool, just like the Western Church coopted trappings of Germanic pagan spring and winter festivals and recast them as a part of Easter and Christmas. 

For what it's worth, Orthodoxy always insists on the mysterious nature of God.  God is mysterious, which is why we call the sacraments, the means through which we commune with the Mystery, the Holy Mysteries.  The only thing that MUST be believed are the propositions found in the Creed.  As long as you believe in 'one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made,'  you are fully Orthodox and will be admitted to the common cup of the Eucharist, the most important of the Mysteries.

The EV's rest their faith on Bible interpretation alone, which is purely subjective.  They don't have a leg to stand on when they claim their interpretations correspond with reality.  Mormons have their personal testimonies, but they also have the prophets and apostles - the God-appointed arbiter where the interpretive buck stops.whenever clashing testimonies and interpretations emerge.  Catholics and Orthodox have the councils of the church and Holy Tradition as that final arbiter.  An EV's final arbiter is himself, which is why sola scriptura leads to thousands of sects. 

Even then, everything, even for Mormons and the Orthodox, ultimately rests on subjective determinations grounded on personal experience.  I laid out why I'm Orthodox, but the ultimate ground is my own assessment of the ancient evidences. While still an atheist, I continually felt a strange pull toward Jesus.  I delved into the New Testament, patristics, and the literature on the ancient temple.  A light bulb went on - bingo!  The ancient Christian liturgies come from the ancient temple through the apostles.  It was a personal decision based on study, not prayer.  I didn't start praying again until after I'd made the decision to unite myself with the ancient Catholic tradition, based on intellectual grounds alone.  That was my experience and it works for me.  Reliance on experience is all we have. 

 

Edited April 2, 2016 by Spammer

[Spammer]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

How does an essence have energies?

See Gregory Palamas on this one. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Spammer said:

Lol, I'm glad it works for you. It just opens up other intellectual cans of worms for me, not least of which is the inevitability of an infinite regress of finite, caused, material beings and all that entails. Throw in BoA issues, polygamy, priesthood bans, prophets who contradict each other, the circular logic entailed by reliance on personal testimony to find objective truth, etc, etc, and I end up with massive cog dis. The opposite of peace.  Not trying to be controversial, here.  I'm just laying out why Mormonism stopped working for me.

And every one of those weaknesses I see as strengths and cannot see them as you do.  Something from nothing? Nope.

 Personal testimony does not yield "objective truth" nor is it supposed to, that is why it is called "personal, which is the opposite of "objective".  

God dictating words to human brains to be written perfectly in human language when we blatantly see the limits of human language?  Obviously there would be, and clearly are, scriptural errors which also are the errors common to mankind.  That is why we must have personal revelation to keep us on the path.

Peace.  

Works perfectly for me.

That's why I am no longer Catholic.  We will have some good discussions on the other side, I am sure.  

Edited April 2, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I would like to hear your testimony of God sometime mfb - unless you consider that private.

 

Well yes it is private, but the bigger problem is that I am a Wittgensteinian fideist mystic which essentially means that words are not a very good vehicle for expressing religious experience.

I have had many religious experiences.  Perhaps the most powerful was God telling me that this church was for me.

It followed 15 years of study and atheism, and seeking, but when it happened it was like an explosion- it was instant, like someone had thrown a switch, all I can say is that it was a strong feeling of love from God, immersing me totally.  There was more I cannot share.  The circumstances, where and when and how it happened were  miraculous.

That's about it.  Changed my life and all my perceptions in about 10 minutes, but like I said, there isn't much to be said about it.  Imagine being deaf your whole life, and then suddenly you were sitting in the best seats hearing the best music ever written, and then someone asks you what it was like.

"Glorious".  One word is as good as any.

"Transformative" also works.

 

Edited April 2, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And every one of those weaknesses I see as strengths and cannot see them as you do.  Something from nothing? Nope.

 Personal testimony does not yield "objective truth" nor is it supposed to, that is why it is called "personal, which is the opposite of "objective".  

God dictating words to human brains to be written perfectly in human language when we blatantly see the limits of human language?  Obviously there would be, and clearly are, scriptural errors.

Peace.  

Works perfectly for me.

That's why I am no longer Catholic.  We will have some good discussions on the other side, I am sure.  

Yes, we will! I look forward to that!  

Did you ever read Florensky's 'Pillar and Ground of Truth?'  He says avoiding the intellectual abyss, i.e., finding a path to validly correlate subjective experience with external reality, requires propositions that are simultaneously self evident and externally grounded. He attempts to use formal logic to show only the doctrine of the Trinity can meet both criteria. You'll likely see just more linguistic gobbledygook, but you'll still no doubt find it interesting.

[mfbukowski]

58 minutes ago, Spammer said:

See Gregory Palamas on this one. 

Well I have some acquaintance  with that actually.

He is saying, I think , that we can only know God in his "energies" meaning in his interactions with us.  I have no problem with that.  We cannot know him in his "essence" or how he "really is".  OK that's fine with me.

But where that goes for me is then - don't even try to describe his "essence" if it cannot be known.  What cannot be known cannot be discussed, so why try?

To me that is Mormonism- "here is all we can know- go and find the rest yourself."  "Here is the best description we can come up with"- go and make something of that in your heart and experience it directly.

That's what i get from Gregory- though he doesn't say that quite that way.

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, danielwoods said:

God can and does both. For the evangelical God is understood both as our divine/infinite creator that transcends this world, and as our closest relationship, our Father. This understanding is derived from descriptions of him found in the bible. 

Is it deceptive for God to describe himself as our Father? I don't think so. But, that's my opinion. I don't think he ever intended to convey the idea that he is our Father physically, as our Earthly fathers are. In fact, in my view our relationship to God is a much deeper connection than our physical father could ever be. But, it's a good analogy that get's us started toward understanding the depth of the relationship he intended to create. 

You have misunderstood my point. Of course it is not deceptive for God to describe himself as our Father, because that term truthfully defines our relationship with him, whether from the LDS or the Evangelical point of view. Yet all the interactions of the prophets with God describe Him in anthropomorphic terms. If he does not have a face, eyes, ears, back parts, hair, hands, feet or other parts then it is a deception with no purpose. If He is not Man, He could simply say so and we would understand just fine. Jesus, who is also God, has a glorified tangible resurrected body which His disciples saw and touched and with which he shared food with them. Therefore, God is not only anthropomorphic, he is corporeal and we are created in His express image as He so declared in the beginning. 

Edited April 2, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Well yes it is private, but the bigger problem is that I am a Wittgensteinian fideist mystic which essentially means that words are not a very good vehicle for expressing religious experience.

I have had many religious experiences.  Perhaps the most powerful was God telling me that this church was for me.

It followed 15 years of study and atheism, and seeking, but when it happened it was like an explosion- it was instant, like someone had thrown a switch, all I can say is that it was a strong feeling of love from God, immersing me totally.  There was more I cannot share.  The circumstances, where and when and how it happened were  miraculous.

That's about it.  Changed my life and all my perceptions in about 10 minutes, but like I said, there isn't much to be said about it.  Imagine being deaf your whole life, and then suddenly you were sitting in the best seats hearing the best music ever written, and then someone asks you what it was like.

"Glorious".  One word is as good as any.

"Transformative" also works.

 

Amen to this.

[Spammer]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I have some acquaintance  with that actually.

He is saying, I think , that we can only know God in his "energies" meaning in his interactions with us.  I have no problem with that.  We cannot know him in his "essence" or how he "really is".  OK that's fine with me.

But where that goes for me is then - don't even try to describe his "essence" if it cannot be known.  What cannot be known cannot be discussed, so why try?

To me that is Mormonism- "here is all we can know- go and find the rest yourself."  "Here is the best description we can come up with"- go and make something of that in your heart and experience it directly.

That's what i get from Gregory- though he doesn't say that quite that way.

I think you're spot on on. Gregory just uses Greek philosophical language to say the same thing. He was Greek, after all. 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Well yes it is private, but the bigger problem is that I am a Wittgensteinian fideist mystic [whatever that means] which essentially means that words are not a very good vehicle for expressing religious experience.

I have had many religious experiences.  Perhaps the most powerful was God telling me that this church was for me.

It followed 15 years of study and atheism, and seeking, but when it happened it was like an explosion- it was instant, like someone had thrown a switch, all I can say is that it was a strong feeling of love from God, immersing me totally.  There was more I cannot share.  The circumstances, where and when and how it happened were  miraculous.

I hear ya - thanks for sharing. Much of mine is also unfortunately private - not that anyone would believe me anyway....

I totally understand your feeling that you cannot adequately express your experiences. How can words express the presence of the spirit of God - the power and glory that accompanies it?

Let me just say that you seem to be doing  an admirable job of speaking for the Lord, and appear to be honoring the trust He has placed in you. 

Cheers

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I hear ya - thanks for sharing. Much of mine is also unfortunately private - not that anyone would believe me anyway....

I totally understand your feeling that you cannot adequately express your experiences. How can words express the presence of the spirit of God - the power and glory that accompanies it?

Let me just say that you seem to be doing  an admirable job of speaking for the Lord, and appear to be honoring the trust He has placed in you. 

Cheers

Oh my gosh, that is very humbling.  Thanks for your very kind words!

[Stargazer]

On 4/1/2016 at 8:08 AM, Steve Noel said:

Stargazer,

There is a lot of eisegesis of the text of Scripture here. I may respond in more detail later, but I did not intend this thread to be a debate/argument on which view is correct?

Heh!  One man's eisegesis is another man's exegesis.

Some forms of exegesis seem to lead to conclusions diametrically opposed to the actual grammatical meaning.  Or goes to a great deal of pain to try to prove that the words in a text of scripture do not actually mean what they plainly do.  There is even an inserted forgery in the Book of Mark which attempts to put a scriptural stamp of approval upon the Nicean Creed: The Johannine Comma.  And I'm sure you've read how 1 Cor. 15:29 is interpreted to mean that the practice of baptism for the dead was never a Christian practice or doctrine, even though Paul uses it to support the principle of literal resurrection.  And, for that matter, how some doctors of the divine even deny that there will be a literal resurrection, or that baptism is at all necessary.  Despite the plain text of the scriptures.  So what shall we say of exe- and eisegesis?  

I mean, "Jesus wept" is the shortest verse in the Bible, and most people would conclude that Jesus actually shed a tear.  But I'm sure there is someone somewhere who would conclude it didn't mean that at all.

The thing about this whole "different God" idea is this: He's the same God, just understood differently by different folks.  And if He created us, the question comes up, why did He bother if He didn't have plans for us?  He didn't need the company, I'm pretty sure.  The LDS understanding is that He is our Father because it is His mission to raise up a righteous generation who would be like Him.  Just as it says in 1 John 3.  Or from a verse in the Pearl of Great Price, Moses 1:39:

Quote

For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Even such a non-LDS as C. S. Lewis seemed to realize this:

Quote

It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which,if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship...

From "The Weight of Glory"

The thing is, Lewis didn't invent this principle, he must have gotten it from Rev 22:8,9, when John the Revelator was confronted by an Angel who spoke as if he were the Son.  Whereupon John fell down to worship him, but was forbidden:

Quote

 8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

 9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

The point is, if we are worthy, God will raise us up.  If you don't believe this, what is the point of our existence?  Why would God bother to create us at all?  If He is all that you believe He is, then He is sufficient in Himself, He doesn't need us.

If you did not intend this thread to be a debate over which view is correct, why did you bring it up?

[Steve Noel]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

If you did not intend this thread to be a debate over which view is correct, why did you bring it up?

I have not argued for the Evangelical view or against the Latter-day Saint view here. The OP explains what prompted this question. I asked the question because I was interested to see how Latter-day Saints would answer it. 

[Bernard Gui]

On April 1, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Steve Noel said:

Thank you for sharing these links.

They are very important for this discussion if you wish to know what the LDS Church believes. They are authoritative....moreso than books by LDS authors or comments on a discussion board.  I hope you take the time to study them if you wish to understand our beliefs.

[Bernard Gui]

From the Book of Mormon, this is why we believe God is the same God for all his children. In essence, the atonement is for all the family of Adam. Every single one. We may have different concepts of who and what He is, or we may even not believe He exists, but He is still the God and the Father of all humanity. We are acceptable to Him and accountable for the knowledge that in His mercy and wisdom he has given to us. 

 

"And he cometh into the world that he may save all men if they will hearken unto his voice; for behold, he suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam. And he suffereth this that the resurrection might pass upon all men, that all might stand before him at the great and judgment day. 2 Nephi 9:21-22

“The Lord doth grant unto all nations of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, all that he seeth fit that they should have” (Alma 29:8).

God...“speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3).

“He remembereth the heathen, and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Nephi 26:33).

“All things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world unto man are the typifying of him,” (2 Nephi 11:4).

“And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen, and there could no good thing come unto them. ” (Moroni 7:24

Edited April 2, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Stargazer]

23 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I have not argued for the Evangelical view or against the Latter-day Saint view here. The OP explains what prompted this question. I asked the question because I was interested to see how Latter-day Saints would answer it. 

Fair enough!  Yet you pronounced eisegesis on my understanding of scripture -- this suggests an intent to debate.  But I shall forebear to argue further on the subject, as I pretty much know the Evangelical view of the matter.  I hope I've given you what amounts to a good LDS answer to the question!

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Heh!  One man's eisegesis is another man's exegesis.

Some forms of exegesis seem to lead to conclusions diametrically opposed to the actual grammatical meaning.  Or goes to a great deal of pain to try to prove that the words in a text of scripture do not actually mean what they plainly do.  There is even an inserted forgery in the Book of Mark which attempts to put a scriptural stamp of approval upon the Nicean Creed: The Johannine Comma.  And I'm sure you've read how 1 Cor. 15:29 is interpreted to mean that the practice of baptism for the dead was never a Christian practice or doctrine, even though Paul uses it to support the principle of literal resurrection.  And, for that matter, how some doctors of the divine even deny that there will be a literal resurrection, or that baptism is at all necessary.  Despite the plain text of the scriptures.  So what shall we say of exe- and eisegesis?  

I mean, "Jesus wept" is the shortest verse in the Bible, and most people would conclude that Jesus actually shed a tear.  But I'm sure there is someone somewhere who would conclude it didn't mean that at all.

The thing about this whole "different God" idea is this: He's the same God, just understood differently by different folks.  And if He created us, the question comes up, why did He bother if He didn't have plans for us?  He didn't need the company, I'm pretty sure.  The LDS understanding is that He is our Father because it is His mission to raise up a righteous generation who would be like Him.  Just as it says in 1 John 3.  Or from a verse in the Pearl of Great Price, Moses 1:39:

Even such a non-LDS as C. S. Lewis seemed to realize this:

The thing is, Lewis didn't invent this principle, he must have gotten it from Rev 22:8,9, when John the Revelator was confronted by an Angel who spoke as if he were the Son.  Whereupon John fell down to worship him, but was forbidden:

The point is, if we are worthy, God will raise us up.  If you don't believe this, what is the point of our existence?  Why would God bother to create us at all?  If He is all that you believe He is, then He is sufficient in Himself, He doesn't need us.

If you did not intend this thread to be a debate over which view is correct, why did you bring it up?

I have no problem with Hispanics.  I don't know why anyone would want to ex a Jesus.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I have no problem with Hispanics.  I don't know why anyone would want to ex a Jesus.

Or ice a Jesus?

Stop it, you're making me laugh loudly.

[danielwoods]

On April 2, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Storm Rider said:

It gets confusing when discussing the doctrine of the Trinity (DT) and how individuals discuss God.  They too easily slip from the DT to Modalism.  I try to be careful when I discuss the topic to not confuse the two philosophies.  I would ask the same of you; it is already difficult enough.  There are things that can be said as Modalist that cannot be said as a Trinitarian.  

There is a large body of work within Mormonism that attempts to explain the First Cause in terms of Gods of other universes, dimensions, etc.  People here have heard me say several times that I don't go down that rabbit hole very often.  The concept creates more questions than it answers.  Brigham Young wisely stated that attempting to understand the First Cause was akin to an ant trying to guess the number of sand particles in the world.  Comprehending such a thing is too far above the human mind and it is better not to try.  

I approach this topic from a clean slate - there is God the Father who has always been God and there was never a time when he was not God.  This fits within Mormon doctrine, but I fall within a minority of individuals in that others are comfortable trying to go beyond that.  What I know is that we have one God the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.  That is as pure a doctrine of Mormon teaching as exists.  

The topic of man anthropomorphizing God is of value and worthy of discussion.  However, in my faith God brings us to him; man does not bring God to down to humanity.  

As a Trinitarian how do you dispute that One God does not have a body of flesh and bone when Jesus so clearly has one?  Does the essence that binds them into one God somehow deny the flesh of Christ or make of no affect on the oneness of God? 

One God but three persons. Each person has their own distinctions. The Father is Spirit. Jesus has a resurrected body (glorified). And the Holy Spirit is Spirit as well. 

Quote

I have had several conversations with others about 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 Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

This scripture seems to say that Jesus can only do what he has seen the Father do or maybe see what the Father is doing.  If it is the latter, in present tense, then it creates a great deal of confusion.  However, if it is past tense - that Jesus does what he has seen the Father do - then it is not as troublesome for LDS, but remains troublesome for mainstream Christian thought.  How is it that Jesus only does what he has seen the Father do?  When Jesus spoke these words was he speaking completely or do you think it was more narrow in scope?  

LDS teachings and beliefs are based upon scripture.  Obviously, we may interpret scripture differently than Protestants or Catholics and others, but we stand firmly on scripture and the fact that the heavens remain open and God still speaks to mankind.

There are different ways to read this passage. One way is to understand that Jesus was functioning as a man while on earth. In that role/position he is saying that he only does what he has seen his Father do on earth. He could also be referring to eternity past, where he observed the Father's actions. Either way it's not a troubling passage for mainstream Christianity in my opinion. 

 

[danielwoods]

On April 2, 2016 at 11:26 PM, mfbukowski said:

If God is "transcendent" he is not immanent, and therefore cannot have a close relationship with humanity.

Philosophers have tried to make him both, but have not been able to.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(religion)

I know of no Evangelical writer who has solved the conundrum- do you?

It's a description of something that we don't have a direct example of in this life, so we use words that we understand to describe things that we haven't experienced directly. Transcendent and immanent at the same time. 

On April 2, 2016 at 11:31 PM, mfbukowski said:

What reason do you have for that belief?  What is the reasoning behind postulating that?

It seems like a circular argument to me- it is just assumed to be the case.

Which belief? That God is the only uncreated being? In my view it's derived from scripture.