Individual v.s. Office

[Jane_Doe]

15 hours ago, Josh516 said:

I couldn't agree more that the guy who does the ambush and is prepared will almost indefinitely win. Though I would still say there's a lot of scholarly argumentation. The guy who really stands out to me is Pastor Jeff Durbin. He's very intelligent and knows how to argue effectively from what I observe. But yes, I agree most people won't stand chance in those circumstances. But I still have yet to hear a good rebuttal from main stream Mormons.

Jeff Durbin is a man who 100% relies on misrepresenting people, random ambushes, and selectively cutting footage.  How many of his videos rely o traps, him "informing" another person what they believe, trick questions, or blatant misrepresentation?   He is not an individual to admire at all, rather just another anti-Mormon troll.  

 

[clarkgoble]

14 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

How to counter this critique: 

"I believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three different persons, in ONE God.  Athanasian Christians (also known as 'trinitarians') believe this as well.  The difference between my beliefs and the Athanasian Creed is that I believe the three persons are ONE God via unity, versus the Athanasian Creed which states that it is via consubstantiation."

That shuts people up really quickly, as you've highlighted 1) clarified the common core, 2) supplied the citation of the consubstantiation doctrine.   They then either have to misrepresent your beliefs or try to argue that the Athanasian Creed is authoritative interpretation of the Bible.  Vast majority of Christians in the pews have never even read the Athanasian Creed.

It's worth noting that Mormon doctrine takes no position on the unity. Orson Pratt taught a material consubstantiation of a sort. Although in the 20th century a more nominalist unity where each person has the same power, knowledge, and desires was held. Since the 90's adopting social trinitarianism has been popular among Mormon thinkers. Myself I think there's a stronger unity than the social trinitarianism although it's not something I feel strongly about.

The real clash with traditional Christianity isn't over the Trinity proper but over whether God the father is embodied or not and over creation ex nihilo.

It's always funny to me when anti-Mormon Evangelicals harp on the Trinity - both because it's not really a bone of contention but because most Evangelicals and most Mormons assume the Trinity entails modalism. (It doesn't - but when you ask lay Evangelicals or Mormons to explain the Trinity they describe modalism)

[RevTestament]

24 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I've seen hundreds of YouTube videos about LDS vs other faiths discussion and ... frankly nearly all the time that "scholarly" individual is using logical fallacies and/or straw man arguments (via misconstruing LDS beliefs).  Such "scholarly" individuals are not people to be admired.

How to counter this critique: 

"I believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three different persons, in ONE God.  Athanasian Christians (also known as 'trinitarians') believe this as well.  The difference between my beliefs and the Athanasian Creed is that I believe the three persons are ONE God via unity, versus the Athanasian Creed which states that it is via consubstantiation."

That shuts people up really quickly, as you've highlighted 1) clarified the common core, 2) supplied the citation of the consubstantiation doctrine.   They then either have to misrepresent your beliefs or try to argue that the Athanasian Creed is authoritative interpretation of the Bible.  Vast majority of Christians in the pews have never even read the Athanasian Creed.

That's one way of putting it.  Not the best for conveying when discussing with Athanasian believers though. 

Hi Jane Doe.

This is essentially correct, but technically the Nicean Creed of 325 AD was the source of consubstantiation or homoousios. Ironically, you can return fire by pointing out that the 268 AD Council of Antioch condemned Paul of Samosata for using the term. They probably won't know what the heck you are talking about. There are strong doubts that the Athanasian Creed was even written by Athanasius who wrote in Greek. The earliest known versions of the Athanasian Creed are in Latin.

Edited August 14, 2018 by RevTestament

[Amulek]

23 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's always funny to me when anti-Mormon Evangelicals harp on the Trinity - both because it's not really a bone of contention but because most Evangelicals and most Mormons assume the Trinity entails modalism. (It doesn't - but when you ask lay Evangelicals or Mormons to explain the Trinity they describe modalism)

The confusion isn't limited to only lay Evangelicals. I have personally witnessed more than one pastor preach modalism from the pulpit. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think of it being more like there being one bishop.

There are over 30,000 bishops worldwide, but I only have one. Only one bishop has stewardship over me and I only answer to one bishop, though he is accountable for his stewardship to a higher authority or council.

When I first read the OP, that's what I thought Josh was saying.  I've heard lots of mormons describe the doctrine that way, like how God is a title similar to how president is a title, and how the existence of a president of France does not negate the fact that for Americans there is only one president, just like how the existence of multiple Gods does not negate the fact that for us there is only one God.

But Josh's words "there is only one God, because there is only one office of God. But there are a never ending number of people who fill the office of God and have throughout the eternities" seemed to be saying something completely different.  He's not talking about lots of different Gods all being gods at the same time but not all being authoritative to everyone at once (like how some mormons would describe it using the president analogy).  He seems to be talking about one being who holds the office of God at a time (like how the US only has one president at a time, even though lots of men have held the office in the past and lots more will in the future) and then pass it on to someone else.

[Jane_Doe]

Just now, bluebell said:

But Josh's words "there is only one God, because there is only one office of God. But there are a never ending number of people who fill the office of God and have throughout the eternities" seemed to be saying something completely different.  He's not talking about lots of different Gods all being gods at the same time but not all being authoritative to everyone at once (like how some mormons would describe it using the president analogy).  He seems to be talking about one being who holds the office of God at a time (like how the US only has one president at a time, even though lots of men have held the office in the past and lots more will in the future) and then pass it on to someone else.

Good point.  For LDS (or at least for me) exaltation is becoming one WITH God-- I don't replace my Father, but I join Him in that perfection.  

[strappinglad]

Sometimes I think we are ants discussing Leviathan .

The scriptures speak about marriage as joining two to become one. There are various levels of understanding about that.

In the Temple there is a prayer involving several individuals united in purpose ,each contributing their faith/power to the endeavor. They are asked to be one.

Is God/ the Godhead/ the Council of the Gods one? In what way?

As for God being an office, I don't like the idea of Gods rotating through the office. What is the point? Does that lead to " current leadership roulette " ? Is there a leadership training period? What about the trainee  God messing up somehow and the mentor God having to step in and fix things? Doesn't inspire confidence !

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Jeff Durbin is a man who 100% relies on misrepresenting people, random ambushes, and selectively cutting footage.  How many of his videos rely o traps, him "informing" another person what they believe, trick questions, or blatant misrepresentation?   He is not an individual to admire at all, rather just another anti-Mormon troll.  

I don't think he's that bad. Yes, I was wary of his sound bite gotcha video tactics, but I also understand his quest and need for dragons to slay in order to be relevant. That's why it was nice to have him on our turf for our Q&As, rather than letting him selectively cut footage. He is a nice enough fellow, and he means well from his perspective. 

It seems to me that the Romney campaign was the high water mark for evangelical anti-Mormonism, and it is old hat now. The big issues now are social issues and secular agnosticism/atheism --- much more so than sectarian anti-Mormonism. These are bigger threats to people's faith and activity now, and on these issues, we are on the same side.  

[rongo]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Actually I think Pratt and Young disagreed on the attributes issue (and other things).

They didn't disagree on the major, over-arching one: i.e., an eternal regress of Gods presents no problem at all as far as proscriptions against worshiping other Gods. 

I've always found it interesting that Brigham Young had Orson Pratt preach the official sermon publicly announcing the doctrine and practice of plural marriage, before sending him on a mission back East to be the Church's point man on it and to spread it through the press. This talk follows the main Adam-God talk in Journal of Discourses, and is a good one. Pratt preached in it (and was never contradicted by Young on this point, as far as I know) that exalted couples provide spirit children for head Gods to be adopted as theirs (he cited D&C 76:24, about them being "spirit sons and daughters begotten *unto* God, instead of *of*). No matter what one believes about that, it is an interesting thought and discussion of the weight and meaning of the prepositions. 

Even where I disagree with Pratt (and I do disagree with him on some things), he was a great thinker and a pleasure to read!  

Edited August 14, 2018 by rongo

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Good point.  For LDS (or at least for me) exaltation is becoming one WITH God-- I don't replace my Father, but I join Him in that perfection.  

Yep. Ironically, even Athanasius said as much according to Catholic catechism. 

John 17:

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

[Stargazer]

21 hours ago, Josh516 said:

Alright, I've seen quite a host of YouTube videos where some helpless Mormon gets cornered by a scholarly individual who knows how to argue against Mormonism clear and through. One thing that anti-Mormons seem to always bring up is the notion of there being multiple Gods in our belief system. They inevitably point to biblical scripture with statements such as, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me," (Isaiah 43:10).  In Mormon Fundamentalism, the rebuttal is quite simple. To us, the individual and the office are not the same thing. In other words, in the given scripture, there is only one God, because there is only one office of God. But there are a never ending number of people who fill the office of God and have throughout the eternities. My question is this: Doesn't the LDS Church believe this as well? If they do not separate the office from the individual, then how do Mormons reconcile these sorts of scripture with their current beliefs?

Well, I was wondering when you were going to chime in with your own topic!  Welcome to the real deal!

And that's a very clever argument you have there.  I'm impressed.  Doubt it would convince anyone on the other side of the position, but it might trip them up some.

There's an instance in the Book of Revelation where an angel comes to John and talks and acts like he is the Lord, but when John starts worshipping him, the angel says (paraphrased) "Hey, don't do that, I'm just here by assignment -- I'm your fellowservant" -- and then continues as if he is the Lord.  That's not quite what you're saying, but it is, I understand, an instance of "divine investiture of authority".  Which is why Jesus identified himself as the Father a few times in the New Testament.  He wasn't the Father, but he was the Father by proxy.  Or, by Office, as you would say.

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Good thoughts. This is something that is unclear in LDS theology (from what I understand).  On the one hand, we consider ourselves monotheistic as other Christian faiths. On the other hand, we acknowledge a godhead, and acknowledge Christ and the Father as Gods. Additionally, we acknowledge that we are all gods in embryo.  Lastly, LDS call God the Father “Elohim.”  Elohim is plural, so even god the father is named a plural name.

Its a complicated issue that I’ve found most don’t think or know much about.

I don't find it unclear or complicated at all.

But perhaps I am in a minority.

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, Josh516 said:

I couldn't agree more that the guy who does the ambush and is prepared will almost indefinitely win. Though I would still say there's a lot of scholarly argumentation. The guy who really stands out to me is Pastor Jeff Durbin. He's very intelligent and knows how to argue effectively from what I observe. But yes, I agree most people won't stand chance in those circumstances. But I still have yet to hear a good rebuttal from main stream Mormons.

The other thing is, that if the ambushee turns the tables on the ambusher ("breaks the ambush" in military parlance), he's hardly going to publish the video.

Rebut what?  The Office of the Godhead?  Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, even if it isn't an express doctrine.  There may be words that describe it better in an LDS context, but...

Edited August 14, 2018 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

Are you saying that only one Being holds the office of God at a time and that is how there is only one God?

I think of it more along the lines of a Presidency.  Each member of the First Presidency is called "President", even though only one of them is THE President.  I'm pretty sure that the FP is modeled after the Godhead.

[Stargazer]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

So in this belief system God our Father ceases to be God when Jesus inherits all He has?

No.  Nor is this the case when YOU inherit all that the Father has.  It is NOT a zero-sum game.

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course not.  But do we really need to go down that road again?  My unorthodox beliefs differ from the standard Church line on those issues.  We all know that.

God retains his kingdom that has increased in us, Christ begins his through his inheritance of us.

Do we?  I don't remember what your unorthodox beliefs are on this subject.

But your second paragraph seems perfectly in alignment with my own feelings and understandings.  Is it in opposition to orthodoxy?

Edited August 14, 2018 by Stargazer

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

No.  Nor is this the case when YOU inherit all that the Father has.  It is NOT a zero-sum game.

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

 

Yes, I know this is what we teach.  I'm trying to understand what Josh is trying to say.  I'm a little confused by the OP.

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I think of it more along the lines of a Presidency.  Each member of the First Presidency is called "President", even though only one of them is THE President.  I'm pretty sure that the FP is modeled after the Godhead.

That could be.  But I'm not sure how you see it matches Josh's explanation of what his church teaches on the subject.  It's his beliefs that I'm trying to understand better.  

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Sometimes I think we are ants discussing Leviathan .

Well, I think you've hit that particular nail bang on.

I absolutely know that my conception of God is that of advanced kindergartner, in comparison to what the reality is.  Since I do not yet operate in God's milieu, that is inescapable.

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I know this is what we teach.  I'm trying to understand what Josh is trying to say.  I'm a little confused by the OP.

Sorry, I just got carried away.  I think he's saying the same thing, generally, but with rather more unconventional verbiage.

[SouthernMo]

22 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That's how Brigham Young explained it.  Gods above, Gods below.  Our God is the one we pray to.   But Christ is also our God because he inherits/inherited us as his children and kingdom.  The Holy Ghost is a God, but is he really our God if he actually doesn't have a body yet.  Joseph taught those with bodies always have power over those without  (spirits).

I've tried to wait for the reference I asked for for nearly 24 hours.  Can I request a CFR?  You need to back this up.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

I've tried to wait for the reference I asked for for nearly 24 hours.  Can I request a CFR?  You need to back this up.

Well, you might want a reference from JLHPROF, and I hope you get it, but I don't need a quote from Brigham Young to say that what was written falls nicely within what I understand about the Godhead.

[SouthernMo]

20 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, you might want a reference from JLHPROF, and I hope you get it, but I don't need a quote from Brigham Young to say that what was written falls nicely within what I understand about the Godhead.

Cool.  How did you come to understand the godhead without any teachings from prophets?

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Cool.  How did you come to understand the godhead without any teachings from prophets?

In a bizarre twist it turns out they are God......(gasp)

[SouthernMo]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In a bizarre twist it turns out they are God......(gasp)

So you have no need for prophets, then?  You learned about the godhead from god?