Speculations on Condescension of God and the Fall

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

None whatsoever?

Individualism and transcendence are both paradigms of independent identity.

Immanence and connectedness are both paradigms of inseparableness from other entities and elements.

They both pose dilemmas to us. Therefore, their congruence could mean that resolving the more immediately relatable (possibly easier) dilemma could prove insightful for resolving the other.

Ok, good point! But how does that relate to this thread?

Does it have anything to do with the fall?

[Ahab]

On 11/16/2019 at 5:28 PM, mfbukowski said:

There is a problem in Christian theology that I think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has solved, and one I have thought about at length, and that is the tension in Christianity between the transcendence of God, and his immanence.

How do you think the Church has solved that problem?  By' simply saying God is not transcendent and is instead immanent?  Or do you think the Church is saying he is both and there is no problem with either view?

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

Interesting thoughts. 

However, this self-determined Celestial sacrifice of the father requires us to believe that transcendence is even an option for the Father.  Given the following definition, I don't see that as a thing:

 

I will agree that he is beyond all "known" physical laws, but that doesn't make him "independent" of physical laws and the material universe.  It simply means we don't understand as he does.  I don't think he could have created ex-nihlo, even if he really, really wanted to. Perhaps the solution that our doctrine provides is to suggest that there is not a problem in the first place. 

Well this is an attempt- or at least a way of looking at the story- which could provide an answer to that.  By making him transcendent to start off with, those questions don't even arise.

Most Catholics for example, might answer this with "immanence is not even an option for defining God" and yet we cannot image a transcendent God.  Go figure!  So it is an attempt TO understand how it is that he combines transcendence and immanence while, I think, giving a new twist on the atonement.  As a transcendent being, yes, he could have created ex-nihilo but decided to do it "the hard way" instead of snapping his fingers so that he could better understand us as the limited beings we are.  And we still do not know HOW he does any of it.

Yes our doctrine just makes him immanent from the start, but this view solves the problem of the "back story" of how he got there.

Folks who believe in an immanent God see such a being as naturally inferior to their transcendent magic God- and that position is straight pagan Greek philosophy.  This allows that assumption but explains how becoming immanent voluntarily actually INCREASES his power by voluntarily giving up transcendence and still being God.

 

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Ahab said:

How do you think the Church has solved that problem?  By' simply saying God is not transcendent and is instead immanent?  Or do you think the Church is saying he is both and there is no problem with either view?

Joseph solved the problem by postulating that God was immanent just by showing Himself and his Son as having physical bodies thereby NOT making them vague spiritual entities filling the universe.  I don't think our view of God makes him transcendent in any way.  The church is not saying he is both.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Joseph solved the problem by postulating that God was immanent just by showing Himself and his Son as having physical bodies thereby NOT making them vague spiritual entities filling the universe.  I don't think our view of God makes him transcendent in any way.  The church is not saying he is both.

Theologians created their own problem, and I think Joseph's way out of this particular problem (like some of the others) is to never go in to begin with (as David Paulsen says).  So Joseph didn't have any problem to solve.  

The "problem" seems to have been created by theologians and philosophers by allowing their critics (whether they be from Judaism, Christian heretics, or pagans) to bully them into creating what they thought was a more powerful view of God.  Much of the shift in early Christian doctrine came by the Christians trying to defend their faith against people who criticized their God for being too human, too weak (he died!), and so forth.  I think there are some lessons to be learned from that.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

Theologians created their own problem, and I think Joseph's way out of this particular problem (like some of the others) is to never go in to begin with (as David Paulsen says).  So Joseph didn't have any problem to solve.  

The "problem" seems to have been created by theologians and philosophers by allowing their critics (whether they be from Judaism, Christian heretics, or pagans) to bully them into creating what they thought was a more powerful view of God.  Much of the shift in early Christian doctrine came by the Christians trying to defend their faith against people who criticized their God for being too human, too weak (he died!), and so forth.  I think there are some lessons to be learned from that.

 

You know that's a really good point. So the church men had to make him transcendent and they did it by using neoplatonism to describe God, making him as ineffable as possible to avoid criticism. He was seen as weak so the rationale had to be to make the apparent weakness into a strength by calling it a sacrifice, and making him a supernatural magician.

Dang.

That's a really good point that I had never thought of.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Theologians created their own problem, and I think Joseph's way out of this particular problem (like some of the others) is to never go in to begin with (as David Paulsen says).  So Joseph didn't have any problem to solve.  

The "problem" seems to have been created by theologians and philosophers by allowing their critics (whether they be from Judaism, Christian heretics, or pagans) to bully them into creating what they thought was a more powerful view of God.  Much of the shift in early Christian doctrine came by the Christians trying to defend their faith against people who criticized their God for being too human, too weak (he died!), and so forth.  I think there are some lessons to be learned from that.

 

People do not understand that we accept scriptural descriptions which we regard as inspired- why? because we have a testimony of the truth of the scriptures.

There is no way that one can know from history that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ- the annointed one, the Son of the Living God.  Witnesses to the crucifixion walked by and said possibly- "Oh three more today- I wonder what they did" and knew nothing about the significance of what was happening.

So we have the words of fallible humans as to "what happened" and the confirmation of the spirit.

On this view we might have the hsitory wrong or right, but there is no way to know which except by testimony

Testimony is a belief and certainty in a belief that is "true" because it brings warmth to our spirit, and peace within. 

Theologians are not prophets- they are philosophers putting together a paradigm that makes sense to them logically to explain their beliefs.

And so one theologian thinks that his view of transubstantiation solves the need for a rational explanation of how bread and wine become the body of Christ.

Another figures how what he interprets as three persons can be "One God" and comes up with the Trinity.  

Scriptures of course never use the word "trinity" or "transubstantiation" or "transcendent" or "immanent".

These are all stories revealed- or made up- by the "philosophies of men"- they are stories invented to support the feeling of peace that the beliefs bring to us.

And so from my perspective, thinking this way is perfectly compatible with being fully LDS or fully Catholic- or whatever paradigm the Lord leads us to as what fits with our spirit to give us significance in our lives.

So in no way are such questions or beliefs "unfaithful" when faith itself is defined as "things HOPED FOR which are unseen".

We put together a view which is confirmed by the spirit which I believe is the path the Lord is teaching us- the one which will get us closer to him according to our circumstances.

If we are homeless, Godless and addicted and living on skid row, and the Salvation Army teaches me about Christ- I have absolutely no doubt that the LORD could very well be teaching me a true step that I need to learn in order to get closer to Christ.

That means that yes, individually we can have different paths toward the "one true church" of Jesus Christ- and I do believe through testimony that the best paradigm- the "one true and living church" IS the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

And so I hope that no one misunderstands my comments here- but I see human ideas as just that- human descriptions of a "reality" that we cannot see at this time because "now we see through a glass darkly" and THAT is inevitably a result of being a mortal human.  But then the scripture goes on - "THEN face to face"

[Ahab]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So in no way are such questions or beliefs "unfaithful" when faith itself is defined as "things HOPED FOR which are unseen".

 

Not quite.  Faith is some substance of things hoped for, evidence of things not seen. (Joseph Smith used the word "assurance" to clarify "substance") of things hoped for which are unseen.

This definition is from whoever wrote Hebrews 11: - 

1 Now ^afaith is the ^bsubstance of things ^choped for, the ^devidence of things not seen.

2 For by it the elders ^aobtained a good ^breport.

 The stuff that testimonies are made of, with God assuring us of things we hope for, with his assurance as evidence of things we haven't seen... at least not yet or not until we received faith to see it .

Edited November 19, 2019 by Ahab

[InCognitus]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You know that's a really good point. So the church men had to make him transcendent and they did it by using neoplatonism to describe God, making him as ineffable as possible to avoid criticism. He was seen as weak so the rationale had to be to make the apparent weakness into a strength by calling it a sacrifice, and making him a supernatural magician.

I wish I had been making notes on this as I've encountered examples of it happening in the early Christian writings, because I know I've run across it many times.  A lot of the early Christian writings are apologetic in nature, they write "Against Celsus" (Origen) or "Against Heresies" (Irenaeus), or they write against Marcion or Arius or the heathen or gnosticism.  Their arguments against these teachings tend to push their views on God to a level that is more defensible in their view.  I think it's pretty clear that even the Nicene statement that the Father and Son are "homoousious" is a reaction against Arianism that tends to err in the opposite direction a little too far (depending on how people interpret the word). 

But there have been many studies done on this topic too, but usually this point is an assumed reality to whatever is the primary topic of the article.  One that I read not too long ago comes to mind is Lincoln H. Blumell's journal article, Luke 22:43–44: An Anti-Docetic Interpolation or an Apologetic Omission?, (available here: http://jbtc.org/v19/TC-2014-Blumell.pdf ) which explores the reason for the omission of Luke 22:43-44 in some Bible manuscripts, and to determine which reading is original.  I think he provides some really good evidence that those verses were removed from some New Testament manuscripts (rather than added later) based on this very point, that the idea that Jesus was in "agony" in the garden and was strengthened by an angel was something that the apologists found hard to defend, and so the verses were removed in some manuscripts.

As an example of what the early Christian apologists faced from their critics, here's an excerpt from page 22 of Blummell's article:

Quote

While the attacks of Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian focused on different aspects of the scriptures and singled out different episodes for criticism, interestingly all three found the depiction of Jesus in Gethsemane worthy of severe reproach. Central to their respective criticisms was the conviction that Jesus lacked the proper moral courage and composure before death. He was sad and weak since he entreated God to be excused from his impending fate. Celsus mocked Jesus: “Why then does he [Jesus] utter loud laments and wailings, and pray that he may avoid the fear of death, saying something like this, ‘O Father, if this cup could pass me by?’”  Celsus later remarks that Jesus was effectively a coward since he acted in such a manner and could not heroically accept his death with the proper disposition.  With these accusations Celsus was attempting to undercut any divine claims made about Jesus, either by himself or his followers, and to present him as little more than a pathetic charlatan.

On page 23, Blummell starts an analysis of the response to these criticisms:

Quote

Many Christians were aware of these caustic criticisms and the inherent problems posed by Gethsemane. If one surveys early Christian literature between the second and fifth centuries it becomes readily apparent that the whole Gethsemane narrative was a matter of serious concern and even embarrassment; many Christians seemed genuinely perplexed about it and did not quite know how to best explain the episode or defend Jesus’ actions. To many patristic commentators Gethsemane was considered “a plague and embarrassment.”

It's an interesting topic, but this is how I see these doctrines on extreme transcendence developing. 

Edit:  I should explain that the ideas on transcendence were likely developed separately from the criticisms described above, but those ideas created more problems LIKE the ones described above.  

Edited November 19, 2019 by InCognitus

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I wish I had been making notes on this as I've encountered examples of it happening in the early Christian writings, because I know I've run across it many times.  A lot of the early Christian writings are apologetic in nature, they write "Against Celsus" (Origen) or "Against Heresies" (Irenaeus), or they write against Marcion or Arius or the heathen or gnosticism.  Their arguments against these teachings tend to push their views on God to a level that is more defensible in their view.  I think it's pretty clear that even the Nicene statement that the Father and Son are "homoousious" is a reaction against Arianism that tends to err in the opposite direction a little too far (depending on how people interpret the word). 

But there have been many studies done on this topic too, but usually this point is an assumed reality to whatever is the primary topic of the article.  One that I read not too long ago comes to mind is Lincoln H. Blumell's journal article, Luke 22:43–44: An Anti-Docetic Interpolation or an Apologetic Omission?, (available here: http://jbtc.org/v19/TC-2014-Blumell.pdf ) which explores the reason for the omission of Luke 22:43-44 in some Bible manuscripts, and to determine which reading is original.  I think he provides some really good evidence that those verses were removed from some New Testament manuscripts (rather than added later) based on this very point, that the idea that Jesus was in "agony" in the garden and was strengthened by an angel was something that the apologists found hard to defend, and so the verses were removed in some manuscripts.

As an example of what the early Christian apologists faced from their critics, here's an excerpt from page 22 of Blummell's article:

On page 23, Blummell starts an analysis of the response to these criticisms:

It's an interesting topic, but this is how I see these doctrines on extreme transcendence developing. 

Edit:  I should explain that the ideas on transcendence were likely developed separately from the criticisms described above, but those ideas created more problems LIKE the ones described above.  

Thanks for these references. In my private interpretation of the atonement I find myself leaning more and more away from the view that Christ's sacrifice was to" pay for our sins" and instead more toward the view that it was or toward becoming fully human and understanding every pain and despairing moment that humans had ever been through or would ever feel in the future.

He needed to do this to be able to comfort his children regardless of what depths of Despair they were experiencing.  And short the mission was to fully give up Transcendence and become fully human. We recall of course on the cross where Jesus it feels totally forsaken by his father, possibly meaning the Father Figure inside of him, the role of the organizer of universes, to understand the most pathetic human who would ever live.

If anyone has been in a leadership position they know that fully within themselves they are still fully human. The leadership role can be taken on while still experiencing all of the pain and sufferings that any human has.

" Surely someone like the prophet never experiences the kind of Despair I experience", one might think yet of course we know that that is not true.

Joseph wrote about experiencing just these kinds of issues.

And so the Creator and organiser of universes came down to mirror the exact feelings of the most pathetic human who ever lived or would live. 

For me that is the great sacrifice of the atonement. It has nothing to do with paying some kind of bill balancing Justice vs. Mercy as if they are comprable.

It is about falling from a position of transcendence to a position of full immanence.

 

 

[Meadowchik]

On 11/18/2019 at 5:28 PM, mfbukowski said:

Ok, good point! But how does that relate to this thread?

Does it have anything to do with the fall?

I'd say it is nicely consistent with what you describe below about the view of Christ's empathy. Connecting with others is also a transcendent truth, I think.

 

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks for these references. In my private interpretation of the atonement I find myself leaning more and more away from the view that Christ's sacrifice was to" pay for our sins" and instead more toward the view that it was or toward becoming fully human and understanding every pain and despairing moment that humans had ever been through or would ever feel in the future.

He needed to do this to be able to comfort his children regardless of what depths of Despair they were experiencing.  And short the mission was to fully give up Transcendence and become fully human. We recall of course on the cross where Jesus it feels totally forsaken by his father, possibly meaning the Father Figure inside of him, the role of the organizer of universes, to understand the most pathetic human who would ever live.

If anyone has been in a leadership position they know that fully within themselves they are still fully human. The leadership role can be taken on while still experiencing all of the pain and sufferings that any human has.

" Surely someone like the prophet never experiences the kind of Despair I experience", one might think yet of course we know that that is not true.

Joseph wrote about experiencing just these kinds of issues.

And so the Creator and organiser of universes came down to mirror the exact feelings of the most pathetic human who ever lived or would live. 

For me that is the great sacrifice of the atonement. It has nothing to do with paying some kind of bill balancing Justice vs. Mercy as if they are comprable.

It is about falling from a position of transcendence to a position of full immanence.

 

 

 

[CV75]

On 11/19/2019 at 3:40 PM, mfbukowski said:

Thanks for these references. In my private interpretation of the atonement I find myself leaning more and more away from the view that Christ's sacrifice was to" pay for our sins" and instead more toward the view that it was or toward becoming fully human and understanding every pain and despairing moment that humans had ever been through or would ever feel in the future.

He needed to do this to be able to comfort his children regardless of what depths of Despair they were experiencing.  And short the mission was to fully give up Transcendence and become fully human. We recall of course on the cross where Jesus it feels totally forsaken by his father, possibly meaning the Father Figure inside of him, the role of the organizer of universes, to understand the most pathetic human who would ever live.

If anyone has been in a leadership position they know that fully within themselves they are still fully human. The leadership role can be taken on while still experiencing all of the pain and sufferings that any human has.

" Surely someone like the prophet never experiences the kind of Despair I experience", one might think yet of course we know that that is not true.

Joseph wrote about experiencing just these kinds of issues.

And so the Creator and organiser of universes came down to mirror the exact feelings of the most pathetic human who ever lived or would live. 

For me that is the great sacrifice of the atonement. It has nothing to do with paying some kind of bill balancing Justice vs. Mercy as if they are comprable.

It is about falling from a position of transcendence to a position of full immanence.

I think comforting is a settling of the terms of discomfort.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I'd say it is nicely consistent with what you describe below about the view of Christ's empathy. Connecting with others is also a transcendent truth, I think.

I agree with the spirit of this thanks

Just to be totally "philosophically correct"  though in my view only sentences or statements ("propositions") can be true or false.

One might say that "Connecting with others is spiritually important" and then I would say that that statement is "true". 

Just being a little pedantic I suppose....   

But this is an idea you should look at if you have not studied it:  Perichoresis   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perichoresis

Often the notion of a "sacred dance" is connected with it.  Think of a certain circle made in the temple. 

 

Quote

 

Perichoresis (from Greek: περιχώρησις perikhōrēsis, "rotation")^[1] is a term referring to the relationship of the three persons of the triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) to one another. Circumincession is a Latin-derived term for the same concept.^[2] It was first used as a term in Christian theology, by the Church Fathers. The noun first appears in the writings of Maximus Confessor (d. 662) but the related verb perichoreo is found earlier in Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 389/90).^[3] Gregory used it to describe the relationship between the divine and human natures of Christ as did John of Damascus (d. 749), who also extended it to the "interpenetration" of the three persons of the Trinity, and it became a technical term for the latter.^[2][4] It has been given recent currency by such contemporary writers as Jürgen Moltmann, Miroslav Volf, John Zizioulas, C. Baxter Kruger, Dr. Shawn Smith and others.

Modern authors extend the original usage as an analogy to cover other interpersonal relationships. The term "co(-)inherence" is sometimes used as a synonym.^[5]

Since humans are made in the image of God,^[6] a Christian understanding of an adequate anthropology of humans' social relations is informed by the divine attributes, what can be known of God's activity and God's presence in human affairs. Theologians of the Communio school such as Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, and Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) locate the reciprocal dynamism between God and God's creatures in the liturgical action of sacrament, celebrating the sacred mysteries in Eucharistic communion, in a hermeneutic of continuity and apostolic unity.^{[relevant? – discuss]}

 

 

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree with the spirit of this thanks

Just to be totally "philosophically correct"  though in my view only sentences or statements ("propositions") can be true or false.

One might say that "Connecting with others is spiritually important" and then I would say that that statement is "true". 

Just being a little pedantic I suppose....   

But this is an idea you should look at if you have not studied it:  Perichoresis   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perichoresis

Often the notion of a "sacred dance" is connected with it.  Think of a certain circle made in the temple. 

 

 

Thanks. Yes, I appreciate the value of propositional statement.  Connecting with others, though, is not just spiritually important, but important. And it is a continual, inescapable state of the human condition. 

[theplains]

On 11/16/2019 at 8:28 PM, mfbukowski said:

What are the implications of all this for the "Adam-God Theory" that Brigham Young put forward - that Adam WAS our Father?   

It's all just speculation but what do you think?

The historical record shows Brigham Young taught Adam God. He gave an extensive discourse 
on the subject in General Conference on October 8, 1854.

During a Priesthood session of conference in October of 1976, Spencer W. Kimball labelled 
Brigham's teaching false doctrine.  He said  "We warn you against the dissemination of 
doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been 
taught by some General Authorities of past generations, such, for instance is the Adam-God 
theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and 
other kinds of false doctrine" (Church News, 10/9/76). 

It appears that one can be misled by an LDS President speaking at a General Conference.

Jim

[RevTestament]

On 11/16/2019 at 5:28 PM, mfbukowski said:

There is a problem in Christian theology that I think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has solved, and one I have thought about at length, and that is the tension in Christianity between the transcendence of God, and his immanence.

Wikipedia gives a good and simple account of some of the issues involved  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(religion)

Long story short, if God is 100% "transcendent" by definition, we could not understand Him or even speak or pray to him and think that he could or would respond to us.   We would be too insignificant for him to even notice us.  And in no way could he be described as our Father.

So for him to hear and answer our prayers, and be concerned about our welfare etc, he has to have some characteristics of "immanence"

But how can the two opposite poles be balanced?   It is a problem Christianity has faced since its inception.  Catholicism has developed some views on how that is possible, but I won't cover them right now- if that is a direction the thread goes, I have no problem with it.

But for right now I will summarize what I have been thinking about and then explain further as the thread grows progresses.   It is a complicated issue and would not be easily summarized.  Yet some here are informed enough about these issues to notice exactly where I am going with this already, so we will see how the thread goes and cover those issues as they come up

One solution I see is to see God as being "self- determining"  Imagine you are trying to lose weight, and decide to go on a diet.  You are free to eat a whole chocolate cake- nothing stands in your way- except your own decision to NOT eat the cake.

So you yourself have limited your agency by choosing NOT to eat the cake.   And doing that is a sacrifice.  Now eating cake may or may not be much of a sacrifice in your life, but let's look at a moment for what it could mean for Heavenly Father if he decided to make a similar sacrifice.

Suppose our transcendent Father decides voluntarily to GIVE UP his transcendence and limit his abilities in significant ways so that he CAN have earthly children, and to serve them and hear and answer prayers?   He gives up VOLUNTARILY a great portion of what it is to BE God so that he can serve his earthly children!   He gives it all up and decides to be limited by his own "natural laws" and instead of creating ex nihilo- which he COULD have done if he decided to- he decides to take the immanent path and "organize" existing matter using natural law

So how would this affect the atonement?

Isn't the condescension of Christ similar to this sacrifice? The great Jehovah decides to take upon himself human existence and sacrifice his life for us so that he can understand every possible emotion and pain of humanity and overcome them so that we can have peace, knowing he has experienced the worst of anything we can possibly experience.  He must suffer and die to know what mankind faces.

So now we have two condescensions - that of the Father AND the Son.

But wait?  What about Adam and Eve?   As a pre-qualifier to becoming exalted, we all need to understand both Good AND Evil, and so we have what has been termed the "Fortunate Fall" in which first Eve, and then Adam, come to understand that they must sacrifice the immortality of of the Garden and learn about evil and death in order to be able to overcome it.

So Father takes on immanence and gives up a large portion of his powers- for his children.  Christ gives up his Heavenly home and comes to earth to suffer and die for his children, and then Eve and Adam give up the Garden and immortality to learn the hard way about evil and death and so they have the freedom to make the choices they need in order to learn these principles.

But there is another angle to this.

Were there "really" three sacrifices or are these three LEVELS of sacrifice (telestial, terestrial and celestial?) "really" portions of one sacrifice and the atonement?

What are the implications of all this for the "Adam-God Theory" that Brigham Young put forward - that Adam WAS our Father?   

It's all just speculation but what do you think?

No speculation at all if you believe our scriptures:
Doctrine and Covenants 27:11

11 And also with Michael, or ^aAdam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ^bancient of days;

Doctrine and Covenants 29:34

34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a ^alaw which was ^btemporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

The historical record shows Brigham Young taught Adam God. He gave an extensive discourse 
on the subject in General Conference on October 8, 1854.

During a Priesthood session of conference in October of 1976, Spencer W. Kimball labelled 
Brigham's teaching false doctrine.  He said  "We warn you against the dissemination of 
doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been 
taught by some General Authorities of past generations, such, for instance is the Adam-God 
theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and 
other kinds of false doctrine" (Church News, 10/9/76). 

It appears that one can be misled by an LDS President speaking at a General Conference.

Jim

Your opinions are already set in stone. I don't have time to try to fix them.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

No speculation at all if you believe our scriptures:
Doctrine and Covenants 27:11

11 And also with Michael, or ^aAdam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ^bancient of days;

Doctrine and Covenants 29:34

34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a ^alaw which was ^btemporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created.

Good points, but of course we still have the question of who is the "I" - the speaker, the narrator is, and then there is the question of titles- like "The Second Adam" etc.  And who was the FIRST "Adam"?    "The First Man"?  To me it pretty much just means "human".

Could go back a ways.... 

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, theplains said:

The historical record shows Brigham Young taught Adam God. He gave an extensive discourse 
on the subject in General Conference on October 8, 1854.

During a Priesthood session of conference in October of 1976, Spencer W. Kimball labelled 
Brigham's teaching false doctrine.  He said  "We warn you against the dissemination of 
doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been 
taught by some General Authorities of past generations, such, for instance is the Adam-God 
theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and 
other kinds of false doctrine" (Church News, 10/9/76). 

It appears that one can be misled by an LDS President speaking at a General Conference.

Jim

Several times now I have reminded you that we do not believe in prophetic infallibility.  Discussing an arcane topic like the Name of God doesn't "mislead" anyone.  It appears you do not apply questions already answered to new instances of the same observation.  Perhaps you could remember that we do not believe in prophetic infallibility so you could stop asking questions about it?   Incidentally it seems that whenever I answer you, I never get a response. Responding would be helpful in letting me know if the answer was satisfactory or not.

Edited November 22, 2019 by mfbukowski

[InCognitus]

5 hours ago, theplains said:

The historical record shows Brigham Young taught Adam God. He gave an extensive discourse 
on the subject in General Conference on October 8, 1854.

During a Priesthood session of conference in October of 1976, Spencer W. Kimball labelled 
Brigham's teaching false doctrine.  He said  "We warn you against the dissemination of 
doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been 
taught by some General Authorities of past generations, such, for instance is the Adam-God 
theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and 
other kinds of false doctrine" (Church News, 10/9/76). 

It appears that one can be misled by an LDS President speaking at a General Conference.

Jim

To add to what has already been said above on this:   People can be "misled" by anyone and anything based on their own interpretations on what was said.  If they don't try to figure out what the original speaker really meant then they can be misled.  People are misled by the words of Jesus, or Paul the apostle, or any other prophet or apostle.  Some people think that Paul or Jesus taught that it is better to be celibate than married, for example.  But they would be misled by such thinking.

Edited November 22, 2019 by InCognitus

[3DOP]

7 hours ago, InCognitus said:

To add to what has already been said above on this:   People can be "misled" by anyone and anything based on their own interpretations on what was said.  If they don't try to figure out what the original speaker really meant then they can be misled.  People are misled by the words of Jesus, or Paul the apostle, or any other prophet or apostle.  Some people think that Paul or Jesus taught that it is better to be celibate than married, for example.  But they would be misled by such thinking.

Is it better for everyone to be married?

The position I take as a Catholic is sometimes described by our detractors as "enforced celibacy" (ANF translations by Anglican editors). One might as well talk of "enforced marriage". I hold that the best state of life for some is unenforced marriage, while for others it is unenforced celibacy...for priests and brothers and sisters dedicated to a life of community and liturgical prayer, as well as for others who love God and for whom married life has been eliminated for any reason as not an option. Nobody is forced to be celibate or married in a Catholic society. That would be as wrong as to be forced to be baptized. But we are forced to acknowledge the value of both ways to heaven, and both ways to glorify our Heavenly Father. If as a Catholic, you think you are called by God to participate in community prayer with Matins, Lauds, Prime, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline, it would be folly to try to add to all that the responsibility of a family. One or the other. Not both. You can't live in a convent or monastery and have a day job of eight or more hour hours and additionally give your family the spiritual support they need. This is why the Church has taught that those who are called to the monastic, conventual, or priestly life are unqualified to be husbands and fathers, or wives and mothers, except spiritually. There are only twenty four hours in the day that God has made. Mothers and fathers of children simply can't be about praying the Office at all of the hours. Sunday Vespers is great for people in the world, and of course our daily Mass (when possible) and Sunday obligation. But all of the rest of the wonderful liturgical prayer that ascends to the Father? Thank God for our religious brothers and sisters, however few or many they may be. I praise God for their loving assistance. We must remain united in this perilous hour in the communion of the saints. We will not deny one for the other. We will love both and recognize the value of both. We are assured that we are one in Christ. Individually, you can have the Office or you can have the family. Nobody gets everything. Everybody makes a sacrifice. Ora et labora. Prayer and work. Everybody shares this calling. Good St. Benedict unites the families in the monastery/convent with the families in the world.

Whether we work or whether we pray, we have to do both at the same time. But formally speaking, the married man or woman, must make his/her work his prayer, while the celibate man or woman must make his/her prayer his work.

 

Edited November 23, 2019 by 3DOP

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Is it better for everyone to be married? The position I take as a Catholic is sometimes described by our detractors as "enforced celibacy" (ANF translations by Anglican editors). I hold that the best state of life for some is marriage, while for others it is unenforced celibacy...for priests and brothers and sisters dedicated to a life of community and liturgical prayer, as well as for others who love God and for whom married life has been eliminated for any reason as not an option. Nobody would be forced to be celibate in a Catholic society.

It is not possible for "everyone" to be married.  Some have no desire for it, some are not equipped for it through no fault of their own, and many simply don't have the opportunity.  In such situations, living the law of chastity as a single person is the option they have.  

And I wasn't referring to forced celibacy above, nor was I directly picking on Catholic priests.  I have heard this same idea from Protestants and Anabaptists too (I don't discriminate ).  I was talking about the general teaching that choosing to be single and devoted to the Lord is better than being married (as a full life choice), making marriage the second best choice for anyone that would choose to do so.  The Anabaptist I heard this idea from got it from reading the Ante-Nicene Fathers.  And I know how he arrived at that from reading some of the later early Christian writings, like this example from Tertullian:

Quote

"This passage (of the apostle) I would treat in such a way as to maintain the superiority of the other and higher sanctity, preferring continence and virginity to marriage, but by no means prohibiting the latter. For my hostility is directed against those who are for destroying the God of marriage, not those who follow after chastity."   (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 5 Ch. 15:  http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03125.htm)

By "passage" he is referring to 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 above. 

And Methodius (after quoting Paul from 1 Corinthians 7:28, 32-34):

Quote

“I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord:but he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is a difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” Now it is clear to all, without any doubt, that to care for the things of the Lord and to please God, is much better than to care for the things of the world and to please one’s wife. For who is there so foolish and blind. as not to perceive in this statement the higher praise which Paul accords to chastity? “And this,” he says,“I speak for your own profit, not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely.”  (Methodius—Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 3,  chapter 13:   http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/062303.htm)
 

There's no question that celibacy is an option for some people, but that was never the "better" way in God's plan for us to fill the measure of our creation.

Edited November 23, 2019 by InCognitus

[Meadowchik]

On 11/21/2019 at 8:30 AM, Meadowchik said:

Thanks. Yes, I appreciate the value of propositional statement.  Connecting with others, though, is not just spiritually important, but important. And it is a continual, inescapable state of the human condition. 

So I would say that Christ being at once divine and mortal, condecending to do so, and then performing the Atonement doing His Father's Work is a notation of this reality of connectedness. Furthermore it exemplifies a level of engagement with others  that is deliberate and loving empathy and compassion and real work.

Do you think that Adam-God adds more to this concept of divine engagement of God with Man and Man with Man? 

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

There's no question that celibacy is an option for some people, but that was never the "better" way in God's plan for us to fill the measure of our creation

Nor to multiply and replenish the Earth, a commandment ignored and not understood by those who choose celibacy. I think a great portion of our mission on Earth is to fully understand the other half of humanity, meaning men understanding women and women understanding men. Chastity automatically eliminates that entire line of ministry, which I believe is important in understanding the unity of the body of Christ, and ministering to the whole body of Christ.

How can an unmarried man possibly minister to a grandmother whose entire life has been her family? Could he fully understand the grief of losing a child if he has never had one?

If one voluntarily denies oneself the opportunity to learn what it is to be one flesh with the other half of humanity, how can the body of Christ function?

And the idea that those who choose Chastity and prayer are somehow necessary to God is an odd one.

Does God need adoration so badly that he would ask a portion of humanity to do nothing but pray all day? Without filling the measure their creation or making that the measure of their creation?

I have never really understood that

The reason why only those who are sealed in the temple may attain exaltation is quite clear to me, as a principle, and we know that we have been promised that even those who have not been able to do that on Earth will be able to do it in the hereafter.

To me the unity of man and woman is essential being fully human.  I know that is an unpopular opinion but I'm sticking with the church on that one.

Edited November 23, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

So I would say that Christ being at once divine and mortal, condecending to do so, and then performing the Atonement doing His Father's Work is a notation of this reality of connectedness. Furthermore it exemplifies a level of engagement with others  that is deliberate and loving empathy and compassion and real work.

Do you think that Adam-God adds more to this concept of divine engagement of God with Man and Man with Man? 

Well for me I would say that it makes it more logical to make human empathy and love the center of the gospel,  rather than a bloody sacrifice that I don't think we understand very well.  In the past the world was very imbued with the idea of "crime and punishment"- that if a crime was done that someone somehow had to "pay for it".  I think that works in a small community where an actual damage has been done- you kill my cow, you either pay for it one way or another.   

If children misbehaved they expected to get spanked, or physically punished.  If you do the crime, you do the time.  Somehow I guess a certain amount of pain is supposed to "make it even" even if the person punished is not the person who did the crime.

And so we developed the custom of killing an animal to pay for our sins.   I realize that is a very simple way of putting it but I think it shows how mysterious a concept that is.

So Christ had to die to balance justice with mercy.   I have never quite gotten how that is supposed to work.

But to me, the idea that God wanting to teach us love by using his infinite wisdom, love and infinite empathy does make sense.

Now often we teach children by asking "What if someone did that to YOU?   How would YOU feel"?   This is teaching by love and empathy! Causing the sinner to understand what it is like to be sinned against is I think a much more effective way to promote healing and a change of attitude.  That is using empathy instead of physical punishment, and it promotes sensitivity and love.  I think that would be the way God would do it- the author of the Golden Rule that we should treat others the way we would want to be treated. THAT is empathy in action right there!!

Of course then you have psychopaths who just need to be locked up- but that is a different case.  Those people are not capable or just do not care about others and how their actions affect others.  In those cases we need to defend society against their attacks.

So often, we go to our savior in times of grief and strife just for comfort, because we believe that he knows exactly what it feels like to have whatever wrong that has been done to us, because he has undergone it all.

The general notion that we are all part of the "circle of life" of course is a popular one even in our secular society today.  Lately the theme of "social justice" has been perhaps stronger than ever before in history, perhaps partially lined to ideas produced by the photos of the earth from the moon, and the ecology movement that we are "all one" together on this ship called earth and had better learn how to get along better.  The idea that we are "all one" in the circle of human experience also I think toward the idea that "what goes around comes around".

And this notion that God is our Father who may have had a Father himself very much itself connects to the "connectedness"!

The idea that perhaps "Adam" was not a single human being but a ROLE that many in humanity have played at various times in history, reminds me of the idea that Christ was the "second Adam" which is quite scriptural, found in 1 Cor 15 with a number of other "circular" references commonly understood in the church.

And so you ask "Do you think that Adam-God adds more to this concept of divine engagement of God with Man and Man with Man?"

I think that, thinking symbolically, it kind of puts this whole circle together in a neat little story about where we came from and where we are going.  I think the BELIEF is useful in our lives to give us a sense of purpose in our lives, and the idea that we all have our place and are all connected.

And what is ironic is that I think that we could use this idea to tap into and help others understand the strength of our religious position in a secular society.

But notice that word "could".

It would take a lot to make it happen.