thatjimguy Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 Hey all, reading Abraham 4 today and I think I remember coming across this before, but it talks about Gods instead of God creating the world and such. To a point, this does not bother me, because I understand there was a council in heaven and the pre-existence and all, it would make sense that God would just command others to do the task (and also said in the temple). In the mainstream Christian view though, there is no pre-existence and God does it, almost implying he does it by will alone. I can see this as a big hiccup for investigators, seeing this as taking away God's power, or weakening him. Any thoughts on how to field this if it were to come up?
Fether Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 (edited) 17 minutes ago, thatjimguy said: Hey all, reading Abraham 4 today and I think I remember coming across this before, but it talks about Gods instead of God creating the world and such. To a point, this does not bother me, because I understand there was a council in heaven and the pre-existence and all, it would make sense that God would just command others to do the task (and also said in the temple). In the mainstream Christian view though, there is no pre-existence and God does it, almost implying he does it by will alone. I can see this as a big hiccup for investigators, seeing this as taking away God's power, or weakening him. Any thoughts on how to field this if it were to come up? Who is a greater God. One who creates little ants that do his will or a God that has literal children and can raise them to be like him? That is the main point. We are his LITERAL children, not figurative, but literal. Us being his children isnt just a parable or a story to help us understand his love for us. We are the same species as him. This talk will likely answer all your questions https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/tad-r-callister/our-identity-and-our-destiny/ SIDE NOTE: I’m pretty sure it uses gods, not Gods. The capitalization is important. If it does say “Gods”, it is likely referring to the three Gods of the Godhead Edited January 6, 2022 by Fether
JLHPROF Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 (edited) 27 minutes ago, thatjimguy said: Hey all, reading Abraham 4 today and I think I remember coming across this before, but it talks about Gods instead of God creating the world and such. To a point, this does not bother me, because I understand there was a council in heaven and the pre-existence and all, it would make sense that God would just command others to do the task (and also said in the temple). In the mainstream Christian view though, there is no pre-existence and God does it, almost implying he does it by will alone. I can see this as a big hiccup for investigators, seeing this as taking away God's power, or weakening him. Any thoughts on how to field this if it were to come up? The original Hebrew term Elohim which is translated as God in Genesis and Moses too is a plural word. This makes the Abraham version more accurate. As far as most "investigators" are concerned this is a reference to the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), not to a plurality of Gods. Edited January 6, 2022 by JLHPROF 2
pogi Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 37 minutes ago, thatjimguy said: Hey all, reading Abraham 4 today and I think I remember coming across this before, but it talks about Gods instead of God creating the world and such. To a point, this does not bother me, because I understand there was a council in heaven and the pre-existence and all, it would make sense that God would just command others to do the task (and also said in the temple). In the mainstream Christian view though, there is no pre-existence and God does it, almost implying he does it by will alone. I can see this as a big hiccup for investigators, seeing this as taking away God's power, or weakening him. Any thoughts on how to field this if it were to come up? I don't think God's power is really a concern for investigators in all of this. The biggest hiccup comes in our understanding of the Godhead, thus destroying the idea of the trinity. The idea of a preexistence is another hiccup. I fail to see how any of this weakens God's power though. Doesn't the ultimate power lie in the ability to delegate? 1
rongo Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 33 minutes ago, thatjimguy said: Hey all, reading Abraham 4 today and I think I remember coming across this before, but it talks about Gods instead of God creating the world and such. To a point, this does not bother me, because I understand there was a council in heaven and the pre-existence and all, it would make sense that God would just command others to do the task (and also said in the temple). In the mainstream Christian view though, there is no pre-existence and God does it, almost implying he does it by will alone. I can see this as a big hiccup for investigators, seeing this as taking away God's power, or weakening him. Any thoughts on how to field this if it were to come up? Ask them for their thoughts on Genesis 1:26 26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and Genesis 3:22 22 ¶And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: --- The plural is in all languages, because it is in the Hebrew. Someone who has no problem with this, should have no problem with Gods in Abraham. 3
JLHPROF Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 Just now, rongo said: Ask them for their thoughts on Genesis 1:26 26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and Genesis 3:22 22 ¶And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: --- The plural is in all languages, because it is in the Hebrew. Someone who has no problem with this, should have no problem with Gods in Abraham. Don't stop there. Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Male and female Gods is a game changer. 3
MacGyver Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 Gods. The endowment tells us which three Gods created the earth. So did Brigham Young. It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. JD 1:51, Brigham Young, April 9, 1852 1
JLHPROF Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 (edited) 12 minutes ago, MacGyver said: Gods. The endowment tells us which three Gods created the earth. So did Brigham Young. It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. JD 1:51, Brigham Young, April 9, 1852 So did Joseph Smith - “An everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth, and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth; these personages according to Abraham’s record, are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Witness or Testator.” Which is very interesting considering we in the Church today teach that God the Redeemer is actually the creator. Edited January 6, 2022 by JLHPROF 1
MacGyver Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: So did Joseph Smith - “An everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth, and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth; these personages according to Abraham’s record, are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Witness or Testator.” Which is very interesting considering we in the Church today teach that God the Redeemer is actually the creator. Yes, this is very interesting indeed. I believe it's obvious that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were saying the same thing. The modern church tends to take the oversimplified approach to these things. Milk before meat, I suppose. God the Father is still the creator, which is clear from Moses 1 and other places, even though his Son Jesus Christ actually did most of the work. Jesus Christ being the redeemer. God the third would be Michael/Adam.
The Nehor Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 50 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Which is very interesting considering we in the Church today teach that God the Redeemer is actually the creator. The creation of the people was the creation. The rest is just stuff and animals and other forms of life that we don't really know much of anything about. 1
Calm Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 1 hour ago, thatjimguy said: can see this as a big hiccup for investigators, seeing this as taking away God's power, or weakening him. Isn’t sovereignty a big thing for many nonLDS Christians? If so, why would the Ruler of the Universe delegating tasks to those who serve him be a sign of less power rather than more? 3
JLHPROF Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 1 hour ago, Fether said: it uses gods, not Gods. The capitalization is important. Why? I'm under the impression there's no indication of capitalization or Gods vs gods in the original Hebrew of Elohim in Genesis. This upper case/lower case thing is a modern invention that makes feel like we're keeping a big gap between us and God. 2
teddyaware Posted January 7, 2022 Posted January 7, 2022 3 hours ago, thatjimguy said: Hey all, reading Abraham 4 today and I think I remember coming across this before, but it talks about Gods instead of God creating the world and such. To a point, this does not bother me, because I understand there was a council in heaven and the pre-existence and all, it would make sense that God would just command others to do the task (and also said in the temple). In the mainstream Christian view though, there is no pre-existence and God does it, almost implying he does it by will alone. I can see this as a big hiccup for investigators, seeing this as taking away God's power, or weakening him. Any thoughts on how to field this if it were to come up? How would the omnipotent and omniscient Eternal God be diminished or weakened in some way by commanding and empowering his servants to carry out his will?
The Nehor Posted January 7, 2022 Posted January 7, 2022 8 minutes ago, teddyaware said: How would the omnipotent and omniscient Eternal God be diminished or weakened in some way by commanding and empowering his servants to carry out his will? Evidence that God is lazy? 1
JLHPROF Posted January 7, 2022 Posted January 7, 2022 (edited) 14 minutes ago, teddyaware said: How would the omnipotent and omniscient Eternal God be diminished or weakened in some way by commanding and empowering his servants to carry out his will? Full omniscience or omnipotence are absurd impossibilities. And relative omniscience or omnipotence is technically a contradiction. Edited January 7, 2022 by JLHPROF
Fether Posted January 7, 2022 Posted January 7, 2022 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Why? I'm under the impression there's no indication of capitalization or Gods vs gods in the original Hebrew of Elohim in Genesis. This upper case/lower case thing is a modern invention that makes feel like we're keeping a big gap between us and God. 🤷🏻♂️ It’s just what I had been taught all through growing up in seminary and institute. Gods refers to the godhead. gods refers to spirit children of God. 1
Calm Posted January 7, 2022 Posted January 7, 2022 22 minutes ago, Fether said: 🤷🏻♂️ It’s just what I had been taught all through growing up in seminary and institute. Gods refers to the godhead. gods refers to spirit children of God. I think that applies fine to the last hundred years or so (though still should see if context pushes it one way or the other) of church writings, but I would be very cautious about attributing that differentiation to an era where capitalization and other punctuation were inconsistent to begin with and many authorities had hit and miss educations. And I would suggest never making that assumption when talking about scripture because it is almost all from before the generic typical English education and adoption of the Gods/gods quirk in our faith (other Christian faiths use “gods” for pagan/mythological and therefore in their view false gods) plus many LDS scholars and others use nonLDS sources in scripture commentary. 1
JLHPROF Posted January 7, 2022 Posted January 7, 2022 1 hour ago, Fether said: 🤷🏻♂️ It’s just what I had been taught all through growing up in seminary and institute. Gods refers to the godhead. gods refers to spirit children of God. Kittens become cats, puppies become dogs, and children become adults. What do God's spirit children become? 1
Fether Posted January 7, 2022 Posted January 7, 2022 (edited) 10 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Kittens become cats, puppies become dogs, and children become adults. What do God's spirit children become? We are destined to become Gods … I literally said it above. I understand that God is a title, hence the capitalization. It’s not a signification of species Edited January 7, 2022 by Fether
Fether Posted January 7, 2022 Posted January 7, 2022 (edited) 11 hours ago, Calm said: I think that applies fine to the last hundred years or so (though still should see if context pushes it one way or the other) of church writings, but I would be very cautious about attributing that differentiation to an era where capitalization and other punctuation were inconsistent to begin with and many authorities had hit and miss educations. And I would suggest never making that assumption when talking about scripture because it is almost all from before the generic typical English education and adoption of the Gods/gods quirk in our faith (other Christian faiths use “gods” for pagan/mythological and therefore in their view false gods) plus many LDS scholars and others use nonLDS sources in scripture commentary. Well, had I known we were going to jump into a conversation on ancient scripture, I would not have used the capitalization point. The OP had a question about church teaching, I had an insight that came from the church education system, I shared that insight. Edited January 7, 2022 by Fether 1
MacGyver Posted January 7, 2022 Posted January 7, 2022 12 hours ago, Fether said: 🤷🏻♂️ It’s just what I had been taught all through growing up in seminary and institute. Gods refers to the godhead. gods refers to spirit children of God. I don't recall ever being taught this in seminary or anywhere else in the church. This is actually the first time I've seen this teaching. Do you have any quotes from lesson manuals or other sources that show that CES teaches this?
Fether Posted January 7, 2022 Posted January 7, 2022 45 minutes ago, MacGyver said: I don't recall ever being taught this in seminary or anywhere else in the church. This is actually the first time I've seen this teaching. Do you have any quotes from lesson manuals or other sources that show that CES teaches this? I don’t. I recall it being said by teachers. I remember it being told to me a couple of times in my life. Im not arguing it’s doctrinal, I’m just explaining where I got the idea from 1
teddyaware Posted January 7, 2022 Posted January 7, 2022 13 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Full omniscience or omnipotence are absurd impossibilities. And relative omniscience or omnipotence is technically a contradiction. And yet that’s what the scriptures teach. And in the Lectures on Faith we are instructed that men must first believe that God is omniscient and knows all things in order for them to be able to exercise living faith in him unto salvation. If, as you say, God isn’t omniscient, how can anyone be sure the devil isn’t the actual ultimate ruler of the universe, and that all our hopes for salvation and eternal joy will eventually come crashing down in most shocking and bitter disappointment. If God doesn’t know the answer to the ultimate questions, how can anyone trust that what he says is the truth? 20 O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it. (2 Neph 9)
MacGyver Posted January 7, 2022 Posted January 7, 2022 37 minutes ago, Fether said: I don’t. I recall it being said by teachers. I remember it being told to me a couple of times in my life. Im not arguing it’s doctrinal, I’m just explaining where I got the idea from Fair enough. It sound like it may have been a teacher's personal opinion or maybe how you understood what they were saying.
JLHPROF Posted January 7, 2022 Posted January 7, 2022 44 minutes ago, teddyaware said: And yet that’s what the scriptures teach. And in the Lectures on Faith we are instructed that men must first believe that God is omniscient and knows all things in order for them to be able to exercise living faith in him unto salvation. If, as you say, God isn’t omniscient, how can anyone be sure the devil isn’t the actual ultimate ruler of the universe, and that all our hopes for salvation and eternal joy will eventually come crashing down in most shocking and bitter disappointment. If God doesn’t know the answer to the ultimate questions, how can anyone trust that what he says is the truth? 20 O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it. (2 Neph 9) I believe God knows all things within his sphere. This looks like omniscience to us. But it doesn't actually meet the definition. The Nephi scripture is poetry and can only be applied to the sphere in which God operates.
Recommended Posts