| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 97.1 | Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Sun Mar 20 1988 03:04 | 6 |
| > "God" in reference to the three members of the Godhead does not imply that
> they are one God.
While Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and
eternal, without end.
(Doctrine and Covenants)
|
| 97.2 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | put down the ducky! | Mon Mar 21 1988 15:29 | 4 |
| It would have been better understood to end the sentence with 'does
not imply that they are one being.'
Steve
|
| 97.3 | Lectures on Faith | CACHE::LEIGH | | Tue Apr 05 1988 21:43 | 2 |
| As a reference for additional study about the Godhead, note 109 is discussing
the Lectures on Faith.
|
| 97.4 | | SEINE::CE_JOHNSON | Stand fast in liberty. | Thu Jun 30 1988 19:37 | 65 |
| I hope that this is the proper place for this discussion.
If not, please direct me to where a more appropriate place
would be.
I would like to focus on the assertion that God the Father has
a body of flesh and bone.
The following is an excerpt from 4.2 by Allen Leigh:
Form of God the Father
----------------------
>While talking to Philip, Jesus said, "he that hath seen me hath
>seen the Father" (John 14:9), not indicating he and the Father
>are one personage because the context of the Bible teaches they
>are separate, but indicating he and the Father are not only
>united in purpose but united in appearance. Even though he had a
>mortal body when he made those statements, he resembled his
>Father in heaven.
Isn't is also possible that God has a spiritual form which
resembles Jesus' physical form, without the need for flesh
and bone?
>As recorded in John 4:24, Jesus said
> God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him
> in spirit and in truth.
>Some people use this verse to substantiate their claim that God
>is a spirit without a body. However, in so doing, they use the
>verse out of context of the Bible as a whole.
I don't think that is necessarily correct given the reference
in Luke 24:39 where Jesus tells us that spirits _don't_
have flesh and bone bodies as He apparently did.
Notice that the same Greek word [pneuma] is used in both
Luke 24:39 and John 4. So we have Jesus saying both that
God is a Spirit [pneuma - John 4] and that spirits [pneuma
Luke 24:39] don't have bodies of flesh and bone.
This seems pretty contextual to me.
>So, what did Jesus mean when he said "God is a Spirit"?
>If Jesus meant that God was a spirit only, with no body, he must
>have also meant that people would leave their bodies and worship
>him with their spirits, since we have both spirits and bodies.
>That doesn't make sense.
I don't see where it follows that one must 'leave' his body
in order to worship spiritually.
>What Jesus meant by "God is a Spirit" is that God fills space
>with his spiritual influence and that people would worship him
>via that influence.
I've always understood God's 'influence' in the world as the
Holy Spirit. Is the above different? If not, then do you see
God the Father and the Holy Spirit as one entity?
Thanks,
Charlie
|
| 97.5 | Does God have a body? | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich (Welcome Back) Kotter | Fri Jul 01 1988 00:11 | 111 |
| Re: 97.4 by SEINE::CE_JOHNSON
Hi Charlie,
You ask some very good questions, as you always do. I especially
appreciate the peaceful and considerate approach you take in the things
you write, as well as the thought and research that you do to
understand the scriptures.
The LDS belief that God has a physical body is not based solely on the
Bible. While we do not believe that it is contradictory to the Bible,
we hold this belief because we believe that God has revealed it through
the prophet Joseph Smith in latter-day scriptures. An example is:
The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as
man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of
flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not
so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. (Doctrine and
Covenants 130:22)
> Isn't is also possible that God has a spiritual form which
> resembles Jesus' physical form, without the need for flesh
> and bone?
I see what you mean. This could be a possible explanation of the Bible
passage discussed by Allen, were it not for other scriptures, including
latter-day scriptures, that (for us) clarify this.
> >As recorded in John 4:24, Jesus said
>
> > God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him
> > in spirit and in truth.
>
> >Some people use this verse to substantiate their claim that God
> >is a spirit without a body. However, in so doing, they use the
> >verse out of context of the Bible as a whole.
>
> I don't think that is necessarily correct given the reference
> in Luke 24:39 where Jesus tells us that spirits _don't_
> have flesh and bone bodies as He apparently did.
>
> Notice that the same Greek word [pneuma] is used in both
> Luke 24:39 and John 4. So we have Jesus saying both that
> God is a Spirit [pneuma - John 4] and that spirits [pneuma
> Luke 24:39] don't have bodies of flesh and bone.
Good point, Charlie. I think we have to see a bit beyond the words to
find out what the Savior is saying. In the first case, is He saying
'God is a Spirit and does not have a body so we must worship Him in
spirit'? Or is He saying something like 'God has a Spirit, and
communicates to us through His Spirit, and we must worship Him in
spirit'? To me, the latter one is closer to the message Jesus is trying
to get across.
In the case of the passage in Luke, Jesus is responding to the fears of
the Apostles, who thought they were seeing a [disembodied] spirit. I
think Jesus is telling them 'Don't worry. I'm not a [disembodied]
spirit, for [disembodied] spirits do not have flesh and bone as ye see
me have.' I don't think he is trying to say that the only way a spirit
exists is without the physical body. I believe there are other passages
in the Bible that clearly teach that each of us possesses a spirit. The
spirit is not made of flesh and bones, as Jesus said, but a spirit can
inhabit a body of flesh and bones. Even God's spirit can inhabit a
[glorified] body of flesh and bones.
One great hope of the gospel is the hope of the resurrection. This is
nothing more than the reuniting of the body with the spirit. Jesus was
resurrected and ascended into heaven with His resurrected body. You
will probably agree that he still has his resurrected body, for
otherwise he would have had to die again. If, as you imply, God has no
need for a body, then why was Jesus resurrected, and why would we want
to be resurrected? Jesus taught that he was in every way like his
Father. Does this mean that His Father also has a resurrected body? As
LDS, we believe he does.
> >So, what did Jesus mean when he said "God is a Spirit"?
>
> >If Jesus meant that God was a spirit only, with no body, he must
> >have also meant that people would leave their bodies and worship
> >him with their spirits, since we have both spirits and bodies.
> >That doesn't make sense.
>
> I don't see where it follows that one must 'leave' his body
> in order to worship spiritually.
Of course not. But if we are to strictly take the two passages that you
pointed out (John and Luke), we would have to say that since we 'must
worship him in spirit', and spirits do not have bodies, then we must
worship God while not in a body. Its a good example to me of how we
can't always take the context of a word from one place and apply the
same context in another place. Instead, I think Jesus is telling us to
communicate to God's spirit with our spirits.
> >What Jesus meant by "God is a Spirit" is that God fills space
> >with his spiritual influence and that people would worship him
> >via that influence.
>
> I've always understood God's 'influence' in the world as the
> Holy Spirit. Is the above different? If not, then do you see
> God the Father and the Holy Spirit as one entity?
The LDS belief is that God the Father is a person who possess both a
[glorified] body and a spirit. The Son is a separate person who is like
the Father in having both a [glorified] body and a spirit. The Holy
Spirit is a separate person who possess only a spirit, and not a body.
These three persons comprise the Godhead, and are united in purpose,
and can be referred to as one God. God's influence in the world is shed
forth by the Holy Ghost who can dwell in us.
Yours in Christ,
Rich
|
| 97.6 | "The express image" in all things | CACHE::LEIGH | | Wed Jul 06 1988 15:57 | 51 |
| Re .4
Hi Charlie,
> >While talking to Philip, Jesus said, "he that hath seen me hath
> >seen the Father" (John 14:9), not indicating he and the Father
> >are one personage because the context of the Bible teaches they
> >are separate, but indicating he and the Father are not only
> >united in purpose but united in appearance. Even though he had a
> >mortal body when he made those statements, he resembled his
> >Father in heaven.
>
> Isn't is also possible that God has a spiritual form which
> resembles Jesus' physical form, without the need for flesh
> and bone?
Yes, Charlie, I think that Jesus' statement to Philip was broader than just
a reference to his physical body. The Book of Mormon teaches that a spirit
is not without-shape-or-form as the so-called "orthodox" Christian teaching
states. A person in the Book of Mormon known as "the brother of Jared" saw the
spirit body of Christ many hundreds of years before Jesus was born of Mary,
and the brother of Jared was surprised that Jesus did have form. Jesus then
said
Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and
man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear
unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.
(Ether 3:16)
In addition, I think that Jesus' statement to Philip is broad enough to
encompass the full relationship between Jesus and the Father. Jesus said many
times that he did nothing but that he was commanded of the Father, i.e. he was
perfectly obedient to the Father. Thus, as far as his life was concerned, if we
had seen Jesus we would have seen the Father.
Concerning the Biblical scriptures that say that God is a spirit and also
imply that he has a body. I like the analogy of one's citizenship. I've
heard that some countries allow dual citizenship with other countries, so
lets talk about "Jim" who is a member of both Country "A" and Country "B".
We could say with all honesty and accuracy that Jim is a citizen of Country A.
Likewise, we could say that he is a citizen of Country B. To get the most
accuracy, we would have to say that he is a member of both countries.
So it is, I believe, with God. The Bible says that God is a spirit. The
Bible also says that Christ is the express image of God (Jesus was resurrected
when Hebrews was written), implying that God has a glorified body. To get
the most accuracy, we would have to say that God is a spirit and has a body,
for He is both. Unfortunately, sometimes in our thinking we get hung-up with
"either" instead of "both".
Allen
|
| 97.7 | An interesting question | CACHE::LEIGH | | Tue Aug 09 1988 20:25 | 53 |
| Re 134.40
We're glad you are asking questions. I mentioned the 4.* notes because
I wasn't sure how much of the conference you had read, and the 4.* give
a good background for any discussion of theology.
> Is God = Lord (old Testament) = Supreme Being = Heavenly Father?
Note 4.1 explains that we believe in God the Eternal Father. We frequently
use the term 'Heavenly Father' to refer to Him. As Kevin said, we believe
He is the literal Father of our spirits. So, going back to your "equation"
Is God = Heavenly Father? !Yes
Note 4.1 also explains that we also believe in Jesus Christ and the Holy
Spirit or Holy Ghost. We believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and
the Holy Ghost are separate in person but one in purpose, unity, etc.
The term we use to refer to these three glorified personages is 'Godhead'.
Note 4.1 explains that it is proper to refer to any one of the Godhead by
use of the term 'God'. Thus, when 'God' is used in the scriptures (or in
our conversation) one must use context to determine which member of the
Godhead is being discussed.
Note 4.2 states but doesn't go into much detail that we believe that Jesus
Christ is Jehovah. That is, prior to his birth of Mary, Jesus Christ as a
glorified personage of spirit was the God of the Old Testament, Jehovah. As
such, he performed his role under the direction of God the Father. So,
keeping the use of the term 'God' in mind in which that term can refer to
any member of the Godhead, your equation can also be written
Is God = Lord (old Testament) !Yes
Finally, since all three members of the Godhead are God, i.e. deity, they
certainly Supreme beings. So, the third variant of your equation is
Is God = Supreme Being !Yes
Thus, from the perspective of LDS theology, your equation has three variations,
all true. The key to this is the fact that the term 'God' can be used to
refer to any particular member of the Godhead (even though they are separate
in person). That is, 'God' is a title indicating stature.
As you and Kevin discussed, we believe that some of us will literally receive
all that God the Father has to give and will become like Him. Thus, the term
'god' can be used to refer to those who reach that state (I used a lower-case
'g' to imply that those who reach that exalted state are still subservient to
the three divine beings in the Godhead).
Your equation has caught my interest. Perhaps you would be willing to share
your thoughts with us?
Allen
|
| 97.8 | Oh, well! I need to be more timely.... | MORGAN::OSSLER | | Tue Aug 09 1988 21:00 | 25 |
| RE: Note 134.38 BUFFER::ROHNERT -< A little fine-tuning >-
Allen has beaten me to it. I wrote a response, but upon logging in to
enter it, I saw his. Gratefully, his contains much more detail, so I
defer to him.
There is one question, though, that you brought up in the previous
topic that was not addressed:
>Can we hold out for more [than the traditional idea of heaven]?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'hold out'. We do not nor can not
manufacture or negotiate Eternal Life for ourselves, but rather it is
a gift that Father wants us to have, conditioned upon our obedience to
the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is a gift he wants us to have *very*
much. In latter-day Scripture, he has said, "This is my work and my
glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Not
necessarily word for word, I don't have my Scriptures with me at the
moment.) We do not bring to pass our exaltation, Father does.
Does that help? What do you think?
Regards,
/kevin
|
| 97.9 | Re: Hold out for more | BUFFER::ROHNERT | | Tue Aug 09 1988 21:36 | 25 |
|
Re: .8
Of course we both belong to "reward religions" as opposed to those
that have obligations and no rewards. Your response seemed humorous
to me at the time when you stated immortality would be "boring"
and it sounded like you were saying, "so we will add this feature
and make heaven a more pleasing place for humans that want more
of a reward than was previously offered. Thats when I asked if
perhaps we could "hold out for more" by perhaps not dying until
heaven was upgraded to our expectations.
>Thus it is possible for anyone, whether members of the Church or not,
>to wind up with a fairly satisfactory reward after this life, with
>immortality and Jesus' atonement for our sins, if we accept it. In my
>admittedly parochial point of view, I imagine this to be the heaven
>that most peoples and religions are shooting for, and, indeed, it is
>available to them.
>To me, this is the only kind of destiny that makes sense. If we could
>make it to heaven and be given immortality, but only progress so far,
>it would be a boring eternity indeed.
|
| 97.10 | About the equation | BUFFER::ROHNERT | | Wed Aug 10 1988 09:41 | 28 |
| Re 97.7
The equation was my way of asking if Mormons pray to and recognize
only one God (and no others) as God mandated in the Commandments.
Your response to my question was "Yes". Your response also tells
me that your "gods" are only honorary gods and serve no function
save that they have been recognized for meritorious duty to the
Mormon church.
The Church has never taught the concept of elevation to deity and
so please bear with me while I try to get a handle on what you are
introducing.
The notes in this conference also introduce concepts from some
book, "The God-makers" which appears to be an expose' of some
Mormon beliefs. I also read that there are secret rituals in
Mormon Temples that of course have to be protected in some
manner.
So why the equation? If I asked, "Do you believe in God?", the
answer would be "Yes". I have asked a Mormon, "Is it true that
Mormons believe they can become gods?", the answer was "Some
Mormons believe that". The answers are often evasive and I feel
that unless I design my questions carefully (I have no idea if lying
is prescribed to protect Temple secrets), then I am not sure what
I am receiving for an answer. Am I being overly suspicious?
|
| 97.11 | God creates man | CASV01::PRESTON | NO Dukes!! | Wed Aug 10 1988 16:27 | 39 |
| Re: 134.37
> All people who ever lived on the earth are literally children of our
> Heavenly Father. He created our spirits, and we lived with him as
> spirits before we were born on this earth.
> In Acts 17:29, it indicates that we are the offspring of God, which we
> take to be literally true. In Jeremiah 1:5, the Lord tells Jeremiah
> that "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; ... and ordained
> thee a prophet," indicating that we lived before we were born, and
> that Heavenly Father knew us then.
I see nothing there to justify the building of such an involved doctrine
as this. The verse plainly says that before we were formed, God knew us.
Fine. That is foreknowledge, without which God would not be God. He knows
everyone and everything before anything or anyone was. God also said that
before Jeremiah came forth out of the womb, He (God) ordained him a
prophet and sanctified him. If you read the whole verse carefully, you
will also notice that this is between "before I formed you" and "before
you came forth out of the womb", so it seems that he was not ordained and
sanctified until after he was formed.
This even goes against the whole Mormon idea that life on earth is a
probationary period, since, by that interpretation, it seems Jeremiah has
it made by being sanctified before he is even born.
To be fair, it should also be pointed out that Mormons believe in a
"Heavenly Mother" too, though that is seldom mentioned. Presumably she is
be one of "Heavenly Father's" many wives, for polygamy is the norm in the
spirit world for gods.
In Genesis 2:7 it says, "And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of
the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man
became a living soul." That is when Adam's life started, not before.
Notice that God did not put into Adam one of His pre-existent spirit
children. Man received life for the first time directly from God.
Ed
|
| 97.12 | Spirit Children? | BUFFER::ROHNERT | | Wed Aug 10 1988 16:36 | 3 |
| Re .11
What is the origin of the term, "Spirit-Children"?
|
| 97.13 | | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich (Welcome Back) Kotter | Wed Aug 10 1988 18:09 | 65 |
| Re: Note 97.10 by BUFFER::ROHNERT
> Re 97.7
>
> The equation was my way of asking if Mormons pray to and recognize
> only one God (and no others) as God mandated in the Commandments.
> Your response to my question was "Yes". Your response also tells
> me that your "gods" are only honorary gods and serve no function
> save that they have been recognized for meritorious duty to the
> Mormon church.
Interesting interpretation. The Mormon church does not pretend to say
who will or will not become gods. It is not regarded as an "honorary"
reward for "meritorious duty". It is something that only our Heavenly
Father will determine. The LDS belief is that man has the opportunity
to "receive all that the Father hath" (we can become like Him), if he
will keep God's commandments. This includes worshipping Him alone, and
no other gods. The reward for keeping the commandments is what we refer
to as "exaltation in the Kingdom of God". He will judge who is worthy
of this reward, and not the church.
> The Church has never taught the concept of elevation to deity and
> so please bear with me while I try to get a handle on what you are
> introducing.
By this, I assume you are referring to the 'traditional' Christian
Churches. True, this belief is different than that of many Christian
faiths. Yet in the Bible, Christ himself made reference to the concept
of men being gods, as He testified that He was the Son of God.
> The notes in this conference also introduce concepts from some
> book, "The God-makers" which appears to be an expose' of some
> Mormon beliefs. I also read that there are secret rituals in
> Mormon Temples that of course have to be protected in some
> manner.
>
> So why the equation? If I asked, "Do you believe in God?", the
> answer would be "Yes". I have asked a Mormon, "Is it true that
> Mormons believe they can become gods?", the answer was "Some
> Mormons believe that". The answers are often evasive and I feel
> that unless I design my questions carefully (I have no idea if lying
> is prescribed to protect Temple secrets), then I am not sure what
> I am receiving for an answer. Am I being overly suspicious?
I can see why you are a bit suspicious. We don't mean to be evasive,
and we don't believe in lying to 'protect secrets'. Sometimes we have
to choose our words carefully, so we are not taken wrong, which has
happened, even in this conference. I for one am willing to give you
straight answers to honest questions, just as others here are.
The temples are sacred places to Mormons. They have been dedicated as
Houses of the Lord. There are instances of the Lord himself visiting
the temples. We regard the teachings in the temple with great
reverence. We do not wish sacred things to be trampled by those who
have no regard for them.
Even so, the things taught in the temples are very similar to the
teachings found in the scriptures, and simply add additional
understanding. If you want to know what Mormons believe, the best way
to do it is to read the standard works (scriptures) of the church: The
Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great
Price. If you did that, you would have a very good understanding of
what we believe, including most of what is taught in the temples.
Rich
|
| 97.14 | Life | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich (Welcome Back) Kotter | Wed Aug 10 1988 19:37 | 78 |
| Re: Note 97.11 by CASV01::PRESTON
>Re: 134.37
>
>> All people who ever lived on the earth are literally children of our
>> Heavenly Father. He created our spirits, and we lived with him as
>> spirits before we were born on this earth.
>
>> In Acts 17:29, it indicates that we are the offspring of God, which we
>> take to be literally true. In Jeremiah 1:5, the Lord tells Jeremiah
>> that "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; ... and ordained
>> thee a prophet," indicating that we lived before we were born, and
>> that Heavenly Father knew us then.
>
>I see nothing there to justify the building of such an involved doctrine
>as this. The verse plainly says that before we were formed, God knew us.
This LDS doctrine is not based alone on these two Bible passages.
There are other passages in the standard works of the church that
are much more clear on this. To us, these Bible passages do tend
to corroborate the doctrine that we existed as spirits before this
life, and that God knew us and we knew God.
>Fine. That is foreknowledge, without which God would not be God. He knows
>everyone and everything before anything or anyone was. God also said that
>before Jeremiah came forth out of the womb, He (God) ordained him a
>prophet and sanctified him. If you read the whole verse carefully, you
>will also notice that this is between "before I formed you" and "before
>you came forth out of the womb", so it seems that he was not ordained and
>sanctified until after he was formed.
>
>This even goes against the whole Mormon idea that life on earth is a
>probationary period, since, by that interpretation, it seems Jeremiah has
>it made by being sanctified before he is even born.
The LDS view is this. Jeremiah, as well as the rest of us, existed as
spirits before this we were born. The "father of our spirits" is
Heavenly Father, and that is why He is called by that name. He knew us
before we were formed in the flesh. Some of these spirit children who
had been valiant there were ordained to be leaders in the Kingdom of
God, according to the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price.
Abraham was told that he was one of them, and so, we believe, was
Jeremiah, and all of the prophets of God.
Even though they were ordained, they still had their free agency to
choose good or evil. Presumably, there are some who were ordained there
who have not been faithful in keeping the commandments, and they have
never realized their potential as leaders in the Kingdom of God. Thus,
many are 'called' but few are 'chosen', because of their own choices.
For example, Judas was ordained an apostle by the Lord himself, but he
did not 'have it made'. His choices condemned him, when he betrayed
our Redeemer with a kiss.
>To be fair, it should also be pointed out that Mormons believe in a
>"Heavenly Mother" too, though that is seldom mentioned.
Not mentioned much because not much has been revealed about this. We do
believe in eternal families, and that marriage need not be 'until death
do you part', but can extend throughout the eternities. If God is the
literal 'father of our spirits', then it seems logical that there would
be a 'mother of our spirits', as well.
>In Genesis 2:7 it says, "And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of
>the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man
>became a living soul." That is when Adam's life started, not before.
>Notice that God did not put into Adam one of His pre-existent spirit
>children. Man received life for the first time directly from God.
We believe that man receives life from God in three ways: He created
our spirits, thus giving us a spiritual existence with him before
mortal birth. He formed our physical bodies and 'breathed' the breath
of life into our first father, Adam. Thus he gave life to our physical
bodies. Through the atonement of Jesus Christ, we may again receive
life - Eternal Life, to be raised in incorruption and immortality in
the resurrection, and to dwell in the presence of God, and to receive
all that He has.
Rich
|
| 97.15 | Spirit children | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich (Welcome Back) Kotter | Wed Aug 10 1988 19:43 | 8 |
| Re: Note 97.12 by BUFFER::ROHNERT
> What is the origin of the term, "Spirit-Children"?
I don't think there is a much better explanation than that found
in note 4.50 of this conference.
Rich
|
| 97.16 | they are... | CASV01::PRESTON | NO Dukes!! | Wed Aug 10 1988 20:07 | 10 |
| "Spirit children" refers to the pre-earth existence, in spirit form, that
we alledgedly experienced before we were born in physical bodies. It refers
to the literal children of "Heavenly Father" (God) and his wives in
heaven. Oddly enough, although God and his wives have physical bodies "of
flesh and bone", their children are bodiless spirits.
I'm sure others in this conference will elaborate on this...
Ed
|
| 97.17 | spirit bodies | CACHE::LEIGH | | Wed Aug 10 1988 20:36 | 8 |
| >...their children are bodiless spirits.
The spirit children have bodies of "spirit matter" rather than mortal matter.
Prior to his birth of Mary, Jesus was a spirit with a body of "spirit matter".
In the Book of Mormon, Jesus told the brother of Jared that we were created
in the image of Jesus' spirit body.
Allen
|
| 97.18 | About the generalities... | MORGAN::OSSLER | | Thu Aug 11 1988 13:45 | 33 |
| RE: 97.10
Sorry for not replying sooner, but I don't always have the tyime I
would like to devote to this conference. Your note 97.10 touched on
two sets of thoughts, and so I have enetered two separate replies
> The notes in this conference also introduce concepts from some
> book, "The God-makers" which appears to be an expose' of some
> Mormon beliefs.
'Expose' implies something that is factual in nature. To use the term
'expose' in describing that book/film is to give much too much credit
to such a blatantly one-sided distortion of LDS teachings. I would
suggest that, if anything, *this conference* probably qualifies as the
most extensive 'expose' of LDS teachings ever written, given that it
not only presents LDS teachings from an LDS point of view, but it also
takes the time to meet the objections of critics, neither of which
"The God Makers" attempts to do.
> The answers are often evasive and I feel
> that unless I design my questions carefully (I have no idea if lying
> is prescribed to protect Temple secrets), then I am not sure what
> I am receiving for an answer. Am I being overly suspicious?
Be as suspicious as you like, just so long as you also try to
understand. Praying for understanding is a good idea too. This
conference is a perfect example of how the answers to some questions
cannot be condensed into a simple, one-sentence answer. If you try and
evaluate Mormon teachings as independent 'nuggets' instead of as a
comprehensive whole, you will indeed be unsure of the answers you get.
A brother in Christ,
/kevin
|
| 97.19 | And about 'The Godhead' | MORGAN::OSSLER | | Thu Aug 11 1988 13:49 | 45 |
| RE: 97.10
> The equation was my way of asking if Mormons pray to and recognize
> only one God (and no others) as God mandated in the Commandments.
1) We pray to our Father in Heaven, in the name of Jesus Christ, as
Jesus himself taught us to do.
2) The actual commandment is *not* to recognize no other gods - period.
The commandment is to recognize no other gods *before God*. Mormons
believe in a hierarchy in the heavens, in which God the Father is at
the top, with Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost as members of that same
Godhead, working under the direction of the Father in perfect unity.
Whoever else in the heavens has been granted a measure of the power of
heaven is part of this hierarchy - *must* be a part of this hierarchy.
The prophets have told us that there are others who have been granted
this status, but that does not make them equal to or above God the
Father or Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost. Nor are these others to be
worshipped.
I like to think of it this way: whoever dwells with Heavenly Father
and exercises the powers of heaven is so far above me in glory that
from my puny little perspective they certainly seem godlike. But I
still recognize God the Father as the Supreme Being, as I am sure that
these other heavenly beings do, or else they would not have been
granted their power by Heavenly Father.
> Your response also tells
> me that your "gods" are only honorary gods and serve no function
> save that they have been recognized for meritorious duty to the
> Mormon church.
I don't see how you get this impression. I hope the above clears it
up.
> The Church has never taught the concept of elevation to deity...
Within the context of the Bible alone, that is true. But we know that
Christ taught the Apostles many important, sacred truths which are not
recorded in the Bible, and we also have latter-day scripture which
fills us in on many of the gaps.
A brother in Christ,
/kevin
|
| 97.20 | "The TRUTH About 'The God Makers'" | CACHE::LEIGH | | Thu Aug 11 1988 15:16 | 50 |
| Re .10, .18
To those who have either read or seen "The God Makers", I recommend that
they also read "The TRUTH About The God Makers" so they can have a balance
in their study.
This book analyzes "The God Makers" line by line and explains from the
viewpoint of a Mormon why the information being presented in "The God Makers"
is biased and distorted.
The TRUTH About The God Makers, Gilbert W. Scharffs, Publishers Press,
Salt Lake City, Utah, 4th printing, 1986, (available through LDS
bookstores in your area; $10.95)
From the Cover:
In their book and movies the authors of "The God Makers" characterize The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a dangerous and immoral fraud.
In his response Gilbert Scharffs rebuts this charge and asserts his reasons
for accepting that organization as the true church of the Master.
While the book and the movie make similar charges, this response is specific
to the book. It is in two major parts: an overview giving brief responses
for quick reference, and a point-by-point analysis that sets out the charges
and supplies detailed answers and explanations. Using this pattern along
with a simple, convenient reference system that relates the charges to the
answers, this book addresses the issues raised by "The God Makers"--issues
such as polygamy, grace vs. works, the LDS church's alleged ambition for world
domination; Latter-day Saints and the Savior's second coming; the route to
godhood; temple ceremonies; Masonry, Mormonism, and the "occult"; to mention
only a few. From his background of doctrinal and historical scholarship plus
research specific to this purpose, and bringing biblical and other scriptures
to his aid, Dr. Scharffs corrects the misinterpretations, misconstructions,
factual mistakes, historical inaccuracies, false premises, and other errors
he finds in "The God Makers", and sets forth the true facts as he sees them.
Despite the offensive tone and the multitude of inadequacies the author
perceives in "The God Makers", the tone of his book is restrained and dignified,
and the content is a reasoned case for the faith and convictions he professes.
Readers of all religious persuasions will appreciate and respect his
approach and will be informed and edified by his book.
Gilbert W. Scharffs received his bachelor's degree from the University of
Utah, his master's from New York University, and his Ph.d (in history of
religion, Bible, and modern scripture) from Brigham Young University. He
has taught religion at the latter institution and has served as director
of an LDS Institute of Religion. As a seminary and institute teacher, he has
taught in the Church Education System for twenty-seven years.
|
| 97.21 | | CASV02::PRESTON | NO Dukes!! | Thu Aug 11 1988 15:40 | 5 |
| Just out of curiousity, have any of the LDS in this conference read
or seen "The God Makers"?
Ed
|
| 97.22 | Explosive material | MORGAN::OSSLER | | Thu Aug 11 1988 16:04 | 11 |
| > Just out of curiousity, have any of the LDS in this conference read
> or seen "The God Makers"?
I have read the book. I sometimes refer to it when approached with
some odd idea about the Church to see if the idea came from there. I
keep the book in a bookcase at home under a damp cloth, lest it burst
into flames while in my house.
;-) Just kidding.
/kevin
|
| 97.23 | | CACHE::LEIGH | | Thu Aug 11 1988 16:40 | 7 |
| I saw the movie and also "The Temple of the God Makers" when they were shown
as part of a class on the cults, with the LDS Church being the only church
discussed. The two films and the group discussion in the class were part of
my motivation in writing note 241 in the CHRISTIAN conference (note 4 in
this conference).
Allen
|
| 97.24 | Interesting Class | CASV05::PRESTON | NO Dukes!! | Thu Aug 11 1988 18:41 | 5 |
| That's very interesting, Allen, but, where was this class? It doesn't
sound like an LDS class.
Ed
|
| 97.25 | THE GODMAKERS - not worth the paper to print it | SLSTRN::RONDINA | | Thu Aug 11 1988 18:46 | 16 |
| THE GODMAKERS
I read about 75 pages of it upon request of a BAC friend. I tried
to point out, page by page errors, distortions, out right lies,
etc., and gave up after 75 pages because there was just so much
error it was not worth any more effort. The National Conference
of Christians and Jews (1984) described THE GODMAKERS as "making
extensive use of half truth, faulty generalizations, erroneous
interpretatons and sensationalism. It is not reflective of the
genuine spirit of the MOrmon."
I finally dismissed the whole book as some kind of absurd joke/hoax.
Nevertheless people read it or see the movie and actually think it is true!
|
| 97.26 | More on the class | CACHE::LEIGH | | Thu Aug 11 1988 20:58 | 32 |
| Ed,
The class was held at a Pentecostal church in a nearby town. It was
advertised in that church as a class on the cults, but as I mentioned the
LDS Church was the only "cult" discussed.
I went with a friend whose son attends that church. I have enough background
in the scriptures and LDS history as well as many years reading anti-Mormon
stuff so I could see the distortions, but the non-LDS in the class took it all
at face value and accepted the film as "gospel".
The class discussion in the weeks after the viewing was carefully directed by
the teacher, and we (the other LDS and I) didn't have much chance to refute the
film.
We were given opportunities to discuss our views relative to the topics
introduced by the teacher, but we didn't discuss the film itself. The teacher
tried to present information that was from LDS sources and that did represent
our views, and to some degree he succeeded (he has LDS friends and had gotten
information from them). There were still examples in his lectures in which
he misunderstood our beliefs and took LDS scriptures out of context, but I
felt he was a sincere person and was doing the best he could. By the time
the class ended, I had written several chapters of note 241, and I gave them
to him for his future use.
I felt the teacher was sincere as a Christian, but I can't say that about the
two films. The films are anti-Mormon in that they distort our beliefs
and take our scriptures out of context. They are very well produced and
I'm sure are very influential with people who take them at face value.
Allen
|
| 97.27 | Sounds Interesting... | CASV01::PRESTON | NO Dukes!! | Fri Aug 12 1988 14:18 | 8 |
| Well, you've piqued my interest anyway. I'm curious now to check
it out for myself and see what all the fuss is about! Perhaps, in
the interest of fairness, some of the LDS can provide us with specific
errors, lies, etc from the book/movie, and we can explore some of
these together. Is "The Godmakers" available at regular bookstores?
Ed
|
| 97.28 | | CACHE::LEIGH | | Fri Aug 12 1988 16:14 | 4 |
| I've been told it is available from Christian bookstores; I don't know
about other stores.
Allen
|
| 97.29 | gods: what do they do? | BUFFER::ROHNERT | | Sun Aug 14 1988 00:25 | 3 |
|
Has it been revealed as to what function or service is performed
by those Mormons that are elevated to the level of gods?
|
| 97.30 | Yes | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | socialism doesn't work ... | Sun Aug 14 1988 03:36 | 8 |
| Those who adhere to Gospel principles will be elevated to the level
of gods. To limit to Mormons would be inaccurate, according to
Mormon doctrine (else why would they perform ordinances for the
dead or claim the Church to practice restored ordinances?). The
service or function is the same as that currently of God the Father
(the spiritual and literal father of Jesus Christ).
Steve
|
| 97.31 | Is this right? | BUFFER::ROHNERT | | Mon Aug 15 1988 00:11 | 7 |
| Re: .30
Correct me if I am wrong, please.
I think that means that a Mormon that is elevated to the level of
god can then govern other planets as God the Father (the spiritual
and literal father of Jesus Christ) governs this one. The god creates
spirits and makes the judgements of his creations?
|
| 97.32 | Ye are gods | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich (Welcome Back) Kotter | Mon Aug 15 1988 00:56 | 279 |
| Is the concept that a man can become a god a new concept invented by
Joseph Smith? No, for this concept was understood in Bible times.
Ye are gods
-----------
The writer of Psalms expressed this concept beautifully:
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among
the gods.
How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the
wicked? Selah.
Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and
needy.
Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the
wicked.
They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in
darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are the children of the
most High.
But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
(Psalm 82:1-8)
This wonderful Bible passage bears witness of several things: God
stands in the congregation of the gods and judges them. There are
others who are gods who are subject to God. We, who do not judge justly
are not to accept the persons of the wicked, but to defend and deliver
the poor and the needy. "Ye are gods; and all of you are the children
of the most High". Indeed, the most High, our Heavenly Father, *is* our
father, and we may become like Him. We are gods in the making. Yes, we
are subject to death, and to the Fall, but we are also subject to the
atonement of our Savior, and God will judge the earth and all it's
inhabitants.
Many gods
---------
While it is true that there are many gods, it is also true that to us
there is but one God that we must worship, and one Lord:
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in
earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
things, and we by him. (1 Cor 8:5-6)
Jesus' Testimony
----------------
Interestingly, Jesus referred to the above passage in Psalms, that 'Ye
are gods', as he testified that He was the Son of God.
And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was
winter.
And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long
dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us
plainly.
Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works
that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto
you.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish
neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is
able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
I and my Father are one.
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my
Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not;
but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest
thyself God.
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are
gods?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the
scripture cannot be broken;
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the
world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye
may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of the
hand, (John 10:22-39)
Be Ye Therefore Perfect
-----------------------
Many were offended by Jesus' testimony that He was the Son of God. Even
so, many are offended by the LDS belief that man may become like God,
indeed, that he may become a god. Yet, is it not clear that Jesus and
the writer of Psalms understood this teaching? Was it not our Lord who
commanded us to become like God, who is perfect:
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
perfect. (Matt 5:48)
We Will Be Like God When We See Him
-----------------------------------
What is God's intent for us? What is the final fate of them who choose
to faithfully serve God? To dwell in heaven? Yes. And what will those
who dwell in heaven with God be like? They will be like God. John
beautifully taught this, also:
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that
we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth
us not, because it knew him not.
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear
what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall
be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even
as he is pure. (1 John 3:1-3)
Heirs of God
------------
Paul taught that we are the children of God, and that we are also heirs
of God:
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the
children of God:
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. (Romans 8:16-17)
We Will Sit on Christ's Throne
------------------------------
Yes we will be glorified with Christ. Glorified heirs of God. We will
sit with Christ in His throne:
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice,
and open the door, I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he
with me.
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne,
even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his
throne. (Revelation 3:20-21)
They Shall Be Gods
------------------
The Lord revealed to Joseph Smith that those who will receive the Lord,
and abide in His covenants, will become gods:
...and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set
there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been
sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a
continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall
they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue;
then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto
them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and
the angels are subject unto them.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, except you abide my law ye cannot
attain to this glory.
For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the
exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that
find it, became ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know
me.
But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and
shall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also.
This is eternal lives - to know the only wise and true God, and
Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore,
my law.
Broad is the gate, and wide the way that leadeth to the deaths;
and many there are that go in thereat, because they receive me
not, neither do they abide in my law. (Doctrine and Covenants
132:19-25)
Joseph Smith received a vision of the glory of the Celestial kingdom,
and recorded this:
Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God -
Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things
present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ's
and Christ is God's.
And they shall overcome all things.
Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather let him glory in
God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet.
These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever
and ever.
These are they whom he shall bring with him, when he shall come in
the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people.
These are they whose names are written in heaven, where God and
Christ are the judge of all.
These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the
mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect
atonement through the shedding of his own blood.
These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of
the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory
the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical. (D&C
76:58-63,68-70)
Mormons Only?
-------------
Is this reward intended for Mormons only? In a revelation received
by Joseph Smith, he learned that some have already achieved this
status:
Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless,
it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did
not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.
Abraham... abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none
other things than that which they were commanded; and because
they did none other things than that which they were commanded,
they have entered into their exaltation, according to the
promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are
gods. (D&C 132:36-37)
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all who do no other things that that
which they are commanded by God will receive this reward. Were they
'Mormons'? No, but they were obedient to God and kept their covenants
with Him. One such command is to be baptized by one having authority to
do so.
We do believe that the only church on the earth today that has
authority from God to baptize is the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints. Those who will be obedient to God in this
dispensation will acknowledge this authority, when given the
opportunity and be faithful in the covenants of the gospel. Those
who die without this opportunity will receive an opportunity in
the next life.
God's plan for His children includes nothing less than that we should
receive all that He has and that we should become like Him. Let those
who read this judge: is not this doctrine in harmony with the Holy
Bible? If we say we believe the Bible, then we should also believe this
to be true. It is also reaffirmed by latter-day revelation.
Rich
|
| 97.33 | maybe a rephrasing ... | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | socialism doesn't work ... | Mon Aug 15 1988 12:59 | 14 |
|
Re: .31
I think I might rephrase .31 to read:
I think that means that anyone that is elevated to the level of
god can then govern planets as God the Father (the spiritual
and literal father of Jesus Christ) governs this and other planets.
The god creates spirits and governs the judgements of his creations.
As to what a god actually does, I believe the previous note (.32) and
others shed more light on this.
Steve
|
| 97.34 | Whoa !! | BUFFER::ROHNERT | | Tue Aug 16 1988 18:03 | 10 |
| Re: .32
While reading .32, I noticed your quote from Paul's letter to the
Corinthians (1 Cor 8:5-6) where Paul recognized that there were
many gods. I was certainly curious and looked it up in my 1611 A.D.
version of the Bible.
Now you and I both know what this chapter says. Do you truly believe
with all your heart that (1 Cor 8:1-6) says that Paul believed in
the existance of multiple Gods or gods?
|
| 97.35 | Rephrased | BUFFER::ROHNERT | | Tue Aug 16 1988 18:26 | 15 |
| Re: .33
> I think I might rephrase .31 to read:
>
> I think that means that anyone that is elevated to the level of
> god can then govern planets as God the Father (the spiritual
> and literal father of Jesus Christ) governs this and other planets.
> The god creates spirits and governs the judgements of his creations.
>
The statement as rephrased is correct? I know that your response was
crystal clear to you, but in summary you are telling me that a god
creates spirits and governs the judgements of his creations?
|
| 97.36 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | socialism doesn't work ... | Tue Aug 16 1988 20:07 | 5 |
| re: .35
Yup.
Steve
|
| 97.37 | Paul's statement | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich (Welcome Back) Kotter | Tue Aug 16 1988 23:51 | 68 |
| Re: Note 97.34 by BUFFER::ROHNERT
> Do you truly believe
> with all your heart that (1 Cor 8:1-6) says that Paul believed in
> the existance of multiple Gods or gods?
For the benefit of those who may not have their scriptures handy,
this passage reads as follows:
Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we
all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth
nothing yet as he ought to know.
But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are
offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing
in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven
or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are
all things, and we by him. (1 Cor 8:1-6)
He goes on in the rest of the chapter to counsel the saints to avoid
eating the meat offered to idols, lest it should cause some of the
weaker saints to lose faith.
Paul is clearly giving the saints counsel on a subject that had been of
some concern -- eating meat offered to idols. But in the middle of his
counsel, he makes an interesting side comment -- "For though there be
that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods
many, and lords many,)".
Perhaps the gods he refers to *are* the idols he has been speaking
about. However, to me he seems to say here that there are many gods in
*heaven* and in earth. Those in heaven would be those who *are* gods,
while those in earth would be the idols who are *not* real gods.
I also believe that Paul believed the Old Testament scriptures and the
words of Jesus, as they both referred to this concept of multiple gods.
Paul, a trained Jew, would have known of the account in Genesis 1:26
that reads, "And God said, Let us make man in *our* image, after *our*
likeness..." He would have known that Elohim, the word used in Genesis
and translated as 'God', literally means "Gods". He would have known of
the Psalms passage "Ye are gods", and as a Christian, he would have
known of Jesus reference to that same passage as He bore testimony that
He was the Son of God.
But Paul also knew that, inspite of the existance of multiple gods,
there is but one that we concern ourselves with. We worship God the
Father, in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ.
Given the context of the whole Bible, I think Paul did understand this
concept. Often there are very interesting concepts such as these
included almost as side comments in the scriptures, but which serve to
increase our understanding of otherwise little understood passages.
Even so, I can see how some would see Paul's reference to multiple gods
as merely being a reference to the idols.
How do you see it?
A brother in Christ,
Rich
|
| 97.38 | interpreting the interpretation | BUFFER::ROHNERT | | Mon Aug 22 1988 00:44 | 45 |
| Re: .37
I'm back. Sorry I had to leave our discussion. Anyhow, your interpretation
of the Corinthians passage is interesting.
I wish we didn't have to interpret from a 377 year old interpretation,
it would be easier if we were fluent in 1900 year old Greek. I
think you have to use King James, right?
Anyhow the way I see (I Corinthians 8,1:8) in those areas of interest:
> Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we
> all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
>
> And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth
> nothing yet as he ought to know.
>
> But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
>
> As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are
> offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing
> in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
>
I think that Paul is stating here that there is one God and only one
God.
>
> For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven
> or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
>
Yes, there were those that were called gods, the Romans had scads of them,
as did the Greeks, and he was addressing folks from Corinth who had been
brought up believing in many gods. Paul was smack-dab in the center of
the Roman Empire and Rome was far from its decline. I think that if Paul
believed that God was simply the chief God, he could have worked it into
the theology, made everyone happy about Christianity and added considerably
to his life expectancy.
> But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
> things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are
> all things, and we by him. (1 Cor 8:1-6)
>
And I think Paul meant this too.
|
| 97.39 | | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | I will go and do... | Mon Aug 22 1988 14:30 | 27 |
| Re: .38
> I think you have to use King James, right?
The LDS church commonly uses the KJV of the Bible, but we don't
*have to* use this version. Often, other versions can offer additional
insights as well.
> I think that Paul is stating here that there is one God and only one
> God.
What do you think Paul's position was on the passage in Psalms ('Ye are
gods...') and also Christ's reference to it? Do you think that he
accepted them as scripture? Also the creation passage in Genesis
earlier referred to?
>> But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
>> things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are
>> all things, and we by him. (1 Cor 8:1-6)
>>
>
> And I think Paul meant this too.
And I agree that there is only one God that we must concern ourselves
with, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.
Rich
|
| 97.40 | "Ye be gods"? | BUFFER::ROHNERT | | Sun Sep 04 1988 14:18 | 14 |
| Re: .39
Back again. Yes, I agree Psalm 82 does make the statement, "I have said,
Ye are gods; and all of you are childen of the most High.".
As most of this discussion focuses on the 3 words, "Ye are gods",
I want to better understand the source. As you can clearly see,
I am not a biblical scholar and that is why I am asking you to share
your background and experience.
Psalm 82 is a song or psalm of Asaph. Who or what was Asaph? I
don't want to assume that I am automatically a god unless I know
who said I was.
_Dick
|
| 97.41 | Asaph | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Mon Sep 05 1988 07:48 | 30 |
| Re: .40
> Who or what was Asaph?
Thanks for asking the question, as I have wondered this myself before
as I have read the Psalms. I did a few minutes research and came
up with this:
According to the Bible Dictionary in the back of my Bible, is says
this:
Asaph. A cymbal-playing Levite appointed leader of David's
choir. Founded a family of singers called the "sons of
Asaph" or "children of Asaph"; mentioned in the titles
of various Psalms. See 1 Chr. 6:39; 15:17,19; 16:4-7;
37; 25:1-9; 2 Chr. 5:12; 20:14; Ezra 2:41; 3:10; Neh.
7:44; Ps. 50,73-83.
After reading some of the referenced passages, it appears to me that
Asaph and the "sons of Asaph" were chartered by King David to prophesy
with a harp, give thanks and to praise the Lord (note especially 1 Chr.
25:1-9). This is also evidenced in some of the psalms that are
attributed to Asaph, most notably in those that prophesy of the Second
Coming, the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple.
The fact that Jesus made reference to the passage in question (Psalms
82:6) seems to testify that He considered it to be valid scripture, as
most Bible-believing Christians also presumably do.
Rich
|
| 97.42 | See note 188 for "The God Makers" | CLIMB::LEIGH | My soul hungered; and I kneeled down | Fri Nov 18 1988 19:58 | 2 |
| Earlier replies in this note have discussed "The God Makers" book and film.
That topic is being continued in note 188.
|
| 97.117 | Eloheim | EMASS::BARNETTE | One World, one Love, one People | Thu Dec 15 1988 14:15 | 7 |
|
What are "Elohim"? What do Mormons make of this term?
Bubbling over with questions,
Neal Barnette
|
| 97.118 | Elohim defined | NEXUS::S_JOHNSON | | Thu Dec 15 1988 15:13 | 16 |
| The name _Elohim_ is of frequent occurrence in the Hebrew texts of the
Old Testament, though it is not found in our English versions. In form
the word is a Hebrew plural noun(1); but it connotes the plurality of
excellence or intensity, rather than distinctively of number. It is
expressive of supreme or absolute exaltation and power. _Elohim_, as
understood in the restored _Church_of_Jesus_Christ_ is the name-title
of God the Eternal Father, whose firstborn sin in the spirit is
_Jehovah_ -- the Only Begotten in the flesh, Jesus Christ.
(1) the singular "Eloah," appears only in poetic usage.
- James E. Talmage in _Jesus_The_Christ_
pg. 38
scott
|
| 97.119 | confusion | CASV02::PRESTON | Better AI than none at all | Fri Dec 16 1988 20:05 | 45 |
| From 195.1, by Scott Johnson:
> The name _Elohim_ is of frequent occurrence in the Hebrew texts of the
> Old Testament, though it is not found in our English versions. In form
> the word is a Hebrew plural noun(1); but it connotes the plurality of
> excellence or intensity, rather than distinctively of number. It is
> expressive of supreme or absolute exaltation and power. _Elohim_, as
> understood in the restored _Church_of_Jesus_Christ_ is the name-title
> of God the Eternal Father, whose firstborn sin in the spirit is
> _Jehovah_ -- the Only Begotten in the flesh, Jesus Christ.
From 97.37, by Rich Kotter:
> I also believe that Paul believed the Old Testament scriptures and the
> words of Jesus, as they both referred to this concept of multiple gods.
> Paul, a trained Jew, would have known of the account in Genesis 1:26
> that reads, "And God said, Let us make man in *our* image, after *our*
> likeness..." He would have known that Elohim, the word used in Genesis
> and translated as 'God', literally means "Gods". He would have known of
> the Psalms passage "Ye are gods", and as a Christian, he would have
> known of Jesus reference to that same passage as He bore testimony that
> He was the Son of God.
Here we have two conflicting definitions of "Elohim". Scott's is the more
correct, since it is gives us the connotation of the term in it's
original language, rather than a one-for-one transposition from Hebrew to
English. The word Elohim is used hundreds of times in the Old Testament,
in many cases where the word could not possibly be taken as a plural of
number. The "our" in the translation is probably there to preserve
grammatical correctness.
I don't have my Strong's Concordance in front of me, but I recall reading
in it that the word "elohim" sometimes was used in reference to magistrates
who exercised judgemental authority over people. This sheds a bit more
light on Psalm 81 as well.
It is inconsistent and contradictory for Mormons, in supporting their
plurality of gods doctrine, to claim that the word "Elohim" in Genesis
demonstrates the existence of plural gods, while also wanting us to believe
that it is the "name/title of God the Eternal Father", distinguishing him
from his son, "Jehova". It is particularly interesting when considered in
the light of Deut. 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord (Jehova) our God
(Elohim) is one Lord (Jehova)."
Ed
|
| 97.120 | Love the Lord thy God | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Sat Dec 17 1988 11:52 | 26 |
| Re: Note 195.2 by CASV02::PRESTON
Hi Ed,
>It is particularly interesting when considered in
>the light of Deut. 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord (Jehova) our God
>(Elohim) is one Lord (Jehova)."
You raise an interesting point, but you left out my favorite part of
this passage in Deuteronomy:
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this
day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently
unto they children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in
thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest
down, and when thou risest up. (Deut 6:4-7)
The things we do or do not yet understand about Almighty God are far
outweighed by the importance of loving Him and serving Him with all our
heart, might, mind and strength, and of placing our faith in Him. I
pray we all may do so.
Merry Christmas!
Rich
|
| 97.121 | The Hebrew is simple | CASV02::PRESTON | Better AI than none at all | Thu Dec 29 1988 15:21 | 27 |
| 97.122 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | Love is a decision ... | Fri Dec 30 1988 02:55 | 11 |
|
I, too, feel that Talmage's definition of Elohim is correct. It
is a title for God the Father. (Another title is Man, which is
why Jesus Christ has the title Son of Man. This is discussed in
'Jesus the Christ', beginning on page 142.) There are several scriptures
that support the assertion that God the Father (Elohim) and Jehovah
(Jesus Christ) are not the same physical being but are one in
purpose. I don't believe this is strictly a Mormon belief. A lot of
this has already been discussed.
Steve
|
| 97.123 | Two meanings for Elohim | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Fri Dec 30 1988 15:37 | 72 |
| 97.64 | Doctrinal Questions about God | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Sun Jan 08 1989 22:19 | 15 |
| I have a couple of questions regarding God and his nature.
QUESTION 1:
I am confused by what seems to be a contradiction between Mormon
doctrine and Scripture. Mormon doctrine states that GOD is
flesh and bones, and that the Holy Ghost is a spirit. But
the Scriptures state that GOD is a Spirit. So what gives?
QUESTION 2:
Mormon doctrine states that God is progressive. This seems to
contradict the scriptures that state that God is unchanging.
So where have I misunderstood? Doctrine or Scripture?
|
| 97.65 | Re: Confused and Misunderstood | MDVAX1::AYLWORTH | | Mon Jan 09 1989 01:45 | 37 |
| i] As fundatmental Christian you should be confused. You feel that
God cannot be conceptionalized where as Mormons believe God is a
glorified man. By just reading the Bible one can pick and choose
somewhat of what God is like. If you read Genisis carefully you
could decide that in the beginning God created man in His own image.
Nothing is mentioned about spirit or physical. Now, if you enjoy
reading John or Paul, well, God is diffenently a spirit. If you read
in other places in the Bible you will find that God can encompass
the earth or dwell in your heart. Who wouldn't be confused? Why
does it matter?
God is most likely progressive and unchanging. If you only read
the Bible you'd know God is progressive and unchanging. In the
first "testiment" we have a God who says it is okay to sacrifice
animals and in some cases kill whole villages or cities of people
and yet this same God is consistently tell "his people" there is only
one way to "heaven". In the next section of the Bible, you find
God telling his people there is only one way to "heaven" and make
sacrifices of a spiritual nature and turn the other cheek. God, in
this day and age most likely uses an IBM mainframe to keep track of us, well
you know a cliche is going to happen, but there is still only "one
way".
Where you misunderstand, is, bringing your thought (or Doctrine) into
Mormon Doctrine. You have decided that the Bible is God's word
and have been told how to believe it and now trying to understand
the differences between yourself and Mormonism. It doesn't work.
Mormons believe the Bible to be the word of God and have been
told how to believe it too.
A higher question is who invented the Gods found in the Bible and
why are they so different from sect to sect?
regards,
hal
|
| 97.66 | Responses | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Mon Jan 09 1989 11:57 | 22 |
| Re: Note 201.0 by GENRAL::RINESMITH
> I am confused by what seems to be a contradiction between Mormon
> doctrine and Scripture. Mormon doctrine states that GOD is
> flesh and bones, and that the Holy Ghost is a spirit. But
> the Scriptures state that GOD is a Spirit. So what gives?
I think Allen has done a pretty good job of addressing this question
in Note 4.2 of this conference.
> Mormon doctrine states that God is progressive. This seems to
> contradict the scriptures that state that God is unchanging.
"It should be realized that God is not progressing in knowledge, truth,
virtue, wisdom, or an of the attributes of godliness. He has already
gained these things in their fulness. But he is progressing in the
sense that his creations increas, his dominions expand, his spirit
offspring multiply, and more kingdoms are added to his domains."
(Doctrines of Salvation, as quoted in Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R.
McConkie, page 239).
Rich
|
| 97.67 | A book with some answers..... | HDSRUS::HANSEN | Be nice. | Mon Jan 09 1989 12:23 | 31 |
| re: .0
Good questions. For answers on these questions, I would suggest
the book THE MORMON DOCTRINE OF DIETY, by B. H. Roberts. It is
the record of kind of a debate between Roberts and a Catholic preist
by the name of Van der Donckt. I say "kind of a debate" because
it was conducted in a church newspaper over the course of several
weeks--Roberts putting forth the Mormon doctrine, Van der Donckt
answering with an attempt to refute that doctrine and a putting
forth of the standard Catholic/orthodox Christian position, and
finally Roberts rebutting the priest's argument, concluded by a
few excerpts from church leaders on the nature of God. The book
is available at Deseret Book, or can be ordered from any LDS book-store
at $9.95. It is, for the most part, quite easy to read, except for
a few places where the Catholic gentleman introduces some strings
of hard-to-follow logic (it seems to me he underestimated Elder
Roberts' ability as a debater, although Roberts' refutation of the
priest's logic is equally as involved and requires concentration
to get through). Of course, most of the standard Bible verses are
used by both sides. The book sets forth quite plainly the church's
teachings about the nature of God.
I have a copy of the book and would gladly post excerpts from it
if anyone is interested. Allen, if there is any interest, where
should the excerpts go? I know there is a note already started on
the nature of God, and I had intended to put some excerpts from
the book in that note when I had some more time. Suggestions?
Sa yo,
Dave
|
| 97.68 | | CLIMB::LEIGH | and let us pray together | Mon Jan 09 1989 13:59 | 12 |
| re .3
Dave,
My suggestions would be as follows. If the excerpts are few & short, they
could go either here or in note 97; I've added the keyword GODHEAD to this
note, so there are now two notes that discuss the Godhead. However, if the
excerpts are many/long, I would suggest that they go in a new note so they
will be in the open & easy to find. If you create the new note, then please
post replies to this note & 97 pointing to the new note.
Allen
|
| 97.69 | Roberts' (long) answer to Question 1. | MEDUSA::HANSEN | Be nice. | Tue Jan 10 1989 20:13 | 292 |
| Re: .4
Allen,
I don't anticipate the need for a new note; the excerpts I will post
for the two questions asked in the basenote may be lengthy, but few.
If a lot of discussion ensues, or the note begins to fragment, we
can create a new note.
Re: Note 201.0
>QUESTION 1:
>I am confused by what seems to be a contradiction between Mormon
>doctrine and Scripture. Mormon doctrine states that GOD is
>flesh and bones, and that the Holy Ghost is a spirit. But
>the Scriptures state that GOD is a Spirit. So what gives?
First, I concur with Rich that Allen has done a good job with the
answer to this question in 4.2. The excerpts from Elder Roberts'
book may have some material repetitive of that in 4.2.
The following is from Roberts' rejoinder to the reply of C. Van Der
Donckt, who submitted his article as a rebuttal to Roberts' initial
treatment of the subject of the Mormon doctrine of deity. All three
works were printed in the "Improvement Era" in 1901 & 2. You will
see that Roberts refers often to statements by the priest--he often
calls him Mr. V. If it is hard to follow, I could later excerpt more
of each of the articles, but I think you will agree that this is long
enough, and that with patience you can get through it.
********************************************************************************
A REJOINDER TO REV C. VAN DER DONCKT'S REPLY.
I have read with great interest and I trust with due care the Rev. C. Van
Der Donckt's Reply to my discourse on "Mormon Doctrine of Deity." With
regard to his Reply in general, I observe three things: first, the Reverend
gentleman labors with some pains to demonstrate that "Mormon" views of
Deity with respect to the form and nature of God are at variance with the
Catholic and even the orthodox Christian views on the subject; second, the
"Mormon" views of Deity are in conflict with the accepted Christian philo-
sophy; third, that "Mormon" doctrines stand in sharp contrast to both
Catholic and Protestant ideas respecting the unity of God. All this is
easily proved; and would have been conceded cheerfully without proofs.
"Mormons" not only admit the variances but glory in them. The foregoing,
however, is not the issue between Mr. Van Der Donckt and myself. After the
variances referred to are admitted, these questions remain: Which is most
in agreement with what God has revealed concerning his form and nature,
"Mormon" or orthodox Christian doctrine? Which is most in harmony with
sound reason and the scriptures, "Mormon" doctrine, or the commonly accept-
ed Christian philosophy? Which in their teaching presents the true doc-
trine of God's unity, "Mormons" or orthodox Christians? These are the
issues; and so far as the Reverend gentleman has maintained the orthodox
Christian doctrine against the "Mormon" doctrine, I undertake to controvert
his arguments.
Following the order of my treatise, the gentleman first deals with the form
of God. His first premise is that "God is a spirit," quoting the words of
the Saviour (John 4:24) and Paul's words, "The Lord is a spirit," (II Cor
3:17). He then argues that a spirit is different from a man, and quotes
the remark of Jesus to his disciples, when he appeared to them after his
resurrection: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have" (Luke
24:37-39). Also the words of Jesus to Peter, "Flesh and blood hath not
revealed it (that is, that Jesus is the Christ) unto thee, but my FATHER
who is in heaven." (Matt 16:17) The gentleman in all this sees a striking
contrast between *men*, *flesh and blood*, and the *Father*; which "conveys
the sense that God hath not flesh and blood like man, but is a spirit."
That God is a spirit Mr. V. holds is proved also from his being called
"invisible in the Bible; and from this premise argues: "All material things
are visible. Absolutely invisibly things are immaterial, or bodiless:" and
therefore, to help the gentleman out a little, not like man in form.
With reference to the passage--"Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto
thee, but my Father who is in heaven," and the Reverend gentleman's remarks
thereon, I wish to say, in passing, that the antithesis between man and God
in the passage extends merely to the fact that the source of Peter's revel-
ation was God, not man; and is no attempt at defining a difference between
the nature of God and the nature of man. Here also I may say that the
Latter-day Saints do not hold that God is a personage of *flesh and blood*,
but a personage of *flesh and bone*, inhabited by a spirit, just as Jesus
was after his resurrection. Joseph Smith taught concerning the resurrec-
tion that "all [mankind] will be raised by the power of God, having
*spirit* in their bodies, and not *blood*." Again, in speaking of the
general assembly and church of the firstborn in heaven (Heb 12:23), he
said: "Flesh and blood cannot go there; but flesh and bones, quickened by
the spirit of God, can." [Ref.s omitted] So that it must be remembered
throughout this discussion that the Latter-day Saints do not believe that
God is a personage of flesh and blood; but a personage of flesh and bones
and spirit, united.
I would remind the reader, also, that while Jesus said, "God is a spirit,"
and that a spirit "hath not flesh and bone as ye see me have," he nowhere
says that a spirit is immaterial or not substance. That is a conclusion
drawn by the theologians from the false philosophy of the ancient pagans.
But let us examine these premises and arguments of Mr. Van Der Donckt, more
in detail. The inspired apostle says: "*Our God is a consuming fire" (Heb
12:29). "Now," to use the words of Mr. V., "although we must believe what-
ever God reveals to us upon one single word of his, just as firmly as upon
a thousand; nevertheless, I will add" that Moses, who solemnly received
the word from God which he delivered unto Israel, also says, "*The Lord thy
God is a consuming fire*" (Ex 4:24). Is Mr. V. ready to believe on these
solemn assertions of scripture--hence of the Lord--that God is a fire, and
therefore that fire is God? Or would he insist upon interpreting these
passages by others, and by reason? Would he not want to quote Moses again
where he says, "Thy God is....*as* a consuming fire" (Ex 9:3), and accept
this as a reasonable interpretation of the passage stating so definitely
that "God is a fire"?
Again, "God is light" (I John 1:5). Would Mr. V. from that definition of
God believe and teach that God is light, mere cosmic light? Or would he
find an interpretation, or explanation necessary? And still again, "God is
love' (I John 4:7,16). Love is an attribute of mind, of spirit; must one
conclude then from this definition that God is a mere attribute of mind?
These reflections will demonstrate that these definitions of God, so far as
they are such, together with the one with which Mr. V. commences his argu-
ment, "God is a spirit," need defining. He endeavors to anticipate the
"Mormon" answer to this argument by saying:
I am well aware that the Latter-day Saints interpret those texts as
meaning a spirit clothed with a body, but what nearly the whole of man-
kind, Christians, Jews, and Mohammedans, have believed for ages, cannot
be upset by the gratuitous assertions of a religious innovator of this
last century.
At this point I will not appeal to or quote the "gratuitous assertions of a
religious innovator of this last century"--meaning Joseph Smith. There is
no need of that. If I were an unbeliever in the true Deity of Christ, I
might take up the gentleman's argument in this way: You say that God is a
spirit and hence bodiless, immaterial? His answer must be, "Yes." But
Jesus says, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have"--hence
Jesus is not God, because he is a personage of flesh and bone, in the form
of man--not bodiless or immaterial. This, of course, is not *my* point. I
merely refer to it in the beaten way of good fellowship, and by way of
caution to my Catholic friend, who, I am sure, in his way, is as anxious to
maintain the true Deity of the Nazarene as I am; but his method of handling
the text, "God is a spirit," might lead him into serious difficulty in up-
holding the truth that Jesus was and is true Deity, if in argument with an
infidel.
But now for the "Mormon" exposition of the text. Is Jesus Christ God? Was
he God as he stood there among his disciples in his glorious and, to use
Mr. V.'s own word, "sacred," resurrected body? There is but one answer
that the Reverend Catholic gentleman or any orthodox Protestant can give,
and that is in the affirmative--"yes, Jesus is God." But "God is a
spirit!" True, he is; but Jesus is a spirit inside a body--inside an im-
mortal, indestructible body of flesh and bone; therefore, if Jesus is God,
and God is a spirit, he is an embodied spirit, just as the Latter-day
Saints teach.
Now let it be understood that Latter-day Saints are not so foolish as to
believe that so much phosphate, lime, carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen as may
compose the body of a perfected man, is God. They recognize the fact that
the body without the spirit is dead, being alone; but the spirit having
through natural processes gathered to itself a body, and that body having
been purified by the power of God--who has promised in holy scripture that
he will "change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glor-
ious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all
things unto himself" (Phil 3:20,21)--when this is done, even the body takes
upon it some of the divine nature. It indeed becomes "sacred," and some-
thing more than "sacred"--it becomes incorporated with and forever united
to, a spirit that is divine, and henceforth becomes and integral part of
God. Of which process, of a divine spirit taking on a body of flesh and
bone, Jesus Christ is the most perfect example.....
....Mr. V. holds that it is proved by Holy Writ that "angels as well as God
are bodiless beings." After quoting passages of scripture in support of
this statement, he then adds: "Could plainer words be found to teach that
angels, both good and bad, are spirits, devoid of bodies? Now, the Creator
is certainly more perfect than his creatures, and pure minds are more per-
fect than minds united to bodies (men)." In support of which he quotes the
following: "The corruptible body is a load upon the soul, and the earthly
habitation presseth down the mind" (Wisdom 9:15) [This is a book received
by the Catholic Church on alleged apostolical tradition, but not found in
the Hebrew Bible nor in Protestant versions of the Bible]; and Paul's say-
ing, "who shall deliver me from this body of death?" (Rom 6:24) [Quoted
thus by Mr. V. In both Catholic and Protestant Bibles it stands: "Who
shall deliver me from the body of this death?"] *Therefore the Creator is a
pure spirit.*
I fear Mr. V. in these statements has run into more difficulty. Let us
see. According to his doctrine, "Angels as well as God are bodiless
beings." "Angels, both good and bad, are spirits, devoid of bodies. The
Creator is more perfect than his creatures, *and pure minds* [minds separa-
ted from bodies] *are more perfect than minds united to bodies....Therefore
the creator is a pure spirit." But where does this leave Jesus?
Was and is Jesus God--true Deity?
Yes.
But Jesus is a spirit and body united into one glorious personage. His
mind was and is now united to and dwelling in a body. Our Catholic friend
says, "pure minds [i.e. minds not united to bodies] are more perfect than
minds united to bodies." He also says, "Angels, both good and bad, are
spirits (i.e. minds) devoid of bodies." Therefore, it must follow from his
premises and argument that angels are superior to Jesus since his spirit is
united to a body, while they are minds *not* united to bodies! I will not
press the point, that the same conclusions could be drawn from his premises
and argument with reference even to bad spirits, whom he says are bodiless,
and hence upon his theory, superior to minds or spirits united to bodies,
for that would be ungenerous upon my part, and would lay upon his faulty
argument the imputation of awful blasphemy, which I am sure was not intend-
ed and would be as revolting to him as it would be to myself. Mr. V., I am
sure, would contend as earnestly as I would that Jesus is superior to the
angels, though it is perfectly clear that he is a spirit united to a body.
"When he had by himself purged our sins, [Jesus] sat down on the right hand
of the majesty on high; being made so much better than the angels, as he
hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they....And again,
when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, and let
all the angels worship him. And of the angels he saith, who maketh his
angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. *But unto the Son, he
saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever*" (Heb 1:3-8). In this
passage the superiority of Jesus over the angels is manifested in four
ways: first, by the direct affirmation of God, that he was made "better"
than the angels; second, that by inheritance he obtained a more exalted
name; third, that the angels are commanded to worship him; fourth, God, the
Father, addressing Jesus, said, "Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever."
In this passage, the Father directly addresses Jesus by the title "God."
And as God is exalted above all angels, Jesus must be superior to angels,
for he is "God," if we may believe the words of the Father--whom to dis-
believe would be blasphemy.
Mr. Van Der Donckt admits in his argument, of course, that Jesus is God;
and also admits the persistence of him in the physical condition in which
he left the earth with his resurrected body. For in explaining the scrip-
ture passage about seeing God "face to face," he remarks:
The first and chief element of the happiness of heaven will consist in
the beatific vision; that is, in seeing God face to face, unveiled, as
he really is. The "face to face," however, is literally true only of
our blessed Savior, who ascended into heaven with his sacred body. Oth-
erwise, as God is a spirit, he has no body, and, consequently, no face.
From this it is clear that in the mind of the Reverend gentleman, Jesus not
only ascended into heaven with his "sacred body," but now dwells there
spirit and body united; and the blessed, who shall inherit heaven will see
him there literally face to face. Other than this "face to face" view of
Jesus--according to Mr. V.--we shall only see God, since he is a spirit,
"with the spiritual eye; with the soul's intellectual perception, elevated
by a supernatural influx from God!" This admission with reference to Jesus
and his existence as an immortal personage of flesh and bone, and our
literal view of him in heaven "face to face," draws with it some conse-
quences which my Catholic friend evidently overlooked. In the creed usual-
ly named after St. Athanasius, it is said: "*Such as the Father is, such is
the Son.*" I take it that this, in the view of those who accept the Athan-
asian creed, has reference to the "substance of the Father," as well as to
other things pertaining to him; for, according to that creed, the "sub-
stance" of the Father and Son is one and undivided. "We worship one God in
Trinity, and Trinity in Unity," says the creed; "neither confounding the
persons nor *dividing the substance.*" It must be, therefore, according to
Mr. V.'s creed, that all the "substance" of God there is, is in Jesus
Christ, as well as the attributes of God. The terms of the creed forbid us
believing that part of the "substance" of God was enclosed in the flesh and
bone body of Jesus, and the remainder existed outside of that body; for
that would be dividing the "substance" of God, a thing the Athanasian creed
forbids: therefore, all the "substance" of God inhabits the body of Jesus
Christ, and he is wholly God. In this view of the subject, there is no God
except the Deity enclosed in the flesh and body of Jesus Christ. But that
would place our Catholic friend--after all he has said about God being a
spirit, and about the superiority of pure minds (i.e. spirits not united to
bodies) over minds united to bodies--under the necessity of accepting as
God, the Supreme, the Almighty, a personage that is a spirit and body
united in one glorious personage, and in form like man--a thing most abhor-
rent to our friend's principles.
On the other hand, if it be contended that besides the Son of God, Jesus, a
personage of flesh and bone and spirit, there exists God, a spirit, then
there is likely to arise again the conception of the "substance" being div-
ided, and the existence of two individual Gods instead of one. The one a
spirit unembodied, and the other a spirit enclosed in a body of flesh and
bone--the glorified, exalted Man, Christ. This danger is also increased by
the part of the creed now being considered: "Such as the Father is, such is
the Son;" for it must follow, if this be true that such as the Son is, such
is the Father also. And this must hold with reference to God, wholly; to
his substance, essence, personality, form, as well as to all attributes
possessed, or else it is not true at all. And if true, since we know that
Jesus is an immortal being of flesh and bone and spirit united into one
glorious personage (and Mr. V. admits that, and also that the blessed in
heaven shall see him as such a personage, literally "face to face"), then
God the Father must be the same, a personage of flesh and bone and spirit
united--a thing most abhorrent to Mr. V.'s principles.
********************************************************************************
Roberts, B.H., Mormon Doctrine of Deity, pp. 68 - 77.
********************************************************************************
That is most of the stuff from the book dealing with Question 1. There is
a little more that I may post later, but I'll have to dig for it--this was
mostly all contiguous material.
Roberts' reply to question 2 will appear shortly.
Dave
|
| 97.70 | Roberts' answer to Question 2. | HDSRUS::HANSEN | Be nice. | Mon Jan 16 1989 19:25 | 119 |
| RE: .0
As promised, Roberts' reply to (a question very similar to) QUESTION 2
follows. As with his reply to QUESTION 1, there may be some repetition
of material posted by other noters already in response to this question.
>QUESTION 2:
>Mormon doctrine states that God is progressive. This seems to
>contradict the scriptures that state that God is unchanging.
>So where have I misunderstood? Doctrine or Scripture?
********************************************************************************
Mr. V. next brings as proof against God's being an exalted man, what he
calls the direct statement of the Bible, that God is not man: "God is not a
man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should be changed"
(Numbers 23:19). "I am God and not man" (Psalm). These passages simply
present the contrast between man as he is now, with all his imperfections
on his head, and God. The Latter-day Saints do not teach that man in his
present state and condition is God; on the contrary, they hold that there
is a very, very wide difference between them, all the difference indicated
by the Bible: but they do believe that through the eternities that will
pass over man's head, and with God for guide and teacher, he may become as
his Father in heaven is, and that such is his destiny. It follows that
when man shall attain to that destiny, the contrast now so striking between
man and God will not exist. The contrast noted in the scriptures by Mr. V.
is not between *perfected* men and God, but between very imperfect men--men
who lie, and are changeable--and God; and since the Latter-day Saints do
not hold that man while imperfect is God, or like God, or God like him, the
argument of the gentleman, based on the passages quoted, is of no force.
It could be said of some grandly developed, noble, high-minded man, such as
a Gladstone, a Bismark, or a Washington: He is not a child that he should
halt in reason, or falter in action, or be frightened by phantoms of the
dark. But such a contrast does not include the idea that the child may not
change his status, and finally become all that the great man is with whom
he is now contrasted. Clearly the contrast is one of conditions, more than
of natures, and at its very highest value is the contrast between a per-
fected nature and one not yet perfected.
The same answer applies to the Reverend gentleman's contention based on the
passages, "Thou art always the selfsame;" "I am the Lord and change not;"
"The Father of lights, with whom there is no change nor shadow of altera-
tion." These passages teach what the Reverend gentleman calls the "immut-
ability of God," which he holds to preclude the idea that God rose from a
state of imperfection to that of perfection--since he is always the "self-
same." Before answering at length, I couple with this Mr. Van Der Donckt's
final argument on this division of the subject--the scriptural evidences
and arguments on the form and nature of God--namely, "The Latter-day Saints'
theory of the Man-God supposes a past and present with God. The Bible ex-
cludes that succession of time," says the Reverend gentleman, "and speaks
of God as the everlasting present; 'I Am Who am,' 'From eternity to eternity
thou art God.'" Against this argument, based upon God's reputed unchange-
ableness, and being always as he now is, from all eternity to eternity, I
wish to say first, that the *God-nature* is doubtless always the same,
without reference to those who may attain unto it; and speaking of the God-
nature, it is always the "Selfsame," from eternity to eternity; but after
that statement, against the Reverend gentleman's argument bottomed on God's
immutability and eternity--and, in fact, against all his arguments, from
first to last, respecting the form and nature of God, I place Jesus of
Nazareth, the Messiah, the revelation of God to man. I place him as my
premises and my argument against all the reverend gentleman has said, or
can say, on this division of the subject. I call attention to the fact that
neither in my discourse which brought forth Mr. Van Der Donckt's Reply nor
in this Rejoinder, have I turned to those numerous passages of the Bible
that speak of the face, limbs, or organs of God. Not that I mistrust the
force of those passages as evidence, but because I have thought it unneces-
sary to appeal to them, so long as I had in Jesus, the Messiah, a full
length and complete representation of God, not only as to the *reality* of
his being, but as to the *kind* of being God is. And now I ask, as I did in
my discourse, *is Jesus God?* Is he a manifestation of God--a revelation of
him? If so, there must be in him an end of controversy; for whatever Jesus
Christ was and is God must be, or Jesus Christ is no manifestation, no rev-
elation of God. Is Jesus Christ in form like man? Is he possessed of a
body of flesh and bone which is eternally united to him--and now an integral
part of him? Does he possess body, parts, and passions? There can be but
one answer to all these questions, and that is, "Yes; he possessed and now
possesses all these things." Then God also possesses them; for even accord-
ing to both Catholic and orthodox Protestant Christian doctrine, Jesus
Christ was and is God, and the complete manifestation and revelation of God
the Father.
Also the specific points of argument based upon God's unchangeability, and
there being no succession of time with God--that, too, is answered in the
person and experience of Jesus Christ. According to Catholic teaching,
Jesus was a spirit, identical with God the Father in substance, before he
became man; but at a certain time he became man, was not that a change? By
it, he became something he was not before. His humanity, according to their
teaching, was *added* to the Son of God when he received his tabernacle of
flesh and bone; and he was certainly changed from an unembodied state to an
embodied one; and there was a "before and after"--in reference to this great
event, in the God Jesus' experience. Is it thinkable that this change was
a deterioration? Was the Son of God's divinity debased to the human, or was
so much of humanity as he took on raised to the divine nature, and hence-
forth made an integral part of it?
The orthodox doctrine of Christianity is--Catholic and Protestant alike--
that Jesus Christ is God; that he always was and is God, according to both
orthodox theology and Christian philosophy. Yet it is said of this Jesus
that he *"increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man"*
(Luke 2:52). Here is certainly a change in condition; here is succession of
time with God--a before and after; here is being and becoming; for whereas,
he was a spirit, he became man; and in becoming man, he passed through all
the phases in life from infancy to manhood. It is significant also that it
was not until Jesus had arisen from the tomb and stood in the presence of
his disciples, a glorified personage, body and spirit united, that he ex-
claimed, *"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."* If "given,"
there must have been a time when he did not possess all power in heaven and
earth; and hence, a change from possessing some power to the condition of
possessing "all power," a fulness of power--"for it pleased the Father that
in him should all fulness dwell" (Col 1:19).
********************************************************************************
Roberts, B.H., Mormon Doctrine of Deity, pp. 92 - 96.
********************************************************************************
Dave
|
| 97.71 | Something I've always wanted to know. | HDSRUS::HANSEN | Be nice. | Wed Jan 25 1989 12:41 | 15 |
| Could someone please tell me where, in the mind of those who believe
in the doctrine of the trinity (Athanasian creed, etc.), the logic
of Mr. Roberts in the previous two replies (especially .5) breaks
down? Obviously his logic is not in line with the reasoning of
those who hold to the concept of a triune God as described by the
various creeds of early Catholicism. I have wondered about this
many times and really want to understand the angle on this from
a non-Member's perspective. Specifically, do most Christians believe
that Christ now possesses an indestructable body of flesh and bones?
Gotta go....more questions later.
Thanks,
Dave
|
| 97.43 | We may be more similar than I thought! | SLSTRN::RONDINA | | Fri Feb 03 1989 01:59 | 25 |
| I had an interesting conversation with a Born Again the other day
and in it he stated something I would like to check out with any
Born Agains reading these notes.
In our discussion we were comparing the LDS belief of the Godhead
vs his. Of course I mentioned that we, like most Christians, believe
in a 3 member Godhead, The Father, The Son, The Holy Ghost, with
the first 2 have a body of flesh and bones. He mentioned that his
belief was that while Jesus has a body of flesh and bone, neither
the Father nor the Holy Ghost do. BUT (And here is the important
part) that there were 3 personnages in the Godhead, distinct and
separate, one with body, the other 2 without.
Is this belief what most Christians hold to? My old recollections
of Catholic doctrines state that somehow the 3 Gods were all combined
into 1 personnage. If Christians believe in this separation of
personnages in the Godhead, then the only thing differentiating
LDS from them is that we believe God the FAther has a body as well
as does Christ.
Would anyone like to comment? I struggled for years, as a Catholic,
trying to comprehend the 3 in 1 doctrine, and finally gave up.
Paul
|
| 97.44 | clarification, please | CASPRO::PRESTON | Better AI than none at all | Wed Feb 08 1989 16:42 | 12 |
| 97.45 | Definition of Born Again | SLSTRN::RONDINA | | Wed Feb 08 1989 19:32 | 14 |
| The "Born Again" friend claims that the Word (Bible) is the absolute,
infallible word of God. And we have no need of further scripture.
He states that he has the HOly Ghost bear witness of Jesus. He
has totally given himself to Christ and through faith (rather than
works) is saved. He pays no strict allegiance to any Church, but
does attend the Assembly of God.
I could go on, but basically Pentecostal, charismatic, born again
are the usual words to describe this "body of believers".
I hope that clarification will suffice.
Paul
|
| 97.46 | | CASPRO::PRESTON | Better AI than none at all | Thu Feb 09 1989 16:05 | 7 |
| Do you make a distinction between "Born Agains" and, for instance,
Protestants?
Just want to know,
Ed
|
| 97.47 | Let's get to the original question. | SLSTRN::RONDINA | | Thu Feb 09 1989 16:33 | 13 |
| yes, my experience with Born Agains is not as positive as with
Protestants. Born Agains, in my experience, tend to be more zealous
than the Protestants (ie Methodists, Prebstyerians, Lutherans, etc.)
about having the "born again" experience and its attendant signs
(namely speaking in tongues).
Any how back to my original question. Let me re-phrase it on a more
general level - Do non-Mormon Christians
believe that the Godhead is made up of 3 separate beings, one with
body (Jesus) and 2 without a body (The Father and The Holy Ghost)?
Paul
|
| 97.48 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | quality first cause quality lasts | Fri Feb 10 1989 14:26 | 11 |
| So far, I've had people tell me they were 'Born Again' and just
figured they know what they were talking about. I've never been
in a situation where I told someone that they were a 'Born Again'.
I always thought that a 'Born Again' was someone who confessed Christ,
could usually tell you the date when they accepted Christ, and who
called himself a 'Born Again'. I always thought, too, that a
'Born Again' was another form of Protestant. Not saying I'm right,
of course. Just my impressions.
Steve
|
| 97.49 | sorry about the side track | CASPRO::PRESTON | Better AI than none at all | Fri Feb 10 1989 15:07 | 16 |
| The term 'born again' is taken from Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus,
in which he tells Nicodemus, 'you must be born again'. The reason
I asked the question in the first place is that Paul used the term,
"a Born Again", as though it was a label Mormons were familiar with,
and I wanted to know what it meant. Like Steve, I've never heard
the term used as a noun. If the term is not in common use among
Mormons, then let me say that I think that Christians who feel they
are born-again, as Christ meant it, might chafe a bit if the term
were applied to them in the way that Paul used it. My suggestion is
to not make a label out of it.
Also, in my experience, being born-again does not necessarily result
in speaking in tongues, as Paul supposes.
Ed
|
| 97.50 | Born Again | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Fri Feb 10 1989 22:47 | 6 |
| Mormons do believe that we are "born again", in the sense that Jesus
used it, according to a recent conference talk by President Gordon
B. Hinckley (as I recall). However, the term is applied differently
by different denominations.
Rich
|
| 97.51 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | quality first cause quality lasts | Mon Feb 13 1989 02:01 | 25 |
| Hmm. Sounds like a little miscommunication going on here. I think
that Paul would respond to clear up what he meant, but he was involved
in an accident over the weekend and will probably not be able to
respond for a while. It was not life-threatening, but was plenty
serious.
For what it's worth, I think I have heard of Born Again as a noun,
but recall first hearing it from someone referring to himself as
such. (I don't recall it having been used as an official term of
the Church at any time.) He was a good engineering student, and he
and I were good friends in school.
His group had a rally that was much publicized. He took part in this
by putting 'He Is Coming on <date>' on the chalk boards in the
engineering school. He did it one word at a time, adding a new word
each week. Nobody knew who it was that was doing it and most were pretty
critical of whoever it was. I thought it was pretty gutsy on his part
and they did have good turnout. Had to admire him for that. He
wasn't much interested in the Book of Mormon, and I wasn't much
interested in the rally. But, we shared a lot of common enthusiasm
for the Gospel and had good Christian fellowship. After the
blackboard thing, I think I was one of the few friends he could
confide in when he 'confessed'. ;-)
Steve
|
| 97.52 | can we behold the LORD ? | NZOV01::MUTCH | Is reality chaos after all | Mon Feb 13 1989 22:40 | 18 |
| Many christians adhear to what we call the Trinity 3 in 1 lord
but I belive that most assume that christ can to earth to assume
the form of a man for a bit of insight to the nature of the son
jesus prior to this look at John chapter 1 in the New testament
we also read of such terms as seated at the right hand of god
and other terms in the Apocolypse of John in order to describe the
form of christ now it is a complicated subject and one that can
easily confuse with incidents like christs appearance after
his death complete with scars in tandem with johns lofty
spritual visions of heaven so answers which classify the
entirity or elements of god are bound to fail whatever
position one takes. I think that the LORD has shown his presence
in so many differing ways (shrouded in smoke, leaving the temple,
as a voice with no visual appearance) that we might be a little
silly to pin his form down to anything we know about.
I fall into the christian trinity catagory.
|
| 97.53 | Can a person see God? | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Tue Feb 14 1989 10:51 | 178 |
| Re: Note 97.52 by NZOV01::MUTCH
> -< can we behold the LORD ? >-
I believe that we can behold the Lord, if it is His will that we do so.
A while back I posted a note in another conference on this subject,
which includes many Biblical references on this subject.
Rich
================================================================================
Note 780.1 Can a person see God? 1 of 15
RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter" 160 lines 21-OCT-1988 20:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-< Many have seen God >-
The question "Can a person see God?" is at the heart of knowing the
nature of God and of knowing the truth of the Bible.
Some Say No One Can See God
---------------------------
As the basis for their conclusion, the following scriptures are often
referenced:
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no
man see me, and live." (Exodus 33:20)
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
(John 1:18)
"Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it
sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time
with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that
hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then,
Shew us the father? (John 14:8-9)
In spite of the references above, it appears that there is a conflict,
since there are quite a number of references that show that many have
seen God.
Examples from the Bible of Those Who Have Seen God
--------------------------------------------------
Stephen saw God, as he was being stoned:
"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly
into heaven, and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing on
the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens
opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of
God." (Acts 7:55-56)
Jacob saw God:
"And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have
seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Genesis
32:30)
Moses saw God:
"And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man
speaketh unto his friend." (Exodus 33:11)
"With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and
not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he
behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my
servant Moses?" (Numbers 11:8)
Seventy elders of Israel saw God:
"Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy
of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and
there was under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire
stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his
hand: also they saw God..." (Exodus 24:9-11)
Solomon saw God twice:
"And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was
turned from the Lord God of Israel, which had appeared unto
him twice" (1 Kings 11:9)
Isaiah saw God:
"Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man
of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of
unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of
hosts." (Isaiah 6:5)
Ezekiel saw the glory of the Lord:
"...This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of
the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and heard a
voice of one that spake." (Ezekiel 1:28)
John saw God:
"...I saw... one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a
garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a
golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool,
as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; and
his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a
furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. ...And
when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his
right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first
and the last." (Rev 1:12-17)
How Do We resolve this Apparent Conflict?
-----------------------------------------
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no
man see me, and live." (Exodus 33:20)
On this occasion, the Lord was very angry because the Israelites had
disobeyed God by building a golden calf. Because the Lord was angry,
any man who should see Him *at that time* WOULD perish. The fact that
Moses and the other Israelites had seen him and others saw him,
indicates that this was not a permanent condition.
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
(John 1:18)
Given the context of the whole Bible, this statement of John's seems
not to correlate with his other statements on this subject. This is
shown by the following verse, also written by John, which indicates
that he which is of God can see God, and by the verse above from
Revelations, where John testifies that he saw God in His Glory:
"Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of
God, he hath seen the Father" (John 6:46)
What of this passage?
"Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it
sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time
with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that
hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then,
Shew us the father? (John 14:8-9)
Jesus taught that he is in the express image of the Father. To see one
is to know what the other looks like.
What Does It Take to See God?
-----------------------------
So if it is possible to see God, what does it take for this to happen?
A person must be pure of heart:
"Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God."
(Matt 5:8)
The Son must reveal him:
"...no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth
any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the
Son will reveal him." (Matt 11:28)
A person must follow peace and holiness:
"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no
man shall see the Lord:" (Heb 12:14)
Summary
-------
Can a person see God? It is clear that many have. Some have seen both
the Father and the Son. The Savior promised that the pure in heart
would see God. For a person to see God, he must be prepared and protected
in a special way by God, so as to survive the experience.
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 97.54 | Others saw God | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Tue Feb 14 1989 11:49 | 120 |
| In addition to the scriptural references from the Holy Bible that
indicate clearly that many have been blessed to see God, there are
references in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants that
also teach that a person can see God.
Isaiah, Nephi and Jacob saw Christ
----------------------------------
And now I, Nephi, write more of the words of Isaiah, for my soul
delighteth in his words, For I will liken his words unto my
people, and I will send them forth unto all my children, for he
verily saw my Redeemer, even as I have seen him.
And my brother, Jacob, also has seen him as I have seen him;
wherefore, I will send their words forth unto my children to prove
unto them that my words are true. Wherefore, by the words of
three, God hath said, I will establish my word. Nevertheless, God
sendeth more witnesses, and he proveth all his words. (2 Nephi
11:2-3)
Lamoni Sees Christ
------------------
For as sure as thou livest, behold, I have seen my Redeemer; and
he shall come forth, and be born of a woman, and he shall redeem
all mankind who believe on this name. (Alma 19:13)
The Brother of Jared Saw Christ
-------------------------------
And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself
unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are
redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my
presence; therefore I show myself unto you. Behold, I am he who
was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people.
Behold, I am Jesus Christ. Behold, this body, which ye now behold,
is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of
my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will
I appear unto my people in the flesh. (Selected passages from
Ether 3:13-16)
Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon saw God
--------------------------------------
And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him,
this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he
lives!
For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the
voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father --
That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were
created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and
daughters unto God. (D&C 76:22-24)
Priesthood necessary to see God
-------------------------------
And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the
priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the
flesh; For without this no man can see the face of God, even the
Father, and live. Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of
Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his
people that they might behold the face of God; But they hardened
their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the
Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore
that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness,
which rest is the fullness of his glory. Therefore, he took Moses
out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also; And the lesser
priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the
ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel; (D&C 84:21-26)
Sanctify yourselves to see God
-------------------------------
And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be
filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that
body which is filled light comprehendeth all things. Therefore,
sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God, and the
days will come that you shall see him; for he will unveil his face
unto you, and it shall be in his own time, and in his own way, and
according to his own will. (D&C 88:67-68)
Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul
who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name,
and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my
face and know that I am; (D&C 93:1)
Yea, and my presence shall be there [in the temple], for I will
come into it, and all the pure in heart that shall come into it
shall see God. (D&C 97:16)
Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery saw the Lord
--------------------------------------------
The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our
understanding were opened. We saw the Lord standing upon the
breastwork of the pulpit [of the temple], before us; and under his
feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber. His eyes
were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the
pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun;
and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters,
even the voice of Jehovah, saying:
I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was
slain; I am your advocate with the Father. Behold, your sins are
forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your
heads and rejoice.
Let the hearts of your brethren rejoice, and let the hearts of all
my people rejoice, who have, with their might built this house to
my name. For behold, I have accepted this house, and my name shall
be here; and I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this
house.
Yea, I will appear unto my servants, and speak unto them with mine
own voice, if my people will keep my commandments, and do not
pollute this holy house. (D&C 110:1-8)
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 97.55 | Moses saw God | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Tue Feb 14 1989 12:48 | 115 |
| In the Pearl of Great Price, there is more information about Moses
seeing God. In the interest of time, I have only included part of
this account.
Moses saw God
-------------
And he [Moses] saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and
the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his
presence.
And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God
Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of
days or end of years; and is not this endless?
And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee
the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are
without end, and also my words, for they never cease.
Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my
glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain
in the flesh on the earth.
And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the
similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and
shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there
is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I
know them all.
And now, behold, this one thing I show unto the, Moses, my son,
for thou art in the world, and now I show it unto thee. And it
came to pass that Moses looked, and beheld the world upon which he
was created; and Moses beheld the world and the ends thereof, and
all the children of men which are, and which were created; of the
same he greatly marveled and wondered.
And the presence of God withdrew from Moses, that his glory was
not upon Moses; and Moses was left unto himself. And as he was
left unto himself, he fell unto the earth.
And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before
Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man; and he
said unto himself: Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing,
which thing I never had supposed.
But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my
spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I
should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was
upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him.
The account also relates how Satan appeared to Moses and tempted Moses
to worship him.
And it came to pass that Moses began to fear exceedingly; and as
he began to fear, he saw the bitterness of hell. Nevertheless,
calling upon God, he received strength, and he commanded, saying:
Depart from me, Satan, for this one God only will I worship, which
is the God of glory.
And now Satan began to tremble, and the earth shook; and Moses
received strength, and called upon God, saying: In the name of the
Only Begotten, depart hence, Satan.
And it came to pass that Satan cried with a loud voice, with
weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth; and he departed
hence, even from the presence of Moses, that he beheld him not.
And now of this thing Moses bore record; but because of wickedness
it is not had among the children of men.
And it came to pass that when Satan had departed from the presence
of Moses, that Moses lifted up his eyes unto heaven, being filled
with the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and the
Son;
And calling upon the name of God, he beheld his glory again, for
it was upon him; and he heard a voice, saying: Blessed art thou,
Moses, for I, the Almighty, have chosen thee, and though shalt be
made stronger than many waters; for they shall obey thy command as
if thou wert God.
And lo, I am with thee, even unto the end of thy days; for thou
shalt deliver my people from bondage, even Israel my chosen.
And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast
his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was
not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the
spirit of God.
And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a
soul which he beheld not;
And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses
stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face.
And the Lord God said unto Moses: for mine own purpose have I made
these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.
And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine
Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.
And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them
for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine
Only Begotten.
And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so
shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my
words.
For behold, this is my work and my glory -- to bring to pass the
immortality and eternal life of man.
(Selected passages from Moses 1)
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 97.56 | Back to the original question | SLSTRN::RONDINA | | Tue Feb 14 1989 13:42 | 28 |
| To Ed Preston:
Ed,
"Born Again", as a noun, has been appearing in articles, news magazines
and other media for about a year or two (at least the media I read).
True, the correct name is Born Again Christian (aka fundamentalist
Christian). So ,for what it is worth, when I use the term Born
Again with these type Christians, they usually know exactly what
I mean. By the way, they are the ones who told me the way to recognize
a BA is by their telling you that they have had a speaking in tongues
experience.
I agree with you that the label Born Again or Fundamentalist is
starting to take on pejorative connotations. Remember the Jesus
Freaks of the 1970's,
I have a feeling that the media is trying to paint the BA and
Fundmentalists as the same types.
Anyhow, I have not yet received an answer from anyone (preferably
non-Mormon) about my original question, which was:
In the heavens is the Godhead made up of 3 distinct and separate
persons, one with body (Jesus) and the other 2 (Father and Holy
Ghost) spirits only?
Paul
|
| 97.57 | Abraham and Joseph Smith's First Vision | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Tue Feb 14 1989 14:42 | 175 |
| In addition to the accounts that I have already posted, there are
two others that bear mentioning:
Abraham saw God
---------------
Thus I, Abraham, talked with the Lord, face to face, as one
man talketh with another; and he told me of the works which
his hands had made;
And he said unto me: My son, my son (and his had was stretched
out), behold I will show you all these. And he put his hand
upon mine eyes, and I saw those thins which his hands had made,
which were many; and they multiplied before mine eyes, and
I could not see the end thereof. (Abraham 3:11-12)
Joseph Smith's First Vision
---------------------------
(Borrowed from note 4.14)
Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester,
there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the
subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon
became general among all the sects in that region of country.
Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and
great multitudes united themselves to the different religious
parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the
people, some crying, "Lo, here!" and others, "Lo there!" Some were
contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and
some for the Baptist.
For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these
different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and
the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were
active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of
religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they
were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet
when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to
another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the
priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a
scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued--priest contending
against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their
good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely
lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions. (Joseph
Smith--History 1:5-6)
Joseph was interested in religion and wanted to join a church. However,
because of the differing claims and contention, he was confused.
In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often
said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are
right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be
right, which is it and how shall I know it? (Joseph Smith--History
1:10)
Joseph turned to the Bible for guidance.
While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the
contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading
the epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads:
'If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all
men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him'.
Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the
heart of man than this did at the time to mine. It seemed to
enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I
reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed
wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless
I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for
the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the
same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all
confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.
At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in
darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that
is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to "ask of
God," concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked
wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might
venture.
So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I
retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning
of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred
and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such
an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made
the attempt to pray vocally.
After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed
to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I
kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God.
I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some
power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing
influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak.
Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time
as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.
But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of
the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very
moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to
destruction--not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some
actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power
as I had never before felt in any being--just at this moment of
great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above
the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell
upon me.
It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy
which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two
Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description,
standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling
me by name and said, pointing to the other--'This is My Beloved
Son. Hear Him!' (Joseph Smith--History 1:11-17)
I testify that God the Eternal Father and his Son Jesus Christ appeared
to Joseph Smith!
My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all
the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner,
therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to
speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the
light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had
never entered into my heart that all were wrong)--and which I
should join.
I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all
wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their
creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors
were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the
commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the
power thereof."
He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other
things did he say unto me, which I can not write at this time....
(Joseph Smith--History 1:18-20)
Knowledge Restored Through Joseph's Vision
------------------------------------------
Through this vision in the spring of 1820, we learn the
following.
1. God and Jesus Christ both have glorified and perfect bodies
of flesh and bone. They are distinct, separate personages.
2. None of the churches at that time were accepted by Christ and
had the authority of God.
3. The creeds taught by the churches were false. Examples of
such creeds are the Nicene and Athanasian creeds which teach
the "mystery" of the trinity. It is significant that the
first knowledge restored in the restitution of all things was
a true knowledge of God, for Jesus said it was life eternal
to know God (John 17:3).
The Churches Are All Wrong
--------------------------
Jesus told Joseph that he must join none of the existing churches
for they were all wrong. Jesus DID NOT mean that the people in
those churches had no faith in Christ. Jesus DID NOT mean that
the people did not have their prayers answered. Jesus DID NOT
mean that the people were bad or evil.
Jesus DID mean that none of the churches had the authority of
God. Jesus DID mean that the churches were teaching false creeds
and doctrines, teachings which had been introduced after the
death of the Apostles by corrupt and misguided Bishops and other
officials. Jesus DID mean that there was much more to the Gospel
of Jesus Christ than that found in the available churches.
|
| 97.58 | Jesus's glory with the Father | CLIMB::LEIGH | Blessed are the meek; | Thu Feb 23 1989 15:09 | 43 |
| In his discussion with Rich in Note 212, Charlie made some interesting
comments about Jesus. I began to discuss them with Charlie but decided that
I should continue that discussion in this note to avoid fragmenting 212.
Allen
================================================================================
Note 212.16 The Priesthood 16 of 17
CLIMB::LEIGH "Blessed are the meek;" 47 lines 21-FEB-1989 17:36
-< Jesus is Jehovah >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Charlie,
[part unrelated to the Godhead removed]
> By Jesus' own words he preexisted Abraham.
We believe that prior to his birth of Mary, Jesus was the Jehovah of the
Old Testament. I just posted 4.70 which gives background information for
this belief. When he told the Jews that "Before Abraham was, I am", we
believe he was telling them that before Abraham was born, he existed as
the I AM, i.e. as Jehovah.
> It is stated in Hebrews
> that Melchisedec had neither [human] father or mother or beginning of days
> [this assumes that you can accept this as it relates to the person as
> opposed to the order :)]. Rather than being simply 'in the flesh', I
> believe that Jesus appeared to Abram in much the same form as he appeared
> to the men on the road to Emmaus having reentered the glorified state
> which He had before being made flesh. [John 17:5]
We know from Luke 24 that when Jesus appeared to the two disciples going to
Emmaus, he had a resurrected body of flesh and bones. What I think I hear
you saying, Charlie, is that you believe that Christ had glorified flesh and
bones when he appeared to Abram, then later was born of Mary and had mortal
flesh and bones, and then after the resurrection had glorified flesh and
bones again. I wanted to be sure that I understood what you meant when you
said Jesus appeared to Abram "in much the same form as he appeared to the men
on the road to Emmaus", so I thought I'd check with you about it.
Allen
|
| 97.59 | | CLIMB::LEIGH | Blessed are the meek; | Thu Feb 23 1989 15:09 | 42 |
| ================================================================================
Note 212.17 The Priesthood 17 of 17
WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON "A white stone with my new name." 37 lines 22-FEB-1989 14:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Note 212.16 by CLIMB::LEIGH "Blessed are the meek;"
Hi Allen,
>> By Jesus' own words he preexisted Abraham.
>We believe that prior to his birth of Mary, Jesus was the Jehovah of the
>Old Testament. I just posted 4.70 which gives background information for
>this belief. When he told the Jews that "Before Abraham was, I am", we
>believe he was telling them that before Abraham was born, he existed as
>the I AM, i.e. as Jehovah.
Yes, I agree.
>We know from Luke 24 that when Jesus appeared to the two disciples going to
>Emmaus, he had a resurrected body of flesh and bones. What I think I hear
>you saying, Charlie, is that you believe that Christ had glorified flesh and
>bones when he appeared to Abram, then later was born of Mary and had mortal
>flesh and bones, and then after the resurrection had glorified flesh and
>bones again. I wanted to be sure that I understood what you meant when you
>said Jesus appeared to Abram "in much the same form as he appeared to the men
>on the road to Emmaus", so I thought I'd check with you about it.
All I can say for sure is, that we know from Scripture that Jesus had
a glorified body of flesh and bone after having a mortal body. It's
difficult to conclude exactly what physical form he assumed prior to
his earthly existance as a mortal. I did assume that it might have
resembled his post-mortal form because of John 17:5. Here Jesus recounts
the fact that He was a glorified being with God the Father prior to His
mortal existance.
Philippians 2:6-8 also tells us that Jesus 'emptied Himself' and 'took on
the form of a servant' indicating that He willfully gave up His glorified
form to become a mortal being.
God bless,
Charlie
|
| 97.60 | Condescension of God | CLIMB::LEIGH | Blessed are the meek; | Thu Feb 23 1989 15:10 | 66 |
| I hope, Charlie, that you don't mind me switching this discussion to this
note. We're getting into some beautiful concepts, and I thought I would
like to enjoy them with you.
> All I can say for sure is, that we know from Scripture that Jesus had
> a glorified body of flesh and bone after having a mortal body. It's
> difficult to conclude exactly what physical form he assumed prior to
> his earthly existance as a mortal. I did assume that it might have
> resembled his post-mortal form because of John 17:5. Here Jesus recounts
> the fact that He was a glorified being with God the Father prior to His
> mortal existance.
We believe that John 17:5 refers to Jesus' being a member of the Godhead prior
to the creation of the earth, a time referred to in Mormon doctrine as the
"pre-existance". As I explained in notes 4.1 and 4.2, we believe he was a
personage of spirit in the pre-existance. So, from our viewpoint, the glory
referred to in John 17:5 is his glory as a member of the Godhead rather than
glory from having a perfect body of flesh and bones. After his resurrection,
of course, he then did have a perfect body of flesh and bones. While a member
of the Godhead in this pre-existance, he was chosen (foreordained) to be the
Messiah, and he created the earth.
Three notes that give background information about Jesus' glory with the
Father before the earth was formed are
4.50 Where did we come from
4.51 Jesus is the Firstborn
4.52 War in Heaven
> Philippians 2:6-8 also tells us that Jesus 'emptied Himself' and 'took on
> the form of a servant' indicating that He willfully gave up His glorified
> form to become a mortal being.
That is one of the beautiful concepts of Christianity--Jesus, as a member of
the Godhead, willingly becoming mortal and suffering for the sins of everyone
that he might complete his atonement. We believe that those verses in
Philippians refer to his giving up his "position" and glory in the Godhead to
become mortal rather than giving up a perfect body of flesh and bonds for a
mortal body. The Book of Mormon speaks of this as the condescension of God.
And it came to pass that he [the Spirit of the Lord who came to Nephi in
vision] said unto me: Look! And I looked as if to look upon him, and I
saw him not; for he had gone from before my presence. And it came to
pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also
other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of
Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.
And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down
and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?
And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other
virgins.
And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God? And I said
unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not
know the meaning of all things. And he said unto me: Behold, the
virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner
of the flesh.
And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the
Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space
of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!
And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.
And the angel said unto me; Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of
the Eternal Father!... (1 Nephi 11:12-21)
|
| 97.61 | | WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON | A white stone with my new name. | Thu Feb 23 1989 18:30 | 41 |
| RE: Note 97.60 by CLIMB::LEIGH "Blessed are the meek;"
Hi Allen,
>I hope, Charlie, that you don't mind me switching this discussion to this
>note. We're getting into some beautiful concepts, and I thought I would
>like to enjoy them with you.
I don't mind at all Allen.
>We believe that John 17:5 refers to Jesus' being a member of the Godhead prior
>to the creation of the earth, a time referred to in Mormon doctrine as the
>"pre-existance". As I explained in notes 4.1 and 4.2, we believe he was a
>personage of spirit in the pre-existance. So, from our viewpoint, the glory
>referred to in John 17:5 is his glory as a member of the Godhead rather than
>glory from having a perfect body of flesh and bones. After his resurrection,
>of course, he then did have a perfect body of flesh and bones. While a member
>of the Godhead in this pre-existance, he was chosen (foreordained) to be the
>Messiah, and he created the earth.
I will have to review 4.1 and 4.2 but I find little, unorthodox, in the
above, from 'mainstream' Christian belief.
RE: Philippians 2:6-8
>That is one of the beautiful concepts of Christianity--Jesus, as a member of
>the Godhead, willingly becoming mortal and suffering for the sins of everyone
>that he might complete his atonement. We believe that those verses in
>Philippians refer to his giving up his "position" and glory in the Godhead to
>become mortal rather than giving up a perfect body of flesh and bonds for a
>mortal body.
I see that your stressing Jesus' divine 'position' as opposed to His
'form' in the above and as I previously mentioned, I really have no
idea just what His form was, only that, as Jehovah [LORD], it seems
that He did appear to Abram in the form of a 'man' such as in Genesis
17. Now whether this was a glorified/perfect body of flesh and bone
I cannot be certain, but it must have resembled a man's form somehow
or Abram wouldn't have recognized Him as such, wouldn't you agree?
Charlie
|
| 97.62 | spirit matter | CLIMB::LEIGH | Blessed are the meek; | Fri Feb 24 1989 21:29 | 43 |
| Hi Charlie,
> I will have to review 4.1 and 4.2 but I find little, unorthodox, in the
> above, from 'mainstream' Christian belief.
The reason I moved the discussion to this note was not because we might
differ in our beliefs, but so we as fellow Christians could enjoy the
scriptures together for a few moments, for we have a common faith in Christ.
> I see that your stressing Jesus' divine 'position' as opposed to His
> 'form' in the above and as I previously mentioned, I really have no
> idea just what His form was, only that, as Jehovah [LORD], it seems
> that He did appear to Abram in the form of a 'man' such as in Genesis
> 17. Now whether this was a glorified/perfect body of flesh and bone
> I cannot be certain, but it must have resembled a man's form somehow
> or Abram wouldn't have recognized Him as such, wouldn't you agree?
We believe that Jesus, prior to being born of Mary, was a personage of
spirit, and it was in that form that he was Jehovah. I emphasis the word
'personage', for we do not believe that spirits are immaterial. In the
Book of Mormon, Jesus as Jehovah appeared to a man known as the brother
of Jared. The brother of Jared was surprised to see that the Lord had
flesh and blood, and Jehovah corrected him and explained that he was seeing
the body of his spirit. To the brother of Jared, the spirit body looked
like a mortal body, i.e. it had form and shape as our bodies do. We believe
it was with his spirit body that he appeared to Abram.
From our viewpoint, then, we would say that Jesus had a spirit body prior to
being born of Mary and was a member of the Godhead and was the Jehovah
of the Old Testament. Then he had a mortal body. Then he had a resurrected
body of glorified flesh and bones, as he explained to the apostles. Since
he will never die again, he will always have that glorified resurrected
body.
Joseph Smith said that spirits were matter, but of a "more refined" or
more "pure" type than our mortal matter. I guess a mathematician would
say that spirit matter is in a different dimension than mortal matter, or
something like that.
Allen
|
| 97.72 | Does God have faith? | CACHE::LEIGH | Do not procrastinate repentance | Mon Nov 13 1989 11:22 | 6 |
| My wife and I were interviewed last night by a member of our Stake Presidency
for our Temple recommends. After the interviews were over, we discussed
an interesting question: Does God have faith? My wife and the Counselor
said yes and I said no.
What do you think?
|
| 97.73 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Mon Nov 13 1989 12:03 | 11 |
| Hmmm. I think that God has certain knowledge of things that we can only have
faith in. But, I think that He has faith concerning things that have not yet
occurred. Though He can do many things, I don't figure He does the time travel
bit. But, when I refer to God's faith, I think I refer to something that is
a perfect faith, based on the hopes and knowledge He has about His children
and the eternities. Perhaps His faith would to us seem to be knowledge, since
the only difference between faith and knowledge becomes the issue of, for
example, whether an event has yet transpired. Does that cloud things up
enough? ;)
Steve
|
| 97.74 | | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Mon Nov 13 1989 12:30 | 18 |
|
I believe that God could have faith as pertaining to his capacity to
organise future worlds. It would have to be in the realm that Steve brought
up. The only problem here is within our own definition of Faith as given
by Alma. "..Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if
ye have faith ye hope for things which are true." Alma 32:21 To say
that God has faith implies that God does not have a perfect knowledge
of things. However if you subscribe to the idea that God can increase
in knowledge, that says that there must be things hoped for but not yet
realised. For God that might mean more creations or our own attainment
of Godhood which would increases his glory. Lastly, the existence of more
than one God implies that there is some structure, a family relationship
if you will. We don't know of those relationships, but they might involve
faith.
Kevin
and perhaps there is a relationship
|
| 97.75 | God is Omniscient | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Mon Nov 13 1989 12:50 | 16 |
| Interesting question!
I do not believe that God can increase in knowledge, for He is
omniscient (all knowing). He knows all things, and there is not
anything that He does not know. Since faith is "the substance of things
hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb 11:1), then I would
say that God does not have faith, for it has been superceded by pure
and perfect knowledge of all things.
Also, Alma speaks about how, when one obtains a perfect knowledge
of things, he no longer has faith in it, but a pure knowledge of
it.
In Christ's Love,
Rich
|
| 97.76 | | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Mon Nov 13 1989 14:33 | 10 |
| Hi!
Brigham Young and Orson Pratt had a similar discussion to this
in 1860. Brigham took the view that God could increase in knowledge;
Orson held that there could be no increase. Brigham won the discussion
then; (being the prophet had it's advantages!) Of course, LDS prescribes
to Orson's view today. (the pamplets and writings containg Orson's
doctrine were ordered destroyed, but some survived)
Kevin
|
| 97.77 | Go Right to the Source | XCUSME::QUAYLE | i.e. Ann | Tue Nov 14 1989 10:13 | 4 |
| Have you asked Him?
aq
|
| 97.78 | This IS an interesting question | CURIE::WAGNER | | Tue Nov 14 1989 17:35 | 6 |
| In "Lectures on Faith", the statement is made that 'Faith is the
principle on which all actions are based'. Specifically, it states
that it was by faith that the earth was formed. Since God acts, he
must have faith.
Jim
|
| 97.79 | | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Tue Nov 14 1989 17:46 | 4 |
|
Good reference, Jim!
Kevin
|
| 97.80 | Does God NEED Faith? | NWD002::DULL_TA | You gotta love it! | Wed Nov 15 1989 04:19 | 90 |
| I must say, Allen, this is a very thought-provoking question. I agree with
you and Rich, in that I don't believe that God has faith. He doesn't need
faith - he is omniscient and omnipotent.
Outlined below are some questions I have as a result of reading the replies
posted so far to this note. Please realize that I am just trying to get
a better understanding of where everyone is coming from.
>Re: .2 by DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV
> However if you subscribe to the idea that God can increase
> in knowledge, that says that there must be things hoped for but not yet
> realised. For God that might mean more creations or our own attainment
> of Godhood which would increases his glory. Lastly, the existence of more
> than one God implies that there is some structure, a family relationship
> if you will. We don't know of those relationships, but they might involve
> faith.
Kevin:
Subscribe to the idea? Where did this idea that *God can increase in knowledge*
originate? Is it in the Bible, in LDS scriptures, i.e. the Triple Combination,
or in some historical Church teachings?
My next question may be addressed elsewhere in the conference; if so, please
direct me to the appropriate note(s). Is the "existence of more than one
God" a Biblical concept or is it strictly an LDS concept? Upon reading
the Old Testament the last few months, it is very clear that there is only
one God.
>Re: .4 by DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV
> Brigham Young and Orson Pratt had a similar discussion to this
> in 1860. Brigham took the view that God could increase in knowledge;
> Orson held that there could be no increase. Brigham won the discussion
> then; (being the prophet had it's advantages!) Of course, LDS prescribes
> to Orson's view today. (the pamplets and writings containg Orson's
> doctrine were ordered destroyed, but some survived)
Kevin again:
Okay, please help me understand this. I have *always* had trouble
understanding this stuff . . .
Brigham Young was the prophet. Orsen Pratt, I assume, was an apostle or
seventy, i.e. a General Authority. These two MEN are discussing this issue
of whether or not God has faith. Brigham says yes; Orson says no. Brigham
won? How did he win? Did God reveal to Brigham only that he was right
or did he reveal it to both men or what?
Just for a moment, let us all accept that Brigham was indeed a prophet called
of God, and that God revealed to Brigham that "Yes, Brigham, I do have faith."
And as a prophet, Brigham revealed God's "word" to Orson and others as
directed. Now, as a prophet, you would expect that what he would reveal
to the people would stand the test of time.
So why is it that the "LDS prescribe to Orson's view today"? Orson wasn't
a prophet. Why have the LDS folks stopped believing in the words of
a prophet to believe in the words of another man?
I have lots of questions around this - which should probably be addressed in
another topic. On that note, I'll stop this line of questioning.
>Re: . 6 by CURIE::WAGNER
> In "Lectures on Faith", the statement is made that 'Faith is the
> principle on which all actions are based'. Specifically, it states
> that it was by faith that the earth was formed. Since God acts, he
> must have faith.
Jim:
Isn't the book "Lectures on Faith" a written format of lectures that were
taught at the School of the Prophets in Kirkland, Ohio, back in the early
history of the Church? I'm trying to remember if I've got the right source
in mind.
The statement "it was by faith that the earth was formed" bothers me. By
what faith? I believe that God knew *exactly* what he was doing when he
created the earth. Does your reference elaborate more on this topic?
**************
Still as curious as ever,
Tamara
|
| 97.81 | Important question, lets discuss it! | CACHE::LEIGH | Do not procrastinate repentance | Wed Nov 15 1989 10:26 | 19 |
| Hi Tamara,
>My next question may be addressed elsewhere in the conference; if so, please
>direct me to the appropriate note(s). Is the "existence of more than one
>God" a Biblical concept or is it strictly an LDS concept? Upon reading
>the Old Testament the last few months, it is very clear that there is only
>one God.
You've brought up a a very important question, one that we all need to
reflect upon. I just moved a modified version of 4.67 into note 4. I
discuss two Old Testament scriptures that opponents of the LDS Church
quote against us. If you do a DIR/KEY=GODHEAD you will get a list of the
notes that discuss God. Most of them are specific (as this note is), so
you might want to start a new note about the question is there more one
God and express your concerns about the LDS teaching of the plurality of
Gods. I have a few observations to make, but I'll save them for the new
note.
Allen
|
| 97.82 | | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Wed Nov 15 1989 12:06 | 91 |
|
>> However if you subscribe to the idea that God can increase
>> in knowledge, that says that there must be things hoped for but not yet
>> realised. For God that might mean more creations or our own attainment
>> of Godhood which would increases his glory. Lastly, the existence of more
>> than one God implies that there is some structure, a family relationship
>> if you will. We don't know of those relationships, but they might involve
>> faith.
>Kevin:
>Subscribe to the idea? Where did this idea that *God can increase in knowledge*
>originate? Is it in the Bible, in LDS scriptures, i.e. the Triple Combination,
>or in some historical Church teachings?
Hi Tamara!
I don't have my reference handy, but I've seen some of Brigham Young's wri-
tings/discourses that have brought this up. I'll post them as soon as I can.
>>Re: .4 by DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV
>> Brigham Young and Orson Pratt had a similar discussion to this
>> in 1860. Brigham took the view that God could increase in knowledge;
>> Orson held that there could be no increase. Brigham won the discussion
>> then; (being the prophet had it's advantages!) Of course, LDS prescribes
>> to Orson's view today. (the pamplets and writings containg Orson's
>> doctrine were ordered destroyed, but some survived)
>Kevin again:
>Okay, please help me understand this. I have *always* had trouble
>understanding this stuff . . .
>Brigham Young was the prophet. Orsen Pratt, I assume, was an apostle or
>seventy, i.e. a General Authority. These two MEN are discussing this issue
>of whether or not God has faith. Brigham says yes; Orson says no. Brigham
>won? How did he win? Did God reveal to Brigham only that he was right
>or did he reveal it to both men or what?
Forgive me for my choice of words. Brigham felt it necessary during the
late 1850's-60's to call down Orson Pratt for some of his "theories" he
expounded in his many pamphlets. Brigham felt that Orson was philosophising
in his writings and using the ideas of men, rather than inspiration. I say
that Brigham "won" in that, even though Orson was scolded and some of his
writings were purged, eventually LDS leaders have come over to Orson's
view in some areas. The Adam-God doctrine was another point of contention
at the same time. Orson couldn't accept it and he was blunt to Brigham
about it. I believe Orson wasn't alone, for at because in time the before
mentioned items have been changed. As I see it, given time, many older
beliefs that may not stand up to scrutiny are eventually discarded, with
little fanfare. The early church was full of good men who may have
speculated alot. We must understand this and not be disturbed by apparent
conflicts in doctrine that arise.
>Just for a moment, let us all accept that Brigham was indeed a prophet called
>of God, and that God revealed to Brigham that "Yes, Brigham, I do have faith."
>And as a prophet, Brigham revealed God's "word" to Orson and others as
>directed. Now, as a prophet, you would expect that what he would reveal
>to the people would stand the test of time.
*My* own belief here is that much that Brigham revealed is truth. Now,
it is up to all of us to accept or reject his teachings, just as our modern
prophets teachings. Some of what we teach today may not wash in say, the
next 150 years. It doesn't mean that the doctrine of today is not true.
It's just the gospel is an evolving thing, some doctrines, teachings just
don't stand up to the test of time. A GA recently was excommunicated,
in part because he claimed one prevailing doctrine had been changed.
It'll be interesting to see if in the next 50 years or so, if the doctrine
indeed has changed.
>So why is it that the "LDS prescribe to Orson's view today"? Orson wasn't
>a prophet. Why have the LDS folks stopped believing in the words of
>a prophet to believe in the words of another man?
Just as I brought up before. We need to sort out what is speculation from
what is doctrine, and our early leaders, sometimes speculated. You see
today that if there is speculation, it is VERY low keyed, but I believe
it's still there. Many leaders speculated on the reason for Blacks not
receiving the Priesthood up to the point where the revelation was received,
allowing it. B. Young, on ther other hand taught that the day we allowed
them to receive the priesthood we would be damning ourselves. You need to
look at the time period when he was speaking and society then. Did he
assert personal opinions? I can't answer that question. It's up to us as
individuals to come up with a prayerful answer to that. As it is, the
new revelation has taken care of the speculation. ALL can share in the
blessings today.
Kevin
|
| 97.83 | | ARCHER::PRESTON | Punch it, Margaret! | Wed Nov 15 1989 12:22 | 14 |
| It's interesting how - depending upon the circumstances - a prophet's
or apostle's words (no matter what the potential impact) can be
categorized into "opinion" or "doctrine" depending upon the need
of the moment. At least that's the way it's beginning to sound...
Also, if God imparts faith, doesn't it stand to reason that He must
also have it? Besides, who says that the presence of faith proves
a shortage of knowledge? I think that faith is beyond our ability
to neatly categorize, and that although intellectually diverting,
a discussion like this is of no benefit.
Ed
|
| 97.107 | Moved from note 284 by moderator | MIGHTY::WILLIAMS | Bryan Williams | Wed Nov 15 1989 15:32 | 21 |
| Re: .8
>My next question may be addressed elsewhere in the conference; if so, please
>direct me to the appropriate note(s). Is the "existence of more than one
>God" a Biblical concept or is it strictly an LDS concept? Upon reading
>the Old Testament the last few months, it is very clear that there is only
>one God.
Hi,
I believe it's a Biblical concept, but has been muddied through the
translations into English. Joseph Smith talked about this at length in
the Ken Follett Discourse (History of the Church, Vol 1, don't
remember the section off the top of my head). He takes particular
exception to the way the first word of the Genesis is translated. He
said something to the effect of the word really means "the head of the
Gods", but the translator didn't think that God only had a head, so he
changed the context from "the Head of the Gods" to "God". Very
interesting reading.
Bryan
|
| 97.108 | | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Wed Nov 15 1989 16:36 | 16 |
|
Hi Bryan!
Long time since I've heard from you! A fellow King Follett reader.. eh?
Yes, Joseph spoke in his discourse of the "head" God of the Gods.
I have the book "Words of Joseph Smith, by Cook and Ehat, that compare
the different accounts of this discourse. In it Joseph speaks of
of Eloheim (sp), or Gods He Also talks of the concept
of there not ever being a son without a father, which leads to the
mortality of God, that he was once a man. Given we all have that spark
of divinity in ourselves, ie, God's spirit children, we shouldn't be
surprised to hear that God was once a mortal man, resurrected, and
exalted to Godhood, and that this is just one of His glorious creations.
Kevin
|
| 97.84 | some thoughts to the matter | NORGE::CHAD | | Wed Nov 15 1989 18:12 | 57 |
| 97.85 | Allow me to expand a little | CURIE::WAGNER | | Wed Nov 15 1989 20:22 | 48 |
| RE: .8
Yes, the Lectures on Faith were actually prepared texts used at the
School of the Prophets. They were typically studied before the meeting
of the School. I'm not up enough on my history to give you much detail
of how the School of the Prophets operated when they met.
I just scanned through the past few replies, as I'm kind of pressed for
time, but having made an entry I feel a responsibility to respond to
questions about it.
Regarding whether God has faith, I like some of the comments I came
upon in .15. I suppose the operative words to be applied in examining
faith are "a sure knowledge". We know that faith is not to have a sure
knowledge.
For me, a working example is probably the best way to understand faith.
If I want to have beans with my dinner tonight, I will go to my
cupboard and take out a can labeled beans and proceed to open it. If
someone were to ask me what I was doing, I would tell them that I'm
getting ready to eat beans. I make this statement because I have faith
that the contents of the can are in fact what they are labeled to be.
In fact, I go through the action of opening the can, because of my
faith that doing so will allow me to have beans. It is not until I
remove the lid and look inside (after I have acted) that I have a sure
knowledge of the contents of the can. If I look into the can and find
peas, I have a sure knowledge that I have put my faith in a false
principle. If I find beans, then I have a sure knowledge of the
presence of beans AND that the principle upon which I acted is true.
If we apply my poor analogy to God's faith and omniscience - God
performed an act to create the earth. The reason he performed that act
is because he knew that doing so would result in earth being created.
He is omniscient in that he knows perfectly ALL correct and true
principles. Because of this, if one of us were to query him during the
creation process, he would have stated that he was creating an earth.
However, he must have faith in his knowledge of these correct
principles as a precondition to his using them to create the earth.
Writing this example, I feel it describes pretty well my understanding
of faith and how it is used by us and by God as a precondition for all
of our actions. I hope that it comes across clearly. I'll be happy to
respond or expand if I haven't effectively communicated some point.
Faithfully,
Jim
|
| 97.86 | Did God Create the Beans Too?? | NWD002::DULL_TA | You gotta love it! | Thu Nov 16 1989 06:11 | 54 |
|
> Re: .10 by DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV
Kevin:
I will be very interested in the references about God
increasing in knowledge. I have a few concerns/issues
with this concept - but instead of stating my concerns
here, I will start a new note.
> Re: .16 by CURIE::WAGNER
> If I want to have beans with my dinner tonight, I will go to my
> cupboard and take out a can labeled beans and proceed to open it. If
> someone were to ask me what I was doing, I would tell them that I'm
> getting ready to eat beans. I make this statement because I have faith
> that the contents of the can are in fact what they are labeled to be.
> In fact, I go through the action of opening the can, because of my
> faith that doing so will allow me to have beans. It is not until I
> remove the lid and look inside (after I have acted) that I have a sure
> knowledge of the contents of the can. If I look into the can and find
> peas, I have a sure knowledge that I have put my faith in a false
> principle. If I find beans, then I have a sure knowledge of the
> presence of beans AND that the principle upon which I acted is true.
>
> If we apply my poor analogy to God's faith and omniscience - God
> performed an act to create the earth. The reason he performed that act
> is because he knew that doing so would result in earth being created.
> He is omniscient in that he knows perfectly ALL correct and true
> principles. Because of this, if one of us were to query him during the
> creation process, he would have stated that he was creating an earth.
> However, he must have faith in his knowledge of these correct
> principles as a precondition to his using them to create the earth.
Jim:
Why must God 'have faith in his knowledge'? To use your can of beans analogy
- if you were the one who created the can, and the contents within (beans), and
the label on the outside - what faith would you need to know that there
were beans inside the can?
In the same light, you state that God 'knows perfectly ALL correct and true
principles.' I agree - He knows them because he created them. He didn't
have to learn them or acquire an understanding of them. The Bible teaches
us that God is the creator of ALL things.
Back to my original question: If God created the principles upon which
he created the earth, why would it require any faith on His part?
Regards,
Tamara
|
| 97.98 | There's More Than One God? | NWD002::DULL_TA | You gotta love it! | Thu Nov 16 1989 06:20 | 68 |
| This discussion is being moved from Note 284 regarding the existence of
more than one God. As suggested to me by Allen in 284.9, I will review
the appropriate notes pertaining to the Godhead. As of this time, I have
not done so. However, please realize that I spent 8 active years in the
Church, so I'm very familiar with the teachings of the Church on this concept.
[Taken from 284.8 by me]
>>My next question may be addressed elsewhere in the conference; if so, please
>>direct me to the appropriate note(s). Is the "existence of more than one
>>God" a Biblical concept or is it strictly an LDS concept? Upon reading
>>the Old Testament the last few months, it is very clear that there is only
>>one God.
It is my belief that the plurality of God concept is not Biblically based
meaning that it was not a concept taught in the Bible. I know that the
scriptures unique to the LDS church (Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants,
and Pearl of Great Price) do address this concept.
[Taken from 284.13 by MIGHTY::WILLIAMS]
>Re: .8
>
> Hi,
>
> I believe it's a Biblical concept, but has been muddied through the
> translations into English. Joseph Smith talked about this at length in
> the Ken Follett Discourse (History of the Church, Vol 1, don't
> remember the section off the top of my head). He takes particular
> exception to the way the first word of the Genesis is translated. He
> said something to the effect of the word really means "the head of the
> Gods", but the translator didn't think that God only had a head, so he
> changed the context from "the Head of the Gods" to "God". Very
> interesting reading.
Bryan:
Please clarify this for me. What does "the first word of the Genesis" refer
to - Genesis 1:1? What translation is Joseph Smith referring to?
[Taken from 284.14 DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV]
> Yes, Joseph spoke in his discourse of the "head" God of the Gods.
> I have the book "Words of Joseph Smith, by Cook and Ehat, that compare
> the different accounts of this discourse. In it Joseph speaks of
> of Eloheim (sp), or Gods He Also talks of the concept
> of there not ever being a son without a father, which leads to the
> mortality of God, that he was once a man. Given we all have that spark
> of divinity in ourselves, ie, God's spirit children, we shouldn't be
> surprised to hear that God was once a mortal man, resurrected, and
> exalted to Godhood, and that this is just one of His glorious creations.
Kevin:
I have very strong concerns about this issue of God being a man, etc. My
current understanding (taken from the Book of Abraham) is that God went
through his own 'plan of salvation' on his own planet (called Kolob) with
his own parents. And that his parents went through the same ordeal on their
planet with their parents etc. How in the world, in the cosmos, can any
mortal being 'evolve' into a divine, immortal being? If you don't have
the 'divine' genes within you to begin with, where does your 'divinity'
come from?
Regards,
Tamara
|
| 97.87 | | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Thu Nov 16 1989 11:55 | 37 |
|
> > Re: .10 by DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV
> I will be very interested in the references about God
> increasing in knowledge. I have a few concerns/issues
> with this concept - but instead of stating my concerns
> here, I will start a new note.
Tamara,
This is the gist of Brigham's problem with Orson. In "The Seer",
Orson proposed that once the Saints reached their exaltation, they
woould stand on an equal footing with the Father. That we will
know all, therefore there would be nothing more to learn. When Saints
reached that point they would become one with the Father and Son,
that would be the end of their progression. As for God's increase in
intelligence, From "The Seer" points 95-97 of "pre-existance of man"
argues the notion that God's intelligence cannot be increased or
expanded in the least degree. ("Orson Pratt", England, pg 211.)
Brigham Young rejected this idea as well as some other points of
doctrine. I haven't found any writings by Brigham Young elaborating
on his doctrine yet. Here is one ref. from 4 Mar 1860, from Brigham
to Orson. "I corrected O Pratt today I did not say to him that God
would increase to all Eternity. But I said the minute that we say
that God knows all things comprehends all things and has a fullness
of all that He ever will obtain that moment Eternity seases you put
bounds to Eternity & Space & matter and you make a stopping place"
(Wilford Woodruff Journal, 4 Mar 1860)
For a statement on present doctrine, McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" is a
good reference.
Kevin
|
| 97.99 | ChChChChChChanges. | CSC32::S_JOHNSON | Professional Wrestling is Real | Thu Nov 16 1989 12:18 | 37 |
| Hi Tamara,
Even though this question is not addressed to me, I would like to
respond. You ask how can we become divine if we do not have any
'divinity' genes in us. We do have 'divine' genes in us. I don't know
the specifics of what makes some of our genes divine, but this much I
do know. Another way to think of this problem is to ask what makes us
immortal. The scriptures teach us that we will become resurrected and
immortal (oops, almost typed immoral ;)). When we get resurrected,
something in our bodies changes. Some people have said that the blood
in our veins changes to something else that will make us immortal. I
suspect this change from mortality to immortality is either connected
to or similar to our becoming divine. The bottom line is this, there
is a change that occurs. I don't know if this change is sudden or
gradual. I don't know if this change is brought on by ourselves
internally or if it is brought about by external forces. I suspect it
is brought about gradually and internally.
As to the bible teaching about the plurality of Gods, it doesn't really
come out and say it is the way things are. It does allude to it when
some scriptures are examined closely. Off the top of my head I can think of
several instances where this is the case. I'll bring up one example.
When Moses received the 10 commandments, one of the commandments was
"Thou shalt have no other God's before me." It also mentions something
about God being a jealous God. What can he be jealous about if there
is nothing else to be jealous about? Some people have interpretted
this scripture to mean different things. I say that is true here also.
It could be referring to the god of money, the god of power, the god of
sports, the god of hunting among other things. IMHO, it also alludes to the
fact that there is more than one God out there who is seeking after his
glory. The only one we should be concerned is our own Heavenly Father
or Creator.
For what it's worth.
scott
|
| 97.88 | RE: .17 | CURIE::WAGNER | | Thu Nov 16 1989 14:49 | 24 |
| Tamara -
This could turn into a very metaphysical discussion at this point. You
pose the question of why would God require faith in his knowledge of
true principles, if he was the one who created those principles. Once
again however, we face the issue of creation. You have God as the
creator of "can of beans" from my analogy, but His act of creating them
must have required that he have faith in his ability to do so,
otherwise he would never undertake the act.
Very quickly we get into a chicken and egg discussion. If God created
the principles and laws by which he created the earth, then by what did
he create those principles and laws? And, didn't that act of creation
also require faith?
This whole discussion hinges on the issue of were all laws, and even
such concepts as truth and perfection, created by God. My belief from
my studies indicate that certain things such as Truth and Right exist
independent of God and uncreated, although they are attributes which
God possesses in perfection. I believe from your statements that you
believe that God created all such things as these. This seems to be
the point of departure between our positions.
Jim
|
| 97.89 | comments | NORGE::CHAD | | Thu Nov 16 1989 15:01 | 13 |
|
> For a statement on present doctrine, McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" is a
> good reference.
With all due respect to Elder McConkie, "Mormon Doctrine" is not the official
doctrine of the Church, but rather Elder McConkies personal ideas based on
his study, beliefs, etc. Most of it probably is true however :-)
Also, principles don't change, only procedures. Therefore, depending on exactly
what you have in mind for the word doctrine, "present doctrine" should be
the same as "previous or old or ancient doctrine". The Gospel is unchanging.
Chad
|
| 97.90 | I think he did not "create the beans" | ROYALT::LENF | | Thu Nov 16 1989 16:07 | 12 |
| Jim and Tamara,
From my point of view (I certainly can't specify what is doctrine on this point)
God did have to have Faith in results of his actions in creating the world, as
per Jim's analogy (I thought it was very apt). I believe that Matter is Eternal.
and that there are Eternal Principles. In other words, there are things that
were not defined by God but have always existed. So when he set about to create
the earth, he was applying eternal principles that already existed to matter
that already existed and having faith that the results would be per his plan.
your brother,
Len
|
| 97.91 | Is God really Omnipotent and Omniscient? | ROYALT::LENF | | Thu Nov 16 1989 16:17 | 34 |
| It seems that the discussion of does God have Faith rests on the assumption that
he know all things, and that if he does then he can't have faith. So let me
raise the question of his all knowingness.
I accept that with respect to mey mere limited mortal insight he knows all
things. But is there any scripture or other source that would indicate that
he know all things in the absolute sense? I will suggest that part of what
Brigham Young was addressing in this quote relates here.
Brigham Young rejected this idea as well as some other points of
doctrine. I haven't found any writings by Brigham Young elaborating
on his doctrine yet. Here is one ref. from 4 Mar 1860, from Brigham
to Orson. "I corrected O Pratt today I did not say to him that God
would increase to all Eternity. But I said the minute that we say
that God knows all things comprehends all things and has a fullness
of all that He ever will obtain that moment Eternity seases you put
bounds to Eternity & Space & matter and you make a stopping place"
(Wilford Woodruff Journal, 4 Mar 1860)
In otherwords, if God really knows all things in the absolute sense (as opposed
to realitive to us) then there would be an end to his learning, or a
"stopping place".
So where is it indicated that knows all things in all the eternities of both
time and space?
And by the way, if he did not know all those things would that make him less
of a god? or less to be trusted? (ie. for a young man learning baseball to
be taught by "the greatest player that ever lived" would be more than enough
without having to worry whether or not the teacher was perfect).
What say ye?
Len
|
| 97.92 | God *IS* Omniscient! | NWD002::DULL_TA | You gotta love it! | Sat Nov 18 1989 05:46 | 101 |
| > Re: .18 by DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV
> Here is one ref. from 4 Mar 1860, from Brigham
> to Orson. "I corrected O Pratt today I did not say to him that God
> would increase to all Eternity. But I said the minute that we say
> that God knows all things comprehends all things and has a fullness
> of all that He ever will obtain that moment Eternity seases you put
> bounds to Eternity & Space & matter and you make a stopping place"
> (Wilford Woodruff Journal, 4 Mar 1860)
Since this statement is in quotes, I assume that it's written
verbatim from the reference. Goodness gracious - I'm sure glad
that the Church leaders today have better writing skills! ;^)
Seriously though, what do you (Mormons) consider this statement
to be: a revelation, Church doctrine, one man's inspired
opinion, one man's uninspired observation, or what? Please
explain your answer. On a higher level, what *rule of thumb*
do you adhere to when you hear or read the words of a prophet?
How do you know which "classification" his words fall under?
> Re: .19 by CURIE::WAGNER
> Very quickly we get into a chicken and egg discussion. If God created
> the principles and laws by which he created the earth, then by what did
> he create those principles and laws? And, didn't that act of creation
> also require faith?
Agreed. I see your point. We could go round and round and
round on this . . ..
> This whole discussion hinges on the issue of were all laws, and even
> such concepts as truth and perfection, created by God. My belief from
> my studies indicate that certain things such as Truth and Right exist
> independent of God and uncreated, although they are attributes which
> God possesses in perfection. I believe from your statements that you
> believe that God created all such things as these. This seems to be
> the point of departure between our positions.
I do not agree that Truth and Right exist independently of
God and uncreated. I would not call these "attributes" of God
either. It is my belief that God is the *source* of all truth
and the *source* of all righteousness. He is the originator
of these principles. He did not have to develop these attributes
as part of His progression.
I think another point we differ on is that you believe that
God went through a progressive cycle to get where He's at today.
"As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." (I
hope I quoted that correctly.) I do not believe this. My
God is the same today as He was yesterday (yesterday may be
billions and billions of light years ago) as He will be tomorrow.
> Re: .20 by NORGE::CHAD
>Also, principles don't change, only procedures. Therefore, depending on exactly
>what you have in mind for the word doctrine, "present doctrine" should be
>the same as "previous or old or ancient doctrine". The Gospel is unchanging.
Amen, Chad!
> Re: .22 by ROYALT::LENF
>In otherwords, if God really knows all things in the absolute sense (as opposed
>to realitive to us) then there would be an end to his learning, or a
>"stopping place".
Again, it seems that you're bringing God down to man's level
- namely, that God is progressing in the same fashion man is
progressing (or vice versa). . . line upon line, precept upon
precept. This is where we differ in belief.
>So where is it indicated that knows all things in all the eternities of both
>time and space?
My first thought was the Bible. I don't know how specific
of a reference you're looking for, but in looking up a few
things in my Bible, I found that in Job 11, Zophar the Naamathite
is talking with Job, and praising the sovereignty and wisdom
of God. Of special interest to me were verses 5 through 12.
>And by the way, if he did not know all those things would that make him less
>of a god? or less to be trusted? (ie. for a young man learning baseball to
>be taught by "the greatest player that ever lived" would be more than enough
>without having to worry whether or not the teacher was perfect).
>What say ye?
If God did not know all things, He would not be God. God is
omniscient. In other words,
God = All-knowledge, all-knowing
Anything less of "all-knowledge" negates this equation.
That's all for now.
Regards,
Tamara
|
| 97.100 | God is God is God | NWD002::DULL_TA | You gotta love it! | Sat Nov 18 1989 19:31 | 95 |
| > Re: .1 by CSC32::S_JOHNSON
> Even though this question is not addressed to me, I would like to
> respond. You ask how can we become divine if we do not have any
> 'divinity' genes in us. We do have 'divine' genes in us. I don't know
> the specifics of what makes some of our genes divine, but this much I
> do know. Another way to think of this problem is to ask what makes us
> immortal. The scriptures teach us that we will become resurrected and
> immortal (oops, almost typed immoral ;)). When we get resurrected,
> something in our bodies changes. Some people have said that the blood
> in our veins changes to something else that will make us immortal. I
> suspect this change from mortality to immortality is either connected
> to or similar to our becoming divine. The bottom line is this, there
> is a change that occurs. I don't know if this change is sudden or
> gradual. I don't know if this change is brought on by ourselves
> internally or if it is brought about by external forces. I suspect it
> is brought about gradually and internally.
I understand what you're saying about the mortal-to-immortal
change. But from my understanding, it seems like this change
doesn't occur until *after* you're born. My original question
(in other words) was: Are you born (are you conceived, if
you will) with 'divine' genes?
> As to the bible teaching about the plurality of Gods, it doesn't really
> come out and say it is the way things are.
So if the Bible doesn't come right out and say it, why does
the Church believe in this concept?
> When Moses received the 10 commandments, one of the commandments was
> "Thou shalt have no other God's before me." It also mentions something
> about God being a jealous God. What can he be jealous about if there
> is nothing else to be jealous about?
In addition to the gods of money, power, fame, etc. that you
mentioned, I believe that God was referring to the many idols
and non-idols that were being worshipped by the people of that
day.
As an example, I learned in Sunday School a few months ago that
up through this Mosaic period, many of the people believed
in fertility gods. They believed that these gods provided
the rain and the sun and all the *stuff* needed to produce
good crops. [This next part is pretty funky.] The people
believed that when it rained, the gods were having sex. So,
in their temples, they had what was called a 'temple prostitute.'
When the people desperately needed rain, they would engage
in sexual activity with the 'temple prostitute' in hopes that
the he/she gods above would look down and say, "Ahh - that
looks like fun! Let's do it!" and the gods would have sex,
and it would rain. This is what the people believed.
The point of this example is to show that during this time,
there were a lot of gods out there being worshipped. I believe
today we have a lot of gods out there - it's just that many of them are
much more sophisticated.
In regards to your remarks about God being a jealous God, let
me quote a footnote out of my Bible:
The first four of the Ten Commandments deal with the nature
of God. In the first commandment, Israel was to recognize
no other God. Yahweh alone is God. The God who brought
Israel out of captivity will not tolerate the worship of
any other deity. The second commandment forbids making
any kind of idol that would become an object of worship,
or reverence. Only God is to receive our worship, adoration,
and trust. This commandment is reinforced with the declaration
that God is a jealous God; that is, He takes himself seriously
and will not tolerate any divided allegiance.
Also, as a footnote to Exodus 34:14 which states: Do not worship
any other God, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous
God. [This is from the New International Version Bible. If
anyone would prefer me using the KJV in future references,
please let me know.] The footnote says:
To underscore His prohibition of idolatry, God named Himself
Jealous. This name did not refer to a somewhat shallow
and childish human emotion. It was intended to emphasize that God
will not tolerate a divided loyalty from us. We ought to
honor Him as the one true God and give Him something more
than lip service.
So, I don't think that God is jealous of the 'god' we choose
to serve. I think that when we say that He is our God that
we devote *everything* we have to Him. He wants us to be loyal
because He is sovereign and He is greater than all these
other 'gods.'
Regards,
Tamara
|
| 97.101 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Mon Nov 20 1989 02:12 | 39 |
|
RE: Note 287.0 NWD002::DULL_TA
>I have very strong concerns about this issue of God being a man, etc.
RE: Note 284.23 NWD002::DULL_TA
> I think another point we differ on is that you believe that
> God went through a progressive cycle to get where He's at today.
> "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." (I
> hope I quoted that correctly.) I do not believe this. My
> God is the same today as He was yesterday (yesterday may be
> billions and billions of light years ago) as He will be tomorrow.
>
Tamara
This disbelief in Heavenly Father's Plan of Salvation is
apparent in your responses. First, I think that we must come to a
realization in the fact that we are not just *mortal* beings. We are
immortal and eternal intelligences. Only the tabernacle we inhabit
now is mortal, and we will be resurrected with an immortal one. This
is the point you have missed. The 'divine' genes in which we get our
'divinity' is in our spiritual bodies. They come from God Himself, as
we are the children of God.
The correct quote is "As man now is, God once was: As God now
is, man may be." (SNOW, Biography, p.46) Why do you deny the children
the right to become as the parents are? IF we are the children of God,
then that is our right.
The God in which you worship is not the God of this world. The
biggest point of error is the fact in which you have made God himself
the maker of eternal law and therefore a law unto Himself. He abides
by the law. He did not make it. The priesthood He holds, and through
which He righteously exercises His authority, is, in itself, everlasting
with no beginning and no end. Through this priesthood, He is able to
govern as a God.
Charles
|
| 97.102 | Because the Lord revealed it | CACHE::LEIGH | Do not procrastinate repentance | Mon Nov 20 1989 10:59 | 22 |
| Re .2
>> As to the bible teaching about the plurality of Gods, it doesn't really
>> come out and say it is the way things are.
>
> So if the Bible doesn't come right out and say it, why does
> the Church believe in this concept?
In note 4.67 I reviewed Biblical scriptures that suggest that we can become
exalted and be like God. We LDS agree that those verses are only suggestions
and are subject to interpretation. The reason, Tamara, why the LDS church
believes and teaches the concept that we can become like God is because the
Lord revealed it through Latter-day revelation. One important point that needs
to be emphasized is that the LDS church is a restored church, a new dispensation
from God. It is not based upon only the Bible but is based upon all of God's
revelations to man, i.e. the Bible, Book of Mormon, D & C, Pearl of GP, and
revelations to the prophet that haven't been canonized by the LDS people. In
addition, we believe other scriptures will come forth and will be added to the
LDS cannon, such as for example, scriptures from the ten lost tribes. (This
idea of having non-Biblical scriptures is being discussed in note 10)
Allen
|
| 97.63 | Plurality of gods: other notes | CACHE::LEIGH | Do not procrastinate repentance | Mon Nov 20 1989 11:08 | 6 |
| Replies .34 and .37-.40 touched upon the question of whether there are
more than one God or not. Note 287 has been created to discuss this in depth.
The LDS belief that there are more than one God is known as "The Plurality
of Gods". Note 4.67 reviews Biblical scriptures that suggest that we can
be come like God, i.e. become gods ourselves (a condition known in LDS
theology as "Exaltation").
|
| 97.103 | Also see note 97 | CACHE::LEIGH | Do not procrastinate repentance | Mon Nov 20 1989 11:12 | 2 |
| By way of information, note 97 is discussing the Godhead. Replies 34 and
37-40 of that note touch upon the question of there being more than one God.
|
| 97.104 | | TOMCAT::PRESTON | Punch it, Margaret! | Mon Nov 20 1989 16:22 | 17 |
| > The God in which you worship is not the God of this world. The
> biggest point of error is the fact in which you have made God himself
> the maker of eternal law and therefore a law unto Himself. He abides
> by the law. He did not make it. The priesthood He holds, and through
> which He righteously exercises His authority, is, in itself, everlasting
> with no beginning and no end. Through this priesthood, He is able to
> govern as a God.
Charles,
If God worked his way up to being God, and has not been God all
along, then who was the first? And where did he come from? Who invented
the priesthood?
Ed
|
| 97.105 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Tue Nov 21 1989 01:04 | 23 |
|
RE: Note 287.6 TOMCAT::PRESTON
> Charles,
>
> If God worked his way up to being God, and has not been God all
> along, then who was the first? And where did he come from? Who invented
> the priesthood?
>
> Ed
>
Ed,
That is a very good question and it would be nice to know the
answer. As it is, I do not know myself, and I know of nothing available
to mankind on this earth that tells us.
I can take my understanding only so far and then I have to ask
myself if it applies or is necessary for my eternal salvation or not.
If not, then I discard the question. Other than that, I have to take
what the Lord has revealed for the present time and go with that.
Charles
|
| 97.106 | | MIGHTY::WILLIAMS | Bryan Williams | Tue Nov 21 1989 13:03 | 103 |
| >Bryan:
>
>Please clarify this for me. What does "the first word of the Genesis" refer
>to - Genesis 1:1? What translation is Joseph Smith referring to?
Gladly. BTW - I was incorrect when I called it "The Ken Follett
Discourse" - the name should read "The King Follett Discourse."
First some background: The Prophet was asked to speak at the funeral
of a Brother King Follett, who was killed while building a well. The
date of the sermon was Sunday, 7 April, 1844. Joseph had three
"official" recorders of the sermon: Thomas Bullock, William Clayton,
and Willard Richards. Wilford Woodruff also took notes for his journal.
While all the men were experienced note takers, their methods differed.
The published record of the Discourse was constructed from the notes of
all 4 men and was published in the BYU Studies some years ago. I don't
know the exact volume or year, but I know the text is titled "The King
Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text" by Stan Larson.
On page 202 of this edition, the text reads:
I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of anything
that is not contained in the Bible. If I should, you would cry treason,
and I think there are so many learned and wise men here who would put
me to death for treason. I will, then, go to the old Bible and turn
commentator today. I will go to the very first Hebrew word - BERESHITH -
in the Bible and make a comment on the very first sentence of the
history of creation: "In the beginning..." I want to analyze the word
BERESHITH. BE-in, by, through, and everything else; next ROSH-the head;
ITH. Where did it come from? When the inspired man wrote it, he did not
put the first part -BE- there; but a man, and old Jew without any
authority, put it there. He thought it too bad to begin to talk about
the head of any man. It read in the first: "The Head One of the Gods
brought forth the Gods." This is the true meaning of the words. ROSHITH
[BARA ELOHIM] signifies [the Head] to bring forth the Elohim. If you do
not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. No learned
man can tell you any more than what I have told you. Thus, the Head God
brought forth the Head Gods in the grand head council. I want to
simplify it in the English language.
O, ye lawyers, ye learned doctors, who have persecuted me, I want to
let you know and learn that the Holy Ghost know something as well as
you do. The Head One of the Gods called together the Gods and the grand
councilors sat in grand council at the head in yonder heavens to bring
forth the world and contemplated the creation of the worlds that were
created at that time. When I say doctors and lawyers, I mean the
doctors and lawyers of the Scriptures. I have done so hitherto, to let
the lawyers flutter and let everybody laugh at them. Some learned
doctor might take a notion to say that the Scriptures say thus and so,
and we must believe the Scriptures, for they are not to be altered. But
I am going to show you an example of an error.
...
He goes on to compare 4 different language translations and showing the
real differences between them, showing errors in translations. (I can
type this in, but I don't have alot of time just now).
...
Come here, ye learned men, and read, if you can. I should not have
introduced this testimony only to show that I am right and back up the
word ROSH - the Head Father of the Gods. In the beginning, the Head of
the Gods called a council of the Gods. The Gods came together and
concocted a scheme to create this world and the inhabitants. When we
begin to learn in this way, we begin to learn the only true God. We
find out God and what kind of a being we have got to worship. Having a
knowledge of God, we know how to approach him and ask so that he will
answer. When we begin to know how to come to Him, He begins to come to
us. When we are ready to come to Him, He is ready to receive us. As
soon as we begin to understand the character of God, He begins to
unfold the heavens to us and tell us all about it before our prayers
get to his ears.
Now, I ask all the learned men who hear me, why the learned doctors who
are preaching salvation say that God created the heavens and the earth
out of nothing. They account it blasphemy to contradict the idea. If
you tell them that God has made the world out of something, they will
call you all fool. The reason is that they are unlearned but I am
learned and know more than all the world put together - the Holy Ghost
does anyhow. If the Holy Ghost in me comprehends more than all the
world, I will associate myself with it.
You ask them why, and they say, "Doesn't the Bible say He created the
world?" And they infer that is must be out of nothing. The word create
came from the word BARA, but it doesn't mean so. What does BARA mean?
It means to organize; the same as a man would organize and use things
to build a ship. Hence we infer that God Himself had materials to
organize the world our of chaos, chaotic matter, which is element and
in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time
He had. The pure principles of element are principles that never can be
destroyed. They may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed.
Nothing can be destroyed. They never can have a beginning or an ending;
they exist eternally. It is associated with the subject in question,
the resurrection of the dead.
.....
There are 7 1/2 more pages of this sermon; I have typed in only one.
I hope it answers your question.
Bryan
|
| 97.109 | Lectures on Faith | CACHE::LEIGH | Moderator | Tue Nov 21 1989 19:32 | 21 |
| ================================================================================
Note 284.16 Does God have faith? 16 of 27
CURIE::WAGNER 48 lines 15-NOV-1989 17:22
-< Allow me to expand a little >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[portions not pertaining to note 287 have been omitted]
RE: 284.8
Yes, the Lectures on Faith were actually prepared texts used at the
School of the Prophets. They were typically studied before the meeting
of the School. I'm not up enough on my history to give you much detail
of how the School of the Prophets operated when they met.
I just scanned through the past few replies, as I'm kind of pressed for
time, but having made an entry I feel a responsibility to respond to
questions about it.
Faithfully,
Jim
|
| 97.93 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Moderator | Tue Nov 21 1989 21:24 | 12 |
| This note has fractured into three discussions. I've moved the replies
pertaining to the discussion about differences between LDS leaders to note
211, and the replies about more Gods than one to note 287. Please continue
those discussions in those notes. The discussions were interwoven with each
other, and I hope I didn't mess things up too badly in trying to separate
them.
Concerning statements by church leaders, please use this guideline: It is
fine to post statements by leaders (e.g. Brigham Young & Orson Pratt) when
the *content* of the statements pertains to this note. However, if your
remarks pertain to the *validity* of them instead of the *content*, please
use note 211.
|
| 97.110 | If Only the Bible Taught This | NWD002::DULL_TA | You gotta love it! | Wed Nov 22 1989 06:39 | 57 |
| >Re: .3 by BSS::RONEY "Charles Roney"
>
> Tamara
> This disbelief in Heavenly Father's Plan of Salvation is
> apparent in your responses.
It shows?! ;^) What *should* be showing is that I don't believe in the
LDS version of the Plan of Salvation. I *do* believe in God's plan of
salvation as taught in the Bible.
> First, I think that we must come to a
> realization in the fact that we are not just *mortal* beings. We are
> immortal and eternal intelligences. Only the tabernacle we inhabit
> now is mortal, and we will be resurrected with an immortal one. This
> is the point you have missed.
The reason I've missed this point (and I choose to miss it) is because I
don't believe that we are "immortal and eternal intelligences." This is
an LDS teaching, not a Biblical teaching.
> The correct quote is "As man now is, God once was: As God now
> is, man may be." (SNOW, Biography, p.46) Why do you deny the children
> the right to become as the parents are? IF we are the children of God,
> then that is our right.
I would like to rephrase your question: Why do I deny man the right to
become God? This requires a more in-depth answer - which I will supply
in Note 211 (I think that's the right one). But for right now, I will say
that the purpose for man is bring glory to God - not to become God.
> The God in which you worship is not the God of this world. The
> biggest point of error is the fact in which you have made God himself
> the maker of eternal law and therefore a law unto Himself. He abides
> by the law. He did not make it. The priesthood He holds, and through
> which He righteously exercises His authority, is, in itself, everlasting
> with no beginning and no end. Through this priesthood, He is able to
> govern as a God.
Okay - am I getting this straight? Eternal law came first, then God? So
where does "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" fit
in? God was "in the beginning."
> Re: .4 by CACHE::LEIGH
>The reason, Tamara, why the LDS church
>believes and teaches the concept that we can become like God is because the
>Lord revealed it through Latter-day revelation. One important point that needs
>to be emphasized is that the LDS church is a restored church, a new dispensation
>from God. It is not based upon only the Bible but is based upon all of God's
>revelations to man, i.e. the Bible, Book of Mormon, D & C, Pearl of GP, and
>revelations to the prophet that haven't been canonized by the LDS people.
So as I understand it, the doctrine of becoming (like) God is supported
basically by latter-day revelation. In your view, could the Bible stand
alone in supporting this concept?
|
| 97.111 | | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Wed Nov 22 1989 11:23 | 30 |
| ================================================================================
Note 287.12 There's More Than One God? 12 of 12
NWD002::DULL_TA "You gotta love it!" 57 lines 22-NOV-1989 03:39
-< If Only the Bible Taught This >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Okay - am I getting this straight? Eternal law came first, then God? So
>where does "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" fit
>in? God was "in the beginning."
My own observation.... When I read those passages, coupled with what
has been revealed, I see that statement as pertaining to our creation in
this existance. As brought out in King Follett discourse, the Prophet
Joseph stated that create means to organise. To organise implies pre-
existing material. I see this to mean that there are a multitude of
worlds *organised* prior to this one, to necessarily the same being.
LDS teachings state that exaltation means at a point in eternity we will
create our own worlds. Going back to Heavenly Father, the same applies,
He had a father, and He was the result of this same process, implying
other creations. The "beginning" is our reference point for this creation.
Was there a first God? If so what was he made of? In terms of eternity
you have one eternal round. If there was no beginning, and no end, that is
what it is. The idea of a first God becomes irrelevant. Eternal law,
in my *opinion* co-exists with God. He is subject to it. On the concept
of Heavenly father having a father the Prophet Joseph Smith elaborated on
this in a June 16 1844 discourse, on plurality of Gods.
Kevin
|
| 97.112 | ... that we may be one. - 3 Nephi 19:23
| MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Wed Nov 22 1989 14:17 | 10 |
| As far as the "we can become God" assertion, I think there is often a gross
misunderstanding that prevails regarding this. The misunderstanding is that
somehow, we glorify God less by becoming gods, that somehow we seek to replace
Him with ourselves. The Scriptures bear testimony that this is not the case.
In fact, this plan is Lucifer's and not Christ's, as witnessed in Abraham
3:22-28. To Mormons, to emulate God to the point where we become one with
God is the ultimate in glorifying God. It is, in our view, what Christ was
trying to get us to do. This is my own opinion. Usual disclaimers apply.
Steve
|
| 97.113 | The Bible suggests it | CACHE::LEIGH | Do not procrastinate repentance | Wed Nov 22 1989 14:45 | 17 |
| re .12
>So as I understand it, the doctrine of becoming (like) God is supported
>basically by latter-day revelation. In your view, could the Bible stand
>alone in supporting this concept?
Hi Tamara,
I discussed in note 4.67 quite a number of Biblical scriptures that give
what I consider a strong inference that we can become as God is. So, from
my viewpoint I would say that the Bible does support this doctrine. However,
we LDS are the first to admit that even though this doctrine is inferred
by the Bible it is not clearly described (if it were, of course, then all
Christians would believe it). Because of this lack of clarity, the Lord
revealed the doctrine through Latter-day revelation.
Allen
|
| 97.114 | The Bible DOES teach it. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Mon Nov 27 1989 14:08 | 36 |
|
RE: Note 287.12 NWD002::DULL_TA
>It shows?! ;^) What *should* be showing is that I don't believe in the
>LDS version of the Plan of Salvation. I *do* believe in God's plan of
>salvation as taught in the Bible.
If you really understood the plan of salvation, the you would see
that the "LDS" plan is the same as presented in the Bible, which
is very sketchy at best, and scattered throughout. I'm sure Allen
must have a note somewhere that details it out.
>The reason I've missed this point (and I choose to miss it) is because I
>don't believe that we are "immortal and eternal intelligences." This is
>an LDS teaching, not a Biblical teaching.
ROM. 8:16 " The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit,
that we are the children of God."
>I would like to rephrase your question: Why do I deny man the right to
>become God? This requires a more in-depth answer - which I will supply
>in Note 211 (I think that's the right one). But for right now, I will say
>that the purpose for man is bring glory to God - not to become God.
ROM. 8:17 " And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and
joint-heirs with Christ; ...."
>Okay - am I getting this straight? Eternal law came first, then God? So
>where does "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" fit
>in? God was "in the beginning."
"In the beginning" of THIS earth.
|
| 97.115 | To know Him is to love Him! | BLKWDO::D_PYLE | | Tue Nov 28 1989 03:45 | 15 |
| RE: 287.14
I totally agree with Steve's assertion!! To bring that thought
"down" to a more basic level .... What father or mother wouldn't
swell with pride and be flattered when their child admires them
so much that the child strive's to become like his/her parents?
Wouldn't that be glorifying the parent/s in a way? Certainly it
would! This is what we (LDS) mean. We are God's children, we love
Him, and we want to be like Him to glorify Him...not to take His
place.
Dave Pyle
TFO
|
| 97.94 | It's a matter of knowledge, I think? | ALLVAX::MCKINNEY | I'm not wearing any pants! | Wed Dec 20 1989 18:32 | 19 |
| Hi there,
One more reference to faith that has been ommitted from this discussion
is Moroni's explaination of the brother of Jared's experience with
the sixteen stones.
<Ether 3:19,20> 19 "And because of the knowledge of this man, he
could not be kept from beholding within the veil; and he saw the
finger of Jesus, which, when he saw, he fell with fear; for he knew
that it was the finger of the Lord; AND HE HAD FAITH NO LONGER,
FOR HE KNEW, NOTHING DOUBTING." 20 "Wherefore, having this perfect
knowledge of God, he could not be kept from within the veil; therefore
he saw Jesus; and he did minister unto him."
Needless to say, I do not think that God has faith. At least not
the kind that we have, and can relate to.
Jim
|
| 97.95 | Yes, he most certainly does. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Mon Mar 12 1990 15:11 | 47 |
|
Last night I had to give a fireside to the Young Men/Young Women.
It was on Faith and Prayer. It was a most difficult lesson to give.
For the most part, I used "A New Witness for the Articles of Faith"
by Bruce R. McConkie. I have not read the whole book. Even if I had
I think it would not be completely understood. Chapter 19 is on
"Faith in God" and has a lot of references from the "Lectures on Faith"
that Joseph Smith gave to the School of the Prophets.
The best I could come up with on resolving the difficulties I had
with a discussion on faith is that there must be two aspects of faith.
In Alma 32, he talks about the faith needed to come to a sure knowledge
of a principle or doctrine. Once that has been established, then there
is no faith but a sure or perfect knowledge. (Alma 32 : 26, 34) But in
verse 36 he states that faith must not be laid aside because only the
particular aspect of the experiment was tried. Now, you might think
I am rambling on about something inconsequential, but Bruce R. states
that "Faith is the child of knowledge." (pg 166) Most of what I had
believed previously was that faith was exercised only to the point of
a sure or perfect knowledge. However, even if I have been given a
sure witness of God, I still must exercise faith, "for whatsoever is
not of faith is sin." (Romans 14:23)
The concept of chapter 19 is that all that God does is based on a
faith that "dwells in him independently" and "that faith is the
principle of power." Lecture of Faith 1:16 tells us that "It is the
principle by which Jehovah works, and through which he exercises all
power over all temporal as well as eternal things. Take this principle
or attribute - for it is an attribute - from the Deity, and he would
cease to exist."
To quickly sum it what I have read, I would like to quote from
"A New Witness for the Articles of Faith" page 169, first paragraph :
God the Father is an eternal being. The very name of the kind of
life he lives is eternal life, and thus eternal life consists in
living and being as he is. In other words, eternal life is to gain
the power of God, which power is faith, and thus to be able to do what
he does and to live as he lives. And the great and eternal plan of
salvation that he has ordained and established consists of those laws,
ordinances, and powers whereby faith is acquired and perfected until
it is possessed in the same degree and to the same extent that it
exists in Deity. Faith will thus dwell independently in every person
who gains eternal life.
Charles
|
| 97.116 | Prayer concerns whole Godhead | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Mon Mar 12 1990 15:28 | 24 |
|
Last night I had to give a fireside to the Young Men/Young Women.
It was on Faith and Prayer. I used "A New Witness for the Articles
of Faith" by Bruce R. McConkie, and chapter 41 was on prayer. I
learned some things about it that I though were most interesting and
I would like to share them with you.
Prayer is a gift of God offered by a loving and gracious Father to
his children. It is a free gift ordained by God. Prayer is governed
by law. (D&C 130:20-21)
"The law of prayer operates by faith; it is perfected by obedience;
it has greater power when there is conformity and uprightness in
the lives of those who petition their God." (pg 384)
But the most enlightening thing about prayer is that it involves and
concerns all three members of the Godhead :
"We worship and pray to the Father, in the name of the Son,
by the power of the Holy Ghost." (pg 380)
Charles
|
| 97.96 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Mon Mar 12 1990 16:42 | 3 |
| I like it!
Steve
|
| 97.97 | Ditto! | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Mon Mar 12 1990 17:33 | 1 |
| Great comments and use of references Charles. I certainly agree !
|
| 97.124 | LDS & The Trinity | FRETZ::HEISER | shut up 'n' jam! | Mon Feb 28 1994 15:38 | 10 |
| There are some verses in the BoM that present the concept of the
Trinity as used by orthodox Christianity: Alma 11:26-29, Mormon
9:9-11,19, Moroni 8:18, II Nephi 27:23, Alma 18:26-28, II Nephi 11:7,
26:12, 31:21, Mosiah 15:2-5, and III Nephi 11:27,36. These verses seem
to contradict LDS teachings that God has a body, God has a father and
mother, God and Christ are 2 gods, and that man can become as God is.
How does the LDS church reconcile these verses with their teachings?
thanks,
Mike
|
| 97.125 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Mon Feb 28 1994 18:19 | 17 |
| RE: <<< Note 97.124 by FRETZ::HEISER "shut up 'n' jam!" >>>
-< LDS & The Trinity >-
Mike,
There are many verses and discussion in this string (see replies 34,
37-40) and 4.1 and 4.4 for a full discussion. In just pursuing the
scripture references you quoted, it reminds me of the story of the
blind men describing an elephant. One must look at the whole picture
an not just isolated cases taken out of context. There are, IMHO,
biblical scriptures that repudiate the concept of the Trinity as used
by orthodox Christianity: one at Christ's baptism and another after
he was resurrected. When we speak of God, which God do we mean? The
God of us all (Heavenly Father) or the God of this earth (Jesus Christ
or Jehovah)?
Charles
|
| 97.126 | Omnipotent God | FRETZ::HEISER | shut up 'n' jam! | Wed Mar 02 1994 15:28 | 7 |
| There are several passages in the Bible and BoM that describe the
Godhead as ONE as well. According to Job 42:2, Psalm 115:3, and
Matthew 19:26, I think God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.
Do LDS members view God in this way or is He limited?
thanks,
Mike
|
| 97.127 | | SOLVIT::ALLEN_R | | Wed Mar 02 1994 21:42 | 12 |
| LDS members (being that they are here and have that limitation) have as
many views of the Godhead as there are individuals to talk with. Why
should they be any different than anyone else??
Now on the other hand there is a Church view, which if I'm not mistaken
(and that happens a lot lately) is in here someplace in the beginning put
in by our friend Leigh. But remember, even that is limited by the
knowledge we can accept as individuals or as a group. We just can't
understand some things even if they are set down in our laps (or happen
in front of our eyes).
rich
|
| 97.128 | | FRETZ::HEISER | shut up 'n' jam! | Thu Mar 03 1994 13:08 | 12 |
| Well we already know that both the Bible and BoM state that the Godhead
is 1. In passages such as where John baptizes Jesus, orthodox
Christians use that in support of the trinity concept. In that
scenario, you have all 3 manifesting themselves. This seems to demand
that you believe God is omnipresent and omnipotent though. If you
believe God is an exalted man, then I can understand why you couldn't
accept this concept (despite Hosea 11:9 and Numbers 23:19).
Anyway, I thought it was interesting that the Bible and BoM seem to
agree on the orthodox Christian view of the Godhead.
Mike
|
| 97.129 | Godhead has already benn defined elsewhere. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Thu Mar 03 1994 13:27 | 78 |
| RE: <<< Note 97.126 by FRETZ::HEISER "shut up 'n' jam!" >>>
-< Omnipotent God >-
> There are several passages in the Bible and BoM that describe the
> Godhead as ONE as well. According to Job 42:2, Psalm 115:3, and
> Matthew 19:26, I think God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.
> Do LDS members view God in this way or is He limited?
First, God is not limited and fulfills the attributes of omnipotent,
omnipresent, and omniscient.
The LDS view on the Godhead as one is also accepted, but in a different
vein than the three-in-one concept. The LDS concept is that the Godhead
consists of three different and separate personages who are one in mind
and purpose. In LDS scripture, this can be seen in the Doctrine and
Covenants 1, verse 38 :
"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself;
and though heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass
away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the
voice of my servants, it is the same."
Whether by God the Father or His son Jesus Christ, it is the same.
Scripture in the New Testament show the separation of the son, Jesus
Christ, and our Heavenly Father (at least IMHO). From St. John :
5:19 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.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that him
self doeth; and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye
may marvel.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even
so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment
unto the Son;
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father,
He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath
sent him.
5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of
me, Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his
shape.
38 And ye have not his word abiding in you; for whom he hath sent,
him ye believe not.
14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no
man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also; and from
henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth
us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet
hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen
the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?
the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the
Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else
believe me for the very works' sake.
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works
that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he
do; because I go unto my Father.
The son does nothing except what he has seen the father do (5:19), and
the father has given all responsibility to the son. These are only a
few scriptures that (again, at least to me) show the separation of the
father and the son.
Are the heavens closed? Does God not talk to man whom He has made?
NOT. God reveals himself to mankind through his prophets (Amos), and
he did so to Joseph Smith. That manifestation clearly delineates the
separateness of the Godhead. Everything else is just speculation.
Charles
|
| 97.130 | | FRETZ::HEISER | shut up 'n' jam! | Thu Mar 03 1994 16:18 | 25 |
| > consists of three different and separate personages who are one in mind
> and purpose. In LDS scripture, this can be seen in the Doctrine and
This is quite obviously implied to avoid schizophrenic characteristics.
However, the multiple places in the BoM and the Bible where it says
they're one, purpose is *never* specified. The original Hebrew intended
it to be meant literally.
Re: John 5
The relationships that Jesus Christ describes here indicate oneness as
well. John 5:11 sums it up:
> 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else
> believe me for the very works' sake.
> separateness of the Godhead. Everything else is just speculation.
I don't think I'd consider God's Word speculation. Isaiah has much to
say about the nature of God too in Isaiah 48:12-13,16, 46:9, 43:10-11,
and 44:8. In addition, the use of the tetragrammaton (YHWH) in the
original Hebrew of the OT, as well as John 8:58, clearly says Jesus
Christ is God in a literal sense.
Mike
|
| 97.131 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Thu Mar 03 1994 17:06 | 62 |
| RE: <<< Note 97.130 by FRETZ::HEISER "shut up 'n' jam!" >>>
>> consists of three different and separate personages who are one in mind
>> and purpose. In LDS scripture, this can be seen in the Doctrine and
>
> This is quite obviously implied to avoid schizophrenic characteristics.
What ever that means. It is not obvious to me...
> However, the multiple places in the BoM and the Bible where it says
> they're one, purpose is *never* specified. The original Hebrew intended
> it to be meant literally.
Context is important here. Just because someone from the BOM is
talking about one concept rather than another does not mean that
the other does not exist. How does *anyone* living today know what
some Hebrew meant thousands of years ago. Nowhere is baptism for
the dead *specified* in the Bible, but Paul just gives it a passing
reference. That does not mean it was not a viable doctrine (and must
have been taught and understood) in Paul's days.
The Bible is quite incomplete on what Jesus Christ did and taught.
The doctrines he laid out by precept and example are not all recorded.
If a person is willing to be directed by incompleteness, then that is
their right, but it does mean that everyone has to.
> Re: John 5
>
> The relationships that Jesus Christ describes here indicate oneness as
> well. John 5:11 sums it up:
>
>> 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else
>> believe me for the very works' sake.
>
> > separateness of the Godhead. Everything else is just speculation.
>
> I don't think I'd consider God's Word speculation. Isaiah has much to
> say about the nature of God too in Isaiah 48:12-13,16, 46:9, 43:10-11,
> and 44:8. In addition, the use of the tetragrammaton (YHWH) in the
> original Hebrew of the OT, as well as John 8:58, clearly says Jesus
> Christ is God in a literal sense.
That Jesus Christ is God in a literal sense is also confirmed by LDS
doctrine, but LDS doctrine also rejects the popular secular belief that
he is also at the same time the Father and Holy Ghost.
Isaiah was clearly in a quandary on what to tell Israel, and pained when
they would not listen. He laid out the conditions to detect the what,
when, and who about the Messiah, but did it do any good. No, it did not.
Just because he would not discuss each and every aspect about God does
not mean those aspects are not there. He did not want to cast his
pearls of knowledge to swine, but that does not mean what he did talk
about was the whole ball of wax.
If you want to talk about the Bible as God's Word, then be aware of
the LDS doctrine that we believe so only to the extent that is is
correctly translated. This concept is discussed else ware in this
conference and should not be in this topic.
Charles
|
| 97.132 | seperate entities | SWAM2::ROGERS_DA | feeling _so_ SCSI | Sun Mar 06 1994 01:50 | 18 |
| This isn't so very difficult.
John 17:20,21
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall
believe on me through their word;
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.
Did Jesus mean for the Twelve to lose their seperate identities
and become part of the Godhead? How does one send onesself on
an errand?
The "one"ness of the Godhead is of purpose, e.g.
"be ye of one mind."
tx [dale]
|
| 97.133 | it can be very difficult | FRETZ::HEISER | most corrupt White House ever | Tue Mar 08 1994 14:24 | 11 |
| > The "one"ness of the Godhead is of purpose, e.g.
I think that is implied since we wouldn't want schizophrenic members of
the Godhead. Why would they have different purposes in the first
place? Why would they even want different purposes?
John 17:20-21 refers to being one in the Spirit, not purpose. Again the
implication is that if you're on the same page, spiritually speaking,
the purpose takes care of itself.
Mike
|
| 97.134 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Tue Mar 08 1994 14:51 | 37 |
| > <<< Note 97.133 by FRETZ::HEISER "most corrupt White House ever" >>>
> -< it can be very difficult >-
>
> > The "one"ness of the Godhead is of purpose, e.g.
>
> I think that is implied since we wouldn't want schizophrenic members of
> the Godhead. Why would they have different purposes in the first
> place? Why would they even want different purposes?
>
> John 17:20-21 refers to being one in the Spirit, not purpose. Again the
> implication is that if you're on the same page, spiritually speaking,
> the purpose takes care of itself.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but from them also which
shall believe on me through their world;
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.
I see nothing refering to being one in spirit here. Implied or
otherwise.
The purpose of each member of the Godhead is the same, and to be one
with Christ and/or the Godhead, is to come to have that same purpose.
D&C 38:27 ... I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are
not mine.
MOSES 1:39 For behold, this is my work and my glory to bring to pass
the immortality and eternal life of man.
The purpose of God is plainly stated, and unless a person on this
earth has not the same purpose, then they are not one with God and
are not his. To become joint-heirs with Christ means that we have to
learn, and obey, God's ways because his ways are not mankinds, or the
worlds, ways.
|
| 97.135 | | SWAM2::ROGERS_DA | feeling _so_ SCSI | Tue Mar 08 1994 22:38 | 34 |
| re:
> However, the multiple places in the BoM and the Bible where it says
> they're one, purpose is *never* specified. The original Hebrew intended
> it to be meant literally.
and .133
> I think that is implied since we wouldn't want schizophrenic members of
> the Godhead. Why would they have different purposes in the first
> place? Why would they even want different purposes?
> John 17:20-21 refers to being one in the Spirit, not purpose. Again the
> implication is that if you're on the same page, spiritually speaking,
> the purpose takes care of itself.
Mike,
WADR, and conceding that i may not have adaquately expressed
myself, you did not address the main point of my comment.
If the we are to take the scriptures literally, as you suggest,
then how do you reconcile Jesus' prayer to the Father in John 17:
20-21? He asked that the Twelve become one with him, EVEN AS HE
IS ONE WITH THE FATHER. If Jesus and The Father are one individual,
then He was asking that the Twelve be absorbed into the Godhead
with the concomittant loss of their individual identities. If, on
the other hand, Jesus and the Father are seperate individuals, then
their "one"ness consists of "being of one mind" (purpos. It
would then follow that Jesus' prayer requests a similar unity with
the Twelve, which is the only notion wholely consistant with all
other scripture.
Our Father in Heaven did not intend this to be difficult or
obscure, it has only been made so by those purposes are advanced
by obfuscation.
[dale]
|
| 97.136 | fwiw | FRETZ::HEISER | impeach the President and her husband | Fri Mar 11 1994 16:40 | 20 |
| Re: last two
As you don't see anything in those passages about being 1 in the
Spirit, implied or otherwise, I don't see anything in the multitude of
verses that say the Godhead is one in purpose, implied or otherwise.
> IS ONE WITH THE FATHER. If Jesus and The Father are one individual,
> then He was asking that the Twelve be absorbed into the Godhead
> with the concomittant loss of their individual identities. If, on
Obviously by now you know I subscribe to the Trinity concept. When I
speak of God's triune nature, I believe the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit are co-equal, co-existent, and co-eternal, three Persons of the
same Substance (John 1:1-3, 14:26). The Holy Spirit is what links us
to God, and I believe what you're reading into the concept isn't true.
The Christians' common bond is the Holy Spirit, there isn't some
metaphysical absorption going on.
hopefully that clarifies,
Mike
|
| 97.137 | Agree to disagree. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Fri Mar 11 1994 17:16 | 3 |
|
Then to disagree is all we can agree on.
|
| 97.138 | A question | AKOCOA::RONDINA | | Tue Mar 15 1994 10:01 | 33 |
| I have a question for those persons who call themselves "Triune-ists",
meaning they believe that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all one
person, having 3 different manifestations. As I understand this
position (once having believed in the 3-in-1 Triune Doctrine, it goes
like this:
The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are really all the same being, one God
who has chosen to show himself to manking in 3 different ways (much
like the fact that I am at the same time a father, a husband and a
Digital employee).
The Triune Doctrine also says that "God is spirit." (quote from New
Testament). However, consider the following:
Jesus Christ had a body. And when he resurrected he took that body
with him. Thus, in the heavens Jesus has a body, but "God is spirit."
It would seem then that God the Father must reside in Christ's body,
because of this 3-in-1 doctrine says they are one person.
Is this reasoning correct?
LDS Doctrine differs from the Triune Doctrine in 2 cases:
1. The Father and Son have a body (supported by the fact that Christ
took his with him in the resurrection.)
2. The Father, Son and Holy Ghose are 3 separate and distinct
beings. (Also supportable is you believe God the FAther is
Spirit, but the Son has his body.)
Anyhow, I would like to hear thoughts and opinions.
Paul
|
| 97.139 | Book of Mormon says they're 1 | FRETZ::HEISER | impeach the President and her husband | Tue Mar 15 1994 12:51 | 47 |
| 97.140 | God, the Father, is indeed a spirit. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Tue Mar 15 1994 16:45 | 146 |
| RE: <<< Note 97.139 by FRETZ::HEISER "impeach the President and her husband" >>>
-< Book of Mormon says they're 1 >-
> ...and Alma 11:26-28
> What about Alma 11:26-28? It says God is a Spirit. Also, the Bible says
> in Hosea 11:9 and Numbers 23:19 that God is not a man.
Mike,
You keep quoting Alma 11:26-28. I show it here :
11:26 And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living
God?
11:27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
11:28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
Either I have the wrong BofM, or your reference is incorrect.
This says nothing about God is a Spirit, however, from the NT in the
Bible, John chapter 4, verse 24 does say that. This does in no way
contradict LDS theology, and, in fact, is exactly what Paul is talking
about. We believe that God, the Father, is a resurrected, perfected
being with a spiritual body of flesh and bones; just the same as Jesus
Christ now has. Your quote that God is not a man is correct. It is
extremely important that the Holy Ghost have no physical body; else it
would be most difficult communing with our Heavenly Father, for we
"talk" spirit to spirit through the power of the Holy Ghost.
John, Chapter 3
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which
is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John Chapter 4
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true
worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth:
for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
--> 24 God is a Spirit; and they that worship him must worship
him in spirit and in truth.
John Chapter 6
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth
nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit,
and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus
knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and
who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can
come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and
walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go?
thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ,
the Son of the living God.
[In verse 65 and 69 we can see the separation, and again in
the next verse]
John Chapter 15
26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you
from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth
from the Father, he shall testify of me;
[Now let us look at what kind of *body* a resurrected person has.]
I CORINTHIANS Chapter 15
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we
have testified of God that he raised up Christ; whom he
raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
[Either God, the Father, raised up Christ, or he did not. If not, then
the apostles are found to be found false witnesses of God.]
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall
the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things
under him, that God may be all in all.
[Even though Christ has been given the task to subdue all here, he is
still accountable to his Father.]
35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and
with what body do they come?
36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, ex-
cept it die;
37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body
that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of
some other grain;
38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to
every seed his own body.
39 All flesh is not the same flesh; but there is one kind of
flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes,
and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial;
but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the
terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the
moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth
from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in
corruption; it is raised in incorruption;
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory; it is
sown in weakness; it is raised in power;
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
[Even though the resurrection will be with various degrees of glory,
verse 44 shows that it will be a spiritual body and not one of man.]
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a liv-
ing soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that
which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
[First a natural body (like the one you have now) and then spiritual.]
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is
the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and
as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall
also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot in-
herit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit
incorruption.
[The body we have now of flesh and blood can not enter the Kingdom of
Heaven because it is carnal in nature. A resurrected body is one of
flesh and bone, but not containing blood. Jesus Christ was the first
fruits of the resurrection, and his spirit body (which preached to the
spirits in prison) was encased in an *incorruptible* physical
*spiritual* body; never to be separated.]
So it seems that a clear definition of what spiritual means is in
order before casting aside doctrine. Paul plainly teaches that the
bodies before and after resurrection are different, and the latter
is referred to as a *spiritual* body. So if we believe that God is
a resurrected being, then he is indeed a spirit.
Charles
|
| 97.141 | One inescapable conclusion. | AKOCOA::RONDINA | | Wed Mar 16 1994 10:40 | 15 |
| I think I confused you. My simple conclusion is this:
God the Father must have a body since He and Jesus are one. Jesus took
his body to heaven and thus the Father resides in Christ's body because
of their being one person. Thus, God (The Father and the Son) have a
body (Christ's).
Now, if the Holy Spirit also is part of this oneness, then does he also
have a body (Christ's). Whatever the reasoning, God has a body.
Christ's body.
Yes?
|
| 97.142 | | FRETZ::HEISER | impeach the President and her husband | Wed Mar 16 1994 18:37 | 4 |
| > You keep quoting Alma 11:26-28. I show it here :
> Either I have the wrong BofM, or your reference is incorrect.
Sorry, my mistake. It should be Alma 18:26-28.
|
| 97.143 | another view | FRETZ::HEISER | impeach the President and her husband | Wed Mar 16 1994 18:40 | 4 |
| > -< One inescapable conclusion. >-
another one is that God is not a man, and He never changes, therefore
he was never a man, and thusly not a resurrected being.
|
| 97.144 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Thu Mar 17 1994 10:51 | 18 |
| > <<< Note 97.143 by FRETZ::HEISER "impeach the President and her husband" >>>
> -< another view >-
>
> > -< One inescapable conclusion. >-
>
> another one is that God is not a man, and He never changes, therefore
> he was never a man, and thusly not a resurrected being.
Christ was a man with a mortal body, and is a resurrected being.
He did nothing that he had not already seen the Father do, so he
(God, the Father) must have done the same thing. God, the Father,
is not a man *right* now, but that does not mean he wasn't at some
previous point in time.
Following your line of reasoning would cause one to wonder if the
Bible was correct at all. I mean, after all, we are all mankind
(male and female) right now, and I am still hoping, and looking
forward to, the promise of resurrection.
|
| 97.145 | the Creator | FRETZ::HEISER | can you see who I am thru those eyes | Thu Mar 17 1994 16:25 | 24 |
| > Christ was a man with a mortal body, and is a resurrected being.
I think that only applies to the time he spent on earth.
> He did nothing that he had not already seen the Father do, so he
> (God, the Father) must have done the same thing. God, the Father,
> is not a man *right* now, but that does not mean he wasn't at some
> previous point in time.
This is because God was in the Son (the Bible says Jesus Christ
contains the fullness of the Deity). He did what Christ did as Jesus
did it. God is not a man and tells us this Himself. Paul also tells
us that Jesus Christ is the Creator while Genesis says God is the
Creator. Many places in both the Bible and Book of Mormon say they're
one. That's because God is a triune being. If they were separate
beings, they both couldn't be the Creator.
> Following your line of reasoning would cause one to wonder if the
> Bible was correct at all. I mean, after all, we are all mankind
> (male and female) right now, and I am still hoping, and looking
> forward to, the promise of resurrection.
Genesis 1 says we're created in the Deity's likeness or image. It
doesn't say we're *exact* clones.
|
| 97.146 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Fri Mar 18 1994 10:24 | 28 |
| > <<< Note 97.145 by FRETZ::HEISER "can you see who I am thru those eyes" >>>
> -< the Creator >-
>
>> Christ was a man with a mortal body, and is a resurrected being.
>
> I think that only applies to the time he spent on earth.
Either Paul is right or he is wrong. Which is it? Christ was born
to Mary with a mortal body. He was a man. Period. He was the
first fruits of the resurrection. No matter how hard you try, you
can't have it both ways.
> God is not a man and tells us this Himself.
That's correct right now. But nowhere does it say he wasn't, so I
guess we can agree to disagree on this one.
> Paul also tells
> us that Jesus Christ is the Creator while Genesis says God is the
> Creator. Many places in both the Bible and Book of Mormon say they're
> one. That's because God is a triune being. If they were separate
> beings, they both couldn't be the Creator.
Jesus Christ is God is Jehovah is the Creator.
They are all one in the same.
|
| 97.147 | A Matter of Belief | AKOCOA::RONDINA | | Fri Mar 18 1994 18:16 | 30 |
| All this discussion back and forth. Does he have a body? How can they
be 3 in 1? Etc. I spent hours and hours discussing it with priests and
ministers, trying to understand who was listening when I prayed, the
Father the part, the Christ part or the Holy Spirit. And how could you
address one or the other. I finally stopped praying because I did not
know who was listening.
It was not until I bumped into the Mormons that I was finally able to
understand. And it is easy to understand.
God the Father is a separate being, with a body. He has commissioned
his son (a separate being), to create a world, to come to that world to
teach by precept and by example, the path/way of righteousness, and to
atone for humanity's sins. Jesus did these things and also showed us
how to understand the Father. Jesus points the way to the father. Yet,
Christ retains his place as savior and creator.
Now when I pray, I do so to the Father, in the name of Christ. And The
Father hears and answers through his "communication vehicle", The Holy
Ghost.
All this explanation may seem simplistic, only because it is a simple
concept. The last 2,000 years of Christian history have convoluted
the doctrine (especially around 300 AD) to the point of its being
IN MY OPINION an incomprehensible doctrine of 3-in-1.
The above is my opinion. I believe in 3 distinct gods. I do not
believe in the Triune God of other Christians faiths.
Paul
|
| 97.148 | Thank You | QBUS::F_MUELLER | HOME but not forgotten! | Fri Mar 18 1994 18:59 | 6 |
| re .147
Thank you Paul. Like Jesus' examples your note was clear and to the
point. I for one, agree 100%.
Frank M
|
| 97.149 | Christ walked this earth as a man... | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Fri Mar 18 1994 23:56 | 30 |
| Here are some New Testament scriptures for reference that Jesus Christ
came down from his throne and walked among men as a man in the flesh.
Close reading will also show that Christ is separate from his Father
who sent him (I think the whole New Testament is littered with many,
many, scriptures that show this if one would but believe them instead
of the philosophies of man).
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down
from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.
John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the
will of him that sent me.
Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through
the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth
his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the
angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and
honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for
every man.
1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ;
not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the
Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
|
| 97.150 | question | SOLVIT::ROHNERT | | Sat Mar 19 1994 02:19 | 12 |
| Re: .147
> It was not until I bumped into the Mormons that I was finally able to
> understand. And it is easy to understand.
> The above is my opinion. I believe in 3 distinct gods. I do not
> believe in the Triune God of other Christians faiths.
Wasn't it difficult as a convert from Christianity to accept the concept of
the existence of more than one God?
|
| 97.151 | Pray to The Father | AKOCOA::RONDINA | | Mon Mar 21 1994 10:37 | 35 |
| Re. 150
Was it hard for me to accept the concept of multiple Gods?
No, not at all. Every Christian accepts multiple Gods. There are,
after all, 3 Gods in the Godhead.
What drove me away from Chritianity was the concept of 3 in 1 Gods. AS
I said before, when I prayed I could not figure out who was listening
and who was responding.
With Mormonism, I was taught that indeed there are still 3 Gods, but
the one to pray to is the Father. Jesus, being separate, occupies a
different place for me. He is my savior, redeemer, advocate with the
father, intermediary. I have a "hope in Christ", that his atoning
blood will cover my sins and guilt. Do I worship Christ?
Difficult word "worship" is. I revere him, acknowledge his
messiahship, and his divinity as part of the Godhead. But, in reality,
my devotions (gratitude, songs of joy and praise, etc.) and my prayers
are to the Father, in the name of Christ.
So, while traditional Christianity confused me with the 3-in-1 God,
whose identity was confusing because of the 3 aspects/manifestations of
him, the LDS teaching of the Godhead with 3 separate beings who have
different identities, functions and even personalities, this teaching
came as major clarification to my confusion and wonderful understanding
that a loving Eternal Father wanted me to know him, to "feel after
him". And the way of access was to follow Jesus' teachings, especially
as it conerns praying to the Father.
So now, I pray to the Father, hear his response and am every grateful
that I have acess to him. But it is Jesus who taught me 1) to do it,
2) how to do it, 3)and to use his name when doing it.
Paul
|
| 97.152 | catching up | FRETZ::HEISER | can you see who I am thru those eyes | Mon Mar 21 1994 18:42 | 78 |
| 97.153 | Let me say once again | AKOCOA::RONDINA | | Tue Mar 22 1994 11:35 | 43 |
| Yes, Mike, Christianity is a polytheistic religion. And so was the
religions of Greece, Rome, Babylon, etc. The Jews for centuries are
saying "God is one." Along comes Jesus and says, "Folks, there are
more than one. There is the Father, me, and after I leave you I will
send you another God (Holy Spirit)."
"Yikes!", say the believers. "We are starting to look like the idol
worshipping heathens. WE must do something about this 3 god thing."
Scene 300 AD, Council of Nicea. The problem is fixed. SAy the
theologians, "Yep, there are 3 gods, BUT THEY ARE ALL ONE."
"HUH", say the believers.
"Oh, it's a mystery. Our paltry minds cannot comprehend such a
doctrine. Trust me, it is true."
1700 years later, we are still trying to understand this "mystery".
What I am saying in my discussion is that God the Father has a body,
because the 3-in-1 idea is that he and Christ (and the Holy Spirit)
reside/occupy the same being/person. God the Father resides in
Christ's body because took his body with him in his resurrection.
The doctrine "God is a spirit and has not body" seems contradictory
because of the resurrected body of Christ and because of this 3-in-1
idea.
The LDS doctrine, on the other hand, seems logical since the FAther and
the Son are separate beings/persons/individuals. I would thing that
traditional Christians would love this idea because then they can say
"God is a spirit, but Christ has a body and the Holy Ghost is a spirit
too." Christ's resurrected body presents a major problem to believing
that the Father is spirit only.
That is how I see it? And that is why the LDS Doctrine of the Godhead
seems so understandable. By the way if you read the Joseph Smith First
Vision story, you will see that Joseph had no understanding of the 3
distinct beings. He had been taught the 3-in-1 doctrine. Imagine his
confusion (?) at finding out something different. Clearly something he
had not intended to happen.
]
Paul
|
| 97.154 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Tue Mar 22 1994 12:39 | 46 |
| 97.155 | it's all in God's Word | FRETZ::HEISER | can you see who I am thru those eyes | Tue Mar 22 1994 15:16 | 66 |
| Note 97.153 The Godhead 153 of 154
AKOCOA::RONDINA 43 lines 22-MAR-1994 08:35
> Yes, Mike, Christianity is a polytheistic religion. And so was the
> religions of Greece, Rome, Babylon, etc. The Jews for centuries are
> saying "God is one." Along comes Jesus and says, "Folks, there are
That's not correct. Try doing a Hebrew word study on "Elohim." Hebrew
is unique in its noun forms. Elohim is a uniplural noun and the Jews
*always* knew God was triune in nature.
> The LDS doctrine, on the other hand, seems logical since the FAther and
> the Son are separate beings/persons/individuals. I would thing that
> traditional Christians would love this idea because then they can say
> "God is a spirit, but Christ has a body and the Holy Ghost is a spirit
> too." Christ's resurrected body presents a major problem to believing
> that the Father is spirit only.
So you're saying God's Word is wrong again? What about atonement for
all of your sins? Did God pay the price or a lesser god in the person
of Jesus Christ? There's something that seems to be missing in how you
view the Trinity concept. You seem to think that God is not
omnipresent or omnipotent because God can't be a spirit and present
Himself in Jesus Christ at the same time. I'll say it again:
Both the OT and NT proclaim the triune nature of God - Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit. They are co-equal, co-existent, and co-eternal, three Persons
of the same Substance (John 1:1-3, 14:26). God is a personality who can
speak and who possesses a mind and will (Genesis 1:1,26, Jeremiah 29:11,
Ezekiel 18:30). God's character is eternal (I Timothy 1:17), omnipotent
(Revelation 19:6), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-12), omniscient (Romans 11:33),
perfect (Deuteronomy 32:4), and holy (I Peter 1:16). More supportive
Scriptures can be found in I Corinthians 8:6, Isaiah 43:10, Exodus 3:14,
I Timothy 2:5, Psalm 90:2.
Note 97.154 The Godhead 154 of 154
BSS::RONEY "Charles Roney" 46 lines 22-MAR-1994 09:39
> What is change? Does God *progress*? Yes, he does. Does he change
God already possesses eternal wisdom, power, and knowledge, and so never
changes (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8, Jeremiah 23:24, Isaiah 40:28, supports
Mormon 9:9-11,19, Moroni 8:18, II Nephi 27:23).
> his mind once he has given a commandment or law? No, he does not.
> Can I believe what God has told me? Yes, I can because he is truth.
Agreed on both.
> So when we talk about God never changes and is the same yesterday,
> today, and forever, let's be sure of the discussion context. The
> direction and attributes which God displays will never change, and
> I think this is different from the exaltation of God.
God has always been God. God tells us this through Isaiah and that
there are NONE before or after Him.
> Except that God, the Father, and God, the Holy Ghost, are completely
> separate and physically apart from Jesus Christ.
There is only one God, but 3 distinct persons in the Godhead (Deuteronomy
6:4, Isaiah 48:12-13,16, Matthew 3:16-17, supports II Nephi 11:7, 26:12,
31:21, Mosiah 15:2-5, III Nephi 11:27,36).
later,
Mike
|
| 97.156 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Tue Mar 22 1994 17:40 | 11 |
| >> Except that God, the Father, and God, the Holy Ghost, are completely
>> separate and physically apart from Jesus Christ.
>
> There is only one God, but 3 distinct persons in the Godhead (Deuteronomy
> 6:4, Isaiah 48:12-13,16, Matthew 3:16-17, supports II Nephi 11:7, 26:12,
> 31:21, Mosiah 15:2-5, III Nephi 11:27,36).
Then all we can agree on is to disagree. You go your way and I will
go mine. We can spend the rest of eternity discussing semantics and
interpretation differences.
|
| 97.157 | | SOLVIT::ROHNERT | | Wed Mar 23 1994 00:01 | 3 |
| Re; 151
Thank you
|
| 97.158 | Worshippers of Many Gods | AKOCOA::RONDINA | | Wed Mar 23 1994 10:03 | 31 |
| Mike, you sparked a curious thought/question in my mind when you
mentioned polytheism. Here it is.
Who is really worships many gods? Mormons or Traditional Christians?
Traditional Christianity has embraced/advocated the worship of:
The Father
The Son
The Holy Ghost
Mary
Saints (at one time there were hundreds of them available for worship)
Other martyrs
Mormons worship:
The Father (and the The Father only)
(contrary to popular fable, myth or opinion we do not worship Joseph
Smith, Adam, MIchael, or anyone else.)
By worship I mean: Pray to
While Jesus and The Holy Ghost are indeed member of the Godhead (and
Gods in their own right), and while we do revere/acknowledge them, we
do not worship them.
A curious question, no?
Paul
|
| 97.159 | prayer | FRETZ::HEISER | Member:RoyalCanadianKiltedYaksmen | Wed Mar 23 1994 17:07 | 18 |
| > Traditional Christianity has embraced/advocated the worship of:
>
> The Father
> The Son
> The Holy Ghost
I worship (pray to) the Father in the name of the Son (Matthew 6:6,
18:19-20).
> Mary
> Saints (at one time there were hundreds of them available for worship)
> Other martyrs
this is Catholicism and shouldn't be confused with orthodox
Christianity. You being a former Christian should know that.
hope this answers your question,
Mike
|
| 97.160 | Orthodoxy-according to whom? | AKOCOA::RONDINA | | Wed Mar 23 1994 18:06 | 16 |
| Mike
(Chuckle Chuckle) So you think Catholicism is not "orthodox". I think
they would probably say that you Protestants are the "unorthodox" ones.
Isn't that what the Reformation and Counter Reformation were all
about-each trying to define what orthodoxy was (according to their
interpretations, of course.)
Your discussions on this and other topics are refreshing! This
conference was getting dull. And you discuss, rather than argue!
Paul
PS. Did you (or anyone else) answer my question? Does God The Father
have a body because he resides in Christ's (who brought his resurrected
body with him to heaven)?
|
| 97.161 | Catholicism | FRETZ::HEISER | Member:RoyalCanadianKiltedYaksmen | Wed Mar 23 1994 18:24 | 28 |
| > -< Orthodoxy-according to whom? >-
probably to me, and a few other fundamentalists ;-) Seriously, I
attended a Catholic high school and know enough about them to know we
don't exactly see eye-to-eye on every essential doctrine.
> they would probably say that you Protestants are the "unorthodox" ones.
> Isn't that what the Reformation and Counter Reformation were all
> about-each trying to define what orthodoxy was (according to their
> interpretations, of course.)
could be, but I prefer to follow what God's Word says. Pardon me if
this is insulting, but God's Word says nothing of Mary being our
mediator to God and Purgatory. I could point out others but that's not
appropriate here.
> Your discussions on this and other topics are refreshing! This
> conference was getting dull. And you discuss, rather than argue!
Well Paul, thanks (I think)!
> PS. Did you (or anyone else) answer my question? Does God The Father
> have a body because he resides in Christ's (who brought his resurrected
> body with him to heaven)?
God answered it for you Himself -> John 4:24, Luke 24:39.
Mike
|
| 97.162 | AG on the Godhead | FRETZ::HEISER | Member:RoyalCanadianKiltedYaksmen | Wed Mar 23 1994 18:26 | 101 |
| This is an excerpt from the Assemblies of God's "Tenets of Faith":
2. The one True God
The one true God has revealed Himself as the eternally self-existent "I AM,"
the Creator of heaven and earth and the Redeemer of mankind. He has further
revealed Himself as embodying the principles of relationship and association as
Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Deut. 6:4; Isaiah 43:10,11; Matt. 28:19;
Luke 3:22).
a.) The Adorable Godhead (terms defined) - The terms "Trinity" and "persons"
as related to the Godhead, while not found in the Scriptures, are words in
harmony with the Scripture whereby we may convey to others our immediate
understanding of the doctrine of Christ respecting the Being of God, as
distinguished from "gods many and lords many." We therefore may speak with
propriety of the Lord our God, who is one Lord, as a trinity or as one
Being of three persons, and still be absolutely scriptural (examples:
Matt. 28:19, 2 Cor. 13:14; John 14:16,17).
b.) Distinction and Relationship in the Godhead - Christ taught a
distinction of Persons in the Godhead which He expressed in specific terms
of relationship, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but that this distinction
and relationship, as to its mode is inscrutable and incomprehensible,
because unexplained (Luke 1:35; 1 Cor. 1:24; Matt. 11:25-27; 28:19;
2 Cor. 13:14; I John 1:3,4).
c.) Unity of the one Being of Father, Son and Holy Spirit - Accordingly,
therefore, there is that in the Son which constitutes Him the Son and not
the Father; and there is that in the Holy Spirit and not either the Father
or the Son. Wherefore, the Father is the Begetter, the Son is the Begotten,
and the Holy Spirit is the one proceeding from the Father and the Son.
Therefore, because these three persons in the Godhead are in a state of
unity, there is but one Lord God Almighty and His name one (John 1:18;
15:26; 17:11,21; Zech. 14:9).
d.) Identity and Cooperation in the Godhead - The Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit are never identical as to Person; nor confused as to relation;
nor divided in respect to the Godhead; nor opposed as to cooperation. The
Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son as to relationship. The
Son is with the Father and the Father is with the Son as to fellowship.
The Father is not from the Son, but the Son is from the Father as to
authority. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son proceeding as to
nature, relationship, cooperation and authority. Hence, neither Person in
the Godhead either exists or works separately or independently of the
others (John 5:17-30,32,37; John 8:17,18).
e.) The Title, Lord Jesus Christ - The appellation, "Lord Jesus Christ," is
a proper name. It is never applied in the New Testament either to the
Father or to the Holy Spirit. It therefore belongs exclusively to the Son
of God (Romans 1:1-3,7; 2 John 3).
f.) The Lord Jesus Christ, God with Us - The Lord Jesus Christ, as to His
divine and eternal nature, is the proper and only Begotten of the Father,
but as to His human, He is the proper Son of Man. He is, therefore,
acknowledged to be both God and man; who, because He is God and man, is
"Immanuel," God with us (Matt. 1:23; 1 John 4:2,10,14; Rev. 1:13,17).
g.) The Title, Son of God - Since the name "Immanuel" embraces both God and
man in the one Person, our Lord Jesus Christ, it follows that the title Son
of God describes His proper deity, and the title Son of Man, His proper
humanity. Therefore, the title Son of God belongs to the order of eternity,
and the title Son of Man to the order of time (Matt. 1:21-23; 2 John 3;
1 John 3:8; Heb. 7:3; 1:1-13).
h.) Transgression of the Doctrine of Christ - Wherefore, it is a
transgression of the Doctrine of Christ to say that Jesus Christ derived
the title, Son of God, solely from the fact of the incarnation or because
of His relation to the economy or redemption. Therefore, to deny that the
Father is a real and eternal Father, and that the Son is a real and eternal
Son, is a denial of the distinction and relationship in the Being of God; a
denial of the Father and the Son; and a displacement of the truth that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (2 John 9; John 1:1,2,14,18,29,49;
1 John 2:22,23; 4:1-5; Heb. 12:2).
i.) Exaltation of Jesus Christ as Lord - The Son of God, our Lord Jesus
Christ, having by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of
the Majesty on high, angels and principalities and powers having been made
subject unto Him. And having been made both Lord and Christ, He sent the
Holy Spirit that we, in the name of Jesus, might bow out knees and confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father until the end,
when the Son shall become subject to the Father that God may be all in all
(Heb. 1:3; 1 Peter 3:22; Acts 2:32-36; Romans 14:11; 1 Cor 15:24-28).
j.) Equal Honor to the Father and to the Son - Wherefore, since the Father
has delivered all judgment unto the Son, it is not only the express duty of
all in heaven and on earth to bow the knee, but it is an unspeakable joy in
the Holy Spirit to ascribe unto the Son all the attributes of Deity, and to
give Him all the honor and the glory contained in all the names and titles
of the Godhead, except those which express relationship (see paragraphs b,
c, and d), and thus honor the Son even as we honor the Father (John 5:22,
23; 1 Peter 1:8; Rev. 5:6-14; Phil. 2:8, 9; Rev. 7:9,10; 4:8-11).
3. The Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ
The Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God. The Scriptures declare:
a.) His virgin birth (Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:31, 35).
b.) His sinless life (Hebrews 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22).
c.) His miracles (Acts 2:22; 10:38).
d.) His substitutionary work on the cross (1 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:21).
e.) His bodily resurrection from the dead (Matt. 28:6; Luke 24:39;
1 Cor. 15:4).
f.) His exaltations to the right hand of God (Acts 1:9, 11; 2:33;
Phil. 2:9-11; Hebrews 1-3).
|
| 97.163 | CC on the Trinity | FRETZ::HEISER | Member:RoyalCanadianKiltedYaksmen | Wed Mar 23 1994 18:30 | 39 |
| This is the *complete* "Statement of Faith" from the Calvary Chapel's.
Short and sweet, just like I like it ;-)
Statement of Faith
------------------
1) We believe The Bible is the Word of God inspired and without error in it's
original manuscripts. It is our only source of authority in matters of faith,
conduct, and truth.
2) We believe there is one eternal God, personal and knowable who manifests
Himself in three distinct persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy
Spirit. He is worthy of our worship, confidence, and obedience.
3) We believe God the Son willingly took on the body of a man, was virgin-born,
became our sinless substitute, shed His blood on the cross to completely pay
for the atonement of our sins. We believe He died, was buried, resurrected in a
literal body, ascended into Heaven, and is presently our advocate and only High
Priest.
4) We believe the ministry of the Holy Spirit is to convict the lost, place and
seal the believer in the Body of Christ, and make real and productive the things
of Christ in the believer's life. We do not believe that any special gift is a
necessary evidence of salvation or of being filled with the Spirit.
5) We believe every person is born with a sin nature, is spiritually dead and
cannot please God until Christ gives him life. We believe salvation from sin,
death, and hell is by God's grace. It must be received by faith apart from any
human performance or merit. It is a free gift of God to one who personally
places his confidence in the Lord Jesus Christ and His finished work on the
Cross. We believe a truly born again person is eternally secure.
6) We believe that all believers should assemble in local churches for mutual
edification, encouragement, evangelism, service and worship. Within our
fellowship, as an act of obedience to the Word of God, we share our love of
Christ through participation in the signs of the New Covenant: The Lord's Supper
and Baptism by immersion in water.
7) We believe the Lord Jesus Christ will personally return for His own before
the tribulation and before the millennium.
|
| 97.164 | Nazarene Church's view of the Trinity | FRETZ::HEISER | Member:RoyalCanadianKiltedYaksmen | Wed Mar 23 1994 18:32 | 30 |
| ARTICLE I: THE TRIUNE GOD
We believe in one eternally existent, infinite God, Sovereign of
the Universe; that he only is God, creative and administrative,
holy in nature, attributes, and purpose; that He, as God, is Triune
in essential being, revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
ARTICLE II: JESUS CHRIST
We believe in Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Triune God-
head; that he was eternally one with the Father; that he became
incarnate by the Holy Spirit and was born of the Virgin Mary, so
that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say the Godhead
and manhood, are thus united in one person very God and very man,
the God-man.
We believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and that He truly
arose from the dead and took again his body, together with all
things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith
He ascended into heaven and is there engaged in intercession for
us.
ARTICLE III: THE HOLY SPIRIT
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Triune God-
head, that he is ever present and efficiently active in and with
the Church of Christ, convincing the world of sin, regenerating
those who repent and believe, sanctifying believers, and guid-
ing into all truth as it is in Jesus.
|
| 97.165 | ...and the Catholic view of the Trinity | FRETZ::HEISER | Member:RoyalCanadianKiltedYaksmen | Wed Mar 23 1994 18:36 | 111 |
| Athanasian Creed, 4th Century
-----------------------------
Quicunque Vult
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold
the Catholic Faith.
Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt
he shall perish everlastingly.
And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity,
and Trinity in Unity,
Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another
of the Holy Ghost.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one,
the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.
The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate.
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost
incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.
And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.
As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one
uncreated, and one incomprehensible.
So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost
Almighty.
And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord.
And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every
Person by himself to be both God and Lord,
So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, There be three Gods,
or three Lords.
The Father is made of none; neither created nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created,
nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one
Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater, or less
than another;
But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity
in Unity is to be worshipped.
He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe
rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, is God and Man;
God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of
the substance of his Mother, born in the world;
Perfect God, and perfect Man: of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting;
Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father,
as touching his Manhood.
Who although he be God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ;
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the
Manhood into God;
One altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of Person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, So God and Man is one Christ;
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third
day from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God
Almighty; from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give
account for their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that
have done evil into everlasting fire.
This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he
cannot be saved.
|
| 97.166 | Still Incomprehensible after all these years | AKOCOA::RONDINA | | Thu Mar 24 1994 10:17 | 24 |
| Thanks, Mike, for entering all these creeds which explain the Triune
God. I have read and re-read many of them before.
They are still as incomprehensible to me as is the God (Trinity in
Unity) they try to explain. I am not trying to belittle, but this
concept was what drove me out of Catholicism and out of Chrisitianity,
until I found the Restored Gospel. What I mean is:
How can a God The Father beget himself into another person (Jesus) and
the do it again (The Holy Ghost)?
How can The Father beget something called His Son, and in reality it is
himself (the Father)?
How can God the Father proclaim to be a spirit, yet reside in Christ's
resurrected body, and still say he does not have a body?
How can a God pray to himself and intercede to himself on our behalf?
My petty mind cannot find any logic in this Triune God Concept. When I
read the creeds you posted, I walk away even more dismayed at trying to
understand such a being as therein described.
I know we disagree on this topic. But, then again, Christianity has
1600 variations due to interpretations. Oh, well.
Paul
|
| 97.167 | | FRETZ::HEISER | you got a problem with that? | Thu Mar 24 1994 13:56 | 39 |
| > Thanks, Mike, for entering all these creeds which explain the Triune
> God. I have read and re-read many of them before.
no problem. I figured at least it would give LDS members a perspective
of how some Christian denominations view the Godhead.
> How can a God The Father beget himself into another person (Jesus) and
> the do it again (The Holy Ghost)?
> How can The Father beget something called His Son, and in reality it is
> himself (the Father)?
> How can God the Father proclaim to be a spirit, yet reside in Christ's
> resurrected body, and still say he does not have a body?
> How can a God pray to himself and intercede to himself on our behalf?
This is probably why I prefer the AG presentation of the Trinity (of
the 4 I posted, and I'm not an AG person). They address some of the
inter-relationships of the Trinity and provide Biblical references for
them. The bottomline to all your questions is the omniscience,
omnipresence, and omnipotence of God.
> I know we disagree on this topic. But, then again, Christianity has
> 1600 variations due to interpretations. Oh, well.
Well Paul, we'll ultimately agree to disagree on this subject, but I
don't see where the 4 creeds posted disagree on the Trinity. Though
orthodox Christian denominations disagree on minor non-essential
doctrines, they all agree on the major essential doctrines (Godhead,
requirements for Salvation, Infallibility of the Bible, the Deity of Jesus
Christ, and the eschatological doctrines).
On a potential rathole, I've already provided information that the Bible
has purity and integrity. What you may or may not realize is that Book
of Mormon has experienced 3,914 changes in it since the first edition
in 1830. I also know of at least 16 LDS doctrines that aren't
addressed in the BoM. If this book contains the fullness of the gospel
of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, I'd be very concerned.
later,
Mike
|
| 97.168 | | NACAD::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Thu Mar 24 1994 14:05 | 21 |
| Pardon my intruding ... I was a bit startled by the claim that
Catholicism was not an orthodox form of Christianity. I can only
assume that this is some sort of typo. TAHD has several definitions,
one of which is "of or relating to Christian churches derived from the
church of the Byzantine Empire." Another definition refers to Judaism
and Hebrew law. The more common usage refers to traditional or
established beliefs. With the exception of Judaism, the Catholic
church does fit the definitions for an orthodox Christian religion,
according to what I read in TAHD.
If not a typo, then I suppose that what was meant was that the Catholic
chruch does not fit the AUTHOR'S definition of traditional or
established beliefs. In that case, it is reasonable to suppose that
the only religion that fits the definition must be that of the author.
And, in that case the assertion that this or that religion is not
orthodox is rather moot because it strays from the generally accepted
definition of the word. That is to say, the author is effectively
redefining the word and, I assume, is hopeful that others will pick up
on the definition. No?
Steve
|
| 97.169 | | MIMS::ROLLINS_R | | Thu Mar 24 1994 15:51 | 16 |
| > On a potential rathole, I've already provided information that the Bible
> has purity and integrity. What you may or may not realize is that Book
> of Mormon has experienced 3,914 changes in it since the first edition
> in 1830.
How many are there, not related to punctuation, nor to mistakes in the
first printed edition that were not in the original manuscript copy ?
Frankly, while you don't have to agree with the Book of Mormon, I hope
you will come to drop this type of intellectually misleading and dishonest
argument. How much information can you provide about the details behind
the above statement ? I am more than willing to acknowledge that I think
the Bible is very highly in line with what the oldest extant documents
proclaim; nevertheless, I would be willing to state that the current
edition of the Book of Mormon is much more accurately correlated to its
oldest extant texts as compared to most editions of the Bible.
|
| 97.170 | | MIMS::ROLLINS_R | | Thu Mar 24 1994 15:54 | 11 |
| > <<< Note 97.155 by FRETZ::HEISER "can you see who I am thru those eyes" >>>
> -< it's all in God's Word >-
>
> That's not correct. Try doing a Hebrew word study on "Elohim." Hebrew
> is unique in its noun forms. Elohim is a uniplural noun and the Jews
> *always* knew God was triune in nature.
>
Your kidding about this statement about the Jews, aren't you ?
What is the evidence you are giving of this, other than a current
definition of the word Elohim ?
|
| 97.171 | | NACAD::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Thu Mar 24 1994 18:30 | 13 |
| re: .169
More ... many of those "corrections" have been shown to be of the
writing style. The original translation more closely followed the
writing style of the times which, as I recall, has been the subject of
credible research. That is to say, the original translation more
closely followed the way things were written then. This is similar to
the problem you get when just trying to translate from one language to
another. Sometimes the literal translation is less accurate than a
translation of meaning or style. I encountered this upon becoming
fluent in a second language.
Steve
|
| 97.172 | | FRETZ::HEISER | Shoveling that sunshine | Thu Mar 24 1994 19:20 | 26 |
| Note 97.168 The Godhead 168 of 171
NACAD::SHERMAN "Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992," 21 lines 24-MAR-1994 11:05
> Pardon my intruding ... I was a bit startled by the claim that
> Catholicism was not an orthodox form of Christianity. I can only
> assume that this is some sort of typo. TAHD has several definitions,
I was mainly speaking from personal experience. If you compare them to the
several Protestant denominations (Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans,
Presbyterians, Assemblies of God, etc. - who pretty much agree on doctrine), the
Catholic church is quite different.
Re: tangent on BoM
I'll address this later in the proper topic.
Note 97.170 The Godhead 170 of 171
MIMS::ROLLINS_R 11 lines 24-MAR-1994 12:54
> Your kidding about this statement about the Jews, aren't you ?
> What is the evidence you are giving of this, other than a current
> definition of the word Elohim ?
Nope. Try researching some of the commentaries by ancient Hebrew sages such as
Nahmanides. He is also known as Moses ben Nahman (or Ramban) and lived
1194-1270 AD in Spain and Israel.
|
| 97.173 | | NACAD2::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Fri Mar 25 1994 01:54 | 12 |
| re: .172
Similarly, if a Catholic were to compare most Protestant religions to
Catholicism, who do you think the Catholic would call orthodox and
unorthodox? The funny thing is, even among Catholics there is the
orthodox and unorthodox. And, there are orthodox Jews and unorthodox.
But, I digress. I've just never encountered calling all catholics
unorthodox. Also, if these other Protestant religions are so similar,
why are they divided? And, being divided, isn't their claim to
orthodoxy a bit of a stretch?
Steve
|
| 97.174 | basic tenets of faith | FRETZ::HEISER | Shoveling that sunshine | Fri Mar 25 1994 16:44 | 28 |
| > unorthodox. Also, if these other Protestant religions are so similar,
> why are they divided? And, being divided, isn't their claim to
> orthodoxy a bit of a stretch?
I'll give you an example that's probably fairly well known. The
charismatic denominations (i.e., Assemblies of God) believe the
manifestations of the Holy Spirit, such as speaking in tongues
(I Corinthians 12) are still for today and practice them as well. The
Baptists do not believe this, nor do they practice it. Most Protestant
denominations view this as an minor doctrine. These particular
denominations don't agree on this issue so that's why they are
separate.
So does this make both or either of them unorthodox? I don't believe
so. They both strongly adhere to the critical and essential doctrines
of Christianity:
1. Infallibility and authority of the Holy Bible.
2. The Godhead and characteristics of it.
3. Jesus Christ's full atonement for all sin.
4. Requirements for salvation.
5. The ministry of the Holy Spirit to convict the lost, and seal the
believer upon salvation.
6. Man's sinful nature and the need for a Savior.
7. Second Coming of Christ
8. Missions and the sharing of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Mike
|
| 97.175 | many many languages have you studied? | SWAM2::ROGERS_DA | feeling _so_ SCSI | Sun Mar 27 1994 00:21 | 8 |
| > That's not correct. Try doing a Hebrew word study on "Elohim." Hebrew
> is unique in its noun forms. Elohim is a uniplural noun and the Jews
> *always* knew God was triune in nature.
>
Most definitely not so. The construction is common among slavic
languages - where the plural form of address is indicative of
respect.
|
| 97.176 | MORE MUSINGS ABOUT THE TRIUNE GOD | AKOCOA::RONDINA | | Mon Mar 28 1994 11:02 | 50 |
| I have been giving more thought to this 3-in-in God and have come up
with the following.
BELIEFS OF "ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS"
1. There are 3 Gods, Father, Son, Holy Ghost.
2. These 3 are all one in person, not separate beings.
3. The Father is a spirit, and is omnipresent, meaning everywhere at
the same time.
4. The Son, the Messian, came to earth as a man, and at his death was
resurrected, taking that body to heaven.
5. The Holy Ghost is a spirit also.
However, Christ's resurrected body presents a problem for the Triune
belief. Because of the body and the 3-in-1 being.
1. The Father, although a spirit, must reside in Christ's resurrected
body.
2. The Father, then, can not be omnipresent.
3. And the Holy Spirit can't be omnipresent either because he is inside
Christ's resurrected body.
Therefore:
1. Either this Triune (3 persons in one being) Doctrine is not correct.
2. Or Christ did not take his resurrected body to heaven (which would
make the Bible wrong because it says he did.)
Which is it? What a dilemma!
The LDS doctrine presents 2 points that help solve this dilemma.
1. The Godhead, made up of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are 3
separate persons, beings.
2. The Son has a body, as does the Father.
Now many may not want to believe point 2, but point 1 allows, Christ to
have his resurrected body, the Father to be a spirit and omnipresent
and the Holy Ghost to be a spirit also. It would seem obvious to me
that the separateness of the 3 Gods would be an attractive doctrine to
be believed.
Does any of this make sense to non-LDS readers?
Paul
Paul
|
| 97.177 | | NACAD::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Tue Mar 29 1994 17:25 | 19 |
| re: .174
It's pretty clear to me, then, that the definition of "orthodox" being
used here is rather arbitrary. *None* of the criteria listed here for
what is orthodox and what is not are listed in either of my
dictionaries nor are they obvious to the most casual observer.
My dictionaries mention Christian churches, including catholicism,
in defining orthodoxy. But, none of my dictionaries explicitly mention
any of the Christian religions or beliefs cited in .174.
What, then, is the source for your definition of the word "orthodox?"
And, the obvious follow on is by what authority can you claim that the
Catholic church is unorthodox?
I keep coming back to the definition of "orthodox." By what authority
would anyone deny that Catholicism is Christian? Who would deny that
Catholicism adheres to traditional or established Christian beliefs?
Steve
|
| 97.178 | | FRETZ::HEISER | Shoveling that sunshine | Tue Mar 29 1994 17:35 | 8 |
| > 1. There are 3 Gods, Father, Son, Holy Ghost.
> 2. These 3 are all one in person, not separate beings.
Paul, these are sort of backwards. Traditional Christianity says that
there is 1 God and He manifests Himself in 3 persons. This error
negates the rest of your reply.
Mike
|
| 97.179 | one example | FRETZ::HEISER | Shoveling that sunshine | Tue Mar 29 1994 17:42 | 22 |
| > I keep coming back to the definition of "orthodox." By what authority
> would anyone deny that Catholicism is Christian? Who would deny that
> Catholicism adheres to traditional or established Christian beliefs?
Steve, I'm pretty sure I've seen you noting in CHRISTIAN from
time-to-time. Did you ever notice differences in there between
Christians and Catholics?
As for authority, there's God's Word (Bible). For instance, Catholics
believe that they will go to Purgatory when they die (which is never
mentioned in the Bible) and that the prayers of fellow Catholics who are
still alive will pray them into heaven (i.e., no assurance of salvation).
The Bible says, and traditional Christians believe, that Christ paid the
full atonement for all sins and that we have assurance of salvation.
Christ's death provides salvation from sin for all who accept by faith
His sacrifice on their behalf (I Peter 3:18, Ephesians 2:4-9). The
eternal life given by grace to believers is also preserved by God
(I John 5:11-13, John 6:39, 10:28-29).
This is a major difference in the doctrine of salvation.
Mike
|
| 97.180 | | NACAD::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Tue Mar 29 1994 19:54 | 17 |
| re: .179
I have noted on CHRISTIAN notes, but it has been quite a while.
I dropped it when it was made clear to me that I was not a welcome
participant as I did not share belief in the same dogma defined by the
conference originators. According to my dictionary, Catholics are
Christian since they profess belief in Christianity. The dictionary is
based on the collective opinion of scholars and society. That's where
the authority for the dictionary comes from. Ask a Catholic if he or
she is Christian and the answer will probably be "yes." Now, a
minority claims that Catholics are not Christian. Where does the
authority for this assertion come from? The Catholics have and use the
Bible. They have been around for a very long time. They can trace
their roots directly back to the Apostles. From the world's point of
view, Catholicism is pretty much the epitome of orthodox Christianity.
Steve
|
| 97.181 | | FRETZ::HEISER | another day in DECrestaurant | Wed Mar 30 1994 13:48 | 13 |
| > the authority for the dictionary comes from. Ask a Catholic if he or
> she is Christian and the answer will probably be "yes." Now, a
You get the same answer from many Americans who've never set foot in a
church in their life and have never read or owned a Bible.
> minority claims that Catholics are not Christian. Where does the
> authority for this assertion come from? The Catholics have and use the
The Word of God (the Bible). Many faiths use the Bible, not all of
them hold to what it teaches.
Mike
|
| 97.182 | | NACAD::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Wed Mar 30 1994 14:30 | 22 |
| re: .181
> You get the same answer from many Americans who've never set foot in a
> church in their life and have never read or owned a Bible.
Why can't a person that cannot go to a church, cannot read or who does not
own a Bible be Christian? By what authority can the opinions of such
persons be dismissed? More, we're still talking about orthodox
Christianity, aren't we? These are personally defined attributes for the
word "orthodox" that appear to have little or nothing to do with the
generally accepted definition of the word. By what authority does the
minority declare the majority of Christians to be unorthodox?
> The Word of God (the Bible). Many faiths use the Bible, not all of
> them hold to what it teaches.
Which faiths can you name that use the Bible and profess that they do not hold
to what it teaches? Off hand, I can't think of any. So, what is it in your
faith (besides a self-proclaimed correctness) that authorizes such condemnation
and disqualification of the other faiths?
Steve
|
| 97.183 | MY POINT IS STILL VALID. | AKOCOA::RONDINA | | Wed Mar 30 1994 15:28 | 21 |
| Mike
Even if Traditional says "There is 1 God who manifests himself in 3
ways", my question is not negated, but still valid. One of these
"manifestations" had a body, which was returned to heaven, in which
this "one God" says he is resides. Thus, the One God has to have a
body.
Or. Could it be that this One God is something else (New Agers
sometimes use the word "The Force"? And he manifests himself in
multiple ways, such as Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, The Father, etc?
(I personally don't believe this.)
My question still remains. And so far it remains unanswered. The
Triune God has a body. It is Christ's. Because they are one, he
resides/exists in it.
I don't see how you can get around Christ's resurrected body when you
believe in the 3-in-1 God. See my point?
Paul
|
| 97.184 | | FRETZ::HEISER | another day in DECrestaurant | Wed Mar 30 1994 16:04 | 22 |
| >Why can't a person that cannot go to a church, cannot read or who does not
>own a Bible be Christian? By what authority can the opinions of such
Don't you have to know something about the gospel to accept Jesus
Christ as your Savior and accept His atonement for sin?
>Which faiths can you name that use the Bible and profess that they do not hold
>to what it teaches? Off hand, I can't think of any. So, what is it in your
>faith (besides a self-proclaimed correctness) that authorizes such condemnation
>and disqualification of the other faiths?
How about the Jehovah's Witnesses? Worldwide Church of God
(Armstrongism)? My faith and/or authority has nothing to do with it.
The Word of God is the authority. If you contradict God's Word, the
red flags should go up.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good
works."
II Timothy 3:16-17
|
| 97.185 | | FRETZ::HEISER | another day in DECrestaurant | Wed Mar 30 1994 16:14 | 18 |
| > My question still remains. And so far it remains unanswered. The
> Triune God has a body. It is Christ's. Because they are one, he
> resides/exists in it.
>
> I don't see how you can get around Christ's resurrected body when you
> believe in the 3-in-1 God. See my point?
Paul, I'm trying to. I don't think you can put God in a box either
though. What about when God physically appeared to Moses in Exodus and
showed Moses His body? To me that presents another problem with your
question since you're only giving Christ a body. Did God show Moses a
physical body or a spiritual one? What does a spiritual body look
like? (somewhat described in I Corinthians 15) Did Moses see a
Christophene {sp? - Greek term for an OT appearance of Jesus Christ} as
the King did when he put Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery
furnace?
Mike
|
| 97.186 | | NACAD2::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Wed Mar 30 1994 19:48 | 49 |
| re: .184
> Don't you have to know something about the gospel to accept Jesus
> Christ as your Savior and accept His atonement for sin?
Yes. But, what of the poor, the imprisoned and the illiterate? Are they to
be forever damned simply because of the circumstances they were born into?
I believe Christ was sent to all and not just the privileged.
> How about the Jehovah's Witnesses? Worldwide Church of God
> (Armstrongism)? My faith and/or authority has nothing to do with it.
> The Word of God is the authority. If you contradict God's Word, the
> red flags should go up.
Last I checked, the Jehovah's Witnesses were preaching from the Bible and
claiming to live by it. As for the Worldwide Church of God, all I know of
them is what I have read in Reader's Digest (assuming I have the name right).
From that limited exposure, it would appear that, hypocritical as they seem
to be to many of us, they still claim to hold to what the Bible teaches.
I have met preachers of other faiths who claim to hold to the Bible --
yet dismiss all but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for various reasons. I
have NOT YET MET ANY PROSELYTE that called him/herself Christian that did
not claim to believe the Bible, to follow its teachings and that did not
claim to have the "right" interpretation of the Bible (or as correct as
possible). But, they can't all be right because they often contradict
each other.
It is SO EASY to use the scriptures to differing and conflicting ends.
Anything from condemning each other to fighting over points of doctrine
to shunning those in need and on and on.
This is the reason I get so riled up about condemning Catholics or any other
group of sincere people who would call themselves Christian. I am not
Catholic, but I have marched with them to fight abortion. I am not Muslim,
but I have prayed for a friend and shared spiritual moments in helping
a Muslim friend to stay morally clean. I am not Pentacostal, but my
grandmother is and I have met few in any faith with the trust in God and
love for Him that she has. She is an exemplary person in my eyes.
I am not atheist, but have met atheists who still adhere to the principles
of morality and decency taught in the Bible better than many Christians.
I believe in God. I believe His Word is found in the Bible. Frankly,
I don't really care if others think I'm Christian. Truth be known, it's
really between me and God as to whether or not I really am a Christian.
I grant that the same holds true for every other person that professes
to take on Christ's name.
Steve
|
| 97.187 | this is straying from the topic | FRETZ::HEISER | another day in DECrestaurant | Thu Mar 31 1994 14:57 | 62 |
| >Yes. But, what of the poor, the imprisoned and the illiterate? Are they to
>be forever damned simply because of the circumstances they were born into?
>I believe Christ was sent to all and not just the privileged.
I believe that as well. God is for every man.
>Last I checked, the Jehovah's Witnesses were preaching from the Bible and
>claiming to live by it. As for the Worldwide Church of God, all I know of
>them is what I have read in Reader's Digest (assuming I have the name right).
>From that limited exposure, it would appear that, hypocritical as they seem
>to be to many of us, they still claim to hold to what the Bible teaches.
>
>have NOT YET MET ANY PROSELYTE that called him/herself Christian that did
>not claim to believe the Bible, to follow its teachings and that did not
>claim to have the "right" interpretation of the Bible (or as correct as
>possible). But, they can't all be right because they often contradict
>each other.
The LDS Church also holds fast to much of the Bible, yet you do not
believe that all churches are Christian churches in the same manner and
sense that the LDS is. In fact, isn't it true that your church
actually teaches that Christian church's creeds are "an abomination in
the sight of God," and it's professed members are all doctrinally
corrupt? Do you or do you not believe this to be true?
>I have met preachers of other faiths who claim to hold to the Bible --
>yet dismiss all but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for various reasons. I
Obviously this is an error on their part.
>It is SO EASY to use the scriptures to differing and conflicting ends.
>Anything from condemning each other to fighting over points of doctrine
>to shunning those in need and on and on.
That's why people must not add/subtract to/from God's Word. That's how
these things happen and new denominations are formed.
>This is the reason I get so riled up about condemning Catholics or any other
>group of sincere people who would call themselves Christian. I am not
>Catholic, but I have marched with them to fight abortion. I am not Muslim,
>but I have prayed for a friend and shared spiritual moments in helping
>a Muslim friend to stay morally clean. I am not Pentacostal, but my
>grandmother is and I have met few in any faith with the trust in God and
>love for Him that she has. She is an exemplary person in my eyes.
>I am not atheist, but have met atheists who still adhere to the principles
>of morality and decency taught in the Bible better than many Christians.
I'm also from a Pentecostal background, but when you get right down to
it, your denomination and your works in morality (or anything else)
will not save you (Ephesians 2:4-9).
>I believe in God. I believe His Word is found in the Bible. Frankly,
>I don't really care if others think I'm Christian. Truth be known, it's
>really between me and God as to whether or not I really am a Christian.
>I grant that the same holds true for every other person that professes
>to take on Christ's name.
Steve, you are absolutely correct in stating that it's a personal decision.
Nobody can make it for you, and nobody can save you. Only God can.
later,
Mike
|
| 97.188 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Thu Mar 31 1994 18:19 | 73 |
| > The LDS Church also holds fast to much of the Bible, yet you do not
> believe that all churches are Christian churches in the same manner and
> sense that the LDS is.
That is correct, because the LDS church is the *restored* gospel
after the great night of apostasy, and has the authority from Christ
to act in his name.
> In fact, isn't it true that your church
> actually teaches that Christian church's creeds are "an abomination in
> the sight of God," and it's professed members are all doctrinally
> corrupt? Do you or do you not believe this to be true?
Yes to the first and no to the second. The doctrine is not ALL
doctrinally corrupt, but I have never seen so much (IMHO) twisting
of a lot of scripture to make it "right" based upon the incorrect
definitions of small parts. It is like a tiny part is not quite
understood so a great deal of doctrine comes from it which hides or
makes a lot of other parts misunderstood.
I think it is an abomination to teach that to just *profess* faith or
belief in Christ will get one a place on the right hand of God.
Which leads right to the next subject...
> ..., your denomination and your works in morality (or anything else)
> will not save you (Ephesians 2:4-9).
Here are the important verses from Ephesians, Chapter 2 :
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together
with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
yourselves: it is the gift of God;
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Taken out of the context of Paul's original dissertation, they are an
abomination and corruption of God's word :
Matthew, Chapter 8
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter
into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my
Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out de-
vils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you;
depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Luke, Chapter 6
46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things
which I say?
And this is not taking into account the fine discourse the Lord gave
in Matthew 24:31-46. There are all sorts of other examples in the
Bible that it takes more than just professing belief (James comes to
mind with "Faith without works is dead"). The Law of Moses, which
the Jews thought could get them to heaven, was nothing more than a
schoolmaster that would allow them to look forward to Christ. It's
heavy yoke burdened down those who followed it, and Christ came to
say that his yoke was light and would relieve much of the burden. In
fact, if one looks at the great two commandments (love God and love
neighbor) all the Ten Commandments can be placed in one of those two
categories.
What it all boils down to is this;
after having faith in Jesus Christ and being baptized in his name
unto repentance for a remission of our sins, we must work to comply
with the commandments of God in doing good works (bearing good fruit)
of a charitable nature (1 Cor 13), and no matter how well we do --
it is still by the grace of God that we are saved.
|
| 97.189 | | FRETZ::HEISER | another day in DECrestaurant | Thu Mar 31 1994 18:48 | 52 |
| > That is correct, because the LDS church is the *restored* gospel
> after the great night of apostasy, and has the authority from Christ
> to act in his name.
Just out of curiousity, how do you know the LDS authority is direct
from Christ? The Bible says that Christ promised that the true church
would never disappear from the earth (Matthew 16:18), and Paul warned that
any gospel apart from the Gospel of faith in Jesus Christ which he
preached was not true (Galatians 1:6-9, 3:22-24). Paul also wrote that
the Body of Christ consists of all believers in Christ (I Corinthians
12:12-13,27).
> I think it is an abomination to teach that to just *profess* faith or
> belief in Christ will get one a place on the right hand of God.
> Which leads right to the next subject...
We agree in a sense. Biblical salvation comes by grace through
personal faith in Christ as Savior disregarding all works
(Ephesians 2:4-9, supports II Nephi 10:24, 25:23). It simply consists
of receiving Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (John 1:12-13, I John 5:9-13).
The Bible teaches that our righteousness is found in Christ
(II Corinthians 5:21), and that we are saved through grace, love and
mercy of God (Ephesians 2:4-9; John 3:16). Our acceptance by God is based
solely on our accepting His Son, Jesus Christ (Romans 10:9-10).
The biblical Gospel includes Christ dying for sins, his burial, and his
verified resurrection from the dead (I Corinthians 15:1-8). The Gospel
does not include laws (Romans 3:19-24), or ordinances (Colossians 2:16-17),
or works (Titus 3:5-7).
It's true that faith without works is dead. If you are truly convinced
of Christ's propitiation, the joy He brings to your heart will make you
want to share His gospel with everyone. But like it says in Ephesians
2:8-9 and II Nephi 10:24, 25:23, there's nothing we could do to earn
our way into heaven. Christ already paid that debt.
I agree with you in the rest of you reply in regards to the Law.
> after having faith in Jesus Christ and being baptized in his name
> unto repentance for a remission of our sins, we must work to comply
> with the commandments of God in doing good works (bearing good fruit)
Romans 13:8-10 tells us what fulfills the Law under the new covenant of
Christ. Galatians 5:22 tells us what fruit we should bear once we are
truly saved and the Holy Spirit dwells in our lives.
> of a charitable nature (1 Cor 13), and no matter how well we do --
> it is still by the grace of God that we are saved.
Agreed!
Mike
|
| 97.190 | Finally - discussion without confrontation | AKOCOA::RONDINA | | Fri Apr 01 1994 10:54 | 17 |
| Mike,
I feel someone needs to say that it truly is pleasant discussing
these topics with you. When someone brought up the old "Faith vs.
Works" argument, I thought "Oh, boy, not this rathole again!" Seeing
your very reasonable ideas (and that indeed your reasoning is compatible
with many LDS views) and the way that you present them without a lot of
"heat" make conversation with you enjoyable.
Thanks for being part of these discussions. By the way, don't confuse
my questions as confontative. I love to question and propose
hypotheses.
Regards,
Paul
|
| 97.191 | I guess all a matter of interpretation. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Fri Apr 01 1994 15:54 | 94 |
| > Just out of curiosity, how do you know the LDS authority is direct
> from Christ?
Christ is the head of his church. He established it when he was
here upon the earth, and gave the leadership authority to the first
presidency of Peter, James, and John. This original first presidency
returned (in the early 1800's) and bestowed that authority upon Joseph
Smith and Oliver Cowdery (see also D&C 27:12-14), and then they
through the twelve apostles and three witnesses. Each priesthood
member of this church today can trace their priesthood authority
through them to Jesus Christ.
> The Bible says that Christ promised that the true church
> would never disappear from the earth (Matthew 16:18), ...
My impression of that section of the Bible is different, and I don't
see anything talking about the true church much less it never leaving.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon
this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it.
In reading the whole section of Matthew 16:13-20, I see where Peter
learned who Jesus really was, and then being commended upon learning
it through prayer and the manifestation of the truth through the Holy
Ghost, i.e. not by "flesh and blood." I believe that Christ's church
is led, guided, and directed by the rock of revelation and not the
personage of Peter. I also believe that the Holy Ghost is the only
thing the devil can not duplicate, and that is why revelation will
prevail against the gates of hell.
> We agree in a sense. Biblical salvation comes by grace through
> personal faith in Christ as Savior disregarding all works
> (Ephesians 2:4-9, supports II Nephi 10:24, 25:23).
10:24 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will
of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and
remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in
and through the grace of God that ye are saved.
25:23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and
also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to
God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved,
after all we can do.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I do not, in any way, shape, or form, believe that II Nephi 10:24
and/or II Nephi 25:23 support the hypothesis of the secular definition
of Ephesians 2:4-9!
Oh, the words about saved by grace are there, but then let us not
forgot to read the last part in 25:33. To be saved by grace requires
an effort, contrary to popular belief. I see this in 10:24 where we
must "reconcile yourselves to the will of God".
This means, at least to me, that we follow the commandments of God,
AND DO THE WORKS (nasty word!) ASSOCIATED BY DOING SO, instead of
doing the works of following the devil. I think there is a great
difference in doing "works of righteousness" and the "works of the
Law of Moses". This is, after all, what I think Paul was referring
to when he made the statement. There is so much more in the Bible
about how Paul had to fight the common Jewish misconception of being
saved by works of the law [of Moses].
I think it is a great tragedy to take all the available scripture in
the Bible (some of which I have previously pointed out), and *ignore*
the fact that we must do SOMETHING other than profess a belief.
Yes, we must accept Christ and believe that he has the power to save
us and bring about our salvation, but it is a COVENANT that we enter
into and not a situation where we can just lean back and let Christ do
everything for us. This later attitude is most prevalent among those
who profess the "saved by grace through professing Jesus Christ" and
then doing nothing more. If we do not do the works of Christ, then we
are doing the works of the devil.
The effects of the atonement are given only to those who *repent* and
forsake their sins. Again, this is doing something. Those who think
they can wander the earth doing anything they want after they have
*professed* their belief and acceptance of Christ will be sadly
mistaken when their time comes to meet their maker. To fully live in
the gospel of Jesus Christ, the WHOLE amount of scripture God has given
us must be taken into account. Even if a person will only accept the
Bible as the word of God, it is still pretty much all there. Most of
it comes from Paul, and ever Peter said Paul was hard to understand.
Just by taking and hanging onto one or two verses out of a whole book
will NOT lead to eternal salvation. All of it must be taken and put
into context, and then a clear picture of the *whole* process will
come to mind. Even after all that, it must still be confirmed in the
same way Peter came to know his savior.
Regards,
Charles
|
| 97.192 | | NACAD::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Tue Apr 05 1994 11:01 | 7 |
| It's been a while since I got in here. Only point I'd like to add is
that I regard catholics, protestants and others who take upon
themselves the name of Christ as Christian. That does not mean that I
claim they will be "saved" or that I agree with their dogmas. I leave
it to God to judge individuals.
Steve
|
| 97.193 | catching up | FRETZ::HEISER | green grass and high tides forever | Wed Apr 06 1994 18:44 | 143 |
| 97.194 | Peter, James, and John. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Thu Apr 07 1994 13:23 | 17 |
| 97.195 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Thu Apr 07 1994 13:33 | 37 |
| 97.196 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Thu Apr 07 1994 13:43 | 37 |
| >> it through prayer and the manifestation of the truth through the Holy
>> Ghost, i.e. not by "flesh and blood." I believe that Christ's church
>> is led, guided, and directed by the rock of revelation and not the
>> personage of Peter. I also believe that the Holy Ghost is the only
>> thing the devil can not duplicate, and that is why revelation will
>> prevail against the gates of hell.
>
>Agreed. That's why I don't understand what happened to the Church (i.e., body
>of believers) that required a new gospel. This seems to also imply that the
>first one was a mistake and I know God doesn't make mistakes.
There is no NEW gospel, but the restoration of the original.
>Maybe so. Couldn't also be said that phrase applies to the works in the first
>part of that verse? If so, then it would agree with Ephesians 2:4-9. At least
>that's how I view it. No matter how much we witness to our children and
>bretheren, it is still only the grace of God that saves us.
To take the first part of a verse to try and make it agree with a part
of some other verse, to establish a particular doctrinal principle,
without regard to the rest of the scriptures, or the *context* of those
scriptures, is what has led to the proliferation of religion from the
one true God.
We can agree, however, that when all is said and done, it is by the
grace of God that we are saved. But as there are many mansions in the
kingdom of God, it would be good, I think, to ask exactly what are we
saved to?
>I pretty much agree here. The Bible is clear in saying faith without works is
>dead. Then there's Mark 16:15, Matthew 10:32-33, and Romans 10:9-10. However,
>in the case of a death-bed type conversion where there is no time for works, I
>believe the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior will still save that person.
I do not believe this because we will be judged by the "fruit" of our
labors, and not just by profession of belief (which Christ points out).
|
| 97.197 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Thu Apr 07 1994 13:50 | 18 |
| 97.198 | | FRETZ::HEISER | Clinton Impeachment: 14.2M+ signatures | Thu Apr 07 1994 17:12 | 15 |
| > believe that interpretation is correct. II Thes. 2:1-(3) plainly state
> that there must first be a falling away of the church, or "true belief".
> This is detailed in this conference in notes 4.11 and 4.12. In these
I can see your position now. I believe II Thes. 2:1-3 is an
eschatological passage. The Greek word used there "apostasia" which
means "defection", "revolt", or "rebellion" against God. But there is
another meaning - it can be translated disappearance or departure.
II Thessalonians 2:3 could also read:
"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come,
except there come a disappearance (or departure) first, and that man of
sin be revealed, the son of perdition;"
This is in accordance with I Thessalonians 4:16-17.
|
| 97.199 | | FRETZ::HEISER | Clinton Impeachment: 14.2M+ signatures | Thu Apr 07 1994 17:16 | 16 |
| > If we read John 8:1-11, I believe the lesson is that unless we are
> without sin, then we have no right to *condemn* others. Oh, we must
> judge what we will do, but that is the extent of it. Only those who
> have a stewardship over others have the right to judge in a condemning
> manner. Jesus Christ has been given that stewardship of judgement over
> all the inhabitants of this earth, and will "judge" them in that sense,
> but I believe that as persons, we are not to judge other persons in a
> condemning way.
Would abiding by Matthew 7:6 necessarily mean you have to condemn
someone? I don't believe so. I agree with what you say, only God can
condemn. If I chose not to share the gospel with Jeffrey Dahmer
because I think he's swine, I am not condemning him, but I am judging
him.
Mike
|