Leaderboard

Wow. I don't even know what to say to such an assertion from a self-proclaimed Latter-day Saint. It implies no such thing. God is indeed all-powerful. He possesses all power. Period. There can be no argument over this. The things that God "cannot" do are not things. They are non-things. God "cannot" create a rock so big that he can't lift it. God "cannot" save people in their sins. God "cannot" make you exist at a certain place and time, and simultaneously make you not exist at that place and time. God "cannot" do these "things", not because he lacks the power to do them, but because the "things" aren't actually things at all. They are mere word games. God "cannot" sin. Of course he "cannot". He doesn't lack some sort of "power" to sin (which is a contradiction in terms, anyway); rather, sinful behavior is contrary to his nature. It's another word game. I think it's too bad when non-Latter-day Saints falsely preach that we believe in a non-Almighty God. I think it's much sadder when Latter-day Saints fail to understand this basic point.

Trinitarians and Hindus are completely different. Trinity and Trimurti are not comparable. Trinitarians do not believe in any way at all that the Trinity are 3 separate individual deities with different attitudes, etc. The Trinity is One God. The Trimutri is 3 gods. The Trinity is not 3 Beings united by a universal constant. The Trinity is One Entity.

So funny...because you are further apart from them than from traditional Christianity. Let's take a look: Trinity? JW would say it's too polytheistic. LDS would say it's too rigid in its understanding of God being one. Christmas? JW would say it's origins are in Paganism. LDS would hand me a Christmas choir CD. American Constitution? JW would say it, like all earthly governments, comes from the Devil. LDS would say it's inspired. Alcohol? JW would endorse it in moderation. LDS would invoke modern prophecy to oppose it. Pop singers. Donny and Marie vs. Prince ... it's probably time to stop, now.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/familysearch-document-same-sex-family-relationships FamilySearch is one of the world's largest collections of genealogical data, drawn from civil, ecclesiastical and other sources to be assessed for their genealogical value by each researcher. FamilySearch Family Tree now provides the ability for users to document same-sex family relationships. Consistent with the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, only marriages between people of the opposite sex may be solemnized or sealed in the temple.

Very strong aurora borealis caused by the intense radiation from an immense supernova 40-100 light-years away that reached the earth at the moment of Jesus' birth. It was new. The Nephites and Lamanites had better vision that those in the Old World. Who says they didn't? Argument from silence is an especially weak basis from which to propound. "Jesus could not have had a beard, because the Bible doesn't say he had a beard! Jesus did not have two arms, because the Bible doesn't say Jesus had two arms! Jesus could not have had a wife, because the Bible doesn't say Jesus had a wife! Jesus must never have eaten quail, because the Bible never says that Jesus ate quail!" That the Bible doesn't mention anyone besides the wise men seeing the new star doesn't mean, or imply, or even suggest that no one else saw it. It means only that those who wrote the Biblical account saw fit to mention that the wise men saw the star, for whom it had deep meaning, and didn't see fit to mention that, by the way, any other human being with decent eyesight could also have seen the star if he looked.

As with pretty much all miracles, we don't know the scientific "how" of this. It's a new star. It has the same effect in both the eastern and western hemispheres-- same in the Middle East as the Americas. The Nephites and Lamanites weren't going off of the New Testament's records (they didn't have them), but rather their own communications and experiences with God. Just as the wise men in the east, they saw the star and were told it's meaning. They probably did, but didn't realize it was new and it's meaning. Frankly, a hundred new stars could appear in the sky and I would no even realize. The wise men and the prophets of God were studied men and (more importantly) attuned to the Spirit.

But Vort, that is what our Church believes, even if it is ephasized as much anymore. Absolutely not. Not in any sense at all of any sort for which the term was coined. To argue otherwise is exactly like saying that, since political will is force, therefore sufficient political will can allow us to fly by flapping our arms. It's a confusion of terms. No, I do not believe that any other gods have existed or do exist or will ever, ever, ever, ever exist throughout the eternities, other than the God I worship. There is no other god. But wait! Didn't Jesus himself teach, "Ye are gods?" Indeed he did. But Jesus was not telling the liars threatening to stone him that they would sit on the Father's throne. No reasonable person could possibly believe that. Jesus was teaching a more subtle doctrine, and using it to show that merely calling himself God's Son, and thus in the Hebrew mind equal to God, was no capital offense, if even they (filthy. lying abominations that they were) could be considered as "gods". What does the term "henotheism" mean? Why was it invented? Was it used to describe monotheists who posit the existence of other realms of creation utterly aside from that of our Father? Of course not. How could such a speculative creation have any possible effect on us, even if it actually existed? All Christians who believe the Bible agree that those who follow Christ will inherit "all that the Father hath". So I guess you're stating that all Christians are henotheists? The whole argument is nonsense. The terms were invented with certain ideas in mind. Latter-day Saints are not among those ideas for which the terms were coined. We are not polytheists. We are not henotheists. I defy anyone to find a single example of what President Oaks called "official doctrine" that teaches any such thing.

I probably care too little about what others think of me. If I cared more, I would perhaps take better care of myself and comport myself with more decorum in various situations, such as on this forum. So I tend to fall easily into agreement with your above statement. But that's beside the point. We aren't polytheists, and we aren't henotheists. That is absurd. We are monotheists. All the hair-splitting in the world will not change that. Why was the term "polytheist" ever coined, anyway? Because people who did not believe in many gods used it to describe those who did. Why was the term "monotheist" coined? Clearly, to distinguish those who believed in God, but only one, from the polytheists. Why was the term "henotheist" coined? Because a couple of early 19th-century Freidrichs wanted to describe primitive Greek monotheists who allowed for the existence of other gods besides the one they worshiped. So here's the breakdown: Polytheism: I believe in Zeus, Apollo, Ares, Hera, Athena, and a bunch of other gods. Henotheism: I grant that Apollo might drive the sun chariot across the sky and that Ares and Apollo and Athena and the rest might possibly exist and do their thing. Whatever. Sure, they might have effect on me. But I only worship Zeus. Monotheism: There is only one God. He is supreme. He is almighty. The other gods that people worship are false gods. Apollo doesn't drive a sun chariot. Zeus doesn't hurl lightning bolts. The God we worship is the only one. If you have to classify our religion strictly based on the above categories, into which category does it sort? The answer is obvious. And if you think that answer is "polytheism" or "henotheism", then you are beyond my reach.

Indeed God is ONE. And that is were Henotheism and Polytheism fail. With all other Theisms other then Mono if you do not like what one God tells you then go ask another and you might get a different answer. (See many Greek and Roman myths ) With Monotheism that is not an option because they are ONE. Christianity is not Henotheistic or Polytheistic because you can not Play the Father against the Son (like in many mythologies), because the Father and Son are ONE. This makes the Heavenly Mother also a moot point because she is also One with the Father and Son... it makes anyone else that might ascend also a moot point because they will also be ONE. The number of physical forms running around (or personalities) is not relevant because they are all ONE with what makes God... God.

There are false gods and there's the one true God. Irrelevant. Not in the way you use the word embryo. The problem with your questions and your positing of henotheism is you confuse God with Persons in the Godhead. So let me post the last sentence to the Testimony of Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon: And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

It's a new news article, but I'm not exactly sure this is new news. I've been hearing similar things for a few years now. It makes sense. We believe there are better ways to run life than having a divorce or children born out of wedlock, but part of doing genealogy is recording an occasional divorce date or birth to an unmarried partner. One good way find the skeletons and dirt on our ancestors, is to do their genealogy. Just enhancing the capabilities.

Even Paul conceded there were "gods many". There are any number of false gods. But for us, there is only one true God. Worship of any other being or non-being besides him is worshiping a false god. So we are monotheistic in any reasonable definition of the word.

The reason is because, as per their definition, Trinitarians WOULD qualify as polytheists as they see it in the same way many Hindu religions are polytheistic. When talking about Hindu religions one would see Hindi religious observers having multiple deities and thus polytheistic. In many Hindu religions they have different deities. instead of calling it a Trinity, they call it the Trimurti. These would be Brahma (who also represents the highest idea, the three in one, and the universal constant of ALL the deities, thus is ALL the deities as well, but is DIFFERENT than the other deities), Vishnu, and Shiva. They are ALL three separate individual deities with very DIFFERENT attitudes, aspects, and actions. However, they are also ALL the SAME deity at the same time, united by the universal constant (Brahman). Sound familiar? Just as we view Hindu religions as polytheistic, even those that simply focus on the three separate and yet in one, many monotheistic religions such as Jews also feel that Christians who believe in the trinity are also polytheistic. Now, unlike Trinitarians and Mormons, many of these same sects also believe their Trimurti can incarnate into a single avatar with all three of them combined, sometimes called Dattatreya. There are also various views (just as there are in Christianity, Hinduism is a pretty large and diverse religion, in some ways more so than Christianity and many other religions of the world) with some viewing this trimurti more as the modalists or arian styled religions and other views (some that truly are polytheistic). However, just as they would consider those that are Hindu that worship the three in one aspect that mirrors the Trinity of Christianity as polytheistic, they also consider Christians who follow the trinity polytheistic. In my understanding. Obviously, there are major differences between Christianity and Hindu religions, but as the Muslims and Jews may view it, though they are different from each other, the things that would apply to one would apply to the other when in similar situations.

I assume this is a logical question that would result from the passages of scripture provided. What you have read is all the information we have; although, just as anyone else we are free to speculate or theorize as what the light might have been: 1) God is allowing his children to see that he is the light and life of the world. That with his birth, light came into the world that overcomes darkness. Can be even used a good parable. 2) There are multiple suns in our universe that could have been given command to provide light to our earth (but I like #1 better) 3) You can theorize also, try one. As with the sign of Christ's birth being no darkness we don't have any information regarding the size, shape, form, brightness, and distance of this new star. The people were obviously familiar with the stars in the heavens, and if so, then they would be able to tell when a new star appeared. Are we currently able to tell different stars apart? I think so. If we are able to tell the difference between some stars, surely they would have been able to understand the difference also -- only if they were informed of the prophecy. People who are looking are better adept at recognizing the difference in the skies then those who aren't aware or are uninformed. The second paragraph is an assumption being made from what in the Bible's account. It assumes that since the Bible only specifies the wise men saw the star that they are the only ones who saw the star. The answer though is really simple with the Nephites and Lamanites. The Nephites and Lamanites saw this star, at least those who were looking, because they had been told (just as the wise men) a star would appear. That is why they saw the star prophesied of: 1) they were informed 2) they were looking. Yes, stars normally appear more than once throughout the year or two or three. Who said they didn't? The record only states the wise man saw, but does not indicate these others never saw the star. I am assuming though the moment Herod was told of the star he probably had people look for the star, and they probably saw the star also. I assume a better question for you is, why the Bible didn't record everyone who saw the star?

Scott, I know that sometimes I come across in this forum as scolding or severe, or even petulant. But I usually don't mean to be that way. I admit that this particular subject matter bothers me, like discussions on Kolob or how women actually already hold the Priesthood or other such irritants. But I don't mean to put that on you. It's the ideas I find irritating, not the people discussing them. I'm not aware that I've been unkind in this particular series of exchanges, but if I have, I sincerely apologize. That has not been my intent. Now, to your point: "Henotheism" is a technical term. It was coined for a particular discussion and in reference to a particular belief set, which is described as "worshiping one god but believing in the existence of other gods." BUT THAT IS AN OVERSIMPLIFIED DESCRIPTION. It's a "shorthand" description. The word does indeed refer to people who worship only one god but believe in the existence of others—in a specific context. And that context is that of ancient Greeks and the evolution of their pantheon. Like many or most other ancient peoples, the ancient Greeks believed in all sorts of gods, some local, some more general. There was a god of fire, and a god of water, and a god of the hearth, and a god of the doorsill, and a god of hunting, and a god of growing grain, and a god of growing turnips, and a god of love, and a god of carnality, and a god of fertility, and a god of alcoholic beverages, and a god of conducting business, and a god of trees, and a god of clouds, and a god of thunder, and a god of stones, and a god of metal, and a god of woodworking, and so on and so forth ad nauseam. The Greeks were so afraid of leaving out some minor god and incurring his wrath that they built a special temple to "the unknown god", so that any overlooked god might assume that the temple was built for him. That way, the god of bad breath wouldn't curse the people for forgetting to worship him. Some of the very ancient Greek tribes (and others) worshiped what they thought was the most powerful god, or maybe the one they were most likely to get favors from. They did not deny the existence of all the other gods; they simply concentrated on the one they devoted themselves to. That is the meaning of "henotheism". LDS religious understanding is utterly alien to this. We believe in the Father, the Creator of all things including, in some sense, our very selves. We believe in the Son as being, in essence, the Father's hands in creation and government. We believe that the Son was called to be our Savior, and that he wrought an act of reconciliation between us and the Father, something we call "Christ's atonement". We don't understand the mechanics of the atonement, not at all, not even a little*. But that doesn't matter. We believe in the Holy Ghost, literally a spirit from God, a divine being who can dwell within us and reveal the Father and the Son to us, whose influence on us can cleanse us and make us worthy, able, and eager to stand in the very presence of God and bathe his feet with our tears of gratitude and love. And these beings are God, each of them and all of them. We also believe we have a Mother who is fitted for and equal to our Father, and to whom we therefore assign qualities like "perfection" and "omniscience" and "omnipotence". But we don't really understand what we're saying. Mostly, these are just words, and we use them because they are all we have. But if we have the Spirit, then the words might be revealed to us, and we have some actual understanding, not just words but real knowledge. *(I am convinced we never will understand the mechanics of it until far in our future, after our resurrection, both because it is so far beyond our comprehension of how spiritual mechanics work that we literally have no context to understand, and because the mechanics of the atonement are as irrelevant as the chemical mechanics of how we digest our food. The important point is that the thing works, not that we understand how it works.) So now, are we really going to use a word that was invented to describe an evolutionary state of primitive religion among ancient peoples three thousand years ago as a modern description of latter-day revealed truths? What possible sense does it make to say that Latter-day Saints are "henotheists"? Does it increase anyone's understanding of eternal principles, even a little tiny bit? Does it bring anyone to Christ? Does it create in the minds of people, Latter-day Saints or otherwise, an accurate picture of what it is to be a member of the kingdom of God? I submit it does none of these things. It does the opposite. It creates confusion and ambiguity. It adds needless complexity and obfuscates what it is supposed to illuminate, all for the sake of using a ten-dollar word. We are not "henotheists". Period. No way. I agree that the correct worldly term to describe us and our belief system does not exist, unless that word is "reality". But saying that we are "reality people" doesn't help anyone come to Christ. So if we're going to describe ourselves in the most truthful way possible using the inaccurate terms at our disposal, "henotheism" is the wrong choice. "Monotheism" is, without a shadow of doubt, the best available term. Whatever it lacks in nuance, it more than makes up for in creating an overall accurate and reasonable picture in the minds of the hearers. We are not henotheists or polytheists. We are monotheists.

And the Trimurti is ALSO one deity. It is three deities and ONE deity. The Three aspects are also three different beings, each expressing a different action and idea. You MAY not see this as a Christian, but to those who are NOT Christian, the ideas that are expressed in some areas of Christianity are basically the same to the outward appearance as those in other religions. This does not mean they are the same beings or same belief, but that there are aspects that are common between them. Perhaps an easier to digest example of this behavior. We'll take a look at an even earlier belief that originated during the same period and has crossover between both East and Western thought. During the 6th century we have originating among the Jewish texts a myth (or as we Christians would put it, the story from history) regarding Noah and a worldwide flood. This belief is also held by Christians. Noah is the origin of man today, though we are all related to Adam, we are also all related to Noah. At the same time, a very similar story ALSO originated in the 6th century BC which became part of the Hindu religions, that they also have a great flood, but in this aspect we have it that Manu is warned by an avatar of Vishnu of the coming flood. Manu was the first man as well, in this aspect, having been saved from the flood by the revelations of Vishnu. This obviously is NOT the same as the story we believe in, but to the outward appearance to those who are not part of our religion or Hindu they would immediately see the obvious similarities. They would label both of these as flood myths and stories of a worldwide flood mythology. They have common aspects. Now a Christian may refute and say that the Hindu story is false and vice versa, and that they have nothing in common, but to everyone else (and this is something that Historians deal with quite regularly when analyzing various religions and their impact on history as well as their relationship to each other) there are common factors which can be understood and explained. In the same way, those who are not Christian (though there are probably a few that are Hindu) would understand and perceive the similarities between the trimurti beliefs and the trinity beliefs. This is a reason why Jews and Muslims would quite validly claim that neither Christians who believe in the trinity (or a similar belief) nor Hindi are monotheistic, but in fact, as per their belief, are polytheistic. In the Jewish (and Muslim) thought, there is ONLY ONE DEITY, not represented by three, not with three aspects, but ONE and ONLY ONE, universal and constant. Any thought that tries to portray it as more than that will be seen as polytheistic most likely.

Scott, if a person becomes one with God (aka exalted), then they are ONE. Sum total number of Gods = 1. More divine person that are ONE with God yes, but still only one God. It's monotheism. Albeit, not simple monotheism like Islam. Likewise Trinitarisim is not simple monotheism like Islam. I invite everyone (including me) to do a study of the oneness of God.

Go do a quick, 30-minute study on the history of the word "henotheism". Then come back and tell us if you think it's "the closest definition to our beliefs."

Irrelevant. I don't see it as irrelevant. It's a perplexing question. So far only one person has answered in this thread. It's not in the least perplexing. A Mother in heaven will obviously be a female counterpoint to the Father in heaven. That means that, like Eve to Adam, she will be perfectly fitted to him. He is perfect and all-powerful; therefore, so must she be. What could be more obvious? Nothing perplexing about it. But we don't worship her. That's the point. We worship only one God. Some might argue that the term "God" incorporates both the Father and the Mother, as it incorporates both the Father and the Son. But that's a silly word game. In some cases, it's probably true. But what of it? When we pray, we pray to the Father. When we covenant, we covenant with the Father. It is him whom we worship, and none else. If we worship the Christ—and we do, in some sense at least—we worship him as God, as a being who is one with the Father. One God. Not two, not many. One. Monotheism.

Yes, of course, but while you and I will claim that we worship one God and are monotheistic, other's will label us as something else, and I really don't care what they think as long as I know by the power of the Holy Ghost that our doctrines are true.

This is exactly my problem with Trump. Calling a certain person "Pocahontas" may seem to be belittling to a certain politician - but it is much more belittling to the entire base of indigenous Native Americans - and Trump could care less. He does not care about innocent people that are hurt or neglected because of his narcissistic mannerisms. It may seem cool that he causes problems for swamp creatures - I do no like him because he does not care about any collateral damage done to the undeserving while he is getting his revenge on those he wants. The Traveler

I have received impressions before about things that would shortly happen and they did but they were things that in and of themselves were very minor and had no benefit to them other than learning how the Spirit works with me. I think we underestimate how much the Lord is willing to take us into his confidence in important matters so he uses the less important matters to try to train us up.

You made my point EXACTLY. This is the reason Trump pushes back. But then, when he does, you whine that he's too mean or he's ending civil discourse or whatever. You have zero realization that civil discourse ended long time ago and political correctness took its place - uncivil discourse hiding behind pretty words. The only difference between me calling somebody "Pocahontas" versus "He's going to put you back in chains" is... one is true, the other one is false.

I have felt these things. For me, and possibly for others, these experiences are brief, temporary and infrequent, so I think its only natural to wonder how we will cope when such experiences become an eternal constant, especially when we consider the impact on mortal bodies of more intense versions of the kind of experiences you, as suggested by 1 Nephi, 1:8, Moses 1: 9 – 10, Mosiah 27:18 and Alma 18:42

Agreed! Once in college I was asked to complete a survey about sexuality (go figure 🙄). The survey was anonymous, but at the end of the survey we were asked to specify our religious affiliation, if any. Among the options were Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, Hindu, etc, etc. What I found most infuriating was that one of the options was "Mormon / Jehovah's Witness". I chose to check the box labeled "Other" and wrote "MORMON, WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS JEHOVAH'S WITNESS!" I assume the survey preparers were probably thinking along the lines of mainstream Christianity vs non. There was a large population of proselyting Jehovah's Witnesses in Florida during the time I served my mission. I became too familiar with their beliefs to accept the idea of anyone grouping us as though we were the same or similar denomination. A partially related anecdote: While teaching at a Jehovah's Witness' home I was once asked the name of God. When I said, "Elohim", they were shocked and seemingly had no idea how to respond because that's not the answer they were accustomed to. You wanna confuse the crap out of someone so much that it is absolutely hilarious: try explaining the Latter-Day Saint understanding of the Godhead to a Jehovah's Witness and watch as they fumble to comprehend how we believe that Jehovah is the same person as Jesus Christ, but that God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate beings. I always thoroughly enjoyed that one as a missionary, especially because they try to show you passages to teach that Christ and the Father are separate beings and you tell them, "Yes, I agree completely," and they don't know where to go from there because they don't understand how you can reject the Trinity, agree that the Father and Son are separate, and still believe that Jehovah and Christ are the same! 😁 Ahh, the good ole days!

Calvinists might give you a theological hug with this one. They would agree and promote Predestination as the only doctrine that comports with God's sovereignty. I would suggest that only an all-powerful God would grant his creation the liberty to commune with Him or embrace eternal separation.

Every time a JW approaches me, I make sure to pay them the compliment "Nobody does a whore of babylon riding the beast, better than the Watchtower. You guys rock!" (For some weird reason, this puts about half of them on the defensive. Don't know why.)

In this example, the Evangelical position is the middle ground. Muslims and Jews insist that God is one and that the Trinity is an absurd effort to conflate obvious tritheism into a mystical one God. Jehovah's Witnesses solve the alleged problem by saying Jesus is subordinate to the Father--a lesser god--perhaps an archangel. Oneness Pentecostals' solution is to say that Jesus is the God, operating in three roles or modes. The LDS position is to take the classic analogies (family, h2o's various forms, egg, etc.) and push them all the way, by saying unity-of-purpose makes a group one enough to qualify. I will say this, if LDS give up on the monotheistic label it would be huge. For example, how could the '3 omnis' work? How could God be all-knowing if there are other gods? How could He be all powerful if other gods had power? How could He be everywhere if other gods have their realms? No, I suspect that most LDS--particular those in leadership and in theological academia would insist that the Godhead is the GOD, not 3 gods.

I imagine church leaders spend considerable time reaching decisions because consensus is important. Consequently I would not place too much weight on the correlation between the timing of world events and the decisions of the brethren.

It is the context of "All" power. If the definitive statement is made that G-d is "all powerful" - meaning (as you said previously) that G-d has all power to do anything possible. My effort was show an existing power that G-d does not have. There are implications to power. One implication is responsibility another is determinability. This is what Calvinist realize. In short - what has power is responsible and the means that determines the outcome. If there is an outcome for which G-d is not responsible or or any outcome that G-d does not determine - It can only be because he does not possess that power - that power of necessity must reside somewhere else and be the means or cause. Many times I have made reference to the Near Eastern Suzerain - Vassal treaty or covenant. There are applications as to the context of a "supreme power" rather than being all powerful - that I believe is that understanding necessary to comprehend the power and nature of G-d. Especially concerning a bevy of implications (like delegation of power and authority) that are not yet being discussed. There are consequences in delegating power and authority. I am also of the mind that to understand the context of G-d's power - not only is it necessary to understand his supreme power and how that power can be delegated and distributed - but we must also understand his mercy and compassion - because all such things of G-d are inseparably connected. And yet as we attempt to define divine power - we try to understand that separably from other natures. So to be clear and to eliminate as much confusion as possible - I define G-d's power as the "Supreme" power rather than "All powerful". There is another tangent in this discussion that has to do with delegation of power. Some would argue that G-d still retain the power even if he has delegated it. In other words he has the power to do things that he does not himself exercise. But this is an argument of supposition that causes more confusion than clarity. I believe it is clarified if we understand, that in the case of distributed or delegated power - that the power of G-d, because he is G-d, remains superior instead of all the power or all powerful. In short "All Power" as a description is not accurate enough to prevent way to much misunderstanding and presented in the long lasting argument of freewill verses determinism - That I believe can only be clarified by a more clear use of terms. The Traveler

Apparently, the prophets care. They have made it crystal clear that we believe in and worship one God.

Does it ever have stories as surprising as this one?