mordorbund

I was teaching the Word of Wisdom in Family Home Evening and wanted to emphasize that while section 89 was not by commandment or constraint, portions of the WoW have become commandments through even more modern prophets - and that counsel had extended past what was in the original revelation. We talked about the hot drinks and tobacco verses. I then asked my 9-year-old brother to find where it talked about drugs. I waited while he looked at each verse. Finally, he lifted his head and said, And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man— Every herb in the season thereof

There's nothing illegal about being a monopoly. What is illegal is leveraging your monopoly to engage in anti-competitive practices.

I tried really hard to read your post but can't take my eyes off that picture. It just draws so much attention to itself (even now I'm staring at it, so I can't be held accountable for what I write). I'm guessing you wrote something like Here's my standard of modesty. Every day I call Larry Scott and ask him if he wants to hang out. If he says "no," then I know I'm wearing something that embarrasses him and need to change. For what it's worth, I still can't tell you what color Larry's hair is.

So how do we discourage farmers from hiring illegal robot aliens without hurting Americans (including the robot aliens that paid their dues and came here legally)?

That explains why you're on this forum instead of outside enjoying the world.

Thanks Vahnin and Hemidakota for your responses. I dug around a little bit and found out there are multiple definitions of omnipresence. From Encarta: - always present everywhere: continuously and simultaneously present throughout the whole of creation - found everywhere: present or seemingly present all the time or everywhere I disagree with applying this definition to God (except the "seemingly present" part). But it looks like philosophers and theologians have rejected this definition as well. God is in all things by his power, inasmuch as all things are subject to his power; he is by his presence in all things, inasmuch as all things are bare and open to his eyes; he is in all things by his essence, inasmuch as he is present to all as the cause of their being” (Summa Theologica I, 8, 3) The first clause says he is omnipresent through omnipotence. The second says he is omnipotent through his omniscience. The third says he is omnipresent through what we know to be the Light of Christ, or spirit (to use terms that you each used). This is a definition I can subscribe to.

AAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!! You broke the chain and gave a serious response!! BEWARE!!!

So the Spirit of God is literally everywhere, and by extension, the Godhead? The Spirit is in my water glass and my desk? Or (my thoughts here) is he really saying the Spirit's influence is everywhere? I think most scriptures applied to omnipresence are really testifying that God observes everything and can be felt anywhere - not that he is at Stake Conference and the bar down the street at the same time. Gotta admit, I'm stumped as to why the Prophet would use the word omnipresent here. This is an argument for omniscience, not omnipresence. I was referring to many of the divine attributes listed in the LoF when I posted earlier. While it includes both power and knowledge as godly requirements (or else we could not have faith in him) presence is absent. This implies that we can still have faith in a God who is not omnipresent.

If I were to make the opposite assertion, I'd be shouted down as a racist in about two seconds flat.Just sayin'. It's not racist though because it's about illegals and not any nationality. Take two brothers who grew up together in the same non-US country. Both come over here but only one goes through the proper channels. Of the two, the illegal "work pretty well, better than [his] American" brother who is clearly exhausted from all the paperwork. See, race doesn't enter into it at all.

The Stake President was quite upset when he heard what the Bishop had done. It was not right for anyone - infant or not - to sleep through meetings. He arranged for an appointment with the child. The President met with the child in his office and afterwords asked the parents to report on his behavior the next Sunday. Sacrament meeting came, and to the mother's fright the child did not sleep. Timmy started fussing and crying and pounding the pews. This continued until several minutes after Sacrament meeting. Despite all this, nobody seemed to mind the child. She ran over and told the Stake President about the meeting and how no matter how loud the Timmy got or how much he whined, everyone just ignored him. "What did you do?" she asked. "Well, I couldn't undo what the Bishop did," the President said. "So I made him a High Councillor."

One of many things that I find interesting about the Godhead is that while they enjoy a union of wills and mind, they perform different functions and each has a different revealed form. The Father has always been flesh and bone (and spirit), which we are told is one of the motivations that drove us to our probations. The Holy Ghost is a spirit, and must remain so or else he "cannot dwell in us." And the Son has enjoyed both forms, and also left us a record of his own mortal period. From this I gather a few ideas (you are free to disagree with me if you see differently). 1) Although many attributes serve as a prerequisite to being in the Godhead (including including justice, mercy, knowledge, etc), a mortal experience (including a mortal body) is not one of them. 2) Just being in the Godhead does not give you a free pass to bypass probation to godhood (this is assuming that the Holy Ghost will at some point receive a body just as the Son did) (and just to define the way I'm using the term, godhood refers to receiving the perfections and rewards that come in a post-mortal period. So while the Holy Ghost is rightly called God, I view this as having the perfections the Godhead is known for, and membership in the Godhead. It is a different title than the one given to Abraham in his exaltation). Some of the attributes the Godhead has are the very ones that we need to develop for exaltation. Among these are unity, mercy, constancy, truth, equity, love, knowledge, and justice. But these attributes alone are not the only criteria for being God (although they put one well on the way of being a god). Some additional attributes that the Godhead has that will be granted to an individual as (s)he progresses from grace to grace are the following: more knowledge (until receiving omniscience), power and judgement over your dominions (including omnipotence). But even these attributes do not grant admission into the Godhead*. As someone quoted earlier, the Godhead has been defined as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which is one eternal God without end. I take that final statement to mean that this is the Godhead we were subject to "in the beginning", and the very Godhead that we will be under for all eternity. Even after the Holy Ghost receives a body, and after the last babe is resurrected. So the Godhead is not defined by duration (since we were all there in the Grand Council, and we'll all still exist in a kingdom later). It is not defined by specific qualities (since many will gain those qualities - and many probably already had them (not accountable)). And it is not defined by powers/priveleges granted (since those will be granted to all the faithful). It is defined by 3 beings who already had the specific qualities and accepting the calling/foreordination to serve in their respective roles forever (here am I, send me), and were granted the powers necessary to act in their callings. So it is those 3 and no more simply by definition (in my mind, the Father could just as well had 5 or 6). So the Godhead is ultimately a presidency over the godhood quorum (comprised of like individuals but these have all passed through mortality and gained a body), who also preside over prospective gods. And as the Supreme Presidency, they will also preside over a kingdom of glory, but I imagine that there is another structure in place (like how a member of the First Presidency ultimately presides over any quorum meeting, but there is an order in place so it could run smoothly even in his absence). *I do not think omnipresence is really a requirement of anyone in the Godhead, including the Holy Ghost - not without a limited definition of omnipresence.

I think we're saying the same things, but using different phraseology. My point with "give up" is that I make a choice to submit my will to the Father's until the two wills align. My will is not taken from me, but is given willingly as a sacrifice. Let's say I reach this Zion stage. Am I then a member of the Godhead? (obviously no, so) What precludes me from it? What attributes/qualities make them different from me (including celestialized, glorified me)?

What happens when I give up my will to the Father and start working for the salvation of souls? If I have the same heart and mind as the other three do I join the Godhead? Or is there some other attribute/qualification that I'm missing?

Gerasim, you reawakened this thread with your question. Have you gotten a satisfactory response?

I like what Vahnin posted earlier: For me it brings to new light the phrase "they will know, even as they are known". We will enjoy the same mind that the Father and the Son have. We will have the same concern for others that they (the Godhead) have for us. What I mean by experiential omniscience is the difference between the Spirit telling you "you really shouldn't do this thing that damages your spirit" because he has knowledge of such, versus the Son testifying to you "It was really hellish when I felt the consequences of the action you're contemplating." It also means that the Son is especially able to judge us because we can never tell him "you don't know what it's like to be me." He proxy-walked in each of our shoes.I think we've covered the aspect of oneness that we can attain to if we are faithful (joining the cause, mingling in the assembly of the gods). I'm convinced there has to be an exclusive aspect of the Godhead to limit it to just the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Do you think there is more to the exclusive aspect than just the legalese that the Godhead is comprised of these three and no more? Or is there an attribute/qualification that makes them such?

So one step we can take to partake of the Godhead is to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. And your comment on their knowledge of everyone's thoughts makes it sound like omniscience is a pre-requisite to being in the Godhead. Alma 7:13 Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me. But it sounds like experiential omniscience is not a requirement.

Is this oneness what makes them the Godhead, or is there something else? So when we give our will over to God, to we then partake of the Godhead? I tend to think so, but I'm not entirely sure what that means. But that doesn't mean that we would be one of the Godhead, just one with the Godhead (I'm not complaining about that by any means). So there's another property of Godhead that we haven't touched on yet that makes a person a member.

It was pointed out earlier that much of the knowledge we do have about the nature of God came because somebody pondered and asked. By your same line of thinking, why do we need the Book of Mormon when it states in the intro that the Bible contains the fulness of the gospel? Why should we care if God said anything to anyone else? His word in the Bible tells us everything we need for our salvation. If you don't care about the topic, disengage. Otherwise, enjoy the variety of perspectives and insights of others.

And the reason why I started a fresh thread is because the others seemed to be an attempt to explain the Godhead to people of different faith who have a different foundation from us. I thought it might be nice to have a discussion that starts on the same page, and doesn't require anyone knowing what ousia is.

I think it's talking about a concern for each other's welfare. Much like Enos or Mosiah's sons, who were not satisfied at their own assurance of forgiveness but then pled and worked on behalf of others so they could enjoy the same blessings. I don't think that's the same oneness the Godhead have, but that's probably because I don't understand how it applies to them. The most analagous relationship that I can think of is that just as the members of the Godhead have concern for us, so we should have concern for each other and develop that godly trait. As I was writing this, I saw that this trait is indeed one way that the Godhead is one (I do think that their unity extends to their character). This concern/love is displayed by all 3 members of the Godhead in the scriptures - the Father so loved the world... the Son weeps over Jerusalem as a mother hen... and the Spirit broods upon creation. Vahnin, do you think the oneness in the scripture you cited has other application with respect to the Godhead?

I think the origin of God (including his genealogy) is very important. If God has always been God, and has always been as he is, then what hope do I have of ever becoming like him? Is it our claim that the Supreme Intelligence, out of the goodness of his heart, has extended equality to us (through his Son) through a program that was unavailable to himself? Or is he exposing a process that he's been through so that we can walk the same path and reap the same reward? Or is this a path that's been walked for eons and God had a guide to that path the same as us? If we do not understand God, we do not understand ourselves.

Truth be told, I have found Vahnin's posts on discussions like these to be very helpful. I'm sure we're all aware of the accusation that we aren't really Christian because we believe in a whole slew of Gods, including God and his father and his father (I would call them Godfather and Great-Godfather, but it seems almost blasphemous). Before I came to this site, I could very well see their side of things - that we only worship our God because he hasn't revealed anything about the others and what their relationship is with us. Vahnin has pointed out that this model of endless generations of Gods is not necessarily what we believe (it may be what you believe, but it is not a teaching of the Church). I haven't fully aligned myself with Vahnin's way of thinking, but I am glad that he's pointed out that most of what we think we know about the origin of God is tradition/speculation built on a few quotes. We need to re-examine our foundations and see which are solid.

I'm treating your 2 Nephi quote as a non sequitur because (johannine comma aside) I think the Godhead reference is just a passing one and not the main subject. My reading of this is that there are 3 testimonies that Jesus is the Son of God: The Water - by which he showed submission to his Father (and his Father validated by saying Jesus was his beloved Son)The Blood - by which he completed his mission and his submission. This (combined with the resurrection for LDS) is the sign of his divine SonhoodThe Spirit - by which all may gain the same witness the apostles had, even in modern times when there are no longer eye witnessesAll three testify that Jesus is the Son of God. Similarly, by these three witnesses we are born again (with the Water being the water of our own baptism in similitude of Christ's). The earlier verses even drop the term born of God to point to this.

I can understand some reticence to engage in this dialogue since it is often a cover for more nefarious motives (and I am fairly new here - so you won't know me from Lucy). I'll proceed and hope that trust and discussion pick up in the morning. I'll start, just to prime the pump. So the way I think of each member being God, while still there being only one God is that "God" is an overloaded operator. It has two different meanings within the same sentence. So the first three statement I listed above used the term "God" as being a member of the Godhead, while the seventh used the term "God" as a synonym for Godhead. Our priesthood presidencies are patterned after the Godhead in a similar manner. We refer to all three members of the First Presidency as "President", when there really is only one president of the Church. Yet each one can be given the fulness of the Presidency when they go out and visit solo (similarly Christ had the fulness of the Godhead while on earth). There are other ways that I think the 7th statement is reconciled with the other 6, but I'll wait for a few more posts before I share those because I'd love to hear some other perspectives.

I now have the lengthy opinions of an anonymous author at lightplanet, Elder Holland, and President Hinckley. What are your thoughts Gerasim?