SteveVH

Well, I would say that is a good thing. It doesn't make sense to me either. I don't really know how to respond. "Pools" of angel matter and God matter and human matter? Maybe you can explain further. God created lizards and he created horses, does this mean there is a pool of lizard matter and a pool of horse matter as well? Yes, I am aware of this belief. Okay. What happened to the Father who was Father prior to the atonement? It did, although I don't believe I was present. But I respect your position. Doesn't bother me either. Lucifer was the most beautiful of the angels, until he rebelled. Then he wasn't in heaven anymore and wasn't so beautiful anymore. It is what it is. Yes, this would be consistent with your belief that there is no difference in nature between you and angels and God. Crystal. And I am very happy for you.

Thank you. I agree 100%. To be clear I certainly did not mean that as a criticism. The Catholic Church is pretty unique as well. No doubt. I can live with that. I can certainly empathize with your experience.

Absolutely, it would have to influence your interpretation. One has to take their faith as a whole. We hold Sacred Tradition equal to Sacred Scripture, so I am certainly influenced by what I believe to be revealed truth which lies outside of the Bible. As such, I certainly respect your belief in the Doctrine and Covenants as well as the rest of your Scriptures.

The Catholic faith maintains that we will share in God's divinity by sharing in the very life of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as adopted sons and daughters of God. So we very much believe that we are incorporated into God's being insofar as we share in his divinity. But the point is we will always be sons and daughters of God; we will never be God. What this means is really beyond the grasp of any of us; Love beyond all telling. In any event, we do not believe that we replicate into many gods. We simply and wonderfully share in the life of the one, true God. That is the Catholic understanding as far as I am aware. I agree that this can be a very interesting discussion, considering the different perspectives and it will be very interesting to see where it goes. It sounds as if we do have some comon ground. What I have found is that the two different perspectives result many times in speaking past one another with both sides shaking their heads. In this case I think we agree that we do take on divinity, but not in the same way or with the same result.

Okay Traveler, I will be happy to give you an interpretation of the creation account from a Catholic perspective. It gets very involved which is why I have tried the "nutshell" approach in presenting conclusions rather than methodology. You asked for it so please bear with me. :) We first have to assess the genre of writing being used in Genesis. As you have already agreed, the style of writing is poetic prose rather than a science or text book. We also have to realize that Genesis is not the only biblical text that speaks of the creation account. We can look to Psalm 104 as well to gather more information as to the story telling techniques used by the ancient Jews, from a time, place and culture unknown by the modern world. It becomes evident from the beginning that this text can in no way be viewed from a scientific standpoint. In Genesis 1 we see that light is made on the first day, but the sun, moon and stars are not created until day four. This is completley illogical from a scientific perspective. So we must either conclude that the human authors of this text were completely ignorant, or just nuts, or they are trying to convey something entirely different to the reader. What we find is that the purpose of the text is not to report scientific data but rather to convey a deep and profound theological meditation on the act of creation. When we consider the creation account in Psalm 104 along with Genesis we begin to get a clearer picture of what was meant to be communicated. Both the creation account and Psalm 104 describe the heavens as a dome and the earth upheld by pillars because the author is attempting to communicate the meaning of creation, that being that creation is a temple. What did the Jews do in the temple? It is where where they praised and worshiped the Creator. So the creation account was given to establish that we do have a Creator and that our place in the world as the created is to give him worship and praise. It is not in the least to give a description of exactly how the world was created, but rather the foundational purpose of our existence. No. He incorporates the free choices made by man into his perfect plan. All of history unfolds at once before the eyes of God. He knows what each of us will do before we do it. In anticipation of where you are going with this I must say that this in no way means that God is responsible for the poor choices made by mankind. He created rational beings with free will and will never interfere in that free will. But he uses those choices to further his plan; transforming evil into good until at last, good triumphs over evil. He did this by sending his Son as an expiation for our sins, who transformed the greatest evil ever committed, the killing of the Creator by the created, into the greatest good ever known in the universe, the defeat of death through the resurrection. Yes. Evil can happen. Being all powerful doesn't mean being responsible for the acts of rational, free willed beings. God can no more cause evil to happen than the sun can cause darkness to fall on the earth while shinning upon it. I can hear it now: "So you're saying that God can't do everything. If he can't commit evil then he is not omnipotent." Once again, this is like requiring God to make 1+1=3 in order to prove his omnipotence. This is only flawed human logic at work. Easy. As I have said on numerous occasions, God created beings capable of making moral decisions, free from any interference on his part. Is God responsible for creating the person? Yes. Is he responsible for that person's decisions in life? No, not if they are truly rational beings with free will. You must understand that God is certainly capable of just doing away with the whole thing. Or he could very well have created a bunch of robots who do nothing on their own but only what they have been programed to do. Is God capable of stepping in and causing one to change their decision. Yes. Does he do that? No. So we cannot equate what God allows with what he is capable of doing. As I said, with a thought he could make the entire universe vaporize. But that is not God's plan. Instead He created free-willed beings who could make their own choices and he did this so that they could have the opportunity to choose love. Love does not exist unless there is also the choice of not loving. It is through love that we are united with our God and with each other. Love, the essence of God's nature, is so necessary that the risk of someone choosing otherwise is worth it. I don't know if any of the references to cherubim represent Jesus. God sends angels as his messengers and guardians. In the case of the Gardem of Eden he placed a cherubim to guard the way to the tree of life. This is nothing strange. God sends angels as his messengers and as guardians throughout the Scriptures. That is one of their purposes. The flaming sword is the sword of God's judgment which stands between man and God's garden. As already stated, my interpretation is that the flaming sword represents God's justice. Now, I would agree that the flaming sword is in a sense a representation, a "type", or foreshadowing of Christ because only through Christ does man have access again to the tree of life. Lets not forget, however, what instigated this conversation and that is your position that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers. You are trying to present evidence that the two cherubim above the Ark represent Jesus and Lucifer as brothers. We must consider something very obvious here. The cherubim are guarding the Ark. What does the Arck represent? Is it not where God dwells in the temple? Jesus is God. So it is the Ark that represents Jesus, not the cherubim. The cherubim were placed on the atonement cover as symbolic attendants marking the place of God's enthronment in his earthly kingdom. In order for me to answer that question I would have to make the same assumption as you that the cherubim represent brothers. I do not make that assumption. The battle for my soul is being fought as we speak. When I reach the judgment seat of God the battle will have already been won or lost.

I certainly didn't mean to offend you in any way and just as I am asking another poster to lighten up a little, when I re-read my post I can see that I need to look in the mirror and say the same thing. What I did say was that you may be correct concerning some people's beliefs about babies in heaven. I know a lot of people who refer to deceased children as little angels in heaven, as well, which also conflicts with Church teaching. I was only trying to say that in discussing this on a religious forum, the beliefs of random people do not equate to the doctrines of either the LDS Church or the Catholic Church and therefore they just don't matter to me in that context. What you say however, is true. So please accept my apology for any offense I caused you.

I don't know why you choose to believe that I am making any division. I could have just as well said that I know of no other Christian denomination that ascribes to a certain belief held by Presbyterians. I am making no judgment here as to who is Christian and who is not. But you cannot pretend that the LDS faith is not unique in its beliefs among Christian denominations. I get the distinct feeling that you would prefer that non-Mormons not participate on this forum. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't know why you seem to bristle at nearly every post made by a non-Mormon, to the point of even reading in things that are not there. We're really not out to get you, okay?

Well you may be right but I'm not really interested in how it "rubs" people. I know my religion rubs many people the wrong way but I believe it because I believe it is true. That is certainly not Catholic teaching. No telling what one might hear from any particluar person, however. By the way, I didn't pay very good attention either. :) Well I agree with you from the aspect that it is fairly self-evident that a baby is much more than atoms and neutrons but why does that mean they had to exist before they were born? Is God not capable of forming us in any way he desires? We believe that at the moment of conception the fertilized egg becomes a human person, complete with a soul and this is all the doing of our Lord. We cooperate in God's creation and thus are "procreators". The only place any of us existed before we were born was in the mind of God. It is he who "knit us in our mothers wombs". Well, we hear a lot of things growing up, but I can assure you that this is not Catholic teaching.

Point taken. Does scripture anywhere teach that God does replicate or is willing to do so? My conclusion comes from the fundamental Christian belief in one God and that there is and can be no other. The entire argument is based upon a flawed logic, such as requiring God to make 1+1 = 3 in order to prove his omnipotence. God deals only in truth, not imagination. For God to replicate would require his division. There is no division and can be no division in God. I will say, however, that in a sense, God does replicate himself in each one of us when we become one with him through Christ. But not in the sense of somehow dividing into two or more gods. For God to replicate would require that he deny his very essence.

How very charitable of you. :) As far as what we buy at Catholic stores the list is endless. There is a treasury of books containing writings by Catholics that span nearly 2000 years, so you can imagine the volumes of texts available. Also people go to Catholic stores for gifts for Baptism, first Communion, Confirmation, Marriage, etc., not to mention holy medals (equivalent of Mormon underwear, in my opinion), crosses and crucifixes, paintings, etc.. Anyway, next time I want to order a book I'll use your friend. Amazing how God works, isn't it? God bless you.

We must be very careful here. We are speaking in philosophical terms when we use the word "substance". Another word for "substance" is "being". God cannot replicate his substance because, by his very nature, only he is God. God is his being; God is his substance. But we are not God because we are created. Through Jesus Christ, who became man so that man might be united once again with God, we are given the grace to share in God's divinity, not of our own nature, but as a gift from God. Does that mean that God is somehow less than omnipotent? Yes, that is completley flawed logic. The reason he cannot replicate is that there is only One God and there will only ever be one God. There can only be one God. This is like asking God to make 1+1 = 3 instead of 2 and then saying that he cannot be omnipotent unless he makes it happen. These are nothing more than screwy human mind games. Is that, in fact, what you believe? It is my understanding that instead you believe that we began as eternal intelligences, existing from eternity apart from any action on the part of God, so that we are eternal, not through God, but from our own nature. But to answer your question from my particular perspective, no, man is not an eternal being because he was created. From this point forward we will live in eternity with God, but we began at a point in time. God did not. It is the difference between the Mormon doctrine of "exaltation" and the Catholic doctrine of "theosis". Exaltation assume that we, as humans, contain the divine nature as part of our own and must only progress in order to realize our full divine potential. Theosis assumes that mankind does not possess the divine nature as part of his own, rather it is given to us by God as a gift; in other words it it comes from outside of us rather than from within. To be eternal implies that one does not have a beginning, therefore nothing created, by the very definition of the word, can be eternal. But yes, God grants "eternal life" to those he chooses from the aspect that they will live forever, from the point they entered into existence forward. It cannot be applied in the same way to God who has always existed without beginning or end. We have a beginning, but no end if we are fortunate enough to attain "eternal life".

Well, I would feel very safe in making this statement. Of all of the different Christian denominations of which I am aware (and I speak with many of them on a daily basis) I have never known of any who ascribe to the Mormon notion of the nature of God, not one. How's that?

Okay, it must have been another forum. Are you saying that if he created it from nothing he could not then look upon it and see that it waa good? Of course, God knew it was good before he even created it. Remember we are dealing with human language to describe a divine event, not to mention that we are reading poetic language. You have somehow convinced yourself that because God "saw" that his creation was good then he could not have created what he subsequently saw? I'm sorry, but that just seems illogical to me and not a premise with which I would agree. What is your source for this position? The word "unchanging" is pretty self-explanatory. It means one does not change. The only "unchangeable" being is God. And who are these people? Who are you referencing that holds this position? If that was not his unchanging plan - then G-d is not omnipotent - at least in the way and characteristic that you are conveying to me.Knowing what someone or something will do is not the same as desiring it or causing it. Yes, God knew from the bgenning that man would disobey him and that he would have to send his only begotten Son to save them. God has incorporated all of the choices made by angels and man into his perfect plan and transforms evil into an even greater good. Your phrasing "G-d planned and made sure" implies that God desired and caused man to fall from grace. That is a falsehood. Your question assumes an erroneous premise. Jesus is at the right hand of God because has been given all power and authority by the Father. But Jesus is God; the eternal Son of the Father. The cherubim do not represent Christ or Lucifer at all. And you are assuming that some variant of the translation "cherubim" to "brothers" is in fact what the author meant to say. Even so, it would only mean that the cherubim were brothers.

Thanks for this Vort and I would agree with your line of thinking. I have seen people accuse Mormons of believing that the Father was once a sinful man but have never seen any Mormon source actually state this. If it makes you feel any better, there are more myths about the Catholic Church than I can count, so we certainly have that in common. :)

So then you do not believe that The only "uncreated" things that non-LDS Christians believe in are God and his Christ, correct? I very well could be misunderstanding something here. Okay, that is what I thought. Yeah, I've run into the same thing especially among Fundamentalist groups. The one I love is that the universe is is only six thousand years old. Even when I point out that we can measure light from sources thousands of light years away they are not swayed. Amazing. For a human it would be magic. For God it would be natural, which for God means supernatural, as he is above created nature. No biggy either way. Sounds very reasonable to me. And you as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but haven't we been through this exact conversation before? In any event, Genesis doesn't make sense scientifically because it is not a science book. It is a beautiful poem written for the pupose of telling the story of the fall of man and God's promise to send us a Savior. The creation account establishes God as the author of all creation and also tells us that man is the crown of that creation. How it happend exactly is not the purpose of the text. I must say that I do not follow your logic at all. When a painter finishes a painting and thinks to himself "that is good" it does not follow that he was dependent upon anything or anyone else in order to paint the painting. How does God calling his creation "good" translate into being less than omnipotent? Again, you have completely lost me. How does God calling his creation "good" mean he is dependent upon something in order to create it. It is God that establishes what is good and what is not. The idea that the Creator would be subject to his creation is nonsensical. It is God who created all of the laws of physics and of morality. God did not find himself in a universe full of already existing laws to which he was subject. God is subject to nothing and no one. All are subject to him. Maybe I need another cup of coffee. This just doesn't make any sense to me. I believe in a God who is never changing, who has been complete and entire in his power, authority, majesty and glory for eternity, before anything that exists, existed. This unchanging God is also ompnipotent. How does being unchanging conflict with being omnpipotent? And I am really baffled that you claim to believe in a God who "is a being of absolute consistency". The last thing Mormon theology describes is a consistent, unchanging God. Rather it described a God who is constantly changing, from man to God and even then he continues to change through the process of "progression", having to continually acquire knowledge himself, as if he does not already possess all knowledge. "The word cherub (cherubim is the Hebrew masculine plural) is a word borrowed from the Assyrian kirubu, from karâbu, "to be near", hence it means near ones, familiars, personal servants, bodyguards, courtiers. It was commonly used of those heavenly spirits, who closely surrounded the Majesty of God and paid Him intimate service. Hence it came to mean as much as "Angelic Spirit". (Catholic Encyclopedia) Generally understood by whom? Lucifer, now Satan, does not live in the heavenly realm with Jesus. Remember, he and 1/3 of the angles were thrown out of heaven. How can Satan be sitting at the left hand of God when he has been relegated to the netherworld? From a Catholic standpoint, the entire idea of Jesus and Lucifer being brothers is so objectionable that I don't know where to even begin. Jesus is God. Lucifer is not. Jesus is the Creator. Lucifer is a creation. Jesus is God's only begotten Son. He did not "beget" Lucifer. He created him. Lucifer was created to be the most beautiful of angels. He rebelled against God's plan to save humanity and was forever condemned to the darkness of hell. Cherubim are an order of angels. Jesus is not an angel, he is God, The angels are there to adore God. Satan, even though an angel, was an archangel, not a cherubim, and he certainly does not adore God. So no, for so many reasons, the cherubim do not in any way represent either Jesus or Lucifer and therefore do not support any theory of them being brothers. Understanding our differences concerning the nature of God is all important in understanding our differences on this issue. We believe God is absolutely unique in his nature; eternal, uncreated, the absolute Perfection, all knowing, all powreful, all loving, all merciful, ever present. We call this nature "divine" and attribute it only to God. Everything else, without exception, was created from nothing but the power of God, the source of all things, including angels, who are pure, rational, free-willed spirits, and humans who comprise both flesh and spirit or soul. Each are distinct from the other as far as their "species" is concerned. That is why Jesus cannot be Lucifer's brother. It would be like me calling a horse my brother. It is my understanding that you make no distinction between the nature of God, the nature of angels or the nature of man, believing we are all made of the same "stuff", so to speak. This makes your theory somewhat more plausible, but you still have to deal with the fact that Jesus is God's only begotten Son. Even we are sons and daughters by adoption, not by our nature, as St. Paul tells us. How then could Jesus be a brother to Lucifer, even within your own belief structure?

I'm in southwest Colorado. I have a son who lives in Sarasota, FL.. Love Florida in the winter time. Not so much in the summer. :)

Yes, I sure did. Glad I could bring a little joy into your heart.

Not even going to touch this one.

Neither is Ben Franklin, assuming he made it to heaven. Edit: Just saw that X33ad is banned. Oh well, point made.

I'm with you on the Noah's Ark thing. :confused:

So you do not consider the fact that Jesus was God before he became man? Are you saying that you were God before you became human? Christ gave us an example of how to live out our human lives in holiness. This does not extend to his incarnation or his eternal life with the Father and the Holy Spirit prior to his incarnation.

We believe that Jesus has two natures, human and divine, making up one person. We do not believe the Father or the Holy Spirit have a physical nature, or "body". It was Jesus' physical body that was crucified. While the Father and the Holy Spirit were present in the Person of Jesus, in his divinity, it was Christ's body that was crucified, not the Father or the Holy Spirit. We could ask as well what Jesus meant when he said "He who has seen me has seen the Father"? He and the Father are one, with no separation of being, only distinction of relationship.

Your description of this difference as being "pivotal" is spot on. From what I have gathered over the past several years of learning about the LDS faith is that this primary difference affects, very literally, the perspective from which we view all else concerning our respective religions. This seems to be the hidden factor that causes much misunderstanding. Yes, we believe that there is only one uncreated Being, and that is God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Everything else that exists, whether spiritually or physically, was created by God from nothing but his own power. Now I find it interesting that you say that "The only "uncreated" things that non-LDS Christians believe in (that I know of) are God and his Christ". I was under the impression that you also believe in "intelligences" and "uncreated matter" that are co-eternal with God. Is that not true? I wouldn't go that far. Genesis is a poetic text so it certainly cannot be taken literally. That does not prevent it from revealing divine truths, however. As far as creation is concerned we believe that when God said "Let there be light" that there was light, indicating that God is the source of that light (as he is the source of all things). But we certainly do not view Genesis as an exhaustive manual or literal record of how God created. No, God is not a magical being. He is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God who is the author of all creation. To be omnipotent (all-powerful) requires that there is nothing beyond his ability. If he is dependent upon anything then he is not omnipotent. One of the differences here is that we believe that God is eternally above us in all things and that he is the only "divine" being (he will share his divinity with us in heaven). So we believe that God is a completley different species, if you will, than man or angels. And man is a different species than an angel or God. Whereas it is my understanding that the LDS belief is that we are all the same species, God having progressed from a man. From the Catholic perspective my objection would be that they could not be brothers because Jesus is God (the Creator) and Lucifer was a creature, (the created). Jesus is God's only begotten (not made) Son, so I don't know how Lucifer could have been his brother. But from the LDS perspective, it really doesn't cause a problem. It says more about our concept of who God is than anything else. Exactly. Here is another response: Lifting covers up the definition of translation, which means moving something from one point in space to another. With this in mind, the real question would be, "Can God move a rock from one location in space to another that is larger than possible?" In order for the rock to not be able to move from one space to another, it would have to be larger than space itself. However, it is impossible for a rock to be larger than space, as space will always adjust itself to cover the space of the rock. If the supposed rock was out of space-time dimension, then the question would not make sense, because it would be impossible to move an object from one location in space to another if there is no space to begin with, meaning the faulting is with the logic of the question and not God's capabilities. These are all questions based upon man-made paradoxes and flawed logic. Great point.

Well, it kind of snowballed, didn't it. My first comment on this thread was only to say that even though the question is directed to all "Christians" it can really only be discussed by Mormons because the rest of Christianity doesn't hold the basic premise that there is any pre-mortal existence. In other words, why would I discuss whether or not I had a name in the pre-mortal existence when I don't believe in a pre-mortal existence? The OP seemed to be unaware of the belief held by mainstream Christianity and I was just providing that information, that is all. From that point I am only answering other's questions of me or trying to make sense of your beliefs. And I'm flattered that you think I am knowledgeable of your religion, but I would not give myself that much credit. :)