person0

Um, source please? That is a dangerous road. By that definition, according to D&C 132:37, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are all current members of the Godhead and as such are worshiped when we worship the One True God.

Okay, if that is how you see it, it appears we are in disagreement, I suppose. It is possible I may be misunderstanding the intent of your words, but to me, the teachings are clear. The Church has published the King Follet sermon in the Ensign, and even recently has sanctioned a Gospel Topics Essay devoted to the subject of becoming like God. The Gospel Principles manual teaches becoming like God as an eventuality for the exalted. I have seen you post, many times, a disagreement of such principles on this forum; I do not understand your disagreement. Based on your characterization in the post from which I quoted you, I imagine you hold some sort of animosity toward the teaching, as you have characterized it in a way I believe belittles the intent behind the teaching. From what I know of you, I imagine your resistance to the principle that we may become gods like our Father in Heaven stems from a sincere desire to lead others away from an improper focus and toward a focus on the most important aspects of the gospel. I agree that it is not something upon which people ought to place their focus, however, I disagree that steering them away from the teaching altogether is appropriate. I believe we should distinguish exactly what we know and teach to be true, and designate all else as wasteful speculation. Church sanctioned resources available to all teach statements such as: Either we can become gods or we can't. Just because we don't understand in full measure what it means, doesn't mean we should ignore, or cast aside, the few things we do understand. It is completely accurate to suggest that very little has been revealed about the 'history' so to speak of God our Father and that we ought not to speculate. It is 100% true that it is unnecessary, inappropriate, and a waste of focus for people to be speculating about Heavenly Mother, or really even making suggestions beyond the simple recognition that she exists. We should call those people out, and point to and encourage them to focus on things of greater spiritual value. For all we know, the process of becoming like God to the extent that we are taught is possible will take millennia or more; in fact Joseph Smith taught as much: I believe that I can become a god, like God our Father and Christ our Savior. I believe that means I can become like them to the extent of possessing all power, knowledge, and perfections. I have no idea what or how long it will take to accomplish such a magnanimous task, I only know what we are taught we must do in this life to begin to prepare for that possibility. If there is something I have written above in this post that is not in direct agreement with current teachings of the Church, please feel free to point it out. However, I am confident that what I have written is accurate, and the sources from which I have drawn are valid and appropriate. In my opinion, I think a fairly accurate way to explain the Latter-Day Saint position on the concept of 'gods' would be to say that we assert our worship of and belief in the One True God while remaining agnostic to the existence of any other. Regardless, I think individuals should focus on the principles that draw them nearer to Christ by perfecting themselves as much as possible right now and shouldn't worry themselves with trivial, and especially, speculative matters.

I gotta admit, despite the fact that I agree we are a monotheistic faith, the above seems either a little disingenuous, or is coming from a paradigm that my brain is not currently using.

My understanding is that was the Godhead and all of us; not anyone else. Scripturally, there is no necessity that we assume anyone else was involved.

Okay, I can see where you are coming from, but I disagree that there is a flaw in my logic or my definition. I said: From the example you gave about who you love - the power to make someone else's decision does not exist, and hence is not something that can possibly be done. Your ability to make a decision and someone else's ability to make that decision for you are two different powers; one of them exists, the other doesn't. I fail to see the problem?

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.

Who cares what label someone wants to assign us? I care only that we are the True Church teaching the True Gospel of Jesus Christ, which can be confirmed by the power of the Holy Ghost. That's good enough for me. Labels, like 'monotheistic', will only exist for as long as we speak our finite mortal languages.

You are assuming Paul was referring exclusively to false Gods. I disagree; he was referring to both false (nonexistent) as well as existing beings who are not our One True God.

I think you may be confused about the implications of my definition of omnipotence. Your example makes no sense to me in connection with my definition. How does my definition imply that God is the exclusive possessor of [x] power?

How is that to produce interesting answers? There simple answer is, yes.

As much as I am opposed to the Nicene Creed, I don't think the answer to that question necessarily subverts it. All powerful (Omnipotent) is the power to do anything that is possible to be done. Truly and fully removing an individual's agency is not within the realm of possible things. A Creedal Trinitarian may not accept that definition of omnipotence, and so they may still fail to be capable of adequately addressing such a question. On a similar note: In a different thread, months back, we already addressed that creation ex-nihilo necessarily implies the absence of agency/free-will for God's creations. Obviously, most believers of creation ex-nihilo (other than Calvinists and the like) would reject this premise, but to me, it is basic logic.

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!

Groundhog day style? I never thought of it like that. That said, wouldn't living a new round of mortality be a double blessing in the sense that you would not only have another chance, but would also have the veil of forgetfulness that would mask the memory of your sins and disobedience from your previous life from your mind? If we were to tread down the path and assume plausibility of repeat chances, once we also take into account Alma's teaching that our spirit carries forward it's stature, then couldn't it just get harder and harder every time you don't make it? Would you get unlimited chances until you either become a Son of Perdition or you make it or something? All too speculative for me. Personally, I don't find the idea of progression between kingdoms, or multiple opportunities at mortality to be palatable. Seems too 'eat drink and be merry' to me.

That was happening to me the other day. I feel your pain

Assuming a 50% paid off mortgage in the current market would likely be more than a 100% instant return on my investment. Even if I were to pay it off over the next 15 years and let the person live there until it were paid off and sell it after, chances are fairly good that the payoff would be worth it. If I had the cash on hand to pay it off immediately, it would be better to just invest the money for the 15 years, but if I didn't, then the return after 15 years would very likely be much greater than the alternative gradual investment over time. I said I'd let you keep living there; I didn't say how long! 😁

If you do, this less faithful person will gladly assume your loan in exchange for ownership of the property. You can even keep living there; your faith rewarded! That is, assuming you've already paid about 1/2 the principal. 😀😀😀

So are you back, or is this a one off? (Don't get my hopes up now).

I highly doubt that much money could reasonably be taken from the wealthy on a monthly basis, however, if that is really the amount of money 'available', wouldn't it be better to put it directly towards the national debt and have our country debt free in less than10 years?

This exactly.

In fact, this is reiterated in scripture, both ancient (the parable of the talents) and modern, such as as in D&C 130:

Interestingly, that is almost the exact same answer I got from a 7th day Adventist preacher when I asked him a different question with a similar principle foundation. I asked something along the lines of, "Jim is shipwrecked and doesn't know what day it is but wants to keep the Sabbath day Holy. He makes a calendar, has a private worship service, and observes the sabbath every 7th day, however, it turns out that, unintentionally, his 7th day is Wednesday. Will God reject his sabbath adherence because he didn't know which day was the real 7th day?" The preacher's response was that in that situation he believes God would reveal the correct Sabbath day to the man. Personally, I disagree that would be God's default response, although I don't reject it as impossible. Overall, I get where you're coming from; I agree in principle, but disagree on timeline (clearly, as I believe in baptism for the dead). I think this is key, and I agree with this statement 100%, but I think we may disagree on the 'real world' application of this statement. Once again, gospel of person0 here but, I believe God often avoids revealing the truth of things to those who do not have 'ears to hear'. Take someone like you, for example: Part of the reason I would never suggest that you could be limited to Terrestrial Glory based on your current rejection of the Restored Gospel is because, for all I know, God has intentionally withheld revealing the truth of the Book of Mormon to you by the power of the Holy Ghost because He knows you are not willing to accept it, or in your words, would be 'resisting the Spirit and pridefully clinging to error'. Now, please don't mistake this as an accusation against you. I merely wish to demonstrate how I think our Father loves us so much that he sometimes obscures information from the unprepared in order to reduce their personal liability for knowingly rejecting the truth. Hence, 'he who hath ears to hear, let him hear'. On a similar but somewhat different note: As a missionary, the parents of a family I was teaching literally told me to my face (admittedly, after pulling it out of them) that they had not, and would not pray about the Book of Mormon because, if God revealed it to be true, they would have to change, and that was something they were not prepared to do. Sometimes that's the best answer any of us can give. 🙂

I think I may have failed to add sufficient clarification to the question I was asking. Consider for a moment my grandfather who rejects the Restored Gospel and yet believes in God as three in unity. His understanding is what he has gleaned from his personal study of the Bible (which we all agree to be the Word of God). If it turns out that he is worshiping incorrectly based on his understanding of the words of the Bible, why would he be punished for unintentionally worshiping God incorrectly?

Without re-hashing the in depth technicalities of possible [x]theistic terminology, let's assume for a minute that the LDS Godhead is polytheistic. Why would it actually matter? Yeah, we told him that, haha. He is aware. Not sure I've ever thought to ask this of a protestant but, why would God punish someone for unintentionally worshiping Him incorrectly? Gospel of Person0 here but, similar to my line of thinking in the previous question, I think that the majority of faithful mainstream Christians (and people in general) who do not accept the Restored Gospel will not have received a sufficient opportunity during mortality to be barred from Celestial Glory should they accept it once the appropriate opportunity is given. I don't know to what extent you have received the opportunity, but I would venture to guess that you have not received and rejected a witness from the Spirit leading you toward the Restored Gospel. Such a witness is generally where I draw the line in my mind. That said, God knows where the real line is, not me, haha.

In my experience, mainstream Christians generally refuse to extend to the LDS view of the Godhead, the same courtesy of 'inability to fully comprehend' the doctrine in light of passages of the Bible which, at face value, may appear to contradict the doctrine. Seems to me that one could read only the Bible and, without intervention from others, easily come to either conclusion on their own. Both interpretations require faith that extends beyond what can be determined from the text alone. On a related note: My grandfather, who is Baptist, accepts the foundational LDS interpretation of the Godhead as accurate (3 separate beings united in purpose), although he rejects the LDS interpretation of the Father's nature (flesh and bone). I bring this up is because so many people I have met who accept the doctrine of the trinity, label non-trinitarians, such as us Latter-Day Saints, as not being Christians. Someone else's label doesn't bother me, but the inability to acknowledge such a paradigm flaw is annoying to say the least.