some questions as i investigate the church

[shadowhunter]

thats one thing i like about joseph smiths view of the creeds. im just parapharsing here but he said something like "i cannot subscribe to the creeds for even tho there are many good things in them i cannot belive everything in them i seek to know the mind of God but the creeds set up stakes and say "hiters shall you come but no further" this is something i cannot belivie"

[HiJolly]

The nature of God has always been a matter of debate and misunderstanding. This is because God is not understandable in His entirety as long as we are limited to this world. But there are things about Him that are understandable-- we just have to limit our scope of inquiry.

The people who wrote the Bible knew of God in two senses. First, as an immanent and present God who is seeable by those whom he grants that blessing, who speaks to those whom he chooses, who chooses prophets and instructs them and so forth. This is the God with whom Mormonism is concerned. This is the God Joseph Smith saw in the grove of trees in Palmyra, New York, in Kirtland, Ohio, and elsewhere. This is the God he testified is real and lives today.

D&C 76:

19 And while we meditated upon these things, the Lord touched the eyes of our understandings and they were opened, and the glory of the Lord shone round about.

20 And we beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and received of his fulness;

21 And saw the holy angels, and them who are sanctified before his throne, worshiping God, and the Lamb, who worship him forever and ever.

22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

There is another sense in which God exists, and this is the transcendent God. We don't know much about Him in that sense; We in the LDS church stick mostly to the more understandable and known immanent God. As a mystic I have experienced certain aspects of God in the more transcendent sense, but have not yet met & conversed with Him face to face. I look forward to that encounter with great anticipation. 'Til then, I remember with awe and love what He has already shared with me, and my heart fills with joy, gratitude and worship at His loving grace.

HiJolly

Edited September 2, 2008 by HiJolly

[Islander]

i understand what the trinity teaches and ill admit thats a problem i have with my catholic faith they say its just a mystery but for me that isnt good enough i want to know God

Shadowhunter welcome:

Well, my grandma just to say that it is not like God to make the Gospel incomprehensible to the average folk seeking Him and salvation. I think you already realize intuitively that there is no such mystery but it is plain according to the scriptures.

I think if we set aside tradition and historical conformity God Himself reveals the truth of ALL things to us thru the Holy Ghost. Just keep reading.

Look forward to hearing from you.

[shadowhunter]

so i got a sorta of werid question am being foolish about religion seeing as how ive only been catholic for 2 years am i being stupid

[a-train]

It needs to be understood that Trinitarianism itself was not taken with contempt by Joseph Smith and the early saints. It was notions such as the Holy Three were 'without body, parts, and passions' that came under criticism. Sayings such as: 'He is a supreme intelligence, who has neither body, nor figure, nor color, and who cannot fall under the senses' were met with objection in the light of modern revelation. But, the notion that 'Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, [are] one Eternal God' was not contested. Rather, this was and is the doctrine of Mormonism and it is plainly in the Book of Mormon such as in Alma 11:44.

Perhaps one of the most poignant and sharp essays on the matter was offered by Elder Orson Pratt and published in The Kingdom of God in 1848 in Liverpool. Read the whole of it here: Excerpts -- The Essential Orson Pratt

Elder Pratt wrote:

There have been various species of idolatry in different ages of the world. The sun, moon, stars, beasts, crocodiles, frightful serpents, images of wood, of stone, and of brass, have been erected into gods, and worshipped by innumerable multitudes. But the system of idolatry, invented by modern christianity, far surpasses in absurdity anything that we have ever heard of. One of the celebrated worshippers of this newly-discovered god, in his "Physical Theory of another Life," says, "A disembodied spirit, or, we would rather say, an unembodied spirit, or sheer mind, is NOWHERE. Place is a relation belonging to extension; and extension is a property of matter; but that which is wholly abstracted from matter, and in speaking of which we deny that it has any property in common therewith, can in itself be subject to none of its conditions; and we might as well say of a pure spirit that it is hard, heavy, or red, or [p.52] that it is a cubic foot in dimensions, as say that it is here or there. It is only in a popular and improper sense that any such affirmation is made concerning the Infinite Spirit, or that we speak of God as everywhere present. God is in every place in a sense, altogether incomprehensible by finite minds, inasmuch as his relation to space and extension is peculiar to infinitude. Using the terms, as we use them of ourselves, God is not here or there, any more than he exists now and then." This species of idolatry, according to the foregoing quotations, approaches so near to Atheism, that no one can tell the difference. Reader, can you see the difference? A god "without a body!" A god "without parts!" A god that cannot be "here or there!" A god that is "NOWHERE!" A god that cannot exist "NOW and THEN!" A god that exists in NO TIME! A god that has no extension—no "parts"—no conceivable relation to time or space! O, blush for modern christianity!—a pious name for Atheism! Some, perhaps, may think that I have not sufficient charity. But why should I have charity for a god that has no "parts"—no relation to space? Let him first have charity for himself. But this would be impossible; for he is a god "without passions." He can have no charity nor love for himself nor any one else. There is no danger of offending him; for a passionless god is not capable of anger. One of the persons of this imaginary god is said to have been crucified. But this must be a sad mistake; for it would be impossible to crucify a portion of something that had no "parts." The reason, then, why the people have not received any word from the Great King, is because they have petitioned the wrong god. Would you expect her majesty, the queen of England, to answer your petition if it were directed to some African prince? Would you expect the God of heaven to answer a petition that was addressed to a Hindoo god? If then, your petitions are addressed to the bodiless, passionless god of modern christianity, you must not be surprised if the true God does not pay any attention to them. You need not expect that the true God will make any reply to petitions offered to any other being.

A look at the entry of 'Trinity' in the LDS Topical Guide will not offer any treatise against Trinitarianism, but simply a pointer to the entry of 'Godhead'.

Most LDS persons seem to equate Trinitariansim with modalism. For that matter, many Trinitarians do as well, although ignorantly. It is the 'mystery of the Trinity' that causes all the trouble. And what is the 'mystery of the Trinity'? Well, that's the mystery!

The whole matter comes down to the sense and meaning of the Oneness of the Godhead, or the Unity of the Godhead. That is the difference between Modalism and Trinitarianism. Modalists see not a single case of Plurality. Trinitarians see the Unity of the Godhead as existant in a magnificent and incomprehensible sense, but not in any sense that causes the Individual Persons of the Godhead to be reduced to simply personalities of a single Being.

Trinitarians believe in Three Seperate Persons within the Godhead. Likewise do the LDS. They believe that all Three are eternal, and so do we.

Mormons are Trinitarians, we simply want to make certain that the false doctrines attached to the notion of the Godhead are removed, but I am not convinced that they are embedded in the Trinity doctrine itself.

-a-train

[Maureen]

...Holy Three were 'without body, parts, and passions...

A god "without a body!" A god "without parts!" A god that cannot be "here or there!" A god that is "NOWHERE!" A god that cannot exist "NOW and THEN!" A god that exists in NO TIME! A god that has no extension—no "parts"—no conceivable relation to time or space! O, blush for modern christianity!—a pious name for Atheism! Some, perhaps, may think that I have not sufficient charity. But why should I have charity for a god that has no "parts"—no relation to space? Let him first have charity for himself. But this would be impossible; for he is a god "without passions." He can have no charity nor love for himself nor any one else. There is no danger of offending him; for a passionless god is not capable of anger.

Thanks a-train,

The protestant or catholic POV on the phrase without body, parts or passions is all connected. We do not believe God has a physical body therefore he has no need for certain "passions" as in sleeping, eating, etc (this would include Christ's resurrected body). The word passions is not referring to God's emotions, because we know that God loves his creation. I can understand that LDS do believe that God the Father does have a tangible body, but does that body require nourishment and rest the way mankind does?

M.

[a-train]

Although it is recognized by the LDS that our Resurrected LORD needs not nourishment in the terms that we mortals do, He does exist physically in time and space and can and has indeed eaten food and shared it with mortals after his resurrection. This same immortal status is possessed by the Father.

-a-train

[shadowhunter]

oh i gots another question if we are all children of God then what does it mean when the bible says jesus is the only begotten son of God

[Maureen]

a-train,

I believe that God exists in time and space but also exists outside of it as well, since I believe God created time and space.

PS - Has your baby been born yet?

M.

[HiJolly]

oh i gots another question if we are all children of God then what does it mean when the bible says jesus is the only begotten son of God

You and I are begotten sons (and/or daughters) of God in spirit. But physically, we are begotten by our mortal fathers and mothers. Jesus Christ was the only begotten son in the flesh.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

a-train,

I believe that God exists in time and space but also exists outside of it as well, since I believe God created time and space.

M.

That is my belief also.

HiJolly

[Islander]

so i got a sorta of werid question am being foolish about religion seeing as how ive only been catholic for 2 years am i being stupid

Of course you are not being silly. If you do not seek you will never find. God expects us to search about His truth as to enlarge our minds with insight and knowledge. That is how we grow closer to Him by clearly understanding what our role and potential is.

[shadowhunter]

You and I are begotten sons (and/or daughters) of God in spirit. But physically, we are begotten by our mortal fathers and mothers. Jesus Christ was the only begotten son in the flesh.

HiJolly

but if Jesus Christ was born of a virgin then how can he be the son of the Father in the flesh was it because he was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost

[HiJolly]

but if Jesus Christ was born of a virgin then how can he be the son of the Father in the flesh was it because he was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost

I don't know. Some have supposed it was a kind of artificial insemination; others that the word "almah" in the Hebrew of Isaiah was mistranslated in the KJV and Mary wasn't really a virgin; Yet others that she had relations physically with Heavenly Father and so was an exception to all the rules.

I don't know. This kind of detail does not help me, personally, whereas repentance, faith and service do help me. So I focus on those.

HiJolly

[Guest ceeboo]

I don't know. Some have supposed it was a kind of artificial insemination; others that the word "almah" in the Hebrew of Isaiah was mistranslated in the KJV and Mary wasn't really a virgin; Yet others that she had relations physically with Heavenly Father and so was an exception to all the rules.

HiJolly

Hello HiJolly,

If you can, would you be so kind as to offer some links or " teachings " of any kind ( even LDS ) that would support any of these (IMHO) outrageous considerations.

Thanks,

God bless,

Carl

[Maureen]

...Yet others that she had relations physically with Heavenly Father...

I think this was more of a 19th century speculation/belief. I don't believe the 21st century LDS church even comes close to believing this.

[Misshalfway]

Hello HiJolly,

If you can, would you be so kind as to offer some links or " teachings " of any kind ( even LDS ) that would support any of these (IMHO) outrageous considerations.

Thanks,

God bless,

Carl

I think HiJolley is referring to more speculative thinking. We really don't know "how" mary got pregnant other than what the scriptures say....thru the HG.

Capeesh?

[HiJolly]

Hello HiJolly,

If you can, would you be so kind as to offer some links or " teachings " of any kind ( even LDS ) that would support any of these (IMHO) outrageous considerations.

Thanks,

God bless,

Carl

I respectfully decline. I don't know the answer of how it all happened, but the Biblical "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee" works for me.

HiJolly

[Guest ceeboo]

I think HiJolley is referring to more speculative thinking. We really don't know "how" mary got pregnant other than what the scriptures say....thru the HG.

Capeesh?

Hello Misshalfway,

Let me, if I may, try and boil all this down in my obviously small cerebelum. :)

These threads concerning " Godhood " and Jesus are filled with " speculative thoughts " or " prophets not really speaking as prophets " or " opinions but not really official LDS teachings or doctrine ". To try and be very fair, for a begining place to begin sharing our thoughts, is the following a belief and teaching of the LDS.

Is it an official teaching of the LDS that God the father and Jesus Christ appeared to JS in bodily form at the first vision? If so, does this alone not imply that LDS believe in multiple Gods'?

In addition, if I may ( to try and be clear with all the seeming " speculation " ) If God ( Heavenly father to LDS ) was once a mere man from another planet who lived a good Mormon life, died and progressed to become God of this planet, does that not clearly imply that we all can become Gods of other planets and so on. It also, to me, clearly suggests that my God has a God who has a God and so on and so on. :confused:

Thanks for your thoughts,

God bless,

Carl

[mnn727]

Is it an official teaching of the LDS that God the father and Jesus Christ appeared to JS in bodily form at the first vision? If so, does this alone not imply that LDS believe in multiple Gods'?

Much of Chrisendom believes the Trinity is 3 seperate 'beings' making up one God - when you can explain that, you'll have your answer.

Perhaps you can answer this for me...Why do so many people get hung up on one verse in the O.T. (Deut. 6: 4) and ignore all the verses in the N.T. that refer to; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost being 3 seperate 'beings'?

In addition, if I may ( to try and be clear with all the seeming " speculation " ) If God ( Heavenly father to LDS ) was once a mere man from another planet who lived a good Mormon life, died and progressed to become God of this planet, does that not clearly imply that we all can become Gods of other planets and so on. It also, to me, clearly suggests that my God has a God who has a God and so on and so on.

"We don't know a lot about that, we don't teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time. I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it." paraphrasing President Hinckley

I think what we teach and emphasize is that God is a glorified and perfected man — what God IS. The doctrine we don't teach and emphasize so much is "as man is, God once was" — what God WAS. Really now, how much has been revealed about what God was, about the earth he lived on, if any, or the conditions of his life there? Personally, I think President Hinckley was absolutely correct. I think we "understand the philosophical background behind it" but, as he said, "I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

Edited September 2, 2008 by mnn727

[shadowhunter]

i just thought id add about deut 6:4 my catholic bible transaltes the verse as saying "Hear o Isreal! the LORD is our God the LORD alone" that verse to me doesnt seem to say that there is only one God just that for Isreal there is only one that should be worshipied

[Misshalfway]

Hi Ceeboo. I can't call you carl. You will always be fondly Ceeboo to me! :)

I hear your confusion and perhaps frustration with what seems like contradiction in these crazy threads. Look. We believe that God has a body of flesh and bone. That Jesus does too and that the Holy Ghost is a personage, or in elementatry terms, looks like man but is a a spirit so that he might accomplish his vast job of touching the hearts and minds of the children of men. We don't believe that one becomes the other or that the Father became the son and visited earth for a time. We believe that they are indeed three separate entities that are the "same" God because they are one is purpose. If by this it appears that we believe in more than one God.....then the answer is yes we do. We believe in three. But, we pray to one. The Father to us all in the name of Jesus Christ and he answers back thru the Holy Ghost so it is kinda hard to separate the other two from the process, if you see what I mean.

With regards the the subject of speculation, I thank MNN. I think that was a very good answer.

Please understand that speculation happens. It happens in my church and I am guessing it happens in yours. There are bible scholars who sit in rooms and read really big books and think really big thoughts. And sometimes.....when speculation gets popular and well known.....it can become confusing. But please try to understand that when talking of the origin of God and the details of what it means to eternally progress there are more questions than answers in terms of what has been revealed thru the prophet for the earth to understand on this subject.

And it is also important to understand that prophets have questions and opinions too. Many of our prophets write inspiring books and papers BUT they are not sanctioned or endorsed by the church. We trust their words as good.....but only when they speak from the pulpit in official capacity do their words become official.

And please understand that the subjects of godhood and mary's conception are NOT the core doctrine of this church. We are talking about the fringe.....the tiny budding limbs of the tree. Not the trunk or even the branches.

Is that clear as mud?

[Guest ceeboo]

Hi Ceeboo. I can't call you carl. You will always be fondly Ceeboo to me! :)

Is that clear as mud?

Hi again Mishalfway,

Yes I do so appreciate the Ceeboo thing ( thanks ):)

Yes, It is indeed clear as mud.:)

[shadowhunter]

so i just wanted to say thanks to everyone for all your help and ask who should i talk to about getting some more info about the church

[bmy-]

so i just wanted to say thanks to everyone for all your help and ask who should i talk to about getting some more info about the church

Missionaries. Or feel free to PM me (i'm sure everyone else invites you to do the same!).

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be a good place for information also.