semantics

[Lstinthwrld]

I am well familiar with the incident you are talking about. It was not related to the temple. Sorry. You simply have your facts off. Now, you are starting to get a bit disrespectful, so I don't know if I can take your inquiry seriously. Do you really not understand the concept of sacred places and private tutelage?

How do you explain Jesus' method of teaching his disciples things in private that he did not reveal to the masses?

Luke 10

21 ¶ In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

23 ¶ And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see:

24 For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

Sorry dont mean to sound disrespectful. And no I don't understand this concept. As far as christianity goes it is a uniquely mormon one. It is one of the issues I personally have with it.

[bytebear]

Easy. Prove it happened.

[Lstinthwrld]

I am from Utah, but maybe I had a rebellious spirit, since I later moved to California.

Ummm.... LDS are monotheistic, and believe in ONE God. That God however is made of (at least) three beings. Just because God can be made up of individuals does not mean that God is not one. When we become one with God, I believe our unity will not be physical, but will be in such a perfect harmony, that there is still ONE God. polytheism or even henotheism implies gods with different goals and competing desires. That is not what LDS teach. God is one, even if God is three. And LDS Scripture confirms this.

2 Nephi 31

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is fone God, without end. Amen.

D&C 20

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

Here you are actually presenting two different views. If all three are one god as the d&c reference would suggest where does the three distinct beings come in? Your personal belief and the modern teaching of the church is that they are three different individuals both scriptural accounts you give don't promote the belief you present.

[bmy-]

Ummm.... LDS are monotheistic, and believe in ONE God. That God however is made of (at least) three beings. Just because God can be made up of individuals does not mean that God is not one. When we become one with God, I believe our unity will not be physical, but will be in such a perfect harmony, that there is still ONE God. polytheism or even henotheism implies gods with different goals and competing desires. That is not what LDS teach. God is one, even if God is three. And LDS Scripture confirms this.

No.. LDS is henotheistic. Henotheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. " (LDS translation of John 17:11)

It's a reference to the Godhead. 3 divine beings united in one person and acting as One.

[bytebear]

Sorry dont mean to sound disrespectful. And no I don't understand this concept. As far as christianity goes it is a uniquely mormon one. It is one of the issues I personally have with it.

Jesus taught everything openly, as do Mormons, but some things he explained to his apostles once they got past the basics. He elaborated on things once they understood beyond the parables. But he did this only when they had proved that they comprehended what he was teaching.

The temple at his time was also a place for higher learning and for sacred ritual. Only high priests were allowed to enter the inner sanctuary of the temple. After Jesus came, the restrictions on priesthood and the gospel expanded beyond Jewish lineage.

The modern temple is the culmination of all of this. It extends the sacred to all who seek it, but they must show that they understand and are willing to abide by the covenants made within.

[bytebear]

No.. LDS is henotheistic. Henotheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. (LDS translation of John 17:11)

It's a reference to the Godhead. 3 divine beings united in one person and acting as One.

I disagree. Henotheism implies more than one God, but even if we become "gods" we still are only becoming one with God, and therefore there is only one God of which we become one with. We are not gods. We are God.

We are a people. We are Zion. We are Mankind.

All of these represent a group, but that group is still singular. Still one.

Edited August 19, 2009 by bytebear

[Lstinthwrld]

Exactly the way I feel. Look I really am not trying to be argumentative. But maybe I am being unfair to you guys. I am kind of using you all as a sounding board to i guess sort of work out my own beliefs. I am sorry I dont want to offend but I do feel a certain sense of urgency to do this. Have patience with me PLEASE!

[Lstinthwrld]

I disagree. Henotheism implies more than one God, but even if we become "gods" we still are only becoming one with God, and therefore there is only one God of which we become one with. We are not gods. We are God.

I actually agree with you very much on this.

To over simplify the teaching of eternal progression, Gods progression is tied up with ours. So even if we progress to God hood we can never reach the level I.E nature of The Heavenly Father.

So we can never be his equal.

If we can never be His equal we will never be a God in the same sense He is A God.

No matter how advanced we get He will always be God.

Do I understand this right?

[bytebear]

Exactly the way I feel. Look I really am not trying to be argumentative. But maybe I am being unfair to you guys. I am kind of using you all as a sounding board to i guess sort of work out my own beliefs. I am sorry I dont want to offend but I do feel a certain sense of urgency to do this. Have patience with me PLEASE!

Well, I think you need to understand the difference between secret and sacred, and I don't mean that as a cop out, but really try to understand what that means. Just as you want to have control over who may be present at the birth of your child, so it is with the temple. It's not a big secret, having a baby, but it is a sacred time for a family, and you probably have some criteria on who you would want there.

[bmy-]

I disagree. Henotheism implies more than one God, but even if we become "gods" we still are only becoming one with God, and therefore there is only one God of which we become one with. We are not gods. We are God.

We are a people. We are Zion. We are Mankind.

All of these represent a group, but that group is still singular. Still one.

"I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of the creation in the Bible -- Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith -- in, by through, and everything else. Rosh -- the head. Sheit -- grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, "The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods." That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council."

"In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it."

(Both quotes are from the King Follet Discourse by Joseph Smith)

Most definitely henotheists -- as defined to mean worshiping a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities

Edited August 19, 2009 by bmy-

[bytebear]

I actually agree with you very much on this.

To over simplify the teaching of eternal progression, Gods progression is tied up with ours. So even if we progress to God hood we can never reach the level I.E nature of The Heavenly Father.

So we can never be his equal.

If we can never be His equal we will never be a God in the same sense He is A God.

No matter how advanced we get He will always be God.

Do I understand this right?

Yes, I think that's fair. Similarly, God does progress, but not because he becomes more knowledgeable or powerful, but his creations (us) do, and so his progression is really due to our progression.

[bytebear]

"I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of the creation in the Bible -- Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith -- in, by through, and everything else. Rosh -- the head. Sheit -- grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, "The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods." That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council."

"In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it."

(Both quotes are from the King Follet Discourse by Joseph Smith)

Most definitely henotheistic.. as defined to mean worshiping a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities

Yet, the King Follet Discourse is not canonized, but the verses I quoted directly from a prophet of God are. Definitely monotheistic.

Now you bring up an interesting point, and that is on the level or worship. We worship God because we are not divine. Will we worship God when we become one with God? Or is that only what lesser beings do? And when we worship God, do we worship them separately, or do we simply worship the divine (encompassing all things God), or do we worship them individually? We pray to the Father in the name of Christ, but we do no specific interaction with the Holy Ghost, and yet, the Holy Ghost is still God (or if you like, a God). But does that mean he is part of that worship too? And if so, then what about all the countless nameless beings who may also be one with God. Are we worshiping them as we worship God? And if not, then do we worship two Gods simultaneously, the Father and the Son? and then we are polytheistic? No, we worship ONE God made of at least 3 beings, possibly more, but still ONE God. I think worship is a temporal state, and when we become divine, we will have a closeness with God that worship no longer applies. Again, monotheistic. as there is one God of worship.

Edited August 19, 2009 by bytebear

[bmy-]

Yet, the King Follet Discourse is not canonized, but the verses I quoted directly from a prophet of God are. Definitely monotheistic.

Used in general conference and is quoted by Prophets, Apostles, GAs, handbooks.. it's doctrine

Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, October 1994

"On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62); and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become!"

[Lstinthwrld]

Well, I think you need to understand the difference between secret and sacred, and I don't mean that as a cop out, but really try to understand what that means. Just as you want to have control over who may be present at the birth of your child, so it is with the temple. It's not a big secret, having a baby, but it is a sacred time for a family, and you probably have some criteria on who you would want there.

Like I said its one of the thing I am trying to work out.

[Snow]

Wouldn't it be better to just present the beliefs and avoid all the crap and accusations in the first place?

I wonder how much education was required before John the Baptist - or the first Christians baptized someone. Do you know?

[Lstinthwrld]

I wonder how much education was required before John the Baptist - or the first Christians baptized someone. Do you know?

This is a stupid come lately argument.

By this logic what authority did he need? There was no church no authority before him so if we follow the logic of your argument I can baptize and don't need anyone elses authority for any type of religious rite. Therefore negating organized Christianity as we know it today.

Everything is a progression.

From church authority to knowledge.

Also there was not much knowledge because of a little thing called illiteracy in the first century as well.

The standards of the time are much different from then to now.

Keep perspective please.

[Gatorman]

The idea of three distinct beings being one...Is not unique to the Godhead. If we look at other examples, we can start to understand how those thoughts can be seen as we do.

1 - Husband and Wife are to be one. So, after we marry, we suddenly merge and become one physical being? Or, we are one in purpose, but still two distinct beings?

2 - We are to become one with God. So, after we become one with God, we cease to exist and the Godhead becomes 'bigger'? Or, rather, we are one with God's purpose and still exist seperately to serve him, etc?

Now, here is something I am honestly not sure about. Was the idea of the trinity, as most faiths believe it, taught prior to Nicea? Or, was it a creation of that council? Or, some other council/time? Because, every scriptural evidence I find suggests the Trinity is flawed.

Jesus' Baptism - You have Jesus in the water, the Holy Spirit in the form of a physical dove, and Heavenly Father speaking from the clouds. So, we have 3 different physical world manifistations.

[HiJolly]

Used in general conference and is quoted by Prophets, Apostles, GAs, handbooks.. it's doctrine

Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, October 1994

"On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62); and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become!"

As good and doctrinal as that may be (!), it is not doctrine, bmy-. In fact, because of this very thing (one Church leader making a statement in Conference) the Church clarified our position because of all the JoD (for example only) talks and how they are demonstrably unreliable. Read here: Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom

HiJolly

[Hemidakota]

Yet, the King Follet Discourse is not canonized, but the verses I quoted directly from a prophet of God are. Definitely monotheistic.

Now you bring up an interesting point, and that is on the level or worship. We worship God because we are not divine. Will we worship God when we become one with God? Or is that only what lesser beings do? And when we worship God, do we worship them separately, or do we simply worship the divine (encompassing all things God), or do we worship them individually? We pray to the Father in the name of Christ, but we do no specific interaction with the Holy Ghost, and yet, the Holy Ghost is still God (or if you like, a God). But does that mean he is part of that worship too? And if so, then what about all the countless nameless beings who may also be one with God. Are we worshiping them as we worship God? And if not, then do we worship two Gods simultaneously, the Father and the Son? and then we are polytheistic? No, we worship ONE God made of at least 3 beings, possibly more, but still ONE God. I think worship is a temporal state, and when we become divine, we will have a closeness with God that worship no longer applies. Again, monotheistic. as there is one God of worship.

Becareful...there are alot of revelations given by Joseph Smith which are corrections to the old sectarion beliefs and not added to our current scriptures. As there are alot of scriptures missing as there is a writing in our current King James should not be canonize.

[Hemidakota]

As good and doctrinal as that may be (!), it is not doctrine, bmy-. In fact, because of this very thing (one Church leader making a statement in Conference) the Church clarified our position because of all the JoD (for example only) talks and how they are demonstrably unreliable. Read here: Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom

HiJolly

Actually that is not correct since Apostle Holland have stated otherwise with living oracles [prophets] when speaking by the Spirit is doctrine. No offense to President Harold B. Lee but this is where I disagree on this point.

[Hemidakota]

The idea of three distinct beings being one...Is not unique to the Godhead. If we look at other examples, we can start to understand how those thoughts can be seen as we do.

1 - Husband and Wife are to be one. So, after we marry, we suddenly merge and become one physical being? Or, we are one in purpose, but still two distinct beings?

2 - We are to become one with God. So, after we become one with God, we cease to exist and the Godhead becomes 'bigger'? Or, rather, we are one with God's purpose and still exist seperately to serve him, etc?

Now, here is something I am honestly not sure about. Was the idea of the trinity, as most faiths believe it, taught prior to Nicea? Or, was it a creation of that council? Or, some other council/time? Because, every scriptural evidence I find suggests the Trinity is flawed.

Jesus' Baptism - You have Jesus in the water, the Holy Spirit in the form of a physical dove, and Heavenly Father speaking from the clouds. So, we have 3 different physical world manifistations.

The symbol of the Holy Ghost is a dove and not form of a dove. Something even Lucifer cannot counterfeit.

[Vort]

You were taught well then. By chance.. are you from somewhere besides Utah? Probably 9/10 missionaries we get down here are from Utah.. and the ones that have not been have been the best.

Missionaries are told to teach the basics and let the Spirit do the rest. They are taught to avoid contention. They are not told to avoid teaching certain established doctrines. (That is, I'm sure that some missionaries, somewhere, at some time, HAVE been told that, but it's not something that missionaries in general are told to do.)

I was taught that there was ONE God and that LDS was monotheistic.. I knew better and had to correct the missionaries. I've gotta say though.. a good missionary can be a serious force and a crappy missionary can do some serious damage.

About half the missionaries in my mission were from Utah, and I would say slightly more than half of the really good missionaries were Utahans. I'm not from Utah, and I was not a particularly effective missionary, but I think I had a pretty good view of how other missionaries were. The Utahans acquitted themselves quite well.

[FunkyTown]

Missionaries are told to teach the basics and let the Spirit do the rest. They are taught to avoid contention. They are not told to avoid teaching certain established doctrines. (That is, I'm sure that some missionaries, somewhere, at some time, HAVE been told that, but it's not something that missionaries in general are told to do.)

About half the missionaries in my mission were from Utah, and I would say slightly more than half of the really good missionaries were Utahans. I'm not from Utah, and I was not a particularly effective missionary, but I think I had a pretty good view of how other missionaries were. The Utahans acquitted themselves quite well.

This is where problems get in: Pseudodoctrine. It isn't actual doctrine, but people have made assumptions based upon things prophets have said. It is some of the most damaging stuff people who want to harm the church get hold of, because it can't be effectively defended against.

I say: Trust the Lord, read the scriptures and if it ain't explicitly stated, it ain't so.

[bytebear]

Used in general conference and is quoted by Prophets, Apostles, GAs, handbooks.. it's doctrine

Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, October 1994

"On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62); and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become!"

So was Adam/God, and yet, it is not doctrine.

The thread is called "semantics" and that is what you are arguing. But the scriptures are very clear. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are ONE God. Period.

[HiJolly]

Actually that is not correct since Apostle Holland have stated otherwise with living oracles [prophets] when speaking by the Spirit is doctrine. No offense to President Harold B. Lee but this is where I disagree on this point.

Hemi, we all know that when one speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost, it is the same as if by the mouth of God Himself. The trick is whether they speak by that power or not, and how do we tell the difference. And, whether what was said, be it from God or not, is binding on the Church.

The link I provided above is the official Church position on the question. If you do not agree, then you are not in step with the Church. So, I think you must agree because I just can't see you being in opposition to what the Brethren are saying.

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church."

HiJolly