LDS Faith Monotheistic?

[Gatorman]

Now, picture me laughing snow. Laughing at the professor who changed the question. You did not ask for proof that it was widespread. You asked us to back up the claim it was taught. I have done that. I was taught it in a church class.

Now, picture me laughing at the professor as, I have a further knowledge than he does and, amazingly, I make more than him. The really funny part is, I don't have the student loan debt because I was intelligent enough to find a career that makes good money without requiring a college education. Amazing, I did not need the teachings of men in universities with silly letters after their names to teach me to an understanding to be able to progress in my profession. No, I learned how to study on my own, figure things out on my own, and how to work with things without requiring the hard, physical evidence you seem to require. In other words, I have an innate learning ability and ability to understand and accept that which is true, without requiring hard facts. It is a difficult thing to understand and I do not know how many people have such a gift. But, go ahead, laugh. I enjoy the knowledge I have, the faith I have, and the certainty I have.

I also love the fact that you are NOW asking for widespread teaching, which is the first you have mentioned. But, hey, whatever allows you to keep your argument going, since you have already had the proof you asked for. So, post your next post about us not providing you what you want. Fact is, you would not accept it anyway, if it did not fit your own personal need. I would ask for Heavenly Father to provide the truth to you, but, I don't relish the idea of a lightning bolt from heaven striking down a fellow brother. So, we will just have to agree to disagree and those of us who get it will continue on our way.

Picture me laughing really hard.

And picture this: You are a college student with a final exam or project, namely to prove that a claim is true, specifically that a widespread LDS teaching was that God worships his God.

You turn in, not evidence that there was a wide spread teaching that God worships his God, but rather, you turn in a statement that says YOU were taught that God was once mortal and had a path to Godhood and then say you have two classmates that agree.

The professor reminds you that the topic was not about what you claim about God being mortal and you answer that you have proved what was asked for.

Now picture the professor laughing his head off, stamping your forehead with an "F" and suggesting that you pursue a career in retail.

[lattelady]

Is the point of all of this to distract from the original question by filling up the thread with posts about the two of you picturing yourselves laughing? :) I'm going to attempt to draw this thread back to the original point that I was trying to get at in the original post: there seems to be confusion as to whether the Church believes in one God or many gods. (and the eventual worship of one God, or many worlds with many gods being worshipped). Many have said, "We are monotheistic." Others will post and disagree with that. What the current prophets proclaim seems to differ from past prophets.

Edited August 24, 2009 by lattelady

[Gatorman]

We, in our sphere, only have one God. For the 'godhead', that is three beings who make it up. However, I doubt you could categorize us easily. And, frankly, for myself, the categorization does not matter. My understanding is that my progression is to become like my Heavenly Father in all ways. But, that does not change the fact that I worship one God.

[pam]

suggesting that you pursue a career in retail.

Heyyyyy..now wait a gosh darn minute here. I work in retail.

[Hemidakota]

Oh man...no laugh button. NOW YOU MADE PAM ANGRY!!!!

[pam]

Believer will no longer be answering questions. It has come to my attention (and I researched and have been able to verify) that this member is a former member of the Church who has previously been banned from the site. Under previously names he announced he left the Church over doctrine.

We can move on now.

Edited August 24, 2009 by pam

[Moksha]

Quote: suggesting that you pursue a career in retail.

Heyyyyy..now wait a gosh darn minute here. I work in retail.

More proof we are a prophetic people!

[Snow]

One doesn't have to guess about this stuff - whether God worships another God above him as we worship the God above us. The Church has official doctrine on the matter.

That God is THE MOST HIGH GOD is doctrinal. The Church feels so certain about it, that it has canonized it. It's not philosophy, it's not a theory, it's not speculation, That is - the Church it has chosen to make it the standard against which all else is measured - canon.

God is not the second most high God, or the third. God is not merely one of other high deities. God is not subordinate to someone above him. Our official doctrine is clear:

He is THE MOST HIGH GOD.

[Snow]

Heyyyyy..now wait a gosh darn minute here. I work in retail.

You are to be commended. That is difficult work. My post wasn't about the desirability or nobility of the vocation, but rather about the rigors of academe vs other vocations.

[Snow]

Now, picture me laughing snow. Laughing at the professor who changed the question. You did not ask for proof that it was widespread.

False, false, false, false, false, false. Believer claimed in in post 347 and I asked for it's proof in posts 351, 369, 373, 378, 380, and 384.

Honesty - or accuracy is important. Please be both.

You asked us to back up the claim it was taught. I have done that. I was taught it in a church class.

You can't be real. You haven't backed up squat. You simply claimed something. Using your [lack of] logic, I can back up that Elvis was a crop-circle creating, cow dissecting, alien kidnapper of farmers, bigfoot hiding in Oregon for the last 30 years and back up my assertion by stating that someone once told me that.

Please, we aren't clueless.

Now, picture me laughing at the professor as, I have a further knowledge than he does and, amazingly, I make more than him.

On topic please. Your claims of remuneration are irrelevant.

The really funny part is, I don't have the student loan debt because I was intelligent enough to find a career that makes good money without requiring a college education.

Go on now.

Amazing, I did not need the teachings of men in universities with silly letters after their names to teach me to an understanding to be able to progress in my profession. No, I learned how to study on my own, figure things out on my own, and how to work with things without requiring the hard, physical evidence you seem to require. In other words, I have an innate learning ability and ability to understand and accept that which is true, without requiring hard facts. It is a difficult thing to understand and I do not know how many people have such a gift. But, go ahead, laugh. I enjoy the knowledge I have, the faith I have, and the certainty I have.

Great.

Can you please stop talking about your job and focus on the topic?

I also love the fact that you are NOW asking for widespread teaching, which is the first you have mentioned.

Honesty/accuracy please.

But, hey, whatever allows you to keep your argument going, since you have already had the proof you asked for. So, post your next post about us not providing you what you want. Fact is, you would not accept it anyway, if it did not fit your own personal need. I would ask for Heavenly Father to provide the truth to you, but, I don't relish the idea of a lightning bolt from heaven striking down a fellow brother. So, we will just have to agree to disagree and those of us who get it will continue on our way.

Prediction: Can't and won't provide evidence.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Snow

[pam]

You are to be commended. That is difficult work. My post wasn't about the desirability or nobility of the vocation, but rather about the rigors of academe vs other vocations.

Yep I know. I just had to give you crap.

[Snow]

Believer will no longer be answering questions. It has come to my attention (and I researched and have been able to verify) that this member is a former member of the Church who has previously been banned from the site. Under previously names he announced he left the Church over doctrine.

We can move on now.

Ah - hah. A heretic and apostate. Now we know where she gets her beliefs from.

Yes, let's move on.

[lattelady]

Is there a moderator here that can answer for me why it is that Snow is being allowed to belittle Gatorman? (as he has others...) The forum has rules. Do they apply to everyone but Snow? I've seen him do it time and time again and rarely if ever has he been warned about it. It doesn't seem necessary to post rules for the forum if they're not going to be enforced.

[Gatorman]

Let me try this one last time Snow. See if you can follow the simple statement. I, myself, have taken part in such a class. That is my evidence. Now, you may choose to believe it or to discard it. Your choice. Where is the evidence that Joseph Smith saw 2 personages in a grove in NY? What proof do you have? A story, told by someone else, backed up later by others who had similar experience.

Now, lets try this again, at least 2 people who are still on this forum have provided personal witness and testimony. What you do with it is your choice.

And, no one has ever said that Heavenly Father is not our most high god. No one has ever suggested that we have any responsibility to the his Father. My children do not look to my parents for their teaching. I am their most high mortal Father.

I have stuck to the facts. You asked for proof. You asked for proof. You asked for proof again. Then, when it was provided, you decided it wasn't proof enough. Then, you posted you were only looking for proof it was taught. Well, it was taught in at least one chapel that I was personally at while it took place. Now, you want proof it was taught widespread. I don't have evidence to support or deny that claim. You want the materials it came from. I will admit I have not been able to find an online manual for Gospel Principles at all to see if it is still there.

But, again, we have reached this impasse. So, I will let it drop. Go ahead and belittle me again, suggest I am stupid, make ad hominem attacks suggesting I don't get you. Snow, I get you. And, honestly, I pity you. And, Snow, that is a FACT.

[Snow]

lattelady:

Did you ever address how your religion, I assume you are Christian, believed for it's first 2 to 2 to 3 hundred years that that there were or would be multiple gods as Christians were deified?

Could you also address the concerns that modern trinitarianism is considered by some to not be monotheistic?

Edited August 25, 2009 by john doe
not necessary

[Snow]

Lattetaldy,

Earlier in the thread you also claimed that deification, what members of The Church of Jesus Christ call exaltation was contrary to the teachings of Christ.

Could you direct me to those contrary teachings?

[Snow]

Let me try this one last time Snow. See if you can follow the simple statement. I, myself, have taken part in such a class. That is my evidence. Now, you may choose to believe it or to discard it. Your choice. Where is the evidence that Joseph Smith saw 2 personages in a grove in NY? What proof do you have? A story, told by someone else, backed up later by others who had similar experience.

Now, lets try this again, at least 2 people who are still on this forum have provided personal witness and testimony. What you do with it is your choice.

And, no one has ever said that Heavenly Father is not our most high god. No one has ever suggested that we have any responsibility to the his Father. My children do not look to my parents for their teaching. I am their most high mortal Father.

I have stuck to the facts. You asked for proof. You asked for proof. You asked for proof again. Then, when it was provided, you decided it wasn't proof enough. Then, you posted you were only looking for proof it was taught. Well, it was taught in at least one chapel that I was personally at while it took place. Now, you want proof it was taught widespread. I don't have evidence to support or deny that claim. You want the materials it came from. I will admit I have not been able to find an online manual for Gospel Principles at all to see if it is still there.

But, again, we have reached this impasse. So, I will let it drop. Go ahead and belittle me again, suggest I am stupid, make ad hominem attacks suggesting I don't get you. Snow, I get you. And, honestly, I pity you. And, Snow, that is a FACT.

You claiming it means nothing. Teachings have sources. The Church has all sorts of manuals and lessons available on the internet. Can you provide any evidence for your claims?

No - you cannot. Why is that? Because you know of none. Simple as that. You not only have zero evidence that you were taught it, you have less than zero evidence that it was widespread. Besides which it contradicts canonized doctrine.

As to belittling you, you are the one that interjected your supposed superiority over a professor because, you claim, you make more money. That was you who brought it up. You are the one that interjected the issue of value in academic and scholarly education. You not me. If you don't like the heat, don't interject it into the conversation.

By the way, can you tell me why you said that I never brought up "widespread" when the truth of the matter is that I had on half a dozen or so posts in this thread, in the very section of the thread you participated in?

Oh, and thank you for your pity. I was running low and you've just topped off the tank. Can I also get some apathy and maybe a little jam on the side?

Edited August 24, 2009 by Snow

[lattelady]

Snow, men becoming gods is contrary to the teachings of Christ. I can direct you to passages in the Bible that show a biblical view that there is one God. I did not address anywhere on this thread that early Christians believed there were multiple gods, because that would be incorrect. You've mentioned various quotes to try and substantiate that, but I don't consider those men to be Christians in the sense that they believe the true Gospel. I believe in the Bible, that it is the inerrant Word of God. As such, I believe these passages that I'm about to show you teach that there is ONE GOD. ONLY ONE. That He has always existed, and that He is eternal and that He did not progress to the station He is at. He is eternally God.

Isaiah 43:10 "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was not God formed, neither shall there be after me."

Isaiah 44:6,8 "Thus saith the Lord the Kind of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God...Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? Ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no god; I know not any."

These are just two of MANY.

How have I belittled you, Snow?

[Snow]

Following up:

In a published TIME article/interview President Hinckley was asked, not about whether or not God worships another God but rather whether he was once mortal. What was his response:

"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. 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."

He was exactly right.

He wasn't making a statement about lack of knowledge of our teachings - he was making a statement of the ambiguity of the concept. It is not part of our formal theology. We know very little, practically nothing about it; so little, in fact, that it most amounts to speculation. Obviously JS thought he knew something about it, but we are not privy to what Joseph Smith knew and so we have very little to say on the subject.

In a similar interview for the SF Chronicle he said of the Snow couplet:

"Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about." The reporter pounced on this. "So you're saying that the church is still struggling to understand this? " President Hinckley responded, "Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly."

No one word on whether God worships a superior God.

[pam]

Sorry Lattelady but we actually do believe that men can become Gods. Here is a statement made by one of our former Prophets.

The third and highest kingdom—the celestial—is where God and Christ dwell. There are, even in this kingdom, different degrees of glory, but it is the privilege of every member of the Church, who will receive and be true to every covenant and obligation, to gain the exaltation. All who gain the highest exaltation, the Lord has said, are made “equal in power, and in might, and in dominion.” All power is given unto them, they become “gods, even the sons of God, wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.” These are made priests and kings.

LDS.org - New Era Article - The Wisdom of President Joseph Fielding Smith

[lattelady]

Snow, did you see my post?

[lattelady]

Pam, I was wondering if you could address my question about why Snow is allowed to bully others.

[Lstinthwrld]

Snow, men becoming gods is contrary to the teachings of Christ. I can direct you to passages in the Bible that show a biblical view that there is one God. I did not address anywhere on this thread that early Christians believed there were multiple gods, because that would be incorrect. You've mentioned various quotes to try and substantiate that, but I don't consider those men to be Christians in the sense that they believe the true Gospel. I believe in the Bible, that it is the inerrant Word of God. As such, I believe these passages that I'm about to show you teach that there is ONE GOD. ONLY ONE. That He has always existed, and that He is eternal and that He did not progress to the station He is at. He is eternally God.

Isaiah 43:10 "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was not God formed, neither shall there be after me."

Isaiah 44:6,8 "Thus saith the Lord the Kind of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God...Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? Ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no god; I know not any."

These are just two of MANY.

How have I belittled you, Snow?

The scriptures you quote here are from the Old Testament. Christ was supposed to be the fulfillment of the law and bring a new gospel. The old testament is important but with the coming of the Christ it is not absolute.

Before you believe the bible as the inerrant word of god look into the history of the bible. It will change your mind on that fact.

The concept that mormons teach as eternal progression or godhood was a commonly taught idea in the first few centuries of Christianity. They just labeled by a greek term instead of an english one. They called it theosis.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Lstinthwrld

[Lstinthwrld]

I would also like to know why people like Snow and Vort are allowed to criticize and bully at will but still believe they deserve our respect anyway.

[lattelady]

Lstinthewrld,

They ARE Old Testament verses, but since the God of the Bible is Eternal, it doesn't really matter if the verse is Old Testament or New. It's speaking of the same ETERNAL God and saying that there was no God formed before or after Him. That doesn't change. The new gospel that Christ fulfilled was one of grace as opposed to law (Old testament/New testament--but had nothing to do with who God is. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. The truths of God's Word ARE absolute.

"Before you believe the bible as the inerrant word of god look into the history of the bible. It will change your mind on that fact." I have looked into the history of the Bible. I've studied it all my life. It's where my faith comes from. I haven't changed my mind yet!