LDS Faith Monotheistic?

[bmy-]

Here's an quick update on what I learned today from my brief research on the matter whether God worships His God...

Mormons seem to be divided into 3 or 4 camps.

1. Those like me who have no opinion on the matter.

2. Those that believe that He does.

3. Those that believe that He does not.

I think that pretty much sums it up..

There is no Church teaching specifically on the matter - that I or anyone I know has been able to turn up. Such beliefs come from personal speculation or the speculation of some who influences others.

Originally the source of the speculation seems to have from The King Follett Discourse and The Sermon in the Grove given by JS shortly before his death - neither of which address it clearly and specifically... I have also heard/read that Brigham Young may have believed it as part of his Adam-God theory which the Church rejects.

A few quotes from the KFD verse which address the idea that God has not always been God.. and that he worked for his exaltation much like we do. On the point that it was simply 'jotted down'.. I disagree. There were near 20,000 people in attendance or so I read.. and many of those were taking notes. That is not including those who were instructed to take notes as an assignment.

"it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see."

"..but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before."

For those that believe option 2, I suggest that they are making an unsupportable leap based on Joseph Smith's two talks - both of which were jotted down by others listening and were not published until after his death. No word-for-word account of the talks exist.

Wiki says this.. "This amalgamation was done by church employee Jonathan Grimshaw roughly ten years after Smith's death and is generally regarded as the "official" LDS Church version because it was carefully reviewed, edited, and approved by LDS authorities including Brigham Young." (Wiki also mentions the KFD as nearly [likely] 'topically complete')

http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/18.2Larson.pdf

Joseph's unexplained or unclarified remarks that God was once a man need not mean that he went through a mortality like we do. It seems more reasonable that he went through a mortality by choice like Christ did, Christ being deity BEFORE being mortal.

But combine his remarks in the KFD.. with the 'As man is' couplet.. and the picture seems pretty clear to me. God was once a man just like us -- and at one point in time he had not yet arrived at the station of a God. Your argument deals with the how he arrived at that station. Was it on his own merit and him the first..? I wonder which God the KFD is speaking of when it says '"The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods"..? Is it Heavenly Father or someone above him.. I don't think there's enough evidence to tell.

Plus - for those that do NOT believe that God worships another god, that position is in harmony with the scriptures that say God is the most high God over all gods - something that Joseph Smith also believed: [Abraham 3:19, D&C 121:32] (there is a fair wiki article on the matter that explains the extent of the beliefs)

As to this point ... I do not think God worships his God like we do ours (if He does have a God). But I am not quite sure where I stand.. I think i'll sit on the fence for now.

Edited August 26, 2009 by bmy-

[Snow]

I'll leave that to you Snow, since only you know what you're looking for.

M.

Come now Maureen, certainly you know what the Trinity is. It is not what I, Snow, am looking for; it is the elementary meaning of the trinity:

Three Hypostases in one Ousia, co-eternal and co-equal.

No one on this board is going to take issue with the 3 in 1 / 1 in 3 component... that's a non-issue. It's the co-equality and consubstantiality that is at issue.

[Kawazu]

Bible Question: Is the Trinity equal even though they have different roles?

[pam]

I can't believe this subject is still being debated.

[Kawazu]

Wikipedia - Hypostasis

Ecumenical Councils
It was mainly under the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers that the terminology was clarified and standardized, so that the formula "Three Hypostases in one Ousia" came to be everywhere accepted as an epitome of the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity. This consensus, however, was not achieved without some confusion at first in the minds of Western theologians, who had translated hypo-stasis as "sub-stantia" (substance, and see also Consubstantial) and understood the Eastern Christians, when speaking of three "Hypostases" in the Godhead, to mean three "Substances," i.e. they suspected them of Tritheism. But, from the middle of the fourth century onwards the word came to be contrasted with ousia and used to mean "individual reality," especially in the Trinitarian and Christological contexts. With regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, hypostasis is usually understood with a meaning akin to the Greek word prosopon, which is translated into Latin as persona and then into English as person. The Christian view of the Trinity is often described as a view of one God existing in three distinct hypostases/personae/persons.
It should be noted that the Latin "persona" is not the same as the
English "person" but is a broader term that includes the meaning of the
English "persona."

[Elohel]

Anatess,

You said that the beauty of LDS is that it simplifies the "great mystery" of God. I'm not necessarily seeking to simplify Him. I know He cannot be simplified. He's God! The Bible teaches that He's beyond my understanding. The great mystery of Him, of the three in one is just as beautiful to me as the simplified version is to you. Your illustration of the three Bush men might help you understand God as YOU see Him, but it doesn't do God justice as I view Him as taught Biblically. The three Bush's cannot read one another's minds--they have no idea what one another is thinking. The three persons of the Godhead are ONE in every aspect, yet three. You asked me to explain what that meant (substance, form...what?)--it means they are One God in three persons. I already explained it as far as my human mind can comprehend it: God the Father, who is spirit; Jesus, who is also God, but became man when he was born of a virgin; and the Holy Spirit who is God but obviously Spirit and dwells inside the believer. They each have different roles, but they are all one God. I don't know how that is, but it is. I believe that scripture teaches it. My faith allows me to believe what my mind can't fully comprehend and my eyes can't see.

This just makes me sad. TO THE UNKNOWN GOD, reads Paul.

I have no more left to comment, you're welcome to your views, lattelady. God has a body, the Son has a body, and the Holy Ghost is a Spirit. Three seperate persons, but with the same goal and purpose. That's what we believe, obviously not what you believe, and you have been backed up to the wall of faith as you are unable to substantiate your claims. Even the OLDEST GREEK MANUSCRIPTS of the New Testament DISAGREE with your claims, yet you hold true to your precepts.

I, for one, commend you for your steadfastness, but mourn nonetheless. God wishes for you to know him, not only in a spiritual sense, but in a literal sense as well. God does not have an ego problem and he does not have some odd need for us to worship him for eternity, that is not our purpose in this life, he can get along fine without all of that. He loves us, wishes for us to understand his divine nature so that we too can live up to our eternal potential just as he lived up to his.

I know that God lives and loves us. I know that his Son, who does only that which his Father showed him - came to the Earth, performed the Atonement, and returned to his Father's presence. I know, without a single doubt, that God the Father, and his Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph Smith and proved to the world the undeniable nature of God the Father and his Son. I earnestly invite you to honestly read the Book of Mormon and pray about it's contents, for this is the way I gained my witness of the truthfulness of this message. Nothing we say, prove, examine, tear apart or build back up will prove to you the truth of what we say. But the Lord promised that those who really want to understand, not debate, those who honestly seek the truth from God with an open heart and with a true desire to know for themselves can read the Book of Mormon and pray for a witness of its truthfulness and receive that witness through the power of the Holy Ghost.

[Kawazu]

Hey,

I really am put off when other people "mourn" my funky, quaint, statistically improbable Latter-day Saint belief system. There are so many other crucibles over which one can weep. Certain nutty evangelical groups would condemn me to eternal damnation for simply believing in the Mormon Godhead and other, "wrong thinking." They speak with the spiritual pity which is borderline insulting.

Hopefully, even though I believe in the Gospel, I try to avoid putting on airs when speaking to people of other faiths.

Cheers,

Kawazu

Edited August 26, 2009 by Kawazu

[Elohel]

does God not mourn the loss of one of his children? Does a missionary not mourn the loss of a convert? Does Christ not mourn the loss of a sheep?

Please, I will mourn with the best of them.

Cheers,

whatever.

[Elohel]

My reply was just fine, sorry you felt that way about something not even written to you. I think the only "air" of pity was felt in your statement.

What I wrote came sincerely from my heart and I am very much insulted by your foul comments. Keep them to yourself next time if you don't have anything better to say. :mad::mad:

[Kawazu]

does God not mourn the loss of one of his children? Does a missionary not mourn the loss of a convert? Does Christ not mourn the loss of a sheep?

Please, I will mourn with the best of them.

Cheers,

whatever.

A Catholic might say the same thing regarding yourself. I understand the general point at which you were angling, however.

Be well.

Cheers,

Kawazu

[Lstinthwrld]

Has anyone here read Nikos Kosantzakis book 'The last temptation of Christ'?

[Kawazu]

I have not. Tell me more, please.

[Lstinthwrld]

The book follows Jesus through his adult life and his ministry all the way to the crucifixion.

After Jesus was hung on the cross Satan appears to Him in the form of a guardian angel. He tells Jesus that he has done enough that he is not the messiah and does not have to die for mankind.

So he takes Jesus off the cross and Jesus lives his life until he runs into Saul/Paul at market one day while he is preaching about how Jesus was crucified and rose after three days. Jesus' angel/Satan tells him not to go listen but Jesus does anyway and hears it. Jesus is angry at what he heard confronts Saul/Paul and tells him he did not die and to quit lieing about him. This angers Saul/Paul and he tells Jesus to look around at the hopeless people who have hope now through the story of the resurection. He tells Jesus that If figuratively he has to crucify him for the story to give people hope then he will do that and there is nothing that Jesus can do about it. Jesus says he will tell them the truth Saul/Paul tells him that no one will believe him its not what they want to hear.

During the destruction of Jerusalem the apostles find Jesus on his deathbed and they see the angel for what he is. The angel believing Jesus to be past the point of return reveals himself and states that now that Jesus is going to die as a man not a sacrifice satan wins. Jesus prays to God apologizing for his mistake and beging to be able to die for mankind. At that moment he is back on the cross and utters "It is acomplished." and dies.

To me the exchange between Saul/Paul and Jesus at the market sums up Christianity and in fact all religion. Man has to have hope and where there appears to be none we will manufacture some.

[Elohel]

I guess it just depends on your perspective.

I feel like I receive direct manifestations of feeling and thought from the Holy Ghost.

Someone else feels like I'm crazy and I'm just making stuff up because I want to.

Only thing you can do is find out for yourself and test the waters.

[Lstinthwrld]

I guess it just depends on your perspective.

I feel like I receive direct manifestations of feeling and thought from the Holy Ghost.

Someone else feels like I'm crazy and I'm just making stuff up because I want to.

Only thing you can do is find out for yourself and test the waters.

What are you talking about?

[Elohel]

To me the exchange between Saul/Paul and Jesus at the market sums up Christianity and in fact all religion. Man has to have hope and where there appears to be none we will manufacture some.

That's what I'm talking about.

I feel I have manifestations from the Spirit.

Someone else feels I'm crazy.

Christ came so man may have hope.

Man has to have hope so he created Christ.

I say it's white

you say it's black

The glass is half full

The glass is half empty

....

My point is that it's just perspective. One can choose to look at it and say "man makes hope" or one can choose to look at it and say "Christ came and gave us hope"

Your call. The only thing you can do it try to find out for yourself, right?

[Lstinthwrld]

No the only thing you can do is live a good and humble life trying to put the good and happiness of others before you because it is the right way to live and treat others.

See no dogma or apologetics needed. I dont need a 'faith' in the absurd to try to be a good person. I still believe I will get to "heaven" I believe in a "God" I just choose not to cheapen him in the process. We, the boss and I are friends and I don't treat my friends that way.

[Elohel]

And that's your perspective on the issue. Seems as if you choose "man needs hope so he created Christ". Absolutely your choice.

[rameumptom]

He is ONE God in three persons. Three persons in ONE. And there is scripture to support this.

....

There are examples like this woven through the scriptures that speak to the doctrine of the Trinity.

This would be one way to interpret it. Or we could consider it this way. Each of those was a quote from a different person, speaking to different groups of people, who would understand gospel differently.

Second, is it possible that all three members of the Godhead were involved in Jesus' resurrection? It would not require them to be three persons in one God, in order to accomplish this. It could just as easily be three distinct persons in one Godhead accomplishing this.

[Maureen]

Come now Maureen, certainly you know what the Trinity is. It is not what I, Snow, am looking for; it is the elementary meaning of the trinity: Three Hypostases in one Ousia, co-eternal and co-equal. No one on this board is going to take issue with the 3 in 1 / 1 in 3 component... that's a non-issue. It's the co-equality and consubstantiality that is at issue.

Snow, the difference is, that you are more interested in this issue than I am.

[Guest]

Anatess,

You said that the beauty of LDS is that it simplifies the "great mystery" of God. I'm not necessarily seeking to simplify Him. I know He cannot be simplified. He's God! The Bible teaches that He's beyond my understanding. The great mystery of Him, of the three in one is just as beautiful to me as the simplified version is to you. Your illustration of the three Bush men might help you understand God as YOU see Him, but it doesn't do God justice as I view Him as taught Biblically. The three Bush's cannot read one another's minds--they have no idea what one another is thinking. The three persons of the Godhead are ONE in every aspect, yet three. You asked me to explain what that meant (substance, form...what?)--it means they are One God in three persons. I already explained it as far as my human mind can comprehend it: God the Father, who is spirit; Jesus, who is also God, but became man when he was born of a virgin; and the Holy Spirit who is God but obviously Spirit and dwells inside the believer. They each have different roles, but they are all one God. I don't know how that is, but it is. I believe that scripture teaches it. My faith allows me to believe what my mind can't fully comprehend and my eyes can't see.

And this is one of the reasons why I'm not Catholic anymore. Your salvation hinges on something you are not expected to understand...

That, and the fate of those who die before they hear the word Jesus...

[lattelady]

Anatess,

I understand that you disagree with my faith. I respect that. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "your salvation hinges on something you are not expected to understand..."

I'm not Catholic or LDS; but I WILL explain to you, just so you know for SURE what my salvation hinges on: it hinges on Christ alone and what He has done for me on the Cross. The gospel message is what my salvation hinges on: that Christ died for me, because I am a sinner and was separated from a Holy God because of my sin. He took my sin and shame upon Himself and became my substitute. In my sin, my punishment should've been death. But Christ took my punishment for me. He died in my place, was buried and then rose again by the power of God after three days! My salvation hinges on my faith in that--my HEART belief, not just head-belief--my faith that Jesus died for my sins. Romans 10:9,10 "If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

[lattelady]

Snow, we teach the doctrine of the Trinity even to our children. Truth is truth, and if an adult can know the truths of God, than a child can know the truths of God. I will never claim to understand it fully--it is unfathomable. It's a "God-thing," beyond our complete understanding. What we CAN understand is what has been revealed in God's word. When you say to Maureen, "Come on, Maureen, certainly you know what the Trinity is...it is the elementary meaning of the trinity: Three Hypostases in one Ousia." I am in my thirties and I wouldn't have the foggiest notion what you're talking about. What the heck is an ousia? How about we just speak in common language? How about we just come down to earth a bit? The Trinity is complicated enough! :) But it seems like you're trying to talk down to others when you act like, "Come now, of course you know what the Trinity is. I'm asking for the elementary meaning. The miggintoot of the floopalune. Everyone knows that. It's the constitualine theory of the hydroluxe basilar root that's at stake!!"

Edited August 26, 2009 by lattelady

[Lstinthwrld]

found this thought it was interesting.

As proposed evidence that the idea of multiple hypostases is borrowed from pagan sources, nontrinitarians often cite a book On the Holy Church, whose author is referred to as Pseudo-Anthimus, because its traditional attribution is thought to be false. Scholars now attribute the book to Marcellus of Ancyra, a strongly anti-Arian and anti-Origenist bishop who was accused of being an apologist for a modalistic conception of God. The book contains the following declaration:

“ Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God...These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him On the Three Natures. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes, Plato and Aristotle. (Source: AHB Logan: Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), On the Holy Church: Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95 ).

[Lstinthwrld]

Religion is the invention of man not God. We invent what we don't have at the time in the case of religion we invent a greater purpose for ourselves in a very absurd way. These concepts may have held up 2000 years ago but they do not in the present. People need to recognize religion as the myth it is and was. I laugh at the insecurity of the human race. We are pathetic in our need to turn allegory into fact just to feel bigger than the world around us.