Time Magazine Article

[Dr T]

Hello all,

Someone in a different thread said something about Mr. Hinckley being around to celebrate his 100th birthday and it made me wonder about his actual age. I googled his name and came up with this article. It's from Time magazine. Basically it goes back and forth between the LDS church officials and the Time magazine staff. Finding this makes me question and spurs questions about this issue. I hope a moderator will look at it and let me know if it's appropriate for discussion here. I'm really curious about board members ideas about this article and about their ideas of eternal progression that this article is referencing.

Here is the link: http://www.irr.org/MIT/hinckley.html

I hope we can talk about this issue,

Dr. T

[mom_of_jcchlsm]

I'm not a mod, but I see no reason not to discuss it.

President Hinckley is an old man. He has, at times, appeared to me to be of less than perfectly sound mind. Not addled. Not dotty. Just slower and a little rambling. He seemed very well when he spoke at General Conference last weekend, but in recent years, his coherence has come and gone. His hearing is not what it used to be, and he may not be able to follow a conversation as nimbly as his younger self. I have a deep respect for the prophet, and do not wish to seem to be finding fault.

As to the doctrine in question, it is well known and frequently spoken of in Church. It is not a secret. It is not something to cover up or be ashamed of. Rather, it is a doctrine which makes so much sense! So many people ask "how did God become God?" Well, here you go - here's your answer.

"We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement -- a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share. In spite of the opposition of the sects, in the face of direct charges of blasphemy, the Church proclaims the eternal truth: 'As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.'" (LDS Apostle James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, Ch.24, p.430 - p.431, LDS Collectors Library '97 CD-ROM)

As is mentioned in the above quote, the LDS Church and its members have taken a lot of hits from our fellow Christians for this. Although we believe it and teach it and even rejoice in the implications of this knowledge, it's not the sort of thing we go around waving in people's faces like a red flag in front of a bull. It's not the first point of doctrine an investigator is usually taught. Nor will you find it among a missionary's talking points. But I certainly knew and understood this point before I joined the Church. In fact, to me, it's part of what makes the LDS version of the Gospel so much more vital and believable than other sects'. President Hinckley may well have been trying to sidestep the issue so as not to start up a new round of persecutions, and just not done so gracefully enough.

[Dr T]

Hello all,

Thanks for your accepting and willingness to look at issues like this Mom of 7.

I am really enjoying reading your/everyone's ideas and learning from you all. This issue is really causing me difficulties. At its root, it is not logically possible. I am not an expert and not a professional philosopher or theologian but I do know what a sound argument is and what is not. I’ll try and express the difficulty I’m having and hope to hear your ideas.

Philosophical arguments for the impossibility of transversing an actual infinite series of events has long stood as a logical conclusion. I don’t know how familiar you all are with philosophical writings but starting back with Aristotle, we see that he ruled out an infinite progression of causes. We can also read other philosophers that come to the same conclusion. Thomas Aquinas for example offered similar arguments using ideas of the first mover, first cause, the sustainer, etc.

Here is a sample of this pattern:

1. there exists a series of events

2. the series of events exists as caused and not as uncaused (necessary)

3. there must exist the necessary being that is the cause of all contingent being

4. there must exist the necessary being that is the cause of the whole series of beings

Aquinas’ Argument from Motion is easy to understand and starts with this observation: “Of the things we observe, all things have been placed in motion. No thing has placed itself in motion.” Working from the assumption that if a thing is in motion then it has been caused to be in motion by another thing, Aquinas also notes that an infinite chain of things-in-motion and things-causing-things-to-be-in-motion can not be correct. If an infinite chain or regression existed among things-in-motion and things-causing-things-to-be-in-motion then we could not account for the motion we observe. If we move backwards from the things we observe in motion to their cause, and then to that cause of motion within those things that caused motion, and so on, then we could continuing moving backwards ad infinitum.

My intro to philosophy professor taught that it would be like trying to count all of the points in a line, moving from point B to point A. We would never get to point A. Yet point A must exist as we know there is a line segment. Similarly, if the cause-and-effect chain did not have a starting point then we could not account for the motion we observe around us. Since there is motion, the cause and effect chain (accounting for motion) must have had a starting point.

The cause and effect relationship here must have a starting point. At one point in time, the events were set in motion. Thus, there must be a First Cause which set all other things in motion. This is known as the cosmological argument.

What else can we know about the First Cause? The first cause must have been uncaused. If it were caused by another thing, then we have not resolved the problem of the infinite regression. So, in order to account for the motion that we observe, it is necessary to posit a beginning to the cause and effect relationship underlying the observed motion. It is also necessary to claim that the First Cause has not been caused by some other thing. It is not set in motion by another entity. This is the only logical way to explain this series of events.

If your interested, you can also read Clarke’s “Argument from Contingency”:

1. Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary.

2. Not every being can be contingent.

3. Therefore, there exists a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend.

4. A necessary being, on which all contingent things depend, is what is taken as “God”.

Basically, my problem here is a logic issue. It is a logically impossibility to transverse an actual infinite and still experience today. We would never be able to get to today. But the problem is-there is a today. Anyway, I hope that makes sense. If anyone has a deeper understanding that can set me straight, I eagerly await your reply.

Thanks,

Dr. T

[prisonchaplain]

As to the doctrine in question, it is well known and frequently spoken of in Church. It is not a secret. It is not something to cover up or be ashamed of. Rather, it is a doctrine which makes so much sense! So many people ask "how did God become God?" Well, here you go - here's your answer.

"We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement -- a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share. In spite of the opposition of the sects, in the face of direct charges of blasphemy, the Church proclaims the eternal truth: 'As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.'" (LDS Apostle James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, Ch.24, p.430 - p.431, LDS Collectors Library '97 CD-ROM)

Thank you for getting into this teaching, MOM! I believe some have labeled this "Eternal Progression," though some aspects of this line of teaching are said to be speculative. You are correct that the teaching that God may have changed in his nature--progressed--causes theological fireworks, at least amongst evangelicals and Reform theologians. I'm guessing Catholics are scandalized as well. My understanding is that the justification goes back to a rejection of all doctrinal formation from about 100AD up to the time of JS. So, the understandings of time, God's nature, and many other philosophical issues are quite different from what non-LDS Christians take for granted. This teaching may indeed be a doctrinal line in the sand--a right/wrong question for which there is no compromise. God is either eternal beyond time, or He is only eternal and unchangeable since time began ticking with the formation of the world described in Gen. 1.

As is mentioned in the above quote, the LDS Church and its members have taken a lot of hits from our fellow Christians for this. Although we believe it and teach it and even rejoice in the implications of this knowledge, it's not the sort of thing we go around waving in people's faces like a red flag in front of a bull. It's not the first point of doctrine an investigator is usually taught. Nor will you find it among a missionary's talking points. But I certainly knew and understood this point before I joined the Church. In fact, to me, it's part of what makes the LDS version of the Gospel so much more vital and believable than other sects'. President Hinckley may well have been trying to sidestep the issue so as not to start up a new round of persecutions, and just not done so gracefully enough.

While it's understandable not to begin doctrinal training with this issue, due to the complexity and controversial nature of it, my own view is that it should be brought up fairly early--certainly prior to baptism. Not to do so raises the spector of non-LDS saying, "Why are the hiding this? Why are they springing it on converts only after they are already committed?" Some might even suggest it's like those nondescript "networking" meetings you get invited to, only to find out your in for a 2-hour AMWAY pitch. Openness might drive a few away, but those who stay will be more committed, imho.

[boyando]

Hello all,

Thanks for your accepting and willingness to look at issues like this Mom of 7.

I am really enjoying reading your/everyone's ideas and learning from you all. This issue is really causing me difficulties. At its root, it is not logically possible. I am not an expert and not a professional philosopher or theologian but I do know what a sound argument is and what is not. I’ll try and express the difficulty I’m having and hope to hear your ideas.

Philosophical arguments for the impossibility of transversing an actual infinite series of events has long stood as a logical conclusion. I don’t know how familiar you all are with philosophical writings but starting back with Aristotle, we see that he ruled out an infinite progression of causes. We can also read other philosophers that come to the same conclusion. Thomas Aquinas for example offered similar arguments using ideas of the first mover, first cause, the sustainer, etc.

Here is a sample of this pattern:

1. there exists a series of events

2. the series of events exists as caused and not as uncaused (necessary)

3. there must exist the necessary being that is the cause of all contingent being

4. there must exist the necessary being that is the cause of the whole series of beings

Aquinas’ Argument from Motion is easy to understand and starts with this observation: “Of the things we observe, all things have been placed in motion. No thing has placed itself in motion.” Working from the assumption that if a thing is in motion then it has been caused to be in motion by another thing, Aquinas also notes that an infinite chain of things-in-motion and things-causing-things-to-be-in-motion can not be correct. If an infinite chain or regression existed among things-in-motion and things-causing-things-to-be-in-motion then we could not account for the motion we observe. If we move backwards from the things we observe in motion to their cause, and then to that cause of motion within those things that caused motion, and so on, then we could continuing moving backwards ad infinitum.

My intro to philosophy professor taught that it would be like trying to count all of the points in a line, moving from point B to point A. We would never get to point A. Yet point A must exist as we know there is a line segment. Similarly, if the cause-and-effect chain did not have a starting point then we could not account for the motion we observe around us. Since there is motion, the cause and effect chain (accounting for motion) must have had a starting point.

The cause and effect relationship here must have a starting point. At one point in time, the events were set in motion. Thus, there must be a First Cause which set all other things in motion. This is known as the cosmological argument.

What else can we know about the First Cause? The first cause must have been uncaused. If it were caused by another thing, then we have not resolved the problem of the infinite regression. So, in order to account for the motion that we observe, it is necessary to posit a beginning to the cause and effect relationship underlying the observed motion. It is also necessary to claim that the First Cause has not been caused by some other thing. It is not set in motion by another entity. This is the only logical way to explain this series of events.

If your interested, you can also read Clarke’s “Argument from Contingency”:

1. Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary.

2. Not every being can be contingent.

3. Therefore, there exists a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend.

4. A necessary being, on which all contingent things depend, is what is taken as “God”.

Basically, my problem here is a logic issue. It is a logically impossibility to transverse an actual infinite and still experience today. We would never be able to get to today. But the problem is-there is a today. Anyway, I hope that makes sense. If anyone has a deeper understanding that can set me straight, I eagerly await your reply.

Thanks,

Dr. T

My problem, with your problem is, logic requires that events are in sequence, starting with a point A and ending at the point we are at now (or today), on a time line. Logic is incomplete, with incomplete information. With incomplete information, we make assumptions. It is most logical that we have not yet recieved all knowledge or we would not have a need to learn the unknown.

It is logically impossible for a kite to fly, with out the knowledge of the physics involved. And yet a kite can fly.

Logic is also one of the many opposites of faith. Faith has its purpose in our Father in heavens plan. If there was too much information given to us, we would not make our decissions based on our desires, but on logic.

Logic would there by, illiminate love, compassion and joy, also hate, pain and sarrow.

That is really just the short of it - Almosthumble

[Guest ApostleKnight]

While it's understandable not to begin doctrinal training with this issue, due to the complexity and controversial nature of it, my own view is that it should be brought up fairly early--certainly prior to baptism.

I used to think so too. But baptism and conversion are required for salvation. Believing the couplet that "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become," is NOT required for salvation. Now if one of the temple recommend questions was, "Do you believe God was once a man like you and me?" and you couldn't gain access to the temple unless you believed that, yes, God WAS once a mortal man...then I'd wholeheartedly insist that investigators be taught the doctrine prior to baptism.

As it stands, it's not a requirement, but a mystery and deep doctrine which has done more harm than good in my experience. Do I believe the couplet? In my own limited way, yes. Does my salvation hinge on whether it's true or not? Nope.

Not to do so raises the spector of non-LDS saying, "Why are the hiding this? Why are they springing it on converts only after they are already committed?" Some might even suggest it's like those nondescript "networking" meetings you get invited to, only to find out your in for a 2-hour AMWAY pitch.

I HATE those network marketing meetings! :) "As you guests now are, us Platinum Sellers once were; as we Platinum Sellers now are, you guests may become." Hahahaha

[Guest ApostleKnight]

The cause and effect relationship here must have a starting point. At one point in time, the events were set in motion. Thus, there must be a First Cause which set all other things in motion. This is known as the cosmological argument.

This would be true if there were a beginning point or start of time. As it stands, we are taught that eternity has no beginning or end. This effectually makes calculating time and causes impossible on a grand scale. It also negates concepts that there must be a "first cause" or "first mover" because there has always been a "mover" or "cause."

I confess that this idea of no beginning or end is difficult for me to wrap my head around (Joseph Smith's ring analogy aside). However, I do believe that I can't comprehend an infinite concept with a finite mind. So I don't strain too hard, I just accept that I, and Aristotle, and Aquinas, and all of us DO have finite minds and hence might as well try to reach out and touch the sun as comprehend eternity. (props to anyone who's touched the sun from earth).

Basically, my problem here is a logic issue. It is a logically impossibility to transverse an actual infinite and still experience today. We would never be able to get to today. But the problem is-there is a today.

This smacks of Zeno and his paradoxes which mathematicians and philosophers have solved with calculus. Most of these paradoxes or impossibilities are really just word plays. For example, combining Zeno's paradox of dichotomy and the arrow, he would say:

"If an arrow is shot at a target, before it can reach the target it must travel half the distance to the target. But before it can travel half the distance to the target, it must travel half the distance of half the distance to the target. But before it can do that, it must travel half of half of half the distance and so on ad infinitum. Hence, the arrow will forever be traveling an infinite number of halves of the total distance to the target. Hence, it will never reach the target. Hence, motion is impossible."

The fact is--and you can verify this--if you shoot an arrow at a target it does reach the target eventually. And as you say, there is a today, regardless of how many infinite divisions of time leading up to today there are.

So these sorts of arguments are useless in explaining reality. Until we can understand how "intelligence...was not created or made, neither indeed can be," (D&C 93:29), in essence how something has ALWAYS existed without being made by a "first mover" or what have you...yes, until we can understand such infinite and eternal concepts, such discussions are fruitless, no matter how entertaining they may be.

[prisonchaplain]

I used to think so too. But baptism and conversion are required for salvation. Believing the couplet that "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become," is NOT required for salvation. Now if one of the temple recommend questions was, "Do you believe God was once a man like you and me?" and you couldn't gain access to the temple unless you believed that, yes, God WAS once a mortal man...then I'd wholeheartedly insist that investigators be taught the doctrine prior to baptism. As it stands, it's not a requirement, but a mystery and deep doctrine which has done more harm than good in my experience. Do I believe the couplet? In my own limited way, yes. Does my salvation hinge on whether it's true or not? Nope.

I can at least understand your reasoning here. Prof. Robinson (BYU) explains to his evangelical friends that this famous quote is NOT official doctrine, nor is it directly based on Scripture. Nevertheless, he admits that it might as well be, as oft as it is quoted, and as readily as most LDS accept it (regardless of how deeply they've contemplated it). So, your reminder that the couplet is pervasive, but not essential does help.

I HATE those network marketing meetings! :) "As you guests now are, us Platinum Sellers once were; as we Platinum Sellers now are, you guests may become." Hahahaha

You're beautiful, man! B)

[Dr T]

My problem, with your problem is, logic requires that events are in sequence, starting with a point A and ending at the point we are at now (or today), on a time line. Logic is incomplete, with incomplete information. With incomplete information, we make assumptions. It is most logical that we have not yet recieved all knowledge or we would not have a need to learn the unknown.

It is logically impossible for a kite to fly, with out the knowledge of the physics involved. And yet a kite can fly.

Logic is also one of the many opposites of faith. Faith has its purpose in our Father in heavens plan. If there was too much information given to us, we would not make our decissions based on our desires, but on logic.

Logic would there by, illiminate love, compassion and joy, also hate, pain and sarrow.

That is really just the short of it - Almosthumble

Hello allmosthumble,

Thanks for your ideas. Yes, logic is based on sequence. From prepositions, certain things follow. Given certain prepositions, there must be a conclusion that is immutable/incontrovertible. That is what logic is all about.

I find it interesting that you see logic as diametrically opposed to faith. Are you suggesting that all logic goes out the window for faith, emotions, etc. are invalid or no real?

Thank you,

Dr. T

[Dr T]

Hello AK,

I’m pleased to meet you. You appear to be a fun and thoughtful person. I look forward to hearing more of your ideas. Thanks for contributing to this thread.

This would be true if there were a beginning point or start of time. As it stands, we are taught that eternity has no beginning or end. This effectually makes calculating time and causes impossible on a grand scale. It also negates concepts that there must be a "first cause" or "first mover" because there has always been a "mover" or "cause."

I confess that this idea of no beginning or end is difficult for me to wrap my head around (Joseph Smith's ring analogy aside). However, I do believe that I can't comprehend an infinite concept with a finite mind. So I don't strain too hard, I just accept that I, and Aristotle, and Aquinas, and all of us DO have finite minds and hence might as well try to reach out and touch the sun as comprehend eternity. (props to anyone who's touched the sun from earth).

Yes sir. I agree. We are all human and limited by our finite mind. This however, does not eliminate the need to use what has been given to us/developed to it's full potential. Why else have this emoticon ? lol

This smacks of Zeno and his paradoxes which mathematicians and philosophers have solved with calculus. Most of these paradoxes or impossibilities are really just word plays. For example, combining Zeno's paradox of dichotomy and the arrow, he would say:

"If an arrow is shot at a target, before it can reach the target it must travel half the distance to the target. But before it can travel half the distance to the target, it must travel half the distance of half the distance to the target. But before it can do that, it must travel half of half of half the distance and so on ad infinitum. Hence, the arrow will forever be traveling an infinite number of halves of the total distance to the target. Hence, it will never reach the target. Hence, motion is impossible."

The fact is--and you can verify this--if you shoot an arrow at a target it does reach the target eventually. And as you say, there is a today, regardless of how many infinite divisions of time leading up to today there are.

The inability to transverse an actual infinite series of events has nothing to do with Zeno’s Paradox. People who are unfamiliar with both arguments (above) may be tricked into thinking they are cut from the same cloth buy they are not (at all). If we are saying that gods have created god upon god, for infinity, please explain how we are able to make it to this point in time. I also don't think that we can side step the sequential nature of this belief because, (in my admittedly very limited understanding) people eternally progress from a set point in time (like after this life on earth), then others follow contingent on that progression/event. This is supposedly continued from someone else attaining goodhood, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. How is that non linear?

So these sorts of arguments are useless in explaining reality. Until we can understand how "intelligence...was not created or made, neither indeed can be," (D&C 93:29), in essence how something has ALWAYS existed without being made by a "first mover" or what have you...yes, until we can understand such infinite and eternal concepts, such discussions are fruitless, no matter how entertaining they may be.

I do find them very entertaining. I do not find them fruitless in the least. In fact, discovering falsity through such an exercise would be the most fruitful thing possible? What if this false belief leads to a true knowledge of God almighty? What if the great deceiver is defeated by the Holy Ghost enlightens us though just such a discussion and puts us on the right path of the knowledge of the true God? What if, what if, what if...

Anyway, pleasure to meet you AK. I look forward to what I can learn from you.

Dr. T

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Hello AK,

I’m pleased to meet you. You appear to be a fun and thoughtful person. I look forward to hearing more of your ideas.

Likewise.

Yes sir. I agree. We are all human and limited by our finite mind. This however, does not eliminate the need to use what has been given to us/developed to it's full potential. Why else have this emoticon ? lol

Your reasoning is unassailable. :)

The inability to transverse an actual infinite series of events has nothing to do with Zeno’s Paradox. People who are unfamiliar with both arguments (above) may be tricked into thinking they are cut from the same cloth buy they are not (at all).

It is true that each paradox (dichotomy and the arrow) illustrate different truths as seen by the Eleatic school of philosophy. The Paradox of Dichotomy is supposed to show that: "There is no motion, because that which is moved must arrive at the middle before it arrives at the end, and so on ad infinitum."

The Paradox of the Arrow is supposed to show that: "If everything is either at rest or moving when it occupies a space equal to itself, while the object moved is always in the instant, a moving arrow is unmoved."

Yeah, I don't try too hard to wrestle with such philosophical arguments. So you are correct Dr. T that each paradox illustrates a different Eleatic view. I combined them merely for the sake of using the image of an arrow nearing a target as a point to focus on in considering the philosophical quandary. I apologize if I misled anyone.

If we are saying that gods have created god upon god, for infinity, please explain how we are able to make it to this point in time.

If I knew that I'd probably be a translated being, and not inclined to frequent online forums.

I also don't think that we can side step the sequential nature of this belief because, (in my admittedly very limited understanding) people eternally progress from a set point in time (like after this life on earth), then others follow contingent on that progression/event. This is supposedly continued from someone else attaining goodhood, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. How is that non linear?

Only inasmuch as a line has a beginning and end point, and we are taught that there is no beginning or end to existence, the universe or debates such as these. :) But as I said, the ability to answer such questions as those you pose is certainly beyond my finite capacity. I can simply poke holes in theories I don't believe are true.

What id this false belief leads to a true knowledge of God almighty? What if the great deceiver is defeated by the Holy Ghost enlightens us though just such a discussion and puts us on the right path of the knowledge of the true God?

Hegelian dialectics at its best. I like to consider myself a synthesist and have no problem squaring thesis with antithesis to reach transcendant synthesis. However, without all the facts (or the ability to process them adequately) I find such dialectics unsatisfying--though a great mental workout. And just to be clear, I'm not saying this King Follet doctrine of eternal progression to godhood shouldn't be discussed merely because we don't have all the facts. I'm just saying anyone who expects to arrive at the truth of "how it can be" while in this life is bound to be disappointed. :)

[prisonchaplain]

If we are saying that gods have created god upon god, for infinity, please explain how we are able to make it to this point in time.

Since this is an excerpt from Dr. T's post--thus his summary--I want to know if he got this right. Does LDS theology say that gods have created god upon god for infinity? Is this doctrine or theological speculation? If it's doctrine, is it fair to say that we are discussing a polytheistic construct of creation?

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Does LDS theology say that gods have created god upon god for infinity? Is this doctrine or theological speculation? If it's doctrine, is it fair to say that we are discussing a polytheistic construct of creation?

If it is doctrine, I'd probably label it henotheistic, not polytheistic <he said as he kicked the semantic soccerball uselessly downfield>. :)

[Dr T]

Henotheism, while worshiping only one god, is in fact polytheism (in my understanding). Giving it a different name does not diminish the fact in a belief in multiple deities.

Dr. T

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Henotheism, while worshiping only one god, is in fact polytheism (in my understanding). Giving it a different name does not diminish the fact in a belief in multiple deities.

Didn't intend to diminish anything, just be more accurate. Let me demonstrate the difference between the two terms.

Polytheism: "The worship of or belief in more than one god." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000)

Henotheism: "Belief in one god without denying the existence of others." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000)

So you see, polytheism seems to me to connote not just believing in more than one god, but the worship of other gods. The Greeks believed in and worshipped more than one god. Henotheism, though, is more about worshipping one God only, while not saying it's impossible that other gods exist. Those other gods have nothing to do with the worship of the one God, but henotheists maintain that there may or may not be other gods. Most mainstream non-LDS Christians would burn such an idea at the stake.

But LDS are not polytheistic if--as my earlier post pointed out--we want to be semantically accurate.

[Dr T]

Hello AK,

The definition of polytheism that you posted:

Polytheism: "The worship of or belief in more than one god." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000)

does not imply that polytheists only worship other gods. It does not say, Polytheism: The worship of and belief in more than one god." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000)

It says or.

Or; as in a polytheist can be defined as someone who believes in more than one god (as in Henotheism in the absence of worshiping other gods).

Dr. T

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Or; as in a polytheist can be defined as someone who believes in more than one god (as in Henotheism in the absence of worshiping other gods).

Dr. T

To-may-toe, to-mah-toe :)

What it boils down to, friend, is that LDS worship God the Father in the name of the Son. Period.

What I find confusing is that most of my non-LDS Christian friends say that all I have to do to be saved is believe in Jesus/accept him as my Savior.

Oh, but I can't believe in living prophets.

And, I can't believe in new scripture.

Wait, I can't believe it's possible that other gods exist even if their existence/non-existence has nothing to do with my worship of God.

It just seems like one long list of addendums in addition to "accepting Jesus." I'm not really saying you're like that, I'm just saying that most non-LDS Christians really don't believe salvation comes by accepting Jesus; you have to not accept lots of other things. :) Just interesting to me.

[Ray]

It's easy to talk about with words, though it is difficult to "comprehend"

1) Eternity either began at one point and now continues forever and ever

OR

2) Eternity never had a very beginning, and there never will be an end

AND

1) There is and was a beginning for God

OR

2) There never was a beginning for God

AND

1) God is or was only one person

OR

2) God has never been only one person

AND

1) God has always been as God is now, and He never will be any different

OR

2) God once was as "His children" are now, and "His children" may grow up to be like Him.

AND

That's it.

That's all there is to it.

[prisonchaplain]

If it is doctrine, I'd probably label it henotheistic, not polytheistic <he said as he kicked the semantic soccerball uselessly downfield>. :)

I'll accept that there is a distinction between henotheism and polytheism. However, I'm guessing that for most non-LDS Christians, henotheism would also be deemed heresy, based upon Deuteronomy 6:4, and numerous other verses.

The argument is already blaring--I can hear it: But, God only commanded that we not worship or put other gods before--not that we deny they exist.

Yet, there are passages in which God makes fun of false deities--gods made of wood, and precious metals, that have eyes but do not see, ears but do not hear, etc. Furthermore, Paul suggests that we can eat food sacrificed to idols, because those idols are not real, have no real power, and so cannot corrupt the food.

Just to provide contrast, the Jehovah's Witnesses also believe in other gods (Jesus being one of them), but contend that these gods are merely powerful created beings, not = with the one God, Jehovah.

[prisonchaplain]

What I find confusing is that most of my non-LDS Christian friends say that all I have to do to be saved is believe in Jesus/accept him as my Savior.

Oh, but I can't believe in living prophets.

And, I can't believe in new scripture.

Wait, I can't believe it's possible that other gods exist even if their existence/non-existence has nothing to do with my worship of God.

It just seems like one long list of addendums in addition to "accepting Jesus." I'm not really saying you're like that, I'm just saying that most non-LDS Christians really don't believe salvation comes by accepting Jesus; you have to not accept lots of other things. :) Just interesting to me.

AK, I've actually gone around this topic quite a bit, mostly dialoging with Snow. Here's some conclusions I've come up with:

1. Salvation is 100% by the grace of God. The forumula is much as you describe: ADMIT your a sinner, BELIEVE Jesus is Lord and Savior (the Lord part covers 'turning from wicked ways'), and CONFESS your sins. The thief on the cross did all of these things, and probably had very little theological understanding of the nature of God, prophecy, etc.

2. With salvation, believers begin walking with the Holy spirit, as they grow in knowledge and righteous living.

3. If, at some point, the believer is tempted by heresy, the Holy Spirit will 'check' him/her. There would be a sense of caution, or even warning. If the Holy Spirit is repeatedly ignored or resisted, a grievous sin is being committed. The believer may become an apostate--a heretic. At that point s/he has so hardened the heart against God's Spirit that it might be said s/he has blasphemed the Holy Spirit. This is the unpardonable sin.

4. So, it's not that there is a doctrinal test to gain salvation. It's that the believer is indeed expected to grow in truth, and to commune with God. If, instead s/he drifts into heresy, it is not through merely being innocently deceived. Willing resistance to God was part of the process. So, in essence, like Esau, the believer has sold his soul for a bowl of soup (be it spiritual pride, a new set of friends, or some other shadow of what God offers).

5. So, what teachings qualify as being so heterodox that the believer would lose their salvation? John makes it clear that Docetism qualifies--the belief that Jesus did not actually come in the flesh to suffer--but only appeared to do so. John said that a test of faith is that one confesses Jesus came in the flesh.

Beyond this, most churches, rather than listing damnable teachings, offer a set of statements that they unite around. In ancient days these were called creeds. Today, they're usually called Statements of Faith. I suppose it's a more positive approach--we won't condemn you--but if you want to unite with us in fellowship, these are the truths we consider basic.

There is no complete answer to you question, but my realization over the last few months is that when non-LDS Christians and LDS ones talk about doctrine and salvation, we're not talking about initial conversion, but about growing in truth. If we've strayed from the straight and narrow path, any efforts to get us back on track should be appreciated rather than reviled.

This is why Profs. Robinson (BYU) and Blomberg (Denver Seminary) state in their book, How Wide the Divide: A Mormon Evangelical Conversation, that both groups are not likely to share communions or pulpits any time soon, and they are likely to continue to evangelize one another. Their call is that we improve the tone and quality of our conversations, and to that I say "Amen."

[Guest ApostleKnight]

The argument is already blaring--I can hear it: But, God only commanded that we not worship or put other gods before--not that we deny they exist.

I'll try not to blare in your ear. :)

The most quoted passages refuting the LDS view (or my view at any rate) are the ones that state, "I am the LORD thy God, and there is none other beside me," or some other variant. Clarification comes when comparing to similar statements (lots in Isaiah) that go something like this:

"I, even I, am the LORD, and beside me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:11)

The point that I get from these scriptures--in layman's terms--is:

"Hey, if you want to be saved and be happy eternally, you have to come through me, Jesus Christ. There is no other person who can save you: I'm it. Period."

Yet, there are passages in which God makes fun of false deities--gods made of wood, and precious metals, that have eyes but do not see, ears but do not hear, etc. Furthermore, Paul suggests that we can eat food sacrificed to idols, because those idols are not real, have no real power, and so cannot corrupt the food.

God does indeed ridicule worshipping idols and false gods. The reason He ridicules false gods is, well, because they are false and a false source of salvation and blessings. Since LDS don't worship any god but God our Father in the name of His Son Jesus Christ...there needn't be any injunction against other gods and idols because we don't worship or really even think about them very much. There's no need. They have no relation to our salvation through Jesus.

We don't pray to them (if they exist); we don't worship them (if they exist); we don't rely on them for blessings (if they exist); we don't know much about them (if they exist); we don't devote posts on forums to them (if they exist)

[pushka]

If you became a God of your own planet, would the people on that planet start to worship you instead of the Heavenly Father/Jesus that you now worship?

[Guest ApostleKnight]

If you became a God of your own planet, would the people on that planet start to worship you instead of the Heavenly Father/Jesus that you now worship?

I haven't thought that far ahead, I'm just trying to make it through this life in one piece and with my sanity intact. I'll settle for a place among God's servants in heaven. :)

[shanstress70]

If you became a God of your own planet, would the people on that planet start to worship you instead of the Heavenly Father/Jesus that you now worship?

Yes Pushka, that is what LDS believe. At least I was taught that in new member discussions. If you can't find a reference to it, let me know, but there are several (and yes, they are LDS sources).

[pushka]

Thanks Shanstress..I thought that might be a delicate subject to raise with the LDS as on some forums some LDS posters appear to be trying to deny that they expect to inherit planets of their own etc.

I feel almost certain that there will be some non LDS Christians who will regard this as a blasphemous hope and will have scripture (non LDS of course!) to back up their claims. I would be interested to hear LDS and non LDS thoughts about this.