Question about the Godhead


Guest talianstallyun
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks for your response.

In the first paragraph you say that God does not require the existence of anything or anyone else to be God (paraphrasing). But in the second paragraph you say that God is love and requires someone to love to meet that requirement. Those two things seem to contradict each other.

From a Trinitarian aspect, God is Love within his very being, which is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He does not need to go out of himself in order to love. That is something unique to God alone. He is love independent of his creation due to his familial nature; the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father and this Love is so real that it constitutes another divine Person, the Holy Spirit. God does not exist apart from the Three. We cannot love without going outside of ourselves to find the subject of our love, while God contains it within himself.

I don't think I was saying that sharing is part of the process of becoming like God as much as I was trying to say that by definition God is sharing. Add sharing plus love and that is charity, which is the pure love of our Savior. Charity cannot exist in a vacuum. No being can be a charitable being by themselves. To have charity requires a need for charity. God cannot be charitable without having someone who needs His charity. That is the source of His glory.

Sharing is certainly one attribute of God. One who loves cannot help but share and no one loves like God loves.

I am not entirely sure of what you mean by "we will be 'like' God, but we will never 'be' God". I don't believe that I could ever replace God, so in that sense we do not believe that we could "be" God. That is not part of LDS belief, as far as I know. But, if a being becomes 100% "like" God what else would you call them but a God.

We will be like God because we will share in God's divine life. We will share in a love so intense that the Seraphim, the angels closest to God, are described as flames. It is a love that is beyond our ability to even conceive. God created us out of love so that we might spend eternity loving him.

Why do you think you have a limitation to your potential? If all, one day, is shared with you from God, what part of the eternal - never a beginning, never an end, part of what He has to share with you does He not share? If He shares all with any being, then they also become without a beginning and without an end, never changing. That is included in the concept of "sharing", or do you think the eternities will not be shared?

I agree with everything you said except that we will become without a beginning. We have a beginning. There is nothing we can do about that. But we will not have an end and that is what is important. In any event, we will live in eternity, which is always now. Eternity cannot be thought of in terms of time and space. Eternity is outside of time and space. There is no past or future. That is why God referred to himself as "I AM". But my eternal destiny has nothing to do with my potential. It is a gift. My very life is a gift. Receiving the gift of eternal life is the ultimate in sharing, because we certainly cannot attain it on our own. God shares his very life with us. Amazing.

If sharing is tied into God's glory, then why would He limit what He shares? The more He can share with beings that become like Him, the greater His glory. So, He offers to become "one" with Him, whole with him, not a part, or fraction. Your potential is whole, not a fraction.

Yes, God will glorify us. We will receive glorified bodies. We will share in his life. We will not become Gods, however. We will become the family of God. There is only one and there will always be only one.

One other difference ... We are not completely "creatures" as you put it, but see this is the part that is hard to talk about with someone who does not believe we are dual beings. My carnal body is created but my spirit is a child of God, so as a whole we are not creatures, just my body is. Putting off the carnal gets rid of the creature part. Only Jesus could do that well he was still mortal in this life the rest of us have to wait for death. The process of dying and obtaining a resurrected, perfected body takes that away as well ... but that is a different topic altogether.

Yes, we would differ here. I would say that we cannot look at our bodies as some sort of shell that contains our true selves. We, as human beings, consist of body and soul. That is what makes us human. If we separate one from the other, we are not human. That is why our bodies will be resurrected and not just done away with. We will be whole and entire in heaven. Your belief in a pre-existence, I think, will continue to be an obstacle when having discussions with non-Mormons. It really influences so much of your theology and seems to be in the background of many conversations about the nature of both God and man. I'm not really sure how to get around it.

By the way, I really enjoyed your post. You ask some great questions and have many good points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recommend reading any and everything by James E. Talmage. Some of it will be a bit harsh on Catholicism regarding apostasy, but I think this is going to give you a good perspective with LDS belief and scriptural proofs. Of course, you won't agree with much of it, but hopefully it will give you more answers than can be provided on a web forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recommend reading any and everything by James E. Talmage. Some of it will be a bit harsh on Catholicism regarding apostasy, but I think this is going to give you a good perspective with LDS belief and scriptural proofs. Of course, you won't agree with much of it, but hopefully it will give you more answers than can be provided on a web forum.

Thanks for the reference. I'm no stranger to harshness. When your Church is called the Whore of Babylon by some, the rest kind of rolls off your back. I will be sure to check out his work.

Thanks again.

Edited by StephenVH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your question as to what to do when trying to decide which denomination speaks the truth, I believe we would be counseled to first pray for guidance as we investigate the claims of the church in which we have an interest. We would not base a decision solely on interior feelings, but rather we would have the assurance that the Holy Spirit would guide us in our search for truth, using both faith and reason as our resources.

This sounds exactly like what we are counseled to do ourselves. The most often quoted scripture used in reference to praying to know the truth of the LDS church is Moroni 10: 4-5.

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

While our descriptions of personal revelation may often sound like we make our decisions solely on "inerior feelings" this is not so. We also feel that we are guided by the Holy Spirit, and a scripture from the Doctrine and Covenants further clarifies how to recognize such spiritual communications. It was a revelation given specifically for Oliver Cowdery when he wished to be allowed to translate a portion of the Book of Mormon and can be found in section 8 versus 1-3:

Oliver Cowdery, verily, verily, I say unto you, that assuredly as the Lord liveth, who is your God and your Redeemer, even so surely shall you receive a knowledge of whatsoever things you shall ask in faith, with an honest heart, believing that you shall receive a knowledge concerning the engravings of old records, which are ancient, which contain those parts of my scripture of which has been spoken by the manifestation of my Spirit. Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart. Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation; behold, this is the spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the Red Sea on dry ground.

The key is the part I bolded here, and exactly what you pointed out in your explanation- to use both "faith and reason". This also leads into your initial experience in investigating our faith.

My interest in the LDS Church is due to one of my previous students (I teach our faith to teenagers in my parish) converting to Mormonism several years ago. I was absolutley shocked and took it rather personally, believing that I had not catechized her properly. It turns out that she was in love with a Mormon boy, which I did not realize at the time. Anyway, I began inquiring into the Mormon faith in order to find out what had attracted her. I had a conversation with the local bishop and two missionaries that he brought with him. The meeting was suppose to be with the bishop and the teenager, but he didn't bring her along and told me that he could answer any questions I had. I asked him for some historical evidence of the "Great Apostasy". He replied that he didn't study history and didn't need to study history because he had the testimony of Joseph Smith. I about fell out of my chair and the two missionaries just stared at the table. Since then I have been on a mission to try and understand where you guys are coming from.

While I am sure that experience must have been frustrating, this is a very basic tenant of the Mormon faith. If there were clear and obvious historical proof of the apostasy, nobody would be Catholic. We do not look for our answers in historical evidence. While studying history helps in developing our "reason", it is not wholly necessary and will not convert. It is the Holy Spirit that converts. For us to believe that there was a Great Apostasy, we need only study out the First Vision and the Book of Mormon "in our mind and in our heart", then ask the Lord in prayer if these things are true. If they are true, there was an apostasy and the LDS church has the restored gospel. If they are not true, either there was no apostasy and the Catholic church is true (or whichever other church one believes the proper succession falls with- thanks for clarifying that mysticmorini! ;) ) or there was an apostasy and the Lord's Church has not yet been restored making none of them true.

I have a statement of faith on this site that covers this very line of thinking. You can read it here if you like. I have enjoyed reading your thoughts and look forward to the rest of your posts.

Edited by JudoMinja
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While our descriptions of personal revelation may often sound like we make our decisions solely on "inerior feelings" this is not so. We also feel that we are guided by the Holy Spirit, and a scripture from the Doctrine and Covenants further clarifies how to recognize such spiritual communications. It was a revelation given specifically for Oliver Cowdery when he wished to be allowed to translate a portion of the Book of Mormon and can be found in section 8 versus 1-3

If there were clear and obvious historical proof of the apostasy, nobody would be Catholic. We do not look for our answers in historical evidence. While studying history helps in developing our "reason", it is not wholly necessary and will not convert. It is the Holy Spirit that converts. For us to believe that there was a Great Apostasy, we need only study out the First Vision and the Book of Mormon "in our mind and in our heart", then ask the Lord in prayer if these things are true. If they are true, there was an apostasy and the LDS church has the restored gospel. If they are not true, either there was no apostasy and the Catholic church is true (or whichever other church one believes the proper succession falls with- thanks for clarifying that mysticmorini! ;) ) or there was an apostasy and the Lord's Church has not yet been restored making none of them true.

I think we need to be very careful when discerning the voice of the Holy Spirit. I went through a ten week class on this very subject and can guarantee you that this is something about which people need to tread very carefully. There are many voices speaking to us; the most common is our own voice which expresses our own hopes and desires. By our very nature, we tend to listen to the voices who are pointing us in a direction that we already hope to follow. There is also the voice of the enemy, who can appear to be an angel of light, who is constantly trying to deceive us. This is why we would never depend upon interior feelings without measuring them against actual knowledge, the word of God, and the teachings of our Church. When actual knowledge (historical evidence, in this case) conflicts with the evidence, this should be an indication that the voice we are hearing may not be that of the Holy Spirit.

We were given an intellect and the gift of reason for a purpose; to help us in determining truth. If a voice tells me that the holocaust never happened, yet I can see the evidence that it did both in history books and museums and personal witnesses, I must determine that no matter how much I want to believe it, it was not the voice of the Holy Spirit. I would also say that I don't know of a Christian church that does not claim to be informed by the Holy Spirit, yet each one of them conflicts in what the Holy Spirit is telling them. I firmly believe that the Holy Spirit testifies to me that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church. You believe the same about the LDS Church. How do we reconcile this? I propose that we cannot without measuring the truth we feel we have received internally against actual knowledge while employing the gift of reason. Truth cannot conflict with truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I firmly believe that the Holy Spirit testifies to me that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church. You believe the same about the LDS Church. How do we reconcile this? I propose that we cannot without measuring the truth we feel we have received internally against actual knowledge while employing the gift of reason. Truth cannot conflict with truth.

Agreed. I think another reason so many people have differing beliefs about which church is the true church is that all churches contain a portion of the truth, and the Holy Spirit will testify of that truth wherever we find it. And we can find knowledge or evidence in support of just about anything, if we know where to look for it. Part of using our reason involves learning how to detect and identify biases and filter through information from a number of sources.

The fact that different strains of logic can lead us to different conclusions is one that historians and scientists continue to struggle with in their own pursuits of truth. Experts do not always agree on what something means or on the conclusions of any given evidence or research, and so our efforts to understand what is actually true is constantly changing as new evidence is found and new people try their minds at the information we have.

We are all imperfect in our ability to perceive what is in front of our very noses. It is like the story of the blind men and the elephant. Each identifies a different part of the elephant and believes they are touching something else entirely- a rope, a wall, a tree... when in all actuality none of them are right, and if they could all "see" the whole picture, they would know they were touching an elephant. It is part of our purpose that, during our time on this earth, we seek to come to know God (the elephant), and as we put our different pieces together we come closer to the truth, though we are still lacking in understanding. We learn "line upon line, precept upon precept", and the Lord will not reveal more than we are ready to handle. Only when Christ comes again will our "blind" eyes be opened and everything will be made plain to the whole world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. I think another reason so many people have differing beliefs about which church is the true church is that all churches contain a portion of the truth, and the Holy Spirit will testify of that truth wherever we find it. And we can find knowledge or evidence in support of just about anything, if we know where to look for it. Part of using our reason involves learning how to detect and identify biases and filter through information from a number of sources.

The fact that different strains of logic can lead us to different conclusions is one that historians and scientists continue to struggle with in their own pursuits of truth. Experts do not always agree on what something means or on the conclusions of any given evidence or research, and so our efforts to understand what is actually true is constantly changing as new evidence is found and new people try their minds at the information we have.

We are all imperfect in our ability to perceive what is in front of our very noses. It is like the story of the blind men and the elephant. Each identifies a different part of the elephant and believes they are touching something else entirely- a rope, a wall, a tree... when in all actuality none of them are right, and if they could all "see" the whole picture, they would know they were touching an elephant. It is part of our purpose that, during our time on this earth, we seek to come to know God (the elephant), and as we put our different pieces together we come closer to the truth, though we are still lacking in understanding. We learn "line upon line, precept upon precept", and the Lord will not reveal more than we are ready to handle. Only when Christ comes again will our "blind" eyes be opened and everything will be made plain to the whole world.

Great post. I agree completley. I must believe that God, who constantly draws us to himself, aids us in our search for truth. We just have alot of "stuff" in the way (Mainly ourselves) and must learn how to sort through it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we need to be very careful when discerning the voice of the Holy Spirit. I went through a ten week class on this very subject and can guarantee you that this is something about which people need to tread very carefully. There are many voices speaking to us; the most common is our own voice which expresses our own hopes and desires.

I heard a talk given by a former Presbyterian minister who converted to the LDS church, he claims that God lead him to the Presbyterian Church and intended for him to go the route he did, 20+ years of ministering in another church before converting to the LDS faith. I believe that too, I believe that people can be called to other churches. The Lord will put good people where they are needed. You don't have to be a Mormon to be a disciple of Christ and do good works. The idea that people would get a spiritual confirmation to join another church doesn't seem out of place for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard a talk given by a former Presbyterian minister who converted to the LDS church, he claims that God lead him to the Presbyterian Church and intended for him to go the route he did, 20+ years of ministering in another church before converting to the LDS faith. I believe that too, I believe that people can be called to other churches. The Lord will put good people where they are needed. You don't have to be a Mormon to be a disciple of Christ and do good works. The idea that people would get a spiritual confirmation to join another church doesn't seem out of place for me.

I agree with you to a certain extent. I know Catholic converts who were first led (or believe they were led) to various Protestant Churches before they found the Catholic Church. I have no doubt that God uses their experiences in other faith traditions to bolster their new found faith. Several of these were former raging anti-Catholics who now understand how to answer the questions and accusations they previously held themselves.

On the other hand, we must ask the question: Does it matter what one believes? Do we really think that the Holy Spirit would lead us into a Church that contains error and would lead us away from the fullness of his truth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, we must ask the question: Does it matter what one believes? Do we really think that the Holy Spirit would lead us into a Church that contains error and would lead us away from the fullness of his truth?

Do you think the Holy Ghost inspired and lead Mother Teresa through out her life and through her works? It never lead her to the restored church, but it lead her to where she could do the most good as an instrument in the hands of the Lord. We are taught that everyone will have the opportunity to hear the gospel in this life or the next. From an eternal perspective, it doesn't matter which and no one is guaranteed that chance during their mortal probation.

Other churches have truth, Catholics and Mormons and Protestants alike can have the love of Christ in their heart and the spirit will abide with all of them, doesn't it say in Matt 18:20 ....

For where two or three gather together as my followers, I am there among them

Doesn't require that they be members of a certain church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think the Holy Ghost inspired and lead Mother Teresa through out her life and through her works? It never lead her to the restored church...

Of course, I would respond that he led her to the true Church. :D

We are taught that everyone will have the opportunity to hear the gospel in this life or the next. From an eternal perspective, it doesn't matter which and no one is guaranteed that chance during their mortal probation.

I am taught that we have this life only to get it right. Upon our death we face immediate judgment and know what our eternal destiny will be. We don't believe we get a second chance after our earthly life. For those lacking the opportunity to know Christ, we believe in a merciful God who will judge them according to what they had received.

Other churches have truth, Catholics and Mormons and Protestants alike can have the love of Christ in their heart and the spirit will abide with all of them, doesn't it say in Matt 18:20 ....

You are quite right. In fact I would say that even non-Christian religions have truth to one degree or another, otherwise no one would follow them. But Christ started a Church for a reason. It's mission is to spread the kingdom of God to the far reaches of the earth. I believe that Christ was speaking in the context of his Church when he said that "where two or three are gathered, there am I in the midst of them." This does not mean that we can do without his Church, only that he will be present to those, within his Church, who gather together in his name. If we were to take this statement literally and out of context we might very well have to come to the conclusion that we cannot communicate with God on our own; that we could not receive a personal testimony unless we were gathered with others. We know that is not true.

On the other hand, no one gets to heaven simply because they join the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church. We must authentically live out our faith. Anyone truly seeking Christ will be rewarded. Even those who do not know God, but seek to follow love, are actually seeking God. God reads our hearts and knows our intentions. I just thank God that he is the judge and not man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your welcome. My interest in the LDS Church is due to one of my previous students (I teach our faith to teenagers in my parish) converting to Mormonism several years ago. I was absolutley shocked and took it rather personally, believing that I had not catechized her properly. It turns out that she was in love with a Mormon boy, which I did not realize at the time. Anyway, I began inquiring into the Mormon faith in order to find out what had attracted her. I had a conversation with the local bishop and two missionaries that he brought with him. The meeting was suppose to be with the bishop and the teenager, but he didn't bring her along and told me that he could answer any questions I had. I asked him for some historical evidence of the "Great Apostasy". He replied that he didn't study history and didn't need to study history because he had the testimony of Joseph Smith. I about fell out of my chair and the two missionaries just stared at the table. Since then I have been on a mission to try and understand where you guys are coming from.

As a student of history I would gladly discuss with you events in history that demonstrate that in apostasy the civilizations dominated by Christians crumbled into time of "darkness" often called by historians - "the dark ages".

In my faith tradition we would say that we were not always unable to comprehend God. All of that changed, however, when our first parents, Adam and Eve, disobeyed God and fell from grace. That event changed the world, not only humans, but all of creation. Sin and death entered the world and our intellect and will were diminished greatly. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve walked with God and lived in his presence. That was how we were created to be. I know this somewhat goes against your beliefs concerning the fall, but that is what we believe and that discussion is probably best left to a thread of its own.

This may be a good thread of discussion - The Fall, or the excommunication of man from G-d the Father. Meaning that since man was no longer a citizen of the Kingdom of G-d; that according to ancient Suzerain Law, a new "kingdom" was established where Jesus was the Suzerain mediator, subject to the Father and often using the title of his father - the Suzerain. Because we are fallen we are subjects in a different “kingdom”. Trinitarians often overlook this fact creating confusing - insisting that man had the same G-d before and after the fall (much of the mystery and confusing in defining G-d comes from this apostasy of simple truth) - Thus being the subject to the same G-d in the same kingdom which in essence negates the reality of the fall and the necessity of a mediator.

We believe that we **** ourselves to hell by rejecting God's loving and merciful grace. God is the last one who wants those who he suffered and died for to suffer in hell. If it bothers us, how much more does it bother God who loves all of us more than we can fathom. We basically believe that those who are in hell have chosen to be there. He does not interfere in our free will.

I like your thinking here - I myself, believe that G-d only gives good gifts. Thus the final judgment is no more or less than G-d verifying that we have made a choice. But I do not look at this as “rejecting” G-d’s love as much as it is a desire or rebellion from the discipline necessary to be a g-d and to be “one” with G-d. Many do not desire to be like G-d and to do what G-d does. Keep in mind that sacrifice is part of divine discipline. Scripture tells us few are willing to walk such a “path” or “way”.

The verses you have asked me to read have to do with being freed from the slavery of sin. I'm not sure how this relates to your conclusion that "Creation is not a godly thing" and "has nothing to do with the essence of G-d and this particular scripture proves it." What it tells me is that only God, specifically the Son, can free us from the slavery to sin. Would you mind explaining further? Thanks.

It is simply - Creation does not define what is G-d. Therefore the fact is that to create does not separate that which is G-d from that which is not G-d.

I couldn't agree more, but still don't see how this relates to John 8:33-36. I am in agreement with you that God does not need creation. He doesn't need us. We have nothing to offer other than that which was already given to us by him. He has always possessed all of the power and glory that he now possesses. None of creation, including us, can add to his glory. Creation shows forth God's glory but cannot add to it. Our creation is nothing but amazing love in action. He created us out of love and gave us free will so that we may choose to love him also. Love does not exist unless freely given. And you are correct that God was God before creation. One difference we may have here is that I believe that "before creation" means before anything that exists. That would include matter and pre-existing intelligences. God is truly eternal, without beginning and without end. Everything else and everyone else is a creature. You would differ, if I understand correctly, in that you believe that "intelligences" and "matter" are co-eternal with God, therefore, uncreated. But Genesis is pretty clear that God created the heavens and the earth which is Hebrew code for everything that exists.

"All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be."

(John 1:3)

I believe there is a little misunderstanding - It is my understanding that Jesus paid and atoned for our sins. Knowing truth cannot free us. Thus the freedom is beyond the bondage of sin. Jesus is telling us that ignorance is bondage and knowledge is freedom. Again - the simple thing to understand is that it is knowledge that makes G-d free. Which is the only real freedom.

I'm having a hard time identifying what is confusing to you. Do you not believe that God is the Creator? How do you explain the first two chapters of Genesis? It very specifically says that we were created by God, as well as everything else that exists. It says nothing about pre-existing intelligences. And I'm not sure where you concluded from my remarks that creation is what makes God. No, it is God that makes creation. His creation shows forth his glory and gives us a glimpse of who God is. You can tell a lot about a painter by viewing his paintings. Creation is God's painting, in a sense. I live in southwestern Colorado and there is not a day that goes by that I don't jstand in awe of the mountains, the cloud formations, the rivers, the vegetation, the animals; this immense diversity of life. To not see intelligent design in God's creation is to be blind, in my opinion. God saw what he had made and said it was good. When he made man he said it was very good. But you are wise in making the distinction between God and his creation. God is God whether or not anything else exists. It is a gift to us, not a necessity for him.

The creation was G-ds and he did create our universe. But it is not necessary that a creator be G-d. Again the essence of defining G-d does not involve creation. Creation is not necessary or sufficient to define G-d. To define what is G-d and to understand G-d does not require knowledge of creation. This is why the explanation of the creation does not relate to viable science. We are told of creation for a different purpose - thus the implied or interpreted science of Genesis is inaccurate and using it for such a purpose only creates confusion - both to the nature of G-d as well as the nature of creation.

I'm not sure how to approach this with you. In my view, you have crossed into some very dangerous territory. To be God, but apart from God, was the lie told to Adam and Eve by the serpent. He had convinced them that God was holding out on them. If they ate of the tree they would become just like God, and God was keeping this from them. They lost trust in God and so ate. Is there a reason you would not want to spend eternity with our God? Are you sure that's a choice you want to make? You would rather be God on your own? I would ask you to really ponder that stance. I really hope that I have just completely misunderstood you.

The question is - do you really want to live with G-d on his level - not to live with him on our level? Do we really desire to be "one" with him? How can we be one if the only sacrifice is G-d's?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, I would respond that he led her to the true Church. :D

Well done :cool:

I am taught that we have this life only to get it right. Upon our death we face immediate judgment and know what our eternal destiny will be. We don't believe we get a second chance after our earthly life. For those lacking the opportunity to know Christ, we believe in a merciful God who will judge them according to what they had received.

I can agree to disagree with you over doctrinal issues between faiths.

I believe that Christ was speaking in the context of his Church when he said that "where two or three are gathered, there am I in the midst of them."

That may be what you believe, but that's not what is said :)

This does not mean that we can do without his Church, only that he will be present to those, within his Church, who gather together in his name.

I wholly agree that this is not meant to imply we don't need a church. But you're inserting words into the scripture that aren't there then drawing your conclusion from that.

If we were to take this statement literally and out of context we might very well have to come to the conclusion that we cannot communicate with God on our own; that we could not receive a personal testimony unless we were gathered with others. We know that is not true.

It sure isn't. Our interpretations of that scripture are clearly different. Paul said "Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates." - 2 Cor. 13:5 - I take Matt. 18:20 in a straight forward literal sense. I don't believe Christ is saying He will physically be there, I think it's clear He is referring to the spirit. The spirit will be with 2 or 3 who gather in His name. Your interpretation that Christ is referring to His church and/or it's members. Let's look at the context of the rest of the verse. The condition that He will be there with His church is not stated, or even implied. In fact, Christ intentionally talks about 2 or 3 people. Stating that small groups of 3, or even couples, can have the spirit with them is not suggestive of a church, but exactly the opposite. 2 or 3 people hardly make up a church, or a congregation, or anything along those lines. Christ is telling us that the spirit is with those who gather in His name, stating the requirements simply and clearly, with no other conditions except gathering in His name. He did not say gathered at church, or gathered as members of a church.

On the other hand, no one gets to heaven simply because they join the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church. We must authentically live out our faith. Anyone truly seeking Christ will be rewarded. Even those who do not know God, but seek to follow love, are actually seeking God. God reads our hearts and knows our intentions

.

100% agree.

I just thank God that he is the judge and not man.

Amen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest talianstallyun

Thank you for your many posts. I think I get it now. One of the best ways to love the Father is to love the Son. I'm a convert of about four years and I am a bit of a deep thinker. I come up with some unique questions but understanding them helps me so much. Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a student of history I would gladly discuss with you events in history that demonstrate that in apostasy the civilizations dominated by Christians crumbled into time of "darkness" often called by historians - "the dark ages".

Well, I suppose if you wish to attribute the darkness in our world to apostasy you are free to do so, but that would prove nothing to me. There is much darkness in our world even today; sexual permisiveness; abortion, war, child abuse, torture, secularism, starvation, etc... The Catholic Church is the oldest institution on the face of the earth and has survived all of these dark periods. It has been attacked from without and from within, but it still stands.

This may be a good thread of discussion - The Fall, or the excommunication of man from G-d the Father. Meaning that since man was no longer a citizen of the Kingdom of G-d; that according to ancient Suzerain Law, a new "kingdom" was established where Jesus was the Suzerain mediator, subject to the Father and often using the title of his father - the Suzerain. Because we are fallen we are subjects in a different “kingdom”. Trinitarians often overlook this fact creating confusing - insisting that man had the same G-d before and after the fall (much of the mystery and confusing in defining G-d comes from this apostasy of simple truth) - Thus being the subject to the same G-d in the same kingdom which in essence negates the reality of the fall and the necessity of a mediator.

I believe that God the Father was the one who made a covenant with Adam and Eve in which he promised to save them. He loved them so much that he crafted a plan to redeem humanity. In the midst of the punishment given for the sin that set creation in disorder God gives us a promise of hope; that being that the seed of the woman (Jesus) will crush the head of the serpent. So God did not abandon us. Far from it. He is intimately involved in saving us. That they could not remain in the presence of God due to their sin, I will agree. But to say that they were now under the rule of another God just doesn't match up with the Scriptures.

But I am very curious here as to your reference to another God. Do you or do you not believe in one God? Is Mormonsim polytheistic or not?

I like your thinking here - I myself, believe that G-d only gives good gifts. Thus the final judgment is no more or less than G-d verifying that we have made a choice. But I do not look at this as “rejecting” G-d’s love as much as it is a desire or rebellion from the discipline necessary to be a g-d and to be “one” with G-d. Many do not desire to be like G-d and to do what G-d does. Keep in mind that sacrifice is part of divine discipline. Scripture tells us few are willing to walk such a “path” or “way”.

I dont' see anything here with which I could agree. To say that God's judgment is nothing more than verifying that we have made a choice flies in the face of the meaning of the word "judgment". It is the choices we make that are being judged and that judgement will determine our eternal destiny. The wheat will be gathered in the barn. The weeds will be burned, not just acknowledged as a choice someone has made.

It is simply - Creation does not define what is G-d. Therefore the fact is that to create does not separate that which is G-d from that which is not G-d.

I have no idea how to respond to this because I have no idea what you are trying to say. I have never said that creation defines God. What I have said is that there is a Creator and that which he creates is a creature and not God. When you fail to distinguish between God and his creation you confuse who God really is and fall into pagan beliefs, such as the sun god, the moon god, etc. And you also fall into the error that God is really no different then us, his creation. How do you answer the fact that Genesis states that God created man? If he created us then we are, by definition, creatures, not the Creator.

I believe there is a little misunderstanding - It is my understanding that Jesus paid and atoned for our sins. Knowing truth cannot free us. Thus the freedom is beyond the bondage of sin. Jesus is telling us that ignorance is bondage and knowledge is freedom. Again - the simple thing to understand is that it is knowledge that makes G-d free. Which is the only real freedom.

Well, I think Jesus would disagree with you:

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:2)

I have to run now but will answer the rest of your post as soon as I can.

God bless.

Edited by StephenVH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am taught that we have this life only to get it right. Upon our death we face immediate judgment and know what our eternal destiny will be. We don't believe we get a second chance after our earthly life. For those lacking the opportunity to know Christ, we believe in a merciful God who will judge them according to what they had received.

Stephen, my understanding was that Catholics do believe you can pray for the soul of someone who has already died, and that that prayer may have some effect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I suppose if you wish to attribute the darkness in our world to apostasy you are free to do so, but that would prove nothing to me. There is much darkness in our world even today; sexual permisiveness; abortion, war, child abuse, torture, secularism, starvation, etc... The Catholic Church is the oldest institution on the face of the earth and has survived all of these dark periods. It has been attacked from without and from within, but it still stands.

The symbolic darkness was a sign of apostasy - historians agree that the event that triggered the "beginning" of the darkness of the dark ages was the destruction of the library of Alexandria which was conceived and carried out through the very institution that according to you is the same institution still surviving today. (This should be discussed in another thread)

I believe that God the Father was the one who made a covenant with Adam and Eve in which he promised to save them. He loved them so much that he crafted a plan to redeem humanity. In the midst of the punishment given for the sin that set creation in disorder God gives us a promise of hope; that being that the seed of the woman (Jesus) will crush the head of the serpent. So God did not abandon us. Far from it. He is intimately involved in saving us. That they could not remain in the presence of God due to their sin, I will agree. But to say that they were now under the rule of another God just doesn't match up with the Scriptures.

You are entitled to believe whatever you like. I do not intend to argue what you believe - only to point out that if indeed it was G-d the Father that established covenants with any man - Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses or anyone else then the doctrine of the fall of man is false as well as the doctrine of a necessary mediator or the doctrine that Jesus is the way. If it was the Father that established any covenant with any man then that would prove that a mediator is not just not necessary but a complete fabrication and contrary to reality.

But I am very curious here as to your reference to another God. Do you or do you not believe in one God? Is Mormonsim polytheistic or not?

Remember when the Jews said they had no “king” but Creaser? Why would they say that when Creaser had appointed Herod as a king over the Jews? The ancient Suzerain law defined that to accept a vassal of a Suzerain - it was necessary to accept the vassal as the Suzerain. So are we subject to one king or poly kings. Like president Clinton correctly replied - it depends on how you define “one” (is) king or “one” G-d? If we use the ancient Hebrew word “ehad” then we can believe in G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost - united as one in purpose.

If you like you can call us polytheists. I will not argue the point - only to be clear that the G-d head is comprised of 3 G-ds which are each differentiated in scripture as G-ds that are one in covenant and purpose in the same manner that a man and a women are one in covenant and purpose in marriage.

I dont' see anything here with which I could agree. To say that God's judgment is nothing more than verifying that we have made a choice flies in the face of the meaning of the word "judgment". It is the choices we make that are being judged and that judgement will determine our eternal destiny. The wheat will be gathered in the barn. The weeds will be burned, not just acknowledged as a choice someone has made.

We are making reference by symbolism. Do you believe that someone that failed in their deeds as a child and died as a child will address the Father in tears at the final Judgment begging for mercy and be denied forever only because of misunderstanding? I believe that those that will gather will be gathered - it is that simple. Others may argue over detains and logistics - but I believe G-d will accept anybody at any time that desires to come unto him. The only individuals in Hell or whatever are those that perfer that.

I have no idea how to respond to this because I have no idea what you are trying to say. I have never said that creation defines God. What I have said is that there is a Creator and that which he creates is a creature and not God. When you fail to distinguish between God and his creation you confuse who God really is and fall into pagan beliefs, such as the sun god, the moon god, etc. And you also fall into the error that God is really no different then us, his creation. How do you answer the fact that Genesis states that God created man? If he created us then we are, by definition, creatures, not the Creator.

We have already estiblished that the essence of G-d is not creation. Therefore by logic if we are different it is not because we were created by him. I will use another example. It is like saying - our parents are our parents and we are children - thus by logic we can never be parents like our parents. That logic simply is not true and has nothing to do with why a parent may be different or the same as a child. It simply does not apply. If there is a difference (which I am not sure there is a difference that G-d cannot change) it is not that G-d is a creator and we are his "children" - by whatever means. We are not talking about what man is capable of but what G-d is capable of doing.

Well, I think Jesus would disagree with you:

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:2)

I have to run now but will answer the rest of your post as soon as I can.

God bless.

You are correct. I apologize for not properly completing my thought. I meant to say that knowledge will not make us free from sin. The point I was trying to make is that to be free we must move beyond the bondage of sin that was done for us through Christ. Then we must also move beyond the bondage of ignorance - through the knowledge of the truth the Jesus brought and that we must do for ourselves.

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sure isn't. Our interpretations of that scripture are clearly different. Paul said "Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates." - 2 Cor. 13:5 - I take Matt. 18:20 in a straight forward literal sense. I don't believe Christ is saying He will physically be there, I think it's clear He is referring to the spirit. The spirit will be with 2 or 3 who gather in His name.

That sounds very Trinitarian and I would agree wholeheartedly. Jesus didn't say "wherever two or three are gathered, there the Holy Spirit will be in the midst of them". If they are separate and distinct gods, that is exactly what he should have said. Jesus said he would be in the midst of them. If Jesus is in the midst of them, yet his presence is through the Holy Spirit, it means that they are one and the same God, not separate Gods united in purpose.

Your interpretation that Christ is referring to His church and/or it's members. Let's look at the context of the rest of the verse. The condition that He will be there with His church is not stated, or even implied. In fact, Christ intentionally talks about 2 or 3 people. Stating that small groups of 3, or even couples, can have the spirit with them is not suggestive of a church, but exactly the opposite. 2 or 3 people hardly make up a church, or a congregation, or anything along those lines. Christ is telling us that the spirit is with those who gather in His name, stating the requirements simply and clearly, with no other conditions except gathering in His name. He did not say gathered at church, or gathered as members of a church.

I am only saying that if Christ is in you, then you belong to his Church, the family of God. If what you are saying is true then what does any church matter? Get a couple of your buddies together and you're good to go. We know that is not true, therefore we must look for the proper context. If any number of people "gather" together in his "name", they would be followers of Christ. A church is not about me and God, it is about us and God. Gathering together in his name has to be seen in the context of "church", a body of believers, in my opinion. By the way, a little disclaimer here. This is not an official Catholic statement, it is my own statement based upon my own logic, so take it for what it is worth. You, obviously, disagree. I have no problem with that. I do think it is an interesting statement that probably has ramifications I may not have considered.

I appreciate your comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, my understanding was that Catholics do believe you can pray for the soul of someone who has already died, and that that prayer may have some effect?

You are referring the doctrine of purgatory, a state of purification. Yes, we pray for those in purgatory, that the period of purification will be shortened so that they may enter into heaven. Anyone reaching the state of purgatory is guaranteed heaven. It is a time for final purification because nothing unclean can enter into heaven. Purgatory is the mercy of God in action and is one of the most misunderstood doctrines of the Church by non-Catholics. It is not a place of punishment. The pain felt in purgatory is the result of us finally realizing the degree to which we have offended God and the effect our sins have had on those around us.

Purgatory is like a man working in a muddy ditch. He looks at his watch and realizes that he is late to his friends wedding. He puts down the shovel and runs to the church. When he arrives he looks in through the window and sees that everyone is dressed in beautiful, clean clothes. He looks at himself and realizes that he cannot enter as he and his clothes are stained and dirty. He runs home, showers, puts on his best clothes and returns to the wedding, ready to enter.

This is oppossed to those who have completely rejected God and whose eternal destiny is hell. We will know, at the moment of our death, what our eternal destiny will be; either heaven or hell. Most of us will have to pass through a state of purification on our way to heaven and we believe that our prayers, as the Body of Christ, have an effect on those experiencing purification. Our prayers can do nothing for those in hell. They have chosen to live in eternity outside of the presence of God and God does not interfere in the choices we make due to the gift of free will. He does not "send" people to hell as if he were a vengeful God who wishes us to suffer for eternity. That would be completely opposed to who he is. His desire is that all be saved.

Hope that answers your question.

God bless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds very Trinitarian and I would agree wholeheartedly. Jesus didn't say "wherever two or three are gathered, there the Holy Spirit will be in the midst of them". If they are separate and distinct gods, that is exactly what he should have said. Jesus said he would be in the midst of them. If Jesus is in the midst of them, yet his presence is through the Holy Spirit, it means that they are one and the same God, not separate Gods united in purpose.

I am only saying that if Christ is in you, then you belong to his Church, the family of God. If what you are saying is true then what does any church matter? Get a couple of your buddies together and you're good to go. We know that is not true, therefore we must look for the proper context. If any number of people "gather" together in his "name", they would be followers of Christ. A church is not about me and God, it is about us and God. Gathering together in his name has to be seen in the context of "church", a body of believers, in my opinion. By the way, a little disclaimer here. This is not an official Catholic statement, it is my own statement based upon my own logic, so take it for what it is worth. You, obviously, disagree. I have no problem with that. I do think it is an interesting statement that probably has ramifications I may not have considered.

I appreciate your comments.

If I understand you, you are saying that the two or three that are "gathered together" can only have the Holy Spirit with them if they are literally within the four walls of a church? Or in some way officially a 'church'? I have never heard anyone of any denomination interpret that scripture in that way. Very much the opposite, in fact.

As for your "We know this is not true" statement, can you prove that? Can you demonstrate that there has never been an instance of the Holy Spirit being present with two or three people except within the confines of a church? You state it as a flat fact, so I am assuming you have lots of back-up for that. I think the millions of us who have experienced otherwise would be curious to see your documentation for this 'fact'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand you, you are saying that the two or three that are "gathered together" can only have the Holy Spirit with them if they are literally within the four walls of a church? Or in some way officially a 'church'? I have never heard anyone of any denomination interpret that scripture in that way. Very much the opposite, in fact.

And you have not heard me interpret scripture that way. The Church is not a building. The Church is the people of God, the Body of Christ, with Christ as the Head. If we have a group of people who gather in the name of Jesus, they are followers of Jesus and therefore the people of God, his Church. How can one be a follower of God and yet be outside of his Church? That is like someone claiming to be a part of my family who has never been a part of my family.

As for your "We know this is not true" statement, can you prove that? Can you demonstrate that there has never been an instance of the Holy Spirit being present with two or three people except within the confines of a church? You state it as a flat fact, so I am assuming you have lots of back-up for that. I think the millions of us who have experienced otherwise would be curious to see your documentation for this 'fact'.

How are you defining "church"? I define it as a body of believers and I do not believe that the Holy Spirit dwells within those who do not believe. Its pretty much as simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The symbolic darkness was a sign of apostasy - historians agree that the event that triggered the "beginning" of the darkness of the dark ages was the destruction of the library of Alexandria which was conceived and carried out through the very institution that according to you is the same institution still surviving today. (This should be discussed in another thread)

Historians agree? Which historians agree? There are few subjects about which there is more disagreement among historians. The following is a brief snippet from an article on the subject found at eHistory, a non-Catholic source:

"So who did burn the Library of Alexandria? Unfortunately most of the writers from Plutarch (who apparently blamed Caesar) to Edward Gibbons (a staunch atheist or deist who liked very much to blame Christians and blamed Theophilus) to Bishop Gregory (who was particularly anti-Moslem, blamed Omar) all had an axe to grind and consequently must be seen as biased. Probably everyone mentioned above had some hand in destroying some part of the Library's holdings. The collection may have ebbed and flowed as some documents were destroyed and others were added. For instance, Mark Antony was supposed to have given Cleopatra over 200,000 scrolls for the Library long after Julius Caesar is accused of burning it."

You are entitled to believe whatever you like. I do not intend to argue what you believe - only to point out that if indeed it was G-d the Father that established covenants with any man - Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses or anyone else then the doctrine of the fall of man is false as well as the doctrine of a necessary mediator or the doctrine that Jesus is the way. If it was the Father that established any covenant with any man then that would prove that a mediator is not just not necessary but a complete fabrication and contrary to reality.

I have no idea how you reached such conclusions. It presents no problem at all for those who believe in the Trinity. There is only one God and it is God who made the covenant. Regardless, I don't see a problem in the Father making a covenant to save mankind and sending his Son to accomplish that.

Remember when the Jews said they had no “king” but Creaser? Why would they say that when Creaser had appointed Herod as a king over the Jews? The ancient Suzerain law defined that to accept a vassal of a Suzerain - it was necessary to accept the vassal as the Suzerain. So are we subject to one king or poly kings. Like president Clinton correctly replied - it depends on how you define “one” (is) king or “one” G-d? If we use the ancient Hebrew word “ehad” then we can believe in G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost - united as one in purpose.

Why do you believe that God would be subject to Suzerain law? That is a law of man, not God. And where does scripture tell us that the word "one" should be understood as "one in purpose" and not "one in being"?

If you like you can call us polytheists. I will not argue the point - only to be clear that the G-d head is comprised of 3 G-ds which are each differentiated in scripture as G-ds that are one in covenant and purpose in the same manner that a man and a women are one in covenant and purpose in marriage.

I haven't called you anything, I only asked what you believe but did not receive an answer. And I am not here to the argue the point either. I have been asking this question of Mormons for several years now and have received the same answer. I have been told that you would classify yoursleves as monotheists, yet you believe that the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God and that they are "separate and distinct" beings, each of which is a God. On top of that you believe that you will become God just as the Father is God, and that there are Gods of other universes or worlds apart from our God, yet you claim to be monotheists. I remain in a complete state of confusion as to what you actually believe. If I have mis-stated anything about your beliefs please correct me, but please also give me an answer.

Do you believe that someone that failed in their deeds as a child and died as a child will address the Father in tears at the final Judgment begging for mercy and be denied forever only because of misunderstanding?

No.

I believe that those that will gather will be gathered - it is that simple. Others may argue over detains and logistics - but I believe G-d will accept anybody at any time that desires to come unto him. The only individuals in Hell or whatever are those that perfer that.

Well, I agree with your last point, but, in my opinion, I think one treads on dangerous spiritual ground if they believe it doesn't really matter what we do in this life; we always have another chance. This would be akin to a man fighting in a military battle who, once defeated, claims that he was really on the side of those he was fighting against. We cannot live this life apart from doing the will of God, and then, once we have died, claim to be on the side of God.

We have already estiblished that the essence of G-d is not creation. Therefore by logic if we are different it is not because we were created by him. I will use another example. It is like saying - our parents are our parents and we are children - thus by logic we can never be parents like our parents. That logic simply is not true and has nothing to do with why a parent may be different or the same as a child. It simply does not apply. If there is a difference (which I am not sure there is a difference that G-d cannot change) it is not that G-d is a creator and we are his "children" - by whatever means. We are not talking about what man is capable of but what G-d is capable of doing.

I'm really sorry but I am having great difficulty following your logic. No, God's creation is not his essence, therefore if we are God's creation we are not his essence. His essence is completely unique to him and no one else. You seem to somehow believe that we were not created by God, yet, as I have already pointed out, this is in direct conflict with the words found in Genesis. It very specifically states that we are God's creation and that he is the Creator. Your anaolgy to human parents does not at all apply here. We do not create our children. We pro-create, which means we cooperate in God's creation.

I meant to say that knowledge will not make us free from sin. The point I was trying to make is that to be free we must move beyond the bondage of sin that was done for us through Christ. Then we must also move beyond the bondage of ignorance - through the knowledge of the truth the Jesus brought and that we must do for ourselves.

If I understand you correctly I think we agree.

Edited by StephenVH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to touch on two of your points below:

I haven't called you anything, I only asked what you believe but did not receive an answer. And I am not here to the argue the point either. I have been asking this question of Mormons for several years now and have received the same answer. I have been told that you would classify yoursleves as monotheists, yet you believe that the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God and that they are "separate and distinct" beings, each of which is a God. On top of that you believe that you will become God just as the Father is God, and that there are Gods of other universes or worlds apart from our God, yet you claim to be monotheists. I remain in a complete state of confusion as to what you actually believe. If I have mis-stated anything about your beliefs please correct me, but please also give me an answer.

I, personally, do not think we fit into either monotheism OR polytheism. Let me explain. I like to rely on dictionary definitions when getting into the details of things and here is what the dictionary has to say about both these terms:

Monotheism: the belief that there is only one God, as found in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

Polytheism: the worship of and belief in more than one deity, especially several deities

Now, we believe that there are several "deities" when we consider the separateness of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and our own ability to progress unto "Godhood". However, we reserve our worship for only the Father. So, our belief in more than one god excludes us from monotheism, but our worship of only one God excludes us from polytheism.

I think the most accurate definition of our beliefs would be henotheism. Again, turning to the dictionary:

Henotheism: the worship of one god while acknowledging the existence of other gods

We also believe that there is a distinction between any Godhood we may obtain and that of our Heavenly Father. We can become "like" Him but cannot BECOME Him, much as a child can become like their father but cannot become their father.

Well, I agree with your last point, but, in my opinion, I think one treads on dangerous spiritual ground if they believe it doesn't really matter what we do in this life; we always have another chance. This would be akin to a man fighting in a military battle who, once defeated, claims that he was really on the side of those he was fighting against. We cannot live this life apart from doing the will of God, and then, once we have died, claim to be on the side of God.

We do believe that it matters what we do in this life, just not that this life is the only time we have to learn, grow, and make our decisions. We believe that the decisions we make now will have a very important effect on our spiritual progression and that the spirit we have in this life is the same as what we will have in the next. Meaning simply that if we are a logical scientific person who believes in no God, we will continue to have the same thinking in the afterlife. And if we are a chronic liar we will continue to be so in the next life. And so on and so forth. Death does not automatically "fix" us or make us see all the truth. Much like your purgatory, we still have to be "cleansed" and work towards perfection.

When we say that "we always have another chance", really we are reflecting the fact that we believe our progression does not cease in this life. If we go through this life living the best we know how and continuously seeking more and greater truth, we will continue to do so after this life and will progress toward perfection.

We also believe that God will not place us somewhere that will cause us unhappiness come the final judgement. Largely, the judgement is an opportunity for us to receive the reward for our choices. We will have a perfect knowledge of our guilt and worthiness, and would be unhappy with a reward greater than we deserve, so we will pick the reward most fitting for ourselves. Have you already studied our "Plan of Salvation" and the "kingdoms" of heaven? We do not believe that heaven is just one large place where all will be in the presence of God, but that it is in degrees of "glory", and each will attain their own "glory".

If that doesn't make very much sense to you, I can explain it in more detail, but this is really what we are talking about when we say something like "it doesn't matter". It DOES matter, we are just making an extrapolation based on our ability to continue with our progression and that God will not place us somewhere where we would be unhappy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to touch on two of your points below:

I, personally, do not think we fit into either monotheism OR polytheism. Let me explain. I like to rely on dictionary definitions when getting into the details of things and here is what the dictionary has to say about both these terms:

Monotheism: the belief that there is only one God, as found in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

Polytheism: the worship of and belief in more than one deity, especially several deities

Now, we believe that there are several "deities" when we consider the separateness of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and our own ability to progress unto "Godhood". However, we reserve our worship for only the Father. So, our belief in more than one god excludes us from monotheism, but our worship of only one God excludes us from polytheism.

I think the most accurate definition of our beliefs would be henotheism. Again, turning to the dictionary:

Henotheism: the worship of one god while acknowledging the existence of other gods

We also believe that there is a distinction between any Godhood we may obtain and that of our Heavenly Father. We can become "like" Him but cannot BECOME Him, much as a child can become like their father but cannot become their father.

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your answer here. Your explanation is well thought out and intellectually honest. I am not looking for agreement here, only understanding, and you have given the best explanation I've ever received. Thank you so much for that.

We do believe that it matters what we do in this life, just not that this life is the only time we have to learn, grow, and make our decisions. We believe that the decisions we make now will have a very important effect on our spiritual progression and that the spirit we have in this life is the same as what we will have in the next. Meaning simply that if we are a logical scientific person who believes in no God, we will continue to have the same thinking in the afterlife. And if we are a chronic liar we will continue to be so in the next life. And so on and so forth. Death does not automatically "fix" us or make us see all the truth. Much like your purgatory, we still have to be "cleansed" and work towards perfection.

When we say that "we always have another chance", really we are reflecting the fact that we believe our progression does not cease in this life. If we go through this life living the best we know how and continuously seeking more and greater truth, we will continue to do so after this life and will progress toward perfection.

What do you believe about those who completely reject God?

We also believe that God will not place us somewhere that will cause us unhappiness come the final judgement. Largely, the judgement is an opportunity for us to receive the reward for our choices. We will have a perfect knowledge of our guilt and worthiness, and would be unhappy with a reward greater than we deserve, so we will pick the reward most fitting for ourselves. Have you already studied our "Plan of Salvation" and the "kingdoms" of heaven? We do not believe that heaven is just one large place where all will be in the presence of God, but that it is in degrees of "glory", and each will attain their own "glory".

We do have a somewhat similar belief in that each individual will receive a reward and glory based upon how they have lived their lives, however each of us will be complete in our happiness. It's kind of like placing a shot glass next to a 32 oz glass. Each can be filled to the brim (complete happiness) yet the 32 oz glass will obviously contain a greater amount than the shot glass.

Our idea of heaven, however, is quite a bit different, I think. We don't think of it as a place, but rather a state of being in which we dwell with God and share in the divine life of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit where we will be in eternal awe of the glory of God. This does not mean that we are in some vague heavenly fog. We will be with our families and friends and will see everything with divine clarity. However, the only thing we really know is that "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor heart conceived of what God has planned for those who love him". So we cannot really define with specificity our heavenly home. If we could, it wouldn't be all that great.

If that doesn't make very much sense to you, I can explain it in more detail, but this is really what we are talking about when we say something like "it doesn't matter". It DOES matter, we are just making an extrapolation based on our ability to continue with our progression and that God will not place us somewhere where we would be unhappy.

Again, thanks for your explanation. I think I finally have an idea of where you're coming from.

Edited by StephenVH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share