Son of God?


Justice
 Share

Recommended Posts

If it's any encouragement as to where this evangelical is at, I do agree that our glorification (we describe our post mortal existence as us gaining glorified bodies--like Jesus has) is far more than we can imagine. I agree that we shall rule--that us being a "royal priesthood" carries with it fantastic implications. We surely shall do so much more than sit upon clouds playing harps. I'm just not convinced that we shall become capitol-G Gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 523
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If it's any encouragement as to where this evangelical is at, I do agree that our glorification (we describe our post mortal existence as us gaining glorified bodies--like Jesus has) is far more than we can imagine. I agree that we shall rule--that us being a "royal priesthood" carries with it fantastic implications. We surely shall do so much more than sit upon clouds playing harps. I'm just not convinced that we shall become capitol-G Gods.

You have some qualities that are not seen by the LDS in every Evangelical--you are probably very likable to the LDS, and I enjoy your ideas. You make discussion fun.

I doubt very seriously that big G or little g's are of any consequence to the LDS.

As a matter of personal opinion--I believe the LDS could care less about what one becomes after death, as long as they are with Jesus Christ and His Father--they are too occupied in the here and now, like everyone else, to delve into such things, as a rule.

It makes an interesting debate--but not not a pre-occupation. To be sure--I have been a part of the LDS culture for some time now--and I can't remember a single Sacrament meeting talk that touched on such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would not surprise me at all that day to day life in most churches, including yours, is far different than what is seen during interfaith conversations or debates. We tend to focus on our differences, and become territorial. One poster here calls this "boundary maintenance."

Doctrine matters, so these conversations are worthwhile and healthy. Nevertheless, you do us good to remind us that we are God-seekers, we have a hope of eternity with Father and Son, and our sojourn in mortality is lived out best when we "Fear God and obey his commands," as Solomon said, or love God and neighbor, as Jesus decreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's any encouragement as to where this evangelical is at, I do agree that our glorification (we describe our post mortal existence as us gaining glorified bodies--like Jesus has) is far more than we can imagine. I agree that we shall rule--that us being a "royal priesthood" carries with it fantastic implications. We surely shall do so much more than sit upon clouds playing harps. I'm just not convinced that we shall become capitol-G Gods.

There are times prisonchaplain that I would like to sit down with you in long and open discussion. In times past I have attempted to drill down to discover what about a capital “G” G-d will separate him from his beloved saints with whom he is one? In time past you have responded that we are created and he is the creator. However, I find this distinction completely irrelevant and meaningless.

I am thinking that many “Evangelicals” have the problem with becoming a big G G-d is that they (you) believe this was the problem of Satan- and that he should not be emulated in any way. I see this as logic erroneously turned in on its self. The problem as I see and understand the mistaken paradox is that somehow Satan wanted to be exactly like G-d without really being exactly like G-d.

Rhetorically I see the flaw in Satan as thinking he could inherit some of G-d’s nature without having to inherit all of it - which ironically I see as the exact argument of Evangelicals. Thus it honestly appears to me that in the Evangelical’s zeal to avoid the attribute and nature of Satan - they have incorporated it.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traveler, we traditionalists (evangelicals, Catholics, even mainstream Christians) are monotheists. Very few of us would subscribe to "social trinitarianism," or any understanding that would allow exalted humans to join the Godhead. "Big-G" God, means there is only one.

My sense is that Satan wanted to become God apart from God. This is close to what you say we evangelicals do, but there is an important distinction. It's not that we are afraid to join with God, it's that we do not believe it is our place. God has not given that to us. We believe Satan knew this, but could not accept it, and so tried to usurp God's place.

BTW, I believe it is possible to interpret the serpent's offer to Eve as being the same--the offer to become like God, without God controlling the knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dberrie, please forgive my previous brusque wording. I went back and modified it, and then just now noticed you have responded. Somehow I seem often to miss responses, because they don't show up under "New Posts". Don't know why.

Well, forgive me for all the direct statements--but, looking at it from the perspective of those outside of the LDS church, and many within--the conclusion there might very well be--how can one claim to be Christian, and is not sure of who he worships?

Sure, one might have that perspective. One would be wrong, but that doesn't mean one wouldn't have that perspective. I acknowledge that perspective exists, just as many other false perspectives exist.

Elder McConkie was teaching that our "worship" of Jesus is of a different quality from our "worship" of the Father. Elder McConkie tried to demonstrate this by invoking a special definition of "worship" that applies only to the Father. The Church as a whole may not have adopted that definition (Elder McConkie himself acknowledges up front that the scriptures teach that we "worship" Jesus, but maintains that it is in an entirely different sense from how we worship the Father), but whether or not the Church has adopted the distinction in casual conversation does not affect the truth or falsity of his underlying teaching.

OK--but I'm trying to understand how that somehow changes the worship fact? How does that, the worship of the Son as the divine Son of God, create the difference of whether the LDS worship Jesus Christ?

Do we worship the Father? Yes. What are some elements of our worship of the Father? Here are two:

  • We pray directly to the Father and to no one else.
  • We make divine covenants directly with the Father and with no one else.

Do we pray directly to the Son? No.

Do we make divine covenants directly with the Son? No.

Therefore, do we "worship" the Son in the same sense we "worship" the Father? Clearly, no.

Do other Christians have the sense of covenant-making through divine authority that we Latter-day Saints have? No, they do not. Therefore, they make no distinction about worship based on covenant-making.

Do other Christians pray only to the Father and not to the Son? No, they do not make such a distinction -- largely because they do not really differentiate between the Father and the Son, considering them to be pretty much interchangeable (or even identical) for the purposes of prayer.

In both cases, the non-LDS Christian understanding of divinity and divine covenants is different from that of the Latter-day Saints -- we would probably say "deficient" -- and thus their actions are different from ours. So when we make distinctions of worship based on these matters, those differences have no real meaning for non-LDS Christians.

So which is better: That we insist on making a distinction on worship that, to non-LDS Christians, is at best a fine line and at worst meaningless; or that we don't worry about that particular distinction and follow the scriptural usage in saying that we "worship" Christ? Obviously, our leaders have chosen the latter path. And that is perfectly fine with me.

But my point was that your statement:

[That Latter-day Saints do not worship Jesus] is a false doctrine. The LDS worship Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, and Redeemer--period. There is no qualification nor clarification needed, as the LDS church is concerned.

is probably too strong. Elder McConkie drew the distinction, and it is doctrinally sound. I agree with you that there is no need to confuse outside investigators with distinctions that, to them, are not meaningful. But I think it is overly harsh to accuse your fellow Saints of teaching false doctrine when they do choose to draw this distinction.

The same applies, for me, with questions, such as--do you worship Jesus Christ--- do you believe the Bible is the word of God--etc. If we are to bring the LDS church out of obscurity--it won't be with answers that we are not sure whether we worship Christ or not.

In rereading and reconsidering what you have written, I believe we probably are in agreement, though we are expressing it differently, maybe from different points of view. I agree with you that it is not wise or even truthful in our conversations with those outside the Church to maintain that we do not "worship" Jesus; it gives them a false impression and obfuscates the truth of our beliefs. But I assume that you recognize and acknowledge that our worship of the Father encompasses different elements from our worship of the Son, a distinction that the majority of our non-LDS Christian acquaintances would not make.

Again, please forgive my previous brusque wording. I need not to post when I'm tired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dberrie, please forgive my previous brusque wording. I went back and modified it, and then just now noticed you have responded. Somehow I seem often to miss responses, because they don't show up under "New Posts". Don't know why.

Personally--I didn't see anything that I would consider "brusque" in your posts. Heck--you would be considered a pariah of good manners in some of the forums I have been on. I consider you a friend--so don't be too hard on yourself, I think your posts are good. I grew up with an Army Major, you would be timid compared to him.

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post

Well, forgive me for all the direct statements--but, looking at it from the perspective of those outside of the LDS church, and many within--the conclusion there might very well be--how can one claim to be Christian, and is not sure of who he worships?

Vort---Sure, one might have that perspective. One would be wrong, but that doesn't mean one wouldn't have that perspective. I acknowledge that perspective exists, just as many other false perspectives exist.

I agree with you--it is a false perspective--but one we as LDS have to face. Here is how the rabbits eat a head of lettuce, according to my perspective:

The LDS have been asked to join discussions on the internet. They participate in the discussions, and make statements that they do not worship Jesus Christ. Those who are looking for something immediately cross them off as Christians, or something they want to be part of.

In real time--just an example--I was on a forum this year where the LDS were asked to respond to this very question--do the LDS worship Jesus Christ? There were eight of us on the forum that day. No one, with the exception of me--answered yes. 7 no, 1 yes.

I clicked to check how many were watching that discussion--63. Before the end of the week--more than 200 hits.

That is probably more people than I will have in my home to discuss the gospel in my lifetime. And on a one-on-one discussion, I can correct any misconceptions, but on the internet--that may not be so. And it remains on the internet for years, possibly.

After those comments of the LDS--I noticed those who were lurkers(and there may be five lurkers to every poster)--they kinda disconnected to those who posted a no response. I don't blame them--if I were not LDS, and looking for something--that would be one I would cross off my list, seeing I would probably consider the LDS to be non-Christian, at that point.

That is what we, as LDS have to realize about the internet--comments such as those reach, and turn off a number of people, it is a statement that is counter-productive to the church, no matter how we feel about it. It digs deep holes of obscurity for the LDS church.

I replied to the stake president this year that before the LDS church can bring itself out of obscurity, and be recognized as a Christian church, first, the members have to discover just who it is they worship, and gain a testimony of it.

If they decide they do not worship Jesus Christ--and make those statements openly--they need not believe they are going to have acceptance in the Christian community--as that is the foundational basis for Christianity for most people, no matter what our rationalizations are for denying we do not worship Christ.

For me--I worship Jesus Christ. The LDS official position is--the LDS worship Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

Elder McConkie was teaching that our "worship" of Jesus is of a different quality from our "worship" of the Father.

That may or may not be true--but when a statement is made that they do not worship Jesus Christ--the reasoning is nothing but fodder, at that point, as far as missionary work goes. One has just walked into the face of prejudice, and plugged themselves into the non-Christian circuit board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traveler, we traditionalists (evangelicals, Catholics, even mainstream Christians) are monotheists.

And so did early Israel consider themselves--who believed in the Divine Council, which consisted of a number of Gods.

As of today--anyone who espoused Trinitarianism to a Jewish audience would be considered a polytheistic religion.

The discovery of the Ugarit material changed a lot as thinking, as to what the scholars believe today.

There is not many scholars left who believe that psalm 82 is referring to judges or mortal humans.

Very few of us would subscribe to "social trinitarianism," or any understanding that would allow exalted humans to join the Godhead.

That may be so--but what are those who participate at this level:

Revelation3:21--"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."

Revelation3:12--"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name."

What would one consider those who sit on the throne of God, and have the name of God upon them, and are one with the Father and the Son?

"Big-G" God, means there is only one.

As Michael Heiser commented:

You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82

Michael S. Heiser

Over the course of the last eight years I have read several papers dealing in one way or another with that feature of Israelite religion known as the divine council. Anyone doing serious research in Israelite religion is soon confronted with the powerful evidence for a pantheon in the Hebrew Bible.

Position statements on Psalm 82 and the divine council with which many evangelicals would probably disagree and with which many Latter-day Saints would likely agree:

1. The plural ʾĕlōhîm of Psalm 82:1, 6 are divine beings, not human judges or humans fulfilling any role.

2. The term monotheism is inadequate to describe what it is Israel believed about God and the members of his council. As the text explicitly says, there are other ʾĕlōhîm.

3. References to "us" and "our" in passages like Genesis 1:26 do not refer to the Trinity. The plural ʾĕlōhîm of Psalm 82 are also not members of the Trinity.

4. The denial statements of Isaiah and elsewhere ("there is no god beside me") do not constitute denials of the existence of other ʾĕlōhîm. Rather, they are statements of Yahweh's incomparability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right that Orthodox Jews and Muslims do not accept Trinitarianism as monotheism. We disagree, and since we do not wish to be accepted as Jews or Muslims, there is not too much contention (with the possible exception of Messianic Jews). I have heard you, and a couple others here, speak of passages such as Ps 82, and suggest that ancient Jewish belief was actually henotheistic. Some here would even agree that LDS theology is more accurately described in that way.

This will be a matter for my continued study. I find it ironic, though not impossible, that LDS have picked up an allegedly ancient Israelite view that the modern Orthodox reject. Then again, we have all picked up on the teachings of one rabbi from the first century, that the Orthodox have rejected.

My own perspective of the worship of Jesus issue is that many LDS say they do not worship Jesus because they perceive that doing so would make them full-blown polytheists--worshiping both the Father and the Son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right that Orthodox Jews and Muslims do not accept Trinitarianism as monotheism. We disagree, and since we do not wish to be accepted as Jews or Muslims, there is not too much contention (with the possible exception of Messianic Jews).

Which comes down to self-definition rather that cold, hard logic. If you can define yourself as monotheistic rather than politheistic, why can't we?

I have heard you, and a couple others here, speak of passages such as Ps 82, and suggest that ancient Jewish belief was actually henotheistic. Some here would even agree that LDS theology is more accurately described in that way.

This will be a matter for my continued study. I find it ironic, though not impossible, that LDS have picked up an allegedly ancient Israelite view that the modern Orthodox reject. Then again, we have all picked up on the teachings of one rabbi from the first century, that the Orthodox have rejected.

The modern Orthodox Jewish view of monotheism is derived to a large extent from Saadiah Gaon, Maimonides, and a whole constellation of philosophers inspired by Greek, Muslim and Karaite teachings and polemics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right that Orthodox Jews and Muslims do not accept Trinitarianism as monotheism. We disagree, and since we do not wish to be accepted as Jews or Muslims, there is not too much contention (with the possible exception of Messianic Jews). I have heard you, and a couple others here, speak of passages such as Ps 82, and suggest that ancient Jewish belief was actually henotheistic. Some here would even agree that LDS theology is more accurately described in that way.

This will be a matter for my continued study. I find it ironic, though not impossible, that LDS have picked up an allegedly ancient Israelite view that the modern Orthodox reject. Then again, we have all picked up on the teachings of one rabbi from the first century, that the Orthodox have rejected.

My own perspective of the worship of Jesus issue is that many LDS say they do not worship Jesus because they perceive that doing so would make them full-blown polytheists--worshiping both the Father and the Son.

Well hear, hear, PC!!! Most all Christians worship both the Father and the Son--don't you? Worship of both the Father and the Son was mentioned in the NT.

I believe most LDS balk at the worship of the Son because they believe the object of their worship is the Father, not because of it's association with polytheism.

It has been shown that early Israel did believe in the existence of more than one God, as evidenced by their written accounts of the Divine Council, even the Biblical text still have vestiges of that belief.

Revisionism has taken over most of the evidence of henotheism, so some scholars state, which I believe is true.

As Michael Heiser stated--"Anyone doing serious research in Israelite religion is soon confronted with the powerful evidence for a pantheon in the Hebrew Bible."

Something the orthodox Christians reject as true, but then--they have a dog in the fight.

But alas!--satan can be a god--but the children of God cannot:

2 Cor4:4--"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

So--you talk about little g and big G gods.

Are you saying that there can be gods, as in little g--and the fact of monotheism still remain in tact?

IOW--the parameters are only breached if it is a big G?

Edited by dberrie2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which comes down to self-definition rather that cold, hard logic. If you can define yourself as monotheistic rather than politheistic, why can't we?

This is Professor Robinson's argument, in How Wide the Divide. He wants to keep the monotheistic label for LDS, by insisting that if Trinitarians can claim monotheism, so can "social trinitarians." The short answer is, you can try. You probably won't have any more success convincing traditionalists than we have convincings Jews and Muslims. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well hear, hear, PC!!! Most all Christians worship both the Father and the Son--don't you? Worship of both the Father and the Son was mentioned in the NT.

I believe most LDS balk at the worship of the Son because they believe the object of their worship is the Father, not because of it's association with polytheism.

Yes, I (we) worship the Father and the Son, as well as the Holy Spirit. In fact, when I discuss the deity of Christ with Jehovah's Witnesses, one of my primary points is that Jesus is the object of worship in the New Testament.

I made the connection with polytheism because in my conversations here, we sometimes come to the place of, well, even if you say the Father and Son, are one in purpose, if they are separate beings, don't you worship two God-beings?

"Oh no. We only worship the Father." At this point, some LDS would tell me they could accurately be called henotheists, because they only worship one God.

But alas!--satan can be a god--but the children of God cannot:

2 Cor4:4--"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

So--you talk about little g and big G gods.

Are you saying that there can be gods, as in little g--and the fact of monotheism still remain in tact?

IOW--the parameters are only breached if it is a big G?

Our sense is that the "gods" of the Bible are not true. They are either the false gods of pagan nations, or, like Satan, pretenders, who are granted power for a season.

It's ironic that I have asked Jehovah's Witnesses this same question--if Jesus is a god, then are you not polytheists? In the case to traditionalists, we do not believe the "gods" of the Bible are true deities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post

Well hear, hear, PC!!! Most all Christians worship both the Father and the Son--don't you? Worship of both the Father and the Son was mentioned in the NT.

Yes, I (we) worship the Father and the Son, as well as the Holy Spirit.

Which means, for the LDS---that you worship one more God that the LDS do. ;)

I made the connection with polytheism because in my conversations here, we sometimes come to the place of, well, even if you say the Father and Son, are one in purpose, if they are separate beings, don't you worship two God-beings?

"Oh no. We only worship the Father." At this point, some LDS would tell me they could accurately be called henotheists, because they only worship one God.

Which, at that point, would be as false as the orthodox claiming they only worship one "God-being"?

I personally believe that is a problem for the LDS, which they will work that out over time, just as the 1st century church worked out the circumcision and Gentile problems--which caused much strife in the church, but they survived it.

Our sense is that the "gods" of the Bible are not true. They are either the false gods of pagan nations, or, like Satan, pretenders, who are granted power for a season.

The Divine council was not made up of false Gods, but a council that was headed by El, and attended by the Gods who made up that council--which numbered in excess of 70.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which comes down to self-definition rather that cold, hard logic. If you can define yourself as monotheistic rather than politheistic, why can't we?

The modern Orthodox Jewish view of monotheism is derived to a large extent from Saadiah Gaon, Maimonides, and a whole constellation of philosophers inspired by Greek, Muslim and Karaite teachings and polemics.

Another observation, Michael Heiser:

"Monotheism as a term was coined in the seventeenth century not as an antonym to polytheism, but to atheism.32 A monotheist, then, was a person who believed there was a God, not someone who believed there was only one spiritual entity that could or should be named by the letters G-O-D. This understanding of the term has been lost in contemporary discourse, and so it would be pointless to call for a return to its original meaning.

A more coherent approach is to describe what Israelites believed about their God rather than trying to encapsulate that belief in a single word. When scholars have addressed this tension, however, a shift to description over terminology has not been the strategy. Rather, scholars have tried to qualify the modern vocabulary. Terms like inclusive monotheism or tolerant monolatry have been coined in an attempt to accurately classify Israelite religion in both pre- and postexilic stages.33 These terms have not found broad acceptance because they are oxymoronic to the modern ear."

dberrie---The way we define "monotheism" is foreign to it's original meaning. The belief that if one even believes there are other Gods--they are polytheistic--would be foreign to ancient Israel, or it's original understood meaning of monotheism That is a modern add-on to the word. As the modern scholars agree now--trying to impose that thought now would fall on death ears--tradition is always stronger than truth.

More from Michael Heiser:

"Psalm 82 is considered late in composition on several grounds, most notably because of its placement in Book III of Psalms and its use by Deutero-Isaiah.12 The clear reference to a pantheon over which Yahweh presides must be explained since by this time Israelite religion is assumed to have evolved to an "intolerant monotheism." As a result, many scholars consider Psalm 82 to be either a vestige of polytheism overlooked by monotheistic redactors or perhaps a deliberate rhetorical use of Israel's polytheistic past to declare the new outlook of monotheism.13 After the exile, so it is put forth, the gods of the nations are relegated to the status of angels.

Both proposals fail on a number of levels. With respect to the first option, it is evasive to appeal to inept redactors when one's theory of a campaign to stamp out polytheistic texts encounters a "problem passage," especially when Psalm 82 is by no means the only text evincing divine plurality and a divine council "missed" by redactors. To cite but one example, there are explicit references to gods and a divine council in Second Temple period Jewish literature. In the Qumran sectarian material alone there are approximately 185 occurrences of ʾĕlōhîm, hāʾĕlōhîm, bĕnê ʾēlîm, bĕnê ʾêlōhîm, and bĕnê hāʾĕlōhîm in contexts where a divine council is mentioned with the same vocabulary (ʾēdāh, sôd, qāhāl, ) utilized in texts of the Hebrew Bible for a divine assembly.14 In fact, it is apparent that some of these references allude to or draw on canonical material. If there was a campaign to allegedly correct ancient texts and their polytheistic views, the postexilic Jewish community either did not get the message or ignored it."

Edited by dberrie2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I believe it is possible to interpret the serpent's offer to Eve as being the same--the offer to become like God, without God controlling the knowledge.

PC, that was not the lie though.

Genesis 1:

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Satan and God said the same things... before and after.

The lie was in verse 4, that they wouldn't die.

Genesis 2:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was taught that a half truth is a whole lie. Satan told them they would become "as God" or "like God." How? They would know good and evil. Sure enough, like God, they came to know good and evil, because through their evil act of rebellion they came to a godlike understanding of the difference. Somehow, I am not thinking Satan would rate real high on Adam & Eve's honesty scale, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was taught that a half truth is a whole lie. Satan told them they would become "as God" or "like God." How? They would know good and evil. Sure enough, like God, they came to know good and evil, because through their evil act of rebellion they came to a godlike understanding of the difference.

Pretty interesting thought, PC--"evil act of rebellion" as a lead-in to becoming more like God.

Edited by dberrie2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I (we) worship the Father and the Son, as well as the Holy Spirit. In fact, when I discuss the deity of Christ with Jehovah's Witnesses, one of my primary points is that Jesus is the object of worship in the New Testament.

Exactly. It is a new idea to me to NOT worship all three Persons of the Trinity.

I have heard the LDS mention either a.) worshiping both Father and Son, but in a different way, or b.) worshiping only the Father through the Son.

I believe it is different when Trinitarians say they worship the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, because of the Oneness of the Trinity: to worship the Father IS to worship the Son IS to worship the Spirit; you cannot worship One without worshiping All, because they are all One. And at the same time, while we (as Trinitarians, and Catholics specifically from my point of view) pray to the Father through the Son... we also pray TO the Son and TO the Spirit. One of the oldest prayers of Christianity is the Jesus Prayer: "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me." In Mass we sing: "Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison" "Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy." We pray to the Father and the Son. And to the Spirit.

Yet, at least in Catholic understanding, praying is not worship in and of itself. Otherwise Catholics would be worshiping Mary and the Saints as well, which we do not. Prayer can be a part of worship, but only a part. And while I don't believe the LDS think that prayer=worship, I believe the LDS and non-LDS are using different definitions for "worship."

It is a hard word to define anyway, in my opinion. A man sitting in Baptist church will view worship as his singing and praying and hearing a sermon, while a man sitting in Catholic Mass will view worship as something slightly different when he is in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

So, in the LDS definition of "worship," the LDS would consider themselves to worship Christ, just in a different way than they worship the Father. But to non-LDS, the LDS are not seen as worshiping the Son... probably *because of* the difference in worship; because to Trinitarians, all Persons of the Trinity should be equally worshiped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Mass we sing: "Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison" "Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy."

This is off-topic but why do you sing in Greek? I always thought Catholic Mass was in Latin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is off-topic but why do you sing in Greek? I always thought Catholic Mass was in Latin?

Yes, up until Vatican II, Roman Catholic Mass was said in latin but it was not always so. Early Roman liturgy was said in Greek around the 4th century. But, interestingly, this is not where the Kyrie originated.

The Kyrie came from the Apostolic Constitution - a collection of 8 books that was said to have come from apostolic authority but was declared non-doctrinal by the Catholic Church as the Church do not believe its authenticity. It contained catechetical guidance for clergy written in Greek. Although the constitution was rejected as the work of heretics, it did contain some pieces held at high esteem and the eastern churches adopted the Kyrie in the liturgy from the constitution. The Roman church added the Kyrie to their liturgy with a variation - adding Christe eleyson to the litany. The latin mass says the litany in latin, today's mass says the litany in whatever language the mass is said in. The litany is said in greek mainly as an alternative for traditional purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe for LDS we are to pray to the Father through Christ.

Yet, we worship all three, especially the Father and Son. It would be ridiculous to say LDS do not worship Christ, as every Christmas and Easter is devoted to worship of Jesus.

In the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 11, the Holy Ghost appears to Nephi and leads him through a major vision. Near the beginning, the Spirit testifies of the Father and Son in worshipful exclamation. Nephi follows on this.

Later, when the resurrected Savior appeared to the Nephites, they not only worshiped, but also prayed directly to Christ and not the Father, because as we are told, He was in their presence. Yet, even when they were not praying, they worshiped him. As they touched his hands and feet, they washed his feet with their tears of worship.

So, yes, we do worship the Godhead, though prayer is to the Father through Christ (with the answers coming via the Holy Ghost).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is off-topic but why do you sing in Greek? I always thought Catholic Mass was in Latin?

I haven't really questioned this before, so I don't know how true or not _anatess_'s explanation is. I do know: Mass is said in the home language now, after Vatican II. There are still Latin Masses- and they are very beautiful- but they are no longer the norm or requirement.

I do know that the 'Jesus Prayer' as it is called is one of the oldest, simplest prayers in Christianity. The Orthodox say it frequently, and have prayer beads to help them in the repetition of this prayer in a way similar to a Rosary. The 'Kyrie eleison' is simply the 'Jesus prayer'... all it means is "Lord, have mercy."

The Kyrie can be said or sung, depending on the church. And can be said/sung in the home language or the Greek, depending on the church. I've done it all ways.

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