Deep study in the Catholic and LDS religion


Recommended Posts

I would think that it would be impossible to accept the doctrine of the Trinty with the Mormon view of the nature of God. If he does have a body of flesh and bone, like us, then he cannot be three persons in one being.

Do you believe that the Son now having a glorified body of flesh and bone has any relevance to your above statement? Just wondering.

I would agree with Jason that your analogy doesn't work for the reasons he gave, however one aspect that does work is that the distinction between the Persons of the Trinity is a familial distinction; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They, however are real, distinct Persons, rather than descriptions of various relational hats one wears. Even creation follows this "image" of God, especially the human family. We believe that the family is the greatest sign of being made in the image and likeness of God. Two become one, resulting in a third. The Holy Spirit proceeds forth from the love between the Father and the Son. God, in his essence is a family; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, yet one divine Being. That is why we call it a mystery, a reality beyond our ability to grasp.

Latter-day Saints would similarly say that the Godhead is a Family, and that the family is a sign of being made in the image and likeness of God :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Do you believe that the Son now having a glorified body of flesh and bone has any relevance to your above statement? Just wondering.

Jesus has a divine nature as well as a human nature. But he was eternally with the Father before the incarnation. My only real point is that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be fully grasped by humans, but it is made even more difficult if one imagines God to be simply an exalted man. From the Catholic perspective he can exist in any manner he chooses to exist even if it does not conform with the human experience or the world in which we live. Three Persons in one divine Being. This is not a human notion, but a divine revelation beyond our complete understanding.

Latter-day Saints would similarly say that the Godhead is a Family, and that the family is a sign of being made in the image and likeness of God :).

:thumbsup:

Edited by StephenVH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

My only real point is that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be fully grasped by humans, ....

:thumbsup:

I find it odd that G-d would create man, endow him with more intelligence, reason and other attributes than any other creature that can possibly be created -- even in "his" very likeness and image yet unable to grasp the most important "idea" for which he was created - to know G-d. Then in Holy Scripture - G-d himself to say (John 17:3):

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden

I find it odd that G-d would create man, endow him with more intelligence, reason and other attributes than any other creature that can possibly be created -- even in "his" very likeness and image yet unable to grasp the most important "idea" for which he was created - to know G-d. Then in Holy Scripture - G-d himself to say (John 17:3):

The Traveler

Well, I didn't say that man does not know the "idea" for which he is created. We were created to love and serve God and become his adopted children. What I said was that we cannot fully comprehend a divine Being who is beyond our human understanding. Now I know this causes a problem when Mormons and Catholics are discussing this issue because of our completely different view of the nature of God. You believe that you are basically just like God other than your level of progression. We do not. We believe that he is eternally above us in all ways. We are not God. Only God is God.

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:9)

There will be a time when we will know God fully, when we see him "face to face". But not in this lifetime.

Link to comment

I find it odd that G-d would create man, endow him with more intelligence, reason and other attributes than any other creature that can possibly be created -- even in "his" very likeness and image yet unable to grasp the most important "idea" for which he was created - to know G-d. Then in Holy Scripture - G-d himself to say (John 17:3):

The Traveler

Traveler, do you think that you have a complete understanding of who God is? The Scriptures tell us differently:

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Cor 13:12)

Again, our different views originate in our different understanding of who God is and who we are. Believing that one is essentially the same as God, other than one's level of progression, it would seem natural that one might believe he can grasp God. Believing that God is eternally above us in all ways; that God is divine and we are human; that God is God and I am not, we accept the revealed nature of God even though it is beyond our ability to fully grasp.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I didn't say that man does not know the "idea" for which he is created. We were created to love and serve God and become his adopted children. What I said was that we cannot fully comprehend a divine Being who is beyond our human understanding. Now I know this causes a problem when Mormons and Catholics are discussing this issue because of our completely different view of the nature of God. You believe that you are basically just like God other than your level of progression. We do not. We believe that he is eternally above us in all ways. We are not God. Only God is God.

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:9)

There will be a time when we will know God fully, when we see him "face to face". But not in this lifetime.

Hmmmmm - let us again consider Isaiah (2:3)

"And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem."

Sorry - I do not agree that we should not even try to "know G-d" in this lifetime" because it really is not possible? I believe that all things are possible - with G-d. I would suggest that if the "way" by which you are "walking" in this life does not give you understanding of G-d (eternal life) -- that you seriously consider another - that does.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmmm - let us again consider Isaiah (2:3)

"And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem."

All very true, within our ability to understand. Does it not make sense that we cannot undertand something that is beyond our ability to understand? That does not mean that God cannot teach us to walk in the correct path. God teaches us to love, but no one can love as God loves. None of this means we are capable of fully understanding God's nature.

Sorry - I do not agree that we should not even try to "know G-d" in this lifetime" because it really is not possible? I believe that all things are possible - with G-d. I would suggest that if the "way" by which you are "walking" in this life does not give you understanding of G-d (eternal life) -- that you seriously consider another - that does.

Please give me the quote where I said that we shouldn't try to know God. If you cannot find that quote (which you can't) then please refrain from making false statements about what I have said. It only shows that you cannot argue the case before you so you attempt to shift the issue to something you believe you can argue.

The "way" in which I am "walking" gives me great understanding, but not complete understanding. Nor does it give you complete understanding, inspite of your high opinion of your abilities. You completely ignored the Scripture verses I gave which say exactly what I am saying. Implicit in your last statement is the fact that you believe that you know God fully. If God is no greater than our minds, then he is no greater than us. My God is eternally greater than any of his creation, including you and me.

Edited by StephenVH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All very true, within our ability to understand. Does it not make sense that we cannot undertand something that is beyond our ability to understand? That does not mean that God cannot teach us to walk in the correct path. God teaches us to love, but no one can love as God loves. None of this means we are capable of fully understanding God's nature.

Please give me the quote where I said that we shouldn't try to know God. If you cannot find that quote (which you can't) then please refrain from making false statements about what I have said. It only shows that you cannot argue the case before you so you attempt to shift the issue to soemthing you believe you can argue.

The "way" in which I am "walking" gives me great understanding, but not complete understanding. Nor does it give you complete understanding, inspite of your high opinion of your abilities. You completely ignored the Scripture verses I gave which say exactly what I am saying. Implicit in your last statement is the fact that you believe that you know God fully. If God is no greater than our minds, then he is no greater than us. My God is eternally greater than any of his creation, including you and me.

Okay, let me bridge this a bit as it seems to be headed towards each of your corners without getting close to an understanding.

You're really not that far off in your understanding of God's "knowability" (sorry, can't find a word from my English Book for Daily Use). Catholic and LDS believe the same "end result" (sorry! My words are really failing me today!). The difference is in the nuance...

Case 1: Both LDS and Catholic believe that God is not completely knowable in this lifetime (yes, LDS do believe this!). Here's the difference in nuance:

Catholic - God is not knowable in this lifetime because his ousia is unique to God. Therefore, it requires us to be brought up to heaven to know Him... or for God to reveal Himself to us.

LDS - God is not knowable in this lifetime not because he is different from our ousia but because we, as mortals, do not know everything there is to know about who we are. The more we know about who we are, the more we know and understand God.

But yes, the end result is - both LDS and Catholics believe that their mission in life is to know God to the best of their abilities. And both believe that it is not impossible to know God - yes, even before death - but it requires God revealing himself to us.

Case 2: Both LDS and Catholic believe that there will never come a time that God will be no greater than our minds or that he will be no greater than us. Here's the difference in nuance:

Catholic - God is a different ousia that is greater than man's.

LDS - God is the same ousia as man's... but as man increases, there is God's increase also. Yes, Bible verses do support this which is present in both Catholic and LDS teaching.

But yes, the end result is - both LDS and Catholics believe that the more they do good and follow in Christ's footsteps, the more they glorify God.

And because I'm LDS and this is an LDS forum, I will point out the missing doctrine from Catholic teaching that made them different - Godhead. Both Cases above hinge on the demystifying of the mysterious ousia.

Hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, let me bridge this a bit as it seems to be headed towards each of your corners without getting close to an understanding.

You're really not that far off in your understanding of God's "knowability" (sorry, can't find a word from my English Book for Daily Use). Catholic and LDS believe the same "end result" (sorry! My words are really failing me today!). The difference is in the nuance...

Case 1: Both LDS and Catholic believe that God is not completely knowable in this lifetime (yes, LDS do believe this!). Here's the difference in nuance:

Catholic - God is not knowable in this lifetime because his ousia is unique to God. Therefore, it requires us to be brought up to heaven to know Him... or for God to reveal Himself to us.

LDS - God is not knowable in this lifetime not because he is different from our ousia but because we, as mortals, do not know everything there is to know about who we are. The more we know about who we are, the more we know and understand God.

But yes, the end result is - both LDS and Catholics believe that their mission in life is to know God to the best of their abilities. And both believe that it is not impossible to know God - yes, even before death - but it requires God revealing himself to us.

Case 2: Both LDS and Catholic believe that there will never come a time that God will be no greater than our minds or that he will be no greater than us. Here's the difference in nuance:

Catholic - God is a different ousia that is greater than man's.

LDS - God is the same ousia as man's... but as man increases, there is God's increase also. Yes, Bible verses do support this which is present in both Catholic and LDS teaching.

But yes, the end result is - both LDS and Catholics believe that the more they do good and follow in Christ's footsteps, the more they glorify God.

And because I'm LDS and this is an LDS forum, I will point out the missing doctrine from Catholic teaching that made them different - Godhead. Both Cases above hinge on the demystifying of the mysterious ousia.

Hope this helps.

I am sorry if this is blunt but I see much of this type of discussion much like the confrontation between Jesus and certain Jews that believed that G-d was so different from man that to be a man and claim to be one with G-d is blasphemy (see John 10:22-35).

For me, personally, knowing G-d is not some destination we reach in order to proclaim we know G-d - fully or in part. It is a journey we take and a path or way we walk. I find this "doctrine" of a way comparable with scripture.

Who are we or is anyone to say G-d cannot teach his ways to any man willing to believe on the Christ? If G-d is in truth the teacher and guide - no one has right to say that such are being led blindly and do not know G-d.

There is an ancient native American saying that we cannot know anyone until we have walked in their moccasins for 3 moons. Now consider 1John 2:5 "But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him."

I submit that to keep G-d commandments is to know him. If we know G-d we will proclaim by our words and deeds that we know him. But if we do not know G-d it is not our place to say no one does or can.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry if this is blunt but I see much of this type of discussion much like the confrontation between Jesus and certain Jews that believed that G-d was so different from man that to be a man and claim to be one with G-d is blasphemy (see John 10:22-35).

For me, personally, knowing G-d is not some destination we reach in order to proclaim we know G-d - fully or in part. It is a journey we take and a path or way we walk. I find this "doctrine" of a way comparable with scripture.

Who are we or is anyone to say G-d cannot teach his ways to any man willing to believe on the Christ? If G-d is in truth the teacher and guide - no one has right to say that such are being led blindly and do not know G-d.

There is an ancient native American saying that we cannot know anyone until we have walked in their moccasins for 3 moons. Now consider 1John 2:5 "But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him."

I submit that to keep G-d commandments is to know him. If we know G-d we will proclaim by our words and deeds that we know him. But if we do not know G-d it is not our place to say no one does or can.

The Traveler

I guess you didn't understand my post. I was trying to explain to you that SteveVH - or Catholics for that matter - did not say what you said he said...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, let me bridge this a bit as it seems to be headed towards each of your corners without getting close to an understanding.

You're really not that far off in your understanding of God's "knowability" (sorry, can't find a word from my English Book for Daily Use). Catholic and LDS believe the same "end result" (sorry! My words are really failing me today!). The difference is in the nuance...

Case 1: Both LDS and Catholic believe that God is not completely knowable in this lifetime (yes, LDS do believe this!). Here's the difference in nuance:

Catholic - God is not knowable in this lifetime because his ousia is unique to God. Therefore, it requires us to be brought up to heaven to know Him... or for God to reveal Himself to us.

LDS - God is not knowable in this lifetime not because he is different from our ousia but because we, as mortals, do not know everything there is to know about who we are. The more we know about who we are, the more we know and understand God.

But yes, the end result is - both LDS and Catholics believe that their mission in life is to know God to the best of their abilities. And both believe that it is not impossible to know God - yes, even before death - but it requires God revealing himself to us.

Case 2: Both LDS and Catholic believe that there will never come a time that God will be no greater than our minds or that he will be no greater than us. Here's the difference in nuance:

Catholic - God is a different ousia that is greater than man's.

LDS - God is the same ousia as man's... but as man increases, there is God's increase also. Yes, Bible verses do support this which is present in both Catholic and LDS teaching.

But yes, the end result is - both LDS and Catholics believe that the more they do good and follow in Christ's footsteps, the more they glorify God.

And because I'm LDS and this is an LDS forum, I will point out the missing doctrine from Catholic teaching that made them different - Godhead. Both Cases above hinge on the demystifying of the mysterious ousia.

Hope this helps.

I could not discern from Traveler's words that he believes what you have stated. What you have demonstrated, however, is the key to our differences in understanding, as I have stated before. From the Mormon position, God is the engine and we are the caboose, the only difference being that he is in front of us in the line of progression. In other words, God, in his essence, is nothing more than man with a lot of experience.

If this were true, I could understand one believing that they could know God by simply studying humans. We could do this through anthropology rather than theology. As a matter of fact I see no reason for theology at all from the Mormon perspective.

You stated:

God is the same ousia as man's... but as man increases, there is God's increase also. Yes, Bible verses do support this which is present in both Catholic and LDS teaching.

Please show me where the Catholic Church teaches that as man increases, there is God's increase also? This is absolutely opposed to Catholic teaching because in contradicts God's unchanging nature. God is, from eternity, all-knowing, all-powerful, all loving, all merciful, never changing. In other words God does not increase in anything because there is nothing in which to increase. He already possesses all knowledge and all power and all authority. So in what shall God increase?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is, from eternity, all-knowing, all-powerful, all loving, all merciful, never changing. In other words God does not increase in anything because there is nothing in which to increase. He already possesses all knowledge and all power and all authority. So in what shall God increase?

Amen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus has a divine nature as well as a human nature. But he was eternally with the Father before the incarnation. My only real point is that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be fully grasped by humans, but it is made even more difficult if one imagines God to be simply an exalted man. From the Catholic perspective he can exist in any manner he chooses to exist even if it does not conform with the human experience or the world in which we live. Three Persons in one divine Being. This is not a human notion, but a divine revelation beyond our complete understanding.

Ok that's fine (btw, Latter-day Saints don't believe that there is anything "simply" about God, as if there are some limitations on Him, or that He is "merely" something. More on that later).

From the Latter-day Saint perspective, God can reveal Himself in a way that can be understood by humans. Now, this certainly does not mean that we fully comprehend Him. It doesn't mean that we invent or "imagine" what we want God to be. Instead, it means that, in the Latter-day Saint viewpoint, God has revealed Himself in a certain way that our finite minds can comprehend (which is not the same as saying we fully comprehend God).

The reason why I asked you that question was because you stated-"I would think that it would be impossible to accept the doctrine of the Trinty with the Mormon view of the nature of God. If he does have a body of flesh and bone, like us, then he cannot be three persons in one being." Now, it is important to state that Latter-day Saints do not believe that the Father's body is like ours. Instead, He, like the Son, possesses a glorified body. So, my question is, if having a body precludes "three persons in one being", then does not the Son having a body also preclude "three persons in one being"? If not, why not? Also, what is the definition of "three persons in one being", since this must have some specific, comprehensible definition to be able to say that some concept (having a body) precludes it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this were true, I could understand one believing that they could know God by simply studying humans. We could do this through anthropology rather than theology. As a matter of fact I see no reason for theology at all from the Mormon perspective.

I don't believe that anatess said that we can "know God by simply studying humans", as if that was the end of it. What he/she did say was "The more we know about who we are, the more we know and understand God." In my understanding of this statement, this is not some sort of anthropological study. Instead, we can come to know a lot about God by looking to His creations, most especially those created in His image and likeness, mankind. If we come to know more about who we really are, that certainly means that we can come to know much about God, in whose image and likeness we are created in. God's creation points towards Him.

While Latter-day Saints certainly believe that, as children of God, we are not of a completely different "kind" than Him, that does not mean that His divinity is diminished, or that God is "merely" something. Theology is certainly relevant to the Latter-day Saint perspective (I see no reason why it would not be, since we believe in and worship the Divine, i.e. God). For Latter-day Saints, the greatest way to know God is through His divine Son, Jesus Christ, and through the direct experience of and communion with God.

One article that I like that is related to these issues is: The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis, by Blake Ostler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All very true, within our ability to understand. Does it not make sense that we cannot undertand something that is beyond our ability to understand? That does not mean that God cannot teach us to walk in the correct path. God teaches us to love, but no one can love as God loves. None of this means we are capable of fully understanding God's nature.

Please give me the quote where I said that we shouldn't try to know God. If you cannot find that quote (which you can't) then please refrain from making false statements about what I have said. It only shows that you cannot argue the case before you so you attempt to shift the issue to something you believe you can argue.

The "way" in which I am "walking" gives me great understanding, but not complete understanding. Nor does it give you complete understanding, inspite of your high opinion of your abilities. You completely ignored the Scripture verses I gave which say exactly what I am saying. Implicit in your last statement is the fact that you believe that you know God fully. If God is no greater than our minds, then he is no greater than us. My God is eternally greater than any of his creation, including you and me.

What is the difference when a person says "I cannot" from the person that says, "I will not"? The difference is in the statement -- There is none so blind as he that will not see.

I see only two possibilities as to why man does not love as G-d loves.

1. G-d made man to be inferior to himself forever and therefore man cannot love as he does - ever.

2. Man is by the creation of G-d; capable but must learn and acquire such an ability by learning from the master. Therefore if man does not acquire and learn to love as G-d does - it is because man chose not to follow G-d and love as he does.

I believe #2. That I and others (even you) are a divine work in progress. That by choice we can walk a divine path to acquire "all" things divine. Or we may choose to walk a different path.

It appears to me that you hold to #1 and in essence blame G-d for the failures of man.

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That could be the key, as a man thinks, so is he.

Each one confesses to what they understand at the moment.

As long as we don't stop believing what we do not yet see, it may come more clearly into view.

Faith is the assurance of things hopes for, the conviction of things not seen.

(Heb.11;1 New American standard)

pardon the interruption, it is very interesting to read this communication you are sharing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

Ok that's fine (btw, Latter-day Saints don't believe that there is anything "simply" about God, as if there are some limitations on Him, or that He is "merely" something. More on that later).

From the Latter-day Saint perspective, God can reveal Himself in a way that can be understood by humans. Now, this certainly does not mean that we fully comprehend Him. It doesn't mean that we invent or "imagine" what we want God to be. Instead, it means that, in the Latter-day Saint viewpoint, God has revealed Himself in a certain way that our finite minds can comprehend (which is not the same as saying we fully comprehend God).

The reason why I asked you that question was because you stated-"I would think that it would be impossible to accept the doctrine of the Trinty with the Mormon view of the nature of God. If he does have a body of flesh and bone, like us, then he cannot be three persons in one being." Now, it is important to state that Latter-day Saints do not believe that the Father's body is like ours. Instead, He, like the Son, possesses a glorified body. So, my question is, if having a body precludes "three persons in one being", then does not the Son having a body also preclude "three persons in one being"? If not, why not? Also, what is the definition of "three persons in one being", since this must have some specific, comprehensible definition to be able to say that some concept (having a body) precludes it.

Sorry I've been away for so long (even if there are many here that would rejoice at my absence :P).

You ask an important question and I need to clarify what I mean. It is the perception of God as once a man that I think causes the problem. Yes, you are correct that a glorified body (that can walk through walls, etc.) presents no problem, nevertheless the idea of God, beginning as a man would, in my opinion, make it more difficult to grasp the concept of the Trinty. I could be very wrong here as I am trying to see this from a Mormon perspective which admittedly requires at least partial guess work on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I've been away for so long (even if there are many here that would rejoice at my absence :P).

You ask an important question and I need to clarify what I mean. It is the perception of God as once a man that I think causes the problem. Yes, you are correct that a glorified body (that can walk through walls, etc.) presents no problem, nevertheless the idea of God, beginning as a man would, in my opinion, make it more difficult to grasp the concept of the Trinty. I could be very wrong here as I am trying to see this from a Mormon perspective which admittedly requires at least partial guess work on my part.

For the record - I like you and I like talking with you.

The best way to understand the LDS concept of man becoming like G-d is through the example of Jesus Christ. Jesus is for LDS the example of everything that G-d has been, is and will be. The problem is thinking temporally (or time based). To make the concept simple.

Man is as G-d once was -- the example here is Jesus and his presentation to humanity as he walked as a man among mortals with the ability to die as all men will suffer death.

As G-d is man may become - again the example is Jesus Christ being the example for all men - What manner of men should we be - even as he was. Therefore he is our example. But as Jesus was resurrected and sat on the right hand next to G-d so can man be resurrected and sit down on the right hand just as Jesus did. Therefor Jesus is the example of a man being G-d or as the scriptures say one with G-d to sit at his right hand.

But to say that Jesus and G-d "started out" as a man - is a false understanding and an improper "twist" of the LDS doctrine - Interesting in LDS doctrine not even man "started out" as a man but rather started out as a son or daughter of G-d the Father.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record - I like you and I like talking with you.

The best way to understand the LDS concept of man becoming like G-d is through the example of Jesus Christ. Jesus is for LDS the example of everything that G-d has been, is and will be. The problem is thinking temporally (or time based). To make the concept simple.

Man is as G-d once was -- the example here is Jesus and his presentation to humanity as he walked as a man among mortals with the ability to die as all men will suffer death.

As G-d is man may become - again the example is Jesus Christ being the example for all men - What manner of men should we be - even as he was. Therefore he is our example. But as Jesus was resurrected and sat on the right hand next to G-d so can man be resurrected and sit down on the right hand just as Jesus did. Therefor Jesus is the example of a man being G-d or as the scriptures say one with G-d to sit at his right hand.

But to say that Jesus and G-d "started out" as a man - is a false understanding and an improper "twist" of the LDS doctrine - Interesting in LDS doctrine not even man "started out" as a man but rather started out as a son or daughter of G-d the Father.

The Traveler

Hey Traveler. Good to talk with you again.

I am a little confused as to how Jesus enters into all of this. He was God before he became man and never ceased being God even in his humanity. So how is it that Christ was God before he was man if God was once as we are now?

One more question. From where did God the Father progress if he was once as we are now?

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Traveler. Good to talk with you again.

I am a little confused as to how Jesus enters into all of this. He was God before he became man and never ceased being God even in his humanity. So how is it that Christ was God before he was man if God was once as we are now?

One more question. From where did God the Father progress if he was once as we are now?

Thanks.

Because of the fall man is separated from the Father. We LDS understand that because of the fall Jesus is our "Mediator" with the Father. As the mediator - all things of the Father must come to us through Jesus Christ. This makes Jesus Christ the only G-d for fallen man through which redemption (which is the return to the Father) can come.

Thus Jesus is the only example of G-d we have and the only way to understand the Father (while in our "fallen" state) is through Jesus Christ. There is nothing we can understand of G-d (including the Father) that we can learn outside of what Christ demonstrates for us. In other words Jesus Christ is the example of G-d and all things of G-d that we must understand. There is no question of G-d that we can ask that does not have answer in Jesus Christ. Therefore anything of G-d, including the Father that is not demonstrated by Jesus Christ is unwarranted and unusable speculation.

Therefore to understand G-d it is necessary to understand that G-d once was a man - this is clearly demonstrated by Jesus Christ and to any actual Christian this should not be a doctrine of any question or criticism. Likewise it seems very logical to me to understand that Jesus Christ demonstrated that a man (himself) can become G-d and one with the Father - Jesus taught his Apostles that man should follow him and inherit by right of heir - even joint heir with Christ "All that the Father has" and be one with G-d the Father just as he, Jesus Christ is.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of the fall man is separated from the Father. We LDS understand that because of the fall Jesus is our "Mediator" with the Father. As the mediator - all things of the Father must come to us through Jesus Christ. This makes Jesus Christ the only G-d for fallen man through which redemption (which is the return to the Father) can come.

Agreed.

Thus Jesus is the only example of G-d we have and the only way to understand the Father (while in our "fallen" state) is through Jesus Christ. There is nothing we can understand of G-d (including the Father) that we can learn outside of what Christ demonstrates for us. In other words Jesus Christ is the example of G-d and all things of G-d that we must understand. There is no question of G-d that we can ask that does not have answer in Jesus Christ. Therefore anything of G-d, including the Father that is not demonstrated by Jesus Christ is unwarranted and unusable speculation.

Again I agree. But you are leaving part of it out. We know that Jesus was God before he became incarnate. Jesus said nothing of his Father ever becoming incarnate. Jesus did the Father's will (because they have the same will) but he did things the Father did not do. The Father was not crucified. Likewise Jesus became man, but not a word of the Father ever becoming man. Do you see what I mean?

I have read the entirety of your post but am only responding to this part because that is really my question. Jesus was God before he was man. So he did not progress to Godhood, he actually did the opposite. He humbled himself to become man. Why did he have to humble himself? Because he was already God. This is quite different than the Mormon idea of progression and the logic that follows, (i.e. if I can progress to godhood then the Father, being God, must have progressed from manhood).

And then we have to ask what about the Holy Spirit? You do believe he is God, correct? Was the Holy Spirit also a man who progressed to be God? Yet the Holy Spirit has no body, according to your own faith. Do you see why I'm a little confused?

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