Our pre/post mortal name?

[Traveler]

Genesis 1:27 says man was made in the same image as God. An image is a reflection, not a copy of an original.

tselem (tseh'-lem)

a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence, a representative figure, especially an idol -- image, vain shew.

John 4:24 says God is spirit.

Col. 1:17 says He is before all things and by Him all things consist.

1 Cor 15:44-> explains that man is an earthly body 1st and a spiritual body 2nd while Phil. 2 shows Christ being in the form of God, took on the body of a man.

A non-LDS Christian believes God is self-existent, without beginning and end. God is also omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent. Mankind is not. Man is carnal, created, and definitely not omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. God is spirit, Christ took on flesh while man was created first as flesh. God exists on His own. Our existence is dependent on God. So, God and man differ in more than title and level of progression.

I know this is quite different from LDS teachings. We approach the nature of God from different perspectives with different assumptions. So, we come to different conclusions.

You avoided my question concerning "substance". You also forgot to read the previous verse in Genesis that referenced (and thus modified) the term image - the two terms image and likeness in the statement "image after our likeness".

There are several statements you reference that are contradictions. First that man is a model or representative figure of G-d or an image modeled after G-d. The problem here is that most non-lds imply there is no empirical model type representative figure nor can there be an empirical presentation of G-d - even though Jesus could not be differentiated for common men. The contradiction is in the question is Jesus real? If one could see him and touch him - was that different than seeing and touching the "substance" of G-d. Or did G-d deliberately deceive and mislead the world in Jesus being born an man child?

Then you say G-d is a spirit but as Jesus stood before his Apostles he made a specific point of both saying and proving by demonstration that he - G-d - was not just a spirit but a physical resurrected being. We LDS understand this to mean that even though G-d is an spirit with a spirit form that looked enough like any other man that he also is now (after his resurrection) a being with a body of flesh and bones.

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

Genesis is a very problematic text. For me, as a scientist, it does not make sense especially if it is interpreted literally.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but haven't we been through this exact conversation before? In any event, Genesis doesn't make sense scientifically because it is not a science book. It is a beautiful poem written for the pupose of telling the story of the fall of man and God's promise to send us a Savior. The creation account establishes God as the author of all creation and also tells us that man is the crown of that creation. How it happend exactly is not the purpose of the text.

Take a look at Genesis chapter 1 verse 10 and the end of the verse where it says, "and God saw that it was good". This is contrary to the definition of omnipotent as you have suggested and this construct is repeated in the creation process which by ancient poetic form - repetition, by definition, emphasizes the point rather than diminishes the concept.

I must say that I do not follow your logic at all. When a painter finishes a painting and thinks to himself "that is good" it does not follow that he was dependent upon anything or anyone else in order to paint the painting. How does God calling his creation "good" translate into being less than omnipotent?

In fact I do not know of any statement more highlighted and repeated in the creation text. It clearly points out that G-d was entirely dependent on principles, orders and laws that incorporate "good".

Again, you have completely lost me. How does God calling his creation "good" mean he is dependent upon something in order to create it. It is God that establishes what is good and what is not. The idea that the Creator would be subject to his creation is nonsensical. It is God who created all of the laws of physics and of morality. God did not find himself in a universe full of already existing laws to which he was subject. God is subject to nothing and no one. All are subject to him.

That G-d is a being of absolute consistency which is quite different than the definition you purported as an omnipotent being.

Maybe I need another cup of coffee. This just doesn't make any sense to me. I believe in a God who is never changing, who has been complete and entire in his power, authority, majesty and glory for eternity, before anything that exists, existed. This unchanging God is also ompnipotent. How does being unchanging conflict with being omnpipotent?

And I am really baffled that you claim to believe in a God who "is a being of absolute consistency". The last thing Mormon theology describes is a consistent, unchanging God. Rather it described a God who is constantly changing, from man to God and even then he continues to change through the process of "progression", having to continually acquire knowledge himself, as if he does not already possess all knowledge.

Not to convince you but to give you food for thought - since you understand that Genesis can be interpreted symbolically. There is an interesting symbol of Genesis that is not translated very well. The term in English is Cherubim. This is not a English word but a Greek word and the ancient Greek meaning of "Cherubim" was actually a "kind of" g-d. But as we break down the symbolism presented for Cherubim we can see parallels in such things as "Anointed" which is similar to the symbolism in the term "Christ". We also find interesting symbolism in "keeper of the way" to Jesus saying that he was the way. Another interesting symbol is a flaming sword - where else is the symbolism of a sword and flame used in describing the way of salvation of man? Try the book of Revelation?

"The word cherub (cherubim is the Hebrew masculine plural) is a word borrowed from the Assyrian kirubu, from karâbu, "to be near", hence it means near ones, familiars, personal servants, bodyguards, courtiers. It was commonly used of those heavenly spirits, who closely surrounded the Majesty of God and paid Him intimate service. Hence it came to mean as much as "Angelic Spirit". (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Paul tells us that the "complete" understanding of the symbolic meaning of Cherubim cannot be found in scripture. Interesting symbolic thought? But one last interesting symbolic use of Cherubim comes in Exodus at the mercy seat where one is placed at the right hand of G-d and one at the left hand of G-d. Stephen (your name sake) saw Jesus (symbolically?) at the right hand of G-d and it is generally understood (symbolically?) that Satan and his followers are at the left hand of G-d.

Generally understood by whom? Lucifer, now Satan, does not live in the heavenly realm with Jesus. Remember, he and 1/3 of the angles were thrown out of heaven. How can Satan be sitting at the left hand of God when he has been relegated to the netherworld?

But Exodus says something very interesting symbolically about the Cherubim at the mercy seat. It is interpreted into English as "the two shall face each other" - But I have discussed this with several Rabi that tell me a more literal translation is given in a "variant" reading that would be "the two brothers shall face each other". The only symbolic sense I can make of this very "poetic" symbolism is Christ and Satan (both of whom were "anointed"). But if you can offer a better understanding of the ancient "poetic" symbolism - I would be quite interested. And the only sense of this I have found is in LDS theology.

The Traveler

From a Catholic standpoint, the entire idea of Jesus and Lucifer being brothers is so objectionable that I don't know where to even begin. Jesus is God. Lucifer is not. Jesus is the Creator. Lucifer is a creation. Jesus is God's only begotten Son. He did not "beget" Lucifer. He created him. Lucifer was created to be the most beautiful of angels. He rebelled against God's plan to save humanity and was forever condemned to the darkness of hell.

Cherubim are an order of angels. Jesus is not an angel, he is God, The angels are there to adore God. Satan, even though an angel, was an archangel, not a cherubim, and he certainly does not adore God. So no, for so many reasons, the cherubim do not in any way represent either Jesus or Lucifer and therefore do not support any theory of them being brothers.

Understanding our differences concerning the nature of God is all important in understanding our differences on this issue. We believe God is absolutely unique in his nature; eternal, uncreated, the absolute Perfection, all knowing, all powreful, all loving, all merciful, ever present. We call this nature "divine" and attribute it only to God. Everything else, without exception, was created from nothing but the power of God, the source of all things, including angels, who are pure, rational, free-willed spirits, and humans who comprise both flesh and spirit or soul. Each are distinct from the other as far as their "species" is concerned. That is why Jesus cannot be Lucifer's brother. It would be like me calling a horse my brother.

It is my understanding that you make no distinction between the nature of God, the nature of angels or the nature of man, believing we are all made of the same "stuff", so to speak. This makes your theory somewhat more plausible, but you still have to deal with the fact that Jesus is God's only begotten Son. Even we are sons and daughters by adoption, not by our nature, as St. Paul tells us. How then could Jesus be a brother to Lucifer, even within your own belief structure?

Edited March 5, 2013 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

Yes, this is my understanding of LDS doctrine. The Doctrine and Covenants teaches:

So then you do not believe that The only "uncreated" things that non-LDS Christians believe in are God and his Christ, correct? I very well could be misunderstanding something here.

The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; and when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.

Okay, that is what I thought.

For the record, I was not speaking about you personally or even about Catholicism. I was speaking about non-LDS Christians of my general acquaintance, who on the whole tend to accept Genesis as some sort of literal, mechanical, blow-by-blow account of creation.

Yeah, I've run into the same thing especially among Fundamentalist groups. The one I love is that the universe is is only six thousand years old. Even when I point out that we can measure light from sources thousands of light years away they are not swayed. Amazing.

I speak based on my understanding of the meaning of words. If God is a Being that "creates" things by essentially zapping them into existence out of nothing, then that is magic, in my mind.

For a human it would be magic. For God it would be natural, which for God means supernatural, as he is above created nature. No biggy either way.

This is roughly true, sort of. Latter-day Saints take a far more literal view of God as Father than do most other Christians. Whether this extends so far as to say that God is "biologically human" is a far more speculative thing. Many Latter-day Saints do accept this, but I do not know that the LDS Church ever teaches this anywhere. My opinion is that such a perspective is rooted in the ignorance of being mortal and not having sufficient information about eternal reality to formulate a better model.

Sounds very reasonable to me.

Thanks for the responses, Stephen.

And you as well.

[SteveVH]

EDIT: I just reread that last comment by Stephen and realized I didn't address his understanding that we and God "are all the same species, God having progressed from a man." This is based on a couplet from Elder Snow ("As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become") and some elements of the record of Joseph Smith's discourse at the funeral of King Follett. This is a pretty slender base on which to construct a robust understanding of LDS belief. I think it's indisputable that orthodox LDS doctrine teaches that our Father was once a man (meaning a mortal being) who, through a process of exaltation, attained his Godly state. (Note that I am not proclaiming this as doctrine, just as my understanding of our doctrine. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.)

What is nowhere stated or even implied is that God was once a flawed, sinful man, as we are flawed, sinful men and women. On the contrary, of the vanishingly few scriptures we have that seem at all to touch, however tangentially, on this point, the best idea we have is that the Father may have stood in the same position as our Lord and Savior now stands. Since no one who can call himself a Christian disputes the perfection and divinity of Christ, the idea that the Father may have stood in that same place or function should raise no questions about his divinity or perfection, whether or not you believe it.

Thanks for this Vort and I would agree with your line of thinking. I have seen people accuse Mormons of believing that the Father was once a sinful man but have never seen any Mormon source actually state this. If it makes you feel any better, there are more myths about the Catholic Church than I can count, so we certainly have that in common. :)

Edited March 5, 2013 by StephenVH

[Traveler]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but haven't we been through this exact conversation before? In any event, Genesis doesn't make sense scientifically because it is not a science book. It is a beautiful poem written for the pupose of telling the story of the fall of man and God's promise to send us a Savior. The creation account establishes God as the author of all creation and also tells us that man is the crown of that creation. How it happend exactly is not the purpose of the text.

I do not recall we ever got into understanding anything from a poetic stand point and the meaning of symbolism in poetry. Just because I am a scientist that does not mean that I cannot gain anything from poetic symbolism.

I must say that I do not follow your logic at all. When a painter finishes a painting and thinks to himself "that is good" it does not follow that he was dependent upon anything or anyone else in order to paint the painting. How does God calling his creation "good" translate into being less than omnipotent?

You are making exactly my point - an omnipotent being would not see that it was good but declare it good without having to see it. You completely changed the meaning of the scripture by leaving out the verb "see". That one word changes everything. G-d saw that it was good - he evaluated it and made a determination. That is contrary to omnipotence - which by character would do as you tried to imply - to say it is a certain way (because that is how it was done) without any evaluation, checking or seeing it. Now this particular symbolic poetic structure is repeated more than once. That is so you know that it is the most important understanding G-d wants you to get out of it. If you look at Genesis (same poetic symbolic structure) 41 verse 32 we are instructed by G-d about repeating poetic structures. And the symbolic referenced of G-d "seeing" is referenced more than a "doubling" twice in the Genesis creation account.

Again, you have completely lost me. How does God calling his creation "good" mean he is dependent upon something in order to create it. It is God that establishes what is good and what is not. The idea that the Creator would be subject to his creation is nonsensical. It is God who created all of the laws of physics and of morality. God did not find himself in a universe full of already existing laws to which he was subject. God is subject to nothing and no one. All are subject to him.

Maybe I need another cup of coffee. This just doesn't make any sense to me. I believe in a God who is never changing, who has been complete and entire in his power, authority, majesty and glory for eternity, before anything that exists, existed. This unchanging God is also ompnipotent. How does being unchanging conflict with being omnpipotent?

Again you are confusing ancient poetic symbols. Anciently a concept of unchanging had less to do with time and methodologies and more to do with making per-determinations - like in creating a plan and sticking to the original plan without having to make adjustments or changes in the plan. Those that have studied poetic structures have grave problems reconciling the - unchanging plan of G-d with questions surrounding the Fall of Adam and free will verses determinism.

For example if we define G-d as unchanging and omnipotent - then we must understand that G-d planned and made sure that all the innocent children of Adam and Eve would be born as fallen creatures. If that was not his unchanging plan - then G-d is not omnipotent - at least in the way and characteristic that you are conveying to me.

And I am really baffled that you claim to believe in a God who "is a being of absolute consistency". The last thing Mormon theology describes is a consistent, unchanging God. Rather it described a God who is constantly changing, from man to God and even then he continues to change through the process of "progression", having to continually acquire knowledge himself, as if he does not already possess all knowledge.

"The word cherub (cherubim is the Hebrew masculine plural) is a word borrowed from the Assyrian kirubu, from karâbu, "to be near", hence it means near ones, familiars, personal servants, bodyguards, courtiers. It was commonly used of those heavenly spirits, who closely surrounded the Majesty of God and paid Him intimate service. Hence it came to mean as much as "Angelic Spirit". (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Generally understood by whom? Lucifer, now Satan, does not live in the heavenly realm with Jesus. Remember, he and 1/3 of the angles were thrown out of heaven. How can Satan be sitting at the left hand of God when he has been relegated to the netherworld?

From a Catholic standpoint, the entire idea of Jesus and Lucifer being brothers is so objectionable that I don't know where to even begin. Jesus is God. Lucifer is not. Jesus is the Creator. Lucifer is a creation. Jesus is God's only begotten Son. He did not "beget" Lucifer. He created him. Lucifer was created to be the most beautiful of angels. He rebelled against God's plan to save humanity and was forever condemned to the darkness of hell.

Cherubim are an order of angels. Jesus is not an angel, he is God, The angels are there to adore God. Satan, even though an angel, was an archangel, not a cherubim, and he certainly does not adore God. So no, for so many reasons, the cherubim do not in any way represent either Jesus or Lucifer and therefore do not support any theory of them being brothers.

Understanding our differences concerning the nature of God is all important in understanding our differences on this issue. We believe God is absolutely unique in his nature; eternal, uncreated, the absolute Perfection, all knowing, all powreful, all loving, all merciful, ever present. We call this nature "divine" and attribute it only to God. Everything else, without exception, was created from nothing but the power of God, the source of all things, including angels, who are pure, rational, free-willed spirits, and humans who comprise both flesh and spirit or soul. Each are distinct from the other as far as their "species" is concerned. That is why Jesus cannot be Lucifer's brother. It would be like me calling a horse my brother.

It is my understanding that you make no distinction between the nature of God, the nature of angels or the nature of man, believing we are all made of the same "stuff", so to speak. This makes your theory somewhat more plausible, but you still have to deal with the fact that Jesus is God's only begotten Son. Even we are sons and daughters by adoption, not by our nature, as St. Paul tells us. How then could Jesus be a brother to Lucifer, even within your own belief structure?

Fine - then who symbolically is at the right hand of G-d and who is at the left hand and how are they brothers? Going back to all the symbolic references given to the Cherubim since this is poetry - what symbols of Cherubim are not symbols of Christ (Messiah)? What are the poetic symbols and how do they apply? Once we understand the symbols then I think we can make comparisons to other "symbols" in scripture but before we go off on tangents - help me understand what you are doing to the ancient poetic structure of Genesis?

The Traveler

[Roseslipper]

Thanks for the clarifications, Stephen. You asked a few questions that I would like to try to address.

Yes, this is my understanding of LDS doctrine. The Doctrine and Covenants teaches:

The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; and when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.

For the record, I was not speaking about you personally or even about Catholicism. I was speaking about non-LDS Christians of my general acquaintance, who on the whole tend to accept Genesis as some sort of literal, mechanical, blow-by-blow account of creation.

I speak based on my understanding of the meaning of words. If God is a Being that "creates" things by essentially zapping them into existence out of nothing, then that is magic, in my mind.

This is roughly true, sort of. Latter-day Saints take a far more literal view of God as Father than do most other Christians. Whether this extends so far as to say that God is "biologically human" is a far more speculative thing. Many Latter-day Saints do accept this, but I do not know that the LDS Church ever teaches this anywhere. My opinion is that such a perspective is rooted in the ignorance of being mortal and not having sufficient information about eternal reality to formulate a better model.

Thanks for the responses, Stephen.

EDIT: I just reread that last comment by Stephen and realized I didn't address his understanding that we and God "are all the same species, God having progressed from a man." This is based on a couplet from Elder Snow ("As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become") and some elements of the record of Joseph Smith's discourse at the funeral of King Follett. This is a pretty slender base on which to construct a robust understanding of LDS belief. I think it's indisputable that orthodox LDS doctrine teaches that our Father was once a man (meaning a mortal being) who, through a process of exaltation, attained his Godly state. (Note that I am not proclaiming this as doctrine, just as my understanding of our doctrine. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.)

What is nowhere stated or even implied is that God was once a flawed, sinful man, as we are flawed, sinful men and women. On the contrary, of the vanishingly few scriptures we have that seem at all to touch, however tangentially, on this point, the best idea we have is that the Father may have stood in the same position as our Lord and Savior now stands. Since no one who can call himself a Christian disputes the perfection and divinity of Christ, the idea that the Father may have stood in that same place or function should raise no questions about his divinity or perfection, whether or not you believe it.

I wish I could speak like you...!!!!

[Vort]

I wish I could speak like you...!!!!

When you're a fifty-year-old man with more schooling than good sense, your wish will be granted. :)

[Anddenex]

I wish I could speak like you...!!!!

There are a dozen or more people on LDS.net who write profoundly, Vort being one of them. As such, I more fully understand Moroni's words now more than ever when he stated (likening the scripture unto myself)

"Behold, thou hast not made [me] mighty in writing like unto [my] brother [Vort, JAG, Wingnut (Sista), MoE]..." (There are plenty of others but didn't want to make a huge list) :)

EDIT: I take comfort in Moroni's word and the Lord's reply "when write we behold [my] weakness, and stumble because of the placing of [my] words..."

The Lord's response is for "stumblers" like myself to feel a little grateful "Fools mock, but they shall mourn." You have been warned mockers

Edited March 5, 2013 by Anddenex

[SteveVH]

I do not recall we ever got into understanding anything from a poetic stand point and the meaning of symbolism in poetry. Just because I am a scientist that does not mean that I cannot gain anything from poetic symbolism.

Okay, it must have been another forum.

You are making exactly my point - an omnipotent being would not see that it was good but declare it good without having to see it. You completely changed the meaning of the scripture by leaving out the verb "see". That one word changes everything. G-d saw that it was good - he evaluated it and made a determination.

Are you saying that if he created it from nothing he could not then look upon it and see that it waa good? Of course, God knew it was good before he even created it. Remember we are dealing with human language to describe a divine event, not to mention that we are reading poetic language.

That is contrary to omnipotence - which by character would do as you tried to imply - to say it is a certain way (because that is how it was done) without any evaluation, checking or seeing it. Now this particular symbolic poetic structure is repeated more than once. That is so you know that it is the most important understanding G-d wants you to get out of it. If you look at Genesis (same poetic symbolic structure) 41 verse 32 we are instructed by G-d about repeating poetic structures. And the symbolic referenced of G-d "seeing" is referenced more than a "doubling" twice in the Genesis creation account.

You have somehow convinced yourself that because God "saw" that his creation was good then he could not have created what he subsequently saw? I'm sorry, but that just seems illogical to me and not a premise with which I would agree.

Again you are confusing ancient poetic symbols. Anciently a concept of unchanging had less to do with time and methodologies and more to do with making per-determinations - like in creating a plan and sticking to the original plan without having to make adjustments or changes in the plan.

What is your source for this position? The word "unchanging" is pretty self-explanatory. It means one does not change. The only "unchangeable" being is God.

Those that have studied poetic structures have grave problems reconciling the - unchanging plan of G-d with questions surrounding the Fall of Adam and free will verses determinism.

And who are these people? Who are you referencing that holds this position?

For example if we define G-d as unchanging and omnipotent - then we must understand that G-d planned and made sure that all the innocent children of Adam and Eve would be born as fallen creatures.

If that was not his unchanging plan - then G-d is not omnipotent - at least in the way and characteristic that you are conveying to me.

Knowing what someone or something will do is not the same as desiring it or causing it. Yes, God knew from the bgenning that man would disobey him and that he would have to send his only begotten Son to save them. God has incorporated all of the choices made by angels and man into his perfect plan and transforms evil into an even greater good. Your phrasing "G-d planned and made sure" implies that God desired and caused man to fall from grace. That is a falsehood.

Fine - then who symbolically is at the right hand of G-d and who is at the left hand and how are they brothers?

Your question assumes an erroneous premise. Jesus is at the right hand of God because has been given all power and authority by the Father. But Jesus is God; the eternal Son of the Father. The cherubim do not represent Christ or Lucifer at all. And you are assuming that some variant of the translation "cherubim" to "brothers" is in fact what the author meant to say. Even so, it would only mean that the cherubim were brothers.

Edited March 5, 2013 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

Call For References, please. At what point, IC, did you copyright or trademark the term "non-LDS Christian" and thus gain the authority to define it for the rest of us?

Or to be a bit more blunt, who are you to speak on behalf of all "non-LDS Christians" everywhere?

Why not try the more intellectually honest and factually accurate phrase "my particular Christian sect believes"?

I do so tire of sectarian evangelicals presuming- without consideration or evidence- that their particular, peculiar interpretation is somehow definitive of what "all true Christians" believe.

I hate to break it to you, but your personal (sectarian) orthodoxy is NOT the one and only litmus test of "true" Christianity.

This discussion will progress more smoothly once you realize that you do not have the authority to dictate terms for, on behalf of, or to, the rest of Christendom.

Well, I would feel very safe in making this statement. Of all of the different Christian denominations of which I am aware (and I speak with many of them on a daily basis) I have never known of any who ascribe to the Mormon notion of the nature of God, not one. How's that?

Edited March 5, 2013 by StephenVH

[Traveler]

Okay, it must have been another forum.

It was this forum - but you always say it is a poetic structure with symbolism - but you never talk about poetic the symbolism and how it applies. All references are to literal interpretations.

Are you saying that if he created it from nothing he could not then look upon it and see that it waa good? Of course, God knew it was good before he even created it. Remember we are dealing with human language to describe a divine event, not to mention that we are reading poetic language.

We are talking about G-d's use of poetic symbolism - and it is symbolism used in the creation more than any other symbolism. All scholars say and the scriptures indicate that the reason for repetitive symbolism is to draw attention to an important notion that man can understand. Any human that has "created" something realizes the importance of testing it and checking it out. If there is other symbolic meaning you draw form it - I want to know what it is and you use the poetic symbols to apply to you.

You have somehow convinced yourself that because God "saw" that his creation was good then he could not have created what he subsequently saw? I'm sorry, but that just seems illogical to me and not a premise with which I would agree.

What is your source for this position? The word "unchanging" is pretty self-explanatory. It means one does not change. The only "unchangeable" being is God.

Unchanging is as you say - The question is two parts. First does an omnipotent being change their plan? And Second, can anything happen that is not caused by a omnipotent being?

And who are these people? Who are you referencing that holds this position?

Knowing what someone or something will do is not the same as desiring it or causing it. Yes, God knew from the bgenning that man would disobey him and that he would have to send his only begotten Son to save them. God has incorporated all of the choices made by angels and man into his perfect plan and transforms evil into an even greater good. Your phrasing "G-d planned and made sure" implies that God desired and caused man to fall from grace. That is a falsehood.

We are discussing omnipotence. How can there be any difference between what an omnipotent being allows to happen and what they cause to happen. Thus the question is if there anything, however so insignificant that can occur other than what an omnipotent being designs and causes to happen. If there is something else that can even happen that was not caused by an omnipotent being - how can we say that being is omnipotent?

Your question assumes an erroneous premise. Jesus is at the right hand of God because has been given all power and authority by the Father. But Jesus is God; the eternal Son of the Father. The cherubim do not represent Christ or Lucifer at all. And you are assuming that some variant of the translation "cherubim" to "brothers" is in fact what the author meant to say. Even so, it would only mean that the cherubim were brothers.

Here we are talking about poetic symbolism. What I am asking is if you can identify symbolism that does not fit with the Messiah? In the story of Cinderella the ugly stepsister places her foot in the slipper and declares it to be a perfect fit. What I am asking is if the symbolic slipper fits the Messiah perfectly or someone else - If these are Messianic symbols, why do you keep saying it is a perfect fit on anyone else? Can you give me any poetic symbol from scripture that is associated with Cherubim that is not Messianic and does not fit the "foot" of the Messiah?

Let me list a few possibilities - A flame and a sword, placed at the right hand of G-d, "keeper" of the way to the tree of life, an anointing. What else?

Who are these two opposing Brothers? one considered the right hand and the other the left hand of G-d. Again remember we are talking about poetic symbolism. When you come before the judgement seat of G-d - who do you - of two individuals - one at the right hand and one at the left hand of G-d do you expect to be there to challenge each other for your soul?

The Traveler

[selek]

Well, I would feel very safe in making this statement. Of all of the different Christian denominations of which I am aware (and I speak with many of them on a daily basis) I have never known of any who ascribe to the Mormon notion of the nature of God, not one. How's that?

Except for the implied division between "Christian" and "Mormon", I would have no problem with it, as you offered a qualified, rather than universal, statement (as bolded and underlined above).

[dahlia]

Since you have addressed this to Christians I will just point out that any pre-mortal existence is a fairly unique Mormon idea that is not held by any other Christians that I am aware of. Possibly some of the early Adventist groups, but I'm not sure. It is certainly not a concept held by mainstream Christianity.

You're probably right as far as the theology, but I think that it is a common notion (I'm not sure if I'd say Western notion, but maybe) that babies are in heaven before they come to earth. You see the depiction quite frequently in movies, TV, and commercials.

So, it may not be theologically correct, but I don't think it rubs people the wrong way.

Maybe I just didn't pay that much attention in those 12 years of Catechism class, but I always thought that Catholics believed babies were in heaven before birth. When the elders discussed the pre-existence in the lessons, I had no problem with it. I thought that any parent could tell that their child came with his/her own personality, and that said personality wasn't a just a result of atoms and neurons getting together, but were part of the very being of that child, even as a newborn.

I understand about not coming into existence until the act of creation, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but in the back of my mind, I'm sure I always believed that babies' spirits were around and waiting to be born. Maybe I was already Mormon and didn't know it.

[SteveVH]

You're probably right as far as the theology, but I think that it is a common notion (I'm not sure if I'd say Western notion, but maybe) that babies are in heaven before they come to earth. You see the depiction quite frequently in movies, TV, and commercials.

So, it may not be theologically correct, but I don't think it rubs people the wrong way.

Well you may be right but I'm not really interested in how it "rubs" people. I know my religion rubs many people the wrong way but I believe it because I believe it is true.

Maybe I just didn't pay that much attention in those 12 years of Catechism class, but I always thought that Catholics believed babies were in heaven before birth.

That is certainly not Catholic teaching. No telling what one might hear from any particluar person, however. By the way, I didn't pay very good attention either. :)

When the elders discussed the pre-existence in the lessons, I had no problem with it. I thought that any parent could tell that their child came with his/her own personality, and that said personality wasn't a just a result of atoms and neurons getting together, but were part of the very being of that child, even as a newborn.

Well I agree with you from the aspect that it is fairly self-evident that a baby is much more than atoms and neutrons but why does that mean they had to exist before they were born? Is God not capable of forming us in any way he desires? We believe that at the moment of conception the fertilized egg becomes a human person, complete with a soul and this is all the doing of our Lord. We cooperate in God's creation and thus are "procreators". The only place any of us existed before we were born was in the mind of God. It is he who "knit us in our mothers wombs".

I understand about not coming into existence until the act of creation, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but in the back of my mind, I'm sure I always believed that babies' spirits were around and waiting to be born. Maybe I was already Mormon and didn't know it.

Well, we hear a lot of things growing up, but I can assure you that this is not Catholic teaching.

Edited March 6, 2013 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

Except for the implied division between "Christian" and "Mormon", I would have no problem with it, as you offered a qualified, rather than universal, statement (as bolded and underlined above).

I don't know why you choose to believe that I am making any division. I could have just as well said that I know of no other Christian denomination that ascribes to a certain belief held by Presbyterians. I am making no judgment here as to who is Christian and who is not. But you cannot pretend that the LDS faith is not unique in its beliefs among Christian denominations.

I get the distinct feeling that you would prefer that non-Mormons not participate on this forum. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't know why you seem to bristle at nearly every post made by a non-Mormon, to the point of even reading in things that are not there. We're really not out to get you, okay?

[HiJolly]

I don't know why you choose to believe that I am making any division. I could have just as well said that I know of no other Christian denomination that ascribes to a certain belief held by Presbyterians. I am making no judgment here as to who is Christian and who is not. But you cannot pretend that the LDS faith is not unique in its beliefs among Christian denominations.

I get the distinct feeling that you would prefer that non-Mormons not participate on this forum. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't know why you seem to bristle at nearly every post made by a non-Mormon, to the point of even reading in things that are not there. We're really not out to get you, okay?

selek is a recent immigrant from this site: Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board and though he always tries to be nice here on this discussion site, he sometimes slips into the persona that he was sure he left behind there.

HiJolly

[Roseslipper]

all i can say is wow

[Traveler]

I don't know why you choose to believe that I am making any division. I could have just as well said that I know of no other Christian denomination that ascribes to a certain belief held by Presbyterians. I am making no judgment here as to who is Christian and who is not. But you cannot pretend that the LDS faith is not unique in its beliefs among Christian denominations.

I get the distinct feeling that you would prefer that non-Mormons not participate on this forum. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't know why you seem to bristle at nearly every post made by a non-Mormon, to the point of even reading in things that are not there. We're really not out to get you, okay?

Just a point of note here - if there was not some points of differences between LDS theology and other Christian theology then there would be no point or reason for LDS theology - or any point in discussing LDS theology. But in the same breath - I would expect that there is more in common than differences in those the purport to believe in the teachings of Christ. Otherwise the logical conclusion would be that the teachings themselves are too vague to make any real difference with man kind.

The Traveler

[dahlia]

Well you may be right but I'm not really interested in how it "rubs" people. I know my religion rubs many people the wrong way but I believe it because I believe it is true.

Oh jeez, I'm glad you weren't my missionary and I can only hope that you aren't being paid to teach anything to anybody. I just made an observation that people from many backgrounds consider babies as being 'around' in some way before birth.

Personally, I am unconcerned about names or anything else in the pre-mortal existence. I have enough to occupy my time and thoughts right here in this life.

[SteveVH]

Oh jeez, I'm glad you weren't my missionary and I can only hope that you aren't being paid to teach anything to anybody. I just made an observation that people from many backgrounds consider babies as being 'around' in some way before birth.

Personally, I am unconcerned about names or anything else in the pre-mortal existence. I have enough to occupy my time and thoughts right here in this life.

I certainly didn't mean to offend you in any way and just as I am asking another poster to lighten up a little, when I re-read my post I can see that I need to look in the mirror and say the same thing. What I did say was that you may be correct concerning some people's beliefs about babies in heaven. I know a lot of people who refer to deceased children as little angels in heaven, as well, which also conflicts with Church teaching. I was only trying to say that in discussing this on a religious forum, the beliefs of random people do not equate to the doctrines of either the LDS Church or the Catholic Church and therefore they just don't matter to me in that context. What you say however, is true. So please accept my apology for any offense I caused you.

Edited March 6, 2013 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

It was this forum - but you always say it is a poetic structure with symbolism - but you never talk about poetic the symbolism and how it applies. All references are to literal interpretations.

We are talking about G-d's use of poetic symbolism - and it is symbolism used in the creation more than any other symbolism. All scholars say and the scriptures indicate that the reason for repetitive symbolism is to draw attention to an important notion that man can understand. Any human that has "created" something realizes the importance of testing it and checking it out. If there is other symbolic meaning you draw form it - I want to know what it is and you use the poetic symbols to apply to you.

Okay Traveler, I will be happy to give you an interpretation of the creation account from a Catholic perspective. It gets very involved which is why I have tried the "nutshell" approach in presenting conclusions rather than methodology. You asked for it so please bear with me. :)

We first have to assess the genre of writing being used in Genesis. As you have already agreed, the style of writing is poetic prose rather than a science or text book. We also have to realize that Genesis is not the only biblical text that speaks of the creation account. We can look to Psalm 104 as well to gather more information as to the story telling techniques used by the ancient Jews, from a time, place and culture unknown by the modern world.

It becomes evident from the beginning that this text can in no way be viewed from a scientific standpoint. In Genesis 1 we see that light is made on the first day, but the sun, moon and stars are not created until day four. This is completley illogical from a scientific perspective. So we must either conclude that the human authors of this text were completely ignorant, or just nuts, or they are trying to convey something entirely different to the reader. What we find is that the purpose of the text is not to report scientific data but rather to convey a deep and profound theological meditation on the act of creation.

When we consider the creation account in Psalm 104 along with Genesis we begin to get a clearer picture of what was meant to be communicated. Both the creation account and Psalm 104 describe the heavens as a dome and the earth upheld by pillars because the author is attempting to communicate the meaning of creation, that being that creation is a temple. What did the Jews do in the temple? It is where where they praised and worshiped the Creator. So the creation account was given to establish that we do have a Creator and that our place in the world as the created is to give him worship and praise. It is not in the least to give a description of exactly how the world was created, but rather the foundational purpose of our existence.

Unchanging is as you say - The question is two parts. First does an omnipotent being change their plan?

No. He incorporates the free choices made by man into his perfect plan. All of history unfolds at once before the eyes of God. He knows what each of us will do before we do it. In anticipation of where you are going with this I must say that this in no way means that God is responsible for the poor choices made by mankind. He created rational beings with free will and will never interfere in that free will. But he uses those choices to further his plan; transforming evil into good until at last, good triumphs over evil. He did this by sending his Son as an expiation for our sins, who transformed the greatest evil ever committed, the killing of the Creator by the created, into the greatest good ever known in the universe, the defeat of death through the resurrection.

And Second, can anything happen that is not caused by a omnipotent being?

Yes. Evil can happen. Being all powerful doesn't mean being responsible for the acts of rational, free willed beings. God can no more cause evil to happen than the sun can cause darkness to fall on the earth while shinning upon it. I can hear it now: "So you're saying that God can't do everything. If he can't commit evil then he is not omnipotent." Once again, this is like requiring God to make 1+1=3 in order to prove his omnipotence. This is only flawed human logic at work.

We are discussing omnipotence. How can there be any difference between what an omnipotent being allows to happen and what they cause to happen.

Easy. As I have said on numerous occasions, God created beings capable of making moral decisions, free from any interference on his part. Is God responsible for creating the person? Yes. Is he responsible for that person's decisions in life? No, not if they are truly rational beings with free will.

Thus the question is if there anything, however so insignificant that can occur other than what an omnipotent being designs and causes to happen. If there is something else that can even happen that was not caused by an omnipotent being - how can we say that being is omnipotent?

You must understand that God is certainly capable of just doing away with the whole thing. Or he could very well have created a bunch of robots who do nothing on their own but only what they have been programed to do. Is God capable of stepping in and causing one to change their decision. Yes. Does he do that? No. So we cannot equate what God allows with what he is capable of doing. As I said, with a thought he could make the entire universe vaporize. But that is not God's plan. Instead He created free-willed beings who could make their own choices and he did this so that they could have the opportunity to choose love. Love does not exist unless there is also the choice of not loving. It is through love that we are united with our God and with each other. Love, the essence of God's nature, is so necessary that the risk of someone choosing otherwise is worth it.

Here we are talking about poetic symbolism. What I am asking is if you can identify symbolism that does not fit with the Messiah?

Can you give me any poetic symbol from scripture that is associated with Cherubim that is not Messianic and does not fit the "foot" of the Messiah?

I don't know if any of the references to cherubim represent Jesus. God sends angels as his messengers and guardians. In the case of the Gardem of Eden he placed a cherubim to guard the way to the tree of life. This is nothing strange. God sends angels as his messengers and as guardians throughout the Scriptures. That is one of their purposes. The flaming sword is the sword of God's judgment which stands between man and God's garden.

Let me list a few possibilities - A flame and a sword, placed at the right hand of G-d, "keeper" of the way to the tree of life, an anointing. What else?

As already stated, my interpretation is that the flaming sword represents God's justice. Now, I would agree that the flaming sword is in a sense a representation, a "type", or foreshadowing of Christ because only through Christ does man have access again to the tree of life.

Lets not forget, however, what instigated this conversation and that is your position that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers. You are trying to present evidence that the two cherubim above the Ark represent Jesus and Lucifer as brothers.

We must consider something very obvious here. The cherubim are guarding the Ark. What does the Arck represent? Is it not where God dwells in the temple? Jesus is God. So it is the Ark that represents Jesus, not the cherubim. The cherubim were placed on the atonement

cover as symbolic attendants marking the place of God's enthronment in his earthly kingdom.

Who are these two opposing Brothers?

In order for me to answer that question I would have to make the same assumption as you that the cherubim represent brothers. I do not make that assumption.

Again remember we are talking about poetic symbolism. When you come before the judgement seat of G-d - who do you - of two individuals - one at the right hand and one at the left hand of G-d do you expect to be there to challenge each other for your soul?

The battle for my soul is being fought as we speak. When I reach the judgment seat of God the battle will have already been won or lost.

Edited March 7, 2013 by StephenVH

[selek]

I don't know why you choose to believe that I am making any division.

As I stated, the distinction was implicit in your phrasing.

On the other hand, I accept your clarification that the perceived distinction was not deliberate.

But you cannot pretend that the LDS faith is not unique in its beliefs among Christian denominations.

The Church would be of poor little use if it were not.

We already have a surfeit of "Christian" churches each espousing their own particular sectarian practice, creed, or kitsch.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be of no value if it were simply one more variation of the common theme.

I get the distinct feeling that you would prefer that non-Mormons not participate on this forum. Maybe I'm wrong...

You are, but don't take it too hard.

Not everyone can be as consistently and unfailingly correct as I am.

...but I don't know why you seem to bristle at nearly every post made by a non-Mormon, to the point of even reading in things that are not there.

For the record, I categorically reject that characterization.

If a poster has something thoughtful or insightful to say, I can generally be counted upon to laud that poster's words- regardless of their announced faith or lack thereof. I have done so in several instances in your own case.

If a poster has genuine questions and displays a sincere interest in learning and understanding LDS thought on a particular matter, I am more than eager to assist them.

I do not, however, believe in sugar coating hard truths, nor in coddling or indulging those who are here only to flaunt their own ignorance or to stir up contention.

While we disagree on a number of points, our disagreements have thus far been civil, if not necessarily genteel- a state of affairs I have no interest in changing.

We're really not out to get you, okay?

I never suggested that you were.

Others, however, are not so "above board".

I have been doing amateur apologetics (frequenting boards such as these and answering questions in other venues) for a number of years now.

And to be perfectly blunt: there are people out there who will tell any lie, don any mask, and poison any well in order to attack and discredit the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

While an unpleasant reality, it is nonetheless an eternal verity- for both the LDS Church as well as the Catholic.

So before presuming to cluck your tongue at me for being "twitchy", you might do well to consider how I came by my scars.

Edited March 6, 2013 by selek

[Traveler]

Okay Traveler, I will be happy to give you an interpretation of the creation account from a Catholic perspective. It gets very involved which is why I have tried the "nutshell" approach in presenting conclusions rather than methodology. You asked for it so please bear with me. :)

We first have to assess the genre of writing being used in Genesis. As you have already agreed, the style of writing is poetic prose rather than a science or text book. We also have to realize that Genesis is not the only biblical text that speaks of the creation account. We can look to Psalm 104 as well to gather more information as to the story telling techniques used by the ancient Jews, from a time, place and culture unknown by the modern world.

It becomes evident from the beginning that this text can in no way be viewed from a scientific standpoint. In Genesis 1 we see that light is made on the first day, but the sun, moon and stars are not created until day four. This is completley illogical from a scientific perspective. So we must either conclude that the human authors of this text were completely ignorant, or just nuts, or they are trying to convey something entirely different to the reader. What we find is that the purpose of the text is not to report scientific data but rather to convey a deep and profound theological meditation on the act of creation.

.....

Thank you - this is both interesting and informative. I find it interesting that you have noted that the first step of the creation is in the statement - "Let there be light". I find two things interesting about this. One - we know that the symbolism does not refer to the sun - However, is not Jesus or Christ the light of creation from which all else follows or was done - by which all things were created?

I also find it interesting that following the introduction of light we are presented with the symbolism that the work of G-d moving forward is to separate light from darkness. Something in the scientific understanding is a meaningless jester because light and darkness is separated in that the two cannot coexist - the presents of one precludes the other. An interesting note is that the Chiastic structure is predominate feature in ancient Hebrew poetic (the book of Enoch indicates that in order for writhing to be divinely inspired it must be "structured properly. The Chiastic structure is a structure which parallels the ancient notion of the first being last and the last being first. So we see light introduced in the beginning as the contrast to darkness - in the end we see this work of separating light from darkness concluded in what is known as the final Judgment.

I believe you are correct in understanding the the work of separation is always taking place but at the same time it is not concluded (finished , complete, whole - or holy) until the final judgment when those that prefer darkness are cast from the light (Christ) into eternal darkness or hell and those of the right hand of G-d enter into an eternal light (return to the tree of Life).

You may not agree with my interpretations of ancient poetic symbols from scripture - but you ought to at least respect that such interpretations are possible - and that such interpretations are not part of any of the historical traditions of Christian thought - Thus the LDS contribution is indeed unique and unique to what is symbolically called "The Last Days".

The Traveler

[Tough Grits]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but haven't we been through this exact conversation before? In any event, Genesis doesn't make sense scientifically because it is not a science book. It is a beautiful poem written for the pupose of telling the story of the fall of man and God's promise to send us a Savior. The creation account establishes God as the author of all creation and also tells us that man is the crown of that creation. How it happend exactly is not the purpose of the text.

I must say that I do not follow your logic at all. When a painter finishes a painting and thinks to himself "that is good" it does not follow that he was dependent upon anything or anyone else in order to paint the painting. How does God calling his creation "good" translate into being less than omnipotent?

Again, you have completely lost me. How does God calling his creation "good" mean he is dependent upon something in order to create it. It is God that establishes what is good and what is not. The idea that the Creator would be subject to his creation is nonsensical. It is God who created all of the laws of physics and of morality. God did not find himself in a universe full of already existing laws to which he was subject. God is subject to nothing and no one. All are subject to him.

Maybe I need another cup of coffee. This just doesn't make any sense to me. I believe in a God who is never changing, who has been complete and entire in his power, authority, majesty and glory for eternity, before anything that exists, existed. This unchanging God is also ompnipotent. How does being unchanging conflict with being omnpipotent?

And I am really baffled that you claim to believe in a God who "is a being of absolute consistency". The last thing Mormon theology describes is a consistent, unchanging God. Rather it described a God who is constantly changing, from man to God and even then he continues to change through the process of "progression", having to continually acquire knowledge himself, as if he does not already possess all knowledge.

"The word cherub (cherubim is the Hebrew masculine plural) is a word borrowed from the Assyrian kirubu, from karâbu, "to be near", hence it means near ones, familiars, personal servants, bodyguards, courtiers. It was commonly used of those heavenly spirits, who closely surrounded the Majesty of God and paid Him intimate service. Hence it came to mean as much as "Angelic Spirit". (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Generally understood by whom? Lucifer, now Satan, does not live in the heavenly realm with Jesus. Remember, he and 1/3 of the angles were thrown out of heaven. How can Satan be sitting at the left hand of God when he has been relegated to the netherworld?

From a Catholic standpoint, the entire idea of Jesus and Lucifer being brothers is so objectionable that I don't know where to even begin. Jesus is God. Lucifer is not. Jesus is the Creator. Lucifer is a creation. Jesus is God's only begotten Son. He did not "beget" Lucifer. He created him. Lucifer was created to be the most beautiful of angels. He rebelled against God's plan to save humanity and was forever condemned to the darkness of hell.

Cherubim are an order of angels. Jesus is not an angel, he is God, The angels are there to adore God. Satan, even though an angel, was an archangel, not a cherubim, and he certainly does not adore God. So no, for so many reasons, the cherubim do not in any way represent either Jesus or Lucifer and therefore do not support any theory of them being brothers.

Understanding our differences concerning the nature of God is all important in understanding our differences on this issue. We believe God is absolutely unique in his nature; eternal, uncreated, the absolute Perfection, all knowing, all powreful, all loving, all merciful, ever present. We call this nature "divine" and attribute it only to God. Everything else, without exception, was created from nothing but the power of God, the source of all things, including angels, who are pure, rational, free-willed spirits, and humans who comprise both flesh and spirit or soul. Each are distinct from the other as far as their "species" is concerned. That is why Jesus cannot be Lucifer's brother. It would be like me calling a horse my brother.

It is my understanding that you make no distinction between the nature of God, the nature of angels or the nature of man, believing we are all made of the same "stuff", so to speak. This makes your theory somewhat more plausible, but you still have to deal with the fact that Jesus is God's only begotten Son. Even we are sons and daughters by adoption, not by our nature, as St. Paul tells us. How then could Jesus be a brother to Lucifer, even within your own belief structure?

Yes, I can see that your understanding is profoundly different than mine.

I guess that is why you are in the religion of your choice, and I am in the religion of my choice.

I am not a scientist. I am not a scriptorian. I don't even profess to be particularly intelligent.

However, I know what makes sense (to me, obviously). I don't think that there are cosmic "pools" of angel matter, God matter, regular-going-to-be-human matter. I am not making fun. I am just trying to explain that this just doesn't seem correct to me.

In the first estate, we were all spirit off-spring of our Heavenly Father. The Savior became the only begotten when he was born of flesh and blood through the sacred union between Mary (an earthly woman) and Heavenly Father (a god, our Heavenly Father). The rest of us are literal spirit children of our Heavenly Father, but we are born of mortal mothers and mortal fathers. Jesus is different. Rightly so.

Only begotten = the only spiritual off-spring to also be born of flesh and blood of Heavenly Father. It does not mean, to me, that the Savior was the only spirit begotten of Heavenly Father.

I have come to understand that the Savior became our "father" when he atoned for all the sins of man, when he ransomed himself for each of us.

Don't we have brothers and sisters in our mortal families who "rebel", or who turn against what they have been taught?

Why couldn't that have happened in our spiritual family?

This is why it does not offend or bother me to know that Lucifer was once in the first estate with me, or that he rebelled.

Lucifer made a mistake. A big one. His rebellion not only robbed him of his inheritance (of gaining a body and getting to live with God again if he lived righteously), but it lead 1/3 of God's other spirit children astray. They chose to follow Lucifer, thus damning themselves to the same eternal banishment and punishment as Lucifer.

It makes sense that Satan is trying his hardest to destroy us, considering that he rebelled against his Father, against his brother, and against light and truth itself. He hates us. We represent everything he will never have: Bodies. Families. Love. Joy. Peace. Eternal happiness.

His hatred of me, of you, of every good person (regardless of religion or lack thereof) makes more sense understanding that he was once in the presence of all truth, all righteousness, of his very Father in Heaven, and yet he rebelled.

He not only hates us for what we have, but he must hate himself an awful lot for making such a monumental mistake. The mistake of all mistakes. To rebel against Father, while in His presence.

For me, this brings clearer, deeper meaning to the commandment to honor thy mother and father.

I guess you cannot make me "feel" what you believe, any more than I can make you "feel" what I believe. I just know that I have found what makes my soul sing. I have found what makes my head and heart agree. I have found what I would die for. I have found what I will live for. I have no fear, no shame, no regrets. I know that I have found what makes physical sense, spiritual sense, and cosmic sense to me.

Hope I was clear.

[Tough Grits]

Not everyone can be as consistently and unfailingly correct as I am.

See, I would have hit the laugh button on your post because of this one little sentence!! ~TG