Why was it revealed to JS that 'all other creeds are an abomination?'

[Guest]

This is a very interesting thought anatess.

 

Prison Chaplain, earlier, made a point that I think plays into the LDS belief as well -- though it's less easy to reconcile -- and I don't know if all LDS universally think this way. But as for me, if I am saying God, I mean God the Father. God the Father is God. Even Jesus worships Him.

 

So, from a certain perspective, there is only one God, and Jesus and the Holy Ghost do His will. When they speak, they speak on His behalf. They represent Him, doing His will in all things, and submit entirely to Him.

 

In this regard, LDS are, actually, monotheistic. But it requires as much word play as does explaining the trinity, I think, to get there. And, unquestionably, when you take into account that we believe it was fairly exclusively (in almost every case) Jesus (Jehovah) who was the "one God" of the Old Testament, it quickly gets messy to explain.

 

And, like I said, I'm not sure all LDS would even see it that way.

 

But it's a thought.

 

I see it this way because I grew up Trinitarian.  I had a very firm testimony of my Catholic faith.  Therefore, when I stumbled upon LDS, I had to study it in light of what I already know is true.

 

In Trinitarian belief of 3 persons in 1 God - everything falls in line with scriptures.  So, that has to be true.  But, the ONLY thing that is different in 3 persons in 1 God between Catholic and LDS (on the basic premise - not the implications) is WHAT exactly makes them 1.  Because in Trinitarian thought what makes them one is not simply the existence either, because then that would be the persons that which makes them 3 - what makes them 1 is more than just existence, it's that ousia... but I don't know exactly what that is - because that is the mystery... that substance, that exact "thing" that makes them 1... that's always the confusing part of the Trinity that makes it very hard to explain.

 

Therefore, when I studied LDS, I studied it in light of what I know and what I don't know... and the thing that I don't know is that ousia that we've been mind-bending about... so to say that it's not the ousia, it's the WILL that makes them One God... that completes my thinking.  Because... I found it illogical to say, "I don't know exactly what that ousia thing is that makes them One but I know it's not THAT".

 

So... I substitute Perfect Unity of Will to ousia and go through the scriptures again and again to see its implications... and you know what... the scriptures that I am very familiar with as a Catholic (most especially all that Jesus says in the NT) still fits perfectly!

 

But, not only that, extending that to Christ's fervent prayer that we may be One with Him becomes clearer - that when we attain that Perfect Unity of Will, we join in that One God.  It is not heretic to say it - because God is the Will not the ousia... we still retain our individual ousias.

 

Then we extend that to the other gods mentioned in the OT... they're not Gods not because of their ousia but because they don't have that same Will.... so they're not God.  They could have the same ousia as God (if that were possible) and STILL not be God - because they don't have that same Will.

 

And extending that to the non-doctrinal possibility of the Father having His own Father who has his own Father and on and on throughout the eternities who are Gods... that doesn't make them many Gods... because if they are in Perfect Unity of Will as Our Father, then they are still One God.

 

As far as worship goes... We worship the Father - because that's what Jesus told us to do.   It doesn't make Jesus and the Holy Ghost - less God.  Because, it's the WILL that is God, it's the Person that we worship.  Father, Christ, and Holy Ghost are still One God.  So that even if we consider the possibility that the Father has his own Father who has his own Father... all of which are God... and that we ourselves become God... we still worship Our Father - because it is the Person that we worship, not the Will. 

 

So that, it makes perfect sense that God saw it important to grant us free will so much so that he cast Lucifer out of heaven... because it is THAT WILL that is God.  It is our Will that has to go through the refiners fire to see if we can qualify to be God.  And it is the enemy of that Will - freely chosen - that is Satan.

 

So, it is clear to me to see that God is that exact Will... and anything else that doesn't have that exact same Will and is immortal, eternal, all-knowing, all-anything... still cannot be God (although, you may refer to them as gods with the small g) because they don't have that exact Will that is God.

 

 

 

.... manoman... I can't seem to write shorter posts...

[Traveler]

The biggest objection I have to the rhetorical logic of the trinity is the resulting concept of what G-d must therefore be and why G-d is powerless (complete failure) to replicate the essence what makes him unique and exceptional.   Especially if we rhetorically believe that such uniqueness and exception is actually something “good”.

[The Folk Prophet]

So, it is clear to me to see that God is that exact Will... and anything else that doesn't have that exact same Will and is immortal, eternal, all-knowing, all-anything... still cannot be God (although, you may refer to them as gods with the small g) because they don't have that exact Will that is God.

 

Which eternal, all-knowing, all-anything beings would there be out there that do not have the same will as God?

[Guest]

Which eternal, all-knowing, all-anything beings would there be out there that do not have the same will as God?

 

Don't know and don't matter... if there were, they STILL wouldn't be God.  Because, like God said in the OT - those other gods that all the other people worship are not God... Nothing says if those other gods that all the other people worship are all-anythings or not... even if they are... they're still not God.

[The Folk Prophet]

Don't know and don't matter... if there were, they STILL wouldn't be God.  Because, like God said in the OT - those other gods that all the other people worship are not God... Nothing says if those other gods that all the other people worship are all-anythings or not... even if they are... they're still not God.

 

Oh...it very, very much matters. If there is another all-powerful being who's will might contrast God's it puts a serious kink in faith that God's will reign supreme, that we can have utter and complete trust in Him, etc.

 

Moreover, God is all-powerful because of His will (being a perfect will) not in spite of it. It is theoretically, theologically impossible to have a  contrary will that is all-powerful as well.

[The Folk Prophet]

Don't know and don't matter... if there were, they STILL wouldn't be God.  Because, like God said in the OT - those other gods that all the other people worship are not God... Nothing says if those other gods that all the other people worship are all-anythings or not... even if they are... they're still not God.

 

Moreover, moreover...there are no beings who exist that God did not create. All are subservient to Him. He is the Master of all.

 

Moreover, moreover, moreover...The other "gods" that are referenced in the OT are all Satan. Satan is the only contrary power to God, and he is not all-powerful. Not in the least. He only has power as is given to him. God will destroy him in the end.

[spamlds]

To address a couple of issues:

 

Quote#1

And you never addressed how the doctrines of Catholicism established the dignity and equality of all people from the New World.

 

Just because we don't mention such things does not mean that time or context requires us to acknowledge them.  As a student of history, I have to give the Catholic Church some props for its policies vis-a-vis slavery back in the day.  The papal bull that declared that the indigenous peoples of the Americas had souls did eventually lead to more incidents of manumission.  On the other hand, the Protestant-Evangelical take regarding the "mark of Cain" was far more severe in the United States, providing the moral underpinnings for the execrable practice of enslaving Africans.  

 

It doesn't matter if the Roman Church, the Syrian Church, the Ethiopian Church, the Eastern Orthodox or other Christian sects have good people in them, whether they have done good works in the world.  What matters is if they have the keys.  Were they established by God or did they simply break off from another corrupt branch of the trees.  The Mother of Harlots spawned a lot of harlots (Revelation 17:5).  How many times have I heard sectarian Christians tell me that Mormons are such good, kind, people, but that we are deceived.  Why is it when we say that about other denominations, we are thought to be hurtful and unkind?  

 

Quote #2:

 

Again, even some learned LDS have labeled themselves henotheist.  So, to committed monotheists, the comparitive ease with which the Godhead can be grasped comes the price of an even weaker semblence to belief in one true God. 

 

The definition of Henotheism is not valid when compared to the Mormon understanding of the Godhead's nature.  

 

Mirriam-Webster defines henotheism as "the worship of one god without denying the existence of other gods."  We worship the God of Jesus Christ.  We worship the Father in his name.  Yet we recognize that Jesus is a God and that the Holy Ghost is a God.  We understand that exalted beings become gods and that we are the offspring of God.  We don't not "deny the existence of other gods."  We affirm that there is a plurality of gods and that our Father, the God of Jesus Christ, is the God we specifically worship.  In a broader sense, we worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but we note that the Son and the Holy Ghost reverence the Father and do his will.  The definition of henotheism does not adequately describe Mormons.  

 

Who did Jesus pray to?  Himself?  When he said "the Father is greater than I," how is that possible.  When he prayed in Gethsemane for the disciples to be one as he and the Father are one, was he hoping that they would become a formless intelligence without "body, parts, or passions" as the creeds describe?

 

We have eyewitness accounts of prophets and lay believers who have seen God in our time.  Joseph Smith did not rely upon "hearsay" to know what and who God is and what he is like.  

 

It has been my experience as a missionary to teach thousands of people the true nature of God.  Almost all of them, when you ask them to describe their conception of God, they believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate beings.  Usually, they don't think about the Father having a body, but they believe Jesus has one.  The only ones who believe in the Triune God are those who specifically studied it and sought to be indoctrinated to understand it.  It takes years of education to instill that much confusion, whereas a small child seems to automatically understand who and what God and Jesus are.

[spamlds]

Quote #3:

 

I believe in authority, as seen in the Apostles and the primacy of Scripture/Tradition. For most of Christian history, the Church was not separate and there was no other "church". There was a universal Church with one faith, one line of bishops/priests, one laity, though many regional "rites" like the Roman/Western, the Eastern, the Alexandrian, the Armenian, etc. This authority was obviously granted to one head, to Peter, whose office has continued uninterrupted since Christ.

 

I recognize and appreciate your affirmation of this belief, though I do not concur with it.  The facts of history speak otherwise.  A couple of individuals in the forum have felt uncomfortable the the Great Apostasy Timeline thread, but here's the reason I posted it.  

 

The quote above is a typical Catholic "testimony."  We respect that belief because we respect the person.  However, we must politely disagree because the facts tell that Peter was never a pope and that the keys of the kingdom were gone before there ever was a pope.  Even if it it could be shown that the first pope had the keys, we can show that the succession of those keys was indeed broken many times.  There were popes that killed off their rivals.  There were rivals who killed popes so they could take their place.  There was a time when a woman, Marozia, occupied the Papacy.  Then there was a time when there were three popes at once, fighting between themselves.

 

This last example was mentioned by the current Pope at the time of the retirement of his predecessor.  See the linked article here:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/pope-benedict-god-resign-mystical-experience

 

In the article, Pope Francis is quoted saying, "The last time there were two or three popes, they didn't talk among themselves and they fought over who was the true pope!"

 

Mormons are not anti-Catholic. Nevertheless, when our beliefs are challenged because they don't fit the template of an apostate creed, we can simply look at the facts.  The "testimony" of iguy2314 may be heartfelt and sincere, but it is based on a demonstrable lapse in understanding.  There is not an unbroken chain of authority in the Roman Church.  I respect his right to believe an error, but I am not bound to not contest it with facts.  The Apostasy Timeline I posted gives Mormon believers factual information regarding the history of the matter.  It's not anti-Catholic.  People certainly have no qualms about attacking Mormon beliefs, but because the truth is on our side, it's relatively easy to defend our beliefs.

 

When a non-Mormon comes into a Mormon social network and claims we are mistaken, then bolsters the argument with Catholic dogma, it's hard for us to not appear anti-Catholic even though we try to be as nice as we can about it.

[Maureen]

The biggest objection I have to the rhetorical logic of the trinity is the resulting concept of what G-d must therefore be and why G-d is powerless (complete failure) to replicate the essence what makes him unique and exceptional.   Especially if we rhetorically believe that such uniqueness and exception is actually something “good”.

 

God is uncreated, God has always been God. It is his essence that makes him unique and exceptional. That is why there is only one God, because he is unique (one of a kind) and exceptional.

 

M.

[Guest]

Moreover, moreover...there are no beings who exist that God did not create. All are subservient to Him. He is the Master of all.

 

Moreover, moreover, moreover...The other "gods" that are referenced in the OT are all Satan. Satan is the only contrary power to God, and he is not all-powerful. Not in the least. He only has power as is given to him. God will destroy him in the end.

 

Moreover, moreover... the usage of GOD here is what... Person or Will?  All are subservient to what... the Will or the Person?

 

Do you see where I'm coming from?

 

[The Folk Prophet]

Moreover, moreover... the usage of GOD here is what... Person or Will?  All are subservient to what... the Will or the Person?

 

Do you see where I'm coming from?

 

Yes. And it is, as I said, interesting. But I'm not settled on the idea being eternal truth.

[Guest]

Yes. And it is, as I said, interesting. But I'm not settled on the idea being eternal truth.

 

Oh please don't think this is eternal truth... I'm no prophet!

 

To all - just so we're clear on this thread... my viewpoints on the Will versus the Person that is God is the gospel according to Anatess... it is not meant to be taken as "oh, that's what the LDS believe!".

[Traveler]

God is uncreated, God has always been God. It is his essence that makes him unique and exceptional. That is why there is only one God, because he is unique (one of a kind) and exceptional.

 

M.

 

Thank you for responding.  That is exactly what I see as the rhetorical problem.   If his unique and exceptional essence is good there are rhetorical problems:

1. Man is in essence not in the image and likeness of G-d.  – The singular essence of man is distinctly different and therefore man by essence is nothing at all in the image and likeness of G-d.

2. Jesus was never a man by essence.  If G-d cannot create his essence he cannot change it.  Therefore Christ is a fraud and a hoax and cannot have the essence of G-d and pretend to be a man or vice versa.

3. Christ said not to call himself good because he said only the Father is good.  Then there must be a difference in the essence of the Son from the Father.  The only rhetorically logical understanding is that the Son is a creation of the Father.

4. If G-d’s essence is good then by your definition there is goodness which G-d cannot create.

5. If G-d cannot be created he is not the reason he is G-d and by the same rhetorical logic cannot offer the essence of eternal life to man – salvation then by definition is not eternal in the same manner G-d is eternal.  In fact the whole notion of eternal as far as man is concerned has no rhetorical meaning.

6. The scriptures are incorrect in saying G-d created all things in heaven and earth – Meaning G-d is not responsible for his goodness in heaven.  Or that G-d is not something that actually exists and he cannot choose goodness.

There are also extensions into this rhetorical logic – for example - Since G-d creates the essence of his creations (which is unique and separate from him) and since such essences cannot be the same (image and likeness) Then the goodness or evilness of each individual is the creation of G-d that created such essence – and for G-d to not take or share any responsibility for his creation’s essence; makes G-d’s essence a failure in replicating his essence of goodness.

 

Another example is the fall of man.  If man is fallen from G-d then Jesus Christ is not a person inclusive in the singleness of G-d.  Man is not fallen from Jesus.

 

Another problem is the intent and extent of the rhetorical logic of person.  For example – if a corporation is rhetorically a person then person is not singular nor is an individual of the corporation (which is singular) complete – or as according to ancient logic; perfect, whole or holy.  But if the intent of person is singular then Jesus is not G-d but of the quorum of G-d – meaning that G-d does indeed have parts.

[faith4]

For those LDS who have trouble understanding the Trinity, and may wish to try and understand it from our perspective, I suggest the book Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed.  It's an excellent book, very deep theologically, and may be difficult for those who aren't Catholic to grasp some of what he's saying, but he does a really good job of showing what the Trinity is. 

[spamlds]

It's not that we don't understand the Trinity.  We know the nature of God by direct revelation.  We don't need scholars and theologians to try to reason it out.  We know from direct revelation from God that the Father he has a tangible body of glorified flesh and bone.  We know that he is a separate, distinct personage from the Son. We know that Jesus has a tangible, resurrected body of flesh and bone.  We know the Holy Ghost is a separate personage of spirit who does not have a tangible body.  

 

A Mormon scholar might study the Trinity as a matter of academic curiosity or to facilitate dialogue, but it doesn't change what we know.  We have modern revelation that corrects centuries of false human reasoning.  It's new wine in old bottles.  There is no harmonizing the two concepts.  To know what we know, it is up to each seeker to ask God what is true.  If you want to know if we're right, the most sure way to find out is to ask of God.  James 1:5 is all you need.  If you ask with a willingness to submit to whatever God tells you, a sure answer will come in his own time and in his own way.

 

Mormons teach that studying things out in your mind is good.  It's a first step in finding truth.  Pondering and reflecting over these things is good.  If what we teach troubles you, then we urge you to ask of God.  The answer is there, ultimately.  He will tell you what Joseph Smith saw.  Then you'll know what we know. 

[iguy2314]

Thank you for responding.  That is exactly what I see as the rhetorical problem.   If his unique and exceptional essence is good there are rhetorical problems:

1. Man is in essence not in the image and likeness of G-d.  – The singular essence of man is distinctly different and therefore man by essence is nothing at all in the image and likeness of G-d.

2. Jesus was never a man by essence.  If G-d cannot create his essence he cannot change it.  Therefore Christ is a fraud and a hoax and cannot have the essence of G-d and pretend to be a man or vice versa.

3. Christ said not to call himself good because he said only the Father is good.  Then there must be a difference in the essence of the Son from the Father.  The only rhetorically logical understanding is that the Son is a creation of the Father.

4. If G-d’s essence is good then by your definition there is goodness which G-d cannot create.

5. If G-d cannot be created he is not the reason he is G-d and by the same rhetorical logic cannot offer the essence of eternal life to man – salvation then by definition is not eternal in the same manner G-d is eternal.  In fact the whole notion of eternal as far as man is concerned has no rhetorical meaning.

6. The scriptures are incorrect in saying G-d created all things in heaven and earth – Meaning G-d is not responsible for his goodness in heaven.  Or that G-d is not something that actually exists and he cannot choose goodness.

There are also extensions into this rhetorical logic – for example - Since G-d creates the essence of his creations (which is unique and separate from him) and since such essences cannot be the same (image and likeness) Then the goodness or evilness of each individual is the creation of G-d that created such essence – and for G-d to not take or share any responsibility for his creation’s essence; makes G-d’s essence a failure in replicating his essence of goodness.

 

Another example is the fall of man.  If man is fallen from G-d then Jesus Christ is not a person inclusive in the singleness of G-d.  Man is not fallen from Jesus.

 

Another problem is the intent and extent of the rhetorical logic of person.  For example – if a corporation is rhetorically a person then person is not singular nor is an individual of the corporation (which is singular) complete – or as according to ancient logic; perfect, whole or holy.  But if the intent of person is singular then Jesus is not G-d but of the quorum of G-d – meaning that G-d does indeed have parts.

 

1. Likeness of something implies inherently that it is NOT that thing.

2. Christ was man by essense, as he is fully man and fully God. That's the incredible paradox of the incarnation.

3. The Trinity recitifies this.

4. This doesn't logically follow. Are aspects of God separate from God? No.

5. Again, the Trinity answers this.

6. This is the implicit difference between the LDS God and the God of Israel/Christian God the Father. He stands uncreated and the universe serves no other purpose than Him.

 

 

The Fall of Man has everything to do with Jesus, it's why the Catholic Church calls him the "Second Adam." He is Man as Man was meant to be, which is why he called himself the Son of Man. Again, the Trinity recitifies your problems with this. How could Christ possibly forgive sins if he is somehow separate, in essense and existence, from God?

[faith4]

It's not that we don't understand the Trinity.  We know the nature of God by direct revelation.  We don't need scholars and theologians to try to reason it out.  We know from direct revelation from God that the Father he has a tangible body of glorified flesh and bone.  We know that he is a separate, distinct personage from the Son. We know that Jesus has a tangible, resurrected body of flesh and bone.  We know the Holy Ghost is a separate personage of spirit who does not have a tangible body.  

 

A Mormon scholar might study the Trinity as a matter of academic curiosity or to facilitate dialogue, but it doesn't change what we know.  We have modern revelation that corrects centuries of false human reasoning.  It's new wine in old bottles.  There is no harmonizing the two concepts.  To know what we know, it is up to each seeker to ask God what is true.  If you want to know if we're right, the most sure way to find out is to ask of God.  James 1:5 is all you need.  If you ask with a willingness to submit to whatever God tells you, a sure answer will come in his own time and in his own way.

 

Mormons teach that studying things out in your mind is good.  It's a first step in finding truth.  Pondering and reflecting over these things is good.  If what we teach troubles you, then we urge you to ask of God.  The answer is there, ultimately.  He will tell you what Joseph Smith saw.  Then you'll know what we know. 

 

You really don't get me, do you?  Lol!  That's okay with me! 

 

God bless Spamlds!  Lol!!!

[SpiritDragon]

1. Likeness of something implies inherently that it is NOT that thing.

 

If you stick hard-line to this statement you appear to contradict the trinity. In genesis 1:27, 5:2 & 9:6 support man being created in the image of god which you would appear to say strictly means "image" or "likeness" referring to something different, and yet Hebrews 1:3, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4,  makes the same claim that Christ is in the image of god... clearly stating that He is not the Father? 

[prisonchaplain]

The biggest objection I have to the rhetorical logic of the trinity is the resulting concept of what G-d must therefore be and why G-d is powerless (complete failure) to replicate the essence what makes him unique and exceptional.   Especially if we rhetorically believe that such uniqueness and exception is actually something “good”.

 

Over the years Traveler has done an excellent job of turning traditional Christian objection to the LDS teaching of exaltation on its head.  You are outraged that we hope to become what God is?  Well, how about saying it's outrageous that God could not or would not replicate the perfect goodness of himself?

 

I get it.  I don't agree, but I greatly appreciate the doubling down.  If I were LDS I'd even cheer him.  Why apologize for my faith's distinctive teachings?  He does not, and I admire that.

[prisonchaplain]

Quote 2 is mine.  To summarize, I said that some LDS thinkers have identified themselves as henotheists, and that if I were LDS I most likely would accept that label.  As a non-member I try to be careful not to pretend to offer definitive, or authoritative labels or descriptions of the LDS faith.

 

Having said all that, this response seems to affirm my thoughts.  If one God is worshipped primarily (the Father), but others are recognized (plurality of gods) then is that not "worship of one God, while not denying the existence of others?"  I could easily be missing a nuance here, so am open to explanation and clarification.

 

On the question of Jesus praying to the Father and saying the Father is greater, etc., those kinds of questions address modalism more than trinitarianism.  We believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate persons.  We differentiate "person" from being, and say that God is one being, but three persons.  It is the modalists (e.g. United Pentecostal Church, "Oneness" believers, or "Jesus Only") who need to answer questions like, "was Jesus praying to himself?"

 

Quote #2:

 

Again, even some learned LDS have labeled themselves henotheist.  So, to committed monotheists, the comparitive ease with which the Godhead can be grasped comes the price of an even weaker semblence to belief in one true God. 

 

The definition of Henotheism is not valid when compared to the Mormon understanding of the Godhead's nature.  

 

Mirriam-Webster defines henotheism as "the worship of one god without denying the existence of other gods."  We worship the God of Jesus Christ.  We worship the Father in his name.  Yet we recognize that Jesus is a God and that the Holy Ghost is a God.  We understand that exalted beings become gods and that we are the offspring of God.  We don't not "deny the existence of other gods."  We affirm that there is a plurality of gods and that our Father, the God of Jesus Christ, is the God we specifically worship.  In a broader sense, we worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but we note that the Son and the Holy Ghost reverence the Father and do his will.  The definition of henotheism does not adequately describe Mormons.  

 

Who did Jesus pray to?  Himself?  When he said "the Father is greater than I," how is that possible.  When he prayed in Gethsemane for the disciples to be one as he and the Father are one, was he hoping that they would become a formless intelligence without "body, parts, or passions" as the creeds describe?

 

We have eyewitness accounts of prophets and lay believers who have seen God in our time.  Joseph Smith did not rely upon "hearsay" to know what and who God is and what he is like.  

 

It has been my experience as a missionary to teach thousands of people the true nature of God.  Almost all of them, when you ask them to describe their conception of God, they believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate beings.  Usually, they don't think about the Father having a body, but they believe Jesus has one.  The only ones who believe in the Triune God are those who specifically studied it and sought to be indoctrinated to understand it.  It takes years of education to instill that much confusion, whereas a small child seems to automatically understand who and what God and Jesus are.

 

[SpiritDragon]

 

On the question of Jesus praying to the Father and saying the Father is greater, etc., those kinds of questions address modalism more than trinitarianism.  We believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate persons.  We differentiate "person" from being, and say that God is one being, but three persons.  It is the modalists (e.g. United Pentecostal Church, "Oneness" believers, or "Jesus Only") who need to answer questions like, "was Jesus praying to himself?"

 

It's always nice to get your ideas PC. How do you define "person"? The idea of three persons in one really seems the same as the idea of three beings in one. Are we looking at one shape-shifter with three different "person"alities?

[The Folk Prophet]

Over the years Traveler has done an excellent job of turning traditional Christian objection to the LDS teaching of exaltation on its head.  You are outraged that we hope to become what God is?  Well, how about saying it's outrageous that God could not or would not replicate the perfect goodness of himself?

 

I get it.  I don't agree, but I greatly appreciate the doubling down.  If I were LDS I'd even cheer him.  Why apologize for my faith's distinctive teachings?  He does not, and I admire that.

 

Not only is it, in my opinion, not something to apologize about, but it is, perhaps, the most glorious of the LDS theological concepts.

[Guest]

 

Quote 2 is mine.  To summarize, I said that some LDS thinkers have identified themselves as henotheists, and that if I were LDS I most likely would accept that label.  As a non-member I try to be careful not to pretend to offer definitive, or authoritative labels or descriptions of the LDS faith.

 

Having said all that, this response seems to affirm my thoughts.  If one God is worshipped primarily (the Father), but others are recognized (plurality of gods) then is that not "worship of one God, while not denying the existence of others?"  I could easily be missing a nuance here, so am open to explanation and clarification.

 

On the question of Jesus praying to the Father and saying the Father is greater, etc., those kinds of questions address modalism more than trinitarianism.  We believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate persons.  We differentiate "person" from being, and say that God is one being, but three persons.  It is the modalists (e.g. United Pentecostal Church, "Oneness" believers, or "Jesus Only") who need to answer questions like, "was Jesus praying to himself?"

 

 

PC... I've been through all these figuring out too.  It's interesting to come from Trinitarian belief and study LDS Godhead.

 

As far as worship goes - I find that the only way that LDS Godhead works with worship is that we worship a PERSON that is God - (with God being the Unity of Will as opposed to the existence).  Specifically, the Father.  Make sense?

 

But it is neither heno or modal worship when the title GOD (that which is One) that is used by Trinitarians to mean the ousia is used by LDS as that Will that is God.  Because... you can't worship a Will.  You can only worship a Being - or an existence (you know, like a rock or something for those pagan worshippers).

[Maureen]

Thank you for responding.  That is exactly what I see as the rhetorical problem.   If his unique and exceptional essence is good there are rhetorical problems:

1. Man is in essence not in the image and likeness of G-d.  – The singular essence of man is distinctly different and therefore man by essence is nothing at all in the image and likeness of G-d.

2. Jesus was never a man by essence.  If G-d cannot create his essence he cannot change it.  Therefore Christ is a fraud and a hoax and cannot have the essence of G-d and pretend to be a man or vice versa.

3. Christ said not to call himself good because he said only the Father is good.  Then there must be a difference in the essence of the Son from the Father.  The only rhetorically logical understanding is that the Son is a creation of the Father.

4. If G-d’s essence is good then by your definition there is goodness which G-d cannot create.

5. If G-d cannot be created he is not the reason he is G-d and by the same rhetorical logic cannot offer the essence of eternal life to man – salvation then by definition is not eternal in the same manner G-d is eternal.  In fact the whole notion of eternal as far as man is concerned has no rhetorical meaning.

6. The scriptures are incorrect in saying G-d created all things in heaven and earth – Meaning G-d is not responsible for his goodness in heaven.  Or that G-d is not something that actually exists and he cannot choose goodness.

There are also extensions into this rhetorical logic – for example - Since G-d creates the essence of his creations (which is unique and separate from him) and since such essences cannot be the same (image and likeness) Then the goodness or evilness of each individual is the creation of G-d that created such essence – and for G-d to not take or share any responsibility for his creation’s essence; makes G-d’s essence a failure in replicating his essence of goodness.

 

Another example is the fall of man.  If man is fallen from G-d then Jesus Christ is not a person inclusive in the singleness of G-d.  Man is not fallen from Jesus.

 

Another problem is the intent and extent of the rhetorical logic of person.  For example – if a corporation is rhetorically a person then person is not singular nor is an individual of the corporation (which is singular) complete – or as according to ancient logic; perfect, whole or holy.  But if the intent of person is singular then Jesus is not G-d but of the quorum of G-d – meaning that G-d does indeed have parts.

 

Traveler, from what I've read here, I'm seeing you as a person who is seeing God as a being that you need Him to be, a being that has to make sense to you and if a characteristic of God does not make sense to you then anything that you cannot comprehend about God cannot possibly exist. Am I close?

 

M. 

[prisonchaplain]

It's always nice to get your ideas PC. How do you define "person"? The idea of three persons in one really seems the same as the idea of three beings in one. Are we looking at one shape-shifter with three different "person"alities?

 

We believe that Jesus alone is Jesus.  He, for example, experienced human life, whereas we do not believe the Father or Spirit have (note, I understand that LDS theology may differ on this point--at least for the Father). 

 

Perhaps Jesus baptism is a great scene for this discussion.  All three characters are God.  They are co-eternal and co-equal.  Yet, it is the Son who is baptized.  It is the Father who pronounces his pleasure and blessing.  It is the Spirit who descends upon Jesus.  Each person is distinct and is carrying out a different role in the scene.  Yet, they are the one God.

How can this be?  It's what we see in scripture.  How can a "oneness of purpose" from three beings be considered a single God?  You say that it is--that you believe this oneness of purpose is so strong that it is correct to call your faith monotheistic.  We both have our mysteries, or inexplicables.