The Worship of God


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am completely convinced that many do not understand what it is to worship.  The reason I am convinced that worship is not well understood is because so many do not seem to understand that the nature of worship is - that we become what we worship.  Worship is becoming - it is something that changes a person's mind and heart - it changes them into what they worship.  If you worship honesty as an attribute of G-d then you must become honest.  If you worship love as an attribute of G-d then you must love.  If someone does not understand how worship changes them – it is only because they do not worship but make their pretending worship a charade and a lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2016 at 5:52 PM, Traveler said:

...the nature of worship is - that we become what we worship.  Worship is becoming ...

I just had a flashback.  I went to pick up my kids at a youth dance.  Some boy I'd never seen before was dressed and groomed EXACTLY like Justin Bieber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On February 22, 2016 at 11:00 PM, prisonchaplain said:

I appreciate all of the answers. To belabor this a bit, as an exalted one becomes God will the Heavenly Father have progressed even farther?

His ways are ways of eternal increase. If he has 1 worshipper today, and 2 tomorrow, he has gained an increase. If he has 1 worshipper who increases his capability and capacity in all things good, then  god also gains an increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"For some observers, the doctrine that humans should strive for godliness may evoke images of ancient pantheons with competing deities. Such images are incompatible with Latter-day Saint doctrine. Latter-day Saints believe that God’s children will always worship Him. Our progression will never change His identity as our Father and our God. Indeed, our exalted, eternal relationship with Him will be part of the “fulness of joy” He desires for us."

 

From Becoming Like God essay found at, https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

The essay was a grea help, Faapefuoe. Would it help me with this topic to read Gospel Principles? I'm thinking that should be my next step.

It wouldn't hurt.  But you might want to read the BoM first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I've read the BoM. 

So, you have probably already answered this question in some other thread buried deep in the forum... but, what did you think of the BOM PC? Just asking on a surface level and, no, this is not a baited question in case anyone wondered. Honestly, I'm just curious. Academic reading? Curiosity?

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I've read the BoM. Should I read the rest of the Triple before the Gospel Principles? I had the impression that the GP is like a systematic theology, and that it carries the authority of church approval.

Gospel Principles is an official church publication (a Sunday School manual), so I don't know how you get more approved than that.  It is intended for use in the Sunday School class attended by investigators and new converts.

It's hard to say whether you should read it before the D&C and Pearl of Great Price (I've never considered the question).  I would expect it to be easier to understand.  Just keep in mind that as a class manual, it's intended for use with a teacher presenting a lesson, answering questions, and leading discussions.  Feel free to consider us your teachers and the forum your class. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have read it, then I'd think you'd be ok to go for GP.  But you at least need to be familiar with D&C and PoGP and have an idea of what they are.  As you read GP, then you'll need to find the references for context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

So, you have probably already answered this question in some other thread buried deep in the forum... but, what did you think of the BOM PC? Just asking on a surface level and, no, this is not a baited question in case anyone wondered. Honestly, I'm just curious. Academic reading? Curiosity?

I read it as a cyber-missionary challenge from my good friends at LDS.net.  :-)  A few years back I took a spiritual retreat, and part of that was to read through the BoM. I confess to having done so at a rapid pace, and with heavy reliance on headings. Nevertheless, on a spiritual note I did not discern ultimate truth, nor clear evil intent. There were a few passages that stood out, but it mostly read similarly to the Old Testament (except of course, for the mentions of Jesus). Academically, given Joseph Smith's lack of formal education, and his young age, it's clear that what he produced is more than what he should have been able to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Thanks for the good counsel. Some people think that after being here 10 years, I know more than I do. I figure it's time to step up my credentials a bit.  :-)

Well GP is a good starting point for just about anyone.  I is written in very plain language -- I'd say a middle school level reading level.  But many quotes from GAs are as they spoke them, some HS vocab, some college, some doctoral.  But it pretty much covers all the basics.  Other than what is covered in GP tends to be either deep doctrines and the finer points that we tend to debate here ad infinitum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Faapefuoe said:

"For some observers, the doctrine that humans should strive for godliness may evoke images of ancient pantheons with competing deities. Such images are incompatible with Latter-day Saint doctrine. Latter-day Saints believe that God’s children will always worship Him. Our progression will never change His identity as our Father and our God. Indeed, our exalted, eternal relationship with Him will be part of the “fulness of joy” He desires for us."

 

I personally believe that many in this mortal experience tend to worship G-d mostly for his power and intelligence.  I personally find the intelligence (all knowing thing) much of a conundrum for those that oppose intellectualism on religious grounds – this impresses me that they may not quite be connected to and well discerning of their own opinions. 

 

I believe it is possible and in most cases probable that we worship in G-d in ways that defines him most to us.  And that sometimes, I do not think many really understand what they worship.  For example it appears to me that most worship and acknowledge G-d for his power.  In deed it appears that it is the power of G-d that Satan loved and worshiped the most.  Obviously Satan thought that his intelligence already rivaled that of G-d but it was power that Satan wanted most.  

 

I personally believe G-d would rather be worshiped and recognized for his love, compassion, mercy and justice rather than the power thing.  But for those that worship power (as does Satan) – they would see in themselves the necessity for competition for power.  But when we worship G-d for his love and compassion as the greater attribute, we realize that competition is not a factor.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that reading Gospel Principles is going to give a better answer for this particular topic.  I honestly think that your best bet is to go to Heavenly Father in prayer and ask him if you have read truth.  "If any man lack wisdom . . . " right? 

An apostle recently counseled our youth to do this.

"Therefore, my first recommendation is to learn for yourselves who you really are. Ask your Heavenly Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, how He feels about you and your mission here on earth. If you ask with real intent, over time the Spirit will whisper the life-changing truth to you. Record those impressions and review them often, and follow through with exactness.

I promise you that when you begin to catch even a glimpse of how your Heavenly Father sees you and what He is counting on you to do for Him, your life will never be the same."

I think the above quote shows the purpose of knowing our relationship to Father is that it helps us realize/discern/be inspired about what we need to do next as servants rather than dream about our inheritance.  I have had this same question and have prayed about it and I feel that I have been taught that my main joy from the gospel comes from my hope of redemption through Jesus. I have also "over time" found answers and truth by pondering the ideas found in the essay linked earlier and asking for answers through prayer.

 What are your beliefs relating to our relationship with our Heavenly Father?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I do not see the worship of God who is omnipotent as being add odds with the God who is love. 

 

You may have missed my point.  If you can see G-d as being at odds with another being that has all the same attributes as his (or them with him) - if there is any concern at all (what-so-ever) it is not because  of his love but because of your understanding of belief of the omnipotence of G-d overpowering his love.  My point is in the belief that the attribute of omnipotence of G-d cannot be balanced by the attribute of his love - and thus if another being like him could or did exist that it would create in any way a possibility that the two beings would be at odds with each other.

 

Why could or why should there not be any other being(s) like G-d?  Why would G-d not want other beings like himself?  And if he has the power to do so - why doesn't he and if he does not have such ability he is not omnipotent - Why would anyone not believe that G-d is engaged in such a marvelous and wonderful work? And that he would think of those so engaged with him as his children.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to carry over a similar comment from the sci-fi thread.

In Star Trek: TNG and Voyager, we got a glimpse into the "government" of the Q Continuum.  While they're all considered "omnipotent beings", there was obviously a pecking order.  While I avoid making the comparisons because of the characterization of Q vs. the character of God, the concept that "omnipotent" is a relative term is something to think about.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

the concept that "omnipotent" is a relative term is something to think about..

No, it's a terminological impossibility.  "Omni" is "all".  Nothing is excluded from "all" (literally).  If a power exists, an omnipotent being has it.  If it is possible to have portions of a particular power, as opposed to it being an on/off style power, an omnipotent being has all of that power.  Any other scenario cannot accurately be described as involving omnipotence.  E.g. If person A has more power than person B, then person B is not omnipotent.  Person A may or may not be, we have insufficient information from that sentence to determine.

Q Continuum, Shmoo Continuum - it's fiction.

Side note: I think omnipotence is nothing more or less than the natural consequence of omniscience coupled with omni-obedience to truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?  Can God create an immovable object?  The fact that some things are logical impossibilities creates the reality that nothing is truly omnipotent.

You're talking about terminology.  I'm talking about language.  Earthly kings were often called "omnipotent".  And while sci-fi is by defintion "fiction", I invoke it not to declare reality or truth, but to get alternative trains of thought going.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So what happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?

While most physicists theorize that both cannot exist, others hypothesize that were they both to exist, the irresistible force would go through the immovable object without leaving a hole.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

While most physicists theorize that both cannot exist, others hypothesize that were they both to exist, the irresistible force would go through the immovable object without leaving a hole.

Lehi

Then it wouldn't be irresistable.  Do you see how words get in the way?  What is resistance?  Opposing force?  Why?  What did the force want to do?  Move the object?  Didn't the immovable object "resist" the force by not allowing itself to be moved by becoming insubstantial?  

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Then it wouldn't be irresistable.  Do you see how words get in the way?  What is resistance?  Opposing force?  Why?  What did the force want to do?  Move the object?  Didn't the immovable object "resist" the force by not allowing itself to be moved by becoming insubstantial?  

Dunno, doan care.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
 Share