Why Is There an Upset about Polytheism?

[goor_de]

4 hours ago, zil said:

  The simple fact is that our beliefs don't fit into the overall concept of polytheism as understood by the average person (and the average understanding is more important than a sterile dictionary definition - those tend to be a starting point, and usage takes it from there to expand into real understanding). 

not for this earth.
for the unruly but yes
there are many gods

I mean it in the infinity of space

[prisonchaplain]

10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It is not henotheism unless you call yourself henotheists in believing there are 3 persons in the Trinitarian God.  Any person achieving Godhood becomes another person in that One God.

This is the first time I have heard this. Will every LDS member who is exalted become part of the Godhead, united in purpose with Heavenly Father?

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

This is the first time I have heard this. Will every LDS member who is exalted become part of the Godhead, united in purpose with Heavenly Father?

That's basically the requirement of the highest Celestial Glory.  Without that unity, you ain't getting there.

[MaryJehanne]

4 hours ago, zil said:

And some will think that you are the one doing the twisting.  The simple fact is that our beliefs don't fit into the overall concept of polytheism as understood by the average person (and the average understanding is more important than a sterile dictionary definition - those tend to be a starting point, and usage takes it from there to expand into real understanding).  In other words, it appears that you are bound and determined (as a non-believer looking at it from the outside, and therefore not fully understanding it any more than a non-Catholic fully understands Catholicism) to force The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into a polytheism cubby-hole, rather than acknowledging that perhaps it fits elsewhere better (and none of the existing -theisms entirely, though @Scott's "monolarty" seems most accurate).

(Not saying that's your intent, just that it sure appears that way.)

I never accused the LDS members on this forum as twisting anything, even when they express incorrect ideas and understanding about my religion... Why? Because twisting implies intent. You can say I have things wrong or I'm misunderstanding, that I have things incorrect about your religion - that's all right and respectful - but once you use the word "twisting" you're accusing me of malice, something you cannot truly know, because you are not inside my mind. It's judging my subjective moral state, something I thought LDS believed belonged to God.

Thank you for the explanation!

4 hours ago, zil said:

Wow, seriously?  So if Catholicism doesn't recognize an -ism, it cannot exist?  It cannot be understood or discussed?  Catholicism defines the cubby-holes and you must go into one of them and there can be no others?  In that case, why discuss at all?  Why ask us anything when our answer isn't "allowed"?  Just cram us in the cubby-hole you prefer, call us nitwits for not recognizing the cubby-hole's correctness and call it a day.

(No, none of that was hateful or offended, just blunt - and seriously, I don't get it - why ask the question if the only options are "things in Catholicism"?)

I'm sorry; I was trying to be gentle and give the LDS religion the benefit of the doubt. I should not have said it had something to do with my religion. I should rephrase what I said: I do not understand that statement logically. As far as I understand the plurality of gods, it means more than one god. Polytheism means many gods. So I was deeply confused. My comment was an invitation to either drop the idea or try to explain it to me. I did not say it wasn't allowed. What I mean by "that's not a thing," I meant (assuming it was a concept in the LDS religion that could be explained to me) that it was not a concept I was familiar with. If it is not explained, you can't be upset with me for not understanding it. Just because someone states there is a difference, without explaining the difference (since it should be clear that I thought there was no difference, hence this thread), it does not mean the information will automatically pop into my head. If I show a small child the word "cat" and they can't understand it, I can't be mad at them for not reading it because I haven't taught them to read in the first place.

4 hours ago, zil said:

Really?  Which?  I've seen passionate and closely-held beliefs expressed, but not hate.

Maybe I'm interpreting the written word with emotions that aren't there... But more than just passionate beliefs, I've been getting some people who are trying to insult my religion so that I'll feel the way they do (emotional abuse wasn't my intent, although they seem to be expressing that it is theirs), accuse me of evils, and very aggressively dismiss and insult me. I have done none of these things (I have upset some people with this topic, apparently, but the goal in itself was not to cause anguish), and am hurt that LDS members feel at liberty to abuse me like that. At the very least I would think members would desire to leave a good impression of Latter-Day Saints on me, not a bad one, and offer gentle correction, even if they didn't really desire to be kind!

[MaryJehanne]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

In consideration of your OP, I invite you to come up with 5 ways Catholicism could be portrayed as polytheistic. Do you think God would find that to be a fair representation of Catholicism? Then come up with what you think are the 5 most important things the Catholic Church has in common with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Do you think God would find that to be a fair representation of Christianity?

Thank you, CV75. I wasn't debating whether the LDS were Christian in this thread... The topic of this thread was created on a presumption of a shared principle that turned out not to be shared after all. I did not create this thread with the thesis of  "Polytheists aren't Christian so the LDS aren't Christians - Ha!". I was only saying that, since the LDS believe in multiple gods (a presumption I thought was agreed upon, although the course of this thread has proven otherwise), why isn't polytheism used as a descriptor? That's all the topic was supposed to discuss.

[MaryJehanne]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Just so you can understand - I am an engineer and scientist and work in the field of industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.  The problem I have with the thought that G-d creates each soul ex-nihilo is that would make G-d responsible for the "will" of that soul - because he created that as well.  This would also include the will of Satan and his proclivity towards and love of sin.  So for the record I find such a concept unacceptable, illogical and an affront of the nature of G-d as the only possible source of evil and sin.  Also as a scientist there is a great deal of misunderstanding of nothingness.  What was thought to be an empty void is itself actually something.  

In another thread we have discussed the subject of Dark Energy and Dark Matter - stuff we are learning more about but 100 years ago would have thought to have been an empty void of nothing - but we are learning that for things to be very complex and ordered requires something (not nothing) - some have even summarized nothing to be intelligent.  In fact intelligence for all practical purposes can be classified as nothing - except for the effect it has to create order and learn.   Sort of the idea of a difference between a computer loaded and running software and a newly created computer without any program.  A computer is comprised of states of Zero or One that can be ordered to create what we now call artificial intelligence.

Most everyone understand intelligence as the ghost within a machine.  It is the intelligence of man that separates humanity from beasts.  It is intelligence of humanity that defines or comprehends religion and religious belief (including a relationship to G-d) as well as a proclivity towards sin (to assume the characteristics and nature of Satan) or charity (to assume the characteristics and nature of G-d).  It is very problematic to blame G-d for individual human intelligence - making the claim of sinners that oppose the nature of G-d claiming, "G-d made me this way - and everyone the way they are".  I prefer the doctrine, idea and reality - that there is something intelligent that G-d did not create called individual intelligence - that he is not responsible for nor the one to blame.  

 

The Traveler

Thank you for expressing your belief.

[MaryJehanne]

2 hours ago, Zaccheus said:

Hello all.  I’ve been a lurker for a number of years.  I know I’m late to this conversation but thought I’d pitch in my 2 cents.  A warning – it’s kind of long.

I’m a Roman Catholic and, by way of full disclosure, formerly LDS – born and raised in the church, seminary grad, mission, temple marriage, the works.  The topic of the Holy Trinity is dear to my heart; the Holy Trinity is the God I worship.  There is a lot of confusion about what we Trinitarians mean by God, including among some under-catechized Catholics.  To understand Catholic teaching and specialized terms like being, Being (note the capitalization), person, essence, nature and existence (and the Greek and Latin terminology which these English words are used to translate, especially ousia, prosopon, hypostasis, ens, and esse), understanding them in the Catholic sense requires thinking about them in reference to the most fundamental of all Catholic ideas about God – that God is not a being among beings, but is Being itself. 

What on earth does it mean to say that God is Being and not a being?  Beings with a lowercase ‘b’ are created things like individual human beings, trees, rocks, dogs, dolphins, all of them entities that exist and move within the matrix of being, time, space, matter, everything, the cosmos created by God out of nothing.  Let’s call it ‘the world.’ All of these entities are beings among other beings and can only be understood when compared and contrasted with each other.  A dog is not a cat, is not a tree, is not a human being.  God is not that kind of thing.  God is not a kind of thing that can dwell as God as a type of thing within the world.  God exists outside of it and created it.  He exists independently of it in an absolute sense.  If God had not created, He would still be God in undiminished goodness and greatness.  God would still be God, even if nothing else except God existed.  This is what Catholic philosopher and priest, Robert Sokolowski refers to as the ‘Christian Distinction.’  As Sokolowski put it:

“The Christian distinction is appreciated as a distinction that did not have to be, even though it in fact is.    The most fundamental thing we come to in Christianity, the distinction between the world and God, is appreciated as not being the most fundamental thing after all, because one of the terms of the distinction, God, is more fundamental than the distinction itself...God is understood not only to have created the world, but to have permitted the distinction between himself and the world to occur.  He is not established as God by the distinction…The Christian distinction between God and the world is therefore a distinction that is, in principle, both most primary and yet capable of being obliterated, because one of the terms of the distinction, the world, does not have to be.  To be God, God does not need to be distinguished from the world, because there does not need to be anything other than God alone. “

So what ‘kind’ of ‘being’ is God?  God is God.  God exists.  God is.  God cannot be classified or categorized.  Or, as St. Thomas Aquinas put it, God’s essence is existence.  His essence or nature is to exist.  God is existence itself.  God is Being.  Nothing else but God exists in that mode, hence God is incomparable. Created beings are essences that need not have existed.  An essence is defined as what a thing is; existence is defined as that it is.  Existence is added to essence by God and something new, e.g. a human being, is brought forth into the matrix of being.  Because God does not belong to the matrix of being, He made it, God is the only ‘being’ where his essence just is existence full stop.  God is Being.

This is radically different from what is posed in LDS thought, where matter and intelligence is eternal and Heavenly Father, along with all of the other exalted heavenly fathers in existence, exists within the same eternally-existent material cosmos where the laws of physics hold, the same as all of us. Theoretically, I could use the Millenium Falcon and travel to wherever it is in the universe or multiverse where God dwells (somewhere near a star named Kolob) and visit him (assuming God lets me and I’m able to travel between universes or dimensions, if that’s what’s required to get to him).  This is unthinkable from a Catholic standpoint.  There’s no ‘where’ or ‘there’ where God can be found. God as He is is not localized. He is everywhere present and fills all things. Try to think of God existing alone, with nothing else existing but Him. Are you imagining something floating around in endless darkness? If so, you’re still not thinking like a Catholic. The darkness and the space it fills are creatures, God made them. Get rid of them and now try to think of God alone. It can’t be done. It’s literally unthinkable, which is why Catholics say God as He is is incomprehensible.

I think a lot of the confusion about what Catholicism teaches derives from thinking of the Catholic God from within a materialist context, forgetting or not understanding that, for Catholics, God created matter, time, space, the universe and all multiverses, everything that exists apart from God, out of nothing. 

It’s not possible to properly understand what Catholicism teaches about the Trinity, about one God in three persons, without grasping this fundamental “distinction between the world understood as possibly not having existed and God understood as possibly being all that there is, with no diminution of goodness or greatness.” 

I hope this helps.  I tried to keep it layman-friendly.

May the peace of Christ be with all of you.

 

Thank you, Zaccheus! I'm very glad for you help!

God bless!

[MaryJehanne]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

@MaryJehanne

I did not read past page 1.  The thread moved so fast and I don't have much time.  So what I'm saying here has probably been discussed already.  I'm LDS converted from Catholic.  So, I completely understand where you're coming from about the monotheistic/polytheistic nuance.

Calling LDS Polytheists is an insult.  There is ONE GOD.  It is very clear in scripture that there is one God and that those who believe in other Gods but the God of Israel need conversion.  So to say we should just accept the label is, well, calling as sinners.

As @Jane_Doe has explained, the only difference between Trinitarian and LDS is "what makes them ONE".  Trinitarians believe what makes God a God is because he is God Substance (substance is not quite the right word and there is no English word that encompasses the meaning... what I'm actually calling substance is the latin word Ousia so I'm going to use that word from here on).  What exactly that ousia is, is a mystery because there is no other entity in the universe like it and therefore it is beyond human experience or understanding.  Trinitarians posit that there is this ousia that is God, there is only one entity with that ousia and that is God, and this ousia has the ability to manifest itself into certain personages, is eternal, all-knowing, ever-present, etc. etc.  The LDS, on the other hand believe that there is One God and what makes it ONE and what makes it God is not their ousia but their WILL exercised freely in perfect knowledge.  Therefore, God is God because he Wills as God does.  One who Wills differently is not God.  Beelzebub, Zeus, etc are not God because they do not have the Will of God.  Polytheists do not have any belief in the Will of God.  With that Will comes that perfect knowledge of certain physical characteristics/substances of the God ousia and the elements of the universe - such as the substance of the body to which the spirit of God resides, the substance of the body to which our spirit resided and will reside post mortality, etc.  A spirit achieving this Godly Will in Perfect Knowledge becomes a Person in that Godhead.  The Father is a person in One God because he has the will of God.  The Son is a person in One God because he has the will of God.  The Holy Spirit is the same.

So, you posit that the LDS God cannot possibly be God because he is not the originator of creation.  The ex nihilo understanding has a lot more problems than the God of the elements.  The ex nihilo understanding makes the God ousia the only eternal entity of the universe - this makes it so that only God is not created, everything else is, and that his eternal quality is another reason He is God and nobody/nothing else is (i.e. Who created God? can only be answered by, He is God).  This becomes problematic because for God to be God he creates something into existence with Purpose and Perfect Knowledge (LOVE).  So, problems such as - God would have to know that certain people are going to end up in the fires of hell, so why create them?  Isn't never having existed better than Eternal Damnation? Etc. etc.  The LDS understanding is that matter and energy is eternal and God is matter and energy, so therefore, eternal.  Our spirits are matter and energy and also eternal.  We exist eternally.  The question of why God would create something out of nothing into existence to end up in eternal agony does not apply because God did not create us out of nothing - rather, He saw our existence and we were barren.  He chose to Love us, and therefore, He put us on a path of transformation to be like Him (pure joy) - this involves creating bodies for us - spiritual bodies and mortal bodies and eventually perfected bodies - to which we progress line upon line, precept upon precept, so that we may know what He knows and will as He Wills.  His greatest gift to us, therefore, is our Free Will, as it is the only way we can attain the Will of God.  We either succeed or we fail to which the worst of failure leads us to eternal darkness which is better than the barren existence that has never been touched by the love of God.

So, regardless of where our logic ends up in our meager understanding of God, the fact remains... LDS believe in ONE GOD.

 

Thank you, Anatess!

I wasn't intending to argue about whether the LDS Heavenly Father is the true God or not. I wanted to talk about a term, and, to my misfortune, understood there as being a what turned out to be a false consensus.

God bless!

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said:

Okay! For 'being':

"...anything that exists is a being. You, dear awesome person reading this book, are a being. The stone you pick up at the beach is a being, and so is the rainbow you see in the sky. Even the dream you had last night can be called a being, because it existed in your mind. But humans, stones, rainbows, and dreams are different kindsof beings, which leads us to anotherimportant philosophical term, 'essence.'" (http://pintswithaquinas.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/you-can-understand-aquinas-added-we.pdf)

For 'person':

This is more difficult, so I'm probably going to mess it up.

But, the classical definition is, "an individual substance of a rational nature". "Rational," I believe, means the ability, basically, to think and reason. Human beings are defined as a rational animal. An elephant would be a non-rational animal. "For the constitution of a person [in other words: for it to be called a person] it is required that a reality be subsistent and absolutely distinct, i.e. incommunicable." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm)

I hope that was decently layman language, but some of this philosophy gets hard, especially when you're not (meaning me - I'm not :P) officially trained in it.

I mean, in day-to-day conversation, we'd use "person" like anyone else pretty much, but in different disciplines, like philosophy, terms get specific, precise definitions to assist in explaining difficult-to-grasp ideas.

.... * Jane struggles to find the words to express her thoughts right now.... so she looks through the emoticons but can't find the right picture.... so she decides to phone a friend....

@zil, can you and your fountain pens draw me a picture of my brain exploded?

1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said:

Okay, that helped me to understand the LDS viewpoint a little better! Is it a little bit closer for me to say the LDS view Heavenly Father and Jesus as one in a similar way that an (ideal) married couple is called one?
 

Yes, though the best ever couple you'll see on Earth is trash compared to God's fantastic perfection and unity.  Also note- an ideal husband is 100% one with Christ, having His same perfect love, charity, patience, etc.  Same with the ideal wife.  And the union between them is sealed with God's magnificent power, so that they (the husband, wife, and God) may all be one. 

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Thank you, Anatess!

I wasn't intending to argue about whether the LDS Heavenly Father is the true God or not. I wanted to talk about a term, and, to my misfortune, understood there as being a what turned out to be a false consensus.

God bless!

Neither was I.  I was simply explaining to you the difference in the Trinitarian versus LDS understanding of what makes God God and what makes God One.

I haven't read past page 1 so I don't know what the false consensus is.  But I have to say, a lot of LDS  may not have a full understanding of Trinitarian teaching so it may be that they're trying to phrase their beliefs into something they think you'd understand but causing confusion instead.  But that's just a guess.

Edited September 25, 2018 by anatess2

[zil]

26 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

I'm sorry; I was trying to be gentle and give the LDS religion the benefit of the doubt. I should not have said it had something to do with my religion. I should rephrase what I said: I do not understand that statement logically. As far as I understand the plurality of gods, it means more than one god. Polytheism means many gods. So I was deeply confused. My comment was an invitation to either drop the idea or try to explain it to me. I did not say it wasn't allowed. What I mean by "that's not a thing," I meant (assuming it was a concept in the LDS religion that could be explained to me) that it was not a concept I was familiar with. If it is not explained, you can't be upset with me for not understanding it. Just because someone states there is a difference, without explaining the difference (since it should be clear that I thought there was no difference, hence this thread), it does not mean the information will automatically pop into my head. If I show a small child the word "cat" and they can't understand it, I can't be mad at them for not reading it because I haven't taught them to read in the first place. 

I thought the difference was explained long ago:

Polytheism: implies not just the existence of multiple gods, but the worship of them (and that they are validly worshipable).  It also implies things like competing powers and hierarchy.

Plurality of gods in the beliefs of the Church simply means that they exist.  None of them are validly worshipable except God.  (While one can choose to engage in acts which one might call "worship", it will do no good - you may as well worship a stone idol as to worship Joseph Smith or Abraham or Moses.)

[LePeel]

Calling Latter-Day Saint Doctrine polytheist is to miss the point entirely. 

Donald Trump is the chief executive and we are all the same kind of being as Trump, yet we are not all the president.

God the Father is the most high God, and the only god with whom we have to do, and we are not all the most high God, yet we are the same kind of being he is. The Eternal Father Is our God because we are his children, not because he is a different being from us.

The term polytheist is absolutely foreign to the reality of things and is useless as a descriptor of LDS Doctrine.

Plus, I don't blame Latter-day Saints for avoiding the term polytheist because it's almost always used as an insult by sectarians.

Edited September 26, 2018 by LePeel

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said:

I wasn't triggered at all when you asked me to present how I'd respond to an objection. I thought you were honestly trying to make a comparison, not contriving to upset me. The only part where I began to be "triggered" is when you said: "That will not matter to you because you disagree and you are more then happy to twist our teachings and practices to suit your preconceived ideas."

And I'd expect you to be triggered by that too, which is why I have never said something like that to you. Would you be pleased if I accused you of malice, lying, and bigotry as well? What if I accused you of twisting things to fit your preconceived ideas? Why would you accuse me of these things, when I have been patient and kind with you and not uttered a single angry word?

I am hurt and disappointed.

When did you do it??...  when you quoted LDS church leaders and then claimed they supported you in your claims that the LDS church is Polytheistic.  That is you happy twisting our teaching and practice to suit your preconceived ideas.  You did this right there plain as day in the post I quoted when I made the statement.

You do not get to do that, and then play hurt and confused when you get called out on doing it.

And I do not have to be upset or angry or hurt to point out that you are being hurtful and provoking.

 

 

[goor_de]

21 minutes ago, zil said:

None of them are validly worshipable except God. 

I would say, not appealing.
Anyone who manages to become god is venerable.
a dignitary.
He is not worshiped but worshiped if we maybe get to know him.
What do we know about interstellar traffic?

[goor_de]

12 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

When did you do it??...  when you quoted LDS church leaders and then claimed they supported you in your claims that the LDS church is Polytheistic.  That is you happy twisting our teaching and practice to suit your preconceived ideas.  You did this right there plain as day in the post I quoted when I made the statement.

You do not get to do that, and then play hurt and confused when you get called out on doing it.

And I do not have to be upset or angry or hurt to point out that you are being hurtful and provoking.

 

 

we are all subject to the errors of the human mind

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

That's basically the requirement of the highest Celestial Glory.  Without that unity, you ain't getting there.

I really learned something today. Kudos @anatess2! Honestly, I was not completely sure I understood your statement right. So, I went over to lds.org, and found the article Becoming Like God.(BTW, if this topic is of interest, especially to other non-LDS, like myself, I highly recommend this 5-minute read). It said what you did--that LDS will always worship Heavenly Father, and though exalted, must remain in complete unity with the Godhead. So, while I may not be converted, I now see how LDS can truly consider themselves monotheists. Thank you.

[zil]

23 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

@zil, can you and your fountain pens draw me a picture of my brain exploded?

Hmm.  Brains.  Hmm.  This sounds gruesome (what a weird word).  Hmm.  I think I'll have to do some research to draw this, but I'm not sure I want to google for such images.  Maybe after work - this is turning into one of those weeks where you wish you'd just stayed home.

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I really learned something today. Kudos @anatess2! Honestly, I was not completely sure I understood your statement right. So, I went over to lds.org, and found the article Becoming Like God.(BTW, if this topic is of interest, especially to other non-LDS, like myself, I highly recommend this 5-minute read). It said what you did--that LDS will always worship Heavenly Father, and though exalted, must remain in complete unity with the Godhead. So, while I may not be converted, I now see how LDS can truly consider themselves monotheists. Thank you.

This is completely and exactly what Jesus prayed for us in John 17:21.  Jesus, a person in that Godhead worships the Father and wishes for us to be one exactly like they are.

Edited September 25, 2018 by anatess2

[zil]

2 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I really learned something today. Kudos @anatess2! Honestly, I was not completely sure I understood your statement right. So, I went over to lds.org, and found the article Becoming Like God.(BTW, if this topic is of interest, especially to other non-LDS, like myself, I highly recommend this 5-minute read). It said what you did--that LDS will always worship Heavenly Father, and though exalted, must remain in complete unity with the Godhead. So, while I may not be converted, I now see how LDS can truly consider themselves monotheists. Thank you.

Quote

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said:

Thank you, CV75. I wasn't debating whether the LDS were Christian in this thread... The topic of this thread was created on a presumption of a shared principle that turned out not to be shared after all. I did not create this thread with the thesis of  "Polytheists aren't Christian so the LDS aren't Christians - Ha!". I was only saying that, since the LDS believe in multiple gods (a presumption I thought was agreed upon, although the course of this thread has proven otherwise), why isn't polytheism used as a descriptor? That's all the topic was supposed to discuss.

I wasn’t saying you were doing that. I was explaining, in another way, my invitation to you to perform a thought experiment that shows why polytheism isn’t appropriate to use as a descriptor for the Restored Gospel any more than it is to describe Catholicism... though arguments can certainly be made that it does apply to Catholicism.

I still think it would be fun for you to try what I proposed.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

That God created us with free will does not make him liable for our sin. Despite his innocence, He did make the way for our redemption, though.

I do understand that man has free will - what I do not understand is a concept that G-d creates that will and he made it free?  I regret that many do not understand the flaw in that argument.  It is simple - it is not "free" will if G-d created it.  It is of necessity an extinction of his will.  If we created that will then it would be free and our will - but if we did not create our will - it is not free and it is not ours.

I would point out - one of the big problems many scientist have with those that purport religion is the notion that G-d can do anything he wants - If he wants man to have free will he creates man with free will.  The flaw is the same as saying if G-d did not want man to sin - all he has to do is declare that anything man does is not a sin.  Since he can do anything - why not?  Since he has not done so - then the reason man sins is because G-d really wants him to sin.  This is not accurate depiction of G-d - the example of G-d is Jesus Christ who said not MY WILL be done.  Thus we know that even G-d tames his will and submits it to a higher purpose than himself.  That is why we must control our free will and discipline it to a higher cause.

Here again is a problem - sin is independent of G-d and opposes G-d.  To be independent of G-d and oppose G-d; sin or the possibility has to  be as eternal as G-d - which means he does not create it.  If he did create it - he would be the one responsible for it.

I do not believe G-d creates evil nor do I believe G-d recommends evil - I believe our individual will is free will and is something we create and something we must bridal, control and be responsible for - not something created by G-d and therefore something G-d should be responsible for.  If G-d gives us our free will then he is responsible for it.  I believe we are responsible for what we create - if we create sin then we are responsible for it and we can only be responsible for our free will if it is something we create - and not a creation of G-d or given to us by him.  If we do not create sin how can G-d be just or merciful and hold us responsible for what we did not create - even if we in ignorance get caught up in it?  To punish us for stuff we do not create or understand enough to make a choice is both unjust and cruel. And such cruelty is the same regardless of its source.  It does not suddenly become un-cruel if done by someone with supreme power and knowledge - in fact the better something is understood and known to be cruel the more cruel it is to choose to be cruel - knowledge and understanding makes anyone - including G-d more responsible not less.

 

The Traveler

[CV75]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

I really learned something today. Kudos @anatess2! Honestly, I was not completely sure I understood your statement right. So, I went over to lds.org, and found the article Becoming Like God.(BTW, if this topic is of interest, especially to other non-LDS, like myself, I highly recommend this 5-minute read). It said what you did--that LDS will always worship Heavenly Father, and though exalted, must remain in complete unity with the Godhead. So, while I may not be converted, I now see how LDS can truly consider themselves monotheists. Thank you.

I too went to Catholic and Protestant commentaries on Genesis 1:26 and am impressed with the variety of interpretations and explanations that acknowledge the references to Him in the plural throughout the Bible text while maintaining a monotheistic interpretation and paradigm.

In general, the commentaries attribute the plural and singular textual references to cultural expression, semantics or an evolving revelation of God to those to whom the holy scriptures were first given.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/genesis/1-26.htm

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/hastings/genesis/1-26.htm

https://www.studylight.org/commentary/genesis/1-26.html

http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis1:327

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I do understand that man has free will - what I do not understand is a concept that G-d creates that will and he made it free?  I regret that many do not understand the flaw in that argument.  It is simple - it is not "free" will if G-d created it.  It is of necessity an extinction of his will.  If we created that will then it would be free and our will - but if we did not create our will - it is not free and it is not ours.

Some argue that for good to exist the possibility for evil must also. Still others, including the script writers for the current TV series Lucifer, have taken your approach. In their case, the result was to portray the Devil as a God-ordained "fall guy," doomed to carry out opposition to God and good. Me? I see no flaw in believing God created us with the capacity to rebel against God--against good. It does not strike me as necessity that any capacity for evil must originate apart from God. After all, could not evil, or bad, simply be the absence of God/good? The serpent's primary temptation against Adam & Eve was not to do evil, but to gain the wisdom to make moral choices independent of God.

Edited September 25, 2018 by prisonchaplain

[MaryJehanne]

5 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

.... * Jane struggles to find the words to express her thoughts right now.... so she looks through the emoticons but can't find the right picture.... so she decides to phone a friend....

@zil, can you and your fountain pens draw me a picture of my brain exploded?

Yes, though the best ever couple you'll see on Earth is trash compared to God's fantastic perfection and unity.  Also note- an ideal husband is 100% one with Christ, having His same perfect love, charity, patience, etc.  Same with the ideal wife.  And the union between them is sealed with God's magnificent power, so that they (the husband, wife, and God) may all be one. 

Heh heh...

Thank you, Jane_Doe. I think this helps!

[MaryJehanne]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Neither was I.  I was simply explaining to you the difference in the Trinitarian versus LDS understanding of what makes God God and what makes God One.

I haven't read past page 1 so I don't know what the false consensus is.  But I have to say, a lot of LDS  may not have a full understanding of Trinitarian teaching so it may be that they're trying to phrase their beliefs into something they think you'd understand but causing confusion instead.  But that's just a guess.

I'm so sorry, Anatess. I thought that was what your post was saying...  I'm a little beaten down right now, so I'm probably expecting an attack.

The false consensus is I thought LDS taught multiple gods and that the members on this forum believed that. I thought LDS thought that (for instance, 3 Mormons YouTube claimed they do... I probably won't be watching them for a while). And even some members on here said, that LDS taught multiple gods.  😥 Not a lot of good feelings right now.

 

Edited September 25, 2018 by MaryJehanne