Not believing in the traditional Christ


Jonah
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

They have made it crystal clear that we believe in and worship one God.

They have made it clear that we worship one God.  They (at least some of them) have also made it clear that other God exist.   That's probably the biggest difference between us and traditional Christianity.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Scott said:

Buddhism is nontheistic.  Buddha is not a god.

I didn't say he was.  It is still a worship/religious system that has the concept of "the divine".

When you consider how non-practicing Christians (who still self-identify as Christian) think of God, there really isn't any difference.  Would you say these Christians are also non-theistic?

10 minutes ago, Scott said:

They have made it clear that we worship one God.  They (at least some of them) have also made it clear that other God exist.   That's probably the biggest difference between us and traditional Christianity.  

The best scriptural distinction regarding this statement is:

Quote

For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

The fact that we believe others exist is not on the same plane as heno or poly.  TO US, there is but ONE GOD.

i.e. you can talk about these other gods/Gods all you want.  But only ONE GOD matters or governs us.  Whether they exist or not doesn't matter.  Only one is the one we worship.

Where in the concept or definition of heno or poly does it say "other gods don't matter"?  That's what our belief system is.  Others don't matter.  "They may as well not exist.  And if you believe they don't exist, it doesn't change our faith."

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, person0 said:

Yes, of course, but while you and I will claim that we worship one God and are monotheistic, other's will label us as something else, and I really don't care what they think as long as I know by the power of the Holy Ghost that our doctrines are true.

I probably care too little about what others think of me. If I cared more, I would perhaps take better care of myself and comport myself with more decorum in various situations, such as on this forum. So I tend to fall easily into agreement with your above statement.

But that's beside the point. We aren't polytheists, and we aren't henotheists. That is absurd. We are monotheists. All the hair-splitting in the world will not change that.

Why was the term "polytheist" ever coined, anyway? Because people who did not believe in many gods used it to describe those who did.

Why was the term "monotheist" coined? Clearly, to distinguish those who believed in God, but only one, from the polytheists.

Why was the term "henotheist" coined? Because a couple of early 19th-century Freidrichs wanted to describe primitive Greek monotheists who allowed for the existence of other gods besides the one they worshiped.

So here's the breakdown:

Polytheism: I believe in Zeus, Apollo, Ares, Hera, Athena, and a bunch of other gods.

Henotheism: I grant that Apollo might drive the sun chariot across the sky and that Ares and Apollo and Athena and the rest might possibly exist and do their thing. Whatever. Sure, they might have effect on me. But I only worship Zeus.

Monotheism: There is only one God. He is supreme. He is almighty. The other gods that people worship are false gods. Apollo doesn't drive a sun chariot. Zeus doesn't hurl lightning bolts. The God we worship is the only one.

If you have to classify our religion strictly based on the above categories, into which category does it sort?

The answer is obvious. And if you think that answer is "polytheism" or "henotheism", then you are beyond my reach.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
8 minutes ago, Vort said:

I probably care too little about what others think of me

I dearly  hope you are the exception (not kidding, being honest), but everyone I've met who says this uses it as a defense mechanism to cope with their own loneliness. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Not in the way you use the word embryo.  The problem with your questions and your positing of henotheism is you confuse God with Persons in the Godhead.

I am speaking of more than just Persons in the Godhead.   I am speaking of other gods existing that are not in the Godhead.  Our church has taught that for a long time (dating back to Joseph Smith).

Read the entirety of the below for clarification of part of what I am referring to:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

Or even more straightforward, the Doctrines of Salvation in the old Seminary Manuals:

https://ldsseminary.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/doctrines-of-salvation-volume-2.pdf

CELESTIAL MARRIAGE MAKES GODS IN ETERNITY. But if we are married for time and for all eternity and it is sealed upon our heads by those who have the authority so to seal, and if we then keep our covenants and are faithful to the end, we shall come forth in the resurrection from the dead and receive the following promised blessings: "Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them."

Or quoting Joseph Fielding Smith directly:

"Mortality is the testing or proving ground for exaltation to find out who among the children of God are 
worthy to become Gods themselves, and the Lord has informed us that few there be that find it" 

This is a question, not an arguement:

Do you believe that other gods, not in the Godhead exist or will exist?  Yes, I already know that we worship only one God.  I'm asking if you believe that other gods exist or will exist?  (I am interested in your answer regardless of what it is).

 

Quote

 

2.    Do you believe that Heavenly mother is a Goddess?'

Irrelevant.

 

I don't see it as irrelevant.   It's a perplexing question.   So far only one person has answered in this thread. 

Notice that I have only presented as a question.  I have not given an answer yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

I hope you are the exception, but everyone I've met who says this uses it as a defense mechanism to cope with their own loneliness. 

I wish I were more friendly. IRL, I mean, though I could use an online upgrade, too. I'm friendly enough, and I enjoy the people that I like. But I tend by nature to be introverted. As I have tried to explore my extroverted side and give it some exercise, I have often found it very enjoyable, but on rare occasions quite horrible. It's always risky opening yourself up to others. But mostly, I have found it exhausting, wondering when we're going to be done so I can go home and read the TH forum or read a Latin primer or Google "Where do ducks sleep?" or watch Youtube videos about metalworking. Then I realize what I'm doing, and I realize that the social function I'm attending is actually far more useful and beautiful to me than those other things, as long as I really attend and pay attention. So I do. But it's often not a natural fit for me. It requires work.

it's not that I don't care at all about what anyone thinks of me. Far from it. I want to be held in esteem by family and friends, by those I care about. I would like to be well-regarded by acquaintances, such as at work. Life is easier if you're not regarded with contempt. But I also had some formative experiences from childhood through about 25 years old that taught me in no uncertain terms that seeking for approval from the masses, or even from certain individuals, is foolish. So I quit trying. And insofar as my efforts to impress anyone else ceased with those to whom I'm unattached and whose good opinion of me is irrelevant to myself or my family or friends, I'm much better off for it. I get to live more authentically, and if people mock me for it, then whatever. That's all I really mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I hope you are the exception, but everyone I've met who says this uses it as a defense mechanism to cope with their own loneliness. 

I think it can entirely depend on context...  For me there is a small group of people whom I care about and whose opinion matter to me.  The rest of the world can go rot as far as what they think of me.  I could easily echo Vort's comment.  And I do not consider myself lonely or defense...  Rather I would consider myself exclusive  :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

Why was the term "henotheist" coined?.....who allowed for the existence of other gods besides the one they worshiped.

But Vort, that is what our Church believes, even if it is ephasized as much anymore.

I am just asking (I also asked others).  I am extending the question to you as well.

Do you believe that other gods, not in the Godhead exist or will exist?  Yes, I already know that we worship only one God.  I'm asking if you believe that other gods exist or will exist?  (I am interested in your answer regardless of what it is).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Scott said:
Quote

 

  Quote

2.    Do you believe that Heavenly mother is a Goddess?'

Irrelevant.

I don't see it as irrelevant.   It's a perplexing question.   So far only one person has answered in this thread. 

It's not in the least perplexing. A Mother in heaven will obviously be a female counterpoint to the Father in heaven. That means that, like Eve to Adam, she will be perfectly fitted to him. He is perfect and all-powerful; therefore, so must she be. What could be more obvious? Nothing perplexing about it.

But we don't worship her.

That's the point. We worship only one God. Some might argue that the term "God" incorporates both the Father and the Mother, as it incorporates both the Father and the Son. But that's a silly word game. In some cases, it's probably true. But what of it? When we pray, we pray to the Father. When we covenant, we covenant with the Father. It is him whom we worship, and none else. If we worship the Christ—and we do, in some sense at least—we worship him as God, as a being who is one with the Father.

One God. Not two, not many. One. Monotheism.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I think it can entirely depend on context

 Partially. As a general rule, if you really have an attribute you don't say it. You simply know. A really funny person doesn't need to tell you how funny they are. It's the same with being nice. if you meet a girl and she says she's nice, major red flag. Her actions should show it, not her words, and she might be over compensating. Generally speaking, if you really "didn't care" what others think of you, you wouldn't say it. But you do care. We all do. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Scott said:
19 minutes ago, Vort said:

Why was the term "henotheist" coined?.....who allowed for the existence of other gods besides the one they worshiped.

But Vort, that is what our Church believes, even if it is ephasized as much anymore.

Absolutely not. Not in any sense at all of any sort for which the term was coined. To argue otherwise is exactly like saying that, since political will is force, therefore sufficient political will can allow us to fly by flapping our arms. It's a confusion of terms.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

I am just asking (I also asked others).  I am extending the question to you as well.

Do you believe that other gods, not in the Godhead exist or will exist?  Yes, I already know that we worship only one God.  I'm asking if you believe that other gods exist or will exist?  (I am interested in your answer regardless of what it is).

No, I do not believe that any other gods have existed or do exist or will ever, ever, ever, ever exist throughout the eternities, other than the God I worship. There is no other god.

But wait! Didn't Jesus himself teach, "Ye are gods?" Indeed he did. But Jesus was not telling the liars threatening to stone him that they would sit on the Father's throne. No reasonable person could possibly believe that. Jesus was teaching a more subtle doctrine, and using it to show that merely calling himself God's Son, and thus in the Hebrew mind equal to God, was no capital offense, if even they (filthy. lying abominations that they were) could be considered as "gods".

What does the term "henotheism" mean? Why was it invented? Was it used to describe monotheists who posit the existence of other realms of creation utterly aside from that of our Father? Of course not. How could such a speculative creation have any possible effect on us, even if it actually existed? All Christians who believe the Bible agree that those who follow Christ will inherit "all that the Father hath". So I guess you're stating that all Christians are henotheists?

The whole argument is nonsense. The terms were invented with certain ideas in mind. Latter-day Saints are not among those ideas for which the terms were coined. We are not polytheists. We are not henotheists. I defy anyone to find a single example of what President Oaks called "official doctrine" that teaches any such thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

I don't see it as irrelevant.   It's a perplexing question.   So far only one person has answered in this thread. 

Notice that I have only presented as a question.  I have not given an answer yet.

It's not perplexing.  And @person0's answer was perfectly adequate.  Why would you expect anyone else to answer it on top of his answer.  But if you insist, for this conversation to move along:

Words will mean different things in different contexts.  Is she a Goddess? Well, as @person0 said, "the SIMPLE ANSWER is yes."  But in a conversation regarding the categorization we're discussing, it is incomplete.  And much of these words we're using are incomplete.

She is a being who has received exaltation.  She has been crowned with glory.  She is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving.  If that satisfies as a "goddess" sobeit.

But if you're asking if that has some effect on us and our worship/beliefs, then the answer is no.  This is why Ashera worshippers are not just "choosing a different god in the pantheon".  They are committing sacrilege.  They are worshiping a false god.  Now, tell me, how does that fit into the henotheism narrative?

It doesn't.

That said, I want to make my position clear.  I've clarified it enough for a few others to acknowledge it.  But I have no idea if you even read it.  So, here it is:

For those who believe that henotheism or polytheism is the correct label to attribute, you have to recognize that it is just a LABEL.  It doesn't define us any more than you seem to believe monotheism does.  There are too many characteristics about our faith that don't easily categorize into these man-made labels.  And in a partial agreement with you, I'd say that we don't easily fit into the monotheistic label either.  But to say we're MORE polytheistic than monotheistic isn't looking at the whole picture.  You're just looking as a single phrase that doesn't really give the real meaning of these terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mores said:

It's not perplexing.  And @person0's answer was perfectly adequate.  Why would you expect anyone else to answer it on top of his answer. 

I liked his answer.   I was just wondering if anyone had different ideas.  PS, I like your answer too.

But if you're asking if that has some effect on us and our worship/beliefs, then the answer is no. 

Quote

For those who believe that henotheism or polytheism is the correct label to attribute, you have to recognize that it is just a LABEL. 

Quote

There are too many characteristics about our faith that don't easily categorize into these man-made labels. 

 

Yes that's what I'm getting at.   I'd say henotheism is the closest definition to our beliefs, but it is by no means a perfect definition.   We aren't monotheists though, at least if we believe what our prophets have said.  

Quote

And in a partial agreement with you, I'd say that we don't easily fit into the monotheistic label either.  But to say we're MORE polytheistic than monotheistic isn't looking at the whole picture. 

I'd say more henotheistic, but I'm beating a dead horse here.

Quote

You're just looking as a single phrase that doesn't really give the real meaning of these terms.

Yes.   We're unique.    In many ways we aren't like traditional Christians.   Our beliefs are different.   None of those definitions is going to define what we believe.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scott said:

I'd say henotheism is the closest definition to our beliefs, but it is by no means a perfect definition.

Go do a quick, 30-minute study on the history of the word "henotheism". Then come back and tell us if you think it's "the closest definition to our beliefs."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, person0 said:

I think you may be confused about the implications of my definition of omnipotence.  Your example makes no sense to me in connection with my definition.  How does my definition imply that God is the exclusive possessor of [x] power?

It is the context of "All" power.  If the definitive statement is made that G-d is "all powerful" - meaning (as you said previously) that G-d has all power to do anything possible.  My effort was show an existing power that G-d does not have.  There are implications to power.  One implication is responsibility another is determinability.  This is what Calvinist realize.   In short - what has power is responsible and the means that determines the outcome.  If there is an outcome for which G-d is not responsible or or any outcome that G-d does not determine - It can only be because he does not possess that power - that power of necessity must reside somewhere else and be the means or cause.

Many times I have made reference to the Near Eastern Suzerain - Vassal treaty or covenant.  There are applications as to the context of a "supreme power" rather than being all powerful - that I believe is that understanding necessary to comprehend the power and nature of G-d.  Especially concerning a bevy of implications (like delegation of power and authority) that are not yet being discussed.   There are consequences in delegating power and authority.  I am also of the mind that to understand the context of G-d's power - not only is it necessary to understand his supreme power and how that power can be delegated and distributed - but we must also understand his mercy and compassion - because all such things of G-d are inseparably connected.  And yet as we attempt to define divine power - we try to understand that separably from other natures. 

So to be clear and to eliminate as much confusion as possible - I define G-d's power as the "Supreme" power rather than "All powerful".

There is another tangent in this discussion that has to do with delegation of power.  Some would argue that G-d still retain the power even if he has delegated it.  In other words he has the power to do things that he does not himself exercise.  But this is an argument of supposition that causes more confusion than clarity.   I believe it is clarified  if we understand, that in the case of distributed or delegated power - that the power of G-d, because he is G-d, remains superior instead of all the power or all powerful.   In short "All Power" as a description  is not accurate enough to prevent way to much misunderstanding and presented in the long lasting argument of freewill verses determinism  - That I believe can only be clarified by a more clear use of terms.   

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Vort said:

No, I do not believe that any other gods have existed or do exist or will ever, ever, ever, ever exist throughout the eternities, other than the God I worship. There is no other god.

OK, thanks for clarifying this.   That is where we differ in our discussions.   Based on what you said above, you are a monotheist.  

Throughout our modern Church history, and since Joseph Smith's time, though, our Church has taught that men can become gods.    It is only in the last two decades or so that the emphasized wording to be that men can be like God, but the teachings that men can become gods are still there and haven't been refuted (as far as I know).  It seems in recent years the teaching isn't emphasised as much, but as far as I know, it has never been refuted.   Those of us who grew up in the Church during the 1970's and 1980's (or early) will probably know exactly what I am referring to.  (Perhaps I'm showing my age here).

Here are some of the comments by former Church leaders and prophets.

We can start with Joseph Fielding Smith, who said the following in the 1970's:

 "Mortality is the testing or proving ground for exaltation to find out who among the children of God are worthy to become Gods themselves, and the Lord has informed us that few there be that find it" 

"All exhalted men become gods".

Or the encylopedia of Mormonism, which isn't a cannonized work, but uses the teachings of our prophets:

For Latter-day Saints, the term "godhood" denotes the attainment of such a state—one of having all divine attributes and doing as God does and being as God is.

Here are some excepts using first presidency quotes in the BYU Archive:


http://emp.byui.edu/SatterfieldB/Quotes/divinepotential.HTML

How about the First Presidency Message from Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund:

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.

Brigham Young:

The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself; when we have been proved in our present capacity, and have been faithful with all things he puts into our possession.

And:

Intelligent beings are organized to become Gods, even the Sons of God, to dwell in the presence of the Gods, and become associated with the highest intelligences that dwell in eternity.

Or more recently by Gordon B Hinckley:

The whole design of the gospel is to lead us, onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62) and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is a grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! (See The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Clyde J. Williams, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984, p. 1) [From October 1994 General Conference, Ensign, November 1994, p. 48; alsoTeachings of Gordon B. Hinkley, 179).

John Taylor:

man, as a man, could arrive at all the dignity that a man was capable of obtaining or receiving; but it needed a God to raise him to the dignity of a God. For this cause it is written, "Now are we the sons of God; and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him." And how and why like Him? Because, through the instrumentality of the atonement and the adoption, it is made possible for us to become of the family of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; and that as He, the potential instrument, through the oneness that existed between Him and His Father, by reason of obedience to divine law, overcame death, hell and the grave, and sat down upon His Father's throne, so shall we be able to sit down with Him, even upon His throne. [Mediation and Atonement, Ch.20]

[Man] is not only the son of man, but he is the son of God also. He is a God in embryo, and possesses within him a spark of that eternal flame which was struck from the blaze of God's eternal fire in the eternal world

Lorenzo Snow:

Obedience and purity are requirements of godhood. That exalted position was made manifest to me at a very early day. I had a direct revelation of this. It was most perfect and complete. If there ever was a thing revealed to man perfectly, clearly, so that there could be no doubt or dubiety, this was revealed to me, and it came in these words: "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be."

Heber J Grant:

These duties and obligations are calculated to make us Godlike in our disposition. They are calculated to make Gods of us, and to fit and qualify us that we may become joint heirs with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Ezra Taft Benson:

As God's offspring, we have His attributes in us. We are gods in embryo, and thus have an unlimited potential for progress and attainment.

Spencer W Kimball:

Mortal man has not become what he may become. Perhaps there is something else that we will learn as we perfect our bodies and our spirits in the times to come. You and I -- what helpless creatures are we! Such limited power we have, and how little can we control the wind and the waves and the storms! We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were stated by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be." This is a power available to us as we reach perfection and receive the experience and power to create, to organize, to control native elements. How limited we are now! We have no power to force the grass to grow, the plants to emerge, the seeds to develop.
 

Quote

All Christians who believe the Bible agree that those who follow Christ will inherit "all that the Father hath". So I guess you're stating that all Christians are henotheists?

So, because other Christians don't believe that men can become gods.   If you believed that men could become gods and that other gods existed, I would label you as a henotheist, but you have already said that you do not.   

 

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

Throughout our modern Church history, and since Joseph Smith's time,  our Church has taught that men can become gods.

An utterly different discussion from whether Latter-day Saints are henotheistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

OK, thanks for clarifying this.   That is where we differ in our discussions.   Based on what you said above, you are a monotheist.  

Throughout our modern Church history, and since Joseph Smith's time,  our Church has taught that men can become gods. 

Scott, if a person becomes one with God (aka exalted), then they are ONE.  Sum total number of Gods = 1.  More divine person that are ONE with God yes, but still only one God.  

It's monotheism.  Albeit, not simple monotheism like Islam.  Likewise Trinitarisim is not simple monotheism like Islam.

I invite everyone (including me) to do a study of the oneness of God.  

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Trinitarians and Hindus are completely different.  Trinity and Trimurti are not comparable.  Trinitarians do not believe in any way at all that the Trinity are 3 separate individual deities with different attitudes, etc.  The Trinity is One God.  The Trimutri is 3 gods.  The Trinity is not 3 Beings united by a universal constant.  The Trinity is One Entity.

And the Trimurti is ALSO one deity.  It is three deities and ONE deity.  The Three aspects are also three different beings, each expressing a different action and idea.

You MAY not see this as a Christian, but to those who are NOT Christian, the ideas that are expressed in some areas of Christianity are basically the same to the outward appearance as those in other religions. 

This does not mean they are the same beings or same belief, but that there are aspects that are common between them.

Perhaps an easier to digest example of this behavior.  We'll take a look at an even earlier belief that originated during the same period and has crossover between both East and Western thought.  During the 6th century we have originating among the Jewish texts a myth (or as we Christians would put it, the story from history) regarding Noah and a worldwide flood.  This belief is also held by Christians.  Noah is the origin of man today, though we are all related to Adam, we are also all related to Noah.

At the same time, a very similar story ALSO originated in the 6th century BC which became part of the Hindu religions, that they also have a great flood, but in this aspect we have it that Manu is warned by an avatar of Vishnu of the coming flood.  Manu was the first man as well, in this aspect, having been saved from the flood by the revelations of Vishnu.

This obviously is NOT the same as the story we believe in, but to the outward appearance to those who are not part of our religion or Hindu they would immediately see the obvious similarities.  They would label both of these as flood myths and stories of a worldwide flood mythology.  They have common aspects.

Now a Christian may refute and say that the Hindu story is false and vice versa, and that they have nothing in common, but to everyone else (and this is something that Historians deal with quite regularly when analyzing various religions and their impact on history as well as their relationship to each other) there are common factors which can be understood and explained.

In the same way, those who are not Christian (though there are probably a few that are Hindu) would understand and perceive the similarities between the trimurti beliefs and the trinity beliefs.  This is a reason why Jews and Muslims would quite validly claim that neither Christians who believe in the trinity (or a similar belief) nor Hindi are monotheistic, but in fact, as per their belief, are polytheistic.

In the Jewish (and Muslim) thought, there is ONLY ONE DEITY, not represented by three, not with three aspects, but ONE and ONLY ONE, universal and constant.  Any thought that tries to portray it as more than that will be seen as polytheistic most likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It is the context of "All" power.  If the definitive statement is made that G-d is "all powerful" - meaning (as you said previously) that G-d has all power to do anything possible.  My effort was show an existing power that G-d does not have. . .  In short - what has power is responsible and the means that determines the outcome.  If there is an outcome for which G-d is not responsible or or any outcome that G-d does not determine - It can only be because he does not possess that power. . .

Okay, I can see where you are coming from, but I disagree that there is a flaw in my logic or my definition.  I said:

Quote

All powerful (Omnipotent) is the power to do anything that is possible to be done.

From the example you gave about who you love - the power to make someone else's decision does not exist, and hence is not something that can possibly be done.  Your ability to make a decision and someone else's ability to make that decision for you are two different powers; one of them exists, the other doesn't.  I fail to see the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vort said:

An utterly different discussion from whether Latter-day Saints are henotheistic.

How so?   Honest question.

Also, it doesn't seemed to be empahsised much anymore, but our early Church leaders have said that other gods (lower case) existed.   Who are the council of gods (lower case) mentioned by Joseph Smith?   There may be only one God, but other gods, or at least divine beings that God calls god.   There is God (the only God we worship) and then there are gods.

Of course, not much has been said on the matter and there is a lot we don't know.    I haven't been able to find that much on the subject.  

Quote

Go do a quick, 30-minute study on the history of the word "henotheism". Then come back and tell us if you think it's "the closest definition to our beliefs."

My study on religion including henotheism is measured in years, not minutes.  Also, closest definition doesn't mean a perfect definition.   As I have said many time, we are unique.   No one believes as we do.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scott said:

Who are the council of gods (lower case) mentioned by Joseph Smith?

My understanding is that was the Godhead and all of us; not anyone else.

Quote

"Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken. . ."

Scripturally, there is no necessity that we assume anyone else was involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

How so?   Honest question.

A discussion about whether Latter-day Saints are henotheists centers on two things:

1. What actual belief systems define those who are called "henotheists"?
2. To what degree do Latter-day Saint teachings comport with those belief systems?

A discussion about whether men can become "'gods" centers on two things:

1. What exactly is meant by "gods"?
2. What is the process by which men might attain such a state?

The discussions are very different. The former is purely a matter of definition; the latter is a complex, nuanced discussion of the ramifications of the plan of salvation, couched in inexact terms that we must use because we don't have anything better.

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

My study on religion including henotheism is measured in years, not minutes.  Also, closest definition doesn't mean a perfect definition.   As I have said many time, we are unique.   No one believes as we do.  

Agreed. So then, why would you apply a term like "henotheism", which in your years of study you must have discovered was coined for a completely different purpose and used to describe a completely foreign belief system, to Latter-day Saint beliefs and pronounce it a close fit? It is nothing of the sort.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

No, I do not believe that any other gods have existed or do exist or will ever, ever, ever, ever exist throughout the eternities, other than the God I worship. There is no other god.

I gotta admit, despite the fact that I agree we are a monotheistic faith, the above seems either a little disingenuous, or is coming from a paradigm that my brain is not currently using.

Edited by person0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

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