Not believing in the traditional Christ


Jonah
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That might be the case here or there, but often times the worst evil committed has good intentions. Very, very few people play with their mustache and twirl a cape saying 'Grr....I'm a villain, I hate love." Many people either rationalize their actions and make themselves the good guy or honestly feel they are doing good. 

in fact, I got into a deep argument with someone in college over this. I said that some dictator-I don't even remember which one-thought he was doing good. The other person said "Oh, you mean communism is good?" "No, I said that Mao* probably thought he was doing good." "So, communism is good?" NO, that's not what I said. 

He didn't get it. 

*It might have been Mao, or Stalin, or Hitler...I seriously forget which one. But, I stand by what i said. Even those dictators probably thought they were doing good, at least at some point. 

I get it but do not agree. Yes, we justify our actions, and rationalize/moralize our selfish decisions. Mao saw 50 million starve and believed the sacrifice was worth it to create a new socialist man. Yet, if we are truly made in the image of God, then something in him knew it was wrong. So, while we can all make our case, before God, come judgment day, there will be no objections to righteous judgments rendered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

I get it but do not agree.

You don't have to agree, and yes, I see it differently. You've read "Mere Christianity" I assume? CS Lewis touches on what I've said. 

To be clear, no, I don't think Mao, or Stalin, or Hitler, or the wife who leaves her husband to follow her heart and marries her gym instructor (yes, that happens) are doing the right thing. Like you @prisonchaplain, I agree 100% that there is a right and wrong and moral laws. So no, I'm not justifying their actions. We clear on that? Good. Sadly, I didn't even want to say that, but I hate misunderstandings. So I wanted to be clear. 

 

But I do think those people that I mentioned would think they were doing good, so that is where we disagree. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

That might be the case here or there, but often times the worst evil committed has good intentions. Very, very few people play with their mustache and twirl a cape saying 'Grr....I'm a villain, I hate love." Many people either rationalize their actions and make themselves the good guy or honestly feel they are doing good. 

in fact, I got into a deep argument with someone in college over this. I said that some dictator-I don't even remember which one-thought he was doing good. The other person said "Oh, you mean communism is good?" "No, I said that Mao* probably thought he was doing good." "So, communism is good?" NO, that's not what I said. 

He didn't get it. 

*It might have been Mao, or Stalin, or Hitler...I seriously forget which one. But, I stand by what i said. Even those dictators probably thought they were doing good, at least at some point. 

I knew you were a closet commie.  Time to refurbish the compound's re-education chamber - it's woefully out of date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, MormonGator said:

You don't have to agree, and yes, I see it differently. You've read "Mere Christianity" I assume? CS Lewis touches on what I've said. 

To be clear, no, I don't think Mao, or Stalin, or Hitler, or the wife who leaves her husband to follow her heart and marries her gym instructor (yes, that happens) are doing the right thing. Like you @prisonchaplain, I agree 100% that there is a right and wrong and moral laws. So no, I'm not justifying their actions. We clear on that? Good. Sadly, I didn't even want to say that, but I hate misunderstandings. So I wanted to be clear. 

 

But I do think those people that I mentioned would think they were doing good, so that is where we disagree. 

16  For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil
(Book of Mormon | Moroni 7:16)

I suspect that the tendency that @MormonGator so accurately describes is just our attempts to smother and silence that persistent whispering that what we are doing is wrong.

Edited by askandanswer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I suspect that the tendency that @MormonGator so accurately describes is just our attempts to smother and silence that persistent whispering that what we are doing is wrong.

Perhaps. One thing we all agree on is that evil exists, even if people want to call it good or ignore that "inner voice".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2019 at 3:27 PM, mikbone said:

It was not given at a funeral.  Elder King Follett had been buried a month prior to this general conference talk.

The family members asked him for some words of consolation and Joseph Smith mentioned him.  But the talk covers many more topics then Elder King Follett.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/41eb/bf581318d7b8e2917760160a04297d19684d.pdf

 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/file/4607/download?token=Gblh_XFE

The main point of his talk was why we are so important to God. It identifies what our relationship is to him. This relationship was then tied into the resurrection and eternal progression. I believe Joseph Smith rightly discerned the comfort the family members were seeking, for example, the question might have been, what will become of Elder Follett in the afterlife. If this the case, then almost the entire discourse was about him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
 
 
On 11/15/2019 at 3:12 PM, theplains said:

Exodus 4:22 says, "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even 
my firstborn
."

Speaking of David (verses 20), Psalm 89:27 says, "Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than 
the kings of the earth
."

Jeremiah 31:9 says, "They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I 
will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not 
stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn
."
                                                                   
What does firstborn mean in the above three verses?

Thanks,
Jim

In each of these verses, firstborn is a title. It is obviously not a literal statement. The title connects their calling with the calling given to Christ, namely that of a savior or a person through whom the blessings of the gospel would flow. However, I believe 89:27 to be messianic. This verse presents some interesting "ideas". The literal translation of the last part is "the most high above the kings of the earth". The phrase "the most high" is generally used in reference to El or to the Father of the Messiah. It is a reference to exaltation, making all the offspring of the Messiah one with the Father. Or, all the offspring of the Messiah equal with the Messiah, who is one with the Father,  which makes all of them, "firstborn".

There is a vast difference between being the firstborn and being made the firstborn.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2019 at 3:32 PM, Traveler said:

If we say G-d has all power to determine outcome - then all outcomes are the result of his power.

If I am reading your words correctly it sounds as though you are suggesting that if God has the ability to cause an effect, He therefore is responsible of said effect?  If so, that makes no sense whatsoever, because the ability to cause an effect or produce and outcome is not the same as actually doing it.  Even if we go to your original example (a few posts back) and suggest that God is able to designate whom you will love, that is not the same as Him actually doing it.

On 12/19/2019 at 3:32 PM, Traveler said:

If G-d has all power - he could and for the sake of justice, should prevent evil from unjustly having influences that under any condition causes evil outcomes or actions towards undeserving good people.

Okay, upon seeing this I am realizing that we have a fundamental disagreement that I don't think is resolvable.  I think I remember this from a few years ago in the huge thread about agency.  God's ability to do something does not require him to do something, nor does it make Him responsible if/when he chooses not to do something.  You may suggest that not doing it, being a 'choice' in and of itself would make Him complicit in the outcome; I would disagree.

On 12/19/2019 at 3:32 PM, Traveler said:

If G-d has all power he also has all responsibility - and yet G-d takes takes no responsibility for any evil or injustice.

Yup.  Fundamental disagreement.

On 12/19/2019 at 3:32 PM, Traveler said:

"To them that know to do good and do it not - to them it is sin."

Your transposition of such a rule onto God will, by its nature, implicate God for your mortal and imperfect definition of what it means to 'do good'.  Could one not argue that the greatest good would be to allow for every man to be wholly aware that his eternal reward is perfectly commensurate to his own choices?

On a similar note, let us assume for a moment that you are correct.  If we say that God is not all-powerful because of the fact that He would then be all-responsible and apply that simple statement to all of our earthly history would implicate God in many ways, because of the powers we know He does possess.  We know God is capable of speaking to men, He is capable of intervening in our actions (i.e. saul), and He is capable of performing miracles.  Has there never been a time when someone has lost their faith, never to be regained, because of the 'inaction' of God according to their righteous request?  Is God responsible for their fall?  According to the implications of your assignment of responsibility, God is already responsible for everyone who falls away, and everyone who follows a wicked path, etc, etc, when He could have intervened to bring about a different result.  From scripture, we already know enough about God's power and abilities to be able to assign Him the blame for our mistakes, if we use the definition you provide.  I do not agree that power equals responsibility in the way you have asserted.

Again, it appears we have a disagreement at a fundamental level that affects our ability to come to an area of agreement as to whether or not God is omnipotent.  I will close with a quote by Spencer W. Kimball in one of my favorite talks, 'Tragedy or Destiny?'

Quote

Could the Lord have prevented these tragedies? The answer is, Yes. The Lord is omnipotent, with all power to control our lives, save us pain, prevent all accidents, drive all planes and cars, feed us, protect us, save us from labor, effort, sickness, even from death, if he will. But he will not.

We should be able to understand this, because we can realize how unwise it would be for us to shield our children from all effort, from disappointments, temptations, sorrows, and suffering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, person0 said:

If I am reading your words correctly it sounds as though you are suggesting that if God has the ability to cause an effect, He therefore is responsible of said effect?  If so, that makes no sense whatsoever, because the ability to cause an effect or produce and outcome is not the same as actually doing it.  Even if we go to your original example (a few posts back) and suggest that God is able to designate whom you will love, that is not the same as Him actually doing it.

Okay, upon seeing this I am realizing that we have a fundamental disagreement that I don't think is resolvable.  I think I remember this from a few years ago in the huge thread about agency.  God's ability to do something does not require him to do something, nor does it make Him responsible if/when he chooses not to do something.  You may suggest that not doing it, being a 'choice' in and of itself would make Him complicit in the outcome; I would disagree.

Yup.  Fundamental disagreement.

Your transposition of such a rule onto God will, by its nature, implicate God for your mortal and imperfect definition of what it means to 'do good'.  Could one not argue that the greatest good would be to allow for every man to be wholly aware that his eternal reward is perfectly commensurate to his own choices?

On a similar note, let us assume for a moment that you are correct.  If we say that God is not all-powerful because of the fact that He would then be all-responsible and apply that simple statement to all of our earthly history would implicate God in many ways, because of the powers we know He does possess.  We know God is capable of speaking to men, He is capable of intervening in our actions (i.e. saul), and He is capable of performing miracles.  Has there never been a time when someone has lost their faith, never to be regained, because of the 'inaction' of God according to their righteous request?  Is God responsible for their fall?  According to the implications of your assignment of responsibility, God is already responsible for everyone who falls away, and everyone who follows a wicked path, etc, etc, when He could have intervened to bring about a different result.  From scripture, we already know enough about God's power and abilities to be able to assign Him the blame for our mistakes, if we use the definition you provide.  I do not agree that power equals responsibility in the way you have asserted.

Again, it appears we have a disagreement at a fundamental level that affects our ability to come to an area of agreement as to whether or not God is omnipotent.  I will close with a quote by Spencer W. Kimball in one of my favorite talks, 'Tragedy or Destiny?'

A simple question - If we know a crime is about to be committed and we could easily prevent the crime from taking place but rather choose to just sit back and watch - as though it is entertainment to us.  Are we innocent or could it be argued that we have some complicity?  Think of the parable of the good Samaritan.  Can we say we love and not offer aid? and even prevent (especially when we have the power to do so) harm of anything good?

I am simply employing simple logic - If G-d is all powerful and if he created all things ex nilo (especially if G-d knows the results of each bit of creation - how is he absolved of all responsibility?  How can we say it is 100% the fault of what he created and caused to be?

For me it appears to be like unto a person pointing a gun at a person then firing a bullet killing the other person - and the conclusion is that the person firing the gun is 100% innocent and the fault lies completely with the bullet.

I agree that anyone can believe whatever they want - even if it does not make sense or follow logic.  But if they want to give the impression that they employed logic to determine their belief - they ought to be able to defend what they believe by employing logic.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Traveler said:

A simple question - If we know a crime is about to be committed and we could easily prevent the crime from taking place but rather choose to just sit back and watch - as though it is entertainment to us.  Are we innocent or could it be argued that we have some complicity?  Think of the parable of the good Samaritan.  Can we say we love and not offer aid? and even prevent (especially when we have the power to do so) harm of anything good?

The Lord seems to think so.  His ways are not our ways.  Once again, you are applying a mortal understanding to an eternal being, not limited by our finite understanding.

Quote

10 And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.

11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.

12 Now Amulek said unto Alma: Behold, perhaps they will burn us also.

13 And Alma said: Be it according to the will of the Lord. But, behold, our work is not finished; therefore they burn us not.

40 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am simply employing simple logic - If G-d is all powerful and if he created all things ex nilo (especially if G-d knows the results of each bit of creation - how is he absolved of all responsibility?  How can we say it is 100% the fault of what he created and caused to be?

???  Since when are you and I discussing God creating things ex-nihilo?  I assumed that as a Latter-Day Saint you would already be in on the belief that He created ex-materia; is my assumption incorrect?  I have clearly laid out in another thread that if God were to have created all things ex-nihilo that determinism would in fact be the only logical conclusion, and God would be 100% responsible for the actions of all His creations.  See here:

I am arguing that given creation ex-materia, we can yet identify God as an all-powerful being once one understands that abstract 'powers' that can be imagined in the mind but that do not actually exist cannot be included as part of the 'all' in all-powerful.  The ability to create an immovable rock does not exist, hence it does not detract from designating God as omnipotent.  Anyway, I feel I have adequately explained my logic;  if there continues to be a disconnect, I am not sure what more I could explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@person0, I think Traveler is presenting what would logically follow if one believed things we do not believe.  Not sure why he's not clarifying that for you (or any other reader), but that's what I suspect is happening.  Of course, I could be all wrong.  (I also suspect he subscribes to a different definition (or understanding?) of "all powerful" than you and I do, but that he's not actually arguing his definition - at least, not directly, but perhaps by demonstrating the (il)logical end of a third party's definition of "all powerful".  This kind of hard-to-follow approach is why I tend not to engage with him.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zil said:

@person0, I think Traveler is presenting what would logically follow if one believed things we do not believe.  Not sure why he's not clarifying that for you (or any other reader), but that's what I suspect is happening.  Of course, I could be all wrong.  (I also suspect he subscribes to a different definition (or understanding?) of "all powerful" than you and I do, but that he's not actually arguing his definition - at least, not directly, but perhaps by demonstrating the (il)logical end of a third party's definition of "all powerful".  This kind of hard-to-follow approach is why I tend not to engage with him.)

I think you just might be right, haha.  Yup; confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@person0 and @zil I am grateful to be having this discussion.  This thread is about believing in the "Traditional" Christ.  My personal studies and considerations into the "traditional" doctrines of G-d; I find to be problematic on several levels.  I am of the mind that a large contribution to the Trinity doctrine and notions of the G-dhead and Christ come from certain corrupt ancient pagan doctrines, especially surrounding the worship of Baal and his all powerful Father El.  But that is a tangent discussion for perhaps another time.

Paramount to Latter-day Saint discussions of the G-dhead and the Christ is our unique understanding of "The Everlasting" covenant or what is understood through modern revelation to be the Plan of Salvation.  A critical notion has been removed from traditional Christian belief that we often refer to as the pre-existent counsel of Heaven.  There are important elements of our pre-existence and divine plan of Salvation such as "Agency" and the necessity of a "Fall" and need of a redeemer or savior.   The entire concept of an eternal or everlasting covenant shews logic if and when left out.  The early Christians were not idiots and fools - but without a firm understanding of the plan of salvation and in order to philosophically compete with Paganism two logical constructs were important to define G-d.  Logically G-d needed to be all powerful and creation had to be ex nihilo.

One of the most important elements of the everlasting covenant or plan of salvation is the notion of marriage by divine covenant.  Marriage is the inevitable and "necessary" element of Celestial Glory.  Can I stress this concept enough?  This concept of marriage is greatly diminished in our current society and lost in the flawed understanding of many genders.  I would purport that if all power could reside in an individual - then gender becomes meaningless.  We know from modern revelation that the power to create life does not resided with an individual but requires the compliment of a man and a woman.  Only through covenant and the complimentary uniting of the two genders does the power of what is called in scripture as the breath of life; is the creation of life possible.

In addition, modern revelation puts forth the un-mitigate-able necessity of three individuals in the G-dhead, mainly The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost.  If the notion of an "All Powerful" being is creditable - then 3 individuals in the G-dhead is problematic and contradictory.  There is no logic to it.  This is why the Trinity doctrine was invented - if G-d is all powerful - then the trinity doctrine is the only logical possibility - and marriage is logically flawed as the only possibility for creation of life.  

Modern revelation through Joseph Smith is a logical miracle.  All the elements of a Plan of salvation and the divine covenant of marriage are logically sound and the only possible explanation for the Plan of Salvation, Marriage and Celestial beings being "ONE"!  It is the oneness (the compliment of gender and binding covenant of family) that is all powerful - not an individual.  

In addition there is Agency and redemption that compliment each other in the fall and atonement that also add to "Knowledge" of good and evil in order that All Power can have place with Celestial Glory.  But if in the "Beginning" G-d was all powerful would not be necessary or logical.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2019 at 11:35 AM, Scott said:

If we are to believe second hand accounts, Joseph Smith was the first to teach this.   No official first hand records exist (as far as I know), but our official Church History contains second hand accounts.

If we are to believe other second hand accounts, Zina Young (wife of Brigham Young after Joseph's death), who was the former wife of Joseph Smith said that in 1839 Joseph told her that we had two heavenly parents.

I see no reason to disbelieve the claim since that doctrine became officially taught in later years.

Birgham Young seems to be the first prophet to teach the doctrine publically.  

 

It makes sense that each of us had a set of heavenly parents but we have to consider the doctrine that we were neither created nor made but have existed from all eternity to all eternity. If that is true, then we cannot see those parents as our originators. We would be the same age as they are, the same age as God is. As such, the definition of parents cannot be the same as we understand it to be in mortality (but even that definition is different for us. The rest of the world believes we started, came into existence at birth. But we understand that is not true, that we existed before we were born).

I personally believe that God, the Father can be our literal Father without any heavenly mother involved. I would suggest that the connection is similar to the connection we have with Christ as our Father in this life and still, we can have heavenly parents, both a father and a mother. It is possible that neither of them is God, the Father. Again, the same as is Jesus Christ is not either of our parents, yet He has spiritually begotten us and so, in that sense, He is also our Father.

But also consider that God, the Father, started all this eons ago and no one that has ever been born in a mortal body could be born if it had not been for God, the Father's work. As such, even though his mortality is far far removed from our mortality that would make Him the great Father of us all, literally.

These are just some speculations/ideas that some may wish to consider as we discuss heavenly parents. I'm not trying to prove anything or to disagree with our doctrine. But I believe everything I've stated so far is in our scriptures. The way we put them together sometimes doesn't quite fit when other things are considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2019 at 9:43 AM, Traveler said:

I am grateful to be having this discussion.  This thread is about believing in the "Traditional" Christ.  My personal studies and considerations into the "traditional" doctrines of G-d; I find to be problematic on several levels.  I am of the mind that a large contribution to the Trinity doctrine and notions of the G-dhead and Christ come from certain corrupt ancient pagan doctrines, especially surrounding the worship of Baal and his all powerful Father El.  But that is a tangent discussion for perhaps another time.

That would be a discussion about God, the Father, not the traditional Christ or the Trinity. The New Testament is clear that there are three persons in the Godhead. The doctrine of what the Trinity is comes from a much later philosophy that flesh is corrupt and spirit is pure. That started a struggle with the idea that Jesus was God because he was a being of flesh and God is spirit (according to the argument). The New Testament tends to support that assumption (I've argued this idea here before but it wasn't well-received).

The points about the traditional Christ that I believe we can all mostly agree upon is:

  • He is the son of God
  • He was born of a human mother
  • Was human as well as divine
  • Existed before he was incarnated
  • Exists now as an embodied spirit, resurrected never to die again
  • Saved everyone from permanent death, bringing everyone into the same resurrected state as He is in.
  • Enabled those who believe in him to dwell with him forever by covering their sins; cleansing them through his infinite sacrifice in their behalf

Where we disagree largely stems from our understanding of who God the Father is and from there all the issues arise. If Jesus was supposed to reveal the Father; bring us to the Father, then either He did a very poor job of it or it is not easily discerned. It requires help, but understanding who or what the Father is, is the key to understanding who Christ is. I believe when non-LDS Christians dispute our explanation of the traditional Christ, it is because they are arguing who God is. For them, God is totally embodied in Christ and there is none else and that is simply not what the scriptures teach. They leave out an important clause, "beside him" and have gone through extreme lengths to prove that it means exclusively, so they drop the phrase. I might also add the phrase, "to us" because this observation is relative. They refuse to consider the possibility that we are not God's only work where they would have also had an Adam and Eve and produced children in sin and would be in need of a Savior. What is that person's name? Does He have anything to do with us? If we stretch this out across eternities, we can be pretty sure that worlds can into existence and expired long before ours did and will continue long after ours. What will our Savior be to them? Could he have been crucified for a people who did not know him? 

These are, of course, rhetorical questions. When Paul presented this in the scriptures, he very clearly stated that there are gods many and lords many, but to us there is but one God, the Father and one Lord, Jesus Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

That would be a discussion about God, the Father, not the traditional Christ or the Trinity. The New Testament is clear that there are three persons in the Godhead. The doctrine of what the Trinity is comes from a much later philosophy that flesh is corrupt and spirit is pure. That started a struggle with the idea that Jesus was God because he was a being of flesh and God is spirit (according to the argument). The New Testament tends to support that assumption (I've argued this idea here before but it wasn't well-received).

The points about the traditional Christ that I believe we can all mostly agree upon is:

  • He is the son of God
  • He was born of a human mother
  • Was human as well as divine
  • Existed before he was incarnated
  • Exists now as an embodied spirit, resurrected never to die again
  • Saved everyone from permanent death, bringing everyone into the same resurrected state as He is in.
  • Enabled those who believe in him to dwell with him forever by covering their sins; cleansing them through his infinite sacrifice in their behalf

Where we disagree largely stems from our understanding of who God the Father is and from there all the issues arise. If Jesus was supposed to reveal the Father; bring us to the Father, then either He did a very poor job of it or it is not easily discerned. It requires help, but understanding who or what the Father is, is the key to understanding who Christ is. I believe when non-LDS Christians dispute our explanation of the traditional Christ, it is because they are arguing who God is. For them, God is totally embodied in Christ and there is none else and that is simply not what the scriptures teach. They leave out an important clause, "beside him" and have gone through extreme lengths to prove that it means exclusively, so they drop the phrase. I might also add the phrase, "to us" because this observation is relative. They refuse to consider the possibility that we are not God's only work where they would have also had an Adam and Eve and produced children in sin and would be in need of a Savior. What is that person's name? Does He have anything to do with us? If we stretch this out across eternities, we can be pretty sure that worlds can into existence and expired long before ours did and will continue long after ours. What will our Savior be to them? Could he have been crucified for a people who did not know him? 

These are, of course, rhetorical questions. When Paul presented this in the scriptures, he very clearly stated that there are gods many and lords many, but to us there is but one God, the Father and one Lord, Jesus Christ.

When we "define" G-d, some would think we are trying to put such definition (which is infinite) into a finite box.  But this gives licence be more confusing than logical.  Perhaps the greatest epiphany for me was to learn about Near Eastern Kingdoms and Suzerain - Vassal covenants or treaties.   Once one understand this construct they can read the scriptures and realize that Jesus never - ever presented himself to be other than a covenant Vassal of his Father that is the Suzerain of the Kingdom of heaven.  The entire concept of the "FALL" and that mankind was exiled from Heaven under a Mediator Vassal of the Suzerain makes perfect sense.   If fact is mankind remained subjects of the Father - there would be no need for a redeemer, mediator or savior.  I would suggest that any student of religion that wishes to understand the Islamic, Christian and Jewish G-d presented by Abraham - MUST study Near Eastern Suzerain - Vassal before they can conceptualize the fall of man and the nature of G-d and his Kingdom of Heaven.

We say G-d is our King and there is no other king but G-d - as an expression of the  Near Eastern Kingdoms and Suzerain - Vassal covenant or treaty.   What is interesting to me is that this spells out the pure logic of modern LDS - theology and nature of G-d.  And yet there are no book written uniquely by LDS authors without referencing non-LDS research by Muslims, Jews and Traditional Christians.  And if Muslims, Jews and Traditional Christians would consider what each other has written in this matter - they would realize the best explanation for all this in relationship to G-d came from a uneducated farm boy named Joseph Smith Jr.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2019 at 4:03 PM, prisonchaplain said:

To be clear, I've never said that HOW one worships would lead to condemnation

I know that. I said that was the impression I received. But why is it a serious error then?

On 12/20/2019 at 4:03 PM, prisonchaplain said:

My concern is about WHO is worshiped.

This doesn't change my question. Why is it a serious error? 

On 12/20/2019 at 4:03 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Many Christian Native Americans find great fulfilling in attending sweat lodges, smudging, and other Native spiritual activities while directing their worship to the Father, through Jesus Christ. It may well be that worship of Grandfather was enough for the salvation of souls. So, why should it matter whether we worship God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as a Trinity, as God who appears in 3 roles, or as the LDS Godhead?

No fair. That's my question. You said it was serious error, why?

On 12/20/2019 at 4:03 PM, prisonchaplain said:

It matters because those who worship God as one of these 3 all claim revelation from scripture and the Holy Spirit.

Ok. This makes no sense to me. You just used native Americans as an example. How did the scriptures and the Holy spirit get involved with their revelation since they had neither?

On 12/20/2019 at 4:03 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Whether being wrong leads to ultimate condemnation or not is a matter for God to decide

True, it's for God to decide. But you said it was a serious error. I'm still waiting for the reason why it's a serious error.

On 12/20/2019 at 4:03 PM, prisonchaplain said:

However, as others have mentioned, the differences mean we do not recognize each other's sacraments, fill each others pulpits, nor consider ourselves to share "like precious faith." So, no condemnation here -- especially not for the HOW of worship. Disagreement? Yeah...that's why we post, right?

Yes. That's the reason we post here, but I'm still curious. You haven't answered the question. Am I to understand now, that you don't see it to be a serious error? We can worship the Father or all three as one or Jesus? There is no error in that at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/26/2019 at 3:10 PM, Traveler said:

When we "define" G-d, some would think we are trying to put such definition (which is infinite) into a finite box.  But this gives licence be more confusing than logical.  Perhaps the greatest epiphany for me was to learn about Near Eastern Kingdoms and Suzerain - Vassal covenants or treaties.   Once one understand this construct they can read the scriptures and realize that Jesus never - ever presented himself to be other than a covenant Vassal of his Father that is the Suzerain of the Kingdom of heaven.

But who do we worship? Please don't say it doesn't matter. That worshipping one is the same as worshiping all of them or the Main one. Suzerian - Vassal covenants only establishes authority. We all know where the power lies. It can be traced to a source. So, do we worship the source of that power or do we worship the Vassal?

 

On 12/26/2019 at 3:10 PM, Traveler said:

If fact is mankind remained subjects of the Father - there would be no need for a redeemer, mediator or savior.  I would suggest that any student of religion that wishes to understand the Islamic, Christian and Jewish G-d presented by Abraham - MUST study Near Eastern Suzerain - Vassal before they can conceptualize the fall of man and the nature of G-d and his Kingdom of Heaven.

I struggled with your first sentence there. I understand it to say, "The fact is if mankind remained subjects of the Father..." But of course, there would be no need for a Savior, there would be no one to save. There would be no mortals and, unfortunately, there would also be no heaven. There would only he paradise, an eternal garden of Eden. If I understand your analogy correctly, we are still subjects of the Father. I'm not sure that we will ever NOT be subjects of the Father. Even Lucifer and the sons of Perdition are subjects of the Father, are they not?

But your post is about our relationship to God and my post was about who and what God is, that the issue isn't that we worship a different Jesus. The issue is that we worship a different God. The God that non-LDS Christians worship is unknowable, a spirit without body parts or passions, a being that is somehow three and yet one that no matter how they explain this unusual being, it always breaks down into modalism, that Jesus is that One God, that the Father is that One God, that the Holy Ghost is that one God - that one being (that is modalism).

You are right, Joseph Smith did get it right and your analogy fits correctly, but that analogy recognizes that Jesus isn't God the Father and that God the Father is a being separate from Jesus who was also born of a woman and lived as a mortal being who died and was resurrected, much the same way that Jesus was. No vassal was ever a vassal of himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

But who do we worship? Please don't say it doesn't matter. That worshipping one is the same as worshiping all of them or the Main one. Suzerian - Vassal covenants only establishes authority. We all know where the power lies. It can be traced to a source. So, do we worship the source of that power or do we worship the Vassal?

 

I struggled with your first sentence there. I understand it to say, "The fact is if mankind remained subjects of the Father..." But of course, there would be no need for a Savior, there would be no one to save. There would be no mortals and, unfortunately, there would also be no heaven. There would only he paradise, an eternal garden of Eden. If I understand your analogy correctly, we are still subjects of the Father. I'm not sure that we will ever NOT be subjects of the Father. Even Lucifer and the sons of Perdition are subjects of the Father, are they not?

But your post is about our relationship to God and my post was about who and what God is, that the issue isn't that we worship a different Jesus. The issue is that we worship a different God. The God that non-LDS Christians worship is unknowable, a spirit without body parts or passions, a being that is somehow three and yet one that no matter how they explain this unusual being, it always breaks down into modalism, that Jesus is that One God, that the Father is that One God, that the Holy Ghost is that one God - that one being (that is modalism).

You are right, Joseph Smith did get it right and your analogy fits correctly, but that analogy recognizes that Jesus isn't God the Father and that God the Father is a being separate from Jesus who was also born of a woman and lived as a mortal being who died and was resurrected, much the same way that Jesus was. No vassal was ever a vassal of himself.

You may find it interesting that anciently the form of worship was to give payments or make offerings.  In ancient "Kingdoms" the Suzerain would assign Vassals to collect taxes and offerings.  There is a scripture where Jesus said to "render unto Cesar that which is Cesar's and unto G-d that which is G-d's."  There are parables about the owner of a vineyard sending a servant and the workers of the vineyard stoning the servant - also killing the son of the owner - what then will the owner do?  How can someone say they worship G-d and not accept his Vassals? 

Perhaps the best explanation is in D&C 84 with what is called the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood.  It could be argued that paying tying to a Bishop is "accepting" or worshiping the Bishop.  But we are told that accepting those called to the priesthood is the same as accepting the Sumerian.  Some may argue that Latter-day Saints worship Joseph Smith - but they do not understand the kingdom of G-d or how to be a covenant Saint of G-d in G-d's kingdom.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2019 at 10:27 PM, brotherofJared said:

I know that. I said that was the impression I received. But why is it a serious error then? This doesn't change my question. Why is it a serious error? No fair. That's my question. You said it was serious error, why? Ok. This makes no sense to me. You just used native Americans as an example. How did the scriptures and the Holy spirit get involved with their revelation since they had neither? True, it's for God to decide. But you said it was a serious error. I'm still waiting for the reason why it's a serious error. Yes. That's the reason we post here, but I'm still curious. You haven't answered the question. Am I to understand now, that you don't see it to be a serious error? We can worship the Father or all three as one or Jesus? There is no error in that at all?

Native Americans had what is sometimes called general revelation--such as the Apostle Paul described in Romans 1. As a result they believed in a single God--the Creator. It may be that God will consider their knowledge and declare that Jesus' salvation is for them.

LDS have full access to 2000 years of Christian teaching, all the scriptures, and the leading of the Holy Spirit. If traditional Christian teaching is correct, and the Latter-day revelations are wrong, and if the Holy Spirit gave drawings towards that traditional faith to members, yet they chose to hold to errors, then those errors would seem to be great indeed. Likewise, LDS teach that those who have known the Latter-day gospel, who have testified to having experienced the witness of the Holy Ghost to those truths, and who then leave the church and the faith--especially if they leave and become opponents of the truth they have known, then those errors would be grievous indeed. So, I guess my answer as to why the errors we are discussing would be serious is that we have so much revelation and we say we are led by the Spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Native Americans had what is sometimes called general revelation--such as the Apostle Paul described in Romans 1. As a result they believed in a single God--the Creator. It may be that God will consider their knowledge and declare that Jesus' salvation is for them.

LDS have full access to 2000 years of Christian teaching, all the scriptures, and the leading of the Holy Spirit. If traditional Christian teaching is correct, and the Latter-day revelations are wrong, and if the Holy Spirit gave drawings towards that traditional faith to members, yet they chose to hold to errors, then those errors would seem to be great indeed. Likewise, LDS teach that those who have known the Latter-day gospel, who have testified to having experienced the witness of the Holy Ghost to those truths, and who then leave the church and the faith--especially if they leave and become opponents of the truth they have known, then those errors would be grievous indeed. So, I guess my answer as to why the errors we are discussing would be serious is that we have so much revelation and we say we are led by the Spirit.

I see today much like that time that Jesus first walked among mankind.  We know from records that the greatest opposition to Jesus were the Pharisees.   As odd as this may seem the Pharisees were experts in scripture and the traditions of the Jews.  Today we would not have any of the traditions of the Hebrews, including Abraham and his seed if it were not for the diligence of the Pharisees.  I used to ponder things about Traditional Christianity.  Like the Pharisees, Traditional Christianity failed to be the light to the world that ought to have shined down through history.  Traditional Christians rising to political power have no more been a reflection of Christ (Messiah) than were the Pharisees.  It is true that doctrine has survived and that many have believed in "Christ" but the official treatment of those that question Trinity Doctrine has been anything but a reflection of Christ.  There may have been individuals but as an institution or institutions I honestly do not see how anyone can argue that Traditional Christian institutions have been any more of the light of Christ than the institution of the Pharisees. 

Obviously this does not mean that we ought to throw the baby out with the bath water - but we do need to be mindful and truthful of history.  The changes to institutions of the Jews and Christians have not come easy and not without great pains.  Any serious student of history will see the hand of G-d moving through out history and that the Christians of today are greatly different than the Christians of the Dark Ages - especially from around 300 AD to now.  So much so that there are thousands of so called Traditional Christian institutions claiming to be "better" than other Traditional Christian institutions - with such differences that they meet in their own building and somewhat resent those that meet in other building of their own.

One thing that should unite all Christians - Traditional and non-traditional - is the understanding and prophesy that Jesus will return again to earth.  That he will come in Glory to all those that wait on him and have become his disciples.  Jesus said that his disciples will be know because of their love for one another.  Not just of a particular sect but for their neighbor (neighbor as defined by by the symbolism of the hated and corrupted Samaritans).

I do not consider @prisonchaplain to be a Traditional Christian.  I believe him to be a disciple of Christ that is defined more by the love of Christ than tradition and the reflections of traditions throughout history.  More than belief in any doctrine but because of honest love, I expect that when Christ comes, that he will say to @prisonchaplain - "Well done thou good and faithful servant."

 

The Traveler

 

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 11:00 AM, Traveler said:

It is true that doctrine has survived and that many have believed in "Christ" but the official treatment of those that question Trinity Doctrine has been anything but a reflection of Christ.  There may have been individuals but as an institution or institutions I honestly do not see how anyone can argue that Traditional Christian institutions have been any more of the light of Christ than the institution of the Pharisees. 

Where the church institutional has behaved poorly is in relation to secular power. Lord Action was right--it corrupts. So, for Christianity writ large, or for a particular Christian organization to attempt to impose doctrinal purity by legal and political force is indeed anti-Christian. However, within denominations the error may be opposite--too much tolerance for heresy. My denomination was founded in 1914 and faced a theological crisis less than five-years later. It was referred to as The New Issue, but basically came down to a problem with the rise of modalism (Jesus = God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit--he appears in these roles or modes). We had no Statement of Fundamental Truths in those early years, but crafted one as a direct response. Nearly two-thirds of the wording for these 16 non-negotiable teachings was dedicated to defending the Trinity against modalism. We lost more than 1/4th of our congregations and members, and the division remains today, as Oneness Pentecostalism claims a small-but-significant segment of the Pentecostal world.

Boundary-enforcement and doctrinal purity moves inevitably lead to division and shrinkage. Methodism is facing the same today, over same-sex marriage. Ironically, in their case both liberals and conservatives seem to agree that the coming split is necessary.

Punishing heretics outside our denominations would be dangerous. Tolerating them within might be just as bad.

Edited by prisonchaplain
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