Becoming like God

[prisonchaplain]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

That's just exactly what we believe. So the differences in that specific doctrine between Latter-day Saints and non-LDS Christians have been greatly exaggerated.

Doctrine has been severely downgraded in the last 3-4 generations. Perhaps it held too high a place in past centuries. Seventh-Day Adventists were treated as outsiders, but are now mostly accepted. Arminians (free will) used to be mostly rejected by Calvinists. Catholics were also suspect...and they suspected Protestants. Today, our problem is the opposite. The question of who God actually is seems almost irrelevant to most. Such is the outcome of postmodernism in churches.

@Vort is no post-modern. I've experienced more agreement with him than I suspect he has with some of the more progressive elements in the church. So, the question becomes just how important is the doctrine of God? Very? Sure. Eternal life or damnation? Well...that's the ultimate question. I hate that it divides us, but I also don't want to get it wrong. 

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

When we talk about one G-d and being one with G-d are we talking about different things?  What was Jesus teaching? And how was it understood when he said it?   What did Jesus say and how was it understood? 

PC: I agree that Jesus was declaring a oneness with God that meant He had to be God. He doubled-down on this notion when his accusers asked how such a young man could claim to be greater than Abraham, and Jesus responded, "Before Abraham was I am." (The same "I am" found in Ex. 3:14, btw).

What I find is odd is that when this scripture is pointed out to non-LDS like yourself - almost always that say that Jesus was not really talking about g-d but Judges.   Obviously this is a false understanding of what was going on - Jesus was about to be killed and it was not because the Jews thought he was talking about judges and him being a judge.

PC: I do suspect that Jesus was being sarcastic. If you can call your judges gods why can't I--who is one with the Father--who existed before Abraham--be God?

And so now we see the doctrine of Jesus Christ and I ask - is his doctrine monotheistic or polytheistic?  What does it mean to be one with G-d?  Were the Jews wrong in understanding this to mean that a man becomes a G-d when they become one?

PC: As often happens in these discussions, one doctrine intermingles with another. In this case, pre-mortal existence is crucial to understand. Traditionalists, like myself, who believe that our existence began with our conception, almost have to believe that when Jesus said we could be one with God as He is meant something other than co-eternal essential unity. LDS could much more easily believe that the unity is the same, since the Church teaches that we are eternally existent beings. I can meet half way--there is an aspect of us which is eternal, even for traditionalists, since we must have been in God's thoughts eternally. He knew He would make us, so we already existed in that sense.

Can we all not agree that this really is a fascinating discussion? Those who believe eternity will be boring are truly clueless!

For the sake of this most important discussion - I deliberately referenced one source through one source.  That is I referenced what Jesus uniquely taught as explained by one unique individual (The Apostle John).  This was for the express purpose to prevent one doctrine intermingling with another.  What may not have come across clearly is that the Jews with which Jesus was discussing this topic in Chapter 10 were not ignorant Gentiles but the sole remnant experts in ancient scripture remaining on earth at the time of Jesus.  Both the Jews and Jesus knew that being one with G-d the Father required being on a equal plain with the Father.  What I find so bazaar this doctrine.  First - that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is quite unique in holding to this doctrine.  Second is that the ancient experts were willing to crucify their G-d over this doctrine and Third - That this doctrine is the primary reason that MOST (not quite all) traditional Christians site in refusing to consider the Latter-day Saints as Christians.  In short - a very doctrine taught by Christ and rejected as blasphemous by expert traditionalists in scripture in his time - is in these Last-days still considered blasphemous by the modern traditional scholars of scripture. 

This reminds me of the prophesy in Ecclesiastes Chapter 1:

Quote

9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

 

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

What may not have come across clearly is that the Jews with which Jesus was discussing this topic in Chapter 10 were not ignorant Gentiles but the sole remnant experts in ancient scripture remaining on earth at the time of Jesus.  Both the Jews and Jesus knew that being one with G-d the Father required being on a equal plain with the Father. 

We agree, and our traditions agree, that Jesus was/is/always will be equal with the Father. We would both contend with Jehovah's Witnesses that when Jesus said, "My Father is greater than I," He referred to the role of Father vs. Son, not their existential natures. What is not as clear to traditionalists, and myself, is that Jesus saying He was one with God was what triggered the Pharisees. Clearly, to my understanding, his claim to have been before Abraham was what, combined with his oneness statement, drove them to murderous rage. The part that leads to accusations against the church is not Jesus' parity with the Father, but the notion that we will achieve that.

Edited August 31, 2020 by prisonchaplain

[JohnsonJones]

12 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Doctrine has been severely downgraded in the last 3-4 generations. Perhaps it held too high a place in past centuries. Seventh-Day Adventists were treated as outsiders, but are now mostly accepted. Arminians (free will) used to be mostly rejected by Calvinists. Catholics were also suspect...and they suspected Protestants. Today, our problem is the opposite. The question of who God actually is seems almost irrelevant to most. Such is the outcome of postmodernism in churches.

@Vort is no post-modern. I've experienced more agreement with him than I suspect he has with some of the more progressive elements in the church. So, the question becomes just how important is the doctrine of God? Very? Sure. Eternal life or damnation? Well...that's the ultimate question. I hate that it divides us, but I also don't want to get it wrong. 

That's a big question, and one that has many different answers depending on who you talk to.

One thing I try to keep in mind is that a Christian is one who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.  It is he who said...

John 14:6

Quote

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me

If nothing else, to learn the teachings of our Savior and to follow his example and commandments in being his loyal disciples is part of the path that leads to salvation.

[dprh]

On 8/29/2020 at 12:18 AM, prisonchaplain said:

His use of C.S. Lewis is exceptional, as well.

 

This is a great discussion.  I don't have much to add.  But I did want to point out that C.S. Lewis is quoted in our meetings more often than almost any other person not of our faith.  I've heard some people even jokingly refer to him as "Elder Lewis,"  the title we give members of the Twelve Apostles.

[Traveler]

16 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

We agree, and our traditions agree, that Jesus was/is/always will be equal with the Father. We would both contend with Jehovah's Witnesses that when Jesus said, "My Father is greater than I," He referred to the role of Father vs. Son, not their existential natures. What is not as clear to traditionalists, and myself, is that Jesus saying He was one with God was what triggered the Pharisees. Clearly, to my understanding, his claim to have been before Abraham was what, combined with his oneness statement, drove them to murderous rage. The part that leads to accusations against the church is not Jesus' parity with the Father, but the notion that we will achieve that.

I have been pondering your questions and positions throughout this thread.  I pondered them into the night while trying to sleep.  The reason is that I find this principle of G-d and his purpose of creating man central to the discussion.  I have wondered why this particular doctrine is so divisive.   In answering to my wondering some thoughts came to me during the night.  The thoughts are that this doctrine is opposed because of our difficulty in understanding the character and attributes of G-d.  That the more we understand the more we emulate and become.  This is the essence of the first and great commandment.

But there is another problem - that deals with the second great commandment that is like unto the first.  That we lack the faith and belief that G-d can - through his holy spirit - bring about a mighty change and new birth in us.  That the concept of being born again is incomplete if we are not born unto a divine creature in the likeness of G-d.  It is the lack of faith that through Him we can become what He is - which is "one".  But the second great commandment is not just about us or me.  It is seeing others as G-d sees them.  He sees us and others as potentially being like unto Him; that we all ought to be even as He is.  Do we have faith in Christ and that G-d can do all things?  Or do we believe that G-d cannot change us to be complete, whole and perfectly divine.  That there is something that even He (G-d) cannot do?  Or do we have that faith that with G-d all things (including this doctrine) is possible?

 

The Traveler

[estradling75]

20 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

 So, the question becomes just how important is the doctrine of God? Very? Sure. Eternal life or damnation? Well...that's the ultimate question. I hate that it divides us, but I also don't want to get it wrong. 

Doctrine in the sense of Truth is as important as Truth is. However not all Truth is of equal value.  For example, knowing that I like the color blue is a Truth, knowing the Sun will rise in the morning is also a Truth.  But they are not equally valuable to everyone.

When it comes to Gospel truth... faith is an action word.  What we do with what we have is of great importance (See the Parable of the Talents).  Someone with a lesser light could be living it to the extreme and thus be blessed.  While someone with a greater light could be ignoring it and trampling it underfoot, they will not be blessed.

Thus to me the theological discussion of Godhead vs Trinity are interesting and valuable, but they are less important then someone trying their best to live as Christ would want them to.  And I am not sure I see how the difference between Godhead and Trinity affects that.

 

 

 

 

[prisonchaplain]

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Thus to me the theological discussion of Godhead vs Trinity are interesting and valuable, but they are less important then someone trying their best to live as Christ would want them to.  And I am not sure I see how the difference between Godhead and Trinity affects that.

This is a utilitarian perspective. To oversimplify, "May the best behaved/achieved win!" And, of course, badly behaved LDS and Trinitarians are likely to find themselves in the same trouble on Judgement Day. Still, is the WoW, for example, really more important than the doctrine of who God is? Here's how that looks, btw:

LDS: We don't drink, smoke, gamble or chew.

AG: Neither do we.

LDS: Oh yeah? Well, we don't drink coffee or tea either!

AG: Okay...but we don't dance! (okay...circa 1970s, but work with me)

It is important to do right and good, and to love our neighbor. Still...who God is has to be the ultimate question. Even if we do not believe we can fully comprehend the answer, we must keep seeking to know Him more, right?

[laronius]

6 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

This is a utilitarian perspective. To oversimplify, "May the best behaved/achieved win!" And, of course, badly behaved LDS and Trinitarians are likely to find themselves in the same trouble on Judgement Day. Still, is the WoW, for example, really more important than the doctrine of who God is? Here's how that looks, btw:

LDS: We don't drink, smoke, gamble or chew.

AG: Neither do we.

LDS: Oh yeah? Well, we don't drink coffee or tea either!

AG: Okay...but we don't dance! (okay...circa 1970s, but work with me)

It is important to do right and good, and to love our neighbor. Still...who God is has to be the ultimate question. Even if we do not believe we can fully comprehend the answer, we must keep seeking to know Him more, right?

To quote Joseph Smith from the King Follett discourse: "If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves." Not knowing who God is is like putting a very complicated puzzle together without knowing the picture but where God is the picture and we are the pieces. Also, our faith to act on God's word is directly connected to our ability to comprehend Him or at least his qualities. Knowing God after all is the definition of life eternal. So I completely agree. And to @estradling75 point, to "see" Christ is to see the Father. So to be like Christ you must first come to know him in which case you are also coming to know the Father.

Edited September 1, 2020 by laronius

[Guest Scott]

6 hours ago, dprh said:

This is a great discussion.  I don't have much to add.  But I did want to point out that C.S. Lewis is quoted in our meetings more often than almost any other person not of our faith.  I've heard some people even jokingly refer to him as "Elder Lewis,"  the title we give members of the Twelve Apostles.

It is true that he is often quoted, but he was no fan of our church.  He considered it to be fraudulent and non-Christian. He also went as far as calling our church tyrannical.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Scott

[Grunt]

On 8/30/2020 at 5:05 PM, prisonchaplain said:

I hate that it divides us, but I also don't want to get it wrong. 

Divides us how?  

I also understand, and agree, that you don't want to get it wrong.  Honestly, that's what has led me here.  The theology and doctrine of Latter-day Saints just made sense to me, if our understanding of God was correct.  If it isn't, then he isn't a loving or forgiving God and we're all hosed anyway.  

Through prayer and faith, I came to understand that this is the correct doctrine.  I'm not confident enough to say I understand everything, but I do know without a doubt in my mind that I'm where God wants me to be and on the path He has chosen.   I also have come to understand the depths of His love for me, and that repentance isn't "just in case".  It's Plan A.   

Because I know these things, and repent daily, I'm not as concerned with "getting it wrong".  I AM concerned with progressing and enduring to the end, but because I know He loves me and has provided me the tools and knowledge to make it back to Him, but I'm not as worried about whether or not I get it wrong.  

I'm not worried about you getting it wrong either.  Don't take it the wrong way, but even though I think you aren't acting with His authority and missing part of His doctrine (I honestly don't know what you believe, so this is an assumption), I think you are still doing His work and He loves you for that.  I believe you'll do just fine when we are judged, and will have come to know Christ's true self in Spirit Prison.

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

It is true that he is often quoted, but he was no fan of our church.  He considered it to be fraudulent and non-Christian. He also went as far as calling our church tyrannical.

Several years ago we had an inmate who was LDS. At the time, we had no LDS volunteers, so he came to Protestant Chapel. On his last Sunday he asked me if he could bare his testimony. I agreed, and he testified that he believed Joseph Smith was a prophet, and that Jesus is the Savior. He want on to say he sensed the Holy Spirit in me and that the brothers would do well to listen my teaching and keep following the Lord. I'm sure he believed I did not have spiritual authority and that I was missing some important doctrine. Therefore, I took his words as high praise. Perhaps that is how many LDS take C.S. Lewis--a critic of the church who, nevertheless, said/wrote many pro-LDS things.

[estradling75]

3 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

This is a utilitarian perspective. To oversimplify, "May the best behaved/achieved win!" And, of course, badly behaved LDS and Trinitarians are likely to find themselves in the same trouble on Judgement Day. Still, is the WoW, for example, really more important than the doctrine of who God is? Here's how that looks, btw:

LDS: We don't drink, smoke, gamble or chew.

AG: Neither do we.

LDS: Oh yeah? Well, we don't drink coffee or tea either!

AG: Okay...but we don't dance! (okay...circa 1970s, but work with me)

It is important to do right and good, and to love our neighbor. Still...who God is has to be the ultimate question. Even if we do not believe we can fully comprehend the answer, we must keep seeking to know Him more, right?

Of course we must continue to seek him and adjust that is one of the most important things.  Let me use your lists as an example.

Dancing, coffee, tea, smoking etc... Are all done because we believe that is what God wants of us.  We might hedge up a bunch of reasons and excuses why the Lord wants that of us, but it does not change what should be our fundamental driving force.  Doing the will of God.  As our understanding changes our behavior changes

So a faithful Latter-day Saint seeks the Lord and continually adjusts as they learn more.  Then the prophet says "Thus saith the Lord... No More Dancing"    Said faithful Saint stops dancing even if they danced a lot before.

By the same token an Assemblies of God Chaplain who has spend his life serving God the best he knows how.  He gets a "Thus saith the Lord... No More Coffee"  of his own.  Odds are such a Faithful and Obedient Chaplin obeys and stops. No matter how much he liked coffee before.

Neither one are sinners (in that thing) until God's will is made known, to them, and God will be merciful as they work to repent (aka change) and follow their new understanding.

As for the true nature of God.  I ask anyone to find one attribute of Christ that we need to learn and emulate (aka that is actionable by us), that is fundamentally different, depending on if the truth is Godhead or Trinity.  Name one?  Being one with God?  Christ taught us that in the garden when he basically said "Father this thing you want me to do is hard and I want another way if possible, but nevertheless not my will but yours be done."  The actions and attitudes Christ is exemplaring  here for us to develop are exactly the same, with either doctrinal foundation.

Both type who try their best to follow Christ will at some point stand before God and be corrected of their errors (which will be many assuredly)  Errors in understanding are the easiest things to correct (aka repent of)  Both of these people will gladly accept the correction and move on.   The real danger isn't the wrong understanding (which is easy to correct) the real danger is hardening of our heart against the Spirit's attempt to offer correction.  That is when it gets hard, because we rebel and this rebellion will lead us to the point of the refusing to hear the Lord and refuse correction in the simplest things.

[prisonchaplain]

I appreciate the drive to convert our understanding of God into enhanced righteousness (actionable change). I do. Yet, and maybe it's the liberal arts leaning in me, there has to be a spiritual benefit to seeking a greater understanding of God, whether I can translate it into deeds or not. In other words, just knowing God a little bit more is an act of holiness in and of itself. :::Sigh::: then again, I'm the guy who believes that the Agricultural Science graduate gets a little bit more out of farming than the high school drop out who does it the way dad did--even if the resultant profits are the same. 

[estradling75]

9 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I appreciate the drive to convert our understanding of God into enhanced righteousness (actionable change). I do. Yet, and maybe it's the liberal arts leaning in me, there has to be a spiritual benefit to seeking a greater understanding of God, whether I can translate it into deeds or not. In other words, just knowing God a little bit more is an act of holiness in and of itself. :::Sigh::: then again, I'm the guy who believes that the Agricultural Science graduate gets a little bit more out of farming than the high school drop out who does it the way dad did--even if the resultant profits are the same. 

Well clearly the closer one is to Truth... the less adjusting they will need to do once the Truth is made known.  That is an advantage.  

Having said that I think we will all find that the unrevealed Mysteries of Godliness that still lie in front of us, when revealed, will show that difference between what we thought we knew and what is true is still huge.  Or to put in another way all the revelations we have now will turn out to be the kindergarten class of God's college. 

[Traveler]

13 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I appreciate the drive to convert our understanding of God into enhanced righteousness (actionable change). I do. Yet, and maybe it's the liberal arts leaning in me, there has to be a spiritual benefit to seeking a greater understanding of God, whether I can translate it into deeds or not. In other words, just knowing God a little bit more is an act of holiness in and of itself. :::Sigh::: then again, I'm the guy who believes that the Agricultural Science graduate gets a little bit more out of farming than the high school drop out who does it the way dad did--even if the resultant profits are the same. 

Sometimes I am dumbfounded that we agree on so many things when our understanding seems so different.

While in college, I did very poorly in the liberal arts that seemed to dismiss logic and prize nonsense.  Since you used agriculture as an example - it is like the Agricultural Science graduate that returns to the family farm having finished college and soon found himself arguing with his dad about how to farm the land.  He tried to convince his father to plow and plant in straight rows to which his father would gruffly reply that more could be planted on a crooked row than a straight row.  Finely, in frustration the boy asked his father, "Don't you want to be a better farmer?"  To which the father responded, "I have known, long before you were born; how to be a better farmer!"

For purpose of discussion lets examine your simple phrase.

Quote

I appreciate the drive to convert our understanding of God into enhanced righteousness (actionable change).

Although at the surface we may seem to agree on the power of the river finding its way to the sea - but there are deep undertows and back currents in our rivers of understanding.  And so I would appeal to the graduate scholar in you.  Anciently, in the era of understanding when the scriptures were recorded by chosen oracles (chosen by G-d not by determinations of any man) the term "righteous" did not directly mean someone of noble deeds.  It was a reference to someone that had made a "Covenant" with G-d.  At the surface we may see a covenant as a great river flowing to the sea.  But if we were to put a boat in the waters of the river without care of undertows and back currents - we will not likely make the journey to the sea, alive and in tact. 

So what is a covenant with G-d?  How do we become righteous?  What is the difference in a covenant with G-d?  We should agree (I think) that deeds are a symptom - not the cause.  That someone that covenants with G-d will do good deeds but not all that do a good deed have a covenant with G-d.

Someday we will all stand before G-d and we will have, through his grace and word, the opportunity and right (by COVENANT made before we were born a mortal) to make an account to G-d of our covenants.  I do not think, for example, that we will stand in G-d's presents and be judged of our knowledge of the do's and don't's of Keeping the Sabbath".  I believe we will account for our Sabbath Covenant and how our Sabbath Covenant prepared us and shaped us into our Eternal self and that Eternal self will be indistinguishable from the quality and attribute of G-d - or if our eternal self is not like unto G-d's Eternal self - we will be unworthy and unable to be one with G-d.

If I have a point to make - it is covenant.  It is not which doctrine is better - whatever a better doctrine is.  It is all about covenant.  But the last point about having a covenant with G-d.  We do not make up our own covenant (through reading scripture or by any other means) and think that will do with G-d.  It is not for us to present "our" covenant or ideas of covenant to G-d and then think we have a covenant.  There is only "one" divine (true and living) covenant.  But there are many counterfeit covenants.  Which is the only purpose of Satan.  To get whom he will to accept any of the seemingly infinite false counterfeit covenants and thereby become divided and not one.

 

The Traveler