Mormon Jaxon Peterson argues that Israel was “monolatristic or henotheistic” for most of its existence and that “‘the highest’ does not denote status of authority of power, but rather the idea that God dwells above the Earth.”
[tweet https://twitter.com/ldschurch/status/275304640197824512]
[tweet https://twitter.com/JaxonPeterson/status/275420351134052353]
[tweet https://twitter.com/JaxonPeterson/status/275684295304155136]
[tweet https://twitter.com/JaxonPeterson/status/275684561453731841]
These are among the strongest LDS arguments against traditional Christian monotheism. How should Christians respond to this? Some thoughts:
1) Perhaps most helpful for understanding many of these issues is that an “elohim”, at generic minimum, refers to a heavenly being. Besides God himself, today we call them “angels” and “demons”. The Old Testament sometimes just calls them gods. Among all the elohim, Yahweh is THE elohim, the only true elohim. “None is like him.” As Isaiah says, “To whom will you compare him?” Authorized Israelite theology, as taught in scripture, is “polytheistic” *if* you expand the idea of “god” to include heavenly beings like angels and demons. But if you narrow the concept of God to a maximally great being who presides over all others, who is one-of-a-kind and ultimate, then authorized Israelite theology is monotheistic. Perhaps a better term for “monotheism” is “mono-Most-Highism.”
2) Given the semantic range behind “elohim”, to discover that the Old Testament affirms the existence of other elohim than Yahweh doesn’t point us in the direction of distinctive Mormon theology. Two things are needed: A) Demonstrating that these “gods” are of the same species or type of being as Yahweh. B) Demonstrating that authorized Israelite theology affirmed, or at least allowed for, the existence of greater, or higher, or prior beings than Yahweh. To support traditional Mormonism, both A & B are needed. To support neo-orthodox Mormonism (which tends to deny the existence of Heavenly Grandfather, et al.), at least A is needed. But simply affirming the existence of other “elohim” who are subordinate, inferior, finite, created beings under Yahweh does neither A nor B.
4) Isaiah 43:10.
5) If “Most High” simply describes a being that “dwells above the earth”, then that describes *all* “elohim” (Yahweh and angels and demons), since an “elohim” is by definition a being who dwells in the heavenlies. But only Yahweh among all elohim is the Most High.
6) It is natural to take superlatives about Yahweh as literal and not figurative. It is natural to take anthropomorphisms about Yahweh as figurative and not completely literal. But Mormonism flips this around. It doesn’t seem at all intuitive to call Yahweh the “Most High” if he has potentially billions of relationally superior ancestor-gods. I bring these assumptions and intuitions to the text, and also get them from the text. It’s the least awkward reading. I tell my wife in hyperbole that she is the greatest cook in the world, but with the worship of Yahweh, hyperbole hardly seems appropriate or necessary. There is a difference between the hyperbolic, “Yahweh, you are the best God EVAR”, and the non-exaggerative, completely serious, joyful eruption of praise, “Yahweh, you are the best God ever.”
Mormonism essentially teaches that we ought to make exaggerations about God when we worship him. While that kind of hyperbole might be a compliment to a human, it is an insult to God.
Israel’s neighbors, and at times, whoring, idolatrous Israelites, did believe that Yahweh (or Baal) had an ancestor-god or even a wife (Asherah). But the Old Testament consciously rejects these ideas. So by all means, if you want to join a modern-day semblance of an ancient Canaanite fertility cult, be a Mormon. But if you want to walk in the footsteps of the few faithful Israelites, reject idolatry and worship the Most High as literally being the Most High.
“Perhaps most helpful for understanding many of these issues is that an “elohim”, at generic minimum, refers to a heavenly being. Besides God himself, today we call them “angels” and “demons”.”
Aaron,
Can God create beings that will grow to be like Himself, or is He just limited to making lesser beings like your idea of men and angels and demons?
I have said this many times and will say it again. We read in many places where God says, I know of NO OTHER gods. Their are no gods before me, and their will be none after me.
The Bible also tells us, that it is impossible for God to lie, and simply, that God cannot lie.
So if this is True, how can God not be aware of all these other gods that supposdly exist and how can God not know we will be gods some day?
Also God said in the Bible that God could swear by no one greater than Himself, so he swore by Himself. If their is None greater, as God said, Then how can Mormons claim other wise?
So who do I believe? God or the Mormons? I will choose God over the Mormons any day.
I do not know about how the process is. I do know that I am responsible for my action to only one God.
I second Rick B.’s comments.
parkman, can God make a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?
Aaron, great job as usual . It’s hard to believe the claim of Mormon leaders that they are the
modern day counterparts to the apostles who Jesus sent out to preach the truth about God
and salvation soon after His resurrection . Mormon leaders claim that after the death of the
last of Jesus’ apostles the truths which they preached were soon altered by certain men who
proceeded to add their own ideas onto them and then passing them off as spiritual truths . This
apostasy then prevented people from knowing the truth about God until Joseph Smith started
his church in 1830. But ironically he soon drifted into apostasy because he and his officers
went from teaching about God then to Gods , then to Goddesses . This drifting away from the
God of the Bible (and BofM) to introducing ” Gods ” and “Goddesses” is a clear slide into adding
man- made ideas onto what apostles taught about God in the Church Jesus established long ago .
These apostles would have understood what the prophets of old meant when they called God,
the “Most High God” . I think that there is a choice to be made here : either follow Mormon
prophets teachings about their Gods , or stick with the Bible’s prophets/ apostles testimony
about how unique and majestic God really is because He is the God greater than all gods —-
anywhere.
Mike,
Here’s one little matter you left out and I think we need to bring up constantly.
Mormons, for generations, believed that Jesus had appeared to their leaders. In-other-words, regardless of the generation, one of the qualifying features of a Mormon honcho was the claim to having had seen the resurrected Christ.
In recent years this has changed. They are now said to have a “witness” of Jesus Christ, not to have “witnessed” or seen the Lord. Big difference.
Mormonism is separated by those sects who hold to a traditional Biblical view of Our Lord and those who see Him as a created being, a god within the pantheon of Mormon gods. This Jesus of course cannot provide the perfect sacrifice for sin since he is “a god” and not God.
Jehovah Witnesses have had to go so far as to change the Greek in the first verse of the Gospel according to the apostle John by referring to the Word as “a god”. I believe they see Jesus as some sort of super angel; Michael the Archangel I believe. They even deny the cross by having Jesus die on a torture stake. The Mormons have Jesus atoning for sin in the Garden.
These cults go out of their way to deny the divinity of Jesus and rescind the final sacrifice for sin making it something that is not complete in its effect.
Our friend Clyde tells us that he is accountable only to the god of this planetary system. I wonder who Clyde’s god is responsible to. Surely Clyde’s god must be accountable to his father god and that god to Clyde’s grandfather god.
This is all Biblical, right? I mean all of these gods and men becoming gods. No it’s not Biblical in fact it’s the manufactured fantasy of a man with a prolific imagination.
First, if this is the strongest argument you seen then there is something wrong. This idea is very weak, which you show very well.
No, the Most High does indeed refer to his Authority, and anyone declaring otherwise is being silly. I do not think this title refers to Christ, or Jehovah, but this is another topic altogether.
However, this poses no problem with the idea of many gods existing before, and even being the Father god of our Father. The reason is simple. These previous gods have no authority over us. Clyde mentioned this. We answer only to our Father, not to his Father, or his Father, or anyone else. Our Father holds the Supreme Authority over us and this world.
Does he answer to his Father? I don’t think he does. He has been exalted and now reigns in Heaven. He has sole authority over us.
Now, Rick does make a good point. However, let us examine a few things. First of all, the Bible is a record of this Earth and the People on it. The only God to ever hold authority over this Earth and the people on it is our Father (though he has given authority to his Son, he still is the supreme authority). Thus, when the title of Authority over this earth is applied there is none before or after him that holds that title. There are certainly many beings who exist in a divine state, and that hold authority over other earths. But the God of this Earth, or the one that holds authority over it, has always been, and will always be our Father.
Aaron
You said “can God make a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?”
So, are you admitting that there are some things that God can’t do, and that creating a being with potential to be like him is one of them?
Now, I am curious about one thing. In Revelation 1: 5-6 we read the following.
“And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
And hath made us kings and priest unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”
Question: If Christ made us kings and Priests to God and his Father, can you explain to us who these beings are? Is not John writing that God, or the Father of Christ, had a Father himself?
Just a thought.
Shem said, No, the Most High does indeed refer to his Authority, and anyone declaring otherwise is being silly. I do not think this title refers to Christ, or Jehovah, but this is another topic altogether.
Shem, I’m curious to get your take here. What do you do with all the Old Testament passages (e.g., Genesis 14:22; Psalm 7:17; 47:2; 83:18; 97:9) that specifically apply the title “Most High” to Jehovah?
Shem said, We answer only to our Father, not to his Father, or his Father, or anyone else. Our Father holds the Supreme Authority over us and this world. Does he answer to his Father? I don’t think he does. He has been exalted and now reigns in Heaven.
Question for you here as well. If you believe that exaltation has allowed our God the Father to graduate beyond the realm of his Heavenly Father’s dominion, do you believe that becoming exalted will mean that you no longer answer to and worship God the Father? If so, how do you explain the conception of the Celestial Kingdom as one that involves dwelling under the dominion of Heavenly Father? If not, why is Heavenly Father’s exaltation so radically different than our exaltation?
(To be continued…)
Shem said, So, are you admitting that there are some things that God can’t do, and that creating a being with potential to be like him is one of them?
There are no possible tasks (that is, real feats that can be accomplished through the application of [divine] power) that God cannot do; but in order to count as a real task, it must be a coherent thing. The infamous burrito challenge illustrates this, as does the analogy with a rock too big for God to lift. What would a being like God be like? A being truly like God (in the full ontological sense, not just the moral sense to which we are definitely called to aspire) would have God’s attribute of aseity as divine, God’s attribute 0f being truly absolute and uncreated. But speaking of the creation of a being with this attribute is a contradiction in terms; by definition, a being with this attribute cannot be created. Therefore, saying that God cannot “create a being with potential to be like him [in this sense]” is not imposing a limit on God’s power at all. The only god who could do such a thing would be a god without that attribute himself, a scaled-down quasi-deity whose metaphysical likeness is more attainable.
Shem said, Question: If Christ made us kings and Priests to God and his Father, can you explain to us who these beings are? Is not John writing that God, or the Father of Christ, had a Father himself? Just a thought.
Interesting question, Shem. Counterquestion for you: Why, in the Inspired Version, did Joseph Smith change the KJV’s “God and his Father” to “God, his Father” instead? Interestingly, Joseph Smith was right in doing so. That is a much more appropriate rendering of the Greek text, which is able to use kai for apposition in this way (especially since both are governed by the same definite article). The text is not referring to two entities, but to one. Therefore, Revelation 1:6 offers no warrant for believing that God the Father has a Father, regardless of Joseph Smith’s change of heart in the Sermon in the Grove.
Clyde said, I do not know about how the process is. I do know that I am responsible for my action to only one God.
This is a pretty important issue (since it directly impacts the very nature of God himself), so getting it straight should be a priority. At any rate, are you responsible to Christ for your actions? Are you responsible to the Father for your actions? If you are only responsible to one God, and if (as the LDS tradition has long maintained) they are two separate Gods (in the most fundamental sense of that word), then to which of them are you not responsible?
The Dilemma of Revelation 1:6
I guess the only thing that I would ask our Mormon posters is why none of this appears in the writings of the Church Fathers or the heretics for that matter? In fact, the uniqueness of the Jews was their monotheism as was pointed out on the thread related to the Trinity.
Mormons have to hustle to try and find some Scripture that they can mold to Joseph Smith’s emerging “revelation”. Not only is there no Scriptural support for men becoming gods and a pantheon of gods, but there isn’t anything in the history or practice of the historical Church to suggest it.
Given the Mormon approach, anyone could make anything up they want, call it revelation, and start a movement, religion or cult.
As has also been pointed out on this blog, the Mormon “revelation” is not consistent across all Mormon sects. It isn’t just a matter of disagreement over some issue like the correct mode of baptism, but it’s reflected in the major difference regarding the nature of God.
So the Utah Mormon sect has to convince people that they have the correct revelation as opposed to the Community of Christ, The Church of Christ Temple Lot, or any of the various sects that would come under the FLDS label.
There is no support for Mormonism outside of the closed set of those people who practice the religion of the late stage Joseph Smith and Brigham Young in particular. In fact, the Utah sect doesn’t resemble any form of Mormonism from the 19th or early 20th centuries.
The Mormonism of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce McConkie has evolved not out of revelation, but out of political and social necessity. So what any Mormon says about the Mormon god on this blog is just a “stay tuned” situation.
John
I was just curious how you handled that passage. I know about the change that Joseph Smith made, and about his use of the unchanged version. I would not call this a change of heart, but a tactic, much like what I did. If you believe in the Bible (especially the KJV) then the belief that God has a Father is taught in it.
As to God’s power, this is exactly what I believe as to what is really meant. Now, I don’t think any of us are created beings. Our physical bodies are, but not our spirit, or intelligence. Thus, it is possible for him to make us like him, for we are all of the same race.
When we say we will be like him, we are speaking to attributes of perfection and state of existence (much like saying that an unborn child will be like the rest of humans after birth). We are not saying that we will have the same glory or authority as God, as these are not attributes of what we are, but descriptions of who we are (just as not all unborn children will become president).
As to Exaltation and God not being under the authority of His Father, I think you misunderstand me. However, at this point I prefer not to speak further on the subject. I do not know all things, and am perfectly willing to admit such. What I said is my personal speculation, and as far as I know there is no revealed word concerning our Father’s Father, other than that he exists. I will leave it at this for now.
Shem said, I was just curious how you handled that passage. I know about the change that Joseph Smith made, and about his use of the unchanged version. I would not call this a change of heart, but a tactic, much like what I did. If you believe in the Bible (especially the KJV) then the belief that God has a Father is taught in it.
Your curiosity is definitely appreciated. Your tactical approach to Joseph Smith’s disparate treatments of Revelation 1:6 is an interesting one. It does not seem to me, however, that the actual details of how he uses it in the Sermon in the Grove will bear out the notion that he has not sincerely come to believe that the existence of a ‘Heavenly Grandfather’ is the genuine meaning of the text. At any rate, I will again state this: Even if the KJV can be misleadingly read to suggest the idea that God has a Father, that is not a conclusion that one should rightly draw from the Greek text of Revelation, nor from the context of the passage. Another point I note to that end: You have been rather emphatic that we have no real relationship with the Father you believe God the Father has. And yet, if the Sermon in the Grove approach to Revelation 1:6 were valid, we would have to be priests to Heavenly Grandfather as well, which would imply just such a relationship of worship. Curious. Do you have any further thoughts on that? More importantly, aside from the KJV’s misleading handling of Revelation 1:6, do you see any other biblical indications of the existence of a ‘Heavenly Grandfather’?
Shem said, As to God’s power, this is exactly what I believe as to what is really meant. Now, I don’t think any of us are created beings. Our physical bodies are, but not our spirit, or intelligence. Thus, it is possible for him to make us like him, for we are all of the same race.
A further clarification: God is not only uncreated, but has absolute self-existence as God. That is, not only is his existence underived, but so is his status as true deity. It is because of this that God cannot create a being that has the potential to become like him. Your version of God can do this only because God has been scaled down to an attainable target. This is the deficiency in the tactic you and Parkman were using earlier to imply that it is the traditional Christian view of God that really presents a limited deity. Your version of God is also not capable of enabling a being to become what our God is, only what your reduced deity is.
You spoke earlier of “creating a being with potential to become like him”. It sounds like, even when ‘like him’ is defined with the lower LDS target, you cannot unambiguously state that God as conceived by you is capable of doing so either, since you do not believe he has really ‘created’ any beings at their core. I’d like to hear more from you on the contrast between “perfection and state of existence” and “glory or authority” in this context. I’m sorry to hear you wish to engage no further on the subject of exaltation, etc.; that was a productive area of inquiry, and I would rather have any alleged misunderstandings get cleared up.
I know that most of the Christian posters here understand the amount of Bible (verse) mining, molding and shaping Mormons must do in order to attempt to apply Scripture to what they want to believe.
Now they do this while at the same time denying the inerrency and inspiration of the Word of God. A very strange thing in deed.
But have any of you noticed that the Mormon posters, rarely if ever, quote Mormon sources for their favored belief in a multiplicity of gods, men becoming gods, women becoming goddesses and the procreation of spirit children to populate the men to gods’ planetary systems.
Could we have a little Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith and the late great Bruce McConkie. The latter wrote that once highly esteemed but now shelved definitive Mormon doctrine tome.
Why don’t Mormons who write here, quote their own authorities? I would think that since their main deal is having a living prophet that speaks to the people today direct from the Mormon god, they’d be hauling out everything any Mormon deity to be ever said on the topic at hand.
Brigham Young said that any sermon he ever preached was as good as Scripture. Joseph Smith bragged that he was the only guy to ever hold a religious group together including I believe, the Lord Jesus Himself.
With such a star studded cast, you’d think the Mormons would be spinning circles and doing back-flips and expounding at length about what prophet so-and-so had to say on any topic.
But alas, the problem that Mormons have is that these highly esteemed dudes said a lot of really stupid off-the-wall things and they are stuck with it. It’s better to keep the crazy uncles in the attack then trying to use them as authoritative sources.
According to Latter Day prophets , the God we meet in the opening verse of Genesis is a Person
who at one time lacked the ability to do what He states in that verse , He had to be taught by an
older God one with more dominion than He and who with a wife fathered Him along with many
others . This is Almighty God , the Creator of heaven and earth, the God we meet when we open
the Bible ? The apostle John was right on the money when he advised his flock to test anyone
who seeks to offer information about God to them . This is good advise for us today as well , and
concerning the time in which we live it could be even more crucial . 1Tim 4:1 ; Matt 24:11,24
(Aaron Shafovaloff says: December 11, 2012 at 10:31 am
parkman, can God make a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?)
Aaron, I see you choose to sidestep the original question by making a funny response. It may even cause some to not see how you did not answer the question.
Parkman said, Aaron, I see you choose to sidestep the original question by making a funny response. It may even cause some to not see how you did not answer the question.
If I might interject here, Parkman, I can see the Pharisees offering the same sad complaint after Mark 11:30. Aaron did answer your question, in substance, by exposing the faulty logic behind the implicit trap that your question contained. You posed a question of the general form, ‘Can your God do [impossible pseudo-task X]?’, but phrased in such a way as to imply that our conception of God is limited if we say no, whereas presumably it is a benefit that yours is not so “limited”. But, of course, the nature of X renders it incapable of serving as a true defeater of divine omniscience. Aaron simply tossed you back an equally flippant question of the same general form to make clear the problems inherent in yours, and thereby to diffuse your trap.
On the other hand, I chose a more direct route to deal with your patience when Shem echoed it, so I am curious if you have the willingness to engage that, or if you would prefer to keep firing away at Aaron?
Incidentally, my thanks to you and Shem for your contributions. I’ve been editing a written version of my testimony for my LDS friends (complete with irenic reflections on LDS teachings and epistemology), and you are very good at highlighting misconceptions to guard against. (If anyone would like to read it, by the way, I’m sure it would benefit from the feedback of any commenters/posters here, LDS and non-LDS alike, and their range of experience.) So thank you, Parkman, for this inadvertent help.
Parkman said
Parkman, Your really something else, You repeatedly bear false witness, and I have lost track of how many times you have done that, then you complain about someone else not answering your question.
And as far as the latest issue of bearing false witness, you accused Andy of leaving out information in the trinity and claimed it exists, and me and at least one other said you need to post it, and as of yet you avoid what was said.
Then you keep harping on works needing to save us, well explain how your works will save you if all you ever do is bear false witness. It seems you really do follow your father and do his works, Satan is the father of all lies and he was a liar from the very beginning.
Johnepistle said
You can send me a copy via email, I would love to read it, you can send it to ([email protected]). Thanks, Rick
(Aaron did answer your question, in substance, by exposing the faulty logic behind the implicit trap that your question contained.)
(Aaron simply tossed you back an equally flippant question of the same general form to make clear the problems inherent in yours, and thereby to diffuse your trap.)
I see no ‘substance’ in Aaron’s answer to my direct question, only a way not to answer it. It is only a trap if you think it is, for me it is a question that gets down to the basics of what you are trying to teach—- and you do not seen to have an answer.
(You posed a question of the general form, ‘Can your God do [impossible pseudo-task X]?’, but phrased in such a way as to imply that our conception of God is limited if we say no, whereas presumably it is a benefit that yours is not so “limited”. But, of course, the nature of X renders it incapable of serving as a true defeater of divine omniscience.)
“[impossible pseudo-task X]” – – You teach that one of the things wrong with the LDS Church is that we believe that God the Father is truly the literal father of our spirits. I am only trying to find out if you believe that Heavenly Father cannot have children, or if you believe that He just chooses not to have children of his own kind.
So, back to the original question:
Can God create beings that will grow to be like Himself, or is He just limited to making lesser beings?
(And as far as the latest issue of bearing false witness, you accused Andy of leaving out information in the trinity and claimed it exists, and me and at least one other said you need to post it, and as of yet you avoid what was said.)
I am just asking for complete information from those of you who say you know what you believe to be true. I have asked a very specific question about you beliefs of the nature of God and I got a “put parkman down” answer.
As I have said before, I am not here to show you the truth of my religion, I am here to learn what you think are the truths about your teachings.
Something I found interesting about parkman’s question:
“Can God create beings that will grow to be like Himself, or is He just limited to making lesser beings?”,
Is that it seems to admit that the often repeated (and only recently fostered) phrase to be “like [Heavenly Father]” means that exalted LDS will NOT be “lesser [than HF] beings”. Surely LDS do not dare to believe that they will be greater than HF, so that only leaves “equal to”. Now I know there are ways to try to distract and derail this point ( “we will still be under his authority” unless you look at shem’s post, or “progression is eternal so HF is still progressing and will stay eternally “aheadof us”
Continued…
But I think this is a good example of an LDS showing the true meaning g of the phrase “we will be like Him” which they say when people ask about LDS belief in becoming gods. It I. Fact means that they will become not less nor greater but JUST LIKE or equal to Heavenly Father. Sure he may be eternally ahead on the progression and your “father” but otherwise exalted LDS will just like God. In fact, they will one day be where HF is now with their own “children” possibly talking about becoming only “like” themselves.
Also, Parkman, johnsepistle did answer you. Christians believe that God is the Ultimate in the ultimate sense so that your question about any human or any other entity being Ultimate is incoherent and a nonpossibility. This is why he spoke of having to lower God from the Ultimate to just another intelligence progressed so that his “children” can be “like him” not lesser not greater but equal tohim.
Parkman, If you want to learn what Christians believe or any particular Christian believes then you are going to have to make a better (more effective) effort to catch it when they tell you.
Parkman, here’s an illustration.
Joseph Smith taught that the universe (all that is) was made up of matter and intelligences and and advanced intelligences or already progressed/exalted intelligences (aka gods). So HF is part of the system.
In Christian view God is ultimate in that He is not part of the system but the originator and limit of the system. A rough example would be that God is a balloon and everything inside is the universe. To say that something else inside the system, universe, or balloon grew to become just like God would be to say that there are now two balloons or limits to the same system. But that cant be. Is there were now two ultimates or limits or balloons we have necessarily a new system in which the “two ‘ultimates'”
In which the “two ‘ultimates'” exist. This is impossible from a number of views but by the definition of an ultimately Ultimate there is nothing outside and so there can benothing “beside” or “equal to” the Ultimate or God. There is nothing outside the balloon and any supposed balloon withingm the balloon could only ever be within and lesser than the balloon. So, yes only ever “lesser beings”.
The only way to get something “equal to God” or “like him” in any significant way is to make him less than the Ultimate a part of the now “ultimate” system in which God and his god-becoming children exist. Like the universe JosephSmith taught.
Parkman, I said you were bearing false witness again, then you replied with
Prior to this, you said under the topic of the trinity
parkman said
Notice you said
You cannot know this unless you read them, if you have not read them, then they dont exist, if you did read them to know they exist, then you were asked by me and at least on other for you to provide them, and as of yet you have not. This again proves your bearing false witness.
But whats even sadder is, It will be a select few Christians that will get mad at me for point out this truth about you, and ignoring the fact that you bear false witness.
Rick – Thanks! I’ve sent it over your way now.
Parkman said, I see no ‘substance’ in Aaron’s answer to my direct question, only a way not to answer it. It is only a trap if you think it is, for me it is a question that gets down to the basics of what you are trying to teach – and you do not seen to have an answer.
Nice try, but your denials do not obviate the clear point of Aaron’s response, which was not as you mischaracterize it. The heavily slanted nature of the way you phrased your question did indeed scream “intended trap”, and hence it was rightly treated accordingly.
Parkman said, You teach that one of the things wrong with the LDS Church is that we believe that God the Father is truly the literal father of our spirits. I am only trying to find out if you believe that Heavenly Father cannot have children, or if you believe that He just chooses not to have children of his own kind.
Parkman, Spartacus is correct in noting that this question has already been answered by several people, including myself. If you would read the comments here, you would already know that. Interestingly, we non-LDS here all agree; but members of your group cannot seem to concur as to what it even means to say that God is “the literal father of our spirits”. Also interesting. As to your question, I refer you to the answers already provided. In short, the real God’s “kind” is inherently irreproducible, save (if one can speak this way) in the metaphysically necessary ‘begetting’ of the Son and ‘spiration’ of the Spirit. If by “children” you mean instances of God’s own “kind” that must grow to resemble him, then we unambiguously reject that.
(In Christian view God is ultimate in that He is not part of the system but the originator and limit of the system. A rough example would be that God is a balloon and everything inside is the universe. To say that something else inside the system, universe, or balloon grew to become just like God would be to say that there are now two balloons or limits to the same system. But that cant be. Is there were now two ultimates or limits or balloons we have necessarily a new system in which the “two ‘ultimates’”
In which the “two ‘ultimates’” exist. This is impossible from a number of views but by the definition of an ultimately Ultimate there is nothing outside and so there can benothing “beside” or “equal to” the Ultimate or God. There is nothing outside the balloon and any supposed balloon withingm the balloon could only ever be within and lesser than the balloon. So, yes only ever “lesser beings”.)
spartacus,
Thank you for being willing to say that you believe that God cannot create a being, ‘a balloon’, like Himself.
()()()()()
(In short, the real God’s “kind” is inherently irreproducible, save (if one can speak this way) in the metaphysically necessary ‘begetting’ of the Son and ‘spiration’ of the Spirit. If by “children” you mean instances of God’s own “kind” that must grow to resemble him, then we unambiguously reject that.)
johnsepistle,
Thanks to you also. Finally, someone has said, in a way this country boy can understand, that your kind of Christian has to believe that God cannot create beings, separate from Himself, that can become like He is.
()()()()()
Do the leaders at mrm agree with these two posters?
RickB, I am not mad at you and I believe you are going after something worth the effort.
Parkman, I don’t know what great thing you have gotten out of us. 1 – Christians here have constantly indicated more or less explicitly that there simply cannot be two true ultimates, let alone an infinite number of them; this is done whenever they speak of monotheism, Most High-ness, and against polytheism. So there is nothing new here. 2 – I hope you are not trying to lead to the conclusion that the Christian understanding of God is deficient because it makes Him too “weak ” to create His equal. We do not recognize it as a weakness any more than you would fault a person for not answering the question “what is 2+2?” With only 4 and not also 50.Two Ultimates is impossible, we don’t think God is weak because we recognize that He does not do senseless things. To not be able to do nonexistant, meaningless, truly impossible, nonesense is not a weakness. So, yeah, hope that isn’t what you are trying to do.
3 – If you are trying to do 2 above but think you are somehow more informed with the finite, can’t-create-anything-at-all-but-only-organize-pre-existent-matter god of Mormonism who isn’t even a father of us but only our “spirit bodies” who is just an older more progressed human but somehow thinks he shoiuld be worshipped by us… well, then… I’ll be praying for the strength of us all and the miraculous powerful movement of the One True God.
Spartcus said
I know your not mad at me, and sadly you and me are in the minority when you say I’m going after something that is worth the effort. Not every believer feels that way.
Here is my thoughts on this.
Mike R keeps saying Mormons are good people that are deceived and have been lead astray by false prophets. That I agree with, but sadly Not every Mormon is Good and sincere, some of these mormons are the wolves, and false prophets. The wolves in sheep’s clothing are not simply limited to the Prophet and president and a few select higher up’s.
Some Mormons on this blog have openly admitted, They dont read the entire article posted, and they dont read the replies in full. Then they complain we dont answer their questions and keep saying that over and over.
Then Some people will say, yes we answered your questions many times. Or some LDS will claim we are wrong and getting our facts wrong, but then when we ask, how are we doing this, the LDS provide zero evidence. Then I keep speaking up and mentioning these issues, and some Believers will come on here and tell me to stop doing this, or I’m not being loving and respectful.
Then when I ask, Why can the LDS get away with all these things and no one says anything, But I get spoken to that seems wrong. The response I hear is, It is just expected the LDS will do this and I should be better than that.
Well call me crazy, But I dont recall ever reading in the Bible where we should (Cont)
(cont)
Cater to wolves in sheeps clothing. Jesus Rebuked the false teachers and religious leaders and had extremely hard words for them, Yes He was gentle with those who really were sincere, But show me how people who do the things I said, over and over and clearly are just trying to waste our time and play games, how are they sincere?
Why should I hold a wolf’s hand and pander to Him? Why cannot we just be adults, call sin, sin, and get rid of these people, or if not remove them then at least treat them like adults and not act like they really care and want an honest debate when it is clear they dont?
I have mentioned things like this to My Pastor, His reply was pretty much the same as mine, He said, have these Christians never read the Bible? Did the Miss the part about Jesus making a whip of Cords, Or saying, your brood of vipers and white washed tombs? Or when blindness was called down on a false sorcerer. Now If I did that people would really freak out.
I am 42 years old, I grew up in a day and time where people would speak their minds and care more about speaking the truth VS not saying what needs to be said in fear of caring more about hurting someones feelings.
And just for the record, The LDS that really are sincere and want to know, I do treat them differently vs the wolves that I can tell are just trying to destroy the Flock.
I also feel People that just keep playing these games need to be spoken to in a very straight forward way, they are doing these things in public and need to be confronted in a public way. We all know their are people who simply read and never reply on this blog, if we allow the wolves to act the way they do and never speak up, or rebuke the believers who do, that IMO will send the wrong message to New or young believers who dont know the Bible very well.
Lastly, Why is it People like Richard Moux defend Mormons and we talk about them and how they are wrong? And yet I get grief for going after the wolves? We were warned in the Bible to be aware of wolves who will enter our ranks and try and destroy us, I am one person who goes after the wolves, and sadly I have people who get on me for doing that. I just cannot find scripture to support saving the wolves.
(Parkman, I don’t know what great thing you have gotten out of us.)
spartacus;
You and yours are very good at relaying what you think is wrong with my religion and very week at teaching what you believe is the true way. I am trying to find out where it is you think I should go after giving up my religion.
Since studying at mrm, and other like sites, I have reinforced the questions I had had about my religion long before I found the LDS Church — there are just too many different interpretations of God’s Word for all the Christian religions to be completely true.
Even though it is not complete proof, with you and yours help I have found more proof that the ‘Great Apostasy’ has really happened.
If the LDS Church holds that there are countless gods, then Mormonism is a polytheistic religion, which contradicts with the Bible, which states, “I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.” (Isaiah 45:5a)
And, if god is an exalted or evolved man, and all people on earth come from (the god of this universe), and this god came from another god, then where did the first god come from?
Parkman, from the outset you have shown little actual listening to know the truth , and
your response to Spartacus is another example of that . People here have mentioned where
you can go when you leave the Mormon church , and info from MRM has revealed to you
the same answer : Jesus. Sadly, but you are looking for a church building with a specific
title/name above the entrance . You’ve fallen for the tactic which has veered away from
where salvation is found over to emphasizing finding the right organization.
Since the Mormon church has the words ” Jesus Christ” in it’s title that means belonging to it
brings salvation and that there is no salvation outside of it etc. Wrong . Study the N.T. and
see what it says about the title/name of followers of Jesus who gathered to worship . As far as
there being different denominations today goes , this in no way means that the Mormon church
is the answer to this ( that should have evident from your “study ” of info available on MRM ) .
Also, considering human nature and the way people may approach the Bible it is no surprise that
there are different denominations , we would expect such to happen .The Body of Christ is no
denomination nor earthly organization with a specific title on a building . Since the Bible is
the bed rock of Christianity then each person has the obligation to study it , the answer to how
to be reconciled to God and receive eternal life is contained therein , so we are accountable
before God .Prophets in the latter days claiming to be the sole mouthpiece of God with
long lost truths is not the answer.
Parkman said, Since studying at mrm, and other like sites, I have reinforced the questions I had had about my religion long before I found the LDS Church — there are just too many different interpretations of God’s Word for all the Christian religions to be completely true.
Parkman, considering the vast differences among members of the LDS Church on genuinely important issues about the nature of God – differences as wide as any you’ll find among members of Christian denominations on far lesser issues – you may want to consult Matthew 7:3-4. (I defy you to substantiate your statement about us being “week [sic] at teaching what [we] believe is the true way”.) There is one Christian religion, even amidst the various minor differences among theological perspectives; these differences concern less important issues than the differences that exist within the LDS Church under the mask of artificial unity defined institutionally. You rhetorically ask “where it is [we] think [you] should go after giving up [your] religion”. The answer is simple: ever onward into the truth and holy love of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, who are one and only one God – as seen truly, and as loved in response to grace freely given as a precondition to any and all godly obedience. The particular congregation or denomination is of no salvific importance, since all pertain to the one church of Jesus Christ, which retains its spiritual unity in him and is itself the one and only temple of the one true and living God on the earth. We’re here to beg you: come unto Christ so that you may worship the Father in spirit and in truth, worshipping the only God for whom God innately is.
I think what Parkman is asking is where does one find the “truth and holy love of” God that you keep talking about. It is like telling a person that in order to build a good foundation they need solid stones. Then, when asked where to find those stones, you say you have already told them what they need to find and they are simply not listening when they ask for a location.
It is great that you think we should seek Christ and the love and truth of God, but where are these things to be found? If you want to say “The Christian church” then the next logical question is “which one?” To say it doesn’t matter only confuses the issue.
John, I would like to address some of your comments and questions.
You said “You have been rather emphatic that we have no real relationship with the Father you believe God the Father has.”
I think you misunderstand me. When we enter our exaltation we will have a relationship with our Father’s Father. I believe this whole heartedly. But while in this life it doesn’t matter, as the only God that we have a relationship with now is our Father and his Son. For the purpose of this life this in the only God we have dealing with.
As to discussing exaltation, I am more than willing to discuss the doctrine, but I will give no more speculation in this forum. This is not an appropriate setting. I have given what I have, and I will give no more. I do not know the relationship between generations of Gods. So I will not openly speculate concerning them with those who do not at least share the same foundation of faith.
Now, let us discuss God’s creative power. I do not believe that God has the power to create from nothing independent sentient beings. All life if eternal, having had an existence as spirits or Intelligence before being born into this life. God’s creative power is not in creating the core essence of intelligence, but in organizing base material for the betterment and advancement of that intelligence. That is where his power lies.
I believe he is self-existent, just as all life is. Now, what I do not believe is that the Father or the Son started as God. They progressed just as the rest of us are now doing. I understand that you see this as a kind of demotion; that believing this makes God less than what you think him to be. I disagree. While he may not be the self-existent deity you espouse, I find him to be far more glorious and worthy of our worship than anything anyone else have ever conceived.
The reason is simple: Our God is a God whose only desire is our wellbeing, our glory. He is not out to establish his own glory, but to raise us up and establish ours. For this is his work and his glory; to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. We are his glory, for he is our loving Father. This is a being that I can come to know and love, one I can honor, because he loves and honors me. He is not some distant being that is so incomprehensible that even when I enter heaven I will have no clue as to what he is really like. He is very knowable, and seeks
As a final comment, I will attempt to illustrate the difference between “Perfection and state of existence” and “glory and authority.”
Consider this: There is a family with many children. The parents and the children are healthy and intelligent. None of them ever become sick, and all of them learn well and gain the same knowledge. It can thus be rightly said that they are in the same basic state. They have a perfect health, and a perfect unity with their parents. None of them is different from the others in terms of physical or mental condition.
Now, take this family and consider that all of the children submit to their parents. They are all obedient to the commands of their Father and Mother. They are perfectly obedient. Can it be rightly said that they all have share the same authority? No, for the Parents exercise authority over the children.
In the same way, when we are exalted we shall all share the attributes of perfection; meaning we will all have perfect knowledge, perfect bodies, and perfect power. However, we will still submit to the authority of our Father, and his Son, for the Father has given authority to Christ. So, we will be in the same state of perfect existence, but we will not share the same authority , and thus the same glory as our Father and his Son.
HalleluYahweh
He didn’t. There has never been a time when there wasn’t a God.
A final comment John, on all the passages you site that call Jesus the Most High.
First, I will admit the title is applied to him, and so my earlier statement is misleading. The Father is the only one who is The Most High in its literal sense. We know this because Christ declares that the Father is greater than he is (John 14: 28), clearly placing himself below his Father, and thus not being the Most High. Paul confirms this in 1 Corinthians 15: 27-28 when he declares that “it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.” Again, this clearly shows that the Father, who put all things under Christ, is still above him.
However, the title of The Most High can be rightly applied to Christ because Christ has been endowed with all the power and authority to act in the name of the Father. By divine investiture he has the authority of the Most High given to him. And so “being in the form of God, [he] thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (Philippians 2: 6).
The Bible makes it clear that the Son submits to the will of the Father, and thus clearly places the Father as the one Supreme Being. However, in His wisdom he has given the Son all the power and authority to act as if the Son was the Supreme Being, and so we apply the same titles to both.
Parkman said:
You and yours are very good at relaying what you think is wrong with my religion and very week at teaching what you believe is the true way.
Problem: This is an empty claim and insult. If i was LDS I might accuse you of having a spirit of contention. This is your reponse to a question to me if i believe that God cannot create other beings equal to Himself. I told you that we affirm this all the time and I explained that given that we believe that God is THE Ultimate then it is impossible to have two THE Ultimates so we affirm that God cannot do something that is intrinsically impossible. Parkman i think it is you with you two sentence responses that negates our beliefs and never explains, let alone substantiates your claims. Perahps you would like to explain how a God that is neither your true father nor your creator could demand worship of his fellow intelligences?
Sorry devise incompatibility issues skip to next post please…
Since studying at mrm, and other like sites, I have reinforced the questions I had had about my religion long before I found the LDS Church — there are just too many different interpretations of God’s Word for all the Christian religions to be completely true.
Even though it is not complete proof, with you and yours help I have found more proof that the ‘Great Apostasy’ has really happened.
Parkman continued:
I am trying to find out where it is you think I should go after giving up my religion.
I’m not here to encourage you to leave your religion or to “go” anywhere. I am not your leader. Christ is supposed to be your leader. I would simply like to see you accept the true Christ. While I am certain that the LDS Jesus is not real nor the true Christ, I do trust the True Christ, the True God, will lead you to true fruitfulness where He will, inside and/or outside the LDS church.
Parkman concluded:
Since studying at mrm, and other like sites, I have reinforced the questions I had had about my religion long before I found the LDS Church — there are just too many different interpretations of God’s Word for all the Christian religions to be completely true.
Even though it is not complete proof, with you and yours help I have found more proof that the ‘Great Apostasy’ has really happened.
Problem: We can say the same about you, Parkman, and “yours”. There’s all kinds of LDS out there and just as many beliefs. Now they don’t all teach – if they did they would surely be church disciplined if not excommunicated. But you were not concerned in this statement with who teaches but with what believers believe. So your point is useless since multitudes of beliefs proliferate among your LDS as well. But what if we did look at your “true teachers” – they also teach disparate things and even deny the teachings of previous scriptures as well as previous prophets – so I don’t think you are going to get out of the whole you dug for us with them. What do you think, Parkman, about the tens of thousands of fundamentalist Mormons who believe your church to be the “2nd Great Apostasy”?
In review, Parkman, I am not looking for you to go to any “where” but to the Who. Just consider the possibility that you are wrong, you are not perfect, and just to be careful, direct your prayer and desires to the “God who really, actually, truly Is” and put your self and trust at His mercy and see where He leads. Just ry it for a year at least and see where He leads you.
Parkman, and all LDS, Christians, atheists and others, whatever you believe, try to address yourself and your desire for truth to the God or Ultimate Reality that Actually Is. I recommend even trying to do so in the Name of Jesus – I know that seems risky, but if he is not real then you risk nothing and if you already believe that you believe in him then there is no issue. There is no risk here for the believer in the LDS Godhead or the God of the Bible or the Godless Reality – humans are helplessly incapable of knowing with absolute certainty any of these three and something like one of them actually is the Truth. They, He, or it will not take offense at your addressing Them, Him, or it as They, He, or it actually is. It takes a humility, and an appreciation for Their, His, or Its greatness, that is surely appreciated. Ultimately the sincere seeker of Truth always does this in some way, to some extent, consciously or not, willingly or not. If you are sincere, you would have no problem doing this not just for a year but the rest of your imperfect and uncertain life, no matter how sure you get about what you believe.
Lover’s of truth seek the Actual Truth that Is, not just what they come to believe or are only able to fit in their head.
May the Ultimate that Is bless us to truly seek and truly find.
There has been a running comparison made on these blogs regarding the many denominations of Christianity compared to those splinter groups of Mormonism. The basic argument is this: The LDS can’t claim confusion in doctrine based on the number of Christian denomination because there are also many splinter groups of Mormonism. Spartacus brings this up once again in this thread.
Let me point out why this argument does not work.
The “Christians” on these blogs don’t seem to care what denomination you belong to, as long as it conforms to a brief list (about six) of doctrine that they have conceived as being required for being Christian. Thus it doesn’t really matter if you are Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, or any one of the hundreds of others that they personally accept as Christian.
The problem is that all of these teach very different doctrines on most every point that is not contained in that brief list. So, we make a point of this.
On the other hand, the LDS posting here have a very definite opinion as to which is the true church. You can ask “Which branch of the LDS movement do we accept” and we can give you a definite and direct answer. It doesn’t matter that the splinter groups teach different doctrine, because they are just as wrong as the rest of Christianity.
See the difference here?