- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote from Paul Toscano’s Strangers in Paradox: http://mormon-chronicles.blogspot.com/2009/03/online-strangers-in-paradox.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://mormon-chronicles.blogspot.com/2009/03/online-strangers-in-paradox.html “Is the godhead a unity made up of a single deity as set forth in the Old Testament? And if so who is this one God? Eloheim? Jehovah? Or is the godhead a duality made up of two beings of equal glory and dignity as implied in the fifth Lecture on Faith? And if so who makes up this godhead? Is it the Father and the Son as the lecture states? Or is it the Heavenly Father and the Heavenly Mother as suggested by other Mormon commentators? Or is the godhead a trinity, as stated in the New Testament and the Doctrine and Covenants (John 14; D&C 20:28)? If so who are its members? The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael as implied in the Mormon temple endowment? The Father, the Mother, and the Son? Or is the godhead really a council of gods as stated by Joseph Smith and suggested in the Book of Abraham (Abr. 3:22-28)?”
Toscano goes on to argue that Jesus is God. Brigham Young argues that Adam is God. The Old Testament argues for the illusive Father. Eloheim is the name Mormons use for God, but the name refers to a plurality of gods. Isn’t it strange that we have conflicts like this within LDS theology? Shouldn’t the definition of God be the clearest aspect of monotheism?
Quote:Shouldn’t the definition of God be the clearest aspect of monotheism?
Not if you believe in the Trinity. Early Christians were considered polytheists when they tried to unite Christ with God the Father and Jesus.
I did a post last year on the Eastern Orthodox church’s concept of Deification or Theosis, which bears many similarities to the Mormon concept of Exaltation. The teacher of the podcast said that Eastern Christianity revels in the mysteries of God, and makes no attempts to explain seeming contradictions. Perhaps we should follow that model a bit more, instead of being so rational about everything as Western minds are bound to do.
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2008/07/30/eastern-orthodoxy-theosisdeification/ Quote:The teacher of the podcast said that Eastern Christianity revels in the mysteries of God, and makes no attempts to explain seeming contradictions. Perhaps we should follow that model a bit more, instead of being so rational about everything as Western minds are bound to do.
I agree. It’s so funny to me to hear apologists state how stupid the trinity concept is because it is not logical then go on to state how we shouldn’t try to use logic to prove the church.
😆 I believe that the true concept of God is a paradox and is not “logical.” That is the only thing that actually seems to make sense to me anymore. The different concepts teach us different truths.
I pointed out some scriptures to DH yesterday in SM. He said “are you trying to confuse me?” LOL It is confusing if you try to make everything fit logically into the current LDS theology. I had him read some verses in Moses. I think Moses is the most confusing if you use the theology that Jehovah (Lord God) is Jesus Christ. Because you have Jehovah referring to his Only Begotten Son. (see Moses 3:18 or 4:1) No matter what theology you use, you cannot get through the entire canon whithout running into issues-unless our theology admits the paradox or that it is ineffable.
I love Strangers in Paradox, BTW. Highly recommend it.
I think there can be a distinction between the godhead as 3 separate beings, and council of gods where multiple gods exist. To me, this has been reinforced by the church’s organization that there are multiple offices or individuals that hold offices, but only some hold the keys of authority at a time. There are multiple apostles, but only 3 in the 1st presidency that hold the keys of that office.
I believe there can be many “gods”, but only 1 God the Father that I worship, and 1 savior I worship. If other gods exist (what is Adam’s status? I don’t know) – those are not of relevance to me and my belief in the godhead, and their purpose in creating me, saving me, and teaching me that I may achieve salvation and eternal life.
spacious maze wrote:
Toscano goes on to argue that Jesus is God. Brigham Young argues that Adam is God. The Old Testament argues for the illusive Father. Eloheim is the name Mormons use for God, but the name refers to a plurality of gods. Isn’t it strange that we have conflicts like this within LDS theology? Shouldn’t the definition of God be the clearest aspect of monotheism?“Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen:
that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he…”-Isaiah 43:10. While we may not have a full grasp of God’s nature, we should have an understanding of who he is. While EVERY other religion has had to struggle with a faraway enigmatic figure of God, our God has come down in the flesh, walked among us, taught us, interacted with us, suffered human sufferings, and died human death. While it may be unclear as to the exact nature of his identity, we can look to Jesus and understand that HE is God.
Zachariah 2:10-11 (OLD TESTAMENT), “Shout and be glad, O Daughter of Zion. For I am coming, and I will live among you,” declares the LORD. “Many nations will be joined with the LORD in that day and will become my people. I will live among you and you will know that the LORD Almighty has sent me to you.”
When Philip asked Jesus to show him the Father, Jesus had an interesting response…
“Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?” (John 14:7-10)
For all the uncertainty, it is clear that Jesus is the face of God to us. He may have other manifestations, but there is only one God, and he is made manifest in the flesh through Jesus.
just me wrote:…It’s so funny to me to hear apologists state how stupid the trinity concept is because it is not logical then go on to state how we shouldn’t try to use logic to prove the church.
😆 I believe that the true concept of God is a paradox and is not “logical.” That is the only thing that actually seems to make sense to me anymore. The different concepts teach us different truths.
I have thought the EXACT same thing, many times! I watched some program “a history of God” or something like that (Netflix has it) and it gave me a lot more respect for belief in the trinity. They revere the fact that it’s “incomprehensible.” To comprehend God would be to “reduce” ‘Him’ to human understanding. I can respect that.
I also like the model that as children of God we have divine potential, and if we have the potential to become you would think we could grasp some vague idea of the construct. But this idea destroys the argument that you shouldn’t use logic to try to understand the gospel.
Personally I also enjoy the paradox, and don’t think it has to be completely either/or.
Not totally sure what spacious meant by the title of the thread but it works perfectly for me in defining “God”. fwiw. So, the answer is
all of the above. 😳 😆 For Ray the answer is E: all of the above and none of the above.
😈 😆 😆 jkI came across a FAIR article that basically said that Elohim and Jehovah are interchangeable terms in the Old Testament (contrary to Mormon Theology.) The Documentary Hypothesis states that Elohim was used by the Northern Tribes of Israel, while Jehovah was used in the Southern Kingdom. The Hypothesis states that the original editor of the Bible (probably Baruch, scribe of Jeremiah) combined these two versions. You can see more at http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/07/19/the-documentary-hypothesis/ Here is what FAIR said,
Quote:The conviction that Elohim was anciently the Almighty God and Father of us all, and Jehovah was and is Jesus the Christ, his Son is based on modern scripture (D&C 110:1–4) and not Biblical exegesis. The teachings of modern prophets and apostles has tended to reinforce this usage, such as when President Joseph F. Smith taught, “Among the spirit children of Elohim the firstborn was and is Jehovah or Jesus Christ to whom all others are juniors.”[7]
The LDS use of the name titles Elohim and Jehovah to designate God Our Heavenly Father and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ respectively is not meant to insist that this is how these titles were always used anciently, including in the Holy Bible. Rather, these titles are a naming convention used in the modern Church for clarity and precision. Since Christ may be spoken of as “the Father” in a great many senses, the modern Saints use these name-titles to avoid ambiguity, regardless of which ‘role’ of a divine Personage is being discussed.
Since this terminology was not standardized for convenience and clarity prior to the twentieth century, readers are cautioned not to expect the early writings of the Church to always reflect this practice, which arose only decades later. Likewise, attempting to read the Bible as if its writers followed the same modern practice is anachronistic, and may lead to confusion and misinterpretation.
The full FAIR article can be found at
http://en.fairmormon.org/Elohim_and_Jehovah swimordie wrote:For Ray the answer is E: all of the above and none of the above.
😈 😆 😆 jk
😆 😆 mormonheretic wrote:Since this terminology was not standardized for convenience and clarity prior to the twentieth century, readers are cautioned not to expect the early writings of the Church to always reflect this practice, which arose only decades later. Likewise, attempting to read the Bible as if its writers followed the same modern practice is anachronistic, and may lead to confusion and misinterpretation.
That is an interesting quote. This makes me think more of the importance of modern prophets and revelation…you simply can’t rely on historical scripture as the basis for all clarification and answers because the languages were different, and the terms were used differently, and today we might teach them differently. That doesn’t mean they were wrong back then (or now)…just that they taught it differently, right?
I think to have faith in God, you must have knowledge of His characteristics. Perhaps different generations are taught what they need to know in order to have faith, but it doesn’t mean there has been one Sunday School manual version ever since the days of Adam. It can be taught differently…however we need to be taught enough of what we need so we can find God and live our lives according to His will.
Nice one, swim – and probably correct, but I’m too busy laughing to find out. 🙄 mormonheretic wrote:The teacher of the podcast said that Eastern Christianity revels in the mysteries of God, and makes no attempts to explain seeming contradictions. Perhaps we should follow that model a bit more, instead of being so rational about everything as Western minds are bound to do.
Yes, I really like this. I admit it is natural to try and push the rational side, and indeed this is important. In the Fruedian sense, the Ego tries to control the Id. But it ends up being an either/or thing, with the Id winning in some people, and the Ego winning in other people. I prefer Jonathan Haidt’s metaphor in “The Happiness Hypothesis” of the Ego acting as the rider of an elephant (the Id). Our goal is not control, but coordination.In this vein, I’m not bothered by the contradictions surrounding the Godhead, in fact, I would really like to see more emphasis in our church about the oneness, and less on the separate being-ness. I think part of the beauty of the Godhead idea is the relationship between the three. This is a powerful metaphor for ourselves (different parts of the psyche) as well as for our relationships with spouse and others.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.