- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I do believe in God. I have a distinct idea of the characteristics of the God I pray to. This idea is heavily influenced by my LDS up bringing. I wonder is the God I have created? In my mind the only way we would truly know any of God’s true characteristics is if he, she, or it had told we humans directly. I can not think of where this event may be recorded.
I know as Mormons we look to things like the first vision. Are we not making assumptions when we say that from this we know things like God is male; he has a body of flesh and bone; he is separate and distinct from Jesus. Why could we not as easily assume that God can take whatever form he wants, or men see the form of God that their mind creates when speaking to God, or a million other things. I am not saying these other assumptions are true, I am asking how do we know until God tells us directly?
Great topic. One that has been on my mind a LOT lately as I’m batteling atheism. I do believe we create God(s) in our own image. Looking at the Gods of history I cannot imagine that this isn’t true.
I have a feeling that God is a slippery concept in which everyone is right. It makes it impossible to debate for very long. I want to be right about what God would or would not do, but then I realize that it is futile. If God is within us and part of us-or we are manifestations of the Divine-then there isn’t anything that God isn’t and nothing God wouldn’t do.
It’s irritating and sublime all at the same time. For me, God can no longer be an exalted man living on a remote world with a wife to whom we aren’t allowed access. I now see the Divine as the essence or energy force of the heavens and earth just experiencing creation. It doesn’t make me right and the other wrong (as much as I like to be right). It is more a reflection of me and where I am at in this life experience. It’s how I can connect and derive the most meaning right now.
God may just be the ultimate paradox.
Who is God? “I am”
I’ll tell ya, sometimes I feel like a blasphemer, but I see God reflected back at me when I look in the mirror or into my childrens faces.
Just Me, I love everything you have said. I do agree that how we see God is more about where we are than whether we are right or wrong.
When I look at history I do not see man creating God in their own image necessarily. Although that does happen, but I think man creates God in the image they need. Yaheh was originally a volcano God only present on Mount Sinai. When the Jews combined with other tribes in Israel Yaheh was a God centered in the temple and was the most powerful of all the Gods the tribes had in the same place. “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me” Even in Salomon’s day there were other Gods in the temple. The Jews did not need a monotheistic God or an omnipresent or an All knowing God until the Babylonian captivity. They need a God that was not stuck in the temple that was with them everywhere. These ideas fit what was needed until Paul. Paul needed a God he could sell to the pagans. He created a personal God. This is my idea of what I read in history.
My personal god most of my life has been very LDS. I see the LDS view I think is very interesting. The pagans had a dualistic Gods pared Gods and Goddesses. Creation took male and female. Than the God of Abraham changed all that. A male God that could create with his word no need for a woman. I find Joseph Smith’s idea of a strange combination of these two ideas. Creation took a male and female again, but the woman keeps her mouth shut. I pray to a god that is male and female. I came to a point in my life that I needed to create a God that was not patriarchal. I could no longer pray to a heavenly father with out also praying to a mother in heaven.
Gail wrote:Just Me,
I love everything you have said. I do agree that how we see God is more about where we are than whether we are right or wrong.
When I look at history I do not see man creating God in their own image necessarily. Although that does happen, but
I think man creates God in the image they need.Yaheh was originally a volcano God only present on Mount Sinai. When the Jews combined with other tribes in Israel Yaheh was a God centered in the temple and was the most powerful of all the Gods the tribes had in the same place. “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me” Even in Salomon’s day there were other Gods in the temple. The Jews did not need a monotheistic God or an omnipresent or an All knowing God until the Babylonian captivity. They need a God that was not stuck in the temple that was with them everywhere. These ideas fit what was needed until Paul. Paul needed a God he could sell to the pagans. He created a personal God. This is my idea of what I read in history. That is a very good way of putting it, too. I also have trouble praying to a Father in such stark absence of a Mother. The strong worship of soldier/patriarchy has outlived its usefulness, IMO. It is time to reconcile the two. I can’t believe how sensitive I have become to the absence of the Feminine Divine in our faith.
I forgot to add my favorite truth in my previous comment. “God is love.”
Initial answer: “I have no clue.” I do have a few thoughts however, on where God is found. And for the most part I think God is found in the places we talk about in church. I see God as the source of love, and the source of all goodness, and of truth. God’s purposes will promote and expand love, truth, and everything that is good. I will “get closer to God” as I seek these things, try to grow personally, and work to increase my understanding of all truth and love.
just me wrote:God may just be the ultimate paradox.
The key is to unlock the paradox…
Now if I could just find that blasted key!
😆 just me wrote:I’ll tell ya, sometimes I feel like a blasphemer, but I see God reflected back at me when I look in the mirror or into my childrens faces.
You are not alone.
Good discussion. @just me
I have been down the atheist (agnostic) path, and sometimes still find myself there. Don’t be afraid of it, and don’t close your mind to it, but use the same skepticism/faith you use in other areas (I suspect you’ll be pleasantly surprised). I would never claim I’m an atheist (hate labels) because it doesn’t fit quite right. However, I don’t “know” God exists, and saying I “believe” in God doesn’t quite fit either. I prefer “hope,” “wish,” “desire” etc. Furthermore, like my wife always says, what’s wrong with believing in God if it makes you happy? Absolutely nothing!
@Gail
Short answer: I have no clue.
Long answer: we all create God in our own image (IMHO). It’s one the most dreaded things to talk about in church because anyone can throw out any sort of crap they want and no one can challenge it. If it sounds good, sure believe it. We simply don’t have the tools necessary to make heads or tails of God’s characteristics (and the Judeo Christian God of the OT is a completely different God than the NT one). As a result, I prefer the approach of just me and assume that God is in me, you, nature, etc. I don’t believe this contradicts Mormon theology, and it is nicely encompassing, and allows me to view others in a constructive, yet merciful light.
The thing I love MOST about Mormonism cosmic view is that God is described as the ultimate best we can ever hope to become. I believe that “hope to become” is vital, even though it is abused by some. I also LOVE the description of the efficacy of the Priesthood found in Joseph’s “we have found by sad experience” passage in the D&C.
If you haven’t done so already, read Richard Bushman’s speech I referenced in my post this morning. (Look for it through the “View Active Topics” link.) It’s a bit long and somewhat complex, but it’s absolutely fascinating in its implications about God that are left unsaid as he discusses power and authority and charisma in the LDS Church.
Ray, “The thing I love MOST about Mormonism’s cosmic view is that God is described as the ultimate best we can ever hope to become”
Bravo!!
It is a great article.
I wish I knew who God was. Maybe someday Gail wrote:The pagans had a dualistic Gods pared Gods and Goddesses. Creation took male and female. Than the God of Abraham changed all that. A male God that could create with his word no need for a woman.
I’m not sure if the God of Abraham changed that, necessarily. Although he most often appears in male form (as Jesus in the NT, as the “angel of the Lord” in OT), and the church clearly teaches that gods/goddesses do have physical genders, I think it can be argued that the traditional view of God is a
non-humanspiritual deity (John 4:24) who possesses both male and female characteristics. Both male and female are created after God’s image (Genesis 1:27). He is most often referred to as our Father in Heaven, and shows himself to us as a male – everyone has their theories as to why this is. But there are other times where he displays maternal characteristics: “As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you” (Isaiah 66:13), “I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings” (Matt. 23:37).
Euhemerus, “I think this is a fine interpretation for someone arguing the issue of polygamy from the point of view of the LDS church. Try telling a FLDS, or someone who lived during Brigham’s days that it wasn’t doctrinal. Sorry, but it just doesn’t add up. In retrospect we might well proclaim that it wasn’t doctrinal, but those people then, there were plenty of statements proclaiming its divine creed and doctrinal validity. Furthermore, it was entirely rooted in scripture.”
I agree with you. I was trying to say that the declaration 1 was not a change in doctrine it was a change in policy about the doctrine of polygamy, which I am saying has not changed.
“This flies in direct opposition to the basic platform of our church – continuing revelation. “
I admit that most Mormons would not agree, notably Elder Oaks for sure, but all the examples I can remember of new revelation has been adding to doctrine not really changing, with the possible exception of when Christ fulfilled the law of Moses, but I think fulfilling is different than actually changing. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Yes, new revelations may come but will they actually change truth, or will they give us more information than we previously had, or will they correct a policy put into place for the wrong reason like declaration 2.
“1. an anthropomorphic God
2. the nature of the Godhead”
I believe that this is your best point. I think these ideas are assumption based on scriptural the record. I do not believe this would be the first time GA’s have assumed things are doctrine based on how they have interpreted the scriptural record. A few examples are blacks and the priesthood, Adam God theory, advocating death to interracial couples.
“3. temple ceremonies”
The specifics of the temple ceremonies have changed a lot. I do think that the generalities are doctrine, most of which is in the scriptures.
I believe that Joseph being a Mason, and knowing the historical roots of the Masons, he worked to restore the temple ceremony. I don’t think this was a process of dictation. I think he worked on it and got a general idea.
Most of what I am talking about is how I am choosing to define the word doctrine. If you choose to define what I call “policy” “doctrine” I am not sure I can say your wrong, but what I am saying ist the articles definition is legitimate.
Gail wrote:I admit that most Mormons would not agree, notably Elder Oaks for sure, but all the examples I can remember of new revelation has been adding to doctrine not really changing, with the possible exception of when Christ fulfilled the law of Moses, but I think fulfilling is different than actually changing. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Yes, new revelations may come but will they actually change truth, or will they give us more information than we previously had, or will they correct a policy put into place for the wrong reason like declaration 2.
It depends. We are talking past each other a lot. I think what you’re saying is that the absolute truth doesn’t change. Well sure, that’s obvious. But that’s not what we have. We have some interpretation of perceived truth – very different. The opposite of an open canon is a closed canon. Did the BoM modify our understanding of doctrine? Absolutely – if not, why was it necessary. We have an open canon in this church for the explicit purpose of shedding new light on doctrine. That doesn’t mean the absolute doctrine changed, but our understanding of it. My argument is that “doctrine” should be taken to mean our “understanding of doctrine” since absolute doctrine is not a realistic concept in this world given the fact that we are human.I will also add that personally (even when I was TBM) I think it’s a dangerous road to believe that doctrine is fixed in Mormonism. This is what leads to fundamentalism. If you truly believed that doctrine doesn’t change, and you had heard Joseph and Brigham and Taylor speak about polygamy, you would be a fundamentalist. The primary difference between us and FLDS is that we believe in continuing revelation from our leaders to modify doctrine, and they reject our leaders continuing revelation.
Gail wrote:“1. an anthropomorphic God
2. the nature of the Godhead”
I believe that this is your best point. I think these ideas are assumption based on scriptural the record. I do not believe this would be the first time GA’s have assumed things are doctrine based on how they have interpreted the scriptural record. A few examples are blacks and the priesthood, Adam God theory, advocating death to interracial couples.
Once again, we’re talking past each other. Of course they are assumptions. What else could they be? That doesn’t mean they’re not doctrine. If the Catholic church uses the Nycene creed as “doctrine” does that make it absolute doctrine? Absolutely not. It is their assumption/interpretation/understanding of perceived truth. But this is exactly what constitutes doctrine for any group/religion/individual.Gail wrote:“3. temple ceremonies”
The specifics of the temple ceremonies have changed a lot. I do think that the generalities are doctrine, most of which is in the scriptures.
I believe that Joseph being a Mason, and knowing the historical roots of the Masons, he worked to restore the temple ceremony. I don’t think this was a process of dictation. I think he worked on it and got a general idea.
Most of what I am talking about is how I am choosing to define the word doctrine. If you choose to define what I call “policy” “doctrine” I am not sure I can say your wrong, but what I am saying ist the articles definition is legitimate.
Yes, we’re getting more clear here. You can call “doctrine” whatever you want, but the definition is:
Wikipedia wrote:Doctrine (Latin: doctrina) is a codification of beliefs or “a body of teachings” or “instructions”, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogy is the etymology of catechism.
My argument is that it’s a pipe dream to call “doctrine” absolute truth because it may or may not be. It is colored – always by experience, and human frailty. In Mormonism we believe in an open canonfor the express purposeof being open to doctrinal changes. Euhemerus, You are making great points, and yes we are talking past each other. Nice definition of doctrine. Yes I think it is a good useful accrete definition when discussing most religious institutions. I do think we look at doctrine slightly different as Mormons. Our whole concept of living oracles, yet retaining the idea of fallibility, calls out for some way to tease out what we can be sure on is from God and what could possibly be fallibility. For me I think I am looking for what can be questioned and still consider myself within the umbrella of a believing LDS. At this point I have days where I can accept within myself the idea that it is all hog wash and embrace the title apostate, but most of the time I am seeking to embrace the Mormonness that is such a deep part of me and I would like to see a line and be able to say yes I can buy all that I see as absolutely for sure is doctrine and feel free to question all else. This whole concept may be a silly game, but I believe this article was presented in this type of spirit. Helping those srtuggling to sort out who they are as Mormons. Therefore I stand by the definition the article put forth as legitimate and very useful within the LDS world or at least this corner of the LDS world, even though it may not withstand the strict academic standers of Wikipedia.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.