Christmas, Mary, and the LDS

[zaffiroborant]

That being said, from the LDS perspective it appears you are letting inconsequential speculations have greater importance than Christ being born-- our Savior, our King, our Lord-- the critical central part of salvation. Admittedly, it has me scratching my head.

Nonsense this is a discussion of the differences in belief and your insinuation the the person you are responding to doesn’t think Christ’s birth is important just because he’s discussing differences in belief of the nature of God is uncalled for.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Now, also, perhaps we have a different understanding of the word “co-eternal.” If Jesus is a creation of God, then he is not co-eternal. That was a major component of Arianism, and that is what was rejected by the council.

He is NOT.

LDS.org:

Among the spirit children of Elohim, the first-born was and is Jehovah, or Jesus Christ, to whom all others are juniors.

Does not sound co-eternal, sounds like first you have Elohim and his wife, who then beget Jesus Christ.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Prior to God becoming man at the Incarnation, God was “other”. After the Incarnation, “God was no longer ‘other’”. (These are my words, I suppose that there is a theological problem here, but it is in line what what I’m trying to say.)

Or in Catholic teaching God was never a man until the Incarnation, in Mormon teaching God was always a man.

 

[Horton]

“Infallibility” in Mormonism? Is this new?

I was going to say that!

 

[Horton]

This is speculation from one of the two talks I mentioned earlier. Not official doctrine nor scripture. A Mormon may choose to believe/disbelieve/be-nuetral/be-clueless about then and be 100% in good standing

 

[Stephen168]

So, in summary: for Catholics, the Incarnation is:

1. a time when God became human (lowering Himself).
2. and thus at that instant in time, humans became “of the nature of God” (elevating them).
3. this is a disruptive event in human history.
4. Mary played an active role in this disruptive event in human history.

A good summary

Okay, I think I see what you are saying. I suppose it is speculation because we don’t know what other gods decided to do on their earth. Is that why my statement is speculation?

Joseph Smith taught a number of ideas which some Mormons are trying to distance themselves from. The teaching that God was once a human being is one of them. The Mormon Church has not backed away from this, but individual Mormons do.

 

[in_servitude]

It is speculation because it is not something that has been revealed infallibly, such as in scripture. The two sayings of which these ideas are even based on were/are both not infallible or scripture. If God chooses to reveal whatever is Truth about these issues, He will in His time.

This aspect of our discussion started by understanding the difference by the Catholic God who is also the Triune God and comes to us through the Incarnation. It is a one time event as this is the “only earth” according to Catholic theology. But, for the LDS, there are lots of gods and lots of earths, so the uniqueness is of a different nature for the LDS God. Now, you are saying that we can’t know exactly what is happening on other earths, or the earths that have the temples on them from the previous gods and the like.

It seems to be fair to speculate that it has likely happened before, possibly innumerable times. Hmm… Actually, I think it would also be fair to say that an LDS person would simply be speculating that Jesus coming to this earth was unique! Jesus, could be the god of many earths, possibly millions of them - so the uniqueness of him coming to this earth would have to be in question.

I’m saying that things which are just speculated and not infallibly revealed (and wouldn’t really matter anyways) are inconsequential.

Okay, so I will then ask this question: Is the nature of God inconsequential?

Christ is our Savior, our King, our Lord, our Teacher, the Son of God. He is Perfect, Wonderful, Glorious. That’s who He is.

The LDS God is very different from the Catholic God. I think we agree on this. It is a disagreement that runs deeper than His Triune nature, as we will probably see below.

This is speculation from one of the two talks I mentioned earlier. Not official doctrine nor scripture. A Mormon may choose to believe/disbelieve/be-nuetral/be-clueless about then and be 100% in good standing.

Are you saying that a progression of Gods is not official LDS doctrine? Or, that an “infinite progression of Gods” is not official LDS doctrine?

This is a different subject than the Father’s history. Yes, LDS do believe that we may become perfect and like the Father. Here’s a nice official essay on it:https: //www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

Thanks - I read that article with interest. Here’s a quote that I think confirms what I understand about LDS teaching:

From the LDS website:Joseph Smith continued to receive revelation on the themes of divine nature and exaltation during the last two years of his life. In a revelation recorded in July 1843 that linked exaltation with eternal marriage, the Lord declared that those who keep covenants, including the covenant of eternal marriage, will inherit “all heights and depths.” ** “Then,” says the revelation, “shall they be gods, because they have no end.” They will receive “a continuation of the seeds forever** and ever.”

Important note here: LDS believe that we all have always existed.

Well, I don’t get that statement in relation to what I just quoted from the LDS website. A plant grows up from a seed. That plant interacts with another, and creates additional seed, that then makes another plant. There is a “progression”. The word “progression” infers one before another. If all were to exist for all time, the word “progression” is impossible.

When I say that Christ has always existed, and have always been divine, I simply mean that.

Would you say that Christ has always existed the same way you have always existed? Is there a difference in your “always-existed nature” between you and Christ?

Eternal = always living, without beginning or end. Everlasting = always lasting, without beginning or end.

I guess I need clarification relative to the whole “seed” thing. It seems to be contradictory to say that I had no beginning, but that I am a child of God.

I have not denied that. I have said that the celebration of Christ being born is the same. Our Savior, our King, our Lord.

Christ being born of seed from someone who was at one point (speculatively) just like me? That’s different than Christ being born who is the only God. I do think that we are in agreement on this.

 

[jane_doe]

Hi in_servitude! I feel that it’s best to reply to your post in regards to different topics.

Thanks - I read that article with interest. Here’s a quote that I think confirms what I understand about LDS teaching:

“From the LDS website:Joseph Smith continued to receive revelation on the themes of divine nature and exaltation during the last two years of his life. In a revelation recorded in July 1843 that linked exaltation with eternal marriage, the Lord declared that those who keep covenants, including the covenant of eternal marriage, will inherit “all heights and depths.” “Then,” says the revelation, “shall they be gods, because they have no end.” They will receive “a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.””

Well, I don’t get that statement in relation to what I just quoted from the LDS website. A plant grows up from a seed. That plant interacts with another, and creates additional seed, that then makes another plant. There is a “progression”. The word “progression” infers one before another. If all were to exist for all time, the word “progression” is impossible.
…
I guess I need clarification relative to the whole “seed” thing. It seems to be contradictory to say that I had no beginning, but that I am a child of God.
…

Topic: Our potential to one day become like the Father
This is a subject where more is written and there is actual doctrine. Yes, LDS do believe that we could one day become like Him (through His power and grace and mercy). Fully like Him including the ability to create worlds. Seeds are children and families. How this happens we do not understand right now, nor do I think we are remotely capable of understanding such how night now.

It is a one time event as this is the “only earth” according to Catholic theology. But, for the LDS, there are lots of gods and lots of earths, so the uniqueness is of a different nature for the LDS God. Now, you are saying that we can’t know exactly what is happening on other earths, or the earths that have the temples on them from the previous gods and the like.

It seems to be fair to speculate that it has likely happened before, possibly innumerable times. Hmm… Actually, I think it would also be fair to say that an LDS person would simply be speculating that Jesus coming to this earth was unique! Jesus, could be the god of many earths, possibly millions of them - so the uniqueness of him coming to this earth would have to be in question.
…
Okay, so I will then ask this question: Is the nature of God inconsequential?
…
Are you saying that a progression of Gods is not official LDS doctrine? Or, that an “infinite progression of Gods” is not official LDS doctrine?

Topic: The Father’s possible history–
As I said, any speaking of God’s possible history is speculation, based off of two non-scriputaral sources. Same with anything about “other Earths”. This history is simply not reveal to us, nor is it of any consequence to the present. A person can speculate because of our potential to be like God, that the Father must have once been like us. Or a person could speculate that this is not this is not so. Or a person could speculate that they simply don’t know. All are valid speculations, and by no means doctrine. Doctrine and Truth will be revealed when God chooses to reveal it, and not before.

I guess I need clarification relative to the whole “seed” thing. It seems to be contradictory to say that I had no beginning, but that I am a child of God.

Topic: You right now as a child of God.
(Speaking the LDS perspective) You are a child of God. You were so before you were born, during this life, and always after. Yes you have always existed, but the Father is your Father. He embraced you, loves you, whom understands you more than anyone, nurtured you, and created a marvelous world for you. You are His child.

Would you say that Christ has always existed the same way you have always existed? Is there a difference in your “always-existed nature” between you and Christ?

Topic: Our current status vs Christ’s
Christ and you and I have all always existed. But you and I are imperfect- we sin, are petty, we turn away from God. A lot. Christ is different: He has always followed the Father, and exhibited perfect love. We need a savior, He is the Savior. That’s a huge difference.

 

[rcwitness]

LDS celebrate celebrate that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Godhead, co-eternal with the Father, came down in unspeakable humility to take on human nature.

Metaphysics of Trinity vs Godhead aside, it is the same.

That sounds good! Where does Mormon ism Teach this? And when?

Did you miss my post?

 

[sallybutler]

Topic: You right now as a child of God.
(Speaking the LDS perspective) You are a child of God. You were so before you were born, during this life, and always after. Yes you have always existed, but the Father is your Father. He embraced you, loves you, whom understands you more than anyone, nurtured you, and created a marvelous world for you. You are His child.

Topic: Our current status vs Christ’s
Christ and you and I have all always existed. But you and I are imperfect- we sin, are petty, we turn away from God. A lot. Christ is different: He has always followed the Father, and exhibited perfect love. We need a savior, He is the Savior. That’s a huge difference.

That is a major difference. You are saying we are all eternal, without beginning or ending just like God. We believe we did not exist until.the miracle of conception occurs, that only God is eternal.

 

[in_servitude]

Hi in_servitude! I feel that it’s best to reply to your post in regards to different topics.

Topic: Our potential to one day become like the Father
This is a subject where more is written and there is actual doctrine. Yes, LDS do believe that we could one day become like Him (through His power and grace and mercy). Fully like Him including the ability to create worlds. Seeds are children and families. How this happens we do not understand right now, nor do I think we are remotely capable of understanding such how night now.

Well, this does seem in line with what I thought the LDS teaching was. Now, for you, it is critical to avoid speculation - and I can understand the reasoning there. Otherwise, assertions about what is happening on other woulds would be assumed, but the events here on this earth might be very different than on other earths.

Yet, given if we are all of the same nature (I continue to speak within the LDS teaching), then it would be unreasonable to assume that events on this earth are totally unique. And, it would also be unreasonable that future earths will not see a repeat of the same history. So, even if “Christ coming to this earth” is totally unique today and has never ever happened before on any other planet, it seems reasonable that it would happen on future worlds. And, that would then reduce the uniqueness.

Regardless - I think we understand each other. The Catholic God is not human the way we are human while the LDS is human, but perfected to a huge degree. That’s contributes to a difference for what Christmas (the Incarnation) means for the Catholics and for LDS.

Topic: The Father’s possible history–
As I said, any speaking of God’s possible history is speculation, based off of two non-scriputaral sources. Same with anything about “other Earths”. This history is simply not reveal to us, nor is it of any consequence to the present. A person can speculate because of our potential to be like God, that the Father must have once been like us. Or a person could speculate that this is not this is not so. Or a person could speculate that they simply don’t know. All are valid speculations, and by no means doctrine. Doctrine and Truth will be revealed when God chooses to reveal it, and not before.

Well, our ability to speculate comes from our God given ability to reason.

Topic: You right now as a child of God.
(Speaking the LDS perspective) You are a child of God. You were so before you were born, during this life, and always after. Yes you have always existed, but the Father is your Father. He embraced you, loves you, whom understands you more than anyone, nurtured you, and created a marvelous world for you. You are His child.

There is either a contradiction here, or the two of us have a different understanding of the meaning of “always existed” and “your Father”.

Topic: Our current status vs Christ’s
Christ and you and I have all always existed. But you and I are imperfect- we sin, are petty, we turn away from God. A lot. Christ is different: He has always followed the Father, and exhibited perfect love. We need a savior, He is the Savior. That’s a huge difference.

Okay - I get that you’re not God within LDS teaching. But, that is just a matter of time and effort. I really don’t want to talk about that. What I am asking is different. Is your “eternal nature” today different from the “eternal nature” of God? I think the answer must necessarily be no. In your under belief, you will eventually realize God’s current perfection. Then, why not say that your eternal nature is the same? It would go for anyone, from what I have read through the links you have posted.

 

[jane_doe]

Did you miss my post?

Yes I did! Sorry about that.

I said “LDS celebrate celebrate that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Godhead, co-eternal with the Father, came down in unspeakable humility to take on human nature.”

You asked: “That sounds good! Where does Mormon ism Teach this? And when?”

References for all, feel free if you want to ask for more–
Jesus Christ the second person of the Godhead lds.org/scriptures/gs/god-godhead
, co-eternal lds.org/scriptures/tg/god-eternal-nature-of?lang=eng
came down in unspeakable humility lds.org/scriptures/gs/humble-humility
to take on human nature lds.org/scriptures/tg/jesus-christ-birth-of?lang=eng

 

[jane_doe]

Yet, given if we are all of the same nature (I continue to speak within the LDS teaching),

Actually LDS don’t really use the word “nature” to describe anything in theology. (Well, except the green leafy stuff ). We are simply the Father’s children.

then it would be unreasonable to assume that events on this earth are totally unique. And, it would also be unreasonable that future earths will not see a repeat of the same history. So, even if “Christ coming to this earth” is totally unique today and has never ever happened before on any other planet, it seems reasonable that it would happen on future worlds. And, that would then reduce the uniqueness.

You can speculate all day long, but however reasonable no speculations are God-given doctrine. It seems very foolish to me to make any definitive doctrine statements or interfaith statements on things which are simply not definitive.

The Catholic God is not human the way we are human while the LDS is human, but perfected to a huge degree. .

When you say this sentence, is the word “human” include all this sinful smallness of the humans I see everyday? I don’t know a “human” person who exhibits the perfection and wonderfulness that is God. There is a HUGE difference between us and God. (I keep repeating this because I don’t feel like it is getting through).

Well, our ability to speculate comes from our God given ability to reason.

But all reasoning is still very flawed and can lead us to many faulty conclusions. True wisdom comes from God, not our speculations.

There is either a contradiction here, or the two of us have a different understanding of the meaning of “always existed” and “your Father”.

In your mind, is there a definition of “Father” which does not involve a birth canal? I’m assuming there is, and would like to talk about it.

But, that is just a matter of time and effort.

No, it’s a matter of salvation and exaltation through the amazing power of God. It’s not something mere time and effort accomplishes.

Is your “eternal nature” today different from the “eternal nature” of God?

Are you looking for something metaphysical substance that dictates one is different than the other? Scripture mentions no such thing. God is glorious, perfect, sinless, endlessly loving, etc-- nothing should distract from those wonders.

Then, why not say that your eternal nature is the same?

I am none of the above things. I am very different than God.

 

[Stephen168]

That sounds good! Where does Mormon ism Teach this? And when?

Mormonism started as a trinitarian Christian religion and the Book of Mormon contained many Christian phrases until Joseph Smith rejected Christian teaching.

One that deals with the incarnation is as follows:

And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

Phrases that referred to Mary as the Mother of God were changed in the 1835 edition to reflect Joseph Smith’s new teaching about god.

 

[Horton]

Mormonism started as a trinitarian Christian religion and the Book of Mormon contained many Christian phrases until Joseph Smith rejected Christian teaching.

One that deals with the incarnation is as follows:

And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

Very different compared to current teachings of the LDS. How do the faithful LDS people deal with all the change? I’m sure there are LDS historians who study LDS history, do they not see the ever flowing river of change? Even as a protestant basic theology was similar to the original. It’s incomprehensible to me that a large group of people just follow along without question.

 

[Stephen168]

Very different compared to current teachings of the LDS. How do the faithful LDS people deal with all the change? I’m sure there are LDS historians who study LDS history, do they not see the ever flowing river of change? Even as a protestant basic theology was similar to the original. It’s incomprehensible to me that a large group of people just follow along without question.

Some of the fundamentals in following the Mormon prophet are: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works; The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet; and; The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
Mormon prophets can change doctrine anytime, so Mormons don’t have a problem with changing doctrine, except when it is the early Christian Church that is doing the changing. The old doctrine becomes “speculation.” We can see that in jane_doe’s many posts on changing doctrines. And new doctrine doesn’t have to be reasonable.

It does seem to rational people that changing who God is would never be possible, but Joseph Smith did it. And it is that change that has made the incarnation/Christmas/Mary not as big a deal to Mormons as it is to Christians.

 

[Horton]

Some of the fundamentals in following the Mormon prophet are: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works; The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet; and; The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
Mormon prophets can change doctrine anytime, so Mormons don’t have a problem with changing doctrine, except when it is the early Christian Church that is doing the changing. The old doctrine becomes “speculation.” We can see that in jane_doe’s many posts on changing doctrines. And new doctrine doesn’t have to be reasonable.

It does seem to rational people that changing who God is would never be possible, but Joseph Smith did it. And it is that change that has made the incarnation/Christmas/Mary not as big a deal to Mormons as it is to Christians.

I’ve concluded from this thread so far that the practice of Christmas is merely a secular one. That it has a far different meaning for Christians than for the LDS.

 

[in_servitude]

Actually LDS don’t really use the word “nature” to describe anything in theology. (Well, except the green leafy stuff ). We are simply the Father’s children.

Okay. It doesn’t mean that the word nature is irrelevant. It is a useful theological concept. When you say that we are the "Father’s children, I can point to my parents and baby pictures and say that you are speaking a falsehood. I am not the “Father’s child.” I am the child of my biological parents. The word nature would allow you to draw the distinctions you are trying to make when you say, “We are simply the Father’s children.”

You can speculate all day long, but however reasonable no speculations are God-given doctrine. It seems very foolish to me to make any definitive doctrine statements or interfaith statements on things which are simply not definitive.

The LDS view of Christmas is different than that of the Catholic view. The speculations are a tool that allow those differences to be illuminated. The speculations are not the cause of the difference. It is a difference in belief that causes the difference.

When you say this sentence, is the word “human” include all this sinful smallness of the humans I see everyday? I don’t know a “human” person who exhibits the perfection and wonderfulness that is God. There is a HUGE difference between us and God. (I keep repeating this because I don’t feel like it is getting through).

There is a huge difference between me a human that was conceived just a few minutes ago. The human conceived just a few moments ago doesn’t have a brain, a heart. But, they are a developing human just like me. And, if allowed to continue that development, they will experience life a lot like I do. The links that you provide say that you, as a member of the faithful LDS will develop into a god where you will gain the power to create whole new worlds. So, in reality, if there is a difference between you and God, it is only a distinction drawn due to the difference on a timeline.

So, for the LDS faithful, the only real difference is that your timeline started at a different point than Gods timeline. God got his start earlier and gained His perfection through gifts given to Him through His God and through His efforts at perfection.

But all reasoning is still very flawed and can lead us to many faulty conclusions. True wisdom comes from God, not our speculations.

Wisdom is the fruit of reason. The simple fact of the matter is that God doesn’t come down to us and give us doctrinal facts without a filter. It all comes to us through other means. It is your reason that has lead you to the LDS faith.

In your mind, is there a definition of “Father” which does not involve a birth canal? I’m assuming there is, and would like to talk about it.

For Catholics, yes, of course. God the Father. God the Son is “begotten, not made.” This is a statement that opposes Arianism. The words “Father” and “Son” are used to help us understand God, the being. The one being that is three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The are consubstantial in being, but three different persons. So, God the Father can behold God the Son - that is where the “begotten” terminology comes from.

Now, that applies to the Catholic God. I was asking you about how it could possibly be that the LDS faith teaches that I, in_servitude, have “always existed”, while at the same time, thanks to the “seed” of God the Father, and God the Mother, I have become a child of God. Seeds imply germination - which implies a point in time when things got started. “Always existed” implies the Catholic God. They aren’t consistent. Is there something you could say that would help explain how two things that contradict do not actually contradict?

Are you looking for something metaphysical substance that dictates one is different than the other? Scripture mentions no such thing. God is glorious, perfect, sinless, endlessly loving, etc-- nothing should distract from those wonders.

I think that you can confirm the timeline understanding of the LDS teaching. You are on a path of development in just the same what that the human conceived just moments ago is on a path of development. Even through there are huge differences between me and that single cell organism, we are both human. And, in reality, all of the differences are just due to the skewing of a timeline.

I am none of the above things. I am very different than God.

Can you name one thing that God is now that you will not become eventually become (through His grace and your cooperation?) I doubt that is possible, unless you are speaking of details, such as God is the savior of “this world” and you could never be that. If you can be the savior of the world you create with your dear hubby, then, from the way I look at it, there is no real difference.

When I hear it said that an LDS person is super different than God, I hear the timeline distinction. That would be like Trump saying that he can’t possibly be like Obama. Even though he going to be president -just-like-Obama- he can’t be president -just-like-Obama- since the year he starts is 2017 and Obama started 2009.

So, is there one thing you can name that doesn’t reflect the timeline understanding that I have? If so, then it would be a first for me.

 

[jane_doe]

(Rearrange some things here to be reply)

The speculations are a tool that allow those differences to be illuminated. The speculations are not the cause of the difference. It is a difference in belief that causes the difference.
…
Wisdom is the fruit of reason. The simple fact of the matter is that God doesn’t come down to us and give us doctrinal facts without a filter. It all comes to us through other means. It is your reason that has lead you to the LDS faith.

LDS view: wisdom is a gift from God (James 1:5), and the “wisdom” of the world is foolishness with God (1 Corn 3:19).

Okay. It doesn’t mean that the word nature is irrelevant. It is a useful theological concept. When you say that we are the "Father’s children, I can point to my parents and baby pictures and say that you are speaking a falsehood. I am not the “Father’s child.” I am the child of my biological parents. The word nature would allow you to draw the distinctions you are trying to make when you say, “We are simply the Father’s children.”
…
Now, that applies to the Catholic God. I was asking you about how it could possibly be that the LDS faith teaches that I, in_servitude, have “always existed”, while at the same time, thanks to the “seed” of God the Father, and God the Mother, I have become a child of God. Seeds imply germination - which implies a point in time when things got started. “Always existed” implies the Catholic God. They aren’t consistent. Is there something you could say that would help explain how two things that contradict do not actually contradict

Your parent’s are the parent’s of your body, but not your spirit. That’s the Father. Even your body is ultimately a creation of the Father’s and not your parent’s because ultimately He made all your bodies and the way for more to be made. Furthermore, through your salvation is a child of your Father’s. ** He IS your Father!**

When I hear it said that an LDS person is super different than God, I hear the timeline distinction.

When you say “timeline distinction” you make it sound inevitable. This is not the case.

Can you name one thing that God is now that you will not become eventually become (through His grace and your cooperation?) .

No- God has the amazing power to make beings as wonderful as Himself.
This is not ability in the Nicene view of God.

In_servitude, I have a question for you: do you feel that God must be made up a super-metaphyiscasl stuff* in order to be deserving of worship? Or is His love, glory, wonders, patience grace, salvation, etc worthy of worship? I’m asking because you seem very focused on this metaphysical nature stuff*, but keep not replying to my comments about His love, patience, etc.
(*“stuff” being my very generic place holder word, for my inability to think of a better one right now).

 

[Stephen168]

I’ve concluded from this thread so far that the practice of Christmas is merely a secular one. That it has a far different meaning for Christians than for the LDS.

I’m not sure I would say secular but I think Posts #16 and #18 sum it up. The birth of Christ was not unique, therefore Mary is not special.
I say not unique because to Mormons Christ was A son of God who volunteered, not God as Christians have always believed.