To me, God is either First Cause or he is not. King Follet’s god seems to have had a Heavenly Father of his own. The current Mormon conception of God is that God the Father did not have a Father, but is the First Cause (CowboyPete?). If true, some obvious questions are 1) can the First Cause have a body (be made of matter) and 2) reside within the universe somewhere near Kolob (Abraham 3)? Catholics, relying on Aquinas who relied on Aristotle, say no.
How hard would it be for an all-powerful God to create a body for himself while at the same time being everything that traditional Christians say He is?
I just think its a peculiar name for a solar system.
Not hard at all. We know he did this in the person of the Incarnate Jesus, when the immaterial God entered his material creation and took on human form.
and the word became flesh!
And Jesus didn’t become any less God when He was born into this world. The LDS could easily make the argument that the Father did not make Himself any less God when he created a body for Himself. The difference would be that God the Father would have created a body for Himself which already was perfect while Jesus was born into a body subject to all of the trials we experience on earth. Somehow Jesus exists as God outside of time and space while at the same time having a body within time and space. There is no essential reason the same couldn’t be true of God the Father.
Kolob is the closest visible star to the place that God resides. In the Book of Abraham story, God brings Abraham’s attention to a star that Abraham could see in the night sky, and says that star is called Kolob, and that it is “nearest unto the throne of God.”
I understand you now. Thank you for clarifying. We’re saying the same thing, though I was going about it by suggesting the metaphysical difficulties entailed by a simultaneous disregard for King Follet and holding what seems to be only position Mormons can take without becoming trinitarians: that the Father has always been enfleshed and corporeal.
When I was a Mormon, I didn’t worry about Kolob. I figured it wasn’t something that had any impact on my salvation.
I realize that. If any one man could be called the Father of the Nicene Creed, Anasthasius would be that man.
That’s not what I proposed. I said that our wills could become subordinate to His, and thus become One in mind with him, as Jesus prayed for his apostles in John chapter 17.
I’m not offering it to “defend” the “LDS concept of theosis” since the LDS concept of theosis is undeveloped. All we have is a few cryptic and canonical statements, and a whole lot of unofficial speculation. What I have from Anasthasius, is a developed idea that fits the official statements while rejecting the unofficial speculation that I’m not comfortable with. And it happens to fit with our “one in mind” doctrine.
I realize that Anasthasius was the “father of the Nicene Creed.”
Do you believe that Mormons can’t hold a Trinitarian theology while still believing that God the Father has a body? I’m just trying to clarify your statement because I think LDS could believe in Trinitarianism while at the same time claiming the Father appeared to Joseph Smith with a physical body. They make a big deal about their supposed knowledge that God the Father and God the Son are two separate Beings, but I’ve always figured they really don’t have a good handle on the difference in Trinitarian theology between being and person. I’ve always figured when they say the Father and the Son are two different Beings that it is not much different than when we say the Father and the Son are two different persons because they don’t seem to get what we mean when we say the Father and the Son have the same Being. They hear Being and imagine a physical reality when we are talking about a spiritual/philosophical reality.
Uh, wut?Yes, I was wondering why your behavior was more restrained on this blog than on the mormon blogs that you can’t keep away from …Funny that you’re the one who sought me out here.
Yes, I can imagine some Mormons coming to believe in trinitarianism while claming the Father appeared to Joseph with a body. All I’m saying is that such a position is inevitable for them if the metaphysical implications of the eternally-enfleshed concept of God are understood and taken to their logical conclusions, not that many will actually go there (IMO) given the misunderstanding about the distinction between being and person. Not to mention the Mormon animus against the “creeds of men” and all that entails in terms of current anti-trinitarianism within their church. I can’t imagine them overcoming that cultural feature of Mormonism anytime soon, especially as it is enshrined in one of their standard works (JS-History). Honestly, I don’t know that many Mormons think about metaphysics and what not, as they are much less oriented toward theology and philosophy and more toward daily christian practice. I’m sure they would say that’s a good thing and I’m not sure they’re wrong, unless they take is too far as many do and call philosophy ‘reliance on the arm of flesh’.
Yes, I agree, the wacky stuff being shoved to the side as “anti-Mormon” was taught to me in the Mormon church by Mormons, over several years, in several different settings. I have yet to see a good answer to how it is I was raised being taught false teachings (according to the latest Mormon revisions), and how Mormons now would know, or not, that they are not still being fed a line of teaching that will be set aside as “opinion” tomorrow.
I was questioning this stuff when I was very young, and was an atheist by the time I was in my mid 20’s.I would assume that the Ensign magazine would be one of the sources that we can use to discuss the LDS faith and not be accused of quoting “anti” sources. Isn’t that right?
Why do you think that is?It often does that. It was actually an ensign article that informed me that “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” contained a load of sloppily-sourced hearsay, misleadingly rewritten into first person. In other words, if someone writes in their journal, “X told me that Joseph Smith said Y,” the Teachings text says “I told the brethren Y.”
How can the One True Religion ever teach a false idea?Yes, I agree, the wacky stuff being shoved to the side as “anti-Mormon” was taught to me in the Mormon church by Mormons, over several years, in several different settings. I have yet to see a good answer to how it is I was raised being taught false teachings (according to the latest Mormon revisions), and how Mormons now would know, or not, that they are not still being fed a line of teaching that will be set aside as “opinion” tomorrow.
It didn’t take me 45 years though.
The same way several catechisms could proclaim the teaching on limbo as certain truth.How can the One True Religion ever teach a false idea?
Hi Bart Burk - What part of the King Follet sermon are you referring to?
I am not seeing how one can compare the idea of limbo with the teachings/doctrines about who God is and was.
First of all, why are you defending the LDS position on this by providing this link?