LDS - Belief in Heavenly Mother; Prayers?

[RebeccaJ]

This post does not address my post. Traditional Christians clearly believe that the one God exists eternally as three distinct divine Persons. Jews reject as blasphemy any notion of plurality of/within the Divine. Demonstrate what was dishonest about my post.

a) Christians believe in ONE GOD

b) Mormons believe in MANY GODS

Jews do not accept Christian belief because they view the Trinity as more than One God. Christians understand we are talking about One God. Jews do not accept that we are talking about One God, not many.

Mormons believe in many gods. This is not a misunderstanding or a non-acceptance of what you believe. It is what you believe.

Christians don’t believe in many gods, no matter how you try to spin it, we don’t.

Clear?

 

[RebeccaJ]

The Shema isn’t a commentary on the existence or non-existence of other divine beings, but a statement on the relationship between Israel and YHWH, their God. It has nothing to do with the nature of the Divine. I completely agree with the Torah Commentary.

You still haven’t said how this fits into the monotheism of Jews…which is the context of the scripture.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

a) Christians believe in ONE GOD

b) Mormons believe in MANY GODS

Jews do not accept Christian belief because they view the Trinity as more than One God. Christians understand we are talking about One God. Jews do not accept that we are talking about One God, not many.

Mormons believe in many gods. This is not a misunderstanding or a non-acceptance of what you believe. It is what you believe.

Christians don’t believe in many gods, no matter how you try to spin it, we don’t.

Clear?

It is amusing that you are saying that I am trying to “spin” something, when I have never claimed that traditional Christians believe in many gods. Please cite the post if I have.

This issue at hand is not about “One God”, it is about how that “One God” exists. Traditional Christians believe that that “One God” exist as three distinct divine Persons. That is the issue that I am commenting on. Whether or not Jews misunderstand the Trinity to be referring to multiple gods, they do not accept any plurality within the “One God”, hence a rejection, whether interpreted correctly or incorrectly, of the Trinity doctrine. That doesn’t even address the issue of God incarnating (which is another reason why Jews reject the Trinity).

Anyway, the point is that Jews reject any plurality of the Divine, whether we’re talking about the existence of multiple deities, or the belief in multiple distinct Persons in the one God. You have not demonstrated that I was dishonest about anything, and it is sad that you resorted to such a tactic.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

You still haven’t said how this fits into the monotheism of Jews…which is the context of the scripture.

I’ve already addressed what the Shema is about, and it isn’t about the nature of God, or about the existence or non-existence of other deities. It is about Israel’s relationship to YHWH. As the Commentary shows, it isn’t about what you seem to want it to be about.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Your language gives you away…“plurality” is a Mormon term used describe multiple gods (and marriages).

So yes, you are trying to impose your errors, and yes, that is dishonest, not a tactic.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’ve already addressed what the Shema is about, and it isn’t about the nature of God, or about the existence or non-existence of other deities. It is about Israel’s relationship to YHWH. As the Commentary shows, it isn’t about what you seem to want it to be about.

You are refusing to see it in the context from which it comes. Monotheism. You think it describes something separate?

One cannot speak, worship or acknowledge the greatness of God without speaking, worshiping or acknowledging WHO HE IS.

There is no separation.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

Your language gives you away…“plurality” is a Mormon term used describe multiple gods (and marriages).

So yes, you are trying to impose your errors, and yes, that is dishonest, not a tactic.

Actually, I was referencing language that comes from the Summa Theologica. I assume you are familiar with it?

In addition, I repeatedly referenced the traditional definition of God existing as three distinct divine Persons, never stated that traditional Christians believe in multiple gods or denied the traditional belief in one God, etc.

I hope you will apologize.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Actually, I was referencing language that comes from the Summa Theologica. I assume you are familiar with it?

In addition, I repeatedly referenced the traditional definition of God existing as three distinct divine Persons, never stated that traditional Christians believe in multiple gods or denied the traditional belief in one God, etc.

I hope you will apologize.

Perhaps you would like to explain why you seek to compare the teaching of Mormon multiple gods to the Holy Trinity, as though there is something to compare?

 

[BYUChemAlum]

You are refusing to see it in the context from which it comes. Monotheism. You think it describes something separate?

One cannot speak, worship or acknowledge the greatness of God without speaking, worshiping or acknowledging WHO HE IS.

There is no separation.

I’ve already addressed what I think the Shema is talking about, and that is in agreement with the Torah Commentary provided. You are attempting to say that it is talking about something that the JPS is saying that it isn’t talking about.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’ve already addressed what I think the Shema is talking about, and that is in agreement with the Torah Commentary provided. You are attempting to say that it is talking about something that the JPS is saying that it isn’t talking about.

I keep it in its context, from which you try to remove it. This is important, not trivial.

 

[zaffiroborant]

And from reading the Torah Commentary, we see that the Shema is not about God’s nature.

No that’s not what we get from reading the commentary.

The intro reads:

This article explores three possible interpretations

of the Hebrew words and syntax of Deuteronomy 6:4. Some scholars disagree with the author’s tentative conclusion regarding the most likely meaning of this verse. For example, Dr. Stephen Geller of the Jewish Theological Seminary understands the word “one” to imply superiority of power–as in, “YHVH is #1”!–rather than as a statement regarding monotheism*

 

[flyonthewall]

fly…why do Mormons believe marriage is required for exaltation? …is marriage sexless then? What Mormon believes this or practices it?

Because the scriptures state that a man and woman will leave their parents and cleave to each other to be one flesh, and the man is not without the woman, neither is the woman without the man, in the Lord.
Contrary to your implication, marriage is not all about sex.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

No that’s not what we get from reading the commentary.

The intro reads:

**

Of course that’s what we get from reading the Commentary. The Commentary, provided by Dr. Tigay, states that Deuteronomy 6 is concerned about “Israel’s relationship to God, not with His nature”. Even in your quote from the intro, we see that Dr. Geller states that the Shema is about superiority of power (superiority over whom?), and not about monotheism.

The Torah Commentary discusses three possible interpretations/translations of the Shema, and the author states which one he believes is the correct one. As already mentioned, I agree with his assessment.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I’ve already addressed what the Shema is about, and it isn’t about the nature of God, or about the existence or non-existence of other deities. It is about Israel’s relationship to YHWH. As the Commentary shows, it isn’t about what you seem to want it to be about.

Of course that’s what we get from reading the Commentary. The Commentary, provided by Dr. Tigay, states that Deuteronomy 6 is concerned about “Israel’s relationship to God, not with His nature”. Even in your quote from the intro, we see that Dr. Geller states that the Shema is about superiority of power (superiority over whom?), and not about monotheism.

The Torah Commentary discusses three possible interpretations/translations of the Shema, and the author states which one he believes is the correct one. As already mentioned, I agree with his assessment.

What we get from the article is that the various understandings of the Shema can include monotheism and unity, and that Dr. Tigay thinks number 1 “seems the most likely, but it is not certain”. What we don’t get is a definitive answer to what the Shema is and isn’t.

 

[KathleenGee]

The postings here are new to me…

The Summa by St. Thomas is irrevocable of One God…and that we are creatures…and when there was a reference in the Catholic Catechism of St. Thomas’ about becoming gods…#460, he was referring to the Eucharist…it is recorded at the Vatican but I was unable to get link here…

 

[RebeccaJ]

The postings here are new to me…

The Summa by St. Thomas is irrevocable of One God…and that we are creatures…and when there was a reference in the Catholic Catechism of St. Thomas’ about becoming gods…#460, he was referring to the Eucharist…it is recorded at the Vatican but I was unable to get link here…

Yes, it seems to be the tactic by some Mormons, to search for something, anything, to take out of context and twist it into something that was never meant. It is not surprising to see coming from a person who posts links to the masters of this…FAIR and the Maxwell Institute.

 

[Javl]

Javl, I believe that our Church teaches that God is not a sexual being. God is neither male nor female, rather He is pure divine spirit. Jesus became a man through the incarnation and yes, he referred to God as His Father but this is not in the sense of maleness, but rather relationship. We must use human language in order to communicate and it does get difficult when speaking of the Almighty God. God the Father has the attribute of a male in that life proceeds from Him, but has attributes of a female as well in that He nurtures us, God is infinitely higher above our sexuality than we are above an amoeba’s.

I agree with the rest of your post. As I said in a post above, God is the Creator, He has no need to pro-create, therefore no need for sexuality and certainly no need for a female partner. The entire thing is ridiculous. God the Father is not human, He is divine. Christ took on a human nature through the incarnation and now will always have both a divine and human nature, but He was not human from eternity. He had to become a human male.

Hi Steve:

The idea that God is a male actually originated with the Hebrews and has been continued down through the ages to this day. Jesus Himself refered to Him as Father and we always say “Him” and not “Her” or “It”. Assuming that He is male does help in our trying to understand His actions in relation to us.

I am not trying to contradict the Church, create controversy, or argument. I am stating plain fact. Intelligence, Logic, and what has been revealed to us in Holy Scripture is the only thing that we can go by or refer to. And yes, God is not human, He is divine and does not need sexuality for anything. Shalom haMeshiach.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[KathleenGee]

Rebecca,

They seem to overlook the whole preceeding teachings on Jesus Christ, Jesus meaning in Hebrew, ‘God saves’. We cannot save ourselves. Christ’s eternal messianic consecration was reveled during the time of his earthly life at the moment of his baptism by John, when “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power”…that He might be revealed to Israel…CC438

When you think of the Catholic/Christian concept to be Christian is to be a servant, not a god…

There are also passages on what Son of Man means, the use of “Lord” which recognizes the divine mystery of Christ because he was of God…

Then we go to 458, the Word Made Flesh…out of love for us.

Passage 463 essentially summarizes, "Belief in the true Incarnation of the Son of God is the distinctive sign of the Christian faith: “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God.” Such is the joyous conviction of the Church from her beginning whenever she sings “the mystery of our religion”: “He was manifested in the flesh.”

It is not about us but Christ…Who came to us through Mary.

Today we celebrate the Solemnity of Mary.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

Yes, it seems to be the tactic by some Mormons, to search for something, anything, to take out of context and twist it into something that was never meant. It is not surprising to see coming from a person who posts links to the masters of this…FAIR and the Maxwell Institute.

Which of course ignores the whole point that “plurality” was used in the Summa, hence why I stated that the Trinity doctrine is a plurality of distinct divine Persons that are one God. So again, your claim that I was being dishonest is false, and I hope you can apologize.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

What we get from the article is that the various understandings of the Shema can include monotheism and unity, and that Dr. Tigay thinks number 1 “seems the most likely, but it is not certain”. What we don’t get is a definitive answer to what the Shema is and isn’t.

Obviously if one is following the translation and interpretation given for a verse, then we would agree about what that verse is stating. Dr. Tigay states that translation 1 is the most likely one, and his uncertainty doesn’t detract from his belief that translation 1 is what the Shema means (and it is also the translation used in the NJPS translation). I agree with his assessment (that while other translations point to a monotheistic interpretation, these translations are improbable and problematic), and the NJPS translation, especially when reading Deut 6 in Hebrew.