Mormons and Alma 11:28-30

[BJ_Colbert]

DeFide:

I know we have an occasional Mormon/LDS on this board. Perhaps I haven’t looked hard enough, but I’ve never seen a Mormon try to square their doctrine of eternal progression of the gods with the several immutable-God, monotheistic passage in Mormon scripture:

ALMA 11:28. Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
ALMA 11:29. And he answered, No.
ALMA 11:30. Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things?
ALMA 11:31. And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.

From Catholic Answers Tract:
"The next time you speak with Mormon missionaries, cite these verses:

“I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity” (Moroni 8:18).

“For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing? And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles” (Mormon 9:9-10).

It’s hard to be more explicit than that. In his early years Smith did not believe in the “law of eternal progression.” He had an orthodox understanding of God’s immutable nature. But at some point in his theological odyssey, he veered into the land of doublethink."
catholic.com/library/Gods_of_the_Mormon_Church.asp

Any takers?

We believe in eternal progression, and we believe in just one God the Father, one God the Son, and one God the Holy Spirit who work as “One Godhead” for one purpose to bring about the salvation of mankind, but they are 3 individual and separate beings, why is that so difficult to understand? As for eternal progression we believe that we can never know everything and so we eternally search for wisdom and knowledge in all things.
God knows all things and is perfect, the rest of us are not, but we will try for eternity to follow the example Jesus set for us, and to follow His commandments.
The fact that we will never be perfect, or attain the perfect knowledge of God does not mean we give up trying. He gave His life to pay the difference between what we do attain and what we will never attain. He paid the price for us, so that we can live eternally with Him, just by doing the best we can to follow His example. I think that answers your question in plain words. And the verses from Alma are just what we believe, so again what is the question?
As usual maybe I am confused about what you are asking here.
BJ

 

[mormon_fool]

mormon fool:

DeFide:

It is definitely an issue to ponder. Not just for mormons but for Christians of all stripes. In order to figure out if something or someone has changed we would need a frame of reference and a way to measure. Have fun with this, think of Einstein’s twin paradox and things like that.

Nobody has taken the bait to rigorously define a frame of reference and a measuring stick on how to measure if something associated with God is changeable. I would like to see such a standard that accounts for God’s activity in the Catholic paradigm while discriminating against mormon beliefs.

I will re-post my own thoughts from another thread where I attempted to reconcile Doctrine and Covenants 20:17 (which reads a lot like DeFide’s passages in the Book of Mormon) to the Snow couplet on this thread.

Some other things to consider:
Doctrine and Covenants 19:

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.
10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless cpunishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—
11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.
12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

What does this have to do with anything? Well it shows what is meant by eternity. Eternity is not an infinite amount of time, rather it a period of time associated with God. During this eternity God has remained unchangeable. What happened before “the beginning” is anyone’s speculation. Just some food for thought.

In other words, if God is comfortable with saying He is unchangeable I am happy to take His word for it!

 

[DeFide]

BJ Colbert:

We believe in eternal progression, and we believe in just one God the Father, one God the Son, and one God the Holy Spirit who work as “One Godhead” for one purpose to bring about the salvation of mankind, but they are 3 individual and separate beings, why is that so difficult to understand? As for eternal progression we believe that we can never know everything and so we eternally search for wisdom and knowledge in all things.
God knows all things and is perfect, the rest of us are not, but we will try for eternity to follow the example Jesus set for us, and to follow His commandments.
The fact that we will never be perfect, or attain the perfect knowledge of God does not mean we give up trying. He gave His life to pay the difference between what we do attain and what we will never attain. He paid the price for us, so that we can live eternally with Him, just by doing the best we can to follow His example. I think that answers your question in plain words. And the verses from Alma are just what we believe, so again what is the question?
As usual maybe I am confused about what you are asking here.
BJ

So when was Smith right regarding divine immutability: When he said God was immutable or when he said the the countless gods (aka “Godhood”) could change?

It can’t be both.

 

[DeFide]

mormon fool:

Nobody has taken the bait to rigorously define a frame of reference and a measuring stick on how to measure if something associated with God is changeable. I would like to see such a standard that accounts for God’s activity in the Catholic paradigm while discriminating against mormon beliefs.

I will re-post my own thoughts from another thread where I attempted to reconcile Doctrine and Covenants 20:17 (which reads a lot like DeFide’s passages in the Book of Mormon) to the Snow couplet on this thread.

In other words, if God is comfortable with saying He is unchangeable I am happy to take His word for it!

Mormonfool, I didn’t write what you attributed to me (perhaps it’s a technical glitch).

So the only part I can address is to ask if you deny the Mormon belief of “eternal progression” since you accept divine immutability?

The Mormon founder taught that faithful Mormon men can ascend to divinity. In the King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith said, “My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same. And when I get to my kingdom [godhood], I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself.”
source: catholic.com/library/Gods_of_the_Mormon_Church.asp

As far as God’s activity, Catholics see us humans as changing in relation to God much the way a traveler can move over a immutable landscape in such a way to see a change in scenery. The landscape doesn’t change, the traveler is in a different spot. Just an anology. At no point does God change, otherwise he’d be changing to something less than perfection or from something less than perfection and thus he wouldn’t be God.

For Catholics, God is perfection who exists by his own nature, he cannot not exist; just as logic cannot not exist. Since time is merely the measure of that which changes, an immutable God is thus outside of time. Time doesn’t apply to changlessness. God is not just a higher created being.

 

[oat_soda]

We believe in eternal progression, and we believe in just one God the Father, one God the Son, and one God the Holy Spirit who work as “One Godhead” for one purpose to bring about the salvation of mankind, but they are 3 individual and separate beings, why is that so difficult to understand?

this is the whole issue. you may believe this, but officially, mormon teaching doesn’t state this. and what is surprising is that in the BOM, we see strong language of a Trinitarian God which was later changed and your church can’t even define what it believes about God when it has it has the infallible teachings of the apostles available to it.

what i found on mormon.org is that only the Father is God, while the Son and Holy Spirit with God the Father make up a “Godhead”. this doesn’t imply that the Son and Holy Spirit is equal to the Father but that they are lesser gods. this is why you don’t pray to either the Holy Spirit or Jesus which is the same as JWs and muslims.

if on the other hand you say you have three distinct gods, then you are polytheistic which is obviously contrary to the scriptures and would separate you more for the christian church. your faith would be more akin to hinduism.

I am quoting from people that are well respected writers and/or authorities in the church.

this is very subjective, which are authoritative? respected writers are offical. unfortunatley, moromons do not have an offical teaching guide available online other than www.mormon.org.

 

[mormon_fool]

DeFide:

Mormonfool, I didn’t write what you attributed to me (perhaps it’s a technical glitch).

It’s a glitch. I will have to see if I can catch it prior to posting next time.

So the only part I can address is to ask if you deny the Mormon belief of “eternal progression” since you accept divine immutability?

I do accept some form of “eternal progression”, but what that means exactly for God I can not say. If saving His children puts another feather in His cap, then by that metric God can be said to be changing. If bringing about the salvation of man somehow changes God, then Christians have the same problem when it comes to accepting passages like Doctrine and Covenants 20:17, Mormon 8:18, or any number Bible passages that read similiarly.

In sum, I do not deny God is unchangeable, I just look for a frame of reference in which that is true in. His!

As far as God’s activity, Catholics see us humans as changing in relation to God much the way a traveler can move over a immutable landscape in such a way to see a change in scenery. The landscape doesn’t change, the traveler is in a different spot. Just an anology. At no point does God change, otherwise he’d be changing to something less than perfection or from something less than perfection and thus he wouldn’t be God.

Thanks for making this explanation.It helps illustrate what I am trying to get at. In your analogy there is two frames of reference. In the traveler’s reference frame he isn’t moving at all, the landscape is. In the landscape’s frame the traveler is the one that is moving. God is like the traveler, no matter what He does, He is not changing in his own reference frame. He gets to define what perfection is and what Godly attributes are, etc.

 

[DeFide]

mormon fool:

It’s a glitch. I will have to see if I can catch it prior to posting next time.

I do accept some form of “eternal progression”, but what that means exactly for God I can not say. If saving His children puts another feather in His cap, then by that metric God can be said to be changing. If bringing about the salvation of man somehow changes God, then Christians have the same problem when it comes to accepting passages like Doctrine and Covenants 20:17, Mormon 8:18, or any number Bible passages that read similiarly.

In sum, I do not deny God is unchangeable, I just look for a frame of reference in which that is true in. His!

Thanks for making this explanation.It helps illustrate what I am trying to get at. In your analogy there is two frames of reference. In the traveler’s reference frame he isn’t moving at all, the landscape is. In the landscape’s frame the traveler is the one that is moving. God is like the traveler, no matter what He does, He is not changing in his own reference frame. He gets to define what perfection is and what Godly attributes are, etc.

So how can a mortal like, say, Joseph Smith, ever be considered to be god of his small portion of the universe (unclaimed by the other countless gods)? If such a god were truly changeless, there would never be a time when he wasn’t god. Remember, time does not apply to changelessness.

 

[mormon_fool]

We believe in eternal progression, and we believe in just one God the Father, one God the Son, and one God the Holy Spirit who work as “One Godhead” for one purpose to bring about the salvation of mankind, but they are 3 individual and separate beings, why is that so difficult to understand?

oat soda:

this is the whole issue. you may believe.

For the record I believe this, too. I don’t know any mormon who doesn’t. Does Oat Soda?

 

[mormon_fool]

DeFide:

So how can a mortal like, say, Joseph Smith, ever be considered to be god of his small portion of the universe (unclaimed by the other countless gods)? If such a god were truly changeless, there would never be a time when he wasn’t god. Remember, time does not apply to changelessness.

In order to measure change we need to have a start and stop time. It would be pointless to talk about change without a time frame in mind.

 

[mormon_fool]

oat soda:

unfortunatley, moromons do not have an offical teaching guide available online other than www.mormon.org.

You may wish to look up some of these basic mormon teachings in “True to the Faith” and “Gospel Principles” (both church publications). Using the search engines at mormon.org and lds.org also might help you get a better picture.

 

[DeFide]

mormon fool:

In order to measure change we need to have a start and stop time. It would be pointless to talk about change without a time frame in mind.

Measure change of changelessness?

Perhaps I should not push the issue further. If you’re interested in Catholic theology I’d recommend the book Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed available at Catholic.com.

Here’s a sample of his writing from Theology for Beginners:

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0210clas.asp

I’ll keep you in my prayers.

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

In order to measure change we need to have a start and stop time. It would be pointless to talk about change without a time frame in mind.

That’s just it…if God is unchangeable/unchanging then He is outside of time - eternal.

 

[mormon_fool]

DeFide:

Measure change of changelessness?

Perhaps I should not push the issue further. If you’re interested in Catholic theology I’d recommend the book Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed available at Catholic.com.

Here’s a sample of his writing from Theology for Beginners:

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0210clas.asp

I’ll keep you in my prayers.

Thanks for the reference. I actually read a few chapters of Sheed’s book quite a few years ago. Very intense. You are right to point to these sources getting to the bottom of immutability, because it is an issue for advanced theology and philosphy.

I am making my observations based my understanding of relativity physics. The only way to detect change is to observe something at two different times and record the measured difference. If there is zero difference then we ascribe it to a property of “changelessness”.

I like the outside of time idea. If we were to apply this to both the catholic and mormon paradigm, it would allow us both to affirm “changelessness”.

 

[mormon_fool]

old fool: I am quoting from people that are well respected writers and/or authorities in the church.
oat soda:

this is very subjective, which are authoritative? respected writers are offical. unfortunatley, moromons do not have an offical teaching guide available online other than www.mormon.org.

I wouldn’t call my quotes subjective. Let me put it this way. Doctrine that is official and binding is found in the LDS scriptures. Next someone cites some of these scriptural passages in isolation and interprets them in a way in that is inconsistent with how most mormons do. Citing from many random influential mormon writers helps clear up confusion because 1) the citations offer a representive sample of how mormons actually interpret scripture. 2) Sometime these writers use logical reasoning and scriptural expertise to help us arrive at the same conclusions. 3) Because many of these writers were not excommunicated for expressing these beliefs nor were their writings renounced we can surmise that it is permissable for mormons to hold those beliefs. 4) I recognize that some of the writers were expressly called to teach the gospel to best of their ability and I appreciate their efforts. 5) It might be OK for a mormon to disagree with them if that individual could still somehow maintain belief in scripture. 6) I am not aware of any citations from mormon writers of similiar stature that take issue with what I have cited. 7) It should be easy enough to provide counter examples if they exist, knock yourself out! Just be aware, you are fighting an uphill battle trying to tell me what I should believe, especially when its against my expressed views. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Thanks,
fool

 

[DeFide]

mormon fool:

Thanks for the reference. I actually read a few chapters of Sheed’s book quite a few years ago. Very intense. You are right to point to these sources getting to the bottom of immutability, because it is an issue for advanced theology and philosphy.

I am making my observations based my understanding of relativity physics. The only way to detect change is to observe something at two different times and record the measured difference. If there is zero difference then we ascribe it to a property of “changelessness”.

I like the outside of time idea. If we were to apply this to both the catholic and mormon paradigm, it would allow us both to affirm “changelessness”.

But changelessness for only a span of time contradicts Mormon teaching (which contradicts other parts of Mormon teaching):

I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity" (Moroni 8:18).

 

[mormon_fool]

That is where my citation from D&C 19 comes in handy for defining terms. The ancients also had similiar views of eternity from what I understand. Eternity is a long, but finite amount of time.

I have to reccomend Daniel C. Peterson for trying to understand mormon scripture interpretations regading “eternity”. The following is an article that is worth checking into in its entirety. I left the footnotes in to link to it.

The Hebrews, on the other hand, tended to see the difference between “time” and “eternity” as a quantitative one. Eternity is pretty much like time, only much, much longer. Our notion of eternity inherited from Plato . . . is at base the same thing as the divine beyond (Jenseits), and is therefore rather more something spatial than something temporal. The Hebrew language has no word for the same notion; Hebrew equivalents for eternity are temporal to the extent that they do not signify things beyond but things pertaining to this life. . . .

The commonest word for boundless time is côlam; according to the most widespread and likeliest explanation the word is derived from calam meaning “hide, conceal”. In the term >ôlam is contained a designation of time extending so far that it is lost to our sight and comprehension in darkness and invisibility. . . .

Even when côlam is used of God, it suggests only unbounded time and does not refer to his being beyond time or to his transcendence.85

Like the Hebrews, Latter-day Saints do not expect to encounter, in eternity, a mode of existence utterly unlike our present mortal existence. “When the Savior shall appear,” taught the Prophet Joseph Smith, “we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves. And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy” (D&C 130:1-2).86

“When it comes to thinking about divine things,” writes my friend and colleague James Faulconer, "I think it not too much to say that, by itself, Greek thinking locks us out of an understanding of God as a living and acting being, handing us over to the theology of a static and immutable, in other words, dead, god."87 I agree. With him, "I believe that most of what passes for talk about God, whether positive or negative, is talk about a god who is not the God of Israel."88 I also believe that Mormonism represents in its broad outlines and its general approach, as well as in many of its details, something very similar to what we find in the Bible and in early Christianity.

 

[DeFide]

mormon fool:

That is where my citation from D&C 19 comes in handy for defining terms. The ancients also had similiar views of eternity from what I understand. Eternity is a long, but finite amount of time.

I have to reccomend Daniel C. Peterson for trying to understand mormon scripture interpretations regading “eternity”. The following is an article that is worth checking into in its entirety. I left the footnotes in to link to it.

One problem is that Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon, in the orginal, is in pretty modern English, not even two centuries old! He can’t even hide behind translation inadequacies. If he wanted to relate the changlessness of the gods for a long time, but not eternity, he could have said so. If he wanted to say there was one Godhood but countless gods, it doesn’t make sense to write that there is not more than one “God”. He’s supposed to be a prophet.

Why is Mormonism allowed to constantly re-assign word meanings to modern English words? Where does it stop? On both of these questions word re-assignment was your only “out”.

Futhermore, in Alma 11:28-30, the question of “Is there more than one God?” is a very common and a universal question of humanity throughout history, while questions about the number of “godhoods” is cetainly not.

Lastly, a perfect God is not a dead God. He is pure act, far more living than you and I by the nature of his infinite perfections. We recieve our being in successive measures of time, to a limit. God has his being outside of time without limit and without deficiency.

 

[mormon_fool]

DeFide:

One problem is that Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon, in the orginal, is in pretty modern English, not even two centuries old!.

I like to think of it as word-restoration rather than word re-assignment. Rather than translating something ancient to “long time” Joseph Smith did something much more valuable! He helped us realize what the true concepts were behind words other texts used. Some terms had adopted some heavy philosophical baggage and distorted the original writer’s intent. His choice of words in his translation helps give us the interpretive tools needed to recover lost meaning. This is exactly what I would expect a prophet-- who can reveal the past as well as new stuff–to do.

My earlier EOM quote surmises that the basis behind the question in Alma came from a people that had a difficult time accepting the Godhood of Jesus while squaring with it their monogamy. So your “universal question”, while insightful, is not the one being addressed in that passage. The clash is between a strict Judeo-like monogamy that had a hard time accepting Jesus as divine and an Early Christian-type monogamy. Further deviating from your “universal question” is that people have rarely cared about “Godheads” that they have nothing to do with and won’t for at least an “eternity”.

In the words of Paul: KJV 1 Cor 8:5-6

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

I cite this passage not to prove the mormon view, but to show if there are indeed other beings that can be called god, they just don’t matter. At least not enough to acknowledge them and carry around a caveat about them in all statements made about our allegiance to our God.

Lastly, sorry about the leaving in the remark about a “dead God”, that is clearly an exageration about the way a God being outside time seems to be, i.e., distant and not very dynamically active. I think it is a play off Nietsche whose criticisms some LDS philosophers think they have better answers for. Insider stuff that I should have left out.

Later,
fool

 

[DeFide]

mormon fool:

I like to think of it as word-restoration rather than word re-assignment. Rather than translating something ancient to “long time” Joseph Smith did something much more valuable! He helped us realize what the true concepts were behind words other texts used. Some terms had adopted some heavy philosophical baggage and distorted the original writer’s intent. His choice of words in his translation helps give us the interpretive tools needed to recover lost meaning. This is exactly what I would expect a prophet-- who can reveal the past as well as new stuff–to do.

Translating?
Lost Meaning?
Baggage?

There’s none of that. The Book of Mormon originates from Joseph Smith in English, again, not even two centuries old. He could have just as easily expounded his “true meaning” with the first edition of the Book of Mormon as he did with his King Follett Discourse.

There’s no reason to radically redefine or reverse the meaning of words a few years after penning them when their meaning in English hasn’t changed. There’s only one explanation for the radical changes: His theology changed.

 

[mormon_fool]

DeFide:

Translating?
Lost Meaning?
Baggage?

Welcome to the mormon paradigm! It had a genesis in not accepting traditional creeds that it is felt developed rather late and were unduly influenced by exterior philosophy. I am speaking entirely from the mormon POV, I realize you can’t take the Book of Mormon seriously as ancient scripture. That is probably why you don’t spend as much time in trying to make sense of it like a believer does. But thanks for trying!

There’s none of that. The Book of Mormon originates from Joseph Smith in English, again, not even two centuries old. He could have just as easily expounded his “true meaning” with the first edition of the Book of Mormon as he did with his King Follett Discourse.

Perhaps. But the original, ancient writers were focused on witnessing about Christ and the central doctrines of salvation. They were less concerned about other less important topics.

There’s no reason to radically redefine or reverse the meaning of words a few years after penning them when their meaning in English hasn’t changed. There’s only one explanation for the radical changes: His theology changed.

Doctrine & Covenant 19 actually predates the translation of the Book of Mormon. But I get what you are saying about what Joseph taught about God evolved as he received more and more revelation on the subject. I allow for Joseph Smith to progress in knowledge:

2 Nephi 28:30 see also Isaiah 28:13
For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men * line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little;*

and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.

Hope that helps,
fool