D
dennisknapp
Guest
mormon fool said:
Where did God the Father get His body?
Peace
- Status
Where did God the Father get His body?
Peace
M
mormon_fool
Guest
The answer to that question requires too much speculation. I will have to say I don’t know.
D
DeFide
Guest
mormon fool:
- Mormons believe in countless gods, although they only worship one of them. I never said otherwise. Belief does not equal worship.
- I agree on Godhood= divine nature.
- I agree that Godhead implies one God, and therefore it is misleading to say that Mormons do not believe in more than one Godhead.
D
DeFide
Guest
mormon fool:
- Mormons *believe *in countless gods, although they only worship one of them. I never said otherwise. Belief does not equal worship.
- I agree on Godhood= divine nature.
- I agree that Godhead implies one God, and therefore it is misleading to say that Mormons do not believe in more than one Godhead.
C
Casen
Guest
oad soda said: the quest for truth in science is totally harmonious with catholic doctrine and points to it. this is definitivley not the case w/mormonism.
Well, that’s your opinion oat soda but you couldn’t be more wrong. From whyprophets.com (part 1):
*First, we know that Christian churches have been in conflict with science in the past. The prior conflict of the Roman Catholic Church with science ended up placing Roman Catholicism in a losing position with regard to potential progress. Now, some fundamental and evangelical churches in America, taking a literalistic and narrow view of the Bible are rejecting science more and more. Instead, they encourage and incorporate new Special Creation “science” and modern interpretations which are plugged into the Bible to make it appear to fit certain scientific facts. They are also discouraging interpretive aspects of scientific problems within the Bible.
The revealing part of my inquest was the shocking number of scientific production in the U.S. per state. At the bottom end of the collection are mostly the states considered the “Bible Belt.” The ones with the “fundamentalist,” and literalistic accentuation. Their production is only about one-fourth that of the high end (per million white population according to the Thomson report; the other numbers of minorities were too low at the time apparently), which is the Northern states.
But far and above all the rest is a surprising find. In fact the top state is so far above all the others, it’s currently a full 21 percent higher, even though all the others are merely a few percentage points in between. What’s even more revealing and unusual is the fact that one state could maintain such a lead for over fifty years. What’s more surprising is the fact that this state, Utah, is one which the cultural force reveres God, Christ, Scriptures, missionary work, and a strong sense of religious tradition.
In 1990, the top scientific production states were:
Utah (1886 per million),
Idaho (1421 per million) and
Colorado (1246 per million). *
Well, that’s your opinion oat soda but you couldn’t be more wrong. From whyprophets.com (part 1):
*First, we know that Christian churches have been in conflict with science in the past. The prior conflict of the Roman Catholic Church with science ended up placing Roman Catholicism in a losing position with regard to potential progress. Now, some fundamental and evangelical churches in America, taking a literalistic and narrow view of the Bible are rejecting science more and more. Instead, they encourage and incorporate new Special Creation “science” and modern interpretations which are plugged into the Bible to make it appear to fit certain scientific facts. They are also discouraging interpretive aspects of scientific problems within the Bible.
The revealing part of my inquest was the shocking number of scientific production in the U.S. per state. At the bottom end of the collection are mostly the states considered the “Bible Belt.” The ones with the “fundamentalist,” and literalistic accentuation. Their production is only about one-fourth that of the high end (per million white population according to the Thomson report; the other numbers of minorities were too low at the time apparently), which is the Northern states.
But far and above all the rest is a surprising find. In fact the top state is so far above all the others, it’s currently a full 21 percent higher, even though all the others are merely a few percentage points in between. What’s even more revealing and unusual is the fact that one state could maintain such a lead for over fifty years. What’s more surprising is the fact that this state, Utah, is one which the cultural force reveres God, Christ, Scriptures, missionary work, and a strong sense of religious tradition.
In 1990, the top scientific production states were:
Utah (1886 per million),
Idaho (1421 per million) and
Colorado (1246 per million). *
C
Casen
Guest
(part 2)
*Thus, it became obvious to me that Mormons hold not just a lead in scientific production, but hold a very high lead. So the significant question might be why this is so. I think looking at the responses of LDS scientists is a good way to find such an answer. In fact, such a study was conducted by a professor of Arizona State University, who was intrigued by the lopsided LDS scientific population. The results are rather conclusive. In brief, there are many reasons; Mormon leaders have always been pro-science, Mormon philosophy encompasses knowledge as a godly attribute, and the Mormon culture’s acceptance of continuing revelation from God and openness to new insight.
The Mormon Factor, thus, is the only conclusion for the high scientific numbers. There are no other factors which would lend such a high number. In fact, such a factor has been proven. Even the percentage of the LDS Utah share confirms this.
But do the Mormon scientists have a strong faith? That question was also answered in this interesting study. Of the LDS scientists polled a significant 83% considered themselves strong believers, while those of other Christian faiths were significantly less, the next highest being 44%.
Further, the conviction within these believers that Jesus is a divine person of the Godhead was put to the same scientists (LDS and non-LDS Christians) and results were extremely lopsided. Of the LDS believing population, 91% had a “Very Strong” conviction of this, while all the others maintained a spread between “Weak” and “Very Strong,” most of which was under a “Fair” conviction. (Catholics were the next highest.) Also, among these LDS scientists, over eighty-five percent felt that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
Of the “Strong Believers” category of the scientists, almost ninety percent of the LDS felt that their religious doctrine and science could be harmonized. And even of the “Non-Believers” category, only 34% said no. Only 64% of “believing Christians” felt that religion and science could harmonize.
Also, of those questioned if their religion had an influence on their perusal to become a scientist, 88.4% of the LDS said “yes,” while only 42% of the other Christians felt that their religion had any influence. And twice the percentage of the LDS attended worship services, and twice the percentage of LDS scientists had a favorable attitude toward their church compared to all others.
Interestingly, the places where one might think that there would be the biggest conflict of religion and science, we actually find stronger believing LDS. (This, opposed to those who are not within the physical sciences are less believing among the LDS.) The largest percentage of Utah scientists are those in the physical sciences (biology, chemistry, geology, etc.) Of those in the physical sciences of the non-LDS faiths (Christian) only about 41% were strong believers, while over twice this percentage of the LDS physical scientists were strong believers. It was in the social sciences that the drop of LDS believers was noticed, where the larger portion considered themselves “Nominal.” The percentages of all other Christians was still about half of that of the LDS in these categories.
What I found insightful was the fact that 89.9% of the LDS believers felt that religion and science could face each other. And also nearly three times as many non-LDS Christians as LDS said that they were “Intensely Troubled” by the conflict of science and religion*
*Thus, it became obvious to me that Mormons hold not just a lead in scientific production, but hold a very high lead. So the significant question might be why this is so. I think looking at the responses of LDS scientists is a good way to find such an answer. In fact, such a study was conducted by a professor of Arizona State University, who was intrigued by the lopsided LDS scientific population. The results are rather conclusive. In brief, there are many reasons; Mormon leaders have always been pro-science, Mormon philosophy encompasses knowledge as a godly attribute, and the Mormon culture’s acceptance of continuing revelation from God and openness to new insight.
The Mormon Factor, thus, is the only conclusion for the high scientific numbers. There are no other factors which would lend such a high number. In fact, such a factor has been proven. Even the percentage of the LDS Utah share confirms this.
But do the Mormon scientists have a strong faith? That question was also answered in this interesting study. Of the LDS scientists polled a significant 83% considered themselves strong believers, while those of other Christian faiths were significantly less, the next highest being 44%.
Further, the conviction within these believers that Jesus is a divine person of the Godhead was put to the same scientists (LDS and non-LDS Christians) and results were extremely lopsided. Of the LDS believing population, 91% had a “Very Strong” conviction of this, while all the others maintained a spread between “Weak” and “Very Strong,” most of which was under a “Fair” conviction. (Catholics were the next highest.) Also, among these LDS scientists, over eighty-five percent felt that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
Of the “Strong Believers” category of the scientists, almost ninety percent of the LDS felt that their religious doctrine and science could be harmonized. And even of the “Non-Believers” category, only 34% said no. Only 64% of “believing Christians” felt that religion and science could harmonize.
Also, of those questioned if their religion had an influence on their perusal to become a scientist, 88.4% of the LDS said “yes,” while only 42% of the other Christians felt that their religion had any influence. And twice the percentage of the LDS attended worship services, and twice the percentage of LDS scientists had a favorable attitude toward their church compared to all others.
Interestingly, the places where one might think that there would be the biggest conflict of religion and science, we actually find stronger believing LDS. (This, opposed to those who are not within the physical sciences are less believing among the LDS.) The largest percentage of Utah scientists are those in the physical sciences (biology, chemistry, geology, etc.) Of those in the physical sciences of the non-LDS faiths (Christian) only about 41% were strong believers, while over twice this percentage of the LDS physical scientists were strong believers. It was in the social sciences that the drop of LDS believers was noticed, where the larger portion considered themselves “Nominal.” The percentages of all other Christians was still about half of that of the LDS in these categories.
What I found insightful was the fact that 89.9% of the LDS believers felt that religion and science could face each other. And also nearly three times as many non-LDS Christians as LDS said that they were “Intensely Troubled” by the conflict of science and religion*
M
mormon_fool
Guest
DeFide said:
Thank you for making this distinction. Otherwise, in the absense of a clear, contextual distinction many people conflate belief in God with worship of God. I hope people don’t mind when I add context to help people make the distinction. In this case, “speculate” or “don’t deny the possibility of the existence of” works even better than “belief”. This is especially true since there is very little in canonical writings of the LDS church to go off of and there are a healthy range of views held by mormons on the subject.
I think most mormons would not like the inference that they worship one of countless gods. Especially when the designation “God” is a lot like “father”. In that sense I only have one (earthly) father and the term implies that I have a special relationship with that individual. When talking about beings outside of our worship, the term “god” has a different connotation altogether.
Great because there is an interesting passage in the CCC that makes this connection too. I won’t even begin try to interpret what it means, I assume adherents to the catholic community are in much better position to interpret their literature than I am.
%between%
So if we don’t equivocate in the manner you suggest we are being misleading?!! Words that have multiple usages can be figured out in the context in which they are being used. Consider me unconvinced that, say, Alma 11 presents misleading language when the text goes out of its way to show how it is using the designation “God”.
While I appreciate the advice, for the most part I like to keep my personal speculations to myself and concentrate what is fundamentally important like following the one, true God.
M
mormon_fool
Guest
I see that CCC 460 was already posted on another thread by my fellow LDS Christian, Casen. I don’t wish to create a cross threaded discussion, so please disregard my citation.
D
DeFide
Guest
mormon fool:
This sharing in the divine nature, though real, is a created participation in God’s life. As creatures we can never become the uncreated God.
However, this is unreleated to the Mormon belief in the eternal progression of gods, where each new god has all the essential attributes of all the other gods and performs the same function but at different levels of exultation. Indeed, no Mormon god, in any world, is the uncaused Cause envisioned in most monotheistic religions.
1.Sometimes Catholic theologians refer to the “divinization of man,” but this is nothing like Mormon teaching. When Scripture says that Christians are "partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4) it means we begin to share in God’s divine life of grace in this world. We become divinized when God dwells within us.
This sharing in the divine nature, though real, is a created participation in God’s life. As creatures we can never become the uncreated God.
However, this is unreleated to the Mormon belief in the eternal progression of gods, where each new god has all the essential attributes of all the other gods and performs the same function but at different levels of exultation. Indeed, no Mormon god, in any world, is the uncaused Cause envisioned in most monotheistic religions.
- equivocate: To use evasive or deliberately vague language. To stray from truthfulness or sincerity.
- I understand why Mormons are uneasy with the idea that they worship one of countless Gods. I would be too. Why worship the proximate source of all goodness and truth when you can worship the ultimate Source of all goodness and truth? But this is off-topic, and I’ll let you sort that out on your own.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
mormon fool:
The reason I am asking these questions is because it relevent to the nature God as to how we answer these questions.
Peace
Jesus has a body because He became incarnate in human form. Did God the Father do the same thing and so receive a body?
The reason I am asking these questions is because it relevent to the nature God as to how we answer these questions.
Peace
M
mormon_fool
Guest
DeFide said:
Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me and the patience you have exhibited in this thread. I think you hit the nail on the head when you point to the creator/creature dichotomony as the key difference in the mormon and catholic deification thought.
Saying the teachings of some Catholic theologians and some unofficial musings of Mormon thinkers are “nothing like” each other is a bit of an overstatement, IMHO. In large part, our two faiths share some of same scripture passages on human potential, such as 2 Pet. 1:4 as you thoughtfully referred to. Off the top of my head some other passages are Gen. 3:22, John 10, Psalms 82, John 17. Obviously members of the two churches interpret the passages differently, but there is bound to be some degree of agreement that can be made. In fact, I agree with everything you have written above with the exception of aforementioned difference.
Now here you seem to be arguing against one version or interpretation of mormon belief. I keep trying to explain that we (mormons) don’t know exactly what is entailed with by men becoming god. This is a very open ended question and we have very little revelation to help us figure it out. There are other possibilities to explore.
In my opinion, the interpretation you are describing is based on inductive reasoning or pattern recognition. But we don’t really have enough data to really determine a pattern. It is like saying “All indians walk in single file, at least the one I saw did.”
Again it unclear to me why our “God” is just one of the gods.
Take Abraham 3:18-19 for example:
One thing I get out of this passage is our God’s unique status in the universe. He is and always will be the most “intelligent” (a term loaded with meaning in mormon scripture) in the universe. He is the “ultimate Source of all goodness and truth” as you put it. He is the “Supreme Being” as the missionary discussions put it when I served.
- Status