Mormons and the Trinity

[mormon_fool]

As an aside, it doesn’t diminish Jesus that some of terms used to describe Him may eventually be more (than it is now) applicable to us. The question is left open in the Book of Mormon, but one can imagine that one enjoying the eternal felicity of God will pick up many Godlike attributes like the ability to stay free from sin, a tremendous amount of knowledge, a great love for God and fellow beings, and power to carry out tasks that are in accord with God’s will. By sharing with us, Christ gives up no honors, he will always have a special place in our hearts for sacrificing for us and making it all possible. Raising us up and sharing with us improves the quality of our relationship with Him, and I think Jesus values that more than he would if He could chose to keep all the divine nature for himself. One senses the love of a parent watching their children grow up and achieve some degree of independence. I don’t think any parent would want to stunt the growth of their child so they could “Lord” over them permanently. However I do think a parent should use their advanced wisdom and authority to make sure the child is develops right. When the child reaches adulthood the relationship changes. However the ones that maintain strong ties still have the son or daughter continuing to love and respect their parents for the sacrifices they have made and continually turn to them for advice and other needs. As on earth so it is in heaven? Mormons tend to think this life is a teaching ground that prepares us for life in heaven.

That was a long aside from the analyzing what the Book of Mormon teaches about plural gods. The thing is that the Book of Mormon inspires such tangents. These ideas aren’t all spelled out in the Book of Mormon. Some of them are found more explicitly in other LDS scriptures. Some of them are only in fool’s head. Would a potential investigator miss some of these and arrive at other conclusions? Probably, but the main issue in investigating the LDS church is deciding whether or not to accept such sources of truth, like the Book of Mormon. As someone looking into the Catholic Church I will not insist on finding out every doctrine ever taught in its history and then going through and finding something to do a line item veto on so I can reject Catholicism. Instead I will evaluate whether I can trust the most trusted RCC sources. If the Bible, ex cathedra statements, creeds, the CCC, and the Pope is the legitimate successor of the Apostles are all trustworthy; then I wouldn’t sweat the small stuff that might surprise me later.

Now back to developing the definition for god that works backwards from the term that is synonomous with a “Son of God” other than Jesus participating in the “fullness”. If men can be called gods or sons of God when they receive a fullness from the Father like Christ, then what do we refer to men when they haven’t reached that point? I apologize for the gender exclusive language, there are(or will be) daughters of God, too.

But let me jump back to the beginning and show that we are already sons of God by virtue by virtue of being a spirit child of God. At early stage of development these sons of God might very well be called gods in a very limited sense. Now I realize this usage for “god” would be entirely blasphemous to Catholics because of the infinite Creator/creature gap. LDS believe we are of the same species, gods in embryo so to speak. We shy away from using god in this sense when son of God will do. The question the Book of Mormon answers is when and how sons of God become Sons of God. To finally define this secondary definition for god: a being that is a spirit child of god who is on a progressive track towards becoming one who will experience a fullness like Jesus. This term takes on a huge dynamic range just like “child” covers infants through the teen years.

Now let us see if these concepts are in the Book of Mormon.
Our pre-existence is hinted at when Jesus appears to Mohonricoriantumr in Ether 3 in his (pre-existent) spirit body (see also Alma 13). The limited sense of god reminds us both where we came from, but it also reminds us that we have not yet met our full potential. Hence we see an invitation on multiple occasions in the Book of Mormon to believe and progress and *become *a son of God (or Christ). Much of the Book of Mormon describes how Christ set the example for us by taking on the conditions of mortality, yet was the ideal Son of God.

 

[mormon_fool]

The idea is that we can progress and follow Christ’s example we can eventually receive a fullness. This idea is huge in the Book of Mormon. We see it in Mos. 5:7, Mos. 27:25,and Moro. 7: 19, in addition to the passage in Ether. We learn to become a son of God happens when we “believe”, “covenant”, “take upon his name”, “are born again”, when search for, and embrace “good” line upon line. What we are describing here is a sinuous with salvation. It isn’t a single event like the Protestants believe, but a process that is continuously occurring as we are staying on track in our lives. It is a process with milestones and some of the passages are focused on getting us to through next milestone.

Now there is yet another way the Plural Gods are found in the Book of Mormon. I am convinced that the Tree of Life in Lehi’s vision is a symbol for a feminine “god”. When Nephi sees the same vision and asks what the tree means He is shown a vision of Mary the mother of [the Son] of God. Then Nephi understood the symbolism. That we have a Mother in Heaven is not canonical doctrine, but there is a LDS hymn that reasons that parents aren’t single in heaven. Now Mary is an earthly mother, so at best she can only symbolize our Mother in Heaven. The Tree of Life which is more directly interpreted as the “Love of God”, but looking into deeper meaning one can tie it to pre-exilic Judaism’s Wisdom literature and “The Asherah” symbolism used in First Temple worship.

So in sum the Book of Mormon is definite about there being only one God and uses that term 3 different ways: referring to Jesus, referring to Jesus’s Father, and referring to the three personages of the Godhead. It uses different terminology (“sons of God”, “sons of Christ”) to describe those on their way to becoming “gods” who will receive a fullness, but it has a lot to say about this. If Mormonism can be accused of believing in plural gods, because the belief men can be exalted, the concept is there even if the vocabulary is not. If the vocabulary had been in circulation, I would expect more careful distinctions from Amulek that looked beyond the vocabulary and into concepts.

The Book of Mormon also alludes to a council of “gods” and a feminine “god”. I freely admit to a liberal interpretation on these points. Neither of these are tradition interpretations, but my position is that these items throw a wrench into the thesis that the Book of Mormon only contains orthodox theology. On these points the Book of Mormon in unorthodox, but is subtle enough that orthodox readers miss the implications. It would be a stretch to say the Book of Mormon makes any allusions to “grandfather gods”, but this idea is not an emphasized teaching in the LDS church. Excluding this one exception–which is not explicitly found in any LDS scripture and indeed creates much difficulty with the scripture we do have-- all the major pieces that one would want to take under consideration in deciding whether Mormonism believe in Plural Gods or not are found in the Book of Mormon.

There are beings who can be conceptualized as a “god” in some sense. The reason some would want to call a being a “god” who is not God is to invite comparisons (man is in God’s image and vice versa), inspire someone to adopt more of God’s attributes, or remind someone of his/her relationship with God. The term god can also be misused when if we assign the wrong attributes to God, or if we usurp God’s prerogatives, or imagine we can rise above Him, or that we can choose to worship other beings.

The Book of Mormon’s verdict is in. The most meaningful answer to the question: Is there only one God? is an emphatic yes! To paraphrase Dr. Millet, God is infinitely more one than He is three. Or many. Other beings can only be called gods to the extent that they are participating in that Oneness with God.

Thanks for enduring to the end through my response. Enjoy your Sabbath, Catholic Dude and everyone else!

God Bless,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

FCEGM:

These sites might be of interest, fool:

Much thanks! I have bookmarked them and will educate myself sometime in the future.

 

[cestusdei]

Hmmm…so you are polytheists. But you want to avoid being labeled as such. Look, there is no way to avoid the label except through the orthodox understanding of the Trinity. Also I really don’t see Mormons buying into your view. They seem to have no problem with polytheism and would deny there is only one God. I get the feeling that the explanation offered is only to make polytheism more palatable for Catholic tastes.

 

[mormon_fool]

amgid:

Thank you fool for your exchanges in this thread. I have enjoyed reading them.

amgid

Your welcome.

Well, I for one really appreciate your help in representing the LDS side of things, especially yesterday. You’ve got good debate skills and more experience and courage than I do. I see so many things written that deserve to be challenged but I don’t because I am too shy and can’t take the heat. With your support it is easier for me to make positive, charitable, contributions and not get so discouraged about all the negativity around.

Thanks,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

cestusdei:

Hmmm…so you are polytheists.
But you want to avoid being labeled as such

Well if you want to make that judgement based on my posts be my guest. I do not self identify myself as polytheist and I will only confess, following the Book of Mormon, to one God. If you are right, and I will give you the benefit on this one, that other Mormons consider themselves polytheists; then there is still the problem of classifying Mormonism as a whole. As one of your fellow Catholics quipped earlier on this thread, Mormonism is the duck-billed platypus when it comes to trying to classify us. Some elements within the unsystematized set of all LDS teachings on the nature of God appear monotheistic and others appear polytheistic. As individual mormons personally weigh and interpret those sources they may lean either way. And I personally don’t think there is a sharp divide between poly and mono. There is a huge gray area in between.

. Look, there is no way to avoid the label except through the orthodox understanding of the Trinity.

Now this I can’t agree with. Muslims and Jews are clearly more monotheistic than orthodox Christians. And there have been plenty of heretical versions of the Trinity that can claim to be monotheistic like: pre-Nicene subordinationalists, Sabellianism, and Arianism.

Perhaps you mean that, from a Catholic perspective, there is no* acceptable *way to avoid the polytheistic label without having an orthodox understanding of the Trinity.

Would you consider a “social trinitarian” orthodox? It seems to me one can be consider orthodox even if some of the finer points are disagreed on like the filoque clause.

I give it as a humble opinion, that orthodox Christians are for the most part monotheistic by assertion. In other words, they are monotheistic because they say all the right things. They affirm that Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there are not three Gods but one God. How they can say this is an incomprehensible mystery. The attempts at gaining partial comprehension have produced some very elegant philosophy. I for one wish I could follow some of these attempts because I suspect some of the same tools that are used to harmonize what appear to be contradictory statements can be used to vindicate accusations against mormonism.

Also I really don’t see Mormons buying into your view.

Hey give me some time and chance to make an impact! These ideas are in some form or another are already being circulated among informed LDS like Blake Ostler, Daniel Peterson, Stephen Robinson, Robert Millet, and David Paulsen. The hierarchy might not embrace these ideas or even fully understand them, but they haven’t moved against them either, we see some of these articles from church sponsored university professors. I think for the most part the LDS church is happy to let the “one God” declarations in the Book of Mormon that is “one in purpose” to take the lead role in affirming our monotheism. They let the philosophers handle the metaphysics, without making at any one particular solution creedal.

I get the feeling that the explanation offered is only to make polytheism more palatable for Catholic tastes.

Wow, you are perceptive! I do try to write with an audience in mind.

 

[mormon_fool]

Just a few more thoughts for the good Catholic priest.
mormon fool:

I for one wish I could follow some of these attempts because I suspect some of the same tools that are used to harmonize what appear to be contradictory statements can be used to vindicate accusations against mormonism.

Of course there are some non-negotiables in mormonism like the rejection of creation ex nihilo, the Father having a physical body, and the Son being subordinate in some sense. What I am really rarin’ to study is how Catholics maintain monotheism with the deification of man. This is were I think Catholics accusing mormons of polytheism starts to get hair-splitting. The vocabulary is clearly there because CCC #460 refers to “gods”.

To fend themselves from being polytheisms could a catholic borrow the wording in I used to defend my monotheism? To repeat:

The most meaningful answer to the question: Is there only one God? is an emphatic yes! God is infinitely more one than He is three or many. Other beings can only be called gods to the extent that they are participating in that Oneness with God.

Now if a Catholic (Orthodox or Roman) could use such language to resolve what is on the surface a language difficulty (one God vs. gods that are partakers of the divine nature) why wouldn’t they allow a mormon the same privelige? Since the typical Christian wouldn’t understand what is going on under the hood of such language in their own faith let alone others, depriving mormonism of the label "monotheism’ seems more tactical than it is substantial.

                          I get the feeling that the explanation offered is only to make polytheism more palatable for Catholic tastes.

Let me give another take on this statement. While my posts may have been tailored towards appealing to some common ground with Catholics, I think the types of thoughts I have offered have a wider appeal. I think amateur mormon apologetics can use some of them in their interfaith discussions to counter some of the labeling and polemics. But then again they may not want to because it leaves them open to charges of blasphemy. Sometimes it is better to hide behind language ambiguities and selected proof-texts. Finding some common ground with ECF’s and both major Catholic churches buys LDS some grudging respect. The Protestants that think twice about undercutting themselves by attacking catholics, may have to more careful against LDS now over the deification issue. They would have to address nuanced concepts instead of the superficial analysis based on language and labels. So for LDS apologists and ecumenicalists these ideas are appealing.

My stance has little value for the public LDS meetings. A person could go these devotional meetings for years on not get taught anything for or against some of the concepts expressed in my posts. The typical church member might not care a fig about apologetics or ecumenicalism. Where my ideas might have an appeal to LDS is in the personal belief formation of individuals. Some of us do like to personally resolve ambiguities and tensions for ourselves in mormonisms unsystemized theology.

I think some informed LDS would indeed be disappointed that I do not weigh some sources as heavily as they do and be suspicious that apologetics has skewed my value system. But mature LDS also gain appreciation that on secondary matters intelligent people can agree with being disagreeable. Since this disagreement happens outside the devotional sphere of the LDS church, I can’t see tensions ever mounting to the level like that preceded Nicea.

I suppose I am reacting to statements like “The gospel according the LDS apologists is different from mainstream LDS.” In addition to being a false dichotomy, this is subtle to way to build a strawman. A sincere truth-seeking investigator would ideally accept or reject mormonism based on its strongest network of permissable ideas, where strength is assessed by whatever metrics that seeker personally values and permissability determined by harmony with the current correlated doctrine of the LDS church.

–fool

 

[majick275]

No reading of the ECFs on deification could possibly be interpreted as meaning that God was “appointed” to his position by a “council of Gods”. Nor do they teach that God was once a man with his own God.

The doctrine of a plurality of Gods is prominent in the Bible. The heads of the Gods appointed our God for us…you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves…the same as all Gods have done before you" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.370-372, 346).

The evolution of this doctrine is somewhat interesting though. As Jospeh Smith Jr. grew in pride and tyranny it wasn’t enough that he should be a prophet. He claimed this doctrine by which God was somewhat reduced in stature as being just a successful one of us and because of Joseph SMith Jr.'s “restoration” we can become one too(A God), we just need the approval of Josehh Smith Jr. Now this also changed his teachings from The traditional Trinity to an evolving “family” of Gods.

 

[Mike_D30]

mormon fool:

Well if you want to make that judgement based on my posts be my guest. I do not self identify myself as polytheist and I will only confess, following the Book of Mormon, to one God.

How can you see yourself as worshipping one God, when Mormonism is very clear that God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three seperate and distinct Gods, that’s three Gods which is polytheistic. (not to mention Mormon’s themselves believe they will becomes Gods making spirit babies for other planets, of which they rule over). Mormonism is clearly polytheistic, there’s no one that can deny that. I do agree that based on the book of mormon it is one God, as I’ve shown, which you argued with me tooth and nail that I was wrong, now you just backed up what I’ve been saying all along. That Mormonism introduces the more pecular aspects later in the D&C, and PoGP.
mormonfool:

I give it as a humble opinion, that orthodox Christians are for the most part monotheistic by assertion. In other words, they are monotheistic because they say all the right things. They affirm that Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there are not three Gods but one God. How they can say this is an incomprehensible mystery.

Can I suggest you read:

The Orthodox Way by Bishop Kallistos Ware (eastern Orthodox). It has a portion explaining the Trinity that is excellent. So please don’t tell us we’re polytheistic, and we only claim to be monotheistic because we “say all the right things”, it’s incredibly insulting to our faith. My guess is you’ve studied little on the Trinity, and the little you have studied is simply to dismiss it. Because you NEED to dismiss it, or your religion is completly false.
mormonfool:

Wow, you are perceptive! I do try to write with an audience in mind.

Yup it wouldn’t be a post from you without a patronizing snide remark at the end.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Now I realize this usage for “god” would be entirely blasphemous to Catholics because of the infinite Creator/creature gap. LDS believe we are of the same species, gods in embryo so to speak. We shy away from using god in this sense when son of God will do. The question the Book of Mormon answers is when and how sons of God become Sons of God. To finally define this secondary definition for god: a being that is a spirit child of god who is on a progressive track towards becoming one who will experience a fullness like Jesus. This term takes on a huge dynamic range just like “child” covers infants through the teen years.

I guess I can see where your coming from and the conclusions that are a result, but as a Catholic I would also say a false premise produces a false conclusion.

One clear factor between us is the creation aspect. Catholics see God as sole and ultimate creator, Himself alone having no origin. I am at a loss for words how those LDS pages you put up teach that we as spirits have always existed, where did we come from? If we didnt come from anywhere then what makes us different from God?

As a creation Catholics teach we are far less in glory and power than He and no amount of work can make us attain His status. As I have said before, for creation to attain the status of Creator means the Creator is no longer God. This isnt seen by Catholics as a mean thing for God to do as if He was causing us to miss out on sharig something.

I can see the “child growing up” analogy to be a good example for what your trying to say, but there are huge differences that cant be compared. For example the Parent is always senior to the child as well as creator of the child, nothing the child can do will overcome that seniority factor. It has nothing to do with not enough love or mssing out, its just the way things are.

I give it as a humble opinion, that orthodox Christians are for the most part monotheistic by assertion. In other words, they are monotheistic because they say all the right things. They affirm that Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there are not three Gods but one God. How they can say this is an incomprehensible mystery.

I can see how you think the way Catholics use “fancy” words to describe the Trinity is a way of getting around the 3 gods charge, and the truth is we do. It is a way of getting around the 3 gods charge because we dont teach 3 gods and try to avoide any sound of 3 gods.

Catholics openly claim this is a mystery, something that is so above our understanding that we wont fully know in this life. The best we can do is make things fit in a non contradictory way and present good arguments. The JWs have a short book that “quotes” a encyclopedia article which says “the Trinity is beyond human reason”, well the truth is that quote was way out of context. The actual quote context was actually talking about the fact that humans cant fully comprehend BUT that good arguments can be made to easily dismiss the notion that the Trinity is pie in the sky.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

mormon fool:

Now if a Catholic (Orthodox or Roman) could use such language to resolve what is on the surface a language difficulty (one God vs. gods that are partakers of the divine nature) why wouldn’t they allow a mormon the same privelige? Since the typical Christian wouldn’t understand what is going on under the hood of such language in their own faith let alone others, depriving mormonism of the label "monotheism’ seems more tactical than it is substantial.

One major problem is the definition of words. There are terms that Catholics used for a long time, when I read lds pages using same/similar terms I often find out they dont mean the same thing.

For example, I would see polytheism as a indication of more than one god. When I read lds works saying each “person” is “a god” that means there is 3 gods and therefore polytheism by definition in the dictionary.
Catholics dont believe there are 3 gods, we try to avoid any hint of saying such thing, even if our position appears illogical we still dont say or teach each “person” of the Trinity is “a god” because that would be polytheism by definition.

“Depriving” lds the lable monotheists is very substantial. We have two different definitions of the term. It would be like me going out and saying a car is a house. We can see the mess we would get into if I went around trying to sell “homes” to people.

 

[majick275]

Especially Mobile Homes.

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

No reading of the ECFs on deification could possibly be interpreted as meaning that God was “appointed” to his position by a “council of Gods”. Nor do they teach that God was once a man with his own God.

These are not concepts associated with deification, so they are irrelevant. Focus on deification as it applies to us potentially becoming “gods”.

The doctrine of a plurality of Gods is prominent in the Bible.

I agree. As do some non-LDS Bible scholars. Thanks Joseph for pointing that out! Some Bible scholars recognize the council of Gods motif, that early Israel was polytheistic, that one strain of Israelites revered Yahweh’s consort, that man can become deified.
I put my reading of JS in brackets. This reading is substantiated in Abraham and D&C 132 and Deut 32:8-9.

The heads of the council of

] Gods the council was composed of God the Father, Jesus, and select premortal spirit children of the Father] appointed our God Jesus] for us…you have got to learn how to be Gods [receive the fullness] yourselves…the same as all Gods **[like Jesus, Scriptures”]Abraham, Jacob *and others who have received the fullness ] have done before you" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.370-372, 346).

Hopefully I can help people be able to extract the conceptual framework behind such statements. Proof-quoting is one thing, understanding their meaning is another. Railing against Joseph Smith on this one is the same as undercutting the authority of the Old Testament, in my humble opinion.

–fool

 

[Mike_D30]

mormon fool:
I agree. As do some non-LDS Bible scholars.

–fool

Did you just link to the FAIR boards as non lds Bible scholars?

The Bible I read clearly talks about polytheism, but it’s in the Old Testament, and God treats them with serious disdane and smites the followers of molech, baal etc…

I’m not certain references to one God are in the Bible but I would wager several hundred times. Perhaps what you read as multiple Gods is actually references to the Holy Trinity? Or the heavenly Kingdom full of God and his Angel’s?

 

[mormon_fool]

Catholic Dude:

One major problem is the definition of words. There are terms that Catholics used for a long time, when I read lds pages using same/similar terms I often find out they dont mean the same thing.

For example, I would see polytheism as a indication of more than one god. When I read lds works saying each “person” is “a god” that means there is 3 gods and therefore polytheism by definition in the dictionary.

I have discussed this earlier. LDS can not be classified using a dictionary definition. The problem is taxonomical rather than semantical. Catholics should not let a dictionary define “God” for them. The term requires an in-house theological definition.

Your argument is weak and based solely on terminology like I have already demonstrated that if we don’t look beyond the vocabulary to the underlying meaning, than we can easily say that Catholicisms is polytheistic. I will turn you argument around.

For example, I would see polytheism as a indication of more than one god. When I read catholic works saying each “partaker of the divine nature” is “a god” that means there are many gods and therefore polytheism by definition in the dictionary.

see also AugustineH and TOm comments on this classic CA thread.

Catholics dont believe there are 3 gods, we try to avoid any hint of saying such thing,

Except in the CCC in the context of men being made gods. And some pre-Nicean ECF’s who refered to Jesus as a second god. Were the ECF’s polytheists? Please take a stand that doesn’t undercut your own traditions.

even if our position appears illogical we still dont say or teach each “person” of the Trinity is “a god” because that would be polytheism by definition.

Again you can’t make this a classification by definition because the dictionary does not define “god” to anybody’s satisfaction. Merely pointing to multiple “a Gods” does not mean there can’t be only one “God”, because obviously definitions can shift by their implied context.

“Depriving” lds the lable monotheists is very substantial.

I am still waiting on a substantial delination that looks beyond vocabulary and gets down to underlying meanings and doesn’t employ a double standard.

I would be happy to call a truce. Let every denomination who claims to believe in the existence of only one God be allowed to internally define what that one God is.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Mike_D30:

Did you just link to the FAIR boards as non lds Bible scholars?

Yep! Check out all the citations that are made on that thread to non-LDS Bible scholars made by both LDS and a Catholic poster named David Waltz.

I’m not certain references to one God are in the Bible but I would wager several hundred times.

.
Well if you are not certain you might want to check out what scholars say, you might learn something!

And yes there are references to being one God in the Bible, that is the fun of it. The Bible uses the term “god” in many senses.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Catholic Dude:

I guess I can see where your coming from and the conclusions that are a result, but as a Catholic I would also say a false premise produces a false conclusion.

Please identify my false premise.

One clear factor between us is the creation aspect. Catholics see God as sole and ultimate creator, Himself alone having no origin.

I agree He has no origin and that He is the ultimate creator. He is just not unique as a creator or in having no origin.

I am at a loss for words how those LDS pages you put up teach that we as spirits have always existed, where did we come from?

The Book of Mormon only establishes that we had a pre-existence as beings with spirit bodies. Alma 13 talks about how men were ordained to the priesthood in the pre-existance. The appearance of Jesus in Ether 3:14 establishes we had spirit bodies like Jesus and 1 Ne 11 talks about the pre-mortal Holy Spirit appearing to Nephi in the from of a man. For the question where we came from Alma 40 tells us that we return to the same place we were at before earth life began i.e. God’s presence or Heaven. Other non-Bom scriptures describe the creation of the spirit body in more details.

If we didnt come from anywhere then what makes us different from God?

Well we are same in the limited sense that both of have underlying intelligence and composed matter that has always existed. However God has always been organized matter and always been more intelligent and glorious than us. I am basing this on Abraham 3 and am ignoring non-canonical implications that He might have been at one point any less organized or intelligent than He was in Abraham 3.

As a creation Catholics teach we are far less in glory and power than He and no amount of work can make us attain His status.

This is essentially what LDS teach. Status includes both relationship positioning and attributes. All non-superlative and non-exclusionary attributes can be shared, but becoming your own Father can’t.

As I have said before, for creation to attain the status of Creator means the Creator is no longer God.

Parents don’t quit being parents when they become grandparents. If someone becomes a Creator they can still be thought of as sub-contractors borrowing the original’s Creator’s design and borrowing his machinery. New Creators are still dependent on the ultimate and original Creator.

This isnt seen by Catholics as a mean thing for God to do as if He was causing us to miss out on sharig something.

An maximally powerful God can make these things happen. So what possible motive could He have for not doing so besides being selfish or power-tripping?

For example the Parent is always senior to the child as well as creator of the child, nothing the child can do will overcome that seniority factor.

Exactly! this is what I mean.

–fool

 

[majick275]

Incorrect. We are NOT in a human style parent-child relationship with God. He is a different order of being and we are his creations. The Mormon concept of eternal progression tries to appease the greater glory of God by basically claiming that he has a “head start” on us. While that always keeps him in front of us and makes him a heavenly “grandparent” when we have “eternal increase” it is quite blasphemous. This presupposes that we are ontologically the same species and merely in a different developmental stage. I reject that completely. God was never a man. He did not “achieve” exaltation and neither can we. He is and always has been our GOD. We will always be his creations.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Incorrect. We are NOT in a human style parent-child relationship with God. He is a different order of being and we are his creations. The Mormon concept of eternal progression tries to appease the greater glory of God by basically claiming that he has a “head start” on us. While that always keeps him in front of us and makes him a heavenly “grandparent” when we have “eternal increase” it is quite blasphemous. This presupposes that we are ontologically the same species and merely in a different developmental stage. I reject that completely. God was never a man. He did not “achieve” exaltation and neither can we. He is and always has been our GOD. We will always be his creations.

Misrepresenting LDS theology and them refuting your own misrepresentations does not exactly establish you as the smartest guy on the planet. I can tell you that for nothing.

amgid

 

[majick275]

Name one example where I misrepresented LDS Theology. I have shown where you have done it multiple times. I neither claim to be nor seek to be the “smartest” or anything of the sort. I just want to proclaim the true Gospel and serve God. Get over the LDS “I’m gonna be a heavenly father someday” temptation. You want a submissive harem go be muslim. We are Christians here and do not need peepstone “revelations” or necromantic rituals borrowed from freemasonry. I don’t know who you think you are kidding here but this is not the place for you to seduce the foolish into your cult.

2 Peter 1:
3His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

chapter 2:

1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

*10This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature[d] and despise authority.

Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; 11yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. 12But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.

13They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.[e] 14With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! *

The word of the Lord. Thanks be to God.