Mormons and the Trinity

[Catholic_Dude]

Coming to where I left off on the Blake Ostler report is paragraph 14:
14… …Nevertheless, Mormons ought to be skittish about adopting any view that renders the Son as subordinate *in the sense that *the Son is somehow less divine than the Father because, like classical Christians, the Mormon scripture clearly insist that only an infinite God will suffice to bring about the atonement. (2 Nephi 9:7; Alma 34:10) The notion that the Son is fully God is more central to Mormon scripture than has been generally recognized.
Taking this at face value, I would agree the Son is “fully God”. Im not sure how to reconcile this with the ‘growing in the fullness of God’ talk.
17. Suppose we try again, but avoid the fallacy of composition. Could saying that God is three, distinct divine persons each of whom are a God but there is only one God *and not three,*be like saying that there are three atoms but only one water molecule? If the entity is one that has emergent properties that arise from the unity of its several parts, then the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. On this view, we could say that the emergent properties of the Godhead as a unity of indwelling divine persons constitute their divinity. It is because the divine persons as one Godhead are more than the mere sum of their parts, to put it crudely, that ‘God’ means something different when referring to the three divine persons individually than when referring to them as one Godhead. When referring to the divine persons individually as ‘God’, it means that each possesses the properties essential to be divine in virtue of their participation in the Godhead. However, when we refer to the collective of divine persons as one God, the word functions differently and refers to divinity-as-such in which these three participate. Thus, there is a sense in which the divine persons are three Gods, and there a sense in which the three persons as a unity are one God, but in different senses of the word ‘God’.
I think I am starting to understand how he understand’s God. But I see 2 clear problems here.
1-He basically redefines “God” depending on the circumstances which leads to problems of who-and-when is the one true God.
2-The biggest issue is the concept that God can be “more” or “less” at any given time. If one property of God is being all-knowing, then there cant be a time of less knowing or even more knowing. I dont know how to reconcile this with the “Son is fully God” claim.

He goes on to cite some verses in support of his position, some of the points I agree with others I dont. He summs up the conclusions of these at par24.
The Son and the Holy Ghost are subordinate to the Father and dependent on their relationship of indwelling unity and love with the Father for their divinity, that is, the Father is the source or fount of divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost. If the oneness of the Son and/or Holy Ghost with the Father should cease, then so would their divinity. However, the Son and Holy Ghost do not depend upon the Father for their existence as individuals and thus each of the divine person has de re ontologically necessary existence. Further, although the Father does not depend for his divine status on the Son or Holy Ghost, nevertheless it is inconceivable that the Father should be God in isolation from them because God is literally the love of the divine persons for each other.
He seems to say that the Godhead is a sum of parts, and that two of those parts are unique in that they get to share a bond with the Father. Also the issue of the Son and Holy Ghost not depending on the Father for their existance, but for their divinity, that means the Godhead did not always exist.Godhood or the divine nature is the immutable set of essential properties necessary to be divine. There is only one Godhood or divine essence in this sense. Each of the distinct divine persons shares this set of great-making properties which are severally necessary and jointly sufficient for their possessor to be divine. Each of the divine persons has this essence though none is simply identical with it.
What are some examples of these properties? And by “shares” does that mean they contain the fullness of each property or does it mean they have access to?
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont)These scriptures present a form of monotheism in the sense that it is appropriate to use the designator ‘God’ to refer to the Godhead as one emergent unity on a new level of existence and a different level of logical categories. The unity is so complete that each of the distinct divine persons has the same mind in the sense that what one divine person knows, all know as one; what one divine person wills, all will as one. The unity is so profound that there is only one power governing the universe instead of three, for what one divine person does, all do as one. There is a single state of affairs brought about by the divine persons acting as one almighty agency. Because the properties of all-encompassing power, knowledge and presence arise from and in dependence on the relationship of divine unity, it logically follows that necessarily the distinct divine persons cannot exercise power in isolation from one another. Therefore, it follows that there is necessarily only one sovereign of the universe.
From here I think I understand how you view the Trinity, these divine persons come together to form “a Godhead” fully united.

He goes onto explain/defend some key points, some of which I agree it could work, others I dont see an issue, and some I dont agree with at all. I kept reading but most of the stuff didnt concern my interest (eg going over misinterpreted lds passages which I had never heard of) but I did notice a few things. The first is:67. On the other hand, one could understand ‘God from all eternity to all eternity’ to refer to the Godhead rather than to any of the individual divine persons separately. It is not true that if there has always been a Godhead that all of the divine persons constituting the Godhead have always been divine. Thus, when the scriptures say that “God is from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God,” it means that the Godhead has always manifested all of the essential properties of Godhood (whatever they may be), but the individual divine persons may not have always possessed all of the properties of Godhood considered individually. In other words, there was a time when the Father took upon himself mortality just as there was time when the Son became mortal, but there was a Godhead before, during and after that time.
Here is something which I questioned earlier, the issue of whether or not certain members of the Godhead have always been divine. I concluded the Godhead didnt always exist, but here he says it always did even if a divine person was not part of it. Im confused now.

One final thing, I saw in the footnotes:30 I note that there is no scriptural support for the view that Elohim is the proper name of the Father. Indeed, such use contradicts D&C 109 where Joseph Smith refers to Jehovah and Elohim interchangeably. Such usage could be adopted as a mere policy for purposes of keeping the divine persons distinct, but it also creates confusion regarding the identity of members of the Godhead. It must be recognized that no such usage is consistent in either the Bible or the Mormon scriptures.
(Ill read and report the rest asap.)

 

[amgid]

majick275:

I’m saying it’s not that simple. Jesus IS God therefore it is entirely okay to refer to him as Jehovah, or Lord or I AM or Yahweh or God. The Trinity is consubstantial, co-equal and completely without begining or end. Therefore Jesus IS the father and also the Spirit, yet he is also very much Jesus and possessed of dual nature. Fully man AND Fully God.

So Jesus is Jehovah then, right?

amgid

 

[majick275]

Jesus is God.

 

[majick275]

There appears to be some controversy on the word “Jehovah” as well:

THE UNIVERSAL JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA says “JEHOVAH is an erroneous pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton a four lettered name of God, made up of the Hebrew letters Yod He Vav He. The word “JEHOVAH” therefore is a misreading for which there is no warrant and which makes no sense in Hebrew” The Hebrew letters point to a Yod Y the more correct pronunciation is Yahweh or some form deriving from the same consonants. For example Yah is used in its shorter form in Ex.15:2 and 17:15, Isa.12:2 and Ps.118:14 .

*JEHOVAH -“is an erroneous form of the name of the God of Israel.” (ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA)

JEHOVAH -“the pronunciation “Jehovah” is an error resulting among Christians from combining the consonants YHWH with the vowels of ADHONAY.” (ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA)

JEHOVAH -“is an erroneous form of the divine name of the covenant God of Israel.” (THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA)

JEHOVAH -“is a mispronounciation of the Hebrew YHWH the name of God. This pronunciation is grammatically impossible. The form “Jehovah” is a philological impossibility.” (THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA p. 160)*

I like this article on the subject:

newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm

Jesus is also Yeshuah-ben Joseph and Son of David, Messiah, Immanuel, Savior. Why are you so bent on naming him Jehovah? Just post your point on Jesus/Jehovah and we can discuss it.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Jesus is God.

I see. So you mean that Jesus is God, but not Jehovah?

amgid

 

[amgid]

majick275:

There appears to be some controversy on the word “Jehovah” as well:

THE UNIVERSAL JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA says “JEHOVAH is an erroneous pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton a four lettered name of God, made up of the Hebrew letters Yod He Vav He. The word “JEHOVAH” therefore is a misreading for which there is no warrant and which makes no sense in Hebrew” The Hebrew letters point to a Yod Y the more correct pronunciation is Yahweh or some form deriving from the same consonants. For example Yah is used in its shorter form in Ex.15:2 and 17:15, Isa.12:2 and Ps.118:14 .

*JEHOVAH -“is an erroneous form of the name of the God of Israel.” (ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA)

JEHOVAH -“the pronunciation “Jehovah” is an error resulting among Christians from combining the consonants YHWH with the vowels of ADHONAY.” (ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA)

JEHOVAH -“is an erroneous form of the divine name of the covenant God of Israel.” (THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA)

JEHOVAH -“is a mispronounciation of the Hebrew YHWH the name of God. This pronunciation is grammatically impossible. The form “Jehovah” is a philological impossibility.” (THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA p. 160)*

I like this article on the subject:

newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm

Jesus is also Yeshuah-ben Joseph and Son of David, Messiah, Immanuel, Savior. Why are you so bent on naming him Jehovah? Just post your point on Jesus/Jehovah and we can discuss it.

I would rather you didn’t try to confuse the issue. Whether we like it or not, the word Jehovah has entered into the English language for whatever the original Hebrew word YHWH stands for, and that is what I, along with everyone else who uses that term, understand by it.

amgid

 

[majick275]

No that’s not what I’m saying. I don’t think “Jehovah” is a personal name in the sense of John or Mary. I think it is more of a title.
Had you read my references on the origin of the word you would see this. A good read for understanding Old Testament scripture is Legends of the Bible by Rabbi Douglas Ginsberg. This gives a bit more context for the old jewish practice of not using a personal name for God. It is called the ineffable name. So they came up with other ways to identify God. Elohim, Yahwey, Adonai, etc.

If you are using Jehovah in this context (YHWH) then okay Jesus is Johovah. Meaning he is God. There is only one God. Whatever name you choose to call him by. I’m interested in seeing what your point is on this.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

No that’s not what I’m saying. I don’t think “Jehovah” is a personal name in the sense of John or Mary. I think it is more of a title.
Had you read my references on the origin of the word you would see this. A good read for understanding Old Testament scripture is Legends of the Bible by Rabbi Douglas Ginsberg. This gives a bit more context for the old jewish practice of not using a personal name for God. It is called the ineffable name. So they came up with other ways to identify God. Elohim, Yahwey, Adonai, etc.

If you are using Jehovah in this context (YHWH) then okay Jesus is Johovah. Meaning he is God. There is only one God. Whatever name you choose to call him by. I’m interested in seeing what your point is on this.

I would rather you didn’t try to confuse the debate either. That is not the issue. The question was whether the OT equates Jesus with Jehovah or not. Well, either it does or it doesn’t. Which is it?

amgid

 

[Catholic_Dude]

amgid:

I would rather you didn’t try to confuse the debate either. That is not the issue. The question was whether the OT equates Jesus with Jehovah or not. Well, either it does or it doesn’t. Which is it?

amgid

The issue is not whether or not Jehovah means God. We agree it does and that Jesus is God so you can say Jesus is Jehovah. The issue is separating Jehovah as only Jesus and the Father as “Elohim”. As I noted in my last post, Blake Ostler says in the footnotes:I note that there is no scriptural support for the view that Elohim is the proper name of the Father. Indeed, such use contradicts D&C 109 where Joseph Smith refers to Jehovah and Elohim interchangeably.

There is nothing wrong with using the terms interchangably, that is common.

 

[majick275]

amgid:

I would rather you didn’t try to confuse the debate either. That is not the issue. The question was whether the OT equates Jesus with Jehovah or not. Well, either it does or it doesn’t. Which is it?

amgid

The Old Testament equates God with many terms. It prophesies of Jesus specifically as Imanuel. (God is with us) Since I believe Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God then all terms for God apply equally. If you want to get real specific (since you only believe in the Bible as far as it is tranlsated correctly) show me where the word Jehovah is in the original text (IF it is) and we can then look at the context and see.

 

[amgid]

Catholic Dude:

The issue is not whether or not Jehovah means God. We agree it does and that Jesus is God so you can say Jesus is Jehovah.

That was not the issues that I was addressing. I was responding to a post by mormon fool who seemed a little unsure to what extent the OT specifically equates Jesus with Jehovah. I was trying to demonstrate that the evidence for that is pretty overwhelming.

The issue is separating Jehova as only Jesus and the Father as “Elohim”.

Those are actually two separate issues: (1) whether the term “Elohim” is a proper name for the Father or not; and (2) whether the Father and the Son (Jesus and Elohim) are two distinct and separate beings or not. Those are two different questions which require two separate answers:

(1) The use of the word Elohim by LDS as a title for the Father is somewhat arbitrary. There is no direct biblical evidence for it. They have used it for the want of a better word I suppose. Although there are indications in the OT of the word Jehovah being used as a proper name, the same does not appear to be the case of the word Elohim. But I think that the specialized use of it by LDS is not such an inappropriate use either. I personally don’t have any problem with that.

(2) As for the separate identities of the Father and the Son (by whatever name you choose to call them), the biblical evidence for that I believe is indisputable, so no problem arises there either.

As I noted in my last post, Blake Ostler says in the footnotes: . . .

I am afraid I am not willing to comment on what Blake Ostler or others like him may have said. My aim is only to teach or to defend LDS doctrine as defined in the standard works (scriptures) of the LDS Church. Others may have said interesting things which may be worthy of note; but I don’t feel obliged to try to defend or comment on them.

amgid

 

[majick275]

Well then you’ve confused me. I thought you had shown us that LDS doctrine teaches that the Father, son and holy Ghost are one God.

The Catholic position is that they are one God and that they are three persons. If you want to use Elohim and Jehovah synonyms for God that allow you to differentiate between the different persons of Gods then okay. I don’t see any difference between that and saying Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If we don’t get bogged down in semantics then I think we don’t have a problem there.

There is some issue with wether or not the specific name “Jehovah” was ever used in the OT. But I don’t have a problem with calling Jesus Jehovah as long as it’s understood that is just a word that means God. If you want to use exclusively for the person of Jesus then I still don’t have a problem with it under the same conditions. What significance are you placing on this?

Please don’t misinterpret the Catholic position as modalism. We fully believe that there are three individual persons in the Trinity. We believe though that they are one God. More specifically we believe that they are co-equal and consubstantial and that they always have been and always will be.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Ok, I think I have found some time to look over those links MF posted in post 93:

Monotheism, Messiah, and Mormon’s Book
For the most part I dont see any foundation for what was said in this link, primarily the conclusion of “Asherah” as being God’s “wife”. Most of the quotes presented in “support” of the conclusions formed were nothing more than opinion and/or speculation. Here is an example:
What makes Asherah such a key in understanding the threads of Israelite thought about deity is the discovery of a set Ugaritic (or Canaanite) texts in 1928. Among these texts is a treasure trove of information about religion in the time period of about 1350-1150 B.C. C.L. Seow notes: "the value of the Ugaritic texts goes beyond the horizons of Canaanite faith. The evidence suggests that Israelite theology was not as radically discontinuous with Canaanite religions as was once thought."6

What those texts make clear is that the early Semitic religion worshipped a pantheon structured as a divine family, with a Father god, El and his consort, this very Asherah.7 These two are at the head of a heavenly council.
There are a number of problems I have with such talk. First of all this isnt stated in the Bible. Second of all many these types of “scholars” see the Bible as a corrupted (and un-Inspired) historical document. Third the weight they put on these “new found treasure texts” is typical of the fresh-meat and bandwagon theology that pops up every few years. In short, with this method of research anything can be cited to “prove” anything.
It goes onto use BoM proof texts for its own reasons why it believes what it does which it has a right to do, but even then what am I to make of comments like this:
The explanation for this conflation of Father and Son is not to be found in post-Christian theology, because that perspective cannot explain all of the various references to God in the Book of Mormon. Returning to our historical perspective, however, we can replace the cultural contexts that allowed Nephi to hold what appear, to modern readers, to be contradictory beliefs about God.
Right here I cant really say anything because it relys not on the Bible, but only the BoM and only interpreted in light of this unique “historical perspective”.
(i will get to the other articles asap)

 

[Catholic_Guy]

amgid:

I would rather you didn’t try to confuse the debate either. That is not the issue. The question was whether the OT equates Jesus with Jehovah or not. Well, either it does or it doesn’t. Which is it?

amgid

Yes and yes, to try and define the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three separate God’s is not a new concept, rather a refined version of the Gnostic’s teachings. Valentinus has been resurrected by LDS doctrine with a smattering of Marcion, and Simon Magus. St. Irenaeus of Lyons in his books Against the Heresies not only exposes these misconceptions and deals the final blow to these perversions of God in his time, he also warns us of these false teachings working their way back into the fabric of truth. I think it would benefit all to read his works and see the heretical parallels of modern religious groups with regards to Polytheism, Secret Sacred Ceremonies and knowledge, multiple levels and sub-levels of heaven, the pre-existence, lack of original sin, and exaltation of man. These same Gnostics and Heretics also had teachings that are so far off base that even the LDS church will not have any part of them. Trying to defends ones beliefs by the bible alone is only part of the equation, the rest is in the writings of the ECF’s and the Catholic Church. This would be tantamount to interoperating the US Constitution without reading the Federalist papers. Not reading what the framers wrote about these subjects can lead down a dangerous path of loss, whether it is ones liberty or soul.

In Christ,
Catholic Guy

 

[amgid]

Catholic Guy:

Yes and yes, to try and define the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three separate God’s is not a new concept, rather a refined version of the Gnostic’s teachings.

Actually, it is consistent with the teachings of the ECFs, and has already been discussed at length on this board. It has nothing to do with the Gnostics.

Valentinus has been resurrected by LDS doctrine with a smattering of Marcion, and Simon Magus.

That is your opinion. LDS doctrine is biblical, and is fully supported by scriptural teachings.

Trying to defends ones beliefs by the bible alone is only part of the equation, . . .

It may be part of the equation; but it is certainly the most important part (by far the most important part) of the equation. Because of the apostasy of the early Christian church, the Bible is the most reliable source of true Christian doctrine left.

. . . the rest is in the writings of the ECF’s . . .

The ECFs have taught the plurality of gods and the deification of man. See above.

. . . and the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is a respected ancient Christian institution; but that does not mean that everything that it teaches is true. As a Catholic, I am sure you would want to believe that; but I am no Catholic, and I have no reason to.

amgid

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

Let’s get specific. The Father, son and Holy Spirit is one God. That is Trinitarian. LDS doctrine can claim “one in purpose” but it would be a huge stretch to state that is a beleif in the Trinity.

Not really. You may wish to read up on Social Trinitarianism, it is respectable in Christianity today. I see no reason why you own the patent on the word Trinity, when the way you use is arbitrary and places restrictions on the term that are not in line with general usage.

Further, it has been shown that LDS have not always taught even that much.I do not allow for LDS doctrinal development on this because they claim Jospeh Smith Jr. literally saw God in the person and spoke with him.

This is a red herring. Whether you view LDS doctrinal development as legitimate or not, is irrelevant to the correctly repressenting the current beliefs.

at the risk of ad hominem, “who are Ostler, Robinson, et al”? (rhetorical question)

They are counterexamples to some of the inferences you have drawn from the scriptures made by faithful LDS scholars who’s work is appreciated by myself and other thinking mormons. They demonstrate that LDS scriptures and non-canonical sermons do not need to be interpreted the way you do. Therefore you can not pass your interpretation of LDS scriptures as official LDS doctrine.

I think though that these examples pale in comparison to written addresses from the first presidency and quorum of twelve apostles to the CoJCoLDS which have never been “overturned” by subsequent LDS leaders that are very specific on this.

Stuff doesn’t need to be overturned if it hasn’t been made binding. I believe I have already discussed benign neglect, the idea that past LDS teachings are allowed to lapse out of circulation, rather than some committee wasting an incredible amount of time disavowing them. Joseph Smith’s thoughts on an infinite backwards regression of Gods can be considered to be based on reading from the scriptures and not necessarily any revelation. It only makes sense that as further knowledge is gained LDS thinking can shift. Ostler has published contrary views in a BYU publication and has not been anathemized.

I see no way to get around the fact that LDS leaders have stated in no uncertain terms that God was once a man like us.That he had a God who was his literal father and that he is now a resurected and glorified being who has ACHIEVED his exaltation.

There is no need to get around facts, these are clearly some 2nd and 3rd tier LDS teachings, but you don’t need to emphasize what LDS don’t.

who will populate a world of our own someday.

This is speculation. I see other possibilites from LDS scriptures. I can see where future gods raise up spirit children to worship God the Father and share the resources (with other gods) that He has provided and created. In that case there would not be an infinite cycle any more substantial than earthly geneologies create a divinity cycle. In this case the worship model stays relatively flat and the Father remains the fount of divinity.

It shows he always existed but not that he was always God.

Ostler has demonstrated otherwise. I proposed an alternative solution.

I would point out the D&C penchant for making terms such as “everlasting to everlasting” relativley meaningless since they do NOT mean “always”.

They just restore the original meaning of the word. Apparently the ancients found some meaningfulness in using it in a finite sense.

If you want to say that previous LDS “prophets” taught false doctrine and/or led the LDS church in false practices then I agree.

I don’t say that. On matters of secondary importance there is no need to live in a fundamentalist black-and-white world.

I would also make note of the fact that unlike Adam-God (which was firmly denounced by Spencer W. Kimball)

Spencer W. Kimball only denounced the version of Adam-God theory as was had by splinter groups from the LDS. He did not directly challenge Brigham Young.

the doctrine of eternal progression has never been “overturned”.

I am not arguing that “eternal progression” as found in LDS scriptures and official First Presidency statement has been overturned. I do insist, though on correctly delineating between what beliefs are found in the hierarchy of LDS sources for doctrine and what is majick-al speculation.

 

[mormon_fool]

Catholic Dude,

Thanks for reading some of the links I posted, it is nice to see someone trying to expand their horizons, instead of holding to the same old mantra about criticising other faiths. I have seen a real growth in the sophistication level of your views on mormonism. Please keep up the good work! I don’t have time to discuss the evidences for the documentary hypothesis or the ones for Asherah. Margaret Barker’s book The Great Angel is the one to go on this one, if you are interested, but Kevin Christensen has some articles at Meridian magazine also.

I will take your warning about not getting overattached to the latest scholarship, but I do tend to like to stay on the cutting edge of available information while remaining true to my convictions. I probably will not post for a long time. If you have questions about the article from FAIR, you are entirely welcome to email the website.

Take Care,
fool

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

Not really. You may wish to read up on Social Trinitarianism, it is respectable in Christianity today. I see no reason why you own the patent on the word Trinity, when the way you use is arbitrary and places restrictions on the term that are not in line with general usage.

I will compromise with you on this and state that my definition of Trinitarianism is representative of Catholic teaching.
mormon fool:

This is a red herring. Whether you view LDS doctrinal development as legitimate or not, is irrelevant to the correctly repressenting the current beliefs.

I have to disagree. One of the most distinguishing characteristics of the LDS church is the belief in continuing, divine revelation. In practice this is restricted to certain individuals (prophets, seers and revelators) who are said to have received specific priesthood keys associated with this calling. When a church proclaims a doctrine by divine revelation and publishes canonized scripture supporting it, then changes the doctrine and edits out the supporting scripture it is hard to consider it “development”. I feel this is relevant to this discussion since it would appear to render problematic that the LDS church has been informed by God of just who and what he is. Joseph Smith Jr. allegedly meeting the Father and Son in person especially so. (I note that there conflicting accounts of this “first vision” and the only one in his own hand is VERY different than the account published in PoGP)
mormon fool:

They are counterexamples to some of the inferences you have drawn from the scriptures made by faithful LDS scholars who’s work is appreciated by myself and other thinking mormons. They demonstrate that LDS scriptures and non-canonical sermons do not need to be interpreted the way you do. Therefore you can not pass your interpretation of LDS scriptures as official LDS doctrine.

Ah but here is the difference. My examples were duly set apart leaders of the LDS church addressing the members of their church for the express purpose of eliminating their confusion. Further they claim that their view was made known by divine revelation. Ostler and co. NEVER make that claim.
mormon fool:

Stuff doesn’t need to be overturned if it hasn’t been made binding. I believe I have already discussed benign neglect, the idea that past LDS teachings are allowed to lapse out of circulation, rather than some committee wasting an incredible amount of time disavowing them. Joseph Smith’s thoughts on an infinite backwards regression of Gods can be considered to be based on reading from the scriptures and not necessarily any revelation. It only makes sense that as further knowledge is gained LDS thinking can shift. Ostler has published contrary views in a BYU publication and has not been anathemized.

I am floored on two levels. First is the concept of just what is “binding”. The “standard works” and consistent words and actions by the first presidency of the LDS church make it clear that when “the brethren” as a group tell the church what is “true” or what they should be doing then it is binding. True there are caveats that it cannot CONFLICT with scripture (of course LDS scriptures change, see above)
but then it is claimed that the Lord would never allow them to lead the church astray. The other level here is the very idea that LDS leaders would promote false doctrines/practices or even allow sheer speculation to be “viewed” as doctrine and then later when the mistake was obvious they just stop talking about it. I also believe I have given evidence that eternal progression as I have explained IS in fact in the lesson materials has been used in “recent teaching cycles”.

 

[majick275]

(cont.)
mormon fool:

There is no need to get around facts, these are clearly some 2nd and 3rd tier LDS teachings, but you don’t need to emphasize what LDS don’t.

I don’t see any LDS leader claiming levels or tiers of doctrine. I think that this particular case is certainly authoratative due to the facts that it comes from the entire first presidency AND quroum of twelve apostles AND specifically claims the information has been made known by divine revelation. Now if you want to claim that sometimes LDS leaders say something has been revealed by God when it really hasn’t then I’m right there with you. I also think MANY LDS absolutely believe in this and find it critical to their “testimony”. I think it borders on deceptive to claim that this isn’t “emphasized”. It’s LDS Doctrine. If it’s false then so are the “prophets” who proclaimed it.
mormon fool:

This is speculation. I see other possibilites from LDS scriptures. I can see where future gods raise up spirit children to worship God the Father and share the resources (with other gods) that He has provided and created. In that case there would not be an infinite cycle any more substantial than earthly geneologies create a divinity cycle. In this case the worship model stays relatively flat and the Father remains the fount of divinity.

Not speculation but specifically taught by multiple LDS prophets and apostles. In any case I find your proposal equally blasphemous.
mormon fool:

Ostler has demonstrated otherwise. I proposed an alternative solution.

But once again, neither you nor Ostler speak on LDS doctrine with the same weight of authority as the first presidency and quorumof twelve apostles. Ostler admits he’s speculating. Joseph Smith Jr. proclaimed this in general conference as truth.
mormon fool:

They just restore the original meaning of the word. Apparently the ancients found some meaningfulness in using it in a finite sense.

I disagree with this as well.
mormon fool:

I don’t say that. On matters of secondary importance there is no need to live in a fundamentalist black-and-white world.

How can the very nature of God and the purpose of our life on earth be considered of secondary importance? Exaltation is the primary goal of all things LDS. It was the leadership of the LDS church that put this in such stark terms. LDS leaders prior to Gordon B. Hinkley do not seem to have ever claimed to not know on this subject. From Joseph Smith Jr. on down it has been claimed that the nature of God and the plan of salvation and exaltion is KNOWN in detail.
mormon fool:

Spencer W. Kimball only denounced the version of Adam-God theory as was had by splinter groups from the LDS. He did not directly challenge Brigham Young.

I find this very telling. Pres. Kimball couldn’t denounce Pres. Young without undermining his own claims to authority. The teachings though as directly quoted from Brigham Young were denounced though. This shows two things. First, LDS prophets denounce what they believe is false doctrine. They don’t just stop talking about it.Secondly it shows that Brigham Young was a false prophet even by LDS standards.
mormon fool:

I am not arguing that “eternal progression” as found in LDS scriptures and official First Presidency statement has been overturned. I do insist, though on correctly delineating between what beliefs are found in the hierarchy of LDS sources for doctrine and what is majick-al speculation.

Nice… It’s not my speculation though. It’s multiple addresses to the LDS church as a whole by it’s sustained leadership who claim it has been made known by divine revelation. It’s been taught in the LDS church for years. We all know it’s the doctrine of the LDS church.