T
tkdnick
Guest
Boy am I glad you cleared that up.
Because I was going to have to say with all due respect that I follow God and Christ and The Church Christ established through Peter.
- Status
Because I was going to have to say with all due respect that I follow God and Christ and The Church Christ established through Peter.
T
tkdnick
Guest
oat soda:
Come on now. Do you really think this kind of a post is really going to get you anywhere. No one is going to say “Oh, oat soda is right, I have a darkened intellect and haven’t been using my brain all this time.” All you’re doing is giving yourself and the rest of us a bad rep.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
If I were persuaded God’s authority was present in the Catholic Church and not the CoJCoLDS I would be Catholic.
The trappings of the proof of God’s authority not being withdrawn would influence my conclusions. I think it is a Kabalistic concept that points to the need for a certain number of folks (perhaps 12) that possess a certain power from God. These folks in some way hold the world together. Keep the waters separated from the land and other mystical or figurative ideas. The three Nephites and John the Beloved who dwelled on the earth during the apostasy (and presumably now) would be part of this group. A valid priesthood would have never been absent from the Earth.
So it really depends on how you persuade.
Charity, TOm
T
tkdnick
Guest
Never once have I heard an LDS describe their view of the Trinity/Godhead in this way. They have always been adamant that The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three separate “gods” united only in purpose. I am curious to know why you think your view of the Godhead is different from so many other LDS members I have talked to.
T
tkdnick
Guest
Well if the three Nephites and John were/are still dwelling on Earth, then there would have been (and is) a valid priesthood correct? If that’s the case, what need was there for Peter, James, and John (who never died) to restore the priesthood to JS?
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I disagree that eternal matter and eternal God leads to “innumerable god before god.”
LDS are regularly accused of believing God was once a man, God has a God above Him, and other such things. I believe President Hinckley should give all LDS reason to pause before they boldly assert such things. He said that “we do not know very much about that.” If he does not know much about that, then I am positive I do not. What I do know is that God is “infinite and eternal the same unchanging God.” What non-scriptural teachings that seem to bring this binding truth into question mean, I do not know.
For me God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are eternal. They of themselves created, formed, … all that we experience from that which was eternal but not capable of action. They did not do this ex nihilo. The Father is unbegotten. The Son is begotten, and of Himself freely and completely united with the Father. He took upon Himself a body and the sins of the world. The Holy Spirit also freely and completely united with the Father. His mission in accordance with the Father’s plan is different than the mission of the Son, but He perfectly cares out the will of the Father. As I mentioned above, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one. They also possess distinctness. The rest of us cannot come to the Father except through the Son. We cannot know the Father except through the Holy Spirit. Our progression will always acknowledge the necessity of the Trinity. There is no room hyperpelagianism in LDS though IMO.
This is largely speculation. It is also somewhat tame speculation in that I do not think it goes far out into the unknown/unrevealed (just a little out). There are clearly other possibilities, but I do not see any logical linkage between the concept of eternal matter and “innumerable god before god.” (except that occasionally both are postulated by the same people).
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I don’t like it because it denies God’s omnipotence.
Hindus are good company!
I do not think the eternal matter logically requires that God’s omnipotence is compromised. There are some compromising of God’s omnipotence in LDS thought, but I do not think postulating eternal matter strictly requires this any more than rejecting eternal matter.
God as an ex nihilo creator cannot observe, interact, … with anything that He did not cause to exist. If at one point there was nothing but God, then nothing that is could be other than God or His creation from nothing.
God as an eternal matter ex materia creator cannot be without anything that was eternal with Him unless he acts upon that which is eternal so that it may cease to be.
Neither of these positions can necessarily be said to be less omnipotent. Both are restricted by the logic derived from ex nihilo or ex materia.
There are a number of definitions of Omnipotence that come into play here.
You may largely rest on the least restrictive of these definitions:
God can do anything that is logically possible (this removes the silliness of asking the question can God move a rock that he created as immovable). However once you postulate that God alone is eternal and all is created ex nihilo, there are further restrictions on what is “logically possible.”
LDS often simply rest upon the statement that God is Omnipotent in that He can do anything that is logically possible and in alignment with what is eternal. Since we believe that God is coeternal with … then this becomes a more restrictive Omnipotence than yours is IMO. I am somewhat uncomfortable acknowledging any restriction on Omnipotence, but it seems this is the best read of LDS thought in my mind.
Neither of us has a problem saying that certain things are inconsistent with God’s character and thus though Omnipotent he will never do …
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I must not have spoken well. I do not think it consistent to believe there was an apostasy and demand it can never happen again without significantly more evidence than I possess. I have been surprised by God before and I am first a theist, second a Christian, and third a LDS.
- The CoJCoLDS is as it says it is and does not fall into apostasy and Christ returns.
- The CoJCoLDS is on a path to apostasy today. Some day in the future God will choose to restore His gospel again.
- God has a plan for me to be a member of the CoJCoLDS. It is truth. But there is much that is wonderful in the Catholic Church. It is not some organization devoid of God’s spirit.
2 – Since it is inconsistent to say never could the apostasy happen again, I feel I should pay some attention to this.
3 – The Catholic Church is not some great and abominable church. I just cannot see it this way. I would love to be a Catholic, but I am intellectually and spiritually convinced that the CoJCoLDS is God’s church for me (and I love being a LDS). I always pray for God’s guidance and I never intend to stop learning.
That I know the CoJCoLDS is God’s church and it is true. That God has surprised me with his answers and directions for my life in the past is also true. My ultimate desire is to align myself with His will.
Concerning doctrinal changes, this would be tough. Again, I would not schism and become a restorationist in waiting.
The Catholic Church has some testable (although not as testable as I once thought before reading Newman) claims concerning the continuation of Tradition. The CoJCoLDS does not have such claims.
If I became convinced that the church systematically and institutionally calls evil good and good evil, I would need to leave.
Charity, TOm
T
tkdnick
Guest
WHOA!!! That is WAY different than any LDS position I have EVER come across!!! I wonder, with quotes from past and other LDS leaders about God once being what we are now, what made President Hinckley say he doesn’t know much about it? What is his take on what these other people have said?
T
TOmNossor
Guest
In my opinion it is absolutely impossible that God was once a man as men think men are. There are a number of ways to point to some truth in the statement, “God was once a man,” but rather than speculate too much I prefer to say that “God is infinite and eternal, the same unchanging God.” I am also quite comfortable saying that Jesus Christ is God and was man. Other ideas have not been accepted by common consent and may contain truth, but the Prophet and I do not know much about that.
Charity, TOm
T
tkdnick
Guest
How about omnipotence in that God can do ANYTHING! Whether it is logically possible or not! That is true omnipotence.
T
Tmaque
Guest
Tom,
I beg to differ. LDS widely believe that God was once a man. That has been taught since the days of Joseph Smith. There has never been any denial, hedging or backing away from it in any regard until Hinckley made his comment. Hinckley was obviously trying to get a little distance between the CoJCoLDS and that doctrine because he knows the average non-LDS person finds it an odd doctrine.
As a child, it was taught to me at home, in church, and during conference. Later, it was talked about in Priesthood Meetings, the mission field, in Elder’s Quorum meetings, etc. No one ever told me “that’s something we don’t know very much about”. There has never been any sort of confusion about it until now. I see it as one more movement away from yet another strange doctrine. This has been a common occurrence in the CoJCoLDS since 1896.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I believe that LDS until about 40-50 years ago have been running from the big bad Christians (those I call non-LDS Christians). Those folks they believe killed their prophet. Those folks they believed embraced some ridiculous three-headed monster God. Those folks they believed professed it was ok to sin all day as long as you say you believe in Christ (Protestant). Those folks they believe worship sinless (infallible) Popes who have ordered …
Part of running from these folks has been emphasizing Christian/LDS truths in a way that distinguished the CoJCoLDS from these evil folks.
The Bible is about two thirds of our scriptures and we share it with all other Christians. We must have room for threeness AND ONENESS. We must have room for works and FAITH (and GRACE must be the umbrella over all of it). We also need to not compare the wonderful nice things LDS do for Tsunami aid with the Crusades.
In the post you quoted I linked to an interview of David Paulsen and a paper by Blake Ostler. Both of them are faithful LDS.
I have searched for oneness statements from modern prophets and we are beginning to see more than just oneness of purpose being mentioned.
About 1 year ago during Sunday School when I mentioned that we must have room for oneness, I do not know if I was about to be pounced upon because the Stake Patriarch (an 80 something year old man) spoke of the Father and the Son being of one mind and …
My old Bishop has room for more oneness than I postulate (I try to pull him back a little in fact).
Charity, TOm
T
Tmaque
Guest
Tom,
I understand your position. Thanks.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
LDS believe that Peter, James, and John were the first presidency. They would be in possession of more than just the priesthood, but of keys. During the restoration many folks returned to hand over the keys most closely associated with them.
It might have been simpler to have just had Jesus Christ hand over all priesthood, keys, and authority; but Joseph Smith and others needed to be educated and slowly prepared. These folks helped to do this.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
You will need to ask President Hinckley about that. I just think caution is in order.
I also maintain that binding LDS doctrine has no references to God being once a man (other than Jesus Christ during the incarnation).
I am not suggesting that there is not truth in the Snow couplet. I am just suggesting that we know little about it. Do not wish to move beyond were I have gone with respect to this statements because I do not know in what ways Snow’s couplet is true and in what ways we misunderstand it. I do not however believe that LDS must multiply words any more than Catholics do when they explain what, “might make men gods," means.
Charity, TOm
T
Tmaque
Guest
Tom,
I absolutely agree with you. However, if that is your conviction then you are at odds with the vast majority of Mormons including most of the General Authorities and probably all, but certainly most of the past LDS Prophets. Many can be quoted on this very subject unequivocally supporting, clarifying or expounding on the doctrine. You are the first active LDS I have ever heard that view from. And, I am around LDS people every single day.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Can God create a rock that is so massive noone can move it not even Him?
Having created said rock, can God then move it.
Philosophers for this reason postulate omnipotence as being able to do anything that is logically possible. I do not think this compromises God’s omnipotence. I also do not think it would be particularly useful to suggest that the above scenario (which is pretty commonly referred to) is so complex that we simple humans do not understand how God can do both.
Charity, TOm
P
princejeremy_17
Guest
while there was suposedly a pope (the head of the church) john the beloved (the last apostle) was writing the sacred scripture of “revelations”
If there was still the head of the church on the earth, the bible would have continued. The bible “meaning many books” consists of all the prophets and there revelations, acounts in history and such."
Amos 3:7 says “surely the lord god will do nothing save he reveal his secrets unto his servents the prophets”
We also know that christs church had the formation of apostles prophets, evangelists, teachers, elders, deacons, bishops, high priests.
we also know that baptism was not effected to infants. nowhere in the bible does it talk about baptizing infants nor does it say that jesus christ was sprinkled by water at his baptizm.
But because of no revelation, things were changed.
Peter died in 64 A.D and the christians didn’t take on the name of catholic until 311 A.D. The first “Father” was constatine who adapted roman pagan ideas. He wasn’t even baptized but he made himself the head of the church…
If there was still the head of the church on the earth, the bible would have continued. The bible “meaning many books” consists of all the prophets and there revelations, acounts in history and such."
Amos 3:7 says “surely the lord god will do nothing save he reveal his secrets unto his servents the prophets”
We also know that christs church had the formation of apostles prophets, evangelists, teachers, elders, deacons, bishops, high priests.
we also know that baptism was not effected to infants. nowhere in the bible does it talk about baptizing infants nor does it say that jesus christ was sprinkled by water at his baptizm.
But because of no revelation, things were changed.
Peter died in 64 A.D and the christians didn’t take on the name of catholic until 311 A.D. The first “Father” was constatine who adapted roman pagan ideas. He wasn’t even baptized but he made himself the head of the church…
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I do not dispute that many LDS hold this belief.
I have been a member for 10 years and I have not heard much about it in Church. I have however not made it through a month on the internet without having a non-LDS remind me of it. This is fine, but I do not think this is quite as central to our theology as many would like to suggest it is. I spoke with a 60 something lifetime member and he agreed we do not know much about it. I do not doubt that you thought you knew a lot about it, but since you believe it is untrue I hardly think I need to place much weight upon what you thought you knew (that shouldn’t sound ugly just reasonable).
The only time I ever remember it being mentioned in church was when I taught a lesson to the young men (about 2 years ago) with the Bishop and the former Bishop (current YM’s president) present. I brought up the Snow couplet in connection with 2 Cor 8:9 and said that whatever the Snow couplet does mean we know Jesus Christ was once a man and this is certainly true. That was all that was said.
Now, LDS believe in continued revelation. We do not believe in a Newman understood preservation of Tradition. That being said, I can show many developments within the Catholic Church. I think it best that we allow our traditions to develop. When the Catholic Church develops toward the CoJCoLDS I will rejoice for you (and you did at Vatican II concerning a number of things most interestingly Extreme Unction). When the CoJCoLDS develops toward the Catholic Church you can rejoice for me.
An exception to this would be things such as extending the priesthood to woman. This could be done in the CoJCoLDS, but if it were done in the Catholic Church it would mean that Tradition had not been preserved and infallibility was not a true doctrine.
Lastly, I wish to mention that most of the more difficult developments that our critics would like for us to take ownership for are not developments of binding doctrine. Nothing in our scriptures suggests that God was once a man. The acceptance by common consent and then canonization is our ultimate seal of truth. It is not infallible, but it is the closest we have. God being once a man does not meet this criterion nor do most of the more troubling (or poorer understood) past teachings of the church.
Charity, TOm
- Status