Trinity and Mormon godhead

[mfbukowski]

AG: As usual, you have distorted what I said…

RA: Wrong. You said: “LDS would be totally justified in believing in neither.” This implies that the doctrines within the KFD as well as the concept of Heavenly Mother are able to be rejected by a faithful Mormons and if they were to do so, they would be justified. And that is not true.

AG: I will not discuss heavenly mother further.

RA: That’s not surprising since it is a doctrine believed by Mormons that can be found NOWHERE in ANY of the LDS Standard Works. It’s merely a doctrine of inference. Want quotes? How can you actually embrace a doctrine that doesn’t appear anywhere in ANY of your Standard Works?

Re-read the above. I can’t believe you actually said this.

My whole point was that it was ok for a Mormon not to believe it BECAUSE IT WAS NOT FOUND IN THE STANDARD WORKS.

Thanks for verifying that for me. How can I believe a doctrine that is not found in the standard works? My point precisely!

RA: Then, please allow me or anyone else on this board to write to the First Presidency in SLC and provide them with this opinion you are giving to us – and see what they have to say. Please notify us who of us can write to SLC. We’ll need your real name and ward, please

**MFB: ** So you won’t believe my opinion, but you will believe the address I give you? If we wrote to SLC, they just would return the letter to me. Trust me. And you won’t meet for coffee, after YOU invited ME, but I am supposed to give my name and ward on the internet? Give me a break!

Incidentally, you called me “AG” throughout your post. That was from another thread. I guess that indicates how detailed you are in your scholarship. I guess you just cut and paste your standard replies.

I will keep the “AG” in. I kind of like it.

*AG: In fact there are discussions about whether or not President Hinckley accepted the first half of the famous Lorenzo Snow couplet. I think he was in good church standing.

RA: Facinating. That couple, of course, is: “As man is, God once was; as man is, God may become.”

And what do you say? “…discussions about whether or not President Hinckley accepted the first half of the famous Lorenzo Snow couplet.”

Let’s let Hinckley answer for himself, shall we? OH, and we even can hear his views on the King Follet Discourse:

“On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62); and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become!” - Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, October 1994
Hmmmm. It seems he liked not only the KFD, but also Snow’s couplet. *

MFB: OOPS you did it AGAIN! You made my point for me. The quote you gave shows Pres. Hinckley quoting the SECOND HALF OF THE COUPLET and not the first. I am not saying he did not believe the first part – that God was once a man like us. As I said, I have no problem if he DID believe that God was once a man like us. I personally think that is probably right, but your quote doesn’t show it.

Dude, you need to be more careful about this stuff!

How do we know the bible is true?

*RA: My goodness, I answered that: “Divine revelation, historical accuracy, internal consistency, anecdotal evidence – combined as checks and balances.”

You then asked: “So in the case of personal revelation, dreams etc of a personal nature, how do you know these are from God?”

But I already TOLD you: “combined as checks and balances.”

You then asked: And on the other side, you cited historical accuracy. Aren’t there many interpretations of history? How do you know which is correct?

But this smacks of post-modernism and the claim that we cannot know history at all. THAT was the same argument used by proponents of The Da Vinci Code as the REAL history of the Roman Catholic Church and Jesus Christ, which was absurd. *

MFB: The reality is, I have no problem with this as you stated it. This is exactly how I know the Book of Mormon is true.

Actually, I have no problem with anything you believe. I think no one on the forum would have any problem with what you believe. I will admit it seems rather generic however.

saddleback.com/flash/believe.html

Oh, incidentally, I have no problem with post-modernism. I have problems with the Nicene Creed.

Why do you subscribe to the Nicene Creed? Or because it’s not listed, does that mean you do NOT subscribe to the Nicene Creed?

Gosh, we agree so much, I might see you at your place this Sunday!

 

[Richard_Abanes]

**MFB: **My whole point was that it was ok for a Mormon not to believe it BECAUSE IT WAS NOT FOUND IN THE STANDARD WORKS.

**RA: **You’re the one who needs to read again. I said, which you quoted, “How can you actually embrace a doctrine that doesn’t appear anywhere in ANY of your Standard Works?”

This is a separate issue. Nothing changes. Round and round and round and round.

My whole point is that it is NOT okay for you to NOT believe in Heavenly Mother. Again, please give us your name and ward and let’s just ask the First Presidency. Mmkay? Stop acting like you’re a general Authority of your church, when you’re not.

**MFB: **Thanks for verifying that for me. How can I believe a doctrine that is not found in the standard works? My point precisely!

RA: Then, buddy, you’re in the wrong church. And, tbh, you’ve got a SERIOUS case of “disconnect” going on.

MFB: So you won’t believe my opinion, but you will believe the address I give you?

RA: If that’s not playing games, I don’t know what is. I see you’re not interested in actually talking.

**MFB: **And you won’t meet for coffee, after YOU invited ME, but I am supposed to give my name and ward on the internet? Give me a break!

RA: If you’d be so kind as to read AGAIN, sigh, you’ll see that I suggested you give the information to someone – not necessarily me.

MFB: Oh, incidentally, I have no problem with post-modernism.

RA: Clearly. Enjoy your liquid truth that is no truth at all.

**MFB: **Incidentally, you called me “AG” throughout your post. That was from another thread. I guess that indicates how detailed you are in your scholarship.

**RA: **Actually, what that indicates is I am human…Hmmmm, I never seem to have had a problem admitting that. And gladly embrace my humanity. That might be hard for a god in embryo, like you, I suppose. And as for scholarship, it’s just like a Mormon to ignore mountains of evidence and fixate on three letters. So predictable, but again, so sad.

RA

P.S. I love how you’ve completely avoided a myriad of quotes and statements from your own leaders on topics ranging from attacking Christianity, to godhood, to god being a man, to…well, it would just go on and on and on. But boy, you sure got me on typing AG, instead of MFB. LOL. Oh dear.

Let’s talk more about Heavenly Mother — is she God’s ONLY wife, or shall we see, from the musings of your own apostles and prophets, how she might have to share heavenly Father with other celestial wives. Sister-Wives, after all, were very big in 1800s Utah. So, let’s talk about that.

 

[mfbukowski]

I will not discuss heavenly mother. That will be a blatant attempt to get rid of me because you know I can hurt your position.

MFB: And you won’t meet for coffee, after YOU invited ME, but I am supposed to give my name and ward on the internet? Give me a break!

RA: If you’d be so kind as to read AGAIN, sigh, you’ll see that I suggested you give the information to someone – not necessarily me.

Ah yes, I guess that means I would NOT be giving personal info over the internet?

Oh OK good idea!

Again, you refuse to discuss the orignal issue, which is how we know that scripture is true. You cannot attack Mormons on our “testimony” any longer when you refuse to answer the differences between how you know something is true, and how we say we know something is true. You are very clearly avoiding this issue - I have probably asked you a dozen times. You know you are wrong.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

MFB: Quote not found…

RA: Thanks for proving what I said earlier: “And as for scholarship, it’s just like a Mormon to ignore mountains of evidence and fixate on three letters.”

You fixate on Oct., even though you actually find the quote in Nov., but all you end up saying is, it wasn’t Oct. Here:

“On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342–62; and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! (See The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Clyde J. Williams, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984, p. 1.)”

Gordon B. Hinckley, “Don’t Drop the Ball,” Ensign, Nov 1994, 46

It’s so interesting how the quote is there, but you just obsessed over the Oct. vs. Nov. typo. Really odd.

So is your Heavenly Mother God’s only wife, or does she have to share Heavenly Father with other Celestial women? I am truly curious. You won’t control the conversation that lead off in silly bunny trails like how can we know anything in history is true.

RA

RA

 

[Richard_Abanes]

**MFB: **Again, you refuse to discuss the orignal issue, which is how we know that scripture is true. You cannot attack Mormons on our “testimony” any longer when you refuse to answer the differences between how you know something is true, and how we say we know something is true. You are very clearly avoiding this issue - I have probably asked you a dozen times. You know you are wrong.

**RA: **I quote Gene Hackman from Birdcage as he looks at a situation his eyes can’t believe: "“I feel like I’m insane.”

RA

 

[mfbukowski]

MFB: Quote not found…

RA: Thanks for proving what I said earlier: “And as for scholarship, it’s just like a Mormon to ignore mountains of evidence and fixate on three letters.”

You fixate on Oct., even though you actually find the quote in Nov., but all you end up saying is, it wasn’t Oct. Here:

“On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342–62; and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! (See The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Clyde J. Williams, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984, p. 1.)”

Gordon B. Hinckley, “Don’t Drop the Ball,” Ensign, Nov 1994, 46

It’s so interesting how the quote is there, but you just obsessed over the Oct. vs. Nov. typo. Really odd.

So is your Heavenly Mother God’s only wife, or does she have to share Heavenly Father with other Celestial women? I am truly curious. You won’t control the conversation that lead off in silly bunny trails like how can we know anything in history is true.

RA

RA

You are correct, I was mistaken. I posted a reply which said that I was unable to find the reference.

I found the reference as you stated it, then I edited the post before you replied. Sorry for any confusion. Your quote is correct.

Actually the problem was as I stated – that the October conference issue comes out in November. No harm no foul. I was mistaken

 

[Stephen168]

Exaltation is canonized, but that God was once like us is not canonized. It IS taught in the gospel principles manual, which is not itself canonized.

Richard,
I find it almost impossible to get a straight answer from a Mormon about Mormonism. Can you give the Mormon definition of Exaltation?

Thanks

 

[mfbukowski]

**MFB: **Again, you refuse to discuss the orignal issue, which is how we know that scripture is true. You cannot attack Mormons on our “testimony” any longer when you refuse to answer the differences between how you know something is true, and how we say we know something is true. You are very clearly avoiding this issue - I have probably asked you a dozen times. You know you are wrong.

**RA: **I quote Gene Hackman from Birdcage as he looks at a situation his eyes can’t believe: "“I feel like I’m insane.”

RA

HMMMM stupor of thought?

You know I really WOULD like to have a decent conversation about what evangelicals believe

 

[mfbukowski]

Richard,
I find it almost impossible to get a straight answer from a Mormon about Mormonism. Can you give the Mormon definition of Exaltation?

Thanks

Good idea. Ask an Evangelical what Mormons believe.

Exaltation is the belief that we can become like our Father, given eons of perfection.

It is a radical form of theosis as found in the Catholic and Orthodox churches. John 17 is a good place to start looking for biblical references

 

[mfbukowski]

Exaltation is the same as “eternal life” to Mormons

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=c5920bbce1d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____

 

[Stephen168]

Exaltation is canonized, but that God was once like us is not canonized. It IS taught in the gospel principles manual, which is not itself canonized.

Does exaltation have anything to do with the Mormon godhead?
If so, What does it mean?

Richard,
I find it almost impossible to get a straight answer from a Mormon about Mormonism. Can you give the Mormon definition of Exaltation?

Thanks

Good idea. Ask an Evangelical what Mormons believe.

I should not have to ask a non-mormon but as you can see you didn’t want to answer. AND you are not the first in my experience.

Finally answer number one

Exaltation is the belief that we can become like our Father, given eons of perfection………John 17 is a good place to start looking for biblical references

Answer number two

Exaltation is the same as “eternal life” to Mormons

One is not equal to two. So I still did not get a true answer.

Richard? Can you help?

 

[mfbukowski]

John 17:
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 *And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; *and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Revelation 3:
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

 

[mfbukowski]

I should not have to ask a non-mormon but as you can see you didn’t want to answer. AND you are not the first in my experience.

Finally answer number one

Answer number two

One is not equal to two. So I still did not get a true answer.

Richard? Can you help?

Answer one is what we believe, that we can become like our heavenly father.

Answer two is a definitional thing – what the words mean.

“Eternal life” is a synonym for "exaltation.

Check the link - that is why one refers you to the other

 

[mfbukowski]

“Finally, in another usage familiar and unique to Latter-day Saints, the words saved and salvation are also used to denote exaltation or eternal life (see Abr. 2:11). This is sometimes referred to as the “fulness of salvation” (Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, 4 vols. [1979–81], 1:242). This salvation requires more than repentance and baptism by appropriate priesthood authority. It also requires the making of sacred covenants, including eternal marriage, in the temples of God, and faithfulness to those covenants by enduring to the end. If we use the word salvation to mean “exaltation,” it is premature for any of us to say that we have been “saved” in mortality. That glorious status can only follow the final judgment of Him who is the Great Judge of the living and the dead.”

Dallin H Oaks

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=83db605ff590c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____

 

[Richard_Abanes]

Stephen: Can you give the Mormon definition of Exaltation?

RA: Mormons will typically tell non-Mormons, as we’ve already seen in this thread by MFB, that “exaltation” is “eternal life” or being “like our Heavenly Father.” He is right. But that is not the full story – surprise, surprise.

Exaltation within Mormonism is understood by Mormons as godhood: “That exaltation which the saints of all ages have so devoutly sought is godhood itself” (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321).

Such plain terms, however, will rarely (if ever) be used by Mormons when speaking with non-Mormons. But among each other, exaltation = eternal life = godhood:

“Here then, is eternal life–to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priest to God, the same as all Gods have done before you” (Joseph Smith, 1844).

R.A.

P.S. A person does not HAVE to be Mormon to be able to accurately explain what Mormons believe – obviously.

 

[mfbukowski]

Stephen: Can you give the Mormon definition of Exaltation?

RA: Mormons will typically tell non-Mormons, as we’ve already seen in this thread by MFB, that “exaltation” is “eternal life” or being “like our Heavenly Father.” He is right. But that is not the full story – surprise, surprise.

Exaltation within Mormonism is understood by Mormons as godhood: “That exaltation which the saints of all ages have so devoutly sought is godhood itself” (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321).

Such plain terms, however, will rarely (if ever) be used by Mormons when speaking with non-Mormons. But among each other, exaltation = eternal life = godhood:

"Here then, is eternal life–to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priest to God, the same as all Gods have done before you" (Joseph Smith, 1844).

R.A.

P.S. A person does not HAVE to be Mormon to be able to accurately explain what Mormons believe – obviously.

Not hiding anything. This is correct. As I said it is a radical form of theosis or deification as believed by Catholics.

Explain to me the status of Mary in the Catholic church and how she got that way.

Yet I understand of course she is not God.

Suppose God actually decided to bless her even further than she is now with an even greater reward, so that she achieved the same status as her Son and the Father.

That would be exaltation. She would be like God. She would BE a “goddess”

So how many persons could there theoretically be with the same “being” as the father and son?

I have heard catholics say theoretically, many.

 

[AshleyBelle]

Not hiding anything. This is correct. As I said it is a radical form of theosis or deification as believed by Catholics.

Explain to me the status of Mary in the Catholic church and how she got that way.

Yet I understand of course she is not God.

Suppose God actually decided to bless her even further than she is now with an even greater reward, so that she achieved the same status as her Son and the Father.

That would be exaltation. She would be like God. She would BE a “goddess”

So how many persons could there theoretically be with the same “being” as the father and son?

I have heard catholics say theoretically, many.

You are confusing the gift that God gave mary, however…

She did nothing to merit God’s grace, but He chose to SAVE her from the stain of original sin from the moment of her conception. He did not “make her” any different from the rest of us…He blessed her with His grace so that she could be a pure vessel for Christ, and a perfect model for us of obedience to His will.

When catholics say we share in the divinity of Christ through the eucharist, it is because of HIM, not ourselves. It is because he lowered Himself for us, so that we could partake and share in His nature… All believers share in the body, blood, and divinity of Christ in the mass.

We don’t become “gods” or “goddesses.” We don’t partake of our lord to elevate ourselves. We dont’ believe divinity MAKES US divine…but we believe it UNITES us to the body of Christ.

If we have any divinity, it’s because God is sharing it with us, not because of what we have become.
If you are invited to dinner in the home of a wealthy friend with an amazing house, you go to share dinner with him in his house. You don't go there, step inside, and say "Wow, now I HAVE an amazing house!"

 

[mfbukowski]

You are confusing the gift that God gave mary, however…

She did nothing to merit God’s grace, but He chose to SAVE her from the stain of original sin from the moment of her conception. He did not “make her” any different from the rest of us…He blessed her with His grace so that she could be a pure vessel for Christ, and a perfect model for us of obedience to His will.

When catholics say we share in the divinity of Christ through the eucharist, it is because of HIM, not ourselves. It is because he lowered Himself for us, so that we could partake and share in His nature… All believers share in the body, blood, and divinity of Christ in the mass.

We don’t become “gods” or “goddesses.” We don’t partake of our lord to elevate ourselves. We dont’ believe divinity MAKES US divine…but we believe it UNITES us to the body of Christ.

If we have any divinity, it’s because God is sharing it with us, not because of what we have become.

If you are invited to dinner in the home of a wealthy friend with an amazing house, you go to share dinner with him in his house. You don't go there, step inside, and say "Wow, now I HAVE an amazing house!"

Why then are not all Catholics canonized saints?

They did nothing to merit it?

 

[AshleyBelle]

Why then are not all Catholics canonized saints?

They did nothing to merit it?

Any Catholic in heaven IS a "Saint."  :)

We only officially “declare” someone a saint when we know beyond a doubt that they are in heaven. Most of us, (and you can bet I’m included ) NEED to go through purgatory.

 

[mfbukowski]

Mary and the saints aren’t one in being with the Trinity, they are one in doing, though in function there is no difference. The difference is in the fact that Mary and the saints will always be created beings.

Since we have a different concept of creation, I would disagree. I think that their spirits, like ours, were also eternal. So I guess you don’t believe Mormon Doctrine on that one?

I guess you are more Catholic than you think, speaking of “created beings”.