YHWH: Jesus to Mormons, the Father to other Christians

[Allweather]

The eternal progression doctrine is something seperate and a rather minor point. It is not emphasized or actively taught. I have never seen a priesthood talk or sunday school lesson on it. I have never seen it appear anywhere in what we call the “curriculum”. Oddly, the people who bring it up the most seem to be the ones opposed to Mormon teachings. I’m not refuting it but trying to put it in a more realistic sort of perspective.

My only points of reference are two: 1. My Mormon girlfriend, who has done practically NO study of Mormon doctrine in her 25 years or so of being a Mormon, yet has a rather clear understanding of eternal progression. Whenever I’ve discussed this with her, she maintains that eternal progression is a solidly biblical idea, and is just plain common sense, besides. So, in spite of this deemphasis you describe, at least one poorly catechised Mormon knows all about it. 2. A short discussion I had with a group of well-informed Mormon men about four months ago, in which eternal progression came up. They all seemed very familiar with the concept, and were able to speak authoritatively about it, as if it were something known to and understood by them.

Oh, and even a third example. My girlfriend’s oldest son did a mission in Mexico, just returned this past spring. One evening we were having a light discussion about faith things, I skirting any direct debate, not wanting to disturb his young mind unnecessarily. Suddenly, he asked me what I thought about the possibility that I could become a god. I replied that I thought that that idea is blasphemous, and there ended the conversation. But clearly, this young man knows all about eternal progression, and is even quick to bring it up in a potential evangelizing session.

 

[rmcmullan]

Allweather: Ask your gf and all the other Mormon people you know when was the last time they had a Sunday School or priesthood/relief society lesson on eternal progression. Or the last time they heard a conference talk on it. They might be able to come up with something but I can’t and I have a pretty good memory.

Appreciate that it’s sort of a fun thing to talk about and tweak people with and your position as a (I assume) fairly stalwart Catholic.

Whenever you get into these pie-in-the-sky sort of discussions such as eternal progression or purgatory or limbo or the spirit world or the pre-existence, it gets too easy to introduce some doctrine that’s only lightly touched on by the Bible. People wonder seriously about these things even if it’s not caring for the widows and feeding the poor. People want to believe with their heads as well as their hearts so still we discuss it. To some degree it is “looking beyond the mark” and certainly can be contentious. But I do believe that the eternal progression doctrine is something that is not taught much and is still speculative and not well developed.

 

[majick275]

I think eternal progression one of the most fundamental beliefs of the LDS church. It certainly IS in the curriculum. Just go to www.lds.org and do the search for it in curriculum. you’ll see. You may not get that explicit a title for sunday school lessons but “families are forever” and the pre-existence, exaltation, etc. are all topics within that realm. I do believe that the LDS church has really scaled that teaching back to more of “milk” level but the doctrine is still there. It is explicit in D&C 132 as canonized scripture.

The Temple Ceremony especially reinforces this concept. While I don’t expect current members of the LDS church to comment on specifics about that I don’t see a problem with mentioning that those concepts are taught there.

When LDS prophets address their chruch in general conference it is pretty much considered equivalent to scripture. That makes it very unlikely in my opinion that any of the eternal progression pronouncements that fit that category are “speculation”.

So to go down that path in context with this thread then, I have to ask what was Elohim doing before the birth of Jehovah? (spiritual birth not mortal) Who atoned for Elohim’s sins so that he could achieve exaltation? Who will need to atone for our spirit children’s sins if we achieve exaltation in the next life? At what point did Jehovah become “divine”?

 

[rmcmullan]

Majick275, I do agree with you that the doctrine of eternal progression does underly many Mormon teachings, particularly the ones you cited. We understand it both the same way. It’s more of a glimpse into life “on the other side of the veil” than accepted Christianity offers and probably because of that, it is frequently criticised. Catholics get the same hard time about purgatory and limbo.

The questions you pose take eternal progression way further than most people would want to go with it. It goes along with the sort of things the High Priests like to contemplate like, “Is Jesus the Savior of just this world or does he save life on other planets too?” or “Did He atone only for Man or for all life forms?” Sure these questions have answers and some people love to think about them and do offer their opinions. But in the end, they hardly matter.

I assume you want to make the point that they do matter because they reflect on our concept of the Trinity/Godhead. But even if the modern Mormon Church got 100% behind a public statement to the effect of “Other worlds have other Saviors” it hardly changes the fact that in our world there is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost which is one eternal god. If you want to change the scope of Catholic doctrine to the entire universe you might want to make a few adjustments too.

 

[christianley]

But, doesn’t the separate gods in the trinity idea dovetail with their eternal progression theory? If they are related, then to de-emphasize one might affect the other. Not that Mormons have worried all that much about contradictions.

I don’t think they need to be considered together. Mormons could hold the doctrine of the Trinity and still believe in eternal progression if they were to keep God’s perfection as God distinct from our eventual progression to “gods.” They don’t do this, but they could. If all they meant by eternal progression is our becoming perfected through Jesus’ sacrifice without making us ontologically the same as God it would be one thing, but their idea makes us exactly equal to God ontologically. It means we progress to have the same exact nature as God instead of remaining human even in our perfection. Even C.S. Lewis and the Eastern Orthodox talk about humans becoming “gods”, but they don’t mean it in the same way the LDS do. I think the Mormons could even believe in eternal marriage and eternal offspring without losing their orthodoxy if they were to accept the Trinity and maintain the difference between the Trinity’s nature as God and our nature as gods, but they don’t do that. Now Christians would reject that because they don’t believe in marriage after this life based on Jesus’ saying about people not being given in marriage after this life, but it would only be a difference of interpretation rather than the serious breach of making us God in the same way the Trinity is God.

Unfortunately, the Mormons don’t accept what their Book of Mormon says about the Trinity. It’s too bad they can’t come to grips with what their own scriptures teach.

 

[hosemonkey]

Once again, you are debating the fine points of a false religion invented by a con-man and a crook. Notwithstanding the fact that this false religion has bamboozled millions does not make it any more true. A million fools have no more credibility than one alone.
False religion is it’s own reward.

 

[christianley]

Once again, you are debating the fine points of a false religion invented by a con-man and a crook. Notwithstanding the fact that this false religion has bamboozled millions does not make it any more true. A million fools have no more credibility than one alone.
False religion is it’s own reward.

While I certainly agree with what you say, my eventual conversion to Catholicism was helped by Catholics who made the effort to help me understand the doctrine of the Trinity as it related to Mormonism. I sincerely doubt Mormons will drop their false beliefs about God, but if they gain a better understanding of God through our debate it will be the better for everyone. There are a lot of Protestants in my opinion who have as bad an understanding of God as Mormons do – especially the ones who believe that God predestined some for salvation and some for damnation. To me that doctrine is far worse in its effect than some of the foolish things Mormonism teaches.

 

[majick275]

I don’t think they need to be considered together. Mormons could hold the doctrine of the Trinity and still believe in eternal progression if they were to keep God’s perfection as God distinct from our eventual progression to “gods.” They don’t do this, but they could. If all they meant by eternal progression is our becoming perfected through Jesus’ sacrifice without making us ontologically the same as God it would be one thing, but their idea makes us exactly equal to God ontologically. It means we progress to have the same exact nature as God instead of remaining human even in our perfection. Even C.S. Lewis and the Eastern Orthodox talk about humans becoming “gods”, but they don’t mean it in the same way the LDS do. I think the Mormons could even believe in eternal marriage and eternal offspring without losing their orthodoxy if they were to accept the Trinity and maintain the difference between the Trinity’s nature as God and our nature as gods, but they don’t do that.

I don’t think they could. How do those eternal offspring achieve their exaltation?

Now Christians would reject that because they don’t believe in marriage after this life based on Jesus’ saying about people not being given in marriage after this life, but it would only be a difference of interpretation rather than the serious breach of making us God in the same way the Trinity is God.

Unfortunately, the Mormons don’t accept what their Book of Mormon says about the Trinity. It’s too bad they can’t come to grips with what their own scriptures teach.

well that’s sure true.

 

[majick275]

Majick275, I do agree with you that the doctrine of eternal progression does underly many Mormon teachings, particularly the ones you cited. We understand it both the same way. It’s more of a glimpse into life “on the other side of the veil” than accepted Christianity offers and probably because of that, it is frequently criticised. Catholics get the same hard time about purgatory and limbo.

The questions you pose take eternal progression way further than most people would want to go with it. It goes along with the sort of things the High Priests like to contemplate like, “Is Jesus the Savior of just this world or does he save life on other planets too?” or “Did He atone only for Man or for all life forms?” Sure these questions have answers and some people love to think about them and do offer their opinions. But in the end, they hardly matter.

I assume you want to make the point that they do matter because they reflect on our concept of the Trinity/Godhead. But even if the modern Mormon Church got 100% behind a public statement to the effect of “Other worlds have other Saviors” it hardly changes the fact that in our world there is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost which is one eternal god. If you want to change the scope of Catholic doctrine to the entire universe you might want to make a few adjustments too.

what do you find problematic? I see no need for any adjustments. There is only ONE God anywhere and everywhere. Our God is the only God to ever BE. IF there is sentient life outside of our planet then they have the same holy trinity we do. They would have to have concurrent salvation since God became man and died for us ONCE for all.

If we stay with the catechism I see no problems with limbo or purgatory either.

I still have a differing opinion on the importance of eternal progression in the LDS religion too. Joseph Smith was adamant about it’s importance and it was heavily reinforced for some time after that. The only LDS prophet to have ever downplayed it is Gordon B Hinckley and even then it was more deflection than correction. The whole LDS church is focused on getting sealed in the Temple. why? eternal progression. D&C 132 is all about the importance of it.the endowment explains the history behind it and emphasizes the eternal implications of it. Granted, the symbolism tends to zip right by many folks but it isn’t subtle. “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” is definitely part of this. If that just meant “not dying” then the telestial kingdom is all you need. after all it’s supposed to be glorious. The only reason to shoot for Celestial glory is “eternal increase”. Think about what that means. LDS doctrine is ALL about eternal progression. Becoming a God with spirit children of your own has always been the ultimate goal in Mormon doctrine.

 

[rmcmullan]

The thing that is problematic is that there is no way to determine the scope of the atonement. Knowing that it’s required for everyone in the world has good enough for quite some time! There is nothing in the Bible that would either support or refute the concept of God being universal or pertaining only to this world. Any other teaching would need to be new revelation and so far as Catholic doctrine is concerned, there is none.

So the main objection against the godhead looks to me like a rather esoteric disagreement about the scope of the atonement. Of course you know that I’m still pretty rough at getting the Catholic doctrine right. It still looks to me like the Trinity’s main virtue is as a defense against polytheism and that the charge of polytheism is still the problem. The irony seems to glare at me.

 

[christianley]

I don’t think they could. How do those eternal offspring achieve their exaltation?

As long as there are no previous Gods or previous Saviors, the one atonement of the Savior could apply to all of the descendents of exalted Mormons – there would be no need to repeat it. Again, I think the idea of eternal descendents is far-fetched, but it would not disqualify one as a Christian if you believed in the Trinity.

 

[majick275]

The thing that is problematic is that there is no way to determine the scope of the atonement. Knowing that it’s required for everyone in the world has good enough for quite some time! There is nothing in the Bible that would either support or refute the concept of God being universal or pertaining only to this world. Any other teaching would need to be new revelation and so far as Catholic doctrine is concerned, there is none.

So the main objection against the godhead looks to me like a rather esoteric disagreement about the scope of the atonement. Of course you know that I’m still pretty rough at getting the Catholic doctrine right. It still looks to me like the Trinity’s main virtue is as a defense against polytheism and that the charge of polytheism is still the problem. The irony seems to glare at me.

I have to disagree here. I think the Bible very clear on God being universal. Particularly where Isaiah goes into detail.

scriptures.lds.org/en/isa/45/3,5,14,18,21#3

I certainly don’t think this limited to the scope of the atonement nor do I consider it esoteric in the least. We are talking about who and what God is. the very nature of the focus of our worship. An eternal, unchanging, unique being of an order that we cannot aspire to is vastly different than an advanced human “regional governor” who submitted our salvation to a democratic process in a council of Gods. The one truly is worthy of worship as our God. The other is merely a benevolent parent from a long line of “divine humans” who’s vocation we are apprenticing at.

 

[rmcmullan]

Majick275, at this point I must respectfully disagree. We just have an honest difference of opinions.

In a previous post you said that some of the Mormon doctrine are sort of science fiction and I think we are drifting into that area again. But so far as this world pertains, I can say that there is one eternal god: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

 

[Allweather]

Allweather: Ask your gf and all the other Mormon people you know when was the last time they had a Sunday School or priesthood/relief society lesson on eternal progression. Or the last time they heard a conference talk on it. They might be able to come up with something but I can’t and I have a pretty good memory.

Good idea… I will start paying attention to this when I speak with my gf and her family. Those are the Mormons I have most frequent contact. I only wish they knew more about the nuts 'n bolts of their faith. They seem to believe that the main differences between Mormonism and Catholicism are that Mormons are more moral, in that they take better care of the family, don’t drink or smoke, etc.

I’ve watched a lot of BYU TV the past year or so, but can’t remember any long talks about eternal progression. I have heard many statements that refer to pre-existence of the soul and marriage/family sealing for all eternity, which seem related to eternal progression.

 

[christianley]

Majick275, at this point I must respectfully disagree. We just have an honest difference of opinions.

In a previous post you said that some of the Mormon doctrine are sort of science fiction and I think we are drifting into that area again. But so far as this world pertains, I can say that there is one eternal god: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

But the whole point as found throughout the Bible is there are no other gods in the whole of creation – there is only One God. Just the way you have stated it as “one eternal god” rather than One Eternal God minimizes the importance of God’s role in the universe as the only God. There simply can be no other ultimate God than the one who created everything without causing the whole foundation to fall apart. At some point you have to reach an ultimate God who is responsible and in control of everything or nothing is guaranteed about the stability of the universe. If no such ultimate God exists than everything is subject to the whim of Nature which could easily destroy the God it created (it would seem as if by chance) and everything else which exists. The whole scheme is ultimately atheistic because if there is no ultimate God there is really no God at all.

 

[rmcmullan]

But the whole point as found throughout the Bible is there are no other gods in the whole of creation – there is only One God. Just the way you have stated it as “one eternal god” rather than One Eternal God minimizes the importance of God’s role in the universe as the only God. There simply can be no other ultimate God than the one who created everything without causing the whole foundation to fall apart. At some point you have to reach an ultimate God who is responsible and in control of everything or nothing is guaranteed about the stability of the universe. If no such ultimate God exists than everything is subject to the whim of Nature which could easily destroy the God it created (it would seem as if by chance) and everything else which exists. The whole scheme is ultimately atheistic because if there is no ultimate God there is really no God at all.

I think you are delving into philosophy, not religion. Any reply I might make here would sound way out there. Did Jesus atone for the Borg and Klingons as well as mankind? Surely some parts of the universe are eternal? Matter, energy, intelligence, are they related? How about worlds that have not yet been created? The answers to these questions are just too immense and I don’t think we really need them in order to agree on the nature of God to some degree. The Trinity and Godhead are very close if you don’t spin off into these unknown paths.

 

[Allweather]

I think you are delving into philosophy, not religion. Any reply I might make here would sound way out there. Did Jesus atone for the Borg and Klingons as well as mankind? Surely some parts of the universe are eternal? Matter, energy, intelligence, are they related? How about worlds that have not yet been created? The answers to these questions are just too immense and I don’t think we really need them in order to agree on the nature of God to some degree. The Trinity and Godhead are very close if you don’t spin off into these unknown paths.

FWIW, I totally agree with this that you say. I’ve always had this sensation about other religions that have very detailed, well-developed notions of both pre-existence and the afterlife have overreached the extent of what God has chosen to reveal to us. I mean, some of these religions, and I certainly consider Mormonism to be one of these, have incredibly elaborate constructs of heaven(s) and hell, and things in between. To my way of thinking, God has revealed very little to us about the fullness of what he is and the full scope of his activities, and I have no great urge to know all about these things now, even if I thought it was possible to know, which I don’t. I immediately distrust any so-called revelation from any man who claims to have seen God in physical form, or who claims to be able to pretty much describe the layout of the Heavenlies. This type of thing seems to me related to the obsession some people have had to predict the Second Coming, having set dates for it even.

 

[majick275]

if you want to call it theosophy then I am okay with that but I don’t think it’s that esoteric. First of all klingons and borg obvious figments of someon’s imagination. Secondly I believe that God HAS in fact revealed a lot of detail on this. (maybe not heaven and such but certainly who/what he is) The Scriptures are very explicit in saying that There is only God anywhere and that he has always been God and is unchanging. I think it easy to see scriptural evidence disproving eternal progression as taught in the LDS church. I also think it critical to true worship to believe that he is GOD as opposed to your eternal “dad”. Even if you discard the eternal “regression” of “as man is God once was” and just stick with the future you still have a very different relationship if you believe that you are ontologically an embryonic God. A literal OFFSPRING vs. a creation. Think also of the implication of endless spirit children and the need for THEM to get bodies and achieve exaltation and so and so on and you quickly end up at the same place.

 

[rmcmullan]

Wow, I never thought that was going to happen: some one actually agreed with me on the Catholic forums. Thank you, Allweather! And I’m kind of glad you did. Majick275 as always shows a very solid understanding of the principles involved and is pressing his point beyond where I really care to go. He’s right, eternal progression is a principle that underlies much of what sets us apart but I can’t really bring myself to its defense. For two reasons. Maybe three.

1. I don’t really want to spend all my time on the forums defending Mormon doctrine. I really am not here to do that although I occasionally do. These are the Catholic forums and it’s sort of disrespectful to go on and on about how great Mormonism is. I thank you all for your indulgences! Oh, wait, that’s a bad word to use around Catholics! I want to be able to understand it all from your POV too.
2. Eternal progression can be a beautiful thing but I hate to see it used to drive a wedge between people. It’s a principle that is not so much taught explicitly as one that is discovered from the practices. But because of that, there’s been too much speculation.
3. And this goes back to what Allweather said, I just don’t think it’s a big deal. You know, Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

One last thing. Nobody said anything about my joke on the 5-headed Trinity. I guess nobody liked it but believe me, there aren’t a whole lot of jokes about the Trinity. At least, not respectful ones.

 

[Allweather]

Wow, I never thought that was going to happen: some one actually agreed with me on the Catholic forums. Thank you, Allweather! And I’m kind of glad you did. Majick275 as always shows a very solid understanding of the principles involved and is pressing his point beyond where I really care to go. He’s right, eternal progression is a principle that underlies much of what sets us apart but I can’t really bring myself to its defense. For two reasons. Maybe three.

1. I don’t really want to spend all my time on the forums defending Mormon doctrine. I really am not here to do that although I occasionally do. These are the Catholic forums and it’s sort of disrespectful to go on and on about how great Mormonism is. I thank you all for your indulgences! Oh, wait, that’s a bad word to use around Catholics! I want to be able to understand it all from your POV too.
2. Eternal progression can be a beautiful thing but I hate to see it used to drive a wedge between people. It’s a principle that is not so much taught explicitly as one that is discovered from the practices. But because of that, there’s been too much speculation.
3. And this goes back to what Allweather said, I just don’t think it’s a big deal. You know, Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

One last thing. Nobody said anything about my joke on the 5-headed Trinity. I guess nobody liked it but believe me, there aren’t a whole lot of jokes about the Trinity. At least, not respectful ones.

Sorry, I didn’t catch the Trinity joke, probably wouldn’t have understood it anyway, as I am in WAY over my head in this company. Of course, being underqualified has never stopped me from jumping in and making an *** of myself, and I often do.

Religion, and the nuts and bolts of it, are important, even critical. But, I know too many good and Godly people in Mormonism for me to say that any single religion is the final arbiter of our relationship with God. Jesus said that a childlike faith is the key, and whereever that person is with the childlike faith, God is coming fast to meet him or her. Anyways, that is my opinion.

OTOH, as I heard someone say on the radio today, when you buy a car, make sure you read all the fine print on the contract. The devil is in the details. Many people buy into a religion without carefully reading the fine print. It certainly seems true that the Mormon fine print is spead out over a large quantity of materials, so finding it all is hard, and many people don’t bother with it. For instance, I’ve been telling my girlfriend about this Kolob thing, and she’s never heard of it. Tonight, I sat down with her and we read through Abraham 3, 2-18 or thereabouts, because I was getting the feeling that she didn’t believe me when I told her about Kolob. She’d never even heard of the Book of Abraham! I strongly believe that this is common among Mormons: few really know very much about the various ideas that have come, either from direct teachings, or through “the practices” (by which I assume you mean things that are simply believed by most people but have thin scriptural support). Most are all about Family Home Evening, and the joy of genealogy. And I think that is just fine! Maybe if people just ignore those old teachings that made Mormonism an antagonistic and bizarre religion during most of the 19th and part of the 20th centuries, they will gradually become more and more orthodox. Look at the old RLDS group, they changed their name to Community of Christ in an obvious bid to appeal to mainstream Christians. The main LDS branch in Salt Lake has been moving mainstream since Utah statehood. Maybe in a hundred years…