On 2月12日, 午前12:49, rasqual
<scott.marqua...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> joseph_daniel_zuki...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > rasqual wrote:
> > There is only one God. Right?
>
> Whether that's true is something that Mormons frequently are not
> willing to unequivocally declare.
Well, here's about the best you're going to get:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/121/28#25
I interpret that to mean that there will come a time when we will be
able to find out the answer to all these interesting questions that
don't matter to us in the here and now.
> > So, what do we do with the scriptures in which Jesus talks to His
> > Father?
>
> Granted that we consider the scriptures authoritative, we accept that
> Jesus is talking with Father. Right?
I have never been able to tell with some people, including you, Scott.
Talking with some protestants, I have gathered that they think Jesus
was talking to Himself. Setting aside the ironic mood, what do you
think, Scott?
> > If (and I'm not saying there are) there were any other being worthy of
> > being called (by us) God, that being would also be joined with them in
> > perfect unity.
>
> A definite article is implicit, I think,
Well, no, I did not intend to say "... the God, ...".
> in how you're using "God"
> just there. In this sense, you're being tautologous.
If there is no implicit definite article, do you still see a
tautology?
There is none. I know of religions where one has to be explicit about
such things, because, well, among other things, they have no capital
letters for use with, for example, proper nouns. Or, perhaps, if you
don't state the tautology, it isn't a given. (But, then, would it be a
tautology?)
> You're saying
> that if there were four whatevers instead of three who we considered
> to be God, Mr. Four would be God in the same way as his kin.
The word "kin" would not really do justice to the unity, and I think
that is part of the argument we are having here. (Nor would the
"whatever", but that's also beside the point, isn't it?)
> Not really in dispute. What's in question is whether there's any
> "extra-trinitarian" deities.
Given, for trinitarian, Father, Son, and (Holy) Spirit, as far as I
know, that would be a universal principle and property of (true)
godliness. So, no, there is no world in the universe I know, or am
aware of, in which there would be any non-trinitarian (true) deities.
If that's not what you mean by extra-trinitarian, you'll need to be
more specific.
> Some LdS indisputably believe that Father was once a man. This is not,
> apparently, a forbidden belief among LdS. It seems to be consistent
> with other authoritative LdS beliefs, as far as an observer could
> tell. LdS are frequently cir***spect when discussing it, but it's not
> really possible to claim that this is not a belief held by some LdS.
Can I say that I don't believe God is inhuman? (Nor superhuman, but is
that relevant here?)
Not being facetious here. I have known (atheists) who are absolutely
convinced that the word "god" (capitalized or otherwise) implies
inhumanity. (More of that argument of evil.)
So, for instance, if I were to say that God is a Man, I would not
mean, _just_ a man. Does that help?
> Such LdS do not uniformly believe that generations of deities comprise
> the one God we know, in some extra-trinitarian mass deity of infinite
> number.
If, by trinitarian, you mean what I said above, none of us who
understand our religion believe in any extra-trinitarian mass deity. I
have, however, seen some of us talk about it in ways that could be
interpreted as such, however, and have wished that they had been more
concerned about how their words were being received.
> They seem to think, some of them, that each generation of
> deities will have it's own world where something like ours occured.
Now, do you mean that as an alternative to your mass deity concept, or
as a description of the properties of the mass deity?
Hmm. Would you find hymn #2 in our hymnbook objectionable? (The
Hymnbook is on-line on lds.org, go to the library, then to music.)
Anyway, I don't think I would describe it that way. I may have once,
but I do not now, and it is not a required doctrine.
Near as I can tell, when we start talking about what things are like
in heaven, things get a little strange.
Hell, yes, we can imagine hell.
Heaven seems to be a bit more difficult. Nobody, I hope, who really
believes in the Christian heaven really believes that we will all be
strumming harps on clouds forever? I, for one, take it as a quick
metaphor for harmonious existence doing that which resounds to the
glory of God.
As for how I would say it now, I wouldn't. No words I know of describe
it properly, and I really have not seen much of it, yet. All I know is
that I have reason to hope to continue as an individual, to continue
in association with my family (although, yeah, my children here will
have grown up, and so will their g-g-g-g-however-many-grandchildren),
to overcome the evil aspects of my nature, and to participate in the
works of God in various ways.
I kind of hope to get a "subcontract", as it were, helping build
planets and such, for a while. I don't mean a subcontract as we do it
here, but I'm also sure there will be deadlines and re****ts and stuff
that I am not really good at in this life. (One of the areas I
seriously need to work on.) (And what "a while" might be in eternity,
is another question I look forward to understanding.)
But what it actually will entail, no, I don't really know. I do
believe God when He tells me I will be happy there. That's good enough
for me.
Eye has not seen, nor can tongue tell.
> In
> fact, a credible (if flawed) apologetic for Mormonism was advanced by
> Arden Eby back in the day, citing just suchy a cosmology.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with that one. A quick search on Google
doesn't seem to turn up an apologetic from him on the subject.
(Probably using the wrong search terms, I know.)
> For most LdS, such things are speculative.
Speculative, or maybe just too difficult to put into words?
> But I note the foregoing to
> indicate that no, to many LdS it's not the case that if there are
> other gods out there in the metaverse, they're necessarily part of the
> Godhead in the way you indicate.
Well, my indications are, themselves, tentative.
Speculation? Not really. Vague, yes. I don't have a complete
understanding of these things. (Still mortal, among other things.)
But we just don't have the English that would accurately and correctly
communicate the concepts in every case. (Don't have any way to say
them in Japanese, either.) Probably too large a concept for mortal
language, which is why I'm not going to preach it. (By large, I mean
it necessarily pushes the conversation into areas in which we don't
have sufficient shared context to be able to establish either
vocabulary or grammar.)
In particular, your reference to other gods in the metaverse leaves
semantic holes that cause me to worry that I have not communicated
even what little I have attempted.
(The generational gods and successive worlds bothers me too, but I'm
not clear enough what you mean to attempt to respond to those
directly.)
I think there actually may be something analogous to what is generally
called "the metaverse", but the various concepts I have seen presented
about it, well, I'm not willing to commit any faith to them.
That's definitely the material of speculation, and it is _not_
essential to my salvation.
> This isn't surprising, since it's not really possible for you to
> prescribe what other LdS may believe about something that's only
> speculative for most LdS, and whose details vary among those who
> consider it more probable than speculative.
How long has it been since you understood that it is against our
doctrine to attempt to prescribe the mysteries?
> > There are no other Gods than these three to us, and,
> > no, it matters not to us one whit whether our Jesus is the savior of
> > other planets, or whether our Father is the same being who created all
> > the galaxies and/or all the other parallel or disjoint or otherwise
> > universes which might exist.
>
> But it's not especially honest to use words of universal im****t in
> stating your beliefs, when that's not what you mean.
It's impossible to avoid words of universal im****t.
It's really difficult to determine a set of vocabulary which is
universal, whether you're looking for words that are universal to
everyone, or words that are universal to someone. And, then, when the
concepts themselves are universal, even though everyone's opinions,
descriptions, views, etc., are not, well, it really is impossible to
avoid.
> It's a bait and
> switch tactic, from a point of proselytizing.
That's one of the reasons our missionaries are instructed to only
teach the fundamentals, and let each member learn the rest from God as
they are able and willing to learn, and (more im****tantly) as God is
willing to teach them. If they teach beyond the fundamentals, bait and
switch is only one of the evils that occurs.
The fundamentals (again), faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism,
the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Scriptures, prayer. Abstinence from (doing and saying) things which do
us harm and thus take us away from God. The im****tance of the family.
Church attendance and service also recommended. Honesty and morality
in our associations with people. The godly walk, as Paul says.
If we do those things, all the rest will fall into place in the
appropriate time.
> A person is not turned
> off by Mormon beliefs because on the face of it, they're stated in a
> very familiar way.
Uhm, there's even a better reason that they seem familiar. It's
because these are things we were all taught before we were born.
Anyway, it would be contrary to people's happiness to hide the gospel
by couching it only in technically accurate, exact, and correct terms,
even if such language existed. Technical language is hard to parse
even when it's available. In this case, the "familiar way" is the best
we have, even though it does invite confusion at times.
There are several reasons we generally prefer to ask people to wait
until they have that thing we call a testimony to receive baptism into
this church. This is one.
But if a person knows that this church is true, it doesn't matter that
that person's understanding is not perfect. He or she can be patient,
and wait for God to teach what is necessary at the necessary time.
If that doesn't seem fair, what can I say. I have had to wait on the
due time of the Lord for many things. I have many more things to wait
for. No one I know gets the whole thing at once.
If you don't have the witness from the Holy Spirit, technical accuracy
of understanding is no way sufficient when the going gets rough. (And
the going always gets rough. This is not, after all, a visit to an
amusement park, this thing we call life.)
And we are not engaging in deception, here.
> But this familiarity is only superficial.
If it is only superficial for a certain person, I'd suggest that
person wait until he gets a confirmation from the Holy Spirit before
being baptized. (And, in fact, I have suggested it on several
occasions.)
Once you've received the witness, nothing is superficial.
> The
> difference between "God actually DID create ALL things" (which means
> that everything that exists owes its existence to him) and "God might
> not have created all things" (the Mormon view does not exclude the
> notion that God owes his own existence to the metaverse, inasmuch as
> many Mormons believe as much) is profound.
I wish you could stand back and read that the way I'm reading it. I
think you would realize that you probably didn't say what you
intended. Anyway, I think this is relevant -- God actually did create
all things:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/76/23-24#22
Now, if Jesus (as Jehovah) acted at the Father's command when He said,
"Let there be light," are we going to say that God did not actually
create the light?
> It's useless to shrug in
> the direction of controversies regarding the carelessless of such
> meaningless claims by Mormons -- for meaningless they are, if "all"
> and "some" end up being logically interchangeable.
Well, offensive to think that Jesus might have been the one to the
actual hands-on work (so to speak) in creating this world? Would that
somehow make it less of God's creation?
> > Therefore, the assertion "there's nothing left for any other god to
> > have created." either contradicts itself and does not make sense,
>
> You're reading someone else's mail.
I think not.
> Since we both know there are
> Mormons whose beliefs include the notion of generational deities and
> generational worlds with their respective "gods," the assertion isn't
> meaningless when addressing, as it turns out, the LdS I have in mind.
> Obviously, my remarks do not pertain to LdS who don't hold to such
> notions. That such notions are not incompatible with Mormon orthodoxy,
> however, remains interesting.
Either your summary is incomplete and/or inaccurate, or their
description was lacking, or you are talking about people who are in at
least partial apostasy.
Which is the case, I'm not going to guess. But if I had a member of a
Sunday School class who presented the doctrines that would, I would as
gently as possible suggest the scriptures I have mentioned to you and
some others, and as tactfully as possible would have asked him not to
present the doctrines in that way.
Come to think of it, I have myself received similar warnings through
the Spirit at times, and have had to restate things. I know I have not
always been able to clear things up.
> > And the fact that there are still a lot of things which we, being
> > mortal, don't know, means what?
>
> It means that LdS should be more careful about their use of language,
> not more careless. To say "all" when you don't know whether you might
> only mean "some," seems very irresponsible.
Yeah, if that's what they are doing, they should be more careful about
what they say, to whom, and when.
On the other hand, if they don't have any better words, and the Spirit
is moving them, I will not judge them. If I am there and I have the
chance, I might talk quietly with them after the fact, to offer
different phrasing and other suggestions. But I wouldn't automatically
censure them.
> > > This is really a striking thing. LdS will speak of belief in other
> > > gods as speculative.
> > Speculative at best, quite likely idolatrous.
>
> Not at all. I didn't indicate that they wor****p such gods.
Well, "believing in", as I understand it, implies faith, and there is
no other God for us to put our faith in than Jesus Christ.
(Remembering that faith in Him is the same as faith in His Father and
ours.)
> They simply
> believe in generational deities and successive worlds. It might seem a
> primitive folk belief to you, but that's OK. Mormonism is a big
> tent. ;-)
I do wish we could pin down what you mean by "generational deities and
successive worlds."
I guess, if simply taken, generational deities would be the
possibility of, say, a "Grandfather in Heaven"?
I'm sorry it offends you that some of us head that direction in the
process of trying to understand the concept of God as Father. Would it
make you more comfortable to know that our bishops are instructed, for
example, not to make a temple recommend dependent on such questions of
doctrine?
And successive worlds would be the possibility that one world p*****
away and another is created? Would you mean to say that you think that
the end spoken of in the Revelation of John is really the last there
will be of mortals? That there is only one world?
If that's what you mean, here's what we believe, and I do not believe
we hide it:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moses/1/33,35#27
I'm not sure what would be so offensive about that, however.
> > > On the other hand, they will speak with apparent
> > > certaintly of how "God created all things." Yet when the
implications
> > > of the certain thing and the speculative thing collide ("if God
> > > created all things, then there's nothing left for other gods to have
> > > created, in the case that they might exist"), many LdS will not
reject
> > > the speculative thing.
> > Or, perhaps, what they reject is your assertion that you have
> > understood what we believe well enough to make any sensible assertions
> > about our beliefs.
>
> That's a consistent thing, yes. What's incredibly rare, though, is for
> them to ground their rejection rationally.
Reason which is not guided by the Holy Spirit of truth will lead away
from truth. And we don't receive the doctrines by means of reason,
either. Reason is a tool, and should be used as a tool. It is not the
only tool.
> I can drop a valuable diamond on the ground and walk away. What will
> puzzle onlookers is WHY I did so.
I know a woman who threw a very expensive diamond ring in the river
when she broke up with the guy who gave it to her.
Value is, to a large extent, in the eye of the beholder.
> > There are no other Gods. Whether there are other gods (lower case) or
> > not, anything they might create is only as God allows, and thus within
> > the domain of things which are ultimately created by God.
>
> That's what I call "neoMormonism," which is tantamount to orthodox
> Christianity.
So new it has been, well, part of the doctrines taught in the temple
for as long as we've had temples?
> Welcome to the wave of Mormonism that's going to end up
> in a rapprochement with orthodox Christianity someday. Nice to see
> you've come so far. ;-)
Jesus Himself said it: if you aren't against us, ... .
> > (Surely you don't want to reach for the question of evil again?
>
> Oh, I'd love it. But unfortunately, the moderators have forced
> orthodox to tie our brains behind our back (http://snurl.com/1zem9-
> google group history). Perhaps the current generation of moderators
> will realize how ad hoc that judgment was, and rescind it.
I think the problem was that we kept running around in circles where
we didn't seem to be making progress in understanding. I think they
could be persuaded if they could see some potential for progress on
either side.
> > You know how we deal with that: that there are things which appear
evil to
> > us which aren't, and that there are things which it would be evil for
> > anyone but God to do which are not evil for God to do.)
>
> The problem would be if you resorted to that as a wild card for every
> instance where the question was raised. If you really believe that
> this is Mormonism's ANSWER to the problem of evil, little motive is
> left for genuine ethical examination.
Well, is God supreme or not? And are we less than God or not?
> One further problem is that any religion could use this as an excuse
> for any insane behavior by their version of deity, prophet, or holy
> man. In fact, we see this with radical Islam. It's just not a very
> satisfying answer to the problem(s) of evil.
Well, that is, as I understand it, the last argument Lucifer made
before he rebelled. Or the second to last. The last one may have been,
"Think of the children!"
Okay, okay, I don't really know the order of arguments he used to
justify his assertion of illusion over faith.
But, yeah. the possibility that people can do really evil things is
always present in a world where freedom is allowed. And that includes
the possibility that people can blame the evil things they do on God.
But God allowed us freedom anyway. Is that evil?
Is a free person necessarily going to run to the worst evils every
time? Sometimes arguing the absurd from the outset is the wrong thing
to do.
joudanzuki, who likely has written his last on this thread. (Need to
give my kids more time, need to get out looking for a new job for when
this one ends.)
|
