PSI, I was thinking about your concern, and I want to see if I can sum up what it is. Could you tell me if I'm wrong? (And could the admins tell me if they want me to hush?)
Maybe it's because the word bound implies a power relationship - you could seem uncomfortable with the word bound because it implies that someone/something has power over God. The defining characteristic of God then being that NOTHING has power over him - not another being, and not laws. Is this right? I mean, does that sum it up?
------
I think Rakeesh summed up an essential difference in thinking there. On the one hand, God is God in part because he does right, perfectly. On the other, what God does is perfectly right because he's God.
For the first, God could not do wrong (break his word) and remain God. For the second, it is impossible for God to do wrong. If he did break his word, then breaking his word in that case would be right, because it is God that is doing it. Does that sum it up?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
The verbage was more like, 'The administrator has enabled flood checking. Please wait 30 seconds before posting again.'
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
It is true that in LDS theology, God is not Omnipotent in the sense that most people probably think of the word.
There are Rules to which even God is subject. Nobody necessarily made those Rules, they just exist, like laws of nature.
Ask yourself, what makes God who He is? What makes him God? Whatever it is, ask yourself, what would happen if God did something that negated the very thing that makes him God?
It is impossible for God to do anything that is contrary to his nature as God. This seems kind of like a tautology, I know. But I believe it's true.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, Folks, I didn't intend to open up a big can of worms.
I do not mean to imply that the reward of tithing is always going to be monetary. It can be, and in my case it has been. The scripture referenced is Malachi 3:10:
quote:"Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that htere may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the Lord Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it." [NIV]
Blessings come in many forms. It is God's choice how He chooses to deliver them, and in what form they will come.
As for the "binding God" issue, we are not binding him by our actions. He is free to do whatever He pleases, but He will not do anything that is contrary to what He has said in the Bible. That's just His nature.
But, we cannot make up our own rules (even if we were the Pope) and expect God to abide by it, a la Dogma.
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you reacted that way to the M&M's, it's a good thing you're too old for seminary. An LDS seminary teacher would have you believing all kinds of weird things.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm...any good definitions of "omnipotence", as Mormons understand it, in more technical form?
The discussion seems to have suddenly taken an interesting turn right after I tuned it out. Just a few nights ago (I work nights, and alone, so I spend a huge amount of time thinking on things like this), I concluded that the common idea in my church that Mormon theology was inconsistent with the Scripture was itself inconsistent with our normal handling of theological matters and with our positions on other concepts of God. (For instance, nearly every source I've seen acknowledges that Muslims worship the same God we do, even though Islam does not acknowledge the Trinity.)
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea that God is not fully omnipotent is necessary to LDS theology for several different reasons. However, one of the most obvious reasons is our notion of the purpose of life. We believe we existed before we were born, and that our time on Earth is a time to learn, to grow, to test ourselves, and to prepare for the eternity to come. In other words, mortal life is an absolutely necessary step in our eternal progression, without which we would be unable to become all that God wants us to become.
Now, if God were truly Omnipotent in the strictly literal sense, then we wouldn't need to go through this life, with all its attendant sadness and suffering. He could just snap his fingers or whatever and *poof*, we would all be exalted without having to go through the middle part. But he can't do that. He literally can't -- it isn't possible for him to do it.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, Jamie...Dang it, I overqualified my statements.
I'll try and break it down.
Most prominent people in the churches of Christ (to my knowledge) do not consider Mormons Christian due to the differences in their theology. Until recently, I considered this argument adequate.
A few nights ago, I concluded that this argument is inconsistent with several other commonly held positions:
Both Muslims and Jews are considered to worship the same God we do, even though the theological differences are approximately as great.
A wide variety of theological positions has always been tolerated within the churches of Christ. Barton Stone was a unitarian (though not a Unitarian), for instance. And a number of very conservative churches apparently do not believe Jesus is God, from what I read in their publications. Yet these people are all considered acceptable.
*** I could, of course, abandon those positions and continue to hold that Mormons are not Christian, but I believe that they are sound. Moreover, I have begun to suspect that the real reasons for not regarding Mormons as Christians have to do with bad feeling and cultural inertia within the churches of Christ.
However, I am still alert for any serious theological differences that would demonstrate that my conclusion was premature.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Both Muslims and Jews are considered to worship the same God we do, even though the theological differences are approximately as great.
Actually, they’re not. Jewish, Muslim and non-LDS Christian doctrines of God are more similar to each other than LDS and non-LDS Christian doctrines of God are. Excluding, of course, the doctrine of the trinity and the divinity of Jesus.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jewish, Muslim and non-LDS Christian doctrines of God are more similar to each other than LDS and non-LDS Christian doctrines of God are. Excluding, of course, the doctrine of the trinity and the divinity of Jesus.
Those are awfully big things to differ on and consider to be the same God while others agree and are considered too different to count.
Dana, are you referring to the "what does omnipotent mean" discussion? What do you mean exactly?
posted
Could you rephrase that, Dana? I am trying to figure out what you are trying to say, but it's not computing. Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nods* I know what you're saying. However, a lot of the things that are considered "fixed" by most churches are quite loosely interpreted in the churches of Christ. Theological matters are typically considered about as relevant as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, except in a few specific areas.
Some theological matters traditionally considered unimportant by the churches of Christ, as enumerated by Campbell:
quote: 'The Holy Trinity,' 'Three persons of one substance, power, and eternity,' 'Co-essential, co-substantial, co-equal,' 'The Son eternally begotten of the Father,' 'An eternal Son,' 'Humanity and divinity of Christ,' 'The Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son,' 'God's eternal decrees,' 'Conditional and unconditional election and reprobation,' 'God out of Christ,' 'Free will,' 'Liberty and necessity,' 'Original sin,' 'Total depravity,' 'Covenant of grace,' 'Effectual calling,' 'Free grace,' 'Sovereign grace,' 'General and particular atonement,' 'Satisfy divine justice,' 'Common and special operations of the Holy Ghost,' 'Imputed righteousness,' 'Inherent righteousness,' 'Progressive sanctification,' 'Justifying and saving faith,' 'Historic and temporary faith,' 'The direct and reflex acts of faith,' 'The faith of assurance, and the assurance of faith,' 'Legal repentance,' 'Evangelical repentance,' 'Perseverance of the saints,' and 'Falling from grace,' 'Visible and invisible church,' 'Infant membership,' 'Sacraments,' 'Eucharist,' 'Consubstantiation,' 'Church government,' 'The power of the keys,' &c. &c.
Concerning these and all such doctrines, and all the speculations and phraseology to which they have given rise, we have the privilege neither to affirm nor deny--neither to believe nor doubt; because God has not proposed them to us in his word, and there is no command to believe them.
Most of these are still considered optional matters, with an exception or two.
posted
The whole omnipotence thing, plus the whole creation ex-nihilo thing, plus the whole monotheism thing.
The trinity and Christ don’t really come into it, because what I was referring to was non-LDS Christian doctrine about the first person of the trinity. The way non-LDS Christians describe God the Creator, and the attributes we believe God has, have more in common, IMO, with the way Jews and Muslims describe God than with LDS doctrines of God.
One of the biggies is the Creator-creation distinction. The LDS belief that “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man” contrasts rather sharply with the non-LDS Christian belief that God created everything, including time, natural laws, spirits, matter, etc. Before God, and outside of God’s continuing sustaining, there is nothing, no existence at all (in a literal, not metaphorical sense). That is not true in LDS theology as I understand it.
posted
I believe it would be fair to say that the standard of teaching regarding theology in the churches of Christ has always been, "If you can maintain it without denying any part of the Scriptures, it's not a problem." That's not always adhered to, and it doesn't apply to matters of worship practice or morality, but that's the classic theory.
So theoretically, unless someone can come up with a passage in the Bible that flat-out contradicts these teachings you mention, DKW, it shouldn't be an issue.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm certainly not trying to argue that you shouldn't consider LDS folks Christian. I was just quibbling with the statement I quoted earlier.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think evaluating which differences are deal-breakers and which is not as important is somewhat arbitrary.
Do Muslims consider that Christians worship the same God they do? I was under the impression that they considered the concept of sharing Godhood with a son, and that God needed a son at all, was too blasphemous to bear.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm...I should probably point out that my post has more to do with my pleasure in finding out I could regard Mack as a sister in Christ now than the exact details of what my church believes and why. Hopefully no one is offended by my explanations. I'm still feeling rather ambiguous about the whole deal, but generally speaking... Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, my understanding is that Muslims consider both Jews and Christians to be "Peoples of the Book", and in medieval times, that made them exempt from expulsion from Muslim lands. As non-Muslims, they were also entitled to pay twice the taxes. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, yeah, I guess I can see how traditional Christianity's idea of God the Father might be closer to the God of Judaism and that of Islam than it is to that of Mormonism. But then you've got to ignore the whole Trinity idea, and I think that's pretty central to traditional Christianity. I'm not sure you can just separate out the Father like that just to point out the similarity.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
UofULawGuy, I was under the impression that the LDS view of the trinity is different than that of Protestants and Catholics, anyway.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ela -- yes, and no. I guess the thing is that Mormons, no matter how different the ideas of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost might be, would never say anyone is not Christian because of that. Many Christians, however, seem to pleasure in calling Mormons (and others) non-Christian. I am not sure why they insist on such so strenuously. Especailly, when they know (or by now should know) how inflamitory that happens to be.
posted
Yes, the LDS idea of the trinity (or, as we call it, the godhead) is quite different from that of traditional Christianity. My point was that, if you include the traditional idea of the trinity, then the similarities between the God of Christianity and those of Judaism and Islam start to diminish, and the similarities between Mormonism and traditional Christianity multiply.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure about that last part. Certainly including the trinity diminishes the similarities with Islam and Judaism, but I don't think it really increases the similarities between LDS and non-LDS Christianity all that much. Our beliefs about the trinity and the nature of God are very different.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One explanation I have heard is that Muslims do not believe Jesus was God (or part of a Trinity, etc.) because there is God, and humanity. The closest the two ever come to (directly) mingling is with prophets, and that it is presumptuous (from their perspective) to think God was ever a Man, or vice versa.
But I am no expert. I will search out an essay from an Islamic scholar.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:mackillian: the more I struggled against it, the more disconcerted I got. I mean, it's like you spend your whole life watching a religious train going by and you even MOON that train, then your brain decides to hop on and the rest of you is like "WTF?!?!"
Even when I don't feel like it Mac...you make me smile. I even giggled a bit.
Posts: 3771 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, the main reason why the inclusion of the trinity makes traditional christianity more like Mormonism and less like Judaism or Islam is the existence of Jesus, as described in the New Testament. In other words, both brands of Christianity believe in the New Testament. They believe that Jesus existed much as described in that book. They believe in his divinity. They believe in his work of Atonement. They believe in his miracles. They believe in his teachings (even if they sometimes differ on just what those teachings meant).
They certainly have different ideas about his nature, or his specific characteristics if you will, and about his relationship to the Father and the Holy Ghost. But the very fact that they believe in him at all gives traditional Christianity and Mormonism a whole lot of common ground that Judaism and Islam do not share.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But, we cannot make up our own rules (even if we were the Pope) and expect God to abide by it, a la Dogma.
One of the things I really hated about Dogma was that if you want your whole movie to turn on a single point of theology, you better get that single point of theology right.
posted
Lawguy, I think we may be talking past each other. I’m not trying to disparage LDS beliefs, and I never have and never will claim that you aren’t entitled to use the word “Christian” to describe them. But I think that trying to brush over differences in comparing different doctrines is disrespectful to both doctrines. (Or ‘all,’ since there’re more than two being discussed.) Yes, LDS and non-LDS Christianity use a lot of the same language. But what we mean by the words is very different.
The LDS church considers the councils at which the orthodox understanding of the nature of Christ and the Godhead were defined to be part of an “apostasy.” That claim is, as I understand it, central to the LDS understanding of itself as a restoration of the true church. So how can we not recognize that the LDS understandings of the nature of Christ is different from that of the churches that stand in historical continuity with those councils?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And most Protestants believe that Catholics are just as wrong? If we are saying which is the greater chasm of doctrine, between LDS and non-LDS Christian or non-LDS Christian and Muslim or Jewish, I would have to say there are more similarities between LDS and non-LDS Christian than the other because there is more shared scripture. Even if some of the scriptures are interpreted differently (remember they are interpreted differently from one non-LDS Christian church to another also), that similarity is still much stronger, IMO than the similarity between non-LDS Christian and Muslim or Jewish theology.
The views of what God is like between them are more similar, though, I will grant you that. But there is *so* much more to a religion than their concept of what God is like.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And most Protestants believe that Catholics are just as wrong?
No. Protestants and Catholics agree on the creeds and definitions from the councils of Nicea and Chalcedon.
And yes, there is so much more to a religion. But for some religions who God is is one of, if not the, highest priority. So please don't dismiss it as an insignificant difference just because it's not as important in your veiw.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I didn't mean to trivialize your point of view. I can understand that to many people the way you think of God can be the most important thing. I didn't think of it that way, well, because I don't think of it that way.
On the Catholics and Protestants, I guess I don't know enough about it, but I thought there were some pretty big irreconcilable differences. Thus the reasons for Protestants "protesting" against the Catholic doctrines.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw:"I’m not trying to disparage LDS beliefs, and I never have and never will claim that you aren’t entitled to use the word “Christian” to describe them."
I know, but thanks for repeating it.
Really, I know you're not disparaging anything, and I wouldn't think of trying to ignore the very real and significant doctrinal differences that exist between Mormonism and traditional Christianity.
I just thought that it was interesting to attempt to separate traditional Christianity's beliefs about the Father from the rest of the trinity just to make the claim that it has more in common with Judaism and Islam than with Mormonism. While that is true as far as it goes, it appears to me to leave so much else out that is in fact quite central, as to be almost meaningless.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
The Trinity is not the Godhead, it is a mystery of the identity of three gods in one God. I used to casually call the Godhead the Trinity, but at one point I realized this was incorrect. It was prior to learning that Jehovah's Witnesses also don't believe in the Trinity, though.
Interestingly, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are singled out in Eerdman's History of Christianity as sects that believe theirs is the only way
But Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jehovah is Father in Heaven (which is a metaphor only, in their belief we are not his spirit children). They also don't believe in the Holy Spirit as a personage, but as the active force of God (moved upon the waters, conceived Jesus).
Mormons believe Jehovah is the creator of the world, Jesus. This means that the Muslims Allah is actually Jesus. O_o
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Edit: to Lawguy) Ah. I probably could have phrased that part better. The thing is, it isn’t something I made up, nor is/was it done just to show similarity with Judaism and Islam. It’s a pretty common way of laying out a systematic theology – this is what we believe about God in Godself, this is what we believe about God becoming incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth, this is what we believe about the Holy Spirit. The incarnation (Jesus) section is predicated on the earlier section. So if that part is different, the beliefs about Jesus start from such a different place that they aren’t truly comparable. Who we think Jesus of Nazareth is is the incarnation (lit. “en-flesh-ment”) of God. The father-son language is metaphorical in classical Christianity. Not so in LDS theology.
The crux of the thing is that trinitarian Christianity still considers itself a monotheistic faith. Trinitarianism is not tri-theism. This was and is A BIG DEAL in classical/orthodox theology. The whole doctrine of the trinity, and all the (sometimes silly) philosophical/metaphysical explanations of it are an attempt to explain how there can be only one God and yet Jesus is truly divine.
As I understand it, LDS theology is tri-theistic. And that difference, for some Christians, is going to be much more “central” than the fact that you believe in the divinity of Jesus.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
