posted
I took a class on the history of chrsitianity in the late era (1350-2005) and the very last lesson was about some of the new sections of christianity that started in america - seventh day adventists, fundomentalism and mormonism. I'm an Israeli and know maybe 3 or 4 christians and none of them knows great deal about their religion and it's branches so I thought I'll ask here. Aside from the doctrine and the story of the religioin (jews coming to america and all that) which to my heathen ears sounds as likely as any other mythology of organized religion, I also understand that mormons believe that god himself was once a man flesh and blood (not the son). Is that right? that sure is different from all the other forms of chirstianity I learned about, or maybe I just got it all wrong? And if it is according to mormons beliefs, what's the story behind that? As I understand Jesus (Yeshua in the original which means in hebrew "salvation", not that I really know what language they spoke back then, according to Mel Gibson it's an aramic-hebrew-latin mix up) is a holy figure (part god) but not the incarnation of god himself who came down to erase the original sin (to my understanding that's Adam and Hava [Eve in english] disobediant to god), so if the father incarnated himself as well, what for? Another question is about the very act of incarnation. what is the offical doctrine about it? I know that almost all chirsitans believe in hevean and hell and that the soul doesn't come back (unlike many forms of judiasm), but then how did juesus did it? I read in the gospal of matthew (matai in hebrew, a lot of names are different in my new testement in hebrew, have no idea what's the original, I like to believe that the hebrew names came first because they actually have a meaning) that Jhon (yochanan) was in fact an incranation of Elijha (Eliyahu).
posted
It was not jews per se who came to America, but members of the tribes of Menasseh (the family of men, mostly) and Ephraim (the family that provided most of the women for the group. There was another group, from a son of King Zedekiah, who came but I'm not sure which tribe they would be. Though they are referred to as Jews in the book of Mormon.
The story on God is that Joseph Smith taught "as God is, man may become". A later prophet, I believe it was Lorenzo Snow, expanded this to add that as man is, God once was. But the second prophet, Brigham young taught that God was Adam in some form or other. Possibly that God was the first man of another creation. But the so called "Adam is God" theory has been apparently disowned by the church. Anyone have a good reference on that? We do beleive that God went through a preparatory state like we are in, but whether it followed that he had blood can't be known. He was never a mortal on this earth, in any case.
When you say "not the son" I assume you mean to clarify that we don't just mean God was made man in the form of the Son as other Christians do. We definitely believe Jesus was a man of flesh and blood.
Jesus is the son of God, not God. This is one point we agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses on. However, we believe that before he was a man, Jesus was the creator of the world as mentioned in the new Testament. So in a way, the person we believe is Jesus is who most people call God.
The next section... I believe I addressed that above, that God was never incarnated as part of this creation. He already has a glorified body that can't dwell on a fallen earth without consuming the people on it. Whether this is a literal consumption of fire or a consumption of their free will is something I have been pondering lately.
As far as actual incarnation, both of Adam, Eve, and the virgin conception of Jesus, we hold these as mysteries. There was a prophet- the sixth one I think, who taught that he was conceived the way all people are and that Mary will be God's wife. But this again falls into those teachings that I wouldn't take up a sword to defend. We don't believe our prophets are infallible.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
P.S. Erm, I wanted to add something but now I can't remember what it was. I guess prophets have free will and we don't believe that everything they say under every circumstance is scripture, or they would contradict each other a lot. Like the one who was in Eisenhower's cabinet, Benson, said there is no such thing as righteous pride. But the sitting prophet President Hinckley says we should let our kids know we are proud of them. Does he say kids? Because the prophet when I was little, President Kimball, said never to call children kids. Anyway, we do feel the prophets have the keys to the kingdom and the authority to issue commandments. But that doesn't make everything they say holy writ.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There was another group, from a son of King Zedekiah, who came but I'm not sure which tribe they would be.
That would be Judah, since Zedekiah was the Judaic King.
quote:But the second prophet, Brigham young taught that God was Adam in some form or other. Possibly that God was the first man of another creation. But the so called "Adam is God" theory has been apparently disowned by the church. Anyone have a good reference on that?
*sighs* Many. Here's one by Joseph Fielding Smith:
quote:The statement by President Brigham Young that the Father is the first of the human family is easily explained. But the expression that he was the same character that was in the Garden of Eden has led to misunderstanding because of the implication which our enemies place upon it that it had reference to Adam. Unfortunately President Brigham Young is not here to make his meaning in this regard perfectly clear. Under the circumstances we must refer to other expressions by President Brigham Young in order to ascertain exactly what his views really were in relation to God, Adam, and Jesus Christ.
GOD: FIRST OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. Let me comment first upon the expression that God is the "first of the human family." This same doctrine was taught by Joseph Smith. It is a fundamental doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. According to the teachings of Joseph Smith, he beheld the Father and the Son in his glorious vision, and he taught that each had a body of flesh and bones. He has expressed it in these words:
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."
He also taught that, literally, God is our Father; that men are of the same race -- the race called humans; and that God, the Progenitor, or Creator, is the Father of the human race. "In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created and became living souls in the land upon the footstool of God."
It is a doctrine common to the Latter-day Saints, that God, the Great Elohim, is the First, or Creator, of the human family.
THE FATHER WAS WITH ADAM IN EDEN. In discussing the statement by President Brigham Young that the Father of Jesus Christ is the same character who was in the Garden of Eden, it should be perfectly clear that President Young was not referring to Adam, but to God the Father, who created Adam, for he was in the Garden of Eden; and according to Mormon doctrine Adam was in his presence constantly, walked with him, talked with him, and the Father taught Adam his language. It was not until the fall, that the Father departed from Adam and no longer visited him in the Garden of Eden.
Surely we must give President Brigham Young credit for at least ordinary intelligence, and in stating this I place it mildly. If he meant to convey the thought that the character who was in the Garden of Eden, "and who is our Father in Heaven," was Adam, then it would mean that this expression was in conflict with all else that he taught concerning God the Father, and I am bold to say that President Brigham Young was not inconsistent in his teaching of this doctrine. The very expression in question, "the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven," contradicts the thought that he meant Adam.
BRIGHAM YOUNG'S TEACHINGS ABOUT ADAM. Now let me present one or two expressions in other discourses by President Young -- of course, the critics never think of referring to these:
"How has it transpired that theological truth is thus so widely disseminated? It is because God was once known on the earth among his children of mankind, as we know one another. Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with him, and the things that pertain to God and to heaven were as familiar among mankind in the first ages of their existence on the earth, as these mountains are to our mountain boys."
"How did Adam and Eve sin? Did they come out in direct opposition to God and to his government? No. But they transgressed a command of the Lord, and through that transgression sin came into the world."
"The human family are formed after the image of our Father and God. After the earth was organized the Lord placed his children upon it, gave them possession of it, and told them that is was their home. . . . Then Satan steps in and overcomes them through the weakness there was in the children of the Father when they were sent to the earth, and sin was brought in, and thus we are subject to sin."
"Our Lord Jesus Christ -- the Savior, who has redeemed the world and all things pertaining to it, is the Only Begotten of the Father pertaining to the flesh. He is our Elder Brother, and the Heir of the family, and as such we worship him. He has tasted death for every man, and has paid the debt contracted by our first parents [that is Adam and Eve]."
"The Latter-day Saints believe in Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of the Father, who came in the meridian of time, performed his work, suffered the penalty and paid the debt of man's original sin by offering up himself, [they believe he] was resurrected from the dead, and ascended to his Father; and as Jesus descended below all things, so he will ascend above all things."
It is very clear from these expressions that President Brigham Young did not believe and did not teach, that Jesus Christ was begotten by Adam. He taught that Adam died and that Jesus Christ redeemed him. He taught that Adam disobeyed the commandment of the Father, or God, and was driven from the Garden Of Eden. He said that Adam was conversant with his Father in the Garden of Eden. This is believed by all members of the Church, and also that the Father was in the Garden of Eden until Adam was driven out for his transgression....
posted
Ephraim and Menashe are jewish tribes, together they are the tribe of Joseph (they were his sons), which is how we get 12 tribes and not 13 (I belong to the tribe of Levi if anyone is intrested). I'm not sure what the "family of men" is.
So if god is the first in another creasion, wouldn't that make another god, higher then our own who created him? And if Jesus created this world, then he's the god mentioned in the old testement, for there is no reference to another god doing the rest besides creating the world (it can't since the core idea of judiasm is that there is only one god and nothing alse, no son or rival), so why do you need him for? Why not saying that Jesus is the jewish god who created the world? What's his father function in the story?
Posts: 34 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't 'Jew' and 'Jewish' originally meant to refer to those of the kingdom of Judah, and not just 'Israelites'? In this meaning, Emphraimites and Manassahites were not 'Jewish', but they are still Israelites.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're mixing up a bunch of different ideas here already. We need to lay some sort of foundation for what we're really talking about. So, what is quoted below is a synapsis of what Mormons believe.
Without further adue, allow me to quote myself (this is from the "Why do we need Christ" thread):
quote:Another thing to look at is Christ's role as Redeemer. I'm skimming through "Answers to Gospel Questions" by Joseph Feilding Smith, so I might wander. "Our Redeemer came into the world to obtain mastery over death." We in the LDS faith, believe that God the Father (God) and God the Son (Christ) are two completely different people. Christ came to Earth to get a body and die just as we do. But, He was going to be resurrected to show us that it in fact, can be done. With the knowledge he gained through this experience, he will help us at the time of the Resurrection to obtain victory over death just as He did.
Keep in mind that one of the reasons for us coming to earth is to get a body. Once resurrected our spirits and our bodies will never be separated again.
Now for me to continue on with this discussion, you need to understand what we call "The Plan of Salvation." Here's a breakdown:
Premortal Existance: This is just what it says. This describes the time prior to us coming to Earth and is the time The Plan was devised. During this time, we had no body and during the majority of the time we existed as "intellegences" waiting to be organized. A few things to note about this time (these are taken by a lesson by Ted Gibbons):
--We have always existed in some form. --We were begotten there as children of God --Gender is a premortal characteristic --Earth was created as a place to prove us. --We met in counsel and listened to the Father's plan and then to an opposing plan presented by Lucifer --One third part of the Father's children destined for this earth followed Lucifer in his rebellion and were cast out with him.
Mortal Life:
Basically, this is the here and now. We were sent here to obtain our bodies and prove ourselves to God. What we do here, determines what rewards are given after death.
After Earth Life:
This is were things get complicated. But, once you get a basic understanding, it shouldn't be too bad. There are two timeframes we should concentrate on:
--Prior to the Resurrection:
A person dies but the Resurrection hasn't taken place yet, now what?
During the time before the Resurrection we are sent to one of two places: Spirit Prison or Spirit Paradise. The easiest way to describe this is the good spirits go to paradise, while the bad spirits go to prison (It's a little more complex than this, but this post is getting really drawn out). During this time, those spirits in prison will have a chance to hear and accept the gospel at which point they will move to paradise.
--After the Resurrection
Once we are reunited with our bodies, we are sent to one of four different places: Celestial Kingdom, Terrestrial Kingdom, Telestial Kingdom, or Outer Darkness. These are usually compared to the Sun (Celestial), Moon (Terrestrial), Stars (Telestial), and the darkness (Outer Darkness). These comparisons, refer to the "degree of glory" each kingdom has.
This is a basic outline of The Plan of Salvation. It is key to understanding some of the things that have been and will be brought up in this discussion by other Latter-Day Saints. With this outline laid out, I can go into Christs role a little more in depth.
But, that's another post.
quote:Okay, now to the role of Redeemer. This shouldn't be too long. Now that we have a basic understanding about The Plan, we can hit the nail on the head.
In the scriptures, we are taught that no unclean thing may be in the presence of God. If we read through the Bible, we see that very few people have actually see God. This is simply because there have been very few people clean enough to be in His presence. The story of the brother of Jerod is a prime example of this.
Now, we come to Earth and what do we do? We sin. Like crazy! So how then do we expect to be in the presence of God after we die? No person on Earth (besides Christ) is sinless. Therefore, no person but Christ can even be around God. Kinda sucks, eh? Well this is where Christ comes in. He came to Earth and through his godly power, kept himself alive to feel the pain of every sin. The pain was so great, he bled from every pore and caused him to question whether he should continue. Because he did this, He can step in and through the process of repentance, take our sins upon himself making us pure once again. In effect He is a Mediator.
I hope this explains some things.
Yeah, I know that's long. But we need to understand that God and Christ are two completely different entities.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if Jesus created this world, then he's the god mentioned in the old testement, for there is no reference to another god doing the rest besides creating the world (it can't since the core idea of judiasm is that there is only one god and nothing alse, no son or rival), so why do you need him for? Why not saying that Jesus is the jewish god who created the world? What's his father function in the story?
Consider the Father (who is also our literal spiritual Father) as the Architect, and the Son as the one who carried out the plans, and and acted as the Advocate, or 'Voice' for the Father.
What Aaron was to Moses, Moses was to YHWH. What Moses was to YHWH, YHWH (which we recognise as the premortal Christ) was to The Father.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:There was another group, from a son of King Zedekiah, who came but I'm not sure which tribe they would be.
That would be Judah, since Zedekiah was the Judaic King.
That would make him of the tribe of Judah, but it doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the makeup of the group that brought him across.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't 'Jew' and 'Jewish' originally meant to refer to those of the kingdom of Judah, and not just 'Israelites'? In this meaning, Emphraimites and Manassahites were not 'Jewish', but they are still Israelites.
In the Book of Mormon, the word Jew is a generic word used to describe all Israelites.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(yeah, I'm still reading. I hit a rough spot in my life and I'm working mostly on that, so I'll be slow for a bit.)
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the Book of Mormon, the word Jew is a generic word used to describe all Israelites.
Actually, I would disagree with that as a definitive statement.
The Bible Dictionary, under "Jew" also states that, "The name indicated first of all a man of the kingdom of Judah, as distinguished from persons belonging to the northern kingdom of Israel. Its first chronological occurrence in the Bible is in 2 Kgs. 16: 6, about 740 B.C. It has become customary to use the word Jew to refer to all the descendants of Jacob, but this is a mistake. It would be limited to those of the kingdom of Judah or, more especially today, those of the tribe of Judah and his associates. Thus all Jews are Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews, because there are descendants of the other tribes of Israel also upon the earth."
It references 2 Nephi 33:8, which states, " I have charity for the Jew—I say Jew, because I mean them from whence I came." - the Nephites came from Jerusalem which, at that time, was the center of the Judaic kingdom. The divided Israelite nation had already been sacked and dispersed.
posted
hmm... I guess Taalcon is right, jews are a name refering only to the tribe of jhuda (although ofcourse now it refers to all the israelits). In the bible we are refered to as "the sons of Israel (another name for Jacob)" or hebrews. But for the discussion we can call Menashe and Ephriam "Jews" because the meaning is the same as the one today. The Etiupians (I'm sure I'm spelling this wrong) who are coming now to Israel are refered to as jews even though they are not from the tribe of jhuda. After the exile of Babylon the jhuda tribe was the only one really left standing (along with Levi and Benyamin which are considered to have become part of it) and all the rest scattered around or joined jhuda. So you're saying that Joseph's tribe went over to America? So wouldn't that make native americans jews also?
Posts: 34 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you're saying that Joseph's tribe went over to America? So wouldn't that make native americans jews also?
We say that some members of Joseph's tribe came over, and that some of the current day Native Americans probably have Isrealite Blood as part of their makeup. This does not preclude additional (and more genetically dominant) ancestors by any means.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are Mormons like myself who believe in the Book of Mormon but believe that people with Israelite ancestry were probably a very small percentage of the population.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It references 2 Nephi 33:8, which states, " I have charity for the Jew—I say Jew, because I mean them from whence I came." - the Nephites came from Jerusalem which, at that time, was the center of the Judaic kingdom. The divided Israelite nation had already been sacked and dispersed.
He refered to his family as Jews even though they were not of the tribe of Judah.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always thought that Jesus was born in order to erase the sin thing, not that he was around before. So that will mean there were at least 2 gods before the world was created. So I guess that mean that Chrsitianity isn't a monotheist religion like I thought it was. Also, why would Jesus need to come down to earth to experience how humans feel? If he is just like his father, shouldn't he be all-knowing? If we'll assume he is not a "full" god (all-knowing, all-present, all-powerful), you still said he created the world, and human beings included, so shouldn't he already know what pain and suffering and all that feel like since he created the sensory and psychological systems that cause and percieve them? Or maybe according to christianity and mormonism human beings where made perfect and Satan (in hebrew the word means "that who travels [in the land]") gave them suffering? So that will make us at least 3 gods in equal or almost equal strenghts!
Posts: 34 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To take Mormon beliefs and assume that it applies to the beliefs of Christians in general is a mistake.
The belief that both God the Father and God the Son are two separate beings does not make us a polytheistic religion. They are separate, but they are still "one". What precisely that means (and it means more than one thing) is far beyond the scope of this post. Christians in general do not agree about this either.
I know of no Christian religion, including LDS, that believes that Satan has power anywhere near that of God.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So I guess that mean that Chrsitianity isn't a monotheist religion like I thought it was.
Keep in mind this is the belief system behind the LDS Church (Mormon Church). There are Christian denominations that believe that Christ was an incarnation of God.
quote:Also, why would Jesus need to come down to earth to experience how humans feel? If he is just like his father, shouldn't he be all-knowing?
It's also important to remember that Christ is the Son of God. He doesn't have all the power of His (our) Father. Christ is seen more as an older brother than a fatherly figure.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a Doctrinal Exposition released by the First Presidency of the Church in the early twentieth Century that explains why the Father and Christ are both sometimes referred to with the title of "Father":
quote:THE FATHER AND THE SON A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and The Twelve
The scriptures plainly and repeatedly affirm that God is the Creator of the earth and the heavens and all things that in them are. In the sense so expressed the Creator is an Organizer. God created the earth as an organized sphere; but He certainly did not create, in the sense of bringing into primal existence, the ultimate elements of the materials of which the earth consists, for "the elements are eternal" (Doc. & Cov. 93:33).
So also life is eternal, and not created; but life, or the vital force, may be infused into organized matter, though the details of the process have not been revealed unto man. For illustrative instances see Genesis 2:7; Moses 3:7; and Abraham 5:7. Each of these scriptures states that God breathed into the body of man the breath of life. See further Moses 3:19, for the statement that God breathed the breath of life into the bodies of the beasts and birds. God showed unto Abraham "the intelligences that were organized before the world was"; and by "intelligences" we are to understand personal "spirits" (Abraham 3:22, 23); nevertheless, we are expressly told that "Intelligence" that is, "the light of truth was not created or made, neither indeed can be" (Doc. & Cov. 93:29).
The term "Father" as applied to Deity occurs in sacred writ with plainly different meanings. Each of the four significations specified in the following treatment should be carefully segregated.
1. "Father" as Literal Parent
Scriptures embodying the ordinary signification-literally that of Parent-are too numerous and specific to require citation. The purport of these scriptures is to the effect that God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title "Elohim," is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race. Elohim is the Father in every sense in which Jesus Christ is so designated, and distinctively He is the Father of spirits. Thus we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews: "Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence; shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?" (Hebrews 12:9). In view of this fact we are taught by Jesus Christ to pray: "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name."
Jesus Christ applies to Himself both titles, "Son" and "Father." Indeed, He specifically said to the brother of Jared: "Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son" (Ether 3:14). Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh, and which body died on the cross and was afterward taken up by the process of resurrection, and is now the immortalized tabernacle of the eternal spirit of our Lord and Savior. No extended explanation of the title "Son of God" as applied to Jesus Christ appears necessary.
2. "Father" as Creator
A second scriptural meaning of "Father" is that of Creator, e. g. in passages referring to any one of the Godhead as "The Father of the heavens and of the earth and all things that in them are" (Ether 4:7; see also Alma 11:38, 39 and Mosiah 15:4).
God is not the Father of the earth as one of the worlds in space, nor of the heavenly bodies in whole or in part, nor of the inanimate objects and the plants and the animals upon the earth, in the literal sense in which He is the Father of the spirits of mankind. Therefore, scriptures that refer to God in any way as the Father of the heavens and the earth are to be understood as signifying that God is the Maker, the Organizer, the Creator of the heavens and the earth.
With this meaning, as the context shows in every case, Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ the Son of Elohim, is called "the Father," and even "the very eternal Father of heaven and of earth" (see passages before cited, and also Mosiah 16:15). With analogous meaning Jesus Christ is called "The Everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6; compare 2 Nephi 19:6). The descriptive titles "Everlasting" and "Eternal" in the foregoing texts are synonymous.
That Jesus Christ, whom we also know as Jehovah, was the executive of the Father, Elohim, in the work of creation is set forth in the book "Jesus the Christ" Chapter 4. Jesus Christ, being the Creator, is consistently called the Father of heaven and earth in the sense explained above; and since His creations are of eternal quality He is very properly called the Eternal Father of heaven and earth.
3. Jesus Christ the "Father" of Those Who Abide in His Gospel
A third sense in which Jesus Christ is regarded as the "Father" has reference to the relationship between Him and those who accept His Gospel and thereby become heirs of eternal life. Following are a few of the scriptures illustrating this meaning.
In the fervent prayer offered just prior to His entrance into Gethsemane, Jesus Christ supplicated His Father in behalf of those whom the Father had given unto Him, specifically the apostles, and, more generally, all who would accept and abide in the Gospel through the ministry of the apostles. Read in our Lord's own words the solemn affirmation that those for whom He particularly prayed were His own, and that His Father had given them unto Him: "I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled" (John 17:6-12).
And further: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 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. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 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. 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" (John 17:20-24).
To His faithful servants in the present dispensation the Lord has said: "Fear not, little children; for you are mine, and I have overcome the world, and you are of them that my Father hath given me" (Doc. & Cov. 50:41).
Salvation is attainable only through compliance with the laws and ordinances of the Gospel; and all who are thus saved become sons and daughters unto God in a distinctive sense. In a revelation given through Joseph the Prophet to Emma Smith the Lord Jesus addressed the woman as "My daughter," and said: "for verily I say unto you, all those who receive my gospel are sons and daughters in my kingdom" (Doc. & Cov. 25:1). In many instances the Lord has addressed men as His sons (e. g. Doc. & Cov. 9:1; 34:3; 121:7).
That by obedience to the Gospel men may become sons of God, both as sons of Jesus Christ, and, through Him, as sons of His Father, is set forth in many revelations given in the current dispensation. Thus we read in an utterance of the Lord Jesus Christ to Hyrum Smith in 1829: "Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I am the life and the light of the world. I am the same who came unto my own and my own received me not; But verily, verily, I say unto you, that as many as receive me, to them will I give power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on my name. Amen." (Doc. & Cov. 11:28-30). To Orson Pratt the Lord spoke through Joseph the Seer, in 1830: "My son Orson, hearken and hear and behold what I, the Lord God, shall say unto you, even Jesus Christ your Redeemer; The light and the life of the world; a light which shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not; Who so loved the world that he gave his own life, that as many as would believe might come the sons of God: wherefore you are my son" (Doc. & Cov. 34:1-3). In 1830 the Lord thus addressed Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon: "Listen to the voice of the Lord your God, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, whose course is one eternal round, the same today as yesterday, and for ever. I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one" (Doc. & Cov. 35:1-2). Consider also the following given in 1831: "Hearken and listen to the voice of him who is from all eternity to all eternity, the Great I AM, even Jesus Christ, The light and the life of the world; a light which shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not: The same which came in the meridian of time unto my own, and my own received me not; But to as many as received me, gave I power to become my sons, and even so will I give unto as many as will receive me, power to become my sons" (Doc. & Cov. 39:1-4). In a revelation given through Joseph Smith in March, 1831 we read: "For verily I say unto you that I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the light and the life of the world-a light that shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not. I came unto my own, and my own received me not; but unto as many as received me, gave I power to do many miracles, and to become the sons of God, and even unto them that believed on my name gave I power to obtain eternal life" (Doc. & Cov. 45:7-8).
A forceful exposition of this relationship between Jesus Christ as the Father and those who comply with the requirements of the Gospel as His children was given by Abinadi, centuries before our Lord's birth in the flesh: "And now I say unto you. Who shall declare his generation? Behold, I say unto you, that when his soul has been made an offering for sin, he shall see his seed. And now what say ye? And who shall be his seed? Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord; I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins; I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God: For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed? Yea, and are not the prophets, every one that has opened his mouth to prophesy, that has not fallen into transgression; I mean all the holy prophets ever since the world began? I say unto you that they are his seed" (Mosiah 15:10-13).
In tragic contrast with the blessed state of those who become children of God through obedience to the Gospel of Jesus Christ is that of the unregenerate, who are specifically called the children of the devil. Note the words of Christ, while in the flesh, to certain wicked Jews who boasted of their Abrahamic lineage: "If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
Ye do the deeds of your father. If God were your Father, ye would love me. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do" (John 8:39, 41, 42, 44). Thus Satan is designated as the father of the wicked, though we cannot assume any personal relationship of parent and children as existing between him and them. A combined illustration showing that the righteous are the children of God and the wicked the children of the devil appears in the parable of the Tares: "The good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one" (Matt. 13:38).
Men may become children of Jesus Christ by being born anew-born of God, as the inspired word states: "He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother" (I John 3:8-10).
Those who have been born unto God through obedience to the Gospel may by valiant devotion to righteousness obtain exaltation and even reach the status of Godhood. Of such we read: "Wherefore, as it is written, they are Gods, even the sons of God" (Doc. & Cov. 76:58; compare 132:20, and contrast paragraph 17 in same section; see also paragraph 37). Yet, though they be Gods they are still subject to Jesus Christ as their Father in this exalted relationship; and so we read in the paragraph following the above quotation: "and they are Christ's and Christ is God's" (76:59).
By the new birth-that of water and the Spirit-mankind may become children of Jesus Christ, being through the means by Him provided "begotten sons and daughters unto God" (Doc. & Cov. 76:2). This solemn truth is further emphasized in the words of the Lord Jesus Christ given through Joseph Smith in 1833: "And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the firstborn; And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the firstborn" (Doc. & Cov. 93:21, 22). For such figurative use of the term "begotten" in application to those who are born unto God see Paul's explanation: "for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel" (I Cor. 4:15). An analogous instance of sonship attained by righteous service is found in the revelation relating to the order and functions of Priesthood, given in 1832: "For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two Priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies: They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God" (Doc. & Cov. 84:33, 34).
If it be proper to speak of those who accept and abide in the Gospel as Christ's sons and daughters-and upon this matter the scriptures are explicit and cannot be gainsaid nor denied-it-is consistently proper to speak of Jesus Christ as the Father of the righteous, they having become His children and He having been made their Father through the second birth-the baptismal regeneration.
4. Jesus Christ the "Father" By Divine Investiture of Authority
A fourth reason for applying the title "Father" to Jesus Christ is found in the fact that in all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which He was known as Jehovah; also during His embodiment in the flesh; and during His labors as a disembodied spirit in the realm of the dead; and since that period in His resurrected state. To the Jews He said: "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30; see also 17:11, 22); yet He declared "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28); and further, "I am come in my Father's name" (John 5:43; see also 10:25). The same truth was declared by Christ Himself to the Nephites (see 3 Nephi 20:35 and 28:10), and has been reaffirmed by revelation in the present dispensation (Doc. & Gov. 50:43). Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father's name; and so far as power, authority and Godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father.
We read, by way of analogy, that God placed His name upon or in the Angel who was assigned to special ministry unto the people of Israel during the exodus. Of that Angel the Lord said: "Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him" (Exodus 23:21).
The ancient apostle, John, was visited by an angel who ministered and spoke in the name of Jesus Christ. As we read: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John" (Revelation 1:1). John was about to worship the angelic being who spoke in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, but was forbidden: "And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which showed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God" (Rev. 22:8, 9). And then the angel continued to speak as though he were the Lord Himself: "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (verses 12, 13). The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ, who had been exalted to the right hand of God His Father, had placed His name upon the angel sent to John, and the angel spoke in the first person, saying "I come quickly," "I am Alpha and Omega," though he meant that Jesus Christ would come, and that Jesus Christ was Alpha and Omega.
None of these considerations, however, can change in the least degree the solemn fact of the literal relationship of Father and Son between Elohim and Jesus Christ. Among the spirit children of Elohim the firstborn was and is Jehovah or Jesus Christ to whom all others are juniors. Following are affirmative scriptures bearing upon this great truth. Paul, writing to the Colossians, says of Jesus Christ: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell" (Colossians 1:15-19). From this scripture we learn that Jesus Christ was "the firstborn of every creature" and it is evident that the seniority here expressed must be with respect to antemortal existence, for Christ was not the senior of all mortals in the flesh. He is further designated as "the firstborn from the dead" this having reference to Him as the first to be resurrected from the dead, or as elsewhere written "the first fruits of them that slept" (I Corinthians 15:20, see also verse 23); and "the first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5; compare Acts 26:23). The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews affirms the status of Jesus Christ as the firstborn of the spirit children of His Father, and extols the preeminence of the Christ when tabernacled in flesh: "And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him" (Hebrews 1:6; read the preceding verses). That the spirits who were juniors to Christ were predestined to be born in the image of their Elder Brother is thus attested by Paul: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:28, 29). John the Revelator was commanded to write to the head of the Laodicean church, as the words of the Lord Jesus Christ: "These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God" (Revelation 3:14). In the course of a revelation given through Joseph Smith in May, 1833, the Lord Jesus Christ said as before cited: "And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the firstborn" (Doc. & Cov. 93:21). A later verse makes plain the fact that human beings generally were similarly existent in spirit state prior to their embodiment in the flesh: "Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth" (verse 23).
There is no impropriety, therefore, in speaking of Jesus Christ as the Elder Brother of the rest of human kind. That He is by spiritual birth Brother to the rest of us is indicated in Hebrews: "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people" (Hebrews 2:17). Let it not be forgotten, however, that He is essentially greater than any and all others, by reason (1) of His seniority as the oldest or firstborn; (2) of His unique status in the flesh as the offspring of a mortal mother and of an immortal, or resurrected and glorified, Father; (3) of His selection and foreordination as the one and only Redeemer and Savior of the race; and (4) of His transcendent sinlessness.
Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons or daughters of Elohim. So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation. THE FIRST PRESIDENCY AND THE COUNCIL OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS.
posted
I understand that the chirstian devil isn't as powerful as god in the sense of overpowering him and his messangers (angels and such, don't know what the LDS position on that subject is), but he is equal to him in the power he has over the hearts of men, and even more powerful then god since I may only assume that most people go to hell (again if such a place exist according to LDS) then to heaven. It's still not a monotheist religion if god has a rival who compete with him over the souls of men and women. If god can't just destroy the devil by will then he is not all-powerful and the power in this universe is distributed among them both (even if it is 99.9% for the guy upstairs). I am also intrested in the LDS about the concept of predestination. I understand that protestents think that our place in hell or heaven is determined before our birth by sola gratia, how do you feel about it? that's propably the hardest point for me to realize in the christian non-catholic theology. If god is love and mercy how can he possibly put anyone in hell even for a minute (personally I find the concept of hell very childish and unreasonable), let alone before that person even did anything (in Calvenizm he even activly decide who goes where, rather then just save some people who were going to hell anyway).
Posts: 34 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Calvinism God certainly saves people who would otherwise be going to hell anyway, since one of the central tenets of Calvinism is that everyone deserves hell.
Edit: Or more accurately, no one deserves heaven.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If god can't just destroy the devil by will then he is not all-powerful and the power in this universe is distributed among them both (even if it is 99.9% for the guy upstairs).
The thing is, God is all about Free Will, or "Agency". There is no 'distribution' of power. The Devil is little more than a pissed off unembodied spirit who sort of commands a bunch of other pissed off unembodied spirits.
Satan is less powerful than humans who have been born on earth for the single reason that we have bodies and he doesn't.
Satan can only effect men as much as they let him. I have a feeling that he and his followers do a lot more 'presenting temptation' then actually supernaturally influencing people, although I believe this kind of communication can exist as well.
Comparing his power to that of God's is simply out of the question. Satan isn't, nor ever can achieve what God has.
quote:I am also intrested in the LDS about the concept of predestination. I understand that protestents think that our place in hell or heaven is determined before our birth by sola gratia, how do you feel about it? that's propably the hardest point for me to realize in the christian non-catholic theology. If god is love and mercy how can he possibly put anyone in hell even for a minute (personally I find the concept of hell very childish and unreasonable), let alone before that person even did anything (in Calvenizm he even activly decide who goes where, rather then just save some people who were going to hell anyway).
First, you need to understand the LDS view of the afterlife. In LDS Doctrine, the idea or concept of 'damnation' is very different than that in Traditional Christianity. The Final State of Man is not clear cut into just HEAVEN and HELL.
The LDS understanding of damnation is a halt in progression, and separation from the presence of Heavenly Father - not a burning lake of eternal fiery demonic torment.
The closest thing to an ETERNAL HELL is called, in LDS Theology, "Outer Darkness", and is where those go who had pure knowledge of the truth of the Gospel, and chose to rebel against it. Satan and his followers already have their ticket. But it takes a lot more than just 'being a bad person who doesn't believe in Jesus' to get there - basically, one has to CHOOSE to go there. To choose to rebel against God with a Pure knowledge of his existence - not just Faith.
And then, the Punishment still isn't literal 'eternal fiery torment', but rather complete, utter, and total separation from the Light of God.
Those who chose not to fully accept the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and obey the laws and ordiances, either in mortality or in the spirit world, even though they will not recieve the highest reward, and return to abide in the presence of Heavenly Father and become heirs to all that he has, they are still not damned to everlasting physical torture by fire.
1 Corinthians 15:40-42 speaks of differing degrees of glory in the Resurrection: "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead."
The majority of those on earth will recieve a 'lesser' degree of glory, than that comparable to the Sun. They will not live in the Presence of Heavenly Father, because by not being willing to fully abide by his 'celestial' law, they will not be able to abide his presence. Shame would be so deep, it would be worse than any sort of hell.
But still, even though these lesser degrees of Glory are still fantabulous beyond imagining, the knowledge of the higher glory (which also allows family units to remain sealed together), and the potential one could have achieved and chose not to obtain, is a sort of eternal frustration. One will not be able to progress, as those in the highest Degree of Glory will be able to. As I said - For us, damnation doesn't mean Eternal Fire, it means a halt of progression, and a bar of access to the Father.
While LDS do not believe in 'predestination', we do hold to 'foreordination', that states that because God knows us so well, he allows us to born into situations that he has a pretty good idea of how we'll react to. But we still can make choices that are against what God wills for us - we have our agency. God will not force anyone to follow the path that leads towards the Celestial Kingdom.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If god put us where we can handle ourselves best, wouldn't that mean that those who has it the hardest are the more advanced spiritually (not unlike the methodist notion of things)? And those who are born in a family of chrisitans where the teaching of christ are easy for them to accept are the weaker ones? You said that Satan's place in the outer darkness in assured already, but wouldn't that be a contrediction to the idea of the a god of love and forgivness? If he can't forgive Satan then he's just as resentful as the god in the old testement. And if Satan's place is already assured as is the place of us all, why wait? why isn't Jesus here and be done with it? Every second of waiting is another second more people turn away from religion (not in america though, on our very first lesson our professor read us some statistics about it, just in case we thought that the USA is fulled with atheists - 95% of the people in america believe in god, 85% believe in heaven, 73% in miracels, 71% in hell, 42% pray every day, 34% belive there is nothing wrong in the scripturs, 40% said they had contact with the dead. that will make america maybe the most religious country in the world). You said that the punishment for me (and most of the world for that matter) is to be away from god's light, but that's exactly Satan's punishment. So is it just a different of degree? And aren't we already NOW in that state since I don't feel god all around me right now (unless he comes in form of an heat wave). And who exactly deserves god's light? anyone who see jesus as his personal savior? or just mormons? About the family being together reference, what is family? my grandparents are family, and they belong to the family of their parents and so on, who decides when a new family starts? that will mean that each bloodline will be one unite, and ultimatly the entire human race is one family if you go back enough. Thankes for answering, this is indeed very intresting to me. Posts: 34 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If god put us where we can handle ourselves best, wouldn't that mean that those who has it the hardest are the more advanced spiritually (not unlike the methodist notion of things)? And those who are born in a family of chrisitans where the teaching of christ are easy for them to accept are the weaker ones?
I don't know that God is looking to give us an experience where we can "handle ourselves best;" rather, we are given an earthly life that will help us progress. The distinction is important, I think; God is not responsible for making us enjoy life.
Another important consideration on this topic is that Mormons believe that everyone who ever lived chose to come to earth. Mormons believe in a pre-existence, where all the souls who ever would be born into reality lived and communed with God as His spirit children. We knew (at least intellectually) we would face terror and misery and hardship in our mortal lives, and yet we chose to come to Earth anyway.
quote:You said that Satan's place in the outer darkness in assured already, but wouldn't that be a contrediction to the idea of the a god of love and forgivness? If he can't forgive Satan then he's just as resentful as the god in the old testement.
Mmm. . . I dunno. Brigham Young (the Prophet after Joseph Smith) supposedly said that Satan COULD repent, and that God would forgive. God, I think, can forgive anyone who seeks repentence.
In any case, I find it very interesting that you're thrusting the onus of the punishment back on God. Satan has made choices that put him out of God's reach (in Mormonism, Satan desires everyone to be utterly miserable, and he works to make it so); until he makes the right choices to make him capable of repentence, then God can do nothing for him.
quote:You said that the punishment for me (and most of the world for that matter) is to be away from god's light, but that's exactly Satan's punishment.
I didn't see where this was implied, much less said. In Mormonism, God doesn't make judgements on people who are ignorant or incapable of making the choice to follow his commandments. Only those who have the truth can be justly judged.
Mormons believe that those who were unable to hear the gospel in this life will be able to hear and accept it in the next. Only when everyone has had the chance to learn and accept with full free will can God make a just judgement. (That's my opinion anyway, and I think Mormonism meshes with it. )
quote:About the family being together reference, what is family? my grandparents are family, and they belong to the family of their parents and so on, who decides when a new family starts? that will mean that each bloodline will be one unite, and ultimatly the entire human race is one family if you go back enough.
Yeah, that's kind of the idea. Mormons believe in the uniting of the whole human family. Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am more confused about the lds God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit than I was when I opened this thread. I guess I rely on the Trinity concept more than I thought. But anyway, if the progression one achieves during life is so important, how do the little children who die young get to earn the chance to exist in the presence of God with the rest of their family?
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>how do the little children who die young get to earn the chance to exist in the presence of God with the rest of their family?
This is a tricky question to answer, Theaca. There are a lot of theories that speak to your question-- none of which, I'll point out, are of any comfort to grieving parents.
1) The child's pre-mortal spirit was progressed enough that a normal earth existence becomes unnecessary.
2) The parents will have the opportunity to raise the child at a later time (during the Millenium?).
What it boils down to, in my opinion, is that God will judge who has progressed and when they've progressed enough for whatever is coming in the next life.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If god put us where we can handle ourselves best, wouldn't that mean that those who has it the hardest are the more advanced spiritually (not unlike the methodist notion of things)?
How, exactly, is that like "the methodist notion of things"?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
From what I learned, when England was puritan, most of the poor people (mostly in the north) completly turned away from christ because the idea of calvanism is that either you're out or you're in and it has nothing to do with what you did or didn't do since you're good acts are only god working through you, so you can't get into heaven with god's own gift as your own. So how do you get in? by sola gratia, we don't know why god choose some people and it's not our place to ask, but we CAN see clues if we are chosen or not. one of them is success in our community and family but the most visiable sign is of economic success. So people would have worked harder in order to prove to themselves that they are a part of the invisable church (those who were chosen) and many kept diaries in which they wrote anything they did that day looking for clues that they are chosen. Since anyone who is a begger or an ignorant can't possibly be chosen by god to go to heaven they weren't allowed into church. A group of Oxford students (lead by George Whitefield) started the Methodist Club (they called themselves the holy club) and that notion was later formalized and spread by two brothers (Charles and Jhon Wesley). They wanted a church which is more about the heart (like catholocism) then of the mind (protestent) but still keep most of Luther ideas intact. What they did reject was Calvin idea of predestination, they thought that anyone can go to heaven if he works hard enough, the lower the job the better it is because it remind us of the suffering of Jesus. That's how christianity returend to lower-class England. One quote is that "Methodism became it's own slave-watcher (a bad translatin from my notebook in hebrew)". E.P. Thomphson said in his book "The making of the English working class" that this is a religion of workers that may die from hard work but with a smile on their face. So when I said that from what I was explained on this thread it sounds like Mormonism is related to Methodism, that's what I meant. If god gives anyone his place of birth and family according to our abilites to deal and flurish in a situation, then those who have a harder life must be stronger then those who has a nice life otherwise god wouldn't give them that exact life. So having it rough only means you are more spiritually advanced just like in Methodism if you work hard and on a bad job it means you have a better chance reaching heaven. I know it's not that much of a connection really, but anyway that's what I meant, hope it's clear now.
posted
Sorry, but your understanding of Methodism is way off base. To start off, George Whitfield was a Calvinist. It was his main point of disagreement with the Wesleys. Charles Wesley started the Holy Club, Whitfield was a member, and Charles asked his older brother John to be their “advisor.”
The emphasis on “heart” came from the Moravians, not the Catholics.
The idea that “they thought that anyone can go to heaven if he works hard enough,” was no where in early (or later) Methodist teaching. The part of Calvinism that Wesley rejected was limited atonement – the idea that Christ’s sacrifice was effective only for some people and not for others. Wesley supported UNlimited atonement and prevenient grace, but believed that grace could be rejected. (Calvinism teaches that grace is not rejectable – if you’re one of the chosen you’re saved and there’s nothing you can do to prevent it.)
Methodism ABSOLUTELY AND IN NO WAY teaches that material wealth is a sign of spiritual status – in fact one of John Wesley’s biggest worries was that the Methodists would become too wealthy and loose their focus on the poor.
Having a bad job does NOT mean that you’re “advanced” in Methodism.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say that Whitfield was a Methodist in the sense they were later refered to, he was a Calvanist but a memeber of the methodist club in Oxford. The Wesley brothers went to Oxford too, I have no idea if they were apart of the holy club but since it only make sense that they were, I'll have to go with you on that one. I didn't say that Methodism said that wealth made you more likely to go to heaven. I said that accoring the Calvanism in it's english form, being good at your job was a sign you were going to hevean (meant to go there before your birth), not the main sign but just one that is easy to keep track of (to my understanding being a good parent was more important). One example for this claim is Max Webber "the protestent ethos and the spirit of capitalism". I must admit I have no idea who the Moravians are. I was taught that Catholocism is refered to as "the religion of the heart" becaus of it's custom of great halls, music, pictures of saints and complex rituals that all speak to the heart of the man and strngthen his faith through those emotion elements. I didn't mean necasseraly that having a bad job is a sign of spiritual advancment, only that unlike Calvenism it doesn't mean you are unadvanced spiritualy. From my understanding (and as I said before) having a hard life is a kind of atonement. My test is on thursday so I hope I will run on some article that will sharpen that point for me, anyway thankes for keeping me focused.
Another question - it was not in course plan but I am still intrested in a few chrisitan branches we didn't learn about. can anyone explain a little about the apescopilian and presbaterian and orthodox (eastern) churches? I would really like knowing the difference between all the different churches and those are the last I hear about and still don't know what they're all about.
Posts: 34 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You still seem to be conflating Calvinism and Methodism.
Presbyterians are Reformed (Calvinist).
Episcopalians are the US branch of the Anglican church. Theologically they can be either Catholic or Protestant, their unity comes from a common prayer/worship.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I am still confused I would love you clearing things out to me, since it's actually helpful for my test on thursday.
The thing you said about the episcopilian is very odd indeed. there's a huge difference between believing for example that it's up to our actions wether we'll go to heaven or hell or it's all decided upon already. the existance of progatorium is also very important otherwise the entire custom of praying for the dead's souls has no point, how can they possibly belong to the same church? It's very intresting from the historical point of view.
Posts: 34 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Anglican Church (Church of England) was formed at a time when people were fighting wars over whether to be Protestant or Catholic. England went back and forth, depending on who was King or Queen at the time. Finally Queen Elizabeth I said enough with this – it’s okay to believe either, as long as we can still pray and worship together. So the Anglican communion has a very organized and uniform worship service, and great diversity of belief.
I know Anglicans who consider themselves Catholic, and Anglicans who consider themselves Protestant. They’re still part of the same denomination, and it seems to work for them.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I said that accoring the Calvanism in it's english form, being good at your job was a sign you were going to hevean (meant to go there before your birth), not the main sign but just one that is easy to keep track of (to my understanding being a good parent was more important).
Is Webber the only source you have for this belief? I've never heard about the "wealth=evidence of grace" thing before, and I can definitely say without doubt that the reformed churches don't teach that doctrine today.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I learned that from my professor who is a world expert on chrisitanity, has many many connections in the christian (especially catholic and anglican) world and is the head of the department of history in my university (Tel-Aviv university), but since I thought that won't really impress anybody I brought Webber's quote who is a famous and respected writer and thinker and I just happened to read that specific article. I'm sure there are many others historians who will claim this (since there are many evidence), but Webber is the only one I wrote down since we had to read his article.
to dkw: I learned a great deal about the Anglican church but I understood it was simply a catholic church where the king is it's head and not the pope, thankes for clearing that out. I understand the importance of it in England, but why carry it over to America? why not just become catholic/protestant there? and if it's all about connection to the "old country" why don't they still name it the anglican church?
Posts: 34 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are part of what’s called the Anglican Communion. Historically, they were a part of the Church of England until the American Revolution. At which time they split off as a separate branch, since the CofE was a state institution as well as a religious one.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't 'Jew' and 'Jewish' originally meant to refer to those of the kingdom of Judah, and not just 'Israelites'?
You are correct; the reason it became the name of the religion is because the Israelites disappeared.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But anyway, if the progression one achieves during life is so important, how do the little children who die young get to earn the chance to exist in the presence of God with the rest of their family?
Let's once again turn to President Joseph Fielding Smith's answer to this question:
quote:Question: "When an infant dies, will it be exalted into the celestial kingdom? Some members of the class expressed the thought that because children die before reaching the age of accountability they will be exalted into the celestial kingdom the same as those who live and endure to the end upon the earth. Others feel that those infants who die before eight years of age will still have to be tried and tempted at some time after the resurrection just as adults are here and that they will have to earn their place in the celestial kingdom after enduring such trials. Will you give us some help on the question?"
Answer: From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith until now, articles have been published repeatedly answering the question in relation to the salvation and exaltation of little children. It would be well if we could get some questions settled once and for all time so that they will not have to be repeated. It would be well if members of the Church would do more studying of the fundamental principles of the gospel as the Lord has commanded us to do.
Little children who die before the age of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom. The Prophet Joseph Smith received this knowledge by vision in the Kirtland Temple, January 21, 1836. On that occasion it was shown that ". . . all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven." (D.H.C., Vol. 2, p. 381.) Serious thinking would tell us that if these children are saved, they are not subject to a later trial by the temptation and buffeting of Satan. The Savior taught his disciples when in their presence this doctrine as plainly as words can tell.(Matthew 18:6-10; 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16.) Revelations given in our day also show that little children who are deprived of the experiences in mortal life are, by eternal decree, redeemed from the temptation of Satan.(D. & C. 29:46-48; Mosiah 15:24-25; Moroni 8:10-24.) Such revelations are perfectly clear and should be beyond dispute.
OUR ETERNAL FATHER IS JUST
Our Eternal Father is just, as well as merciful. It would be an injustice to little children who die in early life to deprive them of the opportunity to obtain all the blessings that are promised to adults who are faithful and true in this life. A doctrine which would deprive little children of such blessings borders on the corrupt teaching which has persisted almost since the passing of the ancient apostles and which is one of the outstanding notions which points so clearly to the apostasy in primitive days.
<snip>
SPIRITS ARE FULL-GROWN BEFORE MORTAL BIRTH
The spirits of our children are immortal before they come to us, and their spirits, after bodily death, are like they were before they came. They are as they would appear if they had lived in the flesh, to grow to maturity, or to develop their physical bodies to the full stature of their spirits. If you see one of your children that has passed away it may appear to you in the form in which you would recognize it, the form of childhood; but if it came to you as a messenger bearing some important truth, it would perhaps come as the spirit of Bishop Edward Hunter's son (who died when a little child) came to him, in the stature of full-grown manhood, and revealed himself to his father, and said: "I am your son."
Bishop Hunter did not understand it. He went to my father and said: "Hyrum, what does that mean? I buried my son when he was only a little boy, but he has come to me as a full grown man, a noble, glorious, young man, and declared himself my son. What does it mean?"
Father ( Hyrum Smith, the Patriarch ) told him that the Spirit of Jesus Christ was full-grown before he was born into the world; and so your children were full-grown and possessed their full stature in the spirit, before they entered mortality, the same stature that they will possess after they have passed away from mortality, and as they will also appear after the resurrection, when they shall have completed their mission.
Joseph Smith taught the doctrine that the infant child that was laid away in death would come up in the resurrection as a child; and, pointing to the mother of a lifeless child, he said to her, "You will have the joy, the pleasure, and satisfaction of nurturing this child, after its resurrection, until it reaches the full stature of its spirit." There is restitution, there is growth, there is development, after the resurrection from death. I love this truth. It speaks volumes of happiness, of joy and gratitude to my soul. Thank the Lord he has revealed these principles to us.(Gospel Doctrine, pp. 452-56.)
quote:there's a huge difference between believing for example that it's up to our actions wether we'll go to heaven or hell or it's all decided upon already.
It should be noted that neither side of this distinction (assuming you meant it as a Catholic/Protestant distinction) as you've described it is terribly complete or accurate.
quote:the idea of calvanism is that either you're out or you're in and it has nothing to do with what you did or didn't do since you're good acts are only god working through you, so you can't get into heaven with god's own gift as your own. So how do you get in? by sola gratia, we don't know why god choose some people and it's not our place to ask, but we CAN see clues if we are chosen or not. one of them is success in our community and family but the most visiable sign is of economic success.
Is most assuredly not what Calvinsim teaches.
I read the paper you cited, found it in its entirety here:
quote:The question, Am I one of the elect? must sooner or later have arisen for every believer and have forced all other interests into the background. And how can I be sure of this state of grace? 38 For Calvin himself this was not a problem. He felt himself to be a chosen agent of the Lord, and was certain of his own salvation. Accordingly, to the question of how the individual can be certain of his own election, he has at bottom only the answer that we should be content with the knowledge that God has chosen and depend further only on that implicit trust in Christ which is the result of true faith. He rejects in principle the assumption that one can learn from the conduct of others whether they are chosen or damned. It is an unjustifiable attempt to force God's secrets. The elect differ externally in this life in no way from the damned.
So according to John Calvin, you can't tell who is of the elect and who is of the reprobate, and he certainly doesn't say economic success is an indicator. I realize that in that paper he talks about how different faiths sharing some beliefs in common with Calvinism adopted this economic success indicator, but I do not call that Calvinism, nor am I convinced he has proven the claims he makes in that paper.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mormons believe in God the Father of our Spirits. He gave "birth" to us before we gained a physical body. He is the supreme center of our worship. (As a side note, this presents the idea that there is a Mother of our Spirits).
Eventually we spirits had to progress beyond where we were as spirits. The only way to do that was by coming to mortality and gaining both experience and a body. However, it wasn't simply as easy as coming, experiencing, and going back. There were some serious consiquences to living as mortals. The first and foremost was the natural consiquences of sin and death. The consiquences themselves rendered us mortals unworthy of the prescense of God the Father who is Perfect. There had to be a Savior that helped us overcome those problems, and somehow reconnect with God the Father.
A plan was made where our oldest brother, Jesus, would come to Earth as a Savior and Advocate with the Father. He acted as the Liason between us Mortals and the Father. We worship the Father through Him.
Yet, there was one spirit, Satan, who had a different idea. He also had about as much clout (for whatever reason) as Jesus. His plan was similar to God and Jesus' ideas, exept for one fundimental difference. He believed that ALL people should be saved EQUALLy. It sounded nice, but there were serious problems. First, mortals had to give up ALL free agency. Essentially they would become eternal servants. Second, God would have to give up His place and give ALL acknowledgements to Satan. His idea was rejected, so Satan rebelled along with one third of the Spirits. They were kicked out of Heaven after a battle of some sort.
Jesus was given power to act under the Authority of God the Father. This included Creation, Salvation, and deliverance of Law. As such, He would do those things under the direction and acknowledgement of God the Father.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jesus eventually had to become Christ in order to help us mortals overcome sin and death. Sin through repentance and death through resurrection. Because he was technically a Spirit without a body, he had to come to Earth in order to gain a body. However, because he was the Son of God the Eternal and son of Mary the mortal he could live and die by his own will. As a personality he was able to be tempted, but chose not to ever sin. He was the only Perfect man with direct divine attributes. He is the Father because of the Spirit and the Son because of the flesh. At any rate . . .
There was still one individual of the Godhead we don't know much about, but is equally important. That would be the Holy Ghost. Where God the Father is the focus of our Worship, Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, the Holy Ghost is our Witness and Testator. It is the Holy Ghost that testifies of Truth and Witnesses of the other Two members of the Godhead.
Because they act so nearly the same in purpose and intention, they are considered One God. To speak of any member of the Godhead is to speak of them All. When we Speak of God the Father, it is only through Jesus Christ that we mortals can approach Him. When we speak of Jesus Christ, it is only as an Advocate and Administrator of the Father. When we speak of the Holy Ghost, it is only as a Witness to the other Two. As such the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are One God.
I have to add for this subject's sake, Margaret Barker has become one of my favorite Biblical acedemics.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It shouldn't matter why you approach each of the trinity, if you believe they are seperate in conciousness they are 3 different beings and not one god.
About the tale of Satan, that sounds a lot like mythology. if god is all powerful how can there be a battle? that will imply a chance that the other side will win. I didn't get the difference between Satan's plan and god's. Wouldn't it be better if everyone will eventually be saved? Isn't that more like the god of love the new testement talks about? Having someone in a lesser hevean then others just because he chose to believe something alse sounds crule and unfair. Especially when you consider that this life is only 100 years tops and the next life is eternity.
Posts: 34 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>Wouldn't it be better if everyone will eventually be saved?
Sure. It'd be wonderful if everyone chose to follow God's commandments. In Mormonsism, God doesn't want us to just be obedient-- He wants us to learn and progress.
Salvation, in Mormonism, requires understanding and intent. This isn't to say there aren't some commandments we obey on faith, without knowing the exact why of them-- there are. When we obey God's commandments, no matter what they are, and do so with a willing, sincere heart, God is obliged to give us peace of heart-- this is our proof that we are doing what is correct. This is how our faith is constructed.
>>Isn't that more like the god of love the new testement talks about?
No. I understand that some people may believe this way, but it runs contrary to my understanding of our Heavenly Father.
>>Having someone in a lesser hevean then others just because he chose to believe something alse sounds crule and unfair. Especially when you consider that this life is only 100 years tops and the next life is eternity.
Think about what you're saying here, Erez-- the person CHOSE to believe 'something else.' Did they chose out of ignorance? Were they presented the truth yet turned away?
God is just-- everyone will be given the opportunity to see the truth and accept it or reject it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: if god is all powerful how can there be a battle?
I don't think God the Father himself was involved in the fighting - I think a subsection of his Children that rebelled were fighting the others in order to forcefully 'change the mind' of those who were going along with the Father's plan.
Agency is an eternal principal.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> if god is all powerful how can there be a battle? that will imply a chance that the other side will win.
There was a war in Heaven because God had already given the pre-mortal spirits the capacity to choose and think and make decisions on their own. In Mormonism, the 'war' wasn't a battle with armies; it was more like a passionate debate between supporters of opposing philosophies.
The Mormon God is not omnipotent in the sense that He can do anything that the mind can imagine.
>>I didn't get the difference between Satan's plan and god's.
God's plan included a provision for the spirits he created to learn and progress, knowing that as they progressed they would sin. So he provided a Savior, Jesus Christ, to make it possible to remove sin, but keep the wisdom that mortality would teach.
Lucifer's plan removed man's agency, blocking spirits' capacity to learn and also preventing them from sin. Everyone would return to heaven, but unprogressed.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
