I wasn't suggesting you had issues with how God feels about you at all. Nor was I telling you how think/feel.
My personal opinion on the being a part of the body is being connected to a specific church, or in your case, a ward. That's where the most important connection is, at least in my humble opinion. I've never put much stock in the approval of the larger "christian" community.
I'm not trying to tell you how to feel, I'm just asking why it matters to you, not suggesting that it shouldn't. Not making an assumption, just asking a question.
Not all of us "christians" try to exclude everyone.
Please don't see my post as an attack in any way, it was not intended to be hostile.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: *nods* As I mentioned a few times earlier in the thread, Evangelicals are the only ones who are super into telling people they are or aren't Christians. The poll I posted earlier said they were (unsurprisingly) the most likely to say Mormons are not Christian at 49% saying no. Most other groups seem to be pretty cool with "we define our religion this way, but if you call yourself a Christian then I'll call you one too."
I thought there was a chance I'd missed it. Admittedly, I skimmed page 2 because I was away from the Internet most of the time it was being written.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should note that, if you're using the LDS definition of exaltation, non-Mormon Christians do not believe Jesus is "exalted" in that sense either.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I should note that, if you're using the LDS definition of exaltation, non-Mormon Christians do not believe Jesus is "exalted" in that sense either.
They don't believe Jesus is God?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then why are you saying Jesus is not exalted in the sense of being God? If it clarifies anything, Jesus did not become God after his mortal ministry. He was already God come down to Earth.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean, my post was pretty clear. But if you really don't understand what I said, maybe it would be more productive to say "hey Dogbreath, I'm not sure I understand this, can you explain what you mean?" rather than putting words I didn't say in my mouth and then asking why I said them. You've been doing an awful lot of that in this thread, which is especially bizarre since, you know, my posts are right there. If you forgot or misread my posts, you can always just go and reread them.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I would not use exalted in the way the link described it to describe Jesus either. Exaltation seems to be something that one can achieve. For mainstream Christian, Jesus didn't achieve God-ness; Jesus is God. One in being with the Father.
I don't know if that is what Dogbreath had in mind but it struck me.
I think that, what it usually comes down to, is that our ideas of what God is are quite different which makes using terms specific to one doctrine not always helpful.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I mean, my post was pretty clear. But if you really don't understand what I said, maybe it would be more productive to say "hey Dogbreath, I'm not sure I understand this, can you explain what you mean?" rather than putting words I didn't say in my mouth and then asking why I said them. You've been doing an awful lot of that in this thread, which is especially bizarre since, you know, my posts are right there. If you forgot or misread my posts, you can always just go and reread them.
I'm sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, I'm trying to get at what you are trying to say. Also you joined a response I made to Jake's post. If you are going to say I'm wrong, perhaps do me the courtesy of explaining it instead of saying I'm wrong. I'll refrain from throwing darts and ask you to explain things.
Did we cover this ground about exaltation before? I didn't think one of your earlier posts mentioned it precisely.
Kate:
quote:BB, I would not use exalted in the way the link described it to describe Jesus either. Exaltation seems to be something that one can achieve. For mainstream Christian, Jesus didn't achieve God-ness; Jesus is God. One in being with the Father.
Why does the mechanism matter? I'm talking about exaltation as a state of being God. It's like saying "This is an automobile, it was assembled in a plant", and the response being, "Not this one, it was never created, but has always been an automobile."
OK, but we can safely call them both automobiles, right?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really. I mean, yes about the cars but the analogy doesn't work. Again, what you and I mean by "god" is so very different. There is only one God. Jesus is not one of many gods or potential gods. God is unique.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I'm sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, I'm trying to get at what you are trying to say. Also you joined a response I made to Jake's post. If you are going to say I'm wrong, perhaps do me the courtesy of explaining it instead of saying I'm wrong. I'll refrain from throwing darts and ask you to explain things.
Did we cover this ground about exaltation before? I didn't think one of your earlier posts mentioned it precisely.
Dude, you responded to the post that mentioned it precisely:
quote:I should note that, if you're using the LDS definition of exaltation, non-Mormon Christians do not believe Jesus is "exalted" in that sense either.
There's no need to "get at what I'm trying to say" - what I'm trying to say is literally what I wrote. There's no hidden message, and there's certainly no need to get pissy about someone explaining something to you. Especially after you specifically said your goal in this conversation was to learn. It should be patently obvious after several pages of conversation on the topic that I'm not saying "most Christians do not believe Jesus is God", so I'm struggling to see your interpretation of my post that way as anything but antagonistic. If there's something about my explanation that doesn't make sense, or something you want further clarification on, then please just show me the respect of asking me.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dogbreath: I'm very confused right now. You asserted that exaltation as you understand it is not how Christians would describe Christ. I'm trying to determine *from you* what you feel is fundamentally different about Jesus being God and the state of being a deity ala "exaltation".
Yes I asked you in effect, "Do not Christians believe Jesus is God?" Because Mormons also believe that thing.
Please listen to me when I say this. I'm *not* being pissy, I'm not angry. I'm trying to understand why it's different. So far you are saying it's different and I'm failing to understand why. If I'm coming across as hostile, I'm sorry. I'm affirming right now, I'm absolutely not. I'm sorry that my frustrations earlier in this conversation have set this sort of tone for the conversation now. Please consider forgiving me, and letting me try to do this conversation differently with you.
-------------
Kate:
quote:Not really. I mean, yes about the cars but the analogy doesn't work. Again, what you and I mean by "god" is so very different. There is only one God. Jesus is not one of many gods or potential gods. God is unique.
OK. Would you be willing to describe for me what you think are attributes of God that differ from what I might think? Ignoring the existence of other cars so to speak.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Then why are you saying Jesus is not exalted in the sense of being God? If it clarifies anything, Jesus did not become God after his mortal ministry. He was already God come down to Earth.
The concept of exaltation you are referring to does not seem to apply outside of LDS theology.
This is an example of what I was mentioning earlier. You are trying to understand others' beliefs but you aren't setting aside your own framework in order to understand another one, and it's causing confusion.
Within the LDS framework, saying that Jesus isn't exalted is like saying he's not like God.
But outside of the framework you are using, other people believe that Jesus is God, there's no state of exaltation that means being like God, and it makes no sense to use the word exalted as a synonym for being like God.
"Non-Mormons don't think Jesus was exalted" is analogous to "Mormons don't think Jesus was born from the mouth of the turtle that carries the earth". And the response analogous to "So they don't think Jesus is exalted in the sense of being God?" is "So they don't think Jesus existed?"
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Then why are you saying Jesus is not exalted in the sense of being God? If it clarifies anything, Jesus did not become God after his mortal ministry. He was already God come down to Earth.
The concept of exaltation you are referring to does not seem to apply outside of LDS theology.
This is an example of what I was mentioning earlier. You are trying to understand others' beliefs but you aren't setting aside your own framework in order to understand another one, and it's causing confusion.
Within the LDS framework, saying that Jesus isn't exalted is like saying he's not like God.
It's also like saying, "Jesus isn't God." to a Mormon.
Look, my original assertion that Jake responded to was that Jesus has no exalted status amongst Muslims. I'm already aware he is revered as a prophet and moral teacher by Muslims, so in that sense he is exalted meaning highly honored and revered. I was only pointing out (And agreed it was a poor choice of words) that when I used exalted I mean being a deity. Muslims absolutely reject Christ's claim to be the son of God or God.
Is that a fair statement to make?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I'm not going to try to describe God to you or try to guess what you think. If you want to try to describe God, I will try to point out where your concept of God differs from mine.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BB, I'm not going to try to describe God to you or try to guess what you think. If you want to try to describe God, I will try to point out where your concept of God differs from mine.
Ok. Will try later. Thanks.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Dogbreath: I'm very confused right now. You asserted that exaltation as you understand it is not how Christians would describe Christ. I'm trying to determine *from you* what you feel is fundamentally different about Jesus being God and the state of being a deity ala "exaltation".
I asserted that most non-Mormon Christians would not describe Christ using the LDS definition of exaltation, yes. If you wanted to know the difference, you could have saved yourself a whole lot of trouble by just asking "what do you think the difference is?" or something.
That being said, there are a few important differences (I'm basing my definition of exaltation from the earlier link. If you feel that it's misrepresenting the concept, please let me know and I'll adjust accordingly):
1) "To Latter-day Saints, exaltation is a state that a person can attain in becoming like God." Most Christians would say Jesus did not "become like", merely that he is. It's an inherent attribute, not something that he attained. The belief that one can become like God in particular is considered heretical by many Christian sects - the Baptist Church I grew up in, for example, saw it as being the primal and greatest sin. The belief that Jesus attained Godhood rather than being God is also considered heretical. I'm not saying you're wrong to believe it, mind you, just wrong to assume its something LDS have in common with, say, Catholics or Baptists.
2) "This exalted status, called eternal life, is available to be received by a man and wife. It means not only living in God's presence, but receiving power to do as God does, including the power to bear children after the resurrection." Most Christians either do not believe Jesus was married, or, if he was, that his marriage to a woman is not an essential part of him being God. Also, they believe Jesus is the only begotten son of the father, and do not teach that Jesus has children or that his having children is an important part of his being God.
quote:Please listen to me when I say this. I'm *not* being pissy, I'm not angry. I'm trying to understand why it's different. So far you are saying it's different and I'm failing to understand why. If I'm coming across as hostile, I'm sorry. I'm affirming right now, I'm absolutely not. I'm sorry that my frustrations earlier in this conversation have set this sort of tone for the conversation now. Please consider forgiving me, and letting me try to do this conversation differently with you.
OK, that's fine. And I'd forgive you, except there's nothing I really think needs forgiving. I would say that, for me at least, if I say something that you don't understand and your goal is to understand it, you're much more likely to get an explanation if you just say "I don't understand what you mean by xyz" or "could you please explain what you think the difference is?" rather than testing out possible explanations one at a time, 20 questions style. I realize customs and communications style differ depending on culture, but if I were in a meeting with coworkers, for example, and one of them said something that I couldn't quite understand, it would be pretty rude and condescending of me to throw Socratic questions their way or say "so you're saying this, then" instead of just saying "hey Jim, sorry, I'm not sure if I'm understanding you. Could you elaborate further on xyz?" Of course, that may not be your experience.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:"To Latter-day Saints, exaltation is a state that a person can attain in becoming like God." Most Christians would say Jesus did not "become like", merely that he is. It's an inherent attribute, not something that he attained. The belief that one can become like God in particular is considered heretical by many Christian sects - the Baptist Church I grew up in, for example, saw it as being the primal and greatest sin. The belief that Jesus attained Godhood rather than being God is also considered heretical. I'm not saying you're wrong to believe it, mind you, just wrong to assume its something LDS have in common with, say, Catholics or Baptists.
It's not quite as different as you might suppose. For one thing, Mormons don't believe Jesus became like God, though some might infer that. Jesus is described as being with God from the beginning, and his ante-mortal Godship is absolutely affirmed by Mormons. We believe that the God described in the Old Testament is Jesus Christ/Jehovah. He created the Earth, and everything in it. He appeared to the prophets described in the OT, and revealed his law. That in the New Testament he is God come down among men.
Mormonism has no set opinion as to whether Christ was a deity from the beginning or if he became a God at some point in the pre-existence. But his path is certainly different from the rest of us.
quote:2) "This exalted status, called eternal life, is available to be received by a man and wife. It means not only living in God's presence, but receiving power to do as God does, including the power to bear children after the resurrection." Most Christians either do not believe Jesus was married, or, if he was, that his marriage to a woman is not an essential part of him being God. Also, they believe Jesus is the only begotten son of the father, and do not teach that Jesus has children or that his having children is an important part of his being God.
Exaltation as a process and as Mormons understand it, doesn't apply to Jesus. He was God before he was born, and presumably he wasn't married then. Mormons don't have any clue as to whether he was married or had children in mortality. But if he wasn't married, it would not affect our belief that he is God.
How Christ was God having not yet been born or having done many of the things we feel are necessary to become like God is something of which Mormonism has not yet figured out.
quote:OK, that's fine. And I'd forgive you, except there's nothing I really think needs forgiving. [Smile] I would say that, for me at least, if I say something that you don't understand and your goal is to understand it, you're much more likely to get an explanation if you just say "I don't understand what you mean by xyz" or "could you please explain what you think the difference is?" rather than testing out possible explanations one at a time, 20 questions style. I realize customs and communications style differ depending on culture, but if I were in a meeting with coworkers, for example, and one of them said something that I couldn't quite understand, it would be pretty rude and condescending of me to throw Socratic questions their way or say "so you're saying this, then" instead of just saying "hey Jim, sorry, I'm not sure if I'm understanding you. Could you elaborate further on xyz?" Of course, that may not be your experience.
I think communication styles are definitely at play here. I don't ask Socratic questions, or 20 questions. I *do* frequently ask "Are you saying this?" Because I (And I think most people are this way) are challenged to comprehend what others mean when they say something. My asking "Did you mean this." is me bouncing back what I comprehended as a way to get your OK or correction before proceeding because otherwise I start speaking to the wrong understanding and it makes the conversation worse. I totally get that it frequently comes across as condescending and when I've really misunderstood a person, even offensive.
But I also can't just say I don't understand over and over because people don't want to expound on everything, so I state what I took away from that, in the hopes the person can give me the A-OK or "No, this is what I'm saying."
In our conversation I can see how my question to you about Jesus being God was poorly worded. Obviously Christians believe Jesus is God. I could have asked you to explain rather than what I said.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: It's not quite as different as you might suppose.
I think you're missing the fundamental difference by focusing on the mechanics. I appreciate you explaining that Mormons believe Jesus achieved Exaltation through a different process than humans do, and also that the specific process is a mystery (in the sense that you all aren't sure how he did so/it hasn't been revealed), but the details of how he did so, or even when he did so, aren't as important as the idea that he was exalted at all. It's an entirely different concept of the nature of God than the Trinitarian view.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you're missing the fundamental difference by focusing on the mechanics. I appreciate you explaining that Mormons believe Jesus achieved Exaltation through a different process than humans do, and also that the specific process is a mystery (in the sense that you all aren't sure how he did so/it hasn't been revealed), but the details of how he did so, or even when he did so, aren't as important as the idea that he was exalted at all. It's an entirely different concept of the nature of God than the Trinitarian view.
Whereas I'm trying *not* to focus on the mechanics and just look at the qualities of the end state. Hence my use of the cars analogy. How do you feel the Christian view of God is different from the Mormon concept of deity?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the fundamental difference I keep mentioning is that for most Christians, one does not become God (or a god), God simply is. I apologize if that isn't a satisfactory answer, and I realize from your perspective the difference may be trivial, but for Christians who are not Mormons, that difference is absolutely essential and lies at the very core of their beliefs.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
To start with, and probably the most significant is that there is one God. Only one. God is eternal, infinite, ever-present in all of creation (not existing in one specific location) and One. God created everything both matter and non-matter and God created everything out of nothing. There was nothing before God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* Mainstream Christianity usually doesn't tolerate the idea that God could have become God because the very nature of God is changeless. He wasn't created and He doesn't progress. He is the "I Am." He isn't limited by time and causality; those things exist in this material universe he created for us. Changing, attaining, transitioning...those are things that created beings do. We cannot become like God, at least not in terms of power or knowledge. And those who tried (Lucifer, Adam, Eve) were punished for it.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Help me understand how something becoming something has an impact on its current state vs something that was always so. These statement seem to be saying,
posted
PSI Teleport just explained why in a lot of detail in the post above yours, I really recommend re-reading her post. Specifically, mainstream Christians don't believe God has a "current state". That very idea goes against their fundamental beliefs about the unchanging and timeless nature of God.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. One God; three persons. Co-equal, co-eternal, consubstantial (of the same being). Not three parts of one god. Not three phases of one God. Definitely not three gods.
As Daniel Webster once noted - when faced with exactly that argument - we, "do not pretend to fully understand the arithmetic of heaven."
Something becoming something has an impact on its current state if a key attribute of its current state is that is is eternal. God is eternal. God was never not God so it is wrong to say that God became God.
posted
What is Christian understanding then for Christ being both God and man, and yet being described in the scriptures as growing in wisdom and stature. Is that too a function of his being born and existing in this world?
What is Christ in terms of being God, in a human body, but...not?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I might veer a little here from mainstream Christianity in the way I think of this. At least, I don't feel comfortable speaking for anyone else. But I have a clear awareness of my brain being flesh, and the thoughts I have as existing because of flesh. I say this because I apply this to my understanding of Jesus as He "grew in wisdom and stature." Growing in wisdom (the mind) and stature (the body) are functions of the flesh He was wearing and don't really have anything to do with the Spirit that inhabited it. This is probably unorthodox because most people believe their thoughts come at least in part from their spirits and I don't.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would agree that growing - in body and mind - is part of being incarnate and were part of that experience for Jesus just as being born and dying were.
posted
Help me understand the Christian perspective then on God never changing but still being able to become a man and grow as we all do.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
ETA: The following post was written in response to your question before you edited.
Yes. It's not a contradiction. The simplest, and maybe least useful, explanation is that God is omnipotent and we're not. But more specifically God is eternal but He can choose to function as material in the universe He created because He has the power to do whatever He wants. I was created. I have a definite beginning point. (I believe that Mormonism differs here?) I cannot through any amount of effort attain an eternal, omnipotent personhood.
Basically, Blackblade, I can write myself into my own story. But my characters can't jump off the page and start writing stories of their own.
In response to the edited post:
Re: God growing; I don't think most mainstream Christians believe that what happened to Jesus's body while He lived on earth had any impact on His eternal person.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps. There aren't a lot of Jesus as a child stories in the Bible before age 12 when He talked with the elders. Maybe He wasn't, with a baby brain, able to articulate that? It isn't like He was a magic baby; He was a real human child. How much could a real, human child know and express?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
God chose to interface with us through a limited human experience. That didn't mean He lost all access to His real power.
It's like if I chose to Skype with you even though you were sitting in my living room. I can't reach out and touch you because I'm obeying the limitations I've placed on myself. But if I wanted to "break the rules," then yes, I could.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
So reading this, I had a question. It says that Christ's humanity is now a permanent part of being God. And that he exists as a glorified man, but also God.
I was under the impression that Christians view God as not having a body?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
God in the person of the Creator (Father) does not. Nor in the person of the Holy Spirit. God in the person of Christ did. Still? Depends on who you ask. Honestly, I don't give a lot of thought to the resurrection of the body but I suppose that resurrected body is something Jesus may still inhabit. There are scriptural arguments for this. Philippians " But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself." First Corinthians 15 talks about the difference between heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. "So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body."
But, I imagine, the "rules" for imperishable, glorified bodies that live in eternity are different from earthly bodies.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do Christians expect that we too will receive and retain a glorified body after the resurrection?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know how much consensus there is on that one. The Church my grandfather attended believed in the Resurrection of the Dead so literally that they forbid members to be cremated as (for whatever reason, I never got an answer that made sense) they believed a cremated body couldn't be resurrected. The Baptist Church I grew up in believed the Resurrection of the Dead was a metaphor for an entirely new state of being, not a literal physical body as we know it. I'm not really sure how Catholics interpret it.
I think for a lot of Christians, those sort of topics are generally vague and not well defined by doctrine, and even when they are defined a certain way by a certain denomination, they aren't discussed much. I think it's one of those areas where there isn't really an analog between Mormon and non-Mormon beliefs, because it's something LDS focus on and have more revelation about than non-Mormons. Whereas I think most Christians wouldn't have what you would consider a detailed explanation of what happens after they die - beyond "going to heaven to be with God" it's mostly a mystery.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
