Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

The LDS Conception of God

(366 votes, average: 3.08 out of 5)

29 Responses to “The LDS Conception of God”

1. Layla Says:
   March 20th, 2006 at 1:55 am

   Amazing. This perspective of the religion is totally missing from the ususal presentation of mormonism, and begins to appear to have more theology behind it than islam. I have to think more than ever this is a separate and alien religion unrelated to christianity in any of its traditions.

   While much has been made of Smith’s lodge associations, and the fact that no geological evidence has been found of his ‘historical’ nations, it looks like he really gave some thought to the theology. if you think about it, there is a long tradition of passing off new information as old, in the ‘hermetica’the sayings are passed off as belonging to moses or hermes trimegistus, and in medieval spain, with all the jews moslems and christians seething around in one mystical cauldron, the appearnace of new mystical versions of kaballa writings or jewish mysticism was attributed to an older author, although the writings were contemporary. so if Smith made the whole thing up and attributed it to an angel, there is certainly great literary precedent for that.

   According to LDS,God has a physical body!
   1.2.1 omni-god can do anything except the physically impossible–nothing about creation, as in most religions, what about the healing miracles, also raising from the dead, changing water into wine and resurrection–can LDS god do these?
   3.1 Aquinas and first cause, reminds me of Clarence Darrow’s autobiography where he talked about the watchmaker arguemtn for god, if you see a watch, it prooves there must be a watchmaker therefore the universe had a creator. so if you see a watchmaker, something made the watchmaker and you end up with no proof of god.
   3.2 anselm and infinate attributes. how can attributes be infinate. this is a very neat and fancy argument, but doesn’t make sense except internally. how can you not be able to count attributes. they will have to be finite and countable. At first i was thinking they can’t be infinate because they are countable, but of course numbers themselves are infinate, no it’s just a fancy arguemnt and very clever.
   Alma 42:13 power is contingent. My reading of this is it explains why atonement is needed before mercy can negate justice. He is just using the riduculous example that god would cease to be god, which of course can’t happen so therefore the work of justice could not be destroyed (by mercy)so this device of atonement was invented(because god has to follow rules) I hope that interpretation is not too much out of context as I have not read a lot of this book.

   thank you for explaining this. it really makes mormons look less ridiculous than i thought they were from their websites(and those wierd posters too)

2. Jim Says:
   March 20th, 2006 at 7:29 am

   Scott,

   Thanks very much for the post. Do you have a source that you’d cite to those of us who’d like to read more — not a proselytizing text but a scholarly one?

   Layla,

   I recommend you read any of Bart D. Ehrman’s books to exorcise that notion of yours that there are “real” Christianities and “not real” Christianities. There have always been many Christianities, a number of them with conceptions of God that don’t agree with yours. Try especially Ehrman’s Lost Christianities.

3. scott Says:
   March 20th, 2006 at 11:18 am

   Hi Jim and Layla,
   Thanks for your feedback.
   First, Jim–can I (or you) change the settings so that the replies don’t come to my email account?
   The comments:
   Layla, you are very perceptive in many of your observations.
   Joseph Smith, whether you accept him as a prophet or not, was an exceptionally bright young man, a point often glossed over by critics of the LDS church.
   1.2.1 You misquoted me here. I didn’t say “physically impossible” I said “logically impossible.” Physically impossible is no more a problem for the LDS understanding of God than for the God of classical theism.
   3.2 Don’t be too quick to dismiss the argument(s) of St. Anselm. Honestly, some days I think of it as nothing more than a cute trick, other days I find it to be one of the most convincing arguments EVER. If you’re interested in reading a great expication of Anselm, try
   Malcolm, N. (1960). Malcolm’s Statement of Anselm’s Ontological Argument. The Philosophical Review, LXIX.
   Alma 42:13. My reading of Alma is the same as yours. It’s an argument for the necessity of the redemption. I read it as a reductio ad absurdium. However, the interpretation I mentioned in the original essay is common among the membership (e.g. W. Cleon Skousen: The Meaning of the Atonement).
   Jim,
   The problem with looking for scholarly sources is that a great many people who enter into the debate fall into one of two camps–both likely to be biased. True believers are willing to be very selective in the evidence they accept. Many critics of the LDS faith are fundamentalist or evangelical Christians are equally susceptible to bias. So a dispassionate treatment (like what I tried to provide above) is the exception.
   I’ll have a dig around and see what I can come up with.

4. Layla Says:
   March 21st, 2006 at 2:15 am

   Scott,
   1.2.1 (omnipotent god) okay then, logically impossible, whatever. It’s logically impossible to bring someone back to life after they are dead 3 days, and we have Lazarus doing that in the New Testament. That’s why it’s a miracle. So, LDS god must do miracles, create the world etc. but doesn’t break his (her?) own rules, therefore atonement problem. The Mormon god definitely seems to be a god of rules, and doesn’t like sexuality either.

   1.3 (Anselm) I’m not convinced. You can use the same argument on the goddess, the Great Pumpkin, or the tooth fairy. The key to the argument is the word “imagine”. When Mel Gibson’s film came out a couple years ago, there was a rundown of some of the religious approaches to atonement in ‘Time’ magazine April 12, 2004, in the article “Why did Jesus have to die?” Pastor took us through Anselm, the mousetrap theory and some others, but they were all pretty unconvincing. He said he had a whole pushcart of books on the subject. Then he said the theory he himself subscribed to was from the children’s song, “Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.” This to him was the most profound theological statement he had every heard. I’d have to agree.

   Jim,
   Ehrman book reviews on Amazon sound interesting. I’ve had numerous discussions with Moslems who like to bring up authorship of the bible; apparently they are told the Bible has been altered and that none of the books were written less than 300 years after JC. I think this last is not true. A lot of Moslems I have met are concerned with ‘proving’ the superiority of their religion. Having an angel dictate the words verbatim is a pretty good trick. But I think written Koran was put together later from fragments that were collected. Parts of it are terribly repetitive, especially the descriptions of eternal torment and paradise. I know there is a remembering tradition with the hadiths, the pedigree (whether it’s a weak or strong hadith) depends on the line of rememberers it was handed down through. And I heard the hadiths in the Meccan dialect were automatically discarded, keeping only those written in Medina dialect.

   “to exorcise that notion of yours that there are “real” Christianities and “not real” Christianities”

   If someone shows up at my family reunion picnic and says he’s my long lost uncle, and he doesn’t know my part of the family tree and he doesn’t look like anyone in my family, well, in his mind he may be my uncle, but in my mind, I don’t recognize him. Especially if I’m not invited to his family reunions and he has to purify his house after I touch it. (non-Mormons can’t go to Mormon wedding or go in Mormon temples unless the building is purified afterward). So do they REALLY think we are the same religion?

   I stumbled across my old comparative religion text while looking for something else. The hubs and spokes theme I could not find, but may be from Martin Marty of Univ. of Chicago, who appears in an interview on tape associated with this book. I didn’t write it down though, so maybe not him. The book is ‘Beliefs and Believers” by John K. Simmons and appears to be out of print, so I will quote at length:

   “Mormonism is by far the most successful “made-in-America” religion; other religions that grew out of the cultural context of the 19th century United States are Christian Science, New Thought groups, Adventist groups including Jehovah Witnesses, and Pentecostalism….

   “One of the reasons for the initial success of the religion can be found in the cultural ambience of early 19th century America. We have already discussed the highly Protestant nature of the American culture core. As the citizens of a new nation began heading out towards a vast, rich frontier, the sense of divine destiny and purpose was palpable. Had they not thrown off the religious and political institutions of an old, corrupt world? Didn’t God have something very special in mind for the United States?

   “If none of the churches possessed the right doctrine, it was up to Joseph to do what Jesus had done for Judaism-to bring to light a new Testament and, thus, re-align humanity with the divine will. Like the Amish, Smith’s key doctrine was restorationism, the restoring of the Apostolic church that had been lost.”

   And especially this paragraph:

   “However it should be pointed out that many Mormon doctrines are quite distinct from the traditional Christian creeds they might resemble. For example, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity affirms an essential unity in the Godhead. In Mormonism, the Father, the son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are thee separate Divine personages. Thus, tension has arisen between Mormon and other Christian groups, some of whom vigorously deny that Mormonism should be considered a Christian sect much less ‘God’s final Testament’ for the last days.”
   Sources listed are: Sydney Ahlstorm “A religious history of the American people”, Leanard Arringyon and Davis Britton “The Mormon Experience” Thomas O’Dea, “The Mormons,” and Jan Shipps “Mormonism, the Story of a new Religious Tradition.”

   Parallels between Mormons and Islam: 1)Joseph Smith prayed for a revelation to know what the true faith was 2) motivation was to establish community (of Zion)

   Just so we don’t start taking ourselves too seriously, from the same text comes the difference between creation vs. evolution vs. Asylumism. The latter, explained by Mike Royco: “Earth was originally a penal colony for all the wackos in the universe and we are descended from them.”

5. Layla Says:
   March 21st, 2006 at 2:23 am

   Yeah, Jim, about those replies that go to the Email accounts, there isn’t a lot of anonymity, is there, so you have to be selective about diaries you reply to, given the possiblity of the third religion of asylumism. oops.

6. Jim Says:
   March 21st, 2006 at 11:14 am

   I believe I’ve fixed it, let me know if not.

7. scott Says:
   March 21st, 2006 at 7:58 pm

   Thanks Jim, the problem is fixed.
   Thanks again for your feedback Layla.
   Being a philosopher, the difference between logical impossibility and physical impossibility is more significant to my mind than to most. Consequently, I missed the main point of your observation. yes, the LDS understanding of God includes miracles.
   I think most LDS are creationists, though it is no longer accepted as an “official doctrine.” I think forces of rationality in the church are finally changing that opinion. That evolution IS taught at BYU (the LDS Church’s University in Salt Lake City) comes as a shock to many members.
   The critique that you are implying of Anselm’s argument is the most common and most devastating. But there are some very serious and intelligent thinkers (Norman Malcom and Alvin Plantinga for example) that think they have reformulated Anselm’s original argument in such a way that it is logically impossible (sorry) that God does not exist.

8. scott Says:
   March 21st, 2006 at 8:34 pm

   I should also mention this. I know most people don’t find Anselm convincing, but that’s beside the point. My aim was to use Anselm as an illustration of the traditional conception of God so as to contrast it with the LDS conception. The contrast stands whether one buys Anselm or not.
   After 7 votes, my grade is 3.43. I’m curious as to why? Too long? Too philosophic? Just plain not interesting to most people?

9. Layla Says:
   March 22nd, 2006 at 12:56 am

   Scott, since I haven’t actually read Anselm, I may be missing something in his argument, but I really don’t think there is a rational ‘proof’ of God. It all comes down to faith, religious experience, observation of the power of religious ideas, and a desire to make some impact on the world.

   I really hate it when someone leaves a low score and doesn’t say why. The second score is how many people are reading it. There seems to be an inverse relationship between the two. So you can pander, as I did with the Tom Fox eulogy and get high approval and few readers, or try to challenge people and make them think, like I did with the 11th commandment, which people kept reading even if they said they hated it. If you love to write, it’s an interesting experiment. I think you will automaticlly get low stars here if you aren’t bashing religion.

   The only thing I can say about your piece is that it was very dense as far as paragraphs, but if that is a first draft it was amazing and i read it straight through without having to stop and puzzle out the meaning, like you would have to do with someone like Heidegger. They’re not about to pay us, so fuck em, write what you want.

10. Jim Says:
    March 22nd, 2006 at 7:41 am

    Sweet lack of Jesus, Layla, I believe you’ve got a chip on your shoulder.

    There’s a mathematical property of a small set of ratings compared to a large set of ratings. The fewer the ratings you have, the more likely they are to be extreme (either low or high). The more ratings you get, the more likely they are to fall toward the middle. The mathematics of ratings are to blame. Look up “regression to the mean” on google or wikipedia or something. It’s an interesting property of rating, voting, and other systems.

    The more you write on the Internet, the more you’ll find out that the number of people who read something is a weird, inscrutable thing. I don’t understand why more people read the Ram Bomjon stuff yesterday than read the bit I wrote on Darfur activism over on the Irregular Times main page, but hey, that just happens. My advice is to let it roll off your back.

    Just please don’t blame it on a conspiracy, from the evil Irregular Times writers. We are not, contrary to rumors, engaged in a plot to make you or other people look stupid. We just don’t have the time, and hey, people do a pretty good job of making themselves look smart or stupid on their own. There are a lot of people who come to the diaries via Technorati links, and they’ll click through to read what they like, and they can rate however they want. I can’t and don’t want to control it.

    Your use of the term “bashing” is odd, considering that we don’t smack anybody. I believe the term is “criticizing,” which a month ago you were defending when it came to the publication of Mohammed cartoons.

    And yes, dear sweet lack of Jesus, fuck me, write what you want. That’s the entire design of the diaries, that’s what they’re set up for. Except for the fucking part. My wife wouldn’t like that.

    [Scott: I imagine you got a 3.43, which I read as “pretty good,” because a fair number of people like what you wrote (4 and 5), and a few people (LDS-involved people on either side) gave you a 1 because they didn’t like your position, or because maybe your writing was too academic for their taste, or for whatever reason. One “1″ can drag down an average. 3.43 is a pretty middle of the road rating compared to the other diaries, if I look not just at the “highest ratings” over on the right but all the diaries.]

11. Layla Says:
    March 22nd, 2006 at 9:01 pm

    Oh, hi Jim, were you listening? Me and Scott here were just having a little talk about ah, philosophy. We weren’t going to talk about sweat shop conditions or pay scales or unionizing or anything like that.

    The readers of this forum frequently go beyond “criticizing” when it comes to religion. I said bashing and I meant bashing.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashing_%28pejorative%29
    “‘Bashing’ is a harsh, gratuitous, predjudicial attack on a person, group or subject… when it is used as a suffix, or in conjunction with a noun indicating the subject being attacked, it is normally used to imply a sense of uncompromising vehemence and bigotry about the assailant.”

    I’m beginning to rethink the wisdom of publishing Mohammed cartoons and whether it was such a good idea after all to emulate a neo-Nazi publication…

    The reference to copulation wasn’t personal, but was more of a general comment on those who rate an essay poorly without leaving a comment and to a system of rating or sales that indirectly controls content. All in all, I would rather get paid and have an editor to write catchy titles and keep me from writing anything stupid. If you write for your own amusement, it’s still interesting to have someone react to what you wrote and puzzle out the deeper meaning of the ratings. It would be interesting to have a system where the rating was coupled with a comment, like the Amazon system for booksellers.

    (Just kidding about the neo-nazi stuff.)

12. Jim Says:
    March 22nd, 2006 at 9:18 pm

    Of course I read things that other people write, Layla. I haven’t substantively commented on the interesting commentary by Scott except to say (as I did earlier to him) that I appreciated it.

    Read the dictionary (not wikipedia) definition of bashing. It is almost exclusively about violence. You know what that is about. You come nowhere near to being bashed here. Irregular Times is a place where people can vehemently disagree without being the target of any violence. Unlike the “Christian” town I grew up in, where I actually was bashed semi-regularly for not going to church. Sorry, you’re not going to get sympathy from me for your notion that criticism of Christianity in a nation dominated by Christians is somehow “bashing.”

    We criticize ideas and the behavior of powerful people. If you can’t handle your religion, its ideas and its adherents behavior being harshly criticized, then you don’t have to continue to come here. You continue to come here, which suggests to me that either you can deal with being criticized, or you enjoy whining about being criticized.

    By the way, it’s my experience that when people say they’re “just kidding,” they usually aren’t. It’s just a safe way of saying something without having to be accountable for having said it. If you think we’re “Neo-Nazis,” then say it and stick with it. Don’t fret; I can deal with such a suggestion, mostly by snickering while I read what you write. If you don’t think we’re “Neo-Nazis,” then why say it? It’s not like you’re making a reductio ad absurdum argument or anything. It serves no purpose except to put the claim out there and then run away from accountability for it. Why do that?

13. Layla Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 3:15 am

    Holy Shit, Jim,

    You need to go back and look at what I wrote. Here it is:

    “I think you will automaticlly get low stars here if you aren’t bashing religion.”

    Let’s take, for example, some comments from today on the Bomjon piece.

    “obvious fakery,” “plain humbug,” “a crock,” “brilliant insanity”

    This is clearly the kind of simple-minded thinking, name-calling, and religion-bashing your readers come to this forum to read. And what does the writer say? He respects all religions and will keep an open mind while continuing to question? Nope. He says:

    “I’m quite willing to make fun of religious hucksters of all cultures…”

    Does he say criticize, analyze, question? No, he says “make fun of.” That’s what your intelligent, politically astute, progressive readers, the ones who will Take Back the Moral High Ground and Win the Next Election want to hear from you and your forum. Religion-bashing. And I think you know quite well that religion-bashing is verbal and not physical.

    On 3/22, Jim said,
    “…perhaps you’d like to change your position regarding cartoons of Mohammed…”

    On 3/22, Jim said,
    “…a month ago you were defending when it came to the publication of Mohammed cartoons.”

    On 3/22, Layla said,
    “I’m beginning to rethink the wisdom of publishing Mohammed cartoons…”

    On 3/22, Jim said, “It serves no purpose except to put the claim out there and then run away from accountability for it. Why do that?”

    Yes, indeed.

14. Layla Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 3:55 am

    Jim,
    I have been re-reading your statement about being bashed for not going to church and am still trying to formulate a good reply. I’m not sure there is one.

    I don’t agree that this nation is dominated by Christians. It is dominated by power and money, and those who make the most pious noises often have the most to lose by actually practicing Christianity. I think parents and communities have some obligation to give their children some religious base. We had a special independent study course on the Bible in our high school as a part of a college prep program and to understand the many biblical references in Shakespeare. After that, people must be free to make up their own minds. As someone who is not a parent, I can’t give you any better idea than that of what is appropriate. I know my father was not given any religious training and he said he regretted it when he was a soldier sitting in a foxhole waiting to get shot at.

    I can think of platitudes about loving the sinner and hating the sin, or some snarky things to say about prejudice against Christians being as bad as prejudice against atheists, but in the end we receive the best legacy the previous generations knew how to give us, and we pass on the best legacy we know how to give.

15. Jim Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 6:50 am

    But Ram Bomjon is a crock. It is obvious fakery. What rules of political correctness have resulted in the requirement that one not say what one means?

    An “open mind?” If you mean by “open mind” that I take as a seriously the unsubstantiated claims of quacks, then you’re right: I do not have an “open mind.” My mind is not so open as to fall out. Our minds are filtering instruments that function to detect and reject bullshit. And if I can’t make fun of things that strike me as funny, then I might as well join a church and get pious, because it will be boring as hell where ever I go.

    Not going along with other people’s ostentatiously bizarre beliefs doesn’t make me a “hater,” it doesn’t make me a “basher.” It makes me vocally different.

    Nobody comes here and stays here unless they want to be here. Nobody forces anybody to read what I and the others at Irregular Times and its Diaries write. Like I said, if this isn’t your cup of tea, you don’t have to come here. You’re welcome here, but you don’t have to come here. You do come here, and you know who were are, so there you are.

16. Layla Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 9:38 pm

    I suppose part of the purpose of a forum like this is for people with similar political viewpoints to define themselves by who they are not, as much as by who they are. Maybe they like to get a little boisterous and have some fun with it and shout a few catcalls from the peanut gallery.

    I prefer something like scott’s thinking approach, which is why I made the remark about forgetting about public opinion and writing for yourself. I like my politics and my religion both spiked with a little intellect, and not just glory, hallelujah. Maybe I’m the oddball here, but then again, they say ‘if you build it, they will come.’ And they have been coming. They have been reading Scott’s stuff and they have been reading my stuff.

    From posting #12: “If you can’t handle your religion, its ideas and its adherents behavior being harshly criticized, then you don’t have to continue to come here. You continue to come here, which suggests to me that either you can deal with being criticized, or you enjoy whining about being criticized.” I don’t know what you’re talking about and I’m not in the mood for it. I’m not sure you have any clue what my religion is. Maybe you think anyone who reads your stuff is a masochist.

    I don’t think anyone has a franchise on knowing the truth or detecting an ‘ostentatiously bizarre belief’. I could probably say that about your a-religion or a-theism, but I have tried to be respectful of your beliefs (or a-beliefs), knowing you can’t prove them and that they probably mean something to you.

17. Paul Says:
    September 3rd, 2006 at 5:23 am

    I don’t want to get into this conversation because you 3 seem very educated and knowledgeable. Im not good at using large words ,but I justthought I would say that it seems as though Layla has both you, Jim, and Scott by the testies, and I use the word “testies” loosely (no pun intended).

18. Scott Says:
    September 18th, 2006 at 10:23 am

    Can’t speak for Jim, but Layla certainly doesn’t have me by the balls. She simply didn’t understand what logical impossibility was–hardly a testacle clamp.

19. Layla Says:
    September 18th, 2006 at 2:09 pm

    It’s always a pleasure to exchange ideas with people like Scott and Jim whose brains are not concealed by undergarments.

    I don’t try to go for the jugular. That’s my whole point, that it’s possible and desirable to have a discussion–or even disagree with someone–while treating them with dignity.

20. dafd Says:
    September 21st, 2006 at 8:18 pm

    the usual anti-mormon rhetoric…yawn

21. Scott Says:
    September 22nd, 2006 at 9:33 am

    dafd,
    Are you talking to me?
    Did you even read the post?
    There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING! anti-mormon in there whatsoever.
    You are using the term “rhetoric” incorrectly. Rhetoric refers to the art or study of being convincing, you are using it in the incorrect sense of “empty bombast” or “all structure, no content” or “all flash and no balls.”
    Feel free to read what I have to say before you criticise, because sadly, this is a common response from true believers–If I suspect that something is anti-mormon, I’ll dismiss it before I read it.
    For example–a quote from me:
    “Joseph Smith, whether you accept him as a prophet or not, was an exceptionally bright young man, a point often glossed over by critics of the LDS church.”
    Serious LDS apologists (and there are aplenty CAN and DO distinguish between anti-mormon rhetoric and serious philosophical discussion. If you are capable of doing this, then go ahead and read what I wrote, then come back for some grown up discussion.

22. Ralph Says:
    September 25th, 2006 at 2:39 am

    Asserting that Joseph Smith was exceptionally bright is actually threatening to Mormon doctrine. One of the cornerstones for the argument in favor of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is the assertion that there is no way that Smith could have possibly fabricated the text on his own. An assertion of his extreme brilliance threatens to undermine that.

23. Scott Says:
    September 26th, 2006 at 11:41 am

    True, Joseph Smith recieved little in the way of formal education, but he was self educated. In the LDS church JS is considered to be extremely intelligent.

24. Scott Says:
    September 26th, 2006 at 11:42 am

    And no reply from dafd justifying his “anti-mormon rhetoric” assertion?

25. Ted Says:
    June 12th, 2007 at 1:41 am

    Two comments for you to think about, Scott:

    The first, is a comment on your statement:
    “1.1 God is one. I find this to be the least controversial differences. The LDS church rejects the notion of the trinity, and understands God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost to be three distinct personalities.”

    Distinct personages? Yes. Personalities? Not in the sense that we think of humans with distinct personalities. The human concept of “self” and “other” has no application whatever to the relationship between Jesus and his Father and the Holy Ghost. Can you imagine distinct entities who at the same time are infinitely unified in their desires, understandings, purposes, and views of the universe? They would be one in the exact sense that Christ uses “one” in his prayer to his Father, in John 17.

    I have never understood why some Christians—who assert that the Bible is the word of God—attempt to define the Godhead by reference to hoary attempts of Nicean committees to define the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Why don’t Christians use as their main source what Christ said in the Bible? Read John 17 with a fresh mind to determine how Christ viewed the meaning of his one-ness with his Father. His very praying to his Father indicates Christ considered himself to be a different entity than his Father. Yet He prays that His apostles “may be one, as we are” (verse 11). If you want to know what the one-ness of Christ and his Father could mean, what better clue? Is Christ asking God His Father to help the 11 faithful apostles become some kind of a Nicean Trinity (or an eleven-ty)? If not, then what kind of one-ness could Christ hope for his apostles that would correspond to the type of oneness he and the Father enjoy?

    Christ takes it further. In verses 20 - 21, Christ also prays that those who believe on the Apostles’ word “all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us….”

    Christ’s prayer, in verse 22, links this oneness that He shares with his Father to a sharing of glory: “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….”

    Christ’s comment is consistent with LDS doctrine. How is it consistent with Nicean Trinitarian concepts?

    My second comment is in response to your assertion that under LDS theology, God could not be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Your conclusion is basically that it is impossible for more than one personage to share the powers of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. This conclusion is based on the assumption that god-personages (such as the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost) must interact with human-like restrictions on unity. In other words, human personalities as we now exist in this world cannot be one with each other, because (among other limitations) we cannot perfectly know each other’s thoughts. Your logic applies this same restriction to God. However, the oneness that the three personages of the Godhead share eliminates all such limitations. It is a oneness that eliminates any sense of comparison or competition between them. It is a oneness by which the Father gives to his son ALL his glory, so that all that the Father has is also the Son’s. With that kind of unity, there is no reason that the three members of the Godhead cannot all be omnipotent etc. And if three can be so unified, then could not Jesus also logically pray that another 11 also be given that same unity and glory? And if another 11 can be so unified, could not Jesus also pray that those who believe on him through the testimony of those 11 also be given that same unity and glory? That is what he prayed for in John 17, isn’t it?

    It is a humbling and glorious thought indeed, that an all powerful God is also so merciful as to be willing to share all he has. Would an all-merciful God who infinitely loves his children do any less if he indeed has the power to do so? Why, then, is the LDS concept of God seen as so threatening by so many Christians?

    Consider 1 John 3:2 “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” John indicates that the only way we can comprehend Christ in his glory and “see him as he is” is if we are like him. I humbly and reverently thank my merciful Father in Heaven for giving me a hint, in the scriptures, of this great promise.

26. Scott Says:
    June 13th, 2007 at 11:03 am

    Hi Ted,
    Thanks for taking the time to read the thing and not dimply dismiss it like dafd did.
    “Distinct personages? Yes. Personalities? Not in the sense that we think of humans with distinct personalities.”
    –you’re splitting hairs here. When I say the Godhead contains three distinct personalities I am talking quantitatively. When you respond that they are the same, you mean qualitatively. Let’s not conflate quantitative identity (I am identical with the author of this paper–when we add me + the author of this paper we arrive at one–with qualitative identity–though my wife and her twin are qualitatively indistinguishable, when I count them I arrive at two.) When I count the personalities in the LDS conception of God I arrive at 3.
    “I have never understood why some Christians—who assert that the Bible is the word of God—attempt to define the Godhead by reference to hoary attempts of Nicean committees to define the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.”
    (i) c’mon Ted, this is a gross simplification. Most Bible believing Christians will try to find Biblical justification for the concept of the Trinity without even knowing about the Nicean Creed.
    (ii) I’ve read Talmage too.
    With regards to your comments on the infinity of God, I think that you actually agree with me. The conception of omni-ness that you introduce is not that of the classical theology of Aquinas, Descartes, or Anselm.
    Aquinas, for example, tries to prove God’s existence by arguing for a necessary first cause. The LDS conception of God does not posit that he is a necessary first cause. His existence is contingent on the prior existence of matter and a chain of prior beings.
    I am not, by the way, arguing that the LDS conception is wrong, just that it is inconsistent with classical theism. Your allusion to the councils of Nicea leads me to think you are inclined to agree.
    Thanks again for actually reading and not just dismissing it as anti-mormom rhetoric. Nothing could be further from the truth.

27. Matt W. Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 2:29 am

    Hey Scott-

    This article was written a while ago, but I just wanted to jump in and compliment you on your great article and overview of the LDS concept of God. It was very stimulating and a angle that I’ve never heard presented either in or out of the LDS church, though I am not too familiar with Anselm or Aquinas.

    Cheers!

28. Scott Says:
    February 13th, 2008 at 2:23 pm

    Thanks Matt.

29. ???? Says:
    October 21st, 2008 at 8:12 pm

    ????? ? ???????? ??????? ??? ??????? - ???? ????????? ?? ????, ? ???? ???? ? ?? ??????.

Leave a Reply