Posted on 08/14/2006 9:03:38 AM PDT by Colofornian
He had a motive to blame someone else so he wouldn;t be executed...
Actually, Personally I don't disagree with the quote. I think If a person commits incest their throat should be slit, as should rapists. But that is not the Docrtine of the Mormon Church.
I will agree that some excommunicated Mormons or apostate Mormon groups have taught false doctrines.
I think I get it now.
BLOOD ATONEMENT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- by B.H. Roberts
Compiled and edited from B.H. Roberts reporting of Miscellaneous Events from the years 1851-1857 Among the things to be regretted in connection with the "Reformation," and from which the church has suffered much, through misapprehension of her real attitude in respect of the matters involved, are certain extreme and unqualified utterances of some of the leading elders of the church on what it has become custom to call "blood atonement;" by which is meant, as commonly represented by anti-"Mormon" writers, a claimed right on the part of the church to shed the blood of men guilty of heinous crimes, such as murder, adultery, and apostasy; and which, since such acts may not be done openly, and by legal authority vested in the church, then secretly, by assassination. [1] That there are crimes for which the law of God prescribed capital punishment; and which, under the union of the spiritual and temporal power—under the blending of civil and religious authority in the old state-theocratic government of ancient Israel existed—may not be denied. As for example, in the case of murder, the law given to Noah and his posterity was: "At the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of men. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." [2] This law was carried over into the Mosaic polity; and the list of crimes enlarged to include capital punishment for assault of children upon parents; for stealing men and selling them into slavery; for witchcraft; for beastiality; for idolatry; for violating the Sabbath day; for adultery. [3] Capital punishment, however, in ancient Israel, was not left to be executed by irresponsible individuals, and at their caprice. It was sternly regulated by law and executed by legally designated agencies. There are sins enumerated also in the New Testament for which it is said there is no forgiveness. "No murderer hath eternal life abiding in him," saith St. John. [4] "Who so speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." [5] "He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness," is the more impressive declaration of St. Mark, "but is in danger of eternal damnation." [6] "It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." [7] It is very clear that other New Testament writers recognized a "sin unto death:" "If any man," said St. John, "see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it." [8] "For," as declares the writer to the Hebrews, "if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins; but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" [9] It follows as logical conclusion in such cases as are here enumerated that the matter stands with them as if no atonement of the Christ had been made, and they themselves must pay the penalty of their sins. "The life of the flesh," said Moses, is in the blood; "and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." [10] It may, of course, be urged that reference is here made to the blood of beasts and birds appointed to be slain in sacrifice; and that their blood, typifying the blood of the Christ, which would be shed for remission of sin, was given to ancient Israel to make atonement for their souls; and it is true, as Paul said of the law, "almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without the shedding of blood is no remission." [11] But if, as seems to be the case, from the foregoing considerations, there are certain limitations to vicarious atonement, even to the vicarious atonement of the Christ, then these ancient laws proclaiming that the life of the flesh is in the blood, and that "the blood maketh an atonement for the soul," make plain what is needful for the salvation of the soul where one's sins place him beyond the reach of vicarious means of salvation—then it is the shedding of the sinners own blood that must here be referred to. [12] Paul evidently recognized such cases as these; for in referring to one who had been guilty of such sin as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, "that one should have his father's wife," he said: "For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." [13] Here then is the doctrine taught that by "destruction of the flesh," there is hope that "the spirit might be saved, in the day of the Lord Jesus." And no one can say that Brigham Young went beyond this when he said—and this is one of the offensive passages so frequently quoted against him by anti-"Mormon" writers: "There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world. I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them. * * * I do know that there are sins committed of such a nature that if the people did understand the doctrine of salvation, they would tremble because of their situation. And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins. It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall, and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit." [14] The doctrine of "blood atonement," then, is based upon the scriptural laws considered in the foregoing paragraphs. The only point at which complaint may be justly laid in the teaching of the "Reformation" period is in the unfortunate implication that the Church of the Latter-day Saints, or individuals in that church, may execute this law of retribution. [15] Fortunately, however, the suggestions seemingly made in the overzealous words of some of these leading elders were never acted upon. The church never incorporated them into her polity. Indeed, it would have been a violation of divine instruction given in the New Dispensation had the church attempted to establish such procedure. As early as 1831 the law of the Lord was given to the church as follows: "And now, behold, I speak unto the church: Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die. * * * And it shall come to pass, that if any persons among you shall kill, they shall be delivered up and dealt with according to the laws of the land; for remember that he hath no forgiveness, and it shall be proven according to the laws of the land." [16] The same disposition was directed to be made with reference to those who should rob, steal, or lie, that is, they should be delivered up to be dealt with "according to the laws of the land," [17] Those who committed adultery, and repented not, were to be cast out. A few months later, August, 1831, the Lord said in connection with the purchase of lands in Jackson county: "Satan putteth it into their hearts [i. e., the hearts of the Missourians] to anger against you, and to the shedding of blood; wherefore the land of Zion, shall not be obtained but by purchase or by blood, otherwise there is none inheritance for you. And if by purchase, behold you are blessed; and if by blood, as you are forbidden to shed blood, lo, your enemies are upon you, and ye shall be scourged from city to city, and from synagogue to synagogue, and but few shall stand to receive an inheritance." [18] Moreover, in the very discourse, most frequently quoted by anti-"Mormon" writers against the church on this point—ante this chapter—Brigham Young very clearly indicates that neither the church nor individual members of it had any right to execute the law of retribution he had been discussing. He could refer to "plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain in order to atone for their sins," doubtless having in mind the many such instances named in the scriptures under the law and polity received through Moses; and the legal executions in those nations and states that give sanction to capital punishment for some of these offenses; he had "seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance [in the last resurrection there would be] if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty;" he "had known a great many men who have left this church [i. e. of the Latter-day Saints] for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation; but if their blood had been spilled, [for their crimes, not because they left the church] it would have been better for them;"—yet "the wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle's being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force." [19] All which is but recognition of the fact that said law of God is not now in force, and the "ignorance" of the nations now in power will not permit it to go into force. Under these circumstances, then, what is to be done? On the one hand is God's law of retribution that would destroy certain sinners in the flesh for their crimes, that "the spirit," to use the language of Paul, "might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus;" [20] on the other hand are the "ignorant nations" who will not authorize the penalties affixed to some divine laws, nor prescribe the methods of execution that the law of God anciently ordained; and the church, as an organization, and the individuals comprising it, are forbidden to inflict the physical punishment of death, or any other physical punishment. Under these circumstances, I ask again, what is to be done? Just what Brigham Young did, issue the declaration he made in the very discourse here under consideration, the discourse of February 8th, 1857, but which declaration has never received consideration by anti-"Mormon" writers, nor allowed its place in modifying the spirit of the whole discourse quoted,—often misquoted, and always in some fashion garbled—namely: "The time has been in Israel under the law of God * * * that if a man was found guilty of adultery, he must have his blood shed; * * * but now, I say, in the name of the Lord, that if this people will sin no more, but faithfully live their religion, their sins will be forgiven them without taking life." [21] And that was and is the course and policy followed by the church. If there has been departure in any degree from that policy, and the positive, divine injunction to the church and its individual members—"Thou shalt not kill"—if this injunction has been violated, the responsibility for such departure rests wholly upon the guilty individuals and not upon the church. It should be noted in this connection that in the individual cases of "blood atonement" charged, the allegations rest upon the word of men who are themselves self-confessed murderers and outlaw desperadoes; or else the charge rests upon the word of anonymous writers; or the cases specified are not such as fall under the category of so-called "blood atonement." Of the first class the accounts of "blood atonement" are by such characters as John D. Lee, of the "Mountain Meadows" horror, [22] and of William A. Hickman, commonly known as "Bill," Hickman—a typical western desperado; [23] these, et al, loosely ascribe responsibility for their crimes to leading "Mormon" church officials, especially to alleged orders or to the veiled suggestions of President Brigham Young. It would violate all the canons of standard historical writing to consider seriously charges made by such characters. [24] Of the second class, viz., anonymous persons, usually apostate "Mormons," who kept their identity concealed, it is alleged, through fear of assassination should they be identified with their disclosures, and whose tales of blood and cruelty and of oppression struggle out of obscurity to public attention through sensational writers. These are represented by such anonymous persons as those whose statements are admitted into the pages of Stenhouse, in his Rocky Mountain Saints; [25] by Beadle, in his Mysteries and Crimes of Mormonism; [26] by Reverend (!) C. P. Lyford, in his Mormon Problem; [27] and by many others who from one pretense or another conceal the identity of their alleged informers. And yet, as remarked in an official document signed by the first presidency of the church and the twelve apostles, in 1889, there seems to have been no danger to such characters either from open or secret church agencies. "Notwithstanding all the stories told about the killing of apostates," says the document referred to, no case of this kind has ever occurred, and of course has never been established against the church we represent. Hundreds of seceders from the church have continuously resided and now live in this territory, many of whom have amassed considerable wealth, though bitterly opposed to the "Mormon" faith and people. Even those who made it their business to fabricate the vilest falsehoods, and to render them plausible by culling isolated passages from old sermons without the explanatory context, and have suffered no opportunity to escape them of vilifying and blackening the characters of the people, have remained among those whom they have thus persistently calumniated until the present day, without receiving the slightest personal injury. [28] Of the third class of cases, viz., those that do not properly come within the category of alleged "blood atonement" cases, such as where a father or brother personally avenges the outraged chastity of a daughter or sister; or a wronged husband slays the despoiler of his domestic peace and home. Such cases are not peculiar to communities of Latter-day Saints in the United States, they are recognized as appeals to the "unwritten law of the land;" and trial juries quite generally in the United States refuse to convict, either for manslaughter or murder those who take the law into their own hands in such cases. Granting that the severity of the denunciations against violations of chastity and the purity of the home encouraged appeals to "the unwritten law," and hence that such appeals were made more frequently in Utah than elsewhere,—if they were more frequent than elswhere in western America—it still remains to be determined whether or not that is a reproach to the community, or a tribute to the high sense of honor, the virility, the strength, and the courage of the community's manhood. [29] But this whole question of "blood atonement," so much iterated and reiterated by anti-"Mormon" writers, is put at rest, so far as the church's relationship to it is concerned, by an official proclamation upon the subject, in addition to the divine instructions to the church already cited in this chapter. I give the title and formal introduction to the proclamation, and so much of the document as deals with the subject in hand, and the signatures: MANIFESTO OF THE PRESIDENCY AND APOSTLES "SALT LAKE CITY, Dec. 12th, 1889. To Whom It May Concern: In consequence of gross misrepresentations of the doctrines, aims and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly called the 'Mormon' church, which have been promulgated for years, and have recently been revived for political purposes and to prevent all aliens, otherwise qualified, who are members of the 'Mormon' church from acquiring citizenship, we deem it proper on behalf of said church to publicly deny these calumnies and enter our protest against them. We solemnly make the following declarations, viz.: That this church views the shedding of human blood with the utmost abhorrence. That we regard the killing of a human being, except in conformity with the civil law, as a capital crime, which should be punished by shedding the blood of the criminal after a public trial before a legally constituted court of the land. * * * We denounce as entirely untrue the allegation which has been made, that our church favors or believes in the killing of persons who leave the church or apostatize from its doctrines. We would view a punishment of this character for such an act with the utmost horror; it is abhorrent to us and is in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of our creed. The revelations of God to this church make death the penalty of capital crime, and require that offenders against life and property shall be delivered up and tried by the laws of the land. We declare that no bishop's or other court in this church claims or exercises civil or judicial functions, or the right to supercede, annul or modify a judgment of any civil court. Such courts, while established to regulate Christian conduct, are purely ecclesiastical, and their punitive powers go no further than the suspension or excommunication of members from church fellowship. * * * [Signed]: "WILFORD WOODRUFF, GEORGE Q. CANNON, JOSEPH F. SMITH, Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. LORENZO SNOW, GEORGE TEASDALE, FRANKLIN D. RICHARDS, HEBER J. GRANT, BRIGHAM YOUNG, JOHN W. TAYLOR, MOSES THATCHER, W. W. MERRILL, FRANCIS M. LYMAN, A. H. LUND, JOHN HENRY SMITH, ABRAHAM H. CANNON, Members of the Council of the Apostles. JOHN W. YOUNG, DANIEL H. WELLS, Counselors." [30] NOTES
I've read references to Kolob, but have yet to ask an informed Mormon: What are you taught concerning Kolob?
Some anti mormon sites like to bring it up. Feel free to google them for their take on what it is. I'll give it to you as I understand it.
Abr. 3: 2-4, 9, 16
2 And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it; 3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest. 4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob. • • • 9 And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same border as that upon which thou standest. • • • 16 If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore Kolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me. Abr. 5: 13 13 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning.
Those scriptures cross reference to Peter which explains futher the Lord's time. (The Bible does not mention Kolob)
2 Pet. 3: 8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
There is also a hymn #284 in the Mormon hymnbook "If you could hie to kolob".
Essentially the hymn asks a rhetorical question "if you could go near heaven what would it be like?" There is no end to eternity, light and truth.
Here, I found more thourough info on wiki click the link if you are interested.
Kolob
In Mormonism, Kolob is a star or planet mentioned in the Book of Abraham as being nearest to the throne of God. The literal existence and the exact nature of Kolob is a controversial topic in Mormon theology, as is the Book of Abraham. However, the idea of Kolob has had an influence in Mormon theology and culture, particularly within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Contents [hide] 1 Description in the Book of Abraham 2 Modern Mormon interpretations of Kolob 2.1 Literal reading 2.2 Symbolic reading 3 Theories on the origin of the word Kolob 4 Representationalism 5 Kolob in pop culture 6 External links
My mother chose Hymn #284 as one of the songs to be sung at her funeral and it holds a special place in my heart, "there is no death above, there is no end to love"
Thanks very much for your reply.
Are you taught that God has specific and simple location in space? A place where God is and everywhere else God is not?
I'm trying to contrast this with what I was taught of God being immanent in all the cosmos, "immanent and transcendant". Were you this or God existing in one specific place?
And, if I may ask, a related question. I have heard that Mormons teach that God the Father was a man, a human being I'm supposing, before He became God the Father (a separate Person than God the Son).
Is this what you were taught?
My apologies, I missed a word and might have also been confusing. Hope this re-done paragraph is clearer:
I'm trying to contrast this with what I was taught of God being immanent in all the cosmos, "immanent and transcendent". Were you *taught* this (immanent and transcendent) also or taught God existing in one specific place?
Thanks very much for your reply and the link. It is of course difficult to describe God - and therefore compare descriptions. However, who God is and who we are in relationship to God are the foundations of any religion and theology.
From your link, I find this part of Mormon teaching quite different from that I received: "the Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bone…," and "man is literally God’s offspring… God as the literal father of the human family…"
Other differences would naturally flow from this foundation, beginning with the definition of 'Person' in this context and on though 'tangible' and of course the Trinity. So this link and definitions help clarify a great deal.
I didn't see anything, though, concerning the other question I'd had of what I had heard concerning Mormon teaching from non-Mormon sources. (I think it's important we let those in a religion tell us what they teach rather than letting others tell us what they think they teach.)
The other question was: Is it true that Mormons are taught that God the Father was a man, in the same sense that you and I are men, before He became God the Father?
I appreciate your straight-forward replies very much.
I was trying to think about how to best answer your reply.
Fifth LDS Prophet Lorenzo Snow declared in June 1840, "As man is, God once was; As God is, man may become".
Some of our modern prophets have commented about the exact Nature of God prior to our Creation. Mormons don't believe in creation out of nothing (Ex Nihilo) as most Christians do. We believe that spirit, matter, intelligence and light are eternal. God is the greatest of all. I consider the exact Nature of God previous to creation a deep doctrine topic. (beyond some of the generalities listed in our scriptures which you have referenced.) The first part of the quote is not often taught or talked about. Though some non-Mormon sites like to emphasize it quite a bit. I don't fully understand the exact nature of God (beyond those basics previously listed) or some of the mysteries of eternity. Such as how exactly or what method did he bring the universe into being? Eternity itself is an incoprehensible concept to mortals who operate in the limitation of time and death.
The second part of the quote is taught more openly or as something that is more understood. Mormons do believe that as literal Spirit children of God we have the chance to be heirs to all that God has. We are literally Family with God. In other words yes we can some day be gods. Not The God, but he will share his knowledge as a Father can pass on knowledge to his children. Some non Mormons take this to mean that our version of God is somehow limited or not fully a true God but I don't feel this lessens the Supremacy, Divinity, Perfection of God. He will always be our Father our supreme God. Our progression as God's children is only a reflection of his condescension.
We do not believe we can perfect ourselves with works (without grace) to become perfected. But we are a work and grace religion. Some.. ok many... accuse Mormons of being works heavy. However, Mormons understand All the works in the world equals nothing without the grace of Jesus. (In more mainstream Christian terms; after the conversion to Christ the indwelling of the Spirit will result in some outward manifestations). Christ lifts us up. None of us will be perfected in this life, but we can be after judgement and ressurection when we return Home to God. Mormons believe in contintuing revelation. And that beyond the grave we will continue to learn and grow for eternity.
I do try to avoid the topic some as it can be contentious. For example (on another topic), In a Sunday school class I was in there was a reference to Isaiah 53:2 that states about the Messiah, "and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him." Quite an interesting debate/contention ensued for the rest of the lesson with some insisting Jesus was plain looking and some insisting that "my Jesus is a tall strapping good looking man." Of course the spirit of love and the Holy Ghost had long since left the room as the argument ensued. Personally I don't know that Jesus' exact facial features matters to our Salvation, but his Role as Saviour does matter. When we die and see him we will know what exactly he looks like anyway.
So there are a lot of topics (even comments by prophets) I (or other Mormons) don't know the answers to or fully understand. I classify God's nature, in its entirity, before the creation of our earth as one of those deep doctrine topics. Though the prophet Lorenzo Snow made some comments about it, so there it is. I have a feeling there is alot we mortals (including the prophets) don't understand about eternity.
Yes, Mormons mention both works and grace, as does traditional Christianity (can't anymore traditional than book of James). Here's the difference:
Traditional Christianity teaches that works complete our faith, just as Ephesians 5 indicates that actual sacrifice on behalf of our wives completes our love for them.
As for LDS scripture, this is best summed up by 2 Nephi 25:23 in the Book of Mormon: "We are saved by grace AFTER ALL WE CAN DO." In other words, once you've done ALL you can do, grace will then kick in.
I don't think of met anyone, LDS or not, whose ever even claimed that they've done all they can spiritually, morally, physically, or service/works-wise. That's not surprising. Whereas the actual meaning of grace is "gift"--something we don't earn or become worthy of--grace for the average Mormon becomes a catch-22. It becomes a gift we earn (after all we can do), thereby erasing the very meaning of this divine attribute.
It makes me think of two BoM readers: One who has actually studied the implications of 2 Nephi 25:23, and the other who has yet to do so: "Grace is available to us," concludes the latter BoM reader. "Yes, indeed," concludes the first. "When?" asks the second. "When you've done EVERYTHING YOU can do" answers the veteran BoM reader. "Now when will that be possible?" asks the younger reader. The other just shrugs his shoulders and says, "I've yet to hear a testimony that says such a person has ever 'arrived' in order to become eligible for this grace."
Thanks very much, a well done reply.
I'd like to take on eternity first, then the harder stuff. :)
In our theology, we're reminded that eternity also means "outside time." Not quite the same as everlasting and not quite encompassed by 'without beginning...'
Some of our theologians see this 'outside timeness' as God's view. Looking at what we humans see as unfolding God seeing in all one piece. An action that seemed to us to be performed at one instant with echoes or ripples -effects - through time would seem, from God's view, as one piece, beginning middle and end all together. Some have described this as a way of understanding God's foreknowing.
I think we can have glimpse of this eternity, outside timeness, when we are fully in the present moment. After all this is all we have: Now. Then another now.. but always now. We cannot live a single instant in the past or future. I think we glimpse this in brief doses of awe and wonder. And I think this present awareness is something Jesus taught his disciples that we have recorded in scripture.
On the rest:
"As man is, God once was; As God is, man may become".
Yes, I've seen this before. And it's interesting what you say about the wide variation in emphasis on the first part.
I understand, I think, your discussion of it, but wonder about something that, from our perspective, would create a theological thorn:
If God the Father, started as a man, who/what created this man?
Regardless of how you view time, the when, I see the problem still of "Who?": Creator/creation.
In our theology, God is the uncreated, all the rest - including all mankind - is part of the creation. It is a basic and strong point in our theology, so strong that confusing the creation for the Creator is considered a definition of idolatry.
Does anyone, within your church, to your knowledge, look at this question? Is it discussed, or is it left open; is there occassionally postulated another God that created the man that God once was; or is it a closed repeating cirlce of God/man/God/man...
I hope you see what I'm pointing to. If you think it's all in my/our head, let me know that too.
Thanks again, very much, for your effort and thoughtfulness in reply.
I hope that this link is not taken wrongly or as me trying to prove "my version" of the Gospel but it explains Church of Jesus Christ of L.D.S. theology (and mainstream Christian theology) way more intricately than I can. Some of the Theology presented may be considered blasphemous by some. I do not intend it in this way. But it does compare the differeing views on the Nature of God. IMO belief in God is a matter of faith as is belief in his exact Nature whether he is Uncreated or came from somewhere it still takes faith to believe in Him. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS do have certain Fundamental belief systems about the nature of God but they certainly don't claim to know all there is about God. We only have glimpses of him through faith.
John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Some Mormon beliefs that appear to contradict do not necessarily contradict in our belief system. For example, The scriptures refer to God as Spirit in some instances (even the Book of Mormon does). Many take this as proof that God is spirit and not Physical. Mormons believe Spirit is also matter, just more pure. We also believe Men have spirits, along with their physical bodies. So if a man was said to be spirit this does not mean he can not have matter or that he can't have a physical body also. This example is just to illustrate that it is hard when comparing differing belief systems. When Mormons say Spirit it does not necessarily mean the same thing as when a mainstream Christian says Spirit.
I do not have an answer about the closed repeating circle. It may be more directly addressed in this link (but I am still wading through it myself). I know the scriptures speak of God's course "as one eternal round". Is this just implying a circle to help us mortals understand etenrity or the infinite? or is it literally some repeating Cycle? I don't know. I do know that God is God and will always be our God and Supreme. Even though we may become like him in some manner through his condescension he will always be Greater than us.
D&C 35: 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 forever.
The Book is linked here Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity by Barry Robert Bickmore
The introduction is good and helps explain the purpose of the book and some fundamentals. All the chapters look interesting. but Chapter 3 more specifically addresss the nature of God questions we have been discussing.
Hope this can answer your questions.
Chapter 3: The Doctrine of God and the Nature of Man
Here are some of the Doctrines/Questions discussed in Ch. 3
The Doctrine of God and the Nature of Man
The LDS Godhead vs. the Mainstream Trinity
The LDS Concept of the Godhead
The Godhead of the Bible
One God or Three?
What Kind of Being is God?
The Mainstream Trinity
The Nicene Creed
"Of One Substance"
More on the "Being" of God
From "the One True God" to "the One"
The God of Israel and the God of the Philosophers
The Abandonment of Anthropomorphism
The Anthropomorphic God of the Bible
Anthropomorphism in Early Christianity
The Son Becomes the Anthropomorphic God
"God is a Spirit"-That is, Corporeal
Allegorical Interpretation
The Transcendent God
Creation "Ex Nihilo"
The Adoption of a New Doctrine
The Earliest Christians and Creation
Reasons for the Change
A New Terminology
Theological Implications of Creation Ex Nihilo
Joseph Smith on the Creation
From Godhead to Trinity
The Problem of "Monotheism"
Yahweh-Prince of Angels, Second God
Jesus as Yahweh-Prince of Angels, Second God
The Subordination of the Son and Spirit
Problems With Subordinationism
The "Word" Becomes the "Logos"
Jesus Becomes an Abstraction
A Portion of the "Divine Substance"
The Impassible Logos
The "Only Begotten" Son
The Monarchian Crisis
"Of One Substance"
The Arian Crisis
The Council of Nicea and its Aftermath
The Mystery of the Trinity
The Origin and Destiny of Man
The Premortal Existence
The Latter-day Saint Doctrine
The Pre-Existence of Christ
The Pre-Existence in Early Christianity
The Loss of the Doctrine of Pre-Existence
Deification
Deification in the Bible
Deification in Early Christianity
Objections to the LDS Doctrine
Objections Answered
The Deification of God
Conclusion: The True Nature of the Universe
Very good question. What happens when one rents a softball diamond so that the team may practise?
First of all, thank you. I've scanned the material and it looks to address the issue extensively.
Second, on:
I hope that this link is not taken wrongly or as me trying to prove "my version" of the Gospel but it explains Church of Jesus Christ of L.D.S. theology…
It's difficult to separate explaining from proving, but that's what I'm after here as well. I've seen a lot of back-and-forth of text proofing, dueling scriptures and so on. This has its place, but I have had trouble getting at what the conclusions and beliefs are - regardless of how they are arrived at. So I appreciate the opportunity to ask and receive your thoughtful replies.
Some of the Theology presented may be considered blasphemous by some. I do not intend it in this way.
I think the correct word is heresy and, well, yes, by definition dogma held contrary to (a) Church's dogma is heretical. In my church it is the the willful and persistent rejection of its dogma. I think it safe to say we would be heretics in the other's church. We can also see the development of doctrine as the identification of what is heresy and what is not.
I am a lay student of comparative religion. I take it as a given that each religion can use its canon and tradition of teaching to "prove" its dogma. So discussion, IMHO, can often be more valuable a level above this, by comparing the conclusions versus arguing the supporting documents - at least for a while. Since theology is the rational explanation of religion, we can use reason on this level. However, since the spiritual transcends reason, at some point we must also.
I look forward to reading the material with an eye to my questions; I was pleased to see in the introduction:
"Perhaps the most fundamental questions a religion must answer are those relating to the nature of God and man's relationship to Him."I start on a point of agreement.
thanks again for your effort and thoughtfulness in reply.
Plus I think it stinks that he was trying to find material for either condemnation or glorifying of his religion by comparison.
Let me get this straight: Anybody finding something to religiously condemn in another religion "stinks," but anybody (like you) finding something to condemn in this person's religious, artistic, and first amendment expression doesn't stink, right? (I thought freedom of the press and freedom of religion--including the right to disagree w/other religions--was a hallmark of this country?)
So how is it your condemnation escapes folks from having to "hold their nose," but this guy's "condemnation" doesn't?
There's a difference between the two uses. No release is required for their pictures to be used in news coverage of an event. One is required for the Scouts to use them in their publicity pieces.
Oh, I didn't realize. Thanks for the information!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.