Different Gods

[Ran77]

This is an argument that gets brought up often. The claim is that LDS worship a different God because our understanding of Him is different than that of our critics. I would like to explore that in more detail here.


Let's start with an example that I feel illustrates the situation: In this example two of my friends write biographies about my life. Both attempt to be as comprehensive as they can with the limited number of pages available to them. They use many of the same quotes and while one describes a man of great humor the other portrays a person on the edge of madness (just making it interesting folks). One claims that I have psychic powers with which I can influnce police, judges, and politicians. The other states that I am an ordinary individual with no distinguishing traits.

Because there is so much difference in the two books for them to represent the same being do we conclude that there are two of me? Has the second author created the existence of a whole new Ran? Or is it a matter of each person having come to their conclusions because of a difference in perspective?


According to the logic of our critics - there are actually two different people. They are not the same person understood in two different ways. They are each their own seperate entity.

Really? Does that make sense to the rest of you?


:o

 

[Enkil]

This is the same discussion in the other thread you started, and you aren't really responding to the posts made against you there either. Instead of playing that game in more than one place, how about you use this opportunity to give the Mormon explanation of God(s), so that those who don't already know can judge for themselves? And don't just say "We worship God the way it is in the Bible." I mean, quote Mormon doctrine. We want to know the nature of God, how many gods there are, and an explanation for the scriptures that would contradict these ideas in the Bible, etc. Let's get a real explanation here, a real logical argument, not just fluff and diversion.

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

I think I see your point, but IME it's just a fact that you won't find a lot of tolerance for multiple perspectives. For most Christians there is only one perspective: theirs. Any disagreement is of course is apostasy and will result in you being told you're going to hell and you're not a Christian until you agree with whichever troll is flaming you at the time.

I personally think it would be nice if people would realize that God is ultimately our judge, and we don't need to go around exacting His vengeance on the internet. However it seems like there is a lot more self-righteous anger floating around the internet than there is wisdom. So it goes!

Although if I wanted to play devil's advocate I think you could argue that there are two separate entities in some cases...

Lets say two people write about God. One person is pretty close, or at least is headed in the right direction. The other person is wrong a lot, and describes God in a way that He simply isn't. I think you could say that the two writings describe two different entities, metaphorically at least, since the two understandings of God will influence people in completely different ways.

That being said I don't know much about LDS. If that is your path then I don't a problem with it. You do your best, and I'll do my best, and I'll trust God to take care of both of us.

 

[Phantasman]

This is an argument that gets brought up often. The claim is that LDS worship a different God because our understanding of Him is different than that of our critics. I would like to explore that in more detail here.


Let's start with an example that I feel illustrates the situation: In this example two of my friends write biographies about my life. Both attempt to be as comprehensive as they can with the limited number of pages available to them. They use many of the same quotes and while one describes a man of great humor the other portrays a person on the edge of madness (just making it interesting folks). One claims that I have psychic powers with which I can influnce police, judges, and politicians. The other states that I am an ordinary individual with no distinguishing traits.

Because there is so much difference in the two books for them to represent the same being do we conclude that there are two of me? Has the second author created the existence of a whole new Ran? Or is it a matter of each person having come to their conclusions because of a difference in perspective?


According to the logic of our critics - there are actually two different people. They are not the same person understood in two different ways. They are each their own seperate entity.

Really? Does that make sense to the rest of you?


:o

Well, you could take the demiurge and it would be just as you illustrated. Two different Gods acting two different ways. The OT God is jealous, kills enemies, etc. The NT God is love, says to love enemies, etc. So in my case, I believe it's safest to follow the God Jesus taught of. His Father. I don't really have much use for the OT, though a lot of people do because they believe the Bible is a whole. I figure if the Jews got lost following it, why do I want to intermingle it with the purity of the wisdom Jesus brought? I don't see any need for it. Jesus never told me so, anyway.

If someone believes there are a millions Gods, follow Jesus Father if your a Christian. If you don't, how can you be a Christian, right? After all, no one gets to Heaven (or the real God) except through Jesus. So you better just listen to him.

 

[he-man]

This is an argument that gets brought up often. The claim is that LDS worship a different God because our understanding of Him is different than that of our critics. I would like to explore that in more detail here.

Mormons believe in 2, a familiar spirit, a devil and then a greater god.

Mormons believe that Isaiah prophesied the coming forth of the Book of Mormon (Isaiah 29:4):
And thou shalt be brought down, [and] shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust.

The Book of Mormon itself echos this prophecy, but more specifically

(2 Nephi 26:16-17): 16 For those who shall be destroyed shall speak unto them out of the ground, and their speech shall be low out of the dust, and their voice shall be as one that hath a familiar spirit; for the Lord God will give unto him power, that he may whisper concerning them, even as it were out of the ground; and their speech shall whisper out of the dust.

17 For thus saith the Lord God: They shall write the things which shall be done among them, and they shall be written and sealed up in a book, and those who have dwindled in unbelief shall not have them, for they seek to destroy the things of God.

Mormons seem unaware that the word used in Isaiah for "familiar spirit" is Hebrew 'ob,' occurring about fifteen times in the Bible. It does not mean "a spirit which sounds familiar to you (because it is written in the style of the King James Bible)," as most Mormons think, but it means the spirit of a dead person, that is, a ghost, summoned by necromancy, which is everywhere condemned in the Bible as abominable (e.g. Leviticus 20:17, Deuteronomy 18:10-12, 1 Chronicles 10:13, 2 Chronicles 33:6, Isaiah 19:3).

shoel' ob, "a consulter with familiar spirits" (Sept. εγγαστριμυθος; Vulg. qui Pythons consulit). 'Most writers treat this class of diviners as necromancers (so Gesenius, Thes. p. 34). But, whatever be the close connection of the two as deducible from other passages, it is impossible to suppose that in Dent. xviii, 11, is synonymous with, which follows almost next.

De Inferis, carefully distinguishes between the two expressions (p. 108), and then identifies the ob, which occurs in the plural in Job xxxii, 19 (in its primary sense of a leathern bottle, or water skin), with the noun of the same form which is found in so many other passages with a different meaning. In these the Sept. has invariably used εγγαστριμυζος, which connects our phrase with ventriloquism, as a branch of the divining art. (For the supposed connection between the primary and secondary senses of ob, see Gesenius, Thes. p. 34, and Lex. by Robinson, p. 20;

also Botcher, p. 107 'ôb From the same as H1 (apparently through the idea of prattling a father’s name); properly a mumble, that is, a water skin (from its hollow sound); hence a necromancer (ventriloquist, as from a jar): - bottle, familiar spirit.

Deu 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, 11 Or a charmer, or a consulterwith familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

13 Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God.
14 For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.

Is it possible that Joseph Smith (and his "divine" inspiration) couldn't translate these terms properly, thus casting doubt on the divinity of the work?

Or is it more likely that this is just another indication that Joseph Smith was trying to produce another "bible" on his own, without sufficient linguistic knowledge to get away with it?

Gesenius, Thes. p. 34, and Lex. by Robinson, p. 20; also Botcher, p. 107

 

[ZoneChaos]

This is an argument that gets brought up often. The claim is that LDS worship a different God because our understanding of Him is different than that of our critics. I would like to explore that in more detail here.

Does Islam worship a different God? They claim to worship the god of Abraham?

 

[Albion]

This is an argument that gets brought up often. The claim is that LDS worship a different God because our understanding of Him is different than that of our critics. I would like to explore that in more detail here.


Let's start with an example that I feel illustrates the situation: In this example two of my friends write biographies about my life. Both attempt to be as comprehensive as they can with the limited number of pages available to them. They use many of the same quotes and while one describes a man of great humor the other portrays a person on the edge of madness (just making it interesting folks). One claims that I have psychic powers with which I can influnce police, judges, and politicians. The other states that I am an ordinary individual with no distinguishing traits.

Because there is so much difference in the two books for them to represent the same being do we conclude that there are two of me?

Yes. Or to put it differently, one of those "yous" is not the real you. It is either some other person or a fictional one.

Has the second author created the existence of a whole new Ran?

Yes.

Or is it a matter of each person having come to their conclusions because of a difference in perspective?

I get your point...but I reject it. Let's first clean up the analogy. It's not that one bio makes you out to be thoughtful and the other one pictures you as carefree. It's not that one says you're outgoing while the other says you are introverted.

OF COURSE, the same person can appear differently to different people and show a different personality at different stages in life or even different times of day, etc. If the analogy were better, however, it would go this way--

One bio pictures you as a resident of America who considers himself a Christian and likes to discuss things with strangers on the internet. The other bio also calls you "Ran" but describes you, in some detail, as an illiterate who lives in India and is a devout Muslim who never speaks to non-Muslims at all. In fact, he doesn't own a computer and has no idea what online discussion boards are.

Are the two Rans the same person merely seen through different eyes or at different times of day? (I can't say "different stages of life" because, after all, the Book of Mormon is describing Jesus at about the same stage of life as he is described at the end of the Gospels)

Does the mere fact that there are SOME similarities--gender, name, and a few other things make "them" the same person?

According to the logic of our critics - there are actually two different people. They are not the same person understood in two different ways. They are each their own seperate entity.

Really? Does that make sense to the rest of you?

Absolutely.

 

[Ran77]

I think I see your point, but IME it's just a fact that you won't find a lot of tolerance for multiple perspectives. For most Christians there is only one perspective: theirs. Any disagreement is of course is apostasy and will result in you being told you're going to hell and you're not a Christian until you agree with whichever troll is flaming you at the time.

That sounds accurate.

Although if I wanted to play devil's advocate I think you could argue that there are two separate entities in some cases...

Lets say two people write about God. One person is pretty close, or at least is headed in the right direction. The other person is wrong a lot, and describes God in a way that He simply isn't. I think you could say that the two writings describe two different entities, metaphorically at least, since the two understandings of God will influence people in completely different ways.

Okay. Thank you for the input. Your comments have pointed out to me that I have an error in my analogy. Perhaps instead of being written by two different authors it should have been an auto-biography. But from the pages you still get two vastly different opinions about the kind of person I am.

Because that is what we have here. People are reading from the same source. They just understand what they read to mean something different from one another. In some cases, I suppose both views could be true. At other times, obviously one of them is incorrect.

 

[Ran77]

Well, you could take the demiurge and it would be just as you illustrated. Two different Gods acting two different ways. The OT God is jealous, kills enemies, etc. The NT God is love, says to love enemies, etc. So in my case, I believe it's safest to follow the God Jesus taught of. His Father. I don't really have much use for the OT, though a lot of people do because they believe the Bible is a whole. I figure if the Jews got lost following it, why do I want to intermingle it with the purity of the wisdom Jesus brought? I don't see any need for it. Jesus never told me so, anyway.

If someone believes there are a millions Gods, follow Jesus Father if your a Christian. If you don't, how can you be a Christian, right? After all, no one gets to Heaven (or the real God) except through Jesus. So you better just listen to him.

That is a very interesting point. I hadn't thought of that.

Still, If I did that I would be engaging in the same silliness that I am protesting.

 

[Ran77]

Mormons believe in 2, a familiar spirit, a devil and then a greater god.

No! We don't!

 

[Ran77]

Yes. Or to put it differently, one of those "yous" is not the real you. It is either some other person or a fictional one.

Except that there isn't two of me. Thre is just one. There a seperate and divergent thoughts about me and my nature, but the numbe of me that exists has not changed.

Otherwise, the world would be filled with Marilynn Monroes, John Lennons, and a host of other people who have been written about with great zeal.

Yes.

And where is the other me? Where did he/me come from? What happens when the two of us run into one another? And the most important question of all - which me can kick the other me's behind?

I get your point...but I reject it. Let's first clean up the analogy. It's not that one bio makes you out to be thoughtful and the other one pictures you as carefree. It's not that one says you're outgoing while the other says you are introverted.

If I were to make any changes to the analogy it would be to change it to an auto-biography and have the different perspectives come from reading the same material, because that is what is happening in regards to how people view God from their reading the scriptures.

OF COURSE, the same person can appear differently to different people and show a different personality at different stages in life or even different times of day, etc. If the analogy were better, however, it would go this way--

One bio pictures you as a resident of America who considers himself a Christian and likes to discuss things with strangers on the internet. The other bio also calls you "Ran" but describes you, in some detail, as an illiterate who lives in India and is a devout Muslim who never speaks to non-Muslims at all. In fact, he doesn't own a computer and has no idea what online discussion boards are.

Are the two Rans the same person merely seen through different eyes or at different times of day? (I can't say "different stages of life" because, after all, the Book of Mormon is describing Jesus at about the same stage of life as he is described at the end of the Gospels)

Does the mere fact that there are SOME similarities--gender, name, and a few other things make "them" the same person?

Okay, I like what you have done here. But no matter what either person wrote about me, there would still only be one of me. No duplicate jumps into existence. One of the authors in your scenario has obviously gotten his facts wrong, possibly even both.

You mention the Book of Mormon, but for the purposes of this discussion I would like to stick with the Bible. There are plenty of Christian denominations that have divergent beliefs about God that use the Bible as their only source of information.


Thanks for your input so far.

 

[Ran77]

Does Islam worship a different God? They claim to worship the god of Abraham?

If they claim to worship the God of Abraham then I would say they worship the same God. They may have a lot of divergent ideas associated with that worship, but it isn't a seperate entity that we are talking about. Just a different set of beliefs.

 

[gord44]

No! We don't!

But Ran77, he-man said you do! And what he says goes!

 

[Ran77]

But Ran77, he-man said you do! And what he says goes!

Oops, my bad.

I guess I should retract my statement.

 

[Albion]

Except that there isn't two of me. Thre is just one.

That's right, so one of the Rans is not you by the same token. There IS that other entity, so we cannot simply say--as you tried to convince us was logical--they're both the same.

And where is the other me?

Either in the imagination of the biographer or living quietly in India.

Where did he/me come from? What happens when the two of us run into one another?

There's no problem there. If he's fictional, you'll run into him in your mind when you read the book about him. And if he's a real Indian, you'll probably run into him, if you ever do, in India. In either case, it is not true that there is only one Ran but seen by different viewers...and that is what you must establish if you are to maintain that those who think that those who say LDS follow a different Jesus are wrong about that.

which me can kick the other me's behind?

That depends, doesn't it?

If I were to make any changes to the analogy it would be to change it to an auto-biography and have the different perspectives come from reading the same material, because that is what is happening in regards to how people view God from their reading the scriptures.

That wouldn't describe an auto-biography read by different people because, in this case, the LDS "problem" is based upon an entirely separate book.

I like what you have done here. But no matter what either person wrote about me, there would still only be one of me.

That's what most Christians say. There is only the God of the Bible, although the LDS have created an alternate God with the same name and a few characteristics copied from the original.

No duplicate jumps into existence. One of the authors in your scenario has obviously gotten his facts wrong, possibly even both.

That's it! Now you understand why so many Christians consider the LDS to worship and believe in a different God.

 

[bbbbbbb]

If they claim to worship the God of Abraham then I would say they worship the same God. They may have a lot of divergent ideas associated with that worship, but it isn't a seperate entity that we are talking about. Just a different set of beliefs.

Who was Abraham's son given by the promise of God and patriarch of God's people?

 

[Ran77]

That's right, so one of the Rans is not you by the same token. There IS that other entity, so we cannot simply say--as you tried to convince us was logical--they're both the same.

There aren't two Rans. There is only one. There is no other entity. No entity came into being because some people have a different view of Ran than the others. There remains only one person.

I'm not saying that they are both the same - There is only one person.

Either in the imagination of the biographer or living quietly in India.

Really?

Living in India? I hope you were just being humorous. As to existing in someone's imagination, that is a bit of a stretch. Okay, more than a bit. An imaginary Ran is not another Ran. It is an ideal (if that's the right word) that one person believes about the subject that may or may not be correct.

There's no problem there. If he's fictional, you'll run into him in your mind when you read the book about him. And if he's a real Indian, you'll probably run into him, if you ever do, in India. In either case, it is not true that there is only one Ran but seen by different viewers...and that is what you must establish if you are to maintain that those who think that those who say LDS follow a different Jesus are wrong about that.

In a court, they would not expect me to produce evidence to show that there wasn't another Ran, they would expect you to bring one of those other Ran's into the court so that we could see that there is another one.

Still, the notion you are presenting is ludicris. There exists books all over the place about famous people that have different accounts of their lives and different attributes to their personalities. And there is not one instance where an additional / different version of them came into being. What you suggest might work okay in a fantasy story, but in the real world there are no "other" Rans running about. There is just me.

That depends, doesn't it?

Nope. It will always work out that Ran wins.

That wouldn't describe an auto-biography read by different people because, in this case, the LDS "problem" is based upon an entirely separate book.

No. The LDS read the Bible. They referrence Bible verses in support of their arguments about God. And we have the great number of non-LDS Christians that use only the Bible for their information and they have the same situation where their views on God vary between the denominations.

That's what most Christians say. There is only the God of the Bible, although the LDS have created an alternate God with the same name and a few characteristics copied from the original.

Not all non-LDs Christians share complete agreement on the attributes of God. There are Trinitarians and there are Modalists. Both groups, according to your logic, worship a different God. In fact, for every denomination out there there is a different God being worshipped.

That's it! Now you understand why so many Christians consider the LDS to worship and believe in a different God.

Yes. Because they lack the ability to understand the difference between worshipping an actual different entitiy and having different ideals about the nature of that same God.

 

[he-man]

No! We don't!

:o Do you believe in a Satan/Devil or not?Then what about 2 Nephi 26:16-17 in the Mormon Bible?

Deu 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, 11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

(2 Nephi 26:16-17): 16 For those who shall be destroyed shall speak unto them out of the ground, and their speech shall be low out of the dust, and their voice shall be as one that hath a familiar spirit; for the Lord God will give unto him power, that he may whisper concerning them, even as it were out of the ground; and their speech shall whisper out of the dust

Mormons seem unaware that the word used in Isaiah for "familiar spirit" is Hebrew 'ob,' occurring about fifteen times in the Bible. It does not mean "a spirit which sounds familiar to you (because it is written in the style of the King James Bible)," as most Mormons think, but it means the spirit of a dead person, that is, a ghost, summoned by necromancy, which is everywhere condemned in the Bible as abominable (e.g. Leviticus 20:17, Deuteronomy 18:10-12, 1 Chronicles 10:13, 2 Chronicles 33:6, Isaiah 19:3).

shoel' ob, "a consulter with familiar spirits"

 

[Albion]

There aren't two Rans. There is only one.

This is pointless. The reason those Christians think LDS worship a different God or have a different Jesus is because you have assigned the name, in the BOM for instance, to a concept that is NOT Jesus as he is known in the Bible. So either the Bible is wrong or the BOM et al is wrong. If you don't think it amounts to creating another Jesus, let's just say it is seen to be to be a poor and inaccurate copy of the one and only Jesus. AND it is not explained away merely by saying there are different interpretations. It goes beyond interpretation. That's the answer to your question, I believe.

 

[Martinius]

...According to the logic of our critics - there are actually two different people. They are not the same person understood in two different ways. They are each their own seperate entity.

Really? Does that make sense to the rest of you?

Personally, I can see where the person my co-workers know is not the exact same person that some of friends know, or even that some of my family think they know. They all may describe me differently, and some would be surprised to learn some things about me they don't know or haven't seen. The only way any one person could ever really know the entire me is to get inside me and my mind; to feel what I feel and to see and think what I do. Impossible.

If we can't do that with another human being, how could we possibly know God? Even Christ did not tell his disciples "everything", nor could they comprehend right away everything he DID tell them. Yet we think we can figure out God and that our view is the only correct one, of course.

I know my view of God is different than that of a Muslim, a Hindu, and many other Christians. It is likely different than the views of people within my own parish, or of my friends and family. So do we all have different gods? Of course not; we have different views of the same God.

In the early Church, there were many varying views on the nature of God and of who Jesus Christ was. So it should not surprise us if we can't agree on those things now. What does surprise ME is that some think that this is critical to our faith and salvation. What kind of god would share this knowledge with only a few and purposely bamboozle the rest of us, if it was so important? The Gospel does not focus on whether the disciples of Jesus understand the nature or "persons" of God; rather it focuses on how well they follow him in seeking the Realm of God.