LDS teachings on God

[BigDaddy4]

Don't know. Don't care.

If this is true, then how do you know the being/entity that you are worshipping and you call heavenly father is the same as the God the Father as described in the Bible?

 

[Ironhold]

Are you trying to equate the origin of God with an off-key extra? Is that what he is to you?

I'm saying "people are going out of their way to find something to cause a fuss over instead of studying what is right in front of them."

We've posted links. We've given explanations. We've made it clear that the details are for later when more basic matters have been dealt with.

And yet folks are harping on it like it's the cure for cancer.

 

[drstevej]

We've made it clear that the details are for later when more basic matters have been dealt with.

This is a debate forum not Family Home Evening. Asking for details is not out of order here.

Who created the mortal Heavenly Father?

 

[TheBarrd]

I'm saying "people are going out of their way to find something to cause a fuss over instead of studying what is right in front of them."

We've posted links. We've given explanations. We've made it clear that the details are for later when more basic matters have been dealt with.

And yet folks are harping on it like it's the cure for cancer.

We've made it clear that the details are for later when more basic matters have been dealt with.

We are talking about the God we worship. What is more basic than that?
And what "details" could you possibly be talking about?

 

[Moodshadow]

I'm saying "people are going out of their way to find something to cause a fuss over instead of studying what is right in front of them."

We've posted links. We've given explanations. We've made it clear that the details are for later when more basic matters have been dealt with.

And yet folks are harping on it like it's the cure for cancer.

I will assume for now that you are a parent. Has your child never come to you and asked where babies come from? It's a pretty basic question, isn't it, and one that every parent must deal with sooner or later. No, you don't give a 5-year-old detailed anatomical/biological information; but neither - in the rare instance that your child waited until he/she was practically an adult to ask - would you say, "Let's save the details for later when more basic matters have been dealt with," because that kid is perfectly capable of understanding and wants and will need the information in order to function as an adult him/herself.

It appears that what you're really saying is that you (and that's plural) don't have the information to give right now and that this is your way of mollifying people who ask. At least Ran has been upfront with his "Don't know - don't care" response. Disrespecting people's intelligence with coy, evasive non-answers won't exactly win friends and influence people (with thanks to Dr. Peale).

 

[Ran77]

If this is true, then how do you know the being/entity that you are worshipping and you call heavenly father is the same as the God the Father as described in the Bible?

There is a logic disconnect here.

You ask about someone other than Heavenly Father and I answer that I don't know and I don't care. Then you jump to the God described in the Bible as if my being focused only on Heavenly Father is not connected to the source from which I learned about Him. You'll have to work this one out, because it doesn't make any sense to me to have someone claim I don't worship the God of the Bible when I am constantly going to the Bible for my understanding of Him.

 

[Ran77]

There it is!

Oh, good. Does that mean the discussion is over?

This is what I have suspected all along.
Of course, you don't know...that was a given from the beginning.

When I state, at the beginning of a discussion, that I don't know - that is generally what it means. You present this as if the LDS haven't said all along that we don't know anything about any God beyond our own. That's the whole point. There is no revelation about other gods. Heavenly Father is our God. We worship Him. We think about Him. It is our critics who continue to bring up these other gods. The LDS accept that other gods logically exist if take the time to reverse engineer the concept of exaltation.

Where do you go with this from here? You have repeated what the LDS have said from the beginning. We don't know anything about other gods and we really don't care because it has no impact on our salvation. Now what?

It's that "Don't care." that ties it all up.
As Dr. Steve puts it, you "nod and swallow"...because you do not care.

As a writer would you use "nod and swallow" to describe someone who doesn't care? I sure wouldn't, because neither of those are body language for "I don't care." A bored, disinterested look and a shrug - that describes someone who doesn't care. A nod and swallow is appropriate for describing people who are nervous, on the spot, awed by someone else, or even scared.

A "nod and a swallow" also indicates that the person doesn't have anything to say. That's why they are swallowing instead of responding. We have dozens and dozens of posts from LDS in response to this topic. I'm really confused how that can in any reasonable way be considered nodding and swallowing.

 

[Ran77]

So, wait...are you saying that the Son did not reveal the Father to His apostles?

I didn't get that at all. In fact, what you presented seems to be the opposite of how the LDS interpret the verse.

 

[drstevej]

Did the Son did not reveal the Mother to His apostles?

 

[Ran77]

Case in point. Follow the "prophet."

When the prophet has spoken, the debate is over.

Just keep on keepin' on. Follow the leader, keep the commandments, don't make waves, endure to the end, get through the veil, inherit your own kingdom. That's pretty much it, isn't it?

Wow! That isn't even close.

I guess this is what happens when a person attempts to speak for someone else. Especially someone they don't know very well. Or maybe it's just more of that creative fiction that was going around earlier, where comments are not made based on facts, but just whatever sounds good to the author.

Based on the comments above, it doesn't appear that you realize that I am capable of responding on my own. I heartily urge people to try it sometime. Just post a comment that says, "Ran, what do you think about <insert question>." And I will be quite happy to answer with what I actually think. Not what the Prophet thinks and certainly not what the LDS critics think.

But what is really humorous about the allegation is how it totally ignores the way I respond on this forum. I mean, do I sound like someone who doesn't make waves?

:o


Who wants to surf?

 

[Ran77]

This thread is beginning to remind me of the one review I saw for "Jersey Boys" wherein the reviewer panned the film because an extra was off-key during a musical number.

Dude was so obsessed with the one extra he missed the bulk of what the film was actually trying to accomplish.

You got that right?

Hey, do I sound like the kind of person who doesn't make waves? Because if I do, I have to work on my reverse people-skills.


:o

 

[Moodshadow]

Wow! That isn't even close.

Based on the comments above, it doesn't appear that you realize that I am capable of responding on my own. I heartily urge people to try it sometime. Just post a comment that says, "Ran, what do you think about <insert question>." And I will be quite happy to answer with what I actually think. Not what the Prophet thinks and certainly not what the LDS critics think.

But what is really humorous about the allegation is how it totally ignores the way I respond on this forum. I mean, do I sound like someone who doesn't make waves?

Okay, I'll bite, but first it would be a good idea to define exactly what I meant when I used the term "make waves." In the LDS church, to make waves might include (but certainly not be limited to) not sustaining someone in a meeting. It also might include a teacher introducing ideas into his/her lesson which did not come from the approved curriculum materials which are written, edited, published, and distributed by the LDS church. It also might include attending a ward in whose boundaries you don't actually reside. It might also include saying no when the bishop feels inspired to ask you to assume a calling you don't want or feel qualified for. It might also include being critical - even privately - of a church leader when you believe him wrong or uninspired. The list goes on, of course, but this one will do to illustrate the point for now. You will undoubtedly have some other ideas for what the term means, and please feel free to tell us about those.

So, with all the above in mind..."RAN, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT MAKING WAVES WHEN YOU FEEL YOU HAVE A DISAGREEMENT - EVEN A SMALL ONE - WITH SOMETHING A CHURCH AUTHORITY/BISHOP/STAKE PRESIDENT/AREA/GENERAL AUTHORITY MIGHT SAY?"

 

[TheBarrd]

So, basically, I am to understand that, as far as the average LDS is concerned, yes, there are a plethora of other gods out there.
Mainstream Christianity flatly rejects any such notion, asserting instead that there can be only one God.
I'm not sure what cats giving birth to kittens has to do with this issue.
Cats give birth to kittens, dogs give birth to dogs....and people give birth to people. They do not give birth to gods. In fact, there would be no cats, or dogs, or people, or anything else, if God had not created them.
The whole "don't know, don't care" attitude displayed by so many LDS indicates something more than an unnatural lack of normal, healthy curiousity. To me it speaks of something darker, more sinister than that. I find it a bit frightening that some 16 million people quietly accept the idea that there are an infinite number of gods out there, all of them with the same power and authority as their own god, and they aren't the least bit interested in knowing more about these guys. There is something not quite human about that, that I just can not understand. It's not natural...

 

[BigDaddy4]

There is a logic disconnect here.

You ask about someone other than Heavenly Father and I answer that I don't know and I don't care. Then you jump to the God described in the Bible as if my being focused only on Heavenly Father is not connected to the source from which I learned about Him. You'll have to work this one out, because it doesn't make any sense to me to have someone claim I don't worship the God of the Bible when I am constantly going to the Bible for my understanding of Him.

The only disconnect is yours. You claimed the heavenly father you worship was once a mortal man. The God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the I AM, Yahweh, El Olam, Jehovah Jireh, Elohim, etc., was never a mortal man.

 

[BigDaddy4]

We don't know anything about other gods and we really don't care because it has no impact on our salvation. Now what?

The god one worships has everything to do with one's salvation. Now what?

 

[TheBarrd]

The only disconnect is yours. You claimed the heavenly father you worship was once a mortal man. The God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the I AM, Yahweh, El Olam, Jehovah Jireh, Elohim, etc., was never a mortal man.

There is nothing whatsoever, anywhere at all in the Bible to indicate such a thing. Of course, God was never a mortal man.
A cat gives birth to kittens.
a dog gives birth to puppies.
Each after it's kind.

And mortal man gives birth to mortal man.

 

[TheBarrd]

The god one worships has everything to do with one's salvation. Now what?

The God I worship says that there are no other gods beside Him.
If anyone ought to know, it'd be Him, don't you think?

Now what?

 

[skylark1]

I'm not sure what cats giving birth to kittens has to do with this issue.
Cats give birth to kittens, dogs give birth to dogs....and people give birth to people. They do not give birth to gods. In fact, there would be no cats, or dogs, or people, or anything else, if God had not created them.

I think that this explains LDS thought concerning this:

Gods and humans represent a single divine lineage, the same species of being, although they and he are at different stages of progress.​

God the Father - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism


This is why it was stated by LDS President Romney:

The truth is, my beloved brethren and sisters, man is a child of God—a God in embryo.​

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/07/man-a-child-of-god?lang=eng

 

[TheBarrd]

I think that this explains LDS thought concerning this:

Gods and humans represent a single divine lineage, the same species of being, although they and he are at different stages of progress.​

God the Father - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism]

God is not a "species". There is nothing else even remotely like Him. Where ever did this idea even come from?

This is why it was stated by LDS President Romney:

The truth is, my beloved brethren and sisters, man is a child of God—a God in embryo.​

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/07/man-a-child-of-god?lang=eng

Man is a child of God in the same sense that a wooden table is the child of the carpenter that made it. No one would expect the table to grow up and become a carpenter.

The truth is, mankind is created...not begotten. Jesus alone is the begotten Son of God.

I'm sorry Mr. Romney was mislead...

 

[Ran77]

Okay, I'll bite, but first it would be a good idea to define exactly what I meant when I used the term "make waves." In the LDS church, to make waves might include (but certainly not be limited to) not sustaining someone in a meeting. It also might include a teacher introducing ideas into his/her lesson which did not come from the approved curriculum materials which are written, edited, published, and distributed by the LDS church. It also might include attending a ward in whose boundaries you don't actually reside. It might also include saying no when the bishop feels inspired to ask you to assume a calling you don't want or feel qualified for. It might also include being critical - even privately - of a church leader when you believe him wrong or uninspired. The list goes on, of course, but this one will do to illustrate the point for now. You will undoubtedly have some other ideas for what the term means, and please feel free to tell us about those.

So, with all the above in mind..."RAN, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT MAKING WAVES WHEN YOU FEEL YOU HAVE A DISAGREEMENT - EVEN A SMALL ONE - WITH SOMETHING A CHURCH AUTHORITY/BISHOP/STAKE PRESIDENT/AREA/GENERAL AUTHORITY MIGHT SAY?"

First, all caps is shouting. There is no need to shout at me. That is rude.

Second, if I disagree I'm not afraid to express that disagreement. On this forum I have expressed my disagreement with several quotes from LDS leaders that our critics have posted. Of course, that just results in the critics mocking the response with something like "Oh, there goes that standard LDS defense of it's not a doctrinal source." No matter whether we agree or disagree, our critics find a way to fault our stance. But I guess that's really the whole purpose of our critics participation on the forum--find fault with the Mormons no matter what they believe.


:o