LDS The 'beginning' of God in Mormonism

[withwonderingawe]

I'm sorry, but no. This is all very off the mark.

The use of the plural to refer to a singular entity is what we call the "Majestic Plural" (or the "Royal We", when assumed by a monarch or other high leader like a Sultan). This is why Elohim is plural, not because it should be translated as "Gods". In fact, as you may read at the link, Adonai is plural (adon 'Lord'), and yet the Shema, the famous statement of monotheism of the Jews, reads "shema yisrael, adonai elohainu, adonai echad" -- "hear, O Israel, the Lord (pl.) is our God; the Lord (pl.) is one". It is not "the Lords are our Gods; the Lords are one." Because there's only one God, since the Jews are monotheists. If they had intended it to be understood polytheistically, it would not include the last clause, adonai echad (the Lord is one).

And, no, Christians most definitely do not 'have a hard time with the name of Elohim'. All of our doxologies are similar: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, one God." It is the Mormons who apparently have trouble with Elohim, seeing as how you cannot understand that it is referring to one God, and instead say that it must be a confirmation of your prophet Joseph Smith's polytheistic theology. That's simply incorrect.

I disagree, it's let US make man in OUR image. The Jews have been in apostasy since their last prophet Malachi who scolded them for marrying the daughter of a strange god, so I don't take their word for it.

" Rev 2:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

There is one seat of power and God shares that seat with all who overcome.

The royal 'we' is miss understood, when Queen Elizabeth says 'we are please' she is speaking for all the royalty that ever sat in that throne. She also speaks for the people of England as a whole. Henry ll said it meaning "God and I..."

 

[fatboys]

In this you are deviling into the mysteries, at the point where we don't know.

There is a little bit of a struggle between the theologians like McConkie(s) and the more intellectual types at BYU. Joseph McConkie, Bruce's son, wrote a commentary on the Doctrine and Covenant. In it he disputed the idea that God had to learn anything for he is the the one who wrote the laws of physics, he said the idea was built on fallacy in the halls of intellectualism (that was a paraphrase). He and Professor Eugene England had a little of a debate where he said,

"In his response, McConkie stated that his father, Elder McConkie, and grandfather Joseph Fielding Smith, taught of a God that is not progressing and whose perfection is absolute. “Though I accord a man the privilege of worshipping what he may, there is a line—a boundary—a point at which he and his views are no longer welcome.” Joseph concluded: “I do not see the salvation of BYU in the abandonment of absolutes, and with the prophets whose blood flows in my veins, I refuse to worship at the shrine of an ignorant God.”

then this;
on 1 June 1980, Elder Bruce R. McConkie delivered at a BYU Devotional, a lecture entitled “The Seven Deadly Heresies.” The primary “heresy” Elder McConkie warned against was the belief that “God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truth. This is false, utterly, totally, and completely.” He further stated that we cannot be saved unless we believe that the “truth as revealed to and taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.” McConkie belittled those who think otherwise as having “the intellect of an ant and the understanding of a clod of miry clay in a primordial swamp.”

They both had sharp tongues!

But the prophet ,Pre. Kimball, took McConkie aside and he had to say, well this is my opinion.

So you see, we see through a glass darkly.

England's idea goes like this; (and it faintly Gnostic)

"I think [Joseph Smith] eventually saw no inherent contradiction between the Lectures (on Faith) and his later understanding of God as having “all” knowledge and power, sufficient to provide us salvation in our sphere of existence (and thus being “infinite”), but also as one who is still learning and developing in relationship to higher spheres of existence (and thus “finite”)...."

Where we believe there are Father's of Gods and this has been going on for an unknown infinite period of time our Father and God has all knowledge pertaining to creation as we know it but there are higher levels of glory and spheres which we do not comprehend and our God is learning about them, the possibility is infinite. To put God in a box is to limit his infinite existence.

Br McConkie's idea is based on this;

Luke 11:34
34 The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light;

and Joseph Smith expansion of that passage in the D&C 88

Doctrine and Covenants 88:11 -67
And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things.

and
D&C 121
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

As a being becomes more righteous God's light begins to fill his whole soul driving all darkness out of him and as that happens the person begins to have his understanding quickened and he begins to comprehend all things. It's not a matter of book learning but of becoming sanctified and thus perfectly righteous.

John 17
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one;

There is a oneness which occurs between the Gods where they become one in knowledge and perfections.

Now it doesn't matter which one is right perhaps there it truth in the middle ground. I'd be interested in what my fellow Mormons think on the subject.

http://www.eugeneengland.org/a-prof...and-and-bruce-r-mcconkie-on-the-nature-of-god

Here here. I ha e found this debate so intriguing. I am on the side of eternal progression and from one level to another eternal level. If we are not progressing we are digressing

 

[Ran77]

In this you are deviling into the mysteries, at the point where we don't know.

There is a little bit of a struggle between the theologians like McConkie(s) and the more intellectual types at BYU. Joseph McConkie, Bruce's son, wrote a commentary on the Doctrine and Covenant. In it he disputed the idea that God had to learn anything for he is the the one who wrote the laws of physics, he said the idea was built on fallacy in the halls of intellectualism (that was a paraphrase). He and Professor Eugene England had a little of a debate where he said,

"In his response, McConkie stated that his father, Elder McConkie, and grandfather Joseph Fielding Smith, taught of a God that is not progressing and whose perfection is absolute. “Though I accord a man the privilege of worshipping what he may, there is a line—a boundary—a point at which he and his views are no longer welcome.” Joseph concluded: “I do not see the salvation of BYU in the abandonment of absolutes, and with the prophets whose blood flows in my veins, I refuse to worship at the shrine of an ignorant God.”

then this;
on 1 June 1980, Elder Bruce R. McConkie delivered at a BYU Devotional, a lecture entitled “The Seven Deadly Heresies.” The primary “heresy” Elder McConkie warned against was the belief that “God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truth. This is false, utterly, totally, and completely.” He further stated that we cannot be saved unless we believe that the “truth as revealed to and taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.” McConkie belittled those who think otherwise as having “the intellect of an ant and the understanding of a clod of miry clay in a primordial swamp.”

They both had sharp tongues!

But the prophet ,Pre. Kimball, took McConkie aside and he had to say, well this is my opinion.

So you see, we see through a glass darkly.

England's idea goes like this; (and it faintly Gnostic)

"I think [Joseph Smith] eventually saw no inherent contradiction between the Lectures (on Faith) and his later understanding of God as having “all” knowledge and power, sufficient to provide us salvation in our sphere of existence (and thus being “infinite”), but also as one who is still learning and developing in relationship to higher spheres of existence (and thus “finite”)...."

Where we believe there are Father's of Gods and this has been going on for an unknown infinite period of time our Father and God has all knowledge pertaining to creation as we know it but there are higher levels of glory and spheres which we do not comprehend and our God is learning about them, the possibility is infinite. To put God in a box is to limit his infinite existence.

Br McConkie's idea is based on this;

Luke 11:34
34 The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light;

and Joseph Smith expansion of that passage in the D&C 88

Doctrine and Covenants 88:11 -67
And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things.

and
D&C 121
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

As a being becomes more righteous God's light begins to fill his whole soul driving all darkness out of him and as that happens the person begins to have his understanding quickened and he begins to comprehend all things. It's not a matter of book learning but of becoming sanctified and thus perfectly righteous.

John 17
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one;

There is a oneness which occurs between the Gods where they become one in knowledge and perfections.

Now it doesn't matter which one is right perhaps there it truth in the middle ground. I'd be interested in what my fellow Mormons think on the subject.

http://www.eugeneengland.org/a-prof...and-and-bruce-r-mcconkie-on-the-nature-of-god

Very interesting stuff. Thanks for posting it.

 

[dzheremi]

I disagree, it's let US make man in OUR image. The Jews have been in apostasy since their last prophet Malachi who scolded them for marrying the daughter of a strange god, so I don't take their word for it.

What are you talking about? The majestic plural is a linguistic phenomenon that is attested to across the world in many, many languages, including thoroughly non-Christian/non-Jewish societies (so its use in the Bible is rather incidental to its overall use/existence, or would be were we discussing this in any other context than on a religious forum). Like all linguistic phenomena, it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with it. It just is, by virtue of the fact that this is how people use language to express ideas.

 

[Peter1000]

And besides God is everywhere (omnipresent).

How is he omnipresent?

 

[Peter1000]

Elohim is not someone's name.



"God's" is singular. It means "belonging to God" or "God is."

We are part of a people of God's own possession who called us out of darkness into His marvelous light!

God's not dead.

There you go with the Calvinist view, and God called us out of darkness and automatically saved us in His marvelous light. You better hope that your automatic works for you. I do have a feeling you are a very good Christian though and you are just sparing with me.

 

[MissRowy]

MOD HAT ON
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT FLAMING AND PERSONAL ATTACKS
ARE NOT ALLOWED AND WILL BE DEALT WITH
IN FUTURE REFER TO THE SITEWIDE RULES OR ASK A STAFF MEMBER IF UNSURE
HAVE FUN AND MAKE FRIENDS
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Rescued One]

How is he omnipresent?

How doesn't matter. Whether or not He is matters.

Ezekiel 36
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

How does He do that?

2 Corinthians 3
3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

How did God do that?

 

[fatboys]

How doesn't matter. Whether or not He is matters.

Ezekiel 36
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

How does He do that?

2 Corinthians 3
3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

How did God do that?

Not by forcing it. It is through his loving guidance that if we choose to accept his gospel our heart can be changed b

 

[Peter1000]

If you don't know, then you shouldn't guess, as it leads to heresy and creates a false god. The Bible has some things to say about false gods and it's not good. Christians do know there is ONLY 1 Father who has ALWAYS existed, so there is nowhere for Him to "come from".

Paul says about what you are saying, but he adds an interesting comment before. Read 1 Corinthians 8:5-6
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

So Paul admits 2 things:
1) to us there is but 1 God, the Father. (This is what you said, which we believe)
2) there be gods many, and lords many

I know that you will interpret that to be false gods, but to Mormons we interpret that Paul is really saying there does exist many gods and many lords, but to us there is but 1 God.

Jesus even said that 'ye are gods', speaking of us. (John 10:34)

So the truth of the matter there are many gods and many lords.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Paul says about what you are saying, but he adds an interesting comment before. Read 1 Corinthians 8:5-6
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

So Paul admits 2 things:
1) to us there is but 1 God, the Father. (This is what you said, which we believe)
2) there be gods many, and lords many

I know that you will interpret that to be false gods, but to Mormons we interpret that Paul is really saying there does exist many gods and many lords, but to us there is but 1 God.

Jesus even said that 'ye are gods', speaking of us. (John 10:34)

So the truth of the matter there are many gods and many lords.

I'm going to attach my rather long posting to your's I hope you don't mind

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”

Did Moses write this under the direction of God or did man write it? Would Moses use a man made phrase? The use of the Royal we didn’t come about until thousands of years later, so is this from God or man?

Jews were not always monotheistic! You can jump up and down all you want BUT they were not always monotheistic. Historically they didn't start becoming monotheistic until around 800 bc. and then it took a while before they all accepted it. Even in Jesus’ time there were those who knew and worship El and Yahweh as two separate beings, they are the ones that accepted Jesus.

John 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God/El; thou art the King of Israel/Yahweh.

*I do understand that when there is a singular noun like ‘he’ the word Elohim is read God but if there is no noun there then it can very clearly be read Gods. And! If there is a plural noun then it should be read plural!

I also understand that sometimes it just means deity. The meaning has changed like all words do.

*Now there is a difference between worshiping pagan gods and worshiping the true Elohim(s). Many times Israel worshiped pagan gods but that doesn’t mean the true Gods weren’t reality.

Plus the worship of the true God was turned into idol worship.

In the original truth there was God the Father El and his Son Yahweh who was the mediator between God and mankind.

In Mal 1 the priest are offering polluted sacrifices and Yahweh says to them;

“And now, I pray you, beseech God/El that he will be gracious unto us: this hath been by your means: will he regard your persons? saith the Lord of hosts.”

In other words you want me to go to El and ask him to be gracious to you when you bring this pollution?

In Mal 2 “Have we not all one father? hath not one God/El created us?…..Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord/Yahweh which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god”

He separates El and Yahweh into two beings.

The different groups of Canaanites turn this true worship of the Elohim into the worship of El discarding Yahweh and putting in Baal and other gods in his place.

*The term Elohim(s) is found in the Ugarit text and was in Canaanite religion it was a term for the whole court of El. El was the supreme Father God, Father of all other gods. The people who wrote the Ugarit where descendants of Noah just as Abraham was so there is absolutely no reason to believe Abraham or Moses thought of it any differently.

In fact Moses refers to this court in Deut 32 and you can see how the scribes of the Deuteronomist changed scripture. It should read;

7 ¶Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.
8 When the 'elyown divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the Sons of El
9 For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

Part of this is understanding just what that court’s purpose was, it consisted of the lesser sons of El. These lesser sons were placed over the other nations or children of Noah. Yahweh was ordained “Lord of Lords” and “Lord of host.” He had authority over them.

They are mentioned in Job 1 when the sons of El come to present themselves before Yahweh. It is from these lesser sons of El that idol worship grew. The different groups began worshiping their son of God instead of Yahweh, this may have been part of the war in heaven with each son demanding worship, Satan did.

Ps 136
2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.
3 O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.

The intent here is not that Yahweh is God of false idols but that he is “Lord of Host” he’s position is “above his fellows”, son of God.

*Jonah believed in these other gods, that’s why he thought he could run away from Yahweh.

Moses’ father in law a priest of El referred to it.

Ex 18
10 And Jethro said, Blessed be the Lord, who hath delivered you …. Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them.

Moses also understood there was a Father and Son relationship.

Lev 21
They shall be holy unto their Gods, and not profane the name of their Gods: for the offerings of the Lord/Yahweh .....Thou shalt sanctify him therefore; for he offereth the bread of thy Gods: he shall be holy unto thee: for I the Lord/Yahweh, which sanctify you, am holy....He shall eat the bread of his Gods, both of the most holy, and of the holy.

And there are several references to this council of gods in Psalms

Ps 82 “God standeth in the congregation of El; he judgeth among the Gods.
And also Ps 89

Isaiah mentions it several times;
Isa 14
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

Zech 3 also
1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him….And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. …. Thus saith the Lord of hosts; If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by.

In the New Testament there are several reference;
Matthew 19:28
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

And then in Hebs 1 it is referred to again

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Revelation 3:12
12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out:

*Then this
4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:
5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

What in the world does that mean?

If there is only one God then how can he be God of gods?

The word God there is the plural Elohim and there is no singular noun.

As I was pray-fully studying this the Holy Spirit put the words into my mind;

4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord of our Gods is one Lord:
5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

 

[Peter1000]

How doesn't matter. Whether or not He is matters.

Ezekiel 36
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

How does He do that?

2 Corinthians 3
3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

How did God do that?

How doesn't matter. Whether or not He is matters.

It certainly does matter. If God is everywhere it means that you believe He is a spirit and some how this spirit can be spread across the entire universe.

Mormons believe that it is impossible for God to be in more than one place at a time. So we believe in the omnipresence of the light and truth of God, but not God Himself. We believe that God sits on His throne, and from this throne, His light and truth emmanates every inch of space in the universe. There is no place in the universe that God's light and truth/presence is not felt and known. But His Person cannot be in 1 place and be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
light years away too.[/quote][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[withwonderingawe]

It certainly does matter. If God is everywhere it means that you believe He is a spirit and some how this spirit can be spread across the entire universe.

Mormons believe that it is impossible for God to be in more than one place at a time. So we believe in the omnipresence of the light and truth of God, but not God Himself. We believe that God sits on His throne, and from this throne, His light and truth emmanates every inch of space in the universe. There is no place in the universe that God's light and truth/presence is not felt and known. But His Person cannot be in 1 place and be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
light years away too.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

There are several ways where God is everywhere, first his light fills the immensity of space including within each of us. Second where he lives is as a sea of glass and all things are before him, kind of like a giant computer. And then thirdly he has his host of heaven who are everywhere acting in his name and reporting to him. So yes he can be everywhere but his physical presence be in one place.

this thought from Orsen Pratt helped me understand what they meant by being immaterial.

Immaterialists and Atheists—"There are two classes of atheists in the world. One class denies the existence of God in the most positive language; the other denies his existence in duration or space. One says 'There is no God;' the other says 'God is not here or there, any more than he exists now and then.' The infidel says 'God does not exist anywhere.' The immaterialist says 'He exists nowhere.' The infidel says 'There is no such substance as God.' The immaterialist says 'There is such a substance as God, but it is without parts.' The athiest says, 'There is no such substance as spirit.' The immaterialist says 'A spirit, though he lives and acts, occupies no room, and fills no space in the same way and in the same manner as matter, not even so much as does the minutest grain of sand.' The atheist does not seek to hide his infidelity; but the immaterialist, whose declared belief amounts to the same things as the atheist's, endeavors to hide his infidelity under the shallow covering of a few words. * * * The immaterialist is a religious atheist; he only differs from the other class of atheists by clothing an indivisible unextending nothing with the powers of a God. One class believes in no God; the other believes that Nothing is god and worships it as such."—Orson Pratt, in pamphlet Absurdities of Immaterialism, p. 11.

 

[Peter1000]

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

There are several ways where God is everywhere, first his light fills the immensity of space including within each of us. Second where he lives is as a sea of glass and all things are before him, kind of like a giant computer. And then thirdly he has his host of heaven who are everywhere acting in his name and reporting to him. So yes he can be everywhere but his physical presence be in one place.

this thought from Orsen Pratt helped me understand what they meant by being immaterial.

Immaterialists and Atheists—"There are two classes of atheists in the world. One class denies the existence of God in the most positive language; the other denies his existence in duration or space. One says 'There is no God;' the other says 'God is not here or there, any more than he exists now and then.' The infidel says 'God does not exist anywhere.' The immaterialist says 'He exists nowhere.' The infidel says 'There is no such substance as God.' The immaterialist says 'There is such a substance as God, but it is without parts.' The athiest says, 'There is no such substance as spirit.' The immaterialist says 'A spirit, though he lives and acts, occupies no room, and fills no space in the same way and in the same manner as matter, not even so much as does the minutest grain of sand.' The atheist does not seek to hide his infidelity; but the immaterialist, whose declared belief amounts to the same things as the atheist's, endeavors to hide his infidelity under the shallow covering of a few words. * * * The immaterialist is a religious atheist; he only differs from the other class of atheists by clothing an indivisible unextending nothing with the powers of a God. One class believes in no God; the other believes that Nothing is god and worships it as such."—Orson Pratt, in pamphlet Absurdities of Immaterialism, p. 11.

Thanks, that was good.

 

[BigDaddy4]

It certainly does matter. If God is everywhere it means that you believe He is a spirit and some how this spirit can be spread across the entire universe.

Mormons believe that it is impossible for God to be in more than one place at a time. So we believe in the omnipresence of the light and truth of God, but not God Himself. We believe that God sits on His throne, and from this throne, His light and truth emmanates every inch of space in the universe. There is no place in the universe that God's light and truth/presence is not felt and known. But His Person cannot be in 1 place and be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
light years away too.

What a weak god.

 

[withwonderingawe]

What a weak god.

please explain why, what assumptions to you have about a physical body which would make it weak?

 

[Peter1000]

What a weak god.

We all know He is not a weak God, so if you think so, just read the scriptures once.

 

[dzheremi]

please explain why, what assumptions to you have about a physical body which would make it weak?

You misunderstand. It is not that His having a physical body makes Him weak (Christ our God had a physical body after His incarnation, and was not weak). It is the fact that Mormon theology take the uncircumscribed God of the universe and says there are things He can't do because He's stuck on a chair so He can't be anywhere else that makes Mormonism's god weak.

The consensus of the Early Church, rather, is that God is 'uncircumscribed', that is, not bound to any one place or constrained in any way. While I hesitate to reference him because he's later than I'd like and not actually a saint in the Coptic Orthodox Church (he's a saint for the Ethiopians, though I don't really know how or why), John of Damascus (8th century) is probably among the most famous to have used this exact terminology, in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, in which he writes: "The heaven is the circumference of things created, both
visible and invisible. For within its boundary are included and marked off both the mental faculties of the angels and all the world of sense. But the Deity alone is uncircumscribed, filling all things, and surrounding all things, and bounding all things, for He is above all things, and has created all things".

There is apparently also direct reference to this in much earlier sources, such as the Stromata of St. Clement of Alexandria and some of the writings of Origen, but I can't find it in the Stromata because my reference on that (Pedersen's work on Titus of Bostra) references an edition of it that I don't have access to, so the numbering makes it impossible to find.

No matter! In my Church's own hymns, which are indisputably Orthodox and also quite old, we also use that exact language, as in the Seven Tunes (a special set of prayers said for the Nativity), when we praise the Theotokos St. Mary as having given birth to "the uncircumscript Logos", of course meaning Christ Jesus. So even Jesus, who by His taking flesh from St. Mary most definitely had a body, is described using that exact term! Having a body or not is not after all what makes Him 'bounded' or not; rather, the fact of His divinity makes it clear that He is not limited in any way, even when He has a human body same as the rest of us (as our Lord Jesus Christ was both truly and perfectly God and truly and perfectly man).

Here is a fraction of the Seven Tunes in English which contains the verse in question:

So when Mormons say that their god can't be in two places at once, that is violating a very basic theological principle affirmed about the Christian God by every form of traditional Christian, and does make your god seem very weak and not divine. What kind of God is stuck on a chair and can't be anywhere else on that account? Surely not the One Who was incarnate to save us and redeem us, and for that became a servant to all men, and in the process very much got up and walked around a lot!

(It is again an ancient charge of the Muslims, not Christians, that the crucifixion cannot have happened as we affirm it because "where was God for the three days that Jesus was in the ground? Was God dead?" This is the same kind of philosophical objection, that God can't XYZ because He's busy doing something else, or being somewhere else, or whatever stupidity. It is not a Christian argument; it is the argument of Christ-haters. If you love and worship and believe in Christ, you will believe in God's unboundedness.)

 

[BigDaddy4]

please explain why, what assumptions to you have about a physical body which would make it weak?

Lds believe their god has a body of flesh and bone and cannot be in more than one place at a time.

The God of the Bible does not have a tangible body and is unlimited in where he is at any one time.

Therefore, your god is limited and weak.

 

[BigDaddy4]

We all know He is not a weak God, so if you think so, just read the scriptures once.

I've read scripture more than once, thank you very much. And God is not limited as described above that my comment references.