I have absolutely no doubt that making communion with God does not depend on any organisation, it does not depend on an earthly hierarchy, it does not depend upon one being patted on the head by some special person, and it certainly does not depend on being a member of any particular church.Katzpur said:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Doctrinal differences
- Thread starter Merlin
- Start date
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
That's right. I don't.Merlin said:
On the contrary, I believe that with God, nothing is impossible. If He can part the waters of the Red Sea, if He can raise men from the dead, if He can enable a virgin to give birth, He can speak to a sincere young boy face-to-face.
So, if you believe that both the Father and the Son are "God," you can't believe in "one God"?
First off, I never said that everybody is a God. That was your own interpretation of my statement. Since you have obviously misinterpreted my Church's doctrine on this subject, I think perhaps I should clarify it for you. I haven't got time right now, but I will do so later in the day.
Kathryn
Not unless you subscribe to the Trinity theory. But you said:-Katzpur said:
"1. The nature of God: We believe in three divine beings who share the title of "God," and who are one in heart, mind, will and purpose. They are God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. We do not see them as together comprising a single "substance."
I thought you made that very clear, unless I misunderstood it. 3 People sharing a title. If a company had 3 Joint Presidents, they have 3 Presidents. America has lots of people sharing the title Senator. That does not mean you only have one.
But You said:-
"It has been said by our prophets that we are "gods in embryo." In other words, He has given us the potential to eventually become as He is."
I thought you made that very clear, unless I misunderstood it. We are all Gods potentially.
sorry Michel if you think this was a challenge to someone's faith. I am actually trying to understand the Scriptures quoted, that is all. I have stated many times, that I would never challenge anybody's beliefs because I actually believe they are all valid. I believe that, on the balance of probability, it is highly unlikely there is any one 'true Church'.michel said:Merlin, Kathryn has offered to explain her faith (and in regards to the trinitarian idea) more fully later. Please respect the differences between faiths.
If you recall, this whole thread was to discuss differences in doctrines between the faiths. One of these differences between lots of the different denominations is the Trinity. Kathryn said that Mormons do not subscribe to this, and I accept that, it is their absolute right. (I am not totally convinced myself).
Kathryn then included some statements from her articles of faith, and the book of Mormon, which appear to be in conflict. I am sure they are not, and that I simply haven't understood it. I was trying to set out the elements in their doctrines and modern Scriptures which she had kindly provided and which appeared to me to be in conflict.
If she would prefer not to answer this, I will be happy to let it all go.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Well, this is truly a first. I don't think I've ever been called a polytheist and a trinitarian by the same person within the space of two posts before. :biglaugh: And in both cases, it is because of a simple misunderstanding.Merlin said:
First of all, the word "Trinity" is not biblical. The word "Godhead" is. Therefore, I believe in the Godhead. What does this mean? My Webster's Unabridged Dictionary defines the word "Godhead" as "God," and I am entirely comfortable with this definition. Since the two words are synonyms, they can be used interchangeably, at least in some contexts. One such context is when the scriptures describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as "one God." Substitute the collective noun, "Godhead" for "God" and the supposed contradiction goes away.
There are many instances in which the Bible describes things as being one which are not ontologically one.
For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:5-6)
And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do. (Exodus 24:3)
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. (Acts 4:32)
Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you. (2 Corinthians 2:11)
One flesh, one voice, one heart, one soul and one mind. We can understand each of these phrases as describing something other than a physical unity. But as soon as the Latter-day Saints use this phraseology to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, we are accused of being polytheistic.
The three deities which comprise the Godhead are perfectly and absolutely one God just as my husband and I are one flesh. They think and act as one divine being. There is never any contention between them. We as mortals do not have the capacity to fully appreciate the degree to which they are one, but it doesnt change the reality of their relationship.
Finally, they all three share the title of God. Each of them is God, and they are all simultaneously God. It is entirely possible to believe in a Godhead of three without being either polytheistic or Trinitarian.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Merlin said:
"God" is a title reserved for the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. We will never be "God." The fact that billions may have the potential to attain godhood someday does not necessarily mean that they all will. You are making an assumption that does not stand up to fact. The fact that millions of American citizens may, at birth, have the potential to one day be President of the United States doesn't mean very many ever will end up doing so.
Do you personally believe that God is capable of making us as He is? Or is He limited in this regard? What truly accomplished father would not be delighted to have his son want to grow up to be like him? This is not an insult to God; it's the highest compliment His children could possibly pay Him -- particularly if they recognize that it is only by His power that they could ever hope to reach this goal.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I have a pretty good idea what the Protestant Reformers had in mind when they broke off from Catholicism. The question is, did they have Gods blessing in doing so? Youre right that they established simpler churches, and for those who accept the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, this was a move that worked well. Their ministers were free to teach whatever they wished, to go off to divinity schools and earn the right to interpret the scriptures according to the philosophies of men. No two of these churches teach exactly the same doctrines today, and yet you believe that they are all equally valid. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me.Merlin said:
Just so that you understand, it is entirely possible to fulfill Gods real purpose while working within the organizational structure Jesus Christ established. We all have a personal hotline to God. But there is order within Jesus Christs Church. You may not like the word hierarchy, but Christ did establish one when He built His Church.
Interesting. Ill tell you what I find to be sad. Its that anyone would feel the need to refer to the power of God as magic. Thats a very flippant attitude in my opinion. You have every right to your opinions about my church and the authority it claims to hold. Im just sorry that I have been unable to adequately explain our beliefs in such a way that you would be inclined to respond sarcastically to my remarks. A similar attitude on the part of some of the early Christians towards those the Savior called to positions of leadership was a contributing factor to the Apostasy which took place shortly after their deaths. They didnt like the concept of a so-called empowered leader either.
chuck010342
Active Member
Merlin said:
I didn't mean to get personal. I just wanted to show you that defferent faiths have different views on alot of different topics.
merlin said:
didn't I just do that?
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
So I've been told...Katzpur said:Well, darn! You're just no fun at all!
I suppose I prefer to focus on what we have in common rather than differences. But that's just me.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I like doing that, too. But when I started a thread on the subject of our similarities, it went absolutely nowhere.Maize said:So I've been told...
So I'm stuck focusing on our differences.I am sorry you think I was attacking your church, or any church. I actually believe that the Burning Bush, magically appearing and disappearing tablets of stone (Moses), angelic dreams being dictated over 30 years to write a whole book (Islam), are all examples of the same (what I call) initialisation magic. Each of the congregations believes that those things actually happened, as you do. I do not challenge any of them. One of them may be right, all of them may be right, or none of them may be right.Katzpur said:
On a 'balance of probability' review, it is highly unlikely that God of this universe gave any one individual or any one group the only hotline. It is far more likely that in His House there are many rooms. Yours is just one of them.
Therefore, genuinely, I think it is wonderful that you have found such a deep and abiding faith in what seems to be a very respectable and honourable communion. Even if you were inclined to, there would be no purpose in your seeking a different one.
I think we should leave this and so to speak for itself!Katzpur said:
It was a very credible effort though. I shouldn't worry about it, there is no explanation without the Trinity, which is hard enough in itself.
You and your husband are 'one flesh'. Not really. If you are, then when the IRS next send you your tax form, send one of them back and say 'we are only one'. Expressions like this book is one voice, I just linguistic expressions. They do not actually mean they are one person.
Little point in going over it anymore.
Aqualung
Tasty
Merlin - you continually try to tell us that you accept all religions, and you're not trying to put down our religion, but how can you say that and also say "there is no explanation without the Trinity," or "it is highly unlikely that God of this universe gave any one individual or any one group the only hotline" (which we don't beleive anyway)? That seems to me rather like you don't accept at least one religion, and that you are trying to put it down. Now, I don't mind it if you are trying to argue it down, just don't be hypocritical about it.
Did my words not indicate that I accept all religions. If I did accept that any one religion had this unique hotline to God, then by definition I do not accept all religions. In order to accept that every religion has a chance of giving a good route to God, it is necessary to believe that no one of them is the only one.Aqualung said:
Clearly, you believe that you have the unique path. I don't happen to accept that, but your belief is perfectly reasonable for you. My guess is that Roman Catholics, and Orthodox, and Moslems, etc etc, all believe that they have the one true path.
Clearly you cannot believe that these latter group are correct. I am happy to believe they might be, just as you might be. The difference between you and I is that I am also prepared to accept the possibility that nobody is the only route to God. I am prepared to accept that on the 'balance of probabilities' a God as wise and powerful as the one we all worship is not likely to have locked himself to any single group in one culture. What would be the purpose of that?
He created (or allowed to evolve as you wish) a huge diversity of peoples and cultures. Would it not be reasonable for him to have also allowed (or created) the wide diversity of religions that all give almost the same message and all lead to his salvation.
Doesn't that make more sense?