Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: bralick@osgiliath.endor.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Mormonism and Christianity Message-ID: Date: 4 Sep 90 06:55:30 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Self Similar Lines: 84 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes: | In article firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: | ... | >Moreover, this god evolved from a manlike being, and men can | >evolve into godlike beings of equal stature with the Father. | | We believe we will never be equal to the Father. I guess I wonder whom the father worships. If he was "once as we are" (which I don't think you have repudiated) then he worshipped (and perhaps still does) some god, too. I guess I would tend to worship the top god in the chain (the least upper bound if there is no top (i.e. an infinite chain of gods)). | ... | >3. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, ~~~~ | | >No. Jesus is not the only son; in particular Lucifer is his ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | >brother. Neither is he Lord; we (if we are good Mormons) shall | >evolve into beings independent of him and higher than he. | | No! We will never be higher than Jesus! While we believe we were ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | all spirit children of God, Jesus is the only person ever born on | this earth as direct offspring of Heavenly Father. Note that Robert stated the part of the Apostles' Creed that makes the doctrinal point that Jesus is the _only_ Son of God. He then went on to try to establish LDS doctrine as a counterpoint to it -- Hal then disagreed with Robert's interpretation of LDS doctrine, but _not_ with the main point that the Mormon religion does _not_ believe that Jesus is the _only_ Son of God. I wonder about the concept of the "spirit children" -- note, BTW, that it does _not_ say spirit _creation_ -- so how is this spirit_father- spirit_child relationship formed? A Mormon friend of mine once said to me when explaining Mormon doctrine that: Our spirits are the children of his spirit; our bodies, however, are not (except in the case of Jesus, who also happens to be his first born). (Incidentally, who is the mother? The general belief is that yes, there is one, but we don't talk much about Her.) So my friend suggested that there is a spirit_mother also. Is this doctrinal? If not then why is the term _children_ used instead of _creation_? Regards, -- Will bralick@sol4.cs.psu.edu It was a curious idea ... that the Church should adapt the faith to suit the world rather than the other way around, or that the "contemporary" [If you recall, Hal said he would agree to saying that Christ is God's only begotten Son. He considers the word "begotten" essential. The term "child of God" is used in a variety of metaphorical and metaphysical senses. The term "begotten" is traditionally used to define the specific sense in which it is used of Christ. So verbally at least I think there is no problem with Hal's statement. Rather than continuing the somewhat inquisitorial tone that the discussion has had so far, I'd like simply to ask one of our LDS correspondents for a brief description of their concept of God, his relationship to Christ and to others (including Adam, Lucifer, and other humans -- I mention Lucifer specifically because of various comments that have been made here, and Adam because that seems a good test case), and their concept of humans, including any idea of preexistence and their future as "gods" (whatever that means). From what I know of LDS doctrine, the primary area in which there is a distinction from classical Christian doctrine is this one. What I've gathered so far from LDS postings here and in talk.religion.misc is that they do not see the Father, Son, and humans as being different kinds of entity. However the practical effects of this may not be as serious as it could seem, since they seem to still retain God as creator and ruler of this universe, and acknowledge us as being entirely dependent upon him. Where the difference is most likely to come home to roost is in Christology. In orthodox theology Christ is both eternal Son of God, begotten before all worlds, and the son of Mary, born in Palestine 2000 years ago. It's unclear to me how LDS theology deals with this, though I can imagine some ways. --clh]