New Poll: Nature of the Godhead

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

so is this borrowed phrase.

I get attacked even when I say something positive about LDS faith.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I believe I caused the confusion yesterday and I apologize. I was befuddled by a few of the comments. But with the help of an able board member, I think I've gotta a better sense of things.

I don't think that you did cause the confusion, and I don't think the confusion can be fixed by anyone one on the board. Mormonism has no systematic theology. Oh sure, it does have theology, but in my view it is largely an implicit theology. Issues like the nature of the Godhead (is it monotheistic in some sense or tritheistic?) or whether deification implies polytheism can only be pinned down with highly precise language and precision about metaphysical principles underlying the doctrine. I don't think we having anything like that. Foundational statements on these issues are anything but precise (I think the Larry King interview with President Hinckley a few years ago really bears this out). The board can't even decide if we really worship Jesus or only God, the Father. We can't even decide how to define doctrine. We don't have the precision to answer these questions authoritatively in any sense of the word.

I really just wanted to point out that much of our unique scripture assumes or takes a view that looks very much like monotheism. I don't think we should ignore those scriptures. Because of those scriptures and my view of deification, I can take a theological position that is called Kingdom Monotheism in certain circles. Is my view correct? Almost, surely not, but my guess is that it is close enough (one standard deviation or less) to the median view that most Mormons would say, "Ya, its possible that is right, I don't think you are abusing the scriptures or modern revelation, but I like my view better."

I used to have rule never to engage in theological discussions. Why do I ever give up that rule? Geeky football discussions are clearly superior in so many ways. Actually, I do like exegetical discussions.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I don't think that you did cause the confusion, and I don't think the confusion can be fixed by anyone one on the board. Mormonism has no systematic theology. Oh sure, it does have theology, but in my view it is largely an implicit theology. Issues like the nature of the Godhead (is it monotheistic in some sense or tritheistic?) or whether deification implies polytheism can only be pinned down with highly precise language and precision about metaphysical principles underlying the doctrine. I don't think we having anything like that. Foundational statements on these issues are anything but precise (I think the Larry King interview with President Hinckley a few years ago really bears this out). The board can't even decide if we really worship Jesus or only God, the Father. We can't even decide how to define doctrine. We don't have the precision to answer these questions authoritatively in any sense of the word.

I really just wanted to point out that much of our unique scripture assumes or takes a view that looks very much like monotheism. I don't think we should ignore those scriptures. Because of those scriptures and my view of deification, I can take a theological position that is called Kingdom Monotheism in certain circles. Is my view correct? Almost, surely not, but my guess is that it is close enough (one standard deviation or less) to the median view that most Mormons would say, "Ya, its possible that is right, I don't think you are abusing the scriptures or modern revelation, but I like my view better."

I used to have rule never to engage in theological discussions. Why do I ever give up that rule? Geeky football discussions are clearly superior in so many ways. Actually, I do like exegetical discussions.

It is a fascinating discussion, but I'm not certain precise language exists to define our applications of our understandings.

The labels prepared by others rarely fit perfectly.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The labels prepared by others rarely fit perfectly.

Nor do they impact what we actually believe.

Someone could make a case that I'm polytheistic, monotheistic, or possibly something else. Semantics can be fun, but do they have any bearing on what I hold dear? Not really.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Nor do they impact what we actually believe.

Someone could make a case that I'm polytheistic, monotheistic, or possibly something else. Semantics can be fun, but do they have any bearing on what I hold dear? Not really.

No they don't but it can cause one to try to probe what one actually believes.

I've never quite understood this relationship with Jesus thing, if I'm not supposed to speak to him. I can make the argument presented to me, but Christ has always felt very distant to me, whereas Father has not.

One Deity is using familiar terminology, with no lofty title, another has a title and may not be addressed. And the other doesn't even have a body with no name but a title again.

Although I've heard the explanation all the time, I've never understood, why the Holy Ghost doesn't have a body, "so that he can dwell within us." Huh?

Influence of the Holy Ghost, I understand, sort akin to wave properties of light.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

Indeed. Thus, the implied question of my post: why "less of a conception of the Father"?

In my case it is because I love stories. Stories stay with me. Declarative facts do not.

There are stories about Jesus. There are no stories about God the Father. This makes him, in my mind, more abstract than Jesus.

[MikeWaters]

I wonder if I can pray to the Father and ask for permission to pray to the Son. I guess I would have to end prayers "In your name we pray, Amen." "Thy name". Or is it "thine"?

[ChinoCoug]

(21) And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. --2 Nephi 31:21

You mean they're not just one God until Moses 1:39 has been accomplished?