My God and Michaels, perhaps Jay's also-second update
by Albert 1

70259386
# 1. 12/3/09 8:55 PM by Pete
thumbsdown.gif To quote Michael out of context "Contrary to what many other faiths take as axiomatic, God is not the first and only self existant being in the universe."

Personally, I cannot believe Michael would state this.

I would have to read this from Michael himself.

I am not LDS and I also do not believe in "another testament of Jesus Christ" but I have a problem with this above if in fact that is the way Michael actually believes.

Until I read it from Michael, I take it with a grain of salt.

Editor's Note: I would not have quoted him out of context if I did not have a copy of his original comment in my WOTL archives..

I Am not about to make the effort to copy the entire comment only to have you accuse me of fabricating it but if you desire I will direct you to where you can see it for yourself in WOTL's archives. If you take me up on this dont expect an instant reply as finding it again may take some time.

If you need him to verify it dont come to me -E mail him directly.

It seems you need more than a grain of salt to dispel any doubts I Am in any way dishonest.

As to what Michael belives remember he is a human being whose beliefs might just evolve with the rest of his being. Your image of him may be based on past impressions.

My image of him is less limiting. I only know him as an extremely intelligent and honest person who doesnt fear to tell it as he sees it. If his seeing has progressed it would not surprise me in the least.

Since you claim not to be LDS you may not be aware that they have some very inteesting ontological beliefs that they dont tend to cast as pearls for the same reason I picked that passage as a pen name.



34254766
# 2. 12/4/09 8:52 AM by albert 1
thumbsup.gif A note to Pete who doubted Michael Christian's belief that I quoted: I did a Wikipedia on the pluraty of gods belief of the LDS. Your ignorance is showing-big time. Try doing a little research before accusing me next time.

It took me five minutes of research in Wikipedia to see that Michael's belief is main line LDS concerning the other gods concept.

Editor's Note: Some people like to be contrary and end up showing thier ignorance.

I would never try to put words in anothe'r mouth like some on this site do.

I know Michael Christianson is both main line LDS and an intelligent person so when he speaks concerning LDS he may do it protectevily or defensively but always accurately.

If I ever see him say anything concerning LDS I have doubts on the authenticity of I would ask him why the difference.



70279400
# 3. 12/4/09 1:51 PM by Pete
thumbsdown.gif You know, I am not arguing with you. In part, I understand what you are stating since the Mormon’s have produced their own version of the Bible which I personally feel is wrong. BUT, I have a background on profiling and judging by your reaction to my post I see a bias here. I tried to be as careful as I could to not dispute you or Michael but you took my post as an attack instead of the context it was written.

"A grain of salt" means; I need the subject and object to be proven to me, not that I have an opinion against or for, or that or am judging anyone either way.

If a particular Religious sect has a “different” understanding or controversy of Biblical history or theology it is usually well known.

Case in point; Jehovah’s Witnesses think that Michael the Arc Angel and Jesus Christ is one in the same? Pentecostals are well known for talking in what they call tongues, which is not what Pentecost was about. Catholic’s think that the Pope is God’s representative here on earth. Islam feels that Abraham was to sacrifice Ishmael and not Isaac.

Out of all the years that I have known Mormon’s including Bob Lonsberry what you state has never been or been touted as a controversial subject with Mormon's.

They do however, like Islam, pray to a god, yet really await the coming of a prophet. I understand that Mormon’s do not put the same faith in a Supreme Being like myself, (as a Christian of no denomination). I believe that YEHWEH is God the Father and that Jesus Christ, Emmanuel is God with us in the flesh. YEHWEH is Supreme, Jesus is in subject to His Father but in the end it is YEHWEH who ultimately will be on the Throne of Heaven residing over the earth.

This is a fine line with many "religions".

Exodus 20:3, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

I am a Theologian and the root word for "gods" above is translated "false gods". Men in the Old Testament were called by YEHWEH, stubborn, leather necked people. They always looked for something substantive that they could touch and feel instead of realizing that they were taken out of Egypt through Devine intervention. They built a Golden Calf to Baal even though Moses was gone for only 40 days on the Mount receiving the commandments. There were also other groups of people that worshipped imaginary gods that really did not exist except in their own minds.

It is not that these false gods actually existed but “MAN” like today will worship a “rock star”, “money”, “work”, “cars”, “drugs”, “sex”, a lair like “Joel Osteen”, all the gods of Greek mythology which never existed.

This is why Jesus came, because MAN was too weak and subject to BS. He came to relieve us from the insanity of our own minds so we could have a chance to make it. Not by just Laws, Judgments, Statutes and Ordinances but by YEHWEH's Grace and our Faith in understanding, gaining knowledge in something site unseen.

If Michael or you do not believe in a Creator, YEHWEH still is gracious enough to give us a millennium of learning after Jesus Christ returns, again. Not as the timid peace maker but as a warrior to do away with people who worship “false non-existent gods”.

Editor's Note: Now you have confused me concerning your first comment where you implied that I misrepresented Michael's beleif.

This "thumbs" down on your second comment seems to imply that you are accepting the fact that I accurately quoted Michael. Were you wrong on your first comment?

Now please save me frpm wading thru that lengthy diatribe I have just viewed and have no intention of trying to make any sense of and simply tell me one way or the other if you were mistaken in assuming that I misrepresented Michael or the ontology of the Latter Day Saints.

You and many other of my critics and apparently "true beleivers" have no clue about where I Am coming from or why I write here.

When you figure that out let me know.

There is a psychological process I was taught the essentials of by someone much more intelligent than me where one projects an illusion over Truth then assumes that as their reality.

It truly is real to them but not necessarily to those that dont share that level of consciousness.

Read my column on "The false layer"

Dont try to debate God, Jesus or any associated subject with me until you at least understand enough of my thinking process and the major reason why your reality and mine do not have enough commonality at this time to debate such a subject.



70353050
# 4. 12/5/09 8:48 PM by Pete
Then speak in plain English if you don't want to be miss-understood. Ontology, axiomatic, give me a break, what the hell are you a college professor? I know what they mean but can be taken several ways depending on the context.

As far as the thumbs up or thumbs down and when to use them? You remind me of a politician, "I wrote what Michael said out of context, well no, I didn't......."

I find it easier to interpret and follow Biblical Scripture than some of the writing on this site.

Give me what Michael said to back up your claim, I am not going to reach out to him until I have something substantive. I will tell the truth to you if I find that you are correct. Like Michael I have no problem speaking my mind, PLAINLY, no $500.00 words to make me seem smarter than I actually am.

So far, you have given me only arguments towards how I interpret your “double speak”, stick to the subject and object of your column and get past your ego……

Editor's Note: I Am not about to buy you a dictionary. The true study of religion includies the words I used. I dont feel any compulsion to sink to your intellectual level and dont feel obligated to back up any claims.

If you dont know how to use Wikipedia learn and look up the combination of LDS ahd multiple gods yourself.

I dont know why you are so obsessed with my spirituality. It is so different than yours that yours and note well I dont claim it as superior, just diferent.

Like my previous reply I suggest you find someone else to pester with your Bible knowledge and realize I play in a different league.

If I start using words not in a dictionary then you might be justified in complaining.

If you are too lazy to use one then go pester someone who wants to play by your rules.

Your "comment" is one of the best examples of what I wrote about when someone insists on playing by the rules they bring to the game. I have a rule book too and it isnt a Bible.

The column I wrote used words that is over your head so you complaion.

Now who do you really think has the bruised ego?

I see a lot of columns here that are over mine. I dont comment to those writers complaining that I cant relate to them.

Its like on the radio if you dont like a station dont listen to it.

Or are you a masochist? That word is in the dictionary also.



34254766
# 5. 12/6/09 7:14 AM by albert 1
To quote "Pete": "I am a theologan" That word seems to be at the intellectual level you are complaining to me about useing. While we are at it ask any real theologan if the word "ontology" is unknown to them since it is the basis of theological study.

It gets mre ridiculous with each of his "comments' or must I call them what they really are "rants".

Theology is a very respectable intellectual pursuit just as philosophy is.

I study philosophy but dont think I have ever claimed to be a philosopher.

I have no doubt that "Pete" has studied and perhaps still is engaged in the study of theology or even the associated ontology.

AS to whether he is qualified to claim being a theoloigin, well I think I'll leave that to other theologins.

Editor's Note: I wish he would use some plain words. I cant even seem to spell "theologin". think I'll look it up in my Funk and Wagnalls. (That's a dictionary, Pete.)



70437759
# 6. 12/6/09 11:37 PM by John
WOW! TO EACH HIS OWN. JUDGE NOT. LOVE THY NEIGHBOR. K.I.S.S.

My own individual multiple personality of

"Thing" ; "IT"; Lerch; and Uncle Festus of the whole Adam's Family. (bi-polar for sure)

The -exiled- Amish "X" Marine Corpse of One Tin Soldier An Off White Albino Buffalo Soldier.

Thanx John

G-reater than O-ur D-imention of self

matt 13:57-mark 6:4-luke 4:24-john 4:44

Editor's Note: I Am not known as one to cast the first stone but when one is cast at me I dont wait for the second before doing what I do to the best of my ability.

There are many here on WOTL I have differences with but share this space respectfully. There are a few who do not.

If they choose not realize or respect what I Am then I see no reason to hold back when giving them a dose of what they fail to have realized concerning me.

Like Chris Mathews of CNBC I know how to play hardball just choose not to for the pleasure of others.

Many have commented in the negative to me in a respectful manner that does not include the "thumbs down"

I treat that symbol like some do an upraised middle digit.

I love your use of Biblical passage shortcuts as some seem to need to print out the whole passage.

If you have read some of my past work you will notice I place a lot of importance on the differences between Bible versions. I personally use the Lamsa one translated from the Persian in Aramaic but also like Jefferson's.

I do have a problem when others use their holy book as a reference and expect that I have the same book they quote from.

I have a Tao Te Ching and Baghavid Gita but realize it is not in most people's library. I therefore limit and spiritual reference to the one from Matthew I use as a pen name.

Maybe I'll start quoting from Thomas Jefferson's version of the Bible. The results would be interesting. If you dont have on they can be obtained from Amazon.Com



61825690
# 7. 12/7/09 10:39 AM by mk
As LDS, We believe in God The Eternal Father and In His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

We believe in baptism by immersion, for the remission of sins, and to take upon us the Name of Christ. In Sunday school, we study the New Testament, Old Testament, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants on a four year rotating schedule. Next year 2010 is the Old Testament. I love the Bible ever as much as the Book of Mormon. We use the King James Version, there are foot notes in our scriptures that cross reference it with the Book of Mormon. And yes, we do believe that some things were changed from their original translation. That's why we say, We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. There a few corrections in the foot notes, but we do not have an entirely different bible. We study the King James Bible. We pray to God the Father, in the name of his Son Jesus Christ.

We believe in modern revelation and a living prophet upon the earth. Joseph Smith was the first prophet of this the Last Dispensation. Our current prophet is Thomas S Monson.

To quote the Book of Mormon, which- I will send anyone a copy if you desire (kearleeq@yahoo.com) ,

2 Nephi 25:23-26

For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do. 24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled. 25 For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments. 26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.

We believe as Temples. In the temple, families are sealed for time and eternity. In the temples we baptize by proxy, our family line of relatives that did not have the opportunity to hear the gospel. We do not we are making them "Mormon" we believe that if their baptism is done by proxy, they are given the opportunity to choose if they accept it.

We believe in making and keeping our sacred covenants. The Gospel of Jesus Christ was restored in its fullness through the prophet Joseph Smith. We do not worship Joseph Smith, but you cannot be a member of this Church without a testimony of his role in the restoration.

We Love and Worship the Lord Jesus Christ and we spend our lives serving him. We believe in the plan of Salvation, in which Christ is the central figure. We believe that by Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved.

My apologies Albert, for the novel length comment. I will go ahead an also post it as my own column.

Editor's Note: What was not included in your recitation of LDS theology is at the heart of this column.

As I see it and no Mormon has disputed it yet, Jehovah is not the only god that ever existed.

From my reading of some reference sources this belif did not originate with Joseph Smith but actulally was fairly common in older versions of Judeo Christianity.

I have yet not heard from Jay or Michael on this specific item although I feel that both could give me the mainstream LDS version of it.

I AM not disputing or endorsing the belief only commenting on my fascination concerning it.

I was very aware of how diametrically opposed a fundamentalist like my commenter "Peter" would be to any concept of more than one god.

BTW please note this "Peter" is not Peter Lounsberry and in fact has a very different lifestyle.

No need for aploogizing, MK but I would ask you to possibly comment on the specific item this column is concerned with, whether or not a multiplicity of dieties in LDS theology is either a fact or my misreading of an earlier comment or column by Michael Christianson.



61825690
# 8. 12/8/09 1:54 AM by mk
I don't exactly understand where you are coming from. I thought I'd answered your question directly.

We don't believe in the trinity- as in God is the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost are the same being. Hence the importance of Joseph Smith's vision in the sacred Grove:

Two Heavenly Beings- appeared to Him, God the Father and His Beloved Son Jesus Christ. We believe Jesus Christ is our advocate with the Father. We believe that the role of the Holy Ghost is to teach and testify of Christ. - Do we pray to all three at once? No, We pray to our Heavenly Father in the Name of Jesus Christ.

I thought I explained- we believe the God head to be Three separate beings: God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost or Spirit.

So I don't understand why you don't believe I answered your question. I did, but perhaps we are talking apples and oranges and I still don't understand what you mean.

Am I mistaken to believe you are deeply religious and that you want to see how others- really believe and why. I don't think you are looking for new beliefs, but you take your own so sacredly, you are curious to see how others really feel.

I take no offense. Thanks for the info on two Peters. That can be very confusing.

Editor's Note: Jay finally has chimed in on this and probably will satisfy my curiosity. You are quite accurate in your impression of me.

Jay also agreed that the Bible mentions a multiplicity of gods in many places.



49368184
# 9. 12/8/09 2:38 AM by Jay - OR
Michael can speak for himself, though I wonder if he has read your column.

And, I'm not speaking for mk. Her exposition on Mormon doctrine is exceptionally well done. I'll not add to it.

Having said that, I'd invite you to examine the word "doctrine." And that is in this sense: There IS some official LDS doctrine (as per mk). It is supported by the LDS standard works (scriptures, and official pronouncements of the prophets). There may be ideas that are consistent with that official doctrine, but are not included in it. To say the Church believes so and so, and for me to agree with it, is not to say that I don't believe the POSSIBILITY--perhaps probability--of something more. That something more may be owned by me on my own logic, building on the scriptures and building on the logical opinions of others that are consistent therewith.

There are many indications in the Bible that there is a multiplicity of gods. But only ONE God the Father to whom we owe fealty. A discussion of that, and more, transcends our personal knowledge, and as such is in its way as mysterious as the resolution of the question: from where did God (the traditional Christian God) come. To say that He always existed as conceived now is to state one of the ultimate of mysteries. Joseph Smith expressed opinions on the subject and is often quoted out of context. Yet, I believe he made the most sense of all theologians, certainly more than the speculators and self-proclaimed modern revelators. With all due respect, I'm convinced that the creedal Christians haven't a clue, and would rather reconcile their beliefs to those of the Greeks than mine-out the sublime truths found in their own scripture.

By the way, after all my exchanges with Peter, I'm surprised that he still believes Mormons have their own Bible.

Editor's Note: Like MK you may be confusing the "theologin" Peter who commented here with Peter Lounsberry. This Peter is a person who livews in the Rochester area from what I can gather and is very different than the other Peter that you have had dialog with.

Your words here reinforce what I assumed Michael meant and what LDS doctrine is. Like you say it differs from the Greek interpretation that this self styled "theologin" that commented that I was Misrepresenting Michael.

This is one area pd Scripture where I side with the LDS and oppose the Greek interprtetation that is the basis for most of contemporary Judeo-Christian theology.

I like your "creedal Christian" reference.

If Michael ever sees my original column I posted here I hope he certifies that I have quoted him accurately even as I did so out of context. I did not think that any additional brief context would have made any difference to this Peter theologin character that has issues with my style and spirituality. He admits not being a Mormon as I do but I Am not so blind that I dont dare look at non-traditional Judeo-Christian interpretation of ancient scripture or for that matter other non Judeo Christian work.

I remain very appreciative that a few Mormons remain here when these issues come under discussion to aid in my quest for accurate knowledge.

Thanks very much Jay



60268244
# 10. 12/8/09 9:21 AM by Jonathan
Michael is having trouble getting internet access of late. His current residence has spotty access, and the library has time limits. So it is highly probable that he hasn't read this. You might have better luck emailing him.

Editor's Note: Jay answered with the same info I would have expected from Michael.



49368184
# 11. 12/9/09 6:41 PM by Jay - OR
I surely do hope that Michael will notice and come on board with his explanation as to why he wrote what he did, in the way he did. I believe you have quoted him correctly. I don't dispute what he said, though I might qualify it in several ways to coincide with what I personally believe.

Mormons have taken a lot of flack from credal Christians, they alleging we are "God Makers," without they having any official authority for that position. It seems they cannot tolerate any other than the Greek concept of a deity, though they certainly put their own spins on it, as well they are entitled. I suggest there is no place in the scriptures that denies the interpretation that Michael suggests.

As for me, with the disclaimer that I don't speak for the Church or any other Mormon, I like the idea that God, the Supreme, is in the business of God-making. Of course, I believe in an eternal, personal spirit owned by me, and at the best my subordinate state of perfection will be accomplished long after I have done what I must in this life. To belabor that is to belabor unknowns, therefor mysterious. But, if men are making up ideas--as I believe the credal Christians are--I'm convinced my idea far surpasses theirs.

Editor's Note: Your sentance that God is in the business of "God Making" fits into my own spiritual paradigm very well.

My early negative concept of the multiple Hindu gods as rank superstition changed greatly when my realizations that each of thos gods were expressions of specific principles. Now I see the multiple god principle as a good tool to teach of these seperate characteristics to a less intellectually oriented populace..

Men ar always making up ideas. It is my main arguement against the ones who think they have the last word on Absolute Truth.

As humankind evolves I think the capacity for the averge person to handle advanced thinking can better integrate knowledge with spirituality.

The conviction contained in your last sentance is worthy of framing. I know it is something way beyond blind speculation.

I would call it the driving force of mysticism.

Thanks Jay reading this comment has been a treat.



53032221
# 12. 12/11/09 12:37 PM by Michael - Las Vegas
Not to mention I'm kinda busy getting settled in a new house and stuff. I am here responding only to your column, having but skimmed the comments.

The following is not *official* doctrine but my interpretation of scripture. Some material is based on W. Cleon's Skousen's talk "The Infinite Atonement." (Skousen was a semi-famous LDS author and lecturer but never held positions of general authority in the church.)

I wish I could remember the exact context of this statement. But taken on its face, I think I meant to emphasize that all fundamental units of sentience--"intelligences"--have always existed as such. That includes you, me, Jay, Pete, MK, Jonathan, Jesus, even the Father. It's your own little self-knowing, self-determining bit of "i am"-ness. Intelligence cannot be created or made, existing from everlasting to everlasting, and thus all are co-eternal (D&C 93:29).

Some intelligences are greater than others, and the one we call God not only is the greatest of them all, but greater than them all combined (Abr. 3:17-19). Fortunately the greatest intelligence is also the most loving and compassionate and wisest--such is the very nature of pure intelligence--and so He devised and put into motion a perfect plan whereby the lesser intelligences (you and I) might progress, should we so choose, and become like Himself--like, but never exceeding. God is the only one who is Godly by virtue of who and what He intrinsically is; the rest of us may become so by His virtue and grace.

Editor's Note: Thanks for the reply. Rather than seeing this concept as a LDS one I see it like Jay mentioned as a common understanding prior to Judeo-Christianity being narrowed down or distorted by Greek theologins.

I have some dim recollection of Skousen's work but dont recall if it was Rosicrucian sourced or not.

I know your Ontology includes a more personalezed concept of God than my own but really dont see any conflict with my orthocentric paradigm especially when you explain the concept of a hiearchy of intelligences with the God you speak of as the Supreme Being.

I'd love to see you make a comment on the Atonement and expand on it using your own perception. My understanding of it is probably the best I can explain as to why I use the I Am relate. It's more of a realization of an illusion of seperation than any claim of supreme divinity.

I know you have an extensive background in physics. I feel that acceptance of Quantum Theory as more than speculation is probably the key to me clarifying my Ontology.

It was my realization that Einstien was religious that kept me from going the atheist route years ago when I couldn't buy the Roman Catholic package. I have been auditing courses on CDs from the Teaching Company and one in particular of the age of axiology relates to all this. I never was aware of the term but notice you seem famiiliar with it.

The self-styled theologin who accused me of misrepresenting your original quote that I admitted I pulled out of context has a rather creedal concept of religion as most Judeo-Christians have. I often am aware of such relative to where a persons original theological instruction is sourced.

There is a Bible College not too far from where I live. I was in a dialog with one of the adult students and had to suppress my reaction when he startend saying he accepted most Bibles except the Roman Catholic version.

I'd love to see his reaction to the Jefferson one.

I'm glad you again reaffirmed here what I understood your quote to mean.

I have seen other non-Mormons think they know how all Mormon's think. I have seen the criticisms by both Catholic and Fundamentalist churches. At least I hope never to be seen as painting all you guys with that a broad brush. I Am aware of some common characteristics but know you have more freedom to believe than most imagine.

MK and Jay has been helpful since both are common sence people.

Thanks again for the reply.




include comments