This is just silly. To reduce monotheism to moral objectivism is not to declare faith in the one God; it is to do away with God altogether. God is not necessary for moral objectivism per se — plenty of atheists believe that issues of moral behavior are not matters of personal taste. Indeed, one should be careful of conflating the two, lest morality prove to be just a matter of God’s personal taste, which would contradict moral objectivism. Monotheists who believe in moral objectivism believe that morality is determined independently of anyone’s preferences, human or divine. Moral behavior is not good because God loves it; God loves moral behavior because it is good.

To reduce monotheism to moral objectivism is to do away with one or the other, either by eliminating the monotheistic faith in God and leaving only an atheistic moral objectivism or by eliminating the objectivity of morality and turning it into the personal taste of one God.

This is just silly. To reduce monotheism to moral objectivism is not to declare faith in the one God; it is to do away with God altogether. God is not necessary for moral objectivism per se — plenty of atheists believe that issues of moral behavior are not matters of personal taste. Indeed, one should be careful of conflating the two, lest morality prove to be just a matter of God’s personal taste, which would contradict moral objectivism. Monotheists who believe in moral objectivism believe that morality is determined independently of anyone’s preferences, human or divine. Moral behavior is not good because God loves it; God loves moral behavior because it is good.

To reduce monotheism to moral objectivism is to do away with one or the other, either by eliminating the monotheistic faith in God and leaving only an atheistic moral objectivism or by eliminating the objectivity of morality and turning it into the personal taste of one God.

once again i outdid yourself…

this is why i always pick my nose….

once again i outdid yourself…

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion.

Non-Mormon Christians of the world, what say ye?

His argument against you being monotheists is as good or better than your argument against Mormons being monotheists. Certainly his explanation, be it true or false, is clearer than yours. And his arguments have a certain gut level “logic” to them that are undeniable. Can one really claim true monotheism and Trinitarianism at the same time? Is that really the generally accepted definition of monotheism?

If his arguments are invalid, which presumably they are, then on what grounds do you claim Mormons are not monotheists?

It is so simple, so why create such a complex explanation of parts and intermediaries?

Thanks for spending the time to articulate all you did re: “embodiment”. I can see better where you are coming from and why this term is not the most precise.

An interesting word choice to describe mankind as “offspring” rather than “creation”. This may highlight the difference in nuance between our faiths better than “children,” “Father,” or “embodiment.”

Recently I heard one of the General Authorities explain it, but I can’t remember the reference. He spoke of how, as a boy becomes a man and a father, he still remains his father’s son. It is the same with us. Our God and Father will forever remain as such, even if we reach such exalted state. And to go along with the subject of the thread, we remain witholden to that which is Good and Right, to that Moral law.

For example, the most concise statement is the one in D7C 130:22, which states:

“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.”

That appears to be a straightforward statement of “embodiment” – until you consider that we believe Spirits are “embodied” in a very real and “tangible” way.

D&C 131:7-8 says:

“There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.”

Next, we speak generally of “flesh” as the outward surface of our bodies (the flexible structure **within** which we are organized) and “bones” as the inward, skeletal structure of our bodies (the “calcified” structure **around** which we are organized). Each of these aspects of our physical bodies is corruptible and subject to decay. The question then becomes, what does it mean to have a resurrected “body of flesh and bones, as tangible as man’s”? (Btw, as I’m sure you are aware, we use the term “body of flesh and bones” because that was the way Jesus described His resurrected body to the disciples to whom He appeared, with whom he spoke and for whom He ate in Luke 24:37-39:

” But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not **flesh and bones**, as ye see me have.”)

The D&C makes it clear that spirits are “tangible” and “embodied” just as our physical bodies are – only to a different degree and “discernibility”. Given these statements, it becomes very difficult to say with certainty exactly what it means for God to be “tangible” with a body of “flesh and bones”.

That is a long-winded way of saying that I hesitate to use the term “embodied” specifically I believe it does not describe the condition of the Father (and the Son) in any meaningful way – given our belief that spirits also are “embodied” in a very real way. I prefer to use something that focuses more on our relational growth potential, and I think it is accurate to say that literally “becoming perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” – literally becoming god-like in the fullest sense by reaching a state of godhood similar to that of the Father – literally “growing up to be like Father” – is something that is not found in the orthodox Christian theology of our day. (I know you mentioned this in your response, but I wanted to phrase it in my own way in terms of why I don’t use “embodied”.) In fact, if there is one thing that gets us labeled as a heretical, damnable cult, that probably is it – even though it is taught MUCH more clearly, imo, in the Bible than in the Book of Mormon.

Given all of that, I generally say something like “God as an *actual* Father” – meaning a creator whose offspring can grow to become like Him – whose children can grow up and approximate Him – who is *actually* a Father in every sense of the word, not just the “spiritual” (or allegorical or symbolic or figurative) ones.

Christians have always considered the Father an actual father — those who are justified become His adopted children. His enduring patience and compassion for those who are His is seen as unshakable and tender that we can only partly understand in our own mortal experiences as a parent. There has not been a historical Christian tradition of considering Him of the same species as humanity. So it may be said our role as adopted children is merely a title, but this would not do service to His creative, divine Nature, His overarching behavior of seeking mankind and the very parental, redeeming and transformative relationship into which we are invited. Therefore, I think it only reasonable to conclude Christianity has always had a strong current of believing God our actual father.

This greatly informs the traditional concept and nuance of theosis that makes it distinct from the LDS view — and I admire your nuance regarding emulation and approximation. Even the thrust of Orthodox theosis in this same nuanced regard has had a strong current in both traditional Catholic and Protestant sanctification theologies. It was primarily the old terminology of referring to it as theosis — becoming a little-g god — that was largely abandoned because it was thought the natural error was to invert belief toward human-centrism as opposed to realizing that it was properly seen as God becoming fully manifest within His glorified creation, which was the traditional nuance.

Since a strong “theosis” current has continued through Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant theologies, nuanced in the spirit of the Patristic notion (which, then, was never quite a formalised doctrine) of theosis, albeit not identical in each subsequent tradition, I couldn’t quite envision how a Christian concept of Fatherhood could be strongly argued as lost. When you mentioned “removal of the Father as an actual Father” I couldn’t think of a historical Christian correlative to the LDS post-Kirtland view of God’s embodied, exalted homo sapiens, actual Fatherhood. Therefore I read “embodied” into your assertion.

That’s a significant difference, my brother.

JFQ, I know this is going to expose my complete ignorance, but I only learned the word “post modernist” fairly recently. I’m still not even entirely sure what it means. But apparently I am one — or at least have a strong streak of it. From my view, then, I hope you can appreciate that how one sees history is primarily a reflection of one’s own views and thus the facts of history can be freely and easily painted either way.

This means, I understand where you are coming from and I can see why you would say this. But I feel the same way about what Ray said.

tk,
link please.

Anna G, I have a lot more to say on this subject in (hopefully) upcoming posts. This is a profound truth so frankly I have a hard time explaining it using words. But it’s a feeling or experience I have from time to time and then can’t seem to fully explain it.

But for now, let me just say that if two beings have a oneness of will as profound as, say, the Father and the Son, it really doesn’t matter to either if one is “superior” to the other or not. The Son would share the fulness of the Father and be as fully divine as the Father, and yet the Son would see the Father as greater then He.

I do not see the Mormon doctrine of deification as being any different at all. In fact, I see it as the definititive explanation of the Trinity that has eluded mortals for centuries.

From a mortal perspective we worry very much about “who is superior” and “who is the the real leader” but this is specifically important in the mortal world because no one has the same will with anyone else so there is always a question of what would happen if two people cannot resolve their differences or compromise sufficiently or work it out. In the real word, we are forced to have “by laws” so to speak about whose will ends up winning out. But in the economy of God (as Mormons teach of it) this is a meaningless question because you can’t be “a god” without having the very same will as the Father. You will always want what they want and they will always want what you want.

This is why it is Jesus’ will that we, his disciples, be one as He and the Father are one.

That’s the best I can do off the cuff. I’ll be recycling these thoughs in a future post but hopefully explain myself better.

Update: Anna G, I feel I didn’t answer this question for you: “Or is the never-changing morality itself the “god”?”

I have to confess that I had a long email conversation with a Mormon that did in fact believe that never-changing morality came first. (He never called it a “god”). I do not see it that way. I believe the concept of morality and God are forever intertwined and can’t be seperated like that.

In other words, there is no church doctrine on this subject. You get to make it up yourself however you can best imagine it.

An embodied Father is not tradition that any Christian universal apostasy removed. Furthermore, early Christian theosis was not materially (in species kind or nature) interpreted as may be extrapolated from LDS doctrines. Fair enough for LDS to feel passionate about the nature and uniqueness of its doctrine. I just think it’s historically inaccurate to paint traditional Christian theology as having apostatized from this doctrine that Smith then restored.

Furthermore Christian theology has never explicitly and universally condemned (to my study anyway) nor excluded the Jewish tradition that YaHWeH encompasses both masculine and feminine characteristics — traditional masculine pronouns notwithstanding — as ultimately our soul identity and divine essence isn’t seen so materially and specie-ally gender fixed as dualist and materialist moderns prefer — including LDS. In this way I think it is confining that LDS-ism is so dualistically committed. Either way, it would be nice if these aspects of our traditions would emotionally take hold a bit more so that gender inclusiveness could improve within the universal Church.