Nelson gives revelation that God loves Mormons more than others...

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Nelson gives revelation that God loves Mormons more than others...

Post by Kishkumen »

huckelberry wrote:
Wed Oct 05, 2022 5:17 am
Kishkumen ,I hope you do not mind if I find an invitation to expand a thought in your comment.

I suppose there may be some people who think John was watching a visual document of what is going to happen. It is possible that that is closer to Johns original belief, in that time. Actually it is possible I think that he did not, that he thought of it as I mentioned I do. People back then were not dumb. They understood poetic and imaginary narrative as communication of real ideas.

I am aware that it is possible to think of the entire Bible story as a fiction communicating some important ideas . The ideas can be about real relationships and principals of our life. God can be the potential for life that people have and have in community. There is something beyond just ourself in the human community which calls us to become more and better. It is possible to think of Jesus as a spiritual medicine to help people move toward that positive potential. We need forgiveness for error and self acceptance of our limitations for us to life with courage. The price and process of healing is in giving forgiveness to others and to help them overcome. As medicine to heal our weakness Jesus is the divine incarnate.

Now in truth I primarily believe these principals to be held in actually existing God , son and atonement. Their actual existence does not cover or diminish those basic principals but are surer foundation for them. Now I want to admit as a matter of true honesty I am not always as sure of this literalness as could be. I know of reasons to doubt and am actually a person who finds it difficult to not question and doubt. But to my mind if I am wrong about the literal existence of God I think the meaning of God and what God represents is something worth holding to .
Hey, huckelberry! Thanks for the thoughtful response. So, I think of the Gospel of John as a key Christian text of the late first century AD, one that was written by a community that was at odds with those Christians who identified with Thomas traditions. As such it tries to portray Jesus in a particular theological slant, one that clearly deifies Jesus to an extent unprecedented, as far as we know, up to that point. Noteworthy, however, is the fact that it does not provide a nativity narrative of any kind. Perhaps in pursuit of its high christology, it omits that stuff altogether. The human birth of Jesus only impedes our thinking of him as the Word of God.

I like to think of all of this in a way that puts together theology and philosophy, as much as I, being an amateur in both subjects, as well as New Testament, can. I do not believe that earliest participants in the Jesus movement thought that Jesus was literally the child of God, as the nativities would appear to describe. Instead, the narratives serve to explain, in story form, the superlative nature of Jesus' close relationship with Divinity. In this, these writers (Matthew and Luke) are following pagan precedents. I similarly do not think that Greeks really believed Alexander was the literal son of Zeus-Ammon, or that the Romans believed Augustus was the literal son of Apollo. Rather, a narrative explanation was offered to make sense out of the unique excellence of these figures.

I say this, and yet I am not suggesting that they did not believe in a kind of parent-child relationship between the gods and these historical giants. What I am saying is that the manifestation of their excellence was taken as evidence of such a relationship. In other words, "you can only be so marvelous by being the child of a deity." At that point, history does not matter so much as communicating the reality of that special nature. In my view, early Christology had Jesus adopted as the Son of God. That is what I think to this day, and it is the only thing that makes sense to me. Jesus was considered the Son of God because his followers experienced how amazing he was, and they wanted to express that amazing nature in a way that put him above the historical giants of that world: Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Augustus.

This results in the obviously mythological but altogether meaningful and important nativity narratives. Jesus simply must have a story that explains him in terms familiar to those who knew about Alexander, Caesar, and Augustus, but his story has to make him better. His story must also conform to the moral niceties of the religious culture of the Jews. "John" brings in a touch of the philosophical sophistication of the Logos, and leaves out the nativities. But I doubt you would have John without the same impetus to describe Jesus as better than the competition.

I can only understand the incarnation through this lens. There is no way that I can make sense out of it by saying that the nativity narratives are literally historical accounts of what happened in the conception of the person Jesus of Nazareth. At the same time, for me it does not at all matter. But I think to most Christians who consider themselves orthodox Trinitarian Christians, it does matter. In a sense, I wish it did not, because taking it at face value seems so hokey to me. This does not mean that I reject Trinitarianism as a meaningful construct. To the contrary, I view David Bentley Hart's explanation of these things to be very attractive.

As human beings, we tell stories. Language is the tool we have to make sense out of our world and our place in it. Religious narratives are worthwhile in communicating and grappling with profound aspects of the human experience, and for those reasons I continue to care about them. But I have an extremely difficult time taking certain kinds of engagement with those narratives very seriously anymore. In this case, I know too much about the context in which Jesus was declared the Word and the Son of God to take those titles at face value.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
malkie
God
Posts: 1478
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:41 pm

Re: Nelson gives revelation that God loves Mormons more than others...

Post by malkie »

huckelberry wrote:
Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:55 am
malkie wrote:
Mon Oct 03, 2022 12:35 am
None - but if we are talking about the "theology" of someone who is relatively ignorant about the Bible, and hears hellfire and damnation preached every Sunday, I'm not sure that that matters.


As far as I know (and I believe it, because it would represent an anachronism) no book in the Bible teaches hatred of Catholics. But lots of preachers in Scotland taught it; and their congregations ate it up, and accepted it as part of their religion. My dad used to say that there were few real Protestants in our home town, but there were lots of rabid anti-Catholics who wouldn't recognize Jesus' teachings if they met them in their soup.
Malkie, a good little quip about anti catholic passion.

If I found myself in a church preaching hellfire and damnation I would go home take a shower and go elsewhere.

Just my two cents because I do not know if God loves somepeople more than others. The Bible notes he liked David.
Yes.

I suspect that it's just another case of people either continuing in the religion of their birth, or going where they like what they hear.

Or both.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details.
Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Nelson gives revelation that God loves Mormons more than others...

Post by huckelberry »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Oct 05, 2022 9:51 pm
..... In other words, "you can only be so marvelous by being the child of a deity." At that point, history does not matter so much as communicating the reality of that special nature. In my view, early Christology had Jesus adopted as the Son of God. That is what I think to this day, and it is the only thing that makes sense to me. Jesus was considered the Son of God because his followers experienced how amazing he was, and they wanted to express that amazing nature in a way that put him above the historical giants of that world: Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Augustus.

This results in the obviously mythological but altogether meaningful and important nativity narratives. Jesus simply must have a story that explains him in terms familiar to those who knew about Alexander, Caesar, and Augustus, but his story has to make him better. His story must also conform to the moral niceties of the religious culture of the Jews. "John" brings in a touch of the philosophical sophistication of the Logos, and leaves out the nativities. But I doubt you would have John without the same impetus to describe Jesus as better than the competition

I can only understand the incarnation through this lens. There is no way that I can make sense out of it by saying that the nativity narratives are literally historical accounts of what happened in the conception of the person Jesus of Nazareth. At the same time, for me it does not at all matter. But I think to most Christians who consider themselves orthodox Trinitarian Christians, it does matter. ....
Kishkumen, your whole post was interesting and made me think. I would not try to pressure you to change your view but will try to reply just for reflection on the question.

It is clear that the idea of virgin birth does not explain the how of Jesus as human is related to God. Adoption is an earlier explanation which also does not explain. I think the birth story says the relationship of human Jesus and God the Father is a lifelong fundamental relationship and not just a passing moment. I see no reason it has to be virgin birth but that is the received story.

And as a story I hold the Christmas story as beautiful and inspirational. I think It contains a deeper understanding of Christianity than some theological contraptions do . Perhaps I am thinking primarily of nothing much further than the inbreaking of divine possibility into the sludge of ordinary existence.

I thought about puzzling over the apocalyptic prophet and what happened to his apocalypse. I find that interesting but not short. I then went to the internet and went through a few articles saying why the virgin birth doctrine is necessary. Mushy unclarity to my view.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Nelson gives revelation that God loves Mormons more than others...

Post by Kishkumen »

huckelberry wrote:
Sat Oct 08, 2022 1:47 am
Kishkumen, your whole post was interesting and made me think. I would not try to pressure you to change your view but will try to reply just for reflection on the question.

It is clear that the idea of virgin birth does not explain the how of Jesus as human is related to God. Adoption is an earlier explanation which also does not explain. I think the birth story says the relationship of human Jesus and God the Father is a lifelong fundamental relationship and not just a passing moment. I see no reason it has to be virgin birth but that is the received story.

And as a story I hold the Christmas story as beautiful and inspirational. I think It contains a deeper understanding of Christianity than some theological contraptions do . Perhaps I am thinking primarily of nothing much further than the inbreaking of divine possibility into the sludge of ordinary existence.

I thought about puzzling over the apocalyptic prophet and what happened to his apocalypse. I find that interesting but not short. I then went to the internet and went through a few articles saying why the virgin birth doctrine is necessary. Mushy unclarity to my view.
I agree that the nativity story is inspirational and lovely. I just don’t find much in it to recommend it as a historical event. No story will explain everything. It will always be partial. I think I understand what you mean by “lifelong fundamental relationship,” but I think that applies to everyone. If there is a Deity that created everyone, then how does anyone not have a “lifelong fundamental relationship” with that Deity?
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Nelson gives revelation that God loves Mormons more than others...

Post by huckelberry »

Kishkumen wrote:
Sat Oct 08, 2022 2:49 am
huckelberry wrote:
Sat Oct 08, 2022 1:47 am
...

It is clear that the idea of virgin birth does not explain the how of Jesus as human is related to God. Adoption is an earlier explanation which also does not explain. I think the birth story says the relationship of human Jesus and God the Father is a lifelong fundamental relationship and not just a passing moment. I see no reason it has to be virgin birth but that is the received story.
....
I agree that the nativity story is inspirational and lovely. I just don’t find much in it to recommend it as a historical event. No story will explain everything. It will always be partial. I think I understand what you mean by “lifelong fundamental relationship,” but I think that applies to everyone. If there is a Deity that created everyone, then how does anyone not have a “lifelong fundamental relationship” with that Deity?
kishkumen, you show that my choice of phrase, lifelong fundamental relationship, is a bit too general. You are certainly correct to note we all have a fundamental relationship with God. Without that foundational idea no Christian thinking would function at all as best as I can tell. I was thinking of a comparison between adoption and the idea that the spirit, Son of God was in Jesus through out is life, A fundamental to who he was sort of thing.

I think the idea of divine in Jesus in some sort of special way is implied in the adoptionist form in early Christian thought as well as later statement as in John. For Paul Jesus life death resurrection is a connecting point for all of us to be reborn to new life with God. That does not spell out the particulars but implies a connection to God the creator closer than others have. Yes that is a Jesus is better sort of thing but it is also an idea with a functional aim.

I do not think Christian understanding of that has been either complete or unified. The form, hypostatic union established as doctrine by the councils is a marker but does it really explain ? I do not know. It does make it possible to think of the crucified God which is a more interesting thing than the idea of a human animal sacrifice with cleaner blood.
Jason Bourne
Star A
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 2:17 pm

Re: Nelson gives revelation that God loves Mormons more than others...

Post by Jason Bourne »

Kishkumen wrote:
Sat Oct 01, 2022 11:35 am
malkie wrote:
Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:01 pm
According to Elder Nelson, Mormon god's love is conditional.


Divine Love
Nelson is a theological disaster area.
Indeed. Also I do not recall an LDS Church President that has come off as so arrogant, narcissistic and grandiose. He constantly seems to need to put stuff out to keep member on the edge of their seats and it all ends up being a nothing hamburger.
Post Reply