Is Satan really...

[ryanh]

I skimmed through the first FAIR link LM provided. Being near SLC, I hear the news twice a year about these individuals. Quite frankly, I'm a little surprised if they simply can't swallow the idea that the advesary is somehow 'related'. Don't they believe in God being the creator of all things? What really is their theology regarding the creation/existance of the advesary? Or are they simply blowing something out of proportion because they feel it can be made into a logical argument if couched just right?

It seems most people don't struggle much with the idea that ALL on this earth are the creation of God - his children. That we are all brothers and sisters. There are some on this earth that I'm not too excited to call my 'brother' (cain, hitler, bin laden, etc). Just because of what they do doesn't mean I "can't" be spiritually related without making either me, or God Himself, less.

It's seems to me that the creative process of our earthly children in at least some respects reflects the creation prior to this earth life. Most of our children are "average". Once in a while, someone has a child, that despite their upbringing, chooses evil - some very much so. And then every once in a while, a prodigy pops out.

[Dravin]

Originally Posted by Loudmouth_Mormon

No - we are not equal with Christ. He is many things:
savior, lord, master, firstborn, annointed one, messiah. I'm not any of those things. Not equal.

Yep, though I daresay we are equally loved. My parents, if they wanted a heavy object moved, would ask me over my 10 year old brother, this is not because they love him less or me more, just that I am capable of the task at hand and he is not.

[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by fatima

Are we all equally spirit children of the Father? If so, why would He give the benefit of His Divinity to only one of His children?

Do you love all your children equally?

Did they all get their driver's licenses at the same time?

[Misshalfway]

Originally Posted by fatima

I have no problem at all with a church, either LDS or Catholic or otherwise, saying that the fullness of understand Truth has not been revealed (or I think a better word is "understood"). That is not the part that I'm finding hard to digest. I mean, in Catholic doctrine, for instance, that Mary was immaculately conceived only became a "must believe" in the 19th century. It had been speculated prior to that, but not binding on Catholics.
It's just the idea that God would "set us up", so to speak, to sin. I mean, what choice did A and E have other than to disobey? God does not ever, ever, ever will us to sin.
Additionally, that there are what seem to be doctrines that contradict the very nature of God. I mean, preferential treatment for one of His children. (please forgive any crudeness, I'm not really sure how to put some of this)
As a Trinitarian, it does make more sense, and that it is consistent with God's all goodness, to become man Himself, in Jesus Christ. He is the only eternal and infinitely good being, so only the infinite can pay the infinite price.

I am not sure God "set us up" to sin. I am not sure you can catagorically call A&E's choice a
"sin" in the technical sense, because the two of them were innocent and didn't possess the full faculties to appreciate right from wrong. Partaking of the fruit is what gave them those sensibilities -- a condition that was necessary if the people were going to be tested. There had to be first, opposing forces to test them, and then the ability to choose and discern the difference. If none of this were true, there would have been no need for the garden in the first place and Eve's mistake would have been no different than any other of mankinds contrary choices.

We believe that having the opposing forces upon us....meaning good and evil and then human agency to choose was fundamental to the plan of salvation and the progression of the children of father in heaven. Do you see any value in these opposites? Do you not see how feeling pain makes feeling joy possible?

When you talk about an infinite blemish free sacrifice, you are right. Only a God could take upon himself the sins of the world and conquer death at the same time. As I have studied and questioned this same idea myself, I come away unsatisfied. And that is why I think anyway, that we don't really know how both can be true. We just have a glimse into progression and how god's came to be. There is no doubt in my mind that the Jesus spoken of in scriptures, even our additional scriptures, that Jesus was absolutely the great I AM. It also seems true that he had to come to earth and gain a body the same as the rest of us.

Consider for a moment that the Godhead were the proper description of God and that the Father and the son are absolutely two separate beings. Then consider who also made a sacrifice. Are you familiar with the sacrifice of Abraham of his son Isaac? God the Father also made the sacrifice as he gave his sinless son to die for the rest. It was a sacrifice given to us by both of these key members in the Godhead and something that was required of both of them......giving a beloved son and the willingness to be the son and give ones life. It is a profound sacrifice, no matter who would have offered it. But only possible because of the power, omnipotence etc etc of the Gods. It makes a great deal of sense why the sky was darkened and the earth rocked with distruction after the son was killed. If I had been the parent watching, I may have raged a bit in that way as well.

[fatima]

There had to be first, opposing forces to test them,

There were already opposing forces in the garden. God said "no fruit" and Satan said "go ahead". A and E had the choice to say "God has said no". They knew they were not supposed to eat that fruit, and they knew that doing so would be contrary to God's Will. That was the test, right there in the garden. What they did not know was what the entirety of the consequences would be.
I do see Abraham and Issac as a foreshadowing, but not quite the same way you do. I believe we call Jesus "Son of God" because our finite human minds have no other word for the relationship between the two. I once heard it said that God, in His inspiration to the writers of the Scriptures, condescended in order to teach us. The story of A and I is meant to help us understand the magnitude of the Sacrifice, but I do not agree that it was an exact replica of the Heavenly Sacrifice, only a shadow. The three persons of the One God and, in short, the three different roles they play. The Father as creator of all things, the Son as the Redeemer and the Holy Spirit as the Giver of the Gifts, yet still one God. Kind of like I am mother to my children, wife to my husband and sister to my sister. Completely different ways of behaving/relating to them all based on what they need from me at the time, but I'm still one person.
How could Jesus have been part of the Godhead without having undergone the test? I thought humanity was a prerequisite to god hood?
I appreciate everyone's time.

[bytebear]

Originally Posted by fatima

How could Jesus have been part of the Godhead without having undergone the test? I thought humanity was a prerequisite to god hood?
I appreciate everyone's time.

Nope. The Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead and he has no body. Assuming you believe the Godhead existed prior to the creation of the Earth, and the Earth was created by Christ, how could he have created the Earth before being a participant on it.

Is the issue with LDS belief which is pretty clear on the subject, or it's incompatibility with Trinitarian though?

[curtishouse]

Jesus Christ and Satan being literally spirit brothers makes a lot more sense to me than the Trinity or, in Fatima's case, transubstantiation. I understand both concepts (I've even looked into Catholicism in the past) but trying to explain those, especially transubstantiation, is a lot more confusing than anything covered in this discussion. It all makes perfect sense to me and I am, by no means, a theologian.

[fatima]

Originally Posted by bytebear

Nope. The Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead and he has no body. Assuming you believe the Godhead existed prior to the creation of the Earth, and the Earth was created by Christ, how could he have created the Earth before being a participant on it.

Is the issue with LDS belief which is pretty clear on the subject, or it's incompatibility with Trinitarian though?

I don't have a problem with God being spirit, but I thought (and this is what I am trying to clear up) Mormon theology said that one must be human before he can progress to divinity.
If God the Father had to undergo the test, why didn't the Holy Spirit? God the Father was not "part of the godhead" until He perfected Himself in His humanity, right? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm perfectly willing to listen.
Trinitarianism hold that God always was and always will be God. He became man for the express purpose of our salvation. He humbled Himself to show us the way to live. Transubstantiation is perfectly consistent with that (although I imagine that is for another thread). He has humbled Himself even further to nourish our souls with Himself. Did He need to take on that form? No, but He chose to for our sake. Well, I guess, like I said, that 's another thread.

[bytebear]

Originally Posted by fatima

I don't have a problem with God being spirit, but I thought (and this is what I am trying to clear up) Mormon theology said that one must be human before he can progress to divinity.
If God the Father had to undergo the test, why didn't the Holy Spirit? God the Father was not "part of the godhead" until He perfected Himself in His humanity, right? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm perfectly willing to listen.
Trinitarianism hold that God always was and always will be God. He became man for the express purpose of our salvation. He humbled Himself to show us the way to live. Transubstantiation is perfectly consistent with that (although I imagine that is for another thread). He has humbled Himself even further to nourish our souls with Himself. Did He need to take on that form? No, but He chose to for our sake. Well, I guess, like I said, that 's another thread.

For some their callings are made in the preexistance. Jesus was called to be part of the Godhead in the preexistence. He inherited all that God had before he was born. As part of that calling, he was chosen to be the savior of the world, and had a mission to fulfill, but he was chose for that prior to his birth.

Here is a scripture to ponder:

Jeremiah 1

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

[fatima]

Jeremiah can be understood in a way that supports both LDS theology and Trinitarian theology. I don't see this as definitive; in fact, the Scriptures could be talking of any LDS prophets as well as the Christ, if one believes LDS prophets to be true prophets.
As to the rest, I guess we're at an impasse because I don't see it as remotely consistent with what I've been told about Mormon beliefs. It seems that all the things I consider a contradiction are somehow an inexplicable exception.
Thanks for your time anyway.