Quote:
Originally Posted by pelagius
nice you found some. However, its not the dominant way to refer to "God" in the OT. My point is why even use this "Father" thing when your goal seems to point out perceived inconcistencies between modern Mormon conceptions of God and OT conceptions of God. It is a strange way to articulate your point. In fact it is head scratching.
If your goal is to argue that the OT conception of God is different then modern LDS conceptions than you certainly won't get disagreement from me (atlhough there is clearly considerable overlap as well). I can't image why you expect consistency here or think it is important (unless for some reason you think most of us on cougarguard are fundamentalists.)
|
Of course I am not advocating for any concept of "the godhead" as factual or true in an empricial sense. I believe the godhead is mythical, though its cosmology and development are facinating nonetheless. I'm glad you acknowledge lack of consistency here because my point is directed to the traditional LDS attitude that aesthetically or "logically" mainstream Christianity's Trinity is absurd. As you seem to acknowledge, the LDS concept is equally absurd. Perhaps it is aesthetically less satisfying as well. LDS leaders seem now to have acknowledged that the full force of the atonement doctrine requires that Jesus and the God of the Bible (s/k/a God the Father, if you will) be one and the same. This seems to me to render the Father an unaccountable redundancy and loose end, and the OT's usage of "The Father" inexplicable (the usage not all that infrequent, I contend, and it's frequent enough to be a problem for those claiming Christ is not the Father but is God).
From your moniker I can tell you're aware of all the wrangling that went on in late antiquity on this very issue. The Catholic articulation of the Trinity is actually a compromise between the two sides of the bloody argument. This was partly a political expediency but also prompted by the conundrum that arises from separating Jesus from "the Father," but acknowledging Jesus as the God of the OT (God the Father). I submit this is yet another example where Mormonism actually lacks any coherent doctrine, but is going on a crazy quilt of internally inconsistent folklore and prophet writings that may or may not make sense or be "doctrine."