Worship the Father or Jesus?
Posted by Connor on September 17th, 2006
Do members of the LDS church worship Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ?
There are numerous scriptures explaining that we worship the Father while believing in Christ:
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. (John 4:23)
…and when that day shall come that they shall believe in Christ, and worship the Father in his name, with pure hearts and clean hands… (2 Ne. 25:16)
Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name… (Jacob 4:5)
And you shall fall down and worship the Father in my name. (D&C 18:40)
And we know that all men must repent and believe on the name of Jesus Christ, and worship the Father in his name, and endure in faith on his name to the end, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God. (D&C 20:29)
The only time in the scriptures (that I’m aware of) of Christ being worshipped is when he was in the company of those worshipping him. In the Old World:
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. (Matthew 28:9)
And in the New World:
Father, thou hast given them the Holy Ghost because they believe in me; and thou seest that they believe in me because thou hearest them, and they pray unto me; and they pray unto me because I am with them. (3 Nephi 19:22)
While these scriptures may seem to make the answer black and white, President Hinckley throws something of his own into the mix. In his July 2006 article “In These Three I Believe“, he stated that he worships both the Father and Jesus Christ. Referring to Heavenly Father, he said:
This is the Almighty of whom I stand in awe and reverence. It is He to whom I look in fear and trembling. It is He whom I worship and unto whom I give honor and praise and glory. He is my Heavenly Father, who has invited me to come unto Him in prayer, to speak with Him, with the promised assurance that He will hear and respond.
And referring to Jesus, he said:
He is the Savior and the Redeemer of the world. … I worship Him as I worship His Father, in spirit and in truth. I thank Him and kneel before His wounded feet and hands and side, amazed at the love He offers me.
So do we worship both Heavenly Father and Jesus? It might help to determine what ‘worship’ is. President Joseph Fielding Smith defined ‘worship’ by saying:
We believe that worship is far more than prayer and preaching and gospel performance. The supreme act of worship is to keep the commandments, to follow in the footsteps of the Son of God, to do ever those things that please him. It is one thing to give lip service to the Lord; it is quite another to respect and honor his will by following the example he has set for us.
The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘worship’ as “the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity”.
So whom do we worship? Do we only worship the Father in Jesus’ name? Or can we worship Jesus as well? Since they are “one”, is it wrong to worship Jesus as well as the Father? Is such an act misguided and disrespectful?
If to worship is to have feelings of reverence and adoration, can we not have these feelings for both God and His Son? If, as Pres. Smith says, to worship is to keep the commandments, and we are given God’s commandments through Jesus, can we not worship both of them?
I think you need to begin with questioning what it means to ‘worship.’ Once you establish that, I don’t think there are any problems of having to pick one over the other.
Comment # 1 left by the narrator on September 17th, 2006
For me, it seems right to worship - meaning pray to and give all glory to - God the Father. I still feel that I worship Christ by your dictionary definition. It’s a sense of valuing His role in my salvation, and recognizing that I have no hope without Him, but hope beyond description if I will but repent and accept Him as my Savior.
In this sense I think we can worship them both, but it seems clear enough that we are instructed that when in prayer, the Being we are to address is God the Father and not Jesus Christ. It seems silly, but I guess if I wanted to get a special message to Christ, I would ask the Father in the name of Christ to let Christ know my feelings, and then as I understand it Christ would bring my petition before the Father, who I guess would then tell Christ the message that Christ just carried on my behalf?
Mike
www.latterdaylogic.com
Comment # 2 left by Mike B. on September 17th, 2006
sorry… last comment continued…
the oxford definition starts one off in the right direction in questioning what it means to worship.
i worship my dad as my earthly father who cares for me, helps me when needed, has good advice, etc.
i worshipped deion sanders as the greatest cornerback to play the game.
i worship wittgenstein as a philosophical genius.
i worship wikipedia as the source for knowledge.
i worship wendy’s for providing me with junior bacon cheeseburgers.
worshipping one does not mean i cannot worship another. i can even worship two of the same types of things…
i worship arbys for their cheesesticks and curly fries.
though joseph fielding smith’s defintion was rather simplistic, he’s on the right track.
brigham young once accused orson pratt of worshipping attributes of god, rather than god himself. similarly, in the cult-classic, boondock saints, detective greenly asks agent smecker why smecker doesn’t give him any respect. smecker replies, “respect isn’t given. respect is earned.”
just as wendy’s doesn’t earn my worship for the mere sake of being the restaurant chain begun by dave thomas, but rather for providing me with delicious jbc’s, god or jesus should not be worshipped merely for the sake of their position or power, but rather for that which they provide us via the relationships they share with us. because they provide for us differently and have different relationships with us, the type of worship we have for them will be different as well.
Comment # 3 left by the narrator on September 17th, 2006
I do not worship Jesus Christ. We have been commanded to worship the Father, and I am strict in that. Furthermore, I believe Jesus repeatedly refused to accept Worship himself in the Gospels and Revelation, not to mention the outcome of the Council in Heaven. See also Moses’ account of his worship of one God only in Moses chapter 1.
I think this becomes a slippery slope of doctrine however because of the number of converts we bring in from Protestant Christianity, where the identity of Jesus is so confused with that of the Father that they, being considered as one being, both are said to receive Worship.
I treat this subject and related theological subjects quite routinely on my own blog, and have even made a thought-provoking T-Shirt posing this same type of question.
I appreciate the many scripture references you gave. I also found “In These Three I Believe” to be a fascinating article, and one of the most clear theological statements in years coming forth from the Church, but I too took pause and wonder about the meaning of worship in that one sentence. Quite honestly, I think it is a misleading statement, innocent and unintentional, but misleading nonetheless, and potentially confusing in relation to clear statements made elsewhere.
Comment # 4 left by Jeff Day on September 17th, 2006
Thank you for your comments everybody. I think that in the dictionary sense of the term, we can “worship” anybody whom we respect. We could even worship Joseph Smith (though I wouldn’t mention that around a potential convert, haha). However I do agree that Jesus is the conduit through which we approach the Father, who should be the object of all our worship. Christ serves as the advocate and intermediary.
Using Narrator’s example, if we were to worship Christ, that would be like worshipping my car for getting me to Wendy’s, which I worship for its junior bacon cheeseburgers. But the actual object of my worship is the source of my joy and happiness, not the means by which I obtained it.
So while I feel that reverence and respect is not bad (indeed, it is good) to express towards Jesus Christ, we are commanded to worship the Father (by praying to only Him and keeping His commandments).
Comment # 5 left by Connor Boyack on September 17th, 2006
My seminary teacher taught that we worship Jesus Christ just as we worship the Father, similar to what President Hinckley taught. I really don’t see the problem with this- Christ is deity, just as the Father is.
Christ is more than the vehicle bringing us to the Father. (Joseph Smith would fit that analogy better, and that’s why we don’t worship him.) Christ is the god of the Old Testament, who was most definitely worshipped. The father has “given” us to Him, and it is his responsibility to bring us back to the Father, but as we have been given to Him, it is His whose sacrifice we revere and whose words we adore. It is Him of whom (and TO whom) we sing in Sacrament Meeting, in songs such as “In Humility our Savior.” And it is Him that we worship, alongside his Father.
We have been told that we pray to the Father, through Christ, but praying to someone is hardly the only way to worship them. Furthermore, prayer involves all three members of the godhead in different ways- we pray to the Father in the name of Christ and recieve answers through the Holy Ghost. I see it as an act worshipping the entire godhead. I would be interested to see the statements Jeff referenced when he said “We have been commanded to worship the Father, and I am strict in that,” because the only such doctrine I have seen is only in reference to prayer. Certainly we worship the Father in the name of Christ, while believing in Christ, but that is not mutually exclusive with worshipping Christ.
Comment # 6 left by Ariel on September 17th, 2006
Please excuse the typo’s, I was going too fast. Sorry
Comment # 7 left by Ariel on September 17th, 2006
Despite McConkies quips to the contrary, Latter-day prophets have been resolute in proclaiming that we worship Jesus Christ. If you don’t then you defy them and Him. Just do a search of conference reports…if I am not mistaken there are a few First Presidency messages. And for those that like the Jahova/Elohim oversimplified split, who did the Isrealites worship? This one is a no brainer.
Comment # 8 left by J. Stapley on September 17th, 2006
I just came across another verse that mentions worshipping Christ:
and also:
Comment # 9 left by Connor Boyack on September 17th, 2006
J. Stapley said “If you don’t then you defy them and Him.” but I’m sorry, I see plenty of scriptural evidence that Jesus has denied receiving worship. I see doing so as a deviation from the order set forth in the beginning. It’s also important to consider the whole message of Moses chapter 1, which was translated just a month after the Book of Mormon was published, and was itself one of the foundational texts of Joseph’s prophetic career. The message is amazingly deep and has restored many of the plain and precious things that were lost from the Bible. And what were those plain and precious things? As far as I can tell, its that Satan is a poser who tries to be “the only begotten” and wants people to worship him (by that name), while Christ is a humble fellow-servant of man who wants all glory to go to the Father. Furthermore, Moses unequivocably states “For this one God only will I worship, which is the God of glory.”
With this much evidence in our core scriptures, I would have to defend this position as at the very least, a natural and justified Latter-day Saint position to be held in accordance with scripture and a good conscience. I also believe it to be more respectful of Jesus’ own wishes.
Comment # 10 left by Jeff Day on September 17th, 2006
I should also add, in regards to “the Jahova/Elohim oversimplified split” that stapley mentioned, that that is a major and widespread change in LDS theology since the 1900’s. For everyday examples I refer to a careful reading of the 1840 Hymn Book (Europe), or the 1854 Children’s Catechism both located in Online Collections at BYU. There are also several articles online addressing the subject by way of more authoritative quotes. The idea of worshipping Jehovah is natural and obvious with it even built into the language like “Hallelujah”, and for those who believe Jehovah is Jesus this greatly complicates or confuses matters when this question comes up. Suffice it to say, the names used in the Temple for the characters Elohim and Jehovah are figurative, as the Bible uses Elohim to mean “the Gods” as Joseph Smith himself described it, not referring to one particular character, and Jehovah, the tetragrammaton, was widely understood as the ineffable name of Deity, the name of God the Father. The question in my mind now becomes, once we perform enough mental gymnastics to shift numerous attributes and historical actions of the Father over to the Son, what being have we “created”? It is the Son by name, but if it encompasses all that the Father has done, then maybe it really is more accurately the Father? But Joseph taught that in order to exercise faith necessary unto salvation we need to have a correct understanding of the character, attributes, and perfections of God. The word correct is important there. For those who do not believe tat Jehovah is Christ, that belief represents a diminishing of God by reassigning most of the work he has performed to his Son, making him a distant father who rarely interacts with the human species… until after Christ is born on earth, apparently.
Comment # 11 left by Jeff Day on September 17th, 2006
Jeff Day,
I’m trying to understand your point, and where I am confused is on what you do with the scriptures that point to Christ being worshipped and not refusing it. Namely, those mentioned above: Matthew 28:9; 2 Nephi 25:29; and 4 Nephi 1:37.
Connor,
Nice post (and nice to see you and The Narrator agreeing)
Comment # 12 left by BrianJ on September 17th, 2006
Is it way off base to say to worship one is to worship the other? There are a few times in scripture where Christ speaks as if he were God the Father. If there is such a divine investiture of authority in one direction, would it not also exist in the other.
In many ways I think this question is a technicality. If we understand the basic theology, I would say to worship one is to worship the other.
Comment # 13 left by Eric Nielson on September 18th, 2006
Eric, exactly.
Comment # 14 left by Ariel on September 18th, 2006
I had this concern many years ago. In my mind I completly understood the idea of Heavenly Father. I love my Heavenly Father and the relationship I have with him as a son. I didn’t have the same feeling about the Jesus. I could appreciate the atonement, and would strive to keep the reality of that miracle in my heart. Yet my relationship with the Savior was different and I was afraid I was doing something wrong. I st down with a wonderful Bishop and explained that, as much as I would like to, I don’t love Jesus the way I loved Heavenly Father. Not for a lack of trying, the relationship just wasn’t the same.
He told me that was EXACTLY what Jesus’ mission was and that if that was the way it was, the Savior couldn’t be happier. He worships the Father and expects us to worship the Father.
Comment # 15 left by Okie on September 18th, 2006
” …the Jesus.” ooooooooops
Comment # 16 left by Okie on September 18th, 2006
I disagree that this is a technicality. This is at the heart of our theology.
Comment # 17 left by Okie on September 18th, 2006
I think the original wording of the title forces the technicality. There is no question as to wheter we worship the Father or not. The question is, do we worship the Father, or do we worship the Father and the Son. Worshiping the Father should not be in question.
Comment # 18 left by Eric Nielson on September 18th, 2006
Okie,
I had the same experience. And I think you have hit on an important clarification. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a worshipful relationship with the Son, but ultimately, His purpose is to bring us to the Father. That is the end purpose of the Atonement, the gospel, etc.
If you think about the sacrament prayers, we are covenanting to remember the Savior, but with Whom are we covenanting, or to Whom are we witnessing? We witness unto the Father that we will do those things. The relationship we have with the Son is to forge a relationship with the Father.
Comment # 19 left by mullingandmusing (m&m) on September 18th, 2006
I think the temple can teach us a lot about the end purpose of all we do, and the relationship that is paramount. ‘Nuff said.
I’ve been thinking about this a little more, too. Remember Elder Holland’s talk on the Grandeur of God? One of the purposes of Christ’s mission was to teach about the Father, to show us what the Father is like — especially to show us His love.
Another aspect I have been thinking about is one of the plain and precious things that was restored through Joseph Smith — that the Father and Son are separate Beings. If we stop at worshiping the Son, don’t we sort of stop at a terrestrial state? We are supposed to seek the Father. His presence will be what constitutes a celestial existence. To not see Them as separate and distinct Beings, and to not recognize the whole purpose of Christ’s existence and mission is to miss a key exalting doctrine, is it not?
To come to earth with such a responsibility, to stand in place of Elohim—speaking as He would speak, judging and serving, loving and warning, forbearing and forgiving as He would do—this is a duty of such staggering proportions that you and I cannot comprehend such a thing. But in the loyalty and determination that would be characteristic of a divine child, Jesus could comprehend it and He did it. Then, when the praise and honor began to come, He humbly directed all adulation to the Father.
“The Father … doeth the works,” [The Savior] said in earnest. “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever [the Father] doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” 6 On another occasion He said: “I speak that which I have seen with my Father.” “I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me.” “I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.”
Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Grandeur of God,” Ensign, Nov. 2003, 70
Comment # 20 left by mullingandmusing (m&m) on September 18th, 2006
Aside from all of this Father/Son problem, there is a bigger issue at hand. Christ has taught us to worship him by serving others. Be honest, what would God prefer: us praying in church or us serving the poor and needy. When turn the gospel of love into a gospel of idle worship, we turn ourselves away from the gospel of Christ, toward a gospel of idol worship.
I thought up that last line myself and am awfully proud of myself for it.
Comment # 21 left by the narrator on September 18th, 2006
On a second reading, that last line didn’t turn out as well as I thought it initially did.
Comment # 22 left by the narrator on September 18th, 2006
Narrator,
I think the catchiness you were looking for is found in Matthew 23:23:
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. “
Comment # 23 left by BrianJ on September 18th, 2006
BrianJ,
Sorry for coming in a little late to respond to your question. I will take the Book of Mormon scriptures first:
4 Nephi 1:37
Therefore the true believers in Christ, and the true worshipers of Christ, (among whom were the three disciples of Jesus who should tarry) were called Nephites, and Jacobites, and Josephites, and Zoramites.
This is not suggesting that they worshipped Christ. It indicates that these were “true worshipers” in other words, pious religious men, who belonged to Christ, or were under his discipleship. It is in the same sense that “people of Nephi” are the people of Nephi. There are the disciples of Christ, and then there are the true worshipers of Christ. The true worshipers, acting under Christ’s instruction. I believe a deeper study of the ancient grammar patterns in the Book of Mormon may well support this as at least a possibility.
2 Nephi 25:29
And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.
I’m going to have to study this. This verse indeed sounds contrary to the so-called “Elder-Brotherism” which I believe in.
I may claim “the expansion theory” as an excuse, and I also point to 2 Nephi 9:26, which if The Holy One of Israel is understood as ALWAYS meaning Christ, would indicate that Christ gave birth to the spirits of man (gave them their “breath”, usually understood as pneuma, spirit, living soul), which is another idea contrary to modern Mormon orthodoxy as well.
As for the New Testament scriptures, I find the following greek words translated to worship:
Proskuneo, Sebomai, Eusebio, Ethelothreskeia, and Latreuo.
I have listed my detailed findings here, but to sum up: sebomai, eusebio, and thelothreskeia are rarely used. Proskuneo is “to kiss the hands (or apparently feet) of”, and Latreuo is to serve, minister to, render homage, perform sacred services, or offer gifts to.
I have no problem with proskuneo’ing Christ, and he certainly deserves this. (Nor Brother Joseph, nor any beloved brother or sister, for that matter) This is the majority of the word “worship” in the New Testament. But a kiss is not what people think when they hear the word worship in today’s English usage.
Latreuo is what I am talking about when I say I only worship God. And it happens that EVERY occurence of Latreuo in the New Testament, whether translated SERVE (”for him only shalt thou serve”) or worship, is always directed to the Father. I latreuo only ONE being. That is God the Father.
Comment # 24 left by Jeff Day on September 19th, 2006
Oops, “Nor Brother Joseph” in my previous post should have been “Or Brother Joseph.” Apologies.
Comment # 25 left by Jeff Day on September 19th, 2006
Here is another article I found on the web talking about the greek word latreuo. It is quite well written, and the different sides are examined.
Comment # 26 left by Jeff Day on September 19th, 2006
jeff:
all that is nice, but if you aren’t worshipping through service to others, you are merely practicing vain idolatry.
Comment # 27 left by the narrator on September 19th, 2006
Jeff Day,
Very interesting study. Thanks for all the work that went into that. I also appreciate your openness in admitting the places where you do some small “backflips.” (I agree, though, that those are small.) I think you have a strong arguement, based on those scriptures from the NT and BofM.
Now, what to do with D&C 76:21; 101:22; 115:8? Those all clearly seem to be referring to Jesus. (P.S. I’m happy to wait when the responses are as thoughtful as yours.)
Narrator,
Your comment to Jeff Day seems dismissive. Imagine reversing it: “all that [service to others] is nice, but if you aren’t worshipping through reverence to God, you are merely practicing _________.”
How would you fill in the blank?
Comment # 28 left by BrianJ on September 20th, 2006
Narrator,
I’m not saying we can’t serve our fellow man. What I am saying there is a different word for that, with a different and distinct meaning. While Latreuo is reserved for God, Douleuo is a type of service that is acceptable to perform for Christ or your fellow man:
douleuo
1) to be a slave, serve, do service; said of a nation in subjection to other nations
2) metaphorically, to obey, submit to
2a) in a good sense, to yield obedience
2b) in a bad sense, of those who become slaves to some base power, to yield to, give one’s self up to
Examples of Douleuo:
Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Romans 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
Romans 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
Colossians 3:24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.
Galations 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
I will gladly serve (douleuo) Jesus or my fellow man, but I will only religiously worship/serve (latreuo) Father. I will worship (in the ancient sense, of kissing the hands of) whosoever is deserving of that.
BrianJ,
D&C 101 seems to be a “Jesus” section all the way through (meaning Jesus is the voice narrating) although slightly schizophrenic in switching from first person to third person. I always like to look at this first in any D&C section when considering theology, because there are even some sections that silently switch between narrating voices in their midst. It is definitively Jesus as indicated by reference to “when I shall come in the kingdom of my Father” and the use of a parable (Characteristic of Jesus) starting in verse 43. While it could be argued that his refrence to Father is not clear as even God himself has a Father, and so on, I think that would be stretching the issue. In short, I have no good answer here. D&C seems theologically sloppy in a lot of places, and this could be one of them. In cases like this, I try to get my doctrine from direct statements and not so much from the happenstance details of what is being said, because someone who sees a vision like Joseph, would always accurately record the main point of the vision, but may well err in the minor details while making his record. So people don’t have to look it up, here is the troublesome verse:
D&C 101:22 Behold, it is my will, that all they who call on my name, and worship me according to mine everlasting gospel, should gather together, and stand in holy places;
This worship perhaps cannot be the type of worship indicated in the NT as proskuneo because Christ wouldn’t be physically present to receive this, but it may indicate a general respect. Worship according to the Gospel would imply according to the Law, which expressly forbids the worship/service of anyone but Father (YHVH Elohim). So I would see it as an instruction with restriction: to revere Christ within the bounds that have been set forth. So I guess I don’t really see a problem there.
However, I do see a problem for the typical modern LDS view because D&C 101:7-8 would indicate that the being narrating the section (apparently Jesus) is the one to whom they are praying (notice especially the use of the first person “my” and “me” in verse 8):
7 They were slow to hearken unto the voice of the Lord their God; therefore, the Lord their God is slow to hearken unto their prayers, to answer them in the day of their trouble.
8 In the day of their peace they esteemed lightly my counsel; but, in the day of their trouble, of necessity they feel after me.
So this possibly throws into question the identity of the voice of this section, after all. Or at least makes it uncomfortable for both viewpoints.
You also mentioned D&C 76:21: And saw the holy angels, and them who are sanctified before his throne, worshiping God, and the Lamb, who worship him forever and ever.
This is obviously proskuneo, as they are physically “before the throne.” They are bowing down, kissing [the feet of] both God and the Lamb. Although this raises an interesting parallel to the last of the Biblical verses which use the word latreuo (reserved for the Father) as it also uses similar language,
Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
However, in this very similar instance there is no problem whatsoever, because it is clearly referring to serving (latreuo) God the Father. We know this because the singular (his, him) is used and it would be entirely irrational for it to be speaking about the Lamb since that would be explicitly leaving out service to God. (Although the current rendition of mormon.org makes that same infraction in how it applies the word worship to deity.)
As for D&C 115:8, I see nothing in D&C 115 whatsoever that would indicate whether the Father or Son is the voice of the revelation. I would assume the Father, and I’m sure Christ-worshippers would just as well assume it is the Son. For me, the use of the name of the Church which includes Jesus Christ in the name doesn’t do it for me, because it is obvious that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “God’s kingdom on the earth” and rightly belongs to God the Father.
All of this boils down to my position being based on being more obedient to the commandment “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” with textual support in most cases and minor problematic areas on either side in other cases (D&C). For me, the commandment itself is what tips the scale and I see it as more explicit than trying to cull doctrine out of the textual evidence alone.
Comment # 29 left by Jeff Day on September 21st, 2006
All throughout the Doctrine and Convents, when “My Church” is referred to it is very frequently Jesus Christ speaking. I could get some sort of statistic if you like.
I will agree that the D&C is NOT the place to go for godhead theology as it is all very confused and inconsistent.
Comment # 30 left by Susie on September 21st, 2006
BrianJ
Your comment to Jeff Day seems dismissive. Imagine reversing it: “all that [service to others] is nice, but if you aren’t worshipping through reverence to God, you are merely practicing _________.”
How would you fill in the blank?
i don’t know exactly what ‘reverence to god’ means. if it means what mainstream mormons and christians usually call ‘worship,’ then i’d fill in the blanks with “just perfect for a loving god, though probably insufficient for a self-centered tyrannical god.”
i have a hard time accepting a loving god who’ll look upon a loving person any less or grant them less ‘exaltation/salvation’ because that loving person for one reason or another never attained the right and particular kind of ‘faith’ or ‘belief’ in him.
again, of course this begs the question of whether or not god is all that loving. i guess there is the possibility that god cares more about his praise and devotion than the loving acts of his children toward eachother and chooses to damn people because they mistakingly ‘worshipped’ in the wrong place, way, or with the wrong particular set of propositional beliefs - even though they lived a life devoted to others (i say ‘mistakingly’ because i have serious doubts that anyone would willfully and knowingly ‘worship’ falsely).
Comment # 31 left by the narrator on September 21st, 2006
I will agree that the D&C is NOT the place to go for godhead theology as it is all very confused and inconsistent.
and the bofm, bible, and pofgp. as well as any set of latter-day prophets and other church leaders.
Comment # 32 left by the narrator on September 21st, 2006
although slightly schizophrenic in switching from first person to third person.
I am just adding a pointless nitpick here that will not further the conversation… schizophrenia is to have paranoid delusions of voices and events (”The NSA will explode the device in my brain if I don’t figur eout this equation!”)
Multiple personality disorder is .. well.. just what it says. This is probably what you are referring to here.
/sorry for wasting your time.. resume discussion.
Comment # 33 left by Ryan on September 21st, 2006
Jeff Day,
Very interesting answer. I would disagree with you on the voice of D&C 115; ie. I think it is Jesus Christ speaking, but I can see your interpretation. I appreciate your honesty when recognizing the perspective of “the other side.”
It’s interesting that both your approach and the “other side’s” approach use the same logic: both try for the simplest explanation:
The “Christ-worship” side says that “worship” means “worship” and “Christ” means “Christ”;
The “Father-only” side says that “only” means “only”.
Again, your thoughts have been very informative. Thanks!
Narrator,
I think the phrase “reverence to God” was pretty well described by Jeff Day in his explication of the word “worship”—the very detailed analysis you seemed to dismiss. And I think you’ve once again dismissed the question and addressed a different issue.
I believe in a God who demands certain outward actions, supplications, offerings, etc, but is not at all “self-centered” or “tyrannical.”
Comment # 34 left by BrianJ on September 21st, 2006
I believe in a God who demands certain outward actions, supplications, offerings, etc, but is not at all “self-centered” or “tyrannical.”
i wrote about this very thing on my blog today. if any person demanded such things, we’d call them a tyrant. if god does it we call it good.
i guess i just believe in a different god.
Comment # 35 left by the narrator on September 21st, 2006
Brian,
Thank you for the thoughtful dialogue. I appreciate your providing scriptures for me to give answers to in demonstrating my position, ones that might not normally be the ones that come to my mind first. Maybe sometime you’ll inquire regarding some of my other ideas?
Narrator,
So… What God do you believe in?
Comment # 36 left by Jeff Day on September 21st, 2006
jeff:
this is what i wrote on my blog today.
it is for these very reasons that i reject a tyrannical model of god and either reject/refine the various ways with which god becomes a tyrant. i want to believe that god is a loving being - the most loving being. i want to believe that god is primarily and ultimately concerned in the ways that god’s children interact and treat one another. i want to believe that god is self-less and unconcerned with praise, admiration, and devotion. i want to believe that god is concerned with our hearts and not with the propositional beliefs that we hold or our proclamations of ‘faith’ which seem to be arbitrarily dispersed among god’s children. i want to believe that god is not a tyrant.
Comment # 37 left by the narrator on September 22nd, 2006
Narrator,
I read your post. I think you are mistaken in two broad areas:
1) Whether or not God demands acts of worship.
2) Why God demands acts of worship.
For example, you assume that “god is a loving being” means that he cannot demand worship.
You assume that “god is primarily and ultimately concerned in the ways that god’s children interact and treat one another” (emphasis added) means that he cannot have any additional concerns.
You assume that “god is self-less” necessarily means that he is also “unconcerned with praise, admiration, and devotion.”
You assume that “god is concerned with our hearts” means that he cannot also be actively engaged in promoting “propositional beliefs…or our proclamations of ‘faith’.”
Lastly, your comparison of God to Bush does not work because you do not discuss the motives or the outcomes of God’s demands versus those hypothetically from Bush.
As support for my counter-argument, I’ll once again quote Matthew 23:23:
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.”
Comment # 38 left by BrianJ on September 22nd, 2006
Jeff Day,
I hope to take you up on the offer to visit your blog. Right now, however, I need to show some serious supplication and worship to my other god: the paper I’m trying to finish. (Now there’s a tyrant!)
Comment # 39 left by BrianJ on September 22nd, 2006
brianj:
i think we actually agree with eachother. i am arguing against the very pharisaic model of theology and soteriology advocated by a majority of christians and mormons today (as i experience it) whose beliefs imply that god is a tyrant concerned with devotion and praise directed at him.
can god enjoy and appreciate devotion and praise? of course, but if god demands these things, and makes our salvation contingent upon seemingly arbitrary rituals and affirmations of belief that paint god as just as tyrannical and immoral as a tyrannical leader who does the same thing, then what does that say about this god?
again, i am not saying that god is a tyrant. i am arguing that a god worthy of such devotion is not the tyrannical god i often hear advocated in church, institute, conferences, lds books, etc.
Comment # 40 left by the narrator on September 22nd, 2006
Narrator,
I hoped you would see the points upon which we agree. Note that I did not argue against the first half of each of your statements, because I totally support and believe them:
“god is a loving being; god is primarily and ultimately concerned in the ways that god’s children interact and treat one another; god is self-less; god is concerned with our hearts”
The bone I was picking (and may still be picking) is that you stated that God does not care about or want our devotion, supplication, praise, offerings, etc. I absolutely believe that he does want, care about, and demand them. The scriptures that support this start with Adam and continue through today. Perhaps you agree with this point, too, but to me it seems you do not. Can you clarify your position on this?
Comment # 41 left by BrianJ on September 23rd, 2006
I absolutely believe that he does want, care about, and demand them. The scriptures that support this start with Adam and continue through today. Perhaps you agree with this point, too, but to me it seems you do not. Can you clarify your position on this?
i don’t.
Comment # 42 left by the narrator on September 24th, 2006
Narrator,
Good. At least I’m reading you correctly.
Comment # 43 left by BrianJ on September 24th, 2006
we are to worship the father through jesus christ. everyrthing we do with the father should be through and in christ’s name.
Comment # 44 left by seth on February 9th, 2007
The Official LDS WWW site says that Mormons WORSHIP Christ.
http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,802-1,00.html
End of Debate
Comment # 45 left by Steve on April 6th, 2007
End of Debate? Actually, I emailed them about that, and sometime between then and now they’ve updated mormon.org so that it no longer says anywhere that we worship Christ. Ha!
Debate resumed.
Comment # 46 left by Jeff Day on December 31st, 2007