fatima

Good afternoon, I never post here,(well, not never, but infrequently) but I love to read the discussions. I could never come close to the profound understanding everyone here has of theology. However, I would like to ask; can three persons in one being be compared to an individual (like myself) being mother, daughter and sister? I take on a subordinate role when with my parents, and an authoritative/creator role with my children and an advocacy role with my sister, for instance? In the Person of the Son, Jesus speaks as subordinate to the Father. In the Person of the Father He is the authority and creator, and as the Holy Spirit He is counselor and giver of gifts? I feel totally stupid asking, so go easy on my when you correct my errors!

If children are born to a couple who was "sealed" in the Temple, but the child subsequently left the Mormon faith, what is the fate? Do the parents get to live with that child in one of the three levels of Heaven? Do they still have the parent/child relationship? Additionally, someone said that sealing is required for the highest kingdom. Where does that leave Jesus? Do Mormons believe He was married?

With all due respect, I would think that it matters a great deal. I mean, if there is another god (sorry, cannot capitalize that) I'm not sure why we worship God the Father only? If we do not know that other god, who, it seems to, must be higher in the order of gods, we cannot know what is to come. I mean, our God is a jealous God, so what if it turns out that other gods are jealous, too? We do not know their nature so we cannot assume that they are good. In fact, it could be that our God is leading people away from the even greater exaltation to secure His own place. Wasn't one of the primary accomplishments of Jesus to reveal the Father to us? We do know Him, and He is the One, True God, who is the creator of all things in the universe and beyond. This is one of the things I consider very... about LDS theology. If there is another god greater than our God, logic seems to say we should be worshipping him. I assume LDS would say that the previous god gave over the earth to God the Father, but if we don't believe God the Father was the first and eternal, we simply do not know that for sure. I'm sure this is supremely confusing, I'm confused myself.

As a Catholic, I'm off to Mass, as I'm sure you are all off to your wards for the better part of the day. See you later, and have a holy Sabbath day.

Well, you did provide some Scriptures, but I see those as speaking of God's chosen people of the OT. Jesus rebuked Pharisees, etc for being hypocrites and demanding letter of the law without love of the law. My Bible isn't nearby right now, but I'll provide a particular passage later. Anyway, I agree that Jesus Christ established His Church when He was on earth, but I see nothing that in any way indicates that that church, too, would apostatsize and would have to be re-established again. But back to the OP. He asks if Jesus was always part of the Godhead. I've been told that He was. Yet, I've also understood (though not from this site, and I'm here for correct understanding) that living righteously is necessary for Godhood. Even God the Father had to go through that process, yet Jesus did not? Doesn't that, by logical consequence, make Jesus greater than God the Father? Jesus was always part of the Godhead, whereas God the Father was not? That's what it looks like to me.

How timely is this question? I've been trying to hammer out an understanding on other threads. No one has answered your question yet, on this thread. I've been told that Jesus was, indeed, part of the Godhead before becoming man and living a righteous life, which, as I see it, is in direct contradiction to what I think I've understood so far about LDS doctrine; that is, that living a righteous life is a pre-requisite to exaltation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? God the Father (again, according to another thread) gave A and E two commandments: be fruitful and multiply and do not eat of the tree, yet they could not fulfill either of those commandments without breaking the other (according to the other thread). Then, as I just said, He gives one child (Jesus) the benefit of Divinity which makes His life sinless and His death redemptive for the rest of us. These are very hard to reconcile, not because I'm a trinitarian Christian, but because it contradicts the very nature of God: all loving and all good. Feel free to try to clarify, but that's how I see it right now.

It's too bad I'm getting more confused as I read this forum; I had hoped to find more understanding. 1) I've "learned" that Jesus was part of the "Godhead" prior to His physical birth; yet I've also learned that to achieve such exultation one must have already been a man and "progressed". IOW, you cannot be a god until you've been a man, yet Jesus was. 2) I'm under the impression from this article that God the Father created/begat all of us equally with Jesus, but that Jesus was the only one who fulfilled the Father's Will with His life, death and resurrection, which is why He is the Savior. 3) What kind of father would have a "first and greatest Son." I do not consider any of my children above the other, to do so would be a lack of life giving love. God the Father loves each of His children infinitely, which is why He gave Himself to die on the Cross, so none of His children would have to suffer death. 4) In another thread I was told that God made the "atoms" in Mary come together to form Jesus Christ, and that an immortal being (God) cannot provide a mortal body.This is just for starters, gotta go make breakfast.

Okay, so "God commanded the atoms". I'm pretty sure you're using those terms for brevity sake, not to minimize. Does that mean that LDS teaches that all of Christ's humanity came from Mary? IOW, my church (Catholic) does teach that because we believe God the Father is all spirit, and the union of the divine and the human we call the "hypostatic union". But LDS teaches that God has a physical makeup, right? And earlier it was said that God the Father and a heavenly mother created or begat the spirit child (don't know what else to call it) of Jesus? So, did the Father's physicalilty contribute to Jesus' physicality? (Did I ask that question earlier?) I mean, if you could do a DNA test on Jesus, we would only find Mary's DNA? No that such silliness really has any bearing on matters of faith. Mortality and immortality, physical makeup and pure spirit makeup are all mutually exclusive from one another, and are combined to make up souls at different stages of their existence/progression? I'm probably starting to not make sense (and I guess that's because I'm trying to get in a few posts what LDS have spent years studying, and I'm confused!)

I guess we've gone off a bit from the original topic, which still puzzles me. The LDS church teaches that "families are forever", and that you are sealed to your spouse for eternity. It is also my understanding that LDS believe that the men who reach exaltation will be God the Father (so to speak) of their own planets. Will they/could they be bearing children with earthly women as God the Father of this planet did with Mary? How do LDS women feel about this? Did Mary effectively practice polyandry, being married to Joseph as well as bearing the Christ?

Changed, this is very troubling for me. As parents, none of us wills that our children come to know sin/evil. Earthly parents would do anything in their power to avoid knowing the evils of this world. When your children accept and continue to live a good, Mormon life, does it have more meaning because they know (have committed) some evil/sin; to the point that you prefer that they actually go out and sin before they come back to the faith? That sounds to me like exactly what you think God the Father did. Can you explain it any differently? God gave us free will, yes, but His Will was that we would freely choose His Will as opposed to our own.

Okay, so LDS teaches that mankind had physical bodies in the garden, yet those bodies were immortal? Why is it that a physical, yet immortal body, could not produce children? Why are physicality and immortality mutually exclusive? I think LDS consider the union of husband and wife sacred, and nothing sinful about it, correct? Isn't it the greatness of God that allows us to participate with Him in the creating and bearing of new life? I guess the whole subject is bound to segue, so if you're with me, I'll keep asking. BTW-my reason for joining the LDS.net in the first place was to learn what might be okay to offer to/talk about with my new LDS friend. For instance, can I offer her hot cocoa? I have those answers now, but reading bits about your faith is prompting me to ask questions. Hope you don't mind.

Let me preface by saying that, as a Catholic, I believe that a Church can come to a fuller understanding of doctrine as time goes on. I do not necessarily expect a Mormon to be able to explain every detail of the supernatural. What I am struggling with on this issue is that God would give two seemingly contrary instructions, simultaneously. Again, as we grow in our understanding of God we might understand details we didn't before, but I don't think a later "revelation" (to borrow from LDS terminology) every contradicts what came before. This is almost a silly comparison, but it's the best way for me to explain how I see this. If God, through your prophet, tells you that you are to refrain from stockpiling, yet also be prepared to be self-sufficient in case of (fill in the blank). Are you supposed to wait around for the injunction on stockpiling is lifted? This is ultra-confusing.

I am on a Mormon forum seeking understanding about Mormon doctrine. Do you suggest I go to a Christian fundamentalist forum to get accurate answers? What two propositions are you talking about? I am asking how the command (be fruitful and multiply) of one set of Scriptures (the Bible) is reconciled with another Scripture (BoM, Moses?) that says that sin is a pre-requisite to fulfilling that command. I'm gathering from the post by "changed" that God set two paths before A and E, and that taking either path would result in a sin that caused the fall of man. Am I missing something? Was there a path that they could've followed that would not have caused the fall of man?

Well, I, for one, am not one who takes only the on-the-surface meaning of Scripture; I believe there are many layers to what is being said. So, go ahead and tell me how it's reconciled.

Are you saying that God gave A and E the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply", but that that command could not be fulfilled without eating of the tree which He had commanded they not touch? Please tell me that you are not saying that.

Book of Moses? That must be BoM? I'm not a Mormon so I think the only discussion I can participate in can be from the Scriptures that we both accept. (IOW, I do not use the deutero-canonical books when I speak with born again Christians, as they do not accept them as inspired) That said, it sounds like the BoM contradicts what we know from Genesis, so how is that reconciled?

From what do you induce that Eve could not have children in the garden? God told A and E to "be fruitful and multiply" before the fall, so clearly she could have borne children prior, but didn't for whatever reason. Jesus was 1/2 mortal and 1/2 Divine? How can a Divine being be only 1/2 Divine? He was fully both, otherwise He would not have been able to accomplish all that He did. So, then if your theology says that we are "spirit children" in the premortal existence as children of the Heavenly Father and some unnamed heavenly mother, and Jesus is our elder brother, why was Jesus not made by two earthly parents as we are? My understanding is that God and Jesus were what we are, and they are now what we are intended to be when we reach exaltation, is that correct? So, why was it all done differently for Jesus?

I guess I need to apologize. I thought his pro-abortion stance was in direct opposition to Church teaching. I thought he spoke against the Church's position re: Prop 8 in California. This is why I compared him to Pelosi and Sebelius, both Catholics who publicly endorse choices and lifestyles that are in direct oppostion to Church doctrine. Mea culpa.

I admire your leaders for excommunicating those who publicly profess to be LDS, but then live a life completely outside of your doctrines of faith and morals. I'm waiting for the news that Harry Reid is excommunicated. As a Catholic, I am super disappointed that the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebelius have not been excommunicated by our bishops, although Sebelius has been prohibited from receiving Communion in her home diocese. I know they've been spoken to privately by their bishops, but they just don't seem to care so throw 'em out! That said, I have not the wisdom or understanding of the bishops, so I guess I just sit tight waiting for Judgement Day.

I thought Mormon theology was that God the Father was a perfected/exalted man? How could Jesus be part of the godhead before He perfected Himself in this earthly life? I mean, I understand that you believe we have a "pre-mortal" existence, but I didn't think a man was "divine" until he had done his earthly time, so to speak. I know you wouldn't say "demi-god" about Jesus, but again, I'm just trying to put it in terms I can understand.