Who created God?

[Hemidakota]

I will leave this subject here, and make a few remarks on the subject of baptism. The baptism of water, without the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost attending it, is of no use; they are necessarily inseparably connected. An individual must be born of water and the spirit in order to get into the kingdom of God. In the German, the text bears me out the same as the revelations which I have given and taught for the past fourteen years on that subject. I have the testimony to put in their teeth. My testimony has been true all the time. You will find it in the declaration of John the Baptist. (Reads from the German.) John says, "I baptize you with water, but when Jesus comes, who has the power (or keys) He shall administer the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost." Great God! Where is now all the sectarian world? And if this testimony is true, they are all damned as clearly as anathema can do it. I know the text is true. I call upon all you Germans who know that it is true to say, Eye. (Loud shouts of "Aye.")

Alexander Campbell, how are you going to save people with water alone? For John said his baptism was good for nothing without the baptism of Jesus Christ. "Therefore, not leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith towards God, of the doctrine of baptism, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit." (Heb. 6:1-3).

There is one God, one Father, one Jesus, one hope of our calling, one baptism. All these three baptisms only make one. Many talk of baptism not being essential to salvation; but this kind of teaching would lay the foundation of their damnation. I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me, if they can.

I have now preached a little Latin, a little Hebrew, Greek, and German; and I have fulfilled all. I am not so big a fool as many have taken me to be. The Germans know that I read the German correctly.

The Second Death

Hear it, all ye ends of the earth—all ye priests, all ye sinners, and all men. Repent! Repent! Obey the gospel. Turn to God; for your religion won't save you, and you will be damned. I do not say how long. There have been remarks made concerning all men being redeemed from hell; but I say that those who sin against the Holy Ghost cannot be forgiven in this world or in the world to come; they shall die the second death. Those who commit the unpardonable sin are doomed to Gnolom—to dwell in hell, worlds without end. As they concocted scenes of bloodshed in this world, so they shall rise to that resurrection which is as the lake of fire and brimstone. Some shall rise to the everlasting burnings of God; for God dwells in everlasting burnings and some shall rise to the damnation of their own filthiness, which is as exquisite a torment as the lake of fire and brimstone.

I have intended my remarks for all, both rich and poor, bond and free, great and small. I have no enmity against any man. I love you all; but I hate some of your deeds. I am your best friend, and if persons miss their mark it is their own fault. If I reprove a man, and he hates me, he is a fool; for I love all men, especially these my brethren and sisters.

I rejoice in hearing the testimony of my aged friends. You don't know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don't blame anyone for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself. I never did harm any man since I was born in the world. My voice is always for peace.

I cannot lie down until all my work is finished. I never think any evil, nor do anything to the harm of my fellow-man. When I am called by the trump of the archangel and weighed in the balance, you will all know me then. I add no more. God bless you all. Amen.

Footnote

Chapter 14.

1. This was not a stenographic report, but a carefully and skillfully prepared one made by these men who were trained in reporting and taking notes. Evidently, there are some imperfections in the report and some thoughts expressed by the Prophet which were not fully rounded out and made complete; nevertheless it contains many wonderful truths pertaining to the subjects discussed and therefore is valuable in giving us a better understanding than we would have without it.

2. It should he remembered that at the time of this discourse apostates and other enemies of the Prophet were seeking his life, and open threats were being made even in his presence. The forces of ever were determined that the Prophet should be destroyed. It was less than three months following the date of this discourse when he and his brother Hyrum were martyred.

3. The argument here made by the Prophet is very much strengthened by the following passage: "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he [the Father] doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise" (John 5:19.)

Henry Drummond, for instance (following the Prophet by half a century), in his work, Natural Law in the Spiritual World, in his chapter on growth, has said:—"The end of salvation is perfection, the Christ-like mind, character and life.* * * Therefore the man who has within himself this great formative agent, Life [spiritual life] is nearer the end than the man who has morality alone. The latter can never reach perfection, the former must. For the life must develop out according to its type; and being a germ of the Christ-life, it must unfold into a Christ."

4. The view of the Prophet on this subject of creation is abundantly sustained by men of learning subsequent to his time. The Rev. Baden Powell of Oxford University, for instance, writing for Kitto's Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, says: "The meaning of this word (create) has been commonly associated with the idea of 'making out of nothing'. But when we come to inquire more precisely into the subject, we can of course satisfy ourselves as to the meaning only from an examination of the original phrase." The learned professor then proceeds to say that three distinct Hebrew verbs are in different places employed with reference to the same divine act, and may he translated, respectively, "create," "make," "form or fashion." "Now," continues the professor, "though each of these has its shade of distinction, yet the best critics understand them as so nearly synonymous that, at least in regard to the idea of making out of nothing, little or no foundation for that doctrine can be obtained from the first of these words." And of course, if no foundation for the doctrine can he obtained from the first of these words—viz., the verb translated "create," then the chances are still less for there being any foundation for the doctrine of creation from nothing in the verb translated "made," "formed," or "fashioned."

Professor Powell further says: "The idea of 'creation,' as meaning absolutely 'making out of nothing,' or calling into existence that which did not exist before, in the strictest sense of the term, is not a doctrine of scripture; but it has been held by many on the grounds of natural theology, as enhancing the ideas we form of the divine power, and more especially since the contrary must imply the belief in the eternity and self existence of matter."

Dr. William Smith's great dictionary of the Bible, (Hackett edition, 1894) has no article on the term "create" or "creation," but in the article "earth," we have reference to the subject, and really an implied explanation as to why this work contains no treatise on "create" or "creation." The act of creation itself, as recorded in the first chapter of Genesis, is a subject beyond and above the experience of man, human language, derived, as it originally was, from the sensible and material world, fails to find an adequate term to describe the act; for our word 'create' and the Hebrew bara, though most appropriate to express the idea of an original creation, are yet applicable and must necessarily be applicable to other modes of creation; nor does the addition of such expressions as 'out of things that were not' or 'not from things which appear,' contribute much to the force of the declaration. The absence of a term which shall describe exclusively an original creation is a necessary infirmity of language; as the events occurred but once, the corresponding term must, in order to be adequate, have been coined for the occasion and reserved for it alone, which would have been impossible."

The philosophers with equal emphasis sustain the contention of the Prophet. Herbert Spencer, in his First Principles (1860), said:

"There was once universally current, a notion that things could vanish into absolute nothing, or arise out of absolute nothing. * * * The current theology, in its teachings respecting the beginning and end of the world, is clearly pervaded by it. * * * The gradual accumulation of experiences, has tended slowly to reverse this conviction; until now, the doctrine that matter is indestructible has become a commonplace. All the apparent proofs that something can come of nothing, a wider knowledge has one by one cancelled. The comet that is suddenly discovered in the heavens and nightly waxes larger, is proved not to be a newly-created body, but a body that was until lately beyond the range of vision. The cloud which in the course of a few minutes forms in the sky, consists not of substance that has begun to be, but of substance that previously existed in a more diffused and transparent form. And similarly with a crystal or precipitate in relation to the fluid depositing it. Conversely, the seeming annihilations of matter turn out, on closer observation, to be only changes of state. It is found that the evaporated water, though it has become invisible, may be brought by condensation to its original shape. The discharged fowling-piece gives evidence that though the gunpowder has disappeared, there have appeared in place of it certain gases, which, in assuming a larger volume, have caused the explosion."

Fiske follows Spencer, of course, and in his Cosmic Philosophy sums up the matter in these words: "It is now unconceivable that a particle of matter should either come into existence, or lapse into non-existence."

Robert Kennedy Duncan (1905), in his New Knowledge says: "Governing matter in all its varied forms, there is one great fundamental law which up to this time has been ironclad in its character. This law, known as the law of the conservation of mass, states that no particle of matter, however small, may be created or destroyed. All the king's horses and all the king's men cannot destroy a pin's head. We may smash that pin's head, dissolve it in acid, burn it in the electric furnace, employ, in a word, every annihilating agency, and yet that pin's head persists in being. Again, it is as uncreatable as it is indestructible. In other words, we cannot create something out of nothing. The material must be furnished for every existent article. The sum of matter in the universe is 10 pounds,—and, while it may be carried through a myriad of forms, when all is said and done, it is just—x pounds."

"The elements are eternal, and spirit and element inseparably connected receive a fullness of joy. * * * The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples." (D. & C. Sec. 93:35.) Notes by Elder B. H. Roberts.

5. It is obvious that the word "co-equal" should have been written "co-eternal," for we know the doctrines of the Church as revealed to, and taught by, the Prophet, teach us definitely that God "comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him, and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, for ever and ever." (D. & C. Sec. 88:41.) Moreover in the Book of Abraham we read that the Lord said to Abraham; "These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they: I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." (Abraham 3:19.)

6. It appears to be very clear that the Prophet had in mind the intelligence, when he said "the soul—the mind of man—the immortal spirit," was not created or made, and that there never was a time when there were not spirits for they are co-eternal with God. It is the doctrine of the scriptures, both in the Bible and in the Doctrine and Covenants, that we are the offspring of God. He is our Father; we are begotten sons and daughters unto Him. So Paul taught the Greeks on Mars' Hill. (Acts 17:26-29.) It was taught by the resurrected Lord to Mary at the tomb, (John 20:17.) and by the Lord to the Prophet and Sidney Rigdon in the great vision (Sec. 76:22-24.) The reader is referred further to the official statement of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve apostles, under the caption, The Father and The Son, in the Improvement Era, August, 1916.

"Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or make, neither indeed can be." (D. & C. Sec. 93.)

7. It is clear in this statement that the terms "intelligence" and "spirit" are used synonymously and that the intelligent uncreated entity, spoken of as intelligence is meant.

8. "Behold this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."—(The Lord to Moses, Book of Moses, Chapt. 1:39; Pearl of Great Price)—that is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man," as man. This passage has reference doubtless to man as composed of spirit and body—a proper soul (See D. & C. Sec. 88:15-16)—"For the spirit and the body is the soul of man; and the resurrection of the dead is the redemption of the soul." In other words, the "work" and the "glory" of God are achieved in bringing to pass the "immortality and eternal life of man," as man, in the eternal union of the spirit and body of man through the resurrection—through the redemption of the soul. This brings into eternal union "spirit and element" declared by the word of God to be essential to a fulness of joy—"The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; and when separated man cannot receive a fulness of joy." (D. & C. Sec. 93). Also "Adam fell that man might be: and men are that they might have joy." (2 Nephi 2:25). Indeed, the whole purpose of God in bringing to pass the earth-life of man is to inure to the welfare and enlargement of man as urged in the teaching of the Prophet in the paragraph above. God affects man only to his advantage. Note by Elder B. H. Roberts.

9. It is clearly evident that in this passage concerning little children and their salvation and glorification after the resurrection, we do not have from the brethren, who made the notes, a perfect report on the status of little children after the resurrection. There was some lack of interpretation in the report of the Prophet remarks, for he taught that little children would come forth from the dead in the same form and size in which their bodies were laid down but that they would grow after the resurrection to the full stature of the spirit. For an account of this teaching those who desire to investigate the matter more fully may consult the Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 4:556-7 and the footnote.

[allesok]

THANKS A LOT!

Now I have much to read and study.

Kind regards from

allesok

[funkymonkey]

Hemi, I have a question...You read really really fast, don't you?

[Hemidakota]

Yes and no...depending on the subject.

[Traveler]

Didn't we just have this discussion for like the billionth time just a couple of posts down?

The scriptures teach us that God is infinite and eternal, and has always existed. That is our answer. Our scriptures also teach us that our spirits are co-eternal with God, meaning we have always existed as well.

It's difficult for us in this current mortal condition, with change and decay all around us, to think in infinite or eternal terms. To us, in this condition, everything seems to have a beginning and an end. God understands our condition, and speaks to us in terms we can comprehend. The reality is, however, that there is no beginning and there is no end. One day, when our mortal probation is over, we will once again comprehend the eternities, and see things how they truly are.

Regards,

Vanhin

The ancient Egyptians had a term for eternal that has somewhat different meaning than what we understand today. Today we think of something eternal as associated with time and lasting for all time. The ancient Egyptians word was something like Ignolum (please pardon my spelling). This definition had nothing to do with time and meant that it could not be created, destroyed or changed from its present state – outside of time. So if a chair was eternal you could not chip it, scratch it or dent it or anything else in the now. The now has no effect on something eternal. To the ancient Egyptians “The now” is all that can exist and there is no dislodging “now from the past or the future.

Sorry if this concept is difficult but it has often caused me to wonder – because I think this concept is closer to the concept used by the ancients that pasted on to us their scriptures.

The Traveler

[vangelis]

interesting

[Hemidakota]

Let me add some fuel to the fire:

From President John Taylor:

THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNALISM.—We are not connected with a something that will exist only for a few years, some of the peculiar ideas and dogmas of men, some nice theory of their forming. The principles that we believe in reach back into eternity. They originated with the Gods in the eternal worlds, and they reach forward to the eternities that are to come. We feel that we are operating with God in connection with those who were, with those who are, and with those who are to come.—JD, 17:206, October 7, 1874.

As eternal beings, we existed with our Father in the eternal worlds. We came on this earth, and obtained tabernacles, that, through taking possession of them, and passing through a scene of trial, and tribulation, and suffering, we might be exalted to more glory, dignity, and power than would have been possible for us to obtain had we not been placed in our present position.—JD, 1:230-231, April 8, 1853.

[Vanhin]

The ancient Egyptians had a term for eternal that has somewhat different meaning than what we understand today. Today we think of something eternal as associated with time and lasting for all time. The ancient Egyptians word was something like Ignolum (please pardon my spelling). This definition had nothing to do with time and meant that it could not be created, destroyed or changed from its present state – outside of time. So if a chair was eternal you could not chip it, scratch it or dent it or anything else in the now. The now has no effect on something eternal. To the ancient Egyptians “The now” is all that can exist and there is no dislodging “now from the past or the future.

Sorry if this concept is difficult but it has often caused me to wonder – because I think this concept is closer to the concept used by the ancients that pasted on to us their scriptures.

The Traveler

Very interesting.

The concept is actually in harmony with what I understand. If temporal is defined by a state of change and decay, then something that does not change or decay, is eternal. In the context of existence, I don't see how that is much different than the contemporary definition of eternal:

Without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal): eternal life. (eternal - Definitions from Dictionary.com)

The meaning of the word as used in describing aspects of our religion must be examined in light of it's use in scripture. To me it is clear that in addition to any other meanings of the word eternal, the most popular one matches the contemporary meaning. The Lord taught the following to Abraham:

...if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal. (Abr. 3:18)

The word "gnolaum" is interesting in the passage as well, in light of your post.

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited August 28, 2008 by Vanhin
Punctuation

[HiJolly]

The ancient Egyptians had a term for eternal that has somewhat different meaning than what we understand today. Today we think of something eternal as associated with time and lasting for all time. The ancient Egyptians word was something like Ignolum (please pardon my spelling). This definition had nothing to do with time and meant that it could not be created, destroyed or changed from its present state – outside of time. So if a chair was eternal you could not chip it, scratch it or dent it or anything else in the now. The now has no effect on something eternal. To the ancient Egyptians “The now” is all that can exist and there is no dislodging “now from the past or the future.

Sorry if this concept is difficult but it has often caused me to wonder – because I think this concept is closer to the concept used by the ancients that pasted on to us their scriptures.

The Traveler

This place where things are eternal and unchanging is sometimes referred to as the "second heaven". FYI.

HiJolly

[Traveler]

Very interesting.

The concept is actually in harmony with what I understand. If temporal is defined by a state of change and decay, then something that does not change or decay, is eternal. In the context of existence, I don't see how that is much different than the contemporary definition of eternal:

Without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal): eternal life. (eternal - Definitions from Dictionary.com)

The meaning of the word as used in describing aspects of our religion must be examined in light of it's use in scripture. To me it is clear that in addition to any other meanings of the word eternal, the most popular one matches the contemporary meaning. The Lord taught the following to Abraham:

...if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal. (Abr. 3:18)

The word "gnolaum" is interesting in the passage as well, in light of your post.

Regards,

Vanhin

The ancient Egyptians had very good concepts of time and temporal relationships – it is just that time was not a consideration for defining eternal as we like to define eternal. The interesting thing to me is that eternal things can be identified and recognized in the now. We do not have to consider its past or future to determine its eternal unchanging nature.

Also note from Abraham (closely related to ancient Egyptian concepts) that if something is greater, time is not a factor – it is greater – it’s past or future is not a consideration of its greatness. The question given to LDS concerning becoming G-ds and being equal to G-d is a function of modern thinking without understanding of ancient concepts, G-d is always greater especially when we become equal as we understand present equality.

I have come to respect the ancient Egyptians – I could post so many reasons why and I could talk for hours about just their concepts of creation – that look foolish until you do the math and then things get really exciting.

The Traveler

[Justice]

The scriptures teach us that God is infinite and eternal, and has always existed. That is our answer. Our scriptures also teach us that our spirits are co-eternal with God, meaning we have always existed as well.

Please read my first post on this thread and determine where I have mis-stated any LDS belief. Then follow it up with what is below... slowly:

It is truth to say our bodies have always existed, in that the matter they are made of has always existed. That, however, does not mean that our bodies have always existed in their complete form as a living, breathing soul.

We are told the physical bears witness of the spiritual.

Our spirits are born of "intelligences" and intelligences have always existed. That does not mean that we have always existed as a living conscience. Our spirits were born to Heavenly Parents. "Gods" is not just male. "Creation" of life, or offspring, does not just involve males. Gender is eternal. There is no life without Mothers.

To say that "God" is eternal is saying our "race," or things as they are, have always been this way and there is no beginning to this kind of life, the kind of life God lives. This is the infinite, which we as mortals, cannot comprehend.

To say "God is eternal" and mean our Father in Heaven has always existed as an individal conscience is to deny modern revelation stating that we are God's children, and He was once like us... clearly meaning that He was once born on an earth like ours and that He was once born to Heavenly Parents in a pre-mortal condition.

He is eternal, but I think we misunderstand the word sometimes, and all of it's many possible meanings. Any being that will not die is eternal, whether or not that being had a beginning or not.

My opinion is that He "generalizes" it in scripture so that people who are just beginning to learn about God can place complete trust in Him easier.

[Flyonthewall]

The only honest answer we can give is "we don't know". From our perspective, God is without beginning and without end, and you are asking "what came before the beginning?".

This has not been given to us to know at this time, and we may never know while in our mortal state.

You can refer to it as an easy way to sweep difficult questions under the rug, but if ya don't know, ya don't know.

Anything other than this is pure speculation, and man's attempt to quantify the eternities.

[Vanhin]

Please read my first post on this thread and determine where I have mis-stated any LDS belief. Then follow it up with what is below... slowly:

Justice,

My statements were not concerned about anything you have or have not mis-stated about LDS belief. Clearly LDS have all kinds of beliefs concerning these things as is evident from the many points of view on this topic.

I'm content with the language of the scriptures on these matters. That's why I summarized LDS belief the way I did.

It is truth to say our bodies have always existed, in that the matter they are made of has always existed. That, however, does not mean that our bodies have always existed in their complete form as a living, breathing soul.

Clearly this is true, and is supported by both scripture and observable reality.

We are told the physical bears witness of the spiritual.

Our spirits are born of "intelligences" and intelligences have always existed. That does not mean that we have always existed as a living conscience. Our spirits were born to Heavenly Parents. "Gods" is not just male. "Creation" of life, or offspring, does not just involve males. Gender is eternal. There is no life without Mothers.

That's right. Just like physical element is eternal, so is the spirit element that our spirit bodies are composed of. The scriptures and modern revelation affirms this, and that our spirits are begotten children of God.

To say that "God" is eternal is saying our "race," or things as they are, have always been this way and there is no beginning to this kind of life, the kind of life God lives. This is the infinite, which we as mortals, cannot comprehend.

To say "God is eternal" and mean our Father in Heaven has always existed as an individal conscience is to deny modern revelation stating that we are God's children, and He was once like us... clearly meaning that He was once born on an earth like ours and that He was once born to Heavenly Parents in a pre-mortal condition.

He is eternal, but I think we misunderstand the word sometimes, and all of it's many possible meanings. Any being that will not die is eternal, whether or not that being had a beginning or not.

My opinion is that He "generalizes" it in scripture so that people who are just beginning to learn about God can place complete trust in Him easier.

Well this is all fine, and I commend you for a well thought out line of reasoning. And as far as speculation goes, that is as good as I've ever seen it. And I really mean that.

I'm not aware of any binding revelations that require some of the concepts you have mentioned. If I am mistaken, then I would very much be interested in the book, chapter, and verse from the Standard Works that confirms that God the Father, as an individual, has not always existed, much less as the Supreme Ruler of all that is. I'm not saying that you are wrong; heck you might actually be right, but based on the scriptures available to us right now, it's hard to conclude anything except that God is eternal, infinite, unchanging, from everlasting to everlasting, and without beginning of days or end of years. Those are the words the scriptures use, and they are almost always used in context to say that God has always been God. And consequently, the same applies to descriptions of His Only Begotten Son. That is good enough for me.

If eternal does not mean what we think it means, and infinite does not mean what we think it means, and everlasting does not mean what we think it means, then what word is there that would mean what we think those words mean? What word could we use to convey the concepts that we think those words mean, if not the words themselves?

Joseph Smith put it well, and this statement is in harmony with our current canon of scripture. Speaking of the spirit of man, he taught:

"… I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man—the immortal part, because it had no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself." (History of the Church, 6:310–12)

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

The only honest answer we can give is "we don't know". From our perspective, God is without beginning and without end, and you are asking "what came before the beginning?".

This has not been given to us to know at this time, and we may never know while in our mortal state.

You can refer to it as an easy way to sweep difficult questions under the rug, but if ya don't know, ya don't know.

Anything other than this is pure speculation, and man's attempt to quantify the eternities.

Exactly. :)

[Vanhin]

Our spirits are eternal, but I did not think eternal meant you cannot change…. Eternal progression means eternally changing doesn’t it? we are eternal, and we change…

Hey changed,

Of course that is a valid point. Obviously I personally have progressed, and changed, and hopefully improved over the eternities, and I hope to increase in truth and light until the perfect day.

As far as us being co-eternal with God, it is our existence that is eternal, meaning there is no change in the state of our existence from being to not-being; we are.

Your comments have reminded me of the lyrics to the 3rd verse of "If You could Hie to Kolob".

The works of God continue,

And worlds and lives abound;

Improvement and progression

Have one eternal round.

There is no end to matter;

There is no end to space;

There is no end to spirit;

There is no end to race. (Hymns, If You Could Hie to Kolob, no. 284)

Sincerely,

vanhin

[Vanhin]

The ancient Egyptians had very good concepts of time and temporal relationships – it is just that time was not a consideration for defining eternal as we like to define eternal. The interesting thing to me is that eternal things can be identified and recognized in the now. We do not have to consider its past or future to determine its eternal unchanging nature.

It is fascinating, actually. It is that fact that allows us, who are not enjoying eternal life now, to be exalted later, and have our lives characterized as eternal at that point.

I think that term can be applied to parts, and not necessarily the whole. We know from our scriptures that the elements are eternal. Does that mean that they are completely unchanging? Obviously not. But when eternal is applied to the context of their existence, we can see how in that respect they are unchanging. They exist, and that is an unchanging state; therefore the elements are eternal. In the same sense our existence is eternal, yet our mortal life is not.

The reason time is part of the consideration for us when interpreting certain passages of scripture, is the use of other terms in addition to eternal. Terms like infinite and endless, and also phrases like "from everlasting to everlasting". They are often used together with eternal to give us the proper understanding that we are talking about more than just an unchangeable state in the "now".

Endless is easy to misunderstand. It's easy to think of endless like something that starts and continues forever. But I think it means it has "no ends", like a ring. It goes forever into the past without a beginning, and forever into the future, without an end. Like looking into facing mirrors. Here's a favorite passage that illustrates this.

And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?

And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease. (Moses 1:3-4)

It's a pretty impressive array of features to consider, when God characterizes himself as infinite, eternal, and endless.

Also note from Abraham (closely related to ancient Egyptian concepts) that if something is greater, time is not a factor – it is greater – it’s past or future is not a consideration of its greatness. The question given to LDS concerning becoming G-ds and being equal to G-d is a function of modern thinking without understanding of ancient concepts, G-d is always greater especially when we become equal as we understand present equality.

I have come to respect the ancient Egyptians – I could post so many reasons why and I could talk for hours about just their concepts of creation – that look foolish until you do the math and then things get really exciting.

The Traveler

I Agree. I for one would totally welcome more of your thoughts on the ancient Egyptians.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[Justice]

Vanhin, I did not intend to imply that you disagreed with anything I said. I see now where it could be taken that way. I apologize.

There are scriptures that say what I have stated. Even in your reply you state what I have stated, yet I'm not sure you fully realize what you said.

When you say God is from "everlasting to everlasting," what do you mean exactly? Is there more than one everlasting?

From everything I have studied and prayed about in scripture I gather that "eternity" is made up of rounds, like your quoted example of the ring. This makes perfect sense when you say "everlasting to everlasting" or "one eternal round."

Jesus Christ really is the creator of all worlds in this eternity that people Heavenly Father's children, and is also the Savior of all who live on those worlds as well.

Doctrine & Covenants 76:

22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

This does not mean He can be the Savior for any who existed in a "different eternity" or different "round" that came before or will come after. In other words, He can not be His Father's Savior because His Father was already an eternal, perfected being even before Jehova existed. So, this cannot mean every earth ever created, or even every earth that will be created. Those who are perfected through Jesus Christ's Atonement will have children who will exist in a "different eternity." The principles and plan that God used to exalt His children will then need to be used by those new parents if their children are to be perfected.

When those principles that have allowed children of "our race" to reach perfection (obtanining physical bodies and the knowledge of good and evil) are practiced and applied, that is the life that God lives. He did not invent nor create those ideals, because He became perfect with those same set of ideals. As did His Father, and His Father, and His Father... infinity.

After His children received a physical body, they lacked one thing...

Genesis 3:

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

I can quote scripture, but there are MANY and they have to be taken in proper order and context, and most importantly, prayerfully.

We so frequently misunderstand the obvious because we use man's definitions for many of the things we believe. Many people believe Genesis 3:22 is blasphemous. In the Noah thread I gave God's definition for "heaven and earth," which He gave in the first 10 verses of the Bible. Yet, most people go a lifetime and misunderstand what's being said because they view "heaven and earth" as man does. I think our view of "infinite and eternal" is much this same way. God HAS told us what it means, and you used some of His words that He used to define it in your last post. But, I'm wondering how many people really "catch" what He's saying?

Edited August 29, 2008 by Justice

[allesok]

It seems that no one dares to comment to my hypothetical explanation given above, so I will again state it and then comment to it myself.

1. The first sentence in the Bible is “Bereshit bara Elohim et ha-shamayim v-et ha-arez.” It is normally translated “In the beginning God created heaven and Earth.” But Elohim is undeniably plural: “GodS”. Some, therefore, want to understand: “In the beginning the gods created haven and Earth.” That doesn’t fit, because the verb “bara” is in singular. BUT there is another solution! “Bereshit”, besides meaning “beginning”, can also mean “[the] first one”. Then it makes sense and fits with “bara” in singular: “The first one created the gods, the heavens and the Earth.” (Actually heaven is also in plural: “shamayim” and could be understood as “[the] worlds”).

So understood the Elohim are secondary, created gods. The Elohim also created humans. One of them, who is called Yahveh, created Adam and Eve, from whom the Earth people come.

2. So if the LDS god was first a man, this makes me think of him as one of the Elohim and not the “prime Creator”. One of various planetary gods, and one who has to do with our planet.

But why is Yahveh so exceedingly cruel? He leads the Hebrews out of Egypt to the Promised Land, where people are already living in cities. He tells them to kill everyone living there and not spare a child, a woman or an old man (this is written in the Bible!): “So that you can live in houses you didn’t build and drink from wells you haven’t dug.” What kind of a god is that? Did he really incarnate as Jesus. Jesus is not cruel, but teaches love!

It rather seems that it was Yahveh who wanted Jesus killed because he was teaching truths Yahveh didn’t want people to know, hoping that the new movement would disappear after that. But it didn’t! Instead it grew stronger. It further seems that Yahveh then had a clever strategy: I will infiltrate the Church and twist it to become the way I want it. Hence there are two Christs: the real one, who incarnated in Jesus (an incarnation of the love of the prime Creator) and then a false Christ taught to us by the Church. With Church I mean the movement that was started by Paul and made manifest by the emperor Constantine, who was cruel, too, and only wanted to have this Church as a tool for his power.

MY COMMENT:

Hemidakota has kindly sent me a lot of information (THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR EFFORT!) in which I find something interesting that fits here.

Joseph Smith translated "bereshit" as "the head of the Gods", which is quite similar to "the first one", since the first one will be the head. He then states that a council of the created Gods ('elohim, created by the head) came together to create. Even though a council itself is not derivable from the Hebrew text, it makes sense. They created the worlds, of which one is the Earth. And they "peopled" it. The latter is also not derivable from the first sentence, but from what comes later: "Let US make man in OUR image" (again: note the plural!).

"Bara" means: "create, cut, carve out, beget, eat, feed, form, fashion", "bring forth".

This is for me a sympathic statement in LDS teachings.

[Vanhin]

Vanhin, I did not intend to imply that you disagreed with anything I said. I see now where it could be taken that way. I apologize.

No problem. The truth is I greatly value the things that you write out here.

There are scriptures that say what I have stated. Even in your reply you state what I have stated, yet I'm not sure you fully realize what you said.

When you say God is from "everlasting to everlasting," what do you mean exactly? Is there more than one everlasting?

I don't take it to mean there is more than one "everlasting". That statement defines parameters in a scope. Take the scope of our mortal life for example. It is from birth to death, or from beginning to end. "From everlasting to everlasting" are the paramaters of an endless scope. It extends endlessly into the everlasting past and endlessly into the everlasting future.

From everything I have studied and prayed about in scripture I gather that "eternity" is made up of rounds, like your quoted example of the ring. This makes perfect sense when you say "everlasting to everlasting" or "one eternal round."

Well, I obviously cannot refute the conclusions you have come to through study and prayer, but I will point out a contradiction in the above statement. Contrary to what you have gathered, eternity is clearly made up of "one eternal round", not "many rounds"... You see what I'm saying? The phrase "everlasting to everlasting" defines the scope of that one eternal round.

The rest deals with the conclusion that there are multiple eternities, which I think you have not been able to substantiate yet, in my opinion... But I did read it, and found it very interesting.

Thank you for that.

Jesus Christ really is the creator of all worlds in this eternity that people Heavenly Father's children, and is also the Savior of all who live on those worlds as well.

Doctrine & Covenants 76:

22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

This does not mean He can be the Savior for any who existed in a "different eternity" or different "round" that came before or will come after. In other words, He can not be His Father's Savior because His Father was already an eternal, perfected being even before Jehova existed. So, this cannot mean every earth ever created, or even every earth that will be created. Those who are perfected through Jesus Christ's Atonement will have children who will exist in a "different eternity." The principles and plan that God used to exalt His children will then need to be used by those new parents if their children are to be perfected.

When those principles that have allowed children of "our race" to reach perfection (obtanining physical bodies and the knowledge of good and evil) are practiced and applied, that is the life that God lives. He did not invent nor create those ideals, because He became perfect with those same set of ideals. As did His Father, and His Father, and His Father... infinity.

After His children received a physical body, they lacked one thing...

Genesis 3:

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

I can quote scripture, but there are MANY and they have to be taken in proper order and context, and most importantly, prayerfully.

We so frequently misunderstand the obvious because we use man's definitions for many of the things we believe. Many people believe Genesis 3:22 is blasphemous. In the Noah thread I gave God's definition for "heaven and earth," which He gave in the first 10 verses of the Bible. Yet, most people go a lifetime and misunderstand what's being said because they view "heaven and earth" as man does. I think our view of "infinite and eternal" is much this same way. God HAS told us what it means, and you used some of His words that He used to define it in your last post. But, I'm wondering how many people really "catch" what He's saying?

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[allesok]

It is written in the Old Testament that Yahveh ORDERED the Hebrews to KILL all who already lived in the promised Land, and not spare a child, a woman nor an old man.

So that is clearly his doing...

That is why I cannot believe that he is the prime creator, but a secondary god.

[allesok]

A choice of the many cruelties in the Old Testament

Gen.: 34,25-29.

Ex.: 12,12; 12,29-30; 15,3; 32,26-28.

Lev.: 26,7-8; 26,21-22; 26,26-29.

Num.: 15,32-36; 16,29-35; 16,46-49; 21,3-6; 21,24-25; 21,33-35; 31,7-10; 31,14-18; 31,31-32; 31,35

Deut: 2,32-34;. 3,1-6; 7,2-3; 9,35 13,9-10; 13,14-16; 20,10-17; 21,11-14.

Joshua: 6,20-25; 8,2; 8,21-25; 8,29; 10,10-11; 10,17-40; 11,6-22.

Judges: 1,4-11; 1,17; 1,25; 3,29-31; 4,14-16; 7,15-25; 8,17; 9,4-5; 9,43-45; 9,49-52; 11,30-40; 15,15-16; 18,27; 19,22-29; 20,2; 20,31-37; 20,41-48.

1 Samuel: 5,8-9; 6,19; 11,6-11; 15,3-9; 15,33; 18,7; 30,17.

2 Samuel: 5,8; 5,25; 8,1-5; 10,18; 12,31; 18,6-7; 24,10-16.

1 Kings: 20,28-30.

2 Kings: 1,9-14; 2,23-25; 5,25-27; 6,18; 10,13-25; 14,5-7; 15,16; 19,35.

1 Chron.: 20,2-3.

Psalms: 137,9.

Iesaiah: 13,15-18; 45,5-7; 49,25-26.

Jeremiah 16,3-5.

Lament.: 4,9-11.

Ezekiel: 6,12-13; 9,3-6.

Hosea: 13,15; 14,1.

[MobyMule]

A choice of the many cruelties in the Old Testament

Gen.: 34,25-29.

Ex.: 12,12; 12,29-30; 15,3; 32,26-28.

Lev.: 26,7-8; 26,21-22; 26,26-29.

Num.: 15,32-36; 16,29-35; 16,46-49; 21,3-6; 21,24-25; 21,33-35; 31,7-10; 31,14-18; 31,31-32; 31,35

Deut: 2,32-34;. 3,1-6; 7,2-3; 9,35 13,9-10; 13,14-16; 20,10-17; 21,11-14.

Joshua: 6,20-25; 8,2; 8,21-25; 8,29; 10,10-11; 10,17-40; 11,6-22.

Judges: 1,4-11; 1,17; 1,25; 3,29-31; 4,14-16; 7,15-25; 8,17; 9,4-5; 9,43-45; 9,49-52; 11,30-40; 15,15-16; 18,27; 19,22-29; 20,2; 20,31-37; 20,41-48.

1 Samuel: 5,8-9; 6,19; 11,6-11; 15,3-9; 15,33; 18,7; 30,17.

2 Samuel: 5,8; 5,25; 8,1-5; 10,18; 12,31; 18,6-7; 24,10-16.

1 Kings: 20,28-30.

2 Kings: 1,9-14; 2,23-25; 5,25-27; 6,18; 10,13-25; 14,5-7; 15,16; 19,35.

1 Chron.: 20,2-3.

Psalms: 137,9.

Iesaiah: 13,15-18; 45,5-7; 49,25-26.

Jeremiah 16,3-5.

Lament.: 4,9-11.

Ezekiel: 6,12-13; 9,3-6.

Hosea: 13,15; 14,1.

Thank goodness for a God who see the whole picture and instituted a way that all can be saved even if they never had the opportunity to choose God in this life. All these things become clearer to those who see the eternal perspective of the Gospel imho.

[allesok]

It is true that not all these cruelties are commanded by Yahveh, but many of them are.

Let's talk about them! They are what we are discussing here!

If you read these Bible references, you will see that God commanded to KILL all who already lived in the Promised Land, so that the Hebrews could have the land for themselves. A THEFT OF LAND!

And they should not spare even a child - and what does a CHILD have to do with conflicting religious views? - nor a woman nor an old man. This is LAND ROBBERY!!!

One or two cities were prepared to negotiate with the Hebrews, but Yahveh "hardened their hearts" so that they would not, but instead enter a war in which they would all be killed.

Yahveh clearly wanted EVERYONE of them DEAD!

What kind of a god is that?

Jesus taught: "Thou shalt not kill", "Who takes to the sword will be undone by the sword", "Love your enemies" and "What you do to others will be done unto you".

But what Yahveh wanted the Hebrews to do is contrary to what Jesus taught.

So how could Jesus be an incarnation of Yahveh?

The relation between Jesus and Yahveh will rather be as I outlined above...

[WANDERER]

Allesok...so I've read...but I'm not quite sure what to think about it.

[Justice]

allesok,

What you view as cruelty may very well be compassion when properly understood. God does know what is happening on both sides of the veil. When one leaves this life they simply move to the other side. It is possible that those who were killed by His command have a better chance of reaching exaltaion on the other side of the veil. Maybe they were wicked and would have been for generations, and to give more of His children a greater chance of salvation He knew it was best to send them to the other side.

I would never dare call anything God does "cruelty" until I at least first understood His reason.

But, my guess is He can completely justify His actions.

Since we don't know what gives a person the best chance at succeeding, we should leave all such decisions to Him and trust He is doing what is best for the greater number of His children.

Edited August 30, 2008 by Justice