Where is it written that God obeys laws?

[Justice]

Originally Posted by JohnBirchSociety

Wow, I cannot believe that you've said we are the same "species" as GOD.

Would it be any better if Jesus said it?

John 10:

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

John 1:

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Think of the prodigal son story. A son took his inheritance and left home, kind of like man did when they fell and chose sin. He realized his choice was wrong and wanted to be numbered among his father's children again, in fact, he just wanted to be a servant in his father's house. But, his father restored his sonship and made him an heir once again.

We are children of God, but we are lost and fallen by choice. Our Father in Heaven has provided a way whereby we can restore that relationship.

John 20:

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

No mistaking the relationship.

Maybe we are the same family?

Maybe we really are children like the scriptures say?

Edited February 11, 2009 by Justice

[Dove]

Again, I do not subscribe to those premises on which the whole logical irony was built. It was intended to be read by those who subscribe to it, to let them see**** what logical conclusions could**** be derived from them****. Of course, I didnt expect that you would take it to be directed at you, and that you would (in a way I dont understand) take them to be what I**** believe.

It was not a joke* in the sense of a common joke. It was an intellectual irony, which I have translated as 'joke' for the sake of remaining, you know, down to earth. But in fact it was a serious matter. Just presented colorfully, as a comment*** not an argument****(you do know the diference...).

So it is not offensive in any way (for lets be honest and serious now, the God of the Bible -independently of what you as mormon may want* to believe, represents Himself as the ONLY God, so He, in regard to what co-exists around Him, is an atheist, for He himself does not believe in any Laws or Gods that made Him or his cosmos), it could be offensive though (but again, you would -like me- take it as childish) to call the God of theh Bible 'one among many', that 'once was a man', to other christians.

So do not get sensitive over something that was a matter to give thinking to(plain 'jokes' are meaningless in the end, my comment was not) and part of what others may believe(as Tom, Justice or Vanhin), and you should just keep up to it, disregard it, prove it wrong, or not. But unless the manner**** of presenting some topic is*** unrespectful, whatever the content, if intellectual, must be regarded seriously and you must learn to live with it. Just as I live with your ideas.

Sergg,

To me, God is not an atheist. He believes Himself to be a Deity, God, whatever label you want to put on it. We do hold this sacred, and I, for one, hurt over the phraseology of your post (joke) that God's do not hold themselves as deity. Yes, it was "unrespectful" in its way, because you were trivializing His character and how He would interact.....

We are all debating whether or not God created law, or if the law was eternal and then God adhered to it to "become" God....May I suggest a marriage of the two? That both the law and God are eternal concepts? That one did not come before or after, or super cede the other? I think of the scriptures in the New Testament, where Christ declares, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me." John 14:6.

I am now studying the word "law" in the topical guide. It comes up only in the Doctrine and Covenants. and is consistently presented as "His" law....God's law. It seems to me that both the law and God are eternal. I was also reading in the New Testament, John 1...."In the beginning was the word..." There is a really interesting JST to this first verse.

I would caution that we remember that even though Christ progressed "grace upon grace" in this life (D&C 93:11-13), He was still God the Son.....and as such full of truth and grace......

God is truth and the law in my opinion. It's who He is! As someone else has been saying in prior threads, why would he go contrary to his own nature?

[Dymmesdale]

Look where your position leads you.

Of course it's a law. It is by Christ that all flesh is justified. If Christ did not take upon Himself the sins of the world then all mankind would remain lost and fallen. There was nothing God could do about it. No revoking of law, no changing law, no finding another way around the law that had to be satisfied. Yes, God was subject to this law.

The law says that mercy can only be extended by virtue of an infinite and atoning sacrifice.

God had no way around it.

How open is your mind? Is it open enough to seriously read these words from the Book of Mormon? Or, do you turn off once you know the source?

These are the words of a great Book of Mormon missionary, Amulek:

Alma 34:

8 And now, behold, I will testify unto you of myself that these things are true. Behold, I say unto you, that I do know that Christ shall come among the children of men, to take upon him the transgressions of his people, and that he shall atone for the sins of the world; for the Lord God hath spoken it.

9 For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made.

10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.

14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

15 And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.

16 And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption.

How much clearer is the Book of Mormon?

How much does the world need the Book of Mormon?

I hope that you seriously ponder these words. These words do not say anyting you do not already know. They do not contradict anything the Bible teaches. But, they do make it a little clearer why Christ had to atone for the sins of the world.

Not just because "God said so," but because it was necessary according to eternal law, or the law of justice. God is just and will do nothing that does not satisfy this law, or to bring about mercy that can answer the law... even if it means sending His Only Begotten Son to suffer and die for man.

I think I am beginning to understand where our points of view begin to differ. When Christ atoned for the sins of man, the Law of Moses was fulfilled. God did not do this because he was subject to a greater, celestial law. Rather, because of his great mercy. The Law of Moses was created for Man, by God, so he cannot be bound by it. He was not obliged to anything at all about the problem of sin, but he sent his Son because he is merciful.

[Dr T]

His nature

[Justice]

I think I am beginning to understand where our points of view begin to differ. When Christ atoned for the sins of man, the Law of Moses was fulfilled. God did not do this because he was subject to a greater, celestial law. Rather, because of his great mercy. The Law of Moses was created for Man, by God, so he cannot be bound by it. He was not obliged to anything at all about the problem of sin, but he sent his Son because he is merciful.

I guess I'll make a statement and see if you agree.

You believe God is not subject to law because He made law.

Okay. Let me try to arrange my words clearly so I can convey my argument precisely.

God made law.

Since Christ *had to* suffer and die for man, that means God is the one who required His Son suffer and die. God did not follow that law, He made that law. So, it was God's will that His Son suffer an eternal suffering and die in order to save man.

If God made law, and is not subject to it, then He could have declaired that all His Son had to do was live a perfect life.

Or, even better yet, God could have forced each and every person to obey His will and be saved, because He was not bound by a law where men had to have agency and choose good.

Sure, it was mercy that He sent His Son. The point is, He did not have to. The ONLY reason He did is because He loves us and wanted to give us a chance to return and live with Him. But, we made our own bed. The fact that He interceded on our behalf is mercy beyond all we know and understand.

That God exercised mercy is not proof He is not bound by law. All that is proof of is that justice can be satisfied by mercy, and God knows what is required to save His children.

[Maxel]

Personally, I believe God's actions are dictated by His nature. Whether his nature is dictated by antedating celestial laws or some other force, is debatable (though I believe with all my heart that His nature is the resultant of His living the celestial laws that govern the universe).

I look at it this way:

-God must exist.

-Because He exists, He has a nature.

-He cannot change His nature, or else He would cease to be God.

-Therefore, His nature is dependent on other factors.

I believe His nature to be dependent on the celestial laws of the universe that He adheres to so strictly, and that make the complicated business of the Atonement necessary for us, His children, to grow and progress.

If God were the author of the laws of the universe, including the laws He has set forth that govern righteous living and sinful behavior, then He could change them at any time and still be God, for all things that He has created are eternally His. Therefore, all the suffering that attended Christ's Atonement was avoidable, and God subjected part of Himself to needless torment. Therefore, I don't think it would be too far off to label one of God's attributes as 'masochistic', if that were the case- especially in light of the fact that Christ plead with the Father to not drink of the cup- yet the Son was subject to the Father. One can claim Christ's was the ultimate example of obedience- which it was- but that does not explain the fact that Christ legitimately suffered horribly during the process. If Christ is an extension of God, then God saw fit to subject Himself to torture.

Either God is a loving God who cannot change the laws whereby His children are saved, and Christ had to have suffered and died for our sins, or God is a self-hating God who needlessly subjected Himself to infinite pain and suffering because His creations were imperfect in their design, and needed to be given an ultimate example and need for atonement.

[Sergg]

Sergg,

To me, God is not an atheist. He believes Himself to be a Deity, God, whatever label you want to put on it. We do hold this sacred, and I, for one, hurt over the phraseology of your post (joke) that God's do not hold themselves as deity. Yes, it was "unrespectful" in its way, because you were trivializing His character and how He would interact.....

We are all debating whether or not God created law, or if the law was eternal and then God adhered to it to "become" God....May I suggest a marriage of the two? That both the law and God are eternal concepts? That one did not come before or after, or super cede the other? I think of the scriptures in the New Testament, where Christ declares, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me." John 14:6.

I am now studying the word "law" in the topical guide. It comes up only in the Doctrine and Covenants. and is consistently presented as "His" law....God's law. It seems to me that both the law and God are eternal. I was also reading in the New Testament, John 1...."In the beginning was the word..." There is a really interesting JST to this first verse.

I would caution that we remember that even though Christ progressed "grace upon grace" in this life (D&C 93:11-13), He was still God the Son.....and as such full of truth and grace......

God is truth and the law in my opinion. It's who He is! As someone else has been saying in prior threads, why would he go contrary to his own nature?

Misunderstanding is the root to all 'harm' in both your cases. I was clear*, that the gods DO consider themselves to be what they are: Gods, but that precisely because THEY are the ONLY gods, they are 'atheists' (say, under the dictionary definition: does not believe in God as the origin of the world,etc.) in that they do not consider what transcend them (the 'Laws' that some* here believe in -not I) as the result of another Intelligence, but that no other intelligence exists apart from the Gods themselves. In that sense, The gods are atheists in regard to those components of the universe that are not dependent on them (the 'Laws').

Again, I do not think this is the outcome of any theology, or mormon theology. I have been more than clear (in fact, ad nauseam), that it is only the ironical(but REAL) results from the beliefs that some members here share.

End of all my participation regarding this thread.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Not according to Joseph Smith.....and our relationship to God is one of Father and child.

Unfortunately for us, the totality of Scripture does not agree with Joseph Smith's assertion.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Only to one who thinks finite.

If there ever was a "time" when man did not exist, tell me why did God decided, after an entire eternity, to finally "create" him?

What was God's paradigm shift; what did He learn that made Him think to create man? Did He always plan to create man, just wanted to wait for an eternity to do it?

Surely the God you believe in didn't "learn" something that made Him decide to create man.

No, it can't be so. Man has always existed. Don't get hung up on God "creating" man on this earth "in the beginning."

Moses 1:

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.

37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.

38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.

39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

40 And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak.

41 And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men—among as many as shall believe.

He has always done this.

It's a difficult thing, maybe impossible, to comprehend eternity. But, I can understand it enough to see that either man has always existed, or he doesn't exist at all. Since man exists, then the race of man has always existed. Open your mind, your heart, and your eyes. God did not will man, or anything else into existence. You are His child, just as He calls Moses, and He is about His business of trying to perfect you.

Since GOD created time for man, he existed always, outside the bounds of time, which he created. Therefore, your argument has no merit.

Alma 40:8 "Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men."

There must be a first cause. GOD is that cause. He is the only being that is self-existent. All other beings / things were created by him.

[JohnBirchSociety]

If you hold to a Trinitarian view of the Godhead -- nothing I say will make sense to you. So it does not surprise me that you feel this way.

Christians have never held a Trinitarian view of the Godhead. That was an invention of the Council of Nicea, 300 years after Christ prayed to the Father to "forgive them, for they know not what they do."

These 2 talks by Elder Holland state our position quite well. You are free to disagree. Just as I am free to disagree with your views, as well:

The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent

and:

?My Words . . . Never Cease?

I would encourage you to really study these talks.

Tom

If I could encourage you to do one thing in this life, it would be to put away the "talks" and pick up our Bible, Book of Mormon, and D&C/PofGP, and see that GOD is eternal. See that GOD created time. See that GOD created man. See that GOD created all things / beings (other than GOD who is self-existent and without creator).

I think many times we LDS get a bit backwards in our approach. We take our "talks" and transpose them upon Scripture (Standard Works). This leads us to incorrect conclusions...

Just my two cents...

[JohnBirchSociety]

Originally Posted by JohnBirchSociety

Wow, I cannot believe that you've said we are the same "species" as GOD.

Would it be any better if Jesus said it?

John 10:

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

John 1:

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Think of the prodigal son story. A son took his inheritance and left home, kind of like man did when they fell and chose sin. He realized his choice was wrong and wanted to be numbered among his father's children again, in fact, he just wanted to be a servant in his father's house. But, his father restored his sonship and made him an heir once again.

We are children of God, but we are lost and fallen by choice. Our Father in Heaven has provided a way whereby we can restore that relationship.

John 20:

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

No mistaking the relationship.

Maybe we are the same family?

Maybe we really are children like the scriptures say?

1) You might wish to research the "Ye are gods" in the original tongue to see that "gods" in question are fundamentally different than "GOD".

2) If we are the Children of GOD in a "species" sense, rather than a general creative sense (he created us) then why do the scriptures speak of us "becoming" his sons (and daughters by extension)? If we are already in that status by the fact of us being the same "species" as GOD?

3) The Scriptures clearly state that GOD created man. In fact, the scriptures are so clear on it, that I'd fill this disscussion forums server with listing of them if needed.

[Maxel]

JohnBirchSociety-

I am disheartened by your vehement and condescending manner in which you've treated your fellow members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I will take up the gauntlet in their defense, as I number them among my friends. That is not to say they cannot (or will not) defend themselves, but I do not watch my friends be attacked in such an unscrupulous manner and sit idly by.

Unfortunately for us, the totality of Scripture does not agree with Joseph Smith's assertion.

If you are LDS, and you believe in Prophets, and no living Prophet has come forward to declare the canonized doctrine in this matter, how can you claim so dramatically the 'Scriptures [don't] agree with Joseph Smith's assertions'? Are you greater than he? For that matter, are you greater than the prophets whose works Joseph studied, and the Holy Ghost that led Joseph Smith to believe what he did?

You may disagree, but it is dishonest to claim the scriptures disagree with the living prophets when you have no authority to do so.

Since GOD created time for man, he existed always, outside the bounds of time, which he created. Therefore, your argument has no merit.

A note on the exchange beforehand- your position and philosophy has more in common (in fact, is completely in line) with creedal Christianity than faithful Mormonism. Do you believe that Joseph Smith restored the Lord's true Church? If so, do you believe the world was in a state of apostasy beforehand?

Alma 40:8 "Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men."

There must be a first cause. GOD is that cause. He is the only being that is self-existent. All other beings / things were created by him.

Since you want to play logical games, I'll play one with you. Strictly speaking, that verse can only support a position that God does not measure time, and not support the idea that he exists 'outside' of time. Furthermore, from a strictly logical standpoint Abraham 3:4 would contradict that statement ('And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.') Also, the references to there being different days in which God created the Earth in Genesis would seem to logically contradict the first part of the verse.

So, let's go beyond the mere words and look at context. The context of Alma 40:8 is the subject of resurrection. More specifically, we find the key phrase 'and time only is measured unto men' at the end of a verse talking about the time appointed for men to rise (or 'live' as in breathing, eating, walking around in our mortal state, etc.). If we study the concept of 'time' as it applies to this subject, we can see that it speaks of 'time' in the sense of the 'time' that 'all shall come forth from the dead' (v. 4), and Alma discusses whether there will be 'more than one time appointed' that man shall rise from the dead (v. 8). Clearly, we can see that the 'time' spoken of in this context is not the concept of 'time' as we understand it in the context of days, months, seconds, etc. Or even in the concept of 'eternity'.

However, if one was attempting to prove a creedal, Hellenistic Christianity philosophy from the Book of Mormon, one would point to this verse and hope the context isn't understood. Your use of the phrase 'first cause' reminds me of Trinitarian apologetic works, and creedal philosophy.

If I could encourage you to do one thing in this life, it would be to put away the "talks" and pick up our Bible, Book of Mormon, and D&C/PofGP, and see that GOD is eternal. See that GOD created time. See that GOD created man. See that GOD created all things / beings (other than GOD who is self-existent and without creator).

If I could 'encourage you to do one thing in this life', it would be to stop insulting those who don't agree with you. It is extremely caustic, immature, and unworthy of a disciple of Christ.

I think many times we LDS get a bit backwards in our approach. We take our "talks" and transpose them upon Scripture (Standard Works). This leads us to incorrect conclusions...

This is the beginning of the philosophy of a closed canon.

1) You might wish to research the "Ye are gods" in the original tongue to see that "gods" in question are fundamentally different than "GOD".

You might wish to research the "created" phraseology in Genesis in 'the original tongue' and find that it has more in line with a potter's molding of a pot than the idea of 'creation' the doctrine of ex nihilo would have us believe.

2) If we are the Children of GOD in a "species" sense, rather than a general creative sense (he created us) then why do the scriptures speak of us "becoming" his sons (and daughters by extension)? If we are already in that status by the fact of us being the same "species" as GOD?

A son may be his father's physical child, but look nothing like him. Indeed, we are God's spiritual children but in our current state we do not resemble Him- which is what we need to become to find happiness. Therefore, we need to bring our actions more in line with how He would have us live.

Furthermore, we are not Christ's children until we become His through the Atonement He wrought for us. That is a relationship that we must create in this life, and is not dependent on being the same divine species. Christ spiritually 'begets' us because it is through Him that we approach the Father.

3) The Scriptures clearly state that GOD created man. In fact, the scriptures are so clear on it, that I'd fill this disscussion forums server with listing of them if needed.

Brilliant! The scriptures also clearly state that we should love others as ourselves. If you have not shown us a simple example of that, must we believe your brand of uninspired scriptural exegesis is true?

Furthermore, God did create us- just not in the sense that the doctrine of ex nihilo suggests.

In closing, please show more respect to your fellow posters, JohnBirchSociety. It helps keep everyone happy.

Edited February 12, 2009 by Maxel

[Justice]

Since GOD created time for man, he existed always, outside the bounds of time, which he created. Therefore, your argument has no merit.

I'll point out where your logic is flawed.

You said, Since:

God created time for man

He existed always

Why must that be true? As long as He existed before He created time, which I believe, it does not prove He had to exist forever to create time. God has created time many, many times. For each earth where He sent His children to dwell, He created a space where they can learn good and evil and repent (be glad to quote scriptures for you). God certainly did exist before He created an earth and heaven where we can dwell as mortal outside His immediate presence.

Alma 40:8 "Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men."

I believe this scripture is true. But, because time is only measured to man, it does not prove that God has existed forever. After this earth passes away, and we are all resurrected and immortal, time will have no meaning to us as well. That will not mean that we existed forever.

There must be a first cause. GOD is that cause. He is the only being that is self-existent. All other beings / things were created by him.

You keep saying that there must be a first cause. But, you haven't answered why? Why is the fact that the race of man has existed forever an impossibility? Show me scriptures that says, "There was nothing but God, then God brought man into existence from nothing."

You won't find it. It didn't happen that way.

The family of man has always existed. The problem is mortal man cannot comprehend such things without being enlightened by the spirit. God is our Father in Heaven. We are His offspring, just as it says in the Bible. Why would he go through this much trouble for anything other than His children?

What will we be when we are perfected and dwell in everlasting burnings with God?

Heirs of all that the Father has?

What does that make us?

Sons!

Where was there ever a son that couldn't be like his father?

This is going to take some serious pondering and prayer for you to understand.

[Justice]

1) You might wish to research the "Ye are gods" in the original tongue to see that "gods" in question are fundamentally different than "GOD".

I have researched it. gods is different than Gods. But, an infant is fundamentally different than a man. But, both are still men.

2) If we are the Children of GOD in a "species" sense, rather than a general creative sense (he created us) then why do the scriptures speak of us "becoming" his sons (and daughters by extension)? If we are already in that status by the fact of us being the same "species" as GOD?

It appears you are not reading my posts.

I already said that we are lost and fallen by our sin. I gave the example of the prodigal son, remember?

3) The Scriptures clearly state that GOD created man. In fact, the scriptures are so clear on it, that I'd fill this disscussion forums server with listing of them if needed.

So many scriptures are misunderstood by man. Gods ways are not mans ways. Too many people have taken it upon themselves to interpret scripture for themselves.

I have not done so. What I am sharing with you has been revealed in these latter-days through prophets of God and additional scripture.

Either you rely on your own wisdom or give up the pride and rely on God's prophets.

So, can you not say that a mother and father create offspring when a child is born?

Of course you can. You are binding yourself to an old sectarian notion of what God meant by create.

If you continue to ask questions that I have already answered several posts ago, and show signs of not reading or caring what I'm saying, I won't participate in a one-sided discussion. Remember, you are on an LDS site, not the other way around. You should really seek to understand what we believe. You can't do that by ignoring what we say. You aren't even *acting* like you care about what we say.

Instead of showing me (us) scriptures with the intent to *prove* to us we are wrong, you should show us a scripture and *ask* how we interpret it. This would at least show some interest in our words. I promise, I have studied all the scriptures (except for the Song of Solomon).

I know that I can't post a scripture to prove to you what I believe is right. If it were that easy, everyone in the world would be LDS. So, let's discuss it.

Edited February 12, 2009 by Justice

[Guest tomk]

If I could encourage you to do one thing in this life, it would be to put away the "talks" and pick up our Bible, Book of Mormon, and D&C/PofGP, and see that GOD is eternal. See that GOD created time. See that GOD created man. See that GOD created all things / beings (other than GOD who is self-existent and without creator).

I think many times we LDS get a bit backwards in our approach. We take our "talks" and transpose them upon Scripture (Standard Works). This leads us to incorrect conclusions...

Just my two cents...

"We LDS" ???

If you claim to be LDS, you do not understand your own religion.

We are co-eternal with God:

You say "read the scriptures" -- well, I have. Our D&C says:

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

We were not created or made, neither indeed can it be!!

Same goes for God! He has always existed!

Consider the following from the late Elder Neal A. Maxwell, an apostle of the Lord:

"God has no distracting hobbies off somewhere in the universe. We are at the very center of His concerns and purposes. What a sharp contrast to those who believe that man lives in an “unconscious universe” (Bertrand Russell, “A Free Man’s Worship,” in Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays [1917], 50), a “universe … without a master” (Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays, trans. Justin O’Brien [1955], 123).

Revelations likewise came about our longevity as God’s spirit children, since “man was also in the beginning with God”—a declaration accompanied by even further glimmers about man’s eternal nature (see D&C 93:29). These enunciations with their profound implications are major, challenging, for instance, the teaching that man was created in an instant “out of nothing.”

A further reality of our being with God “in the beginning” means that you have been you for a long time. Hence the Apostle John correctly wrote that “[God] first loved us” (see 1 Jn. 4:19). Likewise, amid the mortal turbulence, we learn who other mortals really are—our spiritual brothers and sisters, not functions, rivals, or enemies. Moreover, we should have a special sanctity and regard for human life.

“Stunners” all, these three revelations and translations are especially responsive to the deepest human yearnings and puzzlements. They restructure our understanding of the nature of God, of the universe, and likewise of our personal identity and of life’s meaning! What could be more personal than these brief but encompassing declarations?"

taken from:

LDS.org - Liahona Article - How Choice a Seer!

Tom

Edited February 12, 2009 by tomk

[Dove]

Misunderstanding is the root to all 'harm' in both your cases. I was clear*, that the gods DO consider themselves to be what they are: Gods, but that precisely because THEY are the ONLY gods, they are 'atheists' (say, under the dictionary definition: does not believe in God as the origin of the world,etc.) in that they do not consider what transcend them (the 'Laws' that some* here believe in -not I) as the result of another Intelligence, but that no other intelligence exists apart from the Gods themselves. In that sense, The gods are atheists in regard to those components of the universe that are not dependent on them (the 'Laws').

Again, I do not think this is the outcome of any theology, or mormon theology. I have been more than clear (in fact, ad nauseam), that it is only the ironical(but REAL) results from the beliefs that some members here share.

End of all my participation regarding this thread.

Thank you for your explanation, Sergg, it is more clear to me now. I appreciate your willingness to explain it more than once, as this last time has helped me to understand much better what you were saying/trying to communicate.

Peace

Dove

[JohnBirchSociety]

I'll point out where your logic is flawed.

You said, Since:

God created time for man

He existed always

Why must that be true? As long as He existed before He created time, which I believe, it does not prove He had to exist forever to create time. God has created time many, many times. For each earth where He sent His children to dwell, He created a space where they can learn good and evil and repent (be glad to quote scriptures for you). God certainly did exist before He created an earth and heaven where we can dwell as mortal outside His immediate presence.

I believe this scripture is true. But, because time is only measured to man, it does not prove that God has existed forever. After this earth passes away, and we are all resurrected and immortal, time will have no meaning to us as well. That will not mean that we existed forever.

You keep saying that there must be a first cause. But, you haven't answered why? Why is the fact that the race of man has existed forever an impossibility? Show me scriptures that says, "There was nothing but God, then God brought man into existence from nothing."

You won't find it. It didn't happen that way.

The family of man has always existed. The problem is mortal man cannot comprehend such things without being enlightened by the spirit. God is our Father in Heaven. We are His offspring, just as it says in the Bible. Why would he go through this much trouble for anything other than His children?

What will we be when we are perfected and dwell in everlasting burnings with God?

Heirs of all that the Father has?

What does that make us?

Sons!

Where was there ever a son that couldn't be like his father?

This is going to take some serious pondering and prayer for you to understand.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

First, outside of this discussion, I think we should avoid say, "This is going to take some serious pondering and prayer for you to understand". And I mean that whether it were to come from me or you. The reason for that is that you and I have NO IDEA how much the other has studied and prayed about the matter. You very well may have a better knowledge than I or visa versa. I think we need to just let the facts speak for themselves.

Now back to our previously scheduled program...

1) GOD must have always existed because the scriptures say so. He is the Alpha and Omega. His without beginning or end. The scriptures say so. That's good enough for me.

On top of what the scriptures say, it is a scientific proof that there is / must be a first cause beyond the boundaries of "time". Of course we are all limited in our ability to even describe such things given that our language is temporally constructive.

2) Since GOD is the "first cause" and he created us (not ex nihilo, because he existed already, thus "from nothing, something" does not apply in the ultimate sense), he existed prior to our existence, in fact prior to time, which he has created for man. We are ontologically different than he because we are a creation, he is not.

3) There cannot be an eternity of "past" in "time" looking back from this moment in "time". If that were the case, all things that could possibly have occurred in "time" would have already transpired because there would be an eternity of "time" for them to happen. THUS, "time" has a beginning. And, as the scriptures attest, it does, GOD created it. Again, we are limited in the description of these concepts by our temporally constructive language(s).

4) You ask for a scripture that says the following, "There was nothing but God, then God brought man into existence from nothing", here's one:

"aIn the bbeginning was the Word, and the cWord was with God, and the dWord was eGod. 2 The same was in the abeginning with God.

3 All things were amade by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:1-3)

5) I've never disagreed with the claim that when exalted we will have rights to all that GOD has.

[JohnBirchSociety]

JohnBirchSociety-

I am disheartened by your vehement and condescending manner in which you've treated your fellow members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I will take up the gauntlet in their defense, as I number them among my friends. That is not to say they cannot (or will not) defend themselves, but I do not watch my friends be attacked in such an unscrupulous manner and sit idly by.

If you are LDS, and you believe in Prophets, and no living Prophet has come forward to declare the canonized doctrine in this matter, how can you claim so dramatically the 'Scriptures [don't] agree with Joseph Smith's assertions'? Are you greater than he? For that matter, are you greater than the prophets whose works Joseph studied, and the Holy Ghost that led Joseph Smith to believe what he did?

You may disagree, but it is dishonest to claim the scriptures disagree with the living prophets when you have no authority to do so.

A note on the exchange beforehand- your position and philosophy has more in common (in fact, is completely in line) with creedal Christianity than faithful Mormonism. Do you believe that Joseph Smith restored the Lord's true Church? If so, do you believe the world was in a state of apostasy beforehand?

Since you want to play logical games, I'll play one with you. Strictly speaking, that verse can only support a position that God does not measure time, and not support the idea that he exists 'outside' of time. Furthermore, from a strictly logical standpoint Abraham 3:4 would contradict that statement ('And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.') Also, the references to there being different days in which God created the Earth in Genesis would seem to logically contradict the first part of the verse.

So, let's go beyond the mere words and look at context. The context of Alma 40:8 is the subject of resurrection. More specifically, we find the key phrase 'and time only is measured unto men' at the end of a verse talking about the time appointed for men to rise (or 'live' as in breathing, eating, walking around in our mortal state, etc.). If we study the concept of 'time' as it applies to this subject, we can see that it speaks of 'time' in the sense of the 'time' that 'all shall come forth from the dead' (v. 4), and Alma discusses whether there will be 'more than one time appointed' that man shall rise from the dead (v. 8). Clearly, we can see that the 'time' spoken of in this context is not the concept of 'time' as we understand it in the context of days, months, seconds, etc. Or even in the concept of 'eternity'.

However, if one was attempting to prove a creedal, Hellenistic Christianity philosophy from the Book of Mormon, one would point to this verse and hope the context isn't understood. Your use of the phrase 'first cause' reminds me of Trinitarian apologetic works, and creedal philosophy.

If I could 'encourage you to do one thing in this life', it would be to stop insulting those who don't agree with you. It is extremely caustic, immature, and unworthy of a disciple of Christ.

This is the beginning of the philosophy of a closed canon.

You might wish to research the "created" phraseology in Genesis in 'the original tongue' and find that it has more in line with a potter's molding of a pot than the idea of 'creation' the doctrine of ex nihilo would have us believe.

A son may be his father's physical child, but look nothing like him. Indeed, we are God's spiritual children but in our current state we do not resemble Him- which is what we need to become to find happiness. Therefore, we need to bring our actions more in line with how He would have us live.

Furthermore, we are not Christ's children until we become His through the Atonement He wrought for us. That is a relationship that we must create in this life, and is not dependent on being the same divine species. Christ spiritually 'begets' us because it is through Him that we approach the Father.

Brilliant! The scriptures also clearly state that we should love others as ourselves. If you have not shown us a simple example of that, must we believe your brand of uninspired scriptural exegesis is true?

Furthermore, God did create us- just not in the sense that the doctrine of ex nihilo suggests.

In closing, please show more respect to your fellow posters, JohnBirchSociety. It helps keep everyone happy.

Thanks for your response.

1) I'm not greater than anyone.

2) Prophet's have been wrong on a multitude of issues. These things are even recorded in scripture.

3) New revelations must agree with the clear, unambiguous, revelations of the past, else we have no sure foundation to judge the validity of any revelation, past or present.

A hypothetical to demonstrate the point:

Christ was resurrected with a body of flesh and bone. This is attested to by the NT in a clear, unambiguous manner.

Now suppose a modern prophet declared that a revelation changed this. That he wasn't resurrected in a physical body. The prophet, in this instance would be wrong.

I think the scriptures clearly, unambiguously, declare that GOD is the creator of all things / beings, and that he has always existed as GOD. Therefore, even if the Prophet Joseph Smith says otherwise, I cannot accept that assertion as being valid. I hope I'm not being to obtuse on this matter.

4) I think we need to be very careful about approaching any idea of a closed cannon, on this you are absolutely correct! On the inverse, I think we need to see that it is illogical to even have a cannon if the fundamental, foundational truth claims in it can be changed from one generation to another. I'm not talking about adding things that were not previously known, but rather, changing that which was previously declared in a clear, unambiguous manner as being a foundational truth.

If I cannot read the scriptures and see those things as foundationally / eternally true, without potential of complete change in the future by some claimed "revelation" then I cannot really have any faith in ANY previous claim as being foundational and true.

5) Stating fact is not insulting, whether from me or you.

6) The doctrine of "first cause" is not a trinitarian doctrine. I don't accept the premise of "ex nihilo" because, simply, GOD has always existed. Therefore that which was created came from him and not from nothing.

7) Again, stating fact is not insulting. Saying someone is wrong is not an insult. Attacking the character of an individual would be an insult. I've NEVER engaged in such sophomoric nonsense. These matters are to vitally important to be sidetracked with character assasinations.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Only to one who thinks finite.

If there ever was a "time" when man did not exist, tell me why did God decided, after an entire eternity, to finally "create" him?

What was God's paradigm shift; what did He learn that made Him think to create man? Did He always plan to create man, just wanted to wait for an eternity to do it?

Surely the God you believe in didn't "learn" something that made Him decide to create man.

No, it can't be so. Man has always existed. Don't get hung up on God "creating" man on this earth "in the beginning."

Moses 1:

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.

37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.

38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.

39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

40 And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak.

41 And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men—among as many as shall believe.

He has always done this.

It's a difficult thing, maybe impossible, to comprehend eternity. But, I can understand it enough to see that either man has always existed, or he doesn't exist at all. Since man exists, then the race of man has always existed. Open your mind, your heart, and your eyes. God did not will man, or anything else into existence. You are His child, just as He calls Moses, and He is about His business of trying to perfect you.

Since GOD created time, he existed before time did (wow, that'll spin the brain a bit).

Of course how can we express this correct notion using temporal language? Only poorly so, unfortunately.

Nonetheless, GOD did create time. Therefore, he is not restrained by any logical arguments about time, such as the one you make.

GOD has always know all things, simultaneously. He does not learn, knowing all things. He is perfect in all respects. He created all things. He has existed before even "time", because he created "time".

Hope that helps?

[Guest ceeboo]

Hi All :)

A very interesting thread ( Thanks to many for the deep thought and perspectives )

Mr. JohnBirchSociety, ( Notice the respect offered " Mr. " ):)

Although I would agree in large measure with much of what you have contributed on this thread, I am a little confused as to you having the stance you have while being LDS.

This makes me wonder how many of my LDS friends do not believe what your prophets have taught.

At any rate, I do appreciate the lively thread and just wanted to offer my non LDS confusion to the LDS confusion :lol:.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Dymmesdale]

I guess I'll make a statement and see if you agree.

You believe God is not subject to law because He made law.

Okay. Let me try to arrange my words clearly so I can convey my argument precisely.

God made law.

Since Christ *had to* suffer and die for man, that means God is the one who required His Son suffer and die. God did not follow that law, He made that law. So, it was God's will that His Son suffer an eternal suffering and die in order to save man.

If God made law, and is not subject to it, then He could have declaired that all His Son had to do was live a perfect life.

Or, even better yet, God could have forced each and every person to obey His will and be saved, because He was not bound by a law where men had to have agency and choose good.

Sure, it was mercy that He sent His Son. The point is, He did not have to. The ONLY reason He did is because He loves us and wanted to give us a chance to return and live with Him. But, we made our own bed. The fact that He interceded on our behalf is mercy beyond all we know and understand.

That God exercised mercy is not proof He is not bound by law. All that is proof of is that justice can be satisfied by mercy, and God knows what is required to save His children.

It was God's will that his Son suffer and die, so that Man might be saved. He did NOT suffer eternally. Perhaps you chose your wording poorly, and do not really believe that Christ is suffering eternally, but if you do, I would advise you to read the accounts of His resurrection, and ascension to Heaven.

If God had forced everyone to follow his laws and live perfect lives, true, there would be no need for redemption, but there would also be no demonstration of His holiness or goodness. We would know only of His power. He created us, we exist, that's the end of it.

He is glorified all the more by the real state of things, because he has shown us his mercy, his holiness, his goodness, and his love.

As for your last comment, allow me to repeat myself. If God had allowed the doing-away of the separation between himself and man, being tainted by sin, God would be defiled. Since that cannot happen, he was left with two options:

The first is that he could have allowed us to continue existing under Mosaic Law, sacrificing animals as atonement for sin.

The second is that he could send his Son to be a sufficient sacrifice to atone for all the sins of the world. That, as we know, is what he did.

If you are LDS, and you believe in Prophets, and no living Prophet has come forward to declare the canonized doctrine in this matter, how can you claim so dramatically the 'Scriptures [don't] agree with Joseph Smith's assertions'? Are you greater than he? For that matter, are you greater than the prophets whose works Joseph studied, and the Holy Ghost that led Joseph Smith to believe what he did?

You may disagree, but it is dishonest to claim the scriptures disagree with the living prophets when you have no authority to do so.

If Joseph Smith was a prophet, ordained of God, and his translation of the golden plates came from an angel of the Lord, and he claimed that the Book of Mormon was “the most correct of any book on earth” (History of the Church of JC of LDS, Vol. 4, p. 461), then one would tend to think that it is a pretty solid book. Why, then, have there been 4,000 changes between the original 1830 version, and the version we have today? Why is revision necessary, if it was translated directly by the voice of God, in 1830, and the King James Bible, which LDS tend to believe is the most accurate, or most correctly translated, was published in 1611?

I will not go into the many contradictions between the BoM and the Bible; that is something for another thread. I only humbly ask what the reasons are for the numerous revisions to the original version translated directly from the golden plates.

[Hemidakota]

What are those contradictions you mentioned friend. Now you have my curiosity here.

[Dymmesdale]

I really feel that that topic would be better discussed in its own thread. I will start one now.

[bytor2112]

If Joseph Smith was a prophet, ordained of God, and his translation of the golden plates came from an angel of the Lord, and he claimed that the Book of Mormon was “the most correct of any book on earth” (History of the Church of JC of LDS, Vol. 4, p. 461), then one would tend to think that it is a pretty solid book. Why, then, have there been 4,000 changes between the original 1830 version, and the version we have today? Why is revision necessary, if it was translated directly by the voice of God, in 1830, and the King James Bible, which LDS tend to believe is the most accurate, or most correctly translated, was published in 1611?

The declaration that "the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book" is referring to the teaching and principles. The changes that have been made were mostly spelling, grammar and punctuation.........some changes were made for clarification and many made by Joseph himself. This is not something that is hidden......."Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith."

[JohnBirchSociety]

Hi All :)

A very interesting thread ( Thanks to many for the deep thought and perspectives )

Mr. JohnBirchSociety, ( Notice the respect offered " Mr. " ):)

Although I would agree in large measure with much of what you have contributed on this thread, I am a little confused as to you having the stance you have while being LDS.

This makes me wonder how many of my LDS friends do not believe what your prophets have taught.

At any rate, I do appreciate the lively thread and just wanted to offer my non LDS confusion to the LDS confusion :lol:.

Peace,

Ceeboo

No confusion at all.

We LDS tend to portray ourselves as being in complete and perfect agreement with everything Joseph Smith, Jr., et. al., have declared as "revelations".

This is not the case. Many LDS are silent on these issues, preferring to not cause a stir. Others leave the faith and become immersed in the foulness of "anti-mormon" rhetoric.

Actually, I feel a bit blessed on this matter. I've no problem maintaining that Joseph Smith, Jr., was the Prophet of the Restoration, despite any errors in teaching he may have espoused. It doesn't trouble me at all.

What is troubling is the inability or unwillingness of some LDS to consider the arguments against some of the things he taught (such as his teaching of the co-eternal nature of man).

For me, revelation builds upon revelation. Where there is clear, unambiguous teaching, subsequent "revelation" cannot violate or attempt to change that teaching.

Such is the case with the nature of the Eternal GOD, and man, his creation. There's no "wiggle-room" on this issue. It was established thousands of years before Joseph Smith was even born.

GOD is eternal and self-existent. Everything else was created by him.