Did Human Spirits Exist Before Creation?

[prisonchaplain]

Ray challenged me to look for myself to the official http://www.lds.org website for answers to my questions about the premortal existence of humanity as spirits. He claimed there were numerous biblical references to our existence before the creation. So, here’s my verse by look at what the website offered.

The Scriptures

LDS HomeScriptures Study Helps Topical Guide M Man, Antemortal Existence of Prev | Next

TOPICAL GUIDE

MAN, ANTEMORTAL EXISTENCE OF

See also Council in Heaven; Foreordination; Man, a Spirit Child of Heavenly Father; Spirit Creation

Num. 16: 22 (Num. 27: 16) God of the spirits of all flesh.

Most Christians agree that we are body, soul and spirit. Some conflate soul/spirit. Our disagreement is over whether these spirits existed before the creation. The passage does not address this issue.

Job 38: 7 all the sons of God shouted for joy.

Most Christians agree that we are the sons and daughters of God. We disagree that we are essentially the same as Christ, the one and only begotten, God the Son. We are children by adoption and creation–not in our essence.

Eccl. 12: 7 the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

We believe our souls to be both finite, in that they came into existence at conception, and immortal, because we face an everlasting destiny. Those who are blessed will return to the Father, those who are damned, will go to eternal punishment.

Jer. 1: 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee.

God is omniscient. He know all things, even before they are. There’s quite a theological discussion that is centuries old as to whether God’s foreknowledge means we are predestined to our everlasting fates.

Zech. 12: 1 Lord . . . formeth the spirit of man within him.

I would argue that if the Father formed our spirits, then they were created–they had a beginning.

John 9: 2 who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind.

I’m not sure what the reference has to do with premortal spirits. There was a common belief that children bore the punishment for their parents’ sins–Jesus refutes this–in this case saying the man was born this way so that God might be glorified.

Acts 17: 28 poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Paul is addressing a group of intellectuals and explaining that just as they have known that we are the offspring (i.e. creation) of God, he is now going to tell them who that God is and how they can be reconciled to Him. That we are called offspring would not be meant to contradict John 3:16, in which Jesus is called the ONLY begotten of God.

Rom. 8: 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.

This is a favorite verse of Calvinists, who believe God pre-determined our fates, because of his sovereignty. Such a view would diminish any free agency or will we might have. Regardless, this verse does not mean that the Father had intimate relationship with us before creation, but rather that He knew we were coming and what we would become.

Eph. 1: 4 chosen us in him before the foundation of the world.

Once again, God’s foreknowledge of our existence does not mean that we had intimate relationship with him prior to creation.

Heb. 12: 9 subjection unto the Father of spirits.

God created us with spirits–so He surely is the Father of spirits.

Jude 1: 6 angels which kept not their first estate.

I believe this refers to Satan and a third of the angels who rebelled against God, thus leaving their domain or estate. I’m not sure how this relates to the premortal existence of HUMAN spirits.

Rev. 12: 7 Michael and his angels fought against the dragon.

I’m not sure what relevence this passage has. Yes, angels did exist before human creation. That does not mean we do.

Conclusion: If we presuppose the antemortal existence of human spirits, these verses could bolster that belief. However, if without that presupposition, these verses merely point to God’s foreknowledge of human existence, and perhaps even hint at predestination (though I’m not in that particular theological camp).

[Ray]

Conclusion: If we presuppose the antemortal existence of human spirits, these verses could bolster that belief. However, if without that presupposition, these verses merely point to God’s foreknowledge of human existence, and perhaps even hint at predestination (though I’m not in that particular theological camp).

Tommy,

Are those the only conclusions or suppositions you can make from all of those scriptures?

Or in other words, could you possibly make any other assumptions than the ones you already made?

Or in other words, do you think it's at least possible that other people learn things from the scriptures that you do not "suppose"?

Or in other words, do you think it's at least possible that God could help other people to understand and interpret the scriptures in some way you can't even imagine right now, which is at variance with your beliefs?

As I said before, I'm done trying to teach you (and other people) everything I know, because that is not my job, and the only thing I need to tell you (and everyone else) is that you should have learned and be learning and continuing to learn from God... by getting ALL of your assurances from Him... and from there you can go whereever you want, and I hope you'll end up with God.

And btw, I've already told you that you should be learning from God, so I don't need to say anymore.

Bye bye now. :)

[BenRaines]

Ray who put a burr under your saddle. This is a place for a friendly exchange of ideas and viewpoints. I don't think PC is trying to convert you and hopefully we are not here trying to convert in a posting forum.

Please freely exchange ideas and beliefs but lets stop being rude to one another. Thank you kindly.

Ben

[Ray]

Okay, Ben. Please specify exactly what it was I said that was rude, because I simply don't see it.

Or in other words, please use quotation marks to show me exactly which of my words were rude.

And btw, I'm not asking for your interpretation of my words, but exactly the words that I used.

And if that's not clear enough for you, try to understand this:

I simply was saying that we should all learn from God, without assuming or presuming or presupposing or supposing anything, and I do not see how that was "being rude".

And btw, I'm not "playing dumb" or anything like that either. I simply think it's best to not assume.

p.s. Oh, and one more thing, which I hope is most obvious:

No man can convert any other man to God.

[Traveler]

John 9: 2 who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind.

I’m not sure what the reference has to do with premortal spirits. There was a common belief that children bore the punishment for their parents’ sins–Jesus refutes this–in this case saying the man was born this way so that God might be glorified.

This response ignores the obvious question posed in this scripture. The question being posed to Jesus was seen by the people as having two possibilities. Both possibilities are seen as having to take place prior to the man’s birth. Possibility 1. Is that the parents sinned and therefore the sin was answered upon the head of the children – There is precedence for this possibility in scripture. I am sure PC did not mean to imply that children never bare the sins of the parents – implying that there is conflict with the teaching of Jesus and scripture – he was not refuting scripture.

The second possibility is that that man sinned as a spirit prior to his birth as a physical being. As we can see from other scriptures presented in this thread there was a reason for the disciples thinking this as a possibility from their scriptures.

One of the most important notions being ignored has to do with the time, place and culture that this question was posed to Jesus. The Mid Eastern Suzerain servant – vassal structure of kingdoms and law was well understood as the governing means of all countries and societies of that time period. The scriptures used this model to inform believers in the G-d of Israel that G-d’s system of law and order for both heaven and earth is to be compared to this order of Kingdoms with which they were familiar. The scriptures do not infer that our current democratic (representative) society is compatible and therefore we are at a great disadvantage in understanding and interpreting scriptures that relate to kingdoms and how punishments were metered. Under Suzerain Law of kingdoms, disloyal subjects were punished by being made blind (as per Sampson). There is more about this concerning disloyal subjects but I do not what to get side tracked. We need to understand that this is why the question is asked here and not at other times with other afflictions.

The concept of a spirit existence prior to birth for man was not uncommon at the time of Jesus among the Jewish people. They interpreted the scriptures to mean that very thing. Not only do we have this scripture to demonstrate this point but we have a vast amount of literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls that also demonstrates this concept was prevalent at the time of Jesus. But there is even more because this concept exists across many ancient societies. The point I am trying to make here is that anciently it was uncommon to not believe in a spirit life before birth.

Most Christians (and other religions) agree that there is life in the womb prior to birth indicating that birth is not the creation even though it is used as an argument here (For example most Christians oppose adoration as a form of killing) . There are also problems with the concept that creation takes place at conception because many Christians believe Adam was created complete in human form – There is less precedence in scripture that man to day is created different than Adam than there is for a spirit existence prior to birth. Yet that is swallowed hook line and sinker with no scripture or ancient culture president but not the ancient concept of spirits of man existing prior to birth and that all mankind are creations of G-d in the same manner Adam was.

Now Jesus did not refute any doctrine in his answer. He simply said that for this case – and this case only the reason was so that G-d could be glorified. He did not teach that children will never bear the burdens of their parents (common in scripture) nor did he teach that spirits of man do not exist before birth – both are ture.

Now to my reason for posting and I believe this to be very important. There are two very different core doctrines being taught by the various concepts presented. One is that mankind are really physical beings trying to have a spiritual experience with G-d. If this is true then the scripture in Genesis that says man (being a physical being) is created in G-d’s image implies that G-d is also a physical being.

The other concept (to which I hold) is that mankind is really spiritually beings trying to understand and make sense of a physical experience – by listening to this spiritual core that defines us we can find G-d and our way in this physical realm. I also believe that spirits are not born of physical parents and therefore when we die – that spirit (which is eternal) lives on and cannot die in the same sense that our physical self dies. The death of the spirit is to be separated from G-d.

The Traveler

[Maureen]

I'm going to add my 2 cents re:

His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who committed the sin that caused him to be born blind, this man or his parents?" (John 9:2)

The NET Bible has this note:

sn The disciples assumed that sin (regardless of who committed it) was the cause of the man's blindness. This was a common belief in Judaism; the rabbis used Ezek 18:20 to prove there was no death without sin, and Ps 89:33 to prove there was no punishment without guilt (the Babylonian Talmud, b. Shabbat 55a, although later than the NT, illustrates this). Thus in this case the sin must have been on the part of the man's parents, or during his own prenatal existence. Song Rabbah 1:41 (another later rabbinic work) stated that when a pregnant woman worshiped in a heathen temple the unborn child also committed idolatry. This is only one example of how, in rabbinic Jewish thought, an unborn child was capable of sinning.

http://www.bible.org/netbible2/index.php?b...up+Verse#note_4

M.

[BenRaines]

"As I said before, I'm done trying to teach you (and other people) everything I know, because that is not my job, and the only thing I need to tell you (and everyone else) is that you should have learned and be learning and continuing to learn from God... by getting ALL of your assurances from Him... and from there you can go whereever you want, and I hope you'll end up with God.

And btw, I've already told you that you should be learning from God, so I don't need to say anymore."

If I misunderstood your intention then I am very sorry. I have read many of your posts and enjoyed them. This one just appeared harsh. Was only my opinion I didn't not intend to offend.

Ben

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Acts 17: 28 poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Paul is addressing a group of intellectuals and explaining that just as they have known that we are the offspring (i.e. creation) of God, he is now going to tell them who that God is and how they can be reconciled to Him. That we are called offspring would not be meant to contradict John 3:16, in which Jesus is called the ONLY begotten of God.

Sorry PC, but you can't change a teaching with a parenthetical and get away with it. Notice your effortless conversion of the word "offspring" into "creation" in the above quote with a quick "i.e." in parentheses. Offspring means children, not creation. I think you'll find the majority of--if not all--scriptural quotes that say Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son of God are talking about Jesus's mortal birth, not pre-mortal genealogy. Stated another way, Jesus is the only Son who received his physical body in part from God (23 chromosomes from God, 23 from Mary).

There are simply too many other scriptures calling all of us the children of God and heirs of God and so forth. Simple logic would dictate that if God isn't the Father of our physical bodies, He must be the Father of our spirit bodies. Jesus's being the Only Begotten was magnified in the Gospels to highlight how Jesus was special and the only one who could accomplish the atonement...this wasn't just any rabbi born of Jewish parents...Jesus being the Only Begotten was a huge deal because God Fathered his physical body and because a virgin bore him (a paradox and miracle in itself). The Gospel writers never intended to say, "God can only be called our Father in a figurative/metaphorical/symbolic sense."

Premortal existence isn't an argument for predestination. Anyone who suggests there's a causal relationship simply lacks critical thinking skills (not saying that includes you PC). Sorry if that sounds rude, but I won't sugarcoat it. :)

[prisonchaplain]

Are those the only conclusions or suppositions you can make from all of those scriptures? Or in other words, could you possibly make any other assumptions than the ones you already made? Or in other words, do you think it's at least possible that other people learn things from the scriptures that you do not "suppose"? Or in other words, do you think it's at least possible that God could help other people to understand and interpret the scriptures in some way you can't even imagine right now, which is at variance with your beliefs?

Yes, Ray, I do. I sought God's direction as I went through the verses, and just looked at them in their context. Like me, no other Bible scholars outside of the LDS tradition (that I'm aware of) have taken those passages, and put them together to suggest that human spirits are existed eternally in premortality. Is it "at least possible" that Joseph Smith stumbled upon a hidden truth? "All things are possible." However, outside of an assurance about Joseph Smith and his revelations, the LDS interpretation does not seem plausible.

Professor Robinson (BYU) is generally quite frank about admitting than many LDS distinctives cannot be strongly supported, if only relying on biblical texts. His normal recourse, when engaging evangelicals, is to counter that we cannot prove the LDS interpretation is impossible or clearly contradictory to the Holy Bible.

So, as I suggested, if you presuppose Mormon doctrine, the passages could lend understanding to that interpretation. But, without the presupposition, they would not likely lead a nuetral reader conclude that humans have an eternal premortal existence.

[prisonchaplain]

PC SAYS: Acts 17: 28 poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Paul is addressing a group of intellectuals and explaining that just as they have known that we are the offspring (i.e. creation) of God, he is now going to tell them who that God is and how they can be reconciled to Him. That we are called offspring would not be meant to contradict John 3:16, in which Jesus is called the ONLY begotten of God.

APOSTLE KNIGHT RESPONDS: Sorry PC, but you can't change a teaching with a parenthetical and get away with it. Notice your effortless conversion of the word "offspring" into "creation" in the above quote with a quick "i.e." in parentheses. Offspring means children, not creation. I think you'll find the majority of--if not all--scriptural quotes that say Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son of God are talking about Jesus's mortal birth, not pre-mortal genealogy. Stated another way, Jesus is the only Son who received his physical body in part from God (23 chromosomes from God, 23 from Mary).

Yes, I did add the clarifying term in parenthesis--not as a slight of hand--but, well, as a clarification. I'll break this down as I see it:

1. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God (KJV). This also gets translated "the one and only Son of God." (NIV) Regardless, there is a uniqueness to Jesus' relationship with God--one we do not share.

2. We are sons of God. We were created by Him. Of this there is not doubt (revisit Gen. 1 & 2).

3. So, my clarification is that we, as God's offspring, are the creation of God, the sons of daughters of his creative power, not the begotten children of God--that belongs to Jesus "the only begotten Son of God."

There are simply too many other scriptures calling all of us the children of God and heirs of God and so forth. Simple logic would dictate that if God isn't the Father of our physical bodies, He must be the Father of our spirit bodies.

He's the Father of our Spirits, and yes He is the Father of our physical bodies--by creation, not biology. God is God and we are man. One species does not give birth to a different species.

The Gospel writers never intended to say, "God can only be called our Father in a figurative/metaphorical/symbolic sense."

Really? It's always been understood that way by nearly every tradition with the Christian world.

[Beqqe]

Rev. 12: 7 Michael and his angels fought against the dragon.

I’m not sure what relevence this passage has. Yes, angels did exist before human creation. That does not mean we do.

PC, It depends on how and what you believe. If you believe that our spirits were the angels that stood and fought with Michael to force Satan out of heaven then there is your answer to what relevance that passage has.

My personal belief is that my spirit before it entered into the body that was created for me was an angel and after I leave this world, when my spirit leaves this body I shall be an angel again, and help to watch over those who are still here.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

1. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God (KJV). This also gets translated "the one and only Son of God." (NIV) Regardless, there is a uniqueness to Jesus' relationship with God--one we do not share.

I agree. As I said, Jesus is the only mortal whose parents of his physical, mortal body are a God-Father (no, not that kind) and a mortal-mother. I'm sure we'd all agree that's a pretty unique relationship we don't share with God.

2. We are sons of God. We were created by Him. Of this there is not doubt (revisit Gen. 1 & 2).

So you just can't accept that He "created us" or took part in begetting our spirit bodies before the creation of Earth? Why is that?

3. So, my clarification is that we, as God's offspring, are the creation of God, the sons of daughters of his creative power, not the begotten children of God--that belongs to Jesus "the only begotten Son of God."

I make a distinction between spiritual begetting and physical begetting. All of us were spiritually begotten by God. Jesus, however, was the only one physically begotten by God (and Mary). The titles of Jesus give us a clue as to this distinction. Jesus is often called the Firstborn of God as in Colossians 1:15, 18; Hebrews 11:28; 12:23.

Now if Jesus is the only begotten of God, spiritually and physically, it seems pretty silly to call him the firstborn, for in that context he'd be the only-born. However, if God begot or "created" our spirit bodies before the earth was created (or whenever for that matter), and if Jesus was the first "created" or begotten in a spiritual process, it is entirely fitting to call him the Firstborn. The imagery of the Passover strongly supports that the lamb of God was the firstborn, not only-born...and if not firstborn in the flesh, then firstborn some other way...spiritually.

In fact that's the only way it makes sense (besides Jesus being the firstborn from the dead). The only other way Jesus could be the Firstborn was if that title referred to his physical birth, and if God begot other mortals with a mortal mother in a process similar to that involving Mary. Stated another way, if God had been the Father of another mortal's physical body as He was with Jesus, and if Jesus was fathered that way first, then he'd be the Firstborn. But we know from the scriptures that Jesus's virgin birth was a miracle and singular event never repeated.

So...if Jesus is the only begotten of God in the flesh, but is also called the Firstborn, then his being first among other births must refer to another birth besides his physical birth. And what other birth or creation was there aside from physical? Spiritual.

Thus, Jesus was the first among billions (refer to earth's population) of spirit children begotten by God before our existence on Earth; and Jesus was the only child who's physical body was begotten by God as well. Thus, Jesus is the Wholly Begotten (spiritually and physically), while only our spirit bodies were begotten of God while our physical bodies were literally created (not born) of God--created in His image by the way. :)

God is God and we are man. One species does not give birth to a different species.

LDS view the word "God" as a title, not a species tag. We believe God has similar anatomy to us (arms, legs, face, hair, etc...) y'know, the whole "in the image of God" thing (which I know you interpret to mean attributes not appearance). Also, we believe God has a spirit body inseparably connected with His glorified physical body...and since LDS believe God fathered our spirit bodies...and He has a spirit body...there's no trans-species jump there...it's spirit begetting spirit (in a process I won't pretend to understand or explicate). Since God does indeed have a glorified physical body, He could father Jesus's physical body again with no species jumping or corner-cutting.

Please don't ask me to explain celestial biology, heredity or cytogenetics because I barely understand mortal biology.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

The Gospel writers never intended to say, "God can only be called our Father in a figurative/metaphorical/symbolic sense."

Really? It's always been understood that way by nearly every tradition with the Christian world.

How embarassing for them.

In summary, Jesus is the Firstborn in the spirit and Only Begotten in the flesh.

[Bob_oz]

AK,

A clear and concise posting of the LDS view.

When getting deep on to this subject invariable lead us into the relms of the unknown where faith has to lead and where in the end we have to identify that spending time will only take us away from our critical mission in this life.

But the unknown and unexplained will always hold an intrigue for the sons of Adam.

One can only wonder that God smiles at our conjectures when he has provided the Book of Abraham for us!

regards

Bob

[Guest ApostleKnight]

One can only wonder that God smiles at our conjectures when he has provided the Book of Abraham for us!

Indeed Bob.

[Maureen]

One can only wonder that God smiles at our conjectures when he has provided the Book of Abraham for us!

Don't want to mess-up this thread but if anyone is interested the FAIR message board is having a very interesting discussion on:

Book of Abraham (And the KEP) Kirtland Egyptian Papers

The thread is under LDS Dialogue and Discussion. It is going strong at already 20 pages.

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=15210

M.

[prisonchaplain]

So you just can't accept that He "created us" or took part in begetting our spirit bodies before the creation of Earth? Why is that?

Because if God truly bore us, or physically infused us with his essence, then we are what he is--unless you suggest we're a lesser hybrid, and I doubt either of us want to go there. The bottom-line struggle evangelicals have with the LDS view of God and humanity, is the line gets blurred. If God was once a finite man, then He's not eternal, as we have believed (at least not as we have defined eternal). If humanity has God's essence, then we are akin to God. Yes you say we still worship the Father, and always will. But, the line of differentiation between us and Him is greatly diminished, and even fuzzied.

Perhaps some LDS who converted from a robust practice of non-LDS Christianity can explain to you just how serious of a paradigm shift this is for us. Recall my surprise, AK, when you first explained that human spirits have no beginning? These distinctions are rather dramatic, and do effect our core metaphysical understandings.

I make a distinction between spiritual begetting and physical begetting. All of us were spiritually begotten by God. Jesus, however, was the only one physically begotten by God (and Mary). The titles of Jesus give us a clue as to this distinction. Jesus is often called the Firstborn of God as in Colossians 1:15, 18; Hebrews 11:28; 12:23.

The distinction you make allows you to say Jesus was uniquely begotten, and yet hold that we are begotten of God as well. However, whether physical or spiritual, to say we have the physical essence of God within our composition (even within our spirits), is to elevate humanity far beyond traditional Christian understanding, and to, again, greatly reduce the chasm that separate us and him, in terms of what we actually are.

Now if Jesus is the only begotten of God, spiritually and physically, it seems pretty silly to call him the firstborn, for in that context he'd be the only-born. However, if God begot or "created" our spirit bodies before the earth was created (or whenever for that matter), and if Jesus was the first "created" or begotten in a spiritual process, it is entirely fitting to call him the Firstborn. The imagery of the Passover strongly supports that the lamb of God was the firstborn, not only-born...and if not firstborn in the flesh, then firstborn some other way...spiritually.

The Hebrew understanding of firstborn is preeminent. Jacob won the rights of the firstborn, Ephraim was chosen over the older Mannessah, etc. Especially in the context of 1 Colossians 1, where Jesus is called the firstborn over all creation, the contextual meaning is majesty, not that Jesus is essentially a lesser being than God--one physically created by Him.

LDS view the word "God" as a title, not a species tag. We believe God has similar anatomy to us (arms, legs, face, hair, etc...) y'know, the whole "in the image of God" thing (which I know you interpret to mean attributes not appearance). Also, we believe God has a spirit body inseparably connected with His glorified physical body...and since LDS believe God fathered our spirit bodies...and He has a spirit body...there's no trans-species jump there...it's spirit begetting spirit (in a process I won't pretend to understand or explicate). Since God does indeed have a glorified physical body, He could father Jesus's physical body again with no species jumping or corner-cutting. Please don't ask me to explain celestial biology, heredity or cytogenetics because I barely understand mortal biology.

I guess you've confirmed the evangelical concern that ultimately the LDS God looks a lot like us, and we like Him, but since He started his spiritual evolution before we did, He gets to be God. This is strikingly different from the traditional Christian understanding that the God who has no beginning, no end, and is unchanging, created us at the creation, as humans, the highest of his earthly creation, so that he might enjoy us, and we him--and that our rebellion led to the Fall, and the ultimate need of a Redeemer, who would reconcile us to the Father, and restore our right relationship for all eternity.

At this point I think I get the teaching. I just wonder how many LDS understand just how dramatically different these teachings are from that offered in non-LDS churches.

[Ray]

… if God truly bore us, or physically infused us with his essence, then we are what he is--unless you suggest we're a lesser hybrid, and I doubt either of us want to go there. The bottom-line struggle evangelicals have with the LDS view of God and humanity, is the line gets blurred. If God was once a finite man, then He's not eternal, as we have believed (at least not as we have defined eternal). If humanity has God's essence, then we are akin to God. Yes you say we still worship the Father, and always will. But, the line of differentiation between us and Him is greatly diminished, and even fuzzied.

If you’re saying that once we know we were literally created as spirits by our Father in heaven we can then more easily differentiate and distinguish that understanding from the teachings of other people who think and believe we evolved from lower forms of life, YES, it does help us do that, doesn’t it, because we can then see that NO, we did not evolve from lower forms of life, but we were literally and actually created by our Father in heaven as His children, with a spirit exactly like His… except that we still have a long way to go before we become perfected like Him.

Perhaps some LDS who converted from a robust practice of non-LDS Christianity can explain to you just how serious of a paradigm shift this is for us. Recall my surprise, AK, when you first explained that human spirits have no beginning? These distinctions are rather dramatic, and do effect our core metaphysical understandings.

For those who are inclined to embrace certain teachings from people who teach or taught them they are not a child of God, or that God is not our Father, Yes, I suppose it would be a surprise to hear that we are literally the children of God, with a capacity to become like Him as we learn to accept His word. But I, personally, was always taught that I am a child of God, and that God is our heavenly Father, although I never totally embraced those words until I received that testimony from God... by His assurance known as Faith... by which we can be assured we can call Him our Father… while knowing He actually is.

The distinction you make allows you to say Jesus was uniquely begotten, and yet hold that we are begotten of God as well.

…but not in the same way. And I think we’ve already explained the distinction, if you’d care to go back and read it. But to try to say it again simply, our Lord is the only one of us whose physical Father was and is God… the one we all can refer to as the Father of our spirits in heaven.

However, whether physical or spiritual, to say we have the physical essence of God within our composition (even within our spirits), is to elevate humanity far beyond traditional Christian understanding, and to, again, greatly reduce the chasm that separate us and him, in terms of what we actually are.

Yes it does, doesn’t it. So by knowing the truth on this issue, we can see which understanding is true.

The Hebrew understanding of firstborn is preeminent.

Yes. It refers to the first of those who are born.

Jacob won the rights of the firstborn, Ephraim was chosen over the older Mannessah, etc.

Yes, but those rights and blessings were inherently those of the firstborn.

Especially in the context of 1 Colossians 1, where Jesus is called the firstborn over all creation, the contextual meaning is majesty, not that Jesus is essentially a lesser being than God--one physically created by Him.

You seem to want to change those words from “first” to “the most majestic” being, so perhaps knowing that our Lord is the first born of all the sons of the most majestic being we know of will help you see that a Son is as great as His Father once He becomes "one" with Him.

LDS view the word "God" as a title, not a species tag. We believe God has similar anatomy to us (arms, legs, face, hair, etc...) y'know, the whole "in the image of God" thing (which I know you interpret to mean attributes not appearance).

Yes and No. We [LDS] consider God to be a name/title of all of the most majestic beings there are in all of existence, which exist as individual persons, but we ALSO use the name/title God to refer to specific individual persons, such as when we use the word God to refer to our heavenly Father. And although we (all of Mankind) are the sons and daughters of God, we do not refer to ourselves as God until we become "one" with God and perfected "like" God (referring to ALL who are known as God).

Also, we believe God has a spirit body inseparably connected with His glorified physical body...and since LDS believe God fathered our spirit bodies...and He has a spirit body...there's no trans-species jump there...it's spirit begetting spirit (in a process I won't pretend to understand or explicate).

Since God does indeed have a glorified physical body, He could father Jesus's physical body again with no species jumping or corner-cutting. Please don't ask me to explain celestial biology, heredity or cytogenetics because I barely understand mortal biology.

I agree with everything you said here, and I couldn’t have said it better. :)

…I just wonder how many LDS understand just how dramatically different these teachings are from that offered in non-LDS churches.

Enough to state that other non-LDS churches seem to be teaching a different doctrine… and have been for a VERY LONG time... after they fell into what we [LDS] call Apostasy… when even some “Jews” didn’t know these truths about their own true God.

... and I still say the only way you can know these truths is by receiving your assurances from God. :)

[Maureen]

The Hebrew understanding of firstborn is preeminent.

Yes. It refers to the first of those who are born.

Jacob won the rights of the firstborn, Ephraim was chosen over the older Mannessah, etc.

Yes, but those rights and blessings were inherently those of the firstborn.

Especially in the context of 1 Colossians 1, where Jesus is called the firstborn over all creation, the contextual meaning is majesty, not that Jesus is essentially a lesser being than God--one physically created by Him.

You seem to want to change those words from “first” to “the most majestic” being, so perhaps knowing that our Lord is the first born of all the sons of the most majestic being we know of will help you see that a Son is as great as His Father once He becomes "one" with Him.

Since I like & seek the help of bible.org I'll add some information from them, re: the above.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn28 over all creation,29 (Colossians 1:15)

28 tn The Greek term prwtovtoko" (prwtotokos) could refer either to first in order of time, such as a first born child, or it could refer to one who is preeminent in rank. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (EGGNT), 43, expresses the meaning of the word well: "The 'firstborn' was either the eldest child in a family or a person of preeminent rank. The use of this term to describe the Davidic king in Ps 88:28 LXX (=Ps 89:27 EVV), 'I will also appoint him my firstborn (prwtovtokon), the most exalted of the kings of the earth,' indicates that it can denote supremacy in rank as well as priority in time. But whether the prwtov- element in the word denotes time, rank, or both, the significance of the -toko" element as indicating birth or origin (from tivktw, give birth to) has been virtually lost except in ref. to lit. birth." In Col 1:15 the emphasis is on the priority of Jesus' rank as over and above creation (cf. 1:16 and the "for" clause referring to Jesus as Creator).

http://www.bible.org/netbible2/index.php?b...p+Verse#note_28

M.

[Ray]

Good job, Maureen. That is also possibly true.

And I’ve also heard it said that our Lord is the firstborn of all who follow our heavenly Father as our Lord followed our heavenly Father, with some people even thinking that our Lord followed our heavenly Father only after being born on this Earth.

Heh, so again, I’ll give you some credit for your creativity, or coming up with some alternative beliefs, but I still believe we can be sure about which of the possibilities to believe by receiving our assurances from God.

And now that you know our beliefs, you are accountable for having received them, though you may not believe or choose to believe what God assures us [LDS] is the truth.

Ahhh. Isn't life great. It's a beautiful day here in Portland. :)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

If humanity has God's essence, then we are akin to God. Yes you say we still worship the Father, and always will.

And when in the scriptures or history of Christianity did the view that mankind must not be at all like God in essence or nature get canonized? In other words, why is it so blasphemous or just distasteful to think that we might be like the Being we call Father? That we might have inherited the seeds of greatness from Him? I understand the non-LDS Christian view and that it's "always been understood that way," but might that not mean it's "always been misunderstood that way" perhaps?

Recall my surprise, AK, when you first explained that human spirits have no beginning? These distinctions are rather dramatic, and do effect our core metaphysical understandings.

Again, I'm confused as to why metaphysics enters into the discussion of salvation at all, when Jesus never made it a centerpiece of his teachings, and never insisted, "Accept me as Savior, have faith in my atonement, love God and your neighbors...oh, and don't even think that you're anything like me or Heavenly Father." Salvation isn't granted to metaphysicians, but to those who repent, are baptized, receive the Holy Ghost and endure to the end (to greatly simplify things).

To clarify your quote above, I never said our spirits had no beginning. Indeed the whole tenor of my posts in this thread has been that our spirit bodies were begotten by God and do in fact have a beginning. It is what our Doctrine and Covenants calls "intelligence" or light of truth, the core of our beings, what makes us unique in personality and passion, that which animates our spirit bodies and in turn our physical bodies...it is this intelligence which we believe was not created and indeed cannot be made...nix on the ex nihilo stuff basically. We believe God clothed our intelligences in a spirit body like our spirits were clothed in a physical body at birth. I'm not saying the process of spirit birth is identical to the process of a physical birth...just that the effect is the same: progress according to God's Plan of Happiness. We don't have details from God on the spirit birth, so I don't worry about it much.

....to say we have the physical essence of God within our composition (even within our spirits), is to elevate humanity far beyond traditional Christian understanding, and to, again, greatly reduce the chasm that separate us and him, in terms of what we actually are.

Forgive my bluntness, but so what? You speak of this metaphysical chasm separating man and God, this wide divide in essence or nature that must not be bridged...but again, the scriptures speak of only one chasm that needs be crossed, and that is the spiritual death or separation from God due to disobedience.

Christ came to bridge the chasm of spiritual death through his blood and resurrection. Nowhere in my readings of the scriptures do I find as much emphasis on delineating the essential difference between man's nature and God's than I do in the "mainstream Christian" school of thought. Where did this preoccupation originate? And perhaps more importantly, how does this preoccupation affect the receipt or denial of personal salvation?

The Hebrew understanding of firstborn is preeminent.

A sweeping summary which isn't always true. The right or blessings of primogeniture--of the firstborn--originally went to the child who was, well, born first! Except in cases of transgression or old-fashioned ebay transactions involving messes of pottage, the firstborn child was the child born first. :)

I agree with Ray that to substitute "preeminent" for the word "firstborn" isn't always accurate, and especially inaccurate when it robs Jesus of his fraternal relationship with all of us on a literal, spiritual level.

I guess you've confirmed the evangelical concern that ultimately the LDS God looks a lot like us, and we like Him, but since He started his spiritual evolution before we did, He gets to be God.

I picture you with a whole lemon in your mouth as you typed that. Is it such a distasteful teaching, that man might become as God is, forever subject, indebted and devoted to Him? That God might want us to have every happiness and good thing He has, and has provided a way to acquire it through Christ's grace? That when the scriptures call God the Father of our spirits and Jesus our brother, they might actually mean what they say without interpretation or substitution? Forgive the run-on sentences, but you get what I'm asking.

...the traditional Christian understanding [of] God [is that He] has no beginning, no end, and is unchanging...

The Jews in the New Testament had traditions too, traditions which blinded them to Christ's divinity and role in personal salvation. Traditions aren't in and of themselves sacrosanct and worthy of defending. Traditions long-held aren't any more immune to inspection and correction, and the traditional Christian understanding of God, His nature, et al, to me is lacking.

At this point I think I get the teaching. I just wonder how many LDS understand just how dramatically different these teachings are from that offered in non-LDS churches.

I don't think many LDS would care if they knew how dramatically different the gamut of beliefs are. I don't say that flippantly. Seriously, LDS don't write up creeds and convene councils in an attempt to nail down concepts whose true understanding is beyond finite minds. We may say, "God begot our spirits," but we don't get into "how," "when," "where," was there a gestation period, what type of essences were involved, etc... because absent the relevant revelations from God we'd be chasing our metaphysical tails.

To adapt a simile of Darwin's...trying to search out and understand God's essence, nature, origins or lack thereof will be about as successful as a blind and deaf man searching for a black cat in a dark room. That is, until God sees fit to enlighten us.

[Ray]

A few other ideas, which I hope will be of help to you, but which will still not actually teach you the truth of anything.

… no other Bible scholars outside of the LDS tradition (that I'm aware of) have taken those passages, and put them together to suggest that human spirits are existed eternally in premortality.

If LDS “scholars” have been and are still the only ones who accept this doctrine, then of course your statement would be true, because once some non-LDS “scholars” come to accept this as doctrine, they would then be a “scholar” of the Church.

Is it "at least possible" that Joseph Smith stumbled upon a hidden truth? “All things are possible.”

Heh, why did you state this idea as you did? We [LDS] don’t believe Joseph Smith “stumbled” on anything. We [LDS] believe God personally assured him of His truths.

… outside of an assurance about Joseph Smith and his revelations, the LDS interpretation does not seem plausible.

But you are still basing that on your “private interpretations”, while we [LDS] are relying on our “revelations from God”.

… as I suggested, if you presuppose Mormon doctrine, the passages could lend understanding to that interpretation. But, without the presupposition, they would not likely lead a neutral reader conclude that humans have an eternal premortal existence.

To put this another way, I neither relied on other people with private interpretations of scripture nor did I presuppose Mormon doctrine was true simply because other people told me it was. I simply took information that was presented in “ideas” and asked God to assure me of the truth.

Or in other words, I am not suggesting that you presuppose “Mormon doctrine” is true before you ask God for His assurance of the truth. And I am also not suggesting that you presuppose any other information is true simply because you received that information from someone other than God.

Or in other words, yet again, I am suggesting that instead of “interpreting” the Bible and other ideas, to find out which “interpretation” is the truth, simply ask God to assure you of the truth, without relying on any ideas or assurances from anyone else.

And btw, once you do this, if you have never done it before, you will know that an “idea” is the truth… but not because that idea was written in the Bible, or any other book, but because God has assured you it’s true.

[prisonchaplain]

If you’re saying that once we know we were literally created as spirits by our Father in heaven

Hold the bus! Ray, you know I wasn't saying that. That's your view, not mine. What I said was that if the essence of God is in us, we are what He is.

we can then more easily differentiate and distinguish that understanding from the teachings of other people who think and believe we evolved from lower forms of life, YES, it does help us do that, doesn’t it, because we can then see that NO, we did not evolve from lower forms of life, but we were literally and actually created by our Father in heaven as His children, with a spirit exactly like His… except that we still have a long way to go before we become perfected like Him.

1. I agree that we were literally created by God.

2. I disagree that we have the essence of God in our makeup.

3. We may become like God at exaltation, but we shall never be what He is.

4. I think you know that most evangelicals disagree with Darwinian macroevolution, which says that beings evolve from lower to higher species. Microevolution, yes. Species do adapt. But, they do not completely change. Ironically, the idea of humans becoming God may indeed fit the macroevolutionary paradigm.

Yes, I suppose it would be a surprise to hear that we are literally the children of God, with a capacity to become like Him as we learn to accept His word. But I, personally, was always taught that I am a child of God, and that God is our heavenly Father, although I never totally embraced those words until I received that testimony from God... by His assurance known as Faith... by which we can be assured we can call Him our Father… while knowing He actually is.

Ray, let's use clear language here. It did not surprise you, who had been raised in the Church of Christ, to hear that LDS believe that our spirits are eternal, and that we are supposed to be in the process of becoming God? It did not cause you to stop, ponder, consider, pray, "tarry" etc. The truth of it just came to you in stride? I can understand that you came to an assurance, but you imply that the teachings were almost naturally grasped...that there was no "Wow! Really?"

You seem to want to change those words from “first” to “the most majestic” being, so perhaps knowing that our Lord is the first born of all the sons of the most majestic being we know of will help you see that a Son is as great as His Father once He becomes "one" with Him.

Actually, Maureen's post clarified that in the Colossians passage, the term "firstborn" is best understood as relating to preminence, not chronological birth order.

Enough to state that other non-LDS churches seem to be teaching a different doctrine… and have been for a VERY LONG time... after they fell into what we [LDS] call Apostasy… when even some “Jews” didn’t know these truths about their own true God.

The whole thing about "restored gospel" is the implication that the teachings are a returning to the original truths. It's a tough sell to explain how God's truths got lost, and the alleged apostasy prevailed for nearly 3000 years. Yes, God can work that way--but I recall Dr. T's question about whether God would really allow the gates of hell to prevail against his church--especially for "a VERY LONG time."

[prisonchaplain]

Again, I'm confused as to why metaphysics enters into the discussion of salvation at all, when Jesus never made it a centerpiece of his teachings, and never insisted, "Accept me as Savior, have faith in my atonement, love God and your neighbors...oh, and don't even think that you're anything like me or Heavenly Father." Salvation isn't granted to metaphysicians, but to those who repent, are baptized, receive the Holy Ghost and endure to the end (to greatly simplify things).

First, in general, I'd like to thank ApostleKnight, Ray, and Maureen--and others who've been following this thread. I've averaged about 40-minutes per post, and I'm guessing the others must be spending similar amounts of time. Overall, we've been engaging in intelligent and respectful conversation here of a strong calliber. So kudos to everyone.

I'll come back to AK's overall post, but wanted to address this singular point. I do not recall mentioning salvation in this string, though I did reference "core beliefs." A while back SNOW challenged me in a similar fashion, more or less asking if there's a doctrinal test to salvation, and why so many evangelicals seem so eager to damn LDS to hell over doctrinal disagreements (my words, not theirs)?

1st. No, there's no doctrinal test for conversion. In fact, most evangelicals reject seeing water baptism as a prerequisite to salvation, for this very reason. It is not by works of righteousness (including learning teachings) that I have done, but according to His mercy He has saved me. Bottom-line: The thief on the cross surely had not learned the 16 Fundamentals of the Assemblies of God.

2nd. Upon conversion, one begins to walk with God. The Holy Spirit becomes a companion. So, if the new believer (or mature believer for that matter) were to begin moving towards heterodox teachings--false doctrines--the Holy Spirit would 'check' his/her spirit. Apprehension, a sense of God's "No" would be heard. If the believer continues in the direction of heresy, the Spirit of God would bring warnings. However, God never forces himself. Eventually the believer might give him/herself over to the false religious system, and become, what LDS refer to as apostate. Is the apostate saved?

Having said that, it is not my place to judge who is damned or not. However, it would not surprise me if Christian believers with sincere motives, might offer 'harsh' warnings to those they believe have wandered into dangerous theological pathways.

So, yes, we must endure to the end: with our actions AND our beliefs.

[Ray]

Ray, let's use clear language here. It did not surprise you, who had been raised in the Church of Christ, to hear that LDS believe that our spirits are eternal, and that we are supposed to be in the process of becoming God? It did not cause you to stop, ponder, consider, pray, "tarry" etc. The truth of it just came to you in stride? I can understand that you came to an assurance, but you imply that the teachings were almost naturally grasped...that there was no "Wow! Really?"

Yes, it did cause me to stop, ponder, consider, pray, "tarry", etc, but while the ideas were presented in a way that I hadn't thought about before, there really was and is nothing new in this doctrine than in what I already believed and had come to accept by studying the Bible and receiving assurances from God to help me know it was and is true... even though it was and is at variance with my father's and grandfather's beliefs... because they were taught in a college by certain "bible teachers" about how they should interpret "God's word" in the scriptures.

And btw, you also won't find your idea of "macroevolution" and "microevolution" mentioned in the Bible, except as certain people interpret certain scriptures and teach other people to interpret them that way, so once you know HOW to find the true interpretation of any "scripture" you won't have any problem finding the truth in all words.

But I will admit that I can still recall the new and more powerful feelings I received after I had actually received the gift of the Holy Ghost, which continued and still continues to help me to see and hear all things differently than I had seen or heard them before through that church.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

First, in general, I'd like to thank ApostleKnight, Ray, and Maureen--and others...we've been engaging in intelligent and respectful conversation here of a strong calliber.

This has been a great thread overall. PC and other non-LDS are great at comparing/contrasting beliefs, being specific, and even-handed.

I do not recall mentioning salvation in this string, though I did reference "core beliefs."

Quite true. I didn't mean to say you claimed a correct ontological view of God was necessary for salvation. Our discussions, to me, have generally--if not specifically--revolved around salvation (what's in heaven, how do we get there, etc...). I was projecting our current discussion onto a framework involving salvation to see how it fit and where it fit. I certainly didn't mean to put words in your mouth PC, but can see how my previous post would give that impression.

Eventually the believer might give him/herself over to the false religious system, and become, what LDS refer to as apostate. Is the apostate saved?

This handily addresses a concern noted elsewhere: Would God really allow an apostasy from truth and authority to occur from the death of the last New Testament apostle until the birth of Joseph Smith? While this issue is tangential, I want to make an observation in passing.

The foundation of the belief in an apostasy is free will or free agency. Put simply, God won't save us against our will or force us to be righteous. The foundation of Christ's New Testament church was apostles and prophets according to Ephesians 2:19-20. This foundation was destroyed with the martyrdom of the New Testament apostles (see Fox's Book of Martyrs).

Now if God won't force anyone to be righteous, who would He call to be the foundation of the church? Absent a foundation, even the best-built structures collapse. This is an over-simplification. See James E. Talmage's excellent (and brief) book "The Great Apostasy" for insight into this most troubling of LDS beliefs.