Our pre/post mortal name?

[Bini]

I'm interested to see if Christians (LDS included) are on the same page with this. Did we have individual identity in the pre mortal life, such as, a name? Is it the same name that we are given in this life? If they are different, in the post mortal life do we revert back to our pre mortal name or keep our mortal one? I wonder, for example, about the souls that are not given a name in this life because of early miscarriage. What name do they identify themselves with back home with our Heavenly Father? I don't believe they would be nameless.

Was our Saviour named in the pre mortal "Jesus" or is this a mortal given name only? How do you speculate that we will address Him in the post mortal life? Jesus? Christ? Lord? God? Brother? All the above?

[Guest]

Mary was told what to name Jesus, and His many names were prophesied.

I think for the rest of us, we certainly had names, but different ones than we have here. I'm not sure what we'll be known as for eternity. I kind of think that different people will call us by the name they knew us, when they knew us.

[Guest Doctrine]

Was our Saviour named in the pre mortal "Jesus" or is this a mortal given name only? How do you speculate that we will address Him in the post mortal life? Jesus? Christ? Lord? God? Brother? All the above?

Jesus name was Jehovah before he came to the earth

[SteveVH]

I'm interested to see if Christians (LDS included) are on the same page with this. Did we have individual identity in the pre mortal life, such as, a name? Is it the same name that we are given in this life? If they are different, in the post mortal life do we revert back to our pre mortal name or keep our mortal one? I wonder, for example, about the souls that are not given a name in this life because of early miscarriage. What name do they identify themselves with back home with our Heavenly Father? I don't believe they would be nameless.

Since you have addressed this to Christians I will just point out that any pre-mortal existence is a fairly unique Mormon idea that is not held by any other Christians that I am aware of. Possibly some of the early Adventist groups, but I'm not sure. It is certainly not a concept held by mainstream Christianity. We believe that we are brought into existence by God at conception, having never existed before except in the mind of God. So whether one had a name in the pre-mortal existence is really only something that can be discussed among Mormons. So I would say that we are certainly not on the same page and we might not even be in the same book, as far as this subject is concerned. :)

Edited March 4, 2013 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

Was our Saviour named in the pre mortal "Jesus" or is this a mortal given name only? How do you speculate that we will address Him in the post mortal life? Jesus? Christ? Lord? God? Brother? All the above?

We must remember that Jesus was God before he was human, not the other way around. Jesus is his human name and he is eternally the Son of the Father. YHWH (I AM WHO AM) is the mysterious name revealed to Moses and relates to his eternal existence.

This is where LDS theology departs from mainstream Christianity. We believe that Jesus is the eternal Son of the Father and with the Holy Spirit is the only eternal being from which all else came into existence. He was eternally God; he never became God, rather he had to humble himself to become man. That would be the mainstream Christian belief.

Edited March 4, 2013 by StephenVH

[ZionsRodeVos]

From the restoration we know that some people have kept using their mortal name after their resurrection. Some examples besides Jesus would be John the Baptist, Peter, James, Moroni, and Elijah who identified themselves to Joseph Smith using their mortal names.

I would think we had names before coming here just as Jesus did and that once the veil is gone that we could continue using that name and/or the name we had here in mortality.

Most likely for any who visit the earth after their mortal life they would use their mortal name because that is the name those still in mortality would know them as.

[Wingnut]

I've never really thought about either, but I assume that in the post-mortal life, we'll call each other by the names that we already use. As far as we know, there's no veil between this life and the next, but we do know (D&C) that the same sociality that exists here, will exist there.

[rameumptom]

As spirits, we had individuality. As Intelligences, we may not have had a sense of our individual self (I view all organized matter as intelligence: atoms, molecules, elements, etc).

Our Christian friends may not believe in a premortal existence, and so probably would not consider us as having individuality.

[Anddenex]

This is where LDS theology departs from mainstream Christianity.

It appears you have some misunderstanding pertaining to our belief in Jesus Christ.

We believe that Jesus is the eternal Son of the Father and with the Holy Spirit is the only eternal being from which all else came into existence.

LDS theology also believes Jesus is the eternal Son of the Father, with the Holy Ghost, they are one.

Our theology departs here, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost however are three separate beings, distinct from each other, as proven in the first vision when The Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith.

He was eternally God; he never became God, rather he had to humble himself to become man. That would be the mainstream Christian belief.

Jesus according to LDS theology has always been God. He was the great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New Testament.

There never was a time that Jesus was not eternally God, one with The Father. Evidence according to LDS theology: 2 Nephi 11: 72 Nephi 11:7 

For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.

Notice the language preceding our earth life.

One of the most important scriptures for any LDS to know and understand is 1 Nephi 15: 15-24

Condescension equals the humility of our Savior, our Lord, and our God. Evidence also that Jesus is the Son of the Eternal Father -- the Love of God -- John 3: 16. He is the Firstborn of the Father, the only Begotten Son in the flesh, and the redeemer of the world.

Cheers :)

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Since you have addressed this to Christians I will just point out that any pre-mortal existence is a fairly unique Mormon idea that is not held by any other Christians that I am aware of. Possibly some of the early Adventist groups, but I'm not sure.

I know the idea is not unique to us, but I admit I don't know much about it either.

When Souls Had Wings: Pre-Mortal Exsistence in Western Thought by Terryl Givens talks about it. The book is on my "to read" list, but I haven't gotten to it yet. I have heard Givens talk about it in interviews though. I remember Harriet Beecher Stowe's brother taught it, but doing so ruined his career as a preacher...so in that aspect you are right.

[AnthonyB]

Andennex,

The first vision in and of itself does not automatically lead to an LDS understanding of the Godhead. I think it would be possible to believe in having seen the Father and Son individually without believing they are sepearate beings. Traditional orthodox/catholic christianity has always held that it was the Son he lived on earth, was crucified and was raised from the dead. The Father did not do any of this.

The Father and Son could manifest and appear as seperate entities/personages if they chose to do so. Just as at Jesus baptism the Son was Jesus, the Holy Spirit come down out fo heaven and the Father spoke from heaven.

LDS have a presupposition that being perceived as physcially seperate means that something cannot be one being. Whilst I understand that for you subsequent revelation has endowed the physical appearance at the first vision with this significance, it need not do so nor from my understanding did it do so for all the earliest LDS, who took some time to move the current LDS understanding. (I am happy to be corrected on this but that is my understanding from the little reading I've done about early LDS beliefs in the Godhead)

[Vort]

The Father and Son could manifest and appear as seperate entities/personages if they chose to do so.

Please note that this is clearly polytheism.

[AnthonyB]

Bini,

No pre-mortal existence so no pre-mortal name.

Not sure from scripture precisely when ensoulment happens but fairly early and certianly before the quickening (probably at conception).

There are two views as to how the soul is created. One is that it is created by God for each person. The other is that it is passed on from our parents, as flame is passed on from a candle to another. (All the way back to the first souls given to Adam and Eve.) I thin God creates each of us individually.

God knows us before we exist through his foreknowledge of all things.

[Guest]

The Father and Son could manifest and appear as seperate entities/personages if they chose to do so. Just as at Jesus baptism the Son was Jesus, the Holy Spirit come down out fo heaven and the Father spoke from heaven.

I understand that this is a widespread belief, and I understand that, were Heavenly Father, Christ, and the Holy Ghost one being, He would be capable of all and thus able to do this. But I've always wondered, why would He? What would be the purpose? And why pray to Himself?

[AnthonyB]

Please note that this is clearly polytheism.

Vort,

No it is Trinitarianism, one God being with three persons.

The persons each can will seperately, can manifest physically seperate but they are one God and one being, share in the one essence of devine being.

Polytheism is multiple gods, I do not believe in multiple gods, just one God being with multiple persons.

[AnthonyB]

I understand that this is a widespread belief, and I understand that, were Heavenly Father, Christ, and the Holy Ghost one being, He would be capable of all and thus able to do this. But I've always wondered, why would He? What would be the purpose? And why pray to Himself?

Eowyn,

He would pray to himself because he is multiple persons. All personality and the best of our relationships are merely an echo of what existed perfectly from eternity in the one being multiple person God. A single source of all relationship perfectly haramonized, so close they are perfectly one in being and essence but still they are there own person within that oneness.

The only purpose in God revealing himself to man is so that we may truly know and be in relationship with him. He doesn't chose to reveal himself this way, he reveals what He truly is.

[Vort]

I'm interested to see if Christians (LDS included) are on the same page with this. Did we have individual identity in the pre mortal life, such as, a name? Is it the same name that we are given in this life? If they are different, in the post mortal life do we revert back to our pre mortal name or keep our mortal one? I wonder, for example, about the souls that are not given a name in this life because of early miscarriage. What name do they identify themselves with back home with our Heavenly Father? I don't believe they would be nameless.

Was our Saviour named in the pre mortal "Jesus" or is this a mortal given name only? How do you speculate that we will address Him in the post mortal life? Jesus? Christ? Lord? God? Brother? All the above?

I cannot speak for non-LDS Christians, but I would be surprised if more than a tiny minority believed or conceded the reality of a premortal life for us.

To answer your question, I think Shakespeare's Juliet had wise words:

What's in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet

A name is a tag we use for convenient identification of something. In other (especially earlier) cultures, names often changed with different stages of life. Women changed their names from "Jane Smith" to "Mrs. John Doe" when they married. In ancient Rome, Claudius' daughter was named Claudia until she married Julius, when she became Julia. In old England, Mr. Russell became Lord Bedford upon assumption of his dukedom.

God, too, renames people to signify change in their status. Abram became Abraham, Jacob became Israel, and Simon became Peter, all meaningful changes. When we receive our endowment, we receive a "new name" as a token of our change. The new name itself is (probably, imo) only a token, with no literal significance past the endowment ceremony, but it stands for a greater truth.

We lived before coming here, so we certainly had names. I assume we had unique identifiers, perhaps (likely, imo) based on our personal characteristics. We are given names in mortality for convenience. In some cases, those names are meaningful; my younger brother was "John" for his first three days of life until Dad declared his name to be something else, and so it was changed to what his name was supposed to be. But I don't believe that therefore all names are divinely appointed. I doubt that

was so named from before the creation of the earth.

Likewise, we will all have names after we die. Will they be the same names we have now? I don't know, but I'm not sure it makes sense to think about things in those terms. I don't know that the postmortal hosts speak American English. I don't know how spirits enunciate. I don't know that there can be any confusion between "Don" and "Dawn" in the hereafter. Rather, I suspect that, as in premortality, our postmortal names will be a reflection of our personality traits and/or responsibilities.

[Vort]

Vort,

No it is Trinitarianism, one God being with three persons.

The persons each can will seperately, can manifest physically seperate but they are one God and one being, share in the one essence of devine being.

Polytheism is multiple gods, I do not believe in multiple gods, just one God being with multiple persons.

This is playing with definitions. I suppose I have no strong objection to this -- as long as the other side plays the same. If you want to declare yourself "monotheist" with such a strange, anti-intuitive definition, I will allow it. But in return, when I declare myself monotheist even though I believe in a separate Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (not some indefinable and mysterious "trinity"), I expect you also to accept that.

[AnthonyB]

Vort,

I have no problem with you wanting to call yourself a monotheist.

On my part it isn't playing with definitions but attempting to follow what I believe the NT presents about God. I assure you if I could find a way to read the NT consistently in an easier way I would. There have been no shortage of attempts to invent easier ways to describe or talk about about the Godhead but they all seem to miss part of what i think God wants us to know about him.

When you say "seperate" what do you mean? Which part is "seperate"?

That they have seperate wills and emotions we would agree on, I believe.

However does the Father love more then the Son?

Is the Spirit more gracious then the Father?

Is one person more holy then the others?

Is one more powerful, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent etc

In other words do all three equally share what it is that a devine being as described in the bible is?

(Anyway I hope your having a blessed day.)

[Vort]

Vort,

I have no problem with you wanting to call yourself a monotheist.

On my part it isn't playing with definitions but attempting to follow what I believe the NT presents about God. I assure you if I could find a way to read the NT consistently in an easier way I would. There have been no shortage of attempts to invent easier ways to describe or talk about about the Godhead but they all seem to miss part of what i think God wants us to know about him.

Sounds reasonable to me.

When you say "seperate" what do you mean? Which part is "seperate"?

The part about the Father and the Son.

That they have seperate wills and emotions we would agree on, I believe.

However does the Father love more then the Son?

I don't know how to quantify such a thing. They both love perfectly, and are both perfect beings, so I suppose I would say no, the Father does not love "more than" the Son. But the Father is our spiritual Father, and the Son is our Brother and adoptive Father. It is possible that there is a different sort of love in play in each case. Whether that is true or not, I do not know, nor would I have any idea how to separate and measure the two.

Is the Spirit more gracious then the Father?

I am not sure what you mean. How is the Spirit "gracious"? Grace is of the Father and of the Son. The Spirit is a testifier and mirrors the grace of the Son and the Father.

Is one person more holy then the others?

According to my understanding, they are all equally holy.

Is one more powerful, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent etc

I don't know what this means. As far as I understand the words, you can't have one eternal being as "more eternal" than another. Similarly, I don't think that "more omniscient" or "more omnipotent" have any meaning.

In other words do all three equally share what it is that a devine being as described in the bible is?

No, certainly not. Neither Jesus Christ nor the Holy Ghost is the Father of my premortal spirit. The Father is not my Savior and Redeemer, nor is the Holy Ghost.

(Anyway I hope your having a blessed day.)

Thank you. Same good wishes to you.

[SteveVH]

It appears you have some misunderstanding pertaining to our belief in Jesus Christ. LDS theology also believes Jesus is the eternal Son of the Father, with the Holy Ghost, they are one.

Does not Mormon theology state that God was once as we are now and progressed to godhood? This doesn't work if Jesus was first God who then became man. So yes I would agree that I have a misunderstanding if this is not true. Maybe you can fill me in. Was Jesus human before he was God or was he first God before he became human?

Our theology departs here, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost however are three separate beings, distinct from each other, as proven in the first vision when The Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith.

Yes, I am aware of this belief. I'll just leave it at that.

Jesus according to LDS theology has always been God. He was the great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New Testament.

There never was a time that Jesus was not eternally God, one with The Father. Evidence according to LDS theology: 2 Nephi 11: 72 Nephi 11:7Â*

Well I must admit that now I am completely confused. Are you saying that God was not once as we are now?

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man... I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea... He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth." (Joseph Smith)

"Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, and mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point where He now is." (Orson Hyde - Mormon Apostle)

"He is our Father-the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted Being. How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through." (Brigham Young)

"But if God the Father was not always God, but came to his present exalted position by degrees of progress as indicated in the teachings of the prophet, how has there been a God from all eternity? The answer is that there has been and there now exists an endless line of Gods, stretching back into the eternities." (B. H. Roberts - Mormon Seventy and LDS church historian)

So my question remains: How is Jesus the eternal Son of the Father? How was Jesus "God" before he was "man" if God first must progress from a lesser state of humanity? You do realize that the word "eternal" means that he has always been and will always be God; without beginning or end, the Alpha and the Omega. The reason I mention this is that you say: "There never was a time that Jesus was not eternally God". Eternity is beyond time and space. In other words there could never be a "time" that one is eternal and a "time" that one was not. One is either eternal or one is not, period.

[SteveVH]

Traditional orthodox/catholic christianity has always held that it was the Son he lived on earth, was crucified and was raised from the dead. The Father did not do any of this.

The distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one of relationship. But you can never separate them. Where the Son is, there are the Father and the Holy Spirit as well. Where the Father is, there are the Son and the Holy Spirit, and where ever the Holy Spirit is, there are the Father and the Son as well. Anyway, that is the Catholic perspective.

[Tough Grits]

Since you have addressed this to Christians I will just point out that any pre-mortal existence is a fairly unique Mormon idea that is not held by any other Christians that I am aware of. Possibly some of the early Adventist groups, but I'm not sure. It is certainly not a concept held by mainstream Christianity. We believe that we are brought into existence by God at conception, having never existed before except in the mind of God. So whether one had a name in the pre-mortal existence is really only something that can be discussed among Mormons. So I would say that we are certainly not on the same page and we might not even be in the same book, as far as this subject is concerned. :) (emphasis added by TG)

For clarification, not argument or debate:

According to your words above (if I understood correctly), "mainstream" Christianity does not believe in a pre-mortal existence. Then you do not believe that Lucifer rebelled against God? You don't believe that Lucifer and 1/3 the hosts of heaven were cast out of God's presence?

If you don't believe the two points I mentioned, then that is a very interesting and different belief from that which I hold and know to be true.

If you do believe the two points that I mentioned, then how can we not have existed in some form if 1/3 rebelled with Lucifer and were cast down with him? Mathematically, 1/3 of nothing is nothing. Satan is real. I know this to be true. In order for Satan to be real, he had to have come from somewhere. If he was cast out of heaven, then that means there were others there too.

Just curious. ~TG

[Anddenex]

Andennex,

The first vision in and of itself does not automatically lead to an LDS understanding of the Godhead. I think it would be possible to believe in having seen the Father and Son individually without believing they are sepearate beings.

I am honestly unsure how if a person saw two separate beings, that they would think they are anything but separate.

The Father and Son could manifest and appear as seperate entities/personages if they chose to do so. Just as at Jesus baptism the Son was Jesus, the Holy Spirit come down out fo heaven and the Father spoke from heaven.

Very interesting. You are the first Christian I have spoken with that has ever described such an experience. Within in your understanding, this is an example of how it is possible, whereas in LDS theology this is a perfect example that they are three separate, unique, beings.

LDS have a presupposition that being perceived as physcially seperate means that something cannot be one being. Whilst I understand that for you subsequent revelation has endowed the physical appearance at the first vision with this significance, it need not do so nor from my understanding did it do so for all the earliest LDS, who took some time to move the current LDS understanding. (I am happy to be corrected on this but that is my understanding from the little reading I've done about early LDS beliefs in the Godhead)

I believe you have misread and misunderstood the early saints and their belief in three separate beings. Let's point out the absolute statement for one "all the earliest LDS" believed they were not separate (maybe I misunderstood your words). The second statement worth noting, "I understand that for you subsequent revelation has endowed..."

First, Joseph Smith was apart of the early saints, and surely believed that The Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost were three separate beings, as early as 1843, as evidence in the scripture - Doctrine & Covenants 130: 22

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

I have read from other Christians who are trying to prove your thoughts also by words of LDS in our early history. I have found their evidence to be unsatisfactory, in other words blatantly false.

Brigham Young taught they were separate. John Taylor taught they were separate. Wilford Woodruff taught they were separate. Joseph Smith taught they were separate.

Thus I am a little confused, as with the Christian stories, their evidence, and your thoughts that anything but them being separate was taught.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Anddenex

[SteveVH]

For clarification, not argument or debate:

According to your words above (if I understood correctly), "mainstream" Christianity does not believe in a pre-mortal existence. Then you do not believe that Lucifer rebelled against God? You don't believe that Lucifer and 1/3 the hosts of heaven were cast out of God's presence?

What does pre-mortal existence have to do with whether or not Lucifer rebelled against God? Lucifer and the angels were created by God. They did not exist prior to their creation by God. God created Lucifer who then rebelled against him and became Satan. This doesn't require that they be eternal beings in the least.

If you don't believe the two points I mentioned, then that is a very interesting and different belief from that which I hold and know to be true.

If you are speaking of Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels rebelling, of course I believe it. What I don't believe is that they are eternal beings (without beginning). They are spiritual beings who were created by God with free will and chose, of their own free will, to rebell against him.

If you do believe the two points that I mentioned, then how can we not have existed in some form if 1/3 rebelled with Lucifer and were cast down with him?

You have completley lost me. How does the angel's rebellion require that we be eternal beings? Both angels and man are creatures (created). Only God is uncreated. What is to prevent any being created with free will (both angels and humans) from rebelling? Why does one have to be eternal in order to rebell?

Mathematically, 1/3 of nothing is nothing. Satan is real. I know this to be true. In order for Satan to be real, he had to have come from somewhere. If he was cast out of heaven, then that means there were others there too.

Once again, how does any of this even imply that we are eternal beings? God created the angles in heaven and mankind on earth. One-third of the angels in heaven rebelled and were cast out and are now demons, serving the rebellious Lucifer, who is now Satan. This has nothing to do with whether they have always existed or whether they were created.