Our pre/post mortal name?

[Anddenex]

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?

No, this would be incorrect. We teach, "As man is God once was; as God is man may become."

Note the nuance between your statement and what is actually taught. Jesus is God, and he was once a man. This cannot be argued or debated by any Christian. This is evident throughout the Bible.

Note, the statement that man may become. Jesus was already God. There wasn't a time he wasn't God. Thus, in answer to your question, he was God before he became human. He was/is one with the father premortally, earth life, and in resurrection.

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

No worries, we are still seeking to understand the doctrines ourselves. In time more will be revealed.

"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)

The Father is no different than his Son, in this example. As the Lord, was God, so was our Eternal Father in Heaven.

The doctrine still applies -- however, as President Hinckley once said there isn't much said about the Father in scripture to come to any solid conclusion. Joseph could have been wrong in this statement. Until we receive further knowledge regarding the Father, we accept what we know. Brigham Young's statement also falls under this category.

"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) (Emphasis added -- The word "perhaps" should stand out like a sore thumb)

"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)

("But if" emphasis added should stand out to any reader again, that it is unknown if what the prophet shared was doctrine, or his personal opinion. Each LDS may have a different explanation to this also.)

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?

Jesus is the firstborn of the Father, thus making him the eternal son of the Father. I do not know, how this is possible, we only know that he was/is God.

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.

Yes, entirely. As given in our witness from Joseph Smith as he wrote these words, "and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah saying, 'I am the first and the last, I am he who lived, I am he who was slain, I am your advocate with the father." (emphasis added)

I have my own thoughts on how this is possible, however, they are my thoughts.

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.

No you are playing on semantics. If I said there never was a time he wasn't God. This is evident that time and space are not a part of the conclusion, thus, I said Jesus has been and is God.

Agreed, one is either eternal or one is not, period.

[Tough Grits]

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 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 rebel against him.

You have completely 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 rebel?

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 they have always existed or whether they were created.

Your views are interesting. Thanks for sharing!

I believe and know that we all existed as spiritual children of our Heavenly Father. I cannot tell, nor do I believe any man living can tell you, how long we lived with our Father before gaining a mortal body. Could we not have lived with our Father for eons (eternities) before gaining a mortal body?

I know that all of Heavenly Father's spirit children existed together in the pre-mortal world. Lucifer rebelled. Why do so many suppose that his rebellion happened in an instant? Maybe it took eons for him to finally rebel, or eons for him to subtly gather "supporters" for his rebellion. So that the moment he did rebel, he already had those who he knew would rebel with him.

Ah, but by the very act of rebelling, he could no longer dwell in the presence of God. No unclean thing can dwell in God's presence, and Lucifer and 1/3 became unclean and defiled the moment they rebelled. Thus they could not live with God any longer and were cast down.

They came to earth in a manner other than our Father intended for us to come to earth. He intended for us to gain bodies of flesh and blood, to endure trials, to choose good and evil of our own will without the perfect knowledge that we had of Him while living in His presence, and He intended for us to live like the perfect example of His son who would also come by way of flesh and blood.

This is why I know that Satan cannot force me to do anything. This is why I know that all men are more powerful than Satan and his 1/3, because we have something they denied themselves of through their rebellion--bodies. Those with bodies are stronger than those without, and Satan can only tempt, never force. God has a body of flesh and bone. Indeed, wasn't Jesus resurrected with his spirit joining eternally, never to be separated again, to a body of flesh and bone? I know that all men will one day be resurrected, the spirit joining to a body of flesh and bone, never to be separated again.

I know I lived with God in Heaven before coming to earth. I know that I was taught in Heaven. I know that Heavenly Father did not send me to earth spiritually blind, spiritually deaf, or spiritually dumb---which, to me, would be what I would consider being sent to earth without any preparation, knowledge, or existence beforehand.

Oh well, it is what it is. On one hand you ask questions, but on the other hand you seem very knowledgeable of our religion. Not sure why the questions, if you already have your answers. To each his own though. There can be peace in the differences, though my knowledge will not bend, change, or hide. Much Consideration, ~TG

[Vort]

Lucifer and the angels were created by God. They did not exist prior to their creation by God.

(I invite correction from those who know better.)

This whole idea of being "created" vs. "uncreated" appears to be a pivotal difference between Latter-day Saints and others who call themselves "Christian". It is not an obvious doctrine to most Latter-day Saints. The idea as I understand it is that the universe is divided into the "created" and the "uncreated". Uncreated things/beings are eternal, past as well as future. The only "uncreated" things that non-LDS Christians believe in (that I know of) are God and his Christ (and, depending on the particular beliefs of the sect, possibly the Holy Ghost).

Everything else is "created". This means, in effect, that God "created" it into existence by a pure act of divine will. In this view, the Genesis account of creation is not a symbolic representation of God's work; rather, they see it as a literal record of the actual procedure. God said (whatever that means for God, though I assume they don't believe he lives in an oxygen atmosphere or possesses vocal cords), "Let there be light," and light suddenly started existing where before there was no light. God is, in effect, a magical being who can "create" anything out of nothing.

Have you ever wondered why some evangelicals and other non-LDS "Christians" get all huffy over the idea that "Jesus and Satan are BROTHERS!!!"? I mean, from an LDS point of view, the whole idea to get upset about is so ridiculous. What, these people have an IQ of 65 that they go into conniptions over the idea? Well, no. (Not necessarily, that is, though I'm sure there are plenty who are just not quite bright enough to figure things out.) It's not a matter of stupidity; for some, at least, it's a matter of the mental models they are using. If the universe is divided into (1) God and (2) God's creations, and if Jesus Christ counts as (1) God, then to suggest that Satan is Jesus "brother" puts Satan in the (1) God category, too. Rejecting this, the only other possibility is that Jesus is in the (2) God's creations category along with Satan.

So what?, say Mormons. How is that important, or even relevant? But that is because we don't have the same mental model as those belonging to other sects of Christianity. For in their view, if Christ is a creation of God, he cannot himself be God. Thus, the idea that Jesus and Satan are "brothers" is tantamount to proclaiming that Jesus is not divine.

To Mormons, this is ridiculous double-speak, a mass of confusion. But that is because we don't accept the mental model the others work from. From their model, it actually makes some sense.

Interestingly, that model is not self-consistent. I have asked if God can do "anything", to which they respond, "Of course". We then go through the undoable-by-definition things (e.g. create a rock so big he can't lift it, have a thing exist at some time and location and simultaneously not exist at that time and location), and I get one of two responses:

1. Those things are meaningless. You are asking if God can do meaningless things. [Good answer; I agree with this.]

2. Yes! Of course he can do these self-contradictory things! He's GOD! [No further conversation possible.]

Assuming they respond with #1 above, I then ask if God can create a being equal to himself. Here is where things break down. People just don't like the question. Often, they answer "No"; but of course, that means that God is certainly not omnipotent, since he cannot self-replicate. (Heck, even I can self-replicate.) Occasionally, they will answer "yes", but then that makes the LDS model of reality absolutely tenable, and in fact probable. Sometimes, they will say something like, "Yes, but he doesn't do that." My response then is, "How do you know?" They will then sometimes try to quote some scripture or other out of context to establish that God is unique and does not recreate himself at any point, or they will simply abandon the conversation.

The point I was originally driving at is: If you're LDS and you find yourself mystified at people's seeming hang-ups on the whole "created vs. uncreated" non-issue, now you might have a bit better understanding why this seems like an issue to your non-LDS friends.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Vort

[SteveVH]

Your views are interesting. Thanks for sharing!

On one hand you ask questions, but on the other hand you seem very knowledgeable of our religion. Not sure why the questions, if you already have your answers. To each his own though. There can be peace in the differences, though my knowledge will not bend, change, or hide. Much Consideration, ~TG

Well, it kind of snowballed, didn't it. My first comment on this thread was only to say that even though the question is directed to all "Christians" it can really only be discussed by Mormons because the rest of Christianity doesn't hold the basic premise that there is any pre-mortal existence. In other words, why would I discuss whether or not I had a name in the pre-mortal existence when I don't believe in a pre-mortal existence? The OP seemed to be unaware of the belief held by mainstream Christianity and I was just providing that information, that is all.

From that point I am only answering other's questions of me or trying to make sense of your beliefs. And I'm flattered that you think I am knowledgeable of your religion, but I would not give myself that much credit. :)

[Tough Grits]

Heck, even I can self-replicate.

See, smack in the middle of a serious post, you inserted something humorous! I would have laughed out loud and made you mad, especially if you were doing the speaking when I laughed!

If you're LDS and you find yourself mystified at people's seeming hang-ups on the whole "created vs. uncreated" non-issue, now you might have a bit better understanding why this seems like an issue to your non-LDS friends.

It never occurred to me to go so in-depth on such things. I guess for somebody who still can't figure out the Noah-ark-too-many-animals thing, I just haven't progressed to anything more complex.

[Tough Grits]

If Christ is the example in all things, then wouldn't his existing in the first estate before gaining a body of flesh and blood be a template and a model that we were to do the same even as he did? Therefore, like him we existed in the pre-mortal world, and like him we came to earth and gained a body of flesh and blood. ~TG

[AnthonyB]

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.

StephenVH,

I apologize for using wikipedia however

Patripassianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are saying that where the Father the Son is also, aren't you saying that when the Son was crucified that the Father was crucified. However wasn't that declared heretical as Partripassianism.

[SteveVH]

(I invite correction from those who know better.)

This whole idea of being "created" vs. "uncreated" appears to be a pivotal difference between Latter-day Saints and others who call themselves "Christian".

Your description of this difference as being "pivotal" is spot on. From what I have gathered over the past several years of learning about the LDS faith is that this primary difference affects, very literally, the perspective from which we view all else concerning our respective religions. This seems to be the hidden factor that causes much misunderstanding.

It is not an obvious doctrine to most Latter-day Saints. The idea as I understand it is that the universe is divided into the "created" and the "uncreated". Uncreated things/beings are eternal, past as well as future. The only "uncreated" things that non-LDS Christians believe in (that I know of) are God and his Christ (and, depending on the particular beliefs of the sect, possibly the Holy Ghost).

Yes, we believe that there is only one uncreated Being, and that is God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Everything else that exists, whether spiritually or physically, was created by God from nothing but his own power.

Now I find it interesting that you say that "The only "uncreated" things that non-LDS Christians believe in (that I know of) are God and his Christ". I was under the impression that you also believe in "intelligences" and "uncreated matter" that are co-eternal with God. Is that not true?

Everything else is "created". This means, in effect, that God "created" it into existence by a pure act of divine will. In this view, the Genesis account of creation is not a symbolic representation of God's work; rather, they see it as a literal record of the actual procedure. God said (whatever that means for God, though I assume they don't believe he lives in an oxygen atmosphere or possesses vocal cords), "Let there be light," and light suddenly started existing where before there was no light.

I wouldn't go that far. Genesis is a poetic text so it certainly cannot be taken literally. That does not prevent it from revealing divine truths, however. As far as creation is concerned we believe that when God said "Let there be light" that there was light, indicating that God is the source of that light (as he is the source of all things). But we certainly do not view Genesis as an exhaustive manual or literal record of how God created.

God is, in effect, a magical being who can "create" anything out of nothing.

No, God is not a magical being. He is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God who is the author of all creation. To be omnipotent (all-powerful) requires that there is nothing beyond his ability. If he is dependent upon anything then he is not omnipotent.

One of the differences here is that we believe that God is eternally above us in all things and that he is the only "divine" being (he will share his divinity with us in heaven). So we believe that God is a completley different species, if you will, than man or angels. And man is a different species than an angel or God. Whereas it is my understanding that the LDS belief is that we are all the same species, God having progressed from a man.

Have you ever wondered why some evangelicals and other non-LDS "Christians" get all huffy over the idea that "Jesus and Satan are BROTHERS!!!"?

From the Catholic perspective my objection would be that they could not be brothers because Jesus is God (the Creator) and Lucifer was a creature, (the created). Jesus is God's only begotten (not made) Son, so I don't know how Lucifer could have been his brother. But from the LDS perspective, it really doesn't cause a problem. It says more about our concept of who God is than anything else.

I mean, from an LDS point of view, the whole idea to get upset about is so ridiculous. What, these people have an IQ of 65 that they go into conniptions over the idea? Well, no. (Not necessarily, that is, though I'm sure there are plenty who are just not quite bright enough to figure things out.) It's not a matter of stupidity; for some, at least, it's a matter of the mental models they are using. If the universe is divided into (1) God and (2) God's creations, and if Jesus Christ counts as (1) God, then to suggest that Satan is Jesus "brother" puts Satan in the (1) God category, too. Rejecting this, the only other possibility is that Jesus is in the (2) God's creations category along with Satan.

So what?, say Mormons. How is that important, or even relevant? But that is because we don't have the same mental model as those belonging to other sects of Christianity. For in their view, if Christ is a creation of God, he cannot himself be God. Thus, the idea that Jesus and Satan are "brothers" is tantamount to proclaiming that Jesus is not divine.

Exactly.

To Mormons, this is ridiculous double-speak, a mass of confusion. But that is because we don't accept the mental model the others work from. From their model, it actually makes some sense.

Interestingly, that model is not self-consistent. I have asked if God can do "anything", to which they respond, "Of course". We then go through the undoable-by-definition things (e.g. create a rock so big he can't lift it, have a thing exist at some time and location and simultaneously not exist at that time and location), and I get one of two responses:

1. Those things are meaningless. You are asking if God can do meaningless things. [Good answer; I agree with this.]

2. Yes! Of course he can do these self-contradictory things! He's GOD! [No further conversation possible.]

Here is another response:

Lifting covers up the definition of translation, which means moving something from one point in space to another. With this in mind, the real question would be, "Can God move a rock from one location in space to another that is larger than possible?" In order for the rock to not be able to move from one space to another, it would have to be larger than space itself. However, it is impossible for a rock to be larger than space, as space will always adjust itself to cover the space of the rock. If the supposed rock was out of space-time dimension, then the question would not make sense, because it would be impossible to move an object from one location in space to another if there is no space to begin with, meaning the faulting is with the logic of the question and not God's capabilities.

These are all questions based upon man-made paradoxes and flawed logic.

The point I was originally driving at is: If you're LDS and you find yourself mystified at people's seeming hang-ups on the whole "created vs. uncreated" non-issue, now you might have a bit better understanding why this seems like an issue to your non-LDS friends.

Great point.

[SteveVH]

StephenVH,

I apologize for using wikipedia however

Patripassianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are saying that where the Father the Son is also, aren't you saying that when the Son was crucified that the Father was crucified. However wasn't that declared heretical as Partripassianism.

We believe that Jesus has two natures, human and divine, making up one person. We do not believe the Father or the Holy Spirit have a physical nature, or "body". It was Jesus' physical body that was crucified. While the Father and the Holy Spirit were present in the Person of Jesus, in his divinity, it was Christ's body that was crucified, not the Father or the Holy Spirit. We could ask as well what Jesus meant when he said "He who has seen me has seen the Father"? He and the Father are one, with no separation of being, only distinction of relationship.

[SteveVH]

If Christ is the example in all things, then wouldn't his existing in the first estate before gaining a body of flesh and blood be a template and a model that we were to do the same even as he did? Therefore, like him we existed in the pre-mortal world, and like him we came to earth and gained a body of flesh and blood. ~TG

So you do not consider the fact that Jesus was God before he became man? Are you saying that you were God before you became human? Christ gave us an example of how to live out our human lives in holiness. This does not extend to his incarnation or his eternal life with the Father and the Holy Spirit prior to his incarnation.

Edited March 5, 2013 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

It never occurred to me to go so in-depth on such things. I guess for somebody who still can't figure out the Noah-ark-too-many-animals thing, I just haven't progressed to anything more complex.

I'm with you on the Noah's Ark thing. :confused:

[Roseslipper]

I dont even know if I should get into this conversation or not!! It has and probably still confussing to me as well...but maybe I can help instead of confusing u more. THere is one GOd the Eternal Father, God the Son, and Holy Ghost. and yes lucfer was a son of God as well, He just lost his inheritance and fell and lost it. and became Satan, the Father of all lies...and his followers who choice to follow him..Life is a progression, we learned in the premortal existence, we learn here life is a school, a journey that sometimes we lose our paths by our choices..But there are many worlds...not just this one that we live on. Isnt it our goal to become like God? I believe there is one orrignal Godhead, though it is confussing. but does it matter how He got to be God?? to get 2 be a God or Goddess takes time who knows how long, it doesnt matter! As man is God once was; as God is man may become.we believe that!! Its called progression..Since there are many worlds, their are many GOds over different worlds., each world would have a God head, GOd the Father , GOd the Son, GOd the Holy Ghost. think of it like this is it possible that the Godhead moves up from postion to postion. We dont know all the answers, no need to sweat the stuff we dont know yet..in time will know it all. But each child of our Heavenly Father has the ablity to become a GOd, each daughter of GOd has the ability to become a GOddess. Did I help or confuse u even more...haha....:)...I do know that we here on this earth Have one GOd no matter what Church, or religious organization we belong too ITs the Same God for us all. Jesus CHrist is His son, and that Jehovah was Jesus Christ in the old testament, and the Holy Spirit or HOly Ghost....it is confusing but it is what it is. The original church was set up by Jesus, He taught his own people the Jewish people, after His death his apostles went out to teach the world, because this is what they were told. when they all died no one had the keys of authority..we went into the dark ages of history..the apostaty...the church was brought back in Gods time by a young unlearned boy who was foreodained from the pre exsistence time I believe but if im wrong about the time I know it doesnt matter..this boy was Josesph Smith. in time..Gods time...The gospel was brought back..By small and simple things God does his work. His plan is wonderful, even though we might not understand it all at this time..Its still true and u can see the pecies of the puzzle put together..How wise is our Heavenly Father..He loved us all and sent His son Jesus Christ down to earth..so we might all have the chance to be blessed to be saved cause with out Jesus filling his calling known of us would make it home..no one!!and Jesus had the choice to not full fill his mission as well. were all sinners to one degree or another.we might not understand it all by the time our earth life is over and I think its ok...learning, growing, is eternal......eternal progession....

Edited March 5, 2013 by Roseslipper

[SteveVH]

I dont even know if I should get into this conversation or not!! It has and probably still confussing to me as well...but maybe I can help instead of confusing u more. THere is one GOd the Eternal Father, God the Son, and Holy Ghost. and yes lucfer was a son of God as well, He just lost his inheritance and fell and lost it. and became Satan, the Father of all lies...and his followers who choice to follow him..Life is a progression, we learned in the premortal existence, we learn here life is a school, a journey that sometimes we lose our paths by our choices..But there are many worlds...not just this one that we live on. Isnt it our goal to become like God? I believe there is one orrignal Godhead, though it is confussing. but does it matter how He got to be God?? to get 2 be a God or Goddess takes time who knows how long, it doesnt matter! As man is God once was; as God is man may become.we believe that!! Its called progression..Since there are many worlds, their are many GOds over different worlds., each world would have a God head, GOd the Father , GOd the Son, GOd the Holy Ghost. think of it like this is it possible that the Godhead moves up from postion to postion. We dont know all the answers, no need to sweat the stuff we dont know yet..in time will know it all. But each child of our Heavenly Father has the ablity to become a GOd, each daughter of GOd has the ability to become a GOddess. Did I help or confuse u even more...haha....:)...I do know that we here on this earth Have one GOd no matter what Church, or religious organization we belong too ITs the Same God for us all. Jesus CHrist is His son, and that Jehovah was Jesus Christ in the old testament, and the Holy Spirit or HOly Ghost....it is confusing but it is what it is. The original church was set up by Jesus, He taught his own people the Jewish people, after His death his apostles went out to teach the world, because this is what they were told. when they all died no one had the keys of authority..we went into the dark ages of history..the apostaty...the church was brought back in Gods time by a young unlearned boy who was foreodained from the pre exsistence time I believe but if im wrong about the time I know it doesnt matter..this boy was Josesph Smith. in time..Gods time...The gospel was brought back..By small and simple things God does his work. His plan is wonderful, even though we might not understand it all at this time..Its still true and u can see the pecies of the puzzle put together..How wise is our Heavenly Father..He loved us all and sent His son Jesus Christ down to earth..so we might all have the chance to be blessed to be saved cause with out Jesus filling his calling known of us would make it home..no one!!and Jesus had the choice to not full fill his mission as well. were all sinners to one degree or another.we might not understand it all by the time our earth life is over and I think its ok...learning, growing, is eternal......eternal progession....

Not even going to touch this one.

[Roseslipper]

p.s. and by what name we are called by it doesnt matter, we will find out in time....

[Roseslipper]

lol busting out loud with laughter stephenvh did u add that quote to mine rflol i cant stop laughing...:)

[SteveVH]

lol busting out loud with laughter stephenvh did u add that quote to mine rflol i cant stop laughing...:)

Yes, I sure did. Glad I could bring a little joy into your heart.

[Roseslipper]

u did...I havent laughed that hard in a long time it actually brought tears to my eyes, when i think about it again it makes me laugh and smile...where do u live? im in florida by the way and nice to meet u...

[Traveler]

Stephen - I realize that often as I ask question and make statements that they can be interpreted as offensive - but there are some things that I see and understand from my perspective that just do not jive with "things". I hope here to focus on just one or two - not really to be argumentative but to point out what seem to be to be flaws and then to observe how you not only handle them but the thought process you employ to resolve the various issues.

.....

I wouldn't go that far. Genesis is a poetic text so it certainly cannot be taken literally. That does not prevent it from revealing divine truths, however. As far as creation is concerned we believe that when God said "Let there be light" that there was light, indicating that God is the source of that light (as he is the source of all things). But we certainly do not view Genesis as an exhaustive manual or literal record of how God created.

Genesis is a very problematic text. For me, as a scientist, it does not make sense especially if it is interpreted literally. I understand symbolism and I have studied ancient poetic structures. For example I have studied Joseph A Fitzmyer, S.J. (a Catholic Scholar). Though his works are helpful and informative the points of literary or poetic license seems to be more arbitrary and painted by "traditional" doctrine than by an ancient literary or poetic structure.

No, God is not a magical being. He is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God who is the author of all creation. To be omnipotent (all-powerful) requires that there is nothing beyond his ability. If he is dependent upon anything then he is not omnipotent.

This is a very good example of what I believe to be the result of poor logic similar to the ugly step sister in the fantasy epoch Cinderella when she crams part of her foot into the glass slipper and then positively declares that it is a perfect fit - when it obviously is not to everyone observing what is happening.

Take a look at Genesis chapter 1 verse 10 and the end of the verse where it says, "and God saw that it was good". This is contrary to the definition of omnipotent as you have suggested and this construct is repeated in the creation process which by ancient poetic form - repetition, by definition, emphasizes the point rather than diminishes the concept. In fact I do not know of any statement more highlighted and repeated in the creation text. It clearly points out that G-d was entirely dependent on principles, orders and laws that incorporate "good". That G-d is a being of absolute consistency which is quite different than the definition you purported as an omnipotent being.

One of the differences here is that we believe that God is eternally above us in all things and that he is the only "divine" being (he will share his divinity with us in heaven). So we believe that God is a completely different species, if you will, than man or angels. And man is a different species than an angel or God. Whereas it is my understanding that the LDS belief is that we are all the same species, God having progressed from a man.

From the Catholic perspective my objection would be that they could not be brothers because Jesus is God (the Creator) and Lucifer was a creature, (the created). Jesus is God's only begotten (not made) Son, so I don't know how Lucifer could have been his brother. But from the LDS perspective, it really doesn't cause a problem. It says more about our concept of who God is than anything else.

......

Not to convince you but to give you food for thought - since you understand that Genesis can be interpreted symbolically. There is an interesting symbol of Genesis that is not translated very well. The term in English is Cherubim. This is not a English word but a Greek word and the ancient Greek meaning of "Cherubim" was actually a "kind of" g-d. But as we break down the symbolism presented for Cherubim we can see parallels in such things as "Anointed" which is similar to the symbolism in the term "Christ". We also find interesting symbolism in "keeper of the way" to Jesus saying that he was the way. Another interesting symbol is a flaming sword - where else is the symbolism of a sword and flame used in describing the way of salvation of man? Try the book of Revelation?

Paul tells us that the "complete" understanding of the symbolic meaning of Cherubim cannot be found in scripture. Interesting symbolic thought? But one last interesting symbolic use of Cherubim comes in Exodus at the mercy seat where one is placed at the right hand of G-d and one at the left hand of G-d. Stephen (your name sake) saw Jesus (symbolically?) at the right hand of G-d and it is generally understood (symbolically?) that Satan and his followers are at the left hand of G-d.

But Exodus says something very interesting symbolically about the Cherubim at the mercy seat. It is interpreted into English as "the two shall face each other" - But I have discussed this with several Rabi that tell me a more literal translation is given in a "variant" reading that would be "the two brothers shall face each other". The only symbolic sense I can make of this very "poetic" symbolism is Christ and Satan (both of whom were "anointed"). But if you can offer a better understanding of the ancient "poetic" symbolism - I would be quite interested. And the only sense of this I have found is in LDS theology.

The Traveler

Edited March 5, 2013 by Traveler

[Irishcolleen]

I dont even know if I should get into this conversation or not!! It has and probably still confussing to me as well...but maybe I can help instead of confusing u more. THere is one GOd the Eternal Father, God the Son, and Holy Ghost. and yes lucfer was a son of God as well, He just lost his inheritance and fell and lost it.

Non-LDS Christians don't believe Lucifer is a son of God. He is a creation of God, an angel to be specific, but not a son. We do not believe angels are the same as God or the same as humans.

We believe that mankind can become a son of God by adoption, not by lineage. So we do not believe we are the same substance as God. We believe we can become godly in our actions and heart, but we don't believe we can become gods.

I don't claim to be an expert on LDS theology, but these are differences I have noted.

[SteveVH]

u did...I havent laughed that hard in a long time it actually brought tears to my eyes, when i think about it again it makes me laugh and smile...where do u live? im in florida by the way and nice to meet u...

I'm in southwest Colorado. I have a son who lives in Sarasota, FL.. Love Florida in the winter time. Not so much in the summer. :)

[Traveler]

Non-LDS Christians don't believe Lucifer is a son of God. He is a creation of God, an angel to be specific, but not a son. We do not believe angels are the same as God or the same as humans.

We believe that mankind can become a son of God by adoption, not by lineage. So we do not believe we are the same substance as God. We believe we can become godly in our actions and heart, but we don't believe we can become gods.

I don't claim to be an expert on LDS theology, but these are differences I have noted.

I must be honest here in saying I am confused by your use of the term "substance" in reference to G-d which is completely ambiguous (meaningless) to me. It has no scriptural reference and is a term that to me genders more ignorance and confusion than understanding. I also believe it to be contrary to the specific scriptural reference weather literary or according to ancient poetic symbolism; such as "Born of the Spirit" or "Born of G-d" or being "one" with G-d as Jesus is one with the Father. Can you give me a (non intrusive or variant laden interpretation of) scriptural reference that will help me understand what you mean by different "substance" and exactly why you believe in it when the scriptures clearly say man was created of "like or likeness" or of "same" substance as G-d?

The Traveler

[Irishcolleen]

I must be honest here in saying I am confused by your use of the term "substance" in reference to G-d which is completely ambiguous (meaningless) to me. It has no scriptural reference and is a term that to me genders more ignorance and confusion than understanding. I also believe it to be contrary to the specific scriptural reference weather literary or according to ancient poetic symbolism; such as "Born of the Spirit" or "Born of G-d" or being "one" with G-d as Jesus is one with the Father. Can you give me a (non intrusive or variant laden interpretation of) scriptural reference that will help me understand what you mean by different "substance" and exactly why you believe in it when the scriptures clearly say man was created of "like or likeness" or of "same" substance as G-d?

The Traveler

Genesis 1:27 says man was made in the same image as God. An image is a reflection, not a copy of an original.

tselem (tseh'-lem)

a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence, a representative figure, especially an idol -- image, vain shew.

John 4:24 says God is spirit.

Col. 1:17 says He is before all things and by Him all things consist.

1 Cor 15:44-> explains that man is an earthly body 1st and a spiritual body 2nd while Phil. 2 shows Christ being in the form of God, took on the body of a man.

A non-LDS Christian believes God is self-existent, without beginning and end. God is also omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent. Mankind is not. Man is carnal, created, and definitely not omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. God is spirit, Christ took on flesh while man was created first as flesh. God exists on His own. Our existence is dependent on God. So, God and man differ in more than title and level of progression.

I know this is quite different from LDS teachings. We approach the nature of God from different perspectives with different assumptions. So, we come to different conclusions.

[Vort]

Thanks for the clarifications, Stephen. You asked a few questions that I would like to try to address.

Now I find it interesting that you say that "The only "uncreated" things that non-LDS Christians believe in (that I know of) are God and his Christ". I was under the impression that you also believe in "intelligences" and "uncreated matter" that are co-eternal with God. Is that not true?

Yes, this is my understanding of LDS doctrine. The Doctrine and Covenants teaches:

The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; and when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.

I wouldn't go that far. Genesis is a poetic text so it certainly cannot be taken literally. That does not prevent it from revealing divine truths, however. As far as creation is concerned we believe that when God said "Let there be light" that there was light, indicating that God is the source of that light (as he is the source of all things). But we certainly do not view Genesis as an exhaustive manual or literal record of how God created.

For the record, I was not speaking about you personally or even about Catholicism. I was speaking about non-LDS Christians of my general acquaintance, who on the whole tend to accept Genesis as some sort of literal, mechanical, blow-by-blow account of creation.

No, God is not a magical being. He is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God who is the author of all creation. To be omnipotent (all-powerful) requires that there is nothing beyond his ability. If he is dependent upon anything then he is not omnipotent.

I speak based on my understanding of the meaning of words. If God is a Being that "creates" things by essentially zapping them into existence out of nothing, then that is magic, in my mind.

One of the differences here is that we believe that God is eternally above us in all things and that he is the only "divine" being (he will share his divinity with us in heaven). So we believe that God is a completley different species, if you will, than man or angels. And man is a different species than an angel or God. Whereas it is my understanding that the LDS belief is that we are all the same species, God having progressed from a man.

This is roughly true, sort of. Latter-day Saints take a far more literal view of God as Father than do most other Christians. Whether this extends so far as to say that God is "biologically human" is a far more speculative thing. Many Latter-day Saints do accept this, but I do not know that the LDS Church ever teaches this anywhere. My opinion is that such a perspective is rooted in the ignorance of being mortal and not having sufficient information about eternal reality to formulate a better model.

Thanks for the responses, Stephen.

EDIT: I just reread that last comment by Stephen and realized I didn't address his understanding that we and God "are all the same species, God having progressed from a man." This is based on a couplet from Elder Snow ("As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become") and some elements of the record of Joseph Smith's discourse at the funeral of King Follett. This is a pretty slender base on which to construct a robust understanding of LDS belief. I think it's indisputable that orthodox LDS doctrine teaches that our Father was once a man (meaning a mortal being) who, through a process of exaltation, attained his Godly state. (Note that I am not proclaiming this as doctrine, just as my understanding of our doctrine. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.)

What is nowhere stated or even implied is that God was once a flawed, sinful man, as we are flawed, sinful men and women. On the contrary, of the vanishingly few scriptures we have that seem at all to touch, however tangentially, on this point, the best idea we have is that the Father may have stood in the same position as our Lord and Savior now stands. Since no one who can call himself a Christian disputes the perfection and divinity of Christ, the idea that the Father may have stood in that same place or function should raise no questions about his divinity or perfection, whether or not you believe it.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Vort

[Vort]

A non-LDS Christian believes God is self-existent, without beginning and end. God is also omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent. Mankind is not. Man is carnal, created, and definitely not omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. God is spirit, Christ took on flesh while man was created first as flesh. God exists on His own. Our existence is dependent on God. So, God and man differ in more than title and level of progression.

I know this is quite different from LDS teachings.

Not really. In fact, we Latter-day Saints believe every point you make above, though our understanding of the meaning and implications of those points differ. To wit:

• God is self-existent, without beginning and end. Sure we LDS believe this. In fact, we believe that, in an important and literal sense, we are eternal, just as much as God. Our ultimate, core selves are uncreated -- which is why God cannot be held responsible for our choices, as he clearly could if he created us from nothingness.

• God is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent. We LDS also believe these attributes of God. The difference between us and some (not all) other Christians is that we reject nonsensical, meaningless, self-contradictory ideas about God's "power". For example, being all-powerful does not mean that God can save someone in sin. This is obvious; salvation means being cleansed from the effects of sin, so "salvation in sin" is a meaningless term. But some other Christians would accuse us of denying the "omnipotent" nature of God by saying that God cannot save a man in sin. But this is not so; to deny that God has nonexistent, definitionally meaningless "power" is not to deny God's omnipotence, but to reject the abuse of language.

• Mankind is carnal, created, and definitely not omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. We believe this is self-evident and obvious, though of course our understanding of "created" differs somewhat from yours, and we don't hyperfocus on that as an all-important term of distinction between man and God.

• God is spirit. Of course we believe this. But non-LDS Christians fail to understand that being spirit does not preclude one from being physical. This should not be a point of contention, since even non-LDS Christians believe that Christ was incarnate. But somehow, they think of that as "different". But it is not. In the LDS view, it's obvious. God is spirit. So, by the way, is man, and as long as we cling to and pursue our spiritual nature, we will come to God. It is through rejection of that spiritual nature and embracing the carnal that we lose God.

[selek]

A non-LDS Christian believes...

Call For References, please. At what point, IC, did you copyright or trademark the term "non-LDS Christian" and thus gain the authority to define it for the rest of us?

Or to be a bit more blunt, who are you to speak on behalf of all "non-LDS Christians" everywhere?

Why not try the more intellectually honest and factually accurate phrase "my particular Christian sect believes"?

I do so tire of sectarian evangelicals presuming- without consideration or evidence- that their particular, peculiar interpretation is somehow definitive of what "all true Christians" believe.

I hate to break it to you, but your personal (sectarian) orthodoxy is NOT the one and only litmus test of "true" Christianity.

This discussion will progress more smoothly once you realize that you do not have the authority to dictate terms for, on behalf of, or to, the rest of Christendom.