Can't believe that God isn't eternal

[andypg]

I believe it was Lorenzo Snow who first said, “As*man*now is,*God*once was;*as God*is now*man*may be.”

It's my understanding of LDS theology that God was once a man in another planet or universe and became God only through obeying His god.

I have trouble accepting this. I mean, isn't God supposed to be THE Supreme Being? I always understood God as that of which nothing is higher. But if he was once a man, doesn't that mean there is someone or something greater than God? It also reduces Him to a creature, someone who was once made. Isn't God supposed to have no beginning and no end?

Is it wrong that I consider myself a somewhat faithful Mormon yet don't believe that God is an exalted man?

[Guest]

God IS Eternal.

We are also eternal.

And you might wanna brush up on your Gospel Principles. The manual is on LDS.org. Start reading Chapter 1 and then come back here and report on what you learned.

[Lakumi]

makes more sense for something to create a race in its image if it actually has an image.

I always found it strange a divine being would be limited by gender, or a pure physical form

[bytebear]

From the same sermon Joseph Smith gave about God "not always being God"...

"I want to reason more on the spirit of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit of man—on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man—the immortal part, because it had no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the housetops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself."

Notice, how Joseph Smith defined eternity. It has no beginning BECAUSE it has no end.

[prisonchaplain]

This is one of those deep areas of divergence with historic Christianity. I have some grasp on the LDS idea that we have an eternal intelligence. I'm not as clear on whether God has his God, and whether this God has his God (eternal progression with an eternity of Gods?). This very teaching has caused some LDS scholars to self-identify their theology as henotheistic (worship of one God, though there be more), rather than monotheistic (only one Supreme God has ever and will ever exist).

[Just_A_Guy]

I believe it was Lorenzo Snow who first said, “As*man*now is,*God*once was;*as God*is now*man*may be.”

It's my understanding of LDS theology that God was once a man in another planet or universe and became God only through obeying His god.

I have trouble accepting this. I mean, isn't God supposed to be THE Supreme Being? I always understood God as that of which nothing is higher. But if he was once a man, doesn't that mean there is someone or something greater than God? It also reduces Him to a creature, someone who was once made. Isn't God supposed to have no beginning and no end?

Is it wrong that I consider myself a somewhat faithful Mormon yet don't believe that God is an exalted man?

Hi Andy -

The only things you HAVE to believe to be a "somewhat faithful Mormon" are laid out in the baptismal interview and the temple recommend interview.

That said--it is pretty mainstream LDS theology; and you're going to hear it a lot. Here's a quote from Camilla Kimball (wife of Spencer W. Kimball) that you may find helpful:

Because of her family’s hospitality toward searching and studying, Sister Kimball says, “I’ve always had an inquiring mind. I’m not satisfied just to accept things. I like to follow through and study things out. I learned early to put aside those gospel questions that I couldn’t answer. I had a shelf of things I didn’t understand, but as I’ve grown older and studied and prayed and thought about each problem, one by one I’ve been able to better understand them.”

And from Brigham Young:

In the days of Joseph, when the revelation came to him and Sidney Rigdon, while translating that portion of the New Testament contained in the 29th verse of the third chapter of John, in reference to the different degrees of glory, I was not prepared to say that I believed it, and I had to wait. What did I do? I handed this over to the Lord in my feelings, and said I, “I will wait until the spirit of God manifests to me, for or against.” I did not judge the matter, I did not argue against it, not in the least. I never argued the least against anything Joseph proposed, but if I could not see or understand it, I handed it over to the Lord. This is my counsel to you, my brethren and sisters…

[prisonchaplain]

From the same sermon Joseph Smith gave about God "not always being God"...

"I want to reason more on the spirit of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit of man—on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man—the immortal part, because it had no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the housetops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself."

Notice, how Joseph Smith defined eternity. It has no beginning BECAUSE it has no end.

There is such a thing as that which has a beginning and no end. I believe a ray is such. How about: .___>

A line with a start but no end. That's how I understand we are. God created us out of nothing, and granted us immortal souls.

[Lakumi]

But where did God come from? Perhaps he came from some sort of beyond, we know the universe is finate, maybe he came here with a divine plan? I donno

[bytebear]

There is such a thing as that which has a beginning and no end. I believe a ray is such. How about: .___>

A line with a start but no end. That's how I understand we are. God created us out of nothing, and granted us immortal souls.

I don't know that I agree. A line segment has a beginning, but a line does not. And that is the difference in our theologies. We believe the nature of our being is eternal back and front.

Also, we become "one with God", hence we become God. God is a singular that describes a plural (like family). We become part of God (or part of the family). So, does God the Father have a father? Perhaps, but there is still only one God.

[bytebear]

But where did God come from? Perhaps he came from some sort of beyond, we know the universe is finate, maybe he came here with a divine plan? I donno

After a lecture on cosmology and the structure of the solar system, William James was accosted by a little old lady.

"Your theory that the sun is the centre of the solar system, and the earth is a ball which rotates around it has a very convincing ring to it, Mr. James, but it's wrong. I've got a better theory," said the little old lady.

"And what is that, madam?" Inquired James politely.

"That we live on a crust of earth which is on the back of a giant turtle,"

Not wishing to demolish this absurd little theory by bringing to bear the masses of scientific evidence he had at his command, James decided to gently dissuade his opponent by making her see some of the inadequacies of her position.

"If your theory is correct, madam," he asked, "what does this turtle stand on?"

"You're a very clever man, Mr. James, and that's a very good question," replied the little old lady, "but I have an answer to it. And it is this: The first turtle stands on the back of a second, far larger, turtle, who stands directly under him."

"But what does this second turtle stand on?" Persisted James patiently.

To this the littlle old lady crowed triumphantly. "It's no use, Mr. James---it's turtles all the way down."

—J. R. Ross, Constraints on Variables in Syntax 1967

Turtles all the way down - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Lakumi]

After a lecture on cosmology and the structure of the solar system, William James was accosted by a little old lady.

"Your theory that the sun is the centre of the solar system, and the earth is a ball which rotates around it has a very convincing ring to it, Mr. James, but it's wrong. I've got a better theory," said the little old lady.

"And what is that, madam?" Inquired James politely.

"That we live on a crust of earth which is on the back of a giant turtle,"

Not wishing to demolish this absurd little theory by bringing to bear the masses of scientific evidence he had at his command, James decided to gently dissuade his opponent by making her see some of the inadequacies of her position.

"If your theory is correct, madam," he asked, "what does this turtle stand on?"

"You're a very clever man, Mr. James, and that's a very good question," replied the little old lady, "but I have an answer to it. And it is this: The first turtle stands on the back of a second, far larger, turtle, who stands directly under him."

"But what does this second turtle stand on?" Persisted James patiently.

To this the littlle old lady crowed triumphantly. "It's no use, Mr. James---it's turtles all the way down."

—J. R. Ross, Constraints on Variables in Syntax 1967

Turtles all the way down - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

okay where do you think God came from?

[bytebear]

okay where do you think God came from?

There is no beginning. There just is.

[Lakumi]

There is no beginning. There just is.

Well there was a beginning to the universe, like there is a beginning of a star or a planet.

As things are born they then one day die.

It has to have begun somehow, by random chance or by God creating it, the universe began.

Like our sun, like our planet. They al were born and they all will die.

[andypg]

This is one of those deep areas of divergence with historic Christianity. I have some grasp on the LDS idea that we have an eternal intelligence. I'm not as clear on whether God has his God, and whether this God has his God (eternal progression with an eternity of Gods?). This very teaching has caused some LDS scholars to self-identify their theology as henotheistic (worship of one God, though there be more), rather than monotheistic (only one Supreme God has ever and will ever exist).

Considering I've only been LDS for a little over a month, I'm still learning. But when it comes to this, I am firmly on the side of a majority of Christians that God is the highest being that is the Creator, not created. I tend to look at Aquinas and his Five Proofs when it comes to this. He doesn't leave room for an infinite progression and I tend to agree.

I also have trinitarian leanings, I'm half LDS half mainline Christian on that so far.

Personally, I have no idea if this puts me in bad standing with the church, but it's what I believe.

[bytebear]

Well there was a beginning to the universe, like there is a beginning of a star or a planet.

As things are born they then one day die.

It has to have begun somehow, by random chance or by God creating it, the universe began.

Like our sun, like our planet. They al were born and they all will die.

But there are infinite planets, and dare I say infinite universes. Infinity has no beginning or end.

[bytebear]

Considering I've only been LDS for a little over a month, I'm still learning. But when it comes to this, I am firmly on the side of a majority of Christians that God is the highest being that is the Creator, not created. I tend to look at Aquinas and his Five Proofs when it comes to this. He doesn't leave room for an infinite progression and I tend to agree.

I also have trinitarian leanings, I'm half LDS half mainline Christian on that so far.

Personally, I have no idea if this puts me in bad standing with the church, but it's what I believe.

Doctrine and Covenants 9:8

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

[Lakumi]

But there are infinite planets, and dare I say infinite universes. Infinity has no beginning or end.

like not in this plain, because the plants around us, and ours, begin and do end

as does our universe

so God could have come from one of these infinites, a place incomprehensible to the human mind, and came here, to a place we can live and comprehend. Our universe isn't perfect, nor is our planet nor are we.

And I imagine wherever the Celestial Kingdom is, is perfect, and perhaps exists in that infinite, perfect place.

[Guest]

Considering I've only been LDS for a little over a month, I'm still learning. But when it comes to this, I am firmly on the side of a majority of Christians that God is the highest being that is the Creator, not created. .

That's my leaning as well, and for the record I'm a lifelong member and consider myself to be in good standing. This is one of many things I see as peripheral; it's not something that directly affects my salvation, so I'm not going to stress out over it. I'm not perfect in the essential stuff so I can't waste energy trying to nail down the small details.

[Finrock]

Good evening andypg. I hope you are doing well! :)

Considering I've only been LDS for a little over a month, I'm still learning. But when it comes to this, I am firmly on the side of a majority of Christians that God is the highest being that is the Creator, not created. I tend to look at Aquinas and his Five Proofs when it comes to this. He doesn't leave room for an infinite progression and I tend to agree.

I also have trinitarian leanings, I'm half LDS half mainline Christian on that so far.

Personally, I have no idea if this puts me in bad standing with the church, but it's what I believe.

My only advice to you and to anyone is to not lean on the understanding of Aquinas or any other philosopher. Ask God. Search the scriptures. Live the commandments. You can know through the Spirit what is true.

We almost have to reset our assumptions, traditions, and ideas that stem from the world. That includes any and all worldly ideas, no matter how seemingly benign. We must become as a child, with no assumptions, no preconceptions, a blank sleight. When we become as a child and put away all of our traditions and then lean on the Spirit for understanding, the scriptures will unfold before your eyes and you will understand the things as God wants you to understand. You will know what the actual truth is regarding the question of God and eternal progression. Through the Spirit you can know the truth of all things.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited October 3, 2013 by Finrock
Added last sentence.

[Lakumi]

Good evening andypg. I hope you are doing well! :)

My only advice to you and to anyone is to not lean on the understanding of Aquinas or any other philosopher. Ask God. Search the scriptures. Live the commandments. You can know through the Spirit what is true.

We almost have to reset our assumptions, traditions, and ideas that stem from the world. That includes any and all worldly ideas, no matter how seemingly benign. We must become as a child, with no assumptions, no preconceptions, a blank sleight. When we become as a child and put away all of our traditions and then lean on the Spirit for understanding, the scriptures will unfold before your eyes and you will understand the things as God wants you to understand. You will know what the actual truth is regarding the question of God and eternal progression.

Regards,

Finrock

oh as a child I assumed all sorts and didn't believe a thing. Mostly because I didn't understand as much and refused to be tricked.

[McLainDow]

I believe it was Lorenzo Snow who first said, “As*man*now is,*God*once was;*as God*is now*man*may be.”

It's my understanding of LDS theology that God was once a man in another planet or universe and became God only through obeying His god.

I have trouble accepting this. I mean, isn't God supposed to be THE Supreme Being? I always understood God as that of which nothing is higher. But if he was once a man, doesn't that mean there is someone or something greater than God? It also reduces Him to a creature, someone who was once made. Isn't God supposed to have no beginning and no end?

Is it wrong that I consider myself a somewhat faithful Mormon yet don't believe that God is an exalted man?

"As man now is CHRIST once was, as CHRIST now is man may be. I think this is a little different way of looking at the couplet that makes it easier to swallow.

[Guest]

Considering I've only been LDS for a little over a month, I'm still learning. But when it comes to this, I am firmly on the side of a majority of Christians that God is the highest being that is the Creator, not created. I tend to look at Aquinas and his Five Proofs when it comes to this. He doesn't leave room for an infinite progression and I tend to agree.

I also have trinitarian leanings, I'm half LDS half mainline Christian on that so far.

Personally, I have no idea if this puts me in bad standing with the church, but it's what I believe.

Andy, you really should start at the more basic concepts of Heavenly Father before delving into deeper extrapolations of gospel principles. You've only been a member a month. Line upon line, precept upon precept.

Not everything that Joseph Smith or any of the past prophets said are included in LDS cannon. The Journal of Discourses, for example, is not included and, therefore, is non-scriptural. Therefore, it is just like any other book - you may derive nuggets of information or inspiration from it but you can't just assume your interpretation of what was said in those discourses is true. You have to study each nugget and bounce it against LDS cannon to determine if it is true. And not believing that the discourses in the Journal of Discourses that are not touched on in LDS standard works is true does not put you in bad standing with the Church.

The basic gospel principle that is LDS doctrine is this: God is eternal. Man's intelligence is also eternal.

Now, I'm going to link to you the first Chapter of the Gospel Principles Manual (if you're not attending this class in Sunday School, you might want to check it out) which is all about Heavenly Father - a God in the Godhead:

Gospel Principles Chapter 1: Our Father in Heaven

And here are some excerpts from that chapter:

God is the Supreme and Absolute Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is “the Great Parent of the universe,” and He “looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 39).

Because we are made in His image (see Moses 2:26; 6:9), we know that our bodies are like His body. His eternal spirit is housed in a tangible body of flesh and bones (see D&C 130:22). God’s body, however, is perfected and glorified, with a glory beyond all description.

All good things come from God. Everything that He does is to help His children become like Him. He has said, “Behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

Start from there, ponder and pray, and then we can add to it.

Edited October 3, 2013 by anatess

[NeuroTypical]

Personally, I have no idea if this puts me in bad standing with the church, but it's what I believe.

Bad standing? For yearning after the truth and being invested in holding the right beliefs? Andy, be welcome in church. This is not a church of We-Say-So, this is a church of here's what we have to offer, we invite you to search/ponder/pray and follow Christ.

I'd suggest being very frank and open with your bishop on where you are and where you're heading. I mean, if your bishop wants to extend a calling to teach sunday school, he'd probably be interested in hearing what you'd want to teach first.

But as for being in bad standing because you're not fully on board with our church teaches? I mean, yes, there's a big difference between trinity and godhead. But I don't see us kicking you out any time soon unless you start trying to convert mormons to the church of andypg.

[FunkyTown]

I tend to side with President Hinckley on this particular issue. When asked about it in Time Magazine in 1997, his response was:

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.

A: Yeah

Q: …about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

I'm going to trust the prophet on this particular statement, and I'm going to trust God at the end of time when he explains it.

[Guest]

Now, as far as what the Church teaches about God having been once a man... it is not taught. It is not doctrine. It is merely a reasoned extrapolation of the teaching on Eternal Progression and may or may not be true.

Basically, the Church has not received any revelation pertaining to God's Eternal Progression so we don't know what it is. So you are free to make your own reasoned extrapolation on what that eternal progression may be just as long as you know that it is non-doctrinal, so you can't teach it to someone and say that's what LDS believe. A lot of Thomas Acquinas' work is reasoned extrapolations so you may base your extrapolations from those as long as you know the difference on what is LDS doctrine and what is your own (or Aquinas') reasoned beliefs.

What the Church teaches is that man is eternally progressing. That is doctrine. Eternal Progression teaches that Man may become God. Remember, in LDS Theology, God is a singular that denotes a plural. Like Family. It does not designate a different substance as what Trinitarians teach.

Man becoming God does not make Man equal to God just like your mortal Father remains your Father regardless of whether you yourself become a Father to your own children. Our Heavenly Father is our Father and we worship Him just like how we are to worship Him now throughout the eternities even if we do receive the highest of exaltations and become one with God. Similarly, Jesus Christ is our Savior and He remains our Savior from now throughout the eternities even if we become one with God.

Hope this helps.

Edited October 3, 2013 by anatess