"anti" Propoganda

[Dr T]

When posting my last post, I knew it was simplistic. I've already described how I see God being bound in certain ways. He is bound by His nature (in my opinion). I meant that he does not need to "do" something to become better/greater/more x.

[Guest Malcolm]

Iggy:

Thank you much for your clarity on that point. We as LDS must be extremely careful with what and how we state views, feelings and opinions, which well intended as they may be are not declare doctrines of the church. It is better to admit ignorance than to blurb something that may be misconstrue and misrepresented later.

Thank you again.

Malcolm

[Dr T]

Hi Ram,

You said "God must be forever progressing in works, otherwise he would cease to be God."

My question would be "Why?"

[JonboySquarepants]

pushka, you said:

"Here is where non LDS are confused regarding LDS doctrine of the nature of God.

You state here that God was once a man and went thru his mortal experience as we are doing, and that he married and fathered our spirits in Heaven..."

i didn't say that. j. smith did. that's what the lds church believes. "as man is, God once was; as God is, man may become." it's along those lines. lds believe God was once a man. i'm not referring to jesus, and neither was j. smith. it's referring to God the Father. in this case, it's not me who is confused. you either read something that someone wrote that was a lie, of you were misled with false information, or you just didn't understand the explanation. i, and i'm sure a lot of members on this board, can give you references for j. smith and other prophets teaching God the Father was not always a God. just let me know if you're interested. :)

[pushka]

Hi Jonboy..when I said 'You stated' I meant that those were some of the words used in your post, I do understand that it was Joseph Smith who 1st announced this piece of doctrine to the LDS church members. Yes, it was somebody else on the forum who stated that when LDS referred to God having been mortal, they were actually meaning that he became mortal when Jesus was born as a mortal..if anyone else can explain this to me, if I've misinterpreted it, then please do so.

I was always led to believe the explanation that you gave, that God the Father had been mortal then exalted to his current state as God..not the above explanation.

My question still stands regarding heavenly mother however, it is supposed that she was a mortal too, who God the Father met during his mortality, who then, like himself, was exalted and so became the mother of us all? I suppose if that is the case, it begs the question of who gave birth to all the other mortals that were around when she and God the Father were mortals?

[a-train]

Here is where non LDS are confused regarding LDS doctrine of the nature of God.

You state here that God was once a man and went thru his mortal experience as we are doing, and that he married and fathered our spirits in Heaven...

I have heard God's mortality explained by LDS on this forum as being the time when Jesus took on the mortal frame...so that would be after the time that God fathered His and all of our spirits..

So how could God have been mortal and then died, married a wife and fathered all of us, including Jesus, before he became mortal as Jesus?

This is very confusing...Does that also infer that our heavenly mother was a mortal before she married God and conceived our spirits?

Ahh. OK, The Father endured mortality and rose to immortality at some time before our spiritual birth. We do not know when or where this occured or any details of the event. After His taking on of immortality and celestialization, He bore the spirits of all men. Jesus was the Firstborn of all those spirits. Satan and those that fell with him are also spirit children of the Father.

Jesus, like His Father did before Him, endured the temporal human condition. Two seperate Beings endured that at two seperate times and in two seperate places. The Father first, then later, His Firstborn.

Does that clear this up?

-a-train

[pushka]

Thanks for the explanation a-train..it confirms what I'd always been led to believe was the LDS take on this...I suppose this is where most non-LDS start to ponder on the lineage of God the Father..such as who was His Father? Who was His Grandfather? Did they also take on the Mortal form and become exalted to their positions of God? Did they also have Heavenly Mothers, and were they married during their mortality then become exalted...this goes on and on, back in time to who really was the 1st God The Father..

I don't ask this to be testy or anything, it is a genuine thought that comes to mind..and I suppose it borders on Atheistic beliefs too...

[Dr T]

The idea that God was once a creature, in my mind, devalues his essence for me. That is making a creator a creation (not like a human father once being a son and not like Jesus taking on humanity for those that are wondering about those false examples).

[WillowTheWhisp]

Thanks for the explanation a-train..it confirms what I'd always been led to believe was the LDS take on this...I suppose this is where most non-LDS start to ponder on the lineage of God the Father..such as who was His Father? Who was His Grandfather? Did they also take on the Mortal form and become exalted to their positions of God? Did they also have Heavenly Mothers, and were they married during their mortality then become exalted...this goes on and on, back in time to who really was the 1st God The Father..

I don't ask this to be testy or anything, it is a genuine thought that comes to mind..and I suppose it borders on Atheistic beliefs too...

These are the sort of thoughts that make my brain go funny. I think there are some things we are just not capable of understanding.

Take time for instance. We can only think of time as having a beginning and and end because everything we do, including our mortal lives, has a beginning and an end - but if time had a beginning when did it start? Even more confusing than that - if it started then what happened before it started in order to cause it to start and if there was something before the start then how could the start have been the beginning?

Or how about space? We can cope with our solar system and knowing where that is, we can even look at galaxies and see where they are in space in relation to each other - but go beyond that and start wondering how big the universe is and if it has and end ..... then if it does have an end what exists beyond that and where does that end?

It's just impossible for us to get our brains round that because we can't think of infinity. What's the definition of parallel lines? Lines which are equidistant forever? Or lines which meet at infinity? AND How do we know the difference?

I do believe that one day we will be able to understand but not in this mortal life.

An old schoolfriend of mine and I used to speculate on these and other unanswerable questions until we quite literally gave ourselves headaches.

[pushka]

LOL Willow..I know just how you felt!! Pondering the Universe, life and all is a real headache. I suppose the thing I'm beginning to accept about all religions, is that nobody has all the answers to what the Roman Catholics refer to as 'mysteries', so I'm able to just look at some stuff superficially in order to not give myself that headache anymore...thanks for your perspective on it. :)

[Shell72]

Thanks for the explanation a-train..it confirms what I'd always been led to believe was the LDS take on this...I suppose this is where most non-LDS start to ponder on the lineage of God the Father..such as who was His Father? Who was His Grandfather? Did they also take on the Mortal form and become exalted to their positions of God? Did they also have Heavenly Mothers, and were they married during their mortality then become exalted...this goes on and on, back in time to who really was the 1st God The Father..

I don't ask this to be testy or anything, it is a genuine thought that comes to mind..and I suppose it borders on Atheistic beliefs too...

I am non-LDS and I have never pondered the lineage of God the Father. The Bible states that God is, always was, and always will be - and has never made mention of a Heavenly mother so I have not even thought of entering that into the equation.

"Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever."

Hebrews 7:3

[WillowTheWhisp]

But that's referring to Melchizedek and he was a human being so must surely have had both father and mother so it has to be figurative.

[pushka]

I am non-LDS and I have never pondered the lineage of God the Father. The Bible states that God is, always was, and always will be - and has never made mention of a Heavenly mother so I have not even thought of entering that into the equation.

"Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever."

Hebrews 7:3

Hi Shell72, I was referring to the fact that when non-LDS are faced with the LDS notion of God having been mortal and exalted, and having been born of Heavenly parents himself, that is where non-LDS start to ask those questions..of course, without knowledge of the LDS beliefs in this matter, a non-LDS person has no reason to ask those questions if they believe that God has always existed as an entity without having been born..

But that's referring to Melchizedek and he was a human being so must surely have had both father and mother so it has to be figurative. [/Qoute]

Willow, can you explain this a little more, I presume you are commenting on the quote from Hebrews.

Sorry I can't get the quotation marks to work properly for the 2nd quote!!!

[ztodd]

You spelled quote wrong in the [/Qoute]. :)

[rameumptom]

Hi Ram,

You said "God must be forever progressing in works, otherwise he would cease to be God."

My question would be "Why?"

Because that is part and parcel of being God. Other terms we give to him are Creator and Father, each denoting a specific responsibility or task that describes who and what He is. The LDS view of God requires that he creates spirit children to populate worlds and grow up to become like He is. It is HIS work and glory to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39). Without such, he would have neither work nor glory, and while he would have powers, they would be ineffective powers, since he would not be using them.

If God were to cease to progress in his works, he would cease to be God, as the key point is he is God because of not only what he is able to do, but what he Actually does. Jesus is worshiped, not because he had the ability to atone and resurrect, but because he ACTUALLY atones and resurrects each of us. If the innate powers are not used, then they are wasted and do not lead to God's work and glory being accomplished.

[Dr T]

Thank you for your thoughts Rameumpton. I believe his power come from "who He is" not "what He has to do." The view that he has to "progress" or he "ceases to be God" is a description of a god that I do not believe in. God only has to be to be God. He is who he is because of his essence not based on his work. I do not believe he gets better in any way.

[rameumptom]

I am non-LDS and I have never pondered the lineage of God the Father. The Bible states that God is, always was, and always will be - and has never made mention of a Heavenly mother so I have not even thought of entering that into the equation.

"Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever."

Hebrews 7:3

This references Melchizedek, or rather the Melchizedek priesthood, which the ancient king held, and which Jesus also was ordained to.

In LDS teaching God always is, was and will be God, as concerning us. The key to it is the term Godhead. There has always been a Godhead, containing Gods that ensure the process for each of us is accomplished.

Joseph Smith, in the King Follett discourse in 1842, stated that God was once man. He does not specify whether he referred to God the Son, or God the Father. Most members believe it applies to both. They believe that God the Father was once a spirit child of His Heavenly Parents, and was sent to an earth to learn to grow up to be like them. This, however, is not a doctrine, or at least not a core doctrine. There really is little taught on this topic, and therefore quickly devolves into speculation. Unfortunately, it is often the speculation that the anti-Mormons "quote" as to what we supposedly believe on the topic. We believe that Jesus also came to earth to obtain a body and perform a work prior to receiving full godhood. Had he failed in his earthly mission as Savior, he would have not become God in the eternities, because he would have given in to Satan, and in doing so would not have been the perfect sacrifice required to save us and himself from death.

Christ and the Holy Ghost were/are members of the Godhead, even before receiving physical bodies and resurrection. Obviously, there is a level of Godhood that can be achieved in the spirit world. This is also suggested in Abraham 3, where Abraham sees many of the righteous and elect spirits standing around God, and the Lord tells him that Abraham was one of the chosen ones before birth. This suggests that many of the righteous may have achieved a form of "junior godhood" prior to coming to Earth. What does it mean to qualify for godhood? It means we grow up to be like Heavenly Father, that we are joint-heirs with Christ, that we can sit on His throne and assist to rule the Lord's creations, and receive "all that the Father hath."

We do believe in a Heavenly Mother. If our understanding from the King Follett discourse is correct, then she would have also been a mortal at one time, following in the steps of her Heavenly parents. We know almost nothing about her, though Biblical scholars will tell you that ancient Hebrews did believe in God's consort anciently. This belief fell out of favor after 600 BC and the destruction of the First temple, as Judaism focused on one sole God, rather than the pantheon or divine council they believed in prior to that time.

The earliest Semitic and Hebrew belief taught of a divine council. Elohim/El/El Elyon was the head of this divine council. He had 70 sons in the council that he divided the world to. We see this division among the sons of Noah as well, each given a national god from the divine council. Israel was given Yahweh/Jehovah/Jesus, the preeminent son in the divine council, as their God. Why do I mention Jesus? Because scholar Margaret Barker explains in the "Great Angel" that the early Christians saw Yahweh and Jesus as the same Great Angel/Messiah. Over time, Yahweh takes over the rule from the incompetent gods on the council, and in the Bible we see him evolve from a tribal God, to a God that has influence and power in other nations, and finally over all the world.

This council has members on it that are not necessarily nice gods. Some attempt to battle over sovereignty of other nations, challenging one another. We see this in Job 1, where Satan and other sons of the divine Council go up to challenge Yahweh for Israel. Isaiah 14 tells us that Lucifer, both the Babylonian king and Satan, sought power over God's (Yahweh's) throne, and was cast down for it. Where Yahweh states that he is the only god and there is no god before him - he is referring to the fall of one of the other gods in Canaan that was replaced by Baal. Yahweh always was and always will be the God of Israel - he wasn't a supplanter as Baal was, nor was he removed from power as other gods on the divine council were.

Margaret Barker, a British Methodist preacher and Old Testament scholar has written extensively on the First Temple period and how a belief in Mother in Heaven was a part of the temple rite. In 2005 the Library of Congress had a Symposium on Joseph Smith and she was one of the featured speakers. When she wrote her first book, "The Great Angel", she knew nothing about Mormonism, but suddenly started receiving letters and emails from Mormon scholars that read her book. Her books since have also sparked a lot of interest in Mormon circles, as it shows that Mormonism does restore many plain and precious things that were lost anciently. Anyway, she discussed at the symposium the time period of 600 BC, when Lehi left Jerusalem. The First Temple had rites that were not included in the 2nd Temple, having been removed due to the Josian Reforms (635 BC). She noted that one of the ancient teachings was of Wisdom, the Goddess of Knowledge and Fertility was long attached as the consort of Elohim, and later Yahweh. She was often called Asherah, and was symbolized by the World Tree or Tree of Life. So, when Nephi sees the vision of the Tree of Life (1 Nephi 11-15), he sees the tree and immediately is shown the virgin Mary and her giving birth to Jesus. Clearly, this shows Mary as the mother of God/Tree of Life, and Jesus as the fruit of the tree, also explained as the "love of God" in Nephi's vision.

Lots of information, but you can see from it how many ideas about God the Father, Heavenly Mother, and Jesus were lost over the centuries and needed to be restored.

[rameumptom]

And that is a difference that a Trinitarian would have from the LDS view of the Godhead. While the Trinitarian belief has God as impassable and untouched, the LDS Godhead is totally integrated emotionally and intellectually with their creations. When God destroyed the world by Flood, Enoch saw God weep. When the resurrected Jesus visits the Nephites, he weeps for the wicked in the world, and then weeps because the Nephites have exercised faith and repentance. He also wept at Nicodemus' tomb.

If God is as the Trinitarians believe, without passions or parts, then God only has to be, because we are not an important item to Him. But, if He is fully in touch with His Creations and is passable, then we become His work and glory, and for Him to remain God requires Him to take an active role.

[Dr T]

Your thought process on that appears to be off sir. Why would it follow in the Trinitarian view that God does not care and think we are not important. God the Father gave up his only Son because he cared. He sees value in us. It is because of God that we are reconciled to Him. God does care, it is clear. Maybe I'm missing what you are saying.

[rameumptom]

Thank you for your thoughts Rameumpton. I believe his power come from "who He is" not "what He has to do." The view that he has to "progress" or he "ceases to be God" is a description of a god that I do not believe in. God only has to be to be God. He is who he is because of his essence not based on his work. I do not believe he gets better in any way.

I agree that God cares. But in the strict Trinitarian view that he is impassable, he cannot care for us. He is untouched by us, according to St Augustine. Little children that are not baptized, burn in hell, according to St Augustine. For God to remain pure essence, He cannot be touched by anything impure.

Now, most Trinitarian Christians do not ascribe to a strict Trinitarian view. The Roman Catholics invented limbo in order to save unbaptized little children from Augustine's hell, for example. Trinitarian creeds establish that God does not have body, parts or passions. "God is love" and "God so loved the world..." make little sense for a God with no passion.

Still, there are many conflicting issues between what the Bible teaches and strict Trinitarianism. Most of the Old and New Testament teaches that God is man-like (anthropomorphic). Moses talks to God face to face, like a friend. Moses sees God's back and body parts. God walks through the Garden of Eden. God becomes angry or jealous or loves. Isaiah sees God sitting on His throne. Jesus prays "not my will, but thine be done", suggesting that Father and Son have separate wills (which would not be possible if they were the same Being). The martyr Stephen sees God on his throne with Jesus on his right hand. I could go on with dozens of examples more. Yet Trinitarianism has adopted a Hellenistic view of God, where there is only one God and he is untouchable and impassable and incapable of anything human-like: whether it is body, parts or passions.

Meanwhile, the LDS view does fit in well with the Biblical teachings of God's person and personality, as taught by the ancient apostles and prophets, though I admit that it does not fit in with the creeds that were established later.

[rameumptom]

Quote (Originally by JonboySquarepants)---

why wold they do that? aren't lds taught that God is married? that God once was a man and went through his mortal experience just as we are doing, that he married, and fathered our spirits in heaven? why would you be chastised for commenting on a doctrine in which they believe?

---End Quote---

Here is where non LDS are confused regarding LDS doctrine of the nature of God.

You state here that God was once a man and went thru his mortal experience as we are doing, and that he married and fathered our spirits in Heaven...

I have heard God's mortality explained by LDS on this forum as being the time when Jesus took on the mortal frame...so that would be after the time that God fathered His and all of our spirits..

So how could God have been mortal and then died, married a wife and fathered all of us, including Jesus, before he became mortal as Jesus?

This is very confusing...

The concept that many LDS believe, is that God the Father grew up as a spirit child of his own Heavenly parents, were sent to a world to grow up and experience mortal life. He then became a God and had his own spirit children, created a world for us and sent us down to this planet for our own mortal experience.

So, God the Father, if this concept is correctly understood (since Joseph spoke very little on it, and it is understood differently by different members), was on an earth like ours, prior to any of us or Jesus being formed. Once he had also become a God, Heavenly Father then created Jesus and us, and sent us to a new earth that was created for us.

I hope that reduces the confusion.

[Dr T]

I'd agree that God is beyond humanity in every way. I do not know how a child's death affect their afterlife. I've heard of the "age of accountability" but I am not God. You brought up a lot of examples that fit without problem with the Trinity. It is the understanding or misunderstanding that is important in each of them. I still see no difficulty holding the Trinitarian view of God being caring and caring for us. God is love and God did love the world. Maybe you can flesh out "having no passions" for me. Not having a body does not eliminate love/care for His creation. We can cover the other examples as we go. Thank you

[WillowTheWhisp]

I just feel like throwing a spanner in the works here and posing a question that none of us know the answer to but it's just an interesting thought.

We (LDS) know that all humankind has the same Father in Heaven, but maybe we don't all have the same mother. Plural marriages exist in the Bible, existed in the early years of the church so maybe they exist in Heaven too.

[Shell72]

Where in the Bible does it state that we have a heavenly mother?

I'm getting completely lost here..

[rameumptom]

I'd agree that God is beyond humanity in every way. I do not know how a child's death affect their afterlife. I've heard of the "age of accountability" but I am not God. You brought up a lot of examples that fit without problem with the Trinity. It is the understanding or misunderstanding that is important in each of them. I still see no difficulty holding the Trinitarian view of God being caring and caring for us. God is love and God did love the world. Maybe you can flesh out "having no passions" for me. Not having a body does not eliminate love/care for His creation. We can cover the other examples as we go. Thank you

That's one of the problems with the definitions used for the Trinity. They are meant to not make any sense, because God is a mystery and not to be known. How a being can have 3 essences/persons does not make sense, and can only be described as a mystery. Most Trinitarians, in fact, use examples that do not reflect Trinitarianism, but modalism (which St Augustine condemned as heresy). You have heard the examples of 3 men in a car, three parts of one egg, etc. Each of these describes modalism, not Trinitarianism. To be accurate, one would have to express one person in three separate cars, or one yolk in three different eggs. That doesn't make any logical sense, hence God is unknowable in the Trinitarian creeds. Not to mention that most "Trinitarians" are actually heretics in how they view the Trinity!

How can one be described not having passions, yet filled with love? Once again, we have the great mystery of the Trinity. God has no passion, yet God is love. For those who wish to worship an undefinable mystery, the Trinity is perfect.

I believe what Jesus taught in John 17:3, that eternal life is to KNOW God the Father and Jesus Christ, whom God sent. Seems to me that if I must know him to have Eternal Life, then he must be knowable. Otherwise, God has placed us in a major and dismal Catch 22. The LDS view of the Godhead teaches that God is a glorified person, and that the Father and Son are separate beings, who are one in all relational and logical things. He has a body, similar to mine, but glorified. He has passions, as I do. He lives by the laws He commands me to follow. When I suffer, he feels compassion for me. When the scriptures tell me that "God is love" and "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son...", I understand what it means - for I understand what it means to sacrifice for others, and to love one's own children. God, while not fully understood by our weak mortal minds, is not mysterious nor unknowable.

So, since we are discussing your Trinitarian views, and they do not seem to equate exactly with the teachings in the creeds, would you explain how you view the Trinity, and perhaps we can continue this discussion based upon your own definition? It may be that many of your views fall just as close, if not closer, to the LDS beliefs in a Godhead as in the Trinity?