LDS conception of God and apologetics

[Dorian]

A lot of people are probably familiar with the process of putting forward rational philosophical arguments for the existence of God. For example here's a link to the popular 'argument from contingency':

Most of these arguments seem to utilise a few common principles; such as the necessity of having a "first cause" that always was and always will be in order to avoid an infinite regress of causes, or the order and design in the universe pointing towards a designer behind it.

However the LDS conception of God seems to contradict a number of those principles (God isn't eternally God, God didn't create the world ex nihilo, God isn't transcendent spirit, etc). For example the argument given in the video above cannot be applied to the Mormon God because He too is just one contingent being in a long chain of causes. So I was wondering if Mormons put forward their own arguments for the existence of God in the same way that Protestant and Catholic Christians do?

Edited January 30, 2014 by Dorian

[The Folk Prophet]

Yes and no.

I'll start with the no.

Mormons put forth the final argument for the existence of God in one way and only one. The witness of the Spirit. We believe God exists because He has communicated with us through His Spirit.

Yes, however, we do also utilize logical, rationale arguments to support the existence of God. This, however, is a futile way to prove something that can only be known through faith. We understand this. Not all Mormons agree on all of the logical points either, so you will get conflicting answers on that end. But none of them matter, because they are, ultimately, irrelevant. The logic of man is weak and fallible. Man can only ever truly know God through the Holy Spirit.

[bytebear]

Logic will bring us only so far, but ultimately we seek a personal witness of God's existence. Logic leads us to truth, but truth is confirmed directly from God through His spirit. It's interesting, because we Mormons don't use philosophical arguments as much as other faiths. We emphasize prayer and a personal witness over logic. Not that logic isn't there, but the church, the gospel, the plan of salvation, the events of the restoration, the events and lessons of the scriptures are logical only as a side effect that they came from God. Logic is a side effect of truth, not a proof.

That said, there are lots of books out there. I would peruse DeseretBook.com.

[Traveler]

I will again give my thought on this subject as I have on this forum many times before. I believe that LDS have a great advantage for two reasons - we have additional revelation and we also have the gift of the Holy Ghost that gives witness to all truth.

The First Principle I will point out that anything that can happen can be made to happen once the parameters of occurrence are understood. Not only can intelligence be a cause - intelligent engineering cause can be more reliable, exact and in essence "better" and more economical. If a random chance occurrence can bring about any possibility - the continuance and replication of chance is far less likely than intelligent input is added to the "mix" causing constancy. Note the logical arguments for Occam's Razor.

The Second Principle of evolution has already been proven to be a scientific fact. That is, that evolution can and will produce higher intelligence and that higher intelligence is more likely to replicate and evolve even higher intelligence. Once evolution reaches a point of intelligent manipulation of evolution we in essence prove G-d.

Thus we have condition that even if all that has evolved could have evolved without a G-d by some random chance; the fact that intelligent species have evolved intelligence capable of altering evolution proves that intelligence is possible, that is capable of replicating (reverse engineering) creation. Thus by the very arguments it is argued that all that is; could have evolved without a G-d, proves that a G-d could eventually evolve.

Note that this logical construct is unique to LDS theology and the idea that man possesses the possibility of G-d; in the same manner a seed has the power to replicate that life that generated it. Which in both science and religion define "Eternal Life".

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

A lot of people are probably familiar with the process of putting forward rational philosophical arguments for the existence of God. For example here's a link to the popular 'argument from contingency':

Most of these arguments seem to utilise a few common principles; such as the necessity of having a "first cause" that always was and always will be in order to avoid an infinite regress of causes, or the order and design in the universe pointing towards a designer behind it.

However the LDS conception of God seems to contradict a number of those principles (God isn't eternally God, God didn't create the world ex nihilo, God isn't transcendent spirit, etc). For example the argument given in the video above cannot be applied to the Mormon God because He too is just one contingent being in a long chain of causes. So I was wondering if Mormons put forward their own arguments for the existence of God in the same way that Protestant and Catholic Christians do?

There is no need to really. Spiritual things are understood spiritually. That doesn't mean we can't talk about it but I wouldn't ponder these things with the goal to prove the existence of God. "Seeking a sign" is a sure way to not find one or at least the right one.

[Traveler]

There is no need to really. Spiritual things are understood spiritually. That doesn't mean we can't talk about it but I wouldn't ponder these things with the goal to prove the existence of God. "Seeking a sign" is a sure way to not find one or at least the right one.

Matt 7:7 ¶Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

Luke 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

The Traveler

[Blackmarch]

A lot of people are probably familiar with the process of putting forward rational philosophical arguments for the existence of God. For example here's a link to the popular 'argument from contingency':

Most of these arguments seem to utilise a few common principles; such as the necessity of having a "first cause" that always was and always will be in order to avoid an infinite regress of causes, or the order and design in the universe pointing towards a designer behind it.

However the LDS conception of God seems to contradict a number of those principles (God isn't eternally God, God didn't create the world ex nihilo, God isn't transcendent spirit, etc). For example the argument given in the video above cannot be applied to the Mormon God because He too is just one contingent being in a long chain of causes. So I was wondering if Mormons put forward their own arguments for the existence of God in the same way that Protestant and Catholic Christians do?

My concept of a god is a being that has knowledge, knows from right and wrong and has the ability to act upon those.

[Crash]

However the LDS conception of God seems to contradict a number of those principles (God isn't eternally God, God didn't create the world ex nihilo, God isn't transcendent spirit, etc). For example the argument given in the video above cannot be applied to the Mormon God because He too is just one contingent being in a long chain of causes. So I was wondering if Mormons put forward their own arguments for the existence of God in the same way that Protestant and Catholic Christians do?

What LDS teaching says that God is not eternally God? All scriptures cite that God is without beginning of days or end of years. He is eternal.

No, we do not believe God created the earth out of nothing. All creation follows the same pattern. Science has revealed the events that are necessary to create stars and planets. Earth is no different. That God organized the matter and created the world through His Word is what the church teaches.

We believe God, or Jesus, to be a resurrected being of flesh and bone as witnessed by his disciples after he had risen. Resurrection is the joining of the body with the spirit after death but in a perfect state never to be separated again.

There is no such thing as the Mormon God. We do not worship a different Jesus Christ or a different God. Our understanding of Christ may be different but He is the same God of this earth. By Him and through Him the earth was made. He died so that we may live, conditional upon our repentance and obedience to His commandments.

Christ asked Peter if he knew who He was and Peter said that He was the Christ, the son of the Living God. Christ replied that no man had taught Peter that he was the son of God except God the Father as given through the Holy Ghost. So, as has been expressed already, only God the Father, through the spirit of the Holy Ghost, can anyone come to know that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of the world, the son of the Living God.

[Dorian]

What LDS teaching says that God is not eternally God? All scriptures cite that God is without beginning of days or end of years. He is eternal.

My understanding is that LDS belief is that God the Father is a resurrected man who attained Godhood from His own Heavenly Father. If God was once mortal and then attained Godhood then that means He isn't eternally God (even if you believe He existed eternally as an intelligence, but that doesn't make Him much different to you or me). Isn't this the doctrine expressed in the King Follett discourse and the Snow couplet?

Maybe I've got it wrong, but I've seen it expressed numerous times on this forum and by other Mormons.

There is no such thing as the Mormon God. We do not worship a different Jesus Christ or a different God. Our understanding of Christ may be different but He is the same God of this earth. By Him and through Him the earth was made. He died so that we may live, conditional upon our repentance and obedience to His commandments.

My use of the term "Mormon God" was only meant to distinguish between the conception the LDS church has of Who God is and what mainstream Christianity believe Him to be. For example:

- Mainstream Christianity teaches God has always been and will always be, there was never a time when He was not God. LDS believe He attained Godhood at some point in time in another world.

- Mainstream Christianity teaches that God is a trinity of three persons sharing in the same divine substance whereas LDS teaches the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three different, independent beings united in one Godhead. I think you also believe that the Son is subject to God the Father whereas we believe Him to be co-equal with the Father. Perhaps this is why you don't pray directly to Jesus, whereas most other Christians do?

- LDS believe that God the Father is a physical being and that His spirit is localised within His body whereas mainstream Christianity believe God is immaterial and omnipresent.

My use of the term Mormon God was just a way of differentiating between these rather different conceptions of Who God is, no offence was intended and I hope the members here understood that :)

Edited February 3, 2014 by Dorian

[Seminarysnoozer]

Matt 7:7 ¶Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

Luke 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

The Traveler

Well, lets see, would you rather be in the Korihor, anti-Christ camp or the man of God, Alma camp?

The OP of this thread has been argued in scripture and shows us the correct response to that question; Alma 30: " 35 Then why sayest thou that we preach unto this people to get gain, when thou, of thyself, knowest that we receive no gain? And now, believest thou that we deceive this people, that causes such joy in their hearts?

36 And Korihor answered him, Yea.

37 And then Alma said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God?

38 And he answered, Nay.

39 Now Alma said unto him: Will ye deny again that there is a God, and also deny the Christ? For behold, I say unto you, I know there is a God, and also that Christ shall come.

40 And now what evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only.

41 But, behold, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true; and ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true; and will ye deny them? Believest thou that these things are true?

42 Behold, I know that thou believest, but thou art possessed with a lying spirit, and ye have put off the Spirit of God that it may have no place in you; but the devil has power over you, and he doth carry you about, working devices that he may destroy the children of God.

43 And now Korihor said unto Alma: If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words.

44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

45 And yet do ye go about, leading away the hearts of this people, testifying unto them there is no God? And yet will ye deny against all these witnesses? And he said: Yea, I will deny, except ye shall show me a sign.

46 And now it came to pass that Alma said unto him: Behold, I am grieved because of the hardness of your heart, yea, that ye will still resist the spirit of the truth, that thy soul may be destroyed."

We all come to this Earth with a testimony of God, Christ and the plan of salvation, we all passed the first estate test. The only "sign" needed is to seek in self and to not deny the Spirit of God. Asking for something more is "tempting God". You know that is what I was referring to, asking for something outside of one's own testimony and the witnesses given in scriptures, prophets etc. as that was the OP. To lie to one self about one's own testimony, to deny the testimony within and then ask for some other proof is the Korihor method. To listen to the Spirit of God and seek spiritual confirmation is the Alma method. And that is what I said in my post that you are trying to turn into something else. "Seeking a sign" is not the same thing as "seek" or "ask". You know that, I know that and I am not sure why you are trying to twist it into something else.

"Prove all things" is in relation to our proving to God that we are worthy. It is not what we are talking about here. "Prove all things" is explained in 1 John 4; " 1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them."

6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."

This is the thing that we are to "prove" whether it is one that confesses there is a Christ versus those that deny Christ (the ones that speak of the world and the world hears them). i.e. - we don't need to speak of the world and use language that the world hears. Verse 6 is how one "proves all things" coupled with holding fast to the spirit of God as the scripture you gave states.

[Crash]

Dorian, no offense taken. I will admit getting frustrated when someone says that we believe in a different Jesus Christ or God but I did not get offended by anything you said. It is a good discussion.

My understanding is that LDS belief is that God the Father is a resurrected man who attained Godhood from His own Heavenly Father. If God was once mortal and then attained Godhood then that means He isn't eternally God (even if you believe He existed eternally as an intelligence, but that doesn't make Him much different to you or me). Isn't this the doctrine expressed in the King Follett discourse and the Snow couplet?

Maybe I've got it wrong, but I've seen it expressed numerous times on this forum and by other Mormons...

- Mainstream Christianity teaches God has always been and will always be, there was never a time when He was not God. LDS believe He attained Godhood at some point in time in another world.

- LDS believe that God the Father is a physical being and that His spirit is localised within His body whereas mainstream Christianity believe God is immaterial and omnipresent.

You are not wrong. As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become. This doctrine has more meaning behind it, though.

I would not lump mainstream Christianity into believing exactly one thing but I would agree that many do believe that. The concept of time is an earthly concept only. For example, the earth took millions of years to form, and the Bible does not say it took 6 days. The KJV, which is the version used by the LDS church, says that God called it the first day, second day, etc. It does not say that it was 24 hours by our accounting. With that in mind, when I said that God was without beginning of days or end of years, only humanity gauges its time, so that statement is true. Furthermore, to all of humankind He is God. He created us and is our father, and He will always be worshipped by us as God forever.

On the principle of resurrection, the LDS church teaches that in order to be perfect God the Father does have a spirit in conjunction with a body of flesh and bone. The church teaches that in order for us to reach perfection ourselves, as commanded by Jesus Christ (Be ye therefore perfect even as my Father in heaven is perfect), it is not just about following His commandments but also having a physical body with which we will be resurrected with after the day of judgement. This is at the root of His plan of salvation, and as a side note why the church is vehemently against abortion because it denies the spirit children of our Heavenly Father the right to live on earth as physical beings.

We believe that the God of the Old Testament, Jehovah, is Jesus Christ, the literal son of God the Father.

The Spirit of God is a term the church uses to reference the Holy Ghost, who does not have a body of flesh and bone, otherwise he would not be able to dwell within us. The Godhead is one in that all three have the exact same goal, mission, desire, etc. If a group of people unite as one that does not mean they all move into one physical body. It means their purpose is the same. It's the same concept with the Godhead.

My use of the term "Mormon God" was only meant to distinguish between the conception the LDS church has of Who God is and what mainstream Christianity believe Him to be. For example:

- Mainstream Christianity teaches that God is a trinity of three persons sharing in the same divine substance whereas LDS teaches the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three different, independent beings united in one Godhead. I think you also believe that the Son is subject to God the Father whereas we believe Him to be co-equal with the Father. Perhaps this is why you don't pray directly to Jesus, whereas most other Christians do?

Jesus Christ taught that we are to pray to the Father in His name. He is equal to the Father in that the Father glorifies Jesus above all others, save Himself only, and Jesus is the Lord of this earth. If the Trinity principle is true then you cannot say that He is co-equal to the Father, in which case you argue that they are not the same being but are separate. I'm using the term 'you' in general terms.

The church teaches that they are separate, yes. This is one of the fundamental differences between the LDS church and many other Christians, as you pointed out. This founding principle is accounted in the First Vision of Joseph Smith where he saw two personages. One of them addressed Joseph Smith and said, pointing to the other, "This is my beloved Son. Hear Him."

When it comes down to it, there are only two Christian religions who can claim that they are directed by God Himself, the Catholic church or the LDS church. If the lineage of Peter continued with the Priesthood of God, as Catholics believe, then there would be no need for a Joseph Smith to restore the Gospel. If priesthood authority was broken, as the LDS church believes, then there would be a need for its restoration on the earth. This is not my statement. It was spoken by a Catholic Bishop at a world religions conference in Salt Lake City in the 1980's. All other Christian churches are broken off of these two churches.

So, being LDS, I believe in what our church teaches, that through the restoration of the Gospel we have learned that the nature of God the Father is that He is a perfect and resurrected being, that He has a literal son, Jesus Christ, who is also a perfect resurrected being, and that the Holy Ghost is a spirit, and that all three form the Godhead, each working together to fulfill the Father's plan of salvation for His children.

:)

[Traveler]

Well, lets see, would you rather be in the Korihor, anti-Christ camp or the man of God, Alma camp?

The OP of this thread has been argued in scripture and shows us the correct response to that question; Alma 30: " 35 Then why sayest thou that we preach unto this people to get gain, when thou, of thyself, knowest that we receive no gain? And now, believest thou that we deceive this people, that causes such joy in their hearts?

36 And Korihor answered him, Yea.

37 And then Alma said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God?

38 And he answered, Nay.

39 Now Alma said unto him: Will ye deny again that there is a God, and also deny the Christ? For behold, I say unto you, I know there is a God, and also that Christ shall come.

40 And now what evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only.

41 But, behold, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true; and ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true; and will ye deny them? Believest thou that these things are true?

42 Behold, I know that thou believest, but thou art possessed with a lying spirit, and ye have put off the Spirit of God that it may have no place in you; but the devil has power over you, and he doth carry you about, working devices that he may destroy the children of God.

43 And now Korihor said unto Alma: If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words.

44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

45 And yet do ye go about, leading away the hearts of this people, testifying unto them there is no God? And yet will ye deny against all these witnesses? And he said: Yea, I will deny, except ye shall show me a sign.

46 And now it came to pass that Alma said unto him: Behold, I am grieved because of the hardness of your heart, yea, that ye will still resist the spirit of the truth, that thy soul may be destroyed."

We all come to this Earth with a testimony of God, Christ and the plan of salvation, we all passed the first estate test. The only "sign" needed is to seek in self and to not deny the Spirit of God. Asking for something more is "tempting God". You know that is what I was referring to, asking for something outside of one's own testimony and the witnesses given in scriptures, prophets etc. as that was the OP. To lie to one self about one's own testimony, to deny the testimony within and then ask for some other proof is the Korihor method. To listen to the Spirit of God and seek spiritual confirmation is the Alma method. And that is what I said in my post that you are trying to turn into something else. "Seeking a sign" is not the same thing as "seek" or "ask". You know that, I know that and I am not sure why you are trying to twist it into something else.

"Prove all things" is in relation to our proving to God that we are worthy. It is not what we are talking about here. "Prove all things" is explained in 1 John 4; " 1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them."

6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."

This is the thing that we are to "prove" whether it is one that confesses there is a Christ versus those that deny Christ (the ones that speak of the world and the world hears them). i.e. - we don't need to speak of the world and use language that the world hears. Verse 6 is how one "proves all things" coupled with holding fast to the spirit of God as the scripture you gave states.

When we seek and ask; G-d grants unto us truth. It is truth that comes from G-d and the means to obtain that truth is for us to seek. According to Genesis the destiny of man is the truth between good and evil. If one seeks concerning evil they will be granted the truth of it. I believe that the truth of good requires as well a understanding of the truth of evil and vise versa. (See scriptures concerning opposition in all things).

The scripture I quoted specifically admonishes believers in Christ to "Prove all things" (note the adverb all). I regret that such a commandment in scripture is abhorrent to you. But there is a second part (as there is with all commandments that are given by covenant) -- that is to hold fast that that which is good. This is the one thing you seem to understand well. And as you have stated; is of all things the reason that we are to seek and prove in the first place.

The Traveler

[Vort]

My understanding is that LDS belief is that God the Father is a resurrected man who attained Godhood from His own Heavenly Father.

If by "LDS belief" you mean that lots of Mormons believe it, then you are correct. Many on this very forum accept that interpretation. If by "LDS belief" you mean "this is what the LDS Church teaches", you are mistaken. This is an inference drawn from LDS teachings, including the "King Follett discourse".

If God was once mortal and then attained Godhood then that means He isn't eternally God (even if you believe He existed eternally as an intelligence, but that doesn't make Him much different to you or me).

It means no such thing.

Isn't this the doctrine expressed in the King Follett discourse and the Snow couplet?

It is an inference from those teachings. Big difference.

My use of the term "Mormon God" was only meant to distinguish between the conception the LDS church has of Who God is and what mainstream Christianity believe Him to be.

We worship the true and living God and his living Christ. If that's different from the being that you worship, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

- Mainstream Christianity teaches God has always been and will always be, there was never a time when He was not God. LDS believe He attained Godhood at some point in time in another world.

What does that even mean? "a time when He was not God"? How does one define "time" in that sense? These words are like saying "sinful God" or "salvation in sin" or "existing non-existence". They are a meaningless contradiction in terms. They are merely words, sounding like they might mean something, but in reality not meaning anything.

I do not mean to single you out. We all spout meaningless tripe while thinking it has meaning. It is part of the consequence of living in a fallen world: We have inaccurate mental models of reality that lead us to saying nonsensical things and thinking we are speaking truth. So this is not meant as a personal criticism, only as a note that this is such a case.

- Mainstream Christianity teaches that God is a trinity of three persons sharing in the same divine substance

Again, words without meaning. "Divine substance"? This concept was invented 1600 years ago to try to "solve" a non-existent problem based in the neoPlatonic idea that matter was all corrupt and only the ideal, superexistential "spirit" was perfect, or even perfectable.

whereas LDS teaches the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three different, independent beings united in one Godhead.

Interestingly, we have had many come here and lecture us that they, too, believe that the Father and the Son are separate individuals, so how dare we claim they believe otherwise? Such teachings are a mass of confusion.

I think you also believe that the Son is subject to God the Father whereas we believe Him to be co-equal with the Father. Perhaps this is why you don't pray directly to Jesus, whereas most other Christians do?

We pray directly to the Father, because that is what Jesus commanded. Don't you believe Jesus' biblical teachings to do so?

- LDS believe that God the Father is a physical being and that His spirit is localised within His body whereas mainstream Christianity believe God is immaterial and omnipresent.

Immaterial existence. More meaningless wordplay.

My use of the term Mormon God was just a way of differentiating between these rather different conceptions of Who God is, no offence was intended and I hope the members here understood that :)

I do believe you meant no offense. But if you reverse the situation, I am also sure you will be able to see why people might take offense at such wording.

[Traveler]

Dorian, no offense taken. I will admit getting frustrated when someone says that we believe in a different Jesus Christ or God but I did not get offended by anything you said. It is a good discussion.

You are not wrong. As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become. This doctrine has more meaning behind it, though.

I would not lump mainstream Christianity into believing exactly one thing but I would agree that many do believe that. The concept of time is an earthly concept only. For example, the earth took millions of years to form, and the Bible does not say it took 6 days. The KJV, which is the version used by the LDS church, says that God called it the first day, second day, etc. It does not say that it was 24 hours by our accounting. With that in mind, when I said that God was without beginning of days or end of years, only humanity gauges its time, so that statement is true. Furthermore, to all of humankind He is God. He created us and is our father, and He will always be worshipped by us as God forever.

...

Cash - you bring up some very important points in answer to Dorian that asks as follows:

Originally Posted by Dorian

My understanding is that LDS belief is that God the Father is a resurrected man who attained Godhood from His own Heavenly Father. If God was once mortal and then attained Godhood then that means He isn't eternally God (even if you believe He existed eternally as an intelligence, but that doesn't make Him much different to you or me). Isn't this the doctrine expressed in the King Follett discourse and the Snow couplet?

Dorian - There are two very important points I would add to this question:

Point 1: Jesus is the example to man concerning G-d - applying this principle to the "Snow Couplet". ---- As Man is G-d (Jesus once was) and as G-d is (Jesus is now resurrected and glorified ) man may become. This is not contrary to sacred scripture and I submit that no "true" believer is Jesus Christ will oppose this simple understanding.

Point 2: Your concern that if G-d was ever mortal like us he could not be eternally G-d. Again I answer this concern first with the example of Jesus Christ. I am concerned that you believe yourself to be a "Christian" and yet you do not believe that Jesus suffered death - as we will all die. And that this would mean that he is not eternally G-d.

This couples with the second point and that is that the scriptures clearly testify that through Christ we will be granted "eternal life". (see scriptures Luke 18: 18-22, Jude 1:21, John 6:54 - and several others)

I point out here that you question to LDS turns the scriptures concerning the gift of eternal life through Christ (G-d) into a lie. How could we have eternal life if we were not eternal already? The answer is in the same way that G-d is eternally G-d we will be eternally one and with G-d as Jesus is eternally one and with the Father - see John 17.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

When we seek and ask; G-d grants unto us truth. It is truth that comes from G-d and the means to obtain that truth is for us to seek. According to Genesis the destiny of man is the truth between good and evil. If one seeks concerning evil they will be granted the truth of it. I believe that the truth of good requires as well a understanding of the truth of evil and vise versa. (See scriptures concerning opposition in all things).

The scripture I quoted specifically admonishes believers in Christ to "Prove all things" (note the adverb all). I regret that such a commandment in scripture is abhorrent to you. But there is a second part (as there is with all commandments that are given by covenant) -- that is to hold fast that that which is good. This is the one thing you seem to understand well. And as you have stated; is of all things the reason that we are to seek and prove in the first place.

The Traveler

I appreciate your comments Traveler and I apologize if it came across as being harsh, that wasn't my intention.

I think the issue is not in the content of what is being sought but the way it is sought and the attitude. I don't have the ability to judge any one person's attitude and what is in their heart. But, in general, if one chooses to deny the things that are in front of them given through the Spirit of God and asks for a sign that doesn't require spiritual insight then they will not find it.

Christ overcame all. By following Christ we can overcome all as well, thus proving all things.

[Dorian]

Okay, this is a lot so I'll try to address what I think are the main points and maybe clarify my beliefs a bit more. That way the discussion can be more fruitful when our wires aren't crossed. I'm just here because I want to understand LDS beliefs because I find them interesting.

What does that even mean? "a time when He was not God"? How does one define "time" in that sense? These words are like saying "sinful God" or "salvation in sin" or "existing non-existence". They are a meaningless contradiction in terms. They are merely words, sounding like they might mean something, but in reality not meaning anything.

No, it's not. "existing non-existence" is an oxymoron. By the term "a time when He was not God" I was attempting to illustrate a difference in my conception of God and yours (general you): I believe God has always existed as God (as opposed to believing He always existed as intelligence and then became God). By "time" I don't merely mean since the creation of this world, or since humanity began measuring time and history, but that God has always been God and exists outside of all measurements of time. He didn't become God, He doesn't have His origin in another God or on another world. This isn't a meaningless contradiction in terms, actually, but a fairly well thought out philosophical concept called aseity; a quality that my religion applies to God. Aseity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It means God had no beginning and has no end, given that Joseph Smith appears to have taught that God did have a beginning and "became" God (became implying a change from one state to another) then it seems clear that the Mormon conception of God isn't of one that is eternal, and if the word eternal is used then it is done so with a different meaning.

Joseph Smith explicitly denied that God has been God from all eternity:

I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of being God was. . . . God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens . . . it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and suppose that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea[/I], and take away the veil, so that you may see.

Put it this way: do you think that Heavenly Father has existed in His current state for the entirety of His existence? Has there ever been a time when He was anything other than divine? My answers are yes to the first and no the second. If your answers are different then I think that illustrates the distinction I was trying to capture with the term "Mormon God".

Again, words without meaning. "Divine substance"? This concept was invented 1600 years ago to try to "solve" a non-existent problem based in the neoPlatonic idea that matter was all corrupt and only the ideal, superexistential "spirit" was perfect, or even perfectable.

Can I suggest that just because you're unfamiliar with the meaning of a word doesn't make it meaningless? The term substance here doesn't indicate something that God is "made out of" in the same we we are made out of matter. It means that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost share the same nature and together are the same one God rather than distinct gods. The term used in the creed is "consubstantial".

Immaterial existence. More meaningless wordplay.

Unless you're a philosophical materialist (which generally requires atheism) then it's not meaningless. Don't you believe that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit and doesn't possess a material body? Edit after Dravin's post: It's not meaningless wordplay at all. Something like "immaterial matter" is oxymoronic, "immaterial existence" indicates that there are things in existence that aren't "made" out of matter. Whether you believe that or not it's not meaningless wordplay but a concept that's held by pretty much every religion other than your own.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Dorian

[Dravin]

Don't you believe that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit and doesn't possess a material body?

While he is a personage of spirit, spirit consists of matter from the LDS perspective:

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

[Dorian]

While he is a personage of spirit, spirit consists of matter from the LDS perspective:

Wait, so you guys have an entirely different definition of "spirit"? Because in common parlance "spirit" is inherently immaterial. The opposite of spirit is matter, so to speak of "spirit matter" is an oxymoron. Wouldn't that just be very, very fine matter that is invisible to the eye (like particles of dust or gas)?

Also it's odd that D&C says there's no such thing as "immaterial matter" - obviously, the two are mutually exclusive and the opposite of eachother. The claim is that there are things that exist that are immaterial and not matter.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Dorian

[bytebear]

"Joseph Smith explicitly denied that God has been God from all eternity:"

No, he didn't. He just wanted you you think of it in a different way. This is from the same speech.

"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 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."

So if God will always be God, then God has always been God.

[Crash]

Hi Dorian.

I think that much of what is being discussed goes back to my earlier post about it coming down to the Catholic church or the LDS church.

Assume that there was indeed an apostasy, a falling away from truth, and that the Priesthood authority to act in the name of God was taken from the earth after the killing of the 12 apostles and remained that way for a period of time. During this apostasy mankind assumed to know about the nature of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit despite having no communication with or authority to know such things. Therefore, man's knowledge of truth was lost, altered, and skewed, just as a language is altered or lost if there is a person who no longer speaks it or has contact with others who do.

Then God appears to someone on earth, communicates with him, teaches him, and restores His Priesthood authority on earth, giving back to mankind the authority to teach and act in His name.

If there was no apostasy, no falling away, then there would be no need for a restoration of the gospel, truth, and authority. If there was an apostasy and a loss of authority then there would absolutely be a need for a restoration. The truth and character of God is not subject to what mainstream Christianity believes versus what Mormons believe. The truth and character of God is what it is. Either you are right and we are wrong or we are right and you are wrong.

What Joseph Smith taught, he did so from first-hand experience in seeing God the Father, and his son Jesus Christ as two separate beings. He communicated with them and that would make him much more of an authority on the nature of God, and the origins of His existence than anyone else in at least the last 200 years. He was not old but was just 14 years old and simply wanted to know which church to join, so he prayed, having the promise of being given an answer as written in the Book of James.

The beginning of the LDS church originated with that moment of prayer. It simply comes down to whether or not God the Father and His son Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith on that day. If they did not, then we are wrong and your beliefs in God and the Trinity are true. If they did appear to him, then we are right and our beliefs about the Godhead, the nature and origin of God are true.

Jesus Christ was not a perfect being before he was born, died, and was resurrected with his body. He was perfect in his authority as the god of the Old Testament, and in his duty to do all that the Father asked. He created the heavens and the earth and He was God but it was not until He was resurrected that he fulfilled all righteousness and the commandments of His Father. But just as He told Peter, no man can know of these things except the Spirit of God confirms that they are so.

Hopefully some of that sheds light or helps you understand. :)

[Guest]

Dorian, I have a very good understanding of Catholic concept of the Triune God. I was Catholic longer than I am LDS... so I'm going to address these points to see if I can bridge some gaps here.

My understanding is that LDS belief is that God the Father is a resurrected man who attained Godhood from His own Heavenly Father. If God was once mortal and then attained Godhood then that means He isn't eternally God (even if you believe He existed eternally as an intelligence, but that doesn't make Him much different to you or me). Isn't this the doctrine expressed in the King Follett discourse and the Snow couplet?

Maybe I've got it wrong, but I've seen it expressed numerous times on this forum and by other Mormons.

- Mainstream Christianity teaches God has always been and will always be, there was never a time when He was not God. LDS believe He attained Godhood at some point in time in another world.

This is addressed perfectly by Vort above. The concept that God was once Man is not taught by the Church. Rather, it is inferred from Church teachings.

This is very similar to St. Augustine's extra-canonical teaching of limbo and the beatific vision. When Pope Benedict put that non-doctrinal teaching to bed, it effectively purged that teaching out of the Catholic Church.

In the case of "God was once Man" - this is also extra-canonical. But there has not been Revelation given to our Prophets that declares the details of Heavenly Father's life outside of the Plan of our Salvation, therefore, that extra-canonical teaching still floats around. Maybe in the future, a Prophet will receive this Revelation and he can either accept or reject this extra-canonical teaching into the LDS canon. But for now, if you believe it is true you're not wrong, if you don't believe it is not true, you're not wrong either.

- Mainstream Christianity teaches that God is a trinity of three persons sharing in the same divine substance whereas LDS teaches the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three different, independent beings united in one Godhead. I think you also believe that the Son is subject to God the Father whereas we believe Him to be co-equal with the Father. Perhaps this is why you don't pray directly to Jesus, whereas most other Christians do?

- LDS believe that God the Father is a physical being and that His spirit is localised within His body whereas mainstream Christianity believe God is immaterial and omnipresent.

Dorian, the Catholic understanding of God is not too different from the LDS understanding of God.

The Catholic belief is that God is made up of Three Different Persons. This is exactly the same as LDS Teaching. They are 3 different, independent beings. The word "Beings" here is used as a synonym of Person. All the non-physical characteristics of the Three Persons are the exact same as LDS Teachings... Jesus Christ gives glory to the Father and He doesn't do anything that the Father doesn't do... and He teaches us to pray in this manner: "Our Father, hollowed be thy name...". But even so, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are co-equal in the Godhead.

Now, in Catholic teaching - they are One Being. The word "being" here is synonymous to "substance" or to the greek word "ousia". But, if you ask a Catholic, what that substance exactly is - nobody knows, hence, the Great Mystery. But we know its properties as it is covered in the Bible and we know that this substance somehow unites the Three Personages into One. Now, this is where the LDS Teaching differs. Because - we know what that is that unites the Three Personages into One - it's a Unity of Will, or Perfection. What we call the Godhead. But, even the LDS cannot tell you EXACTLY what kind of material the Perfected Body is... we know only that it is of flesh and bone... but as all our samples of flesh and bone in our experience goes through a process of decay... or if it is petrified then it is fossilized and immobile... we cannot really comprehend what exactly a perfected flesh and bone is. So, if that's what you call immaterial, then sure, God is immaterial. But, if that's not immaterial, then the Triune God is also not immaterial because it is made of some kind of substance. In addition, as the Holy Spirit has this Perfected Body and He can dwell in us, then it goes without saying that God can dwell in us, and is therefore, omnipresent.

So, in essence, the Catholics believe that God is a Being that we don't really know what kind of physical substance it is, but we know it's not what the LDS says it is. Which, in my opinion, doesn't make sense....

Edited February 4, 2014 by anatess

[Dorian]

This is great. Thanks!

This is addressed perfectly by Vort above. The concept that God was once Man is not taught by the Church. Rather, it is inferred from Church teachings.

This is very similar to St. Augustine's extra-canonical teaching of limbo and the beatific vision. When Pope Benedict put that non-doctrinal teaching to bed, it effectively purged that teaching out of the Catholic Church.

Okay, that makes sense. So the idea of God as a man who was resurrected on another planet is what we'd call theological opinion rather than dogma? That makes sense. But what about the eternal nature of God? Is the King Follett discourse regarded as dogmatic because when Joseph Smith states:

" God and how He came to be so; for 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, and take away the veil, so that you may see."

Surely that is explicitly teaching that 1) God "came to be" something that He wasn't before, ie. divine. and 2) That God is not God from all eternity (which means He had a beginning in time).

So surely if one accepts the above from JS as dogmatic then that logically requires one to believe that God was not always God?

Now, in Catholic teaching - they are One Being. The word "being" here is synonymous to "substance" or to the greek word "ousia". But, if you ask a Catholic, what that substance exactly is - nobody knows, hence, the Great Mystery.

Substance is the English translation of the Latin translation of the original Greek. The direct Greek - English translation is "essence" and was used to re-affirm the co-equal and co-eternal nature of the Son with the Father. So when the Council Fathers teach that the Son is "homoousis" with the Father they're teaching His equality in divinity. I find it easier to understand what this means when thinking about the historical context, ie. the Council is condemning doctrines that taught Christ was a demi-God below the Father (Arianism) or that the mortal man of Jesus acquired His divinity at the moment of His baptism by John (adoptionism). Does the LDS Church agree with the Catholic Church on the nature of Jesus as co-eternal and co-equal in all things with the Father? Because on another thread someone said that Jesus (who they called Jehovah) was "made" a God by God the Father before Old Testament times, so that Jesus is a God but hadn't always been a God alongside the Father (basically that He was made and not begotten).

Sorry, I know that's really all convoluted and complex, I'm just trying to get my head around the intricacies of LDS belief. Thanks for your patience !

[Guest]

This is great. Thanks!

Okay, that makes sense. So the idea of God as a man who was resurrected on another planet is what we'd call theological opinion rather than dogma? That makes sense. But what about the eternal nature of God? Is the King Follett discourse regarded as dogmatic because when Joseph Smith states:

" God and how He came to be so; for 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, and take away the veil, so that you may see."

Surely that is explicitly teaching that 1) God "came to be" something that He wasn't before, ie. divine. and 2) That God is not God from all eternity (which means He had a beginning in time).

So surely if one accepts the above from JS as dogmatic then that logically requires one to believe that God was not always God?

First and foremost, the King Follet Discourse is not dogmatic.

The Prophet is a Prophet only when He is speaking to the Church. Otherwise, he is speaking just as a regular man. The King Follet Discourse was not addressed to the Church. It was a speech that Joseph Smith, Jr. made at a funeral that was later transcribed and together with other speeches of notable LDS people put together into a book called the Journal of Discourses. The content of the speech has not been expounded on in Joseph Smith's teachings to the Church - nor is the accuracy of the transcription guaranteed.

So, what Joseph Smith "explicitly taught" on the matter is subject to speculation.

Substance is the English translation of the Latin translation of the original Greek. The direct Greek - English translation is "essence" and was used to re-affirm the co-equal and co-eternal nature of the Son with the Father. So when the Council Fathers teach that the Son is "homoousis" with the Father they're teaching His equality in divinity. I find it easier to understand what this means when thinking about the historical context, ie. the Council is condemning doctrines that taught Christ was a demi-God below the Father (Arianism) or that the mortal man of Jesus acquired His divinity at the moment of His baptism by John (adoptionism). Does the LDS Church agree with the Catholic Church on the nature of Jesus as co-eternal and co-equal in all things with the Father? Because on another thread someone said that Jesus (who they called Jehovah) was "made" a God by God the Father before Old Testament times, so that Jesus is a God but hadn't always been a God alongside the Father (basically that He was made and not begotten).

Sorry, I know that's really all convoluted and complex, I'm just trying to get my head around the intricacies of LDS belief. Thanks for your patience !

The LDS Church agrees with the Catholic Church that Jesus is co-eternal, co-equal in all things with the Father in the Godhead. The LDS Church also agrees with the Catholic Church that Christ proceeds from the Father. Now, if you can switch your concept of "What Makes Them One" as the Unity In Perfection instead of a specific physical substance, you will understand what I'm saying here.

The physical substance of the Father is of the same material as that of the Son's and it is eternal. The Father as part of the Godhead is co-equal with the Son as he is also part of the Godhead. That's the quality that makes them ONE - that Unity in Will, that Perfection - which makes them EQUALLY PERFECT, which makes them GOD. BUT, the Father was Perfect FIRST. The Son proceeds Him. Therefore, there wouldn't be a Son in the Godhead without the Father first.

Edited February 4, 2014 by anatess

[Dorian]

Wait, how can you say that Jesus is co-eternal with the Father but also believe that Jesus proceeds Him and the Father was perfect first? Wouldn't co-eternal mean they exist alongside each other simultaneously and always have. There was never a time when One was that the Other was not. Or when you say they're eternal do you mean as an intelligence but not as God?

Edited February 4, 2014 by Dorian

[Vort]

Wait, how can you say that Jesus is co-eternal with the Father but also believe that Jesus proceeds Him and the Father was perfect first? Wouldn't co-eternal mean they exist alongside each other simultaneously and always have. There was never a time when One was that the Other was not. Or when you say they're eternal do you mean as an intelligence but not as God?

No. I am co-eternal with the Father. That does not mean I am not his creation.