Do Mormons beleive there were/are gods before God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MattofTexas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Janderich said:
Sure creeds are statements of faith and we could argue about whether the articles of faith are creeds.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, they are by definition a creed. There is no difference in format between it and the various creeds found throughout orthodox Christianity.
But the truth of the statement remains. While a creed can help define a faith it also places limits on belief. This can be true of LDS as well as the Catholic religion. The problem is, these statements can narrow a persons view. It causes them to filter everything they read, everything they hear, through these lenses. Even when the Spirit testifies of truth the belief is rejected. I am not speaking solely of non-LDS religions. I have encountered some ideas or statements within my own religion I have found to be false. I think this is one of the reasons why the LDS church does not nail down its doctrine on some issues, and I for one am thankful for it.
Click to expand...
Very well call the belief system what you will. The truth of the statement remains. There are certain bounds which cannot be crossed. I cannot believe that God is an exalted man and still call myself Catholic.
Click to expand...
But you can’t believe that God (I presume you’re referring to the Father) is Spirit only (and not flesh and bone) and still call yourself LDS, right? You couldn’t say that there was no pre-mortal existence and still call yourself LDS right? You couldn’t say that baptism is not saving ordinance and still be LDS right? Etc. There are certain beliefs that define a religion, hence why I don’t see Joseph Smith’s criticism of creeds as valid, since all religions, no matter how liberal and open they may be, have core doctrines that define fundamental principles of it, and define it as an entity that isn’t something else.

From the Catholic perspective, the doctrines taught in various creeds are fundamental beliefs that aren’t just made up by man, but are revealed truths, since we regard Christianity as a revealed religion. They don’t narrow a person’s view, but point them towards the truths God has revealed, most especially the Truth in the Person of Jesus Christ.

The Apostles Creed
*1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:
10. The forgiveness of sins:
11. The resurrection of the body:
12. And the life everlasting. Amen. *

Again, fundamental truths of Christianity (Islam wouldn’t share these beliefs, nor would Jews, Hindus, etc), not things that limit our access to God.
 
LivingWaters7 said:
But you can’t believe that God (I presume you’re referring to the Father) is Spirit only (and not flesh and bone) and still call yourself LDS, right? You couldn’t say that there was no pre-mortal existence and still call yourself LDS right? You couldn’t say that baptism is not saving ordinance and still be LDS right? Etc. There are certain beliefs that define a religion, hence why I don’t see Joseph Smith’s criticism of creeds as valid, since all religions, no matter how liberal and open they may be, have core doctrines that define fundamental principles of it, and define it as an entity that isn’t something else.
…

Again, fundamental truths of Christianity (Islam wouldn’t share these beliefs, nor would Jews, Hindus, etc), not things that limit our access to God.
Click to expand...
I do understand what you are saying about defining core doctrines. They help others understand what a church believes. However, the problem arises when truth is manifest and yet cannot be excepted because of these creeds. Joseph at one time wrote:
The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same” (Times and Seasons, Feb. 1840, pp. 53–54)
Click to expand...
I believe Joseph is not attacking creeds in and of themselves. He is attacking the limits they setup which prevent people from discovering truth.

A fair example might be in relation to this other thread about Mormon’s being Christian. Some creeds would say Christians must believe in the Trinity. Based on these creeds people then say Mormon’s do not believe in Christ. Thus the creeds have set up a stake and others have tried to use those creeds to limit truth.
 
So how does the Holy Spirit leave the first church then go to the Mormon church and then reside with all God-fearing churches? I thought the Mormon church has the authority and the Holy Spirit with them? If that’s the case and the Holy Spirit is with all churches how does an apostacy occur?
 
Janderich said:
I do understand what you are saying about defining core doctrines. They help others understand what a church believes. However, the problem arises when truth is manifest and yet cannot be excepted because of these creeds. Joseph at one time wrote: I believe Joseph is not attacking creeds in and of themselves. He is attacking the limits they setup which prevent people from discovering truth.
Click to expand...
The creeds pass on and guard the Truth that Christ taught the apostles and the apostles taught their descendants. It’s all part of Christ’s words that he would lead his Church to all Truth.

One has to consider that Joseph in promoting his religion and the false idea of polytheism had to attack the creeds in building his church. He really had no choice.

Faith and reason: believe the Church that Christ established (and the Nicean creed in 325ad) or Joseph Smith 1800 years after the death of Christ.

It’s a pretty simply choice especially as no one can point to a apostasy, let alone a great apostasy in the Church. Quite the opposite, scripture says that the Church membership grew greatly, guided by the Holy Spirit.

These are important questions:
  • can the Holy Spirit guide the growth of the Church and at the same time let it fall into apostasy?
  • would Jesus Christ set up his Church of which he is the head, promises to guide to all truth, and then immediately let it fall into apostasy for 1800 years?
  • the Nicean Creed professes a belief in one God. So does writings in Mormonism until Joseph Smith started preaching a new doctrine. How does one dismiss the earlier writings?.
PnP
 
Janderich said:
I do understand what you are saying about defining core doctrines. They help others understand what a church believes. However, the problem arises when truth is manifest and yet cannot be excepted because of these creeds.
Click to expand...
Catholics accept truth when it is manifest. “The creeds” don’t state all beliefs held by Catholics or other Christians. Catholicism specifically has formally defined, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, many doctrines through Ecumenical Councils and through the Pope. The creeds are not the end. We simply don’t agree that what Joseph Smith (or any others throughout the ages for that matter) taught is truth. Why don’t you accept the Jehovah’s Witnesses view of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? What about the Armstrong view? Etc? They believe that its truth (and presumably that God witnessed unto them that it is truth), but I assume you wouldn’t agree. Their teachings on God go against what LDS believe, and simply could not be accepted as truth. This is a similar idea to what I’m saying.
Joseph at one time wrote:
Click to expand...
I believe Joseph is not attacking creeds in and of themselves. He is attacking the limits they setup which prevent people from discovering truth.
Click to expand...
A fair example might be in relation to this other thread about Mormon’s being Christian. Some creeds would say Christians must believe in the Trinity. Based on these creeds people then say Mormon’s do not believe in Christ. Thus the creeds have set up a stake and others have tried to use those creeds to limit truth.
Click to expand...
I understand your perspective, but I simply don’t find that it makes sense. Others aren’t saying that Mormons aren’t Christian because the creeds say something per se. It isn’t the fact that specific creeds in question say something therefore it’s true. It is ultimately about what a creed is, and where the things they say come from. It has nothing at all to do with limiting truth, but in defining truths already revealed by God. If someone claims that they received knowledge that God the Father is actually a woman, composed of jello, and that we aren’t actually spirit children of God, that certainly would not be acceptable in the LDS faith, since it believes that certain truths on those matters have already been revealed.

Similarly, Catholics believe that God has revealed who He is. He has revealed that He eternally exists as three distinct Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. He created man. The Son is embodied because of His Incarnation and Resurrection. Etc. If someone claims to have “truths” that go against what God has already revealed on such a fundamental matter, it has nothing to do with a “creed” per se (though again, the word “creed” merely means what a person professes to believe resulting from their faith), then how truthful are they? Again, a Latter-day Saint simply would not accept someone claiming to have received knowledge that there was no pre-mortal existence, or that we aren’t literal spirit children of heavenly parents. Whether creeds or not, there are fundamental truths that define religions, including Mormonism, and certain “truths” simply would not be accepted if they go against what is taught. That’s why I don’t find that this argument makes any sense. 🤷
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Nope!
In Mormon theology, Jesus is just like us, one of “Heavenly Father” 's
Spirit Children, and that Jesus became a god after his death, which of
course is our calling as well, to become a god.
Click to expand...
While Mormons do believe that Jesus is like us in being spirit children of Heavenly Parents, specifically being the first born spirit child, they also believe that Jesus is Jehovah, and was the God of the Old Testament, prior to His Incarnation. However, He presumably was not fully God until He received a body and was resurrected. Some LDS speculate that the Holy Ghost will at some point receive a body as well.
 
LivingWaters7 said:
… It is the idea that the Father was once a man that progressed to Godhood.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if that was ever said, even in the not-officially-sanctioned accounts of the King Follet sermon. Did Jesus progress to Godhood because He was a man? Was He not God while a Man? I think both Mormons and RC would say no.

It’s kind of difficult to answer these in a framework that assumes that all three persons in one because you can have it either way. In the LDS view of separate persons, it is a consistent view.
 
rmcmullan said:
I don’t know if that was ever said, even in the not-officially-sanctioned accounts of the King Follet sermon. Did Jesus progress to Godhood because He was a man? Was He not God while a Man? I think both Mormons and RC would say no.

It’s kind of difficult to answer these in a framework that assumes that all three persons in one because you can have it either way. In the LDS view of separate persons, it is a consistent view.
Click to expand...
“three persons in one” what? I think the answer to that will answer part of your difficulty. To be clear, Catholics and other orthodox Christians believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons, who are not each other. As the Catechism, the Athanasian Creed, etc state, the Father is not the Son nor the Spirit, the Son is neither the Father nor the Spirit, and the Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son. Their oneness does not take away from their threeness, and they are not one Person (which is the heresy of Modalism or Unitarianism).

Catholics reject any progression in Divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They have all eternally been God, never stopped being God, and always will be God. In the King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith clearly states: "In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, 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 supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see."
“Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you*, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.”**

In another work by a General Authority we read:

"Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar that through which we are now passing. He became God – an exalted being – through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given opportunity today to obey."-Milton Hunter, First Quorum of the Seventy (The Gospel Through the Ages, 1945, p 104).

From a previous version of Gospel Principles:

***The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 348).

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God.* Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345–46).

Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as he did. **

I think it is clear from this small sampling that LDS theology allows for the idea that God progressed to Godhood, and was not always God (and we follow His example). One can argue about what is official and what isn’t, however it is clear that such an idea has been taught before, and is allowable and possible within the spectrum of LDS thought. Again, such an idea simply is not possible in Catholic theology, which posits the idea that Joseph Smith refuted, that God has always been God from all eternity.
 
kimg901 said:
So how does the Holy Spirit leave the first church then go to the Mormon church and then reside with all God-fearing churches? I thought the Mormon church has the authority and the Holy Spirit with them? If that’s the case and the Holy Spirit is with all churches how does an apostacy occur?
Click to expand...
The Spirit is not in the structures of a church but in the hearts of it’s members. Every person is blessed with the spirit of the Lord to some degree. However, it is through the ordinances that we gained the spirit more fully and until we become holy. What limits the spirit is a persons false belief. This false belief may over time begin to effect the ordinances. Until a person cannot see how to gain the spirit more fully and approach God through them.
 
rmcmullan said:
I don’t know if that was ever said, even in the not-officially-sanctioned accounts of the King Follet sermon. Did Jesus progress to Godhood because He was a man? Was He not God while a Man? I think both Mormons and RC would say no.
Click to expand...
then how does Jesus differ from you?
 
To expand upon the idea of Catholics rejecting progression in the Divinity we believe that all three Persons of the Trinity are fully God, co-equal, and co-eternal. Therefore Jesus did not progress to Godhood while being a man but rather was fully God and fully man from the moment of His miraclous conception. (This is the basis of the Marian dogma “Mother of God” or Theotokos, it’s really a defense of Christological dogma declaring Jesus to be fully and truly God, not a man who became God or a god, nor a half God.) When Jesus was resurrected and ascended to the Father He brought humanity into the presence of the Father and into the very life of the Trinity. His humanity was divinized to match what His divinity is by nature. We believe that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1) It is He “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Phil 2:6-8) And again “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” (Heb 2:9) Therefore we see that when Jesus ascended to the Father He took up the authority and relationship He had FROM THE BEGINNING, that is to say are HIS BY NATURE. He didn’t merit Godhood or progress to it, He simply is God. “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col 2:9) But for our sake in the Mystery of the Incarnation took humanity upon Himself and subjected Himself to all we are subject to, including obedience to God (the Father), yet His nature is equal to and the same as the Father’s and Spirit’s, He is just a distinct manifestation of the divine essence, not a separate being. All statements about inequality of the Father and Son must be understood in light of the Incarnation and not taken as ontological statements about the fundamental nature of Christ, to say Christ, the Word made flesh, is inferior to the Father by His fundamental nature or was ever somehow less than God is incorrect as the Scriptures plainly demonstrate. Therefore no Person of the Godhead progressed to deity.
 
LW7, I think you are rushing to judgement on what you have read and are not understanding. Luke says that. as a youth, Jesus gew from grace to grace. How do you understand that?

Check Luke 2, especially verses 40 and 52.
 
rmcmullan said:
LW7, I think you are rushing to judgement on what you have read and are not understanding. Luke says that. as a youth, Jesus gew from grace to grace. How do you understand that?

Check Luke 2, especially verses 40 and 52.
Click to expand...
So Jesus progressed into God?
 
rmcmullan said:
LW7, I think you are rushing to judgement on what you have read and are not understanding. Luke says that. as a youth, Jesus gew from grace to grace. How do you understand that?

Check Luke 2, especially verses 40 and 52.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I am rushing on anything, nor am I misunderstanding anything (unless you would like to claim that others who have read the same things, including believing Latter-day Saints (please peruse Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board for one example) are misunderstanding these things). Joseph Smith was quite clear in his King Follett Discourse that he would “refute [the] idea” that God has always been God from all eternity. The Gospel Principles manual stated that God became God. If He became God, then naturally there was a point when He was not-God, so that He could become God. The Seventy quoted stated that God became God through obedience to the eternal Gospel truths that we now have the opportunity to obey. So again, He “became God”. Are you claiming that “becoming God” does not mean “becoming God”?

Also, here’s a quote from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, entry-“Godhood”:
Latter-day Saints believe that God achieved his exalted rank by progressing much as man must progress* and that God is a perfected and exalted man: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,-I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form-like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another” (TPJS, p. 345).**

From the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young manual:

The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this Church. How do you feel, knowing that God, through His own experience, “knows all that we know regarding the toils [and] sufferings” of mortality?

From the Gospel Fundamentals Manual:

"It will help us to remember that our Father in Heaven was once a man who lived on an earth, the same as we do. He became our Father in Heaven by overcoming problems, just as we have to do on this earth."

So, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I think it is quite clear that Latter-day Saint theology allows for, and even teaches, that God progressed to Godhood (that He “achieved” or “attained” or “progressed” to Godhood), and wasn’t always God, in contrast to orthodox Christian theology, which cannot support such a view at all (God has always been God, and we do not “refute” that idea, as Joseph Smith did, to use his words). Many Latter-day Saints even talk about how God is still progressing, and that there is no end to progression.

Anyway, my point was merely to show that your response , “I don’t know if that was ever said” to my statement “It is the idea that the Father was once a man that progressed to Godhood” is not true, and has been said in many different settings. That’s all.

Catholics and other orthodox Christians believe that when God the Son Incarnated, He was both fully God, and fully man. Therefore, He could learn, grow, and be a human, since He was fully human. However, He did not grow in Divinity, since He was already fully Divine (and never was not-God).

Do you believe that Jesus Christ wasn’t God while He was on this earth? Was there a time when He wasn’t God? Was He less God at one point then became more God at another?
 
rmcmullan said:
Jesus is our Savior, He performed the great Atonement, we rely on it. But we were both made man.
Click to expand...
Jesus is your Savior, GREAT! Which One?

Where did he make atonement?

In the garden or on the Cross
which the Mormons tend not
to appreciate?

Is your Jesus the Only God or is the Jesus among an infinite numbered pantheon?
 
Unless some one can tell how they interpret Luke 2, verses 40 and 52, I’m going to assume it’s because you don’t want to admit there’s another viewpoint worth considering.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top