C
cubalibre
Guest
If God sent his*** only*** son to save us what does that say about the Mormon idea of marriage persisting in heaven and that the god procreates and populates the world he has dominion over?
- Status
R
ronald_g_w
Guest
G
gookykookypig
Guest
Nope, His only BEGOTTEN Son (not only in the flesh, but eternally)
“Now,** Father**, glorify Me together with Yourself,
with the glory which I had with You before
the world was.”
(John 17:5, emphases and underscoring are mine)
“Now,** Father**, glorify Me together with Yourself,
with the glory which I had with You before
the world was.”
(John 17:5, emphases and underscoring are mine)
S
Snow
Guest
You have a point to make???
R
ronald_g_w
Guest
No one is disputing the Glory that Jesus enjoyed with the Father before the world was, just quoting that he might be the first-born among many brethren Rom 8:29
God is the Father of our spirits and we were there when God laid the foundation of the earth and we shouted for joy
G
gookykookypig
Guest
Okay sir, thanks.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
God is the Father of our spirits and we were there when God laid the foundation of the earth and we shouted for joy
**** W * R * O * N * G ** !!!**
**** W * R * O * N * G ** !!!**
R
ronald_g_w
Guest
God is asking Job: (Job 38:4-7)
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
If this is WRONG then please enlighten us as to who the sons are that God is refering to if they are not us, Gods spirit children ?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
It is so wrong, one doesn’t know where to start. 
The God we believe in is not a sex-addicted rapist, for a start. Unlike the heavenly Brigham Young of Mormonism, He is holy & gracious - because He is eternal: not “an ascended man”. The Mormon “God” is no God - but a Zeus for Americans, complete with promiscuity; if he’s true to type, he’s probably a paederast god as well. 
How is a sex-god like that fit to tell us what to do ? Not only does he rape young girls, thereby committing adultery: he breaks his own commandment against it, three times over, by:- making St. Joseph a cuckold
- cheating the Heavenly Mother
- breaking two commandments against such behaviour.
A hypocrite as vile as that is no god, still less the high & holy & righteous & good & gracious God whom Christians believe in - he’s a licence to sin. Salvation is **not **by marriage, but by grace.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Jesus is the only begotten Son of God - He is His Son by nature. He came that we might become adopted sons of God - that what He is by nature, we may become by adoption. (Galatians 4:4-6 for starters - also read On the Incarnation by Saint Athanasius).
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
That refers to the angels, who we may assume were created by God before He creation of the physical universe.
R
Richard_Abanes
Guest
RONALD: If this is WRONG then please enlighten us as to who the sons are that God is refering to if they are not us, Gods spirit children?
**RA: **The Hebrew term in this verse, bene ha elohim, was a phrase routinely used in the Ancient near East to describe all manner of heavenly entities, divine beings, pagan divinities, and various types of pagan sub-deities. It refers to angels. The double mention of “morning stars” to “sons of god” is a Hebrew parallelism. A similar phrase has been found in an Ugaritic passages that juxtaposes “Sons of El” and “assembly of stars.”
R.A
**RA: **The Hebrew term in this verse, bene ha elohim, was a phrase routinely used in the Ancient near East to describe all manner of heavenly entities, divine beings, pagan divinities, and various types of pagan sub-deities. It refers to angels. The double mention of “morning stars” to “sons of god” is a Hebrew parallelism. A similar phrase has been found in an Ugaritic passages that juxtaposes “Sons of El” and “assembly of stars.”
R.A
R
ronald_g_w
Guest
Why is God asking Job where he was in a way to say dont you know you where there also ?RONALD: If this is WRONG then please enlighten us as to who the sons are that God is refering to if they are not us, Gods spirit children?
**RA: **The Hebrew term in this verse, bene ha elohim, was a phrase routinely used in the Ancient near East to describe all manner of heavenly entities, divine beings, pagan divinities, and various types of pagan sub-deities. It refers to angels. The double mention of “morning stars” to “sons of god” is a Hebrew parallelism. A similar phrase has been found in an Ugaritic passages that juxtaposes “Sons of El” and “assembly of stars.”
R.A
R
Richard_Abanes
Guest
Ronald: Why is God asking Job where he was in a way to say don’t you know you where there also ?
RA: Hi R. Bear with me here and just give my reasoning a bit of room.
I would say God is ***NOT ***asking Job a question that implies “don’t you know you where there also.” I think that could be a presupposition on your part based on a Mormon-ish assumption.
if you simply look at the verse in context (feel free to grab a KJV), it is posed within a strong rebuke by God against Job.It is rhetorical, meaning that the actual answer would be painfully obvious – i.e. Job was NOT there. He was non-existent.
And THAT’S why he has no right whatsoever to question God. The Lord is basically putting Job in his place and showing him how he is only so much dust put together by God. Essentially, it’s a kind of divine tirade, perhaps paraphrased in modern language as follows:
"Oh, you think you’re so important? You think you, oh man, matter all that much? You think you have the right to question me? Oh, really? Yeah, well where you when I was the one who created? Hmm? Where were you when the angels sang at my handiwork? Huh? Where where you when I did all these great things? Sorry, Job, I didn’t see you around?
I hope this makes sense. God is actually being rather sarcastic, tbh, and using it to put Job in his place. A verbal answer was neither expected or required.
Job knew that he was not there. He was nowhere. He was not created. As Zechariah says, God “formeth the spirit of man within him” (Zech 12:1). The prophet makes no mention of our spirits being fashioned out of “intelligence” of being clothed with a spirit body during a pre-mortal life going all the way back to creation.
R.A.
RA: Hi R. Bear with me here and just give my reasoning a bit of room.
I would say God is ***NOT ***asking Job a question that implies “don’t you know you where there also.” I think that could be a presupposition on your part based on a Mormon-ish assumption.
if you simply look at the verse in context (feel free to grab a KJV), it is posed within a strong rebuke by God against Job.It is rhetorical, meaning that the actual answer would be painfully obvious – i.e. Job was NOT there. He was non-existent.
And THAT’S why he has no right whatsoever to question God. The Lord is basically putting Job in his place and showing him how he is only so much dust put together by God. Essentially, it’s a kind of divine tirade, perhaps paraphrased in modern language as follows:
"Oh, you think you’re so important? You think you, oh man, matter all that much? You think you have the right to question me? Oh, really? Yeah, well where you when I was the one who created? Hmm? Where were you when the angels sang at my handiwork? Huh? Where where you when I did all these great things? Sorry, Job, I didn’t see you around?
I hope this makes sense. God is actually being rather sarcastic, tbh, and using it to put Job in his place. A verbal answer was neither expected or required.
Job knew that he was not there. He was nowhere. He was not created. As Zechariah says, God “formeth the spirit of man within him” (Zech 12:1). The prophet makes no mention of our spirits being fashioned out of “intelligence” of being clothed with a spirit body during a pre-mortal life going all the way back to creation.
R.A.
R
Ruthie
Guest
Hi, Ronald, good to “see” you.
I ran a search on “sons of God” in the OT, And came up with this interesting passage. What is the LDS take on it? (emphasis mine.)
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Gen 6:1-5 (KJV)
Our take:
The Haydock commentary on the Douay-Rheims Bible (the DR is the Catholic translation, made at about the same time as the King James) says:
2 “The sons of God”… The descendants of Seth and Enos are here called sons of God from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay grovelling upon the earth, are called the children of men. The unhappy consequence of the former marrying with the latter, ought to be a warning to Christians…
This commentary says the “sons of God” in Job 38:7 are the Angels.
I look forward to your answer.
God bless you,
Ruthie
I ran a search on “sons of God” in the OT, And came up with this interesting passage. What is the LDS take on it? (emphasis mine.)
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Gen 6:1-5 (KJV)
Our take:
The Haydock commentary on the Douay-Rheims Bible (the DR is the Catholic translation, made at about the same time as the King James) says:
2 “The sons of God”… The descendants of Seth and Enos are here called sons of God from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay grovelling upon the earth, are called the children of men. The unhappy consequence of the former marrying with the latter, ought to be a warning to Christians…
This commentary says the “sons of God” in Job 38:7 are the Angels.
I look forward to your answer.
God bless you,
Ruthie
S
Sam_Maloney
Guest
The OP was asking how the Mormons understand this, since there version of God is pretty darn fertile.
It’s an interesting question, and one I’d like to see answered by those with a good understanding of Mormon teaching.
It’s an interesting question, and one I’d like to see answered by those with a good understanding of Mormon teaching.
R
ronald_g_w
Guest
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
God knows all things. He knows the past, the present, and the future. God transcends time and knows everything from all time. So, just because He knew us from eternity doesn’t mean we existed from all eternity.
R
ronald_g_w
Guest
As I’ve said before that if one looks at all the related scriptures it definitely indicates to a preexistence. I’ii try to put some of them together latter in the day
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
No, it doesn’t.
- Status