LDS: Alpha and Omega, the nature of God.

[rock17]

If God is a created being and has parents than he cannot have always been, because something created must have not existed at one point. Who is God? Where did he come from?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

If God is a created being and has parents than he cannot have always been, because something created must have not existed at one point. Who is God? Where did he come from?

“God is a created being” is not a Catholic truth.
God did not come from any place or time for in god there is no place or time. He lives in Eternity, which means an Eternal Present

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

“God is a created being” is not a Catholic truth.
God did not come from any place or time for in god there is no place or time. He lives in Eternity, which means an Eternal Present

Well said, Pfaffenhoffen. That’s the LDS view as well, that what we call past present and future are all continually before God’s gaze, and that God dwells in Eternity.

 

[rock17]

Pfaffenhoffen i know that this question is aimed at settling a misunderstanding i may have about the lds faith. So CowboyPete i will post my last question from the other thread here, give me an a example of a etneral being with literal parents. you said it does not matter if God has parents but from my understanding father is a word you take literaly unless you believe that there is not a trinity but a devine being consisting of even more than just three.

 

[lax16]

Pfaffenhoffen said]:“God is a created being” is not a Catholic truth.

God did not come from any place or time for in god there is no place or time. He lives in Eternity, which means an Eternal Present

Cowboy Pete says: Well said, Pfaffenhoffen. That’s the LDS view as well, that what we call past present and future are all continually before God’s gaze, and that God dwells in Eternity

**The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith:
**The effects of time and familiarity lead us to forget how **“directly contrary and opposed to” ****prevailing notions **some of the revelations were. Joseph Smith, however, perceived their profound import. He said, “I calculate to be one of the instruments of setting up the kingdom of Daniel by the word of the Lord, and I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.” 3 (See Dan. 2:44–45.)

A sampling of six of Joseph’s teachings will illustrate these points. This article will discuss the first three—the nature of God and the Godhead, man’s nature and his premortal existence, and the Creation.

The Personal Nature of God and the Godhead
Though most people who believe the Bible accept the idea of a Godhead composed of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Joseph Smith revealed an understanding of the Godhead **that differed from the views **found in the creeds of his day. The main Christian sects of the nineteenth century taught of “one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons: nor dividing the Substance” and of “one only living and true God, … a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible.” 4 Although other churches and individuals held that the Father and the Son are separate entities, 5 **Joseph Smith uniquely taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct personages, with the Father and the Son having bodies of “flesh and bones as tangible as man’s,” and with the Holy Ghost being a “personage of Spirit.” **(D&C 130:22.) 6

The Prophet explained that “God himself was once as we are now, and is **an exalted man, and sits enthroned **in yonder heavens”; that “he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did”; and that he “worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling.” 10 Through the Prophet, we learn that we “are begotten sons and daughters unto God” and that Christ is the Firstborn. (D&C 76:24; see D&C 93:21–22; Heb. 12:7–9.) As God’s children, we may become gods ourselves through Christ’s atonement and the plan of salvation, being joint heirs of Christ of “all that [the] Father hath.” (D&C 84:38; see also Rom. 8:17; D&C 76:58–60; D&C 132:19–21.) Along with these concepts is the concept of divine parents, including an exalted Mother who stands beside God the Father. 11

The LDS doctrine of Heavenly Father has led one recent commentator to write, “The Mormons espouse a radical, anthropomorphic conception of God that sets them far apart from other religions.” 12 That concept includes the truth that man and woman are created in the image of God. (See Moses 6:9; Gen. 1:27.) These truths draw all men and women into a relationship with God built upon familial love, trust, feelings of self-worth, hope, and humility, all in proper balance.

Cowboy Pete:

Please explain if God was once a man like us, and still is, having a tangible body of flesh and bones, how is he not a created being?
If he dwelt on earth, from where did he originate?
If he dwelt on earth, as Jesus did, and Jesus is the literal Son of God and Heavenly Mother, who are the parents of God?

 

[lax16]

The article I quoted was from:

HomeLDS.orgMagazinesEnsign Jan. 1989
The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation By Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch

---

 

[SteveVH]

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen
God did not come from any place or time for in god there is no place or time. He lives in Eternity, which means an Eternal Present.

Well said, Pfaffenhoffen. That’s the LDS view as well, that what we call past present and future are all continually before God’s gaze, and that God dwells in Eternity.

Please. This is certainly not the LDS view. Eternal means no beginning and no end. Your god began as a human being. Human beings are not eternal. We each had a “beginning”. The God of Christianity, on the other hand, is without beginning or end. God is eternally beyond any human and is the first cause of all that exists. This is not the Mormon view.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

**The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith:
**
The LDS doctrine of Heavenly Father has led one recent commentator to write, “The Mormons espouse a radical, anthropomorphic conception of God that sets them far apart from other religions.” 12 That concept includes the truth that man and woman are created in the image of God. (See Moses 6:9; Gen. 1:27.) These truths draw all men and women into a relationship with God built upon familial love, trust, feelings of self-worth, hope, and humility, all in proper balance.

That’s an accurate statement of LDS doctrine. The rest of the stuff you cited is simply speculation, believed by some mormons, and not by others. And never canonized according to the procedure set in place by Joseph Smith in 1831, i.e. D&C 50, common consent, etc.

Heavenly Mother OTOH is very close to a canonical doctrine because unlike the other stuff you cited, since the Proclamation on the family has been approved by the unanimous quorum of the twelve, and only awaits the final common consent approval.

Steve: "Your god began as a human being. "

You are obviously wrong, Steve. Our God is comprised of three Persons, including the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. I’ve repeatedly cited the Book of Mormon citations, and none of you has addressed them.

Lax16:

Though most people who believe the Bible accept the idea of a Godhead composed of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Joseph Smith revealed an understanding of the Godhead that differed from the views found in the creeds of his day. The main Christian sects of the nineteenth century taught of “one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons: nor dividing the Substance” and of “one only living and true God, … a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible.” 4 Although other churches and individuals held that the Father and the Son are separate entities, 5 Joseph Smith uniquely taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct personages, with the Father and the Son having bodies of “flesh and bones as tangible as man’s,” and with the Holy Ghost being a “personage of Spirit.” (D&C 130:22.) 6

Thank you, Lax. That is a correct statement of our doctrine. Most of the other stuff on this thread is not.

Please explain if God was once a man like us, and still is, having a tangible body of flesh and bones, how is he not a created being?

Jesus is God. Jesus was once a man like us. Do you disagree?

Where we differ from you is that we believe that the Father, also, has an immortal body of Flesh and Bone.

If he dwelt on earth, as Jesus did, ,

I don’t recall ever hearing any mormon even speculate that the Father dwelt on earth as Jesus did.

and Jesus is the literal Son of God and Heavenly Mother

Jesus’ literal mother was Mary. Do you disagree with that?

An almost-official theory, which I do believe in (but many mormons in good standing do not accept),
is that everyone who dwelt as mortals on the Earth, including Jesus, were spiritually begotten of the Father and our Heavenly Mother. Although even that doesn’t make Jesus (or us) created Beings, since even spiritual formation employed uncreated “intelligences.” And as Genesis says, God only created all that which was created.

 

[rock17]

You are begining to sound like you believe in the trinity Cowboy Pete,

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

You are begining to sound like you believe in the trinity Cowboy Pete,

If you don’t have a problem with my belief that the Father has a body of Flesh and Bone, then you’re quite right; your Trinity doctrine is really not very different at all from our Godhead doctrine.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve: "Your god began as a human being. "

You are obviously wrong, Steve. Our God is comprised of three Persons, including the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. I’ve repeatedly cited the Book of Mormon citations, and none of you has addressed them.

I actually have no problem with the BoM citations. They pretty much are in line with the Christian view, that is until Joseph Smith continued with further explanations of the nature of God. "“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man…" (King Follett Discourse). You are asked to believe in a God who is unchanging (BoM) and at the same time a God who was once as we are now (King Follett Discourse), and attained godhood through a process of exaltation which means he changed.

Jesus is God. Jesus was once a man like us. Do you disagree?

But he became man, Cowboy, he was not always a man. He was first God, from all eternity, without beginning or end. So it was God who became man, not man who became God. You guys have it backwards. In addition, there is no scripture that tells us that God the Father ever became incarnate. That is Joseph Smith’s invention.

I don’t recall ever hearing any mormon even speculate that the Father dwelt on earth as Jesus did.

Really? "…yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did…”

 

[rock17]

If you don’t have a problem with my belief that the Father has a body of Flesh and Bone, then you’re quite right; your Trinity doctrine is really not very different at all from our Godhead doctrine.

okay now tell me where did God get his body and flesh? “this is not Catholic teaching” i dont have a problem with what you beleive it is when a church tells people of another church that they are almost the same is when i have a problem, that is why i bring this stuff up to bring to light the differneces.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

I actually have no problem with the BoM citations. They pretty much are in line with the Christian view, that is until Joseph Smith continued with further explanations of the nature of God. "“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man…" (King Follett Discourse). You are asked to believe in a God who is unchanging (BoM) and at the same time a God who was once as we are now (King Follett Discourse), and attained godhood through a process of exaltation which means he changed.

Fortunately it’s not the official church doctrine that asks me to believe that, since the theory has never been submitted to Common consent. Hence President Gordon B Hinckley even questioned whether that was an LDS doctrine.

But he became man, Cowboy, he was not always a man. He was first God, from all eternity, without beginning or end.

Sounds right to me.

In addition, there is no scripture that tells us that God the Father ever became incarnate. That is Joseph Smith’s invention.

If you mean mortal, then as far as I know, you’re right. There’s no LDS scripture either that says that God the Father ever became mortal. That appears to have been simply the speculation of Joseph Smith. OTOH, if by “incarnate” you mean of immortal flesh and bone, then I disagree with you. And that’s a significant difference between our doctrines, although hardly dispositive as to whether mormons are Christians.

 

[christianley]

If you don’t have a problem with my belief that the Father has a body of Flesh and Bone, then you’re quite right; your Trinity doctrine is really not very different at all from our Godhead doctrine.

As a former LDS I don’t see much difference in the Mormon view stated in the Book of Mormon even though Mormons believe the Father has a body. And I suppose it would be considered heresy by the LDS, but there is nothing inconsistent with their doctrine in believing that Mary might be Heavenly Mother. If Jesus could participate in creation as a pre-existent spirit I imagine LDS might be willing to consider that Mary could have participated in creation as a pre-existent spirit as well.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

As a former LDS I don’t see much difference in the Mormon view stated in the Book of Mormon even though Mormons believe the Father has a body. And I suppose it would be considered heresy by the LDS, but there is nothing inconsistent with their doctrine in believing that Mary might be Heavenly Mother. If Jesus could participate in creation as a pre-existent spirit I imagine LDS might be willing to consider that Mary could have participated in creation as a pre-existent spirit as well.

Interesting. There are a couple mormons, not church leaders, that have actually proposed that Mary = Mother in Heaven theory. I don’t think that the theory is itself considered “heretical,” but the church doesn’t generally like speculation about Mother in Heaven, since there’s so little revealed doctrine on the subject.

 

[SteveVH]

Fortunately it’s not the official church doctrine that asks me to believe that, since the theory has never been submitted to Common consent. Hence President Gordon B Hinckley even questioned whether that was an LDS doctrine.

If you mean mortal, then as far as I know, you’re right. There’s no LDS scripture either that says that God the Father ever became mortal. That appears to have been simply the speculation of Joseph Smith. OTOH, if by “incarnate” you mean of immortal flesh and bone, then I disagree with you. And that’s a significant difference between our doctrines, although hardly dispositive as to whether mormons are Christians.

Simply the speculation of Joseph Smith?

**"Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of 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."** (King Follett discourse)

Doesn’t sound like he is engaging in specualtion to me. He sounds very purposeful in making these statements. Do you think the people in attendance went away thinking that old Joe was just speculating? Please. And why, having received revelation directly from God, would he need to engage in speculation to begin with?

Your entire religion is based upon the claims of Joseph Smith. There are no proofs to his claims, they are just his claims. He claims that the Book of Mormon is revealed truth. Then, in the King Follett Discourse he contradicts his own purported revelation. What kind of prophet is this? Are you telling me that you do not believe what your own prophet said in the the King Follett discourse?

I am trying to imagine, say, our Pope, making statements that contradict Catholic doctrine and then simply excusing it because he was not speaking ex cathedra.

 

[Stephen168]

"“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man…" (King Follett Discourse).

Really? "…yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did…”

Is this speculation or the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith declaring it so? By the tone of the King Follett Discourse he is declaring it so, contrary to the BoM.

 

[SteveVH]

Is this speculation or the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith declaring it so? By the tone of the King Follett Discourse he is declaring it so, contrary to the BoM.

Of course he is and that is plain to any reader who posesses the slightest degree of reason and intellectual honesty.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Is this speculation or the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith declaring it so?

Doesn’t matter. The Lord revealed D&C 50 to Joseph Smith precisely so that he and the church would not be deceived. The church never accepted the King Follett speech through the D&C 50 procedures that Joseph Smith established in 1831, therefore it’s not official church doctrine. Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not; we simply don’t know. I tend more towards Anasthasius’ interpretation of the deification doctrine.

When your Pope speaks at a funeral, do you write the discourse down in your bibles and declare it to be scripture? I don’t think so. Neither do we. Do you Catholics have arguments between you, with some folks pushing some quotes from various Popes and Carndinals, while others push other quotes, with most people trying to justify their previous political or religious views? If not, then congratulations, and may God continue to bless you. We mormons are human, we err, and God’s not done with us yet.

why, having received revelation directly from God, would he need to engage in speculation to begin with?

Because that’s often how revelation starts, with speculation that leads to questions:

D&C 9:

Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, …

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t recall ever hearing any mormon even speculate that the Father dwelt on earth as Jesus did.

Really? "…yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did…”

The church never accepted the King Follett speech through the D&C 50 procedures that Joseph Smith established in 1831, therefore it’s not official church doctrine.

You said speculate, we showed you where the founding “prophet” of Mormonism speculated. You’re welcome.