LDS: Alpha and Omega, the nature of God.

  • Thread starter Thread starter rock17
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can come up with a few more questions
How did a group of Hebrews make it all the way from the middle east to south america long before long distance sea travel was possible for people of that region?
God instructed them. If God instructed you how to build a space ship and colonize Titan, then you could do it, if you followed His instructions.
Which Pope did the Apostasy start under?
It started before the Popes, during the time of the Apostle Peter. The New Testament, particularly the epistles, discuss a number of the apostates and their break-off sects.
Why where Africans kept out of the Priesthood?
I’ve given my theory on that on another thread, just yesterday or the day before, IIRC.
Why do you baptise people have died in thier own faith?
We don’t baptize dead people; we have proxy baptisms on their behalf, which they can accept or reject. We do it because God’s told us to.
Why do you send missionaries out into the world who make the claim that Catholics and Mormons are almost the same when any one with some knowing of the two doctrines can tell that is not true?
We don’t. The Protestants are more similar to you than we are. I’ve never known an LDS person to question that.
 
God instructed them. If God instructed you how to build a space ship and colonize Titan, then you could do it, if you followed His instructions.

It started before the Popes, during the time of the Apostle Peter. The New Testament, particularly the epistles, discuss a number of the apostates and their break-off sects.

that is different from what i have heard from other lds but i have heard many stories on this.

I’ve given my theory on that on another thread, just yesterday or the day before, IIRC.
cool

We don’t baptize dead people; we have proxy baptisms on their behalf, which they can accept or reject. We do it because God’s told us to.

it is still disrespectful.

We don’t. The Protestants are more similar to you than we are. I’ve never known an LDS person to question that.
i have heard many mormons make that claim

Just another diversion though thats okay 900 more posts we can do. all these questions we can go on for hours about but we are talking about the lds diety so please can we stick to the original post start your own thread if you want to talk about anyting else other than what God is.
 
yea usually on a thread one tries to stay on topic but i gues it is easier to call a question dumb or come up with wierd insults.
Sigh. OK, sorry if you really didn’t see my answer earlier.

It’s a hard question because because God is three persons, and one of those persons is the son of the other. You agree that Jesus is God? You agree that Jesus is the son of God the Father?

Now if you meant to ask who is the father and mother of God the Father, I don’t know that the Father has a father or mother. Our official doctrine does not suggest that he does.
I am sorry i cant take any one serious who does not take a serious question about theology to heart and try and answer it, there must be something in lds doctrine about this it did not come from nowhere.
I didn’t think it was a serious question, and you’re right that it didn’t come from nowhere, but it sure didn’t come from official LDS doctrine.
 
Sigh. OK, sorry if you really didn’t see my answer earlier.

It’s a hard question because because God is three persons, and one of those persons is the son of the other. You agree that Jesus is God? You agree that Jesus is the son of God the Father?
Yes, we believe they are all one though, not seperate at all , not just one in purpose but in being.
Now if you meant to ask who is the father and mother of God the Father, I don’t know that the Father has a father or mother. Our official doctrine does not suggest that he does.

Okay that is all i wanted to know, i would like to say though that other lds people have made other claims in other conversations i have had.
I didn’t think it was a serious question, and you’re right that it didn’t come from nowhere, but it sure didn’t come from official LDS doctrine.
i am not doing this to make fun of anyone so my questions will be serious. than when there has been lds writings that incline to there being a mother and father of God or when lds believe that he does would this be considered a heresy of sorts? or has the lds not made a solid claim one way or another?
 
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?
I’ve always said that psychotropic drugs are bad for you. Mezcalin; LDS et al.

Especially LDS! CIA used it in MK ultra - bad stuff.
 
Okay that is all i wanted to know, i would like to say though that other lds people have made other claims in other conversations i have had.
That surprises me. The mormons I know that do believe all that King Follet stuff** usually don’t go blabbing it around to nonmembers.

** (I used to believe the King Follet stuff, from the time in the middle of my mission when some other missionaries showed me the King Follet stuff, until about 15 years ago when I did some more research, learned the Section 50 rules on what’s official doctrine and what isn’t, and eventually found an LDS contact who introduced me to St. Anasthasius, who for me clarified what Lorenzo Snow really meant.)
i am not doing this to make fun of anyone so my questions will be serious.
Then I apologize, Rock. I honestly thought you were poking fun of me.
than when there has been lds writings that incline to there being a mother and father of God or when lds believe that he does would this be considered a heresy of sorts?
I’ve only seen one LDS church leader, IIRC Elder Packer, even use the word “heresy.” You guys have had hundreds of years of professional clergy with time on their hands to figure out whether the gates of heaven swing or roll and how many angels dance on the head of a pin. We are a bunch of amature religionists and we aren’t that big on doctrine. Show up to church, be nice to your family, do your duties in the church (and there’s a lot of them since we don’t have a lay clergy), and if you have weird ideas, don’t go preaching them as doctrine, and you can generally slide by in the LDS church with a very bare minimum amount of agreement with the official church doctrine. We’re a fairly new church that had to resort to polygamy just to survive about 120 years ago. 😦
lds not made a solid claim one way or another?
The LDS church has not made a solid claim one way or another. As President Hinckley said, we just don’t know.
 
Now if you meant to ask who is the father and mother of God the Father, I don’t know that the Father has a father or mother. Our official doctrine does not suggest that he does.

I didn’t think it was a serious question, and you’re right that it didn’t come from nowhere, but it sure didn’t come from official LDS doctrine.
Hello Cowboy Pete - When Joseph Smith declared that what everyone had understood about God was incorrect and that he was going to unveil the truth, it is then up to the LDS to explain his teachings about God.

Now, it is an obvious question - if God was once a man as we are (as told to us by JS and is considered doctrine) He had to have a beginning. To say this is not a logical question is ridiculous. Who are the parents of God?

Wouldn’t divine parents be plural? Isn’t that more than one God?

The following is an article from the Ensign (I have posted this before). You will notice that this is about LDS doctrine.
(edited for length)

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

First in a series of two articlesThe Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith:

Few things are more crucial to the “restitution of all things” (Acts 3:21) than the doctrines Joseph Smith taught. He spoke definitively and clearly on each of them, though his knowledge grew progressively. At times it came in leaps and bounds, as when he and Sidney Rigdon saw the Lord and the degrees of glory (see D&C 76); at other times, it came “line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little” (2 Ne. 28:30). 1

The** doctrines **Joseph Smith taught do several things. They clarify scripture; they restore knowledge that had been revealed ages ago but had become lost or corrupted; they provide new knowledge; and they organize his many insights into a broad vision of eternity.

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. A follow-up article will discuss the next three—the priesthood of God, scripture, and temples and their ordinances. The doctrines in each of these important areas will be briefly summarized, and the development of these doctrines in the life and words of Joseph Smith will be explained and compared with the ideas and attitudes of his day.

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

God the Father. The truths about God that Joseph Smith restored are of paramount importance. In 1844, he taught that “it is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another.” 7 Ten years earlier, the Lectures on Faith, which Joseph Smith directed and approved, taught that to acquire faith unto salvation one needs a correct idea of God’s character, perfections, and attributes, and that one needs to know that the course of life one is pursuing is according to God’s will. 8 He also added, “If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves.” 9

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
 
i would like to just make a comparison between the lds and catholic histories, you say you are a new church with only 180 years and that is not enough time to really delve into doctrine but in the year 180 St. Irenaeus wrote his book against Heresy. Alot of stuff happened within the short first 180 years of the Catholic faith, even though there was much persecution.
 
What do you mean had to resort to polygamy just to survive?
Well, the western United States, in the 19th century, was full of men who went west to mine, log, and trap, so there was a shortage of women. To insure that each man could have a wife Mormons arranged for each woman -]to have more than one husband/-]. Ok, I don’t know either.
 
Hello Cowboy Pete - When Joseph Smith declared that what everyone had understood about God was incorrect and that he was going to unveil the truth, it is then up to the LDS to explain his teachings about God.

Now, it is an obvious question - if God was once a man as we are (as told to us by JS and is considered doctrine) He had to have a beginning. To say this is not a logical question is ridiculous. Who are the parents of God?
Talking about God having a beginning is not going to register with a Mormon. This is one of the areas of dialog in which Mormons and Christians get bogged down, due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the Mormon concept of existence.

{Mormon viewpoint on…}

Mormons believe that all of us are eternal. We, like all other matter, have always existed. We existed from eternity as blobs of a type of matter that Joseph Smith called “intelligence”. While we were not at all “progressed” at this point in our development. we were individual and distinct intelligences.

Heavenly Father is your father simply because he and one of his wives gave birth to your spirit, which somehow housed your “intelligence” much the same as your earthly body houses your spirit.

Therefore, in Mormon thought, all of us have always existed as individuals in various stages of progression. God is one of us - like us in every way (he also existed first as a raw intelligence) except that he has progressed farther and faster than we (perhaps because, as the Book of Abraham says, he is “more intelligent than they (sic) all” (Abraham 3:2).

…Mormon viewpoint off}

So for a non-Mormon to speak of God or you or me as created or having a beginning simply does not compute for a Mormon, because the Mormon believes that no one had a beginning - not you, not me, not God. They believe that all of us (the part of us that makes us US) have always existed. Mormons may consider our earthly bodies to be created things, but we are not.

That being said, LDS theology strongly implies that Heavenly Father had both parents of his spirit (as they believe we all must) and parents of his earthly body (as they believe we all must). But a beginning? No.

I hope that wasn’t too confusing.

I also hope that clarity about the way Mormons look at things will help us not to talk past each other.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
 
😃
Well, the western United States, in the 19th century, was full of men who went west to mine, log, and trap, so there was a shortage of women. To insure that each man could have a wife Mormons arranged for each woman -]to have more than one husband/-]. Ok, I don’t know either.
 
Talking about God having a beginning is not going to register with a Mormon. This is one of the areas of dialog in which Mormons and Christians get bogged down, due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the Mormon concept of existence.

{Mormon viewpoint on…}

Mormons believe that all of us are eternal. We, like all other matter, have always existed. We existed from eternity as blobs of a type of matter that Joseph Smith called “intelligence”. While we were not at all “progressed” at this point in our development. we were individual and distinct intelligences.

Heavenly Father is your father simply because he and one of his wives gave birth to your spirit, which somehow housed your “intelligence” much the same as your earthly body houses your spirit.

Therefore, in Mormon thought, all of us have always existed as individuals in various stages of progression. God is one of us - like us in every way (he also existed first as a raw intelligence) except that he has progressed farther and faster than we (perhaps because, as the Book of Abraham says, he is “more intelligent than they (sic) all” (Abraham 3:2).

…Mormon viewpoint off}

So for a non-Mormon to speak of God or you or me as created or having a beginning simply does not compute for a Mormon, because the Mormon believes that no one had a beginning - not you, not me, not God. They believe that all of us (the part of us that makes us US) have always existed. Mormons may consider our earthly bodies to be created things, but we are not.

That being said, LDS theology strongly implies that Heavenly Father had both parents of his spirit (as they believe we all must) and parents of his earthly body (as they believe we all must). But a beginning? No.

I hope that wasn’t too confusing.

I also hope that clarity about the way Mormons look at things will help us not to talk past each other.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
Hi Paul - Thank you for the explanation. I have never heard or read anything like this before. Do you have a source for this - I always like to have one.

Your post is very clear and yet I am still confused! 😛
 
Heavenly Father is your father simply because he and one of his wives gave birth to your spirit
:mad:

If that’s what you believed as a Mormon, then I think you’re a better Mormon as a Catholic then you were as a Mormon, Paul. I hope you stick with it.
 
:mad:

If that’s what you believed as a Mormon, then I think you’re a better Mormon as a Catholic then you were as a Mormon, Paul. I hope you stick with it.
When I was LDS (1975 - 1986) that is what ALL Mormons believed (based mostly on the Book of Abraham).

If you don’t believe that anymore (or won’t admit to believing it) then I rejoice that the LDS are moving ever closer to the truth. I think that is what we are all praying for.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
 
When I was LDS (1975 - 1986) that is what ALL Mormons believed (based mostly on the Book of Abraham).

If you don’t believe that anymore (or won’t admit to believing it) then I rejoice that the LDS are moving ever closer to the truth.
I did believe it. As I’ve said numerous times, a fellow LDS member introduced me to St. Anasthasius, whose perspective helped me to understand a better way to understand the scriptures on deification (and our prophet’s statement “as man is, God once was; as God is, man may become”) than the King Follet discourse.

So you’re right to rejoice. We are moving ever closer to the truth, and if you can help us with that, then thank God for you.
 
I did believe it. As I’ve said numerous times, a fellow LDS member introduced me to St. Anasthasius, whose perspective helped me to understand a better way to understand the scriptures on deification (and our prophet’s statement “as man is, God once was; as God is, man may become”) than the King Follet discourse.

So you’re right to rejoice. We are moving ever closer to the truth, and if you can help us with that, then thank God for you.
St. Athanasius never believed the hybrid Catholic/apostate position that you advocate. You have perverted St. Athanasius’ writings to siut your own twisted doctrines.

LOL, I predict that you will eventually wind up Catholic.

Keep thinking, my friend.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
 
I have to wonder though, if Cowboy Pete knows any more about St. Athanasius’ or his teachings than just the one-sentence quote that has been lifted out of context.
 
St. Athanasius never believed the hybrid Catholic/apostate position that you advocate.
Is that all you think your theology is good for – for insulting people to make yourself feel better than them?

If I’ve misunderstood St. Anasthasius, then why has no one corrected me?

Please show me the difference between what I’ve said, and what St. Anasthasius said?
LOL, I predict that you will eventually wind up Catholic.
If I do, it won’t be thanks to your conduct here so far, or Rebecca’s.
I think that is what we are all praying for.
Why would you want me in your church, if you think I’m just out to “pervert” your doctrine?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top