LDS: Did God 'create' Jesus?

[KathleenGee]

You start to get a focus and then it disappears…why I can’t go too far in discussing differences…

 

[campeador]

Campeador,

Your question goes back to before the universe began for us as spirits–before “the beginning”. So from our standpoint, from “the beginning”, Jesus has always been God the Son. That is why He is Alpha. As an intelligence, He had the innate capacity to be God the Son, through the endowment of being the Only Begotten Son and the Firstborn and through His capacity as the supremely endowed intelligence.

So, your answer is no? Jesus was not always a god?

 

[ParkerD]

So, your answer is no? Jesus was not always God?

Campeador,

It seems to me that your question is an attempt that I would contradict scripture, and I would not do that. From our perspective and from what God revealed through the Bible for us to know and understand, Jesus has always been God the Son.

 

[Calculus]

No, by saved I don’t mean exalted, I mean saved. What you have said here is very telling, Parker. Being saved means one thing, that I am going to heaven rather than hell.
And if I make it to heaven it will be because of the mercy of God, not because I have progressed through my own merits.

The only one to be exalted is the Lord, our God. Our posture should be one of complete humility, not one of exalting ourselves. Your statement reminds me very much of the idea behind reincarnation. If you don’t make it the first time, no worries. You’ll get another chance, as many as you need, until you reach the state of divinity.

Your notion of salvation is so foreign to Christianity that it is unrecognizable. I had no idea, until now, how deep in error the Mormon church is on this, the most basic doctrine. We are in need of salvation, not exaltation. It isn’t about us, it is about a God, who loved us so much that He sent His only Son to pay our debt, to suffer and die for us, so that we might spend eternity with Him. It is about the unfathomable love of a merciful God. We are nothing but miserable wretches, yet He loves us and gives us dignity and desires to spend eternity with us as His adopted sons and daughters. It is not about us desiring glory and exaltation for ourselves.

Latter-day Saints do not believe that we can save/exalt ourselves, nor that we can progress on our own merits. Instead, we quite clearly and definitively believe that it is only through the atonement of Jesus Christ that we can receive eternal life. One must have faith in Jesus Christ, repent of one’s sins, and enter into various covenantal relationships (such as baptism, confirmation, endowment, etc) to receive eternal life. I don’t believe that ParkerD said anything about getting to Heaven on our own merits, and if he did, such an idea is not found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Atonement of Christ is central to exaltation. LDS believe that it is through the Atonement that we can become joint-heirs with Christ, if we endure to the end. (Romans 8:17, Matthew 24:13, Revelation 21:7, etc.)

And it just gets stranger and stranger. I’ve said enough about the notion of progression. But where in God’s universe do you come up with "but that should have been translated 'today you will be with me in the spirit world’". Says who? I realize that you would like it to say that but the fact is that is doesn’t. I would love to see your source for this assertion. Help me, oh God.

If you are in Paradise, you are saved, trust me on this one.

I think what ParkerD is referring to is the LDS belief in the “spirit world”. LDS believe that when we die, we go to the spirit world, which is divided into Paradise, and Spirit Prison. This also refers to Abraham’s Bosom and Hades in the Bible. So, one interpretation of the good thief is that he went to Abraham’s Bosom/Paradise, which is not the same thing as Heaven (where God lives), since Jesus says that “today” they will be in Paradise, yet Jesus had not yet ascended to Heaven. On this Wikipedia page, there is a quote from Aquinas that says that the good thief went down to “hell” with Christ (“hell” referring to Hades, and not Gehenna).

So its all up to you. All I have to say is good luck!

No, it is not all up to us. Please see above (and I believe ParkerD stated in the quote from your post “what it means to have progressed through the grace of Christ”. We cannot save ourselves.

 

[campeador]

Campeador,

It seems to me that your question is an attempt that I would contradict scripture, and I would not do that. From our perspective and from what God revealed through the Bible for us to know and understand, Jesus has always been God the Son.

Friend, my intention is to understand LDS beliefs more fully. I’ve asked for clarification not contradiction. You said in post #81:

…that He could have such a Son, a Separate Person and with such a highly sensitized brightness of teachableness that His Only Begotten Son would be able to become God through being instructed by His Father, through observation, and through His own innate ability.

This implies that Jesus became a god and wasn’t always a god. Again, I ask for clarification and again, thanks for your patience.

 

[Miriam1947]

Basically what we are dealing with here are Mormon Apologetics. They are here to try to convince us that they are Christians. They continually deny that they believe in 3 gods and will always say Begotten Son.

Ask them who they pray to. It is never Jesus. It is “Heavenly Father”.

We say that Christ is the only Begotten Son of God and they try to make us think it means the same thing.

We know that the Trinity is God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. ONE GOD, three persons. Is that a hard concept? Yes of course it is. We are only human and have problems with knowledge of eternity, God in three persons, etc.

Part of the Nicene Creed which we say in mass each Sunday. This is the modern version.

*We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.*

. . . We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.

This is what I have gleaned from our conversation here and from a little research.

Mormons believe in three separate gods and that Jesus learned to be god from “Heavenly Father”. They also believe that “Heavenly Father” is not the eternal God who created all things.

They believe they are spirit children who came to earth and will go to spirit heaven which is a planet where they will have many wives and lots of spirit children to send back to earth to start the whole cycle again.

Which is polygamy and I wonder how many Mormon women really want to have this as their final destination. Doesn’t sound like heaven to me.

 

[ParkerD]

Friend, my intention is to understand LDS beliefs more fully. I’ve asked for clarification not contradiction. You said in post #81:

…that He could have such a Son, a Separate Person and with such a highly sensitized brightness of teachableness that His Only Begotten Son would be able to become God through being instructed by His Father, through observation, and through His own innate ability.

Campeador,

God the Father has a Firstborn Son who is His rightful Heir, who is perfectly perfect from all eternity to all eternity. What I have tried to convey is that as an intelligence, He would have needed to gain a spirit body and also to observe how His Father practices omnipotence and omniscience in a perfectly loving way, sustaining the free will choices of intelligences and spirits.

When Jesus was begotten as the Only Begotten Son, which means He was at that point a Spirit who had been begotten as a Spirit, He may be viewed as God the Son and I think that would be correct. As God the Son, that would mean He is omnipotent and omniscient at that point, and forever and always thereafter, and is united in being One with His Father in a unified will and purpose.

All that happened while we were still only intelligences, not spirits. So our spirit understanding and mortal understanding is that Jesus is “God with us” and has always been God, and we know that He is the Creator of our known universe.

 

[campeador]

Campeador,

God the Father has a Firstborn Son who is His rightful Heir, who is perfectly perfect from all eternity to all eternity. What I have tried to convey is that as an intelligence, He would have needed to gain a spirit body and also to observe how His Father practices omnipotence and omniscience in a perfectly loving way, sustaining the free will choices of intelligences and spirits.

When Jesus was begotten as the Only Begotten Son, which means He was at that point a Spirit who had been begotten as a Spirit, He may be viewed as God the Son and I think that would be correct. As God the Son, that would mean He is omnipotent and omniscient at that point, and forever and always thereafter, and is united in being One with His Father in a unified will and purpose.

All that happened while we were still only intelligences, not spirits. So our spirit understanding and mortal understanding is that Jesus is “God with us” and has always been God, and we know that He is the Creator of our known universe.

So, your answer is yes? Jesus was always a god? Then why couldn’t he gain a spirit body on his own? Why did he need to be begotten? Couldn’t he beget himself?

 

[ParkerD]

So, your answer is yes? Jesus was always God? Then why couldn’t He gain a spirit body on his own? Why did He need to be begotten? Couldn’t He beget Himself?

Campeador,
My answer was “yes” from our perspective, because from our perspective when we first knew Him, He was already the Only Begotten Son and the Firstborn, and we were already familiar with His love, His faith by which He had power, His joy from being One with the Father, His omnipotence and His glory.

He gained a spirit body through God the Father, not through His own power although He had supremely gifted intelligence. I think it is clear from the scriptures that He couldn’t “beget Himself.” Besides which, He and the Father work conjointly together, and thus He would have known through His perfect intelligence that there was purpose in His accepting the glorified role of being the Father’s Only Begotten Son, so that He could save us through the power of His Redeeming grace.

The Father’s plan, and the Son’s essential role in this plan of salvation, are given to humankind because They love us. Jesus sustains His Father’s plan for our redemption, because of His perfect and infinite love for us.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Campeador,
My answer was “yes”** from our perspective**, because from our perspective when we first knew Him, He was already the Only Begotten Son and the Firstborn, and we were already familiar with His love, His faith by which He had power, His joy from being One with the Father, His omnipotence and His glory.

This would be like from my perspective my dad has always been my dad right?

 

[ParkerD]

This would be like from my perspective my dad has always been my dad right?

I don’t know how many different ways I need to say it before it is understood. The perspective I was talking about is the perspective we had as spirits and the perspective we have as mortal people on this earth. Within those two perspectives, which have a time frame, Jesus was always God the Son, always “fully God” to use the terminology I have seen used by Catholics (but understanding that He is truly a Separate Person). He was Alpha, the Beginning, and the Firstborn. We knew Him as God the Son, and that He was always the same unchangeable God, and was One with the Father as I have previously noted.

He was an intelligence before He was a Spirit when He was begotten as the Only Begotten Son. He was a Spirit when He was the Only Begotten Son, and was also the Only Begotten Son “in the flesh” when He was born to the virgin Mary on this earth. He came to earth as Immanuel, God with us.

 

[Miriam1947]

I don’t know how many different ways I need to say it before it is understood. The perspective I was talking about is the perspective we had as spirits and the perspective we have as mortal people on this earth. Within those two perspectives, which have a time frame, Jesus was always God the Son, always “fully God” to use the terminology I have seen used by Catholics (but understanding that He is truly a Separate Person). He was Alpha, the Beginning, and the Firstborn. We knew Him as God the Son, and that He was always the same unchangeable God, and was One with the Father as I have previously noted.

He was an intelligence before He was a Spirit when He was begotten as the Only Begotten Son. He was a Spirit when He was the Only Begotten Son, and was also the Only Begotten Son “in the flesh” when He was born to the virgin Mary on this earth. He came to earth as Immanuel, God with us.

Jesus was always God the Son, always “fully God” to use the terminology I have seen used by Catholics (but understanding that He is truly a Separate Person)

Is he part of the trinity? Is there a trinity, God the father, Jesus the son, and the Holy Spirit? ONE GOD in three persons. Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Or is your belief in THREE separate gods? 1st god the father, 2nd god the son, 3rd god the holy spirit? Simple question, yes or no will do.

 

[ParkerD]

Jesus was always God the Son, always “fully God” to use the terminology I have seen used by Catholics (but understanding that He is truly a Separate Person)

Is he part of the trinity? Is there a trinity, God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit? ONE GOD in three persons. Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Or is your belief in THREE separate Gods? 1st God the Father, 2nd God the Son, 3rd God the Holy Spirit? Simple question, yes or no will do.

They are One God.

Trinity is not a Biblical term, at all.

Peace to you, Miriam.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I don’t know how many different ways I need to say it before it is understood. The perspective I was talking about is the perspective we had as spirits and the perspective we have as mortal people on this earth. Within those two perspectives, which have a time frame, Jesus was always God the Son, always “fully God” to use the terminology I have seen used by Catholics (but understanding that He is truly a Separate Person). He was Alpha, the Beginning, and the Firstborn. We knew Him as God the Son, and that He was always the same unchangeable God, and was One with the Father as I have previously noted.

He was an intelligence before He was a Spirit when He was begotten as the Only Begotten Son. He was a Spirit when He was the Only Begotten Son, and was also the Only Begotten Son “in the flesh” when He was born to the virgin Mary on this earth. He came to earth as Immanuel, God with us.

Yes but the question is about before the “time frame” you keep mentioning. You keep giving the same answer in different ways and every time you qualify your answer to a “perspective” that is limited to our development as spirits and mortals. You seem to be unable to look through a different lens and understand just what the question is.

And I haven’t had any better luck getting an answer on just how the word “only” is valid in “the Only Begotten Son”.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes but the question is about before the “time frame” you keep mentioning. You keep giving the same answer in different ways and every time you qualify your answer to a “perspective” that is limited to our development as spirits and mortals. You seem to be unable to look through a different lens and understand just what the question is.

And I haven’t had any better luck getting an answer on just how the word “only” is valid in “the Only Begotten Son”.

Zaffiroborant,

The Bible teaches us from our perspective, not from God’s perspective. I have answered based on a Biblical perspective, which is using our perspective and using what we have been taught that we need to know. God knows more than we know about those subjects, and has a wider time frame than our perspective gives us (goes without saying).

As far as the Only Begotten Son, if I knew the specific answer to your question and the answer to the corollary question of “begotten spirits” as compared with “created spirits from intelligences”, then I would be saying I was “out in front” of my leaders, and that is not how these kinds of things are revealed–they do come from asking questions, but I’m not the right person to ask it.

However, I would say you are in a different position so you could ask the question and seek an answer by revelation, and perhaps would receive an answer that would settle the matter in your mind.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,

The Bible teaches us from our perspective, not from God’s perspective. I have answered based on a Biblical perspective, which is using our perspective and using what we have been taught that we need to know. God knows more than we know about those subjects, and has a wider time frame than our perspective gives us (goes without saying).

If you can’t or won’t answer the question that was asked then just say so, quit prevaricating. I have to take from all your non answers that either you don’t know if Jesus was always God, or that he was not and you can’t bring yourself to say so.

As far as the Only Begotten Son, if I knew the specific answer to your question and the answer to the corollary question of “begotten spirits” as compared with “created spirits from intelligences”, then I would be saying I was “out in front” of my leaders, and that is not how these kinds of things are revealed–they do come from asking questions, **but I’m not the right person to ask it. **

However, I would say you are in a different position so you could ask the question and seek an answer by revelation, and perhaps would receive an answer that would settle the matter in your mind.

But you are the person that made the claim so you would be the one asked to support it. I’ve not seen this claim from any LDS, member, leader or, apologist. I see no support for this idea in any “doctrine” of the LDS church but you seem to believe it fits perfectly well with LDS thought. Since you believe this you should be able to explain just how it fits and what it means in LDS thought. At this point it’s looking more and more that the idea of the “Only Begotten Son” meaning more than simply Jesus conception, is appealing to you and that you some how want to attach that to LDS beliefs. Or that you want some how to leave people with the impression that our beliefs about the nature of God are really not so different after all, which could be helpful in cases like that of Zipporah.

 

[ParkerD]

But you are the person that made the claim so you would be the one asked to support it. I’ve not seen this claim from any LDS, member, leader or, apologist. I see no support for this idea in any “doctrine” of the LDS church but you seem to believe it fits perfectly well with LDS thought. Since you believe this you should be able to explain just how it fits and what it means in LDS thought.

At this point it’s looking more and more that the idea of the “Only Begotten Son” meaning more than simply Jesus conception, is appealing to you and that you some how want to attach that to LDS beliefs. Or that you want some how to leave people with the impression that our beliefs about the nature of God are really not so different after all, which could be helpful in cases like that of Zipporah.

Zaffiroborant,
Here is the support, straight from pure doctrinal sources:

Moses 1:6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all…
32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.
33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

Moses 2:1 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; write the words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.

Moses 5:9 And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will.
• • •
57 For they would not hearken unto his voice, nor believe on his Only Begotten Son, even him whom he declared should come in the meridian of time, who was prepared from before the foundation of the world.

Moses 6:52 And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you.

D & C 76:13 Even those things which were from the beginning before the world was, which were ordained of the Father, through his Only Begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, even from the beginning;…

25 And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son,…

Alma 5: 48
48 I say unto you, that I know of myself that whatsoever I shall say unto you, concerning that which is to come, is true; and I say unto you, that I know that Jesus Christ shall come, yea, the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace, and mercy, and truth. And behold, it is he that cometh to take away the sins of the world, yea, the sins of every man who steadfastly believeth on his name.
Alma 9: 26
26 And not many days hence the Son of God shall come in his glory; and his glory shall be the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace, equity, and truth, full of patience, mercy, and long-suffering, quick to hear the cries of his people and to answer their prayers.

I think you may have noticed when I responded to BartBurk that I had not thought in much depth about the differentiation between “Only Begotten Son in the flesh” and “Only Begotten Son”. I had thought I was making it clear, and if not then I hope I am making it clear to you now that I believe the words as given in the scriptures–the Bible as well as those cited above–give true doctrine, and the words “in the flesh” are not included and thus there is a differentiation that means more than “in the flesh.” The words mean exactly what they say.

As far as Zipporah, anyone who simply goes to the internet looking for religious truth is going to be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine” and until anyone in that kind of situation sincerely seeks the voice of the Good Shepherd and the confirming influence of the Holy Ghost, then nothing I would write in this forum would help them past a smidgen and they would still be “carried about with every wind of doctrine” until such time as they stopped using the internet as their source.

Reminder to other readers: please, when reading words that are sacred language talking about God and His Son, do so with reverence toward using those words–I assume most feel that reverence but it is hard to convey in a conversation without the personal voice being heard by the reader. Peace to all.

 

[RebeccaJ]

As far as Zipporah, anyone who simply goes to the internet looking for religious truth is going to be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine” and until anyone in that kind of situation sincerely seeks the voice of the Good Shepherd and the confirming influence of the Holy Ghost, then nothing I would write in this forum would help them past a smidgen and they would still be “carried about with every wind of doctrine” until such time as they stopped using the internet as their source.

Translation: Anyone who makes a decision other than Mormonism has done so because they are confused. To not face this “confusion”, only listen to Mormon missionaries.

 

[KathleenGee]

It is better to stay within the Jewish understanding of the Old Testament and then with the hermaneutical keys of the Holy Spirit after Pentecost.

 

[Miriam1947]

ParkerD:

Here is the support, straight from pure doctrinal sources:

Moses . . , D & C . . , Alma . . .

These are your doctrinal sources. I don’t recall any of those sources in the Bible.

This is a response on another forum from a former Mormon to a Mormon poster:

Th*en perhaps you will share which of these is which:

1. Mormons believe in many, many gods.
2. Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was created and not eternally God.
3. Mormons believe that the gods breed in heaven in order to create additional spirit children.
4. Mormons believe polygamy is STILL practiced in heaven.
5. Mormons believe they can qualify to become gods with their own planet, wives and worshippers.

OK, which of those statements are TRUE (all of them are true, by the way), which are “rumors”, which are “half-truths”, and which are “outright lies?”
*
Is this the truth of Mormon beliefs?