LDS: Jesus always God?

[Heuchler]

Heuchler,

One must study the words of the Intercessory prayer to understand what “omnipotence” of the Father and the Son means. It doesn’t mean there are several “in charge”, nor that “there are others who are above and more powerful”–not at all. Omnipotence means truly all powerful, meaning there can be no more power than that, and both God the Father and God the Son have omnipotence, and the Son prayed that His followers will be one with Them. It means to be trusted enough that the power extended through the Savior’s grace and the Father’s love is going to absolutely, unquestionably be used for absolute good.

Omniscience means truly all knowing, meaning there is no more knowledge than what God knows and Jesus knows. They know all things.

The command, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” refers back to “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”

When Moses asked God what he should say when he was asked “who sent you?” then he was told to say “I AM THAT I AM: Thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” (Exodus 3:14) Moses was also told to say "unto them, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying…“I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites…unto a land flowing with milk and honey.” (Exodus 3:15, 16)

So it is completely clear that He who brought the children of Israel out of Egypt is I AM, who is Jehovah, who is the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.

To reiterate, Jesus has the divine commission to prepare His followers for the presence of God the Father. Only He has that divine commission. He is the One in whom total, complete trust should be placed to become prepared to be in the presence of God the Father, to be one with Them.

And yet Christ was always humble and obedient to the Father always pointing others to Him. Once again, why does it seem that these other gods are ignored and kept secret from us. It seems more logical that God is the only God as He says multiple times. I would much rather believe that God was more truthful than Joseph Smith. And as the Bible states

Deuteronomy 4:35,39 — Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. (None else besides seems to imply that there is not other gods and that He Himself would not have a god.)

2 Samuel 7:22 Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God; for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears. (There is none like thee)

Isaiah44:6,8 — Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Fear ye not, neither be afraid; have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. (I am the first and the last. That means that there will be no other gods. You can’t become a God if this verse is to be held true)

 

[KathleenGee]

People also have to realize that how the Jewish people addressed God changed over time…Elohim was used for a short time in a period of prophets…

Lord is how we address Jesus Christ … consider what St. Paul said…those who cannot call Christ, Lord…have a real problem.

Lord encompasses the communion of the Holy Trinity that is shared with us.

 

[theidler]

Watch - the polygamy thing will get skipped over or ignored mighty fast. And yes, it was Joseph Smith who had 27 wives…didn’t know Brigham Young had 57!!!
Can any LDS members elaborate on this and why it happened???
My guess is that the explanation will be something involving “continuing revelation”, or a “misinterpretation of what Jesus/Heavenly Father” said (something the Adventists’ prophetess Ellen White did when the 1844 rapture never happened), but I could be, and often am, very wrong.

Honestly Parker, have you ever really subjected the human side (history, interpretation, theology, etc.) of Mormonism to any kind of scrutiny whatsoever? Faith is one thing, but what about the human beginnings of the Mormon Church? Consider the dubious, highly suspicious nature of the movement’s beginnings…does this not bother you in the least?

 

[RebeccaJ]

People also have to realize that how the Jewish people addressed God changed over time…Elohim was used for a short time in a period of prophets…

Lord is how we address Jesus Christ … consider what St. Paul said…those who cannot call Christ, Lord…have a real problem.

Lord encompasses the communion of the Holy Trinity that is shared with us.

and translation. St. Jerome translating YHWH as Dominum, to English as Lord. The Protestant reformation brought about the translation of YHWH to Jehovah, so Mormons being rooted in American Protestantism, use Jehovah. But in Smith making up a new polytheistic religion, decided that Jehovah refered to Jesus and Elohim to the Father.

So ParkerD is posting the false teaching of Mormonism, that using the different Names of God, is indicating multiple Gods. Though there are more than two names for God, Mormons ignore them.

 

[theidler]

What I think needs to be interposed in this discussion however is that Mormons themselves are good people. I have Mormon friends, and they live their faith, they are sincere in it, and their charity is profound.
I wanted to put it out there that for myself at least, I am questioning and critiquing Mormonism** not Mormons themselves. I think we should all keep that in mind, in the spirit of charity. Unless, maybe I am just stating the obvious…

 

[ParkerD]

And yet Christ was always humble and obedient to the Father always pointing others to Him. Once again, why does it seem that these other gods are ignored and kept secret from us. It seems more logical that God is the only God as He says multiple times. I would much rather believe that God was more truthful than Joseph Smith.

Heuchler,

I have been quoting the Bible to you. It is plain as day. You find it in Exodus 4 and Exodus 20. The God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob was Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ.

And as the Bible states

Deuteronomy 4:35,39 — Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. (None else besides seems to imply that there is not other gods and that He Himself would not have a god.)

What we need to understand is that Jesus is Jehovah, and is the only Savior, and there is truly “none else beside him” in whom we should trust for our salvation. What we also need to understand is that Jesus prayed to Our Father which art in Heaven, and that Jesus said that no one–not one person–will know that He is the Christ, except by revelation from God the Father. Jesus also taught that His followers should pray to God the Father, “Father in Heaven”.

To say that Jesus didn’t have God the Father as His God is to side with the Jews, who rejected Him.

2 Samuel 7:22 Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God; for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears. (There is none like thee)

This refers to the same God as He who led the children of Israel in the wilderness, who is Jehovah, Jesus Christ.

Isaiah44:6,8 — Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Fear ye not, neither be afraid; have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. (I am the first and the last. That means that there will be no other gods. You can’t become a God if this verse is to be held true)

This doesn’t say “I am the first God, and I am the last God”. It says “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” Yet Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of the Father. So the words “beside me” do not mean there cannot be God the Son standing on the right hand of God the Father.

Those words mean, in the connotation of the entire chapter Isaiah 44, that the Israelites were to place their trust alone in Him–not in man-made gods or images or carvings or any “likeness”–there is no alternate method. “I have redeemed thee” is what He says (v. 22). “The Lord hath redeemed Jacob” (v. 23)

He says “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear.” (Isaiah 45:22, 23) Jesus, Jehovah, is the one who is speaking in those verses, and Isaiah wrote the words as given to him to write.

Paul wrote that Jesus is the “author and finisher of our faith”. He is the first (the author and the only one in whom trust for salvation should be placed) and the last (the finisher). He is also the King of Israel, as noted also in Isaiah 44:6.

 

[Heuchler]

Heuchler,

I have been quoting the Bible to you. It is plain as day. You find it in Exodus 4 and Exodus 20. The God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob was Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ.

What we need to understand is that Jesus is Jehovah, and is the only Savior, and there is truly “none else beside him” in whom we should trust for our salvation. What we also need to understand is that Jesus prayed to Our Father which art in Heaven, and that Jesus said that no one–not one person–will know that He is the Christ, except by revelation from God the Father. Jesus also taught that His followers should pray to God the Father, “Father in Heaven”.

To say that Jesus didn’t have God the Father as His God is to side with the Jews, who rejected Him.

This refers to the same God as He who led the children of Israel in the wilderness, who is Jehovah, Jesus Christ.

This doesn’t say “I am the first God, and I am the last God”. It says “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” Yet Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of the Father. So the words “beside me” do not mean there cannot be God the Son standing on the right hand of God the Father.

Those words mean, in the connotation of the entire chapter Isaiah 44, that the Israelites were to place their trust alone in Him–not in man-made gods or images or carvings or any “likeness”–there is no alternate method. “I have redeemed thee” is what He says (v. 22). “The Lord hath redeemed Jacob” (v. 23)

He says “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear.” (Isaiah 45:22, 23) Jesus, Jehovah, is the one who is speaking in those verses, and Isaiah wrote the words as given to him to write.

Paul wrote that Jesus is the “author and finisher of our faith”. He is the first (the author and the only one in whom trust for salvation should be placed) and the last (the finisher). He is also the King of Israel, as noted also in Isaiah 44:6.

I believe that God the Father said that He was YHWH, the only reason this extends to Christ is because they are one.

And what do you think God was the first and the last of? Their sheep? What else could he be referring to but His Godhood. He is the First and the Last God. But to take what you said from Isaiah, “For I am God and there is none else.” He can’t have been speaking of people, for there are other people. He must have been speaking of gods, there are none else. NONE. I am the first and the last. What else would he have been the first and the last of? Probably God since nothing else fits. He is the first, that means He couldn’t have been raised on another planet. In the beginning, is not after about 70 years of living on another planet because that is not the beginning but 70 years after the beginning. To claim that God was not the first and is not the source of existence itself causes a lot of what the Bible teaches to become false and it forces you to do spiritual backflips to try and keep everything in line with what Joseph Smith preached. The truth is here, stop working too hard to hold with the Mormon faith and see that the idea of there being a God for God the Father is outrageous in context of God’s words and actions. The Lord your God is one, there are none before Him. He is the first and the last. The Alpha and the Omega. Let go of your lies and see that there are no other gods but God.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

What I think needs to be interposed in this discussion however is that Mormons themselves are good people. I have Mormon friends, and they live their faith, they are sincere in it, and their charity is profound.
I wanted to put it out there that for myself at least, I am questioning and critiquing Mormonism** not Mormons themselves. I think we should all keep that in mind, in the spirit of charity. Unless, maybe I am just stating the obvious…

Strongly, strongly, strongly seconded.

 

[Heuchler]

:yup:

What I think needs to be interposed in this discussion however is that Mormons themselves are good people. I have Mormon friends, and they live their faith, they are sincere in it, and their charity is profound.
I wanted to put it out there that for myself at least, I am questioning and critiquing Mormonism** not Mormons themselves. I think we should all keep that in mind, in the spirit of charity. Unless, maybe I am just stating the obvious…

:yup:

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Whoops - double post. Sorry.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

He is the first, that means He couldn’t have been raised on another planet. In the beginning, is not after about 70 years of living on another planet because that is not the beginning but 70 years after the beginning. To claim that God was not the first and is not the source of existence itself causes a lot of what the Bible teaches to become false and it forces you to do spiritual backflips to try and keep everything in line with what Joseph Smith preached. The truth is here, stop working too hard to hold with the Mormon faith and see that the idea of there being a God for God the Father is outrageous in context of God’s words and actions. The Lord your God is one, there are none before Him. He is the first and the last. The Alpha and the Omega.

To be fair to Parker, I get the impression that he and his family are firmly ensconced in the LDS world. That can be a very, very difficult thing to overcome. And it’s kind of a scary thing to watch your entire theology fall like a house of cards - which LDS theology does once you start teasing out the ramifications of teaching that “Heavenly Father” had a “Heavenly Father” of his own. You know it. I know it. We all know it. And I suspect Parker knows it, too, which is why he works so hard to either 1) deny (rather unconvincingly) that the LDS church teaches that or 2) put his fingers in his theological ears and say, “LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA I wouldn’t even care about it if we did teach that LA-LA-LA-LA-LA.”

Parker and I have essentially been having the same argument since I joined this forum. You cannot reconcile God as He is presented in the Bible with the even the possibility that “Heavenly Father” had a “Heavenly Father” of his own. It simply cannot be done… without, as you said, spiritual backflips, neck-snapping internal contradictions and a wholesale redefinition of Christian theology.

For the record, I have no problem with people who want to engage in a wholesale redefinition of Christian theology. I have no problem with people who want to completely re-interpret the Bible and two-thousand years of Christian tradition in a shockingly shoddy way. Just don’t act like you’re not doing it. Don’t pass yourselves off like you’re “restoring” anything. You’re not. You’re re-writing the entire story from scratch.

 

[KathleenGee]

When I see Mormons, unless they are brand new and believe in current Mormonism and know nothing about the breath of how much it encompasses in the spectrum of concepts and beliefs…yes, I have the distinct impression that Mormons who come here come from generational stock Mormonism.

Mormonism is a mindset unique to itself…

Enough said, but more given to prayer…

 

[theidler]

To be fair to Parker, I get the impression that he and his family are firmly ensconced in the LDS world. That can be a very, very difficult thing to overcome. And it’s kind of a scary thing to watch your entire theology fall like a house of cards - which LDS theology does once you start teasing out the ramifications of teaching that “Heavenly Father” had a “Heavenly Father” of his own. You know it. I know it. We all know it. And I suspect Parker knows it, too, which is why he works so hard to either 1) deny (rather unconvincingly) that the LDS church teaches that or 2) put his fingers in his theological ears and say, “LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA I wouldn’t even care about it if we did teach that LA-LA-LA-LA-LA.”

Parker and I have essentially been having the same argument since I joined this forum. You cannot reconcile God as He is presented in the Bible with the even the possibility that “Heavenly Father” had a “Heavenly Father” of his own. It simply cannot be done… without, as you said, spiritual backflips, neck-snapping internal contradictions and a wholesale redefinition of Christian theology.

For the record, I have no problem with people who want to engage in a wholesale redefinition of Christian theology. I have no problem with people who want to completely re-interpret the Bible and two-thousand years of Christian tradition in a shockingly shoddy way. Just don’t act like you’re not doing it. Don’t pass yourselves off like you’re “restoring” anything. You’re not. You’re re-writing the entire story from scratch.

To Parker’s credit though, he does a good job of at least answering objections. I went on to chat to some Mormon missionaries a few times online, respectfully asked a couple basic questions (and was not trying to change their minds, convert them to Christianity, nothing, just wanted some basic explanations), and got the wierdest responses. At least Parker is trying to defend what he believes, not just deflecting everything away, or simply telling people to go and pray for the warm feeling to know the BoM is true.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Um…

Well there’s no way to say this w/o being kinda rude. So I will simply say that I strongly, strongly disagree with you.

 

[theidler]

Um…

Well there’s no way to say this w/o being kinda rude. So I will simply say that I strongly, strongly disagree with you.

Who? If you’re referring to what I said regarding Parker’s attempts at defending his beliefs, I simply mean that he is at least trying to defend them. Most Mormon missionaries I have talked to simply change the subject or dodge the question by turning the tables on to your own life of faith…at least he is talking about some of it.

 

[Telstar]

Heuchler,

I have been quoting the Bible to you. It is plain as day. You find it in Exodus 4 and Exodus 20. The God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob was Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ.

What we need to understand is that Jesus is Jehovah, and is the only Savior, and there is truly “none else beside him” in whom we should trust for our salvation. What we also need to understand is that Jesus prayed to Our Father which art in Heaven, and that Jesus said that no one–not one person–will know that He is the Christ, except by revelation from God the Father. Jesus also taught that His followers should pray to God the Father, “Father in Heaven”.

To say that Jesus didn’t have God the Father as His God is to side with the Jews, who rejected Him.

This refers to the same God as He who led the children of Israel in the wilderness, who is Jehovah, Jesus Christ.

This doesn’t say “I am the first God, and I am the last God”. It says “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” Yet Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of the Father. So the words “beside me” do not mean there cannot be God the Son standing on the right hand of God the Father.

Those words mean, in the connotation of the entire chapter Isaiah 44, that the Israelites were to place their trust alone in Him–not in man-made gods or images or carvings or any “likeness”–there is no alternate method. “I have redeemed thee” is what He says (v. 22). “The Lord hath redeemed Jacob” (v. 23)

He says “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear.” (Isaiah 45:22, 23) Jesus, Jehovah, is the one who is speaking in those verses, and Isaiah wrote the words as given to him to write.

Paul wrote that Jesus is the “author and finisher of our faith”. He is the first (the author and the only one in whom trust for salvation should be placed) and the last (the finisher). He is also the King of Israel, as noted also in Isaiah 44:6.

If all of that is what you really believe, then why don’t you just pray to Jesus, instead of the Father? Why do you never pray to Jesus at all, if you really believe He is the God who spoke to the Prophets? They clearly prayed to Him, didn’t they? Why do LDS refuse to pray to Him? Just because Jesus gave us one way to pray to the Father, does that mean that Jesus is, now, unworthy of our prayers to Him?

 

[pablope]

Watch

Honestly Parker, have you ever really subjected the human side (history, interpretation, theology, etc.) of Mormonism to any kind of scrutiny whatsoever? Faith is one thing, but what about the human beginnings of the Mormon Church? Consider the dubious, highly suspicious nature of the movement’s beginnings…does this not bother you in the least?

This has been pointed out to ParkerD several times, by different posters, including me…and it seems to not bother Parker.

I remember his attempt to prove the Book of Abraham…common…think of it…Abraham teaching the Pharaoh of Egypt astrology…yet here were no schools of such at the time of Abraham…andi n trying to prove the great apostasy…I pointed out in one argument…for what he was saying to be true, Jesus had to be a liar…he admitted he saw my point…but repeated the same thing claim again later…so it does not bother him, I think…so I have lighted candles for .”Parker in my parish’s Adoration Chapel…for Parker may not realize it…as said in Rev 14…13 Then I heard a voice from heaven saying to me,[h] “Write: ‘Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.’”
“Yes,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, and their works follow them.”

 

[theidler]

I see…I guess I just fail to understand how anybody could not take their religious beliefs seriously enough to really investigate the human element in the religion as well - i.e., when I started pursuing Catholicism, I read the history of it. I approached it critically, as well as prgamatically, as well as with the eyes of faith too. There are many sides to a religious belief that I feel must be approached in different ways.
Anyways, Mormonism simply does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny. Groups like FAIR and FARMS try their best, but one might as well conjure up a T-Rex in their living room using happy thoughts - it’s easier.
What I really don’t appreciate is the fact that Mormonism is advertised in such a veiled way - notice that Mormons never seem to bring up their core doctrines to potential converts. Just a bunch of vague talk about Jesus, a second book substantiating the Bible, and living a good life. Nothing taught in the other “scriptures”…

 

[Telstar]

I see…I guess I just fail to understand how anybody could not take their religious beliefs seriously enough to really investigate the human element in the religion as well - i.e., when I started pursuing Catholicism, I read the history of it. I approached it critically, as well as prgamatically, as well as with the eyes of faith too. There are many sides to a religious belief that I feel must be approached in different ways.
Anyways, Mormonism simply does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny. Groups like FAIR and FARMS try their best, but one might as well conjure up a T-Rex in their living room using happy thoughts - it’s easier.
What I really don’t appreciate is the fact that Mormonism is advertised in such a veiled way - notice that Mormons never seem to bring up their core doctrines to potential converts. Just a bunch of vague talk about Jesus, a second book substantiating the Bible, and living a good life. Nothing taught in the other “scriptures”…

I almost choked when I saw you use that term (in bold). In a previous life, on another forum, far, far away… there was an LDS that used that as his forum ID. I almost thought Parker was him, when I first started posting, here!

 

[ParkerD]

If all of that is what you really believe, then why don’t you just pray to Jesus, instead of the Father? Why do you never pray to Jesus at all, if you really believe He is the God who spoke to the Prophets? They clearly prayed to Him, didn’t they? Why do LDS refuse to pray to Him? Just because Jesus gave us one way to pray to the Father, does that mean that Jesus is, now, unworthy of our prayers to Him?

Telstar,

Jesus really did teach to pray to the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ. We believe that He had wise reasons for teaching that. He is not “unworthy of our prayers”. He is our Advocate with the Father, and wants us to have a relationship with both Him and with the Father.

Latter-day Saints certainly have thoughts in their mind such as “thank you, dear Jesus”–often. When formally praying, they address Father in Heaven, in the name of Jesus Christ.

Latter-day Saints also have many hymns that give gratitude to Jesus directly. He knows of our unbounded sense of gratitude to Him.