LDS: Jesus always God?

[ParkerD]

Hi, Dcana,

Merry Christmas to you also, and great peace for the New Year.

Latter-day Saints use the expression, “God,” “God the Son”, or “the Son of God”, and not the other lower case version you had in parenthesis whenever referring to Jesus Christ as God.

Jesus being literally the Son of God, with power over death because He was the Son of God and thus possessed the power within Himself to resurrect Himself and to give up His own life through death when it was time through His own voluntary act, was God when He was born of Mary. His literal Father was God the Father, through Mary’s conception by the power of the Holy Ghost sanctifying her body to carry in her womb the Son of God, having conceived Him through miraculous divine means since she was a virgin and remained a virgin then and until after He was born.

Jesus had been God omnipotent in the pre-mortal world where He offered to come to this earth to be our Redeemer and Savior. He was omniscient and omnipotent and in full accord with Father in Heaven in all ways, during the time beginning when He was the “First Born” in the spirit and all the time after that, but came to earth as a baby with a veil over His memory and with the learning process a part of His life on earth. He “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” He “waxed strong in spirit”. So that would mean He wasn’t “equal in all ways to His Father” in terms of omniscience as a baby or a toddler. But by the time He was twelve years old, He possessed greater wisdom and understanding than the most learned of the learned Jewish scholars. No question that He learned faster than any other person on earth has ever learned, by a huge magnitude of difference.

He was worshiped by the wise men who came to the place where He was at about age two, and both Anna and Simeon also showed that they knew He was the promised Messiah and the light of the world when they saw Him soon after He was born. If one of us had been there and were familiar with the Biblical prophecies about Him and about His birth, then no doubt we would have felt the same desire to worship Him as did the wise men. It was a totally righteous act to do so.

But that is not to say that Jesus possessed “infinite wisdom” at that point in His life on earth as a baby and a toddler. He “increased in wisdom” (Luke 2:52), so that means He experienced a learning process from the time He was a baby up through some time before age thirty when He began His actual public ministry, but learned faster and with perfectness in that learning as compared with any other person on earth, each of whose learning is very imperfect and much more gradual.

I hope this has answered your questions.

Hello again to Dcana and to other readers of this thread,

A question seems to have been raised indirectly about a talk by President J. Reuben Clark Jr. and what the words meant.

People use words in language to present ideas that are sometimes just giving a glimpse of the meaning, in a “nutshell” expression that if a listener takes the simple expression and runs with that as the be-all and end-all of a teaching, then they will have run off on a tangent. (But sometimes people like to do just that.)

Jesus possessed within Himself the attributes that meant He was “like” His Father. One can surmise that His DNA and His genetic make-up included “enough” of Mary’s contribution that He would be able to suffer pain, sickness, sorrow, hunger, thirst, and so forth–but that His Father’s inclusion within His DNA and genetic make-up (the dominant genes) would be more dominant than the genes from His mother. So it would indeed seem more scientifically accurate to say He, Jesus, inherited the power of full Godhood from His Father, and inherited the “condescension” of having human characteristics of pain, sickness, sorrow, hunger, and thirst from His mother, Mary.

All this was so that He could “bear our griefs, and carry our sorrows”, and so that His suffering was indeed of an infinite dimension; and so that His resurrection and triumph over death would bring all humankind into the condition of having the blessed gift to rise from the grave by means of the power of His grace and resurrection.

A wish of peace to all.

 

[RebeccaJ]

There you go pinay, you and ParkerD can work out the conflicting things you are saying about Mormon teaching. Jesus can’t simultaneously possess something described as “God DNA”, that has the attributes of being genetically dominant, and not be a demigod. Half-deity. Half-god. However your want to call it.

Catholic teaching is Jesus’ humanity was of His mother, Mary, alone. There being no such thing as “God DNA”. Pure science fiction/fantasy, that one. (See L. Ron Hubbard.)

 

[ParkerD]

There you go pinay, you and ParkerD can work out the conflicting things you are saying about Mormon teaching. Jesus can’t simultaneously possess something described as “God DNA”, that has the attributes of being genetically dominant, and not be a demigod. Half-deity. Half-god. However your want to call it.

Catholic teaching is Jesus’ humanity was of His mother, Mary, alone. …

RebeccaJ,

If I have led anyone to think that I was describing that “Jesus’ humanity was not of His mother, Mary, alone”, then they have misunderstood.

“Jesus’ humanity was of His mother, Mary, alone.” That statement seems to be true for Catholics if what you wrote is true, and it is true for Latter-day Saints also.

 

[andrewstx]

Hello again to Dcana and to other readers of this thread,

A question seems to have been raised indirectly about a talk by President J. Reuben Clark Jr. and what the words meant.

People use words in language to present ideas that are sometimes just giving a glimpse of the meaning, in a “nutshell” expression that if a listener takes the simple expression and runs with that as the be-all and end-all of a teaching, then they will have run off on a tangent. (But sometimes people like to do just that.)

Jesus possessed within Himself the attributes that meant He was “like” His Father. One can surmise that His DNA and His genetic make-up included “enough” of Mary’s contribution that He would be able to suffer pain, sickness, sorrow, hunger, thirst, and so forth–but that His Father’s inclusion within His DNA and genetic make-up (the dominant genes) would be more dominant than the genes from His mother. So it would indeed seem more scientifically accurate to say He, Jesus, inherited the power of full Godhood from His Father, and inherited the “condescension” of having human characteristics of pain, sickness, sorrow, hunger, and thirst from His mother, Mary.

All this was so that He could “bear our griefs, and carry our sorrows”, and so that His suffering was indeed of an infinite dimension; and so that His resurrection and triumph over death would bring all humankind into the condition of having the blessed gift to rise from the grave by means of the power of His grace and resurrection.

A wish of peace to all.

Jesus’ Father being pure spirit would have no DNA to contribute.

 

[ParkerD]

Jesus’ Father being pure spirit would have no DNA to contribute.

Hi, Andrewstx,

Thanks.

So this leaves me curious about what Catholic beliefs are about Jesus’ body of flesh and bones and blood, and about His development in the womb of Mary.

Is it believed that Jesus had DNA? If it is believed that He did, is it believed that Mary was the 100% contributor to His DNA?

Is it believed that Jesus developed in Mary’s womb through cell division, or through some other means that only applied to Him?

Is it believed that Jesus possessed power over death within His physical body of flesh, bones and blood–or is it believed that just His spirit had power over death?

If this is a subject that is not supposed to be broached, then that’s OK, and I’d just have to go on being curious leaving it at that.

 

[KathleenGee]

Pinay…

What I am trying to tell you is that Mormonism originated in the United States, has a history of saying incredulous, undocumented things and practices, beliefs and practices of its founders that are being exposed either by those who have come into contact with Mormons or what is being exposed by those who left Mormonism, or those who went into it to study it, or those who are finding out more on the internet. Mormonism is loosing its American followers.

Khalid brought a link up showing the new Mormon thought, dated this past late summer…the new edition…and this ‘thought’ is disenfranchising itself from many Mormon concepts.

Americans living among Mormons are still experiencing alot of prosletyzing pressures from Mormons but resist.

Mormonism is especially targeting the Catholic Church because it is the Roman church, the priesthood, its doctrines…that Joseph Smith and his restorationist followers used as the crux to invalidate and promote themselves, creating a Great Apostasy theory, which simply put, does not add up to the reality of Christianity. Mormonism seeks Catholics like yourself to indoctrinate and use.

Where Mormonism is gaining new members are those people living overseas, because they do not know Mormonism, its treatment of non-Mormons; in past, Mormons were discouraged from making friends with non-Mormons.

A poster here on CAF brought links in showing past teachings and beliefs. When she went back, the links were removed by the Mormon church.

Am I making any sense to you???

God was once a man…such thinking is anathema. God is supreme creator who used measures, weights, laws…Western civilization is based on the Catholic Church. LDS is based on ideas that do not stand up to salvation history or to anthropology…and likewise rejects all documentation showing the validity and integrity of Christian civilization and history.

When we separate from each other in the name of Christ, we are not following Christ. He called us to be one.

Christ is God. God is relational. It is through the Incarnation, and not Joseph Smith’s teachings, that God came to earth in the form of Man, the Son of God to become Eucharist for us, and Mary, yes who had dna, gave Christ her body and blood for His humanity, and likewise the reason for our veneration of His mother.

There is no other mother god.

The theology of Christ was revealed and finalized in the Nicene Creed. There is no other books or prophets after Christ because He fulfilled them all prior to Him.

Christ is the Eternal Word.

 

[Z_Ninja]

This is an easy thing to bridge between LDS and Catholicism. Catholicism puts the CHURCH as an earthly organization. Catholicism puts Christ’s ministry as starting in Bethlehem.

LDS considers the Church a spiritual organization started before Adam became mortal - when Father and Jesus Christ laid out the plan and Jesus Christ executed the plan - all the way to judgement day and beyond. The Church, therefore, does not hinge on the priesthood authority having been succeeded by mortals in all of its history. Catholic apostolic succession means nothing. Because, priesthood authority is a non-mortal concept - it can be passed on beyond death. The Plan of Salvation can never be put asunder by the gates of hell - neither by Satan nor by man’s inequity. God’s gift to man is Free Choice giving man the capacity to sin - but the church does not hinge on that - it hinges on the Savior’s Atonement. The Body of Christ is the Church. And that Body has been there since Jesus Christ was chosen as the Savior.

Any of the more knowledgeable can correct me if I’m wrong (and I am quite often ) but, as far as I understood, the Catholic Church is NOT just an Earthly organization. Rather, it is both Spiritual and Earthly, as in the Communion of Saints, those alive and deceased combine make up Christ’s Church. It goes beyond time and space.

Okay, I misunderstood your use of the term “half-diety”.

Half-diety, as used in that particular section of the institute manual, means nothing more than that Jesus Christ was born with Diety for a Father and Mortal (or non-diety) for a Mother. That doesn’t make him half-God as your use of the term half-Diety implies. It only refers to Jesus’ genealogy.

My father-in-law, who is Mormon as is my wife, was talking about this matter to a friend the other day. And he specifically stated that Jesus was a demigod. And added, jokingly I think, like Percy Jackson.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,

If I have led anyone to think that I was describing that “Jesus’ humanity was not of His mother, Mary, alone”, then they have misunderstood.

“Jesus’ humanity was of His mother, Mary, alone.” That statement seems to be true for Catholics if what you wrote is true, and it is true for Latter-day Saints also.

You’re talking out both sides of your mouth ParkerD.

 

[RebeccaJ]

If you look at practice as a good explanation of what someone believes, one only has to look at Joseph Smith and his close group of friends, who were marrying each other even though they were already married. Nothing more than wife swapping.

When it came down to Smith’s wife Emma asking why she couldn’t have more than one husband, as her husband was claiming he could have more than one wife, Smith came up with a new “revelation”, telling her that she was going to be damned for eternity if she didn’t go along with his philandering scheme. I think she took his threat, veiled as a divine order, seriously. Though, she never accepted polygamy, claiming to her death bed that Smith never married another woman.

Tells you what she thought about his “sealings”. His own wife didn’t fall for this false teaching, but Mormons today do.

 

[Jerusha]

Getting back to the topic of the thread, perhaps we might look at the fact that no-one has ever seen God and lived. Our goal in this life is to be in the presence of God in the afterlife (Matthew 5: 8, Matthew 26: 64, Mark 14:62, Luke 9: 27, John 6:46, John 121: 40, I John 4:12). This is in total contradiction to Joseph Smith’s claim that he had had a conversation with Jesus and God:

–just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the

sun, which descended gradually until it fell on me. It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name, and said – pointing to the other-- “This is my beloved Son, hear Him.”
My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know which of all these sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right – and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong… (Smith, J. 1897-1908)

Joseph Smith was either a liar and a fraud, or this vision was demonic in origin.

 

[KathleenGee]

No one has seen God the Father and lived.

Jesus Christ did indeed establish His church, not Joseph Smith in America 150 years ago.

The Church began at Pentecost…and there is no mention of ‘church’ in the Old Testament…

It is better for the sake of unity in Christ that people remain with the authentic understanding of Christ and His Church than these endless, and I must say – mindless when authentic documents of ancient times are presented…and ignored – to desire instead to believe in Smith.

One church is not better than the other. We find our righteousness through grace in Christ alone.

 

[Telstar]

So this leaves me curious about what Catholic beliefs are about Jesus’ body of flesh and bones and blood, and about His development in the womb of Mary.

Is it believed that Jesus had DNA? If it is believed that He did, is it believed that Mary was the 100% contributor to His DNA?

Jesus had DNA the same as any other human being, and it could only be the DNA from Mary’s body. Yes, it is mind boggling to think about it according to today’s scientific terms and beliefs, but it is undeniably true. (It’s been proven by the testing of Eucharistic Miracles of Communion hosts that have become actual flesh and blood, that the flesh has the same DNA in multiple examples from different parts of the world.)

Is it believed that Jesus developed in Mary’s womb through cell division, or through some other means that only applied to Him?

We can’t really know for sure, but it is most likely that His Body developed through the same process, and in the same way, that any human child develops in its mother’s womb. (However, there are no remaining medical records from her OBGYN. )

Is it believed that Jesus possessed power over death within His physical body of flesh, bones and blood–or is it believed that just His spirit had power over death?

The humanity of Jesus was*** never*** separate from His Divinity. His humanity and Divinity were One from the moment that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, in the same way that He and His Father are One with the Holy Spirit, in the Holy Trinity. It is a true mystery that we cannot fully comprehend by human reasoning, but it’s the absolute truth.

If this is a subject that is not supposed to be broached, then that’s OK, and I’d just have to go on being curious leaving it at that.

The only part of your assessment of the subject that’s controversial and distasteful to Catholics, is in proposing that God the Father would ever have DNA. He does not. He is a pure Spirit that is not made up of any kind of physical matter, at all. There is no such thing as ‘spiritual material’ or ‘spiritual matter’. They are totally incompatible concepts, so both of those terms would be an oxymoron.

I’d like to throw out another brain teaser for you and anyone else reading this discussion. When Mary gave birth to Jesus, it was not in the typical way that all daughters of Eve give birth. When God banished Eve from the Garden of Eden, He told her: *[16] To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.*The manner of a woman’s labor and pain in giving birth is the result of God’s punishment for Eve’s sin. It’s an ‘after effect’ of Original Sin that all women share. But, since Mary was conceived and born without Original Sin (the only woman that ever was), the birth of Jesus was a miraculous and painless process, which also resulted in her remaining a Virgin after His birth. His Incarnation was truly the result of many, many miracles, from His Conception to His birth, that never stopped happening throughout His entire life on earth. That doesn’t mean that Jesus and Mary never suffered any other kinds of pain in this life, but it did make His birth even more unlike any other human birth. It was, indeed, a truly miraculous birth in many ways, that we can’t even begin to understand.

I hope you don’t get a brain cramp while trying to figure it all out just by applying your ‘human knowledge’, Parker. Have a great day!

 

[SteveVH]

Hi, Andrewstx,

Thanks.

So this leaves me curious about what Catholic beliefs are about Jesus’ body of flesh and bones and blood, and about His development in the womb of Mary.

Is it believed that Jesus had DNA? If it is believed that He did, is it believed that Mary was the 100% contributor to His DNA?

Is it believed that Jesus developed in Mary’s womb through cell division, or through some other means that only applied to Him?

Parker, the incarnation was a miraculous event. It did not require a sexual act. Christ received his human nature from Mary, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Miracles, by their very nature, cannot be explained through human reason or science. That is one of the tests of a miracle. If it can be explained scientifically then it is not a miracle.

Is it believed that Jesus possessed power over death within His physical body of flesh, bones and blood–or is it believed that just His spirit had power over death?

If this is a subject that is not supposed to be broached, then that’s OK, and I’d just have to go on being curious leaving it at that.

Not sure why you would think that this is a subject that is not to be broached. Jesus posessed power over death because he is God. You cannot divide Christ into physical and spiritual parts. He is one Person with two natures; human and divine. Now I know the LDS teach that God is really no different than us (only in degrees of progression) but that is where the problem lies. God is different in his very being. He is divine. We are not. Jesus Christ was not half human and half divine. He was fully human and fully divine in one Person. We have been though that discussion on more than a few occassions, but the truth remains that only God is God. There is no other. As God, he has power over life and death within himself.

 

[KathleenGee]

So…Pinay is banned…I felt a real sense about her…I pray for her…

 

[Pepband_Mom]

No matter what Parker & LDS associates on these posts tell you, their end goad is GODHOOD. The missionaries will never tell you that at your door either & I don’t expect Parker in his over 5000+ kind, soothing posts and associates on the Forums to be up front with us either. When one goes step by step through their initiation process, you would learn of impending “godhood”. No matter the theological statements they politely tell us, their eternal, eschatological end is to be as gods which is a very disturbing belief (see the snake in Genesis).

Does tap dancing around whether Jesus is God or not really matter at the end of the day if their goal in eternity is to be a “god”?:banghead:

 

[SteveVH]

Just read through the posts on this thread once again. It dawns on me that questions along the subject matter of this thread really get us nowhere until the foundations of Mormon theology are understood by Catholics and admitted by Mormons.

In reality, Mormon theology draws no distinction between us and God other than a certain level of progression. So to ask the question “Was Jesus always God?” does not get to the heart of the matter. To believe that we are self-existent, eternal with God with no dependence on Him for our existence, therefore apart from God, with the innate ability to become gods ourselves through nothing more than obedience to certain laws, is to approach the subject from a completely different perspective with no possibility of arriving at common ground.

What I cannot understand is the Mormon propensity to camouflage their true beliefs by covering themselves with traditional Christian language and theology in an attempt to appear Christian. This is a truly polytheistic religion, diametrically oppossed to Christian monotheism, so to discuss the nature of Jesus Christ is a meaningless excercise until the Mormon posters here are willing to just be honest about their true beliefs rather than hidding in obscure scriptural references and doublespeak.

 

[ParkerD]

Just read through the posts on this thread once again. It dawns on me that questions along the subject matter of this thread really get us nowhere until the foundations of Mormon theology are understood by Catholics and admitted by Mormons.

In reality, Mormon theology draws no distinction between us and God other than a certain level of progression. So to ask the question “Was Jesus always God?” does not get to the heart of the matter. To believe that we are self-existent, eternal with God with no dependence on Him for our existence, therefore apart from God, with the innate ability to become gods ourselves through nothing more than obedience to certain laws, is to approach the subject from a completely different perspective with no possibility of arriving at common ground.

What I cannot understand is the Mormon propensity to camouflage their true beliefs by covering themselves with traditional Christian language and theology in an attempt to appear Christian. This is a truly polytheistic religion, diametrically oppossed to Christian monotheism, so to discuss the nature of Jesus Christ is a meaningless excercise until the Mormon posters here are willing to just be honest about their true beliefs rather than hidding in obscure scriptural references and doublespeak.

SteveVH,

What you refer to as “obscure scriptural references” are as plain as day, just as Jesus is the light of the world. The Bible is obscure to those who make it obscure.

On the Catholic side of the question about Jesus and whether He was “always God”, one moves into reading Thomas Aquinas and then one moves toward acknowledging that his thinking was greatly influenced by Aristotelian philosophy–which becomes the whole basis of saying there can only be “one first cause” and therefore One God even though describing Him as Three Persons because the Bible differentiates between there being God the Father, His Only Begotten Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Latter-day Saints simply understand that Aristotle was not inspired about there being “one first cause”.

The Bible can be read and understood, but it also allows for free will choice by each reader as to what they will glean from the teachings and the prophecies and promises.

Latter-day Saints glean meanings that are not influenced by Aristotelian philosophy–they are seen as being able to be understood just as the words describe the promises. John described those promises based on the vision he was given when he was God’s chosen leader on the earth. They aren’t “obscure”–but when viewed through the lens of Aristotelian philosophy, they do become “obscured” and are no longer clear.

 

[KathleenGee]

Repeating what others have said in discussing points…yes, Pinay was not only misrepresenting our faith back to us as a former Catholic, but using terms and going so far with them, and the real meaning not clear.

Problem with Mormonism is that they use different meanings for same words, deflect, ignore, and attempt various forms of proselytizing…I think it particularly a lost cause for former Catholics, even very inappropriate as well. Essentially, it makes Mormon apologists out to be devious.

 

[ParkerD]

Repeating what others have said in discussing points…yes, Pinay was not only misrepresenting our faith back to us as a former Catholic, but using terms and going so far with them, and the real meaning not clear.

Problem with Mormonism is that they use different meanings for same words, deflect, ignore, and attempt various forms of proselytizing…I think it particularly a lost cause for former Catholics, even very inappropriate as well. Essentially, it makes Mormon apologists out to be devious.

Kathleen,

Just because the Bible can be understood with various meanings for the words and the teachings, does not mean someone who believes the words have a different meaning than you are used to is “being devious”.

I think everyone ought to read the Bible (KJV or Douay Rheims if in English), remove their preconceived ideas about the meanings as best they can, pray sincerely about what they read, and let God inspire their minds about the truths He wants them to know.

He will do that. This is not a devious approach to finding out what He will do for those who “trust in the Lord with all their heart”, “lean not unto their own understanding”, and “in all their ways acknowledge Him” so that “He shall direct their path”.

 

[Telstar]

Just read through the posts on this thread once again. It dawns on me that questions along the subject matter of this thread really get us nowhere until the foundations of Mormon theology are understood by Catholics and admitted by Mormons.

In reality, Mormon theology draws no distinction between us and God other than a certain level of progression. So to ask the question “Was Jesus always God?” does not get to the heart of the matter. To believe that we are self-existent, eternal with God with no dependence on Him for our existence, therefore apart from God, with the innate ability to become gods ourselves through nothing more than obedience to certain laws, is to approach the subject from a completely different perspective with no possibility of arriving at common ground.

What I cannot understand is the Mormon propensity to camouflage their true beliefs by covering themselves with traditional Christian language and theology in an attempt to appear Christian. This is a truly polytheistic religion, diametrically oppossed to Christian monotheism, so to discuss the nature of Jesus Christ is a meaningless excercise until the Mormon posters here are willing to just be honest about their true beliefs rather than hidding in obscure scriptural references and doublespeak.

I think you hit on an important distinction between Catholicism and Mormonism. While Catholics are focused on ultimately being joined with God for all eternity, Mormons are more focused on becoming “a god”, themselves, like the billions of others that they believe already exist in the cosmos, or will exist in the future. In the end, they will effectively be completely separated from the God that we all know and love, so they can go off to populate another new planet, “somewhere, out there”.

To them, Jesus is not really all that different than they are. He just happens to be the “first born son” of their version of the god of this world, so he has a special ‘designation’ in their family. Other than that, He’s just their “big brother” that got a bigger piece of the pie than the rest of them. Nothing about their ‘eternal father’ is any more special than any other individual member of their ‘species’ of godlike beings. It really is reminiscent of what the “Ancient Aliens” TV show promotes as a kind of alien race that is only superior to mankind because of their (supposed) advanced intellectual level. I think it’s pretty sad, actually.