LDS: Jesus always God?

[vsedriver]

LDS believe that the spirit is eternal - no beginning, no end. The spirit joins the body between conception and birth.

this makes no sense. Only God is eternal. Only God has no beginning and no end. The human spirit or soul is a creation of God. So the human spirit has a beginning and is immortal but it is not eternal.

 

[vsedriver]

For something to have no end, it doesn’t make sense to an LDS for it to have a beginning.

So LDS do not believe God is omnipotent. Because you just stated that God can’t create an immortal soul. Since God the Father is the Creator I don’t see why He couldn’t create immortal souls/spirits.

If God is eternal and spirit is eternal then spirit is God. So does that mean when the spirit is separated from the body does it become God? If I follow that logic then the individual ceases to exist and the spirit rejoins its whole as there is no reason for an eternal piece of God to remain separated from Itself.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

“bring forth”, “produce”.

Both of those are much, much closer to “create” than “organized.”

Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

1. “To invest with a new form, office, or character; to constitute.”

So of the 5 primary definitions of the word “create” that I listed, Catholics would agree that 4.5 of them are acceptable. However, members of the LDS faith would only agree that .5 of them (sub-definition “a” of definition #2) is acceptable.

I will leave it to “the general reader” (zing!) to judge for themselves as to which groups are “brushing aside” definitions as “non-acceptable.”

Ba-ra is the word used in Isaiah 40:26, and refers back to earlier verses in that chapter that show a word use that does not indicate “out of nothing”.

Again, you’re just making assertions that are patently false. “Ba-ra” does not appear earlier in chapter 40 of Isaiah. It appears later, in verse 28, when Isaiah refers to “the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth…”

Isaiah 40:26, from the KJV, in context:

“25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal ? saith the Holy One. 26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth . 27 Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest , O Israel, My way is hid from the LORD, and my judgment is passed over from my God? 28 Hast thou not known ? hast thou not heard , that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary ?”

And it certainly does show a word used to indicate “out of nothing.” Assuming, of course, that you believe the Bible, which teaches in the very first sentence that God created the heavens and the earth. If you redefine the first sentence (the first sentence!) of the Bible, as LDS theology does, well… you can obviously draw any number of erroneous conclusions.

I suppose a thought question from Genesis 1:2 is,

Oooh! A “thought question!” That’s my new favorite Parker-ism. Sorry, “to the general reader,” your time has passed.

Why was the earth “without
form” after it had been created if verse 1 is talking about its creation from nothing?

Because God had not yet separated water from dry land. Ever seen mud? Does it have a form? Or would you call it, say, formless?

 

[Crdl2Grv]

These quotes are all unambiguous and describe a consistent belief taught by LDS prophets and apostles. I don’t see why an enlightened man like you would need to have it explained to him when, to a spiritually darkened apostate like me, it is quite simple and clear.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

Boom.

 

[Telstar]

Classic Parker: “Create doesn’t actually mean what you think it means. And even if it did, it’s not the correct translation.”

So awesome.

I was when I first read your post because it was the same reaction I had, when I read Parker’s post. I immediately went to the Merriam-Webster online to get the definition, but decided not to bother, since I figured someone else would call him on it.

And, of course, Parker posts a typical Parker come-back:

“bring forth”, “produce”.

Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

1. “To invest with a new form, office, or character; to constitute.”

Classic! Totally ignore the primary meaning, and go for the more obscure and less profound one that fits your agenda, instead.

Sorry, Parker, but you’re way too predictable.

Ba-ra is the word used in Isaiah 40:26, and refers back to earlier verses in that chapter that show a word use that does not indicate “out of nothing”.

You do realize that Isaias 40:26 is talking about God, Who created all things, right? If Ba-ra is only used to describe what only God can do, then it’s exactly the same way that it’s used in Genesis.[26] Lift up your eyes on high, and see who hath created these things: who bringeth out their host by number, and calleth them all by their names: by the greatness of his might, and strength, and power, not one of them was missing.
God created everything by His own power. If He didn’t create it, then it doesn’t exist, nor will it ever exist.

I suppose a thought question from Genesis 1:2 is,

Why was the earth “without form” after it had been created if verse 1 is talking about its creation from nothing?

Maybe you should just think about it for a moment. In Genesis 1:1, God created all of the basic components of matter that would be necessary for Him to use to create everything else that exists in the universe. Then, in Genesis 1:2, He got down to the business of putting everything that He wanted to exist together, into all of it’s familiar forms that we see throughout the whole universe, in more detail. He created every atom, every molecule, every element, every scientific and mathematical process, including time itself. That’s how powerful God really is, Parker. He created it all out of absolutely nothing, just by His power of thinking it into existence! God is awesome!

 

[vsedriver]

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.

There was no DNA from Jesus’ father. His father was spirit, spirits don’t have DNA.

 

[zaffiroborant]

PaulDupre:

ParkerD:

Paul,

I disagree with the words “in the face of consistent teaching by your prophets and apostles since Joseph Smith’s time that God the Father was not always God, but became God as a result of obedience to His God.”

I am familiar that Joseph Smith is quoted as having given a discourse (not the King Follett, but a separate talk in 1844), that had a phrase like “father who had a father…” But as far as I’m concerned, that teaching was never explained enough to consider it doctrinal, and to my knowledge it has not been taught in my day by prophets who have lived during my lifetime (which would include beginning with David O McKay).

I also don’t feel like it’s something I need to know about–if it were, it would be in the scriptures or in a formally presented unanimous doctrinal statement by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve.

Here is the actual quote:

If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.

• History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473

The quote seems very clear to me. Why would it need to be explained?

Here are some more:

Our father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a father, and since there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father"

• Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 2:47

Man was born of woman; Christ, the Savior, was born of woman; and God, the Father was born of woman"

• Prophet Joseph F. Smith, Deseret News, Church News, Sept. 19, 1936, p. 2

The Father is a glorified, perfected, resurrected, exalted man who worked out his salvation by obedience to the same laws he has given to us so that we may do the same"

• Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p. 64

We are precisely in the same condition and under the same circumstances that God our heavenly Father was when he was passing through this, or a similar ordeal

• Prophet Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p. 54

These quotes are all unambiguous and describe a consistent belief taught by LDS prophets and apostles. I don’t see why an enlightened man like you would need to have it explained to him when, to a spiritually darkened apostate like me, it is quite simple and clear.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

And what’s going on here with past prophets and GA’s is also quite simple and clear.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[PaulDupre]

“A point in every direction is the same as no point at all.” Harry Nilsson

I love Harry Nilsson and especially The Point. Good to meet another fan!

By the way, have you heard his rendition of “Mack the Knife”? It’s awesome.

Paul

P.S.: Sorry, everyone, for the off-topic post. I couldn’t resist.

 

[PaulDupre]

And what’s going on here with past prophets and GA’s is also quite simple and clear.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PUg5rqWnu.../2kTKc8_7PRY/s1600/Under_The_Bus_Sign-300.jpg

You made me spit out my hot cocoa!!! Brilliant!!!

Paul

 

[ParkerD]

Here is the actual quote:

Here is the actual quote:

Quote:
If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.

• History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473

The quote seems very clear to me. Why would it need to be explained?

As I had noted, that talk occurred in 1844, and it would need to be explained in terms of Joseph Smith’s other teachings that God the Father is the Supreme Ruler of the universe, so that it could be in a more complete context of understanding with that additional premise, and would not be from just one source.

Here are some more:

Quote:
Our father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a father, and since there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father"

• (then-Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 2:47

He was quoting Joseph Smith, showing he believed the teaching, which is fine with me. He was an apostle when the book was compiled.

Quote:
Man was born of woman; Christ, the Savior, was born of woman; and God, the Father was born of woman"

• Prophet Joseph F. Smith, Deseret News, Church News, Sept. 19, 1936, p. 2

President Joseph F Smith died in 1918.

Quote:
The Father is a glorified, perfected, resurrected, exalted man who worked out his salvation by obedience to the same laws he has given to us so that we may do the same"

• Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p. 64

My statement said specifically “by prophets who have lived during my lifetime”. I have enjoyed Elder McConkie’s teachings over the years, but I don’t feel bound by them unless he was direct quoting scripture or formal doctrinal statements from the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve.

However, I do believe that the Father is a glorified, exalted Man of Holiness who lived on an earth and was obedient just as Jesus Christ was perfectly obedient.

Quote:
We are precisely in the same condition and under the same circumstances that God our heavenly Father was when he was passing through this, or a similar ordeal

• Prophet Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p. 54

I have that book. I don’t find that quote on that page–is it on another page so I can look at the context? I find that the context helps to understand a statement.

We certainly are in a condition where we make choices and by so doing demonstrate our obedience and whether we understand eternal truths and the consequences of living by those truths. Jesus made choices while He lived, and we must do the same. He was perfect in all of His choices, and the King Follett Sermon would suggest if read in context, that God the Father was perfect in all of His choices when He lived on an earth.

 

[vsedriver]

Heuchler,

What you don’t understand, and probably can’t comprehend because of the Aristotelian philosophy lens, is that God can be God and still have lived on an earth, just like Jesus lived on this earth. He could even live “outside of time and space” in terms of our time and space, and we would not know the difference. Our universe can operate just like it does, and be the creation of God and yet there be other universes which we don’t know about.

I would say that the LDS view of God makes for a very small God, more of a god, than a true understanding of God.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

However, I do believe that the Father is a glorified, exalted Man of Holiness who lived on an earth and was obedient just as Jesus Christ was perfectly obedient.

To whom was he perfectly obedient?

 

[ParkerD]

Telstar,

Were you taught that “definition 1” in a dictionary is the “primary meaning”? If so, then I disagree. Each meaning is given to show that a word can have different meanings, depending upon the context and of course the intent of the speaker or writer.

 

[ParkerD]

To whom was he perfectly obedient?

Obedient to truth because He loves truth. Obedient to perfect love because He loves perfectly, and has perfect knowledge of how to love perfectly.

 

[PaulDupre]

President Joseph F Smith died in 1918.

Yes, but he was quoted by the Church News in 1936.

My statement said specifically “by prophets who have lived during my lifetime”.

Why does it make a difference if they lived during your lifetime? A prophet (a true prophet) is a prophet no matter when he lived. Do you disbelieve the Bible prophets or the BoM prophets because they did not live during your lifetime? Or is it that Mormons believe that a living prophet trumps a dead prophet, so that truth is fluid and changeable?

However, I do believe that the Father is a glorified, exalted Man of Holiness who lived on an earth and was obedient just as Jesus Christ was perfectly obedient.

Finally, a bit of honesty. Thank you.

I have that book. I don’t find that quote on that page–is it on another page so I can look at the context? I find that the context helps to understand a statement.

Sorry, that was a typo. It is page 64, not 54.

Paul

 

[ParkerD]

I would say that the LDS view of God makes for a very small God, more of a god, than a true understanding of God.

Hi, vsedriver,

What I would struggle with if faced with the kind of dilemma I see in the opposite position, is that God would then not really and truly be understood to be omnipotent or not really and truly all-loving, because if He were omnipotent and all-loving, He would want to share everything that He could share and would indeed be able to share everything, including His omnipotence and His capacity to love unconditionally.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Obedient to truth because He loves truth. Obedient to perfect love because He loves perfectly, and has perfect knowledge of how to love perfectly.

Then he was not “obedient just as Jesus was obedient,” because while he was on Earth Jesus was, according to LDS theology, most certainly obedient to another being - “Heavenly Father.”

 

[zaffiroborant]

You made me spit out my hot cocoa!!! Brilliant!!!

Paul

Oh, throw the man down, matey’s, throw the man down,
Way-ay under the bus.

Sorry sea shanties,??? don’t know where that came from, nite.

 

[Janderich]

The Hebrew verb in Genesis 1:1 is “ba-ra.” Its primary two definitions are “to create” and “to fill.” It is an uncommon word in the Hebrew scriptures an in every instance which it appears its only subject is God. “Ba-ra” is a God-specific action that only He can perform.

Now please… show us all how that particular verb “more closely” translates to “organized.”

All this back and forth over the English translation of the Hebrew word seems a little silly to me. The real question revolves around the source, the Hebrew term “Ba-ra”. From Strong’s Concordance we have 1. To create, shape, form. From Gesenius’s Lexicon we are given 1. To cut, to carve out, to form by cutting. See blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1254&t=KJV

I don’t see a whole lot of evidence for ex-nilo creation from the Hebrew word.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, but he was quoted by the Church News in 1936.

Why does it make a difference if they lived during your lifetime? A prophet (a true prophet) is a prophet no matter when he lived. Do you disbelieve the Bible prophets or the BoM prophets because they did not live during your lifetime? Or is it that Mormons believe that a living prophet trumps a dead prophet, so that truth is fluid and changeable?

Finally, a bit of honesty. Thank you.

Sorry, that was a typo. It is page 64, not 54.

Paul

Paul,

So the quote on page 64 is from a talk in 1884, when Joseph F Smith was a second counselor in the First Presidency.

I have explained before and will explain again here, that the sure, settled doctrine that I consider important to my learning, my believing, my studying and appreciating and growing from including receiving inspiration from the Holy Ghost, is contained in the scriptures and the united voice of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles. That concept is found in the Doctrine and Covenants. It is not a new concept, but it is often overlooked by those seeking to discredit The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.