If that’s true, then where did the “council of gods” come from, if Jesus was “Eternal Father’s” firstborn son? Don’t you see a problem with believing in both of those concepts? It’s a little like “which came first, the chicken or the egg”.Paul,
From the standpoint of Joseph Smith’s teaching, then “there never was a time when there wasn’t God”. There was no beginning, no “very first God” besides Alpha and Omega.
Nor did Joseph Smith ever say that God the Father was an “intelligence” in an earlier universe. I don’t think of God the Father as having “progressed”. As far as I’m concerned, He has always, forever backward in time, been God the Father, the Supreme Ruler of the universe, forever omnipotent backward in time.
If I understand what you are saying (which I’m assuming because of the original question, the mormon belief that there are other gods and God the father lived on another planet, and you saying "there was never a time when there wasn’t God) , then you are impling that there have always been gods and there has been no “first” God which would be similar to the orthodox teachings about God the Father. So, i’m going to assume you are implying an infinite regress of gods and universes made to create new gods. This view would be logically wrong, though. There has to be a beginning and a start for anything to exist.Paul,
From the standpoint of Joseph Smith’s teaching, then “there never was a time when there wasn’t God”. There was no beginning, no “very first God” besides Alpha and Omega
Actually, the teaching is “there was never a time when there were not gods”. Huge difference.Paul,
From the standpoint of Joseph Smith’s teaching, then “there never was a time when there wasn’t God”. There was no beginning, no “very first God” besides Alpha and Omega.
Nor did Joseph Smith ever say that God the Father was an “intelligence” in an earlier universe. I don’t think of God the Father as having “progressed”. As far as I’m concerned, He has always, forever backward in time, been God the Father, the Supreme Ruler of the universe, forever omnipotent backward in time.
And yet, so many Mormons believed that Joseph Smith was the incarnation of the Holy Ghost that the 1st Presidency had to issue an official proclamation to the contrary.There is no need for Joseph Smith. Instead we need the Holy Spirit, Who came to us at Pentecost fulfilling Christ’s words, that after Him He would send the Comforter Who would teach us many things.
Wow Pepband Mom this seems a rather harsh line of questioning. I’m not opposed to answering tough questions but I hope you can respect that I am not here to attack or be attacked. Mostly to hear and share.Janderich
I see you are a newbie on the forums. How did you find this site??? Invited on because of “qualifications” or something?
Bible clearly says “God is Spirit” and “God is Love”, The I AM who AM. How do Mormons assume God was “once a man.” Where in Ancient Jewish writings does it say God would or did come down and live on earth as the Father? I would bet big money that the archeological evidence for something so fantastic would be out of this world but there is none, no evidence, nothing to say where God the Father “lived” That would be HUGE NEWS!
Explain how God who is clearly Spirit can switch Natures. He’s perfect the way he has been from the ages.
How would, could God the Father come down & live amongst mere mortals especially since anyone that sees Him clearly DIES? (Except Jacob). God states early in the Tor-ah, I AM WHO AM; implied no changing on His part to the Israelites: “I changeth not” as he is IMMUTABLE and He knows of “NO OTHER” God(s) that is…
Please square that with the LDS idea of a God(s) conveyor belt/treadmill.
If you answer any of my questions, please answer this: You believe in your own impending Godhood do you not?
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be picky here, but I really am trying to get as much clarity as I can about LDS doctrine.God is the supreme ruler of heaven and earth. Yes we believe that God is greater than us. The idea that God is greater than Jesus is not talked about much but I believe this also to be the case. However, I don’t know that I have ever been called to believe it.
“Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).
Janderich,Wow Pepband Mom this seems a rather harsh line of questioning. I’m not opposed to answering tough questions but I hope you can respect that I am not here to attack or be attacked. Mostly to hear and share.
I found out about this site while spending some time on an LDS discussion board. Someone who used to be Catholic mentioned this site. I thought I would see what it was like and saw a number of questions about the LDS religion so thought I would comment, nothing more.
The word which became the verb “to create” as we use it in English today originated in the late 14th century. “To create” has its roots in the Latin word creare, which means, “to make, bring forth, produce, beget.”We have a distinctly different use of the word “create”. Because your definition arises from the tradition that seems to trace its root to Thomas Aquinas and thus to Aristotle, then even though there are other just as meaningful and acceptable definitions in a dictionary for the word “create”, those are brushed aside as non-applicable.
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.But if one were to trace the root origin of the Hebrew use of the word that was translated as “created”, it would more closely match “organized” or “formed”.
Strongly, strongly seconded.Janderich,
I hope you stick around. We rarely get a Mormon on this forum who admits to believing what the LDS church teaches. It is very difficult to dialog with a Mormon who keeps saying “we don’t believe that” even when we provide copious documentation from your own lesson manuals (which are prepared under the supervision of the 1st presidency and approved by them).
You are a breath of fresh air.
Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
Paul,Actually, the teaching is “there was never a time when there were not gods”. Huge difference.
But anyway, I know you have your own peculiar personal brand of Mormonism and disavow many of the common LDS beliefs, so then you disagree with the Mormon belief that God the Father had a father who had a father…ad infinitum?
Just curious since that flies in the face of the 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.
Then you’re disagreeing with Joseph Fielding Smith: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.”
The bolded portions are pretty clear:Quote:
Commenting on this the Prophet Joseph Smith has said: ‘What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence.** My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same [that is Christ must do the same]**; and when I get my kingdom. I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I [Christ] will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children.’
Do you not see that it is in this manner that our Eternal Father is progressing? Not by seeking knowledge which he does not have, for such a thought cannot be maintained in the light of scripture. It is not through ignorance and learning hidden truth that he progresses, for if there are truths which he does not know, then these things are greater than he, and this cannot be. Why can’t we learn wisdom and believe what the Lord has revealed? (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.7)
I asked similar questions here:I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be picky here, but I really am trying to get as much clarity as I can about LDS doctrine.
Just let me see if I have this correctly:
Yes?
- LDS doctrine teaches that God is and always will be greater than us, primarily because any exaltation and glory we can possibly attain will also be given to Him, and he will take on a “higher” exaltation.
- LDS doctrine teaches that Christ “did the same thing He saw His Father do” (according to Joseph Fielding Smith). That is, he “worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling,” then presented it to Heavenly Father, who then took on a “higher” exaltation.
“bring forth”, “produce”.The word which became the verb “to create” as we use it in English today originated in the late 14th century. “To create” has its roots in the Latin word creare, which means, “to make, bring forth, produce, beget.”
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition, defines the verb “create” as the following:
Which of those “meaningful and acceptable definitions” are we alleged Aristotelians “brushing aside as non-applicable?”
- to bring into existence <God created the heaven and the earth.>
- a) to invest with a new form, office or rank <was created a lieutenant.> b) to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior <her arrival created a terrible fuss>
- CAUSE, OCCASION <famine creates high food prices>
- a) to produce through imaginative skill <create a painting> b) DESIGN <creates dresses>
- to make or bring into existence something new
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”.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.
I’m not sure if you mean that Joseph Fielding Smith compiled Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, or if you mean “Joseph Smith” instead of “Joseph Fielding Smith”.Then you’re disagreeing with Joseph Fielding Smith:
The bolded portions are pretty clear:
Therefore, since Jesus did “the same things” that “Heavenly Father” did, “Heavenly Father” must have presented his own world to his own “Heavenly Father,” which brought “Heavenly Grandfather’s(?)” exaltation and glory to a higher level.
- Jesus saw “Heavenly Father” “work out his kingdom with fear and trembling.”
- Jesus “must (that’s a direct quote “must”) do the same” things that “Heavenly Father” did.
- Jesus “presented” this world to “Heavenly Father,” thus, bringing “Heavenly Father’s” exaltation and glory to a “higher” level.
Here is the actual quote: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.
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.
The quote seems very clear to me. Why would it need to be explained?
- History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473
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
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.
- Prophet Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p. 54