LDS: Jesus always God?

[ParkerD]

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.”

But Jesus was showing a perfect example to us, and thus needed to teach that He was being obedient to His Father in Heaven.

He knew in and of Himself what Truth was, and what the perfectly loving thing to do at any point was. He obeyed truth perfectly because He loved truth perfectly, and knew truth perfectly. But that also meant that He would show a perfect example by having us understand that He was at the same time being perfectly obedient to His Father’s will.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

So to whom’s will was Heavenly Father obedient?

 

[PaulDupre]

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.

Are not all 15 apostles "prophets, seers and revelators? Did Joseph F. Smith ever repudiate those remarks when he became president of the church?

 

[Crdl2Grv]

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.

If you click on “click here for rest of entry” you’ll see that not only do they give a second definition of “ba-ra” they explicitly state that it is this second definition (“to create, to produce”) that is used in Genesis 1:1.

 

[ParkerD]

Are not all 15 apostles "prophets, seers and revelators? Did Joseph F. Smith ever repudiate those remarks when he became president of the church?

Yes, because they all hold the keys they were given as an apostle, and because when they come to agreement in counsel and decide on a doctrinal item that they conclude needs to be brought to the members of the Church as a doctrinal teaching or clarification, then they do that in their capacity as “prophets, seers, and revelators”.

I doubt that he did, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t more circumspect in terms of what he felt was important to speak about as the prophet and president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after he became the prophet.

 

[Heuchler]

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.

I really don’t understand your point about God having to share and make other people gods like him because he is omnipotent and loving. He really doesn’t have to do anything. That is like saying for CEO to be truly kind and use his power, he has to choose from among the animals. And that would be more believable than an infinite being choosing a finite being to take its place. At least with the pet and the CEO the gap in worth is a finite amount, the gap between us and God is infinite though, meaning we can never really bridge this gap.

Bbut we do believe that God “shares”. In Catholicism it is called Divizination, in the Orthodox it is called Theosis. Our version is not the, you get to become a God, rather it is that you share in the divinity of Christ once in Heaven. We have become heirs with Christ and we are not to go off pretending to be an infite God when we could not even bring about our own slavation. For how can we, who don’t have the power of God, ever hope to surivive on our own, let alone be gods on our own. We rely on God for our very existence, to parade around as if we were the same would be a lie. To not give the authority to God and to lead these other planets to worship only us as their patron god would be a shame. We are no substitute and we finite beings will never be comparable to the infinite God.

 

[Janderich]

If you click on “click here for rest of entry” you’ll see that not only do they give a second definition of “ba-ra” they explicitly state that it is this second definition (“to create, to produce”) that is used in Genesis 1:1.

Understood. I simply wanted to point out that the definition of the Hebrew word is not quite so clear. Strong gives words such as “shape” and “form”.

 

[ParkerD]

I really don’t understand your point about God having to share and make other people gods like him because he is omnipotent and loving. He really doesn’t have to do anything. That is like saying for CEO to be truly kind and use his power, he has to choose from among the animals. And that would be more believable than an infinite being choosing a finite being to take its place. At least with the pet and the CEO the gap in worth is a finite amount, the gap between us and God is infinite though, meaning we can never really bridge this gap…

Heuchler,

Your response included many misconceptions about Latter-day Saint beliefs. To share in the “power over the nations” (Revelation 2:26) and in being able to “rule them with a rod of iron” (which is a symbol of Jesus Christ and perfect truth and righteousness) (Revelation 2:27) and in being able to be a joint heir with Jesus Christ and in being trusted enough to be made “ruler over many things–enter into the joy of thy Lord” does not mean to “take its place”–not in any sense at all. It means to share in the granted power and understanding and comprehension to have the capacity for unconditional love, to the extent of being entrusted to be able to share in creation.

The words “having to share” would not be the kind of case describing God. “Loving enough to share” would be more correct. Also, mankind, reborn by the Spirit and thus with new life and becoming a new person in Christ, are no longer what I would think would be called “animals” because that leads to an understood term “brute animals”.

 

[PaulDupre]

"PaulDupre:

Did Joseph F. Smith ever repudiate those remarks when he became president of the church?

I doubt that he did, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t more circumspect in terms of what he felt was important to speak about as the prophet and president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after he became the prophet.

So you’re not denying that it is a real LDS doctrine, you’re just saying he should not have discussed it publicly because it is embarrassing and offensive.

Okay.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[ParkerD]

So you’re not denying that it is a real LDS doctrine, you’re just saying he should not have discussed it publicly because it is embarrassing and offensive.

Okay.

No, I don’t find it embarrassing or offensive other than when presented incorrectly and with wrong connotations. I have nothing wrong with what he said as an apostle. In the particular statement we are discussing that you cited from the book compiled from his talks that is titled Gospel Doctrine, it is one statement in that book and it isn’t “settled doctrine” as far as I’m concerned, in that it wasn’t presented in scripture or presented as the united voice of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles.

As I previously stated, if it were settled doctrine that would be fine with me.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

No, I don’t find it embarrassing…

Then I’ll ask again, this time in a grammatically correct fashion (get off my back, people, it was late!):

To whose will was Heavenly Father obedient when he was on an earth?

… it is one statement in that book and it isn’t “settled doctrine” as far as I’m concerned, in that it wasn’t presented in scripture …

But according to the passage PaulD quoted, the Bible is “full” of that idea:

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

So Joseph Smith not only thought this belief was scriptural, but that the Bible was “full” of it. I’d hate to think you’re misrepresenting LDS theology, Parker.

 

[Heuchler]

Heuchler,

Your response included many misconceptions about Latter-day Saint beliefs. To share in the “power over the nations” (Revelation 2:26) and in being able to “rule them with a rod of iron” (which is a symbol of Jesus Christ and perfect truth and righteousness) (Revelation 2:27) and in being able to be a joint heir with Jesus Christ and in being trusted enough to be made “ruler over many things–enter into the joy of thy Lord” does not mean to “take its place”–not in any sense at all. It means to share in the granted power and understanding and comprehension to have the capacity for unconditional love, to the extent of being entrusted to be able to share in creation.

The words “having to share” would not be the kind of case describing God. “Loving enough to share” would be more correct. Also, mankind, reborn by the Spirit and thus with new life and becoming a new person in Christ, are no longer what I would think would be called “animals” because that leads to an understood term “brute animals”.

But that’s the point, we do take the place of God if you are right. We go to our own planet and rule there as if there is no other gods anywhere. Do you worship or acknowledge God the Father’s God? Mormons usually say that we do not need to worry about this higher being and should only really focus on our God. So, our God would have taken the place of the higher God in our lives instead of being like the angels and always pointing back to the very first God.

I also am awaiting clarification as to whether you believe there ever was a self-sufficient being who was the first God, or if you believe there is an infinite regress of gods.

A. Heuchler

 

[vsedriver]

Take God out of the picture entirely, and there is little meaning to what it would be to be an “awaiting” intelligence–but we certainly would be entirely dependent upon God for meaningful existence.

What does ‘meaningful’ have to do with existence? Either you exist or you don’t exist. Only God is eternal which means only God has, had, will have existence. God’s existence sustains our existence. To say that a human spirit existed eternally is to say that a human spirit IS God.

The human spirit is immortal. That means it has no end but it did have a beginning. It began when God gave it existence. That is the only way a human spirit can be immortal and not BE God.

 

[KathleenGee]

Parker,

I am reading pretty astute and thorough responses to your on going posts…

Your presentations are typical of Mormon prosletyzers and apologists…deflective, endless word games taking on convoluting meanings, denying teachings and then providing us your own.

I don’t keep tally and notes on your answers, but I am beginning to wonder if and how many times you have deviated from your deflections considering the number of posts you have on CAF…

Since I have been here, many Catholics have given you pretty substantial answers, including the Gospel of Christ Himself…

So you believe, really believe, that although Jesus Christ is God, Joseph Smith trumps His teachings?

The first and greatest gift of entering into the Life of God through Christ is communion here on earth, this communion, peace and good will. The next sign that are the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit that prove we are living in divine sonship with the Lord. And the other sign that we are living as adopted sons and daughters of God is being faithful to the gospel.

Nothing can take the place of a good, clean conscience and peace in one’s soul.

The three points in a man’s soul that contradict the presence of the Holy Spirit are Pride, Power and Greed…and I always see Mormon temples placed next to or within the most affluent and caucasian communities…

 

[vsedriver]

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.

LOL, I was just sitting here with a young coworker who had never heard of Harry. What a loss! He was my kind of philosopher. Yes, loved his Mack the Knife.

 

[vsedriver]

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.

If something has multiple meanings without one true meaning then it is pure nonsense. Therefore you need a teacher to guide you to the one true meaning. Jesus gave us those teachers and they in turn handed down the one true meaning to their successors. The one true meaning was safe guarded by the Holy Spirit. You’ll find that one true meaning in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[Telstar]

Understood. I simply wanted to point out that the definition of the Hebrew word is not quite so clear. Strong gives words such as “shape” and “form”.

Just because those terms are included in the definition, it doesn’t change the fact that only God can create things in that manner, because that word was only used to describe what God created. When God created everything out of nothing, He still had to form and shape them into what they would be. He had to give some kind of form to everything, whether it was rock, or water, or plants and animals. When man creates things, he has to have materials to work with in order to ‘create’ a work of art, but God created His own materials to use. That’s why the Hebrew word for God’s process of creation, or His doing anything else, is not the same words used to describe the actions or creations of men. There is a true distinction between those two different entities performing those processes, because of Who is performing the action when the Hebrews were using the term “ba’ra”. That being God.

 

[Telstar]

LOL, I was just sitting here with a young coworker who had never heard of Harry. What a loss! He was my kind of philosopher. Yes, loved his Mack the Knife.

I loved Harry! I think “Me And My Arrow” was my absolute favorite!!!

/hijack

 

[vsedriver]

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.

I see, if God is truly God then he would want to make more Gods like himself? Isn’t that a conflict with the 1st commandment?

but in order for God to share everything He is with us He would have to change us into Gods. but if God is just giving us all that we can share with him then we don’t have to be changed and God doesn’t have to make more Gods. And thus, the 1st commandment remains intact.

Can the adopted child ever replace the parent?

 

[KathleenGee]

My, you are all cooking today! Great responses and humor…