LDS: Jesus always God?

[ParkerD]

…
For everything he said or did as a prophet, that God commanded him to do? I’d appreciate it if you could elaborate with some Bible passages. I’m not so sure that he called for a vote every time God commanded him to do something, especially when he was pronouncing the plagues on Egypt. I don’t recall him calling for a vote from anyone about that, or about the Ten Commandments that God gave to him. I recall something about them being etched in stone, even though he broke the tablets when he found the Israelites worshiping the golden calf because they had already broken them by their own actions.

Hi, Telstar,

For everything they were being commanded to do and were thus covenanting to do, as in the following major example and as in the case of when only Joshua and Caleb believed the promise that they would be able to “go up at once, and possess it” (Numbers 13:30) and all the other children of Israel with Moses rejected the word of the Lord that Joshua and Caleb believed.

Exodus 19:3 And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;

4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself.

5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him.

8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord.

He did that for every single doctrine in the D&C? Was there always a unanimous vote to accept it all? Did they ever reject any doctrine that he personally proposed to them as being the command of God?

Yes, by virtue of it being voted upon in a “General Conference” of the church.
I assume the vote was unanimous.
Some individuals rejected items of doctrine that were presented as being the command of God, but collectively as a body of members gathered in General Conference, to my knowledge “no”.

 

[ParkerD]

…
Would you mind telling me upon what day and year it was when Joseph Smith specific teachings that “God the Father is the Supreme Ruler of the universe” were presented either as scripture or as a teaching or formal statement? And upon what day and year were Joseph Smith specific teachings that “God the Father is the Supreme Ruler of the universe” voted upon by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles? And upon what day and year were they then presented to Church members?

Thanks.

Cradle2Grave,

I don’t have the day and year, but the Lectures on Faith were given to a group that included the apostles and included that teaching and this was done in the early years of church history, in Kirtland, Ohio.

I don’t have the day and year, but a very similar statement is included in the Latter-day Saint Bible Dictionary under the heading, “God”, and that Bible Dictionary would have been prepared with members of the Council of the Twelve involved in its preparation and would have been voted upon by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, I assume in 1978 when the edition we currently use was being prepared for being printed along with the King James Bible.

I don’t know that those words have been presented to the membership of the church for specific sustaining vote, but are commonly understood to be accepted as doctrine since the days of Joseph Smith.

 

[Heuchler]

Heuchler,

If God the Father has a Father and is One with His Father, then that relationship is precisely like the relationship between Jesus Christ and God the Father. Jesus worshiped God the Father, and taught us to do so also. God the Father could certainly and would certainly “care about” and “worship” His Father if He was not the “very first God” as you put the earlier question. He can do things and we not know about them–goes without saying. He gives us what we need, what is for our best good, for us to make choices about progressing, and it is always going to be on His timetable or when we digress from His timetable then we digress from making progress in learning in the eternal sense.

The children of Israel were to look unto the “rock from whence they were hewn”, unto the rock of their salvation, and look upon the raised brazen serpent that was a symbol of the Savior, Jesus Christ, at the point in time when they were being stung with poison. They were to look to Jesus Christ for their salvation and as their example, and we have that same position in our lives.

Jesus is the only way to God the Father, and Jesus taught this. “No man cometh unto the Father but by me.” is what He taught. So we don’t bypass Jesus Christ–we look to Him as the “author and finisher of our faith”. God the Father gave these roles to Jesus Christ, giving Him full authority and “all power”. (“All power is given unto me” is what Jesus said.)

If the scenario were true about God the Father having a Father, then it would be the situation that “all power was given unto Him” eons of time before this world was created, and then through Him, all power was and is given unto Jesus Christ in the pre-mortal spirit world and again before His ascension with His resurrected body, as He said.

The Son becomes the center of focus for regaining the Father’s presence, including all our trust being placed in Him.

If the Father’s relationship with his God is the same as Christ’s and the Father’s, then why is there never any mention of it? God the Father never once mentions any other gods and yet Christ mentions his Father constantly. It seems like God the Father was hiding his other gods instead of giving them the honor and glory as is just.

 

[ParkerD]

If the Father’s relationship with his God is the same as Christ’s and the Father’s, then why is there never any mention of it? God the Father never once mentions any other gods and yet Christ mentions his Father constantly. It seems like God the Father was hiding his other gods instead of giving them the honor and glory as is just.

Heuchler,

Please note again that I responded to your questions with “if”, and that I don’t know whether God the Father is the “very first God”.

There would be very important purposes for God the Father to limit what we are given to know about “how God came to be God” as Joseph Smith in the King Follett Sermon put it. We are here with opportunities to learn to have complete faith and trust in Jesus Christ and that He brings us to God and desires to bring us to a relationship where we are “one” with Them. Without that central focus and trust, we would not have sufficient faith to do that.

Knowing perfectly what our mortal, fallen man tendencies are, which include that we will do anything but what we are asked to do by God with our limited understanding, He would not share truths that would make it more difficult for us to place complete trust in Jesus Christ. It would run counter to His purposes for us, if He were to do that.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

I don’t know that those words have been presented to the membership of the church for specific sustaining vote, but are commonly understood to be accepted as doctrine since the days of Joseph Smith.

Got it. This particular teaching of Joseph Smith has not been presented to the membership for specific sustaining vote, but it is still commonly understood to be accepted as doctrine. So Joseph Smith’s teachings can be “commonly understood and accepted” as doctrinal w/o a specific sustaining vote.

… 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.

Got it. That particular teaching of Joseph Smith has not been presented to the membership for a sustaining vote, which means it cannot be considered settled doctrine. So Joseph Smith’s teachings cannot be “commonly understood and accepted” as doctrinal w/o a specific sustaining vote.

Thank you, Parker. I can confidently say that you’ve once again cleared up the entire matter for all of us.

 

[theidler]

Cradle2Grave,

I don’t have the day and year, but the Lectures on Faith were given to a group that included the apostles and included that teaching and this was done in the early years of church history, in Kirtland, Ohio.

I don’t have the day and year, but a very similar statement is included in the Latter-day Saint Bible Dictionary under the heading, “God”, and that Bible Dictionary would have been prepared with members of the Council of the Twelve involved in its preparation and would have been voted upon by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, I assume in 1978 when the edition we currently use was being prepared for being printed along with the King James Bible.

I don’t know that those words have been presented to the membership of the church for specific sustaining vote, but are commonly understood to be accepted as doctrine since the days of Joseph Smith.

And 1978 was also when some other more controversial teachings were jettisoned as well…

 

[KathleenGee]

Here is an article written by Dr Kreeft:

The article is about free will and predestination, and how lay men apply the temporal use of predestination out of context to what we read in Sacred Scripture…

www.integratedcatholiclife.org/2012/dr-kreeft-freewill-and-predestination/

He speaks of God’s omnipotence, draws a little from St. Thomas Aquinas…and God’s omnipotence…

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

We have a distinctly different use of the word “create”.

I am not surprised.

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. 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”.

No, Parker. Aquinas and Aristotle offered an explanation, based upon reason, concerning what has been revealed to us by God; that being that God said “Let there be light, and there was light”. Creation, in the context of revelation, meant that God created everything from nothing. I understand that, according to LDS theology you are required to choose an alternate defintition of the word, but it does not support what has been revealed to us. If God created everything from nothing then it follows that He is the first Cause of all that exists and also, because He was not created, is Himself the uncaused Cause. Your attempt to dismiss this theological understanding simply because a philosopher arrived at this truth through reason does not hold water. And this understanding was held long before Acquinas arrived on the scene.

If not for God, we would still be “intelligences” meaning we would not have progressed a smidgen and could have no meaningful progress, because any progress comes from following light and truth, and They emanate from God.

And yet our origin would still be apart from God and would make God dependent upon a co-existent “intelligence” in order to “create”. This completely contradicts God’s omnipotence.

 

[SteveVH]

Got it. This particular teaching of Joseph Smith has not been presented to the membership for specific sustaining vote, but it is still commonly understood to be accepted as doctrine. So Joseph Smith’s teachings can be “commonly understood and accepted” as doctrinal w/o a specific sustaining vote.

Got it. That particular teaching of Joseph Smith has not been presented to the membership for a sustaining vote, which means it cannot be considered settled doctrine. So Joseph Smith’s teachings cannot be “commonly understood and accepted” as doctrinal w/o a specific sustaining vote.

Thank you, Parker. I can confidently say that you’ve once again cleared up the entire matter for all of us.

Very astute observation.

 

[Heuchler]

Heuchler,

Please note again that I responded to your questions with “if”, and that I don’t know whether God the Father is the “very first God”.

There would be very important purposes for God the Father to limit what we are given to know about “how God came to be God” as Joseph Smith in the King Follett Sermon put it. We are here with opportunities to learn to have complete faith and trust in Jesus Christ and that He brings us to God and desires to bring us to a relationship where we are “one” with Them. Without that central focus and trust, we would not have sufficient faith to do that.

Knowing perfectly what our mortal, fallen man tendencies are, which include that we will do anything but what we are asked to do by God with our limited understanding, He would not share truths that would make it more difficult for us to place complete trust in Jesus Christ. It would run counter to His purposes for us, if He were to do that.

So, why did God not have Jesus say that He was God himself instead of always refering to the Father. It would have been the truth for Christ to say that He was God. So, why didn’t Christ say He was God himself (and not one of two beings but the only being) if they were also doing that with the other gods. If they needed to keep the numbers low to increase faith, then why didn’t they just imply that Christ was the one God who was in contact with them from the beginning in the same way the Father has implied He is the only God (if mormonism is true).

 

[TexanKnight]

The better question is, if there is more than God, why did God say there are NO OTHER GODS and “He knew not one”?

 

[RebeccaJ]

The better question is, if there is more than God, why did God say there are NO OTHER GODS and “He knew not one”?

Do you know the game that is played when you open a fortune cookie and add a phrase to the fortune, such as “in bed”?

Well, you need to play this game in order to understand the Mormon view of God. Whenever there is scripture that explicitly teaches One God, add the phrase, “for this earth”.

“He knew not one…for this earth.” “There are no other gods…for this earth.”

Do the same anytime a Mormon tells you they believe in one God…for this earth.

You have to modify what is taught in the Bible, sometimes starkly, in order to get it to line up to Mormon belief and doctrine.

 

[ParkerD]

So, why did God not have Jesus say that He was God himself instead of always refering to the Father. It would have been the truth for Christ to say that He was God. So, why didn’t Christ say He was God himself (and not one of two beings but the only being) if they were also doing that with the other gods. If they needed to keep the numbers low to increase faith, then why didn’t they just imply that Christ was the one God who was in contact with them from the beginning in the same way the Father has implied He is the only God (if mormonism is true).

Heuchler,

Jesus told the Jews that He was “I AM”, which means He was telling them He was Jehovah. He told them He was the Anointed One, which means He was telling them He was the Savior–the same Savior of whom Isaiah prophesied, the one and only Savior.

Jesus also told His followers that in order to know that He was truly the Anointed One, the Savior, that His Father would need to reveal that knowledge to them. They weren’t going to find it in their Torah, nor by reading the Prophets and comparing notes. They were only going to find it out if they directed their hearts to God in a way that He could reveal the truth about who He was. There were those who did this, and there were those who scoffed at any notion of doing this.

They had their Torah, and they had “the Prophets”. But they didn’t come to know their Savior, because they didn’t follow the steps He taught they needed to follow to know who He was.

By the way, “keep the numbers low to increase faith” is not what I was saying. “Keep the focus on Jesus Christ” is what I was saying. Why? Because He alone has the divinely appointed mission to prepare His followers for the presence of the Father. The Father doesn’t have that mission for Himself. The Holy Ghost confirms and teaches truth, and confirms that Jesus is the Savior and the Good Shepherd, but it is the Good Shepherd who “maketh me to lie down in green pastures” and who “restoreth my soul” and who is the living water.

 

[theidler]

Good grief Parker:doh2: - Jesus is the great “I AM” because God is eternal, without beginning or end, which directly contradicts the Mormon doctrine of exalted humans becoming gods. There is no teaching in the Bible that supports the polygamist revelations of Joseph Smith (to be fair, it was jettisoned by the LDS church), those of “dark skin” being cursed (though, again to be fair, this was later rejected in 1978), masonic ritualism, satan being a spirit brother of Jesus, there is simply none of it ANYWHERE. Not in the Bible, not in the Tradition of the Apostles, nowhere. It is made up, blatantly obvious fiction by a man who did not die a martyr, but died in a gunfight.
I respect the sincerity of the faith of Mormons, and their overwhelming charity, I really do.:yup: But Mormonism itself, as a belief system with all its peculiar and alarming doctrines, is such a blatant forgery, it’s unbelievable.

Honestly, if Mormonism was not trying so very hard to be considered as a Christian movement, then I would simply view it as just another world religion. But the reason that Christians, I feel, are so hard on Mormonism is that it is trying to pass itself off as a Christian movement when it is anything but. It uses the same terms, but in completely different ways.

 

[Heuchler]

Parker, I’ll ask again, if Christ was so open about his Father, why wasn’t God the Father as open and always pointing back to the true authority as is right. If an manager acts as if there is no corporate power and that he is the true owner, he is essentially lying and deceiving his workers and our God is the truth itself, he would not lie to us about who is really in charge. And if there were others who were above and more powerful to God, then the commandment to have no other gods before me is a bad phrasing and probably wrong and selfish.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, I’ll ask again, if Christ was so open about his Father, why wasn’t God the Father as open and always pointing back to the true authority as is right. If an manager acts as if there is no corporate power and that he is the true owner, he is essentially lying and deceiving his workers and our God is the truth itself, he would not lie to us about who is really in charge. And if there were others who were above and more powerful to God, then the commandment to have no other gods before me is a bad phrasing and probably wrong and selfish.

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.

 

[CourtAdvocate]

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.

I would concur overall of this, recognizing the clarity being requested.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Heuchler,

Jesus told the Jews that He was “I AM”, which means He was telling them He was Jehovah.

I AM is one of the seven names of God. YHWH is the Name of God in Hebrew. It is a sacred name, vocalized as Yahweh, and translated as Jehovah. So when you say I AM means Jehovah, you are saying I AM means I AM.

Jesus was not saying, I’m Jehovah. When Jesus said I AM he was naming Himself with the Name of God. So sacrilegious to the sensibilities of the Jews he was speaking to, that they considered stoning him.

This is the greatest evidence of all, that Jesus IS God, since it is He who is saying out loud and very clearly, I AM. You should listen to the Words of Jesus and seek to understand them.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Kathleen HOW FUNNY! But we called it "Between the sheets!

Zaffir… The giver of the I am Mormon.org card is a best friend of my daughter’s - she hangs tight with about a dozen girls that have the best grades, basically the over-achievers of the class. A few are LDS we’ve know these kids for years, know their parents & love them dearly and respect them. But my daughter won’t bother attending one of their dances - not interested, neither are her non-LDS friends; But you are right they are used as a TOOL to share a different, johnny-come-lately gospel by an “angel” should be anathema. She’s aware religious inventions, especially American & of basic major faults and discrepancies of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, ex. the embarrassing out of control, mile wide path of LUSTFUL carnage disguised as “revelation” approved polygamy - In light of the DECALOGUE, I don’t think God the Father was willing to “change” his mind.

Didn’t Brigham Young have 27 wives? Wow, Young was a busy man “between the sheets” - Gives a new dimension to LOVE THY NEIGHBOR!

I’ve shown her sources & she understands “things speak for themselves” - in some cases no explanation is necessary & says “got it Mom!” Religion Ed 101 is ongoing; Pre birth she heard the glorious music every Sunday @ the Cathedral in the city we used to live in. Happily, discussion on John 6 and the Institution of the Eucharist, knowing Jesus is God and He will be with us ALWAYS in the Eucharist is the bread winning point, the bull’s eye & Daddy who is a Eucharistic Minister helps :heaven:

PS she’s aware the buck stops with God the Only Father, “there is no other”

 

[PaulDupre]

Actually, Brigham Young had 55 wives, 10 of whom divorced him.

Six of his wives were already married to other living men (polyandry).

Young had 57 children.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)