LDS: Jesus always God?

[Crdl2Grv]

Disclaimer: I’m putting on my “LDS” theology predictor hat, here. So the following are not my thoughts, but rather my closest guess as to how a member of the LDS faith would answer.

Ok, let’s go with option 1 then - it’s a philosophical absurdity. Heavenly Father is indebted to “HGF” is indebted to HGGF is indebted to HGGGF is indebted to HGGGGF is indebted to HGGGGGF…and on and on and on into an infinite regress of humans becoming gods, without any answer as to who exactly organized this “eternal matter” that the Mormons speak of in the first place.
Ok, so we have eternal matter -who’s organizing it? Where did this organizer come from? Another human just hanging out in a chaotic swirl of eternal matter? It boggles the mind!!!

In other words, it’s bleeding ridiculous.

The question you’re asking is not important. You only think it’s important because “Aristotelian philosophy” somehow got mixed in with Catholic theology at some point after the Apostles died, which caused Catholic theology to rely on and give undue importance to the rules of classical logic. This focus and reliance on logic is part of the Great Apostasy.

If the question you’re asking were important, HF would have revealed an answer. But since HF hasn’t done that, the best possible course of action is to stop asking that question and simply concentrate on living out HF’s commandments (as revealed to and proclaimed by HF’s prophet Joseph Smith).

Disclaimer: This is me again:

OR, to put it another way… “LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-I-can’t-hear-you!”

 

[Crdl2Grv]

If it was never LDS doctrine, why was it changed after some kind of revelation showed it to be erroneous? It was doctrine in some form or another, not just the ramblings of Brigham Young…

It actually was just the ramblings of Brigham Young.

But if it wasn’t just the ramblings of Brigham Young, just because the doctrine was changed doesn’t mean the previous doctrine was “erroneous.” It means that the doctrine was correct for that time. But then HF saw that the world was ready to accept a new doctrine, so he gave it to them.

(Seriously, this is the answer. It’s something like, “Well, the early Mormon church was surrounded by super-racists, so God had to include that teaching at the time, or the early church would have been wiped out by its super-racist neighbors.”)

 

[zaffiroborant]

That’s just the way life is. It becomes refreshing when someone attempts to see another point of view, and those are the conversations I have enjoyed on this forum.

Perhaps if you modeled this behavior…

 

[rainman10]

Fair enough, but I am obviously not going to know that. Can you direct me to where you dealt with issues of racism within the early LDS movement, and what caused it to be rescinded in 1978?

Can you imagine where BYU athletics would be today if this had not been rescinded? Same with the rule of not playing sports on Sundays, that seems to have gone by the wayside, as well. Could it be because of money? Rules easily changed because of money. God made some mistakes, again, so Mormons had to make the corrections for Him.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Pablope,

God is really and truly omniscient, and He can give knowledge to angels at any time and in any place. He knows the future, at all times, and this has always been so.

The Book of Mormon translation occurred in 1829-30, using the English language as of 1829.

Any perception that a translator couldn’t find the best word in 1829 for describing what was being described, rather than attempt to use a word from 92 BC, is an incorrect perception as far as the Book of Mormon, but perhaps there is some translation of some ancient language somewhere that attempts to use the Latin words or the Greek words or the Hebrew words from the 92 BC time period as the original language being translated from–but that is not the case with the Book of Mormon. Latter-day Saints are very familiar with these concepts. It’s just not a big deal

Pointless observation, since the BoM isn’t described as being translated, but as being transcribed by God Himself. Also, you can’t provide evidence that the BoM conveys what is meant by the supposed ancient authors, because there are no primary documents, in any language. It’s just your opinion.

 

[theidler]

ParkerD said “God is really and truly omniscient, and He can give knowledge to angels at any time and in any place. He knows the future, at all times, and this has always been so.”

So was this true when God was once human? Or did he get these powers through his exaltation?:snowing:

 

[Crdl2Grv]

I’ll take this one, Parker:

Like Jesus, HF was sinless and perfect when he was on an earth. Any “powers” that he may not have had on “an earth” were set aside voluntarily by him, as a means of teaching/showing us* the path to the celestial kingdom. Because they were set aside voluntarily, any temporary lack of these “powers” don’t count against his omniscience.

Also, you don’t define “omniscience” the right way. If you define “omniscience” to mean “loving love perfectly in a perfectly loving way that perfects the love you love for perfection in perfect accordance with perfect love, perfectly” then LDS theology makes complete sense. The reason you don’t define “omniscience” the right way is because of Aristotle. Or Thomas Aquinas, depending on the thread.

(* - Well, not “us” I guess. But whoever was on “an earth” with HF.)

 

[KathleenGee]

Well…what happens when others are at the same place as God…will they be like the ancient Greek gods…who is like unto God?..

 

[Crdl2Grv]

No idea. You’re going to have to take that one, Parker.

 

[TexanKnight]

It just seems that the LDS God is driven by money. If you read the D&C, you hear such things as God telling Joseph to ORDER the Mormons to build God a house. A little self-serving, don;t you think?

Then you have God ordering polygamy, only to change His mind when the US Government stripped the LDS Church of all its holdings.

Then God ruled that blacks could not hold the Priesthood until schools started refusing to play BYU in sports, which could have cost BYU millions and millions of dollars. Then God changed His mind.

Then God declared a temple ceremony. But when people started disclosing the ceremony, the Church began to look horrible for its stand on blood oaths and women having to be subservient to men. Then God changed His mind.

The best thing about the Real God is that He does not change. He is not a politican who makes His rules based on the latest polls.

 

[KathleenGee]

TexanKnight

You do make alot of sense inspite of the great Mormon silence

Are there other religions that share the same beliefs of Mormons about God, prior existence…?

 

[Telstar]

It’s not that they can’t explain it, it’s that they won’t explain it to anyone until they deem that person “ready” to hear “the truth.”

After a while, though, it becomes oddly delightful to watch them dance around the subject: Jesus was exactly like HF, except that he wasn’t, except that he was, except that he wasn’t, except that he was, except that he wasn’t and who really even cares about this anyway, I don’t, LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-I-can’t-hear-you and Aristotle is hiding under every Catholic’s bed, waiting to steal their critical thinking skills while they’re sleeping.

So, that’s who’s been hiding under my bed when I’m sleeping, giving me all of those silly dreams???

I love your “Aristotelian logic” Crdl2Grv!

 

[Telstar]

Pablope,

God is really and truly omniscient, and He can give knowledge to angels at any time and in any place. He knows the future, at all times, and this has always been so.

If LDS believe God is truly omniscient, Definition of OMNISCIENT
1:* having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight**
2: possessed of universal or complete knowledge *… then why is it so difficult for them to understand that God knows everything, including everything that has/will happen in the past, present and future, which also explains how He could know everything about us, before we were born? Why does it have to mean that we all existed with God, before we were born? That’s something more LDS should ponder well, methinks.

The Book of Mormon translation occurred in 1829-30, using the English language as of 1829.

Any perception that a translator couldn’t find the best word in 1829 for describing what was being described, rather than attempt to use a word from 92 BC, is an incorrect perception as far as the Book of Mormon, but perhaps there is some translation of some ancient language somewhere that attempts to use the Latin words or the Greek words or the Hebrew words from the 92 BC time period as the original language being translated from–but that is not the case with the Book of Mormon. Latter-day Saints are very familiar with these concepts. It’s just not a big deal

Actually, the BoM is written in the same sing-song version of English used in the KJV of the Bible, which was penned in the 16th century, using the form of English of that period of time. It is clearly not the same form of English being used during the early 19th century of Joseph Smith’s supposed ‘translation’. It also happens to be the Bible he grew up reading, and insisted that LDS use, because of it being the ‘best translation’ available at the time. Just though you might like to know that.

 

[ParkerD]

Well…what happens when others are at the same place as God…will they be like the ancient Greek gods…?..

Kathleen,

Fair question, and a good one.

We learn from the New Testament that there are going to be “nations” in that future state of existence, and that “he that overcometh” will be given “power” over those nations–understood to be righteous “power” where “he” “shall rule them with a rod of iron” (which is a symbol of truth, righteousness, and Jesus Christ, so He is still essential in that picture, including His guidance and His help). (Revelation 2:26-27)

We also learn that Jesus taught an important parable at the end of His ministry, when He was teaching some culminating doctrines and principles for the apostles and all His disciples. He taught that in that future time, He will say, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.” (Matthew 15:12, also 23)

One looks at the words “many things” and perhaps remembers that in Revelation, John was told “He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.” (Revelation 21:7)

So being “at the same place as God” (meaning in His actual presence and being one with Him) is true, and being given the opportunity to “inherit all things” is also true, hinging upon “he that overcometh” and upon having been a “good and faithful servant”. They will be given “power”; they will be “kings and priests unto God and His Father”; (Revelation 1:6) they will “inherit all things” meaning all righteous and good things that can possibly be. They will have the “joy of thy lord”, which ties to love and charity for all people, everywhere, because only through love and charity can a person experience true joy. That joy also ties to having shown that one can be trusted and entrusted, and ties to the grace offered by Jesus Christ that such incredible, mortally unbelievable gifts are offered within those qualifications.

Wishing you much peace and a great day, Kathleen.

 

[ParkerD]

…
Actually, the BoM is written in the same sing-song version of English used in the KJV of the Bible, which was penned in the 16th century, using the form of English of that period of time. …

Telstar,

Since one can find many words in the Book of Mormon that are not in the King James Bible, and many verbal expressions that are not in the King James Bible, then one who thinks the Book of Mormon was imitating the Bible has ignored the many, many differences that make the Book of Mormon unique.

By the way, Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary used the King James Bible as a basis for its definitions, so from that standpoint one could say that the standard being held up by Noah Webster for good and proper English was the King James Bible.

(It was not such a bad idea to have such a standard.)

Peace to you, and best wishes for the New Year.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Kathleen,

Fair question, and a good one.

We learn from the New Testament that there are going to be “nations” in that future state of existence, and that “he that overcometh” will be given “power” over those nations–understood to be righteous “power” where “he” “shall rule them with a rod of iron” (which is a symbol of truth, righteousness, and Jesus Christ, so He is still essential in that picture, including His guidance and His help). (Revelation 2:26-27)

We also learn that Jesus taught an important parable at the end of His ministry, when He was teaching some culminating doctrines and principles for the apostles and all His disciples. He taught that in that future time, He will say, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.” (Matthew 15:12, also 23)

One looks at the words “many things” and perhaps remembers that in Revelation, John was told “He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.” (Revelation 21:7)

So being “at the same place as God” (meaning in His actual presence and being one with Him) is true, and being given the opportunity to “inherit all things” is also true, hinging upon “he that overcometh” and upon having been a “good and faithful servant”. They will be given “power”; they will be “kings and priests unto God and His Father”; (Revelation 1:6) they will “inherit all things” meaning all righteous and good things that can possibly be. They will have the “joy of thy lord”, which ties to love and charity for all people, everywhere, because only through love and charity can a person experience true joy. That joy also ties to having shown that one can be trusted and entrusted, and ties to the grace offered by Jesus Christ that such incredible, mortally unbelievable gifts are offered within those qualifications.

Wishing you much peace and a great day, Kathleen.

So the short answer to your question, Kathleen, appears to be “yes, pretty much like Mt. Olympus.”

Good to know.

 

[ParkerD]

So the short answer to your question, Kathleen, appears to be “yes, pretty much like Mt. Olympus.”

Good to know.

The Greek mythology “gods” were anything but united, did not share power, did not show unconditional love, did not know Christ or His gospel, did not know the Father, had limited knowledge, had a failed state for their followers, and were part of literary mythology–which would be as opposite to and far from the Biblical promises offered by Jesus Christ, through “all power is given unto Him”, as one could conceive of.

 

[Jay53]

I’ll take this one, Parker:

Like Jesus, HF was sinless and perfect when he was on an earth. Any “powers” that he may not have had on “an earth” were set aside voluntarily by him, as a means of teaching/showing us* the path to the celestial kingdom. Because they were set aside voluntarily, any temporary lack of these “powers” don’t count against his omniscience.

Also, you don’t define “omniscience” the right way. If you define “omniscience” to mean “loving love perfectly in a perfectly loving way that perfects the love you love for perfection in perfect accordance with perfect love, perfectly” then LDS theology makes complete sense. The reason you don’t define “omniscience” the right way is because of Aristotle. Or Thomas Aquinas, depending on the thread.

(* - Well, not “us” I guess. But whoever was on “an earth” with HF.)

This was hilarious!! I literally LOL!!!

(Sorry to interrupt - back to the discussion!!)

 

[Crdl2Grv]

The Greek mythology “gods” were anything but united, did not share power, did not show unconditional love, did not know Christ or His gospel, did not know the Father, had limited knowledge, had a failed state for their followers, and were part of literary mythology–which would be as opposite to and far from the Biblical promises offered by Jesus Christ, through “all power is given unto Him”, as one could conceive of.

Got it. So it’s like Mt. Olympus, except that all the gods are equal.

 

[TexanKnight]

Got it. So it’s like Mt. Olympus, except that all the gods are equal.

Be careful Crdl…if you continue to best Parker, he will quit responding to you like he quit responding to me.

Of course, his acquiescence to my posts show that what I posted is true:

It just seems that the LDS God is driven by money. If you read the D&C, you hear such things as God telling Joseph to ORDER the Mormons to build God a house. A little self-serving, don;t you think?

Then you have God ordering polygamy, only to change His mind when the US Government stripped the LDS Church of all its holdings.

Then God ruled that blacks could not hold the Priesthood until schools started refusing to play BYU in sports, which could have cost BYU millions and millions of dollars. Then God changed His mind.

Then God declared a temple ceremony. But when people started disclosing the ceremony, the Church began to look horrible for its stand on blood oaths and women having to be subservient to men. Then God changed His mind.

The best thing about the Real God is that He does not change. He is not a politican who makes His rules based on the latest polls.

Be Blessed