LDS The 'beginning' of God in Mormonism

[BigDaddy4]

I am saying that Church of Jesus Christ in the first century as unique as His Church today. In the first century His Church had living on earth 12 Apostles . Today His Church has 12 living on earth Apostles. In the first century His Church was producing new scriptures(Word of God), the same happens today in His Church. Heavens are opened today as they were opened in the first century. ONLY Church of JESUS CHRIST has LIVING prophets on earth who belong to the Quorum of 12.

The first century church did not have an office "Seventy" (and by the way 91 "Seventies" does not equal 70!!), teenage elders, even younger deacons, either of your priesthoods, baptisms for dead people, use water for communion, wards and stakes, closed temples with a false angel Moroni on top, and on and on...

The lds must be in apostasy, as they look nothing like the first century church...

 

[Alla27]

The first century church did not have an office "Seventy" (and by the way 91 "Seventies" does not equal 70!!), teenage elders, even younger deacons, either of your priesthoods, baptisms for dead people, use water for communion, wards and stakes, closed temples with a false angel Moroni on top, and on and on...

The lds must be in apostasy, as they look nothing like the first century church...

Let's say it is true that Church of JESUS CHRIST in the first century did not have quorum of Seventy. Then God ADDED it. It means MORE BLESSINGS. God can add and He can take away. But the foundation of the Church of JESUS CHRIST is 12 Apostles who live on earth. Jesus Christ is corner stone of this foundation. It is very UNIQUE. No other earthly organization has it. ONLY Church of JESUS CHRIST of LDS and Church of JESUS CHRIST of first century Saints.

 

[Alla27]

By that logic, ONLY the Roman Catholic Church has the Roman Pope, ONLY the Eastern Orthodox Church has the Ecumenical Patriarch, ONLY the Oriental Orthodox Church has the Coptic Orthodox Pope, ONLY the Armenian Church has the Armenian Catholicos, etc. Is any of this supposed to mean something? They are all unique aspects of the churches under consideration, but they don't really mean anything beyond saying that a particular church is organized in a particular way or has this or that particular leader and not another particular leader. So what?

You're basically saying only Mormonism is Mormonism, which...yeah...that's what NYCGuy already said: "So you're saying that none of those that claim a restoration claim the Mormon restoration. Right." That doesn't tell us anything, but you're making your argument too specific to be able to say much of anything, anyway. Other groups claim to have living prophets, but since they're not part of this "Quorum of 12" that only the Mormons have (since they made it up in the first place), they don't count. That's nice. Well I only recognize my own Church's bishops, so that means...something, I'm sure!

Oh...what's that? It doesn't mean anything in this context, and is in fact exactly what you would expect me to say, since I'm Oriental Orthodox and not anything else? So I can't actually appeal to my own belief in my Church as though it proves what I claim about it just because that's what I happen to believe, since that's laughably circular logic? Huh. Okay then. Nevermind.

If Mormons are going to make claims against every other church on the planet -- which they do, because they have to, because otherwise they wouldn't be restorationists -- then they should really learn the difference between making an argument and stating a belief. You can make an argument in favor of or against a belief, but that doesn't mean that beliefs can stand in for arguments. It doesn't seem like our resident Mormon posters understand this. Whether it's fatboys' "Can't you see that XYZ" (not an argument), or now Alla27's "Only Mormonism has XYZ" (also not argument), it doesn't seem that they're actually involved in apologetics so much as...I don't know what you'd call it...pointing to stuff, I guess? "Mormonism has things!" isn't an actual argument. We see your things. They're not convincing because they don't actually tie into any kind of cohesive argument for Mormonism in particular. They're just things that Mormonism has, or (more usually) things that Mormons claim that Mormonism has (like all this "Reformed Egyptian", Ancient Hebrew Indians nonsense, which at least sometimes involves actual evidence, even though it has never been evidence in favor of what Mormons claim).

And keep in mind how the ultimate defense being made by Christians vis-a-vis Mormons is of differing strength by several orders of magnitude. For the Christian, or at least the traditional Christian (Orthodox, Catholics, I guess traditional Anglicans and other high church Protestants), to refute the Mormon claim of 'apostasy' involves showing that, contrary to what Mormonism says, the practices and theology which are in dispute (because they don't match Mormonism, I guess) can be traced back to the apostles themselves, and hence cannot be evidence of apostasy unless one is willing to call the apostles themselves apostates. This is easy enough (though still takes some doing) because we have the writings of the apostles themselves in the Bible, the writings of at least some of their disciples like St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius, and so on, and all of the other early sources which really do show what was normative according to the earliest Christians; the ones who learned from the apostles themselves, and carried that knowledge with them into the next generation.

Mormons, on the other hand, have the task of somehow showing that their beliefs are in line with the apostles, despite the fact that all of the earliest writings that we do have show no affinity to Mormonism. They seem to know this, and hence they preach a 'restoration' of the Church of Christ, which they say was 'taken from the earth', despite the fact that there is no period from today back into the apostolic period itself where there was not witness to the normative doctrines, practices, and boundaries of Christian life. And I can say that precisely because we have all the historical resources that we do have, which Mormons have to attempt to deal with by casting doubt on even the first Christians...the very ones whose faith they claim to be a restoration of!

It's a bit ridiculous, isn't it?

Actual Christian: "Ignatius of Antioch bears witness to XYZ."

Mormon: "Who's that? Some sinful maaaaan?"

Actual Christian: "Yes, but he was also a student of St. John the Apostle, and the third bishop of Antioch."

Mormon: "So? The Church was corrupt by then!"

Actual Christian: "The Church was corrupt by 67 AD, when St. Ignatius succeeded St. Evodius?"

Mormon: "Yes!"

Actual Christian: "You realize that this is entirely within the lifetimes of the apostles themselves? St. Ignatius was a bishop for almost the last four decades of his teacher St. John's life, and in fact died only a few years after St. John himself, circa 108 AD. He knew St. Peter, and according to some traditions (e.g., Eusebius) was personally chosen by St. Peter to succeed Evodius, as the outer range of dates for St. Peter's martyrdom actually overlaps that of Evodius by about a year. Similarly in Egypt, St. Mark was martyred in 68 AD but had given the reins of leadership to his successor, St. Ananios, as early as 62 AD, so the two were overlapping."

Mormon: "So what?"

Actual Christian: "Well, to believe what you are claiming is true, the so-called 'apostasy' would have necessarily included the apostles, since the men they ordained by their own hands and who served during their lifetimes apparently bungled it so badly that the Church was completely lost even under the first generation which was coterminous with the apostolic period itself."

Mormon: "Yeah...what's the problem with that?"

Actual Christian: "You don't think it paints the apostles in a rather bad light?"

Mormon: "No. I'm Mormon! We're all about apostles. We just didn't fall into error like you guys did, but instead restored the Church as it was meant to be."

Actual Christian: "And how can you know that?"

Mormon: "Because we are the restoration of the Church that Jesus started."

Actual Christian: (Bangs his or her head against the wall until sweet, sweet unconsciousness is reached. Now this conversation can end!)

All I say is this: Church of JESUS CHRIST is very unique by one thing. Its FOUNDATION is 12 Apostles who live on earth, who walk/travel on earth and preach Gospel of Jesus Christ and do His work. Corner stone of THIS KIND of foundation is Jesus Christ.
No other organization on earth has THIS FOUNDATION!

 

[BigDaddy4]

Let's say it is true that Church of JESUS CHRIST in the first century did not have quorum of Seventy. Then God ADDED it. It means MORE BLESSINGS. God can add and He can take away. But the foundation of the Church of JESUS CHRIST is 12 Apostles who live on earth. Jesus Christ is corner stone of this foundation. It is very UNIQUE. No other earthly organization has it. ONLY Church of JESUS CHRIST of LDS and Church of JESUS CHRIST of first century Saints.

You can say it, but it's not true. The foundation of apostles has already been laid. To believe you would mean that what you call "apostles" today would be replacing the 1st century apostles. Alternatetively, if your current "apostles" are in addition to the 1st century apostles, then the foundation has grown. Either way, your "foundation" looks nothing like the 1st century church. A quasi-replication is not the original. The original foundation still stands.

 

[Alla27]

You can say it, but it's not true. The foundation of apostles has already been laid.

According to the NT foundation in the Church of JESUS CHRIST were 12 living on earth Apostles. As soon as Judah Iscariot died new Apostle was chosen in his place, so there were 12 again. This is UNIQUE for the Church of JESUS CHRIST according to NT: its foundation 12 living on earth Apostles.
When one Apostle dies Christ replaces him with another according to NT.
This is what happens in the Church of JESUS CHRIST today. We are unique. No other earthly organization has this unique FOUNDATION.

 

[Alla27]

But if people reject God's apostles and prophets and kill them then God may stop send them until those times when He raises new generation, generation which will be ready to receive new words of God and obey.

 

[BigDaddy4]

According to the NT foundation in the Church of JESUS CHRIST were 12 living on earth Apostles. As soon as Judah Iscariot died new Apostle was chosen in his place, so there were 12 again. This is UNIQUE for the Church of JESUS CHRIST according to NT: its foundation 12 living on earth Apostles.
When one Apostle dies Christ replaces him with another according to NT.
This is what happens in the Church of JESUS CHRIST today. We are unique. No other earthly organization has this unique FOUNDATION.

No where does the Bible say there must be 12 living apostles as the foundation. That's something mormonism made up to justify themselves.

The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Rev. 21:14)

The wall isn't a dry erase board.

 

[Alla27]

No where does the Bible say there must be 12 living apostles as the foundation. That's something mormonism made up to justify themselves.

There are many things that are NOT said in the Bible. But the Bible clearly says that:
1) 12 Apostles who LIVED on earth were the FOUNDATION of Christ's organization - His Church.
2)When one of those twelve died he was REPLACED with another Apostle. So, there were 12 of them again.
The same FOUNDATION is in the Church of JESUS CHRIST of LDS in our times, these last days. One apostle dies he is replaced with another. The same as in the first century.

The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb

. (Rev. 21:14)

The wall isn't a dry erase board.

Nobody erases original Twelve Apostles. But when one apostle of God - Judah Iscariot died(left this world) he was REPLACED by another LIVING apostle.
Foundation of Christ's Church ON EARTH is 12 living on earth Apostles( according to NT).

 

[Alla27]

I just want to add this. 12 apostles is good but 15 is even better. When God gives additional three Apostles it is a blessing. When He takes away ALL LIVING apostles it is a CURSE.

 

[Jane_Doe]

You can say it, but it's not true. The foundation of apostles has already been laid. To believe you would mean that what you call "apostles" today would be replacing the 1st century apostles.

Where in the Bible may I read verses supporting your positions that:
1) There should not be any more apostles?
2) That calling apostles today would replace the original 12?
3) How do you reconcile the post-original-12 apostles which are in the Bible? Example: Paul.

 

[dzheremi]

[Staff edit]

One day some old men came to see Abba Anthony. In the midst of them was Abba Joseph. Wanting to test them, the old man suggested a text from the Scriptures, and, beginning with the youngest, he asked them what it meant. Each gave his opinion as he was able. But to each one the old man said, 'You have not understood it.' Last of all he said to Abba Joseph, 'How would you explain this saying?' and he replied, 'I do not know.' Then Abba Anthony said 'Indeed Abba Joseph has found the way, for he has said: "I do not know."

^ This story from the Desert Fathers shows us the truth: that it is better to follow the Lord and the scriptures than to be satisfied in our own intellect.

[Staff edit]

 

[ViaCrucis]

To get back to the original question of the thread, I am rather curious (apologies if it has already been answered):

If I understand things correctly, God in Mormon theology is a being who once was mortal and progressed to godhood--and the same thing is possible for us. And likewise, we all at one point had a per-existence being the biological offspring of Heavenly Father and his wife.

Early in this thread God is said to have always existed; and as I understand it Mormon teaching is that matter--the universe--has always existed.

So since God was once what we are now, then God was once a pre-existent spiritual being, the offspring of his own father. Is God's "always existing" therefore relate to the eternal nature of the universe with a chain of being going back infinitely into the eternal past? Or is the being--the "personage" if I may use the Mormon terminology--himself eternal?

Or if I may reduce it to several smaller questions:

1. Is there any ontological difference between God and ourselves; that is at the most fundamental level of being our we simply proto-Gods and God post-human? Or is there an actual, fundamental difference between what God is and what we are? Or to put it another way, is there anything true about God that is not true about us, other than degree of progress?

2. Has God always existed distinctively, or rather has God always existed in potential? To put it another way, is God's eternity more like the wooden table or the raw timber which was made into the table?

3. If individuals, rather than simply their raw material, are themselves eternal, then are all individuals of eternal provenance? You, me, etc; but were in some sense begotten of Heavenly Father in our own pre-existence? And, to a certain point I'm curious: Are there an infinite number of individuals or a finite number? Of course if it is only a matter of raw material being eternal, then it seems as though there would be an infinite number of possible beings; but if the individuals themselves are eternal then the question of infinite and finite is a more interesting question.

And while, yes, I suspect debate will be forthcoming I am legitimately interested in hearing the answers to these questions because I am legitimately curious.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BigDaddy4]

Where in the Bible may I read verses supporting your positions that:
1) There should not be any more apostles?

The lds claim the need for living apostles. It should be you who needs to support that notion. We read in Acts and other NT books that Paul and others set up churches, and annointed leaders to run them. If you are paying attention to dzheremi's history lessons where his church can trace back to Mark, you will see that apostles are not necessary. Paul, et al, set up bishops, elders, overseers, deacons, etc. according to the guidance given to them by the Holy Spirit. No where in the Bible does it ever say that they need to replace themselves once they die. If that were true, they would have done it.

2) That calling apostles today would replace the original 12?

That was not my claim. That is the lds claim that living apostles replace the dead ones. If that were true, then your living apostles would be replacing the original 12. The original 12 built the foundation. By replacing the dead apostles with living apostles, you are replacing the foundation. You can't have it both ways.

3) How do you reconcile the post-original-12 apostles which are in the Bible? Example: Paul.

It is not mine to reconcile. I leave that in the capable, figurative hands of God to sort out. Just because there were a couple others who were given the title of Apostle, does not mean they replace any of the 12 or are included in the foundation. The Bible does not identify specifically who the 12 foundational apostles are in Rev. 21:14. And it really doesn't matter to me, as Jesus Christ, the Chief Cornerstone, is what matters.

 

[BigDaddy4]

I just want to add this. 12 apostles is good but 15 is even better. When God gives additional three Apostles it is a blessing. When He takes away ALL LIVING apostles it is a CURSE.

15 changes the structure, thereby adding to the list of items that discounts any claim your church has that lds church resembles the 1st century church.

The lds preach a different gospel and have a different structure that the 1st century church.

 

[Jane_Doe]

The lds claim the need for living apostles. It should be you who needs to support that notion. We read in Acts and other NT books that Paul and others set up churches, and annointed leaders to run them. If you are paying attention to dzheremi's history lessons where his church can trace back to Mark, you will see that apostles are not necessary. Paul, et al, set up bishops, elders, overseers, deacons, etc. according to the guidance given to them by the Holy Spirit. No where in the Bible does it ever say that they need to replace themselves once they die. If that were true, they would have done it.

That was not my claim. That is the lds claim that living apostles replace the dead ones. If that were true, then your living apostles would be replacing the original 12. The original 12 built the foundation. By replacing the dead apostles with living apostles, you are replacing the foundation. You can't have it both ways.

It is not mine to reconcile. I leave that in the capable, figurative hands of God to sort out. Just because there were a couple others who were given the title of Apostle, does not mean they replace any of the 12 or are included in the foundation. The Bible does not identify specifically who the 12 foundational apostles are in Rev. 21:14. And it really doesn't matter to me, as Jesus Christ, the Chief Cornerstone, is what matters.

In your post 406 you claimed: "You can say it, but it's not true. The foundation of apostles has already been laid. To believe you would mean that what you call "apostles" today would be replacing the 1st century apostles."

I asked: "Where in the Bible may I read verses supporting your positions that:
1) There should not be any more apostles?
2) That calling apostles today would replace the original 12?
3) How do you reconcile the post-original-12 apostles which are in the Bible? Example: Paul."

From what I see here, you have no Bible verses to back up your claim. Is that correct?

 

[withwonderingawe]

To get back to the original question of the thread, I am rather curious (apologies if it has already been answered):

If I understand things correctly, God in Mormon theology is a being who once was mortal and progressed to godhood--and the same thing is possible for us. And likewise, we all at one point had a per-existence being the biological offspring of Heavenly Father and his wife.

Early in this thread God is said to have always existed; and as I understand it Mormon teaching is that matter--the universe--has always existed.

So since God was once what we are now, then God was once a pre-existent spiritual being, the offspring of his own father. Is God's "always existing" therefore relate to the eternal nature of the universe with a chain of being going back infinitely into the eternal past? Or is the being--the "personage" if I may use the Mormon terminology--himself eternal?

Or if I may reduce it to several smaller questions:

1. Is there any ontological difference between God and ourselves; that is at the most fundamental level of being our we simply proto-Gods and God post-human? Or is there an actual, fundamental difference between what God is and what we are? Or to put it another way, is there anything true about God that is not true about us, other than degree of progress?

2. Has God always existed distinctively, or rather has God always existed in potential? To put it another way, is God's eternity more like the wooden table or the raw timber which was made into the table?

3. If individuals, rather than simply their raw material, are themselves eternal, then are all individuals of eternal provenance? You, me, etc; but were in some sense begotten of Heavenly Father in our own pre-existence? And, to a certain point I'm curious: Are there an infinite number of individuals or a finite number? Of course if it is only a matter of raw material being eternal, then it seems as though there would be an infinite number of possible beings; but if the individuals themselves are eternal then the question of infinite and finite is a more interesting question.

And while, yes, I suspect debate will be forthcoming I am legitimately interested in hearing the answers to these questions because I am legitimately curious.

-CryptoLutheran

So since God was once what we are now, then God was once a pre-existent spiritual being, the offspring of his own father…

Yes, that is the theory

“We also believe that strong traditional families …..they are also the basic units of eternity and of the kingdom and government of God. We believe that the organization and government of heaven will be built around families and extended families.” (Elder L. Tom Perry
Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles)


Is God's "always existing" therefore relate to the eternal nature of the universe with a chain of being going back infinitely into the eternal past? Or is the being--the "personage" if I may use the Mormon terminology--himself eternal?

My understanding is this;

There is an element in the universe which we call an intelligence, it is uncreated.

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;
12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—
13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things,

It shines from the presence of God, the Father takes this light and clothes it in spirit matter making it his child.

This intelligence seems to have a personality and gender of it’s own. This is a statement found in the Proclamation on the Family given in 1995 so very recently.

“Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

So he being who is our Father in Heaven has always existed eternally as you have. However this being must progress to a final state of exaltation. That only happens after the person has received the resurrection of a perfect immortal body.

There is another passage which is puzzling;
1 Nephi 10:19
19 For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round.

When a young couple is sealed in the temple there are large mirrors on either side of the alter and the sealer will have the couple look into them and they reflect back and forward into infinity. (not part of the ceremony just something the old guys like to do) They are told this is eternity and they and their marriage are part of it.

What does one eternal round mean? I don’t think I comprehend it.

1. 1. Is there any ontological difference between God and ourselves; that is at the most fundamental level of being our we simply proto-Gods and God post-human? Or is there an actual, fundamental difference between what God is and what we are? Or to put it another way, is there anything true about God that is not true about us, other than degree of progress?

This is why the Book of Abraham is so important to us.

After explaining there are different levels of stars some larger than others he explains there are different levels of intelligences

18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are ….or eternal.
19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

There are many of these intelligence which are greater by nature, more intelligent and more righteous than the rest of us. These are the ones chosen to play the role of Messiah. We become one with them, we sit on their councils, we obey their commands.

So since God was once what we are now,….

Joseph Smith clarified that he said;
“God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible…..”

God the Father was once a mortal man as we are but he was like Christ, sinless.

Ask some more questions and maybe I can clarify myself better.

 

[fatboys]

To get back to the original question of the thread, I am rather curious (apologies if it has already been answered):

If I understand things correctly, God in Mormon theology is a being who once was mortal and progressed to godhood--and the same thing is possible for us. And likewise, we all at one point had a per-existence being the biological offspring of Heavenly Father and his wife.

Early in this thread God is said to have always existed; and as I understand it Mormon teaching is that matter--the universe--has always existed.

So since God was once what we are now, then God was once a pre-existent spiritual being, the offspring of his own father. Is God's "always existing" therefore relate to the eternal nature of the universe with a chain of being going back infinitely into the eternal past? Or is the being--the "personage" if I may use the Mormon terminology--himself eternal?

Or if I may reduce it to several smaller questions:

1. Is there any ontological difference between God and ourselves; that is at the most fundamental level of being our we simply proto-Gods and God post-human? Or is there an actual, fundamental difference between what God is and what we are? Or to put it another way, is there anything true about God that is not true about us, other than degree of progress?

2. Has God always existed distinctively, or rather has God always existed in potential? To put it another way, is God's eternity more like the wooden table or the raw timber which was made into the table?

3. If individuals, rather than simply their raw material, are themselves eternal, then are all individuals of eternal provenance? You, me, etc; but were in some sense begotten of Heavenly Father in our own pre-existence? And, to a certain point I'm curious: Are there an infinite number of individuals or a finite number? Of course if it is only a matter of raw material being eternal, then it seems as though there would be an infinite number of possible beings; but if the individuals themselves are eternal then the question of infinite and finite is a more interesting question.

And while, yes, I suspect debate will be forthcoming I am legitimately interested in hearing the answers to these questions because I am legitimately curious.

-CryptoLutheran

We don't know a lot about intelligences. Intelligences are the essence of who we are or our character. These intelligences have always existed. They are made up of matter which is more fine and pure than spirit matter. Intelligences were placed into perfect and eternal spirit bodies which were organized by our heavenly parents. We have no idea how this is done. We know very little about any other God other than our Heavenly Father. He is our God and beside him there is no other God. We do know through modern prophets that the same experience we are going through in this life is similar to our Heavenly Fathers experience. That we have the same potential to progress to perfection and the possibility to reach perfection as Jesus and our Heavenly Father did. We have the potential to gain perfection and gain all knowledge. As we do this and reach our goal we can become like the Father. But we are co-eternal with God the Father as well as his Son Jesus Christ. This progression is called eternal progression and we have always been in the mode of progression. Going from one level to another. I also personally beleive that we will continue to progress after we reach perfection. I beleive that our Father in Heaven is still progressing not in perfection or knowledge but in glory. That is that as he creates more he also increases in his possessions. Where before he created he had less. Now he has more. If we are obedient to the eternal laws and reach perfection we can become like the father. We also would have the opportunity to follow in his foot steps.

 

[Jane_Doe]

To get back to the original question of the thread, I am rather curious (apologies if it has already been answered):

If I understand things correctly, God in Mormon theology is a being who once was mortal and progressed to godhood--and the same thing is possible for us. And likewise, we all at one point had a per-existence being the biological offspring of Heavenly Father and his wife.

Early in this thread God is said to have always existed; and as I understand it Mormon teaching is that matter--the universe--has always existed.

So since God was once what we are now, then God was once a pre-existent spiritual being, the offspring of his own father. Is God's "always existing" therefore relate to the eternal nature of the universe with a chain of being going back infinitely into the eternal past? Or is the being--the "personage" if I may use the Mormon terminology--himself eternal?

Or if I may reduce it to several smaller questions:

1. Is there any ontological difference between God and ourselves; that is at the most fundamental level of being our we simply proto-Gods and God post-human? Or is there an actual, fundamental difference between what God is and what we are? Or to put it another way, is there anything true about God that is not true about us, other than degree of progress?

2. Has God always existed distinctively, or rather has God always existed in potential? To put it another way, is God's eternity more like the wooden table or the raw timber which was made into the table?

3. If individuals, rather than simply their raw material, are themselves eternal, then are all individuals of eternal provenance? You, me, etc; but were in some sense begotten of Heavenly Father in our own pre-existence? And, to a certain point I'm curious: Are there an infinite number of individuals or a finite number? Of course if it is only a matter of raw material being eternal, then it seems as though there would be an infinite number of possible beings; but if the individuals themselves are eternal then the question of infinite and finite is a more interesting question.

And while, yes, I suspect debate will be forthcoming I am legitimately interested in hearing the answers to these questions because I am legitimately curious.

-CryptoLutheran

LDS believe that there are many wonders of God we do not understand. These will be reveal to us at a later time.

From your post "If I understand things correctly, God in Mormon theology is a being who once was mortal and progressed to godhood"
Jane: This is speculation, it is not revealed cannon.

ViaCrucis: "and the same thing is possible for us".
Jane: Yes. It is possible for us to become joint heirs with Christ and inherit all that the Father has.

ViaCrucis: " And likewise, we all at one point had a per-existence being the biological offspring of Heavenly Father and his wife."
Jane: This is speculation (logically so), it is not revealed cannon.

ViaCrucis: "Early in this thread God is said to have always existed; and as I understand it Mormon teaching is that matter--the universe--has always existed."
Jane: Correct.

(For the below I'm selecting your version of the question which best flows to the answer)

ViaCrucis: "Or to put it another way, is there anything true about God that is not true about us, other than degree of progress?"
Jane: Mormons don't believe in aliens: there's only one "species" of being. The Father is indeed our father. The difference is a matter of progression: we are small, imperfect, petty, sinful, etc. He is Perfect, all knowing, all loving.

ViaCrucis: 2. To put it another way, is God's eternity more like the wooden table or the raw timber which was made into the table?
Jane: This is speculation. Our eternity is like the lumber and table (or clay and pot, which is my perter analogy: we progress forward and change, based on out centerness in Christ.).

ViaCrucis: 3. If individuals, rather than simply their raw material, are themselves eternal, then are all individuals of eternal provenance?
Jane: Correct.

ViaCrucis:And, to a certain point I'm curious: Are there an infinite number of individuals or a finite number?
Jane: This question is 900% speculation territory.

 

[BigDaddy4]

In your post 406 you claimed: "You can say it, but it's not true. The foundation of apostles has already been laid. To believe you would mean that what you call "apostles" today would be replacing the 1st century apostles."

I asked: "Where in the Bible may I read verses supporting your positions that:
1) There should not be any more apostles?
2) That calling apostles today would replace the original 12?
3) How do you reconcile the post-original-12 apostles which are in the Bible? Example: Paul."

From what I see here, you have no Bible verses to back up your claim. Is that correct?

[Staff edit]. Did I make that claim, or are you trying to put those words in my mouth (or post)? Was there anything else I posted in post 406 that was relevant, or are you just cherry picking what was written?

Here is my post 406.

You can say it, but it's not true. The foundation of apostles has already been laid. To believe you would mean that what you call "apostles" today would be replacing the 1st century apostles. Alternatetively, if your current "apostles" are in addition to the 1st century apostles, then the foundation has grown. Either way, your "foundation" looks nothing like the 1st century church. A quasi-replication is not the original. The original foundation still stands.

Notice that "To believe you would mean..." means I am responding to another poster and drawing a possible conclusion from what they said. Not a claim.

Notice "Alternatively..." How convenient for you to leave this out, as I am providing another possible conclusion. Not a claim.

Notice "Either way..." Based on what I have concluded, I do make the claim that the lds church "looks nothing like the 1st century church", which is something the lds have claimed and have yet to prove.

 

[BigDaddy4]

This intelligence seems to have a personality and gender of it’s own. This is a statement found in the Proclamation on the Family given in 1995 so very recently.

“Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

Jesus disagrees with you. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28).

This is why the Book of Abraham is so important to us.

The book that the rest of the world knows is false? And that your church admits the papyrus fragments JS translated them from were not the originals?

"the fragments do not have to be as old as Abraham for the book of Abraham and its illustrations to be authentic. Ancient records are often transmitted as copies or as copies of copies. The record of Abraham could have been edited or redacted by later writers much as the Book of Mormon prophet-historians Mormon and Moroni revised the writings of earlier peoples. Moreover, documents initially composed for one context can be repackaged for another context or purpose. Illustrations once connected with Abraham could have either drifted or been dislodged from their original context and reinterpreted hundreds of years later in terms of burial practices in a later period of Egyptian history."

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

That's a lot to hang your hat on for being "so important to us". How do you know the fragments JS used were copied correctly and not part of the "apostasy"? That is the claim the lds make with the Bible, that many plain and precious truths were lost in this "Great Apostasy" and you guys claim to have restored them. Why does that not apply to the BoA? JS is no translator. His changing of certain passages in the Bible with his attempt at the JST is proof of that.