Could God always have been God?

Paul of Eugene OR said:

I am finite, not infinite. God was once like me, according to this doctrine, and therefore at one time God was finite, not infinite. I think adherents of the LDS church try to rescue this doctrine to keep it from pointing out their theology clearly implies God is not infinite.

Therefore, my distinction between the god of Mormonism and the God of Christianity remains. Our conception of God is that He is infinite in knowledge, power, extent. Mormons have theology that makes their conception of god necessarily finite, however great that finite god might be.

Click to expand...

The King Follet discourse is not about the finite or infinite nature of man or God. It is a mistake to apply a discussion of the infinite nature of God to a lecture that isn't about that topic. For example: "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another . . ." What does being able to speak to God as one man converses with another have to do with God's infinite nature or man's finite nature? Nothing.

What does the King Follet discourse teach? That Heavenly Father experienced a period of mortality, the same as Jesus did. That Heavenly Father is an exalted man, the same as Jesus. That Heavenly Father has a body, the same as Jesus. It is this physical nature of God that allows the quote I used above to make sense. His enhanced glory aside (which man cannot abide) a man could stand face-to-face with God just as he could another man because God has a physical body. That is what the couplet teaches and that should be what our critics address rather than substituting it for the infinite nature of God stuff.


Early in the discourse Joseph Smith identifies what he intended to teach during the lecture. "I want to ask this congregation, every man, woman and child, to answer the question in their own hearts, what kind of a being God is?"

Joseph goes on to explain: "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another."

Exalted means, among other things, to be raised or elevated. In this case what Joseph is talking about is that God and Jesus are both resurrected beings. Keep in mind that this discourse was given at King Follet's funeral. The audience is grieved at the loss of their friend.

The following section is often quoted, but our critics leave out enough of what Joseph said in order to find fault with it. ". . .and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory . . ." As you can see the focus of being gods ourselves is attaining resurrection.

Joseph does mention becoming joint heirs with Christ in order to console those grieving King Follet's death. "These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before."


I think that covers the basics of what the LDS believe based on the Snow Couplet and the King Follet Discourse.

Ran77 said:

The King Follet discourse is not about the finite or infinite nature of man or God. It is a mistake to apply a discussion of the infinite nature of God to a lecture that isn't about that topic. For example: "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another . . ." What does being able to speak to God as one man converses with another have to do with God's infinite nature or man's finite nature? Nothing.

What does the King Follet discourse teach? That Heavenly Father experienced a period of mortality, the same as Jesus did. That Heavenly Father is an exalted man, the same as Jesus. That Heavenly Father has a body, the same as Jesus. It is this physical nature of God that allows the quote I used above to make sense. His enhanced glory aside (which man cannot abide) a man could stand face-to-face with God just as he could another man because God has a physical body. That is what the couplet teaches and that should be what our critics address rather than substituting it for the infinite nature of God stuff.


Early in the discourse Joseph Smith identifies what he intended to teach during the lecture. "I want to ask this congregation, every man, woman and child, to answer the question in their own hearts, what kind of a being God is?"

Joseph goes on to explain: "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another."

Exalted means, among other things, to be raised or elevated. In this case what Joseph is talking about is that God and Jesus are both resurrected beings. Keep in mind that this discourse was given at King Follet's funeral. The audience is grieved at the loss of their friend.

The following section is often quoted, but our critics leave out enough of what Joseph said in order to find fault with it. ". . .and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory . . ." As you can see the focus of being gods ourselves is attaining resurrection.

Joseph does mention becoming joint heirs with Christ in order to console those grieving King Follet's death. "These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before."


I think that covers the basics of what the LDS believe based on the Snow Couplet and the King Follet Discourse.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your courteous reply and I trust the moderators will consider it in the manner and tone it is intended.

It is very informative as to Mormon thinking and Mormon theology.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Thank you for your courteous reply and I trust the moderators will consider it in the manner and tone it is intended.

It is very informative as to Mormon thinking and Mormon theology.

Click to expand...

You are welcome.

The problem with such hypothetical questions is that the answer depends entirely on the kind of cosmological/theological foundation you assume to be true to begin with.

It's as if someone was to ask: "Is it possible that the God of Abraham is an extraterrestrial/extradimensional alien who created the human race with hyper-advanced technology?" Given the right assumptions (1. This god exists. 2.Such extraterrestrials exist. 3. This technology exists. etc.), this could very well be possible.

A (to me) much more pertinent question, however, is: "Why do we assume that the texts that tell us about YHVH are any different from other ancient mythologies? Is there really that fundamental a difference between YHVH and, say, Marduk, El, Osiris, Bumba, Manitou, Woden, Shiva etc.? And does the fact that some of these are still worshipped while others are not *really* tell us something about the veracity of the world views/religions associated with them?"

From my vantage point, Joseph Smith and his successors look like snake oil peddlers whose literary and theological creations just happened to match the zeitgeist of their times ("Manifest Destiny" etc.) spectacularly well.

Jane_the_Bane said:

The problem with such hypothetical questions is that the answer depends entirely on the kind of cosmological/theological foundation you assume to be true to begin with.

It's as if someone was to ask: "Is it possible that the God of Abraham is an extraterrestrial/extradimensional alien who created the human race with hyper-advanced technology?" Given the right assumptions (1. This god exists. 2.Such extraterrestrials exist. 3. This technology exists. etc.), this could very well be possible.

A (to me) much more pertinent question, however, is: "Why do we assume that the texts that tell us about YHVH are any different from other ancient mythologies? Is there really that fundamental a difference between YHVH and, say, Marduk, El, Osiris, Bumba, Manitou, Woden, Shiva etc.? And does the fact that some of these are still worshipped while others are not *really* tell us something about the veracity of the world views/religions associated with them?"

From my vantage point, Joseph Smith and his successors look like snake oil peddlers whose literary and theological creations just happened to match the zeitgeist of their times ("Manifest Destiny" etc.) spectacularly well.

Click to expand...

I would imagine you could argue that if a group goes away and their religion goes away with it, that religion must not have been right. It doesn't tell us that the remaining ones are correct, obviously.

LoAmmi said:

I would imagine you could argue that if a group goes away and their religion goes away with it, that religion must not have been right. It doesn't tell us that the remaining ones are correct, obviously.

Click to expand...

Well, even the former is not necessarily a given: since many cultures were systematically destroyed along with their religions (particularly by proselytizing/colonizing world views), it's also an option that the truth was simply forgotten, like some of antiquity's knowledge that was only rediscovered more than a millennium later. Perhaps some Amazonian tribe held the keys to ultimate truth, but was wiped out by gold-hungry conquistadors and smallpox before they could share them. Perhaps the ancient Egyptians were right all along, and we simply bar our own road towards eternal life by disregarding their knowledge as superstition.

Jane_the_Bane said:

Well, even the former is not necessarily a given: since many cultures were systematically destroyed along with their religions (particularly by proselytizing/colonizing world views), it's also an option that the truth was simply forgotten, like some of antiquity's knowledge that was only rediscovered more than a millennium later. Perhaps some Amazonian tribe held the keys to ultimate truth, but was wiped out by gold-hungry conquistadors and smallpox before they could share them. Perhaps the ancient Egyptians were right all along, and we simply bar our own road towards eternal life by disregarding their knowledge as superstition.

Click to expand...

One would assume if their deities were as powerful as they tend to believe, the knowledge of them would not have been wiped out.

Now, if the truth is that there's a bunch of kind of powerful not not really that powerful beings that created us then it could happen, I guess. But the ancient stories of powerful deities would still be wrong.

LoAmmi said:

One would assume if their deities were as powerful as they tend to believe, the knowledge of them would not have been wiped out.

Now, if the truth is that there's a bunch of kind of powerful not not really that powerful beings that created us then it could happen, I guess. But the ancient stories of powerful deities would still be wrong.

Click to expand...

Well, that depends on whether said entities are really all that interested in being worshipped by some sapient apes at the edge of the milky way. I agree that it would be perfectly impossible for the Abrahamic god to be forgotten unless he doesn't exist, because he's all about "look at me, me, ME! ONLY ME! DON'T YOU DARE LOOK AT ANYBODY ELSE, YOU FLOOZY! I'll TEACH YOU!!!"

Jane_the_Bane said:

Well, that depends on whether said entities are really all that interested in being worshipped by some sapient apes at the edge of the milky way. I agree that it would be perfectly impossible for the Abrahamic god to be forgotten unless he doesn't exist, because he's all about "look at me, me, ME! ONLY ME! DON'T YOU DARE LOOK AT ANYBODY ELSE, YOU FLOOZY! I'll TEACH YOU!!!"

Click to expand...

If they weren't interested, then the religion would still be wrong since I know of very few religions that teach some beings created us then ran off never to speak to us again. Deism would be close, but I don't know of ancient deist religions.

Jane_the_Bane said:

Well, that depends on whether said entities are really all that interested in being worshipped by some sapient apes at the edge of the milky way. I agree that it would be perfectly impossible for the Abrahamic god to be forgotten unless he doesn't exist, because he's all about "look at me, me, ME! ONLY ME! DON'T YOU DARE LOOK AT ANYBODY ELSE, YOU FLOOZY! I'll TEACH YOU!!!"

Click to expand...

You have a vastly different view of God than the LDS have.

fatboys said:

Some how I posted it before I was through. I meant to say does some one understand how God could have always been God.

Click to expand...

I "doubt" there could have been no existence, at all, and then God came into existence from nonexistence. For me, it is a marvelous wonder how there is anything, at all, versus "nothing". And we have God who is so absolutely wonderful in love and with almighty power to make the whole universe. And He is personal with His children, in His own love > Romans 5:5 >

"Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5)

"He has maintained the whole universe and us His children in His love, without tiring out."

Our Apostle Paul says, "Love never fails" > in 1 Corinthians 13:8. God in His love will never wear out, run out, or tire out; therefore, He will be and keep us for all eternity in His love.

But humans can have love which breaks down. And Satan is "the god of this age" (2 Corinthians 4:4) who had a beginning. There are people who have gotten "the god" Satan mixed up with God our Heavenly Father! They are saying things about "God" which are not true about God, but about "the god of this age" Satan.

God our Father "is love" (in 1 John 4:8&16), and "Love never fails" (in 1 Corinthians 13:8) "And He is good and His mercy endures forever."

com7fy8 said:

I "doubt" there could have been no existence, at all, and then God came into existence from nonexistence. For me, it is a marvelous wonder how there is anything, at all, versus "nothing". And we have God who is so absolutely wonderful in love and with almighty power to make the whole universe. And He is personal with His children, in His own love > Romans 5:5 >

"Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5)

"He has maintained the whole universe and us His children in His love, without tiring out."

Our Apostle Paul says, "Love never fails" > in 1 Corinthians 13:8. God in His love will never wear out, run out, or tire out; therefore, He will be and keep us for all eternity in His love.

But humans can have love which breaks down. And Satan is "the god of this age" (2 Corinthians 4:4) who had a beginning. There are people who have gotten "the god" Satan mixed up with God our Heavenly Father! They are saying things about "God" which are not true about God, but about "the god of this age" Satan.

God our Father "is love" (in 1 John 4:8&16), and "Love never fails" (in 1 Corinthians 13:8) "And He is good and His mercy endures forever."

Click to expand...

I notice you quoted scripture a lot in order to help establish there is a God. Does your belief in the efficacy of scripture rest, in your mind, more securely that your belief in God, or does your belief in God rather help establish, in your mind the efficacy of scripture? In other words, which one rests upon the other? Or, if you indulge in circular reasoning, you could confess that as well.

Paul, I think God and scripture have worked together. It could be like how God spoke, in the time of creation, and what He spoke was so. And I have meditational things which come with the scripture and experience and while I am sharing with others.

Ran77 said:

You have a vastly different view of God than the LDS have.

Click to expand...

Jane has an interesting point. God is described as "jealous" in the Bible. I think her description does somewhat capture the essence of it, at least based on what I see on these forums.

Ran77 said:

You have a vastly different view of God than the LDS have.

Click to expand...

Oh, that's not me, that's the bible.

The whole point of the ten commandments/utterances was divine jealousy.

Exodus 20:4-6 "You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Exodus 34:14-15 "For you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. You shall not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to their gods, someone among them will invite you, and you will eat of the sacrifice.

Deuteronomy 6:15 "The Lord your God, who is present with you, is a jealous God. The anger of the Lord your God would be kindled against you and he would destroy you from the face of the earth.

Deuteronomy 4:24 "For the Lord thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God."

Joshua 24:19 "And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the Lord, for he is an holy God, he is a jealous God, he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins."

Nahum 1:2 "God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth; the Lord revengeth, and is furious, the Lord will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies."

Zechariah 1:14-15 "Thus saith the Lord of hosts; I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy. And I am very sore displeased with the heathen that are at ease: for I was but a little displeased, and they helped forward the affliction."

Ezekiel 38,19 "For in my jealousy and in the fire of my wrath have I spoken, Surely in that day there shall be a great shaking inthe land of Israel.

Deuteronomy 32:19-21 "The Lord saw it, and was jealous, he spurned his sons and daughters. He said: I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end will be; for they are a perverse generation, children in whom there is no faithfulness. They made me jealous with what is no god, provoked me with their idols. So I will make them jealous with what is no people, provoke them with a foolish nation."


If any parent or husband acted like that, I'd counsel his victims to run. IMMEDIATELY.

Zoness said:

Jane has an interesting point. God is described as "jealous" in the Bible. I think her description does somewhat capture the essence of it, at least based on what I see on these forums.

Click to expand...

God is described as many things. Focusing on a single word or a single verse is not going to give a person a very good understanding of God.

Jane_the_Bane said:

Oh, that's not me, that's the bible.

Click to expand...

No, it's you.

I could supply numerous verses which describe God and His tender mercies. My view of God is based on reading the whole of the Bible (and the LDS scriptures) and applying all of that to my understanding. You have chosen to focus on just one word and a very limited subset of the available information in order to justify your view.

Jane_the_Bane said:

The whole point of the ten commandments/utterances was divine jealousy.

Click to expand...

According to you. I view the Ten Commandments as a primer for peaceful civilization. As a fan of science-fiction I would go as far as list the Ten Commandments as the minimal requirements for any galactic civilization to obtain an advanced level of enlightenment. Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not covet. Do not kill. These represent important mindsets for a species if they want to advance. It doesn't even make sense to attempt to view the commandment to not kill as a divine jealousy.

com7fy8 said:

Paul, I think God and scripture have worked together. It could be like how God spoke, in the time of creation, and what He spoke was so. And I have meditational things which come with the scripture and experience and while I am sharing with others.

Click to expand...

Well in my own theology I give primacy to God, and what He says is therefore important and weighty and effective because He said it.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Well in my own theology I give primacy to God, and what He says is therefore important and weighty and effective because He said it.

Click to expand...

I think of how I trust God to do with me what He means by His word . . . not how I might now understand.

God always has been, and He has had His meaning and purpose for His word, before the world began . . . including to conform us to the image of Jesus > Romans 8:29. And this is for us to discover, not what we already can know now, how we will become.

talitha said:

I don't understand how God could possibly not have always been God......

Click to expand...

LOL True! That's like saying have you always been human? Haha