LDS teachings on God

[Ran77]

So, basically, I am to understand that, as far as the average LDS is concerned, yes, there are a plethora of other gods out there.
Mainstream Christianity flatly rejects any such notion, asserting instead that there can be only one God.
I'm not sure what cats giving birth to kittens has to do with this issue.
Cats give birth to kittens, dogs give birth to dogs....and people give birth to people. They do not give birth to gods. In fact, there would be no cats, or dogs, or people, or anything else, if God had not created them.
The whole "don't know, don't care" attitude displayed by so many LDS indicates something more than an unnatural lack of normal, healthy curiousity. To me it speaks of something darker, more sinister than that. I find it a bit frightening that some 16 million people quietly accept the idea that there are an infinite number of gods out there, all of them with the same power and authority as their own god, and they aren't the least bit interested in knowing more about these guys. There is something not quite human about that, that I just can not understand. It's not natural...

So, in other words I'm not human. And I'm mentally unhealthy because I don't conform to the level of curiosity you think I should.

Thanks for the insults.


:o

 

[Ran77]

The only disconnect is yours. You claimed the heavenly father you worship was once a mortal man. The God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the I AM, Yahweh, El Olam, Jehovah Jireh, Elohim, etc., was never a mortal man.

CFR.

Show me where the Bible makes this statement.


:o

 

[Ran77]

The god one worships has everything to do with one's salvation. Now what?

What do you mean "now what?"

Are you expecting me to point out the enormous disconnect with this post and what I actually stated? How the comment moves from one concept to a different one and illogically wants to equate the two?

Here is how the discussion unfolded:

I stated, "We don't know anything about other gods and we really don't care because it has no impact on our salvation. Now what?"

(The knowledge of other gods, who we don't worship, has no impact on our salvation.)


You followed up with, "The god one worships has everything to do with one's salvation."

How does this relate to 1) these other gods are not the God we worship?

How does this relate to 2) these other gods have no impact on our salvation?

 

[Ran77]

And mortal man gives birth to mortal man.

What does God give birth to?

 

[drstevej]

So Heavenly Mom gets pregnant?

 

[TheBarrd]

So, in other words I'm not human. And I'm mentally unhealthy because I don't conform to the level of curiosity you think I should.

Thanks for the insults.


:o

I'm very sorry you feel insulted.

It's not you, personally, really...I'm beginning to suspect that there is something darker at work here.

Of course, human beings are naturally curious...always wanting to know what, when, why, where, and how. If we did not have that natural curiosity, we'd still be sitting in front of our caves, dull eyed and stupid. Somehow, we progressed from that point...always searching, always asking questions and seeking answers... What would our civilization be like if it were not so? Stuff you take for granted every day...electricity, cell phones, computers, indoor plumbing, automobiles...and so much more! Have you read about our telescopes? Science can now actually trace the movement of the stars backward, to the first seconds of the universe's existence! It is incredible!

Anyone whose ever had much to do with kids knows how curious they are. Their inquiring little minds want to know. And the more intelligent the kid, the more curious he's going to be.

So, of course, when you tell us that god is a man who was born on another world, etc, we are curious. How many such gods are there? Do they communicate with each other? Etc, etc, etc...it is natural and healthy to want answers.
The ultimate question, of course, is...how did the very first man get exalted to godhood? There had to have been a time when there were no gods on any other planets...since there was definitely a time when there were no planets at all...or so science tells us.

To have a human being say "don't know, don't care" is just shocking. To have a whole fleet of 'em is downright frightening...

 

[Ran77]

I'm very sorry you feel insulted.

It's hard not to when someone insults you.


:o

 

[Ran77]

To have a human being say "don't know, don't care" is just shocking.

I see this has turned into a string of opportunities to insult me.

Good bye.

 

[TheBarrd]

I see this has turned into a string of opportunities to insult me.

Good bye.

Once again, Ran, I am not talking about you, specifically. You are not the first Mormon to tell us that you don't care. It's not a matter of insulting you, or any other member of your organization, as it is pure amazement at that attitude.
Quite frankly, I am wondering if perhaps there is a deeper reason so many of you have that attitude.
Mankind is naturally curious. That is a fact.
Here we have a block of humans presented with a very unusual scenario...and not a single spark of curiosity. Something is very wrong with this picture...

 

[skylark1]

God is not a "species". There is nothing else even remotely like Him.

I was not claiming that I believe that God is a species. It seemed like you didn't understand what an LDS poster meant when he spoke of cats giving birth to kittens, etc. I was trying to explain what LDS believe because I thought that you didn't realize that this is what they believe.

Where ever did this idea even come from?

I wouldn't know.

 

[TheBarrd]

What does God give birth to?

God does not "give birth".

 

[Ran77]

Nevermind.

 

[TheBarrd]

Nevermind.

I've given birth. It's a very painful, not to mention messy, process which involves parts of my body that we do not mention in mixed company.
Do you honestly see God "giving birth"? I don't think so...

 

[DrBubbaLove]

One aspect of a God that is the Supreme Good would be there is nothing greater and He alone is the source of all that is. The "good" in everything, including us then can be attributed to Him as the source and seen as a reflection in us of His Image in that regard.

In a construct where the object of our worship is considered limited at least in the sense of existence, then the same cannot be said. Regardless of the object of worship being restricted to who is said to have made us, it would still be true that there would be more "ancient" beings and with that a capability/possibility at least of those ancients being greater in any given aspect/attribute of our chosen object of worship.

So while one could say such an object of worship is good, there is no assurance in such a construct that there is not one more ancient who is more good(or all Good or even Good itself). So while we all know there are level of goodness, and that results in the realization there must exist something of which it can be said nothing else is better/more good - this particular construct limits the object of worship to not being that.

Which then would mean, taking this one attribute, that the good in us is not just a reflection of our object of worship, but a compound reflection of many more ancient beings- and certainly it could not be said in that regard that the object of our worship is the source of Good.

Having said that, I guess I can see some saying it still does not matter if one considers all beings, including the object of worship as things on a journey with everything evolving to something better.

 

[TheBarrd]

One aspect of a God that is the Supreme Good would be there is nothing greater and He alone is the source of all that is. The "good" in everything, including us then can be attributed to Him as the source and seen as a reflection in us of His Image in that regard.

In a construct where the object of our worship is considered limited at least in the sense of existence, then the same cannot be said. Regardless of the object of worship being restricted to who is said to have made us, it would still be true that there would be more "ancient" beings and with that a capability/possibility at least of those ancients being greater in any given aspect/attribute of our chosen object of worship.

So while one could say such an object of worship is good, there is no assurance in such a construct that there is not one more ancient who is more good(or all Good or even Good itself). So while we all know there are level of goodness, and that results in the realization there must exist something of which it can be said nothing else is better/more good - this particular construct limits the object of worship to not being that.

Which then would mean, taking this one attribute, that the good in us is not just a reflection of our object of worship, but a compound reflection of many more ancient beings- and certainly it could not be said in that regard that the object of our worship is the source of Good.

Having said that, I guess I can see some saying it still does not matter if one considers all beings, including the object of worship as things on a journey with everything evolving to something better.

Either God is the Eternal (no beginning-no ending) source of all that exists...
Or he is not god.

There cannot be an infinite progression of gods, because sooner or later it must come to the first god...and Who or What "exalted" him?

It's fine to say "don't know", because of course, they obviously couldn't couldn't know.

But how could one possibly not care about such a major issue as the Ultimate Source?
It just doesn't make any sense at all....

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Don't care might be an overstatement. Being considered as all, everyone, including the object of worship on a journey, I could see how some might say it does not matter or certainly not be overly concerned or preoccupied with it.

And from this construct, it must be evident even to them that the object of worship is not the source of all, and as such would not be what the Church teaches is God. It does not however mean they do not a believe in a god with whom they consider themselves on a journey/relationship with and to whom they give worship with indifference to any more ancient/other gods their construct obviously allows for.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Don't care might be an overstatement. Being considered as all, everyone, including the object of worship on a journey, I could see how some might say it does not matter or certainly not be overly concerned or preoccupied with it.

And from this construct, it must be evident even to them that the object of worship is not the source of all, and as such would not be what the Church teaches is God.

Hello DrBubbalove,
long time no see
I would not say this from the LDS standpoint. We view God as the source of all things created. We view Jesus as the author of that creation. TheBarrds question is if Heavenly Father was not our First Father, then there are other "gods" and it is somehow horribly wrong if we don't completely understand that. But from a gospel perspective, it doesn't really matter to most LDS because we don't need to believe that to be saved in the kingdom with Christ. I would add that from the gospel perspective Christ shall be called the "ETERNAL Father" even though He was not sent as the Father, but His Son. So TheBarrds query as to how God can be Eternal if He wasn't always the Father is answered in Christ, as Christ inherits this "attribute" or "office" when He inherits the government of the Father. Thus, like Melchizedek, he is without beginning of days due to His High Priest office. Scripturally there is one (echad) Lord YHWH according to the scriptures. Jesus is YHWH with the Father in a way that it seems man does not comprehend. Jesus was sent as the revelation of the Father to man. Jesus is one YHWH with the Father like a man and wife are one(echad) flesh. It is a spiritual oneness as the Son lived by example all those things He saw the Father do, and did likewise. Thus they are YHWH, Behold the nail, Behold the Hand. Rather than looking at them as separate "gods" they are one God.

TheBarrd: Either God is the Eternal (no beginning-no ending) source of all that exists...
Or he is not god.

God is the eternal source of this creation, and Jesus revealed Him, and will be called the Eternal Father with Him. Isa 9:6

It does not however mean they do not a believe in a god with whom they consider themselves on a journey/relationship with and to whom they give worship with indifference to any more ancient/other gods their construct obviously allows for.

If Jesus becomes the Eternal Father with the Father, does that mean we don't worship "the Father?" No. The Father is the Most High El of this creation and we are to have no other before Him. He is not only our Father but Jesus' Father and will be so till the end - the Omega. Because TheBarrd does not appreciate this ultimate aim of the priesthood - for us to be one with the Father even as Jesus is one with Him - she goes on and on about it trying to paint it as something sinister when instead it is the hope of Christ, and is something revealed in Christ who revealed the Father to us.

International Standard Version
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him.

NET Bible
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

Jesus is the express revelation of the Father to us.
"I have engraven thee on the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me."
and showed us so up on the cross.
John 16:25
25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

 

[TheBarrd]

Don't care might be an overstatement. Being considered as all, everyone, including the object of worship on a journey, I could see how some might say it does not matter or certainly not be overly concerned or preoccupied with it.

And from this construct, it must be evident even to them that the object of worship is not the source of all, and as such would not be what the Church teaches is God. It does not however mean they do not a believe in a god with whom they consider themselves on a journey/relationship with and to whom they give worship with indifference to any more ancient/other gods their construct obviously allows for.

That's all very well, Dr. Bubba, but it isn't Christianity.
Christianity is not indifferent to any more ancient/othergods...it simply does not allow for such.
The Christian ardently believes that there is only ONE God.
That God was not "born" nor was He ever mortal. He existed before there was anything else...before time, itself.
He Created all that exists...nothing at all exists that He did not Create.

Compare to the Mormon "construct"...

 

[BigDaddy4]

CFR.

Show me where the Bible makes this statement.


:o

Read Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21.

 

[BigDaddy4]

What do you mean "now what?"

Are you expecting me to point out the enormous disconnect with this post and what I actually stated? How the comment moves from one concept to a different one and illogically wants to equate the two?

Here is how the discussion unfolded:

I stated, "We don't know anything about other gods and we really don't care because it has no impact on our salvation. Now what?"

(The knowledge of other gods, who we don't worship, has no impact on our salvation.)


You followed up with, "The god one worships has everything to do with one's salvation."

How does this relate to 1) these other gods are not the God we worship?

How does this relate to 2) these other gods have no impact on our salvation?

1) The god you worship was an exalted man, according to your religion. Unbiblical concept.

2) By admitting other gods exist clearly goes against Scripture which says "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10).

Therefore, if you hold to the lds teaching of an exalted god, then you are guilty of idolatry and are worshipping a false god. That you cannot see that is unfortunate.