Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
First of all, I see no need for me to further accentuate the convoluted web of Mormon doctrines/beliefs as you are suggesting I am doing. Where you got that only you know my friend. As far as the Mormon belief that LDS priesthood has 'existed' forever or was invoked a few short hours ago is happily none of my concern, being an ex-Mormon. It is yours, and you are welcome to it. Your beliefs are yours, as LDS. They are not mine, as a Christian, nor do they align with the beliefs of all Christianity. I'm not arguing with any Mormon doctrines. I was attempting to bring out the point that mormonism believes there are multiple "eternal GODS" as in plural where Mormons were stating they believe only "one" god is eternal, which is technically non-factual. Mormonism states there are multiple "eternal gods", not just one. Not just one as in Christianity. The One True God of everywhere is perfect according to Him, and we Christians agree. The LDS does not accept that. Again, okay. Is there something wrong with that statement? That mormonism accepts there are multiple "eternal GODS" with multiple Jesus Christs as well, aka plural eternal GODS and a plurality of Saviors scattered throughout the universe/s? If you personally don't wish to believe that as a Mormon--you certainly don't have to, but that is what it states.
You asked me a question, and I responded with what I know of the LDS through someone who experienced it first-hand. Like I stated, if you can't bring yourself to accept that there is really nothing I can do about it, but it remains true whether you accept it or not. How can it possibly make any difference to what I know by what you choose to believe or not believe? It cannot. As far as "connecting" what I said to the subject? Ditto. So have it your way, then.I responded to your comment that Mormons don't have to believe in God in order to join the church. Which is false. What you posted above is not connected to your original statement or my request to back up your false claim. This bit about multiple gods seems to be nothing more than disconnected rambling.
Unfortunately, I'm not really into rambling. I think it's best if I just avoid any discussion with you in the future.
I'd be happy to discuss any such material. As I indicated, my personal thought on the matter is that this is more difficult a concept than we can fully understand. However, what you are indicating here exists in the same form in the Bible as it does in LDS beliefs. Looking at your comment below, I accept that Trinitarians believe that God has eternally existed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Yet the Bible states that Christ is the firstborn of all creation. Several passages in the Bible speak of Christ growing in strength, wisdom, and spirit. It also speaks of Christ inheriting all that the Father has. This is language that speaks of progress to Godhood. And yet, John 1: 1 states that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was God. What it really boils down to is that the Bible says that Jesus was God from the beginning and we have to trust that what the Bible says is true.
Or put another way, much of our understanding of the Father comes from what we know about Jesus. The Bible tells us Jesus was God in the beginning, came down to Earth and gained a mortal body, lived a mortal life, died and then rose from the dead. Where the main difference lies between our beliefs is that LDS doctrine indicates that the Father may have had the same experience as Christ. And for those who believe that the Father, and Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one individual the difference is one of technicality because anything that happened to Jesus would therefore be true of the Father.
Does that help any?
At the moment, I can't think of any scriptures or talks by LDS leaders that give a solid answer to this question. The best I can do is refer back to John 1: 1 and state that if Jesus has always existed then it seems reasonable that the Godhead has always existed. LDS doctrine is that all intelligences are eternal and without beginning.
This is precisely why I say that Mormons seem to not be taught and/or hold no real concept of the divine. The Divine is eternally perfect, which is a wholly biblical Christian concept. Someone who must "learn how to eventually become divine" isn't perfect by any means, let alone eternally. Being perfected means there is still imperfection within.Perhaps it will be helpful to look at some quote to see what I'm getting at. I think that the most commonly quoted reference is the King Follett Sermon, where Joseph Smith says:
"In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see."
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng
So, here we have Joseph Smith stating that he is going to tell how God came to be God, and that he will refute the idea that God was God from all eternity.
In the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young manual, we read this:
"The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this Church. How do you feel, knowing that God, through His own experience, “knows all that we know regarding the toils [and] sufferings” of mortality?"
https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-4?lang=eng
So, here we read that it is doctrine that God was once a man and progressed to become a God.
In the Gospel Fundamentals manual, we read this:
""It will help us to remember that our Father in Heaven was once a man who lived on an earth, the same as we do. He became our Father in Heaven by overcoming problems, just as we have to do on this earth."
https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-fundamentals/chapter-36-eternal-life?lang=eng
So, here we read that the Father became our Father in Heaven by overcoming problems, just like we have to do.
Amongst other statements in LDS-related publications. So, it seems as if it is at least consistent with Mormon teaching that God progressed to or achieved Godhood, that He became God/the Father at some point, and of course that we can follow the path that He followed to be exalted. So to me, I don't see how these statements can be reconciled to mean that God has always been God, or has always been the Father, when we see on the church's website statements saying or implying otherwise.
If the Godhead has always existed, how would that work with the Son and Holy Ghost being spirit children of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother?
This is precisely why I say that Mormons seem to not be taught and/or hold no real concept of the divine. The Divine is eternally perfect, which is a wholly biblical Christian concept. Someone who must "learn how to eventually become divine" isn't perfect by any means, let alone eternally. Being perfected means there is still imperfection within.
Go has always been and always will be perfectly... divine. Jesus, in His humanity, had to learn how to depend upon the Father, just as we do or His sacrifice would have meant nothing. That doesn't make Him "imperfect", because He was still God.
Perhaps it will be helpful to look at some quote to see what I'm getting at. I think that the most commonly quoted reference is the King Follett Sermon, where Joseph Smith says:
"In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see."
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng
So, here we have Joseph Smith stating that he is going to tell how God came to be God, and that he will refute the idea that God was God from all eternity.
In the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young manual, we read this:
"The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this Church. How do you feel, knowing that God, through His own experience, “knows all that we know regarding the toils [and] sufferings” of mortality?"
https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-4?lang=eng
So, here we read that it is doctrine that God was once a man and progressed to become a God.
In the Gospel Fundamentals manual, we read this:
""It will help us to remember that our Father in Heaven was once a man who lived on an earth, the same as we do. He became our Father in Heaven by overcoming problems, just as we have to do on this earth."
https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-fundamentals/chapter-36-eternal-life?lang=eng
So, here we read that the Father became our Father in Heaven by overcoming problems, just like we have to do.
Amongst other statements in LDS-related publications. So, it seems as if it is at least consistent with Mormon teaching that God progressed to or achieved Godhood, that He became God/the Father at some point, and of course that we can follow the path that He followed to be exalted. So to me, I don't see how these statements can be reconciled to mean that God has always been God, or has always been the Father, when we see on the church's website statements saying or implying otherwise.
If the Godhead has always existed, how would that work with the Son and Holy Ghost being spirit children of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother?
Yes. What I'm getting at is that it seems as if it's taught (or, that it is consistent with Mormon theology) that God was once not-God then progressed to/achieved Godhood, or, if He was God, wasn't fully God, and had to progress to/achieve full Godhood from not-full-Godhood.
Ah, the King Follet sermon. I figured that was where you were going with this.
The first important point to make is that this is not a doctrinal source. Joseph Smith taught this, but he never clarified it fully.
That being said, the sermon is almost always quoted out of context. What Joseph is actually discussing in this sermon is that Heavenly Father has a physical form and was once mortal. Our detractors seem to want to leave out the part where Joseph compares this situation to Jesus. He looks to what we know of Jesus to explain his understanding of Heavenly Father. I'm going to do the same as I explain this doctrine.
Or in other words, I am going to tell you how Jesus came to be Jesus, because Jesus has not always been the way He is now.
From the Bible we learn that Jesus (the Word) was in the beginning and He was God. We also learn that Jesus was the firstborn of creation. Jesus was born of or moral mother and gained a physical body in the process. Several of the books in the Bible describe how Jesus grew in strength, wisdom, and spirit. Jesus Himself discussed how He would inherit all that His father has. At the end of His ministry, Jesus was killed and then rose from the dead. After His resurrection He showed His followers that He had a body of flesh and bone.
All of this comes from the Bible. It details a progression. Even though Jesus has always been God, He has not always been what He is now. Look at Brigham Young's quote. Young states that God (Jesus) progressed and that He experienced mortality which allows Him to know all about the sufferings and toils that we experience. Doesn't the Bible discuss the fact that Jesus knows what it feels like to be a mortal man because He passed through the same experience?
This is part of the King Follet sermon. Let's compare it to what the Bible tells us about Jesus.
Jesus was once a man who lived on this earth, the same as we do. He became our Savior by overcoming problems, just as we have to do. The only new concept here is that of Jesus overcoming problems. Without a doubt, the Bible details a great many problems which Jesus faced and overcame. If He had failed in any of these would He still have been able to save the rest of humanity through His sacrifice?
How do you reconcile this same situation in the Bible? Jesus progresses during His mortal life and eventually inherits all the His father has. And yet the Bible describes Him as being God from the beginning. It seems to me that this means Jesus (Heavenly Father) has always been God. Doesn't mainstream Christianity view Jesus during his mortal life as Fully Human and Fully God? If that is the case then the LDS have no contradiction which isn't shared by mainstream Christianity.
I guess the short answer to your question is that Heavenly Father, during his mortal life, was Fully Human and Fully God.
Ah, the King Follet sermon. I figured that was where you were going with this.
The first important point to make is that this is not a doctrinal source. Joseph Smith taught this, but he never clarified it fully.
That being said, the sermon is almost always quoted out of context. What Joseph is actually discussing in this sermon is that Heavenly Father has a physical form and was once mortal. Our detractors seem to want to leave out the part where Joseph compares this situation to Jesus. He looks to what we know of Jesus to explain his understanding of Heavenly Father. I'm going to do the same as I explain this doctrine.
Or in other words, I am going to tell you how Jesus came to be Jesus, because Jesus has not always been the way He is now.
From the Bible we learn that Jesus (the Word) was in the beginning and He was God. We also learn that Jesus was the firstborn of creation. Jesus was born of or moral mother and gained a physical body in the process. Several of the books in the Bible describe how Jesus grew in strength, wisdom, and spirit. Jesus Himself discussed how He would inherit all that His father has. At the end of His ministry, Jesus was killed and then rose from the dead. After His resurrection He showed His followers that He had a body of flesh and bone.
All of this comes from the Bible. It details a progression. Even though Jesus has always been God, He has not always been what He is now. Look at Brigham Young's quote. Young states that God (Jesus) progressed and that He experienced mortality which allows Him to know all about the sufferings and toils that we experience. Doesn't the Bible discuss the fact that Jesus knows what it feels like to be a mortal man because He passed through the same experience?
This is part of the King Follet sermon. Let's compare it to what the Bible tells us about Jesus.
Jesus was once a man who lived on this earth, the same as we do. He became our Savior by overcoming problems, just as we have to do. The only new concept here is that of Jesus overcoming problems. Without a doubt, the Bible details a great many problems which Jesus faced and overcame. If He had failed in any of these would He still have been able to save the rest of humanity through His sacrifice?
How do you reconcile this same situation in the Bible? Jesus progresses during His mortal life and eventually inherits all the His father has. And yet the Bible describes Him as being God from the beginning. It seems to me that this means Jesus (Heavenly Father) has always been God. Doesn't mainstream Christianity view Jesus during his mortal life as Fully Human and Fully God? If that is the case then the LDS have no contradiction which isn't shared by mainstream Christianity.
I guess the short answer to your question is that Heavenly Father, during his mortal life, was Fully Human and Fully God.
That has not been revealed and I do not know.
(Sorry about the bold, the formatting got weird and I didn't know how to fix it.
Ummm... pardon me but don't you believe that Christ existed before He was born of Mary, lived in a mortal body for a while, and later in a glorified resurrected body?A logical fallacy, to assume Christ has not always been what he is now.
Jesus set aside His Godhood when He was born--for a specific purpose which He accomplished. Being God, this still didn't stop Him from being God on earth, as Jesus Christ--Messiah (Matt. 1:27). God can do anything. He is still God even if we don't understand how He works out the details of being in two forms at once and still be fully God and fully Jesus Christ. He doesn't need us to "understand" Him. He needs us to keep faith in HIM, despite not understanding His ways.Yes. What I'm getting at is that it seems as if it's taught (or, that it is consistent with Mormon theology) that God was once not-God then progressed to/achieved Godhood, or, if He was God, wasn't fully God, and had to progress to/achieve full Godhood from not-full-Godhood.
He existed as the Word of God. Not as an individual "spirit" person with a pre-birth before being physically born.Ummm... pardon me but don't you believe that Christ existed before He was born of Mary, lived in a mortal body for a while, and later in a glorified resurrected body?
Ummm... pardon me but don't you believe that Christ existed before He was born of Mary, lived in a mortal body for a while, and later in a glorified resurrected body?
A progression, but is it a progression to Godhood, or a more fuller state of Godhood? We're reading that the God was once a man that "progressed to become a God". Taking all of these statements together, it seems as if the idea is that God at one point in time was less-God (or not-God), then, as the statement says, "progressed to become a God". Looking to Jesus, this doesn't work, because Jesus has always been God, never stopped being God, and therefore wouldn't need to progress "to become a God". For orthodox Christians, we don't believe that Jesus' mortal experience added to His divinity, or made Him more divine, or assisted in any progression to becoming God.
The key of course is that the statement is that the Father became the Father by overcoming problems. If he became the Father, then He wasn't always the Father, it would seem, if we read the statement logically.
But Jesus progressed in what? In His divinity? If Jesus has always been God, then there would be no reason to state that He "became God" at some point, since He always has been God. The disconnect, at least from my reading, is that the Mormon statements in relation to God the Father are talking about Him progressing to or achieving Godhood, implying that He is getting there from a lesser state (whether less divine (whatever that would mean) or not divine). If we look to Jesus' life as recorded in the Bible, there still never was a time when Jesus was not God, so there would be no need to talk of Him progressing to become a God (as one of the manuals states in reference to the Father), as He has already been God.
A logical fallacy, to assume Christ has not always been what he is now.
You have forgotten . . .
Jane Doe, I was replying to another post who stated Jesus was not always the way he is now.
As well it implied Jesus begun his existence as a man,and this was similar to what Joseph Smith taught.
Let's see.
Is Christ now a mortal man?
Is Christ now subject to a physical death?
Does Christ now have a physical body of flesh and blood?
Because, unless all of these things are still true then Christ has not always been what He is now.
Unless you are God or are in some other way omniscient, you don't know what I have or have not forgotten. I'm guessing you know relatively little about me and certainly not enough to make any kind of statement like the one you made. Here's a bit of advice: stick to the topic and avoid making statements about other people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?