Trinity

[Swart]

This seems a bit of a stretch. I take it you are saying that because Christ is the saviour, and God says He is the Savior, that it must follow that Christ is God? I don't necessarly see the two saviour references as being equal. Besides, Jesus isn't saying that he is God here.

A bit of LDS theology will go a long way here.

LDS believe in the pre-existence of all men. In Jer 1:5, God says to Jeremiah "Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee, and ordained thee a Prophet unto the nations."

The poet Wordsworth wrote (yes a know its not scriptural):

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting;
Our soul that rises with us, our lifes star
hath had elsewhere its setting, and cometh from afar;
Not in entire forgetfulness, and not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come;
From God, who is our home.

We believe that Jesus existed as a spirit before the Earth was formed. That, under the direction of the Father, he created the Earth. We also believe that he was called Jehovah prior to coming to Earth to gain a physical body.

We believe that one of the main purposes in this life is to gain a physical body and to experience mortality.

Hopefully this should put my statements in context.

In Isaiah, Jehovah says he is the saviour, and besides him there is no other.
In Acts, we read that Jesus is the saviour, and there is no other.

Since Jehovah=saviour and Jesus=saviour. And there is only one saviour, it follows that Jehovah=Jesus.

Jehovah identifies himself as "I AM". Jesus identifies himself as "I AM".

In Genesis. Jehovah created the Heavens and the Earth. In John 1:3, "the word" (Jesus) created all things.

 

[True Believer]

Right. I understand that Jesus claims to be God in John. However, it is my understanding that Jesus never claims to be God beside in John. So then, I assume that I am correct in saying that Jesus doesn't claim to be Jehova anywhere else. I would welcome scripture contradicting this statement.

My own feelings on the matter is that the author of John was a bit overzealous in his praise for Jesus and called him God. One reason I believe this is because he never claims to be God anywhere else. Much of Jesus's message is repeated over and over again... but not this point. So I put it off to being an inconsistancy and quite possibly an editing job by someone in the Nicean Council.

Chaindog

I do not believe John called Jesus Jehovah and different bibles translate the I AM minus the trinity theology input to read it as Jesus simply saying he existed before abraham was born as a spirit being this is another attept by trinitarian translators to make the bible read what they want to support the trinity
Agape', TB

 

[True Believer]

Sorry I forgot to post the scriptures with my post above
John 8:58 :: Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)
John 8
58 Jesus answered, `I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was born.'


John 8:58 :: The Message (MSG)
John 8
58"Believe me," said Jesus, "I am who I am long before Abraham was anything."


John 8:58 :: New Living Translation (NLT)
John 8
58Jesus answered, "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!"[1]


John 8:58 :: Contemporary English Version (CEV)
John 8
58Jesus answered, "I tell you for certain that even before Abraham was, I was, and I am."

 

[chaindog]

We believe that Jesus existed as a spirit before the Earth was formed. That, under the direction of the Father, he created the Earth. We also believe that he was called Jehovah prior to coming to Earth to gain a physical body.

I don't mind the LDS theology or the non-scriptural refrences. Everyone has their own way of seeing God and scripture was written by man as well.

So according to LDS theology Jehovah is not the father? You say Jesus was called Jehovah before coming to Earth... so when Jesus was alive, there was no Jehovah in heaven (because He was now Jesus)? I say this because Jesus prayed to his Father. I presume he was not praying to himself so the Father must be a different entity than Jehova in this instance?

Chaindog

 

[chaindog]

I do not believe John called Jesus Jehovah and different bibles translate the I AM minus the trinity theology input to read it as Jesus simply saying he existed before abraham was born as a spirit being this is another attept by trinitarian translators to make the bible read what they want to support the trinity
Agape', TB

Very interesting point. I'm not familiar with all the different versions of the Bible. I have the KJV but will look at this argument further.

EDIT: So then, why were the Jews ready to stone Jesus if he did not claim to be Jehova?

Chaindog

 

[Swart]

So according to LDS theology Jehovah is not the father?

Correct

You say Jesus was called Jehovah before coming to Earth... so when Jesus was alive, there was no Jehovah in heaven (because He was now Jesus)?

Correct. However, I'm not one to split hairs on this issue. The actual relationship between members of the Godhead must have compenstated in some way. There is some evidence to show that while Jesus was on the Earth, the Holy Ghost was not fully active. Jesus had to depart before they could recive the Holy Ghost in any strength.

I say this because Jesus prayed to his Father. I presume he was not praying to himself so the Father must be a different entity than Jehova in this instance?

Chaindog

Correct. We say that all dealings with men are done through Jesus. So when anyone prays to God and receives an answer, the answer is from Jesus. When God makes an appearance, it is Jesus who appears. The only time the father deals with men is to bear record of the son.

 

[chaindog]

The only time the father deals with men is to bear record of the son.

Ok, I was keeping up with you untill this one. How does the Father bear record of the Son?

What about Moses, Joshua, etc? They had a relationship with Jehova, right? So the LDS explanation is that all dealings with God is done through Jesus, who was called Jehova at the time?

Chaindog

 

[chaindog]

There is some evidence to show that while Jesus was on the Earth, the Holy Ghost was not fully active. Jesus had to depart before they could recive the Holy Ghost in any strength.

I know your going to hate me asking this, LOL... but what's the evidence? I'm not trying to be pest, I just find this idea particularly interesting.

Chaindog

 

[Swart]

Ok, I was keeping up with you untill this one. How does the Father bear record of the Son?

"This is my beloved Son. Hear him!"

What about Moses, Joshua, etc? They had a relationship with Jehova, right? So the LDS explanation is that all dealings with God is done through Jesus, who was called Jehova at the time?

Chaindog

This is not a strong suit of mine, but yes. IMO, this is why no man can see the Father, but Moses spoke with God as one man speaketh to another.

Would like to post more. But not time.

 

[True Believer]

Very interesting point. I'm not familiar with all the different versions of the Bible. I have the KJV but will look at this argument further.

EDIT: So then, why were the Jews ready to stone Jesus if he did not claim to be Jehova?

Chaindog

Jesus kept saying he was the Son of God. They were looking foreward to a messiah who was going to setup a Jewish kingdom on Earth but Jesus tells them that they have been wrong in this belief he has also been telling the leaders they are rotten and not loving to the jewish people and teach mens teachings instead of God's word. They are quickly fed up with him so when he says he existed in Heaven as a Spirit and IS the son of God they take this and use it to say he is blaspheming. They aren't looking for the Son of God to come as the Messiah they are looking for one of their own to rise up and lead them against the Roman oppressors. The Jewish leaders did not like what Jesus had to say about them and his claim of coming from Heaven and being Jehovahs Son was something they could point to and say he is a liar and what he is saying is Blasphemy. They knew the Scriptures but thier understanding of the scriptures was poor and it showed in the things they taught.
Agape', TB

 

[lared]

Isaiah 43:11 "I, even, I am the LORD; and besides me there is no saviour."

Acts 3:12 "..for ther is none other name given among men, whereby we must be saved." (reference to Christ)

Who is the saviour? Jesus is.

Isaiah 43:3 "For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour:"

SAVIOR
​

One who preserves or delivers from danger or destruction. Jehovah is identified as the principal Savior, the only Source of deliverance. (Isa 43:11; 45:21) He was the Savior and Deliverer of Israel, time and again. (Ps 106:8, 10, 21; Isa 43:3; 45:15; Jer 14:8) He saved not only the nation but also individuals who served him. (2Sa 22:1-3) Often his salvation was through men raised up by him as saviors. (Ne 9:27) During the period of the Judges, these special saviors were divinely selected and empowered to deliver Israel from foreign oppression. (Jg 2:16; 3:9, 15) While the judge lived, he served to keep Israel in the right way, and this brought them relief from their enemies. (Jg 2:18) When Jesus was on earth, Jehovah was his Savior, supporting and strengthening him to maintain integrity through his strenuous trials.—Heb 5:7; Ps 28:8.
​

Along with his role as Savior, Jehovah is also the "Repurchaser." (Isa 49:26; 60:16) In the past he redeemed his people Israel from captivity. In delivering Christians from sin’s bondage, he does the repurchasing through his Son Jesus Christ (1Jo 4:14), Jehovah’s provision for salvation, who is therefore exalted as "Chief Agent and Savior." (Ac 5:31) Accordingly, Jesus Christ can rightly be called "our Savior," even though he performs the salvation as the agent of Jehovah. (*** 1:4; 2Pe 1:11) The name Jesus, given to God’s Son by angelic direction, means "Jehovah Is Salvation," for, said the angel, "he will save his people from their sins." (Mt 1:21; Lu 1:31) This name points out that Jehovah is the Source of salvation, accomplished through Jesus. For this reason we find the Father and the Son spoken of together in connection with salvation.—*** 2:11-13; 3:4-6.
​

Salvation is provided by Jehovah through Jesus Christ for "all sorts of men." (1Ti 4:10) He saves them from sin and death (Ro 8:2), from Babylon the Great (Re 18:2, 4), from this world under Satan’s control (Joh 17:16; Col 1:13), and from destruction and everlasting death (Re 7:14-17; 21:3, 4). "A great crowd" is shown at Revelation 7:9, 10 attributing salvation to God and to the Lamb.
​

The ransom sacrifice is the basis for salvation, and as King and everlasting High Priest, Christ Jesus has the authority and power "to save completely those who are approaching God through him." (Heb 7:23-25; Re 19:16) He is "a savior of this body," the congregation of his anointed followers, and also of all who exercise faith in him.—Eph 5:23; 1Jo 4:14; Joh 3:16, 17.​

​

---Insight On The Scriptures, volume 2​

 

[lared]

Very interesting point. I'm not familiar with all the different versions of the Bible. I have the KJV but will look at this argument further.

EDIT: So then, why were the Jews ready to stone Jesus if he did not claim to be Jehova?

Chaindog

It was the Jewish religious leaders who incited the masses of people and used the Romans to do their dirty work.

Why?

Read Matthew chapter 23.

 

[Swart]

SAVIOR
​

One who preserves or delivers from danger or destruction. Jehovah is identified as the principal Savior, the only Source of deliverance. (Isa 43:11; 45:21) He was the Savior and Deliverer of Israel, time and again. (Ps 106:8, 10, 21; Isa 43:3; 45:15; Jer 14:8) He saved not only the nation but also individuals who served him. (2Sa 22:1-3) Often his salvation was through men raised up by him as saviors. (Ne 9:27) During the period of the Judges, these special saviors were divinely selected and empowered to deliver Israel from foreign oppression. (Jg 2:16; 3:9, 15) While the judge lived, he served to keep Israel in the right way, and this brought them relief from their enemies. (Jg 2:18) When Jesus was on earth, Jehovah was his Savior, supporting and strengthening him to maintain integrity through his strenuous trials.—Heb 5:7; Ps 28:8.
​

Along with his role as Savior, Jehovah is also the "Repurchaser." (Isa 49:26; 60:16) In the past he redeemed his people Israel from captivity. In delivering Christians from sin’s bondage, he does the repurchasing through his Son Jesus Christ (1Jo 4:14), Jehovah’s provision for salvation, who is therefore exalted as "Chief Agent and Savior." (Ac 5:31) Accordingly, Jesus Christ can rightly be called "our Savior," even though he performs the salvation as the agent of Jehovah. (*** 1:4; 2Pe 1:11) The name Jesus, given to God’s Son by angelic direction, means "Jehovah Is Salvation," for, said the angel, "he will save his people from their sins." (Mt 1:21; Lu 1:31) This name points out that Jehovah is the Source of salvation, accomplished through Jesus. For this reason we find the Father and the Son spoken of together in connection with salvation.—*** 2:11-13; 3:4-6.
​

Salvation is provided by Jehovah through Jesus Christ for "all sorts of men." (1Ti 4:10) He saves them from sin and death (Ro 8:2), from Babylon the Great (Re 18:2, 4), from this world under Satan’s control (Joh 17:16; Col 1:13), and from destruction and everlasting death (Re 7:14-17; 21:3, 4). "A great crowd" is shown at Revelation 7:9, 10 attributing salvation to God and to the Lamb.
​

The ransom sacrifice is the basis for salvation, and as King and everlasting High Priest, Christ Jesus has the authority and power "to save completely those who are approaching God through him." (Heb 7:23-25; Re 19:16) He is "a savior of this body," the congregation of his anointed followers, and also of all who exercise faith in him.—Eph 5:23; 1Jo 4:14; Joh 3:16, 17.​

​

---Insight On The Scriptures, volume 2​

I think the "beside me there is no other" part is the clincher. The difference between 'a' saviour and 'the' Saviour.

 

[chaindog]

I think the "beside me there is no other" part is the clincher. The difference between 'a' saviour and 'the' Saviour.

It seems like we have to dig pretty deep to come to the assumption that Jesus is God. Much of Jesus's other points were pretty obvious and often stated... turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor, etc. Those are not unclear at all. What makes me doubt Jesus being God is that I feel he would have been pretty clear about it. Not being literate in either Greek or Hebrew, I have no way of deciding for myself what idea is more accurate other than that bit of reasoning.

Chaindog

 

[Doc T]

This tells me that God the Father was not always God.

With all due respect, I think that you have mis-interpreted these statements. Your statement contradicts LDS scripture. The LDS scriptures say that "there is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God...." (D&C 20:17). "The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end "(D&C 20:28). When the term eternal is conjoined with infinite and from everlasting to everlasting, it is pretty clear that it means without beginning or end. The notion of infinity usually means unlimited, without bounds.
There are other Mormon scriptures that are even clearer: "Behold I am the Lord God Almighty, and endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is this not endless?" (Moses 1:3) Further, Joseph Smith stated in 1840 that: "I believe that God is eternal. That He had not (sic) beginning and can have no end. Eternity means that which is without beginning or end" (Lyndon Cook and Andrew Ehat, The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo: Religious Studies Center, 1984), 33.)

Therefore, if God the Father's first act as God was to create Jesus - then there was a time when God the Father was God by himself. I am still confused as to LDS doctrine when Jesus became God - before the creation of the world, at the Council when he proposed his plan of atonement, or after his earthly death and ressurection?

Again, your above statement contradict LDS scripture that clearly states that both Christ and the Father have been God and "infinite and eternal, without end "(D&C 20:28).

Hope that answered question #1. Now for question 2... Can you provide some references for me to consider?

Well as you can see, you did answer the question as to why you believe such, but such belief contradicts LDS scripture. Now on to question two, Christ as Jehovah.

1. I AM - OT:Ex 3:14/Deut 32:39/ Isa 41:4/Isa 43:10/Isa 46:4
NT: John 8:58/John 8:24, 28/John 13:19/John 18:5-8

2.SAVIOR - OT:Hos 13:4/Isa 43:11
NT:Luke 2:11/Acts 4:10-12 / 1 Jn 4:14-15

3.REDEEMER - OT:Isa 43:14/Isa 44:24/ Isa 49:26 / Isa 54:5
NT:Gal 3:13/ Eph 1:7/ Col 1:13-14 / Titus 2:13-14

4.PIERCED - OT:Zech 12:10
NT: John 19:34-37 / Rev 1:7

5.FIRST/LAST - OT:Isa 44:6/Isa 48:12
NT: Rev 1:8,17-18 / Rev 22:12-16

6.CREATOR - OT:Gen 2:4/Job 38:1-4/Ps 8:1-3/Ps 102: 25/Isa 44:24/Isa 45:11-12/ Isa 66:2
NT: John 1:1,3,10,14/Col 1:13-17 / Heb 1:10

7.HUSBAND / GROOM - OT:Isa 54:5/Isa 62:5/Jer 3:1-2 /Hos 2:16
NT:Luke 5:34-35/Rev 19:7-8 /Rev 21:9

8.SENDS PROPHETS - OT:2 Kng 17:13/2 Chr 36:15-16
NT:Matt 23:34

9.SAVES FROM DEATH - OT:Hos 13:14
NT:1 Cor 15:20-22

10.JUDGE - OT:1 Chr 16:33/Ps 9:7/Ps 50:6 /Ps 96:13
NT: Matt 16:27/John 5:22 /2 Cor 5:10

11.SHEPHERD - OTs 23:1/Ezek 34:11-16
NT: John 10:14-16/1 Pet 2:25 /1 Pet 5:4

12.LORD OF LORDS - OTeut 10:17/Ps 136:31
NT:Tim 6:14-15/Rev 17:14/ Rev 19:13-16

13.EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW UNTO HIM - OT: Isa 45:23
NThil 2:10-11

14.SEEN BY ISAIAH - OT:Isa 6:1-10
NT:John 12:39-41/John 1:18

15.PRECEDED BY VOICE IN THE DESERT - OT:Isa 40:3-9 / Mal 3:1
NT:Matt 3:3,11-12/ Matt 11:10/ Luke 1:76 /Luke 3:4-6/ Luke 7:27 /John 1:6-8,15-36

16.CALL UPON HIS NAME - OTs 99:6/Ps 116:13,17/ Isa 12:4/Joel 2:32/ Zeph 3:9/ Zech 13:8-9
NT:Acts 7:59/Acts 9:5,13-14,17,21 /Rom 10:9,13/1 Cor 1:2/ Rev 22:20

17.ROCK - OT:Ex 13:21-22/Deut 32:3-4/ Ps 62:6-7/Ps 118:22/Isa 8:13-14
NT:Acts 4:10-12/Rom 9:33 /1 Cor 10:1-4/ 1 Pet 2:4-8

18.HOLY ONE - OT:Isa 43:14-15/Hos 11:9/Hab 1:12
NT: Mark 1:24/Acts 3:14 /1 Jn 2:20

19.OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS - OT:Jer 23:5-61 NT:Cor 1:30

20.GATHERS LIKE A HEN GATHERS HER CHICKS - OTs 31:20/Ps 32:7/Ps 57:1/Ps 91:1-10 / Isa 31:5
NT:Matt 23:37-38/ Luke 13:34-35

21.HIS BREATH SLAYS THE WICKED - OT:Job 4:9/Isa 11:4
NT:2 Th 2:8

22.WILL RETURN WITH HIS HOLY ONES - OT:Zech 14:5 / Deut 33:2
NT:Jude 1:14 /1 Tim 6:14 /2 Tim 4:1 /*** 2:13 / 1 Th 3:13

23.PRESERVES ALL THINGS - OT:Neh 9:6 / Ps 148:5-6
NT:Col 1:17/Heb 1:3

24.GONE UP/COME DOWN WITH A SHOUT, WITH TRUMPETS BLARING - OTs 47:51
NT:Th 4:16

25.THOU SHALT NOT TEMPT THE LORD THY GOD - OTeut 6:16
NT:Matt 4:7 / 1 Cor 10:9

26.WALKS ON THE SEA - Job 9:8
NT:Matt 14:25-33/Mark 6:48-51/John 6:19-21

27. CALMS WIND AND WAVES - OTs 65:5-8
NT:Matt 8:23-27

28.DAY OF THE LORD - OT:Isa 2:12/Jer 46:10/ Ezek 30:3/Joel 1:15/ Obad 1:15/ Zeph 1:7, 14/Mal 4:5
NT:Acts 2:20/1 Cor 1:7-8/1 Cor 5:5/2 Cor 1:14/1 Th 5:2 /2 Pet 3:10

29.HIS THRONE IS FOREVER - OTs 45:6-7
NT:Heb 1:8-9

30.LAID EARTH’S FOUNDATION - OTs 102:24-27
NT:Heb 1:10-12

31.RECEIVES OUR SPIRITS - OTs 31:5
NT:Acts 7:59

32.ANGELS WORSHIP HIM - OTeut 32:43 LXX/Ps 97:7 LXX
NT:Heb 1:6

33.JESUS IS PERFECT - Matt 5:48/Heb 2:10/Heb 5:9/Heb 7:28

34.JESUS IS EQUAL TO THE FATHER - John 14:16/John 15:26/John 1:1/ 5:18-19/ 17:4-5/ 2 Cor 8:9/Gal 4:4/Phil 2:5-6 /Heb 1:3 / 2:14-18

For further explination of these verses see: http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id99.htm

Doc

~

 

[lared]

It seems like we have to dig pretty deep to come to the assumption that Jesus is God. Much of Jesus's other points were pretty obvious and often stated... turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor, etc. Those are not unclear at all. What makes me doubt Jesus being God is that I feel he would have been pretty clear about it. Not being literate in either Greek or Hebrew, I have no way of deciding for myself what idea is more accurate other than that bit of reasoning.

Chaindog

Quite a few of Jesus' disciples were known as unlettered and ordinary. On the other hand, the scribes and the pharisees were considered educated.

Would a loving God require the common person, whether living in Spain or India, to know ancient Greek or Hebrew in order to come to know him and worship him in the way he prescribes? (Who has the time for that?)

The Apostle Paul would reason with people from the Scriptures, not just arrogantly throw his vocabulary and grammar around, which of course would intimidate people, but in reality only draw forth lemmings.---Acts 17:2,3.

The true and living God, Jehovah, has used human terms, in the Scriptures to help us understand spiritual things.

We all understand that a father is a life-giver and that a son is an offspring that had a beginning.

We have to exercise caution around those that sound like they have alot of specific knowledge on a topic such as ancient Greek or Hebrew. We could be misled. If you do not know alot about cars, should you feel trusting with any used car salesman, especially in these days?

On the other hand, it is good to study the way Jesus taught others. Short, simple, the use of illustrations and questions.

 

[trinity2359]

With all due respect, I think that you have mis-interpreted these statements. Your statement contradicts LDS scripture. The LDS scriptures say that "there is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God...." (D&C 20:17). "The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end "(D&C 20:28). When the term eternal is conjoined with infinite and from everlasting to everlasting, it is pretty clear that it means without beginning or end. The notion of infinity usually means unlimited, without bounds.
There are other Mormon scriptures that are even clearer: "Behold I am the Lord God Almighty, and endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is this not endless?" (Moses 1:3) Further, Joseph Smith stated in 1840 that: "I believe that God is eternal. That He had not (sic) beginning and can have no end. Eternity means that which is without beginning or end" (Lyndon Cook and Andrew Ehat, The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo: Religious Studies Center, 1984), 33.) ~

Alright, Doc! Gave me some homework to do,huh!

I am always up for a challenge, so let's have a go.

I want to preface this with I mean no offense or disrepectful tone - just want to have an intelligent disucssion of these issues and you are a providing an insightful viewpoint.

Okay, here we go!

God the Father - Eternal
If God the Father is eternal, how do you explain Joseph Smith's explanation in GP page 305?
"This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46)."
To "become" a God one could reasonable infer that one once wasn't a God.

The LDS concept of Eternity can be understood by looking at the application of the term in other areas: Eternal Marriage, Eternal Torment and Eternal Life. We have the opportunity to have any of these, but we were once single (not married) and are currently single and some of us may be eligible to Eternal Torment if we don't receive the proper ordinances in this life or the next. Therefore, eternal does not always mean no beginning, but rather no end.

Below is a FARMS article on the matter as found on the lightplanet.com/mormons (a pro-LDS site) website:

What do Latter-day Saints mean when they say that God was once a man?

by FARMS (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies at BYU)

Joseph Smith taught in April 1844:

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. . . .

. . . 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, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did.23

As we have seen, Lorenzo Snow, fifth president of the LDS Church, summarized this doctrine in a couplet: "As man now is, God once was; As God now is, man may be."24

In proclaiming this doctrine, neither Joseph Smith nor his successors have in any way sought to limit or degrade the Almighty. In fact, both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants state emphatically that there is no knowledge or power or divine attribute that God does not possess in perfection. "O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it" (2 Nephi 9:20; see 2 Nephi 2:24; Moroni 7:22). He truly "has all power, all wisdom, and all understanding" (Alma 26:35). He who is "mightier than all the earth" (1 Nephi 4:1) "comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him" (D&C 88:41). Mormons accept the reality that "there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them" (D&C 20:17).

Mortality

That God was once a mortal being is in no way inconsistent with the fact that he now has all power and all knowledge and possesses every virtue, grace, and godly attribute. He acquired perfection through long periods of growth, development, and progression, "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," as Joseph Smith explained. "When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel-you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave."25

From Everlasting to Everlasting

How, then, do Latter-day Saints reconcile the scriptural description of God as being "from everlasting to everlasting" with the idea that he has not always been God? For one thing, they believe that biblical passages that speak of God's eternality and of his being the same yesterday, today, and forever make reference to his divine attributes-his love, constancy, and willingness to bless his people (see, for example, Psalm 102:27; Hebrews 1:12; 13:8). Such passages are also found in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants and, again, refer to God's divine nature (see 1 Nephi 10:18-19; 2 Nephi 27:23; Alma 7:20; Mormon 9:8-11, 19; Moroni 8:18; 10:7; D&C 3:2; 20:12, 17; 35:1).

Not much has been revealed about this concept beyond the fact that God was once a man and that over a long period of time he gained the knowledge, power, and divine attributes necessary to know all things and have all power. Because he has held his exalted status for a longer period than any of us can conceive, he is able to speak in terms of eternity and can state that he is from everlasting to everlasting. President Joseph Fielding Smith explained that "from eternity to eternity means from the spirit existence through the probation which we are in, and then back again to the eternal existence which will follow. Surely this is everlasting, for when we receive the resurrection, we will never die. We all existed in the first eternity. I think I can say of myself and others, we are from eternity; and we will be to eternity everlasting, if we receive the exaltation."26

Empathy

President Brigham Young taught that our Father in Heaven "has passed the ordeals we are now passing through; he has received an experience, has suffered and enjoyed, and knows all that we know regarding the toils, sufferings, life and death of this mortality, for he has passed through the whole of it, and has received his crown and exaltation."27 Men and women can thus relate to him as a father and pray to him with the perfect assurance that he understands our struggles. His experience contributes to his empathy as well as to his omniscient and all-loving capacity to judge his children. President Young observed that "it must be that God knows something about temporal things, and has had a body and been on an earth, were it not so He would not know how to judge men righteously, according to the temptations and sin they have had to contend with."28

For Latter-day Saints, God is far more than the ultimate cosmic force or primal cause; he is a personal being, an exalted Man of Holiness, literally our Father in Heaven (see Moses 6:57). He has a body, parts, and passions. He is approachable, knowable, and, like his Beloved Son, able to be touched with the feeling of our infirmities (see Hebrews 4:15). He has tender regard for his children and desires that we become as he is-not through our personal effort alone, but primarily through the mercy, grace, and transforming and glorifying power that come through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

These doctrines are not clearly stated in the Bible. Mormons believe, however, that this knowledge was once had among the ancients and that it has been restored through modern prophets. To those who sincerely seek an understanding of their true selves and destiny, latter-day prophets have affirmed that through truly coming to know God, men and women may come to understand their own eternal identities and divine possibilities. In the words of Joseph Smith, "If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves."29

(See Was God a Sinner?; Theogony; Basic Beliefs home page; Teachings the Godhead home page)

NOTES

23. Smith, History of the Church, 6:305.
24. The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Clyde J. Williams (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984), 2.
25. Smith, History of the Church, 6:306-7.
26. Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-56), 1:12; see Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1978), 166.
27. In Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool: F. D. Richards & Sons, 1851-86), 11:249; see 7:333.
28. In ibid., 4:271; see Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1978), 64.
29. Smith, History of the Church, 6:303; see Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 13:312.

Copyright © by FARMS

---
Whew, a lot for Question 2! It would take me a long time to address all of these so I will tackle one for starters:

Jesus vs. Jehovah

1. I AM - OT:Ex 3:14/Deut 32:39/ Isa 41:4/Isa 43:10/Isa 46:4
NT: John 8:58/John 8:24, 28/John 13:19/John 18:5-8


According to Strongs numbering system, the phrase 'I AM' is #01961 and is found 75 times in the KJV of the Old Testament and means (from blueletterbible.com)
1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out

a) (Qal)

1) -----

a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass

b) to come about, come to pass

2) to come into being, become

a) to arise, appear, come

b) to become

1) to become

2) to become like

3) to be instituted, be established

3) to be

a) to exist, be in existence

b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)

c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)

d) to accompany, be with

b) (Niphal)

1) to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about

2) to be done, be finished, be gone
---
As to Jesus using the phrase 'I am' in John 8:58 :
Jhn 8:58 Jesus 2424 said 2036 unto them 846, Verily 281, verily 281, I say 3004 unto you 5213, Before 4250 Abraham 11 was 1096 , I 1473 am 1510 .

Strongs numbers = 1473+1510 also used here:

Jhn 9:9 Some 243 said 3004 , 3754 This 3778 is he 2076 : 1161 others 243 [said], 3754 He is 2076 like 3664 him 846: [but] he 1565 said 3004 , 3754 I 1473 am 1510 [he].

So is the healed man speaking here claiming the Divine Name? (notice here the "he" is added while when Jesus says it is curiously missing ).

Again this will take much time, but hopefully this will be a good start.

Respectfully,
Trinity

 

[Doc T]

Alright, Doc! Gave me some homework to do,huh!

Always glad to oblige.

I am always up for a challenge, so let's have a go.

I want to preface this with I mean no offense or disrepectful tone - just want to have an intelligent disucssion of these issues and you are a providing an insightful viewpoint.

Thank you. That is something that has been difficult to have around here, an "intelligent discussion". I will not take your posts as offensive or disrespectiful, if you do not take mine as such.

Okay, here we go!

God the Father - Eternal
If God the Father is eternal, how do you explain Joseph Smith's explanation in GP page 305?

Now I hope Baker, Grace and a few others here don't faint, but I do not fully accept the premise of author who wrote the FARMS piece. (the earth shakes as a rumble sound is heard). I accept the thought as put forward by Blake Ostler. Let me quote from a portion of an article he wrote entitled: "Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept of Deity." He states:

I believe that Mormons commonly believe that God the Father became God through a process of moral development and eternal progression to Godhood. The corollary of this view is that there was a time before which God the Father was a god or divine. No Mormon scripture supports this view; rather, it is an inference from non-canonical statements made by Joseph Smith in the King Follett discourse and by President Lorenzo Snow, who coined the couplet: "as man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become." When the biblical scriptures say that God is eternal, they are usually translating the Hebrew 'olam or the Greek aioion. However, both words are ambiguous. They can mean either an indefinite period of time, much like the English word aeon, or a time without beginning or end. These words decidedly do not mean that God is timeless in the sense that there is no temporal succession for God.26

However, the problem is not so much the Bible as it is Mormon scripture. The Mormon scriptures say that "there is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God...." (D&C 20:17). "The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end "(D&C 20:28). When the term eternal is conjoined with infinite and from everlasting to everlasting, it is pretty clear that it means without beginning or end. The notion of infinity usually means unlimited, without bounds.

There are other Mormon scriptures that are even clearer: "Behold I am the Lord God Almighty, and endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is this not endless?" (Moses 1:3) "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity" (Mormon 8:8). Further, Joseph Smith stated in 1840 that: "I believe that God is eternal. That He had not (sic) beginning and can have no end. Eternity means that which is without beginning or end."27 Given this clarification, it seems pretty clear to me that these scriptures mean that God has always been God in the same unchanging sense without beginning. Are the King Follett discourse and President Snows couplet simply inconsistent with scripture? It seems to me that there are several possibilities here.

For purposes of clarity in this discussion I will need to make a few distinctions. The word 'God' is equivocal in Mormon thought, and in Christian thought in general, because it can have many different references. I suspect that most references in the New Testament to God refer solely to God the Father. However, when I speak of the divine persons individually, I will use the locutions 'the Father', or 'Son', or 'Holy Ghost'. I will use the biblical term 'Godhead' to refer to these three individual divine persons as one God united in indwelling glory, power, dominion and love. I will use the term 'God' as an equivocal reference where it is unclear whether the reference is to one of the individual divine persons or to the Godhead. I will use the term 'god(s)' to refer to humans who become divine through atoning grace. I will use the term members of the heavenly council to refer to the gods who are subordinate emissaries of the divine council. Finally, I will use the non-scriptural term 'divine beings' to refer to the non-scriptural gods who supposedly existed as gods prior to the time the Father became a divine person. Now for my best crack at responding to this difficult question.
The notion that there are divine beings who were gods prior to the time that the Father was God arises in part from a confusion regarding scriptural references to gods who are members of the heavenly council. These member of the heavenly council have sometimes been understood to be gods prior to the time that the Father was divine and through obedience to which the Father became divine. However, since these members of the divine council were in fact subordinate to the Father as the "Eternal God of all other gods," (D&C 121: 28, 32) such a view is logically precluded by Mormon scripture.

One could understand the scriptural references to an "eternal God" to refer solely to God the Father as an individual divine person. One could take the position that when God says he is eternal and without beginning, he is referring merely to the personal existence of the Father as a beginningless spirit or intelligence and not to his status as a divine person. Thus, the Father has always existed as an individual without beginning, but he has not always been God. There was a time when the Father was not divine on this view. However, it need not imply that there were no divine beings prior to the time the Father became divine because, as I understand the implications drawn by Mormons such as Orson Pratt and B.H. Roberts, there is supposedly an infinite chain of divine beings who existed before the Father.28 It was obedience to these divine beings and their commandments by which the Father became divine on this view, as I understand it. The problem with this view is that it seems to contradict the scriptures that say that the Lord God Almighty is without beginning of days. It is also hard to square with the scriptures which assert that God is the same unchanging God from all eternity. It is inconsistent also with the understanding that the Father is the Eternal God of all other gods. Moreover, this position seems to contradict the view that it is a divine relationship of loving unity with God the Father that constitutes the source of divinity of the Son, the Holy Ghost and god(s). I believe that D&C 93 teaches that the Son is divine in virtue of his indwelling unity with the Father and that mortals become god(s) by becoming one just as are the Father and the Son. In this scripture, the Father is the source or fount of divinity of all other divine beings. If the Father is the source of divinity then it certainly seems inconsistent to assert that the Father became divine in dependence on some other divine beings, for then the Father is not the ultimate source of divinity. Thus, the view that the Father became divine in dependence on other divine beings and was not divine from all eternity is not scriptural and it seems to contradict both the uniquely Mormon scriptures and the Bible.

On the other hand, one could understand 'God from all eternity to all eternity' to refer to the Godhead rather than to any of the individual divine persons separately. It is not true that if there has always been a Godhead that all of the divine persons constituting the Godhead have always been divine. Thus, when the scriptures say that "God is from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God," it means that the Godhead has always manifested all of the essential properties of Godhood (whatever they may be), but the individual divine persons may not have always possessed all of the properties of Godhood considered individually. In other words, there was a time when the Father took upon himself mortality just as there was time when the Son became mortal, but there was a Godhead before, during and after that time.29

This latter view seems to be more consistent with the scriptures to me. Moreover, it need not entail that the Father became God after an eternity of not having ever been divine, or that there was a time before which the Father was not divine. Rather, when we say that "as man now is, God once was," it seems more consistent to say that just as the Son was divine before becoming mortal (and was in fact very God of the Old Testament),30 so also the Father was divine from all eternity without beginning before he became mortal. The scriptures assert that the Godhead is the same unchangeable and everlasting God from all eternity without beginning. References to "the same unchangeable God" in Mormon scripture often explicitly refer in context to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one God.31 As noted, the Godhead has metaphysically necessary existence and is immutable in nature. The Mormon scriptures also say that although the Son was made flesh, he was an individual divine person prior to mortality from all eternity. It is often not certain whether scriptures or sermons refer to God the Father, or the Son as individual divine persons or to the Godhead. However, if the Son only does what he has seen the Father do before him, as Joseph Smith asserted in the King Follett discourse, then the Father was also divine before becoming mortal just as the Son was before being made flesh.32

For those who are offended by Joseph Smith's suggestion that God the Father was once incarnate, it should be noted that God the Son was undoubtedly once a man, and that did not compromise his divinity. Indeed, because it is logically impossible for the divine persons as one Godhead to experience alienation, and because first-hand experience of alienation is essential to fully understand the existential dimension of humanity, the Father also has an overriding reason to experience something like mortality. Thus, the Mormon doctrine of divinity suggests a reason for Joseph Smiths non-scriptural teachings in Nauvoo that the Father, at one time, experienced something like mortality and thereafter regained his divinity in the same way as the Son. However, this belief is a non-scriptural implication of theology that is not binding on Mormons, and thus remains as an option of belief rather than a defining belief of Mormonism.
___________________________________________

26 Ernst Jenni, "Das Wort olam im Alten Testament," Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 64 (1952), 197-248; and 65 (1953), 1-35.
27 Lyndon Cook and Andrew Ehat, The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo: Religious Studies Center, 1984), 33.
28 I have discussed the views of Orson Pratt, B.H. Roberts and others regarding the status of the divine beings in Blake T. Ostler, "The Idea of Preexistence in the Development of Mormon Thought," Dialogue 15:1 (Spring 1982), 59-78.
29 It should also be noted that a failure to distinguish between God as the Godhead and God as an individual divine person may also have led to a misunderstanding by evangelicals and others about Mormon claims that God is a glorified man and otherwise anthropomorphic. Mormons do not claim that the Godhead is a glorified man. Further, those evangelicals and other Christians who accept a kenotic theory of christology can hardly object to the view that God as a divine person has a glorified or resurrected body. As Ronald J. Feenstra observed: If the exalted Christ is human, then we have good reason to hope that we human beings can also be glorified in an eschatological existence, since it will follow that being human is compatible with being glorified. Both Lutheran and Reformed confessions have held that the ascended Christ retains his body.... If Christ is still embodied, he remains incarnate and therefore truly human. See Feenstra, "Reconsidering Kenotic Christology" in Ronald Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 147.
30 I note that there is no scriptural support for the view that Elohim is the proper name of the Father. Indeed, such use contradicts D&C 109 where Joseph Smith refers to Jehovah and Elohim interchangeably. Such usage could be adopted as a mere policy for purposes of keeping the divine persons distinct, but it also creates confusion regarding the identity of members of the Godhead. It must be recognized that no such usage is consistent in either the Bible or the Mormon scriptures.
31 This is the case in D&C 20:17, 28; Mosiah 15:2-5; Alma 11:44; Ether 12:41.
32 In the King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith stated: "What did Jesus do, the same thing as I see the Father do..." Joseph Smith was quoting from John 5:19, which states, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son of Man can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these things doeth the Son likewise." Joseph Smith took this scripture literally, so that the Son does exactly what the Father did before him. See The Words of Joseph Smith, 345 & n.41.​

For those interested, the whole article can be found at: http://www.nd.edu/~rpotter/ostler_element1-1.html

I will attempt your part 2 in the next few days.

Doc

~

 

[Der Alte]

Quite a few of Jesus' disciples were known as unlettered and ordinary. On the other hand, the scribes and the pharisees were considered educated.

Would a loving God require the common person, whether living in Spain or India, to know ancient Greek or Hebrew in order to come to know him and worship him in the way he prescribes? (Who has the time for that?)

Would a loving God have required the people, to whom the scriptures were first written, to know the languages they were written in, including the grammar of those languages, where it is important?

Would a loving God demand of His people blind, unquestioning, obedience to leaders who claim to be the only authority on earth for interpreting the scriptures?

Who has the time to make the slightest effort to understand the languages the Bible was first written in? How about those people who spend hours upon hours, doing works for their salvation, handing out the writings of their church. Would a loving God chastise one of His children who examined the scriptures exactly as the Bereans did?

The Apostle Paul would reason with people from the Scriptures, not just arrogantly throw his vocabulary and grammar around, which of course would intimidate people, but in reality only draw forth lemmings.---Acts 17:2,3.

And the people that the Apostle Paul reasoned with spoke Greek and he spoke Greek to them including correctly using the grammar to convey precisely what he was trying to say. Was Paul arrogantly throwing around his training, as a Rabbi of the Pharisees, when he used a particular word or a particular mood, voice, or tense of that word, to convey a precise meaning?

This is an add hominem, it implies that people who know Greek and Hebrew are arrogant liars and only people who don't know Hebrew and Greek can correctly translate the scriptures.

The true and living God, Jehovah, has used human terms, in the Scriptures to help us understand spiritual things.

That is correct and His true prophets spoke those spiritual things, in human terms, in Hebrew and Greek, they did not write in 17th century KJV Elizabethan English.

We have to exercise caution around those that sound like they have alot of specific knowledge on a topic such as ancient Greek or Hebrew. We could be misled. If you do not know alot about cars, should you feel trusting with any used car salesman, especially in these days?

Does this blanket tirade against Bible language scholarship include the four men who supposedly translated the NWT? Of those four men, only one had formally studied Greek, only one semester, and none of the four had any formal training whatsoever in Hebrew. Not interested in car salesmen, but would you trust your eternal destiny to a Bible "translated" by four men, with no formal language training? I wouldn't and don't. I can know in an instant if a pastor or teacher is teaching the truth or a lie. I do not rely on any translation or any teacher.

On the other hand, it is good to study the way Jesus taught others. Short, simple, the use of illustrations and questions.

If you have an accurate translation, made by men of God formally trained in the Biblical languages, then you can trust those, "short, simple, the use of illustrations and questions." And if you have no way to check because handing out tracts, hours on hours, is more important, than studying God's Word, you are being misled.

 

[lared]

Preaching the good news of the Kingdom is never a waste of time.
Why in fact we are commanded to do so.

And millions of people around the globe are joining the united global brotherhood in true worship of the one Almighty God Jehovah, much to Satan's consternation.