DiscussMormonism.com

"The Gods who dwell in the Heaven...have been redeemed from the grave in a world which existed before the foundations of this earth were laid. They and the Heavenly body which they now inhabit were once in a fallen state....they were exalted also, from fallen men to Celestial Gods to inhabit their Heaven forever and ever." (Apostle Orson Pratt in The Seer, page 23)

Would you think fallen means sinner

In the 1844 LDS publication, Times and Seasons, volume 5, pages 613-614,... Joseph Smith reiterated that God was an exalted man and that Mormon men could also become Gods. This teaching is well documented, as is their claim that God is not a spirit being, but that he has a body of flesh and bone.


“God is a perfected, saved soul enjoying eternal life.” (Second Counselor in the First Presidency, Marion G. Romney, as per Salt Lake Tribune, April 3, 1977.)

It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being; and yet we are not in such close communion with him as many have supposed. He has passed on, and is exalted far beyond what we can now comprehend.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 334

The LDS have a long established method for determining their doctrine and the Journal of Discourses isn't it.
SEE Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

The Seer has never been recognized by the Church.

In the LDS religion Jesus is a God who has a body of flesh and bone. That someday we can be like him. Sorry if other Christians don't accept what their own Bible says.
SEE https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

The LDS don't claim to know all there is to know about God. In fact while they claim to know more about God they believe He will yet revel more about himself and his kingdom.
SEE Article of Faith #9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

So why do the Mormons ridicule the Creeds when they teach God is incomprehensible

"eg" Jeffrey R Holland talk about relationship of God the Father


https://www.LDS.org/ensign/2007/11/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng

Mittens wrote:So why do the Mormons ridicule the Creeds when they teach God is incomprehensible

It isn't a matter of ridicule. It is simply not Biblical. Non-LDS scholars long ago came to the conclusion that this God who is "incomprehensible" "immutable" "literally omnipresent" etc. comes from a kind of Greek philosophical monotheism which became mingled with scripture. Here is an example of one scholar from a while back:

THE LOGIC OF BIBLICAL ANTHROPOMORPHISM

In the Harvard Theological Review (Vol. 55, 1962)
http://www.philosoph...logic-bible.htm

This was followed up by another article, also written by Cherbonnier:
In Defense of Anthropomorphism

http://rsc.BYU.edu/a...nthropomorphism

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -

The God you describe is existing in some kind of simple (no parts), metaphysically static and unchanging state from infinite past to infinite future.

-7up

Mittens wrote:Mormon God (fallen, saved, finite, exalted man )

I believe this ground has been covered before, but just in case there are people who weren't here in early 2014... the attack was whether or not Mormons/LDS believe in a God who is "Eternal".

We determined that "Eternal" isn't used in the Bible to mean what Mittens claims it to mean.

Do you believe that YOU can have "eternal life" ? How can you if your life began when God magically brought you into existence "from nothing"? How can you have life "eternal"?

All that can be said of the scriptural usage of these terms (everlasting/eternal) is that whatever is called “eternal” goes beyond our usual sense or scope of existence or beyond our experience of time. The ancient authors wrote to an audience according to their understanding, which is limited. Our understanding is limited as well. Time is relative, and anything outside time as we currently know it is beyond the human experience. We think that living 100 years is a long time. Imagine living 100 thousand or 100 million years. It is unthinkable in relation to what we see in our mortality.

God is well beyond even billions and billions of years. How can we even fathom that? Having created the Universe and time as we know it, God transcends time in our Universe, and, if we want to speculate, He may very well have created another Universe or Universes (which would more correctly be related to a term called “Multiverse”). But that is another discussion and certainly falls under speculation beyond scripture and defined doctrine.

Anyways, here are a few Old Testament examples of two terms which are sometimes translated as everlasting/eternal. Let's see if they fit into what you are implying to mean as “eternal”:

עוֹלָם `owlam

Deut 33:15 describes the hills/mountains as "everlasting/eternal". Yet clearly the Bible teaches that the Earth along with the hills and mountains were created.

This is the same term used in the Psalms for God being “from everlasting to everlasting”. Yet most of the time we find this word translated as “ancient”. Other examples include “ancient people” (Isa 44:7), ancient landmark (Prov 22:28), and so forth.

Similarly, we have the Hebrew wordעַד `ad
Job 20:4 "Haven't you known this from ***everlasting/eternal***, since mankind was placed on the earth?

So here, having known since the beginning of the Earth is sufficient to be considered eternal/everlasting. The meaning is "antiquity or of old'. (Interesting also that Isaiah uses this same term in 57:15 to say that God “inhabits eternity.” Almost as if eternity can also be considered a place.)

Keep in mind that this is the same term that is used in Isaiah 9:6 for the “everlasting/eternal Father”.

Lets look at some New Testament words, like Ἀΐδιος aïdios

Jude 1:6 uses the term to describe “everlasting chains” for the angels who “kept not their first estate” which they will have “unto the judgement of the great day.” So, did these chains under darkness exist before God supposedly created everything Ex Nihilo, including the angels themselves?

Yet this term is the same word used to describe God's “eternal power and Godhead” in Romans 1:20.

How about another term, from which we get aeon. Αἰών Aiōn

Sometimes this one it is not just understood as long periods of time, but as “the worlds” or the Cosmos/Universe, which, as we both know, are created by God, so does not really fit your definition of something that always has been.

Finally, we have χρόνος and Αἰώνιος aiōnios ,

It is used over and over to describe both eternal salvation/redemption/inheritance as well as eternal judgment/fire/destruction.

It is also used to describe a whole host of other things, like the “eternal weight of glory” to be bestowed upon the faithful. It is used by Paul to describe an “everlasting covenant” between God and man. It is used in conjunction with another Hebrew term to say “since the world began”. It as also used to things that will exist in the future, for example, when comparing our earthly tabernacle, which is temporal, to the tabernacle we will have in the resurrection. (2 Cr 5:1).

So, again I ask you, is your definition of “eternal” consistent with how these terms were used and understood in ancient scripture? Or are you adding meaning beyond what the scripture actually says?

-7up

Mittens wrote:
"It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being; and yet we are not in such close communion with him as many have supposed. He has passed on, and is exalted far beyond what we can now comprehend."

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 334

Joseph Smith was the first to bring into the Mormon world this idea that Jesus Christ is following the same path that God the Father did. This has been taught repeatedly by LDS leaders. The scripture Joseph initially referenced is John 5:19:

"I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."

Joseph says, that (like Jesus) God the Father is an exalted man in form and appearance, "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."

Joseph was teaching that God was a man "like us" in the same sense that Jesus Christ was a man "like us". He said:

"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;"

John Chapter 5 verse 24-26 states:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself"

Now, Joseph Smith says this in the King Follett discourse:

"Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power--to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again."

Joseph also explained:

"What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children."



-7up

The CCC wrote:The LDS have a long established method for determining their doctrine and the Journal of Discourses isn't it.

SEE Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

All of the LDS doctrine concerning the idea of God the Father once being a man who lived on an Earth originated from Joseph Smith, and any insight on detail was given by the King Follett discourse. And the King Follett discourse describes God the Father as having lived as Jesus Christ did - (Also described as Jesus as following the same path as God the Father.) So, any discussion on the matter should always be understood in that context, and originally from that source.

I think many people, including some LDS people, have missed this original context.

Certainly, there is a deeper and more detailed discussion concerning whether or not there is a difference between "gods by grace" and "Gods by nature", which is a discussion that occurred in early Christianity as well, when discussing "theosis".

The details are not clearly defined in LDS doctrine concerning how the organization of worlds, galaxies, universes holds together with exalted "gods" and those who, like Jesus, were naturally divine.

LDS, including leaders, can speculate on the matter, however, it is not official doctrine as you have correctly noted. Perhaps the interpretation of John's gospel that Joseph Smith provided can be considered as "official" as we can get, and church manuals have been based off of those concepts.

But everyone would be wise to look at the original King Follett discourse in its entirety, rather than taking bits and pieces of it and then formulating theories based on sentences out of context.

I posted here in this thread, for all to read, the verses from the New Testament that Joseph Smith was referring to , and his interpretation of it.

-7up

Mittens wrote:So why do the Mormons ridicule the Creeds when they teach God is incomprehensible

"eg" Jeffrey R Holland talk about relationship of God the Father


https://www.LDS.org/ensign/2007/11/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng

Sorry if other Christians don't believe their own Bible.
See John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
To say you don't know everything about a subject is not the same as saying no one can ever comprehend it. The former is admission of reality(I have plenty I don't know) the latter is an statement of willful ignorant hubris(No one can ever know it).

seven7up wrote:

The CCC wrote:The LDS have a long established method for determining their doctrine and the Journal of Discourses isn't it.

SEE Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

All of the LDS doctrine concerning the idea of God the Father once being a man who lived on an Earth originated from Joseph Smith, and any insight on detail was given by the King Follett discourse. And the King Follett discourse describes God the Father as having lived as Jesus Christ did - (Also described as Jesus as following the same path as God the Father.) So, any discussion on the matter should always be understood in that context, and originally from that source.

I think many people, including some LDS people, have missed this original context.

Certainly, there is a deeper and more detailed discussion concerning whether or not there is a difference between "gods by grace" and "Gods by nature", which is a discussion that occurred in early Christianity as well, when discussing "theosis".

The details are not clearly defined in LDS doctrine concerning how the organization of worlds, galaxies, universes holds together with exalted "gods" and those who, like Jesus, were naturally divine.

LDS, including leaders, can speculate on the matter, however, it is not official doctrine as you have correctly noted. Perhaps the interpretation of John's gospel that Joseph Smith provided can be considered as "official" as we can get, and church manuals have been based off of those concepts.

But everyone would be wise to look at the original King Follett discourse in its entirety, rather than taking bits and pieces of it and then formulating theories based on sentences out of context.

I posted here in this thread, for all to read, the verses from the New Testament that Joseph Smith was referring to , and his interpretation of it.

-7up

I like the King Follett Discourse. It suffers from the same disadvantage that the Brigham Young's Journal of Discourses, it is not Church doctrine. At best it is a logical conclusion based largely on the idea that Jesus is part of the Godhead, and that someday we can become like God the Father. The LDS have no concept of a God by nature v God by nurture. We are all Gods, by virtue of being the Children of God.

seven7up wrote:

Mittens wrote:Mormon God (fallen, saved, finite, exalted man )

I believe this ground has been covered before, but just in case there are people who weren't here in early 2014... the attack was whether or not Mormons/LDS believe in a God who is "Eternal".

We determined that "Eternal" isn't used in the Bible to mean what Mittens claims it to mean.

Do you believe that YOU can have "eternal life" ? How can you if your life began when God magically brought you into existence "from nothing"? How can you have life "eternal"?

All that can be said of the scriptural usage of these terms (everlasting/eternal) is that whatever is called “eternal” goes beyond our usual sense or scope of existence or beyond our experience of time. The ancient authors wrote to an audience according to their understanding, which is limited. Our understanding is limited as well. Time is relative, and anything outside time as we currently know it is beyond the human experience. We think that living 100 years is a long time. Imagine living 100 thousand or 100 million years. It is unthinkable in relation to what we see in our mortality.

God is well beyond even billions and billions of years. How can we even fathom that? Having created the Universe and time as we know it, God transcends time in our Universe, and, if we want to speculate, He may very well have created another Universe or Universes (which would more correctly be related to a term called “Multiverse”). But that is another discussion and certainly falls under speculation beyond scripture and defined doctrine.

Anyways, here are a few Old Testament examples of two terms which are sometimes translated as everlasting/eternal. Let's see if they fit into what you are implying to mean as “eternal”:

עוֹלָם `owlam

Deut 33:15 describes the hills/mountains as "everlasting/eternal". Yet clearly the Bible teaches that the Earth along with the hills and mountains were created.

This is the same term used in the Psalms for God being “from everlasting to everlasting”. Yet most of the time we find this word translated as “ancient”. Other examples include “ancient people” (Isa 44:7), ancient landmark (Prov 22:28), and so forth.

Similarly, we have the Hebrew wordעַד `ad
Job 20:4 "Haven't you known this from ***everlasting/eternal***, since mankind was placed on the earth?

So here, having known since the beginning of the Earth is sufficient to be considered eternal/everlasting. The meaning is "antiquity or of old'. (Interesting also that Isaiah uses this same term in 57:15 to say that God “inhabits eternity.” Almost as if eternity can also be considered a place.)

Keep in mind that this is the same term that is used in Isaiah 9:6 for the “everlasting/eternal Father”.

Lets look at some New Testament words, like Ἀΐδιος aïdios

Jude 1:6 uses the term to describe “everlasting chains” for the angels who “kept not their first estate” which they will have “unto the judgement of the great day.” So, did these chains under darkness exist before God supposedly created everything Ex Nihilo, including the angels themselves?

Yet this term is the same word used to describe God's “eternal power and Godhead” in Romans 1:20.

How about another term, from which we get aeon. Αἰών Aiōn

Sometimes this one it is not just understood as long periods of time, but as “the worlds” or the Cosmos/Universe, which, as we both know, are created by God, so does not really fit your definition of something that always has been.

Finally, we have χρόνος and Αἰώνιος aiōnios ,

It is used over and over to describe both eternal salvation/redemption/inheritance as well as eternal judgment/fire/destruction.

It is also used to describe a whole host of other things, like the “eternal weight of glory” to be bestowed upon the faithful. It is used by Paul to describe an “everlasting covenant” between God and man. It is used in conjunction with another Hebrew term to say “since the world began”. It as also used to things that will exist in the future, for example, when comparing our earthly tabernacle, which is temporal, to the tabernacle we will have in the resurrection. (2 Cr 5:1).

So, again I ask you, is your definition of “eternal” consistent with how these terms were used and understood in ancient scripture? Or are you adding meaning beyond what the scripture actually says?

-7up

Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach man, animals and plants are as eternal as GOD

God is the self-existent GOD, with out a Father or Mother

Hebrews 7


1bFor this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,” 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

Melchizedek was the reincarnate Jesus since he was self-existent also