When did Jesus become 100% god?

[_mentalgymnast]

Isn't there a scripture somewhere that talks about Jesus growing from grace to grace? So even if He wasn't 100% God at some point...maybe He was 'God Enough" (?)

Fun question to consider though, isn't it? I guess what matters is whether or not Jesus has the power to do what it is said that He did. That is, resurrect and open the door with the keys that provide everlasting/resurrected life for the rest of us.

That would be God Enough for me.

Regards,
MG

Assuming events happened as claimed. All we can say is that the progeny of a mortal mother and immortal Father was capable of resurrection. Nobody else has been able to do that either before or since.

OK.

We are the product of a mortal mother and mortal father, on that basis we are less than Christ...

OK.

...and so it stands to reason that when we die we aren't God enough to be resurrected.

Not on our own, that's for sure.

Regards,
MG

[_zeezrom]

What appears to matters more than the narrative describing the nature of god(s) is what we believe god can do for us.

[_Sethbag]

The classical conception of the man who became the incarnate Elohim is not the title of a god but the tale of a man who transcends being a man. The lexicon of Mormonism is derived from Protestantism and so this übermensch is called "god" but it is not even really what polytheists meant (and mean) understand as a "god," let alone the monotheistic traditions. Maybe classical Mormonism an atheistic religion.

Symmachus, this is only true if you start off with a premise about what a god is that differs from the view Mormonism offers. If all gods really start off as intelligences, then become spirits, then take on flesh, die, are resurrected with a celestial form, and are exalted, then Elohim is in fact the quintessential tale of a god.

[_Sethbag]

And you should be. Star Wars is an absolutely s****y cultural production yet it gets treated like some kind of grand expression. It's the most inane plot ever devised by a five year old: good guys with magic power and electric swords fight bad guys with magic power and electric swords. Add some loud noises (sound in outer space!?), some hippy-speak, and you get Star Wars.

And baseball is just this stupid period of time when guys try to hit a ball with a wooden stick and then run around a short specialized track. And the 100-yard dash is just this stupid thing where some guys with powerful legs try to traverse a relatively short distance faster each other. And a symphony is just a bunch of people dragging horsehair across some special strings under tension on some wooden boxes, making squeaky noises. Sex is just this stupid thing where people take their clothes off and stick their reproductive organs into each other and make some inane noises.

Really, if you want to adopt cultural nihilism, all of human existence is fair game.

TLDR: people like watching Star Wars. It doesn't need anymore justification than that.

[_huckelberry]

sethbag, not liking star wars equates with cultural nihilism? Its ok if you like star wars, symmachus sounded a bit grumpy about it.

About the special Mormon definition of God. In a way I can see your point. I think both of you have highlighted why some nonMormon critics keep saying polytheism and Mormons rarely find that problematic. There is as little conceptual contact between the two points of view.

Still it does not make sense to say Mormons can say anything is god. The word carries some sort of meaning for Mormons that is at least related to the traditional ideas.

I remember some ideas indicating that there is some ultimate power perhaps beyond personal which intelligences may become unified with thus becoming God. I may be remembering Lectures in Faith or perhaps other 19th century speculation.

[_zeezrom]

Just a little side note:

It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God.

Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 6:305.

[_Symmachus]

I always touch someone's nerves when I voice my disgust with the monstrosity of noise and special effects that is Star Wars.

And baseball is just this stupid period of time when guys try to hit a ball with a wooden stick and then run around a short specialized track.

Totally agree.

And a symphony is just a bunch of people dragging horsehair across some special strings under tension on some wooden boxes, making squeaky noises. Sex is just this stupid thing where people take their clothes off and stick their reproductive organs into each other and make some inane noises.

Totally disagree, Star Wars should never be compared to the discipline of sound and devotion to art that is classical music, and you miss the substance of my comment.

I am not talking about the mechanics of the film—I did not say, in other words, that since it is just a set of images strung together, with talking faces projected on a large screen, that therefore it's crap. I am talking about it on a qualitative level. Let's take its moral universe, for instance: it's hardly distinguishable from that of Donald Trump (or Tobin and ldsfaqs). That doesn't bother you?

And I'm not a cultural nihilist, you are (or, at least your response was nihilistic). As in the case of the Church, I think the question you should apply to something demanding our attention, our time, and our money is: is this good, bad, better, worse, etc, and in what ways and in under what circumstances, etc.? Evaluating means assessing the value. A nihilist would be the one who rejects questions of value. Appealing to the fact that people "like" it is basically nihilistic; people like all sorts of things that are terrible, immoral, stupid, unhealthy, etc. etc., so liking something is not necessarily a value at all. I don't see why the question of liking it matters. People should ask themselves why they like something, and I do think grownups who go mad for Star Wars should be asking themselves why they are so committed to something that is extremely childish in every possible way. The fact that they like it is not a justification, not even an explanation—except perhaps to someone who stands to make money from popular appeal, and nothing is more nihilistic, and more degrading to culture, than reducing questions of value to money.

[_Nightlion]

Just a little side note:

It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God.

Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 6:305.

It is amazing to me how convoluted the LDS presently are about their theology. The early errors have reached absurdity and have compromised the Restoration utterly.

Jesus is not only 100 God from all eternity, he has been God the Eternal Father sitting upon the throne of his power innumerable times already. He told the Jews*...John 6...what if they should see him where he was before.....and this is what he was referring to. As Joseph Smith alluded to Jesus follows in the tracks of his Father and inherits what the Father inherited. But it is a closed loop. One Eternal Round. And there are only three being who traverse the same path. And they have been from all eternity continuing upon that course from one round to the next as they trade positions. That is why the Holy Ghost is called the Holy Ghost. It means the ghost of the Holy Father. Which means that the body which sits upon the throne of power is shared by all three in rotation. That is the only way Restoration theology makes sense. There is no us becoming as God is. That was an early mistake and part of the Strong Delusion God prophesied by the apostle Paul he would send upon a people who did not love the truth but has pleasure in unrighteousness....2 Thessalonians 2....meaning that the Mormons refused to become Zion and got dumped on for it.

So like the Book of Mormons states, Jesus, is the Very Eternal Father and there is more to it than what I have said here. But I have said it on this board more exhaustively and nobody seems to care and as usual the people yawn and forget about it.

*When Jesus prayed for the Father to glorify him he was answered by the Father that he had already glorified him before and would again glorify him. That is scripture about the transit of God from HG to Jesus to The Father the three stations of the Great God. They all share the same God DNA when they are in the flesh (cloned as to be in the express image of one another) [Mary contributed nothing] and Jesus took his own body back to life as he said that he has power to lay it down and to take it again. But he must discard that body eventually for his spirit to dwell in the tabernacle that always sits upon the throne of his power. So the sacrament was given to dispose of the mortal husk of the body of Jesus when it is time. A transubstantiation will occur to all saints who have worthily partaken of the flesh and blood of Christ. He is still flesh and blood as the scars of his passion are still present and his body was never resurrected unto a perfect frame. Have I said enough? Will anyone care or remember a thing about it? Probably not. Oh, well, there ya go.

[_Maksutov]

It is amazing to me how convoluted the LDS presently are about their theology. The early errors have reached absurdity and have compromised the Restoration utterly.

Jesus is not only 100 God from all eternity, he has been God the Eternal Father sitting upon the throne of his power innumerable times already. He told the Jews*...John 6...what if they should see him where he was before.....and this is what he was referring to. As Joseph Smith alluded to Jesus follows in the tracks of his Father and inherits what the Father inherited. But it is a closed loop. One Eternal Round. And there are only three being who traverse the same path. And they have been from all eternity continuing upon that course from one round to the next as they trade positions. That is why the Holy Ghost is called the Holy Ghost. It means the ghost of the Holy Father. Which means that the body which sits upon the throne of power is shared by all three in rotation. That is the only way Restoration theology makes sense. There is no us becoming as God is. That was an early mistake and part of the Strong Delusion God prophesied by the apostle Paul he would send upon a people who did not love the truth but has pleasure in unrighteousness....2 Thessalonians 2....meaning that the Mormons refused to become Zion and got dumped on for it.

So like the Book of Mormons states, Jesus, is the Very Eternal Father and there is more to it than what I have said here. But I have said it on this board more exhaustively and nobody seems to care and as usual the people yawn and forget about it.

*When Jesus prayed for the Father to glorify him he was answered by the Father that he had already glorified him before and would again glorify him. That is scripture about the transit of God from HG to Jesus to The Father the three stations of the Great God. They all share the same God DNA when they are in the flesh (cloned as to be in the express image of one another) [Mary contributed nothing] and Jesus took his own body back to life as he said that he has power to lay it down and to take it again. But he must discard that body eventually for his spirit to dwell in the tabernacle that always sits upon the throne of his power. So the sacrament was given to dispose of the mortal husk of the body of Jesus when it is time. A transubstantiation will occur to all saints who have worthily partaken of the flesh and blood of Christ. He is still flesh and blood as the scars of his passion are still present and his body was never resurrected unto a perfect frame. Have I said enough? Will anyone care or remember a thing about it? Probably not. Oh, well, there ya go.

NL, I'd like to follow up with you on this. You are either speaking from your interpretation or you've received some kind of revelation to provide this more expanded description of Gospel ideas. Can you tell us which one? If revelation, can you tell us what this is like? How does it come to you?

[_Symmachus]

As Joseph Smith alluded to Jesus follows in the tracks of his Father and inherits what the Father inherited. But it is a closed loop. One Eternal Round. And there are only three being who traverse the same path. And they have been from all eternity continuing upon that course from one round to the next as they trade positions.

That sounds like modalism/Sabellianism, but you use the phrase "three beings," which goes beyond modalism and is really a kind of polytheism. Would you agree that your view of Mormon theology as presented here is polytheistic? Or are these all the same being manifested in three different aspects at different times and places?