The war in heaven

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

By same kind of being, do you mean Paul was telling the Athenians they were both Gods and humans?

Paul was telling the Athenians that since they are the same kind of being as God then they shouldn't think of a divine being to be anything like gold or silver or stone, graven by art and man's device (because we are not gold or silver or stone, graven by art and man's device).  It was simple logic and a way to teach them of man's relationship with God (we are his offspring, God is the Father of spirits).

[The Nehor]

On 7/13/2025 at 11:39 AM, Stargazer said:

You're entitled to your opinion, of course.

Like “bless your heart” this statement is basically a euphemism for “**** you, you’re wrong!”

[longview]

On 7/16/2025 at 1:04 AM, The Nehor said:

Like “bless your heart” this statement is basically a euphemism for “**** you, you’re wrong!”

But NOT the same thing as saying we will agree to disagree (so as to maintain goodwill with our fellow beings).

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, longview said:

But NOT the same thing as saying we will agree to disagree (so as to maintain goodwill with our fellow beings).

“Agree to disagree” is also often used with a dose of passive aggressive intent.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

“Agree to disagree” is also often used with a dose of passive aggressive intent.

Also as a pretense that one actually engaged with the other when they didn’t as in when this gets pointed out “agree to disagree” is their excuse to leave the conversation.

This is not to say it is always or mostly used this way.  There are valid reasons to use it…as in when arguments starts getting repeated.

Edited July 17, 2025 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

On 7/15/2025 at 9:19 AM, GoCeltics said:

By same kind of being, do you mean Paul was telling the Athenians they were both Gods and humans?

That seems to be how Greek Orthodox read the Greek, "We are God's offspring [Acts 17:28], His kin... The gulf between creature and Creator is not impassible... we will become like God.... To be deified... to become a second god, a god by grace." (Ware, Orthodox Church 219)

[Nofear]

On 7/17/2025 at 4:13 PM, The Nehor said:

“Agree to disagree” is also often used with a dose of passive aggressive intent.

It's always how I use it with you, emphasis on the passive aggressive aspect. 😜

[Pyreaux]

On 7/8/2025 at 8:34 AM, GoCeltics said:

You're right, but God is not a being who progressed from a less-developed state.

Yhwh whom tradition thinks of as non-progressing had progressed, or were the works of Creation not progress? A once non-Creator in a void for eternity past, to the Creator of many things in several progressive days after. Progressing as He improves and expands His dominion the more He makes. Having inherited the nation of Israel from his Father, becoming the God of Israel in the fall of Babel (Deut 32:8-9) Jesus, traditionally considered fully God from eternity, the "I Am", progressed from a spirit into a human, grew in wisdom, experience temptations and suffered to perfect his judgment, died and resurrected, only then into the express image of His Father, exalted higher then when originally He left.

On the other hand, Eternal Regression and aspects of Eternal Progression are not canon revelations. It's not solid LDS doctrine that God the Father had a God, or a father, that there are past or future Satans or past or future Saviors. The only thing justified to say is what I call LDS "Relativity": what we speculate may exist, even if true, relatively, "to us" there are "no other" gods, or beings, or worlds or times to be concerned with, whether or not they already exist or will exist. "To us" there is only one true God, and one Lord, relatively, from all eternity to present human reckoning (1 Corinthians 8:5).

It is justified to ignore whether they exist. Doing so is in accord with 'covenantal loyalty' to give recognition and priority to Christ and the Father, as the only revealed beings. It aligns better with both scriptural teaching and modern LDS restraint. While early LDS teachings from King Follett Discourse or Journal of Discourses were never canonized in the Standard Works. The Church today emphasizes: The immediacy of God the Father, the centrality of Christ. a plan of salvation that, as far as we know, applies only to this world and human history, relatively.

Edited July 23, 2025 by Pyreaux

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

On the other hand, Eternal Regression and aspects of Eternal Progression are not canon revelations. It's not solid LDS doctrine that God the Father had a God, or a father, that there are past or future Satans or past or future Saviors.

Not only are these things "not solid LDS doctrine", there really is no official statement on these doctrines from the Church that I'm aware of.  And even in Joseph Smith's public sermons (when analyzed carefully against the context and the actual revelations), he does not seem to be teaching what a lot of people try to say he was teaching.  And the canonized revelations teach otherwise.

ETA:  GoCeltic's counterpart (theplains) has been trying to assert that LDS Theology teaches that God is the "Elohim of our Earth" (which contradicts Moses 1:33 and Doctrine and Covenants 121:32) and that he has a "Grandfather God", but has provided no sources or official teachings on these things and continues to assert them as "LDS Theology" even though those things contradict the revelations and Joseph Smith's own teachings.

Edited July 23, 2025 by InCognitus

[theplains]

17 hours ago, InCognitus said:

ETA:  GoCeltic's counterpart (theplains) has been trying to assert that LDS Theology teaches that God is the "Elohim of our Earth" (which contradicts Moses 1:33 and Doctrine and Covenants 121:32) and that he has a "Grandfather God", but has provided no sources or official teachings on these things and continues to assert them as "LDS Theology" even though those things contradict the revelations and Joseph Smith's own teachings.

@Pyreaux @GoCeltics

"If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the 
Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there 
ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son?  Whenever 
did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this 
way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus 
had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to 
death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it".

https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/109#full-transcript

The Prophet says: "If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father 
of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also." Then he asks: "Where 
was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a 
son?" (page 9).

The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on (page 9).

Evidently his Father passed through a period of mortality even as he passed through mortality, and 
as we all are doing. Our Father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since there 
has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father, until we come to 
a stop where we cannot go further, because of our limited capacity to understand  (page 249).

Joseph Fielding Smith
Doctrines of Salvation, 3-volume set
https://archive.org/download/JFSDoctrinesOfSalvation/JFSDoctrinesofSalvationv1-3.pdf

"We were begotten by our Father in heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a 
previous heavenly world by His Father, and again He was begotten by a still more ancient father 
and so on from generation to generation" (page 132).

Orson Pratt
The Seer
https://ia904606.us.archive.org/29/items/seereditedbyorso01unse/seereditedbyorso01unse_bw.pdf

 

"He came here, was born, had a father and mother like you have. Well, who was his father? Why 
God was His father; and who was God's father? Why God had a father like you and I have.

Now, with this information children can begin to understand something about their Heavenly Father. 
They can see that if Jesus is His Son, and we are His sons and daughters, that He must be the Son 
of some other personage, for He could not beget Himself, but must have a father even as He is our 
Father". 

Gospel Truths, volume 1, George Q. Cannon, page 128.

Edited July 24, 2025 by theplains
added extra source

[Pyreaux]

23 hours ago, theplains said:

@Pyreaux @GoCeltics

"If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the 
Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there 
ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son?  Whenever 
did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this 
way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus 
had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to 
death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it".

https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/109#full-transcript

The Prophet says: "If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father 
of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also." Then he asks: "Where 
was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a 
son?" (page 9).

The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on (page 9).

Evidently his Father passed through a period of mortality even as he passed through mortality, and 
as we all are doing. Our Father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since there 
has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father, until we come to 
a stop where we cannot go further, because of our limited capacity to understand  (page 249).

Joseph Fielding Smith
Doctrines of Salvation, 3-volume set
https://archive.org/download/JFSDoctrinesOfSalvation/JFSDoctrinesofSalvationv1-3.pdf

"We were begotten by our Father in heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a 
previous heavenly world by His Father, and again He was begotten by a still more ancient father 
and so on from generation to generation" (page 132).

Orson Pratt
The Seer
https://ia904606.us.archive.org/29/items/seereditedbyorso01unse/seereditedbyorso01unse_bw.pdf

 

"He came here, was born, had a father and mother like you have. Well, who was his father? Why 
God was His father; and who was God's father? Why God had a father like you and I have.

Now, with this information children can begin to understand something about their Heavenly Father. 
They can see that if Jesus is His Son, and we are His sons and daughters, that He must be the Son 
of some other personage, for He could not beget Himself, but must have a father even as He is our 
Father". 

Gospel Truths, volume 1, George Q. Cannon, page 128.

Notice the tone and language of those sources reveal that they are exploratory, speculative, and personal, not authoritative or binding. Phrases like “You may suppose,” “Can we not believe...” is not the language of revelation, its the language of speculation. These discourses are invitations to consider a possibility, not commands to believe.

Even Joseph Smith’s strongest language in the King Follett Discourse (as reconstructed) is framed as reasoned philosophy, not prophetic mandate. This unreviewed for correctness composite of a sermon is not a source of doctrine. Orson Pratt's The Seer was repudiated in 1865 by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, primarily for its speculative and controversial content, including its anti-Catholic rhetoric and theological overreach. So, I'm not sure what game this is.

The Church does give liberty to believe it, to speculate on the possibilities, but does not require belief in an eternal chain of gods. When past prophets say things that causes confusion or distraction, modern prophets often do not reiterate them and that's by design.

Thus, the modern prophets like Gordon B. Hinckley, when asked about if “God was once a man” said: “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it. And I don’t think others know a lot about it.” (Time Magazine interview, 1997)

Russell M. Nelson’s General Conference talks contain: No speculation about God’s Father. No mention of eternal regression. A clear focus on Jesus Christ, covenants, and our current stewardship.

*** Also, it’s a common mistake, especially among amateur critics of the Church, where anything said by a famous 19th-century Church leader, in any venue, is assumed to be LDS doctrine. A secondhand composite of a funeral sermon, (unfortunately titled) private books like Mormon Doctrine or Doctrines of Salvation, even disavowed books, suddenly become ‘official’ doctrine the moment it fits their argument.

But that’s simply never been how doctrine works in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not now, and not even then. Ironically, critics who claim to "know LDS theology better than the LDS do", just betrays a shallow understanding when Latter-day Saints clarify that something isn't doctrine, start flooding the conversation with quotes from private sources or long-rejected theories doesn’t strengthen your case, it just proves you don’t understand what doctrine ever was.

Edited July 25, 2025 by Pyreaux

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, theplains said:

"If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the 
Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there 
ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son?  Whenever 
did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this 
way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus 
had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to 
death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it".

https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/109#full-transcript

The Prophet says: "If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father 
of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also." Then he asks: "Where 
was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a 
son?" (page 9).

I already explained how you are misinterpreting these quotes in my post to you on May 26, (where you tried to attribute some speculation from a BYU professor as a quote from Brigham Young, and I did a complete analysis of the statements in the King Follet Discourse and the Sermon in the Grove showing how your interpretation contradicts the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith's teachings) but you intentionally ignored my analysis and continued to repeat your assertions about "LDS theology".

Please engage my response to these quotes that I already posted.

8 hours ago, theplains said:

Evidently his Father passed through a period of mortality even as he passed through mortality, and 
as we all are doing. Our Father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since there 
has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father, until we come to 
a stop where we cannot go further, because of our limited capacity to understand  (page 249).

Joseph Fielding Smith
Doctrines of Salvation, 3-volume set
https://archive.org/download/JFSDoctrinesOfSalvation/JFSDoctrinesofSalvationv1-3.pdf

"We were begotten by our Father in heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a 
previous heavenly world by His Father, and again He was begotten by a still more ancient father 
and so on from generation to generation" (page 132).

Orson Pratt
The Seer
https://ia904606.us.archive.org/29/items/seereditedbyorso01unse/seereditedbyorso01unse_bw.pdf

 

"He came here, was born, had a father and mother like you have. Well, who was his father? Why 
God was His father; and who was God's father? Why God had a father like you and I have.

Now, with this information children can begin to understand something about their Heavenly Father. 
They can see that if Jesus is His Son, and we are His sons and daughters, that He must be the Son 
of some other personage, for He could not beget Himself, but must have a father even as He is our 
Father". 

Gospel Truths, volume 1, George Q. Cannon, page 128.

And none of this is published as official Church doctrine.

And I agree 100% with what Pyreaux said here:

6 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The Church does give liberty to believe it, to speculate on the possibilities, but does not require belief in an eternal chain of gods. 

I prefer to leave my options open but also not speculate too far beyond what has actually been revealed.  When we lock our thinking into a particular tradition we may end up being as blind as the first century scribes and Pharisees when Christ returns for the second time and tries to get us to open our minds to the reality of his teachings.

[The Nehor]

On 7/23/2025 at 1:57 PM, Pyreaux said:

Yhwh whom tradition thinks of as non-progressing had progressed, or were the works of Creation not progress? A once non-Creator in a void for eternity past, to the Creator of many things in several progressive days after. Progressing as He improves and expands His dominion the more He makes. Having inherited the nation of Israel from his Father, becoming the God of Israel in the fall of Babel (Deut 32:8-9) Jesus, traditionally considered fully God from eternity, the "I Am", progressed from a spirit into a human, grew in wisdom, experience temptations and suffered to perfect his judgment, died and resurrected, only then into the express image of His Father, exalted higher then when originally He left.

On the other hand, Eternal Regression and aspects of Eternal Progression are not canon revelations. It's not solid LDS doctrine that God the Father had a God, or a father, that there are past or future Satans or past or future Saviors. The only thing justified to say is what I call LDS "Relativity": what we speculate may exist, even if true, relatively, "to us" there are "no other" gods, or beings, or worlds or times to be concerned with, whether or not they already exist or will exist. "To us" there is only one true God, and one Lord, relatively, from all eternity to present human reckoning (1 Corinthians 8:5).

It is justified to ignore whether they exist. Doing so is in accord with 'covenantal loyalty' to give recognition and priority to Christ and the Father, as the only revealed beings. It aligns better with both scriptural teaching and modern LDS restraint. While early LDS teachings from King Follett Discourse or Journal of Discourses were never canonized in the Standard Works. The Church today emphasizes: The immediacy of God the Father, the centrality of Christ. a plan of salvation that, as far as we know, applies only to this world and human history, relatively.

Also Yahweh went from being a regional storm deity to a cosmic god that created all things and is all powerful. Then had a child and things got really crazy.

That is a lot of progress.

Edited July 26, 2025 by The Nehor

[Okrahomer]

On 7/24/2025 at 5:04 PM, InCognitus said:

When we lock our thinking into a particular tradition we may end up being as blind as the first century scribes and Pharisees when Christ returns for the second time and tries to get us to open our minds to the reality of his teachings.

“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”

[longview]

1 hour ago, Okrahomer said:

“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”

And: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

[GoCeltics]

On 7/23/2025 at 2:57 PM, Pyreaux said:

On the other hand, Eternal Regression and aspects of Eternal Progression are not canon revelations. It's not solid LDS doctrine that God the Father had a God, or a father, that there are past or future Satans or past or future Saviors. The only thing justified to say is what I call LDS "Relativity": what we speculate may exist, even if true, relatively, "to us" there are "no other" gods, or beings, or worlds or times to be concerned with, whether or not they already exist or will exist.

When I think of relativity in a family sense, you could say your brothers and sisters on other inhabited worlds are your relatives (Doctrine and Covenants 76:24).

It must of been of some need of God to show a limited vision of them to Moses (1:33-35).

[Pyreaux]

10 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

When I think of relativity in a family sense, you could say your brothers and sisters on other inhabited worlds are your relatives (Doctrine and Covenants 76:24).

It must of been of some need of God to show a limited vision of them to Moses (1:33-35).

I mean worlds before or to come. No Old-Jesus or a New-Jesus creating new worlds. No "my own planet" to be concerned with. If it happens it happens. Until it happens, it's not relevant now, there is no preemptive worship or homage to an unknown Jesus. "To us" there is no other Jesus. If there is an unknown Jesus, our Jesus is only relative to our world or worlds. An object moving in a void has no velocity, because velocity is relative, it's relative to other objects.

Midst all these hypotheticals like “other Jesuses” or “other gods” misses something fundamental: relativity. Though gods there "maybe" "to us," Paul wrote, “there is but one God... and one Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 8:6). It’s not a denial that God may have done other things elsewhere, it’s the discipline of worshiping this God, the one revealed to us, in our time and place.

We are not and will not be accountable to anyone or anything God hasn't clearly revealed.

Edited July 31, 2025 by Pyreaux

[theplains]

On 7/24/2025 at 12:29 PM, Pyreaux said:

The Church does give liberty to believe it, to speculate on the possibilities, but does not require belief in an eternal chain of gods. When past prophets say things that causes confusion or distraction, modern prophets often do not reiterate them and that's by design.

Thus, the modern prophets like Gordon B. Hinckley, when asked about if “God was once a man” said: “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it. And I don’t think others know a lot about it.” (Time Magazine interview, 1997)

The early LDS church leaders, as evidenced by their writings, were more sure of what they wrote 
than how modern equivalents have interpreted them.

As for Gordon B. Hinckley, "not knowing a lot about it" does not equal "not knowing of it at all".

[theplains]

On 7/24/2025 at 7:04 PM, InCognitus said:

I already explained how you are misinterpreting these quotes in my post to you on May 26, (where you tried to attribute some speculation from a BYU professor as a quote from Brigham Young, and I did a complete analysis of the statements in the King Follet Discourse and the Sermon in the Grove showing how your interpretation contradicts the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith's teachings) but you intentionally ignored my analysis and continued to repeat your assertions about "LDS theology".

" ... 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. These 
are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple".

This ideas are comprehensible and simple to me, even though I don't believe them.

[CV75]

On 7/31/2025 at 11:08 AM, theplains said:

" ... 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. These 
are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple".

This ideas are comprehensible and simple to me, even though I don't believe them.

That is fine; Church members have the same prerogative. What is your beef with the Church on this point?

[InCognitus]

On 7/31/2025 at 9:08 AM, theplains said:

On 7/24/2025 at 5:04 PM, InCognitus said:

I already explained how you are misinterpreting these quotes in my post to you on May 26, (where you tried to attribute some speculation from a BYU professor as a quote from Brigham Young, and I did a complete analysis of the statements in the King Follet Discourse and the Sermon in the Grove showing how your interpretation contradicts the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith's teachings) but you intentionally ignored my analysis and continued to repeat your assertions about "LDS theology".

" ... 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. These 
are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple".

This ideas are comprehensible and simple to me, even though I don't believe them.

This statement from the King Follet Discourse taken out of context doesn't support your view.  Any statement taken out of context might seem to be "comprehensible" in some way that the original author did not intend.  As I have explained many times before, Joseph Smith made it clear in that same sermon how God became our God with respect to the relationship we have with God.  See my post on 03/29/2025, and many others.

It all comes down to this:

“The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.”  (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 354)

In other words, all our worship and all our devotion is to the one God who is above all other gods.  Heavenly Father [the God of all worlds, which are without number] is the one Eternal God of all other gods (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32), and when we learn how to be Gods ourselves (through God’s plan as provided in the scripture), we become “kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before” us.  We are always subject to the one God and Father who is above all others.  And He isn’t made a king and a priest unto anyone else, since he is the one God who is “above all” (Ephesians 4:6).

[theplains]

On 8/2/2025 at 9:07 PM, CV75 said:

That is fine; Church members have the same prerogative. What is your beef with the Church on this point?

No beef.

[CV75]

21 hours ago, theplains said:

No beef.

So this is a critical, comparative exchange of beliefs between individual and I have no beef with that!  I just noticed you signature, "It isn’t a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true" (Boyd K. Packer, 1977, Follow the Rule, speeches.byu.edu)."

It is evidently true that there are a couple of (or more) ways to understand whether or how God became God in a way that inspires trust in His love, goodness, understanding and plan for us (every attribute He asks of us), most highly expressed in the gift of His Son. Wherever those in good faith begin, however small or incorrect that faith in Him, Christ will lead them into His atoning covenant relationship, and hopefully critical, comparative exchanges like these can lead to that. Even if it begins as a purely scholarly, academic exercise.

I think it helpful to consider what is true in each belief.

Edited August 5, 2025 by CV75

[theplains]

On 8/5/2025 at 9:23 AM, CV75 said:

It is evidently true that there are a couple of (or more) ways to understand whether or how God became God

What's the case for you: whether or how God became a God?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

What's the case for you: whether or how God became a God?

I carry two perspectives in this world: 1) He is the only God I have ever known. 2) I am one of numberless souls He has ever known, and whose lives He has personally and perfectly experienced from start (fallen mortality) to finish (exalted gods). In this way, He has simultaneously always been and became God. This "simultaniety" is a function of atonement and applied agency, and is therefore viewed from the observer's frame of reference (referred to as "reckoning" in the Book of Abraham). I can only view things from my mortal perspective except when my understanding is spiritually "quickened" by God.