The war in heaven

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

As a new member, you can't edit your posts until you reach 25 posts.  

I wish!  Not opened yet for new members apparently (due to spam invasion Nemesis had to lock the board).

Clear joined in 2014.  Glad to see some new posting though (if they have posted before, it seems to have been in the deleted threads).  Always love to meet new people…well, almost always to be accurate.   

Edited September 23, 2025 by Calm

[Clear]

Thank you InCognitus for the explanation and Calm for the "re-welcoming".   

[theplains]

On 9/15/2025 at 5:06 PM, Calm said:

No, the logic is an apple only becomes food when someone eats it or maybe when someone wants to eat it

God is not God’s personal name with this logic, but a title for his role as our God, a role which only begins when we are present in some way.  Similar to my kids calling me Mom.  Me being called Mother didn’t make sense until I became a mother.

So God is not God from eternity to eternity in your logic.

[theplains]

On 9/15/2025 at 6:06 PM, CV75 said:

More accurately, in a way it becomes an apple when you become aware of it and call it such. If you worshipped it, it would also become God to you.

So God is not God from eternity to eternity in your view.

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

So God is not God from eternity to eternity in your view.

The Bible doesn't even say that.  It says, "Before mountains were brought forth, And Thou dost form the earth and the world, Even from age unto age Thou art God." (Psalm 90:2, YLT).

Edited September 24, 2025 by InCognitus

[CV75]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

So God is not God from eternity to eternity in your view.

A partial recognition like that is like me concluding that your view is that God became God once you began worshipping Him. I suppose you might consider that as being "from eternity to eternity."

[Calm]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

So God is not God from eternity to eternity in your logic.

Depends on what you mean by God and what is meant by eternity.

 

Edited September 24, 2025 by Calm

[Stargazer]

On 7/16/2025 at 8:04 AM, The Nehor said:

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

How else should I state it that would make you believe I think you're opinion has merit, but I have my doubts about it? I disagree with you, but I can't tell you whether you're right or wrong. The Jeremiah verse does seem to suggest pre-existence, and I think it does. But Jesus's response to the apostles when they asked if the man was born blind because of his or his parents' sin, whereby he didn't say they were wrong to assume the man could have sinned before birth or conception, but left it the way they asked it, is a better indication of pre-existence. This is my opinion, which you or anyone else is entitled to disagree with. And to tell me that I am wrong.

If I wanted to say it the way you want to take it, I would not say it the way you suggest. I would tell you that you are flat out wrong.

Please don't put words in my mouth. 

Edited September 25, 2025 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 6/28/2025 at 4:56 PM, GoCeltics said:

My questions are drawn from what I read in the church’s gospel topics.

When 1/3 of Heavenly Father’s spirit children followed Satan and 2/3 followed Jesus Christ, would this mean that Heavenly Father ceased to have any future spirit children after the war in heaven? Or did all the spirit children born after the war still need to grow up to maturity and make a choice to keep the 1/3 and 2/3 ratios intact?

Prior to this war, were all the spirit children of heavenly parents of sufficient age to make an informed choice or were they like those of Nineveh who could not discern between their right and left hands?

You're asking questions. Good!  I would like to know your thoughts on a few things, so may I ask you some? These are not the seeds of later "gotchas;" I am simply curious. I realize that I may be asking you to speculate!

A. The nature of the Universe:

1. Considering the universe as observed from Earth, do you feel that it is as extensive as scientific observation has concluded, namely that the observable universe together with all the stars/suns/galaxies is approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter as seen from Earth, and these objects are real and may have planets similar to those in our solar system?
2. Or do you feel that the observed universe is a backdrop that does not represent real objects, or in other words, it's largely a light-show for our benefit? 

B. Origin and timing of the creation of souls. I assume that you don't believe in the pre-existence of souls/spirits.

1. Do you feel that souls come into being from nothing at the moment of conception, and that God waits for conception before creating a soul?
2. Or does God keep a supply of souls on hand, not yet conscious, for use when babies are conceived?

C. What of those who did not live in a time or place where they had the opportunity to hear of Jesus Christ? In other words, are those ignorant of Jesus Christ going to hell? Open question for you, as I have read many responses to this from many different denominations. Just curious what your take is on it. Many of the responses I have read allow for ignorance on the topic.

Edited September 25, 2025 by Stargazer

[teddyaware]

On 9/24/2025 at 10:11 AM, theplains said:

So God is not God from eternity to eternity in your view.

In 2 Nephi 2, the Prophet Lehi makes it abundantly clear that from all eternity to all eternity there always has been and always will be a God, an intelligent Supreme Being of infinite and eternal knowledge, wisdom and power who rules and reigns forever over all things that exist, and that nothing can exist independent of his existence. Because existence can only be affirmed upon the eternal framework of the eternal principle of opposition in all things, God has always had to exist because it’s impossible for nonexistence to create anything. 

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2)

Edited September 26, 2025 by teddyaware

[ZealouslyStriving]

On 9/24/2025 at 7:11 AM, theplains said:

So God is not God from eternity to eternity in your view.

Of course not... God has always existed, I have always existed, you have always existed- we are all eternal beings, who have always existed and will always exist, worlds without end.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

How else should I state it that would make you believe I think your opinion has merit, but I have my doubts about it?

How about “it sounds interesting and reasonable, but I am not convinced”?

The word “entitled” has baggage attached to it imo and also carries the connotation imo that one is obligated to accept the other has a right to their opinion, which can imply the person isn’t all that satisfied with the situation.

When that is all one says, there is no actual engagement with the points the other made.  It is rather dismissive because of this imo.

Edited September 26, 2025 by Calm

[Clear]

Hi Teddyaware and ZealouslyStriving

 

While I don’t care to enter the debate, I might make a point regarding the underlying text to see if a linguistic insight changes your thoughts.

In English, we have the phrase “Forever and ever”, which, on the surface, sounds redundant. 

However, the phrase in both the Greek and Hebrew of Psalms 90:2 (89:2 in Greek LXX) makes clear that it refers to God from “forever” of the past and into “forever” in the future.

Thus, in Enoch the phrase (m’ olam, l’ olam – “forever and ever”)  (וּֽמֵעֹולָ֥ם עַד־ע֝וֹלָ֗ם in Ben Chaim – לָ instead of עַד֥) the phrase means FROM eternity past and into eternity future.  

Notice that the same meaning is present in the Jewish Greek LXX και απο του αιωνος και εως του αιωνος συ ει (LXX 89:2)

"Before the mountains existed and before the earth and the world even from the eons (past) and until the eon (future), you are God." (pslm 90:2 heb / 89:2 LXX)

While the Hebrew Olam and the Greek eon don’t really mean “eternal” or “forever”, they do refer to an indeterminant amount of time.

 

In any case, good luck coming to your own models as to what this verse means.

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

How about “it sounds interesting and reasonable, but I am not convinced”?

The word “entitled” has baggage attached to it imo and also carries the connotation imo that one is obligated to accept the other has a right to their opinion, which can imply the person isn’t all that satisfied with the situation.

When that is all one says, there is no actual engagement with the points the other made.  It is rather dismissive because of this imo.

Oddly enough, as cosmopolitan as I am, I was not aware that "You are entitled to your opinion" has baggage, other than its plain meaning. So I am not as cosmopolitan as I thought. I shall take note of your less encumbered alternative.

I like "Of course, you may imagine any old thing you like." Or "I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong."   

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 hours ago, Clear said:

Hi Teddyaware and ZealouslyStriving

 

While I don’t care to enter the debate, I might make a point regarding the underlying text to see if a linguistic insight changes your thoughts.

In English, we have the phrase “Forever and ever”, which, on the surface, sounds redundant. 

However, the phrase in both the Greek and Hebrew of Psalms 90:2 (89:2 in Greek LXX) makes clear that it refers to God from “forever” of the past and into “forever” in the future.

Thus, in Enoch the phrase (m’ olam, l’ olam – “forever and ever”)  (וּֽמֵעֹולָ֥ם עַד־ע֝וֹלָ֗ם in Ben Chaim – לָ instead of עַד֥) the phrase means FROM eternity past and into eternity future.  

Notice that the same meaning is present in the Jewish Greek LXX και απο του αιωνος και εως του αιωνος συ ει (LXX 89:2)

"Before the mountains existed and before the earth and the world even from the eons (past) and until the eon (future), you are God." (pslm 90:2 heb / 89:2 LXX)

While the Hebrew Olam and the Greek eon don’t really mean “eternal” or “forever”, they do refer to an indeterminant amount of time.

 

In any case, good luck coming to your own models as to what this verse means.

Not entirely sure of the point you are trying to make- changes my thoughts on what? What do you think my thoughts are?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Oddly enough, as cosmopolitan as I am, I was not aware that "You are entitled to your opinion" has baggage, other than its plain meaning. So I am not as cosmopolitan as I thought. I shall take note of your less encumbered alternative.

I like "Of course, you may imagine any old thing you like." Or "I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong."   

I think the most important point is it those things are all you say in response rather than talking about the ideas the other presented, even if only briefly.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think the most important point is it those things are all you say in response rather than talking about the ideas the other presented, even if only briefly.

So you feel someone should continue a conversation they feel has reached an impasse?

[GoCeltics]

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You're asking questions. Good!  I would like to know your thoughts on a few things, so may I ask you some? These are not the seeds of later "gotchas;" I am simply curious. I realize that I may be asking you to speculate!

A. The nature of the Universe:

1. Considering the universe as observed from Earth, do you feel that it is as extensive as scientific observation has concluded, namely that the observable universe together with all the stars/suns/galaxies is approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter as seen from Earth, and these objects are real and may have planets similar to those in our solar system?
2. Or do you feel that the observed universe is a backdrop that does not represent real objects, or in other words, it's largely a light-show for our benefit? 

B. Origin and timing of the creation of souls. I assume that you don't believe in the pre-existence of souls/spirits.

1. Do you feel that souls come into being from nothing at the moment of conception, and that God waits for conception before creating a soul?
2. Or does God keep a supply of souls on hand, not yet conscious, for use when babies are conceived?

C. What of those who did not live in a time or place where they had the opportunity to hear of Jesus Christ? In other words, are those ignorant of Jesus Christ going to hell? Open question for you, as I have read many responses to this from many different denominations. Just curious what your take is on it. Many of the responses I have read allow for ignorance on the topic.

A. The universe observed from Earth is not as extensive as science can observe. It is not a light show. Maybe some day they will be inhabited by us.

B. You are correct. I do not believe humans created as eternal uncreated intelligences (spirits).

For souls, I would point you to a passage in Genesis.  “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul”.  Somehow God enables a living soul at conception.

C. I think all people have some knowledge of God through creation and conscience, which holds them accountable, even if they haven’t heard the gospel (Romans 1:19-20; 2:14–16).

[ZealouslyStriving]

11 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

A. The universe observed from Earth is not as extensive as science can observe. It is not a light show. Maybe some day they will be inhabited by us.

So you believe the universe is smaller than current scientific theories?

"inhabited by us"? Expound, please.

11 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

B. You are correct. I do not believe humans created as eternal uncreated intelligences (spirits).

For souls, I would point you to a passage in Genesis.  “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul”.  Somehow God enables a living soul at conception.

C. I think all people have some knowledge of God through creation and conscience, which holds them accountable, even if they haven’t heard the gospel (Romans 1:19-20; 2:14–16).

B. "created as eternal uncreated..."

*** You lost me on that. Please, clarify.

C. We sort of agree here. We believe men are judged according to the law and knowledge which they actually possess. If their current religious paradigm teaches that adultery is wrong and they commit adultery, they will be judged as an adulter, even if the don't possess the fullness of the Gospel.

[theplains]

16 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Of course not... God has always existed, I have always existed, you have always existed- we are all eternal beings, who have always existed and will always exist, worlds without end.

Yes, as an eternal uncreated intelligence. He has a beginning as God when he becomes God,
after he is born to his heavenly parents (Christ's grandparents) and then progressed to Godhood.

[theplains]

16 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In 2 Nephi 2, the Prophet Lehi makes it abundantly clear that from all eternity to all eternity there always has been and always will be a God, an intelligent Supreme Being of infinite and eternal knowledge, wisdom and power who rules and reigns forever over all things that exist

A God whom you don't worship.

[theplains]

On 9/24/2025 at 11:43 AM, CV75 said:

A partial recognition like that is like me concluding that your view is that God became God once you began worshipping Him. I suppose you might consider that as being "from eternity to eternity."

God is God before anyone worships Him and before He creates anything.

[theplains]

On 9/24/2025 at 11:28 AM, InCognitus said:

The Bible doesn't even say that.  It says, "Before mountains were brought forth, And Thou dost form the earth and the world, Even from age unto age Thou art God." (Psalm 90:2, YLT).

From all ages in eternity past to all ages in eternity future. This cannot be said of the LDS
Heavenly Father; a man who became a God.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Yes, as an eternal uncreated intelligence. He has a beginning as God when he becomes God,
after he is born to his heavenly parents (Christ's grandparents) and then progressed to Godhood.

That is one theory among several. Perhaps, you should explore the musings of LDS theologian Blake Ostler for a different take.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

From all ages in eternity past to all ages in eternity future. This cannot be said of the LDS
Heavenly Father; a man who became a God.

And yet your unchangeable, immaterial God — who is the same yesterday, today and forever — took upon himself a material body in a fallen world. And this same unchangeable, omnipotent, omniscient, immaterial God became a helpless baby in a material world who was utterly incapable of taking care of himself. This same putatively omniscient God then had to learn, be instructed and mature in order to be able to grow in grace and knowledge until he eventually became perfect, learning how to be perfectly obedient through the things which he suffered. And then, of all crazy things, this same unchangeable and immaterial God experientially suffered all things, died, and then rose from the dead with a tangible, material body that will never again die!

Ultimately, your problem with Latter-Day Saint theology is that you don’t understanding the nature of eternity, for eternity is a divine state of existence wherein all things past, present and future exist in one eternal NOW, which allows for God to experience dynamic changes firsthand  while simultaneously also being unchangeable. And just because you can’t wrap your mind around the idea that it’s possible for all things past, present and future to exist in one eternal now doesn’t mean that it isn’t true.

Edited September 26, 2025 by teddyaware