The war in heaven

[CV75]

2 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

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

Please describe God in that context. As with definitions not using the word for the definition, provide the description without using the premise for the description.

[Stargazer]

On 7/4/2025 at 8:34 PM, The Nehor said:

My reading is nuanced. I am skeptical of the liar in the narrative. Why does everyone else assume Korihor suddenly starts telling the truth at that point? That is how our fictional entertainment does it with the villain rarely deceiving the audience and you can usually trust what they say. Liars in real life just keep lying. If this is supposed to be a true story I have no reason to trust Korihor.

Perhaps Korihor was trying for a deathbed confession? It happens in real life sometimes. And then again, some deathbed confessions have turned out to be false as well. So... I'll just take Korihor's story at face value for the sake of complexity reduction.

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Perhaps Korihor was trying for a deathbed confession? It happens in real life sometimes. And then again, some deathbed confessions have turned out to be false as well. So... I'll just take Korihor's story at face value for the sake of complexity reduction.

Nah, Korihor was trying to trick his way into getting magical healing.

[Stargazer]

On 7/8/2025 at 2:34 PM, GoCeltics said:

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

An assertion proves nothing. I ask: says who?

Examining the New Testament we uncover evidence that we can progress from a less-developed state. If we can do so, why couldn't God have done so? Just because the idea makes you uncomfortable?

To start with, allowing the false assumption that we did not exist until God called us into being, we must have started from a foundational less-developed state. And what does God hope to make of us? Heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. Paul wrote in Romans 8:16,17 -> "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."

What is an heir? The heir of a duke is a duke. The heir of a king is a king. So what is the heir of God? Must be a god. We are constantly being described as children of God, and have been described as such from the very beginning. What does it mean to be glorified together with God? Take a wild guess.

Even John recognized this, as he wrote in 1 John 3:2 -> "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." Clearly, though we are not like him now, we shall be like him in due time, God willing.

What does mainstream Christianity imagine that God made us for? Are we God's pets? Or His amusing pastime? What use does an eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent being have for creating lesser volitional beings whom He loves so much that he sends his only Begotten Son to die an ignominious and tortuous death at the hands of those lesser volitional beings, just to save those same beings from their own folly? That's madness, if we are only his pets.  Does God need created beings who worship Him? If he needs such, then how can He be a God at all? And if he doesn't need such, why create lesser beings in the first place? His hobby, perhaps?

God is working to raise us up to His level. Not to replace Him, but to join Him. So says your own scripture. Which is why it was revealed to Joseph Smith what God's true purpose is:

Moses 1:39 -> "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." And while in another place, D&C 76:50-70, it is said of those whom God raises up: "Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God— Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s."

And if God is doing this for us, how can it be said that such was not done for Him? After all, didn't Jesus say that he was doing nothing of himself?

John 5:19,20 -> "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel."

Edited to add:

I was conflicted about answering your assertion at all, because I can't help but answer it in ways that mainstream Christianity finds offensive. I don't intend to offend. I don't want to offend. But it remains the case that theosis is taught in the Bible, and if God is trying to raise us up to be like Him, then the possibility inevitably follows that the same thing was done for Him. You can say that He was the original and no other exists, and there exists scripture that suggests this. Isaiah 43:10 -> "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." [emphasis added]

This is problematic, but not for the reason you might think. "Before me there was no God formed," he says, but this strongly suggests that He, God, was formed. This contradicts the Athanasian Creed's claim, "the Father  is  uncreated,  the  Son  is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated." Athanasius clearly didn't read Isaiah very closely.

Assuming that Isaiah was transmitted and translated correctly, it means that God our Father is the only God that we have to do with. Whatever formed Him is not our God, and whomever god He forms after Him is likewise not our God. 

In any event, Lorenzo Snow's couplet, "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become," conforms to the scriptural light that has been revealed whenever true doctrine was upon the earth.

Edited July 9, 2025 by Stargazer

[GoCeltics]

On 7/8/2025 at 11:38 AM, CV75 said:

Please describe God in that context. As with definitions not using the word for the definition, provide the description without using the premise for the description.

Maybe the simplest is "Before Abraham was, I am".

[CV75]

ETA; @GoCeltics --  I either missed the Quote function or it didn't work, but meant to reply to you.

Of course, relative to Adam and His posterity. This is how the brother of Jared could see His flesh and blood finger, and then much more, prior to His coming to the earth in the flesh (or Abraham). Plus, "I Am" is more a title of Godhood than it is a descriptor of how long He had been God or whether/how He progressed to that title/Godhood.

Edited July 11, 2025 by CV75

[GoCeltics]

23 hours ago, CV75 said:

Plus, "I Am" is more a title of Godhood than it is a descriptor of how long He had been God or whether/how He progressed to that title/Godhood.

What do you mean he progressed to Godhood?

[GoCeltics]

On 7/9/2025 at 9:56 AM, Stargazer said:

Examining the New Testament we uncover evidence that we can progress from a less-developed state. If we can do so, why couldn't God have done so? Just because the idea makes you uncomfortable?

How is it that he progressed into becoming a God?
 

On 7/9/2025 at 9:56 AM, Stargazer said:

To start with, allowing the false assumption that we did not exist until God called us into being, we must have started from a foundational less-developed state. And what does God hope to make of us? Heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. Paul wrote in Romans 8:16,17 -> "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."

What is an heir? The heir of a duke is a duke. The heir of a king is a king. So what is the heir of God? Must be a god.

If all children were gods when they were born to a heavenly father long ago, then what does Doctrine and Covenants 132:20-22 mean when it says only some will become gods?

“Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory. For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me”.

Some other questions about verse 20.

If gods have no end, what does it say of the non-gods? Do they have an end?  Can non-gods also be from everlasting to everlasting?  Do non-gods also continue?
 

On 7/9/2025 at 9:56 AM, Stargazer said:

We are constantly being described as children of God, and have been described as such from the very beginning. What does it mean to be glorified together with God? Take a wild guess.

Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden, were made in God’s image but they were not gods.  They became as God when they ate from the forbidden tree.

Glorification is God's ultimate act of removing sin from the lives of the saints, making them blameless as they stand before Him in eternal glory.
 

On 7/9/2025 at 9:56 AM, Stargazer said:

Even John recognized this, as he wrote in 1 John 3:2 -> "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." Clearly, though we are not like him now, we shall be like him in due time, God willing.

I find that LDS theology equates “we shall be like him (like God)” with “we shall be him (a God)”.
 

On 7/9/2025 at 9:56 AM, Stargazer said:

What does mainstream Christianity imagine that God made us for? Are we God's pets? Or His amusing pastime? What use does an eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent being have for creating lesser volitional beings whom He loves so much that he sends his only Begotten Son to die an ignominious and tortuous death at the hands of those lesser volitional beings, just to save those same beings from their own folly? That's madness, if we are only his pets.  Does God need created beings who worship Him? If he needs such, then how can He be a God at all? And if he doesn't need such, why create lesser beings in the first place? His hobby, perhaps?

He created us for his glory, not ours. Apart from that, I don’t know as he has not revealed a lot of his purposes.  “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him”.

God doesn’t need us.
 

On 7/9/2025 at 9:56 AM, Stargazer said:

God is working to raise us up to His level. Not to replace Him, but to join Him. So says your own scripture. Which is why it was revealed to Joseph Smith what God's true purpose is:

Moses 1:39 -> "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." And while in another place, D&C 76:50-70, it is said of those whom God raises up: "Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God— Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s."

And if God is doing this for us, how can it be said that such was not done for Him? After all, didn't Jesus say that he was doing nothing of himself?

Who brought about Heavenly Father’s immortality and eternal life and how?
 

On 7/9/2025 at 9:56 AM, Stargazer said:

Assuming that Isaiah was transmitted and translated correctly, it means that God our Father is the only God that we have to do with. Whatever formed Him is not our God, and whomever god He forms after Him is likewise not our God. 

In any event, Lorenzo Snow's couplet, "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become," conforms to the scriptural light that has been revealed whenever true doctrine was upon the earth.

Who formed your heavenly father?

Snow’s couplet means God was not a God when he was once a man and that man can be made into a God sometime in the future. 

Following your thought leads to spirit children of these future Gods worshipping their own Father God (as you mentioned, “the only God they have to do with”).
 

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

How is it that he progressed into becoming a God?

Who knows? But I presume by the same process He intends to bring us to that point. As I brought it up before

"Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel." - John 5:19,20

The Son does what He see the Father do. And I presume that this is not the first time it was done.

4 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

If all children were gods when they were born to a heavenly father long ago,

Let me stop you right there because this is a false statement. They were not born as gods. The were born as potential gods. As C.S. Lewis once wrote:

"It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible Gods and Goddesses. To remember that the dullest, and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship."

Lewis had obviously read the New Testament for its intent.

4 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

then what does Doctrine and Covenants 132:20-22 mean when it says only some will become gods?

“Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory. For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me”.

Because only some will be worthy of it. I don't get why you doubt this. It is recorded in 2 Cor. 12:2 that Paul had been caught up to the third heaven. THIRD heaven? Well there must be a first and a second one, then! What are they all for? He also wrote that there were three different resurrections, which he characterized as like the sun, the moon, and the stars. To the first two he gave names: celestial; and terrestrial. He left the third unnamed. This is recorded in 1 Cor. 14:40-42. If there are three heavens, then there must be a way to distinguish who goes into which heaven, and there must be differences between the heavens, and who is worthy to go into each of them.

Logically, it should seem that the highest would be called the celestial; and the middle one must be the terrestrial. Which one was the third one that Paul visited? I have no idea, but it had to be either the lowest or the highest, but not the middle. Whatever.

I can tell you who doesn't get into the highest, though. D&C 76:29 states of those raised to the Terrestrial kingdom: "These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God." But these are they who accepted the testimony of Jesus and received of His grace.

4 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Some other questions about verse 20.

If gods have no end, what does it say of the non-gods? Do they have an end?  Can non-gods also be from everlasting to everlasting?  Do non-gods also continue?

Of course. Can anything God creates have an end? You mainstream Christians like to claim that those who go to Hell suffer in fire and brimstone forever. So you don't even believe the hell-bound stop or end. 

4 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden, were made in God’s image but they were not gods.  They became as God when they ate from the forbidden tree.

Became as God, but were not Gods. "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil". After the Fall, Adam and Eve didn't merely look like God, they knew something God knew, which was good and evil. 

4 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Glorification is God's ultimate act of removing sin from the lives of the saints, making them blameless as they stand before Him in eternal glory.

Tell me something I don't know. 

On the other hand, here we start diverging into theological language. What is "glorification"? What are the related terms "justification" and "sanctification"? There's a very interesting article in the June 2001 edition of the Ensign magazine on the topic of "Justification and Sanctification" that was written by Elder D. Todd Christofferson, then of the Presidency of the Seventy (but now of the Twelve). If you wish, you can read it here: "Justification and Sanctification".

I tend to think of glorification as what happens to those who have been sanctified and justified by grace, and who have also been valiant in the testimony of Jesus. But that's just my private interpretation, with apologies to St. Peter (2 Peter 1:20).

4 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

I find that LDS theology equates “we shall be like him (like God)” with “we shall be him (a God)”.

You find incorrectly. We are like Him, but we shall not be Him. For He will be our God forever.

4 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

He created us for his glory, not ours.

Again, tell me something I don't know. And again, I quote Moses 1:39 "This is my work and my glory: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." And in this context, the word "immortality" means never-dying, and "eternal life" means "God's life." But when he glorifies us, as you stated above, we receive of His glory, and are glorified. I put it to you that it is not a mere side-effect, but God's very intention. He is glorified further in the glory he lends to us.

4 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Apart from that, I don’t know as he has not revealed a lot of his purposes.  “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him”.

Ah, but it has been revealed. Maybe not every detail, but in general terms:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." Rev 3:21

What does it mean to you to be invited to be enthroned upon the throne of God? 

4 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

God doesn’t need us.

He made us. Obviously he needed us, otherwise he wouldn't have done it. Prove me wrong.

4 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Who brought about Heavenly Father’s immortality and eternal life and how?

You asked this already. I don't know. I don't care. It's not important. 

4 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Snow’s couplet means God was not a God when he was once a man and that man can be made into a God sometime in the future. 

Half of Snow's couplet is a very Patristic doctrine, too. Here's what some of the Patristic Fathers taught:

• "For He was made man that we might be made God" - Athanasius, de Incarnatione verbi, 54,3
• "Our Lord Jesus Christ, through His transcendent love, became what we are, so that He might bring us to be what He Himself is." - Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, vol. 5
• What man is, Christ was willing to be - so that man may also be what Christ is." - Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise VI
• "God made us so that we might become 'partakers of the divine nature' and sharers in His eternity, and so that we might come to be like Him through deification by grace." - Maximus the Confessor, Various Texts 1:42
• "God has created all things that man may be saved and deified." - Antony the Great, On the Character or Men and on the Virtuous Life (168)

And if the one half is a Christian doctrine, what stops the other from being such? Your discomfort? I go back to this: Jesus telling the people that he is only doing what He has seen the Father do (John 5:19,20). It is here that I find the other half of Snow's couplet in the New Testament, in Jesus's own words. If the Son, Jesus, was in mortality, then He must have seen the Father in the same place. If we can believe the scriptures, anyway.

4 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Following your thought leads to spirit children of these future Gods worshipping their own Father God (as you mentioned, “the only God they have to do with”).
 

Of course. 

Although the expression "the only God they have to do with" is not my words. That sounds like a paraphrase of something Brigham Young once said.

 

-----------

 

Here you can read my Testimony of Jesus Christ

 

Edited July 11, 2025 by Stargazer
syntax correction

[CV75]

On 7/10/2025 at 9:55 AM, CV75 said:

ETA; @GoCeltics --  I either missed the Quote function or it didn't work, but meant to reply to you.

Of course, relative to Adam and His posterity. This is how the brother of Jared could see His flesh and blood finger, and then much more, prior to His coming to the earth in the flesh (or Abraham). Plus, "I Am" is more a title of Godhood than it is a descriptor of how long He had been God or whether/how He progressed to that title/Godhood.

It is what you meant when you referred to His progress here Posted Tuesday at 09:34 AM in reply to what I said here Posted July 2 ; so you seemed to already understand what I meant.

But my comment on Tuesday was about misapplying "I Am” as a way to describe whether/how He progresses or progressed and was not to discuss whether or not He progresses at this point. You think He doesn’t; I think He does. I can see it both ways at the same time as a matter of semantics (in some ways yes, in some ways no). This is an example of differences between classical or historical Christianity and the restored Gospel.

I would say that God is the source of all, dependent on none, and lacking in nothing [classical] as far as we concerned [restored]. I believe growth and progress are two infinite and eternal attributes or graces He integrates (or reconciles) with all the others [restored] as a function of the principle of atonement.

For example, a zygote grows or progresses not because it is driven by deficiency or development, but because that is the nature of a zygote. The zygote stage is not an indicator of imperfection or incompleteness, since for all intents and purposes its "person" in the current and future states are redeemed in life or death to continue the journey back to God. The same underlying principle of growth, incorporated with every other necessary principle (especially the spiritual), continues infinitely and eternally in as many contexts with God. His journey s not to return to God as ours is, but to expand His experience with creation with those with whom He is one.

There is plenty of theological ground covered on this particular scholarly topic elsewhere, so I think for a thread topic like this, and for practical purposes, what matters most is that we live the Gospel as we haply come to know it, whichever orientation (or both, as do I) is preferred.

[The Nehor]

I don’t find this reading progression from statements in the Bible concept to be convincing. There is no evidence the writers believed it.

When people go into the weeds of a General Conference talk and try to intuit stuff out of metaphors or take ambiguous language to support heterodox positions they are often told to knock it off. Not sure what about the source being the Bible changes that.

One of the most obnoxious to me is pulling a doctrine of premortality out of Jeremiah. It is just a huge stretch on what was said and there isn’t any support for the idea that Judaism had such a doctrine.

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t find this reading progression from statements in the Bible concept to be convincing. There is no evidence the writers believed it.

It depends on what you mean by "this" and It". 

If you mean the New Testament texts on deification (humans who are led by the spirit of God and receive Christ become "gods"), then there are many scholarly research articles on how the early Christians understood these writings as referring to deification and a belief in the existence of many "gods".  See for example:  BLACKWELL, BENJAMIN,CAREY (2010) Christosis: Pauline Soteriology in Light of Deification in Irenaeus and Cyril of Alexandria, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses, Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/219/

Or even David Burnett's “‘So Shall Your Seed Be’: Paul’s Use of Genesis 15:5 in Romans 4:18 in Light of Early Jewish Deification Traditions.” in Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 5.2 (2015): 211–36 (found here), where he explains, "When taken qualitatively, for Abraham’s seed to become as the stars of heaven meant to become as the gods or angels, the celestial bodies, the “fathers (πατέρας) of the nations (ἐθνῶν)” who had been allotted to rule the nations."

[GoCeltics]

On 7/11/2025 at 1:28 PM, Stargazer said:

Who knows? But I presume by the same process He intends to bring us to that point. As I brought it up before

So he and Heavenly Mother, while living as mortals on another world, needed atonement for their sins so they could be brought to that point too?
 

On 7/11/2025 at 1:28 PM, Stargazer said:

Let me stop you right there because this is a false statement. They were not born as gods. The were born as potential gods. As C.S. Lewis once wrote:

"It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible Gods and Goddesses. To remember that the dullest, and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship."

Lewis had obviously read the New Testament for its intent.

I found this teaching from a former church president (John Taylor):

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-john-taylor/chapter-1?lang=eng

"In another point of view, we look at him as emanating from the Gods—as a God in embryo—as an eternal being who had an existence before he came here, and who will exist after his mortal remains are mingled and associated with dust, from whence he came, and from whence he will be resurrected and partake of that happiness for which he is destined, or receive the reward of his evil deeds, according to circumstances.

What is [man]? He had his being in the eternal worlds; he existed before he came here. He is not only the son of man, but he is the son of God also. He is a God in embryo, and possesses within him a spark of that eternal flame which was struck from the blaze of God’s eternal fire in the eternal world, and is placed here upon the earth that he may possess true intelligence, true light, true knowledge,—that he may know himself—that he may know God—that he may know something about what he was before he came here—that he may know something about what he is destined to enjoy in the eternal worlds.

If we take man, he is said to have been made in the image of God, for the simple reason that he is a son of God, and being his son, he is, of course, his offspring, an emanation from God, in whose likeness, we are told, he is made. He did not originate from a chaotic mass of matter, moving or inert, but came forth possessing, in an embryonic state, all the faculties and powers of a God. And when he shall be perfected, and have progressed to maturity, he will be like his Father—a God, being indeed His offspring. As the horse, the ox, the sheep, and every living creature, including man, propagates its own species and perpetuates its own kind, so does God perpetuate his".
 

On 7/11/2025 at 1:28 PM, Stargazer said:

Because only some will be worthy of it. I don't get why you doubt this. It is recorded in 2 Cor. 12:2 that Paul had been caught up to the third heaven. THIRD heaven? Well there must be a first and a second one, then! What are they all for? He also wrote that there were three different resurrections, which he characterized as like the sun, the moon, and the stars. To the first two he gave names: celestial; and terrestrial. He left the third unnamed. This is recorded in 1 Cor. 14:40-42. If there are three heavens, then there must be a way to distinguish who goes into which heaven, and there must be differences between the heavens, and who is worthy to go into each of them.

Some view the three heavens as the sky, outer space, and then a spiritual heaven.
 

On 7/11/2025 at 1:28 PM, Stargazer said:

On the other hand, here we start diverging into theological language. What is "glorification"? What are the related terms "justification" and "sanctification"? There's a very interesting article in the June 2001 edition of the Ensign magazine on the topic of "Justification and Sanctification" that was written by Elder D. Todd Christofferson, then of the Presidency of the Seventy (but now of the Twelve). If you wish, you can read it here: "Justification and Sanctification".

Will do.
 

On 7/11/2025 at 1:28 PM, Stargazer said:

Ah, but it has been revealed. Maybe not every detail, but in general terms:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." Rev 3:21

What does it mean to you to be invited to be enthroned upon the throne of God? 

The scriptures reveal that we shall judge the world and angels (1 Corinthians 6:2-3).

I don’t find the concept of the faithful having roles in judgment in the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants.
 

On 7/11/2025 at 1:28 PM, Stargazer said:

I go back to this: Jesus telling the people that he is only doing what He has seen the Father do (John 5:19,20).

You mean Jesus getting married and having children in mortality like you believe the Father did?

Edited July 13, 2025 by GoCeltics
extra additions

[Stargazer]

On 7/11/2025 at 7:18 PM, The Nehor said:

I don’t find this reading progression from statements in the Bible concept to be convincing. There is no evidence the writers believed it.

When people go into the weeds of a General Conference talk and try to intuit stuff out of metaphors or take ambiguous language to support heterodox positions they are often told to knock it off. Not sure what about the source being the Bible changes that.

One of the most obnoxious to me is pulling a doctrine of premortality out of Jeremiah. It is just a huge stretch on what was said and there isn’t any support for the idea that Judaism had such a doctrine.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course.

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

So he and Heavenly Mother, while living as mortals on another world, needed atonement for their sins so they could be brought to that point too?
 

I found this teaching from a former church president (John Taylor):

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-john-taylor/chapter-1?lang=eng

"In another point of view, we look at him as emanating from the Gods—as a God in embryo—as an eternal being who had an existence before he came here, and who will exist after his mortal remains are mingled and associated with dust, from whence he came, and from whence he will be resurrected and partake of that happiness for which he is destined, or receive the reward of his evil deeds, according to circumstances.

What is [man]? He had his being in the eternal worlds; he existed before he came here. He is not only the son of man, but he is the son of God also. He is a God in embryo, and possesses within him a spark of that eternal flame which was struck from the blaze of God’s eternal fire in the eternal world, and is placed here upon the earth that he may possess true intelligence, true light, true knowledge,—that he may know himself—that he may know God—that he may know something about what he was before he came here—that he may know something about what he is destined to enjoy in the eternal worlds.

If we take man, he is said to have been made in the image of God, for the simple reason that he is a son of God, and being his son, he is, of course, his offspring, an emanation from God, in whose likeness, we are told, he is made. He did not originate from a chaotic mass of matter, moving or inert, but came forth possessing, in an embryonic state, all the faculties and powers of a God. And when he shall be perfected, and have progressed to maturity, he will be like his Father—a God, being indeed His offspring. As the horse, the ox, the sheep, and every living creature, including man, propagates its own species and perpetuates its own kind, so does God perpetuate his".
 

Some view the three heavens as the sky, outer space, and then a spiritual heaven.
 

Will do.
 

The scriptures reveal that we shall judge the world and angels (1 Corinthians 6:2-3).

I don’t find the concept of the faithful having roles in judgment in the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants.
 

You mean Jesus getting married and having children in mortality like you believe the Father did?

Sweet!

Not getting into writing a response at this time (kinda busy), but coincidentally Ward Radio posted a livestream debate on this very subject in the last several hours, and I though I haven't actually watched it yet, myself, I figured it might be of interest (skip ahead to 3:00 to start the actual video).

Edited to add: This question is even a topic of debate among LDS, so don't take my "take" as official church doctrine.

 

Edited July 13, 2025 by Stargazer

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Not getting into writing a response at this time (kinda busy), but coincidentally Ward Radio posted a livestream debate on this very subject in the last several hours, and I though I haven't actually watched it yet, myself, I figured it might be of interest (skip ahead to 3:00 to start the actual video).

Edited to add: This question is even a topic of debate among LDS, so don't take my "take" as official church doctrine.

Thanks for posting this, as it is a topic of interest to me. I listened to the entire video, and while it was a very interesting discussion, they never really got around to talking about the implications of the title of the video "Does God ACTUALLY Have a Father?".

These kinds of debates (or as in this case discussions that are labeled as "debates") always annoy me, because there were so many times that I wanted to interject something that would either challenge or strengthen one of the arguments.  I also think Jacob got off on the wrong foot by using some of the biblical verses he began with that don't really prove the point he was trying to convey.  There are much better verses he could have used that would greatly strengthen his argument.

ETA:  Incidentally, I weighed in on this topic in a massive post that most people won't read due the length on May 26th.  It's toward the end of that post where I discuss the Sermon in the Grove.  I don't think the infinite regression model holds up to what Joseph seemed to be teaching in the Sermon in the Grove, and it definitely does not hold up against the King Follet Discourse and the scriptures (including latter-day scripture).

Edited July 13, 2025 by InCognitus

[CV75]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

Thanks for posting this, as it is a topic of interest to me. I listened to the entire video, and while it was a very interesting discussion, they never really got around to talking about the implications of the title of the video "Does God ACTUALLY Have a Father?".

These kinds of debates (or as in this case discussions that are labeled as "debates") always annoy me, because there were so many times that I wanted to interject something that would either challenge or strengthen one of the arguments.  I also think Jacob got off on the wrong foot by using some of the biblical verses he began with that don't really prove the point he was trying to convey.  There are much better verses he could have used that would greatly strengthen his argument.

ETA:  Incidentally, I weighed in on this topic in a massive post that most people won't read due the length on May 26th.  It's toward the end of that post where I discuss the Sermon in the Grove.  I don't think the infinite regression model holds up to what Joseph seemed to be teaching in the Sermon in the Grove, and it definitely does not hold up against the King Follet Discourse and the scriptures (including latter-day scripture).

I just went ahead and read it !

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Sweet!

Not getting into writing a response at this time (kinda busy), but coincidentally Ward Radio posted a livestream debate on this very subject in the last several hours, and I though I haven't actually watched it yet, myself, I figured it might be of interest (skip ahead to 3:00 to start the actual video).

Edited to add: This question is even a topic of debate among LDS, so don't take my "take" as official church doctrine.

 

I would like to see a Church-related podcast/blogger/etc. with cover art that does not look like a) a Game Show; b) a Frat Party; c) a Weekly World News headline; or d) like the guests are breaking the Word of Wisdom.  

ding-ding-ding

Spin the wheel to what pre-recorded headline announces your mood-altering prize recorded live at 4:30 a.m. from the ΨΨΨ Chapter House.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I would like to see a Church-related podcast/blogger/etc. with cover art that does not look like a) a Game Show; b) a Frat Party; c) a Weekly World News headline; or d) like the guests are breaking the Word of Wisdom.  

ding-ding-ding

Spin the wheel to what pre-recorded headline announces your mood-altering prize recorded live at 4:30 a.m. from the ΨΨΨ Chapter House.

I'm with you on that.  Normally I wouldn't have listened to the show, but since it was a topic of interest to me that I had just made a post about, I wanted to give it a fair shot and get everything in context (even though I was doing other things while listening to it at 1.3 x normal speed).

[CV75]

12 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I'm with you on that.  Normally I wouldn't have listened to the show, but since it was a topic of interest to me that I had just made a post about, I wanted to give it a fair shot and get everything in context (even though I was doing other things while listening to it at 1.3 x normal speed).

No explanation necessary -- I'm glad you have the patience and open-mindedness I lack! And in a nod to @Stargazer as well, same!  

[jpv]

On 7/11/2025 at 12:18 PM, The Nehor said:

It is just a huge stretch on what was said and there isn’t any support for the idea that Judaism had such a doctrine.

Not even personified Wisdom in the proverbs?

 

*Ch 8

Edited July 14, 2025 by jpv
Ch 8

[InCognitus]

On 7/13/2025 at 8:29 AM, GoCeltics said:

I found this teaching from a former church president (John Taylor):

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-john-taylor/chapter-1?lang=eng

"In another point of view, we look at him as emanating from the Gods—as a God in embryo—as an eternal being who had an existence before he came here, and who will exist after his mortal remains are mingled and associated with dust, from whence he came, and from whence he will be resurrected and partake of that happiness for which he is destined, or receive the reward of his evil deeds, according to circumstances.

What is [man]? He had his being in the eternal worlds; he existed before he came here. He is not only the son of man, but he is the son of God also. He is a God in embryo, and possesses within him a spark of that eternal flame which was struck from the blaze of God’s eternal fire in the eternal world, and is placed here upon the earth that he may possess true intelligence, true light, true knowledge,—that he may know himself—that he may know God—that he may know something about what he was before he came here—that he may know something about what he is destined to enjoy in the eternal worlds.

If we take man, he is said to have been made in the image of God, for the simple reason that he is a son of God, and being his son, he is, of course, his offspring, an emanation from God, in whose likeness, we are told, he is made. He did not originate from a chaotic mass of matter, moving or inert, but came forth possessing, in an embryonic state, all the faculties and powers of a God. And when he shall be perfected, and have progressed to maturity, he will be like his Father—a God, being indeed His offspring. As the horse, the ox, the sheep, and every living creature, including man, propagates its own species and perpetuates its own kind, so does God perpetuate his".

That's an awesome chapter in the manual.  I goes right along with what the apostle Paul taught the Athenians, that we are all the very génos of God (we are his "offspring" or the same kind of being that God is - Acts 17:28-29).

[GoCeltics]

21 hours ago, InCognitus said:

That's an awesome chapter in the manual.  I goes right along with what the apostle Paul taught the Athenians, that we are all the very génos of God (we are his "offspring" or the same kind of being that God is - Acts 17:28-29).

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

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

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

Just in case it escaped your attention, Jesus Christ is God and he (God) is fully human. In fact, the man Jesus Christ was created in the very image of God, just as we all are.

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

9 For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (Colossians 2)

Whether you want to accept it or not, Jesus Christ, who was made in the express (exact) image of the Father’s person (anthropos), proves that being fully human is not at variance to being fully, completely and eternally God. The resurrected human body of this God is fully and completely divine. Indeed, even though he’s a man it’s most definitely not an act of idolatry to bow before his body and worship him as the embodied living God.

It’s perfectly obvious that God doesn’t think that being a human being prevents the possibility of a human being from being God. And if the sons and daughters of Christ incapable of overcoming the world to become partakers of the divine nature, why does he promise Christ’s true followers that they will become joint heirs with him in the possession of all things that he himself possesses, including right to be seated upon the very throne of his power as crowned heavenly kings?

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Revelation 3)

 

Edited July 15, 2025 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

On 7/14/2025 at 11:36 AM, jpv said:

Not even personified Wisdom in the proverbs?

 

*Ch 8

Even if you take that part literally Wisdom is a divine being and not a mortal person. Divine beings existing before humanity exists is pretty normal in mythology and not evidence people existed before their mortal existence.