Has Jesus always been a God?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

How about you start another thread? But before you do, you might think through my whole argument, rather than picking on one element of it out of context. After all, in my response to chapter 14 of Gospel Principles (which you quoted) I specifically discuss the expression "after the order of Melchizedek" in some detail, and your comments here ignore that aspect of my discussion. I also provided biblical support for the concept of the priesthood of all believers in my response to chapter 13 of Gospel Principles.

Since your post is off topic, I expect not to see any follow-up posts on this subject here. Again, if you really want to discuss the issue, feel free to start a new thread on it.

[mfbukowski]

To answer your question and remove the equivocation, as long as Rob Bowman has existed, Rob Bowman has been Rob Bowman. I did not exist and then become Rob Bowman. (I don't believe in preexistence of human souls.) You could say that I have "always" been Rob Bowman within the context of my finite existence.

Yes, you COULD say that, but you could also say (and let me say I don't know you personally, and this is just an example):

"You know, that Rob Bowman, I remember him when he was just a shy 12 year old who was not very good at reading and writing- he's not like that at all now that he's grown up, he's not the same person that he used to be! And then before he was born again- I knew him before he was saved, and let me tell you- he really is a whole different person now that he is Director of Research for the Institute. You know, when he joined that organization, he really blossomed as a person and now he totally IS the DIRECTOR."

Again, this is just an example of the way we often speak about these things.

You have always been you, but you have not always been ROB BOWMAN, DIRECTOR.

My mother died with severe dementia. It was clear to all, that she was "not the same person" at the end. But WHEN EXACTLY did she become "not the same"?

Don't Evangelicals believe that we are to become "new men in Christ"? What does that mean? What does it mean to be "born again"?

[mfbukowski]

To say that God existed "before time" would be a contradiction if the statement were understood to use "before" in a literal, linearly temporal sense.

And so it is, and I agree. I'm glad we are finally getting to the issues. It took a long drawn out thread to do so, but here we are.

Classic Christian theism does not understand such language that way. It understands it analogically or metaphorically to mean that God's existence transcends time.

And yet when I use the metaphor "before time"- it is "contradictory", but for you it is "metaphorical"- is that what you are saying?

I've explained this to you already, but from what I can see you are stuck on finding fault with the orthodox view by carping on the word "before" in a context where we wouldn't even insist on using it.

And we don't use it there either. Show me any quote where anyone but me has said "before time"?

And yet that is the intent of the King Follette Discourse.

The fact is you don't even try to explain what God did "before time" or "transcending time" or whatever "metaphor" you want to use.

You just prefer the totally unsatisfactory explanation that he was somehow pre-existing time without being pre-existant, because to say he was "pre-existent" might imply that the Mormons are right- that a being CAN be "pre-existent".

Metaphorically then, what was he "doing" during his non-pre-existent pre-existence?

You don't have a clue.

Yet you take us to task for having an answer to a question you don't even think to ask.

Which system has a better explanation? There is no question! When you avoid questions, you cannot give answers!

[Vance]

Vance,

How about you start another thread? But before you do, you might think through my whole argument, rather than picking on one element of it out of context. After all, in my response to chapter 14 of Gospel Principles (which you quoted) I specifically discuss the expression "after the order of Melchizedek" in some detail, and your comments here ignore that aspect of my discussion. I also provided biblical support for the concept of the priesthood of all believers in my response to chapter 13 of Gospel Principles.

Since your post is off topic, I expect not to see any follow-up posts on this subject here. Again, if you really want to discuss the issue, feel free to start a new thread on it.

Well, that is just peachy.

BUT that doesn't change the exposition of the semantic games you play both there and here, which was the purpose of my post.

PS,

I can understand why you would want to ignore the "fatal flaw" I presented.

I can also understand why you want to increase traffic to your web site.

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

Your entire argument is based on equivocation.

Yes, you COULD say that, but you could also say (and let me say I don't know you personally, and this is just an example):

"You know, that Rob Bowman, I remember him when he was just a shy 12 year old who was not very good at reading and writing- he's not like that at all now that he's grown up, he's not the same person that he used to be! And then before he was born again- I knew him before he was saved, and let me tell you- he really is a whole different person now that he is Director of Research for the Institute. You know, when he joined that organization, he really blossomed as a person and now he totally IS the DIRECTOR."

Again, this is just an example of the way we often speak about these things.

You have always been you, but you have not always been ROB BOWMAN, DIRECTOR.

My mother died with severe dementia. It was clear to all, that she was "not the same person" at the end. But WHEN EXACTLY did she become "not the same"?

Don't Evangelicals believe that we are to become "new men in Christ"? What does that mean? What does it mean to be "born again"?

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

I wrote: To say that God existed "before time" would be a contradiction if the statement were understood to use "before" in a literal, linearly temporal sense.

You commented:

And so it is, and I agree. I'm glad we are finally getting to the issues. It took a long drawn out thread to do so, but here we are.

I made the same point many posts ago.

You wrote:

And yet when I use the metaphor "before time"- it is "contradictory", but for you it is "metaphorical"- is that what you are saying?

We seem to have reached the Land of Confusion. No, I said and meant nothing of the kind. All I was saying is that the orthodox view is not contradictory because when orthodox Christians speak of "before time" they do not mean it literally.

However, if you were to claim (I'll let you decide whether you wish to make this claim or not) that the Father was once not God, but became a God by becoming exalted to Godhood--or if you wish to make a similar claim about Jesus--then it would be contradictory if you claimed that these changes occurred "before time." That is, you would be claiming that a process of change took place before time. Since a process of change is a linearly temporal concept, you would be claiming that there was linear time before time. That would be an incoherent position. Again, I'm not saying this is your position. You can tell me.

I wrote: I've explained this to you already, but from what I can see you are stuck on finding fault with the orthodox view by carping on the word "before" in a context where we wouldn't even insist on using it. You replied:

And we don't use it there either. Show me any quote where anyone but me has said "before time"?

I'm sorry, I'm having difficulty understanding your point. I thought you were attributing to orthodox theology the concept of a literal linear time before time. If you were not, I'm glad that's cleared up.

You then said:

And yet that is the intent of the King Follette Discourse.

"That"? Rather than my guessing as to what you mean is the intent of the KFD, perhaps I'll just ask you to explain.

You wrote:

The fact is you don't even try to explain what God did "before time" or "transcending time" or whatever "metaphor" you want to use.

God doesn't "do" anything "before" time because to "do" something means to make something change. God exists eternally, transcending time, and deigns in his sovereignty to create a temporal world in which things happen.

You wrote:

You just prefer the totally unsatisfactory explanation that he was somehow pre-existing time without being pre-existant, because to say he was "pre-existent" might imply that the Mormons are right- that a being CAN be "pre-existent".

Huh? I don't formulate my theology to avoid Mormons ever being right. If I did, I would deny the physical resurrection of Jesus, which of course I don't.

I don't recall saying that God preexisted time. I do say that Jesus preexisted his Incarnation. Certainly I agree that a being CAN be preexistent. This doesn't mean Mormons are right in affirming that human souls preexist their physical lives (if that's even your point).

You wrote:

Metaphorically then, what was he "doing" during his non-pre-existent pre-existence? You don't have a clue.

No one can do anything during a period of time that never existed. The question is a nonsense question. GIGO.

You wrote:

Yet you take us to task for having an answer to a question you don't even think to ask. Which system has a better explanation? There is no question! When you avoid questions, you cannot give answers!

Sigh. I'm sorry, but I'm having a very difficult time following your reasoning.

[mfbukowski]

At this point, I think I will just stand with that last post. I think it is clear to anyone reading this that it is you who are blowing smoke.

Maybe I am wrong, but I thought I made it quite clear.

[mfbukowski]

One more thing Rob.

Your faith system is a living a relic of a past which is dead. We are the future. We are the mice on the jungle floor watching you dinosaurs duke it out, while we clearly see that the change has already happened.

http://theredbrickstore.com/sunstone/mormonism-and-the-creative-advance-into-novelty/

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

A dream is a beautiful thing.

One more thing Rob.

Your faith system is a living a relic of a past which is dead. We are the future. We are the mice on the jungle floor watching you dinosaurs duke it out, while we clearly see that the change has already happened.

http://theredbrickst...e-into-novelty/

[Rob Bowman]

It is truly fascinating to read through all of the responses to my original post. Some of the LDS here insist that Jesus has always been a God. Other LDS here have stated quite clearly that Jesus has not always been a God -- that he became a God. Other LDS have tried to change the question (did Jesus always have the potential to become a God, for example -- a question which obviously presupposes that he has not always been a God). Others have offered vague answers (Jesus has always been a God to us, or as far as this world is concerned -- statements that again seem to presuppose that he did at some point become a God).

Instead of turning your rhetorical guns on me for asking the question, why don't those of you who are LDS discuss this among yourselves and try to come up with a coherent answer.

[Vance]

God doesn't "do" anything "before" time because to "do" something means to make something change. God exists eternally, transcending time, and deigns in his sovereignty to create a temporal world in which things happen.

So, He sat, in eternal darkness and unchanging indolence.

What made Him change?

[mfbukowski]

Instead of turning your rhetorical guns on me for asking the question, why don't those of you who are LDS discuss this among yourselves and try to come up with a coherent answer.

We have. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Remember those 3-d pop-out things from a few years ago, that you couldn't see until you DID? And suddenly there was a whole world where before you only saw a random pattern?

[Storm Rider]

It is truly fascinating to read through all of the responses to my original post. Some of the LDS here insist that Jesus has always been a God. Other LDS here have stated quite clearly that Jesus has not always been a God -- that he became a God. Other LDS have tried to change the question (did Jesus always have the potential to become a God, for example -- a question which obviously presupposes that he has not always been a God). Others have offered vague answers (Jesus has always been a God to us, or as far as this world is concerned -- statements that again seem to presuppose that he did at some point become a God).

Instead of turning your rhetorical guns on me for asking the question, why don't those of you who are LDS discuss this among yourselves and try to come up with a coherent answer.

Rob, why do you think that LDS would have a uniform way of believing anything outside of core doctrines: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, He lived a perfect life, born of the virgin, Mary, bled in the garden from every pore, was crucified, rose on the third day, returned to his Father and sits on his right side, and will return again one day. The Chruch of Jesus Christ was restored in its fulness to the earth through Joseph Smith and today is headed by a prophet and twelve apostles. Does any Christian church today have a body of blievers that believe identical doctrines on all things? Of course not. Why would you then expect LDS to be so one demensional? We are all on a path of truth and each path is personal in their ability to learn and grasp doctrines. More importantly, we each are striving to follow the Savior of mankind and glorify God.

I personally believe that Jesus is unique in that he was always with God the Father and that there was never a time when he was not God. I also do not believe that the concept of eternal progression does not apply to the Godhead, but is the way they have created to allow us to return to them and dwell in their presence. I would gladly believe differently should the Spirit tell me otherwise, but until then this is my understanding of God. I also don't believe this line of discussion has not one iota of impact on anyone's relationship with Jesus Christ or the Father.

[Bernard Gui]

It's curious that two doctrinal declarations of the First Presidency that deal with this very

topic have been passed by as if they hadn't been presented. For your convenience, I will

repeat them here and recommend everyone read the complete documents. Ignoring these

is tantamount to creating LDS doctrine out of the clear blue.

Among the spirit children of Elohim the first-born was and is Jehovah or Jesus Christ

to whom all others are junior...

There is no impropriety...in speaking of Jesus Christ as the Elder Brother of the rest

of humankind...Let it not be forgotten, however, that He is essentially greater than

any or all others by reason of His seniority as the oldest or firstborn; (2) of His unique

status in the flesh as the offspring of a mortal mother and an immortal, or resurrected and glorified

Father, (3) of His selection and foreordination as the one and only Redeemer and Savior

of the race; and (4) of His transcendent sinlessness.

Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for

He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons or daughters of Elohim.

The First Presidency and the Council of Twelve Apostles, 1916

"The Father and the Son"

Full text here:

http://www.schoolofa...atherandson.htm

Adam, our first progenitor,

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Your question is a nonsense question that assumes something about my view that I have already explicitly denied.

So, He sat, in eternal darkness and unchanging indolence.

What made Him change?

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

If a particular doctrinal concept is taught by a good number of LDS prophets and apostles, and contradicted by none of them, should you not accept it? Don't you claim to follow the teachings of the modern prophets?

Rob, why do you think that LDS would have a uniform way of believing anything outside of core doctrines: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, He lived a perfect life, born of the virgin, Mary, bled in the garden from every pore, was crucified, rose on the third day, returned to his Father and sits on his right side, and will return again one day. The Chruch of Jesus Christ was restored in its fulness to the earth through Joseph Smith and today is headed by a prophet and twelve apostles. Does any Christian church today have a body of blievers that believe identical doctrines on all things? Of course not. Why would you then expect LDS to be so one demensional? We are all on a path of truth and each path is personal in their ability to learn and grasp doctrines. More importantly, we each are striving to follow the Savior of mankind and glorify God.

I personally believe that Jesus is unique in that he was always with God the Father and that there was never a time when he was not God. I also do not believe that the concept of eternal progression does not apply to the Godhead, but is the way they have created to allow us to return to them and dwell in their presence. I would gladly believe differently should the Spirit tell me otherwise, but until then this is my understanding of God. I also don't believe this line of discussion has not one iota of impact on anyone's relationship with Jesus Christ or the Father.

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You wrote:

It's curious that two doctrinal declarations of the First Presidency that deal with this very

topic have been passed by as if they hadn't been presented. For your convenience, I will

repeat them here and recommend everyone read the complete documents. Ignoring these

is tantamount to creating LDS doctrine out of the clear blue.

With all due respect, your quotations do not address my question at all. That is, they do not say whether Jesus became a God or has always been a God.

[Storm Rider]

Storm Rider,

If a particular doctrinal concept is taught by a good number of LDS prophets and apostles, and contradicted by none of them, should you not accept it? Don't you claim to follow the teachings of the modern prophets?

Some would say that obedience is one of the first laws of the gospel of Christ. A broken heart and contrite spirit is pleasing before God.

Quote mining is seldom an effective manner to gain understanding of the teachings of Christ as a whole. It is too easy to take things our of context or for one's perspective to become titled when doing so. Must I believe all the words that prophets teach? In simple terms, No. There are certainly core doctrines that the LDS Church teaches of which all saints must gain a testimony to be baptized, to fulfill callings, and to attend the temple. However, LDS are not automatons. We believe too firmly in the sacredness of free agency for each individual. Joseph Smith said it best, "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves". LDS strive to emulate the actions of Jesus, to follow in his footsteps, and be recognized as His disciples. We are committed to learning truth and we value truth, but we will not separate ourselves from one another because one saint does not believe exactly as another. Through the guidance of the Spirit we believe in the literal building of Zion where we may become of one heart and one mind, dwelling in righteousness.

You think that my believing different from other brothers is a failure of the LDS Church. Rather than a failure, I propose that it is a sign that we are individuals who are striving to follow Christ and we are at different points along the path. Eventually, in the presence of God, we will become of onoe mind, but today we struggle as sinners to abide in the Spirit as much as possible.

Do I follow the teachings of the prophets? I believe I follow the prophets and believe as they do as much as I have been able to gain a testimony of truth in their sayings. I hope this helps.

[Vance]

Vance,

Your question is a nonsense question that assumes something about my view that I have already explicitly denied.

Really?

You said,

God doesn't "do" anything "before" time because to "do" something means to make something change. God exists eternally, transcending time, and deigns in his sovereignty to create a temporal world in which things happen.

So what you have said here is that "God exists eternally, transcending time, and deigns (to condescend {to put aside one's dignity or superiority voluntarily and assume equality with one regarded as inferior} reluctantly and with a strong sense of the affront to one's superiority that is involved) in his sovereignty to" do something.

Before God did this 'God doesn't "do" anything' 'because to "do" something means to make something change.'

So the question is reasonable and exposes a flaw in your theology, that is why you are avoiding it.

You have admitted that God didn't "do" anything prior to condescending to create. So then, what caused him to change from not doing anything to condescending to create? What caused him to change from eternal indolence to condescending to create?

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

I have no more patience with the LDS apologetic tactic of dismissing careful documentation of LDS teaching as "quote mining." If I were taking something out of context, it would be valid to point that out. If I were quoting material that carried no authority for Mormons, it would be valid to point that out. Dismissing quotations using the pejorative expression "quote mining" is not a refutation.

I am not worried about whether all Mormons believe the same thing on every issue. I know they don't, and I don't claim otherwise. But the fact is that the mainstream LDS doctrine is that Jesus was not always a God, but became a God -- and indeed that the Father also was once not a God and became a God. I'm not going to refrain from pointing out this teaching of the LDS Church merely because a few anonymous posters on an online discussion board say they don't feel it necessary to accept the idea.

Some would say that obedience is one of the first laws of the gospel of Christ. A broken heart and contrite spirit is pleasing before God.

Quote mining is seldom an effective manner to gain understanding of the teachings of Christ as a whole. It is too easy to take things our of context or for one's perspective to become titled when doing so. Must I believe all the words that prophets teach? In simple terms, No. There are certainly core doctrines that the LDS Church teaches of which all saints must gain a testimony to be baptized, to fulfill callings, and to attend the temple. However, LDS are not automatons. We believe too firmly in the sacredness of free agency for each individual. Joseph Smith said it best, "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves". LDS strive to emulate the actions of Jesus, to follow in his footsteps, and be recognized as His disciples. We are committed to learning truth and we value truth, but we will not separate ourselves from one another because one saint does not believe exactly as another. Through the guidance of the Spirit we believe in the literal building of Zion where we may become of one heart and one mind, dwelling in righteousness.

You think that my believing different from other brothers is a failure of the LDS Church. Rather than a failure, I propose that it is a sign that we are individuals who are striving to follow Christ and we are at different points along the path. Eventually, in the presence of God, we will become of onoe mind, but today we struggle as sinners to abide in the Spirit as much as possible.

Do I follow the teachings of the prophets? I believe I follow the prophets and believe as they do as much as I have been able to gain a testimony of truth in their sayings. I hope this helps.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

There is a thread discussing the claim that Mormons are stupid. I reject that claim as a generalization. In general, Mormons are no more stupid than Baptists, Catholics, etc., and in fact might just be somewhat better educated than many other demographic groups. However, some Mormons (like some Baptists, some Catholics, etc.) show a remarkable inability to understand certain things.

Really?

You said,

So what you have said here is that "God exists eternally, transcending time, and deigns (to condescend {to put aside one's dignity or superiority voluntarily and assume equality with one regarded as inferior} reluctantly and with a strong sense of the affront to one's superiority that is involved) in his sovereignty to" do something.

Before God did this 'God doesn't "do" anything' 'because to "do" something means to make something change.'

So the question is reasonable and exposes a flaw in your theology, that is why you are avoiding it.

You have admitted that God didn't "do" anything prior to condescending to create. So then, what caused him to change from not doing anything to condescending to create? What caused him to change from eternal indolence to condescending to create?

[Benjamin McGuire]

I actually don't see the point in continuing the discussion either. It wasn't my point that I raised, but a point raised by Christian theologians. Rob tried to deflect that by suggesting it was a "critique" and not a theological position. It's hard to argue with such logic ...

Ben McGuire

[Vance]

Vance,

There is a thread discussing the claim that Mormons are stupid. I reject that claim as a generalization. In general, Mormons are no more stupid than Baptists, Catholics, etc., and in fact might just be somewhat better educated than many other demographic groups. However, some Mormons (like some Baptists, some Catholics, etc.) show a remarkable inability to understand certain things.

Don't sugar coat it Rob, tell me what you really mean.

Unsurprisingly you are DODGING this issue. And the old "if you were as smart as me, then you would agree with me" mime doesn't take the place of real engagement.

You won't engage this issue because it is a "losing" issue for you. Better to feign superiority, and run.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Honestly, I'm not dodging the issue. I've answered it. Your question makes no sense. God didn't do anything "before" time because there is no "before" time. You can't be lazy in non-time. I'm not expecting you to agree with me, but I do expect you to understand that this is a sincerely held position and not an effort to dodge your question.

Don't sugar coat it Rob, tell me what you really mean.

Unsurprisingly you are DODGING this issue. And the old "if you were as smart as me, then you would agree with me" mime doesn't take the place of real engagement.

You won't engage this issue because it is a "losing" issue for you. Better to feign superiority, and run.

[Vance]

Vance,

Honestly, I'm not dodging the issue. I've answered it.

Well, no you haven't.

Your question makes no sense.

It is based on your statement. Perhaps it is your statement that makes no sense.

God didn't do anything "before" time because there is no "before" time.

If there is no "before" time, then time has always existed. It is simple logic.

You can't be lazy in non-time.

Only if "non-time" never existed.

I'm not expecting you to agree with me, but I do expect you to understand that this is a sincerely held position and not an effort to dodge your question.

And it is illogical as well.

So the question remains.

If God existed in "non-time" doing nothing. What made him change, to "deign" to "condescend" to leave "non-time" and create?

PS. I won't even push the issue of "non-time" being outside of scripture and therefore violates "sola scriptura".