Do You Believe God The Father Had A Father

[thesometimesaint]

Bart Bunk:

The Book of Mormon is not Trinitarian. From 600 BCE to CE it is clearly Christ centered as a Church of Anticipation for Jesus the Christ. From beginnings of the CE to their falling apart as a society they were believing Christians but not the Trinitarian type. There is no reference to the Trinity or its necessary components in the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

[Bart Burk]

Bart Bunk:

The Book of Mormon is not Trinitarian. From 600 BCE to CE it is clearly Christ centered as a Church of Anticipation for Jesus the Christ. From beginnings of the CE to their falling apart as a society they were believing Christians but not the Trinitarian type. There is no reference to the Trinity or its necessary components in the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

Do you believe that Jesus has been God from all eternity as the Book of Mormon seems to me at least to declare?

[mfbukowski]

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. In one case you deny the doctrine of the Trinity and in this post you seem to affirm it. Again, the Arian controversy revolved around the rejection of Jesus as the Eternally Begotten Son of God. The Nicene Creed was created to affirm that Jesus was the Eternally Begotten Son of God.

No, I am affirming what John 1 says and what the LDS doctrine of the Godhead says.

I have no interest in debating Neoplatonic nonsense about substance and being. I really don't care how many angels Aquinas said could occupy the same space.

If you want to believe re-heated pagan Greek philosophy applied to Creedal Christian "mysteries" which have no answer- be my guest.

That is precisely why I am not on the Trinity thread. For me, discussing the Trinity is about as fruitful as discussing the the aroma of bravery. It is all category errors and linguistic confusion.

Most famously, Ryle (1949) introduced the idea of the category mistake as a way of dispelling the confusions he thought to be rampant in the Cartesian theory of the mind, and thus of dissolving many apparent problems in philosophy of mind. According to Ryle, one makes a category mistake when one mistakes the logical type or category of a certain expression (1949, 16–17). Thus, e.g., a foreigner would make a category mistake if he observed the various colleges, libraries, and administrative offices of Oxford, and then asked to be shown the university. The foreigner mistakes the university for another institution like those he has seen, when in fact it is something of another category altogether: “the way in which all that he has already seen is organized” (1949, 16). The category mistake behind the Cartesian theory of mind, on Ryle's view, is based in representing mental concepts such as believing, knowing, aspiring, or detesting as acts or processes (and concluding they must be covert, unobservable acts or processes), when the concepts of believing, knowing, and the like are actually dispositional (1949, 33). Properly noting category distinctions may help alleviate a variety of philosophical problems and perplexities, and the idea of the category mistake was widely wielded (by Ryle and others) with this aim.

Another potential application of work on categories lies in the idea that various mistakes and puzzlements in ontology can be traced to the mistaken belief that category-neutral existential and quantificational claims are truth-evaluable (see Thomasson 2007). A great many arguments in ontology rely on claims about whether, in various situations, there is some object present (or how many objects there are), where the term 'object' must be used in a category-neutral way for the argument to go through (Thomasson 2007, 112–118). But if truth-evaluable existential and quantificational claims must tacitly presuppose some category or categories of entity over which we are quantifying, then such arguments go astray. Thomasson (2007) gives independent grounds for thinking that all quantification must at least tacitly presuppose a category or categories of entity over which we are quantifying, and argues that adopting that view provides the uniform basis for dissolving a number of problems supposed to arise with accepting an ontology of ordinary objects.

http://plato.stanfor...s/#RylMetDisCat

Edited September 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

God has told me that this is true:

Moses 1:

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

And also this:

D&C 43:

5 And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments;

6 And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me.

7 For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.

If God wanted to reveal some great doctrine to the Church, He would do so through the appointed channels, and by following the appointed procedure. He wouldn't do it through an anonymous poster on the Internet!

I know that Brigham Young has taught this kind of stuff before (outside the appointed procedures); but he taught a number of incorrect doctrines (outside the appointed procedure) which later had to be withdrawn. I prefer to go through the appropriate channels for new doctrines and revelations.

What part of what I said are you having trouble with, zerinus?

There is only one God in the sense that there is only one kind of being which is the most supreme kind of being in all of existence, but that doesn't mean there is only one person who is that kind of being.

Or maybe you're having trouble understanding what a person who is God meant when he said he was the only God, maybe?

Just understand that there is only one kind of being in all of existence which is the most supreme, and anyone who is that is it.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Ahab

[Ahab]

Okay. God, why are you revealing the mysteries to those who brag about it when you said that is exactly what not to do to learn the mysteries? Also you said that those mysteries should be treasured up in secrecy by those who receive them. So why? Ahhhhh.....cool. I will ignore him then.

What I'm sharing has already been revealed through the proper channels. I'm not sharing anything new here.

If you're going to blame God for telling me these things perhaps you should also blame everyone else who shares what he said.

Hmmm?

Pretty soon you're likely to be ignoring a lot of things other people say, unless you change your tune and mindset on this.

Heck, he's already told you these same ideas. How long are you going to ignore what you already think on this issue?

[Bart Burk]

It is interesting that all of these discussions seem to revert back to the nature of the Godhead. Perhaps that is because there is really no way to discuss something which the LDS don't really know much about -- the state of God the Father prior to the beginning of this universe. The traditional Christians don't have that problem since for traditional Christians God the Father is the same now as He has always been and always will be.

[Ahab]

Personal revelation is wrong Z? Do the LDS believe in only getting revelation by or through a person with the right authority? I'm tired of going through someone else to get to the Savior. Like in the temple, I'm to obey the counsel of my husband in righteousness and he is to obey the counsel of the Father. I'm sick of the middleman.

The idea is that if you have an idea about something which a President of the Church or a member of the Quorum of the Twelve have never said anything about, then you're likely getting your idea from someone other than those we usually refer to as "God", because every idea God has ever given to man he has also given to one of those "key" people in his Church.

It's not that you can't receive your own personal revelation from God about something. It's that whatever God tells you he has already told to somebody else, even if you haven't read or heard one of those "key" people say something on an issue.

I've had that happen to me many times in the past, thinking I had some "new" idea from God that nobody had ever said anything about only to find out later that a President of the Church or a member of the Quorum of the Twelve had already shared that same idea, sometimes hundreds or even thousands of years before I had received it from God.

Thus, the scripture is true which says that God doesn't reveal anything to the children of men without first revealing it to one of his servants, the prophets.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Ahab

[Ahab]

It is interesting that all of these discussions seem to revert back to the nature of the Godhead.

That's because "God" is the foundation of all of these ideas about God, including how many persons are God. Some people say only 3, but we know better. God has already told us there is no beginning of days or end to those who are God.

Perhaps that is because there is really no way to discuss something which the LDS don't really know much about -- the state of God the Father prior to the beginning of this universe.

We've been told a lot more than you seem to realize. I'd even say there isn't much we don't know on this issue, if there actually is anything we haven't been told about this.

It's just that a lot of people don't know all that has been revealed, or they simply don't believe when they find something God has said through the proper channels.

The traditional Christians don't have that problem since for traditional Christians God the Father is the same now as He has always been and always will be.

The fact that they believe that doesn't mean it is true. Our Father has always been God, but he has gone through some changes throughout all of history, even if only to get angry sometimes after first feeling happy. Those are changes, and you really don't want to see him when he's angry.

[thesometimesaint]

Do you believe that Jesus has been God from all eternity as the Book of Mormon seems to me at least to declare?

Yes. However that is not a Trinitarian concept. We always declared that the Son is not the Father in any ontological sense that we are not.

[Ahab]

Yes. However that is not a Trinitarian concept. We always declared that the Son is not the Father in any ontological sense that we are not.

Again, another instance which can be explained by simply saying more than one person is God even though there is only one kind of being which is the most supreme kind of being in all of existence... the kind of being we refer to as God.

Perhaps when they finally understand why one is called Son while another is called Father they'll understand how it all works.

[Bart Burk]

Again, another instance which can be explained by simply saying more than one person is God even though there is only one kind of being which is the most supreme kind of being in all of existence... the kind of being we refer to as God.

Perhaps when they finally understand why one is called Son while another is called Father they'll understand how it all works.

I've always understood the Son to have been begotten by the Father from all eternity. The Father couldn't be the Father without a Son. Traditional Christians believe that the Father has always been Father because he begat His Son eternally before the beginning of time.

[thesometimesaint]

Bart Burk:

LDS believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. That we all are sons and daughters of God the Father.

[theplains]

Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46).

Gospel Principles Ch. 47

I'll add a few lines that come before the quote you provided:

"The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: "When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend

step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the

first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed

through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will

be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave" (Teachings of the Prophet

Joseph Smith, p. 348).

This is the way [see above paragraph] our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: "It is the

first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God ... He was once a man like us; ...

God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did" (Teachings of the

Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46

It would seem that his Father [i.e. Jesus' Grandfather] created this other earth and Heavenly Father [of

our Planet Earth] started at the bottom.

The reference is chapter 47 in the 1997 version of Gospel Principles.

Thanks,

Jim

[Ahab]

I've always understood the Son to have been begotten by the Father from all eternity. The Father couldn't be the Father without a Son. Traditional Christians believe that the Father has always been Father because he begat His Son eternally before the beginning of time.

You sound like you don't know what "begetting" refers to.

What do you mean when you say our Father beget him "from all eternity"?

When someone is begat, or begotten, the begetting occurs at a particular moment in time, even within the scope of eternity.

We're told Jesus is the firstborn son of our Father, as a spirit child, and the only begotten of our Father, in the flesh... referring to flesh as our type of flesh instead of the flesh of Adam and Eve which was the same type of flesh Jesus received when he was resurrected.

Again I feel like i'm talking about the birds and the bees, and who knows, maybe you're just not ready to understand where we came from.

[zerinus]

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. In one case you deny the doctrine of the Trinity and in this post you seem to affirm it. Again, the Arian controversy revolved around the rejection of Jesus as the Eternally Begotten Son of God. The Nicene Creed was created to affirm that Jesus was the Eternally Begotten Son of God.

The Nicene Creed says nothing about "eternally begotten". The Nicene Creed affirms the divinity of Jesus Christ, against the Arian heresy which denied it. It affirms that He was "begotten and not made," it affirms that He was "true God of true God," it affirms that He was "of one substance with the Father" (meaning that He shared in His divinity--i.e. composed of the same "divine material"--all of which the Arians denied); but It says nothing about being "eternally begotten".

Edited September 20, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Bart Bunk:

The Book of Mormon is not Trinitarian. From 600 BCE to CE it is clearly Christ centered as a Church of Anticipation for Jesus the Christ. From beginnings of the CE to their falling apart as a society they were believing Christians but not the Trinitarian type. There is no reference to the Trinity or its necessary components in the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are Trinitarian. They both focus on the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost---which is the Trinity.

[zerinus]

Do you believe that Jesus has been God from all eternity as the Book of Mormon seems to me at least to declare?

I do. What is your conclusion?

[zerinus]

The fact that they believe that doesn't mean it is true. Our Father has always been God, but he has gone through some changes throughout all of history, even if only to get angry sometimes after first feeling happy. Those are changes, and you really don't want to see him when he's angry.

According to traditional Christian theology, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith, God is indeed unchangeable. He does not change. His character and attributes do not change. They are eternally fixed. They never change. Getting angry (or not angry) does not constitute a change.

[zerinus]

I've always understood the Son to have been begotten by the Father from all eternity. The Father couldn't be the Father without a Son. Traditional Christians believe that the Father has always been Father because he begat His Son eternally before the beginning of time.

That is not really true. The Nicene Creed for example does not teach that, contrary to your assumptions. See my post #115.

[Ahab]

According to traditional Christian theology, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith, God is indeed unchangeable. He does not change. His character and attributes do not change. They are eternally fixed. They never change. Getting angry (or not angry) does not constitute a change.

If having passions on opposite sides of the emotional spectrum doesn't constitute a change, how about a change from one type of body to another, like from a spirit body only to gaining a body of flesh which is corruptible, and then dying, and then being resurrected while always retaining that spirit body?

Would that constitute a change, do ya think? Other do not agree even if you say it doesn't.

Or how about if he was only part of his parents at one time before he was born in his own body of spirit matter? Would that constitute a change, do ya think? Others do not agree even if you say it doesn't.

Or how about if he committed some sin during his mortal life, which he most certainly had, before overcoming sin and being resurrected as a perfect Celestial being? Would that constitute a change, do ya think? Others do not agree even if you say it doesn't.

I don't have a problem with the idea that he changed, in some sense. What matters is how he became what he is.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Ahab

[Grundelwalken]

Because accepting every idea that pops into my head as God-given is the worst kind of idolatry. It also leads to apostasy and/or insanity and/or megalomania. I have met members of the Church who have gone down this road.

That I had an idea does not mean it came from God. That I suspect that some of it is right and some of it is wrong is even moreof a reason to be wary.

One of the wiser comments I have read on this board. Thanks Nehor. MW

[The Nehor]

What I'm sharing has already been revealed through the proper channels. I'm not sharing anything new here.

If you're going to blame God for telling me these things perhaps you should also blame everyone else who shares what he said.

Hmmm?

Pretty soon you're likely to be ignoring a lot of things other people say, unless you change your tune and mindset on this.

Heck, he's already told you these same ideas. How long are you going to ignore what you already think on this issue?

Trying to figure something out does not constitute ignoring it.

I already ignore a lot of things other people say. As Hugh Nibley said it is a good thing this life is not an intelligence test or we would all fail it. I see no reason to change my tune or mindset. At the risk of sounding arrogant based on what you have said I am 99% certain you are wrong as it appears to conflict with some of the few bits I know are accurate based on revelation.

To think you were berating me for not trusting revelation.

[TAO]

It is interesting that all of these discussions seem to revert back to the nature of the Godhead. Perhaps that is because there is really no way to discuss something which the LDS don't really know much about -- the state of God the Father prior to the beginning of this universe.

Nah, the main difficulty is that there are two different schools of opinion on this issue.

One opinion is that God the Father was always God the Father.

The other opinion is that God the Father was a human being on a planet, like us, and rose to his exaltation, just like we will.

Depending on which opinion you hold to, you'll have different opinions about the pre-existance.

There is also a few different opinions about the differences between spirits and intelligences (if they are different), that make the word 'begotten', interpreted differently depending on whom you talk to. It'd be a good idea to explore these different interpretations so you can see the many alternate conclusions of different sorts.

I've never been bothered by the idea that God is an exalted human being. Nor am I bound to it. In terms of spirits and intelligences, I have no knowledge on the subject, but some part of us always existing appeals to me, because it solves some things about free will even if the universe runs in a deterministic fashion (in other words, it makes them completely compatible). However, again, I have no such knowledge on the subject, and am probably wrong, so yeah, explore some things about it.

I do have knowledge on the subject of the separation of the Father and the Son. They are truly too different people... just like you and I are.

The traditional Christians don't have that problem since for traditional Christians God the Father is the same now as He has always been and always will be.

What problem do you see, exactly, just curious?

[zerinus]

If having passions on opposite sides of the emotional spectrum doesn't constitute a change, how about a change from one type of body to another, like from a spirit body only to gaining a body of flesh which is corruptible, and then dying, and then being resurrected while always retaining that spirit body?

Would that constitute a change, do ya think? Other do not agree even if you say it doesn't.

Or how about if he was only part of his parents at one time before he was born in his own body of spirit matter? Would that constitute a change, do ya think? Others do not agree even if you say it doesn't.

Or how about if he committed some sin during his mortal life, which he most certainly had, before overcoming sin and being resurrected as a perfect Celestial being? Would that constitute a change, do ya think? Others do not agree even if you say it doesn't.

I don't have a problem with the idea that he changed, in some sense. What matters is how he became what he is.

I don't know anything about any of those things; and I am not aware that any of the above has been revealed anywhere. What I do know is that according to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith, God is an unchangeable being. He does not change. And that is what I go by:

Malachi 3:

6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

James 1:

17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Mormon 9:

19 And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.

Moroni 8:

18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

D&C 20:

17 By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;

Edited September 21, 2012 by zerinus

[ChristKnight]

The Nicene Creed says nothing about "eternally begotten". The Nicene Creed affirms the divinity of Jesus Christ, against the Arian heresy which denied it. It affirms that He was "begotten and not made," it affirms that He was "true God of true God," it affirms that He was "of one substance with the Father" (meaning that He shared in His divinity--i.e. composed of the same "divine material"--all of which the Arians denied); but It says nothing about being "eternally begotten".

Yes, the Nicene Creed states that He was "begotten, not made", however it also states, at least in the version recited by English-speaking Catholics (and others) for some time, that He is "eternally begotten of the Father" (I recited this myself for most of my life, so I know). Other translations say something like "begotten of His Father before all worlds", "begotten of the Father before all ages", and I believe the latest translation of the Roman Missal, the Mass, no longer has "eternally begotten of the Father", but "born of the Father before all ages". So he was not incorrect.