LDS doctrine of God

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

This is the perfect thread to ask a question about what it means to be exalted.

1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads.

2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:

3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I humbly disagree with you here MFB.

Although Christ called the Father the only true God/El that is in deference to His being the Most High El of the Elohim. But I believe per Isa 9:6, 65 Christ will inherit the mountains of the Father and the title of the Father, and be His equal - although perhaps forever indebted to Him. Scripturally, in the regeneration He will be the Father, and presumably the Most High El. If He can do that why can't we? I see "eternal lives" differently than you perhaps.

I think he is just a tad more "intelligent".  Unfortunately even I could not create an earth before mortality.

[VideoGameJunkie]

22 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Scripture please? Where does the Father progress to? How do you progress higher than omnipotence?

Isn't that what eternal increase means? Going from exaltation to exaltation. Are you saying we can one day be equal with Heavenly Father in power and glory? That seems too good to be true.

[RevTestament]

13 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Isn't that what eternal increase means? Going from exaltation to exaltation. Are you saying we can one day be equal with Heavenly Father in power and glory? That seems too good to be true.

I believe that is Christ's inheritance...

I also believe Christ was once like us, until He was begotten as the Son. 

This was a debate which arose between Arian Christians and Athanasian Christians at the time of the Nicene Council. The question was Christ always the Son? How can one be begotten as the Son if one has always been the Son? The Nicene Creed "resolved" this issue by merely declaring that the Son was begotten before all ages or worlds. Does scripture say this?

[VideoGameJunkie]

15 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I believe that is Christ's inheritance...

I also believe Christ was once like us, until He was begotten as the Son. 

This was a debate which arose between Arian Christians and Athanasian Christians at the time of the Nicene Council. The question was Christ always the Son? How can one be begotten as the Son if one has always been the Son? The Nicene Creed "resolved" this issue by merely declaring that the Son was begotten before all ages or worlds. Does scripture say this?

I don't rely on scripture for everything, I also rely on prophets who hold keys to the dispensation like Joseph Smith. Scriptures are just words mortal men wrote down. Notice how Jesus didn't write anything down himself. Nothing is in his own handwriting. It's all about relying on words of mortal men hearing and writing down the best they can remember, and we also have modern prophets who are mortal men too. All scriptures and modern prophets have given us information and doctrine as mortals.

Edited May 10, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I don't rely on scripture for everything, I also rely on prophets who hold keys to the dispensation like Joseph Smith. Scriptures are just words mortal men wrote down. Notice how Jesus didn't write anything down himself. Nothing is in his own handwriting. It's all about relying on words of mortal men hearing and writing down the best they can remember, and we also have modern prophets who are mortal men too. All scriptures and modern prophets have given us information and doctrine as mortals.

Well, that is up to you. I am merely pointing out that scripture does not say that the Son was begotten before all ages/worlds. The scriptures say He was begotten when "another sayeth unto Him, thou art my Son this day I have begotten thee." That doesn't sound like before all ages or worlds to me...

"It's all about relying on words of mortal men hearing and writing down the best they can remember..."

I don't see it that way. The prophets literally heard the word of the Lord, and wrote what they heard. In the case of the NT 

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

So it doesn't seem like they wrote only what they could remember, but that they were given to remember the exact words of Christ. Hence, Christ did not need to write them.

[VideoGameJunkie]

24 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, that is up to you. I am merely pointing out that scripture does not say that the Son was begotten before all ages/worlds. The scriptures say He was begotten when "another sayeth unto Him, thou art my Son this day I have begotten thee." That doesn't sound like before all ages or worlds to me...

"It's all about relying on words of mortal men hearing and writing down the best they can remember..."

I don't see it that way. The prophets literally heard the word of the Lord, and wrote what they heard. In the case of the NT 

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

So it doesn't seem like they wrote only what they could remember, but that they were given to remember the exact words of Christ. Hence, Christ did not need to write them.

Well one of the Articles of Faith is we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Maybe a lot wasn't translated correctly that we have today. The Bible has been translated so many times throughout history we are not even sure what's the most correct version. 

[RevTestament]

10 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Well one of the Articles of Faith is we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Maybe a lot wasn't translated correctly that we have today. The Bible has been translated so many times throughout history we are not even sure what's the most correct version. 

Are you saying you have some reason not to believe this is what the Bible says? It says it in the OT, in The Acts and in Hebrews. So it has been translated from both Hebrew and Greek. The Hebrew has actually only been translated once from Hebrew to English in the KJV. Same with the Greek. Has some prophet said it is wrong? 

I will admit that the KJV is not "perfect" but to discount it without reason certainly doesn't seem like the right approach when even the Book of Mormon relies on it, and specifically says that Revelation shall begin to unroll as a scroll. It seems if the KJV was that bad the Lord wouldn't have confirmed to Joseph Smith that the Church could keep using it. I personally feel the main problem/culprit were the Catholic Bibles, but that is a different topic.

[VideoGameJunkie]

29 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Are you saying you have some reason not to believe this is what the Bible says? It says it in the OT, in The Acts and in Hebrews. So it has been translated from both Hebrew and Greek. The Hebrew has actually only been translated once from Hebrew to English in the KJV. Same with the Greek. Has some prophet said it is wrong? 

I will admit that the KJV is not "perfect" but to discount it without reason certainly doesn't seem like the right approach when even the Book of Mormon relies on it, and specifically says that Revelation shall begin to unroll as a scroll. It seems if the KJV was that bad the Lord wouldn't have confirmed to Joseph Smith that the Church could keep using it. I personally feel the main problem/culprit were the Catholic Bibles, but that is a different topic.

So the KJV are the good to use versions?

[theplains]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The idea that God is three persons in one "immaterial substance" makes no sense, but the idea that the God head is essentially a "Human" family unified in purpose as any perfected human family would be makes a LOT of sense.

What we know of God is revealed in scripture, but the idea that he is married and procreates 
spirit children with a heavenly wife (maybe more wives) is foreign to the scripture.  When 
God said "Let us make man in our image", he did not have body parts in mind.

When you put God on a human level, who knows what 'humanism' will invent ... in my opinion.

Thanks,
Jim

 

[Jim Stiles]

58 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Well one of the Articles of Faith is we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Maybe a lot wasn't translated correctly that we have today. The Bible has been translated so many times throughout history we are not even sure what's the most correct version. 

The New Testament portion of the King James Version, as well as the newer versions, of the Bible was translated once from the original languages.  The vast majority of the Old Testament was also translated once from the original languages.  A very small portion of the Old Testament was translated from either a Greek translation or the Latin Vulgate translation.  Serious study of the Bible requires the use of multiple translations and, if possible, the original text.

Quote

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον

παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν

 

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Scripture please? Where does the Father progress to? How do you progress higher than omnipotence?

D&C 130:10 Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known;
11 And a white stone is given to each of those who come into the celestial kingdom, whereon is a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it. The new name is the key word.

 

Clearly there are kingdoms higher than the Celestial Kingdom.  Once we become Celestial beings (like God) it is time to learn of higher kingdoms.
And frankly, the only difference between the KFD and D&C 130 is a vote to accept them.

 

[BCSpace]

10 hours ago, Sky said:

I just read this and wondered if anybody had seen it:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/problems-with-mormonism-the-doctrine-of-god/

The author may have gotten some things right, but unfortunately I'm also afraid that he is perpetuating some old misconceptions and divisions...  Mainly, that Mormonism is not compatible with Christianity, the claim that Mormonism is a polytheistic faith, and the concept of a "grandfather God."

Yes, I'm aware that Lorenzo Snow once said "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become."  I'm also aware of Joseph Smith's "King Follet discourse."  

Even so, in all of my life as a Mormon, I've never been taught or pictured myself someday being equal with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.  I'm leery of a Lutheran pastor telling me what my Church's doctrine is, or what I believe.         

 

Official LDS doctrine summarized:

God the Father is an exalted, glorified, married Man (homo sapiens).

The Lorenzo Snow statement is also official LDS doctrine.

We are not polytheistic because we only worship (pray to) God the Father.

The scriptures encourage you to think that you can be equal with God (Philippians 2:5-6).

You will have the same power and authority as God (Revelation 3:21).

God will always be your God (John 20:17).

Etc. Etc.

[carbon dioxide]

9 hours ago, Valentinus said:

It'll be fascinating to see if the LDS church ever rejects monolatry and henotheism.

We do believe that God is a God of Gods.  Obviously those Gods are not false gods or idols. Even I am greater than a false god or idol as I actually exist.  

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

What we know of God is revealed in scripture, but the idea that he is married and procreates 
spirit children with a heavenly wife (maybe more wives) is foreign to the scripture.  When 
God said "Let us make man in our image", he did not have body parts in mind.

When you put God on a human level, who knows what 'humanism' will invent ... in my opinion.

Thanks,
Jim

 

I agree with the first part.  At least as revealed in the limited writings in the Bible.  I believe that when God said lets make man in our image, he did have body parts in mind at least partially.  We are his children.  It is not that we put God on a human level.  It is that God refers to us as we actually are.  We are his children and children take after their parents and all children have the capacity to become like their parents are.  I also believe that God's wife is referenced in Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."   This passage clearly refers to Adam himself.  He uses himself as the textbook example of a man leaving his father and mother.  So in my opinion there are two choices. One,  Adam and a mortal father and a mother who gave birth to him.  The second is that the Father that Adam refers to is God the Father and the mother is God the Mother.  

Edited May 10, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[Damien the Leper]

45 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

We do believe that God is a God of Gods.  Obviously those Gods are not false gods or idols. Even I am greater than a false god or idol as I actually exist.  

So you say. Are you more real than El, YHWH, Asherah or Baal? They are fairly fictitious.

[snowflake]

12 hours ago, RevTestament said:

how little do you see...

In the Bible God always deals with man within the concept of time. Never does He say or indicate He is "outside of time, space and matter." He never says He created any of these. Perhaps you need to refer back to Gen  1:2 which says he formed the earth by moving His Spirit across the waters, which it doesn't say He formed. Your idea of the "God of the Bible" is completely an interpretation taught to you by your church.

In the beginning, God created..................this would be the beginning of time.  the heaven............this would be space.   and the earth.............matter.  Genesis 1:1

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Rev, I'm just basing my take on what the good book says.  

[Atheist Mormon]

10 hours ago, Sky said:

It hasn't gone away completely.  It just never seemed to be greatly emphasized as I grew up, or not emphasized in the same way that our critics like to portray it.  

It is not the critics, who portray LDS stand...How many times we heard President Hinckley giving contradictory statements on 60 minutes? While I find your links alot more rational and close to LDS doctrine.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Sky said:

It hasn't gone away completely.  It just never seemed to be greatly emphasized as I grew up, or not emphasized in the same way that our critics like to portray it.  

It's still taught, though.

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-2-our-heavenly-family?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow/chapter-5-the-grand-destiny-of-the-faithful?lang=eng#5-36787_000_05

There are plenty of believers on this board who consider these doctrines to be foundational and essential to Mormon theology. 

[snowflake]

Quote

God is one among other gods, is not the only eternal being, is not unchangeable, did not create from nothing, and has bodily limitations.

If I understand LDS theology correctly, god was once just a man somewhere, just like me. This just logically makes no sense.  No beginning, no starting point and no first cause, just a long chain of endless gods going back for ever? This god does not sound like a very powerful god to me.

[JAHS]

18 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

If the LDS pantheon is God the Father, his son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost then henotheism is appropriate, but then all of Christianity is merits the same appellation.  If the LDS are Monolatrists then who isn't in Christianity?

According to the dictionary henothesm "is the belief in and worship of a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities."  I don't really consider the Godhead to represent the concept of henotheism, even though they are three separate individuals. To me henotheism refers to the other Gods of other universes past and present who we don't worship as our God. Our Godhead is one God; one in purpose who, work together as one team. 

[snowflake]

All things are in a state of constant growth and progression, including God himself. God has knowledge now that he did not have previously. He is, thus, not all-powerful, but only appears to be so to human creatures who are not as far along in such progress. God is to be worshiped, not because he is a different kind of being, but because he is much farther along in his progression than we are.

¹⁹ God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? Numbers 23:19

[Atheist Mormon]

7 hours ago, theplains said:

What we know of God is revealed in scripture, but the idea that he is married and procreates 
spirit children with a heavenly wife (maybe more wives) is foreign to the scripture.  When 
God said "Let us make man in our image", he did not have body parts in mind.

When you put God on a human level, who knows what 'humanism' will invent ... in my opinion.

Thanks,
Jim

 

Exactly that Jim, "my opinion.", it has been always, without exception.... Apostle Paul, Apostle Peter's and every Christian Fathers opinion....

It is just an "Opinion", never went far to demonstrate anything concrete...say like cure for cancer, polio vaccine nothing that humanity could use to save lives..... And you reinforcing that a God with no body parts, spiritual, invisible is a perfect fit for Christian belief...because there's nothing to show for in reality. 

And when Joseph woke up realized the futility of this God, traditional Christianity demonized him....

[stemelbow]

The piece is not inaccurate, it simply doesn't say much, in my mind.  The concept of council of gods is not unique to Mormonism.  It is found in the OT and other ancient sources. 

God is not worshipped because he is different from human, for Mormonism, sure.  But to think GOd should be worshipped because He is different from human is just silly. Traditional Christians don't worship mountains because they are different.  Anyway the piece wants to demonstrate problems with Mormonism by just saying Mormonism is different from his breed of Christianity and thus shouldn't be considered his breed.  So?  No one would say differently.  What he means to say is Mormonism can't be considered Christian because he'd like to co-opt the term. He just doesn't say it.  Either way it's a stupid point.  Sorry, feeling a little harsh today.

[Storm Rider]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

According to the dictionary henothesm "is the belief in and worship of a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities."  I don't really consider the Godhead to represent the concept of henotheism, even though they are three separate individuals. To me henotheism refers to the other Gods of other universes past and present who we don't worship as our God. Our Godhead is one God; one in purpose who, work together as one team. 

My understanding of Henotheism is not just a belief in the possible existence of other gods, but an actual pantheon of gods and one is chosen to worship - Roman and Greek mythology had a Henotheistic theology, for example.  In LDS cosmology, we believe other gods may exist, but nothing is taught beyond that acknowledgement of their existence.  

We also don't address whether God has other children who are already exalted or not.  

I don't believe LDS theology has ever taught that there is a pantheon of gods to choose from which to worship and we chose God the Father.  There has never been a chose of gods to worship; there has always been just one God the Father whom we worship in the same manner the Son worships him.