God as One in the BOM

[Markk]

Hi David,

Been awhile, I've been busy. Although I can't prove it, I'll give you my take on this. It's not based on any one thing, but my years of study of the church and the life of JS. Smith was clearly, for lack of a better term, "street smart', uneducated but with plenty of imagination and savvy, I believe there would be no disagreement here. It's clear when you look at his life as a "prophet" most of his revelations, visions and teachings come from necessity, by him ether getting in trouble with a need to get out of that trouble, or for want of tangible or physical needs, from his treasure hunting to the revelation that Emma would die if she didn't except plural marriage. When looking at his whole life he was very good at taking what was given, his bane being he didn't know when to stop and always took it to far. His need for power was clear in that he proclaimed himself "prophet", "general", and "king". His imagination was very evident by his mothers bio and while we might disagree on the motives of his vision, there

[enummaelish]

Hello Mark.

I

[Markk]

Hi David,

I would say first that past LDS teachings clearly teach that God was once a man and only throgh eternal laws did he become deity. See Gospel Through the Ages, if you want a page and chapter let me know and I'll look it up. I was taught this doctrine as a Mormon growing up in the church in the 60's, it's undeniable.

The scholarship thing I got from conversations on this site with those who would hold the following view with Olster...

"...67. On the other hand, one could understand 'God from all eternity to all eternity' to refer to the Godhead rather than to any of the individual divine persons separately. It is not true that if there has always been a Godhead that all of the divine persons constituting the Godhead have always been divine. Thus, when the scriptures say that "God is from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God," it means that the Godhead has always manifested all of the essential properties of Godhood (whatever they may be), but the individual divine persons may not have always possessed all of the properties of Godhood considered individually. In other words, there was a time when the Father took upon himself mortality just as there was time when the Son became mortal, but there was a Godhead before, during and after that time.29

68. This latter view seems to be more consistent with the scriptures to me. Moreover, it need not entail that the Father became God after an eternity of not having ever been divine, or that there was a time before which the Father was not divine. Rather, when we say that "as man now is, God once was," it seems more consistent to say that just as the Son was divine before becoming mortal (and was in fact very God of the Old Testament),30 so also the Father was divine from all eternity without beginning before he became mortal. The scriptures assert that the Godhead is the same unchangeable and everlasting God from all eternity without beginning. References to "the same unchangeable God" in Mormon scripture often explicitly refer in context to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one God.31 As noted, the Godhead has metaphysically necessary existence and is immutable in nature. The Mormon scriptures also say that although the Son was made flesh, he was an individual divine person prior to mortality from all eternity. It is often not certain whether scriptures or sermons refer to God the Father, or the Son as individual divine persons or to the Godhead. However, if the Son only does what he has seen the Father do before him, as Joseph Smith asserted in the King Follett discourse, then the Father was also divine before becoming mortal just as the Son was before being made flesh.32

69. For those who are offended by Joseph Smith's suggestion that God the Father was once incarnate, it should be noted that God the Son was undoubtedly once a man, and that did not compromise his divinity. Indeed, because it is logically impossible for the divine persons as one Godhead to experience alienation, and because first-hand experience of alienation is essential to fully understand the existential dimension of humanity, the Father also has an overriding reason to experience something like mortality. Thus, the Mormon doctrine of divinity suggests a reason for Joseph Smiths non-scriptural teachings in Nauvoo that the Father, at one time, experienced something like mortality and thereafter regained his divinity in the same way as the Son. However, this belief is a non-scriptural implication of theology that is not binding on Mormons, and thus remains as an option of belief rather than a defining belief of Mormonism.

I colored red the points I get my thought from, while I see that your hanging your argument on the word "savior", I fail to see any difference in my point in that Olster says he doesn't know what reason he believes God became mortal, just that he did. So unless you can give another reason why God would come as a man "as Jesus did" I believe it's within the pail of this context to at the very least say 'he might have'.

If you can show me where general authorities debunk the past teachings by general authorities that man became God through the laws of eternal progression, and promote a view like Olsters that he was god, who for what ever reason become man for a while, then your point is valid, but until that time it is only the opinion of men and scholars with in th eLDS church.

Mark

John 1:12

PS...I pulled the Olster quotes off a old thread called "the hoplessness of Mormonism", Tobi referred it to me.

[enummaelish]

Hello Mark:

I would say first that past LDS teachings clearly teach that God was once a man and only throgh eternal laws did he become deity. See Gospel Through the Ages, if you want a page and chapter let me know and I'll look it up. I was taught this doctrine as a Mormon growing up in the church in the 60's, it's undeniable.

No need for a page number Brother, this is true doctrine.

In other words, there was a time when the Father took upon himself mortality just as there was time when the Son became mortal.

This statement means the same thing as the previous quote.

This latter view seems to be more consistent with the scriptures to me. Moreover, it need not entail that the Father became God after an eternity of not having ever been divine, or that there was a time before which the Father was not divine. Rather, when we say that "as man now is, God once was," it seems more consistent to say that just as the Son was divine before becoming mortal (and was in fact very God of the Old Testament),30 so also the Father was divine from all eternity without beginning before he became mortal.

This is true doctrine. It is also consitent with biblical theology which clearly adds that as the offspring of deity, humans are gods.

the Mormon doctrine of divinity suggests a reason for Joseph Smiths non-scriptural teachings in Nauvoo that the Father, at one time, experienced something like mortality and thereafter regained his divinity in the same way as the Son

This is a true statement. However, I would not qualify the comment as

[Markk]

Hi David,

So, then was God a man before he was God or not? Olster says no, LDS theology says yes.

The bible does not say humans are gods, at least the way LDS theology demands, thats isogesis on your part. But, we've been down that road before. We were created just as the heavens and earth were created, and just as the animals were. If your hanging your argument on Acts 17 then we can discuss Aratus and Pauls statement, but one thing is clear we can only call Him Dad if we are 'adopted' by Him.

Mark

John 1:12

[enummaelish]

So, then was God a man before he was God or not? Olster says no, LDS theology says yes.

The problem with these terms "God" and "man" is that as titles, they carry a variety of meanings. The only portion of Ostler

[Addison]

Thus, if Paul is correct and he and Abinadi agree, then Abinadi is saying Jesus is "the Father" because he waw conceived by "Christ" - i.e. the father is the soul, the body is the flesh of one God, Jesus Christ. At least this seems to be a (although perhaps not the only) reasonable way to see this scripture.

Of course you are correct. That is not the only way to see this scripture--nor is it the correct manner by which to interpret Abinadi.

[Markk]

Hi David,

Your side stepping the fact that LDS prophets taught that God was a man before he was deity. LDS doctrine teaches clearly that all man kind including God came from intelligence via Godly parents then were procreated from spirit beings by earthly parents and through obedience to eternal laws they can become a God big "G". This is not what Olster is saying nor is this what LDS scholarship is shaping, which was one of my original points that you contested. I'm going to ask you to give me a quote from some of the past leaders who championed that God was a man before he was exalted to Godhood that would teach what Olster and alike are teaching. Here is a quote from the teaching manual and LDS classic Gospel Through the Ages, commissioned to be written by Milton Hunter , head of the seventy, and endorsed by JFS, Ezra Taft Benson, and John Widstoe. It was also printed as priesthood manual.

[CelestialGurl000]

The Book of Mormon clearly contains a surplus of references to the notion that God is one. These statements have led critics to assume that the theological view presented in the BOM is inconsistent with later doctrinal truths advocated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Dan Vogel provides a classic case in point:

“The Book of Mormon therefore violates a major tenet of trinitarianism by confusing the persons of the Father and Son and by referring to Jesus as the Father.

[CelestialGurl000]

Oh and by the way. Jesus Christ is a God in his own right. He does most of the Father's work for him on this earth. Like the Brother of Jared saw Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has pogressed far enough. We on the other hand, are still working on becoming like them. SO WE CAN BE ONE IN THEM, ONE IN PURPOSE.

[Markk]

Hi David,

See CelestialGurl's Post's, that's exactly what I'm talking about. She has posted a perfect "old school' rebutel as to the LDS understanding of the Christian " Trinity. I believe this is more or less the same understanding that Smith had when he wrote BOM, although his view had more of a modelism type flavor.

Hi Celestial Gurl,

Can you explain your understanding of what you have been taught about how the Father became God...ie..eternal progression and exaltaion. Would you hold the view of the general authorites, or the view of todays LDS scholarship crowd? Just curious.

Mark

John 1:12

[Addison]

CelestialGurl000 quotes John 17:18 which says, "As thou has sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world" as evidence that Father and Son are two Gods.

I admit that this is one way to understand this scripture and certainly represents the views of the LDS Church and the teachings of Joseph Smith, it's founder. But there is a mystical way to understand this as well which comes from the revelations of Joseph Smith. In the Book of Mormon, Jesus says that the God that sent him into the world was not another God, but himself.

12 And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. I am the same that leadeth men to all good; he that will not believe my words will not believe me

[CelestialGurl000]

Hi David,

See CelestialGurl's Post's, that's exactly what I'm talking about. She has posted a perfect "old school' rebutel as to the LDS understanding of the Christian " Trinity. I believe this is more or less the same understanding that Smith had when he wrote BOM, although his view had more of a modelism type flavor.

Hi Celestial Gurl,

Can you explain your understanding of what you have been taught about how the Father became God...ie..eternal progression and exaltaion. Would you hold the view of the general authorites, or the view of todays LDS scholarship crowd? Just curious.

Mark

John 1:12

Of course Smith understood it because he had revelation. For us, we have to go by faith a little more.

Yeah, I guess it is "old school." I dunno, I guess it just seems so plain and simple to me.

Their is a scripture that says "I do nothing save I see the Father do it." Something to that effect...I do not feel like finding it right now.

Anyway, my Father taught me (mortal father ), that our Father in Heaven could have very likely been a Saviour on another earth and recieved his exaltation.

You know the quote....

"As man is, God once was, as God is, man may become."

And of course I hold the view of our General Authorities and Prophet. They are called of God. I guess I do not know all the views of the LDS scholars, but am assuming that they are like my views. ???

I on the other hand am far from a scholar LOL. I am just a 19 year old girl from Arizona.

Their is eternal progression and eternal exaltation. This life is such a learning experience. And of course we all chose to come here because we wanted to be "added upon" and work our way to becoming more like our Father in Heaven.

[CelestialGurl000]

CelestialGurl000 quotes John 17:18 which says, "As thou has sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world" as evidence that Father and Son are two Gods.

I admit that this is one way to understand this scripture and certainly represents the views of the LDS Church and the teachings of Joseph Smith, it's founder. But there is a mystical way to understand this as well which comes from the revelations of Joseph Smith. In the Book of Mormon, Jesus says that the God that sent him into the world was not another God, but himself.

12 And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. I am the same that leadeth men to all good; he that will not believe my words will not believe me—that I am; and he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. For behold, I am the Father. Ether 4:12

What Jesus appears to be saying is that the soul sends the body and that if one does not believe his soul, one will not believe his body. In stating that he was the Father, Jesus was also stating that he, that is his spirit, was the God to whom they prayed. If one realizes that Jesus is the God of the Old Testiment, then one also realizes that all the prophets of the OT prayed to him - that is to his spirit because his body had not yet been born. That is why the distinction is made, Father and Son because it was the Father, the spirit of Jesus Christ that created all things and it was the Son, the body of Jesus Christ that died on the cross for our redemption. In no way could the body have created us, it wasn't born. Thus, the need to speak of Father and Son and to recognize that they are one God, not two.

This brings up another point. Why is it so strange to think that there are things contained within the revelations of Joseph Smith that he didn't understand? Was he receiving revelation from God or making the stuff up himself? If Joseph Smith made up the Book of Mormon, we'd expect it to reflect his own beliefs. But if the Book of Mormon was a revelation, Joseph Smith might believe things that were contrary to what was contained in the revelations.

For instance, Joseph Smith taught that everything including spirit is matter. However, his revelations teach just the opposite, that everything, including matter is spirit. Many thoughtful quantum physicists now believe that spirit (called consciousness) is the foundation of reality and that matter is a manifestation of spirit. Are not the discoveries of quantum physic a revelation, just as powerful as those of Joseph Smith, as to the presence of God in the universe?

Beside that, most Mormon’s don’t accept everything that Joseph Smith taught anyway. If we were compelled to believe everything Joseph Smith taught, we would be compelled to believe that there were men living on rhw moon. The fact is that we need to learn how to allow Joseph Smith to have his own opinions and allow God to continue to reveal himself to us. This topic is discussed by LDS apologist Stephen Gibson:

Even if it turned out that the prophet held these views [men on the moon], nowhere does scripture suggest that a prophet is not allowed to speculate about things that haven't been revealed.

[Mighty Curelom]

There are so many other things that make it blatantly apparent that this is Jesus Christs church restored by God (and Christ).

Yes--like polygamy.

I've always thought that one of the best indicators that the Mormon church is the one true church restored by Jesus Christ was that the founder slept with lots of women. That is, if you can call 14 years old a woman.

[CelestialGurl000]

Another thing that strengthened my testimony is my mom had brain surgery ten years ago. She went into a coma (wasn't breathing). And, my Father and other gave her a priesthood blessing. She didn't tell me the whole story until recently. She holds the experience so dear to her heart. I do not know if I should share it on here, but it strengthned my testimony of this church, so maybe it will strengthen yours.

She had a spiritual experience. She saw God the Father and Jesus Christ. First it was Heavenly Father, and she said he appeared gloriously white with a beard and white hair and he communicated with her telepathically. No words had to be spoken. He told her it wasn't her time to go and that her children needed her. Then as his face faded he communicated "This is my beloved son." And Christs face appeared. No words were spoken. All she told me was that the feelings she had were indescribable. And when she woke up their were tears streaming down her face as she lay hooked up to a respirator that was breathing for her. She said she knew she had to be here to take care of us, but she wanted more than anything to be back in their presance because she had never felt more happiness and love all at once.

They are two seperate personages. And they both love us. Christ died for our sins and is our elder brother. And our Father in Heaven gave us the chance to come here to grow and become more like him.

I know what my mother saw was real. She told me it was just as real as anything else she has experienced on this earth. She wasn't decieved, she was not imagining anything. I am so thankful that I could have my mother to strengthen my testimony as I grew up. Even though for many years I went off the right path and wasn't doing the right things, I never could deny this church. And now that I am back, after experiencing the world's emptiness and darkness, I have only grown and my testimony has strengthened of this church.

[CelestialGurl000]

There are so many other things that make it blatantly apparent that this is Jesus Christs church restored by God (and Christ).

Yes--like polygamy.

I've always thought that one of the best indicators that the Mormon church is the one true church restored by Jesus Christ was that the founder slept with lots of women. That is, if you can call 14 years old a woman.

I will not argue with you about polygamy.

When it is commanded of God it is a commandment so that he can raise up his seed.

When it is not a commandment, it is a sin.

[Markk]

Hi CG,

You Wrote..." I on the other hand am far from a scholar LOL. I am just a 19 year old girl from Arizona"

I'm really curious, as a "average" member of the church, what do you think about how LDS "scholarship" changing traditional Mormon thought. Whether it be the nature of God or geographical therory, it's been clear that as data comes in the leadership keeps quit, the tough answers come from LDS "scholarship" and lay defenders of the faith. When I was LDS I held many of the views you seem to hold, they were taught to me and were basically second nature, but when i use these same thoughts to the "scholarship" crowd I am told things like ' I don't understand', or I don't have a testimony, which may be true, but that has nothing to do with what was taught by LDS leadership and understood by those whom it was taught to.

I guess my question is " is it okay to change the ideologies of the past teachers in the name of scholarship", or should a "caution label" be put on such thought". At what point should LDS leadership caution the saints from within and start leading again. To me they do a great job of managing the status quo, but are they really leading as those who hold the keys as the past leaders did?

Thanks

Mark

John 1:12

[enummaelish]

Hello Mark:

what do you think about how LDS "scholarship" changing traditional Mormon thought

I still don

[Markk]

Hi David,

LDS scholarship for the most part that I have read shapes God as always being God then became man for awile as Jesus did, then returned to being God, that was Olsters point, at least the way I understand it, Tobi explained it that way as did TF. But, LDS leadership has always taught that God was not God always, but a exalted man, big difference. I understand you guys play the game and play dumb, and thats OK, I understand, I once did that myself, but it doesn't change the facts of what was taught by Joseph Smith and other higher ups, your denile is the shaping I speak of. And I don't have to establish that, I know what I was taught and I can see the way it is now being shaped, to quote Sissy Spacek, in Blast from the Past "theres a big difference", you have to be honest with yourself David, the agenda of those who are re-shaping is clear, if you really believe the LDS thought of todays LDS scholarship crowd is the same as the mormon thought of the past your only fooling yourself. GH opened this door when he said "he wasn't sure", and scholarship has ran with it ever sense.

Harry Potter? I only saw the first one, and I liked it as a fantasy, I've read reviews that say they actually use satanic chants etc, but over all I enjoyed it and had no problem with my kids watching it. I should probably read more on it, but you keep me to busy.

Take care

Your friend

Mark

John 1:12