Mosiah 15: 1-5

[Guest]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Ok, first of all I did not call you or anyone a liar on the board.  I don't like personal attacks and if that is what it felt like, my apologies "Papa".

Second of all, excellent response, now I understand where you are coming from with your explanation of 100 beings that could make up the Godhead.  As I posted before, I thought that we were probablly using a familiar term "One" as it relates to God with different definitions, which is why I requested clarity on that and the source of my misunderstanding.

To take it one step more, again using the words of Jesus Christ and his Apostles from the Bible, because what we believe comes from the Bible. It is not a Mormon teaching, not a Book of Mormon teaching, but a Biblical teaching. As Jesus Christ became a "heir with God", so we ar made "joint heirs", which (also Biblical) we "receive all that the Father has", we become "One" with him, we "partake in and of his nature as well", making us all "One". Joseph Smith did not invent this doctrine, just as he did not invent "degrees of glory", or "salvation for the dead", nor any other doctrines. The Book of Mormon is not the "Mormon Bible", the Bible is our Bible. Apology accepted, and I ask your pardon if I overstepped. 

Edited July 25, 2017 by Bill "Papa" Lee

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Sounds like the trinity to me...maybe you are Trinitarian?

I think it can be read as I do, without a Trinitarian perspective. How can I help you do that?

Also, do you have a reply to this post: Posted 4 hours ago

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Sounds like the trinity to me...maybe you are Trinitarian?

As I said, the ideas are not too dissimilar.  The big difference is the *how* multiple persons are ONE God.  LDS point to unity, Trinitarians to shared ousia.  

[Bobbieaware]

9 hours ago, snowflake said:

Mosiah Chapter 15:

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

Here in Mosiah, the BOM states "God himself shall come down among the children of men" (as Jesus). According to what I understand, LDS doctrine states that Jesus is the 1st born spirit being of Heavenly father and Heavenly Mother, and also the spiritual parents of Satan and us. 

 

My question is: How can Jesus be our created spiritual brother if he is "God himself come down among us"?

I get a kick out of how you Evangelicals (or whatever you might be) pull the guilt by association card when it comes to our perfectly righteous Savior and the absolutely evil Satan. Yet you have nothing to say about the fact that God, a being with infinite foreknowledge, created Lucifer, even though he knew how things would unfold. Can I safely conclude you believe God created evil? Shouldn't the creator of Satan be held to account? 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[LittleNipper]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

I get a kick out of how you Evangelicals (or whatever you might be) pull the guilt by association card when it comes to our perfectly righteous Savior and the absolutely evil Satan. Yet you have nothing to say about the fact that God, a being with infinite foreknowledge, created Lucifer, even though he knew how things would unfold. Can I safely conclude you believe God created evil? Shouldn't the creator of Satan be held to account? 

Free will is the reason GOD allowed the inevitable. GOD wanted humans to love Him through choice (if only a few) and not by design. God foreknew who would choose HIM and this is the entire reason GOD allowed Satan to make the choices he did. GOD cannot commit evil. GOD is pure 100% LOVE. This is why Satan cannot be the brother of Jesus. Jesus could not sin.

Edited July 26, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Jane_Doe]

22 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Free will is the reason GOD allowed the inevitable. GOD wanted humans to love Him through choice (if only a few) and not by design. God foreknew who would choose HIM and this is the entire reason GOD allowed Satan to make the choices he did. GOD cannot commit evil. GOD is pure 100% LOVE. 

That is all very much LDS theology.

22 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

 This is why Satan cannot be the brother of Jesus. Jesus could not sin.

This statement does not follow at all from the previous statements.  

 

[USU78]

34 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

That is all very much LDS theology.

This statement does not follow at all from the previous statements.  

In line fully with Calvinist predestination, though.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

Free will is the reason GOD allowed the inevitable. GOD wanted humans to love Him through choice (if only a few) and not by design. God foreknew who would choose HIM and this is the entire reason GOD allowed Satan to make the choices he did. GOD cannot commit evil. GOD is pure 100% LOVE. This is why Satan cannot be the brother of Jesus. Jesus could not sin.

So free will explains why God created Satan, knowing full well he would be the main cause of billions and billions being sent to the horrors of an unending hell, but free will doesn't explain how one intelligent being can choose to stay true to God, and another choose to totally rebel against God, without the one who chooses to remain true to God being stained in reputation (guilt by association) by the one who made the decision to rebel? Is the angel Michael stained, corrupted and diminished in power, glory and might as the archangel of God because he and Satan were fellow angels?

Edited July 26, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[LittleNipper]

10 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

That is all very much LDS theology.

This statement does not follow at all from the previous statements.  

 

Let me explain. If Jesus is the Son of GOD and cannot sin because he is God being the Son of God, it would make absolutely no sense that if Lucifer/Satan was the brother of Jesus that would make him GOD's son also. And since GOD's Son cannot sin then Lucifer/Satan could not sin.......................................... So in fact it goes to demonstrate that Lucifer was merely a created being who attempted to become "God"and that was the root of his sin.

[LittleNipper]

9 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

So free will explains why God created Satan, knowing full well he would be the main cause of billions and billions being sent to the horrors of an unending hell, but free will doesn't explain how one intelligent being can choose to stay true to God, and another choose to totally rebel against God, without the one who chooses to remain true to God being stained in reputation (guilt by association) by the one who made the decision to rebel? Is the angel Michael stained, corrupted and diminished in power, glory and might as the archangel of God because he and Satan were fellow angels?

Adam could have chosen not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. GOD foreknew Adan would but Adam didn't have to. The angels in heaven split. About a third of the angels of heaven sided with Lucifer/Satan. The rest stayed at GOD's side and they were SEALED to GOD forever keeping their choice (to remain with GOD) permanent. Michael is a perfect example of a SEALED Archangel. All the angels were from their beginning exposed to the full glory of GOD. And yet though so exposed (and should have known better) some still chose to defy GOD . This is why they can never be redeemed. They did the unimaginable. Adam and Eve were lower creations living on a specific planet designed just for them. They had no comprehension of the vastness of GOD, and they were beguiled and fell into Satan's trap. They listened to what Satan had to say.and imagined that GOD was withholding abilities that they were entitled to. They soon realized their mistake.... 

[clarkgoble]

16 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

As I said, the ideas are not too dissimilar.  The big difference is the *how* multiple persons are ONE God.  LDS point to unity, Trinitarians to shared ousia.  

I'd say the Mormon view is that we don't really know. The traditional Christian view is one arising largely out of a platonic conception. There's no reason why Mormons couldn't embrace that sort of unity though and indeed many have historically. Orson Pratt's influential theology is rather informed by Tertullian's more stoic take on the Trinity where the ousia is the material interpenetrating fluid of the aether for instance. The other Mormon view, arguably more dominant in the 20th century was a nominalist one where the unity was just sharing similar mental states of purposes, beliefs, and the like rather than a real unity. But that's sort of the ground level requirement of what is minimally required. Lots of people think there's much more to the unity.

[snowflake]

22 hours ago, CV75 said:

LDS "theology" teaches us a lot of things. Both the Father and the Son can be referred to as "God himself," whether separately or together. After all, they are one in council.

Agreed.

Is it not true that in Mormon theology, Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother created spirit offspring. The first born was Jesus. Now how he was created or organized from "intelligences" is still a mystery from what I understand, nonetheless Jesus is the firstborn spirit being.  Do I have the story correct so far?

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Agreed.

Is it not true that in Mormon theology, Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother created spirit offspring. The first born was Jesus. Now how he was created or organized from "intelligences" is still a mystery from what I understand, nonetheless Jesus is the firstborn spirit being.  Do I have the story correct so far?

That sounds good enough to me.

[Jane_Doe]

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Let me explain. If Jesus is the Son of GOD and cannot sin because he is God being the Son of God, it would make absolutely no sense that if Lucifer/Satan was the brother of Jesus that would make him GOD's son also. 

So in your view, a son of God cannot have free will, and hence Christ can be a son of God, but not Lucifer?  How about rest of the sons of God that shouted for joy in Job 38:7- do they likewise not have free will? 

The LDS view is that all sons of God have free will.  Christ has always chosen to not sin, Lucifer obviously choose to rebel.  

[Jane_Doe]

8 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Agreed.

Is it not true that in Mormon theology, Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother created spirit offspring. The first born was Jesus. Now how he was created or organized from "intelligences" is still a mystery from what I understand, nonetheless Jesus is the firstborn spirit being.  Do I have the story correct so far?

Again, the words "created" don't mean what they mean in your Creedal Christianity, and "born" has nothing to do with a uterus or birth canal.  Christ has always existed and is not a "creation" in the way Creedal theology says humans are. 

 

[Gray]

On 7/25/2017 at 10:30 AM, bluebell said:

This is an interesting article on the topic, from BYU.

Abinadi begins his explanation by reinforcing his earlier statement that Jehovah will come to earth: “I would that ye should understand that God himself [Jehovah] shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people” (Mosiah 15:1). Then he explains that Jehovah will subject His mortal flesh as Christ to His divine will as Jehovah. He says, “And because he [Jehovah] dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God [Christ], and having subjected the flesh [Christ] to the will of the Father [Jehovah], being the Father [Jehovah] and the Son [Christ]” (v. 2).

Next he explains that Jehovah will come to earth and maintain His status as Father, or God, because He will be begotten by Elohim, but He will also be Christ the Son because of the mortal flesh He will inherit from Mary. Therefore, Jesus is “the Father [Jehovah], because he was conceived by the power of God [Elohim]; and the Son [Christ], because of the flesh [mortality inherited from Mary]; thus becoming the Father and the Son [Jehovah and Christ]—And they [Jehovah the Father and Christ the Son] are one God [Jehovah-Christ], yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth” (Mosiah 15:3–4).

Now Abinadi returns to the idea that Jesus will subject His mortal flesh to His divine spirit: “And thus the flesh [Christ] becoming subject to the Spirit [Jehovah], or the Son [Christ] to the Father [Jehovah], being one God [Jehovah-Christ], suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his own people” (vv. 5–6).

That's an interesting way to try to harmonize it, although I don't think the dichotomy between Jehovah and Elohim was developed in the church until later.

Still, how does being conceived by the power of God make him the Father? That's just sort of glossed over.

[snowflake]

27 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Again, the words "created" don't mean what they mean in your Creedal Christianity, and "born" has nothing to do with a uterus or birth canal.  Christ has always existed and is not a "creation" in the way Creedal theology says humans are. 

 

"Created" would be more like "organized",  from what I understand as "pre-existing intelligences", correct?  Is it accurate to say Jesus was "organized" from these intelligences or not?

[hagoth7]

On 7/25/2017 at 9:00 AM, snowflake said:

Mosiah Chapter 15:

My question is: How can...?

The first Lauren song shared a bit over a year ago:

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by hagoth7

[Jane_Doe]

22 minutes ago, snowflake said:

"Created" would be more like "organized",  from what I understand as "pre-existing intelligences", correct?  Is it accurate to say Jesus was "organized" from these intelligences or not?

That is much better.  Though, LDS in church really wouldn't say "Christ is an organized being"... then again we also don't say "Christ is a created being".  More we just talk about "Christ is love" or stuff like that.  Grouping beings into different species is a Creedal thing, not LDS.  

Sorry if I'm being a bit soapbox-y here.  I just hate it when anti-Mormons say "Mormons believe that Jesus was a created being", because that gives a completely dishonest picture of LDS beliefs and is nothing more than a dishonest attack on the savior divinity.  

Edited July 26, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's an interesting way to try to harmonize it, although I don't think the dichotomy between Jehovah and Elohim was developed in the church until later.

Still, how does being conceived by the power of God make him the Father? That's just sort of glossed over.

From my understanding, it's because it is His relationship with God the Father, which enables Him to perform the Atonement, that makes it possible for Him to adopt us.

Therefore, not being the only begotten of God in the flesh = no adoption and no becoming Father of us. 

It is the power of God, which Christ inherited through His miraculous birth, that enables Him to become our adopted Father. 

Edited July 26, 2017 by bluebell

[snowflake]

18 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

That is much better.  Though, LDS in church really wouldn't say "Christ is an organized being"... then again we also don't say "Christ is a created being".  More we just talk about "Christ is love" or stuff like that.  Grouping beings into different species is a Creedal thing, not LDS.  

Sorry if I'm being a bit soapbox-y here.  I just hate it when anti-Mormons say "Mormons believe that Jesus was a created being", because that gives a completely dishonest picture of LDS beliefs and is nothing more than a dishonest attack on the savior divinity.  

No, I appreciate you being specific, so often the Mormon "language" and the Christian "language" use the same words with different meanings which leads to confusion. As I understand, there is not a lot of understanding about these "intelligences", any references where I might read what the Prophets or scriptures say about this stuff. Also, is it correct in LDS theology that "matter" is eternal as well, there was no beginning to it, similar the intelligences?  Your comment above about different species, do you mean that God is an exalted human, angels are human on a different level of exaltation and we are "gods" in utero or training?

[Jane_Doe]

5 minutes ago, snowflake said:

No, I appreciate you being specific, so often the Mormon "language" and the Christian "language" use the same words with different meanings which leads to confusion.

I'm glad you appreciate it, I likewise find it really important to be specific.

5 minutes ago, snowflake said:

As I understand, there is not a lot of understanding about these "intelligences", any references where I might read what the Prophets or scriptures say about this stuff. Also, is it correct in LDS theology that "matter" is eternal as well, there was no beginning to it, similar the intelligences? 

Yes to all.  Ex nihilio creation is an interpretation of the bible propertied by Hellenistic Christianity. 

5 minutes ago, snowflake said:

 Your comment above about different species, do you mean that God is an exalted human, angels are human on a different level of exaltation and we are "gods" in utero or training?

I'm simply referring to the fact that Mormons don't believe in different species of intelligent life.  The Creedal belief is so many different species of intelligent life is... odd.  

[snowflake]

22 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I'm glad you appreciate it, I likewise find it really important to be specific.

Yes to all.  Ex nihilio creation is an interpretation of the bible propertied by Hellenistic Christianity. 

I'm simply referring to the fact that Mormons don't believe in different species of intelligent life.  The Creedal belief is so many different species of intelligent life is... odd.  

I'm not following you on the last line here, different species of intelligent life? Are you referring to life here on earth? Creedal belief in so many different species of intelligent life....?  Please elaborate more for me.

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I'm not following you on the last line here, different species of intelligent life? Are you referring to life here on earth? Creedal belief in so many different species of intelligent life....?  Please elaborate more for me.

In your belief system: are you and angels the same species?  you and God?  God and angels?

From my understanding of Creedal Christianity, the answer to those questions is "no", resulting in at least 3 different species of intelligent life. 

LDS simply answer "yes" to all those questions.  We're all the same species.  

Edited July 26, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, snowflake said:

No, I appreciate you being specific, so often the Mormon "language" and the Christian "language" use the same words with different meanings which leads to confusion. As I understand, there is not a lot of understanding about these "intelligences", any references where I might read what the Prophets or scriptures say about this stuff. Also, is it correct in LDS theology that "matter" is eternal as well, there was no beginning to it, similar the intelligences?  Your comment above about different species, do you mean that God is an exalted human, angels are human on a different level of exaltation and we are "gods" in utero or training?

I don't think this matters because, wherever He came from, John 1:1-14 teaches that He was both with God and was God. The Jews knew this also: that the Son of God is God as far as they are concerned, and also that sons of God, as gods, become one with God, and God, also.