Jump to content

The Fate of the Unredeemed


Recommended Posts

On 8/17/2020 at 3:22 PM, Ahab said:

You may find some comfort in knowing that we will never become another kind of being than the kind we already are.  Maybe you just don't know what kind of being we are and God is,.. just a thought.

I found several teachings from former LDS Presidents.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-john-taylor/chapter-1?lang=eng

"In one point of view, man appears very poor, weak, and imbecile, and very insignificant: in 
another point of view, he appears wise, intelligent, strong, honorable, and exalted  ...

In another point of view, we look at him as emanating from the Gods-as a God in embryo-as an 
eternal being who had an existence before he came here, and who will exist after his mortal 
remains are mingled and associated with dust, from whence he came, and from whence he will be 
resurrected and partake of that happiness for which he is destined, or receive the reward of 
his evil deeds, according to circumstances. ...

... What is [man]? He had his being in the eternal worlds; he existed before he came here. He 
is not only the son of man, but he is the son of God also. He is a God in embryo, and possesses 
within him a spark of that eternal flame which was struck from the blaze of God’s eternal fire 
in the eternal world, and is placed here upon the earth that he may possess true intelligence, 
true light, true knowledge,-that he may know himself-that he may know God-that he may know 
something about what he was before he came here-that he may know something about what he is 
destined to enjoy in the eternal worlds
."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1973/07/man-a-child-of-god?lang=eng

"The truth is, my beloved brethren and sisters, man is a child of God-a God in embryo." 

Maybe Doctrine and Covenants 132:18-20 needs to change gods to Gods.

Edited by theplains
added extra reference
Link to post
1 hour ago, theplains said:

I found several teachings from former LDS Presidents.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-john-taylor/chapter-1?lang=eng

"In one point of view, man appears very poor, weak, and imbecile, and very insignificant: in 
another point of view, he appears wise, intelligent, strong, honorable, and exalted  ...

In another point of view, we look at him as emanating from the Gods-as a God in embryo-as an 
eternal being who had an existence before he came here, and who will exist after his mortal 
remains are mingled and associated with dust, from whence he came, and from whence he will be 
resurrected and partake of that happiness for which he is destined, or receive the reward of 
his evil deeds, according to circumstances. ...

... What is [man]? He had his being in the eternal worlds; he existed before he came here. He 
is not only the son of man, but he is the son of God also. He is a God in embryo, and possesses 
within him a spark of that eternal flame which was struck from the blaze of God’s eternal fire 
in the eternal world, and is placed here upon the earth that he may possess true intelligence, 
true light, true knowledge,-that he may know himself-that he may know God-that he may know 
something about what he was before he came here-that he may know something about what he is 
destined to enjoy in the eternal worlds
."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1973/07/man-a-child-of-god?lang=eng

"The truth is, my beloved brethren and sisters, man is a child of God-a God in embryo." 

Maybe Doctrine and Covenants 132:18-20 needs to change gods to Gods.

Or maybe it just needs to be understood that gods is to God as men is to Man, as one of a kind of being, just as God can refer to only one person or to any person who is the same kind of being as our Father in heaven... just a thought.

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, theplains said:

Maybe Doctrine and Covenants 132:18-20 needs to change gods to Gods.

So in your view, do you believe "God" with a capital G should only be reserved for Heavenly Father, the one Supreme God who is the God of gods?    And if so, do you believe that the early Christians or the translators of their writings were saying that men would become Heavenly Father when they said men could become "God" or be "Gods"?  (As in these quotations:  Origen, “He is the God of these beings who are truly Gods, and then He is the God, in a word, of the living and not of the dead.”, Irenaeus“How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?”, and Hippolytus, “If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God”).  If not, what do you think they intended by using a capital G?

  • Like 2
Link to post
26 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

So in your view, do you believe "God" with a capital G should only be reserved for Heavenly Father, the one Supreme God who is the God of gods?    And if so, do you believe that the early Christians or the translators of their writings were saying that men would become Heavenly Father when they said men could become "God" or be "Gods"?  (As in these quotations:  Origen, “He is the God of these beings who are truly Gods, and then He is the God, in a word, of the living and not of the dead.”, Irenaeus“How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?”, and Hippolytus, “If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God”).  If not, what do you think they intended by using a capital G?

I am not aware of all of Origen's teachings, but I don't believe that particular one.  As for LDS theology, I
don't understand how former Presidents consider themselves Gods in embryo but then state in Doctrine
and Covenants that exalted beings would become gods instead of Gods.  Then you have the 1997 version
of Gospel Principles which referred to Heavenly Father as a god.

It seems like a god (a deity) = a God (a deity) and a God in embryo (a deity) is still a God (a deity) that has
yet to mature.  But then I am unsure what theological change (if any) takes place when the 1981 Book of
Mormon uses Gods in Alma 12:31 but gods in the newer version.  

Based on the various teachings I have already mentioned, maybe you can explain where the use of small g
in some places and capital G in other places makes a difference.

Link to post
22 minutes ago, theplains said:

I am not aware of all of Origen's teachings, but I don't believe that particular one.  As for LDS theology, I
don't understand how former Presidents consider themselves Gods in embryo but then state in Doctrine
and Covenants that exalted beings would become gods instead of Gods.  Then you have the 1997 version
of Gospel Principles which referred to Heavenly Father as a god.

It seems like a god (a deity) = a God (a deity) and a God in embryo (a deity) is still a God (a deity) that has
yet to mature.  But then I am unsure what theological change (if any) takes place when the 1981 Book of
Mormon uses Gods in Alma 12:31 but gods in the newer version.  

Based on the various teachings I have already mentioned, maybe you can explain where the use of small g
in some places and capital G in other places makes a difference.

We're talking about how words are used to convey an idea.  The idea we are trying to convey, and that other prophets of God have tried to convey, is there there is a kind of being which we refer to as God.

So get that thought in your mind, first.  God is a word we use to refer to a particular kind of being.  It doesn't matter much if you use a capital G or a little lower case g, just get the idea of a particular kind of being.

Now I will talk about how that particular kind of being consists of more than one person.  We could says gods or persons who are God, it doesn't matter much.  Just get the idea of more than one person being God, as a kind of being.

So we could say our Father in heaven is God or that Jesus is God or that the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost is God, with all of that being true.  All 3 of those persons are the kind of being we refer to as God.  Or in other words, all are gods.

Sometimes some people say or have said that Jesus and his/our Father in heaven are Gods, with a capital G, but I don't much care for that.  Still, though, it is really no big deal as long as you get the correct ideas about all of this.

Edited by Ahab
  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, theplains said:

I am not aware of all of Origen's teachings, but I don't believe that particular one.

But you didn't answer my question.  What do you think was intended by using a capital G in saying that men become "Gods" in the writings of the early Christians?  Why use a capital G instead of a lower case G when talking about men becoming "Gods"?  Do you believe that was due to a theological change, or something else?   Also, why do you believe differently than the early Christians?

4 hours ago, theplains said:

It seems like a god (a deity) = a God (a deity) and a God in embryo (a deity) is still a God (a deity) that has
yet to mature.  But then I am unsure what theological change (if any) takes place when the 1981 Book of
Mormon uses Gods in Alma 12:31 but gods in the newer version.  

Based on the various teachings I have already mentioned, maybe you can explain where the use of small g
in some places and capital G in other places makes a difference.

It is not a theological change, but merely a preference on relative relationship, as has been explained to you many times before here, here, and most recently here:

Quote

I discussed the capitalization preference with you previously here:

  Quote

The "Gods" or "gods" contention has always seemed frivolous to me, since there are different historical and official LDS texts that show "Gods" or "gods", with or without the capital G.   The reason for either choice has to do with context and the stated relative authority of one being over others who are subject to the one.

This is no different than what is done in all Bible translations.  For example, the Hebrew language has no case distinction (upper or lower case) letters, but we see Deuteronomy 10:17 translated in the KJV as:  "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords".  God is said to be "God" (with a capital G) over other "gods" (lowercase g).  There is nothing nefarious about making the choice to use a lowercase "g" in to translate the Hebrew elohim as "gods" instead of "Gods".  But the choice shows how the translators view the authority of God over other "gods".

In Latter-day Saint teaching and understanding of these things, all who become "gods" are always subject to the one "God" who is above all, similar to what is stated in Revelation 21:7:  "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son."   (Emphasis added)

So a text could use the word “God” with a capital G when referring to the dominion of one being over others, or “god” with a lower case G when referring to beings who are subject to one God who is above all others.  And those who sit with God in his throne may be referred to as “gods” when emphasizing their relationship to God the Father and Jesus Christ, or as “Gods” when referring to those under their rule, as in their rule over the nations (Revelation 2:26-27).  And as mentioned above in the quote from Revelation 21:7, God the Father will always be our God and Father.

Perhaps you could engage with my explanation given above instead of asking the same question again and again.

Edited by InCognitus
Link to post
15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

What do you think was intended by using a capital G in saying that men become "Gods" in the writings of the early Christians?  Why use a capital G instead of a lower case G when talking about men becoming "Gods"?  Do you believe that was due to a theological change, or something else?   Also, why do you believe differently than the early Christians?

Maybe they thought men could really become Deities.  Not sure why they didn't use small g instead
of a large G.   Moses and Satan are both referred to as a small g (god) but they don't appear to be
gods in the sense of Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-21.

Why don't I believe what some of the early Christians taught?  Well, because I believe a created
being cannot become a Creator God.  From what I know, Jehovah's Witnesses teach Jesus is
Michael the Archangel; and Latter-day Saints teach both Jesus and Heavenly Father became 
Gods.  

We can all believe in different things but at some point we must conclude that someone is teaching
a Christ who is not found in scripture.

Link to post
15 minutes ago, theplains said:

Maybe they thought men could really become Deities.  Not sure why they didn't use small g instead
of a large G.   Moses and Satan are both referred to as a small g (god) but they don't appear to be
gods in the sense of Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-21.

Why don't I believe what some of the early Christians taught?  Well, because I believe a created
being cannot become a Creator God.  From what I know, Jehovah's Witnesses teach Jesus is
Michael the Archangel; and Latter-day Saints teach both Jesus and Heavenly Father became 
Gods.  

We can all believe in different things but at some point we must conclude that someone is teaching
a Christ who is not found in scripture.

Not necessarily a different Christ, but he either did something or he didn't, and whatever some people say about him is either true or not true.  I think generally it comes down to some people knowing him better than other people know him, rather than not knowing him at all.

Link to post
4 hours ago, theplains said:

Moses and Satan are both referred to as a small g (god)

Who do you think it was that decided to use a small G instead of a capital G for Moses and Satan in the KJV Bible, and other Bible translations?   And why do you think they made the choice to use a small G?

Look at these translations of Exodus 7:1:

NASB:  "Then the LORD said to Moses, “See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet."

DBY:   "And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet."

Why do you think the choice was made, one way or another?  (It didn't come from the Hebrew manuscript, I can tell you that.)

4 hours ago, theplains said:

Why don't I believe what some of the early Christians taught?  Well, because I believe a created being cannot become a Creator God.

Does the capital G mean Creator God in your view?  Or why is it important?

4 hours ago, theplains said:

We can all believe in different things but at some point we must conclude that someone is teaching a Christ who is not found in scripture.

If someone happens to know different things about Jesus than you do, does that mean they are teaching a different Christ than what is found in scripture?  If Mary, the mother of Jesus, went around and taught things that Jesus did as a baby, things that aren't recorded in scripture, do you think she would be teaching a different Christ?

Do you believe that everything you believe and teach about Christ is found in scripture?  Do you teach the doctrine of the Trinity?  Do you believe every aspect of the doctrine of the Trinity is found in scripture?  (I can tell you it isn't).  So which of us is teaching a different Christ?

Link to post
On 8/20/2020 at 5:27 PM, InCognitus said:

Who do you think it was that decided to use a small G instead of a capital G for Moses and Satan in the KJV Bible, and other Bible translations?   And why do you think they made the choice to use a small G?

Look at these translations of Exodus 7:1:

NASB:  "Then the LORD said to Moses, “See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet."

DBY:   "And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet."

Why do you think the choice was made, one way or another?  (It didn't come from the Hebrew manuscript, I can tell you that.)

Does the capital G mean Creator God in your view?  Or why is it important?

If someone happens to know different things about Jesus than you do, does that mean they are teaching a different Christ than what is found in scripture?  If Mary, the mother of Jesus, went around and taught things that Jesus did as a baby, things that aren't recorded in scripture, do you think she would be teaching a different Christ?

Do you believe that everything you believe and teach about Christ is found in scripture?  Do you teach the doctrine of the Trinity?  Do you believe every aspect of the doctrine of the Trinity is found in scripture?  (I can tell you it isn't).  So which of us is teaching a different Christ?

I am not sure why different Bible translators used  small g instead of a capital G.  I am also not
sure why Alma 12:31 has Gods in the 1981 version and gods in the current version.  Maybe
gods in Doctrine and Covenants 132 should be Gods.

As for God, we do have references that he is eternally God - not that he was a man who became
the God of planet Earth. Likewise, I do not believe Jesus became a God when he reached some
pinnacle of intelligence like is taught in the Religion 430-431 Doctrines of the Gospel Student
Manual.  

The doctrine of the Trinity, one God in three personages, is inferred in the scripture, albeit not clear
as some would like.  But I don't believe in 3 Gods being one Godhead.

Regarding the Holy Spirit, I can not find anything mentioned about him in the LDS manuals - whether
he too was a spirit child of Heavenly Father who also became a God or whether he is a God who
came from somewhere outside of a marital relationship of heavenly parents.

Not everything about Christ is recorded in scripture, but this doesn't give me license to create teachings
based on what could possibly be true.

Here is an example of what I mean in regards to speculative theories:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/old-testament-stories/chapter-3-adam-and-eve?lang=eng

- It was the tree of good and evil. If they ate fruit from that tree, they would know what was good and
what was bad. They would have to leave the Garden of Eden. If they did not eat it, they could always
stay in the Garden of Eden. God said they could choose.
- Satan said the fruit was very good. 
- Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden. God and Jesus came and talked to them.
- Eve told Adam she had eaten the fruit. She would have to leave the garden. 

Satan never said the fruit was very good. Adam and Eve never knew they would have to leave
the garden until God told them afterwards.  Both Jesus and Heavenly Father are never said to
have come to talk with them.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-3-the-fall?lang=eng

- The accounts in both Moses and Genesis state only that Satan approached Eve, but 
latter-day revelation records that he first approached Adam and was refused. Eve, 
however, was deceived by Satan and partook. Knowing that she would be driven out 
and separated from him, Adam then partook.
 

I have not seen any LDS revelation that Satan first approached Adam and was refused.
And, as before, Adam did not know Eve would be driven out of Eden because God had not
prewarned them about being cast out of the garden.

Edited by theplains
small edit
Link to post
On 8/26/2020 at 3:24 PM, theplains said:

I am not sure why different Bible translators used  small g instead of a capital G

Could you give some possible reasons why some Bible translators might use an uppercase G in verses like Exodus 7:1?  I’d like to have a better understanding of why this capitalization issue is so important to you, and your thoughts on that will help me understand your views. 

On 8/26/2020 at 3:24 PM, theplains said:

I am also not sure why Alma 12:31 has Gods in the 1981 version and gods in the current version.

I’ve given you an explanation for Alma 12:31 (see here, here, and here).  If you are still not sure as to why it read differently previously, could you please at least enlighten me on how my prior explanation(s) didn’t help and why you keep bringing it up?  

On 8/26/2020 at 3:24 PM, theplains said:

Maybe gods in Doctrine and Covenants 132 should be Gods.

Why do you think Doctrine and Covenants 132 should read “Gods” instead of “gods”?  What do you see as the difference?   This seems to be a very important issue to you, and I’d like to understand why.

On 8/26/2020 at 3:24 PM, theplains said:

As for God, we do have references that he is eternally God - not that he was a man who became the God of planet Earth. Likewise, I do not believe Jesus became a God when he reached some pinnacle of intelligence like is taught in the Religion 430-431 Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual.  

What do you believe it means to be “God”?   Is it to be eternal, without beginning or end?   We believe that too.  But what else?

On 8/26/2020 at 3:24 PM, theplains said:

The doctrine of the Trinity, one God in three personages, is inferred in the scripture, albeit not clear as some would like.

Below you say that when things aren’t clear in scripture it doesn’t give license for people to create teachings based on “what could possibly be true”.  But isn’t that exactly what happened in the formulation of the Nicene Creed and the later creeds that resulted in the doctrine of the Trinity?  Where in scripture is the idea that the Father and Son are “homooúsion” (consubstantial, same in being being or essence)?  It’s not found in scripture, but the introduction of that word (and concept) into the creed presumed to define exactly how the Father and Son are “one” and forms the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity as believed by many Christian denominations today.  Why is something that is supposedly as important and foundational as the Trinity doctrine based on “what could possibly be true” instead of what is found in scripture?

On 8/26/2020 at 3:24 PM, theplains said:

But I don't believe in 3 Gods being one Godhead.

This statement is hard for me to reconcile with scripture and early Christian teachings.  Didn’t Jesus tell us that God the Father is his God too?   Scripture tells us that God the Father is the very God and Father of Jesus Christ (John 20:17, Rom 15:6, 1 Cor 11:3,  2 Cor 11:31, Eph 1:3, Eph 1:17; Heb 1:8-9, 1 Pet 1:3), and Jesus is even said to be eternally subject to the Father (1 Cor 15:28).  And in Revelation 3:12, the resurrected Jesus refers to God the Father as “my God” no less than four times.  How is it that Jesus has a God if they aren't distinct beings?

And in the early Christian teachings prior to the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD it was fairly common for Christians to refer to Jesus as “another God” or the “second God” (see prior posts I made on this topic here and here.)   It appears that there are a lot of differences between original Christian teachings and the traditional teachings of Christianity today on this subject (and others), and it seems quite clear to me that God was using Joseph Smith as his prophet to restore the original teachings of Christianity, and much more.

On 8/26/2020 at 3:24 PM, theplains said:

Regarding the Holy Spirit, I can not find anything mentioned about him in the LDS manuals - whether he too was a spirit child of Heavenly Father who also became a God or whether he is a God who came from somewhere outside of a marital relationship of heavenly parents.

The Holy Spirit always seems to get left out of the discussion for some reason.  The original Nicene Creed didn’t include much about the Holy Spirit either (more was added later).  I suspect it is because so little is revealed about the Holy Spirit.

On 8/26/2020 at 3:24 PM, theplains said:

Not everything about Christ is recorded in scripture, but this doesn't give me license to create teachings based on what could possibly be true.

I agree, it doesn’t give license to create teachings based on what could be true (as discussed above).  But wouldn’t you agree that God knows the details of everything that happened, including things that aren’t recorded in scripture?  And why couldn’t God reveal those details to his prophets?

On 8/26/2020 at 3:24 PM, theplains said:

Here is an example of what I mean in regards to speculative theories:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/old-testament-stories/chapter-3-adam-and-eve?lang=eng

- It was the tree of good and evil. If they ate fruit from that tree, they would know what was good and what was bad. They would have to leave the Garden of Eden. If they did not eat it, they could always stay in the Garden of Eden. God said they could choose. 
- Satan said the fruit was very good. 
- Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden. God and Jesus came and talked to them.
- Eve told Adam she had eaten the fruit. She would have to leave the garden. 

Satan never said the fruit was very good. Adam and Eve never knew they would have to leave the garden until God told them afterwards.  Both Jesus and Heavenly Father are never said to have come to talk with them.

None of the accounts that we have of this story, including what we have in Genesis, claim to contain all the details. 

As for the “speculative theories” assumption, consider some of the things that New Testament writers say about Old Testament events and teachings that aren’t found in the Old Testament texts, like: 

  • Peter referring to David as a “prophet” (Acts 2:30). 

  • Stephen, in his defense before the Sanhedrin in Acts 7, saying in verse 53 that the Law of Moses was received “by the disposition of angels”. 

  • Hebrews 11:5 telling us that “Enoch was translated that he should not see death”.  (Genesis 5:24 just tells us that “Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.”)

  • Hebrews 11:21, telling us "By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff."  (Genesis 48:2 only says that “Israel strengthened himself, and sat upon the bed” before blessing Ephraim and Manasseh.)

  • Jude 1:14-16, and the prophecy of Enoch, “Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints…” (etc.). 

There are a lot more examples that I could add.  Would you classify these differences as "speculative theories” from the writers of the New Testament?  I wouldn’t (and I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t either).  I can think of several better possibilities for these additions:

  1. These differences were taught in an oral tradition through the centuries, handed down by teachers and from father to son (the works of Josephus contain good examples of these).

  2. The New Testament writers possessed other authentic God inspired writings, entire books of scripture that aren’t found in our current Old Testament canon of scripture.

  3. The New Testament writers possessed copies of the Old Testament that included passages that have since been removed or are otherwise different than our current Hebrew text (the Acts 7:53 reference might be a good example of this, since the Septuagint Greek Old Testament carries a reference in Deuteronomy 33:2 to the LORD appearing on Sinai and he was accompanied by angels).

  4. The New Testament writers were speaking by the Holy Spirit and God revealed to them details about the events of the Old Testament that we don’t currently have in our possession. 

Regarding point #4, why couldn’t God do the same thing through a prophet today, even with some of the things you brought up in your comment?   I believe that’s exactly what God has done in restoring his original teachings through his prophets, Joseph Smith and others.

On 8/26/2020 at 3:24 PM, theplains said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-3-the-fall?lang=eng

- The accounts in both Moses and Genesis state only that Satan approached Eve, but latter-day revelation records that he first approached Adam and was refused. Eve, however, was deceived by Satan and partook. Knowing that she would be driven out and separated from him, Adam then partook. 

I have not seen any LDS revelation that Satan first approached Adam and was refused. And, as before, Adam did not know Eve would be driven out of Eden because God had not prewarned them about being cast out of the garden.

Not all revelations are canonized.  The restoration of the gospel includes new scripture, revealed ordinances, and other statements from the Lord given through his divinely called apostles and prophets. 

I think you would agree that God revealed things about the past and future to his prophets and apostles in the New Testament.   So our differences appear to be regarding whether or not God could or would do the same thing today, and specifically through the prophet Joseph Smith.  I believe that God is the same today as in New Testament times, and he has restored many things through his prophets in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

Edited by InCognitus
  • Like 1
Link to post
On 8/30/2020 at 3:13 PM, InCognitus said:

Could you give some possible reasons why some Bible translators might use an uppercase G in verses like Exodus 7:1?  I’d like to have a better understanding of why this capitalization issue is so important to you, and your thoughts on that will help me understand your views. 

Why do you think Doctrine and Covenants 132 should read “Gods” instead of “gods”?  What do you see as the difference?   This seems to be a very important issue to you, and I’d like to understand why.

What do you believe it means to be “God”?   Is it to be eternal, without beginning or end?   We believe that too.  But what else?

Below you say that when things aren’t clear in scripture it doesn’t give license for people to create teachings based on “what could possibly be true”.  But isn’t that exactly what happened in the formulation of the Nicene Creed and the later creeds that resulted in the doctrine of the Trinity?

I agree, it doesn’t give license to create teachings based on what could be true (as discussed above).  But wouldn’t you agree that God knows the details of everything that happened, including things that aren’t recorded in scripture?  And why couldn’t God reveal those details to his prophets?

I think you would agree that God revealed things about the past and future to his prophets and apostles in the New Testament.   So our differences appear to be regarding whether or not God could or would do the same thing today, and specifically through the prophet Joseph Smith.  I believe that God is the same today as in New Testament times, and he has restored many things through his prophets in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

I'm having a heck of a time understanding how to use embedded quotes like you are professionally
doing, so I will try another way the next time 🙂

"And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother 
shall be thy prophet."

In this case,, I see god as a powerful ruler.  Much like Satan is referred to as a god in
2 Corinthians 4:4.  I don't see the form of 'god' as Deity in these verses.  I see 'God'
as Deity.

From my understanding of LDS theology, humans have the potential to become exalted beings
(Deities,Gods). That is why I think that section in D&C needs a little alteration to reflect
it more clearly.  If 'god' means 'Deity/God' , then one could say Moses and Satan are Deities.

Some attributes that I see in God - a being who has always been God, not a man who became the
Heavenly Father of Earth.  Others: majestic, holy, all knowing, all powerful.

The Trinity, one God in 3 distinct persons, existed before humans tried to explain it in the 
form of a creed.  It is something very difficult to explain to someone like a Jehovah's 
Witness.  But I don't believe the Trinity is 3 Gods.

I agree that God can reveal other details to his prophets and/or other members of the church.

I agree we have many things in common.  The nature of Heavenly Father (whether he was a man 
who became a God) or Jesus Christ becoming a God when reaching a pinnacle of intelligence in
the pre-mortal life are possibly the largest differences.

Link to post
10 hours ago, theplains said:

I'm having a heck of a time understanding how to use embedded quotes like you are professionally doing, so I will try another way the next time 🙂

"Professionally"?  Yeah, I should do message boards for a living :) The quoting thing is actually kind of tedious.  I'm using my laptop with a keyboard and mouse to access this site, but if you are using some other device like a smart phone or iPad or something like that, it may be a lot harder to do.  But the way that I do it is highlight a piece of text that I want to respond to and it pops up with a box to "Quote selection", and then I click on that, and type my response following the quote.  And I keep going back to the source post to find the next piece of text to quote, and repeat the process.  This is how it should look when you select it:

  1823939037_QuoteSection.JPG.497aa57f86fe480dd8189bbe9e7b916d.JPG

10 hours ago, theplains said:

"And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet."

In this case,, I see god as a powerful ruler.  Much like Satan is referred to as a god in 2 Corinthians 4:4.  I don't see the form of 'god' as Deity in these verses.  I see 'God' as Deity.

But you are using only two possible definitions of the word "God" here:  (1) The supreme Deity (God), or (2) powerful rulers.  And I'm not sure #2 is really legitimate based on the Lexicon definition I shared with you previously in this post here, quoted as follows:

Quote

Here’s a link to Thayer's Greek Lexicon definition for Theos (Θεός) on Bible Hub.  https://biblehub.com/str/greek/2316.htm   The lexicon breaks down the definition into four categories, of which the forth one has a sub category that I will assign a separate number for clarity (Thayer’s #4 is divided into my #4 and #5). 

  1.  “A general appellation of deities or divinities”.  This could be either false gods or gods that exist in reality.
  2.  In application to Christ as God
  3.  Spoken of the only and true God: with the article… and very often; with prepositions
  4.   Θεός is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God, or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, equivalent to God's representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges
  5.   Of the devil  (“the god of this age”), 2 Corinthians 4:4; the person or thing to which one is wholly devoted, for which alone he lives, e. g. the belly in Philippians 3:19.

What about false gods or idols?   Could Exodus 7:1 be referring to Moses as an idol?   If you limit your choices on the definition, you're not going to get it right.  The Exodus 7:1 usage of "god" falls under #4 above, and 2 Corinthians 4:4 falls under #5, neither of which means "powerful rulers".

10 hours ago, theplains said:

From my understanding of LDS theology, humans have the potential to become exalted beings (Deities,Gods). That is why I think that section in D&C needs a little alteration to reflect it more clearly.  If 'god' means 'Deity/God' , then one could say Moses and Satan are Deities.

Why must you assign one meaning to a word that has multiple meanings?  The definition of "god" applied to Moses in Exodus 7:1 is totally different than the definition of "god" applied to Satan in 2 Corinthians 4:4, and both of those are different than the definition of "gods" in Deuteronomy 10:17, "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible", but we've been over all of this many times before.

10 hours ago, theplains said:

Some attributes that I see in God - a being who has always been God, not a man who became the Heavenly Father of Earth.  Others: majestic, holy, all knowing, all powerful.

Do you believe Jesus is an eternal being who was a spirit and became the creator of this earth, and then became man and now is exalted by his Father?  If not, why not?  If so, why is it so hard to imagine God becoming man for a time?  

10 hours ago, theplains said:

The Trinity, one God in 3 distinct persons, existed before humans tried to explain it in the form of a creed.  It is something very difficult to explain to someone like a Jehovah's Witness.  But I don't believe the Trinity is 3 Gods.

How do you account for the fact that the key doctrinal point of the Trinity doctrine is not something explicitly taught in the Bible?  And how do you account for the fact that the pre-Nicene Christians taught that Jesus is the "second God" or "another God" if this was supposed to be something they understood prior to forming the creed?  How do you account for the fact that the Bible teaches that Jesus has a God?

11 hours ago, theplains said:

I agree that God can reveal other details to his prophets and/or other members of the church.

I agree we have many things in common.  The nature of Heavenly Father (whether he was a man who became a God) or Jesus Christ becoming a God when reaching a pinnacle of intelligence in the pre-mortal life are possibly the largest differences.

I appreciate our discussion of these things in trying to define our areas of common belief and our differences.  But my concern is that there are some things that both of us misunderstand about each other's beliefs and I hope we are not making assumptions based on these misunderstandings.  Hopefully we can work through any misunderstandings we may have and come to a better understanding.

  • Like 1
Link to post

You can also break up a reply into quotes by quoting a whole reply and then going to the end of the sentence you want to insert a break into and hitting return.  Sometimes hitting return again will be suffient for the creation of a separate quote if the sentence is the end of a paragraph.  Other times you need to go back to the end of the sentence (which is now the end of the section) and hit return twice again.  This allows you to save your work as you go along if you risk getting interrupted or saves effort having to locate a post one is quoting, which can be a real hassle if on a previous page and your tech is temperamental.

On older tech or my phone, I can't always get the "quote selection" option to work, but this way always does for me.

I create the desired quote boxes isolating the parts I want to quote and then delete the excess quote boxes.  Another way is to just insert a break after each part you think you are going to respond to and then edit the quote to remove irrelevant material as you respond or just leave it as is.  This makes it less likely you delete something you later decide you want to respond to as you set up the multiple quote boxes.

You can add other posts by quoting them with your reply box already open.  They will be added at the bottom of your reply like below.

To demonstrate what I was talking about at first, I also broke them up using the method of creating a new section end by hitting return (the cursor is then located at the beginning of the cutoff section) and then going back to the desired break place and hitting return twice...once is not enough.

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

"Professionally"?  Yeah, I should do message boards for a living :) The quoting thing is actually kind of tedious.  I'm using my laptop with a keyboard and mouse to access this site, but if you are using some other device like a smart phone or iPad or something like that, it may be a lot harder to do.

 

Quote

 

 But the way that I do it is highlight a piece of text that I want to respond to and it pops up with a box to "Quote selection", and then I click on that, and type my response following the quote.

 

Quote

And I keep going back to the source post to find the next piece of text to quote, and repeat the process.  This is how it should look when you select...

 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
Link to post
On 6/11/2020 at 7:24 PM, telnetd said:

Mosiah 26:24-27 says, "For behold, in my name are they called; and if they know me they 
shall come forth, and shall have a place eternally at my right hand.  And it shall come 
to pass that when the second trump shall sound then shall they that never knew me come 
forth and shall stand before me. And then shall they know that I am the Lord their God, 
that I am their Redeemer; but they would not be redeemed. And then I will confess unto 
them that I never knew them; and they shall depart into everlasting fire prepared for 
the devil and his angels.

Where is the place that is at Christ's right hand?

Why are those who know Jesus resurrected to be eternally at this place but those who don't 
know Jesus depart into everlasting fire?

Thank you,

Gale

I would think that every act of Reformation, ultimately result in a winnowing out of the skeptics  from the believers, resulting in the believers being told/inspired to move to the West /Right, and the skeptics left in the East/Left. This same principle applied to the Mormons, the Protestants of Europe and many others. 

Link to post
On 9/6/2020 at 12:17 AM, InCognitus said:

But you are using only two possible definitions of the word "God" here:  (1) The supreme Deity (God), or (2) powerful rulers.  And I'm not sure #2 is really legitimate based on the Lexicon definition I shared with you previously in this post here, quoted as follows:

I see that the KJV translates it as

"And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall 
be thy prophet
."

The ESV has it as

"And the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall 
be your prophet
." 

I see this as meaning that Moses was made a powerful ruler (or an agent of God), not that he was
made a Deity.
 

Quote

Θεός is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God, or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, equivalent 
to God's representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges

I like that definition.  I can see Moses and Satan likened to that definition. Even Nebuchadnezzar 
was a form of God's vicegerent to bring judgment upon Israel.

As for definition #1
A general appellation of deities or divinities”.  This could be either false gods or gods that exist in reality.

At the Divince Council (Psalm 82 as it appeared you referenced), is Heavenly Father a deity amongst 
all his spirit children (the deities)?
 

Quote

Do you believe Jesus is an eternal being who was a spirit and became the creator of this earth, and then became man and now is exalted by his Father?  If not, 
why not?  If so, why is it so hard to imagine God becoming man for a time?  How do you account for the fact that the Bible teaches that Jesus has a God?

I believe that Jesus has always been God.  Then God became a man; meaning Jesus is both God and 
man.  I don't find it difficult to see how Jesus can mention that Heavenly Father is his God 
since he is identifying himself as a man.  The God/man (Christ) is the perfect Mediator between 
God and man.
 

Quote

How do you account for the fact that the key doctrinal point of the Trinity doctrine is not something explicitly taught in the Bible?

We believe it is taught, but not clearly as we hoped for.  For example, we know from the scripture 
that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is 1 God. Joseph Smith taught they are 3 Gods.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html some good explanation.
 

Quote

And how do you account for the fact that the pre-Nicene Christians taught that Jesus is the "second God" or "another God" if this was supposed 
to be something they understood prior to forming the creed? 

I cannot explain it, but I have never personally viewed Jesus as the second God and the Holy Spirit 
as the third God.  If I were a Latter-day Saint, then I would view Heavenly Mother as the fourth God.
 

Quote

I appreciate our discussion of these things in trying to define our areas of common belief and our differences.  But my concern is that there are some things that both of us misunderstand about each other's beliefs and I hope we are not making assumptions based on these misunderstandings.  Hopefully we can work through any misunderstandings we may have and come to a better understanding.

I understand.  When I speak with Jehovah's Witnesses about Jesus, I have to keep in mind that their 
Jesus is Michael the Archangel.  But I respect our differences when and where they occur.

Link to post
On 9/11/2020 at 12:34 PM, theplains said:

As for definition #1
A general appellation of deities or divinities”.  This could be either false gods or gods that exist in reality.

At the Divince Council (Psalm 82 as it appeared you referenced), is Heavenly Father a deity amongst 
all his spirit children (the deities)?

I never personally referenced Psalm 82 (I wouldn’t normally do that), but the early Christians often referred to Psalm 82 and it was referenced in some of the quotes I gave from them in their teaching about men becoming gods and in their teachings saying that other gods exist.

As for the Divine Council of Psalm 82:1, that is something that comes up in various places in the Bible narrative and it is recognized by Bible scholars and other faiths, not just Latter-day Saints.  Read that Wikipedia article I posted on the Divine Council and it gives some of the references.   But you may be confusing the “Divine Council” or “Divine Assembly” as described in Psalm 82:1 with one specific “Council in heaven” that took place in our premortal life before creation began, as it is depicted in the book of Abraham.  We all participated in the premortal “council in heaven”, but the participants in the Divine Council of Psalm 82:1 are not specified other than that they are “gods” (’ĕlōhîm).

On 9/11/2020 at 12:34 PM, theplains said:

I believe that Jesus has always been God.  Then God became a man; meaning Jesus is both God and man.  I don't find it difficult to see how Jesus can mention that Heavenly Father is his God since he is identifying himself as a man.  The God/man (Christ) is the perfect Mediator between God and man.

The teaching that Jesus has a God isn’t only because he became man, because it is the resurrected Jesus who is at the right hand of the Father who refers to God the Father as “my God” in Revelation 3:12.   Since Jesus is God and has a God, doesn’t that make at least two Gods there?  Ephesians 4:6 says that there is “One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”  Given that Jesus refers to Heavenly Father as “my God”, wouldn’t that one God and Father of all, who is above all” be God the Father, the very God of Jesus Christ?

On 9/11/2020 at 12:34 PM, theplains said:

We believe it is taught, but not clearly as we hoped for.  For example, we know from the scripture that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is 1 God. Joseph Smith taught they are 3 Gods.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html some good explanation.

Thank you, I found this article really interesting (and the video said exactly the same thing).  All of the Biblically based concepts expressed in that web link are teachings that Latter-day Saints also believe except we don’t use the word “Trinity”.  But I also noticed that the article carefully avoided addressing the real difference between what was taught about the Trinity following the Nicene creed in 325 AD as compared to what was taught by the earlier Christians and today in Latter-day Saint teachings, since the creed redefined how the three Gods are “one” by saying they are all one substance or being.   The web article never used the word “being” or “substance” in reference to God, and that was the key issue.  But I know at least one of the books in the “Recommended Resource” links at the bottom of the article discusses the “being” of God and it defines the Trinity using those terms.

I like that the article discusses the subordination within the Trinity, but it only goes so far.   It doesn’t deal with the fact that Jesus referred to his Father as “my God”, indicating distinct beings who are Gods within the Trinity. 

The article includes this interesting statement in the closing paragraph:

Quote

The doctrine of the Trinity has been a divisive issue throughout the entire history of the Christian church. While the core aspects of the Trinity are clearly presented in God’s Word, some of the side issues are not as explicitly clear. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but there is only one God. That is the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Beyond that, the issues are, to a certain extent, debatable and non-essential.

So according to this article, the key difference between what modern Christianity teaches about the Trinity as compared to what Latter-day Saints teach and what the early Christians taught about the Godhead is a “side issue”.  So why are we even concerned about this?

How are Jesus and his Father and the Holy Spirit “one”?   If you read the books listed in the resources on that article they will tell you the three persons are one in “being”.   If you read the Nicene Creed it will try to tell you they are consubstantial, one substance or being.  But that’s not what the Bible teaches, and no doubt that’s why the web article avoided discussing that doctrine.  Jesus said he and his Father are “one”, but what did he mean by that?  The web article says this is something that humans can’t understand.  But I think we are clearly intended to understand what Jesus meant because Jesus prayed for his disciples to be “one” in exactly the same way that Jesus and his Father are one in John 17:11, 20-23.  How can we be “one” in the same way Jesus is “one” with his Father if we can’t understand what that means?

On 9/11/2020 at 12:34 PM, theplains said:
Quote

And how do you account for the fact that the pre-Nicene Christians taught that Jesus is the "second God" or "another God" if this was supposed 
to be something they understood prior to forming the creed? 

I cannot explain it, but I have never personally viewed Jesus as the second God and the Holy Spirit as the third God.  If I were a Latter-day Saint, then I would view Heavenly Mother as the fourth God.

 Since Jesus refers to God the Father as “my God”, making himself subject to God the Father and putting himself in submission to him, doesn’t that make Jesus the “second God” in terms of his relationship to the Father?  Even so they are “one” in their unity and will and purpose.  So why is this such a mystery to people?  It is explained within the text of the Bible.

On 9/11/2020 at 12:34 PM, theplains said:

I understand.  When I speak with Jehovah's Witnesses about Jesus, I have to keep in mind that their Jesus is Michael the Archangel.  But I respect our differences when and where they occur.

Some Christians today believe Melchizedek of the Old Testament is Jesus too.  Do you think of Jesus as one in being with God the Father?  If so, I’ll keep that in mind when talking with you too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 9/13/2020 at 7:29 PM, InCognitus said:

Some Christians today believe Melchizedek of the Old Testament is Jesus too.  Do you think of Jesus as one in being with God the Father?  If so, I’ll keep that in mind when talking with you too.

I don't believe the non-biblical doctrine of Melchizedek being Jesus.  I believe Jesus,
the Father, and the Holy Spirit are distinct beings , yet one God and one Godhead.

I can only refer to God's testimony about himself.

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and 
believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there
be after me
" (Isaiah 43:10)

"Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am
the last; and beside me there is no God
" (Isaiah 44:6).

That is why I believe the teaching that Heavenly Father was a man who became a God is not true.
The teaching that Jesus also became a God when he reached some level of intelligence in his pre-
mortal life is also incorrect. I don't have any references to the LDS version of the Holy Spirit (as to
whether he was also a spirit son of heavenly parents or has always been a God or who also become
a God) so I can't comment further.

Link to post
On 9/21/2020 at 9:29 AM, theplains said:

I don't believe the non-biblical doctrine of Melchizedek being Jesus.  I believe Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are distinct beings , yet one God and one Godhead.

This sounds like you are describing the Latter-day Saint view of the Godhead, that “each member of the Godhead is a separate being” and even in how the three are “one” in the Godhead:  “Although the members of the Godhead are distinct beings with distinct roles, they are one in purpose and doctrine. They are perfectly united in bringing to pass Heavenly Father’s divine plan of salvation.” 

On 9/21/2020 at 9:29 AM, theplains said:

I can only refer to God's testimony about himself.

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me" (Isaiah 43:10)

"Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).

Do you remember the response I made to your post on Isaiah 43:10 just over a year ago?  You can find it here.  You seem to be misusing these verses out of context if you are trying to suggest that these are saying that there are no other “gods” (’ĕlōhîm).  Specifically, with regard to the “before me was no God formed, neither shall there be after me” part of the verse, I said this previously:

Quote

Have you ever stopped to think about what Isaiah 43:10 really means in context?  What does it mean for God to say "before me" or "after me" in this verse?  Isn't God eternal, without beginning or end?   That being the case, then why would he say "before me" or "after me"?   And who are his "witnesses"?   The context makes it clear, the LORD is speaking to Israel:   "I have declared, and have saved, and I have showed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God." (verse 12).  Obviously the "before" and "after" has to do with his declaration to Israel:  He is the God of Israel (he is OUR God) and there is none other that is the God of Israel.  There is none equal to Him.

But how exactly do you understand the verses above with regard to God the Father and Jesus Christ?  When the resurrected Jesus referred to God the Father as “my God” four times in Revelation 3:12, was he referring to the God mentioned in Isaiah 43:10?  

On 9/21/2020 at 9:29 AM, theplains said:

That is why I believe the teaching that Heavenly Father was a man who became a God is not true. The teaching that Jesus also became a God when he reached some level of intelligence in his pre-mortal life is also incorrect. I don't have any references to the LDS version of the Holy Spirit (as to whether he was also a spirit son of heavenly parents or has always been a God or who also become a God) so I can't comment further.

What you say above doesn’t follow from the verses in Isaiah 43:10 and 44:6.  You say “this is why I believe” some things we believe are not true.  Can you please explain how you understand those two verses so I can understand why you think this means you can’t believe what we believe?

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...