The uniqueness of the LDS Church

[manol]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So the same being can be a pre existing spirit AND a human as we are, be  human parent, advance to exaltation and become as Father is now while remaining the same person/being making ALL of us Eternally God.

So yes, in one sense we are monotheists AND polytheistic depending on how we want to see it.

YOU and all of us are eternally God if we make it that far...

Very interesting.  Very bold, and very interesting. 

Joseph Smith declined to tell us what he knew, or who he was, on grounds that it would be considered blasphemy and the people would want to take his life. 

Yet here you go spilling the beans, on an internet forum of all places.  Well that probably makes it a bit less hazardous to your health.  

So if all thing past present and future are continually manifest before God, who ARE we, as seen from that most-correct perspective? 

Edited July 10, 2022 by manol

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, theplains said:

The Book of Mormon, in the introduction page, says Jesus is the Eternal God. Do you believe he
has always existed as God?

I already answered this question and explained what it means previously in this post here.  Jesus has always existed and he is God.  That doesn't mean he has always existed as God.  I believe what Peter taught to the Jews in Acts 2:36, "God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ".   I believe that God the Father "made" Jesus "both Lord and Christ" before he was born on this earth, even though Jesus progressed further while on this earth (such as is explained in Hebrews 5:8-9).

8 hours ago, theplains said:

I found these teachings of the church which indicate Jesus became a God. This would indicate
he is not eternally God (from everlasting to everlasting):

The phrase "from everlasting to everlasting" simply means to exist from age to age, or from a very long time in the past to a very long time in the future.  Look at how Psalms 90:1-4 is translated in Youngs Literal Translation (YLT): 

"[1]...Thou hast been, To us -- in generation and generation,  [2] Before mountains were brought forth, And Thou dost form the earth and the world, Even from age unto age Thou [art] God.  [3] Thou turnest man unto a bruised thing, And sayest, Turn back, ye sons of men.  [4] For a thousand years in Thine eyes [are] as yesterday, For it passeth on, yea, a watch by night."

You ask about the phrase "Eternal God", but what does the Bible mean when it talks of "eternal life", or , "eternal salvation" (Heb 5:9), "eternal judgment" (Heb 6:2), "eternal damnation" (Mark 3:29), "eternal redemption" (Heb 9:12), "eternal inheritance" (Heb 9:15), "eternal fire" (Jude 1:7), or "eternal glory" (1 Pet 5:10)?  Do you assume, in the same way you do with "Eternal God", that it means those things are forever in the past and forever in the future? 

8 hours ago, theplains said:

When Jesus (God) became man, he set aside some of his God attributes. But did he have
all power and glory before becoming a man?  I would say "yes."

But as I pointed out in my last post, Jesus said he was given "glory" from the Father "before the world was":

John 17:5  "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

John 17:20-23; "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.  And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:  I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me."

If that glory was given to Jesus by the Father before the world began, how could he have that glory before the Father had given it to him? 

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

We are reproductions of God. Not necessarily exact copies of our parents but we may come close to that benchmark by our own choices and with their Help if not perfectly and exactly like them. 

 

Actually, exactly like them in every way  (as the Son is one in every characteristic of perfection and divine attributes with the Father’, the only exceptions being 1) the order of placement within the patriarchal order, 2) each individual is a separate though co-eternal intelligences, 3) all divine beings are separate personages endowed with the God given agency to make their own decisions.. 

Edited July 10, 2022 by teddyaware

[Tacenda]

Recently saw a clip of a video of a leader in my former area, saying that when it comes to agency with missionaries, they don't have it when it comes to going on a mission. I assume he was speaking to the young men in particular. What do you all think about that? And the poster shared quotes/videos from other leaders in the church saying there isn't free agency in the church.

 

[teddyaware]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Recently saw a clip of a video of a leader in my former area, saying that when it comes to agency with missionaries, they don't have it when it comes to going on a mission. I assume he was speaking to the young men in particular. What do you all think about that? And the poster shared quotes/videos from other leaders in the church saying there isn't free agency in the church.

 

It’s very likely that what was actually said was something more like, “in the Church you’re not free to commit all kinds of serious sins without expecting to face serious consequences for those sins.” 

[Calm]

Tacenda,

What he said was when we make the baptismal covenant, we no longer have free agency, we have moral agency. Which in his view as I understood it means we have no choice because we have made the commitment to obey God, to listen to his guidance. 

The clip I saw was just limited to that, so maybe he clarified that it isn’t automatic that God is going to confirm every last general instruction from our leaders for each individual, but that to go against church instruction, we need to have an actual spiritual confirmation and not just a dislike of the instruction.

Also we have the choice to not follow God. That would be the wrong choice, but it is a choice. He really meant I am guessing is “there is only one right choice”. 

I also believe his dichotomy between free and moral agency is a poor one as plenty of people outside the Church exercise moral agency if by that he means God guided understanding of what is right and wrong as opposed to making decisions based on what feels good or bad. 
 

I saw the clip on Twitter.  Don’t know how to isolate the clip from the commentary. 

Edited July 16, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

Found a transcript on the LDS Freedom Forum. One can easily find a clip through Mormonstories. 
 

Quote

"A little tangent here real quick. We were recently as a family having a discussion about missionary work. One of my daughters was at school. She was talking with her friends about President Nelson's recent call for young men to serve missions and the friends there at the table were debating, "Do young men have to go or is it a choice?" Now, young men, I hope you'll think about this carefully because there's an important doctrine here. Do you have a choice whether to serve a mission? I'm going to tell you why you don't. 

Now, that might rub you the wrong way because we're so big into "liberty" and "agency" and we do believe we're a free, democratic king of people. Right? But here's why you don't have the choice anymore. Is because when you were baptized, you signed on to the Lord's plan, which is giving up free agency and accepting moral agency. The difference being that we give up thinking that we know for ourselves what is best in our lives, and we trust the Lord to give us the direction that is best for us in our lives. As a young man, if that sounds like foreign doctrine to you, I hope you'll reconsider the importance of that baptismal and sacramental covenant, where every week we come to church and we say, "I'm giving up what I think is best, and I trust the Lord to guide and direct me in my life." And his will becomes paramount and no longer is what we want the most important thing in our lives. We recognize that what the Lord can give us is much greater than anything we can choose for ourselves."

I wouldn’t have a problem with this is he was referring to the Holy Ghost and not Church leaders when he was talking about how we learn what the Lord’s guidance is. But the way he started out with no choice but to go in a missionary, my guess is he went with more like ‘once the prophet has spoken, the thinking is done’ (which was from the Improvement Era’s ward teaching message, so not written by a GA and I have heard oversight by GA’s of church publication can be minimal at times, so unless you see something multiple times, best not to assume it got vetted by the First Presidency, etc…plus the response to an inquiry about it was a rejection of the idea).

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/when-the-prophet-speaks-is-the-thinking-done

Quote

However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not expressthe true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts.

 

Edited July 11, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

So a friend says he has heard Elder Bednar say much the same thing, we no longer have a choice.

I think it is better stated ‘we have choices, but there are right and wrong choices when it comes to covenant keeping and wrong choices can break the covenant, which then results in negative consequences’, but I think the principle he teaches is the same unless I am missing something.  Here is one of his presentations.  If you interpret it differently than me, I would be interested in hearing why.

Here is another one where he rejects the phrase “free agency”, so looks like he would disagree with the distinction the stake counselor makes.  It is moral agency all the way down.

 

Edited July 16, 2022 by Calm

[theplains]

On 7/10/2022 at 12:42 AM, InCognitus said:

You ask about the phrase "Eternal God", but what does the Bible mean when it talks of "eternal life", or , "eternal salvation" (Heb 5:9), "eternal judgment" (Heb 6:2), "eternal damnation" (Mark 3:29), "eternal redemption" (Heb 9:12), "eternal inheritance" (Heb 9:15), "eternal fire" (Jude 1:7), or "eternal glory" (1 Pet 5:10)?  Do you assume, in the same way you do with "Eternal God", that it means those things are forever in the past and forever in the future?

It depends on the context.

Maybe these verses will explain what I mean:

Moroni 7:22 - God is from everlasting to everlasting.

Mosiah 3:5 – Jesus is the Lord Omnipotent is from all eternity to all eternity [I found some
church teachings which indicate Jesus too became a God in the pre-existence, but this is a
topic for another time].

D&C 20:17 - By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, 
from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God.

D&C 39:1 - Hearken and listen to the voice of him who is from all eternity to all eternity, the 
Great I Am, even Jesus Christ.

D&C 61:1 - Behold, and hearken unto the voice of him who has all power, who is from everlasting 
to everlasting, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

[theplains]

On 7/9/2022 at 12:18 PM, teddyaware said:

Heavenly Father has always been a God in the sense that he has always belonged to the race of the Gods.

When [supposedly] the 'in the future to become Heavenly Father' was an intelligence (before his birth to
his heavenly parents), do you believe he was a God?

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by theplains

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, theplains said:

When [supposedly] the 'in the future to become Heavenly Father' was an intelligence (before his birth to
his heavenly parents), do you believe he was a God?

 

You too belong to the same "race", as we all do.

And Our Father will judge all, it's not up to us to say who became "like" him and who did not.

"Be ye therefore perfect even as your father is...."

No one can become like him here, except Christ, who was our exemplar, but we can do our very best

Edited July 23, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 7/15/2022 at 10:29 PM, Calm said:

So a friend says he has heard Elder Bednar say much the same thing, we no longer have a choice.

I think it is better stated ‘we have choices, but there are right and wrong choices when it comes to covenant keeping and wrong choices can break the covenant, which then results in negative consequences’, but I think the principle he teaches is the same unless I am missing something.  Here is one of his presentations.  If you interpret it differently than me, I would be interested in hearing why.

Here is another one where he rejects the phrase “free agency”, so looks like he would disagree with the distinction the stake counselor makes.  It is moral agency all the way down.

 

At baptism we sign the contract.

For any sin thereafter we are in violation of the contract, so we are not free to do anything which violates the contract.  We are not "free to do whatever we want", - such acts are violations of the contract.

Yet we have the atonement, and the fine is paid if and only if we repent, and through God's grace.

But any sin can have consequences in our lives beyond our sins being forgiven, like going to jail etc

And that as you say, is because we have also broken moral contracts, the consequences of which cannot be changed. Moral contracts exist between us and mankind do the crime,you do the time or pay the fine that Christ already "paid for" with Our Father who art in heaven

[Calm]

I personally do not like using business/legal terms and analogies for gospel principles (here signing a contract rather than talking about the actual covenant process). There is too much baggage attached to them and I think it inhibits understanding of what the relationship is, the gifts that are given to us by God even when he doesn’t ‘owe’ us anything for our good behaviour.  Few people I know outside my own family have contracts  with other close family members. My dad used them and they, imo, majorally screwed up us kids.  

Too often people see God’s gifts as tied with strings, as rewards and such for good behavior rather than the good behaviour preparing us to be capable of using the gifts (like getting a car is not a reward for passing a driver training class but because a parent loves a child and wants them to have transportation for school and work so they can become even more capable of caring for themselves and others, but one may have to take it first in order to learn how to properly drive a car before being gifted the car).

Edited July 23, 2022 by Calm

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

At baptism we sign the contract.

For any sin thereafter we are in violation of the contract, so we are not free to do anything which violates the contract.  We are not "free to do whatever we want", - such acts are violations of the contract.

Yet we have the atonement, and the fine is paid if and only if we repent, and through God's grace.

But any sin can have consequences in our lives beyond our sins being forgiven, like going to jail etc

And that as you say, is because we have also broken moral contracts, the consequences of which cannot be changed. Moral contracts exist between us and mankind do the crime,you do the time or pay the fine that Christ already "paid for" with Our Father who art in heaven

Poor little 8 year olds never sign a contract though. Nor should they when getting baptized they aren't told everything that they are signing up for and that's just sad to think they'll be condemned for not knowing much of what them being baptized expects.

 

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

I personally do not like using business/legal terms and analogies for gospel principles (here signing a contract rather than talking about the actual covenant process). There is too much baggage attached to them and I think it inhibits understanding of what the relationship is, the gifts that are given to us by God even when he doesn’t ‘owe’ us anything for our good behaviour.  Few people I know outside my own family have contracts  with other close family members. My dad used them and they, imo, majorally screwed up us kids.  

Too often people see God’s gifts as tied with strings, as rewards and such for good behavior rather than the good behaviour preparing us to be capable of using the gifts (like getting a car is not a reward for passing a driver training class but because a parent loves a child and wants them to have transportation for school and work so they can become even more capable of caring for themselves and others, but one may have to take it first in order to learn how to properly drive a car before being gifted the car).

I have a story..when my son was around 9 or 10, can't recall, I told him that if he didn't have any cavities when he goes back to the dentist I'd pay him $50 bucks. Oh boy did that ever backfire. After his appointment, the dentist said he had two cavities. Well when leaving the dentist office he slammed the door so hard because he was so mad. I definitely messed up with that one. 

[teddyaware]

23 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Poor little 8 year olds never sign a contract though. Nor should they when getting baptized they aren't told everything that they are signing up for and that's just sad to think they'll be condemned for not knowing much of what them being baptized expects.

 

I have a story..when my son was around 9 or 10, can't recall, I told him that if he didn't have any cavities when he goes back to the dentist I'd pay him $50 bucks. Oh boy did that ever backfire. After his appointment, the dentist said he had two cavities. Well when leaving the dentist office he slammed the door so hard because he was so mad. I definitely messed up with that one. 

And yet for every negative story you can give in this regard there are multitudes of others who started off on the covenant path with baptism at 8 who are filled with deep love, joy and gratitude that the Lord allowed them to enter the road that leads to eternal with the with a fresh new start and the incomparable protection and empowerment of the Holy Ghost. Do you really think it’s a good idea to allow those who are entering the years of becoming accountable before the Lord to wade unto the treacherous waters of this wicked, fallen world without being shielded and strengthened by the basic teachings and saving ordinances of the gospel of Christ? You bewilder me.

Edited July 23, 2022 by teddyaware

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

And yet for every negative story you can give in this regard there are multitudes of others who started off on the covenant path with baptism at 8 who are filled with deep love, joy and gratitude that the Lord allowed them to enter the road that leads to eternal with the with a fresh new start and the incomparable protection and empowerment of the Holy Ghost. Do you really think it’s a good idea to allow those who are entering the years of becoming accountable before the Lord to wade unto the treacherous waters of this wicked, fallen world without being shielded and strengthened by the basic teachings and saving ordinances of the gospel of Christ? You bewilder me.

I don't believe I said that.

[InCognitus]

On 7/22/2022 at 5:25 PM, theplains said:

It depends on the context.

Maybe these verses will explain what I mean:

Moroni 7:22 - God is from everlasting to everlasting.

Mosiah 3:5 – Jesus is the Lord Omnipotent is from all eternity to all eternity [I found some
church teachings which indicate Jesus too became a God in the pre-existence, but this is a
topic for another time].

D&C 20:17 - By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, 
from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God.

D&C 39:1 - Hearken and listen to the voice of him who is from all eternity to all eternity, the 
Great I Am, even Jesus Christ.

D&C 61:1 - Behold, and hearken unto the voice of him who has all power, who is from everlasting 
to everlasting, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

Everything you quoted above has the same meaning as what I said it means in the Bible in my previous post:

On 7/9/2022 at 10:42 PM, InCognitus said:

The phrase "from everlasting to everlasting" simply means to exist from age to age, or from a very long time in the past to a very long time in the future.  Look at how Psalms 90:1-4 is translated in Youngs Literal Translation (YLT): 

"[1]...Thou hast been, To us -- in generation and generation,  [2] Before mountains were brought forth, And Thou dost form the earth and the world, Even from age unto age Thou [art] God.  [3] Thou turnest man unto a bruised thing, And sayest, Turn back, ye sons of men.  [4] For a thousand years in Thine eyes [are] as yesterday, For it passeth on, yea, a watch by night."

Do you have anything else?

And to this:

On 7/22/2022 at 5:25 PM, theplains said:

I found some church teachings which indicate Jesus too became a God in the pre-existence

Of course Jesus was God in the pre-existence.  Did someone say he wasn't?

Jesus himself said he was "given" glory from his Father "before the world was" (John 17:5).

[teddyaware]

21 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Everything you quoted above has the same meaning as what I said it means in the Bible in my previous post:

Do you have anything else?

And to this:

Of course Jesus was God in the pre-existence.  Did someone say he wasn't?

Jesus himself said he was "given" glory from his Father "before the world was" (John 17:5).

Your last point is an excellent one! A powerful insight from the Lord’s own mouth that escaped my scrutiny in the past in a failure to grasp it’s tremendous significance! Why would the eternal God need to be given glory from God if he already was the very substance of eternal glory?

Edited July 25, 2022 by teddyaware

[Teancum]

On 7/10/2022 at 11:54 PM, Calm said:

What he said was when we make the baptismal covenant, we no longer have free agency, we have moral agency. Which in his view as I understood it means we have no choice because we have made the commitment to obey God, to listen to his guidance. 

Yep.  At baptism.  THat is what he said.  So he said YM have no choice but to serve a mission because of the baptismal covenant they made at 8 years old. 8.  Like they understood that commitment at the time.🙄

[Teancum]

On 7/22/2022 at 7:25 PM, theplains said:

It depends on the context.

Maybe these verses will explain what I mean:

Moroni 7:22 - God is from everlasting to everlasting.

Mosiah 3:5 – Jesus is the Lord Omnipotent is from all eternity to all eternity [I found some
church teachings which indicate Jesus too became a God in the pre-existence, but this is a
topic for another time].

D&C 20:17 - By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, 
from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God.

D&C 39:1 - Hearken and listen to the voice of him who is from all eternity to all eternity, the 
Great I Am, even Jesus Christ.

D&C 61:1 - Behold, and hearken unto the voice of him who has all power, who is from everlasting 
to everlasting, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

Early LDS theology was more orthodox and classical in nature. It all changed from around 1838 and forward. So the BoM and early passages in the D&C sound more like traditional Christianity.  Even the Lectures on Faith and especially Lecture 5. But as JS's theology changed the early theology became problematic and now had to be re explained to fit the later theology that was very different and NOT classical Christian Orthodoxy.  Really most traditional Christians should have little problems with most of the Book of Mormon and even many early passages in the Doctrine and Covenants.

[Teancum]

On 7/23/2022 at 5:52 PM, mfbukowski said:

At baptism we sign the contract.

For any sin thereafter we are in violation of the contract, so we are not free to do anything which violates the contract.  We are not "free to do whatever we want", - such acts are violations of the contract.

And what of the child who at 8 is incapable to conceding to the terms of the contract?  Any such legal contract entered into by someone who is unable to understand and willfully consent would end up in a voided contract.

[Teancum]

On 7/23/2022 at 7:47 PM, teddyaware said:

And yet for every negative story you can give in this regard there are multitudes of others who started off on the covenant path with baptism at 8 who are filled with deep love, joy and gratitude that the Lord allowed them to enter the road that leads to eternal with the with a fresh new start and the incomparable protection and empowerment of the Holy Ghost. Do you really think it’s a good idea to allow those who are entering the years of becoming accountable before the Lord to wade unto the treacherous waters of this wicked, fallen world without being shielded and strengthened by the basic teachings and saving ordinances of the gospel of Christ? You bewilder me.

If you want brainwashed indoctrinated children then sure.  But if you really believe in agency you would wait till a child could knowingly consent and choose to make the covenant and commitment.  And they will do quite fine without being baptized at 8.  I know you need to make the world and awful scary place but its really not how you paint it.  

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Early LDS theology was more orthodox and classical in nature. It all changed from around 1838 and forward. So the BoM and early passages in the D&C sound more like traditional Christianity.  Even the Lectures on Faith and especially Lecture 5. But as JS's theology changed the early theology became problematic and now had to be re explained to fit the later theology that was very different and NOT classical Christian Orthodoxy.  Really most traditional Christians should have little problems with most of the Book of Mormon and even many early passages in the Doctrine and Covenants.

I think the church likes that because more Christians will join the church if the Book of Mormon is similar to the Bible. 

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And what of the child who at 8 is incapable to conceding to the terms of the contract?  Any such legal contract entered into by someone who is unable to understand and willfully consent would end up in a voided contract.

We don’t allow minors to sign contracts, so it is always odd to me when people use that language for those baptized at 8.  And as someone who signed what my dad called contracts all through my youth and had verbal contracts with my dad as well up to my forties, I am very familiar with how a child views a contract…and it is not as an adult views a contract, so kids are hearing different things than adults are if that is how it is being taught them.  Teaching covenants as open ended promises works better with youth, imo (something we keep working at and don’t give up on even if for a time we aren’t meeting our commitments as much as we want or should).

I am also very familiar with the feeling of failing contracts as a kid because we all pretty much failed every one and the usual result of contract failure as seen by myself and my siblings is not to repent and try again as God wants us to do when we fall short of our covenantal commitments, but to give up as the contract is voided by failure to fulfill it.

Edited July 25, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But if you really believe in agency you would wait till a child could knowingly consent and choose to make the covenant and commitment. 

I have no problem with baptism at 8 as long as it is realized it is a child’s commitment and not the same as the adult version of the child would make and hopefully will make through repentance and the Sacrament as the covenant grows in maturity and complexity as the child grows in capability, accountability, and understanding.  We do allow children to make commitments and expect them to follow through on them, but they are child size commitments and not adult commitments.  Baptism is not a burden, but a gift, a blessing.  We should treat it more like latter rather than the former in the Church, imo.
 

 In one sense the baptismal covenant is a one size fits all, but not because everyone can make the identical covenant, but because God has built in a growth process with repentance and the Sacrament.  It can start out as small as needed and will grow to fill eternity if we keep nurturing it.

Edited July 26, 2022 by Calm