Lesson 11 - False Doctrines of the Last Days

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Can you provide a statement that from the early Christian Fathers that says God was once a man and lived on a world like we do?

I doubt the early Christians had all the same pieces of the big picture that Joseph Smith did, but Irenaeus (c. 175 - c. 195) come close to saying that in this statement:

"How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?  Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created?  How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker?  For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For thou dost not make God, but God thee. "  (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 39 - but read Chapter 38 for full context.)

Obviously Irenaeus is speaking about men becoming gods here, but what if what he says in the bolded portion is a universal truth?

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

ANd that we can become gods and create worlds as well?

That we can become gods was widely taught by the early Christian Fathers.  I've already included one big example from Irenaeus, above (read both chapters 38 and 39).  But here are a few other examples:

Clement of Alexandria (c. 155 - c. 220 AD):   "But that man with whom the Word dwells does not alter himself, does not get himself up:  he has the form which is of the Word; he is made like to God; he is beautiful; he does not ornament himself; his is beauty, the true beauty, for it is God; and that man becomes God, since God so wills.  Heraclitus, then, rightly said, "Men are gods, and gods are men.  For the Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in man, and man God."   (Clement of Alexandria, "The Instructor", Book III, Chap. 1)

Origen (185-254 AD): "To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods..." (Origen, Commentary on John, Book II)

Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD):   "And thou shalt possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven, thou who, whilst thou didst sojourn in this life, didst know the Celestial King. And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God: for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality. This constitutes the import of the proverb, “Know thyself;” i.e., discover God within thyself, for He has formed thee after His own image. For with the knowledge of self is conjoined the being an object of God’s knowledge, for thou art called by the Deity Himself. Be not therefore inflamed, O ye men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards thee. And provided thou obeyest His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, thou shalt resemble Him, inasmuch as thou shalt have honour conferred upon thee by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the divinity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory!"  (Hippolytus—Refutation Book 10 Ch. 29–30)

As for teaching that men can "create worlds", do you find Joseph Smith teaching that?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

One only needs to appeal to the New Testament to find answers your last question. Here’s just one verse of several:

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Revelation 3)

Being seated on the divine throne of Jesus Christ as a king who has overcome all things is a clear reference to deification.

"...even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne..."  Which puts us ALSO in the same throne with Father AND Jesus...

[Rain]

On 9/11/2022 at 12:30 PM, InCognitus said:

False views of the nature of the Godhead include the idea that God is "wholly other", a term used to describe the difference between God and everything else.  This view makes it impossible to view God as our "Father", since if we are really nothing at all like God then there's no way we could be his children.   The Bible on the other hand, teaches that we are all the very genos of God (Acts 17:28-29), making it impossible for us to view the Godhead as anything like gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. 

We all existed with God eternally, and God the Father has always been the greatest of all, so being "born of heavenly parents" doesn't mean coming into existence, but it does mean that we become his children. 

I'm really trying to work this out and honestly not arguing.  Did we exist with God eternally? Or just exist eternally? We always talk that way about intelligences, but does that mean Satan is with with God eternally? If not does that mean eternity can have an end? Or maybe just life with God can have an end?  Or maybe eternity means something different than we think it does?

On 9/11/2022 at 12:30 PM, InCognitus said:

The Godhead is like the "First Presidency" of the church, and was likely formed to bring about our Heavenly Father's plan of salvation for all his children.

 

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

One only needs to appeal to the New Testament to find answers your last question. Here’s just one verse of several:

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Revelation 3)

Being seated on the divine throne of Jesus Christ as a king who has overcome all things is a clear reference to deification.

I am well familiar with the verse and  how Latter day Saints like to use it as a proof tet.  But it does not refer to deification in the way Mormonism teaches.  Orthodox Christians believe that those who go to heaven will share on all God has but not as being gods.  One evangelical I know said to me that he can share all he has with his dog but that won't make his dog a human.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

"...even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne..."  Which puts us ALSO in the same throne with Father AND Jesus...

Doesn't say what <romism wants it to say.  See my previous response.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I doubt the early Christians had all the same pieces of the big picture that Joseph Smith did, but Irenaeus (c. 175 - c. 195) come close to saying that in this statement:

"How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?  Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created?  How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker?  For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For thou dost not make God, but God thee. "  (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 39 - but read Chapter 38 for full context.)

Obviously Irenaeus is speaking about men becoming gods here, but what if what he says in the bolded portion is a universal truth?

That we can become gods was widely taught by the early Christian Fathers.  I've already included one big example from Irenaeus, above (read both chapters 38 and 39).  But here are a few other examples:

Clement of Alexandria (c. 155 - c. 220 AD):   "But that man with whom the Word dwells does not alter himself, does not get himself up:  he has the form which is of the Word; he is made like to God; he is beautiful; he does not ornament himself; his is beauty, the true beauty, for it is God; and that man becomes God, since God so wills.  Heraclitus, then, rightly said, "Men are gods, and gods are men.  For the Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in man, and man God."   (Clement of Alexandria, "The Instructor", Book III, Chap. 1)

Origen (185-254 AD): "To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods..." (Origen, Commentary on John, Book II)

Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD):   "And thou shalt possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven, thou who, whilst thou didst sojourn in this life, didst know the Celestial King. And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God: for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality. This constitutes the import of the proverb, “Know thyself;” i.e., discover God within thyself, for He has formed thee after His own image. For with the knowledge of self is conjoined the being an object of God’s knowledge, for thou art called by the Deity Himself. Be not therefore inflamed, O ye men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards thee. And provided thou obeyest His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, thou shalt resemble Him, inasmuch as thou shalt have honour conferred upon thee by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the divinity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory!"  (Hippolytus—Refutation Book 10 Ch. 29–30)

As for teaching that men can "create worlds", do you find Joseph Smith teaching that?

Those are good ones that I am actually familiar with.  Did JS teach we will create worlds. I would have to check. Other LDS leaders most certainly have so does it matter?  Use to be in lesson manuals as well.

[Kevin Christensen]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Kevin thank you for the resources. I have spent significant time reading about the development of the doctrine of the Godhead in LDS teachings over time.  As a former hobby apologist.  It was a key issue of concern for me for a long time and there was a time where these explanations were satisfactory but they ceased to be.  I honestly cannot see how anyone can take JS's comments about teaching the plurality of gods for 16 years as anything but disingenuous.  The BoM and early D&C certainly do not teach a plurality of gods at least in the sense JS was referring to.  At least not in my lengthy studies and research. Others, likely smarter than me have reached different conclusions seemingly.

If Joseph Smith was lying about what he had been teaching for 16 years, it is reasonable to suppose that those who had known him for 16 years would have noticed and said something about it.  On the other hand, 2 Nephi 25:1-5 makes an important point that "there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews."  Just as the Parable of the Sower makes the important point that harvest from the same seeds can vary wildly, depending on soil, nurture, and time.  In Mark 4:13 Jesus comments, "Know ye not this parable?  How then shall ye know all parables?"

The Book of Mormon begins with a vision of the Grand Council.   That matters.  Steve Smoot has a very good essay on this.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/studiaantiqua/vol12/iss2/1/

Soil and nurture make a difference.  It makes a huge difference in reading the 1832 account of the First Vision if you stop and consider the implications of this phrase:

Quote

which he doeth in the name of Jesus Ch[r]ist the son of the living God of whom he beareth record and also an account of the rise of the church of Christ in the eve of time according as the Lord brought forth and established by his hand <firstly> he receiving the testamony from on high

In the Book of Mormon, just before the appearance of the Risen Lord, the people hear a voice that says, "Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased..." 3 Nephi 11:7.  In the historical accounts of Joseph's first vision, the Father offers testimony.  In the New Testament, as Jesus's baptism, the Father El Elyon, God Most High, offers testimony. In the 1832 History, I think it important to note that one important word is written as an insert above the text.

Quote

a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the <Lord> opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph <my son> thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy <way> walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life

Notice that the first <Lord> is an insert, and that the figure that phrase with that insert is involved in performs a distinct action from that in the following phrase, about seeing the Lord who spoke about having been crucified.  That in the phrase with the insert opens the heavens for Joseph.  While <Lord> is a title, rather than a name, and can be used by anyone who suits the title, and therefore could also refer to the Father, El Elyon, the Most High, I think that the insert perhaps should have been "Father."  Both, he states were identical in appearance.  And D&C 76 was received in the same year as the 1932 History and has the Son on the right hand of the Father.

The account of King Benjamin's discourse takes place at the Temple, with Benjamin acting in the role of High Priest.  At once point he says:

Quote

And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

In The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God, Margaret Barker made the point that "All the texts in the Hebrew Bible distinguish clearly between the divine sons of Elohim/Elyon, and those human beings who are called sons of Yahweh. This must be significant. It must mean that the terms originated at a time when Yahweh was distinguished from whatever was meant by El/Elohim/Elyon."  That distinction accounts for how Jesus can be both a father and a son.  He is the son of El Elyon, and the Father of those who covenant with him.  I am both a Father and a Son, and this causes no theological quandries because the distinction is obvious.

Notice that in Benjamin's Temple discourse, humans who make the covenant become the sons and daughters of Christ.  Who is Christ?  In 1 Nephi 11, the angel declares "And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou believest in the Son of the most high God;"  When the Son of God appears in 3 Nephi, he declares "I am he who gave the law."  What is the fate of those who become his sons and daughters?  In 3 Nephi 28:10 we have 

Quote

and ye shall be even as I AM, and I AM even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;

11 And the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and the Father giveth the Holy Ghost unto the children of men, because of me.

The Dead Sea Scrolls version of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 also has this distinction, making Yahweh the son of El Elyon, God Most High.

Barker also noted that 

Quote

There were many in first-century Palestine who still retained a world-view derived from the more ancient religion of Israel [that of the First Temple] in which there was a High God and several Sons of God, one of whom was Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel. Yahweh, the Lord, could be manifested on earth in human form, as an angel or in the Davidic king. It was as a manifestation of Yahweh, the Son of God, that Jesus was acknowledged as Son of God, Messiah and Lord.

Brant Gardner provided an excellent talk on how the Book of Mormon reflects the ancient distinctions and ancient theology.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2003/monotheism-messiah-and-mormons-book

And more recently, Val Larsen looked closer at another distinction in the first chapter in the Book of Mormon as compared to the most ancient Israelite traditions:

Quote

Having read the book, Lehi exclaims “Great and marvelous are thy works, O Lord God Almighty [Yahweh El Shaddai]!” (1 Nephi 1: 14). In the King James Old Testament, the word Almighty, which occurs forty-eight times, is always a translation of Shaddai, a name for God that, in the Bible, is associated with fertility and that may signify breasts, being thus the God with breasts or the divine female.  So Lehi seems to open the Book of Mormon by glorifying the divine Son, Father, and Mother. As he invokes Son Yahweh (the Good Shepherd), Father (El), and Mother (Shaddai), he may have in mind Jacob’s blessing of Joseph, Lehi’s progenitor (1 Nephi 5: 14), for all three divine beings are mentioned in Joseph’s patriarchal blessing, which is about to be fulfilled through Lehi: “Joseph is a fruitful bough…whose branches run over the wall: ...his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel). Even by El [אג translated God] … who shall help thee; and by Shaddai [שדי translated the Almighty], who shall bless thee with…blessings of the breasts [שדים, shaddaim in Hebrew], and of the womb” (Genesis 49: 22, 24-25). 

See Val Larsen, “Hidden in Plain View: Mother in Heaven in Scripture” at Square Two 8/2 (Summer 2015), accessed May 31, 2022 at  https://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleLarsenHeavenlyMother.html#backfrom104

Now it happens that those who want to characterize the Book of Mormon as a 19th Century text, as distinct from a 19th Century inspired translation of an ancient text have not been the ones to notice these kinds of details that speak most clearly in light of the ancient Israelite beliefs.  Those who contextualize the Book of Mormon as a reponse to 19th Century concerns, rather than as an inspired translation use different tools and assumptions, and see something very different.  That is the Parable of the Sower in action.  As Thomas Kuhn explains, "that “consciously or not, the decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus and to use it in a particular way always carries an assumption that only certain sorts of circumstances will arise.”  And that leads back to what Nephi warned us about, that we can't understand the things of the Jews like unto them, without doing some cultural and contextual work, to stand where they stood, look where they looked, so that we can see as they saw, and see more of that they saw.

It's also interesting that Don Bradley recounts how his reconversion came about as he saw more of the Temple showing in the lost 116 and even in the First Vision.  That puts the Temple at the center of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the start, rather than as a Nauvoo departure.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2012/piercing-the-veil-temple-worship-in-the-lost-116-pages

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited September 13, 2022 by Kevin Christensen

[Pyreaux]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

Can you provide a statement that from the early Christian Fathers that says God was once a man and lived on a world like we do?  ANd that we can become gods and create worlds as well?

We see for the first three centuries AD, the orthodox belief of Jews and Christians was that God was a human until they were mocked by the Greek philosophers,

"The Jews indeed, but some of our people, suppose that God should be understood as a man, that is adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and form in the likeness of poetic fictions" (Origen Homilies of Genesis 3:1, 86)

The Greeks long abandoned their old human-like pantheon for the philosopher's newly invented immaterial and monotheistic god, "The One"

"Socrates and Plato held that God is The One, the single self-existent nature, the monadic, the real Being, the good:  and all the variety of names point immediately to mind. God therefore is mind, a separate species, that is to say what purely immaterial and unconnected with anything at all" (Plutarch in Eusebias, Preparation for the Gospel 14:16)

This new god sounds very familiar, does it not? Because the Christian Fathers were pressured to say their God is the philosopher's new god.

 "Whatever attribute there for you require as worthy of God must be found in the Father who is invisible, and unapproachable, and placid, and so to speak, the god of the philosophers." (Tertullian, Against Marcion 2:27)

Theosis (the doctrine that men can become gods) was one of the first rediscoveries immediately drawn from the release of the Patristic documents, ie the Early Christian Fathers

"God became man, so that we might be made gods", St Athanasius of Alexandria (295 A.D. On the Incarnation of the Word 54)

"God... became what we are in order to make us what he is", St Irenaeus of Lyons (130 A.D. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons 1997,  164)

The doctrine of the divinization of man has been an orthodox doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church since Vatican II. The Protestant don't believe it because they jumped ship long before the Catholics could jog their memory about what they used to believe...

"We are God's offspring [Acts 17:28], His kin... The gulf between creature and Creator is not impassible... we will become like God.... To be deified... to become a second god, a god by grace." (Ware, Orthodox Church 219)

They will object that the Early Christian Fathers taught the doctrine of theosis exactly as we do, but since they didn't believe in theosis at all until they found out they did, I'm not very confident in their certainty.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Pyreaux

[InCognitus]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

I'm really trying to work this out and honestly not arguing.  Did we exist with God eternally? Or just exist eternally? We always talk that way about intelligences, but does that mean Satan is with with God eternally? If not does that mean eternity can have an end? Or maybe just life with God can have an end?  Or maybe eternity means something different than we think it does?

You make a good point, I don't know if we existed "with God" eternally (and I should have said that differently), but I was referring to the existence of the spirit of man, or intelligence, which has no beginning or end, as is specified in these two references, the first from Abraham 3:18-19:

Quote

18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.
19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.  (Abraham 3:18–19)
 

And this statement from Joseph Smith:

Quote

The spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal; and earth, water, etc., had their existence in an elementary state, from eternity. Our Savior speaks of children and says, Their angels always stand before my Father. The Father called all spirits before Him at the creation of man, and organized them. He (Adam) is the head, and was told to multiply. The keys were first given to him, and by him to others. He will have to give an account of his stewardship, and they to him.  (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Four 1839–42, p.158, and History, 1838–1856, volume C-1 [2 November 1838–31 July 1842])

From these statements I conclude that our spirits have existed eternally, the same way that God is eternal.

[InCognitus]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am well familiar with the verse and  how Latter day Saints like to use it as a proof tet.  But it does not refer to deification in the way Mormonism teaches.  Orthodox Christians believe that those who go to heaven will share on all God has but not as being gods.  One evangelical I know said to me that he can share all he has with his dog but that won't make his dog a human.

Your evangelical acquaintance uses a flawed analogy, because even though he may share all that he has with his dog, his dog is not granted any authority to rule the nations (Revelation 2:26-27 - and I would certainly not want to be part of any kingdom being ruled by a dog), nor is his dog made in his image or the same kind of being as he is (as the Bible teaches about God and humans - Heb 12:9, Acts 17:28-29), nor does his dog become a partaker of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).

What does God's throne represent?  Sitting with God in his throne, in the same way Jesus sits in God's throne with his Father, has a particular meaning that is far more meaningful than just getting comfortable in a cool chair.  

Edited September 14, 2022 by InCognitus

[InCognitus]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Those are good ones that I am actually familiar with.  Did JS teach we will create worlds. I would have to check. Other LDS leaders most certainly have so does it matter?  Use to be in lesson manuals as well.

I realize other leaders have taught that, but originally I thought you were taking this from the standpoint that Joseph Smith redefined the nature of the Godhead, as you said, "Not only from the view of orthodox Christian definitions but of his own from 1830 to 1844. Lots of changes over 14 years."   That's why I asked.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

You make a good point, I don't know if we existed "with God" eternally (and I should have said that differently), but I was referring to the existence of the spirit of man, or intelligence, which has no beginning or end, as is specified in these two references, the first from Abraham 3:18-19:

And this statement from Joseph Smith:

From these statements I conclude that our spirits have existed eternally, the same way that God is eternal.

Thanks, that makes a lot more sense!  

[marineland]

On 9/12/2022 at 10:20 PM, Pyreaux said:

When Christ was not yet born, was he not still the Son of God?

I believe Jesus is God even before his birth to Mary.

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, marineland said:

I believe Jesus is God even before his birth to Mary.

We believe that Jesus was God before his birth to Mary as well.  (John 1:1-3 makes that pretty clear).  But, as the verse says, he was "with God" the Father in the beginning, and Jesus is his Son.  Jesus is the "firstbegotten" of God the Father (Heb 1:6).  So Jesus was also the Son of God, as Pyreaux said.

 

[Pyreaux]

On 9/14/2022 at 8:37 AM, marineland said:

I believe Jesus is God even before his birth to Mary.

Of course, but was he not still the Son of God in his pre-mortal existence, like in Daniel 3:28? Did King Melchizedek not exist before he was born the Son of God, like in Hebrews 7:4? Did the Davidic Kings did not exist before they were born a Son of God in Psalm 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:2? Who are the Bene Elohim (the heavenly 'Sons of God' in the divine council of 'gods') in Job 1 or Psalms 82 or Daniel 4? Where were they before they were born of God? When Genesis 2:4 announces, “these are the [begettings] of heaven”, might the begotten sons and daughters of God in heaven, undocumented in Genesis 1, pre-exist the Creation account of Genesis "in the beginning"? How do you interpret "from everlasting to everlasting" (Psalm 90:2) when that is a finite phrase that clearly means there is a time before each so-called "everlasting" begins (Psalm 103:17-18)?

Edited September 15, 2022 by Pyreaux

[marineland]

On 9/15/2022 at 12:21 PM, Pyreaux said:

Of course, but was he not still the Son of God in his pre-mortal existence, like in Daniel 3:28? Did King Melchizedek not exist before he was born the Son of God, like in Hebrews 7:4? Did the Davidic Kings did not exist before they were born a Son of God in Psalm 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:2? Who are the Bene Elohim (the heavenly 'Sons of God' in the divine council of 'gods') in Job 1 or Psalms 82 or Daniel 4? Where were they before they were born of God? When Genesis 2:4 announces, “these are the [begettings] of heaven”, might the begotten sons and daughters of God in heaven, undocumented in Genesis 1, pre-exist the Creation account of Genesis "in the beginning"? How do you interpret "from everlasting to everlasting" (Psalm 90:2) when that is a finite phrase that clearly means there is a time before each so-called "everlasting" begins (Psalm 103:17-18)?

1) Jesus has always been God. There never was a time when he was not God. I do not
believe he was the first spirit child born to heavenly parents who then went on to
become a God.

2] There are various opinions on whether King Melchizedek is eternal or not. 
Hebrews 7:3 says, "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither 
beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a 
priest continually".

Supposedly he did not have heavenly parents (and did not have earthly parents either
in LDS theology?). Some propose that Melchizedek was actually a pre-incarnate appearance 
of Jesus Christ.

3) I don't believe that the Davidic kings existed before they were born on Earth.

4) About Psalm 82, the gods mentioned there are the wicked Jewish human judges.

5) Similar answer as #3.

6) Before I can answer, please explain what you mean by begetting or begotten?

7) To me, from everlasting to everlasting describes the eternal nature of God, not
an intelligence who progressed from a man to a God.  

Joseph Smith taught God is not from everlasting to everlasting.  If the phrase "from 
everlasting to everlasting" is a finite phrase that clearly means there is a time 
before each so-called "everlasting", then Joseph Smith's logic implies there is no 
time before each so-called "everlasting".

Tony

[Pyreaux]

12 hours ago, marineland said:

1) Jesus has always been God. There never was a time when he was not God. I do not
believe he was the first spirit child born to heavenly parents who then went on to
become a God.

2] There are various opinions on whether King Melchizedek is eternal or not. 
Hebrews 7:3 says, "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither 
beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a 
priest continually".

Supposedly he did not have heavenly parents (and did not have earthly parents either
in LDS theology?). Some propose that Melchizedek was actually a pre-incarnate appearance 
of Jesus Christ.

3) I don't believe that the Davidic kings existed before they were born on Earth.

4) About Psalm 82, the gods mentioned there are the wicked Jewish human judges.

5) Similar answer as #3.

6) Before I can answer, please explain what you mean by begetting or begotten?

7) To me, from everlasting to everlasting describes the eternal nature of God, not
an intelligence who progressed from a man to a God.  

Joseph Smith taught God is not from everlasting to everlasting.  If the phrase "from 
everlasting to everlasting" is a finite phrase that clearly means there is a time 
before each so-called "everlasting", then Joseph Smith's logic implies there is no 
time before each so-called "everlasting".

Tony

Nice to see you back and engaging. 😇 To your credit, you seem well versed in classical Protestant opinion at large. Don't take it hard if I told you those are very out of date and erroneous.  

1)  Hebrews 1 is the story of what? Jesus is this Firstborn Son, who 'inherited' his father's name (Hebrews 1:4; John 5:43). When was Jesus born in Hebrews 1? This is an ancient tale deleted from Deut 32:43 by Masoretic Jews, it concerned the firstborn Son and the command that all the angels worship him (and the one rebel who refused, as depicted in Revelations 12). The firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15). Christ is uncreated in the sense that his existence predates The Creation (1 Peter 1: 20; Revelations 13:8), God created all things through Christ, but not things uncreated that preexisted the Creation. The spirits of heaven and earth were not created but "begotten" (Genesis 2:4) by the "begetter" of heaven and earth (Genesis 14:19) the Most High God, Elyon, God the Father of all spirits (Hebrews 12:9), including his son Yahweh., the Lord God of Israel who was allotted Israel as his inheritance from his Father (Deuteronomy 32:8). 

2) The confusion about Melchizedek is due to ignorance of the Melchizedek priesthood, which Patriarchs and Prophets, Davidic Kings and Christians all through apotheosis become spiritually "born again" without human parents, and are deemed "Sons of God", via adoption by the Lord-Christ. Such individuals are immortal in that they are sanctified and worthy of surviving divine encounters in their priestly service and should "Transfigure", a temporary form of immortality, which they may still die of natural means. All can become a son of God (Romans 8:14) and does not mean they weren't in a prior state of existence, born of human parents before they are born of God.

3) Davidic kings are born of parents and exist before the Lord made them his sons (2 Samuel 7:2). Do those who are born of God not all exist prior to being born of God? When David was made a Priest after Melchizedek, "In the glory of the Holy Ones, I have begotten you (LXX, Psalm 109:3) He was adopted and made a begotten son, simply not begotten according to conventual thought.

4) That is Masoretic Jewish anti-Christian propaganda to erase and obscure Biblical references to the "sons of God" (as Christ is one). The "elohim" never means "judge" except a different form of the word in Exodus when Moses said that criminals should be "brought before God" which he meant the Judges of Israel. These Psalmic elohim-gods however are not human judges of Israel, the judges of Israel do not rule the nations, nor are the nations the inheritance from God that needs to be taken away from humans. These Sons of God are the same Sons of God in Job depicted as wicked rivals of Yahweh. In the psalmist is asking Elyon to take away the nations these gods inherited and let Yahweh inherit them all (at this time he only inherited Israel, the other 70 nations were allotted to the other Sons of El Elyon; Deut 32:8). I've not even been talking about Joseph Smith here, just pure Biblical scholar by even Evangelical scholars, like Dr. Michael Heiser.

6) God the Father fathers beings, like Jesus, not made by some natural act, like the miraculous conception. Yet the Bible uses the words begotten, birth, and son rather loosely. A loose definition is perhaps; a 'life' or state of being that was 'produced' by God and the degree God considers that life or being to be some extension of himself. For instance, Adam is a son of God, being made by God, and possessing God's image (Luke 3:38; Genesis 1:26) an inherited attribute he was able to pass on to Seth (Genesis 3:.22)

7) Did you even read Psalm 103:17-18? If the mercy is imposed from "everlasting to everlasting" on those who fear God, then was there not a time before someone feared God, thus a time before "everlasting to everlasting" (Psalm 103:17-18)? Everlasting 'olam' means 'time out of mind', 'practically eternity', not 'infinity'.

Everlasting...

Edited September 24, 2022 by Pyreaux

[2BizE]

I would consider doctrines such as polygamy, salvation/exaltation ban on people of African decent, and the Adam/God doctrine to be false teachings in the latter days.

[carbon dioxide]

On 9/13/2022 at 10:02 AM, Teancum said:

 One evangelical I know said to me that he can share all he has with his dog but that won't make his dog a human.

But that really is not true.  I can't share all that I have with my dog even if I wanted to or could.  For example, I would love to share my chocolate with my dog.  She might like it for a few minutes but then bad things might happen.  Nor could I share my car with my dog.  I would love to see her drive but it just is not possible. 

Edited September 24, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[InCognitus]

10 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

But that really is not true.  I can't share all that I have with my dog even if I wanted to or could.  For example, I would love to share my chocolate with my dog.  She might like it for a few minutes but then bad things might happen.  Nor could I share my car with my dog.  I would love to see her drive but it just is not possible. 

I'm pretty sure I encountered someone driving like your dog the other day...  Are you sure your dog doesn't drive?

[mfbukowski]

On 9/13/2022 at 1:37 PM, Pyreaux said:

We see for the first three centuries AD, the orthodox belief of Jews and Christians was that God was a human until they were mocked by the Greek philosophers,

"The Jews indeed, but some of our people, suppose that God should be understood as a man, that is adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and form in the likeness of poetic fictions" (Origen Homilies of Genesis 3:1, 86)

The Greeks long abandoned their old human-like pantheon for the philosopher's newly invented immaterial and monotheistic god, "The One"

"Socrates and Plato held that God is The One, the single self-existent nature, the monadic, the real Being, the good:  and all the variety of names point immediately to mind. God therefore is mind, a separate species, that is to say what purely immaterial and unconnected with anything at all" (Plutarch in Eusebias, Preparation for the Gospel 14:16)

This new god sounds very familiar, does it not? Because the Christian Fathers were pressured to say their God is the philosopher's new god.

 "Whatever attribute there for you require as worthy of God must be found in the Father who is invisible, and unapproachable, and placid, and so to speak, the god of the philosophers." (Tertullian, Against Marcion 2:27)

Theosis (the doctrine that men can become gods) was one of the first rediscoveries immediately drawn from the release of the Patristic documents, ie the Early Christian Fathers

"God became man, so that we might be made gods", St Athanasius of Alexandria (295 A.D. On the Incarnation of the Word 54)

"God... became what we are in order to make us what he is", St Irenaeus of Lyons (130 A.D. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons 1997,  164)

The doctrine of the divinization of man has been an orthodox doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church since Vatican II. The Protestant don't believe it because they jumped ship long before the Catholics could jog their memory about what they used to believe...

"We are God's offspring [Acts 17:28], His kin... The gulf between creature and Creator is not impassible... we will become like God.... To be deified... to become a second god, a god by grace." (Ware, Orthodox Church 219)

They will object that the Early Christian Fathers taught the doctrine of theosis exactly as we do, but since they didn't believe in theosis at all until they found out they did, I'm not very confident in their certainty.

Great quotes thanks

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I would consider doctrines such as polygamy, salvation/exaltation ban on people of African decent, and the Adam/God doctrine to be false teachings in the latter days.

Not a single thing you said makes any sense. How can polygamy be a false teaching? Have you read the Bible? There are Biblical laws that forced men into polygamy, and no Biblical doctrines against polygamy. Western laws against polygamy only exists due to Roman laws against it, that is why multiple mistresses are legal, while polygamy is not. Those of African descent have been baptized unto salvation in the true church since its inception, while contemporary churches were still wondering if they were human at all. Holding the priesthood in life has little to do with salvation, by that logic all Jews (tribes of Juda and Benjamin) or women aren't going to be saved either? What nonsense. I know for a fact you don't even know what the Adam/God doctrine is, because no one does. There is no explanation for an anomaly out of 10,000 sermons from the same person from an unedited 3rd hand account that has gone unrepeated by anyone in the church for a hundred years. You found an excerpt on the internet from a book I know you've never read, and somehow you crack the code AND know if it's false?

Edited September 24, 2022 by Pyreaux

[Scott Lloyd]

On 9/13/2022 at 4:22 PM, InCognitus said:

You make a good point, I don't know if we existed "with God" eternally (and I should have said that differently), but I was referring to the existence of the spirit of man, or intelligence, which has no beginning or end, as is specified in these two references, the first from Abraham 3:18-19:

And this statement from Joseph Smith:

From these statements I conclude that our spirits have existed eternally, the same way that God is eternal.

A good way to say it is man is co-eternal with God — that is, we have always existed in some form, be it intelligences, spirits, spirits embodied in mortality. We will go on existing as resurrected souls (the spirit and the body are the soul of man). 

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 9/13/2022 at 11:27 AM, InCognitus said:

I doubt the early Christians had all the same pieces of the big picture that Joseph Smith did, but Irenaeus (c. 175 - c. 195) come close to saying that in this statement:

"How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?  Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created?  How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker?  For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For thou dost not make God, but God thee. "  (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 39 - but read Chapter 38 for full context.)

Obviously Irenaeus is speaking about men becoming gods here, but what if what he says in the bolded portion is a universal truth?

That we can become gods was widely taught by the early Christian Fathers.  I've already included one big example from Irenaeus, above (read both chapters 38 and 39).  But here are a few other examples:

Clement of Alexandria (c. 155 - c. 220 AD):   "But that man with whom the Word dwells does not alter himself, does not get himself up:  he has the form which is of the Word; he is made like to God; he is beautiful; he does not ornament himself; his is beauty, the true beauty, for it is God; and that man becomes God, since God so wills.  Heraclitus, then, rightly said, "Men are gods, and gods are men.  For the Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in man, and man God."   (Clement of Alexandria, "The Instructor", Book III, Chap. 1)

Origen (185-254 AD): "To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods..." (Origen, Commentary on John, Book II)

Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD):   "And thou shalt possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven, thou who, whilst thou didst sojourn in this life, didst know the Celestial King. And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God: for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality. This constitutes the import of the proverb, “Know thyself;” i.e., discover God within thyself, for He has formed thee after His own image. For with the knowledge of self is conjoined the being an object of God’s knowledge, for thou art called by the Deity Himself. Be not therefore inflamed, O ye men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards thee. And provided thou obeyest His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, thou shalt resemble Him, inasmuch as thou shalt have honour conferred upon thee by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the divinity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory!"  (Hippolytus—Refutation Book 10 Ch. 29–30)

As for teaching that men can "create worlds", do you find Joseph Smith teaching that?

Please consider the possibility that you are misreading Iraneus, Clement, Origen, and Hippolytus. 

I shared this in the Trinity thread, and will share it here too:

A Word That Every Catholic Needs to Know | Catholic Answers

 

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

But that really is not true.  I can't share all that I have with my dog even if I wanted to or could.  For example, I would love to share my chocolate with my dog.  She might like it for a few minutes but then bad things might happen.  Nor could I share my car with my dog.  I would love to see her drive but it just is not possible. 

I think it is a perfect analogy.