Was God once a man?

[ave maria]

So, you agree with this statement?

Prophets go against Scripture all the time

Well... since I was the one who gave the statement I would assume that yes I do indeed agree with it.

One example: Nathan speaks FOR the Lord and then has to recant.

2 Sam. 7

Apparently verse 3 is not scripture because its Nathans own opinion of David.

and this statement?

Modern revelation hasn't "surpass[ed] and contradict[ed] that which is in the Bible.

Is that correct?

Yes I also agree with Kevin on this.

When All facts are known there is no contradiction.

As they appear to be contradictory statements, you'll need to elaborate in order to clarify.

Are you saying "Prophets go against scripture all the time. . ." because the scripture is inaccurate or incomplete?

Or are you saying that for a prophet to "go against scripture" is not a contradiction of scripture?

Or are you saying something else entirely, or not quite sure?

And I would ask you the same question I asked Kevin. Do you believe, in LDS theology, that modern revelation can surpass and/or contradict scripture?

[Zakuska]

In order for me to answer you will have to give me your definition of scripture.

[ave maria]

In order for me to answer you will have to give me your definition of scripture.

Let's agree for the sake of this particular discussion that "holy scripture" includes that which we hold in common--the Old and New Testaments. We can even agree on King James Version for translation if you'd like, minus the Apocrypha.

[Zakuska]

Yes we could agree on that however, As I have illustrated Nathan Gave his opinion as scripture and then later had to recant.

So apparently the "Scripture" that we do have contains the words of men, it also contains the words of Evil Spirits, It also contains the words of good spirits, It contains the words of the devil, It also contains "some" of the words God has spoken to men.

So thats where it gets sticky.

I would define scripture as anything God has spoken to man. Gods will in other words.

So as you can see with Nathan the true prophet of God. He spoke above and beyond and surpassed the will of God and later had to recant.

Hmm... maybe Joseph Smith was onto something when he said that some revelations come from man.

[ave maria]

Yes we could agree on that however, As I have illustrated Nathan Gave his opinion as scripture and then later had to recant.

So apparently the "Scripture" that we do have contains the words of men, it also contains the words of Evil Spirits, It also contains the words of good spirits, It contains the words of the devil, It also contains "some" of the words God has spoken to men.

So thats where it gets sticky.

I would define scripture as anything God has spoken to man. Gods will in other words.

So as you can see with Nathan the true prophet of God. He spoke above and beyond and surpassed the will of God and later had to recant.

Hmm... maybe Joseph Smith was onto something when he said that some revelations come from man.

You're going beyond the bounds of the question I'm asking you.

I'm asking you, specifically, if Latter-day Saints, or you as a Latter-day Saint, believe that modern revelation (post-Biblical, for the sake of argument in the post-Joseph Smith era) can contradict or surpass anything in the Bible (Old and New Testaments), which you and I will agree for the sake of discussion is "holy scripture."

[thesometimesaint]

ave maria:

If a prophet of God told you to get on The Ark. Would you get on The Ark? Or would you argue that it is contra-Scriptural?

[ave maria]

ave maria:

If a prophet of God told you to get on The Ark. Would you get on The Ark? Or would you argue that it is contra-Scriptural?

SS--

You need to understand the question in the context in which it's being asked.

Kevin made a statement regarding whether or not something was found in the Bible, and my response was that to the Latter-day Saint, it was irrelevant, because LDS belief is that modern revelation can contradict and/or surpass scripture.

For point of clarification, Catholics do not subscribe to sola scriptura. If you were under the impression they do, you are mistaken.

Where Catholics and Latter-day Saints might depart, however, is over whether or not modern revelation can contradict and/or surpass scripture. Catholics would believe they cannot; I am trying to determine individual LDS responses as to whether or not Latter-day Saints believe they can, and/or do.

[SlackTime]

Where Catholics and Latter-day Saints might depart, however, is over whether or not modern revelation can contradict and/or surpass scripture. Catholics would believe they cannot; I am trying to determine individual LDS responses as to whether or not Latter-day Saints believe they can, and/or do.

Hi Maria,

My answer to your query is that it depends.

I believe that practice, process, and procedure can change through modern revelation. Thus ritualistic changes don't bother me in the least. Polygamy can come and go, programs can be altered, etc.

I believe that the gospel message is constant. Christ is the central pillar of our faith. The day a prophet takes Christ out of our worship is the day I leave the Church.

But this is just me, other LDS are both more traditionally minded than I and less.

-Ed

[Zakuska]

Ave,

Where Catholics and Latter-day Saints might depart, however, is over whether or not modern revelation can contradict and/or surpass scripture. Catholics would believe they cannot; I am trying to determine individual LDS responses as to whether or not Latter-day Saints believe they can, and/or do.

And here is where it gets sticky... What is scripture?

You can include the Apochrypha if you like. I rather enjoy it. Except where the interpolations of man have tainted it as well.

On several occasions I have heard it from various teachings of modern prophets that the Quad is the measuring stick for doctrine. However Im not quite sure I totally agree. And Im not sure that you do either. Other wise we all would be popping our women in the chops every time they spoke in public.

So again... this comes down to What is really scripture?

If God told me to write down your name... would that be scripture?

[ave maria]

Ave,

Where Catholics and Latter-day Saints might depart, however, is over whether or not modern revelation can contradict and/or surpass scripture. Catholics would believe they cannot; I am trying to determine individual LDS responses as to whether or not Latter-day Saints believe they can, and/or do.

And here is where it gets sticky... What is scripture?

You can include the Apochrypha if you like. I rather enjoy it. Except where the interpolations of man have tainted it as well.

On several occasions I have heard it from various teachings of modern prophets that the Quad is the measuring stick for doctrine. However Im not quite sure I totally agree. And Im not sure that you do either. Other wise we all would be popping our women in the chops every time they spoke in public.

So again... this comes down to What is really scripture?

If God told me to write down your name... would that be scripture?

You asked what constituted scripture, for the sake of this discussion.

I've agreed we can call "scripture" the Old and New Testaments.

If you're asking what I believe to be holy scripture, that would be the Old and New Testaments as canonized by the Church.

You said you could not answer the question until I responded what constituted "scripture," for the sake of this discussion.

I have done so, and await your response.

[ave maria]

Where Catholics and Latter-day Saints might depart, however, is over whether or not modern revelation can contradict and/or surpass scripture.  Catholics would believe they cannot; I am trying to determine individual LDS responses as to whether or not Latter-day Saints believe they can, and/or do.

Hi Maria,

My answer to your query is that it depends.

I believe that practice, process, and procedure can change through modern revelation. Thus ritualistic changes don't bother me in the least. Polygamy can come and go, programs can be altered, etc.

I believe that the gospel message is constant. Christ is the central pillar of our faith. The day a prophet takes Christ out of our worship is the day I leave the Church.

But this is just me, other LDS are both more traditionally minded than I and less.

-Ed

So in the context in which I asked the question of Kevin, if it could be conclusively demonsrated in the Bible that the nature of God was that He was not a man before becoming/being God, would that make any difference to a Latter-day Saint?

That is, doesn't LDS believe hold that no matter what is in the Bible, Old and New Testaments, it can be surpassed and/or contradicted by modern revelation?

So isn't quoting Biblical scripture somewhat moot in that case?

Let's stick to the nature of God question in this instance for the sake of argument/discussion.

[Zakuska]

Does not the New Testament suplant and completely reinvent the OT law?

What happened to eternal covenant of circumcision? A later Apostle came along and "modified" scripture.

What happened to obstaining from certian kinds of meats? Ditto

The sermon on the Mount? Well...

The list goes on.

Does your husband pop you in the chops every time you open your mouth in public?

Apparently you dont think all of Pauls words are scripture or you would live by them.

[SlackTime]

So in the context in which I asked the question of Kevin, if it could be conclusively demonsrated in the Bible that the nature of God was that He was not a man before becoming/being God, would that make any difference to a Latter-day Saint?

That is, doesn't LDS believe hold that no matter what is in the Bible, Old and New Testaments, it can be surpassed and/or contradicted by modern revelation?

So isn't quoting Biblical scripture somewhat moot in that case?

Let's stick to the nature of God question in this instance for the sake of argument/discussion.

Well, my first (read knee jerk) reaction is that it can't be proved that way...

But that isn't the question is it. If it could then it still wouldn't be a problem.

The reason that it wouldn't to me is that God reveals himself and His nature, here a little, there a little, as His children can accept and understand Him. And I can believe that what we can believe and accept about God today might be different (notice that I didn't say greater) than what it was in the past. But His basic plan for mankind has not changed, so again I hold to what the Church today cannot change is the central role of Christ as Savior and Redeemer.

-Ed

[ave maria]

So in the context in which I asked the question of Kevin, if it could be conclusively demonsrated in the Bible that the nature of God was that He was not a man before becoming/being God, would that make any difference to a Latter-day Saint?

That is, doesn't LDS believe hold that no matter what is in the Bible, Old and New Testaments, it can be surpassed and/or contradicted by modern revelation?

So isn't quoting Biblical scripture somewhat moot in that case?

Let's stick to the nature of God question in this instance for the sake of argument/discussion.

Well, my first (read knee jerk) reaction is that it can't be proved that way...

That was a hypothetical.

Kevin has already conceded that the Bible doesn't conclusively rule it out or in either way.

But that isn't the question is it.  If it could then it still wouldn't be a problem.

The reason that it wouldn't to me is that God reveals himself and His nature, here a little, there a little, as His children can accept and understand Him.  And I can believe that what we can believe and accept about God today might be different (notice that I didn't say greater) than what it was in the past.  But His basic plan for mankind has not changed, so again I hold to what the Church today cannot change is the central role of Christ as Savior and Redeemer.

So, an LDS prophet couldn't state that Jesus Christ was "no longer Savior and Redeemer" and still be a prophet of God? Is that correct in your view?

Are you stating that an LDS prophet could state anything else contradictory or surpassing the Bible and still be correct?

Could an LDS prophet state that God was never a man, and that Joseph Smith was incorrect in that regard, and still be a prophet of God, in your view?

[SlackTime]

So, an LDS prophet couldn't state that Jesus Christ was "no longer Savior and Redeemer" and still be a prophet of God? Is that correct in your view?

Are you stating that an LDS prophet could state anything else contradictory or surpassing the Bible and still be correct?

Could an LDS prophet state that God was never a man, and that Joseph Smith was incorrect in that regard, and still be a prophet of God, in your view?

He "could" be. Every teaching that came from him would have to be confirmed by the Spirit, just as Nephi confirmed what his father Lehi received.

If President Hinckley revealed new doctrine tomorrow, based upon my testimony of what he has taught in the past I would accept it with a believing attitude (or with an attitude of willingness to believe as opposed to an attitude of doubt). If I hadn't received a witness as the doctrine was revealed I would study and pray until I had received such a witness. With the confirmation of the Spirit I would continue to live the teaching.

-Ed

[Zakuska]

Hmmm... You just paraphrased scripture.

John 7: 17

17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

[juliann]

I'm asking you, specifically, if Latter-day Saints, or you as a Latter-day Saint, believe that modern revelation (post-Biblical, for the sake of argument in the post-Joseph Smith era) can contradict or surpass anything in the Bible (Old and New Testaments), which you and I will agree for the sake of discussion is "holy scripture."

The NT "surpassed" the OT. Your question in nonsensical. All religions add their own interpretations, policies and practices. You would not need a Pope if the Bible said it all. This is just another "when my religion does it, its fine. When you religion does it, it's not fine"

[ave maria]

I'm asking you, specifically, if Latter-day Saints, or you as a Latter-day Saint, believe that modern revelation (post-Biblical, for the sake of argument in the post-Joseph Smith era) can contradict or surpass anything in the Bible (Old and New Testaments), which you and I will agree for the sake of discussion is "holy scripture."

The NT "surpassed" the OT. Your question in nonsensical. All religions add their own interpretations, policies and practices. You would not need a Pope if the Bible said it all. This is just another "when my religion does it, its fine. When you religion does it, it's not fine"

Moderator: If you want to make a personal comment do it in email.

[juliann]

Available Translations and Versions for Phl 2:6 [from the Blue Letter Bible]

NLT - Phl 2:6 - Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God.

New Living Translation

[alpha]

and this statement?

Modern revelation hasn't "surpass[ed] and contradict[ed] that which is in the Bible.

Is that correct?

Yes I also agree with Kevin on this.

When All facts are known there is no contradiction.

[alpha]

== Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to day, and for ever...Hebrews 13:8

"Yesterday" isn't an eternal past.

Is it your assertion, then, that "eternal" only means "without end," but not necessarily, "without beginning?"

That is, from this point forward eternally, but not into the past eternally?

Do you believe when Latter-day Saints pray to "God, the Eternal Father," this is what they perceive "eternal" to mean?

Eternal means there is no beginning and no end... God has always been and forever will be. This is what I mean.

I don't know about the last question. I would think that when LDS pray they are praying to an eternal God...The one and only God...

They just may not know it...Who am I to say?

The Lds say that Jesus is the God of this world...why not then make Him the God of all, Every kingdom, galaxy, creation. ever come about, whether we know of it or not. It is faith that Jesus holds this authority and power...not only for our salvation sake, but the hope that He is the King of all Kings, both eternal and temporal.

Alpha

[Kevin Graham]

== Kevin made a statement regarding whether or not something was found in the Bible, and my response was that to the Latter-day Saint, it was irrelevant, because LDS belief is that modern revelation can contradict and/or surpass scripture.

How can you say that? Mormons operate under the assumption that nothing in the Bible contradicts LDS doctrine, so how can you sit there and say it is a "moot" point? And I never said we believe modern-day prophets can "contradict scripture." What I said was that this could certainly how some might interpret a revelation, biut that this perspective would be driven from a previous tradition of interpretation, not the Bible itself. Here is what I said:

Modern revelation hasn't "surpass[ed] and contradict[ed] that which is in the Bible." The only peple who insis otherwise are those who misinterpret the Bible to say things it really doesn't say...We believe in progressive revelation. I suppose it is possible that new revelation could be interpreted as a "contradiction" to some previously held tradition. But then again, logically speaking Jesus Christ flatly contradicted revelation of Moses.

So I don't appreciate the implication that we believe the Bible is "irrelevant" since modern-revelation can rightly "surpass" or "contradict" it. If you want to know how important the Bible is to Mormons, you should try asking us and not presume to tell us. Just take a look at my website and tell me if you think the Bible is irrelevant for me!

== So in the context in which I asked the question of Kevin, if it could be conclusively demonsrated in the Bible that the nature of God was that He was not a man before becoming/being God, would that make any difference to a Latter-day Saint?

If I showed you where the Bible said the Pope is gay would that make a difference to you? Well as soon as you show me a scripture that says conclusively that God was/is not a man, then I'll show you one that says the Pope is gay.

Alpha says,

== Eternal means there is no beginning and no end... God has always been and forever will be.

In English maybe, but not in Hebrew, which is language of the Old Testament. Again, reasserting a false statement over and over is pointless; unless of course you just like to hear yourself talk. Here is how Brown-Driver-Briggs defines "olam"

1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world

1a) ancient time, long time (of past)

1b) (of future)

1b1) for ever, always

1b2) continuous existence, perpetual

1b3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity

The only end of the spectrum that applies to infinite is the future end, never the past! The Hebrews had no concept of an infinite past, even when thinking of God's old age.

[ave maria]

== Kevin made a statement regarding whether or not something was found in the Bible, and my response was that to the Latter-day Saint, it was irrelevant, because LDS belief is that modern revelation can contradict and/or surpass scripture.

How can you say that? Mormons operate under the assumption that nothing in the Bible contradicts LDS doctrine, so how can you sit there and say it is a "moot" point?

The point was not whether anything in the Bible "contradicts" Mormon doctrine, but whether modern (assuming LDS here) revelation can "surpass" and/or "contradict" Biblical scripture.

I appreciate your clarification. My point had to do with a Latter-day Saint asking for Biblical references in some instances, and then claiming that it was irrelevant in others, because (other LDS) scripture had surpassed it, or modern revelation had.

And I never said we believe modern-day prophets can "contradict scripture." What I said was that this could certainly how some might interpret a revelation, biut that this perspective would be driven from a previous tradition of interpretation, not the Bible itself. Here is what I said:

Modern revelation hasn't "surpass[ed] and contradict[ed] that which is in the Bible." The only peple who insis otherwise are those who misinterpret the Bible to say things it really doesn't say...We believe in progressive revelation. I suppose it is possible that new revelation could be interpreted as a "contradiction" to some previously held tradition. But then again, logically speaking Jesus Christ flatly contradicted revelation of Moses.

I appreciate the clarification.

So I don't appreciate the implication that we believe the Bible is "irrelevant" since modern-revelation can rightly "surpass" or "contradict" it. If you want to know how important the Bible is to Mormons, you should try asking us and not presume to tell us. Just take a look at my website and tell me if you think the Bible is irrelevant for me!

I was probably LDS longer than you have been, and as I've said before, am not totally amnestic of the experience.

I've seen your websites, and noted the new one. I enjoyed the wedding and baby pictures.

== So in the context in which I asked the question of Kevin, if it could be conclusively demonsrated in the Bible that the nature of God was that He was not a man before becoming/being God, would that make any difference to a Latter-day Saint?

If I showed you where the Bible said the Pope is gay would that make a difference to you? Well as soon as you show me a scripture that says conclusively that God was/is not a man, then I'll show you one that says the Pope is gay.

The nature of God could reasonably be discussed in scripture. I doubt the sexual preference of the pontiff is relevant or found anywhere in holy scripture.

Responses like that tend to be somewhat inflammatory. That would be similar to us discussing the nature of God, and I said, "If I found a scripture that said Gordon B. Hinckley was gay. . ." You might be making a point, but in an inflammatory fashion. You can probably make the point just as well with a less inflammatory or unrealistic example.

Alpha says,

== Eternal means there is no beginning and no end... God has always been and forever will be.

In English maybe, but not in Hebrew, which is language of the Old Testament. Again, reasserting a false statement over and over is pointless; unless of course you just like to hear yourself talk.  Here is how Brown-Driver-Briggs defines "olam"

1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world

1a) ancient time, long time (of past)

1b) (of future)

1b1) for ever, always

1b2) continuous existence, perpetual

1b3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity

The only end of the spectrum that applies to infinite is the future end, never the past! The Hebrews had no concept of an infinite past, even when thinking of God's old age.

Why would they? Wouldn't it be unrealistic to expect that that concept would be anywhere in their vocabulary?

[Kevin Graham]

== The point was not whether anything in the Bible "contradicts" Mormon doctrine, but whether modern (assuming LDS here) revelation can "surpass" and/or "contradict" Biblical scripture.

And since you haven't demonstrated one example where this has occured in 170 years of LDS history, it comes across as being void of meaning; possibly a cheap shot. Mormons worry about this hypothetical scenario as much as Catholics worry about the Pope being gay. It seemed your point was that the Bible message would be considered "irrelevant" to Mormons. If this holds water, then isn't it odd Mormons don't agree with you? Take a good look around you and tell me if Mormons think scripture is "irrelevant."

== I appreciate your clarification. My point had to do with a Latter-day Saint asking for Biblical references in some instances, and then claiming that it was irrelevant in others, because (other LDS) scripture had surpassed it, or modern revelation had.

Well I have never seen a Mormon argue like this and you seemed to be generalizing all Mormons into this category, including me. Had to put my foot down.

== I appreciate the clarification.

You bet.

== The nature of God could reasonably be discussed in scripture. I doubt the sexual preference of the pontiff is relevant or found anywhere in holy scripture.

Of course not. But it is a baseless "hypothetical" just as your scenario was.

== Responses like that tend to be somewhat inflammatory. That would be similar to us discussing the nature of God, and I said, "If I found a scripture that said Gordon B. Hinckley was gay. . ." You might be making a point, but in an inflammatory fashion. You can probably make the point just as well with a less inflammatory or unrealistic example.

Wasn't trying to be inflammatory. FWIW, I don't think the Pope is gay. It was the first hypothetical that came to mind so I went with it. Just making the point that arguing from hypotheticals is pretty useless in these types of discussions.

== Why would they? Wouldn't it be unrealistic to expect that that concept would be anywhere in their vocabulary?

One doesn't need a special word to signify the concept. If they understood God had eternally existed "as God," well there were a number of ways this could have been expressed.

[Markk]

Hi Kevin,

Can someone be equal with Deity, and in the form of Deity, and not be Deity?

And John 5:18 is in context of this conversation in that it clearly shows that the Jews of that day knew what Equality with God meant. .."but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. " (KJ)

What about John 1:1,14 when it says clearly that Jesus was with God and was God in the begining, and THEN came here to earth?

So you can't have it both ways, are you going to say that in John 1:1, Jesus was God and with God, then in Phil. He was less than God ?

Emmanual is a Name of Jesus, by both Old and New testament, which means God with us, it doesn't mean angel of the LORD with us, it says God with us.

Tim 3:16 in any decent Bible notes that "God" is not in all the MSS, but it is in the received text and doesn't change the context one bit. Who ..."was manifest in the flesh as Paul wrote in Timothy? we are back to John 1:14...God! That's a old argument that just doesn't fly.

At one time yes. Can you show me where the Bible "contradicts" this? Didn't think so.

So, for the record, do you believe God was a exalted man as the past leaders taught, or do you believe that God was a man only in the context that he was first God then man, then God again as many LDS "scholars" teach nowadays?

BTW, that is a argument of silence, does the BOM contradict that Jesus was called Fred sometimes? geez And I believe the bible would contradict that statment in that God is unchanging. If thats a standard anybody could say about anything and claim it's true in that the Bible doesn't contradict it.

Your post was long and if I missed something that is erelavant let me know and I will reply.

Thanks,

Mark

John 1:12