Some Things We Don't Know

[gratitude]

PaulT has asked a question and Crusader requested that a separate thread be used to address the subject.

This addresses both requests.

Would you just confirm or deny if this is correct. I had heard that Joseph Smith, when he 1st broached the subject said this, “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible---I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man if form---like yourselves in all the person, image and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another.” If this statement was accurate, do you know if Smith was talking about Jesus or Elohim? Do you have any idea what Smith meant by to referring to God as an exalted man?
Thanks,
Paul"

Paul,

This statement is from a sermon he delivered at a funeral address. He did indeed make this statement.

He was talking about God the Father.

Do I have any idea what he meant?

Just that at one time God the Father lived on an earth as Christ did (Joseph Smith's phrase).

In the sermon, Joseph Smith was teaching that all is eternal, that we have always existed.

God is an exalted man as He has a perfect, immortal body (which our bodies are created in the image of), is a God, and rules in exaltation and glory.

Concerning the Father's mortal experience, Joseph Fielding Smith (President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 1970-1972) said:
So far as the Father is concerned, we will leave that until we receive further knowledge, when and if we become glorified in his kingdom.

In other words, we do not know as it has not been revealed.

As the ninth Article of Faith states:
We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
(emphasis added)

Any further speculation into what the quote means is just that, speculation, and not doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Sincerely,

Gratitude

[Krusader]

But you'd think that a Church that claims divine inspiration at every turn would at least know who God is!

Are you aware that at one time Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Brigham Young and others (prior to the turn of the century) taught that Jehovah and Elohim were one and the same being? It wasn't until Talmage wrote "Jesus the Christ," that Jesus became Jehovah. Actually, the book was written to cover up Young's Adam/God teachings.

Examples:

"We believe in God the Father, who is the Great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father," Times and Seasons, Vol. 3, p. 358.

"There are many souls whom I have loved stronger than death. To them I have proved faithful - to them I am determined to prove faithful, until God calls me to resign up my breath. O Thou, who seest and knowest the hearts of all men - thou eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent Jehovah - God - thou Eloheim, that sittest as saith the Psalmist, 'enthroned in heaven,' look down upon thy servant Joseph at this time...."

History of the Church, Vol. 5, pg. 127.

James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol. 1, pg. 253: Proclamation of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to all the Kings of the World, to the President of the United States of America, to the Governors of the several States and to the Rulers and People of all Nations: Greetings......The Great Eloheim Jehovah has been pleased once more to speak from the heavens: and also to commune with man on earth, by means of open visions, and by ministration of Holy Messangers."

Well, which is it. Is the Father Jehovah or is the Son Jehovah - or, are they both Elohim Jehovah, as Scripture teaches?

[gratitude]

Crusader,

You elevate all words that any prophet and apostle has ever spoken in any setting and claim that they are doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That is not true.

That has never been true.

The History of the Church is just that, a history. It is not "A Doctrinal Exposition of Words Spoken by the Leaders of the Church During its History."

Joseph recorded numerous chastisements of the Lord directed his way in the Doctrine and Covenants. The same is true of prophets in the Book of Mormon. The same is true of prophets in the Bible.

What has never been true nor claimed to be true by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that when someone becomes a prophet they somehow are injected with all truth that has ever existed in the eternities.

Neither of those are true in regards to the Apostles.

They are not true for anyone.

Why are all your arguments based on these assumptions?

They are false assumptions.

I will address the quotes and your comments. But before I do, I wanted to clarify that.

Sincerely,

Gratitude

[Krusader]

Crusader,

You elevate all words that any prophet and apostle has ever spoken in any setting and claim that they are doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That is not true.

That has never been true.

The History of the Church is just that, a history. It is not "A Doctrinal Exposition of Words Spoken by the Leaders of the Church During its History."

Joseph recorded numerous chastisements of the Lord directed his way in the Doctrine and Covenants. The same is true of prophets in the Book of Mormon. The same is true of prophets in the Bible.

What has never been true nor claimed to be true by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that when someone becomes a prophet they somehow are injected with all truth that has ever existed in the eternities.

Neither of those are true in regards to the Apostles.

They are not true for anyone.

Why are all your arguments based on these assumptions?

They are false assumptions.

I will address the quotes and your comments. But before I do, I wanted to clarify that.

Sincerely,

Gratitude

Look, Gratitude, I don't elevate your apostles - but you guys do. You claim you are a restoration of apostolic Chritianity. Could you please point out to me where the words of the apostles in the early church were not equal to doctrinal teaching?

LDS apostles pale beside the authority of Christ's Apostles. It's very easy to claim you have these apostles - but then you minimize anything they say or do.

By the way, I was reading Acts 15 this morning. It is very apparent that James, the Lord's brother, was the one proclaiming the "sentence" (decision) regarding the issue of the Gentiles, and not Peter (who, according to you, had all the keys to everything in the whole world - right?).

And, as far as the words of your prophets go - tell me, Gratitude, what prophet in the OT had words that were not binding? Please refresh my mind - I can't think of any.

[gratitude]

Look, Gratitude, I don't elevate your apostles - but you guys do.

Crusader,

Of course we believe the Apostles to be special witnesses of Christ.

I ask that you finish your statement. I said that you claim that all words that any prophet and apostle has ever spoken in any setting and is doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Do you or do you not make such a claim? Because your postings indicate that you do.

And if you do, you are wrong. Plain and simple, you would be wrong.

You ignore this posting altogether that cleary states the doctrine.

Harold B. Lee, a prophet, stated:
It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they read and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, ‘Well, that is his own idea.’ And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works (I think that is why we call them ‘standard’—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it.

And even the prophet is not infallible.

I realize how loaded this statement is for your argument, Crusader.

Now I am going to assume you are going to say that what the prophets teach is against the scriptures.

It is against your understanding of the scriptures, and that is very different.

You and I read the same scripture, but we garner very different meanings.

Who are you to state that I am wrong and you are right?

Or are you elevating your interpretation of the scriptures as doctrinal?

Look on this website, it is full of people who interpret the scriptures differently. Are you the authority?

You claim you are a restoration of apostolic Chritianity. Could you please point out to me where the words of the apostles in the early church were not equal to doctrinal teaching?

This has already been done on this forum, twice. Bloodnut discussed when Parley Pratt was chastised for teaching false doctrine and I quoted the time when Orson Pratt was publicly rebuked.

LDS apostles pale beside the authority of Christ's Apostles. It's very easy to claim you have these apostles - but then you minimize anything they say or do.

Really? As one who cherishes the New Testament and believe it to be the Word of God, this is news to me.

As one who spent a year teaching the New Testament to high school aged youth, this is news to me.

What is refuted, as stated before, is your interpretation of those Apostle's words.

Because we do not accept your interpretation does not mean we minimize the Apostles words/

By the way, I was reading Acts 15 this morning. It is very apparent that James, the Lord's brother, was the one proclaiming the "sentence" (decision) regarding the issue of the Gentiles, and not Peter (who, according to you, had all the keys to everything in the whole world - right?).

Weren't you the one who complained to me about discussing off-topic things on a thread? I need to answer Bill the Cat's question he posted yesterday.

The doctrine of this is simple.

Please keep an eye open for my response to Bill's question.

And, as far as the words of your prophets go - tell me, Gratitude, what prophet in the OT had words that were not binding? Please refresh my mind - I can't think of any.

Gladly, Crusader. Gladly.

I am going to address your original posting first.

[Krusader]

Crusader,

Of course we believe the Apostles to be special witnesses of Christ.

I ask that you finish your statement. I said that you claim that all words that any prophet and apostle has ever spoken in any setting and is doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Do you or do you not make such a claim? Because your postings indicate that you do.

And if you do, you are wrong. Plain and simple, you would be wrong.

You ignore this posting altogether that cleary states the doctrine.

Harold B. Lee, a prophet, stated:
It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they read and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, ‘Well, that is his own idea.’ And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works (I think that is why we call them ‘standard’—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it.

And even the prophet is not infallible.

I realize how loaded this statement is for your argument, Crusader.

Now I am going to assume you are going to say that what the prophets teach is against the scriptures.

It is against your understanding of the scriptures, and that is very different.

You and I read the same scripture, but we garner very different meanings.

Who are you to state that I am wrong and you are right?

Or are you elevating your interpretation of the scriptures as doctrinal?

Look on this website, it is full of people who interpret the scriptures differently. Are you the authority?

This has already been done on this forum, twice. Bloodnut discussed when Parley Pratt was chastised for teaching false doctrine and I quoted the time when Orson Pratt was publicly rebuked.

Really? As one who cherishes the New Testament and believe it to be the Word of God, this is news to me.

As one who spent a year teaching the New Testament to high school aged youth, this is news to me.

What is refuted, as stated before, is your interpretation of those Apostle's words.

Because we do not accept your interpretation does not mean we minimize the Apostles words/

Weren't you the one who complained to me about discussing off-topic things on a thread? I need to answer Bill the Cat's question he posted yesterday.

The doctrine of this is simple.

Please keep an eye open for my response to Bill's question.

Gladly, Crusader. Gladly.

I am going to address your original posting first.

You beg the question by trying to turn it into one of authority, Gratitude. Did your early leaders believe that Elohim and Jehovah were the same God, yes or no? Does the evidence support that? If you need more quotes, I'll be glad to post them - they abound!

[gratitude]

You beg the question by trying to turn it into one of authority, Gratitude. Did your early leaders believe that Elohim and Jehovah were the same God, yes or no? Does the evidence support that? If you need more quotes, I'll be glad to post them - they abound!

Crusader,

Why do you refuse to answer my question?

Do you or do you not claim that all words that any prophet and apostle has ever spoken in any setting is doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Addressing Your Question
Their statements stand as doctrinally sound.

Christ as the Father
Did they believe that Jehovah was the Father? Yes. Because Jehovah is the Father.
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace
(Isaiah 9:6)

(R)edemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father
(Mosiah 16:15)

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning
(Helaman 14:12)

One God
Are Jehovah and Elohim one? The scriptures answer that question:
Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end.
(Doctrine and Covenants 20:38)

Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God
(Alma 11:44)

Co-Eternal
Did Joseph Smith teach that Jehovah and Elohim were co-eternal? Certainly. Is it true? Certainly. From a sermon that you consistently quote:
I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven.
(Joseph Smith)

Distinct Personages
Did they believe that Jehovah and Elohim were one and the same personage? No.
It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum...
(Brigham Young, JD, 1:51, April 1, 1952)

Jesus—The "Prince of Peace,"...a living soul, forth from the hands of Elohim—eternal as himself
(John Taylor, published in the Millenial Star, composed September 5, 1846)

Jesus Christ is Jehovah
Was James E. Talmage the first to teach that Jesus Christ is Jehovah?

The Doctrine and Covenants refutes that claim:
THE veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.
We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us...
His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:
I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.
(Doctrine and Covenants 110:1-4)

Neither Joseph Smith, nor Hyrum Smith, nor Sidney Rigdon, nor Brigham Young, nor myself, nor anybody associated with the Church at the present time, has had anything to do with the origination of these things. This work was commenced by the Almighty; it has been carried on by him, and sustained by his power, and if it is ever consummated it will be by the power and direction and sustenance of the Lord Jehovah, of Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant
(John Taylor, JD, 24:227, 1884)

Conclusion
The early Church leaders neither taught nor believed that Jehovah and Elohim were the same personage.

They taught that they were one. They taught that they were co-eternal. They taught that they were distinct. They taught that Christ is our Father.

A Third False Assumption
You may supply more sources, but your arguments consistently have third false assumption, and that is statements by Church leaders do not exist in a vacuum.

You quote one source (often strategically edited) and either fail to put the quote in context, or you fail to explain what else the church leaders said on the topic that shed further light on the topic. Especially when the topic is clearly addressed in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants.

Sincerely,

Gratitude

ps - You are mistaken concerning the publication of Jesus the Christ. There was another document published by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles that addressed questions sent to the First Presidency concerning the Godhead and the Adam-God notion.

Would you mind sending a source on your Talmage publication theory? The source should contain words from Joseph F. Smith or his counselors as he was the prophet who directed him to write the book.

And SeerStoned is not a reliable source as he/she gives no support to their claim.

[Krusader]

Crusader,

Why do you refuse to answer my question?

Do you or do you not claim that all words that any prophet and apostle has ever spoken in any setting is doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Addressing Your Question
Their statements stand as doctrinally sound.

Christ as the Father
Did they believe that Jehovah was the Father? Yes. Because Jehovah is the Father.
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace
(Isaiah 9:6)

(R)edemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father
(Mosiah 16:15)

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning
(Helaman 14:12)

One God
Are Jehovah and Elohim one? The scriptures answer that question:
Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end.
(Doctrine and Covenants 20:38)

Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God
(Alma 11:44)

Co-Eternal
Did Joseph Smith teach that Jehovah and Elohim were co-eternal? Certainly. Is it true? Certainly. From a sermon that you consistently quote:
I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven.
(Joseph Smith)

Distinct Personages
Did they believe that Jehovah and Elohim were one and the same personage? No.
It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum...
(Brigham Young, JD, 1:51, April 1, 1952)

Jesus—The "Prince of Peace,"...a living soul, forth from the hands of Elohim—eternal as himself
(John Taylor, published in the Millenial Star, composed September 5, 1846)

Jesus Christ is Jehovah
Was James E. Talmage the first to teach that Jesus Christ is Jehovah?

The Doctrine and Covenants refutes that claim:
THE veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.
We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us...
His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:
I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.
(Doctrine and Covenants 110:1-4)

Neither Joseph Smith, nor Hyrum Smith, nor Sidney Rigdon, nor Brigham Young, nor myself, nor anybody associated with the Church at the present time, has had anything to do with the origination of these things. This work was commenced by the Almighty; it has been carried on by him, and sustained by his power, and if it is ever consummated it will be by the power and direction and sustenance of the Lord Jehovah, of Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant
(John Taylor, JD, 24:227, 1884)

Conclusion
The early Church leaders neither taught nor believed that Jehovah and Elohim were the same personage.

They taught that they were one. They taught that they were co-eternal. They taught that they were distinct. They taught that Christ is our Father.

A Third False Assumption
You may supply more sources, but your arguments consistently have third false assumption, and that is statements by Church leaders do not exist in a vacuum.

You quote one source (often strategically edited) and either fail to put the quote in context, or you fail to explain what else the church leaders said on the topic that shed further light on the topic. Especially when the topic is clearly addressed in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants.

Sincerely,

Gratitude

ps - You are mistaken concerning the publication of Jesus the Christ. There was another document published by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles that addressed questions sent to the First Presidency concerning the Godhead and the Adam-God notion.

Would you mind sending a source on your Talmage publication theory? The source should contain words from Joseph F. Smith or his counselors as he was the prophet who directed him to write the book.

And SeerStoned is not a reliable source as he/she gives no support to their claim.

My opinion is that if these men had any inspiration at all, in their private conversations they would have known the difference betwen Elohim and Jehovah, if there was one. The evidence seems to indicate that early Mormons saw no distinction.

[PaulT]

Grat,

I apologize, I just saw this, I didn't realize you had already responded. Thanks,

PaulT has asked a question and Crusader requested that a separate thread be used to address the subject.

This addresses both requests.

Paul,

This statement is from a sermon he delivered at a funeral address. He did indeed make this statement.

He was talking about God the Father.

Do I have any idea what he meant?

Just that at one time God the Father lived on an earth as Christ did (Joseph Smith's phrase).

In the sermon, Joseph Smith was teaching that all is eternal, that we have always existed.

God is an exalted man as He has a perfect, immortal body (which our bodies are created in the image of), is a God, and rules in exaltation and glory.

Concerning the Father's mortal experience, Joseph Fielding Smith (President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 1970-1972) said:

So far as the Father is concerned, we will leave that until we receive further knowledge, when and if we become glorified in his kingdom.

In other words, we do not know as it has not been revealed.

As the ninth Article of Faith states:

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

(emphasis added)

Any further speculation into what the quote means is just that, speculation, and not doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Sincerely,

Gratitude

Again, thank you for taking the time to answer. Without speculating on any further ramifications of the quote, what is obvious and what you have said your perspective on the quote is it seems to me to be completely at odds with what is taught of the Christian God. It seems to me, Christians worship a completely different God than do Mormons, this fact would have ramifications throughout the major doctrines of the Bible. The God of Christianity has always been God, never a man who would become exalted. How do you reconcile this difference?



Paul

[Trout]

Harold B. Lee, a prophet, stated:
It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they read and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, ‘Well, that is his own idea.’ And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works (I think that is why we call them ‘standard’—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it.

So then we have no way of knowing whether or not what Lee said in the above quote is church doctrine, right?

[gratitude]

Grat,

I apologize, I just saw this, I didn't realize you had already responded. Thanks,





Again, thank you for taking the time to answer. Without speculating on any further ramifications of the quote, what is obvious and what you have said your perspective on the quote is it seems to me to be completely at odds with what is taught of the Christian God. It seems to me, Christians worship a completely different God than do Mormons, this fact would have ramifications throughout the major doctrines of the Bible. The God of Christianity has always been God, never a man who would become exalted. How do you reconcile this difference?



Paul

Paul,

Again, I am the one that needs to apologize.....my thread was not labeled concisely enough and I am sorry. I need to warn you, this is a long thread, but it answers your question.

Now to your question.

An Eternal God?
First (and I am going to use some quotes and scriptures I used previously), do we believe that God is eternal?

We do. The following scriptures and formal statements explain this:
Listen to the voice of the Lord your God, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, whose course is one eternal round, the same today as yesterday, and for ever. I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one
(Doctrine and Covenants 35:1-2)

Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ the Son of Elohim, is called "the Father," and even "the very eternal Father of heaven and of earth." With analogous meaning Jesus Christ is called "The Everlasting Father." The descriptive titles "Everlasting" and "Eternal" in the foregoing texts are synonymous
("The Father and The Son," A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and The Twelve, originally released in Aug. 1916, reissued in April 2002 Ensign.)

O God, the Eternal Father
(Doctrine and Covenants 20:77 and 79, the title given to the Father for the sacramental prayer, read in every meeting every week where the sacrament is administered).

And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations
(Book of Mormon Title Page referring to purpose of Book of Mormon)

And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God
(2 Nephi 26:12)

But Wasn't....
Now your next question is how we can reconcile that with the notion that God one walked on an Earth as Christ did.

I will answer this with a quote by Brigham Young.
Do you read the Scriptures, my brethren and sisters, as though you were writing them a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years ago? Do you read them as though you stood in the place of the men who wrote them? If you do not feel thus, it is your privilege to do so, that you may be as familiar with the spirit and meaning of the written word of God as you are with your daily walk and conversation, or as you are with your workmen or with your households. You may understand what the Prophets understood and thought—what they designed and planned to bring forth to their brethren for their good.

When you can thus feel, then you may begin to think that you can find out something about God, and begin to learn who he is. He is our Father—the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted Being....

He then speaks of the eternality of deity
You cannot comprehend this; but when you can, it will be to you a matter of great consolation.

It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being; and yet we are not in such close communion with him as many have supposed. He has passed on, and is exalted far beyond what we can now comprehend. Eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive all the things of God. We are not capacitated to receive them all at once; but God, by his Spirit, reveals to our spirits as we grow and become able and capacitated to comprehend, through improving upon every means of grace placed within our power, until we shall be counted worthy to receive all things.

In short: God is eternal and has always been God, even though at one time he was mortal.

How is all this possible? I do not know. In the third paragraph of this quote, Brigham Young said that this concept is something that we cannot comprehend, which falls right in line with what Isaiah taught when he wrote:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my aways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
(Isaiah 55:8-9)

Sincerely,

Gratitude

[PaulT]

Grat,
Thank you for the follow-up,

Grat:
Paul,

Now to your question.

An Eternal God?

First (and I am going to use some quotes and scriptures I used previously), do we believe that God is eternal?

We do.

Not that it matters, but I don’t think I asked you if you viewed God as eternal, the question I had is that the Christian view of God is that He was Always God, never a man or should I say created being, God has always been God the Creator. How do you reconcile this Christian view of God and what is taught by Joseph Smith.


However, perhaps the answer is in the way we define eternal. What do you mean by eternal?

Grat:

But Wasn't....

Now your next question is how we can reconcile that with the notion that God one walked on an Earth as Christ did.

Actually, I wasn’t attempting to get you to justify the Mormon view, however, thank you for the material. My point was that the Christian view of God is that He is unique, a one of a kind Creator who has created mankind, was never man but has always been God, unchangeable. How do you reconcile what is clearly taught of the Christian view of God and the Mormon view yet still claim to be Christian. I understand that you have a different view of God, and while I believe your view is fundamentally wrong and unscriptural this isn't what I'm addressing at this time. I don’t see how, if Christians and Mormons have fundamentally divergent views of God how you can claim to be Christian any more than the Muslim, who as well has a different view of God could claim to be Christian. Does this make sense?


Paul

[gratitude]

Grat,
Thank you for the follow-up,

Not that it matters, but I don’t think I asked you if you viewed God as eternal, the question I had is that the Christian view of God is that He was Always God, never a man or should I say created being, God has always been God the Creator. How do you reconcile this Christian view of God and what is taught by Joseph Smith.


However, perhaps the answer is in the way we define eternal. What do you mean by eternal?





Actually, I wasn’t attempting to get you to justify the Mormon view, however, thank you for the material. My point was that the Christian view of God is that He is unique, a one of a kind Creator who has created mankind, was never man but has always been God, unchangeable. How do you reconcile what is clearly taught of the Christian view of God and the Mormon view yet still claim to be Christian. I understand that you have a different view of God, and while I believe your view is fundamentally wrong and unscriptural this isn't what I'm addressing at this time. I don’t see how, if Christians and Mormons have fundamentally divergent views of God how you can claim to be Christian any more than the Muslim, who as well has a different view of God could claim to be Christian. Does this make sense?


Paul

Paul,

Though I have a great deal of love and respect for Muslims, Muslims do not believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God. They do not believe him to be the Savior of mankind. Their doctrine is not focused on His teachings.

Joseph Smith taught
The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.

My understanding of a Christian is one that follows Christ's teachings and acknowledges Him to be the Savior of the world.

Do I believe He is unchangeable? Such is the doctrine of the Church.

Do I believe Him to be the Creator? Such is the doctrine of the Church.

As President Gordon B. Hinckley stated:
"We are Christians...We, of course, accept Jesus Christ as our Leader, our King, our Savior...the dominant figure in the history of the world, the only perfect Man who ever walked the earth, the living Son of the living God. He is our Savior and our Redeemer through whose atoning sacrifice has come the opportunity of eternal life.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pray and worship in the name of Jesus Christ. He is the center of our faith and the head of our Church. The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ and witnesses of His divinity, His life, and His Atonement.

Because you and I do not share the same belief concerning certain facets of what the Savior taught does not negate the fact that I try to follow Christ in word and in deed. Nor does it negate the fact that I acknowledge Him to be my Savior. And I am grateful for that act of supreme sacrifice.

Sincerely,

Gratitude

[PaulT]

Grat,

Thank you for the follow-up.

Grat:

Joseph Smith taught

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.

Thanks, I can appreciate this, the issue remains that who Jesus Christ is in Mormonism is different than that of Christianity. If the Mormon testimony is of a different God than Christianity, then should it rightly claim the Christian title?

Grat:

My understanding of a Christian is one that follows Christ's teachings and acknowledges Him to be the Savior of the world.

Truly, what you have cited above is one of the definitions, however there is a definition that precedes what you have listed above, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord”. Christianity at its very core is Monotheistic. The Monotheism of Christianity is what drives all the other doctrines of the faith. I’ve been told, and please correct me if I’m wrong, but the Mormon view is that God is not one, but rather multiple different Gods. It seems to me, the fact that the Christian and Mormon spilt over the nature and attributes of God is the issue that what causes the clash between all the other doctrines of the faith including who Christ actual is.

To illustrate my point allow me to cite the observations of a Kenneth R. Stevens who served as the LDS Mission President in Tahiti, “I rejoice that while being in the midst of that people, (the Tahitians), I came to learn through their legends that there was a time when they believed in the Gods of heaven as we do, even a plurality of Gods, and that they believed in the creation of this earth even as our doctrine teaches. This, however, has been explained away and replaced by modern Christian doctrine which teaches of a God who is everywhere present, and so small He dwells in the human heart, but who has no parts nor passions, and by a different story of creation. And so, it thrilled me when our missionaries preached Mormonism to have those people nod their heads and say, “It sounds like the old doctrine which was common to our people.” The fact that the paganism of the Polynesians can be compared favorably to the Mormon doctrines of God and creation while contrasted against Christianity seems to prove my point.

Grat:

Do I believe He is unchangeable? Such is the doctrine of the Church.

By the way this is worded; I assume you are meaning Christ. However, even the Christian Church believes Christ changed to an extent, taking on the form of a man, lowering himself. What do you mean when you say unchangeable? Joseph Smith said that God was once man. You indicated he was referencing Elohim. This is anathema to the Christian view of God.

Grat:
Do I believe Him to be the Creator? Such is the doctrine of the Church.

I have been told that the Mormon view of creation is something very different than the Christian view. Please let me know if I’m wrong, but I have been told that Mormons believe Elohim assembled out of pre-existing mass and from a pool of intelligences creation. Stephen Robinson, who I am told is a Mormon apologist, had this to say about the Mormon view of Elohim’s creative ability, “…Later Day Saints do not view God as the total cause of what human beings are. Human intelligence is uncreated by God and therefore independent of his control” This is not the Christian view of God and is fundamentally different. The Christian view of the Creator is that He is has given us everything and is the source of everything. The Christian view of the Creatorship of God is what drives Christian doctrine, definitions and the essence of the faith. While the Mormon may say God is the Creator, apparently they mean something very different than what Christianity has attributed to God.

Grat:

As President Gordon B. Hinckley stated:

"We are Christians...We, of course, accept Jesus Christ as our Leader, our King, our Savior...the dominant figure in the history of the world, the only perfect Man who ever walked the earth, the living Son of the living God. He is our Savior and our Redeemer through whose atoning sacrifice has come the opportunity of eternal life.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pray and worship in the name of Jesus Christ. He is the center of our faith and the head of our Church. The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ and witnesses of His divinity, His life, and His Atonement.

Because you and I do not share the same belief concerning certain facets of what the Savior taught does not negate the fact that I try to follow Christ in word and in deed. Nor does it negate the fact that I acknowledge Him to be my Savior. And I am grateful for that act of supreme sacrifice.

Evidently, Christians believe in a different God than do the LDS. This is not just a dispute over facets of teachings, but goes to the very core of the faith. It seems to me, Because Mormons and Christians believe in a different God, most if not all the doctrines and definitional meanings that flow from who God is, what God has done, and who man is will not track. Am I right, that Mormons and Christians fundamentally view God from 2 different perspectives?

Paul

[gratitude]

Paul,

Thank you for your post.

Please look at your last question. I am going to rephrase it.

Am I right, that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and those that accept the Nicene Creed have different beliefs about God?

That is true.

Robinson and Stevens
I ask that you stick with quotes from authoritative persons and not from "Mormon apologists." I am sure Robinsion and Stevens are wonderful men (Robinson wrote a book with a wonderful "parable" of the atonement), but I do not use "Mormon apologists" to back up or deny anything*. I will quote from the standard works and the prophets (and apostles when they are stating doctrine already revealed through the prophets). I ask you to do the same courtesy when explaining LDS theology.

Another reason I will not comment on Stevens' statement is because I do not know enough about the theology of the Polynesians. I admire you if you have an advanced degree in anthropology focusing on Polynesia, but if you do not I do not think it appropriate to criticize Stevens' comment.

The Teachings of Christ
This certainly is concerning the teachings of Christ.

Who said, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord?" Moses did originally, but then Christ restated it in Mark 12:29. Who taught the prophets that there is one God? God did. It was Christ. Even the Jehovah of the Old Testament. You and I both agree on that. So let me rephrase this. You and I disagree about the statements of Christ (and the statements of Jehovah when He was in the Old Testament).

Paganism vs Eternal Progression
Now, to begin, to compare the LDS belief about eternal progression with pagan gods is ridiculous. I worship God. I do not worship trees. I do not worhsip the God of the wind or the God of fortune (I do not believe that there exists such gods).

We worship God as Christ instructed us to. It is the first Article of Faith:
We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost

When you quote: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord," you are quoting the scripture out of context since Moses was calling Israel away from the practice of worshiping the plurality of Gods. Do I worship multiple gods? Let's look at what Christ said in the Book of Mormon:
(T)here is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth
(1 Nephi 13:41)

And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.
(2 Nephi 31:21)

And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?
And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
And he answered, No.
(Alma 11:26-29)

We worship one God.

So when you quote Deuteronomy 6:4 and Mark 12:29, I say, "I know this to be true"

Two Issues
Your statement has two issues that I believe have fundamental problems.

First (and I have said this before), who gave PaulT the authority to decide who can call themselves Christian and who cannot? You cannot claim the Bible gave you the authority since I also believe in the Bible.

Perhaps you are using the Nicene Creed (or subsequent Creeds) as your authoritative piece, but that Creed was not written by prophets and apostles and those who spoke with Christ.

Second, by your stating that God changed then you negate all statements by anyone who has ever criticized the "Mormons" for their belief in eternal progression because "God cannot change!!!"

Now, you can say, "Well, he is, but..."

I am sorry, but that is unacceptable. Some criticize the "Mormons" for their explanation of the "but" while others ignore that we believe that God is same yesterday, today and forever (2 Nephi 27:23). Even you stated that you did not think we were Christians because "The God of Christianity has always been God."

We believe that God is eternal. He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

I will address your creation question at a later time.

Thanks again, friend.

Sincerely,

Gratitude

* I do need to state that one time I did send some writings by some Mormon apologists once to a reader, but that came at the request of the reader.