• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

LDS Christians - who is your Jesus?

Endless

Active Member
Having posted this in the open forum and it getting cluttered with a lot of irrrelevant stuff, i am reposting here for an LDS Christian to respond to.

Let me make clear exactly what i propose to discuss and why.

I want to discuss who Jesus was - was he God? What was his relationship with God? In the previous topic it was briefly touched upon that Jesus was the Son of God and the Great Jehovah of the OT. I want to discuss this aspect of who Jesus was.

The reason why i want to discuss this is for my own benefit as i would like to truly explore this specific aspect of who Jesus was, in accordance with what LDS doctrine teaches.
Thanks
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
Endless said:
Having posted this in the open forum and it getting cluttered with a lot of irrrelevant stuff, i am reposting here for an LDS Christian to respond to.

Let me make clear exactly what i propose to discuss and why.

I want to discuss who Jesus was - was he God? What was his relationship with God? In the previous topic it was briefly touched upon that Jesus was the Son of God and the Great Jehovah of the OT. I want to discuss this aspect of who Jesus was.

The reason why i want to discuss this is for my own benefit as i would like to truly explore this specific aspect of who Jesus was, in accordance with what LDS doctrine teaches.
Thanks
Endless,

Here is what I posted in the other thread. (Sorry it got hijacked.) Why don't you read what I've written so far and we'll take it from there.

Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God, and thus, God himself. He was with His Father in the beginning and, under His Father's direction, created "worlds without number," including our universe. He was the "firstborn among many brethren" (i.e. all of us) and was "the Lamb chosen before the foundation of the world," designated by our Father in Heaven to be the Savior of mankind. As the second person in the Godhead, He descended to earth, taking upon Himself a physical body, being born to a Virgin in the most humble of circumstances. He was the only person who has ever lived to have both a divine and a mortal parent. He lived a perfect life, absolutely free from sin. He obeyed His Father in all things, acknowledging His greatness and glory at all times. He established a Church before concluding His ministry, and appointed twelve men to oversee it in His absence. He consistently taught a gospel of love, mercy and forgiveness, and then in the most unselfish way conceivable to mankind, offered Himself as a ransom for our sins. He took upon Himself the guilt we had incurred and would incur and suffered in a way that we cannot possibly imagine, both in Gethsemane and on Calvary. After three days in the tomb, He was literally resurrected from the dead. He remained among His Apostles for an additional 40 days and then ascended to His Father and God, where He reigns with Him today. He is our advocate with the Father. He lives and loves us and is waiting to bring us home again.
 

Endless

Active Member
Hi Squirt, thanks for helping out. Yeah, no problem about the thread being hijacked - it wasn't anyone's fault, it just happens when you have a lot of people participating. I'll make a few comments on what you had written before hand.

Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God, and thus, God himself.
But since God was never begotten - what does Morman doctrine say about Jesus being begotten? If Jesus is God himself (singular) then it stands to reason that he never had a beginning, since God has always been God according to what the Bible teaches.

He was with His Father in the beginning and, under His Father's direction, created "worlds without number," including our universe.
Yes, he was with His Father in the beginning, however according to just the Bible we are only told he created this world. We are also not told in the Bible that he created the world under his Father's direction - simply that he created it. What we are told is that God created the earth - we are then also told that Jesus created the earth - but since we both agree that Jesus is God, this makes sense. But granted that it could have been under the direction of the Father - the Bible doesn't make this clear. Either way, it wasn't esssential that it was under the direction of the Father, since both are God as you have said.

He was the "firstborn among many brethren" (i.e. all of us) and was "the Lamb chosen before the foundation of the world," designated by our Father in Heaven to be the Savior of mankind.
I assume by 'all of us' you are referring to Christian believers, since the passage in the Bible where this is taken from is referring to Christ's ressurection. Ie. He is the firstborn from the dead.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Though i assume this is what you meant.

As the second person in the Godhead
Now, this i think is where we differ in what we believe, since i understand that you do not believe in the concept of the Trinity? Please correct me if what i now write is incorrect.

Would you believe that the God head is 'God singular' and is made up of the three persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) each of which are separately Gods - yet individually not God in the same sense that the others are Gods? Therefore you would believe that there are three Gods which interact most intimately to make up the God head which is what you also call 'God' (singular).

As an aside, could i ask you the question 'What does Morman doctrine teach about the creation of God?' Was God always God, where their other Gods before him in different universes? What exactly is Morman doctrine on Gods - i mean does Morman doctrine teaches that we can acheive the same status as God himself and one day perhaps be able to create universes of our own? Maybe i'm way off the mark on this, but i just want to clear any misconceptions i might have.
Thanks
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
But since God was never begotten - what does Mormon doctrine say about Jesus being begotten? If Jesus is God himself (singular) then it stands to reason that he never had a beginning, since God has always been God according to what the Bible teaches.
Okay, you’re going to have to get me back on track here if I end up going off on a tangent. I’m not quite sure I understand your question, so I’m just going to have to take a stab at it and hope for the best.


We believe that, as God’s Only Begotten Son, Jesus was literally the “Son of God.” We believe that God was literally Jesus’ Father. Don’t read too much into that. We also believe that Mary was literally His mother. We don’t know how this miraculous conception took place, but we do believe that the person we are generally speaking of when we use the title “God” is the father of the God/man we know as Jesus Christ. Because Jesus was begotten of the Father, He is every bit as divine as His divine Parent. He existed (in spirit form) prior to His birth and was with His Father then. He did not “become” God at birth, at His baptism, or upon death. He was, is and will forever be God. Now I need to ask you something. From your question, it appears that you may not believe Jesus Christ to have been “begotten” since you apparently believe that He and the Father are one and the same and that the Father was not begotten. Did I misunderstand or am I right?
Yes, he was with His Father in the beginning, however according to just the Bible we are only told he created this world. We are also not told in the Bible that he created the world under his Father's direction - simply that he created it. What we are told is that God created the earth - we are then also told that Jesus created the earth - but since we both agree that Jesus is God, this makes sense. But granted that it could have been under the direction of the Father - the Bible doesn't make this clear. Either way, it wasn't essential that it was under the direction of the Father, since both are God as you have said.
Actually, Hebrews 1:1-2 does refer to “worlds” and it is also the passage I was thinking of which states that the Son created the world under His Father’s direction. Those aren’t the exact words, but I think the meaning is very much the same. Hebrews states, “
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners space in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spake unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds…” My interpretation of these verses in that God (1) sent His Son to earth to speak on His behalf, (2) appointed His Son to be His heir and (3) created the “worlds” by His Son. It is through latter-day revelation that we are told He created “worlds without number.” Obviously, I don’t expect you to believe that. Finally, I do believe that it is significant that the Son was the actual Creator and that the Father apparently oversaw His work. It implies a hierarchy which we definitely believe to exist.
I assume by 'all of us' you are referring to Christian believers, since the passage in the Bible where this is taken from is referring to Christ's resurrection. i.e. He is the firstborn from the dead.
Yes and no. We believe that it is through Christ’s Atonement that literally all (the evil and well as the righteous) will be raised from the dead. This is not to say that all are worthy of the same reward in Heaven. In other words, our physical rebirth (i.e. salvation from physical death) is unconditional. Our spiritual rebirth (i.e. our spiritual salvation, justification and exaltation in His Kingdom) is conditional upon obedience to His commandments. And yes, we believe Him to be the firstborn from the dead as well as the firstborn of all of God’s children.

Now, this I think is where we differ in what we believe, since I understand that you do not believe in the concept of the Trinity? Please correct me if what I now write is incorrect.

Would you believe that the God head is 'God singular' and is made up of the three persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) each of which are separately Gods - yet individually not God in the same sense that the others are Gods? Therefore you would believe that there are three Gods which interact most intimately to make up the God head which is what you also call 'God' (singular).
You are right that we do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity, at least not as defined by the Nicene and Athanasian. I hope I can explain our belief adequately. Actually, you did a pretty good job of it yourself. I’m actually very impressed that you did so well. The fact that you did indicates to me that you really do have a desire to understand where we’re coming from instead of just criticizing. I know you don’t believe as we do, so I appreciate your sincerity in trying to comprehend what we believe and why.

Yes, we believe that the Godhead is “singular” with respect to the fact that it is a synonym for “God.” We believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are physically distinct from one another and yet that they are also “one.” We don’t believe that they are all a part of a single substance, but that their unity or “oneness” is in will and purpose. That, however, is kind of an oversimplification, since there is really no way to describe the degree to which they are “one in will and purpose.” It is a unity that is perfect and absolute. They think and act as one single being. They all share the same divine qualities and attributes. They also share the title, “God.”
As an aside, could I ask you the question 'What does Mormon doctrine teach about the creation of God?' Was God always God, where their other Gods before him in different universes? What exactly is Mormon doctrine on Gods - I mean does Mormon doctrine teaches that we can achieve the same status as God himself and one day perhaps be able to create universes of our own? Maybe I’m way off the mark on this, but I just want to clear any misconceptions I might have.
Regarding the creation of God, we have no official doctrine. Some of our leaders have speculated about this, but none of their teachings have ever been canonized. Consequently, they are no longer taught, even though some individuals may believe them. Let me answer your question about “achieving the same status as God himself” in a separate post. Some time ago, I wrote up a very brief article on topic in response to a question by someone else. I’ll just look it up and post that for you. It may be tomorrow before I can do so, though.
 

Endless

Active Member
Thanks for the reply Squirt.

From your question, it appears that you may not believe Jesus Christ to have been “begotten” since you apparently believe that He and the Father are one and the same and that the Father was not begotten. Did I misunderstand or am I right?

Don't read too much into my questions - i'm merely trying to understand exactly what the Morman position is :) I believe that Jesus was begotten but not created. Begotten in the sense that he became God incarnate, uncreated in the sense that he has always been.

Actually, Hebrews 1:1-2 does refer to “worlds” and it is also the passage I was thinking of which states that the Son created the world under His Father’s direction.

Yes, that is correct as that is what some translations give it as. I'm not sure if you are aware of the actual Greek or not, but the word which is translated 'worlds' is aion, which literally means 'ages'. The actual Greek word for the world is 'Kosmos'.

Finally, I do believe that it is significant that the Son was the actual Creator and that the Father apparently oversaw His work. It implies a hierarchy which we definitely believe to exist.

Yes, the Father made the world through Jesus, but as the Bible also says:

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

All things were created for Jesus according to this verse. The term 'hierarchy' is perhaps one that i would not use, for it implies leadership - i.e that the Father is the leader of both the Son and the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you will disagree, but i see no leader in the Godhead - each of them are different to one another and each fulfil different roles, but i do not see that meaning that one is 'above' the other so to speak. Jesus is not lesser than the Father and neither is the Holy Spirit (or what you may call the Holy Ghost) lesser than either the Son or the Father. I don't see that being the way things work. I would see perfect harmony - none having to make decisions or decide together upon a certain action - they all know. But i definately agree that the three have different roles to play - which is why we see the distinction between them all in the Bible.

And yes, we believe Him to be the firstborn from the dead as well as the firstborn of all of God’s children.

Can i again clarify something. Do you believe he was the firstborn in the sense that Jesus was created before this earth existed, and that we too existed before our time here on earth? As sort of spirit like creatures - Jesus being the firstborn of the spirit creatures and then us. We are then put on this earth, but Jesus was chosen to perform a special task? I'm probably well off the mark here - but it's just something i think i remember glancing over on this forum.

Thanks for the explanation of the Godhead. Can i just ask, when you pray to God - are you praying to a member of the Godhead or to the Godhead as a whole?

Some of our leaders have speculated about this, but none of their teachings have ever been canonized. Consequently, they are no longer taught, even though some individuals may believe them.

Interesting that you have no doctrine on this, so i take it that there is no requirement for a Morman to adhere to these beliefs and they are not mentioned from the pulpit of a church? Personally i could not adhere to a belief like this, for it contradicts quite clearly what the Bible says - this is one of the reasons i could not understand why some of your leaders would adhere to them.
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
Endless said:
What does Morman doctrine teach about the creation of God?' Was God always God, where their other Gods before him in different universes? What exactly is Morman doctrine on Gods - i mean does Morman doctrine teaches that we can acheive the same status as God himself and one day perhaps be able to create universes of our own? Maybe i'm way off the mark on this, but i just want to clear any misconceptions i might have.
Here's the answer I said I'd get back to you with, Endless:


The Latter-day Saints are frequently accused of believing that they can, at some point in the future, become "Gods." Understandably, to many who do not fully understand our doctrine, the mere idea is out-and-out heresy.

But, let's start by changing “Gods” to “gods.” That lower-case “g” makes a world of difference in the meaning of the word. Next, before we really get started, let's clear up two big, big misconceptions:

(1) We do not believe that any of us will ever be equal to God, our Eternal Father in Heaven. He will always be our God and we will always worship Him.

(2) Nothing we could possibly do on our own could exalt us to the level of deity. It is only through the will and grace of God that man is given this potential. And "with God, nothing is impossible."

We believe, as you may know, that ours is a restoration of the very Church Jesus Christ established during His ministry here on earth. It would follow, then, that we believe we are teaching the same doctrines as were taught then and accepted by Jesus’ followers. Throughout the New Testament, there are indications that this doctrine (known as deification or exaltation) is not one the Latter-day Saints invented, but that the earliest Christians understood and believed it, as well.

Romans 8:16-17, 2 Peter 1:4, Revelation 2:26-27 and Revelation 3:21 are the four I like best. Through these verses, we learn that, as children of God, we may also be His heirs, joint-heirs with Christ, even glorified with Him. We might partake of the nature of divinity and be allowed to sit with our Savior on His throne, to rule over the nations.

Now, if these promises are true (as I believe they are), what do they all boil down to? To the Latter-day Saints, they mean that we have the potential to someday, be “godlike.” One of our prophets explained that "we are gods in embryo." If our Father is divine and we are literally his "offspring", as the Bible teaches we are, is it really such a stretch of the imagination to believe that he has endowed each of us with a spark of divinity?

Finally, there is considerable evidence that the doctrine of deification was taught for quite some time after the Savior’s death, and accepted as orthodox. Some of the most well-known and respected of the early Christian Fathers made statements that were remarkably close to the statements LDS leaders have made. For example:

In the second century, Saint Irenaeus said, “If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods.” He also posed this question: “Do we cast blame on Him (God) because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and than later as Gods?” At about the same period of time, Saint Clement made this statement: “The Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.” And Saint Justin Martyr agreed, saying that men are “deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.” Some two centuries later, Athanasius explained that “the Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. He became man that we might be made divine.” And, finally, Augustine, said, “But He that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. For he has given them power to become the sons of God. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.” Even today, a similar doctrine is taught in some of the Eastern Orthodox churches.

Even the noted Christian theologian, C.S. Lewis, said much the same thing in his book "Mere Christianity."

“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said."

Finally, according to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, “Deification (Greek theosis) is for Orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is made in the image and likeness of God…. It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace.”

So, the "Mormons" really didn't come up with this doctrine. We only restored that which had been lost for many, many years.
 

Endless

Active Member
Thanks for that answer Squirt. May i ask if this is official doctrine?

There are a few things that i would like to clarify further in your answer to me.

The Latter-day Saints are frequently accused of believing that they can, at some point in the future, become "Gods." Understandably, to many who do not fully understand our doctrine, the mere idea is out-and-out heresy.

But, let's start by changing “Gods” to “gods.” That lower-case “g” makes a world of difference in the meaning of the word.

Why does the lower case 'g' make all the difference? Are the three persons of the Godhead Gods or are they gods? When the Bible refers to God (with a capital) it refers to what you would call the Godhead. When the Bible refers to gods (no capital) it refers to those things worshipped as God but which are not God - they are merely viewed as God by the individuals.
What exactly does the lower case mean to you that it should make a world of difference in the meaning?

To the Latter-day Saints, they mean that we have the potential to someday, be “godlike.” One of our prophets explained that "we are gods in embryo." If our Father is divine and we are literally his "offspring", as the Bible teaches we are, is it really such a stretch of the imagination to believe that he has endowed each of us with a spark of divinity?

I agree that we have the potential to be Godlike - we are told to be imitators of Christ, in becoming more like him, we do become more God like. Not in the sense that we will have divine powers of our own, but our lives reflect Jesus. When people look at us, they don't see only ourselves but they see Christ in us.
What exactly do you understand by the word divine? What do you mean when you say we have the possiblity to be divine - does this just mean Godlike in the sense that we imitate God and our hearts become more like his heart day by day?
Our Father created us - therefore technically we are his offspring, but there is nothing written that suggests that something divine was implanted into us. We could still have been created by God and not had something divine implanted into us, could we not?

We use phrases such as 'exalt us to the level of deity', 'become divine' 'become gods' but these are religious jargon - what do they actually mean? What does it mean to become divine or become gods?
What does Morman doctrine teach on this issue - do we have the potential to create worlds, universes, and have all the power that God currently has?

It is only by getting to the root of these words that i can truly see exactly what Mormanism teaches - and what it means to become divine.
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
Thanks for that answer Squirt. May i ask if this is official doctrine?
Yes, it is.

Why does the lower case 'g' make all the difference? Are the three persons of the Godhead Gods or are they gods? When the Bible refers to God (with a capital) it refers to what you would call the Godhead. When the Bible refers to gods (no capital) it refers to those things worshipped as God but which are not God - they are merely viewed as God by the individuals. What exactly does the lower case mean to you that it should make a world of difference in the meaning?
1 Corinthians 8:5-6 probably says it better than I could. “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”

There are many references to “gods” in the scriptures. Most of them appear to be speaking of “false gods.” But there are a few that don’t. For instance, Deuteronomy 10:17 states, “For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward…” In this particular example, we read that God is “God of gods.” The “gods” mentioned are not spoken of in a derogatory manner, and I would certainly be uncomfortable inserting the word “false” in that passage, making it read, “the Lord your God is God of false gods.” I really don’t know how to define these “gods” (with a lower-case ‘g’), because during my entire lifetime in the Church I have attended an LDS worship service (Sacrament Meeting) in which I have heard this subject even alluded to. Since the dictionary says that gods are “beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature,” and since this definition appears to be in line with God’s promise to us that we, as children of God, may be joint-heirs with Christ, glorified with Him, partaking of the nature of divinity and permitted to rule over the nations.

So, it would be safe to say that, with respect to us, the other “gods” that the Bible says exist would be “false gods.” In other words, they played no part in our creation or in the creation of our world. They cannot hear or answer our prayers. They do not in any way bless us or influence our lives, and when Judgment Day comes, they will have nothing to say about how we lived our lives. They exist. Period.

The three persons of the Godhead are “God.” They are not “gods.”

I agree that we have the potential to be Godlike - we are told to be imitators of Christ, in becoming more like him, we do become more God like. Not in the sense that we will have divine powers of our own, but our lives reflect Jesus. When people look at us, they don't see only ourselves but they see Christ in us. What exactly do you understand by the word divine? What do you mean when you say we have the possiblity to be divine - does this just mean Godlike in the sense that we imitate God and our hearts become more like his heart day by day?
I think C.S. Lewis explained it pretty much as I would – except more eloquently. He used the words “dazzling, radiant, immortal, pulsating… the energy, joy, wisdom and love… reflecting God’s boundless power, delight and goodness.” That is how I see it being. Beyond that, anything I might say would be purely speculative.


Our Father created us - therefore technically we are his offspring, but there is nothing written that suggests that something divine was implanted into us. We could still have been created by God and not had something divine implanted into us, could we not?
Of course. The entire plant and animal kingdoms were created by God and yet they do not have the same spark of divinity in them that we do. We, however, were created in the image and likeness of God. We have the potential to progress until we are like Him. Adam and Eve took the first step towards “becoming as the gods, knowing good and evil” when they partook of the forbidden fruit. It would be safe to say that we do not see humanity as a different "species" from God, but as being of the same "species," but as yet far from fully developed. We believe that every bit of progress we make towards being more like Him glorifies Him. He wants us to reach our full potential and would not be satisfied to see us sit around and sing praises to Him without striving to reach the goals He has set for us.

We use phrases such as 'exalt us to the level of deity', 'become divine' 'become gods' but these are religious jargon - what do they actually mean? What does it mean to become divine or become gods? What does Morman doctrine teach on this issue - do we have the potential to create worlds, universes, and have all the power that God currently has?
I suppose that, if this is God’s will, the answer would have to be ‘yes.’

By the way… and this is a very insignificant point, really, but the correct spelling is “Mormon” (with an ‘o’), not “Morman” (with an ‘a’).


I’m still going to answer your other post. I just haven’t gotten around to it yet.
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
I believe that Jesus was begotten but not created. Begotten in the sense that he became God incarnate, uncreated in the sense that he has always been.
That would closely approximate my belief.


The term 'hierarchy' is perhaps one that i would not use, for it implies leadership - i.e that the Father is the leader of both the Son and the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you will disagree, but i see no leader in the Godhead - each of them are different to one another and each fulfil different roles, but i do not see that meaning that one is 'above' the other so to speak. Jesus is not lesser than the Father and neither is the Holy Spirit (or what you may call the Holy Ghost) lesser than either the Son or the Father. I don't see that being the way things work. I would see perfect harmony - none having to make decisions or decide together upon a certain action - they all know. But i definately agree that the three have different roles to play - which is why we see the distinction between them all in the Bible.
We do see a “hierarchy” in the Godhead; and yes, it does imply leadership. This is why the scriptures refer to the Father as “the Highest.” It is not a coincidence that the Bible refers to the first and second persons in the Godhead as “Father” and “Son.” God the Father was not Jesus’ Father only during His mortal life. That same relationship existed in the beginning, as it does today and as it will forever. The father-son relationship is, by nature, one where the son is subordinate to the father. Throughout the four gospel accounts of Jesus’ life, He speaks of His Father as being greater than He and even as being His “God.” There is absolutely no Biblical precedent whatsoever for the notion that this relationship existed only for a 34-year period of time.


It is, however, important to understand what we mean when we say the Son is subordinate to the Father. We understand that the Son holds the subordinate position in the relationship, not that He is an inferior being. As an example, a colonel holds an inferior position to a general, but they are not inferior beings. An ant, however, is an inferior being to a human.

The scriptures state that we are to honor Jesus as we do the Father. If we don’t, then we aren’t truly honoring the Father. If we deny that Jesus is God, we are denying who He is. He is His Father’s representative and His agent, but is equal to His Father in power, ability, mercy, justice, love, righteousness, etc.

Can i again clarify something. Do you believe he was the firstborn in the sense that Jesus was created before this earth existed, and that we too existed before our time here on earth? As sort of spirit like creatures - Jesus being the firstborn of the spirit creatures and then us. We are then put on this earth, but Jesus was chosen to perform a special task? I'm probably well off the mark here - but it's just something i think i remember glancing over on this forum.
You expressed that rather well and really weren’t off the mark at all. About the only thing I could add was that God (i.e. the Father) didn’t simply choose Jesus to perform the task of redeeming mankind, selecting Him out of the millions of other spirits in Heaven. He chose the only other Spirit who had all of the qualities and attributes He had, and from the very beginning they were of one mind and heart. Jesus, the Firstborn, was with God in the beginning because He was also God – perfect and sinless. No one else even came close. Jesus did not become God because He was chosen to be our Savior; He was chosen to be our Savior because He was God.

Thanks for the explanation of the Godhead. Can i just ask, when you pray to God - are you praying to a member of the Godhead or to the Godhead as a whole?
That’s an interesting question. I can’t recall ever haven’t heard that one asked before. We actually direct our prayers to “Our Father in Heaven” because this is what Jesus instructed us to do when He offered what Christians today know as the Lord’s Prayer. He said, “After this manner pray ye,” and then began, “Our Father which art in Heaven…” We close our prayers, “in the name of Jesus Christ,” recognizing that He is our mediator and advocate with the Father. And it is through the Holy Ghost that the channels of communication between God and man exist. As we are to worship God in spirit and in truth, we are to pray to him that way as well.

Interesting that you have no doctrine on this, so i take it that there is no requirement for a Morman to adhere to these beliefs and they are not mentioned from the pulpit of a church? Personally i could not adhere to a belief like this, for it contradicts quite clearly what the Bible says - this is one of the reasons i could not understand why some of your leaders would adhere to them.
That is correct. In my entire life, I have never heard a sermon, talk, or discourse on the subject of God’s beginnings in an LDS worship service. I can understand why you would see it as a contradiction. I don’t because I have a more complete background on the subject than you do. When understood within the entire framework of LDS doctrine, it really isn’t contradictory at all. I do have an example (a short story) that I could use to illustrate what I mean by this, but if I were to take the time to post it, you would have to understand that it is from an unofficial source and simply represents one person’s interpretation of this concept.


For now, I’ll just point out one thing. The Bible starts out, “In the beginning…” It is a record of God’s dealings with the inhabitants of this earth from the point in time when He decided to create the earth. You will agree, I’m sure, that there was a time when the earth did not exist. If God did have a beginning, if there was a time when He was not God, it would have been prior to “the beginning,” or “before the clock started ticking” so to speak. It would have been in an age long before the events recorded in the Bible took place. Therefore, it would not be contradicting the Bible, because the Bible only describes the events from “the beginning” forward.
 

Endless

Active Member
Hi Squirt,
Sorry, i haven't abandonned this topic - i've just been caught up in a lot of work at the minute and won't have time to reply. I'll get around to it, hopefully tomorrow sometime!

Sorry about the spelling of Mormon! :biglaugh: Reason being that i was friendly with a guy and his nickname was Morman, so it's sort of embedded into the mind :)
 

Endless

Active Member
Hi Squirt,
I must apologise for taking so long to reply, things just get a bit hectic now and again.
Thanks for the replies, i'm beginning to get a better understanding of what exactly you believe.

I'd like to focus on the following for the minute:

The three persons of the Godhead are “God.” They are not “gods.”
But you previously told me that the Godhead (made up of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost) was what the Bible termed as God (singular). So whenever you read that, you automatically think of the Godhead.

But the three persons of the Godhead are not individually the Godhead and therefore i do not understand why you are calling each individual God. I thought i understood, but i'm obviously missing something here. Each of the persons are singular and separate entities - together they make up the office of the Godhead - which is known as God.
In the OT of the Bible the word used for God is 'elohiym, which is plural but used by the Israelites to refer to the single and only God. You must acknowledge this to be the equivalent of the Godhead i assume.

Consider the following verses:

Ex 6:2 And God ('elohiym) spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD (Jehovah):
3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
De 6:4 ¶ Hear, O Israel: The LORD (Jehovah) our God ('elohiym) is one LORD (Jehovah):
5 And thou shalt love the LORD (Jehovah) thy God ('elohiym) with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

These verses shows that the term, LORD, in the Bible is equivalent to 'elohiym and that they both are one - singular, therefore i assume that you must accept this to refer to the Godhead as well. The reason i assume this is because of the following verse.

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD (Jehovah) the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God ('elohiym)....8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God ('elowahh)beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

From a Biblical viewpoint this verse also answers the question of us becoming divine because 'elowahh means deity. Therefore 'elohiym who is Jehovah is saying that he knows of no other 'elohiym beside himself and no other deity (ie. divine entity - what we might term as a 'god').

So i am slightly confused now as to why you have called Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit each individually God, since you understand God to be a Godhead. The way you expressed it is how i, believing that the Bible shows the Trinity, would have expressed it. So i am a bit confused now as to what you do believe.
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
I must apologise for taking so long to reply, things just get a bit hectic now and again. Thanks for the replies, i'm beginning to get a better understanding of what exactly you believe.


No problem. I’ve been out of town for a week myself, which is why you haven’t heard back from me. You appear to have a pretty good understanding of what we believe. I would actually be hard pressed to explain it much more clearly than you have done.
…you previously told me that the Godhead (made up of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost) was what the Bible termed as God (singular). So whenever you read that, you automatically think of the Godhead.
For the most part, that would be an accurate statement.

But the three persons of the Godhead are not individually the Godhead and therefore i do not understand why you are calling each individual God. I thought i understood, but i'm obviously missing something here.
And I may not be understanding what you’re missing. The three persons of the Godhead are not individually “the Godhead,” but any one of them can represent or act on behalf of the Godhead as a whole because, as the scriptures (the Book of Mormon as well as the Bible) state, they are “one.”
Each of the persons are singular and separate entities - together they make up the office of the Godhead - which is known as God.
Yes. That would be an accurate statement.


In the OT of the Bible the word used for God is 'elohiym, which is plural but used by the Israelites to refer to the single and only God. You must acknowledge this to be the equivalent of the Godhead i assume.
Yes. We see the word “Godhead” as a collective noun which would be a synonym for “God.” The word “God” can, however, be used to refer to any of the three divine beings who, together, comprise the Godhead.

So i am slightly confused now as to why you have called Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit each individually God, since you understand God to be a Godhead. The way you expressed it is how i, believing that the Bible shows the Trinity, would have expressed it. So i am a bit confused now as to what you do believe.
I don’t think we are particular opposed to the concept of a triune God. We recognize that God is both “one” and “three.” What we don’t go along with is the language of the Creeds (with the possible exception of the Apostles Creed). The Creeds seem to be describing the unity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as an ontological one. We see it instead as a unity of will, purpose, power and intent. We are entirely uncomfortable with the use of such words as “substance” to describe a mystical union we don’t believe exists.


The words “co-equal” and “co-eternal” are also ones we would not use to describe the relationship and existence of God. For instance, from our perspective, the Son is subordinate to the Father and the Holy Ghost is subordinate to both the Father and the Son. The Son and the Holy Ghost are divine because of their relationship with the Father. Jesus is literally God the Father’s only begotten Son – not His metaphorical Son. A father can exist independently of his son, but not visa versa, and there is an implied subordination of a son to a father. It is, however, important to understand what we mean when we use the word "subordinate." We understand that the Son holds the subordinate position in the relationship, not that He is an inferior being. As an example, a colonel holds an inferior position to a general, but they are not inferior beings. An ant, however, is an inferior being to a human.

I don’t know if I’ve managed to clarify our belief or further confuse you. But feel free to ask me to comment further.
 

Endless

Active Member
Been away over the weekend myself, life can get busy sometimes! :)

And I may not be understanding what you’re missing. The three persons of the Godhead are not individually “the Godhead,” but any one of them can represent or act on behalf of the Godhead as a whole because, as the scriptures (the Book of Mormon as well as the Bible) state, they are “one.”
Let me put it this way. God is singular and therefore to include the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit must be a Godhead. There are three in one - the one being God.

The term God is like an office - it is filled by three individuals but one of those individuals cannot be the office even if they speak for it. This is the reason why i did not understand why you said that Jesus was God - Jesus is not the Godhead even if he can speak for it and even if he is at one in purpose etc with it. What you could say is that Jesus is at one with God, but that is all.

How can Jesus be the office occupied by the Father and the Holy Spirit? That is how the Trinity works which you deny. I hope that clarifies my confusion a little better.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Endless said:
Let me put it this way. God is singular and therefore to include the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit must be a Godhead. There are three in one - the one being God. Technically, "God" is singular. However, "God" is listed as a synonym for "Godhead" in my Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. "God," then, can be a collective noun, in the same way as the word "Team" is. The fact that three distinct individuals make up "God" is commonly understood among most Christians, including the Latter-day Saints. The word "God" would not necessarily have to be used as a synonym for "Godhead." The meaning of the word is dependent on the context in which it is used.

The term God is like an office - it is filled by three individuals but one of those individuals cannot be the office even if they speak for it. This is the reason why i did not understand why you said that Jesus was God - Jesus is not the Godhead even if he can speak for it and even if he is at one in purpose etc with it. What you could say is that Jesus is at one with God, but that is all.

How can Jesus be the office occupied by the Father and the Holy Spirit? That is how the Trinity works which you deny. I hope that clarifies my confusion a little better.
"God" is an office; it is also a title by which any of of the three members of the Godhead can legitimately be addressed. Technically, the word is singular. However, "God" is listed as a synonym for "Godhead" in my Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, so apparently the words can be used interchangeably, depending upon context. "God" can be a collective noun, when used in the same way as the word "team" is. The fact that three distinct individuals make up "God" is commonly understood among most Christians, including the Latter-day Saints. The word "God" would not necessarily have to be used as a synonym for "Godhead." The meaning of the word is dependent on the context in which it is used. Therefore, when using "God" as a title, it is accurate to state, "Jesus is God." Then using the word "God" as an office, it is accurate to state, "The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are God."
 

Endless

Active Member
Hi Kaptuz thanks for taking this up.

However, "God" is listed as a synonym for "Godhead" in my Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, so apparently the words can be used interchangeably, depending upon context. "God" can be a collective noun, when used in the same way as the word "team" is. The fact that three distinct individuals make up "God" is commonly understood among most Christians, including the Latter-day Saints. The word "God" would not necessarily have to be used as a synonym for "Godhead."

The only way it can be used interchangablely is within a Trinitarian context, the Godhead can be called God, because Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are all individually the same God, yet they are also completely different to one another. So we can call Jesus God, and we can call all three persons God - because that is what they are.

You however cannot, because you reject the Trinity - however you still use God interchangablely though i can see no logical basis for doing so. Why call Jesus God when you know that there is only one God - if Jesus individually is God then Holy Spirit cannot be the same God can he - because that would contradict there only being one God.

The problem here is that in the Old testament the word for God is 'elohiym and there is no concept of an office, merely a singular being known as 'elohiym. The singular being 'elohiym then reveals his name as being Jehovah. All throughout there isn't the concept that Jehovah is an office held by three beings. So according to the old testament you should not use God as a synonym for an office, Jehovah is the name of 'elohiym. And as the Bible says 'elohiym is one, there is no other deity apart from him. Is Jehovah an office?

So when you use God (not the office meaning) how exactly is Jesus God and the Holy Spirit God and the Father God?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Endless said:
Hi Kaptuz thanks for taking this up.
Happy to oblige.

The only way it can be used interchangablely is within a Trinitarian context, the Godhead can be called God, because Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are all individually the same God, yet they are also completely different to one another. So we can call Jesus God, and we can call all three persons God - because that is what they are.
I disagree. I frequently use the word "God" when I am speaking of the Godhead. Besides, it's not the concept of a trinity that the Latter-day Saints object to. The Godhead is a trinity of sorts. What we don't buy into is the notion that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all a part of a single substance and they are co-equal and co-eternal. We believe that the Father and the Son are truly father and son, which would automatically make the Son's relationship dependent upon the existence of the Father -- but not visa versa. In other words, we don't accept the creedal interpretation of how these three individuals are both three and one.

You however cannot, because you reject the Trinity - however you still use God interchangablely though i can see no logical basis for doing so. Why call Jesus God when you know that there is only one God - if Jesus individually is God then Holy Spirit cannot be the same God can he - because that would contradict there only being one God.
We call Jesus "God" because that is His title, just as it is also His Father's title. It seems to me that it is entirely logical.

The problem here is that in the Old testament the word for God is 'elohiym and there is no concept of an office, merely a singular being known as 'elohiym. The singular being 'elohiym then reveals his name as being Jehovah. All throughout there isn't the concept that Jehovah is an office held by three beings. So according to the old testament you should not use God as a synonym for an office, Jehovah is the name of 'elohiym. And as the Bible says 'elohiym is one, there is no other deity apart from him. Is Jehovah an office?
"Elohim" is a Hebrew plural meaning God or gods. (The singular is "eloah" or "el" and means "exalted one.") When speaking of God the Father, we generally use the word "Elohim" as a name. However, there are unquestionably some passages in the Hebrew Bible in which "elohim" (used as a title) does not refer exlusively to God the Father, but to the Godhead as a whole. We do not believe Jehovah to be God the Father's name, but rather the name given to the pre-mortal Jesus. Jesus Christ, according to LDS doctrine, is the Jehovah of the Old Testament.

So when you use God (not the office meaning) how exactly is Jesus God and the Holy Spirit God and the Father God?
As I said before, all three are "God" because the word "God" is a title as well as an office, and all three share the title, by virtue of the fact that they all have the same divine attributes. I'm sorry if I've missed your point entirely. I generally don't have this much trouble getting my point across.
 

Endless

Active Member
Hi Katzpur,

We call Jesus "God" because that is His title, just as it is also His Father's title. It seems to me that it is entirely logical

This is the point in the conversation just before Squirt left, so i'll try to clarify what my confusion was about.

If you say it is Jesus' title because he is God, then we are going around in circles because you have not defined how Jesus is God singularly apart from the Godhead. You have merely said that it is his Title.

Maybe this will make my line of thought clearer:

1. God is a Godhead right? Yes.
2. The Father, the Son and the Spirit make up the Godhead right? Yes.
3. They are all one in mind, which is why God is one right? Yes.
4. Since God is these three entities all of one mind, individually what are these entities? They are God, Jesus is God.
5. How can Jesus be God if all three are needed to make up God - ie. the Godhead? God is Jesus' title.
6. Why is it his title? Because Jesus is one with the Father and the Spirit, hence he repesents the Godhead (this is where i got to with Squirt) and so can be called God.
7. Yes, but Jesus is not literally the Godhead is he? No of course not.
8. So Jesus is not literally God, he merely represents God? ........
9. If Jesus isn't literally God then what is he?

As i said before to Squirt:

The term God is like an office - it is filled by three individuals but one of those individuals cannot be the office even if they speak for it. This is the reason why i did not understand why you said that Jesus was God - Jesus is not the Godhead even if he can speak for it and even if he is at one in purpose etc with it. What you could say is that Jesus is at one with God, but that is all.

How can Jesus be the office occupied by the Father and the Holy Spirit? That is how the Trinity works which you deny. I hope that clarifies my confusion a little better.

I'd just like to comment on what you wrote here:

"Elohim" is a Hebrew plural meaning God or gods. (The singular is "eloah" or "el" and means "exalted one.") When speaking of God the Father, we generally use the word "Elohim" as a name. However, there are unquestionably some passages in the Hebrew Bible in which "elohim" (used as a title) does not refer exlusively to God the Father, but to the Godhead as a whole. We do not believe Jehovah to be God the Father's name, but rather the name given to the pre-mortal Jesus. Jesus Christ, according to LDS doctrine, is the Jehovah of the Old Testament.

That is interesting because the Bible records Elohim speaking and saying that he had been known as Elohim but was now going to reveal his name and he revealed his name as Jehovah. Now i assume that like Squirt you believe the Bible, consider this verse which i have quoted before in this discussion:

Ex 6:2 And God ('elohiym) spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD(Jehovah):
3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Again consider the following verse:

De 6:4 ¶ Hear, O Israel: The LORD (Jehovah) our God ('elohiym) is one LORD (Jehovah):
5 And thou shalt love the LORD (Jehovah) thy God ('elohiym) with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

In the Bible the two words are interchangable - 'elohiym is Jehovah as clearly shown by these verses. Now if you hold Jehovah to be the name of the pre mortal Christ then you must also acknowledge that the premortal Christ is the Father 'elohiym according to the Bible.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Endless said:
If you say it is Jesus' title because he is God, then we are going around in circles because you have not defined how Jesus is God singularly apart from the Godhead. You have merely said that it is his Title.
Yes, we apparently are going around in circles, and it's getting to be kind of frustrating.

Jesus is God because He has all of the characteristics an individual would need to be God. He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent (at least spiritually omnipresent). He and His Father have the same divine qualities.

Yes, but Jesus is not literally the Godhead is he? No of course not. So Jesus is not literally God, he merely represents God? ........ If Jesus isn't literally God then what is he?
Judging from your earlier conversation with Squirt, it appeared to me that you were essentially trying to understand the LDS concept of Jesus Christ, not to prove it wrong. Since it appeared that you and Squirt were making some headway, I agreed to step in when she left. At this point, I can see our conversation going nowhere. Jesus is literally God. He is also part of the Godhead. I have stated it as plainly as I know how. Sorry I was not able to do a better job, but I'm really not interested in trying to play word games, which appears to be where we're headed.
 

Endless

Active Member
I'm not trying to prove anything wrong, how can i when i do not understand your position? I am still trying to understand and merely outlined my confusion, do not see it as an attack.

Jesus is God because He has all of the characteristics an individual would need to be God. He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent (at least spiritually omnipresent). He and His Father have the same divine qualities.

Yes, but this would mean there are three individuals who are gods (pocessing divine qualities) and together they all make up God. But when i put this to squirt she clearly said that Jesus was not a god, but was God because there only was one God. Hence my confusion started as to what exactly LDS Christians believed.

Jesus is literally God. He is also part of the Godhead. I have stated it as plainly as I know how.

But that's just it, you haven't explained anything yet, the topic has not moved on at all from where it was left off. You have said that Jesus is God, when i ask why, you say it's his title. I further detailed my confusion in the best way i could. If you feel you must leave as did squirt then that is fine, i've attacked no-one and nor have i been ungracious.
 
Top