Mormonism: More than one God, and other Mormon beliefs. True or False? (reincarnation, church)

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Minor correction here. He says "on an earth," not "on earth." If God did experience mortality, it would have been in a completely different realm than we now live in.

I'm getting tired and was really going to quit for the night, but I think I'll just answer this one last post. Hopefully, this will make sense to a few of you reading this thread.

Traditional Christianity holds to a "universe" cosmology, while Mormonism holds to a "multiverse" cosmology. Allow me to demonstrate exactly what a multiverse cosmology actually is using a little story I once read.

Think of the main character, Laura, as representing God.

Laura worked in a store of a large supermarket chain, climbing up the ranks from stocker, to cashier, to assistant supervisor, to supervisor, to assistant manager. After being assistant manager for a couple of years, she was transferred to a new store in a small town in a part of the country where this particular supermarket chain had never been before. The store was to open within a month and Laura was to be the new store manager.

Laura managed the new store for 25 years and finally retired when the store was closed due to down-sizing. She was well-known and was liked by her workers and customers in the community. She was known by everyone as the store manager since there was only one supermarket in town. At her retirement party, Joey, a life-long friend of hers, spoke about working with Laura when they were both cashiers. People in the community were surprised since they'd always thought of Laura as the store manager and never as a cashier. Those who only knew Laura from the time she was a store manager ridiculed Joey, saying he was wrong since Laura was a store manager and was never a cashier. Joey also talked about Jeff and Peter who were also store managers, who were mutual friends of Laura and Joey. The people of the community were outranged to hear Joey refer to these two other individuals as store managers when they knew the only store manager there had ever been was Laura.

Here we have two seemingly contradictory views of Laura and her position. The community only understood Laura's relationship with their community, but Joey saw Laura's relationship from a different, and more expansive, point of view. The community only knew that Laura was always the store manager. There weren't any store managers before her and there would be none after her. Furthermore, she was there before the store opened and would continue to be a part of their community after it closed.

What was Laura doing before she became the store manager? No one in the community had ever even thought about this. They knew Laura from a perspective that did not allow for her existence outside of her position as the once-and-forever store manager.

Most of the Abrahamic religions (I don't know about the others) think of our universe as being the only universe that has ever existed or ever will exist. The Latter-day Saint view is not so restrictive. We believe what the Bible says about God (that He is the only God who has ever existed or will exist) and at the same time, believe what Joseph Smith said (that God "who sits enthroned in yonder heaven, was a man like one of you.") The first statement explains God's existence from the perspective of a universe (one creation), while the second statement explains God's existence from the perspective of a multiverse (multiple creations).

I appreciate that last statement, and I hope that before we're through discussing LDS doctrine, I hope you will at least be able to say, "Well, I don't believe it, but at least I do understand it, and my information comes from a reliable source." Even better would be if you could say, "Well, I don't believe it, but I can see the reasoning behind it." (You say you used to believe in ET, but no longer do. Having once believed in it, though, you can probably understand the perspective of those who still do.)

So you do believe God was something else before? A man maybe, or a lesser god, - a cashier as opposed to manager?

[Phazelwood]

Originally Posted by BudinAk

Because...the rest of us want to know the answers also. There is nothing wrong with asking a question when you already know the answer...it is to educate those who don't have the answer.

Bud

Too bad finn isn't qualified to educate anyone on the matter, then you'd have a great point.

[Phazelwood]

Katzpur, let me see if I can explain something to see if I may understand the issue of God once a man in the multi-verse context.

In the references to leaders making statements I would assume that the context would be from them speaking to people as a Christian Pastor may be speaking to the congregation where certain things of the doctrine are already established in understanding.

In the multi-verse context, it would seem to me that the established assumtion would be that God is a deity, always has been a diety and always will be just as God is depicted in traditional Christianity.

The difference in the multi-verse context is that God in the realm of our earth put himself here as a man and was one of us.

So from our perspective God was one of us, but at the same time he was the diety over all existance and always has been.

Have I got that correct?

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

So you do believe God was something else before? A man maybe, or a lesser god, - a cashier as opposed to manager?

I'm sorry that's what you got out of the story. I was trying to illustrate the difference between a universe cosmology and a multiverse cosmology. Maybe it wasn't a good illustration after all.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Phazelwood

Katzpur, let me see if I can explain something to see if I may understand the issue of God once a man in the multi-verse context.

In the references to leaders making statements I would assume that the context would be from them speaking to people as a Christian Pastor may be speaking to the congregation where certain things of the doctrine are already established in understanding.

You are definitely right about that. That's why when statements of this sort are taken out of context, they are misunderstood by people coming from a different theological background.

In the multi-verse context, it would seem to me that the established assumtion would be that God is a deity, always has been a diety and always will be just as God is depicted in traditional Christianity.

That is absolutely correct.

The difference in the multi-verse context is that God in the realm of our earth put himself here as a man and was one of us.

So from our perspective God was one of us, but at the same time he was the diety over all existance and always has been.

Have I got that correct?

If I'm understanding you correctly, then yes.

[Pleroo]

I enjoyed your post SCGRanny, and especially your conclusion:

To me, religion should not intimidate, constrict, demand, or restrain, but rather educate, encourage, inspire, free, unencumber, and enlighten, as well as provide a joyful heart. And eternal progression is the very definition of that.

Just a thought regarding this:

Originally Posted by SCGranny

"when you die, you will go to heaven and sing his praises for eternity". I mean, seriously, as a noble and Godfearing creature, who has worked hard all of your life, done all of the right things, raised a family, cared for others, gone without sleep or food so others don't have to - when you die, think how bored you would be, sitting around singing God's praises for eternity. (Incidentally, I would have very little respect for any God who needed and demanded that form of sycophantic worship.)

It's been said that the highest form of flattery (praise) is imitation. It makes sense to me that "singing God's praises for eternity" fits in that category ... that we are to become like (imitate) God by becoming Love as He IS LOVE ... in whatever capacity.

[Phazelwood]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

You are definitely right about that. That's why when statements of this sort are taken out of context, they are misunderstood by people coming from a different theological background.

That is absolutely correct.

If I'm understanding you correctly, then yes.

So in summary.

1. Mormons, even all those quoted to imply otherwise, believe God has always existed as the supreme diety God the Father. The same God the Father that is in the Holy Bible?

2. Mormons, even all those quote to imply otherwise, believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and is our Saviour?

3. The main difference (in general terms only) is that Mormons believe this earth is not the only created planet with life and people of some kind on it.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by ScarletWren

I have no problem with Yeshua the Christ being mortal, because He was a man. I believe that He did pre exist his incarnation as a man, but I do not believe He is God the Father. I can't explain the relationship between he and the Father, but I do not believe they are one and the same, though I do believe Yeshua was in constant communion with His father.

Thanks for your comments, Scarlet. The next few paragraphs will clarify our understanding of the Godhead, the nature of the three persons who comprise it and their relationship to each other. That may provide you with some background to help you better understand what I've been saying up till now.

Our first Article of Faith states: We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. While we believe that God is the Father of the spirits of each and every person who has ever lived, and that we are all His spirit offspring, Jesus Christ is most definitely in a class by Himself. He was with His Father in the beginning. Under His Father's direction, He created worlds without number. He was chosen to be "the Lamb" prior to the foundation of this world. He sits today on the right hand of His Father. Along with the Holy Ghost, the Father and the Son make up the Godhead.

We believe that our Father in Heaven and His Son Jesus Christ have a true father-son relationship. The words, "Father" and "Son," in other words, mean exactly what they say. They are not metaphorical or symbolic of a vague metaphysical relationship, in which two beings are some how both part of a single essence. We are each the physical sons and daughters of our mortal parents. Jesus Christ is the literal, physical Son of a divine Father and a mortal Mother. He was conceived in a miraculous way, but like all sons, was in the "express image of His Father's person." That is to say, He looked like Him. Dogs beget puppies, and cats beget kittens. God beget a Son who is the same species as He is. They both have bodies of flesh and bone (although, until His birth in Bethlehem, Jesus Christ was a spirit being only).

The Father and the Son are physically distinct from one another, and yet they are also "one." This doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon as well as in the Bible. We just understand the word "one" to mean something other than physical substance or essence. We believe they are "one in will and purpose, one in mind and heart, and one in power and glory." It would be impossible to explain, or even to understand, the degree of their unity. It is perfect; it is absolute. They think, feel and act as "one God." Because of this perfect unity, and because they share the title of "God," we think of them together in this way. It would be impossible for us to worship one of them without also worshipping the other.

Most Christians also use the words “co-equal” and “co-eternal” to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. We do not. We believe that, as is again the case with all fathers and sons, the Father existed prior to His Son. No son's existence precedes his father's, and Jesus Christ is no exception to this rule. We also believe Christ to be subordinate to His Father. He is divine because of His relationship with His Father. It is, however, important to understand what we mean when we use the word "subordinate." We understand that the Son holds a subordinate position in the relationship; we do not believe Him to be an inferior being. As an example, a colonel holds an inferior position to a general, but is not an inferior being. To most people's way of thinking, an ant, however, is an inferior being to a human.

]The third member of the Godhead is the Holy Ghost. Unlike the Father and the Son, the Holy Ghost is a person of spirit only. It is by virtue of this quality that He is able to both fill the universe and dwell in our hearts. It is through the Holy Ghost that God communicates to mankind. We come to understand spiritual truths through the witnessing of the Holy Ghost, who communicates with us on a spiritual plane. It is through Him that we come to know the Father and the Son.

I also believe that WE do progress to a certain extent and will receive power to do everything Christ did, but that power does and always will belong to God, the father. Scriptures say that God created the world and everything in it THROUGH Jesus Christ. Jesus said he always did the will of the FATHER and not his own will. I do not say this to argue for or against the Trinity doctrine. But that we become AS God, the Father, does not seem likely to me. I believe that we will always have some form of body, far superior to the one we have now, but still a body.

Actually, I would agree with everything you just said with the exception of this statement: "But that we become AS God, the Father, does not seem likely to me." As I've already explained, we actually believe that both the Father and the Son have glorified, immortal bodies, so we believe that in that respect, we will also become like them.

Of course, that gets into the whole "God is spirit" thing. We do believe that God is spirit, but we don't believe that precludes His spirit residing within a physical body. A spirit, after all, is really nothing but a life force. The Greek word, pneuma, which is translated as "spirit" in John 4:24 is found elsewhere in the Bible translated as meaning "life." Since both words are equally valid, we could say that "God is life." This may raise more questions, which I'll answer later. I really want to get to the end of the subject of God's beginnings, though, so that nobody will be able to say I didn't answer their questions.

But I have the right to believe that way and declare that belief, and you have the right to follow and declare what teachings you prefer. Peace and good will.

You too, Scarlet.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Phazelwood

So in summary.

1. Mormons, even all those quoted to imply otherwise, believe God has always existed as the supreme diety God the Father. The same God the Father that is in the Holy Bible?

2. Mormons, even all those quote to imply otherwise, believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and is our Saviour?

3. The main difference (in general terms only) is that Mormons believe this earth is not the only created planet with life and people of some kind on it.

All of those statements are correct. Good job!

You do understand, I hope, that we don't believe the Father and the Son to be "one in substance" but "one in will and purpose." I just want to make sure that I haven't misled you up to now. The couplet that started this whole discussion (As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.) seems to be referring to God the Father. As I've already explained, the second half of the couplet could be described to be doctrinal. The first half, on the other hand, is probably more speculative (since it can't be backed up by any of our scriptures). I'll try to start working on some comments to further explain it, but today, as yesterday, I'll be gone much of the day, and I may not be able to post all that much before this evening.

[Phazelwood]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

All of those statements are correct. Good job!

You do understand, I hope, that we don't believe the Father and the Son to be "one in substance" but "one in will and purpose." I just want to make sure that I haven't misled you up to now. The couplet that started this whole discussion (As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.) seems to be referring to God the Father. As I've already explained, the second half of the couplet could be described to be doctrinal. The first half, on the other hand, is probably more speculative (since it can't be backed up by any of our scriptures). I'll try to start working on some comments to further explain it, but today, as yesterday, I'll be gone much of the day, and I may not be able to post all that much before this evening.

You have not misled me. I did not post to you till I did some reading on my own. At first glance it is hard to deny some thought God had a beginning and it was one of us.

However, when seen in the context of the multi verse realm with multiple earths(so to speak) then I began to think they was making a similar reference to God as we do JESUS.

Christians as they tell others about Jesus being on earth rely on an assumption that they believe Jesus never started as a man, but has always been a deity. This does not change the fact that we ARE taught in Christianity that JESUS was like US.