| For an Answer Home | Mars Hill Index | Bibliography | Glossary |
| The Bible Gateway | The Blue Letter Bible | The Greek New Testament (NA26) | Greek & Hebrew Lexicons |
Mars Hill Apologetic Discussions
|
Is
God God from all eternity to all eternity? A "Trialog" between Chad Uretsky and Two Latter Day Saints edited by
Dan Curry Some notes before we begin: This began
as a thread on a discussion board at www.carm.org.
This essay has been edited in a way as to retain the logical succession
of events of the discussion. Horizontal lines separate individual
responses. The responses follow in exact chronological order
unless stated otherwise. Material that is indented is material
from other sources which the writers have included in their responses.
The color of the text refers to who is said that text. Here is the
color key: Red: Dan Curry
|
|
[Here is the original question presented by
Chad:] The Book of Mormon teaches that God is God from all eternity
to all eternity: For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a
changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all
eternity Since it is quoted and/or referenced no less than
10 times in Gospel Principles (an officially endorsed publication
of the LDS church), it should be safe to assume that Teachings of the
Prophet Joseph Smith is considered authentic and authoritative
(though not necessarily inspired, since it is not considered scripture).
In this work, Joseph Smith tells us that we have only "imagined and
supposed" that God has been God from all eternity to all eternity: We have imagined and supposed that God was God
from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the
veil, so that you may see. The question is, why would Joseph Smith endeavor to
refute that which was supposedly revealed to him by God, through plates
that were "delivered to Joseph Smith" {by "Moroni, then a
glorified, resurrected being"}, and who translated the plates
"by the gift and power of God" (Introduction to The Book of
Mormon)? Why would Smith refute the teachings of a book that he
"told the brethren...was the most correct of any book on
earth" and "the keystone of {his} religion"? If Joseph Smith is correct on this point, then The Book of Mormon
contains false teachings about God, and thus cannot be inspired, nor can
it be trusted. Since Joseph Smith endorsed it as "the most correct
of any book on earth", and claimed it to be "the
keystone" of his religion, that would make him a false prophet, and
shake the foundation {keystone} of the LDS religion. This is not
something I believe too many LDS would rush to embrace. However, if The Book of Mormon is correct on this point, then
Joseph Smith, who claims to be a prophet of God, holds to false
teachings about God, and thus is a false prophet. Which also means that,
since it was Smith who produced the work, The Book of Mormon was
"delivered to" and "translated by" a false prophet,
and thus cannot be trusted. Again, this is not something I believe too
many LDS would rush to embrace. The problem thus becomes that one of these two statements must be
correct, since either The Book of Mormon is correct that God is
God from all eternity to all eternity, or Smith was correct in refuting
this statement. They cannot both be correct. This is a serious dilemma, and one that I pray LDS will take into
serious consideration. [Two days later, Mormon #1 finally replied
with this:] Define "eternity" Do you really need a definition here? Smith used the same word in both places. Are you implying that he
meant two different things? If not, I don't feel we need a
definition. To be honest, the fact that what is written is so clear
shows your question to be little more than a red herring. However, for
your sake: e·ter·ni·ty (-tűrn-t) {Middle English eternite,
from Old French, from Latin aeternits, from aeternus, eternal. See
eternal.} - The American Heritage®
Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright ©
2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. I would say definition 1 fits best. Wouldn't you
agree? Regardless, The Book of Mormon says God is God from all
eternity to all eternity, and Joseph Smith refutes that idea. Same
language, same words. I would like to know why Joseph Smith would want
to refute The Book of Mormon. Please include the entire sermon.
If you do, you will note that Joseph Smith is not refuting The Book
of Mormon, but the traditional “Christian” views of the nature
of God, etc. I have made this point before and it is more valid here
that ever: Non-LDS CANNOT take passages out of The Book of Mormon
and apply their interpretation (i.e.: traditional Christian
interpretation) of the doctrine. This is not only wrong, but also
dishonest (and a frequent practice of Matt Slick [Matt
Slick is the director of www.carm.org]
). Another other example of this is the “one-ness” of God, etc. Many
individuals who oppose the [Mormon]
church use quotes from The Book of Mormon that God is
“One-God”, apply their own view/interpretation and pronounce Joseph
Smith a false prophet. This is absurd. To be accurate, you have to apply the LDS
doctrine to The Book of Mormon. By doing this one can then see
and understand the doctrine as taught, within the context of the
passage. The true doctrinal understanding and application comes from the
living oracles of God (Apostles and Prophets), that he has called in
these latter-days to restore the true teachings and true church of
Christ upon the earth. This has been God’s pattern from the
beginning. Amos 3:7. Another red herring, but if you insist... [Mormon #1 said:] If you do, you will note that JS is not
refuting The Book of Mormon, but the traditional “Christian”
views of the nature of God, etc. Actually, regardless of his intent, the language he uses refutes The
Book of Mormon. Even though this is really another red herring, I
feel you may benefit from my indulging you. Okay, let's take a look [at the context of
Joseph Smith's sermon cited in the Chad's original post]: I feel disposed to speak on the subject in general, and
offer you my ideas, so far as I have ability, and so far as I shall
be inspired by the Holy Spirit to dwell on this subject. I want your prayers and
faith that I may have the instruction of Almighty God and the gift of
the Holy Ghost, so that I may set forth things that are true and which
can be easily comprehended by you, and that the testimony may carry
conviction to your hearts and minds of the truth of what I shall say.
Pray that the Lord may strengthen my lungs, stay the winds, and let the
prayers of the Saints to heaven appear, that they may enter into the
ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, for the effectual prayers of the righteous
avail much. There is strength here, and I verily believe that your
prayers will be heard. Before I enter fully into
the investigation of the subject which is lying before me, I wish to
pave the way and bring up the subject from the beginning, that you may
understand it. I will make a few preliminaries, in order that you may
understand the subject when I come to it. I do not intend to please your
ears with superfluity of words or oratory, or with much learning; but I
intend to edify you with the simple truths from heaven. The
Character of God In the first place, I wish
to go back to the beginning--to the morn of creation. There is the
starting point for us to look to, in order to understand and be fully
acquainted with the mind, purposes and decrees of the Great Elohim, who
sits in yonder heavens as he did at the creation of this world. It is
necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself in the
beginning. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time;
but if we start wrong, we may go wrong, and it be a hard matter to get
right. There are but a very few
beings in the world who understand rightly the character of God. The
great majority of mankind do not comprehend anything, either that which
is past, or that which is to come, as it respects their relationship to
God. They do not know, neither do they understand the nature of that
relationship; and consequently they know but little above the brute
beast, or more than to eat, drink and sleep. This is all man knows about
God or his existence, unless it is given by the inspiration of the
Almighty. If a man learns nothing
more than to eat, drink and sleep, and does not comprehend any of the
designs of God, the beast comprehends the same things. It eats, drinks,
sleeps, and knows nothing more about God; yet it knows as much as we,
unless we are able to comprehend by the inspiration of Almighty God. If
men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend
themselves. I want to go back to the beginning, and so lift your minds
into a more lofty sphere and a more exalted understanding than what the
human mind generally aspires to. What
Kind of Being Is God? I want to ask this
congregation, every man, woman and child, to answer the question in
their own heart, what kind of a being God is? Ask yourselves; turn your
thought into your hearts, and say if any of you have seen, heard, or
communed with him. This is a question that may occupy your attention for
a long time. I again repeat the question--What kind of a being is
God? Does any man or woman know? Have any of you seen him, heard
him, or communed with him? Here is the question that will, peradventure,
from this time henceforth occupy your attention. The Scriptures inform
us that "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the only
true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." If any man does not know
God, and inquires what kind of a being he is,--if he will search
diligently his own heart--if the declaration of Jesus and the apostles
be true, he will realize that he has not eternal life; for there can be
eternal life on no other principle. My first object is to find
out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a
being he is; and if I am so fortunate as to be the man to comprehend
God, and explain or convey the principles to your hearts, so that the
Spirit seals them upon you, then let every man and woman henceforth sit
in silence, put their hands on their mouths, and never lift their hands
or voices, or say anything against the man of God or the servants of God
again. But if I fail to do it, it becomes my duty to renounce all
further pretensions to revelations and inspirations, or to be a prophet;
and I should be like the rest of the world--a false teacher, be hailed
as a friend, and no man would seek my life. But if all religious
teachers were honest enough to renounce their pretensions to godliness
when their ignorance of the knowledge of God is made manifest, they will
all be as badly off as I am, at any rate; and you might as well take the
lives of other false teachers as that of mine, if I am false. If any man
is authorized to take away my life because he thinks and says I am a
false teacher, then, upon the same principle, we should be justified in
taking away the life of every false teacher, and where would be the end
of blood? And who would not be the sufferer? The
Privilege of Religious Freedom But meddle not with any
man for his religion: and all governments ought to permit every man to
enjoy his religion unmolested. No man is authorized to take away life in
consequence of difference of religion, which all laws and governments
ought to tolerate and protect, right or wrong. Every man has a natural,
and, in our country, a constitutional right to be a false prophet, as
well as a true prophet. If I show, verily, that I have the truth of God,
and show that ninety-nine out of every hundred professing religious
ministers are false teachers, having no authority, while they pretend to
hold the keys of God's kingdom on earth, and was to kill them because
they are false teachers, it would deluge the whole world with blood. I will prove that the
world is wrong, by showing what God is. I am going to enquire after
God; for I want you all to know him, and to be familiar with him; and if
I am bringing you to a knowledge of him, all persecutions against me
ought to cease. You will then know that I am his servant; for I speak as
one having authority. God
an Exalted Man I will go back to the
beginning before the world was, to show what kind of being God
is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears
and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you
by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the
human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man. 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 in 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. In order to understand the
subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of
their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and
being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you
how God came to be God. We have imagined and
supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute
that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. These are incomprehensible
ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the
Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we
may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he
was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us
all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will
show it from the Bible. Power
of the Father and the Son I wish I was in a suitable
place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I
could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease for
ever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The Scriptures inform
us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath
the Son power--to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is
obvious--in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus,
what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and
take it up again. Do we believe it? If you do not believe it,
you do not believe the Bible. The Scriptures say it, and I defy all the
learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell
together to refute it. - Teachings of the
Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-44, pp. 342-346 So, to summarize, what have we found? Smith here
claims to speak "so far as I shall be inspired by the Holy
Spirit." Therefore, he is claiming that this speech is
inspired. If there is any question as to this, Smith also tells us that
he intends to "edify {us} with the simple truths from heaven."
He goes on to tell us that we must understand "God Himself from the
beginning" and that his objective is to find out "what kind of
being he is." Next, he does say (as you stated) that he is going to
prove the world wrong by showing what God is. Here is where it gets interesting. Smith tells us he is going to go
back to the beginning to tell us what kind of being God is, and that he
is going to "prove" it from the Bible. At this point, Smith
"reveals" to us his understanding of God: God is a man who has
been exalted and now "sits enthroned in yonder heavens."
Curiously absent at this point is any proof from the Bible. As a matter
of fact, Smith makes this statement despite the fact that the Bible
teaches that God is not a man: "God is not a man, that he should lie;
neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall
he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" "And also the
Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man,
that he should repent" "For he {God} is
not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come
together in judgment" "I will not execute
the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I
am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will
not enter into the city" But that doesn't stop Smith. He continues on,
teaching us that it is necessary to understand "how God came to be
God" (implying, of course, that God has not always been God - which
agrees with his statement that God is an exalted man). This is where the
infamous quote from earlier comes into play. "We {this can only mean Smith and his followers} have
imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will
refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see." So
Smith is going to refute the idea that "God was God from all
eternity" (as I have already quoted The Book of Mormon as
saying in Moroni 8:18). Again Smith claims that God was once a man, and that he is going to
prove this from the Bible. How does he "prove" this from the
Bible? He makes incomplete reference to two totally unrelated verses:
John 5:26 and John 10:17-18. As a matter of fact, Smith changes the
words used in John 5:26 from "life" to "power", even
though the [original] Greek cannot be
translated that way: wsper gar ho pater echei zoen en eautw houtws
edwken kai tw huiw zoen echein en eautw The highlighted word here, "zoen" is
never translated "power" as Smith has misquoted it, but only
"life". He goes on to connect this with John 10:17-18 where Jesus tells us
that the Father loves Him because He lays down His life that He might
take it again, and that this is a "commandment" that He has
received from the Father, not that the Father has done this. Nowhere [in
the Bible] is there any implication that the Father lived on an
earth and laid down and took up His life. Smith is has failed to prove
anything, from the Bible or otherwise. Alas, his argument is seen to be
faulty at best, and finds no support in the Bible, from which he claimed
he would "prove" his assertions. All that said, Smith is here teaching that God was not always God,
but was once a man, and is now God only because He has been exalted. It
is somewhat difficult to discern if Smith is teaching that God's being
changed from man to God, or if his definition of "God" has to
do with status instead of being, though I believe that for
the purpose of our discussion, the difference is really irrelevant. Regardless, Moroni 8:18 states: For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a
changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all
eternity. God's being is not changeable. He is the same from
all eternity to all eternity. If that [quote
from The Book of Mormon] isn't enough, there are other
verses in The Book of Mormon, the Bible, and Doctrines &
Covenants (D&C) that teach this same concept: Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou
hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to
everlasting, thou art God. For I am the LORD, I
change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. For do we not read that God
is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no
variableness neither shadow of changing? And I would exhort you, my
beloved brethren, that ye remember that he is the same yesterday,
today, and forever... By these things we know
that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from
everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of
heaven and earth, and all things which are in them Inherent in all of these quotes is one concept: God
did not become God - He always has been God and always will be God.
Being God is not a matter of status or exaltation, it is a matter of
being. Regardless of how you choose to interpret what Smith says in
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six, you cannot get
around the fact that he is claiming to refute (and making statments that
contradict) something that Mormon scriptures clearly teach. [Mormon #1 said:] I have made this point before and it is
more valid here that ever. Non-LDS CANNOT take passages out of The
Book of Mormon and apply their interpretation (i.e.: traditional
Christian interpretation) of the doctrine. This is not only wrong, but
also dishonest (and a frequent practice of Matt Slick). Another other
example of this is the “one-ness” of God, etc. Many individuals who
oppose the church use quotes from The Book of Mormon that God is
“One-God”, apply their own view/interpretation and pronounce Joseph
Smith a false prophet. This is absurd. Non-LDS need not take passages out of The Book of Mormon and
apply their own interpretation to it. I do not do this. I simply read
what The Book of Mormon says and evaluate it for what it is.
Joseph Smith claimed that The Book of Mormon is the most correct
of any book on earth; it should thus be able to speak for itself, and as
well, it should be able to stand up to scrutiny (if what Smith claimed
is true). If you have read what I have posted, honestly, you would see (and
perhaps you do) that I have not applied any interpretation of my own. As
a matter of fact, the post that started this thread merely quoted two
statements recorded by Smith which were almost identical, except for the
fact that in one, Smith claimed to refute the same idea espoused in the
other. No interpretation. You, however, have avoided addressing this up to now, and continue to
try to draw the conversation away from the fact that Smith clearly
claims to refute what The Book of Mormon states as truth. I have
not read any interpretation into either of the passages. The contexts
don't change what they say. On the other hand, you must fight to make
these statements not say what they say in order to vindicate your belief
system. Let me be clear: I am not trying to criticize you, put you down, or
in any other way denigrate you or your beliefs. I am however, out of
love and concern for you, all LDS, and all people for that matter,
trying to help you see the truth. LDS theology is notoriously
inconsistent, and if you look honestly at what the two statements I
quoted say, you will see this for yourself. As far as the "'one-ness' of God", I would be happy to take
that up on another thread with you. Because, just as with these, you
must fight to make The Book of Mormon not say what it actually
says, in order for it to agree with current LDS theology. [Mormon #1 said:] To be accurate, you have to apply the LDS
doctrine to The Book of Mormon. Actually, even this is wrong. If you are an honest LDS, what you
should do is read The Book of Mormon and derive your theology
from it. No scripture should have external doctrine applied to it, as
you here have stated. That is called eisegesis, and it leads only to
error. The proper method of understanding any document is to read what
it says for itself; not to take what you believe and impose it upon the
document. [Mormon #1 said:] By doing this one can then see and
understand the doctrine as taught, within the context of the passage.
The true doctrinal understanding and application comes from the living
oracles of God (Apostles and Prophets), that he has called in these
latter-days to restore the true teachings and true church of Christ upon
the earth. True doctrinal understanding comes from properly reading the
scriptures in their own context; not from reading personal doctrine into
scripture. It is interesting that what you have actually used here is
circular reasoning. First you say that you have to apply LDS doctrine to
The Book of Mormon, and then you say that when you do this, then
you can understand the doctrine as taught within the context of the
passage. So you have to understand LDS doctrine in order to understand The
Book of Mormon, from which we get LDS doctrine. Do you see the
problem here? [Mormon #1 said:] This has been God’s pattern from the
beginning. Amos 3: 7. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in
time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days
spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by
whom also he made the worlds [Mormon #2 now enters the discussion by
saying:] [Mormon #1 said:] I have made this point before and it is
more valid here that ever. Non-LDS CANNOT take passages out of The
Book of Mormon and apply their interpretation (i.e.: traditional
Christian interpretation) of the doctrine. This is not only wrong, but
also dishonest (and a frequent practice of Matt Slick). Another other
example of this is the “one-ness” of God, etc. Many individuals who
oppose the church use quotes from The Book of Mormon that God is
“One-God”, apply their own view/interpretation and pronounce Joseph
Smith a false prophet. This is absurd. That is one of the most pertinent
statements that I have seen here. If people read the writings of Joseph who
knew what the spirit of the people of Nephi understood. Then they might
know more about the Book. I say this because every time I read the words
of the prophets and the BOM special blessings come to my home because of
the precepts that I have learned. I do not read the book to see how many
errors are in it. I treat the Bible the same way believe it or not.
I get the feeling that the BOM is not
even read much by those who want to just point out what they think is an
error in the LDS faith. It is God who tells the LDS people what
is truth and not man. Which statement is from God? In light of your statements here,
I was wondering if you'd read my response to
[Mormon #1] above and tell me, which statement is from God? The
one in Moroni 8:18, or the one in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph
Smith, Section Six? (Just as a recap, they can't both be because
they are irreconcilably contradictory - one claims to refute the other) You are doing it again. You cannot
take passages out of The Book of Mormon (or teachings of the prophet
Joseph Smith) and apply your traditional Christian doctrinal
interpretation. Obviously this would prove your point. But,
when you apply the teachings and interpretations of LDS doctrine, there
is no contradiction. [There is] no
need[for you] to
reply, because I don't think you'll admit error or concede this point.
Okay, you have made this accusation before, and I have responded to
it. However, since you obviously won't respond to my post above, let's
try this from another angle. Please tell me (since I don't feel I'm applying any interpretation to
this), what exactly does this statement mean to you: For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a
changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all
eternity Especially in light of this statement: By these things we know that there is a God in heaven,
who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same
unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which
are in them Next, when you have answered that, explain what
this statement means to you (again, I feel I've applied no
interpretation): We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all
eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you
may see Since you have continued to accuse me of
misinterpreting these, without actually answering any of my posts, nor
showing how I have supposedly "misinterpreted" these, I would
honestly like to know your "interpretation" of these (what I
consider to be rather clear) statements. If you show me to be "in error" as you have stated above, I
would be happy to recant this statement. However, it seems that the
reason you have only made these "hit-and-run" posts, without
really giving any form of argument, is that you are guilty of exactly
what you are accusing me of: applying interpretation to these
statements that does not fit the statements. Keep in mind when responding that your theology should not determine
the understanding of your scriptures; your scriptures should
determine your theology. I look forward to your response. [Instead of getting a reply from Mormon #1,
Chad recieved the following from Mormon #2:] 1. What does Endless and Eternal
mean? 4 And surely every man must
repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless. Bible
Dictionary: Hell An English translation of the
Hebrew word Shoel, hell signifies an abode of departed spirits and
corresponds to the Greek Hades. In common speech it generally
denotes the place of torment for the wicked, although it has been often
held, both in the Jewish and the Christian churches, that Hades (meaning
broadly the place of all departed spirits) consists of two parts,
paradise and Gehenna, one the abode of the righteous and the other of
the disobedient. "Gehenna," or "Gehenna of fire," is
the Greek equivalent of the "valley of Hinnom," a deep glen of
Jerusalem where the idolatrous Jews offered their children to Moloch (2
Chr. 28: 3; 2 Chr. 33: 6; Jer. 7: 31; Jer. 19: 2-6). It was afterwards
used as a place for burning the refuse of the city (2 Kgs. 23: 10), and
in that way became symbolical of the place of torment (Matt. 5: 22,
29-30; Matt. 10: 28; Matt. 18: 9; Matt. 23: 15, 33; Mark 9: 43, 45, 47;
Luke 12: 5; James 3: 6). Expressions about "hell-fire"
are probably due to the impression produced on men's minds by the sight
of this ceaseless burning, and are figurative of the torment of those
who willfully disobey God. In
latter-day revelation hell is spoken of in at least two senses.
One is the temporary abode in the spirit world of those who were
disobedient in this mortal life. It is between death and the
resurrection, and persons who receive the telestial glory will abide
there until the last resurrection (D&C 76: 84-85, 106), at which
time they will go to the telestial glory. *In this sense the Book
of Mormon speaks of spiritual death as hell* (2 Ne. 9: 10-12).
Hell, as thus defined, will have an end, when all the captive spirits
have paid the price of their sins and enter into a degree of glory after
their resurrection. Statements about an everlasting hell (Hel. 6:
28; Moro. 8:13) must be interpreted in their proper context in the light
of D&C 19: 4-12, which defines eternal and endless punishment.
On
the other hand, the devil and his angels, including the sons of
perdition, are assigned to a place spoken of as a lake of fire - a
figure of eternal anguish. **This condition is sometimes called
hell in the scriptures** (2 Pet. 2: 4; D&C 29: 38; D&C 88: 113).
This kind of hell, which is after the resurrection and judgment, is
exclusively for the devil and his angels, and is not the same as that
consisting only of the period between death and resurrection. The
one group are redeemed from hell and inherit some degree of glory.
The other receive no glory. They continue in spiritual darkness. For
them the conditions of hell remain. -
http://scriptures.lds.org/bdh/hell 12
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books
were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and
the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the
books, according to their works. Hell is cast into the
lake of fire. This is Outer darkness. 31 Thus saith the Lord
concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers
thereof, and suffered themselves Here is a little tidbit
on the subject: Joseph was not allowed to know all about it.
47 Nevertheless, I, the Lord,
show it by vision unto many, but straightway shut it up again; Bible
Dictionary: Damnation As used in the KJV this word
has a wider meaning than is at once apparent from modern usage.
Damnation is the opposite of salvation, and exists in varying degrees.
All who do not obtain the fulness of celestial exaltation will to some
degree be limited in their progress and privileges, and hence be damned
to that extent. See Matt. 23: 14, 33; Mark 3: 29; Mark 16: 16; John 5:
29; Rom. 13: 2; 1 Cor. 11: 29; 2 Ne. 9: 24; 3 Ne. 18: 28-29; D&C 58:
26-29; D&C 84: 74; D&C 112: 29; D&C 132: 4, 6, 27. Do you believe that
there are differing degrees of damnation? I see no interpretation of anything here. [Mormon #2 asked:] 1. What does Endless and Eternal
mean? I already gave a definition of "eternity" in the above post
titled "Do you really need a definition here?" But here
is the definition from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
Version published 1913: ETERNAL Eternal /E·ter´nal/ (?), a. And "eternity": ETERNITY Eternity /E·ter´ni·ty/ (?), n. I've also decided to include the definition for
"everlasting," from the same dictionary: EVERLASTING Everlasting /Ever·last´ing/ (?) a. And finally, here is Strong's definition of the [Hebrew]
word translated "everlasting" in Ps. 90:2 - 05769 `owlam o-lawm' or lolam o-lawm'; from 5956;
properly, concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; generally, time out of
mind (past or future), i.e. (practically) eternity; frequentatively,
adverbial (especially with prepositional prefix) always:--alway(-s),
ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for,
(n-))ever(-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old
(time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without
end). Compare 5331, 5703. see HEBREW for 05956 see HEBREW for 05331 see
HEBREW for 05703 I think all of these definitions are pretty clear. [Mormon #2 said:] 2. Outer darkness the lake of fire
is endless forever. [Here, Chad replied to the body of Mormon
#2's previous post by breaking it up into sections. Instead of
repeating what has just been said, since it would take up more room than
desirable, I will only include what Chad said in response to his post:]
Neither of these have anything to do with the quotes in question. While you have always been quite pleasant in your posting, [Mormon
#2], and you continue to be so here, I am left to wonder if you
actually read the questions. None of what you have written here in any
way explains what you believe the statements I quoted mean. Would you
care to give your understanding of the quotes in this post: What is your
interpretation of these quotes? [I would like to here emphasize the point
that instead of answering the question that Chad has asked (how would a
Mormon interpret the original quotes), Mormon #2 completely side-stepped
the question.] This is how Joseph may have understood
the term Eternity to Eternity and Eternal Punishment etc. The part of
the D&C that I quoted explains this. That is the only reason I
placed it there. This would also have been my reply.
Chad, don't try and apply your doctrinal interpretations/definitions on
the LDS doctrine. Of course there will be conflict, because the
traditional "Christian" doctrine is in an apostate state.
Once again, I have applied nothing to the statements I have quoted. And you have yet to show how any of these statements are understood
in a way other than what they clearly state. If you feel you need to
"apply LDS doctrine" to them in order to understand them,
please "apply" your doctrine to them and explain what they
mean rather than avoiding the question, as you continue to do. [Mormon #2 said:] This is how Joseph may have understood
the term Eternity to Eternity and Eternal Punishment etc. The part of
the D&C that I quoted explains this. That is the only reason I
placed it there. These are really more rabbit trails, but I will indulge you before
making my own point. [In response to Doctrines & Covenants
19:4-12, which is restated below, Chad said:] 4 And surely every man must
repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless. The idea of those "found on my left hand"
is an obvious reference to Matthew 25, where the Bible says: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he
shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep
from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but
the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his
right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared
for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye
gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and
ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me:
I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer
him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee ? or
thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee
in? or naked, and clothed thee ? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison,
and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily
I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of
these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto
them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting
fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an
hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not:
sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer
him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a
stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto
thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch
as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And
these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the
righteous into life eternal.
Second, if this is the scripture to which D&C 19 is alluding (and
I really can't find any others that it could be referencing), D&C 19
is clearly in error when it states that "it is not written that
there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless
torment." It is written that they shall depart "into
everlasting fire," which, according to Rev. 20, is a place where
they "shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." So
yes, it is written that there shall be no end to this torment. [In response to "Bible Dictionary:
Hell", Chad said:] While this is all interesting, the Bible makes only a distinction
between those who are cast into the lake of fire, and those who are not.
Beyond that, there are different rewards based on our works during our
life on earth (1 Cor. 3:1-15, Rev. 22:12). [In response to Mormon #2's comment,
"Hell is cast into the lake of fire. This is Outer
darkness", Chad said:] Yes, hell is cast into the lake of fire, and so are "whosoever
was not found written in the book of life" (Revelation 20:15).
Interesting that this quote of yours is cut off at verse 14. As stated
above, the judgement of works here is for rewards to those who are not
cast into the lake of fire, and possibly degree of torment for those who
are cast into the lake of fire. [In response to Mormon #2's question,
"Do you believe that there are differing degrees of
damnation?", Chad said:] I would say there are different degrees of suffering in eternal
torment. I would disagree with this definition of damnation, as the
Bible clearly speaks of damnation as being cast into the lake of fire,
which is eternal torment, not a limiting of "progress and
priveleges." The Bible speaks of no such thing. Now that I've dealt with your rabbit trails, let us once again return
to the issue at hand. Directly from Mormon scriptures: "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a
changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all
eternity" "By these things we
know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from
everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of
heaven and earth, and all things which are in them" Now from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith:
"We have imagined and supposed that God was God from
all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that
you may see." None of these have anything to do with the KJV. The
use of eternity in the statement "from all eternity to all
eternity" (Moroni 8:18) is clearly a time reference, and not an
appellation of God. D&C 20:17 repeats this ideas using the words
"infinite" and "eternal" (again, clearly not as
appellations), and makes an equivalent statement to Moroni 8:18 when it
says "from everlasting to everlasting" (again, clearly a time
reference and not an appellation). The statement in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six
is also clearly a time reference, as it says "from all
eternity." Another important point is, regardless of how you choose to define
"eternity," the phraseology in the quotes is identical; thus
there is no justification for believing that there are two different
definitions in view: "...God is...unchangeable from all eternity..." "We have imagined and
supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea,
..." The evidence is abundantly clear. So instead of
dancing around the subject with questions about the definition of
eternity, or how the KJV may or may not have used these terms, how about
addressing these statements? Though (as I said in another post) Joseph
Smith may not have set out to refute the "scriptures" which
came from his own hand, that is precisely what he does. It is not a
matter of interpretation. It is not a matter of a different
understanding of the words "eternity" or
"everlasting." It is a matter of clear statements that are
incontroverably contradictory. So once again, I ask, please tell me how you "interpret"
Moroni 8:18, D&C 20:17, and the statement I have here quoted from Teachings
of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six. [Finally, five days later, Mormon #2 said in
reply to Chad:] What is your understanding of For Ever?
Yes, hell is cast into the lake of fire,
and so are "whosoever was not found written in the book of
life" (Revelation 20:15). Interesting that this quote of yours is
cut off at verse 14. As stated above, the judgement of works here is for
rewards to those who are not cast into the lake of fire, and possibly
degree of torment for those who are cast into the lake of fire. Are you saying that Hell as stated above
is not eternal? Speaking of eternal do you believe that
eternal and for ever mean the same? If so please explain the
following scriptures. I have surely built thee an
house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in for ever. And
the LORD said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication,
that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou
hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and mine heart
shall be there perpetually. And
now, O LORD God, the word that thou hast spoken concerning thy servant,
and concerning his house, establish it for ever, and do as thou hast
said. And
in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the
nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan,
captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem: And
he burnt the house of the LORD, and the king's house, and all the houses
of Jerusalem, and every great man's house burnt he with fire... 13
And the pillars of brass that were in the house of the LORD, and the
bases, and the brasen sea that was in the house of the LORD, did the
Chaldees break in pieces, and carried the brass of them to Babylon. The Temple of Solomon
was built and then destroyed. If it was to last for ever why did
it get destroyed? The ordinances were also to be observed for
ever. Was not the law of Moses stopped after Christ died? And this day shall be unto
you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout
your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. 23
For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth
the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass
over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your
houses to smite you. Is this the Law of
Moses - Are we to do this? I will look more into your questions on
the two scriptures that you quoted. I still say that what I have
said has a lot to do with undersatnading them. I would like to
know what you answer is on this For Ever topic. I think you see
where I am coming from. Does he mean For Ever in the way we
understand it? I have continued to answer your questions, now how about answering
mine? I have asked very simple questions, yet no LDS has even
attempted to answer them, yourself included. When you answer my
questions, I will continue to answer yours. Please stop avoiding
the issue. Thank you.
[Chad said:] Directly from Mormon scriptures: "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable
being; but he is unchangeable [Mormon #2 replied:] Here
is my answer: This
has simply to say that God is Faithful; that is, we can trust him he
does not change. This is not deep. God has always taught
that little chldren need not repent therefore do not need to be baptized
(Moroni 8: 18-20). [Chad
replied:] This does not refer to
just changing His mind or His ways; it says He is not a "changeable
being." His state of being is unchangeable "from all
eternity to all eternity." He always has been God and always will
be God (this goes hand in hand with what the Bible teaches about God as
well, though it blatantly and irreconcilably contradicts Smith's
statements in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith). [You
said: "God has always taught that little chldren need not
repent therefore do not need to be baptized (Moroni 8: 18-20)."]
What does this have to
do with God's state of being being unchangeable? [Chad said:] "By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is
infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same
unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which
are in them" - D&C 20:17 [Mormon #2 replied:] From
everlasting to everlasting is explained in my previous post. That is
eternally before earth and eternally after earth but then again so are
we as far as our intelligences are concerned. [Chad
replied:] Yes, He is eternall
before earth and eternally after earth, and in that time span, He is
"the same unchangeable God." So He cannot have been a man at
any time - again, a blatant and irreconcilable contradiction to Teachings
of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Our
"intelligences" being eternal is quite another issue, but the
LDS are wrong on that - they are not eternal, as Job 38 proves. [Chad said:] Now from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith: "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all
eternity. I will refute that idea, and [Mormon #2 replied] He
was speaking of how God became exalted. 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 in 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. In
order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those
who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should
understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for
I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and
supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea,
and take away the veil, so that you may see. These
are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first
principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God,
and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with
another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the
Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself
did; and I will show it from the Bible. Was the baby Jesus eternal?
No, but the intelligence of that worthy child was. Was the young
boy Jesus from eternity? Yes, and so are we. Was he
unchanging? No, in faith and love and wisdom he grew.
Now
I understand why you do not want to answer the For Ever question.
That is up to you. [Chad
replied:] [You
said: He was speaking of how God the became exalted.] Well, Smith here states
that God was not always God (as you have agreed by your statement), but
the two verses above from Moroni 8:18 and D&C 20:17 state quite the
opposite, that God was always God (and again, this is in agreement with
the Bible). So which is it? Has God always been God, or has God not
always been God? Seems Smith had a tough time making up his mind. [You
quoted Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six]
Yes, I read Teachings
of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six, and posted it myself as
well (or did you not notice?). Unfortunately, it disagrees with your own
Scriptures, as I have shown throughout this thread, and in this post as
well. In the post where I quoted all of this, I showed how Smith
utterly failed to prove anything he asserted, especially not from the
Bible. [You
said: Was the baby Jesus eternal? No, but the intelligence
of that worthy child was.] The body was not - the
Spirit (not "intelligence" ) was, and He was God. "In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God" (John 1:1). [You
said: Was the young boy Jesus from eternity? Yes, and so are
we.] Christ was from
eternity, but we were not (read Job and the many posts I've made showing
how the LDS misunderstand Job 38:1-7). [You
said: Was he unchanging? No, in faith and love and
wisdom he grew.] Well, perhaps you can
tell us what it means when the Bible says that: "Jesus Christ the
same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb. 13:8). [You
said: Now I understand why you do not want to answer the For Ever
question. That is up to you.] I can answer the
"for ever" question, and I will (as time permits). However,
you have yet to make a case that holds water to show that Smith did not
contradict the "scriptures" he himself penned. [Mormon #2
replied:] [You
(Chad) said: Well, perhaps you can tell us what it means when the
Bible says that: "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and
for ever" (Heb. 13:8).] Did
Christ change? Luke
2:40 Like
I said before we can trust him he is Faithful. When he says he
will do something he will make it come to pass. Unchanging
principles are so because they come from our unchanging Heavenly Father.
Try as they might, no parliament or congress could ever repeal the law
of earth's gravity or amend the Ten Commandments. Those laws are
constant. All laws of nature and of God are part of the everlasting
gospel. Thus, there are many unchanging principles. Let
me try this once more - Joseph was told that eternal damnation is called
eternal because eternal and endless is his name. Therefore
whatever punishment he gives is "endless" punishment or Gods
punishment. 4 And
surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless. By
these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and
eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the
framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them; For
I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he
is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. Therefore
you can trust what was said in Moroni 8 about the Love of God and how he
will save children. Unchangeable
is translated from the Greek word aparabaton. The usage of that word in
ancient Greek has been examined for years, and no scholar that I know of
has found any reliable example of the word being used to mean
"cannot pass from one to another." However, the translation
"unchangeable" or "immutable" has numerous examples.
Thus, according to known Greek usage, the best translation would be
"unchangeable." For
example, this is the conclusion in Kittel"s Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament: "We should keep to the rendering
"unchangeable" the more so as the active sense
("non-transferable" ) is not attested elsewhere." 2
Moulton"s and And,
what is "For Ever"? Eternal
= Unchangable = For Ever You
have to keep in mind according to where it is used. Eternal in
some cases mean the name of God himself. Eternity to eternity =
from before earth life to after earth life. Eternal is also
indicate the principles of God. [Chad replied:] First, please see again my comments on Matthew 25, Revelation 20, and
D&C 19. [You said:] "Unchangeable" is translated
from the Greek word "aparabaton". Actually, here it is not: Neither D&C nor Moroni were
written in Greek, were they? Isn't Moroni supposed to have been written
in "Reformed Egyptian"? So, to appeal to the Greek is
not applicable here. [You said:] The usage of that word in ancient Greek
has been examined for years, and no scholar that I know of has found any
reliable example of the word being used to mean "cannot pass from
one to another." However, the translation "unchangeable"
or "immutable" has numerous examples. Thus, according to known
Greek usage, the best translation would be "unchangeable."
Even if the Greek were applicable, you are only serving to prove my
point, showing that God's state of being is unchangeable. The idea that
God's state of being is unchangeable completely defeats Joseph Smith's
assertions in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six.
[You said:] For example, this is the conclusion in
Kittel"s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: "We
should keep to the rendering "unchangeable" the more so as the
active sense ("non-transferable" ) is not attested
elsewhere." 2 Moulton"s and Milligan"s The Vocabulary of
the Greek Testament, a compilation of attested Greek usage, says:
"It is clear that there is a very strong case against the rendering
"not transferable." I guess I need to ask: what Scripture is this referring to? I know
Kittel didn't write his dictionary in reference to D&C or The
Book of Mormon, so it must be referring to a particular Bible verse,
and from the looks of this definition, it is pointing to a particular
verse and context. But again, this proves my point. Now, even if I concede that Joseph Smith may have held a different
definition of "eternity" (which actually isn't any of the
words that you've shown he had a reason to hold a different definition
of), it doesn't change the fact that Joseph Smith makes both of the
following statements, with the same phraseology, to which we can apply
his definition in both instances: For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a
changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all
eternity We have imagined and
supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea,
and take away the veil, so that you may see. - Teachings of the Prophet
Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-1844, p. 345 (since Joseph Smith sees fit
to refute this idea, what he is stating is that God is not God from all
eternity to all eternity) So you see, even if Joseph Smith holds to a
different definition of eternity (because, perhaps, The Book of
Mormon espouses a different definition of eternity), it does not
change the fact that he would hold to the same definition espoused by The
Book of Mormon. Thus, you still have Joseph Smith contradicting The
Book of Mormon. This also applies to however Joseph Fielding Smith may wish to
redefine "eternity" as well. Hi Chad I have given you what I feel is an answer
even though you may not accept it as such. We have talked about
Hell and its demise into the lake of fire. The name of God and
Eternal. That is one of his names. Eternal also can mean for
ever. Here is another log for the fire. Eternal life – what does this mean to
the LDS people? For behold, this is my work
and my glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Ask a person of the LDS
faith what immortality is – and he will say I will live for ever I am
immortal. Ask him what Eternal life in this passage is and he may
say According to the following passages what
is life eternal? 2 As thou hast given him
power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as
thou hast given him. Is life eternal to know
and have fellowship with God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ?
Who or what was “that eternal life,
which was with the Father?” The “life” was manifested, and
we have seen it. What was this life? 1 THAT which was from the
beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which
we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, So now you have Eternal
Life as a name of Christ and way of life with the Father as well as
immortality. Three ways of understanding the term eternal. So what you're saying is you can't answer the charges that:
That is fine. I didn't expect you to concede this.
But I think I've made the point sufficiently for any objective observer
to see Thank you for the time you've spent in defending your position here. Yes Eternal is Gods name. Life
eternal is to know the Only true God and Jesus Christ. Yes God is
from all eternity as we all are. We are created by God formed in
the womb of our Mothers. Jesus Christ was also created or formed
in his Mothers womb. But this creation did not take away that he was
alive before he was born on the earth. We are all immortal intelligences.
At least that is what I believe. [Mormon #2 said: "Yes Eternal is
Gods name. Life eternal is to know the Only true God and Jesus
Christ. Yes God is from all eternity as we all are."] Okay, now you admit that God "is from all eternity." Are
you saying that God "is God from all eternity"?
If so, then you are contradicting what Joseph Smith said in Teachings
of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six. This is the point I've
been trying to get at the whole time. (And only LDS believe that we are "from all eternity" - but
this is not biblical, as I have shown numerous times from Job 38). [Mormon #2 said: "We are created
by God formed in the womb of our Mothers. Jesus Christ was also
created or formed in his Mothers womb. But this creation did not take
away that he was alive before he was born on the earth. We are all
immortal intelligences."] Again, this contradicts sound biblical teaching. [Mormon #2 said: "At least that is
what I believe."] And that is certainly up to you. I neither can, nor do I intend to
try, to make you believe anything other than what you want to. All I can
do is speak the truth. Here is a more clear statement on the
subject How
God is Everlasting God is an Exalted Man Some
people are troubled over the statements of the Prophet Joseph Smith as
found in the King Follett sermon delivered in Nauvoo in 1844. The matter
that seems such a mystery is the statement that our Father in heaven at
one time passed through a life and death and is an exalted man. This is
one of the mysteries, and to some it appears to contradict other
statements in the scriptures. Naturally there are many things that we
will not comprehend while in this mortal life and we will not be able to
fathom all of the difficulties that lie before us. Our understanding is
limited and we judge according to the things we know and with which we
are familiar. The things of eternity we will not understand until we
reach the goal of eternal life, when all things will be made clear.
We
read in the scriptures that God is "infinite and eternal, from
everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God";" that
he is "the same yesterday, today, and forever"; that he
"is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." How does
this conform to the Prophet's teaching: "God himself was once as we
are now, and is an exalted man, . . . that he was once a man like us;
yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same
as Jesus Christ himself did"? Christ
Born; Yet from Everlasting Now
I suppose that we all understand the fact that Jesus Christ was Jehovah,
who led Israel in the days of Abraham and Moses, and in fact from the
days of Adam. Also that Jehovah, or Jesus Christ, as a personage of
Spirit appeared to the Brother of Jared, and that he was born a babe in
this world and grew to manhood in this world and therefore he did not
always have a tangible body. Yet Jesus says of himself that he is
"the first and the last," and that he is "the beginning
and the end, the same which looked upon the wide expanse of eternity,
and all the seraphic hosts of heaven, before the world was made."
The
Prophet says: "If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John
discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may
suppose that he had a Father also." Then he asks:
"Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there
ever a father without first being a son?" He points out that
the Savior declared that he would do the things his Father did, that is,
lay down his life and take it again. Let
me ask, are we not taught that we as sons of God may become like him?
Is not this a glorious thought? Yet we have to pass through
mortality and receive the resurrection and then go on to perfection just
as our Father did before us. The Prophet taught that our Father
had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought,
especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may
become like him? How
God is from Eternity to Eternity However,
the thing that seems so puzzling is the statement that God is "the
same yesterday, today and forever"; that he is "from all
eternity to all eternity." Well, is not this true, and is
there any conflict with the thought that he has passed through the same
states that we are destined to do? From eternity to eternity means
from the spirit existence through the probation which we are in, and
then back again to the eternal existence which will follow. Surely
this is everlasting, for when we receive the resurrection, we will never
die. We all existed in the first eternity. I think I can say of
myself and others, we are from eternity; and we will be to eternity
everlasting, if we receive the exaltation. The intelligent part of
man was never created but always existed. That is true of each of
us as well as it is of God, yet we are born sons and daughters of God in
the spirit and are destined to exist forever. Those who become
like God will also be from eternity to eternity.
|