Regular audio starts at minute 4.
For a written synopsis of the thirteen reasons visit GodNeverSinned.com
Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
God the Father wasn’t saved from sin like the rest of us. Being exalted with an immortal body is considered “saved” from mortal death. In this sense, Christ was also a “saved” being since He overcame death.
“Saved” in Romney’s talk is simply describing the fact that a person had passed through mortality on an earth like this and exists in a celestial state of perfection.
The word meaning saved is only used in terms of being saved from death, damnation, destruction, sin, bondage/slavery or condemnation in the Bible.
So there is no verse in the Bible that talks about God being saved from death. God is eternal, he always was, is and will be what he always was:
“Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.” (Psalm 90:2, ESV)
God always has and always will be God. God’s nature, that he has always been God cannot change:
“For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed” (Malachi 3:6, ESV)
If God is always God, then he doesn’t need to be saved from anything. He is eternally the same. Man changes, but God doesn’t change. Man sins, God doesn’t. Man dies, but God doesn’t.
Or perhaps you can share an explanation that makes sense of these preceding verses.
Thanks faithoffathers!
@faithoffathers
I left out this verse:
“Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.” (Romans 1:23, ESV)
If God is immortal for everlasting to everlasting and he doesn’t change, can God(the Father) be saved from death? He can’t be, because he could never die.
RikkiJ,
You stated, “The word meaning saved is only used in terms of being saved from death, damnation, destruction, sin, bondage/slavery or condemnation in the Bible.”
And that is why President Romney was explicit and clear in defining the peculiar sense of the word he was using.
Is Christ “everlasting to everlasting?” Yes. But He died, didn’t He?
Same with the Father.
But neither of Them sinned.
I recognize that your beliefs are very different. But these are our beliefs. And our doctrines, canon, and statements from our leaders cannot be reconciled with the possibility of God ever having been a sinner.
RikkiJ
Actually, there is still no problem, and Artistic Liscense does a beautiful job of explaining this. (Oh, and Acts 13: 33 would have been a better reference as it directly states that they are quoting Psalms 2).
First, this is a poem and thus, like many poems, there are two meanings to be found. He makes references to his king and anointing and the hill of Zion. Thus, one thing that the poet was talking of was the anointing of King David (the writer of the psalm), who is proclaimed a Son by Jehovah. However, through this symbolism of the anointing of an earthly King, to whom much blessing is given, we also have the prophecy of the Son of God, anointed King over all the Earth, to whom even greater blessings are given.
Thus, through artistic liscense we see that David uses the name of Jehovah to signify both his anointing as well as Christ’s. Thus, when Paul references this, he is using the more subtle and prophetic meaning, and is thus attributing this to the Father, as the symbolism used by the author would logically suggest.
Now, I really don’t want to get into a debate on the origins of God and what various verses in the Bible actually mean. That is not important to the discussion at hand. FoF is correct when he says that nothing spoken by any of our leaders, or found in any of our scriptures, can be reconciled with the idea of God having ever sinned.
Fifth Monarchy
You really need to get things straight before you go around spreading false statements about others.
You said “In another thread Shem was arguing that the apostasy could happen because Jesus had not “yet” taken his place at the right hand of the Father.”
Now, I have never once stated that Christ had not yet taken his place at the right hand of the Father. I get where you might squeeze this idea out of what I did say, but that is your problem, not mine. We were discussing a very small aspect of doctrine and scriptural interpretation, and I said nothing outside that very narrow topic. So, before you go around telling lies about me, try to get it the facts right.
Q. Can we achieve god hood since we are different than the Father and the Son?
A. Yes, as that difference has no direct meaning to our potential in this area.
Q. If you say yes how can you possibly know that given the fact the “gods” we know of are fundamentally different than the us and saved in a different sense.
A. They are not fundamentally different; no more than an adult is fundamentally different than a baby. Thus, we know that we can by the same reasoning that we know a baby can become an adult.
Q. If we can achieve god hood despite the handicap of being sinful can we perform atonement for our spirit children when the time comes for us to do so or our progeny doomed to not progress?
A. I can’t quote doctrine, as this area is not necessary for our salvation. The workings of eternity are so far beyond our comprehension that anything we say regarding them is speculation.
However, in my opinion, no. First of all, we will be immortal, unable to die, and thus no longer possessing the power required to make such a sacrifice required by the atonement. This is exactly why it was Christ that performed the atonement for us, and not the Father. The Father could not die, as he was immortal.
However, our children are no more doomed to not progress than our parents children are, for an atonement will be made for them. Who will do this and when and how it will work out is not known, nor do I really care. All that matter is that God is perfectly just, and when we become gods ourselves we will be perfectly just, and thus no one will be born without the opportunity of salvation.
shem said,
You really need to get things straight before you go around spreading false statements about others.
I say,
I don’t want to misrepresent you. If i did so I’m sorry.
you said,
Now, I have never once stated that Christ had not yet taken his place at the right hand of the Father. I get where you might squeeze this idea out of what I did say, but that is your problem, not mine. We were discussing a very small aspect of doctrine and scriptural interpretation, and I said nothing outside that very narrow topic.
I say,
Here is where the misunderstanding apparently came . The “small aspect” we were talking about is whether Daniel’s prophecy about Jesus sitting down at the father’s right hand and the establishment of the Church were fulfilled in the first century. You repeatedly said that this prophecy had not been fulfilled.
Are you now saying that the visions in Daniel 2 and 7 were fulfilled at that time? If so then how is it possible for there to have been an apostasy given the specific promise that it would not.
quote:
And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,
(Daniel 2:44)
and,
“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
(Daniel 7:13-14)
end quote:
I’m sorry but it seems that that is your only choice
You say,
However, our children are no more doomed to not progress than our parents children are, for an atonement will be made for them.
I say,
So you are saying that there will be a billions of atonements billions of sacrifices on Billions of planets. Interesting
You say,
and when we become gods ourselves we will be perfectly just, and thus no one will be born without the opportunity of salvation.
I say,
So it will be “perfectly Just” for you create spirit children knowing that you will have to rely on someone else to be the atoning substitute for them. Am I understanding you correctly?
peace
Fifth Monarch
You are correct in understanding where the misunderstanding occurred. You see, in our previous discussion I was only concerned with the timing of the prophecy, and no comment as to anything else.
The prophecy of Daniel 2 was fulfilled in the establishment of the church by Joseph Smith, in the days of the divided kingdoms that came after Rome.
The prophecy of Daniel 7 is fulfilled in part, but not in total. The beginning of it, which is a parallel prophecy to Daniel 2, has been fulfilled. However what comes after it has not. I understand what you believe this prophecy to mean, but I disagree. Now, I am not going to get into a lengthy discussion of the interpretation of this prophecy, as that is not the focus of this thread. However, I will show you how you misunderstand my words.
The misunderstanding comes, quite simply, from your assumption that I agree with your interpretation that “the Ancient of Days” is meant to be the Father. I do not believe this. God is “without beginning of days or end of years” (Alma 13: 7-9; Moses 1: 3; Moses 6: 67) thus we do not measure his existence in days. Because of this it would be inappropriate to call him the Ancient of Days, as that is to say that his existence can be measured in this way.
Rather, the ancient of days refers to the oldest person, or the one whose life was first measured in days. Thus the Ancient of Days is Adam, the first man, and the first to reckon his mortal existence by the rising of the sun each day.
What Daniel is prophesying of is a time when Adam will return to the Earth and all the keys and authorities of the priesthood will be gathered to him, as which point Christ will come and receive his dominion and take his rightful place as King of the Earth, and all nations and people will recognize him as their King.
Now, as I said, I don’t really want to get into a lengthy discussion of this right now, as it is not the topic of the thread. I only wanted to explain to you how what I said in the past does not mean that I believe Christ has not yet taken his place on the right hand of God. He has, and sits in his throne in heaven. What he hasn’t done is to claim his throne here on earth. That event is still to come, and that is what Daniel is prophesying of.
Q. So you are saying that there will be a billions of Atonements billions of sacrifices on Billions of planets.
A. I am saying I have no clue how it will all work out, I know that it will. I do know that the Atonement of Jesus Christ did not only save the people of this planet, but of all the worlds created by the Father.
D&C 76: 22-24 “And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!
For we saw him, even on the bright hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—
That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.”
Q. So it will be “perfectly Just” for you create spirit children knowing that you will have to rely on someone else to be the atoning substitute for them. Am I understanding you correctly?
A. As long as the Atonement is made how is it unjust?
You say,
Thus the Ancient of Days is Adam, the first man, and the first to reckon his mortal existence by the rising of the sun each day.
I say,
All I can say is wow.
So ADAM sits on the throne of heaven being served by ten thousand times ten thousand and judging the world (verse 9&10) and giving the Kingdom to Christ and his Church (7:22). I don’t even know how to respond to such blasphemy.
and this was supposed to be less offensive than saying that Jesus has not yet taken his place at the fathers side yet. GO figure
You say,
As long as the Atonement is made how is it unjust?
I say,
So an innocent man with no relationship at all to the “Spirit children” you create is killed so they won’t have to face the consequences of their actions. And you don’t see the injustice.
Wow again I am just speechless
peace
Fifth Monarchy
You said “So ADAM sits on the throne of heaven”
Again you put words in my mouth. Did you not read what I said. Adam does not sit on the throne of Heaven. He sits on the throne of Earth, as the first and greatest Patriarch of this Earth, and thus the Father and head of all men who have ever been born. When Christ comes he will turn over the rulership of the Earth to him.
I never made any mention of Heaven. Again you assume that I share your interpretation of this prophecy. I do not. This prophecy deals with the Earth, not with Heaven. Read in verse 13 again and you will see that clearly Christ is already on his throne in Heaven, for he brings the clouds of Heaven with him, or in other words, his Divine glory.
You say “So an innocent man with no relationship at all to the “Spirit children” you create is killed so they won’t have to face the consequences of their actions. And you don’t see the injustice.”
Who says he will have no relation. Again you are making assumptions and putting words in my mouth. In heaven we are a family; a large extended family. So what if it is the Son of Jesus that actually performs the atonement. Jesus is my Older Brother, and with him is the Birthright, and thus it is with his Son. Maybe my children will be saved through the acts of their cousin. Does it really matter?
After all, in basic Christian doctrine there is no direct relationship between God and Man, and thus it was one that was no relation that performed the atonement. Why is such an injustice when we say that it might be a distant relative?
Again, I ask where is the injustice? Explain it to me. You have declared it to be unjust but have given no explanation as to why it is so. So tell me how it is unjust.
Shem
Adam does not sit on the throne of Heaven. He sits on the throne of Earth
I say,
Of course you understand this is probably the most blasphemous thing I have ever heard. How can anyone possibly read the imaginary of 9-13 describing anything but God. When Jesus alluded to this prophecy the High Priest understood him to be speaking of God and claiming equality with him. Do you honestly believe that first century Jews would think it was blasphemy to claim equality with Adam?
When Satan is said to be the ruler of the world it is by way of usurpation. You would have Jesus giving deference to Adam as ruler of the world. WOW
The Mormons I have dealt with up till now are a little more discrete in their Polytheism and idolatry. I’ll let you have the last word on this one.
You say
So what if it is the Son of Jesus that actually performs the atonement. Jesus is my Older Brother, and with him is the Birthright, and thus it is with his Son. Maybe my children will be saved through the acts of their cousin. Does it really matter?
I say,
If just anyone could pay for sins why did Jesus come to die? Would it have been OK if Moroni died in your place?
You say,
Again, I ask where is the injustice? Explain it to me. You have declared it to be unjust but have given no explanation as to why it is so. So tell me how it is unjust.
I say,
suppose I create a conscious robot that runs amok and kills people and destroys property. Who is responsible for his actions? The answer is obvious either him of the guy who created him (me).
The same is true when if my kid recklessly breaks a window. It would not be just to have his rich cousin from Europe pay for the damage. either he must do it or his guardian must (again me). This is just ethics 101.
I guess I’m not surprised that some one who thinks Adam right now sets on a throne being served by ten thousand times ten thousands and judging the nations by the books might be a little ethically confused.
I’m sorry but I just don’t know how to relate with someone who would give deference like this that only belongs to God to Adam a mere creature.
I really don’t think it’s possible for us to discuss anything. Apparently we have absolutely no point of common ground of contact.
it’s a pity
peace
Fifth Monarchy
I am not going to discuss Daniel’s prophecy anymore. You continually put words into my mouth simply by trying to imprint your understanding of that prophecy on ours. It doesn’t work and it never will. We do not give deference to Adam that should be given to God. We give only what should be given as he is the Grand Patriarch of the world, ruling under the direction and leadership of the Godhead.
As to justice, you leave out several points in your little explanation. If my son breaks a window then, yes, justice demands that he pay for it. But let us consider all things that this story would entail.
He breaks the window. The injured party demands immediate payment or he will press charges in court. My son does not have the funds to make immediate payment, and so his cousin, who has the needed funds, makes the payment for him, thus sparing him the arrest and jail time. However, he does not simply erase the debt. Justice has not been defeated. My son now owes his cousin the debt, and his cousin lays out the terms for repayment. If those terms are not met then justice will claim the debt and my son will be taken to court by his cousin.
This is what Christ has done for us, and what will be done for our children. He has paid the dept, which is a perfectly just thing to do. He has then laid out the terms by which we are enabled to repay the debt to him.
We all have to face the consequences of our actions, as will our children. I have never said otherwise, and your attempt to characterize my words in this way shows that you don’t really listen to what I say. It is the general Christian view that Christ saves us from facing the consequences of our actions, not ours.
You said “If just anyone could pay for sins why did Jesus come to die?”
Did I ever say that just anyone could pay for sins? No, I never made this statement. I said that I do not know or understand at this time how it will all work out, but that I know it will. This does not even imply that just anyone can do it.
No one could have performed the Atonement for us except Christ. No one else had the power and authority to do what he did and live and he lived. Anyone who says otherwise is speaking a grave blaspheme.
But this fact has been revealed to us. The workings of eternity have not. I will not say that I do not have opinions on this point, but they are just opinions, and so I cannot claim to know the truth of the matter, which is why I have not offered any of my opinions. What I know I have said: It will all work out, and it will be perfectly just, for God can be no less than perfectly just.
I agree we should not talk about Daniel anymore I feel almost responsible for the terrible blasphemes you have uttered in your attempt to twist this prophecy to try leave room allow for an apostasy.
shem says,
However, he does not simply erase the debt. Justice has not been defeated. My son now owes his cousin the debt, and his cousin lays out the terms for repayment.
I say,
The only debt that matters in my story is the debt to justice. and the cousin can’t pay that debt only my son or his guardian can pay that debt .
If I understand you correctly in your view all that Christ sacrifice did was change the person to whom I owed the debt for my sins. again wow
you say,
No one else had the power and authority to do what he did and live and he lived. Anyone who says otherwise is speaking a grave blaspheme. But this fact has been revealed to us. The workings of eternity have not.
I say,
I’m sorry but you don’t get off that easy. If there was a way “in eternity” for Christ not to have to die he would not have died. It is that simple.
If you know anything at all you know that only a sinless sacrifice is sufficient to redeem
If the world you supposedly create is such that redemption can be accomplished in it with out the blood of Christ then you make yourself out to be smarter and stronger than God himself.
full stop, period, nuff said
peace
Fifth Monarchy
You said “The only debt that matters in my story is the debt to justice. and the cousin can’t pay that debt only my son or his guardian can pay that debt .”
There is no such thing as a debt to justice. Just is an abstract principle, not a concrete entity that collects debts. If the window is broken then the debt is owed to the owner of the window, and justice demands that it be paid. The debt is not to justice. We do not pay a debt to justice, we pay a debt to our creditors, and in so doing satisfy justice.
Thus what I say is perfectly true, as justice does not declare who pays the debt, only that it be paid. So, if the cousin pays the debt then the owner of the window has been justly dealt with and can claim no more debt. However, now just would demand that the cousin be paid, but again does not determine the method or the timing of payment. That is determined by the creditor, or the cousin in this case. Once the debt is paid to the cousin then justice is once again satisfied and there is no more demand for payment.
You said “If I understand you correctly in your view all that Christ sacrifice did was change the person to whom I owed the debt for my sins.”
Than you don’t understand my words at all. Christ did much more than just assume the debt. He arranged a method of payment and a timing that will allow us the opportunity to pay the debt. He didn’t just move the debt, but he made it possible for it to be paid.
Let us go back to the scenario: Your son broke the window. The owner now demands immediate and full payment, in cash. Your son does not have the cash, so your cousin pays the debt. He then tells your son that if he works so many hours for him that the debt will be repaid. Has the cousin simply taken on the debt. No. He has taken the debt and arranged a way for it to be paid that was not available before. This is what Christ did through his atonement. He has assumed our debt and has arranged a way for redemption that was not open to us before.
You said “If the world you supposedly create is such that redemption can be accomplished in it with out the blood of Christ then you make yourself out to be smarter and stronger than God himself.”
Again you put words in my mouth, twisting what I say into something unknown to me. Have I ever denied that a sinless sacrifice was required? Have I ever once said anything to even suggest such a thing? I have said next to nothing regarding the eternities, and yet you keep trying to dig out information that just isn’t there. Stop doing this.
I have told you that I am not going to speak concerning the things of eternity because they are not revealed directly to man and we do not have, nor can we have, a full understanding of them. Leave it alone and stop trying to make my words say more than what they do.
you said,
I have told you that I am not going to speak concerning the things of eternity because they are not revealed directly to man and we do not have, nor can we have, a full understanding of them.
I say,
Here is the problem with that approach.
You do believe lots of things about “eternity”. In fact most of what makes your organization nonchristian is the stuff it believes about “eternity”.
Among other things You believe you will be a god in eternity
What I’m doing is simply showing the blasphemous implications of the beliefs you hold
keep in mind what you believe about eternity determines a lot about how you live in time.
peace
Fifth Monarchy
You said “What I’m doing is simply showing the blasphemous implications of the beliefs you hold”
But your not, and that is the problem. You are showing your perceptions, and generally those perceptions are based on faulty information.
Let me ask you this: What do understand us to mean when we say we can become gods?
shem said,
Let me ask you this: What do understand us to mean when we say we can become gods?
I say,
I understand you to mean that you believe you can become a god.
Conversation is simple for us Christians we just let words mean what they mean.
It was Satan who used ambiguity and equivocation to try and twist simple language so that words have private meanings
If you didn’t mean that you believe you can become a god when I asked you about how the “spirit children” you create will have their sins atoned for you could say something like .
“you misunderstand me, only Yahweh can create, because of my union with Christ some day I expect to be fully conformed to His image (1st john 3:2) and by his grace to share in the Glory of the children of God but I will never create like God because there is only one God” .
or if that was too difficult you could just allow God to say it for himself
Quote:
I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.
(Isaiah 45:5-7)
end quote:
See how easy that could have been .
Instead you spoke blasphemy about Adam on the Throne giving the eternal kingdom to Christ and you not only creating but atoning for your creation without the blood of Christ being necessary.
When Someone speaks like this I can only pass on to him this advice
quote:
“Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth!”
(Psalms 46:10)
end quote;
peace
Hey Shem,
I have a suggestion for you. Check this free book out
http://www.frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/PoythressVernInTheBeginningWasTheWord.pdf
It is all about the Christian understanding of language and meaning. Providentially the author spends some time discussing the way the word “god” is used in scripture.
I think it would be beneficial if you want to see how who hold to biblical Christianity see the diversity yet profound unity in language.
It might help you to understand why Christians believe as we do about this topic. I know it helps me to understand where your position comes from.
peace
Fifth Monarchy
You said “I understand you to mean that you believe you can become a god. Conversation is simple for us Christians we just let words mean what they mean.”
But what does it mean to be a god? That is what I am getting at. We have made no changes to the meaning of the word, but apply it in its most basic form. The problem is that you see only one possible definition for the term, when there are more than one, even in the Bible.
Just not, please, that when we say we will becomes gods it is with a lowercase, not capital. Thus we are not claiming the title that would indicate the supreme being. This is something we will never be. The Father and Jesus will always be over us and be our God. But we will be glorified in heaven with Celestial, exalted bodies, and share in the same kind of life they have, and thus can be called gods. This does not alter the meaning of the word. It simply does not restrict its meaning.
Oh, and again, I have never said anything specific about the eternities, so please don’t put words in my mouth as you are want to do. And Adam has no control over the eternal kingdom. He has been given authority in the Earthly Kingdom by Christ, and will return that authority to him.
You say,
The problem is that you see only one possible definition for the term, when there are more than one, even in the Bible.
I say,
You really need to take a look at the book I suggested.
My understanding takes full account of the multifaceted definition of the word god. No Christian would want to be a god according to any definition. That is the problem.
you say,
I have never said anything specific about the eternities,
I say,
Blasphemies don’t have to be specific to be blasphemies. Sometimes it’s what we won’t say that is the isue more than what we say. For example if I refuse to say “specifically” that the Son is “eternally” God I show contempt for his deity.
You say,
And Adam has no control over the eternal kingdom. He has been given authority in the Earthly Kingdom by Christ, and will return that authority to him.
I say,
Here is the problem with that. God does not give his authority to another.
quote:
The LORD is king forever and ever; the nations perish from his land.
(Psalms 10:16)
end quote:
peace