4

I say ‘gods’ because of the LDS doctrine of the plurality of gods. They believe in more than one God.

I’ve now become confused with an LDS answer to this recent question, asking how the LDS view of ‘eternity’ is unique. How is the LDS view of eternity unique?

The chosen answer eventually admits that, “we know from President Snow that our Father had a beginning”. Please read the whole of the official LDS link here to see that this is official LDS doctrine: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1982/02/i-have-a-question/is-president-snows-statement-as-man-now-is-god-once-was-as-god-now-is-man-may-be-accepted-as-official-doctrine?lang=eng

I understand that this Father in heaven is called Jehovah. See this official LDS link: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/jehovah?lang=eng&letter=j “Jehovah - It denotes “the eternal I AM.” Jehovah is the premortal Jesus Christ and came to earth as a son of Mary (Mosiah 3:8; 15:1; 3 Ne. 15:1–5).”

But this is confusing because this Jehovah (who later became the man, Jesus) is said to have been born as a spirit baby to the god Elohim and his spirit wife. He is said to be their firstborn offspring, one of many. “God the Son: The God known as Jehovah is the Son, Jesus Christ… he is the eldest of the spirit children of Elohim… it was actually Jesus who was the Creator under the direction of God the Father.” Jesus Christ: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/jesus-christ?lang=eng
Jehovah: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/jehovah?lang=eng&letter=j

This means that the LDS Father had a beginning, a starting point in time, and so did his father, Elohim, and so did all the other gods going back and back and back – into eternity?

How can one who calls himself “the eternal I AM” have a starting point in time, requiring a superior being to birth him, and that his creator also had to be birthed, ad infinitum? Surely any such one would have to say “I became the eternal I AM” (once he was created, with ‘eternal’ only meaning from that time on into the eternal future)?

The answer I refer to clearly shows that the LDS view of “eternity” only means from the point of time of that being’s creation, going on into an eternal future. I’m not asking about that.

My confusion is that if they say Jehovah is “the eternal I AM” but he was created by Elohim, and Elohim likewise was created by a previous god, then there cannot be any god (in their estimation) who claims to be the eternal, self-existent One, without beginning or end. Is that actually true, or have I misunderstood? Or do they say that Elohim is the eternal, uncreated, self-existent One?

EDIT CORRECTION I misunderstood when I said (above) that the LDS Father in heaven is called Jehovah. Join JBH on Codidact pointed that out in his comment below. Also, depperm said in his answer here, “Jesus/Jehovah and Elohim are eternal”. Then Hold to the Rod said in his answer to another LDS Q – “Latter-day Saints believe that Jehovah is not the name of God the Father, but rather is the pre-mortal name of Jesus… God as a title, not a personal name” Then from the official LDS site, https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/godhead?lang=eng “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.. These three beings make up the Godhead… They acknowledge the Father as the ultimate object of their worship,”

So LDSs pray to Elohim in the name of the one he birthed as a spirit (Jehovah), who later he created as the man, Jesus. The LDS worship Elohim, who – to them – is the heavenly Father. I’ve finally got it!

Anne
  • 29,661
  • 1
  • 34
  • 116
  • born as a spirit baby to the god Elohim and his spirit wife. not exactly (I'm fairly certain you won't find the phrase spirit baby in LDS doctrine, unless maybe specifically referencing spirits of babies). The way intelligences become spirits is not a known process/doctrine. Doctrine on Heavenly Mother is basically, it would make sense we have one. – depperm Mar 16 '22 at 12:54
  • I feel like we've had like 3 questions about this in the past week. Can you clarify how those questions don't address this question (one, two)? – depperm Mar 16 '22 at 12:57
  • 2
    @depperm This question is quite specific : it is asking for genuine clarification on an obscure point regarding the eternal (or otherwise) nature of the deities/Deity who are/is being described by certain persons. Surely it cannot be difficult to clear up such a fundamental question ? The reason it is taking so many question, in my view, is because there is continued obscurity. A clear, unequivocal statement would be useful, I feel. – Nigel J Mar 16 '22 at 12:59
  • @NigelJ quite specific...there are like 5 (6 if include title) questions here. Can this be narrowed down to single point? – depperm Mar 16 '22 at 13:01
  • 1
    @depperm The single question is the entire last paragraph. I think it is quite clear and unambiguous. – Nigel J Mar 16 '22 at 13:02
  • 1
    @depperm I have an official LDS booklet called "What the Mormons Think of Christ" (1976). On p.25 it explains Christ as the Firstborn. "However little the doctrine is known... all men lived in a premortal estate before they were born into this world; all were born in the premortal existence as the spirit children of the Father. Christ was the firstborn spirit child". We all know children are born as babies, so if Christ was the firstborn spirit child of Elohim and his wife, it's reasonable to think 'born as a spirit baby' just as he was born a human baby. But say spirit child if you prefer. – Anne Mar 16 '22 at 13:11
  • 1
    @depperm Given the LDS view of eternity as only applying forwards, once deity is created, my question is, Do they believe any deity was uncreated, existing from eternity (going backwards), thus self-existent (not requiring another to birth them)? – Anne Mar 16 '22 at 13:18
  • @Anne I think this last comment of yours, "Do they believe any deity was uncreated, existing from eternity (going backwards), thus self-existent (not requiring another to birth them)?" is the actual question, which I understood from the OP but which I also think is not quite clearly presented there. Perhaps an OP overhaul would leave fewer possible tangents toward obscurity? – Mike Borden Mar 16 '22 at 13:31
  • 3
    @MikeBorden The obscurity is that 'eternal' means something and the word is being taken and used for something that is not eternal. 'Immortal' would be the word to use of a being who begins (somewhen) and then continues in an indefinite existence. The English word 'eternal' does not mean 'immortal' . . . . . is the whole of the obscurity. Nor can an immortal say 'I am that I am' : they should say 'I am that I was made'. – Nigel J Mar 16 '22 at 13:35
  • 2
    I think that D&C 93:29 is very clear and relevant. Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. This appears to me to be the deification of man above all that is called God - 2 Thessalonians 2:4 (and the deification of 'mind' above the Creator). It therefore changes the foundation of the question about eternal Deity and introduces an 'eternal humanity' (which appears to be superior as the 'deity' serves the 'humanity'). – Nigel J Mar 16 '22 at 17:32
  • 2
    @Nigel Indeed. "From everlasting (olam olam) to everlasting (olam olam) thou art God". Where olam olam indicates "to the horizon...and again...". Everyone limiting eternity is in direct contradiction to Scripture. – Mike Borden Mar 17 '22 at 13:13
  • I understand that this Father in heaven is called Jehovah That is not what the Church teaches (not even the link you provided) nor what LDS members believe. Oddly, it's what Catholicism believes. You can start by reading the LDS reference to "Father in Heaven", whom we name Elohim. Also, if you read my post more closely, you'll note that "eternal" is from the perspective of Mortality. Only the Father has a perspective greater than that. – JBH Mar 23 '22 at 03:42
  • @Join JBH on Codidact Thank you for the correction. I see I misunderstood. The heavenly Father whom you worship is named Elohim, not Jehovah. I will add an edit to my Q to state that correction. It seems to me that if the LDS just openly spoke about Elohim, instead of this ambiguous ‘God’ title (which no other religions ever call Elohim) the LDS theology of God would instantly become quite clear. Would you consider answering my Q now? – Anne Mar 23 '22 at 16:10
  • @JoinJBHonCodidact - Am I correct in thinking that LDS say the first spirit offspring of Heavenly Father (Elohim) and Heavenly Mother was named Jehovah, and that Jehovah had to come to earth to be born as a human and this was Jesus? – Lesley Mar 23 '22 at 17:58

1 Answers1

3

TLDR: As noted in comments your question(s) are in the final paragraph:

...Is that actually true, or have I misunderstood?

I would say you have misunderstood in part. You are correct that the LDS believe Jehovah/Jesus is the first begotten child of Elohim, but that doesn't remove the eternal nature of either.

Or do they say that Elohim is the eternal, uncreated, self-existent One?

Elohim is also eternal, less is known about his "beginning/creation" (this is in reference to the couplet: As man now is, God once was) as you reference it, but again He is still eternal. The only theology the LDS have on "self-existent" is that intelligences are/were. (see below D&C 93:29) One would probably be safe to say that as spirits are formed from intelligences, we all were "self-existent", though how that definition ties into our current phase is complicated.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe all beings are eternal in nature. The phases/stages of one's eternal nature:

  1. intelligences:

    the spirit element that existed before we were begotten as spirit children.

    D&C 93:29

    29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

    Abraham 3:22

    22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

    The exact process/transition from intelligence to spirit is unspecified in LDS theology. (while intelligences probably fall under your definition of "self-existent" past this point "self-existent" probably doesn't apply-but in a sense it does)

  2. spirits

    That part of a living being that exists before mortal birth, dwells in the physical body during mortality, and exists after death as a separate being until the Resurrection....Each person on earth has an immortal spirit body in addition to a body of flesh and bone.

  3. mortality

    Mortality refers to the time from birth until physical death.

  4. immortality

    Immortality is to live forever as a resurrected being. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, everyone will receive this gift. Eternal life, or exaltation, is to live in God’s presence and to continue as families

  5. Exaltation/godhood (continuation of 4)

    Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all people may “progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny.”

So Jesus/Jehovah and Elohim are eternal, as are we all. How many times the process goes back (man becoming god, creating men) is unknown exactly (see this answer) and also isn't pertinent to one's salvation as we only have one God (see this answer). Measuring man's time vs God's time is complicated (see this answer)

On the couplet by Pres Lorenzo Snow (source in OP) “As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.”, its important to remember little has been revealed about the first half of this couplet, and consequently little is taught (again I'd say this isn't pertinent to one's salvation). President Gordan B Hinckley said:

That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.

Q: So you're saying the church is still struggling to understand this?

A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection.

I mention this in part to explain that the LDS have this deep theology (similar questions have been asked in a variety of ways, here are a few questions found on this SE), and there are details we don't know as they aren't pertinent to one's salvation (knowing how intelligences became spirits exactly won't change anything, knowing if God has a God also unimportant as we only have one) and probably because we can't handle the truth (as we all struggle with explaining current doctrine-as there are multiple denominations arguing over meaning over scripture AND this is a complicated subject for a variety of reasons)

depperm
  • 9,271
  • 1
  • 29
  • 43
  • As man is now, God once was. "For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust." God was once dust? This is an immeasurable departure from Scripture which declares "from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God". – Mike Borden Mar 17 '22 at 13:23
  • @MikeBorden how is it immeasurable? I explained the 'stages' of eternal life. We also believe after resurrection everyone will have bodies of flesh and bone-no longer dust. This answer talks specifically about everlasting God with several biblical quotes – depperm Mar 17 '22 at 13:30
  • 1
    It is immeasurable because you have God starting out as a created being (ala Romans 1:23). Everlasting (olam olam) means "to the horizon, and again" so to say eternity past, as far as we can understand it (in the answer you linked), is disingenuous because we understand that the horizon cannot be reached (because it doesn't actually exist other than in our perception) , just as the beginning or end of God is unreachable (because it also does not exist). Psalm 90:2 is a direct and clear statement against God ever having had a beginning or an end. – Mike Borden Mar 17 '22 at 15:49
  • @MikeBorden no one as pointed out starts out as created being (#1)....romans 1:23 is about idols unrelated to OP. Second point is unclear what part of an answer you're referencing but to the horizon, and again doesn't mean much when a higher perspective gives a bigger horizon (mountain vs sea::God vs man). With eternal beings how do you reach the beginning of any of them, and I pointed out everyone is eternal-did you read the whole answer? LDS beliefs have no contradictory beliefs to Psalm 90:2 – depperm Mar 17 '22 at 16:27
  • 1
    "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: " ... except for all the self-existent intelligences? There is another group which likes to parenthetically add to Scripture "For by him were all (other) things made". – Mike Borden Mar 18 '22 at 12:13
  • 1
    A man may live forever by the grace of God but that is a far cry from claiming to be self-existent. To be like God was the temptation that brought ruin in the first place. – Mike Borden Mar 18 '22 at 12:16
  • @MikeBorden I've shared the LDS beliefs on this subject multiple times/ways. If you have further questions feel free to ask a new question. I'm aware you aren't convinced or open minded on the subject, but the nature of this site is to provide answers. I've provided an LDS answer to the OP. – depperm Mar 18 '22 at 12:20
  • 1
    " The only theology the LDS have on "self-existent" is that intelligences are/were." Well not quite, I think. If I understand D&C 93:33 correctly, then matter ("the elements") is also eternal. It doesn't specifically say "not created", but that is what I would understand from the context and the word "eternal". I think Joseph understood creation as organizing. – kutschkem Mar 18 '22 at 15:57
  • @kutschkem that's correct, I was talking about beings, but that is a valid point – depperm Mar 18 '22 at 15:59