I love this. As a convert from traditional Christianity I always had a problem with the idea of a infinite regression of God going forward and backwards. I love this view thanks for sharing!
I have never had a problem with infinite regression. Without infinite regression, we're stuck with the problem of what came before. Infinite regression solves this simply. The problem with infinite regression is our finite minds. As for the Father calling a council of gods, it could refer to those who the Father in His perfect foreknowledge knew would themselves become gods such as Jehovah, Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph Smith -- to name a few.
Woh! I've actually been pondering this lately and was brought back by the spirit to read the King follett discourse again and saw some interesting insites. What I find odd about how I learn from the spirit is it's always confirmed later by a second witness. So what I noticed seems to be what you all have noticed as well.
I love this! I have found when I am pondering something often the spirit leads me to a channel or video that answers that exact question I have been pondering
My mental image of all is that it began as an infinitely small mobius strip and, as time passes, that strip is infinitely expanded, and will become infinitely large. God is the strip, and all is part of God. The strip is also not so much a big loop as one that is wrinkled so that any one part of the strip can be, at times, as close to any other part of the strip as possible. The entire strip likely beats like a heart, with the parts of the strip constantly moving closer or farther. All consciousness is part of the strip. It could be thought of as the fabric of the universe.
In my mind I think Joseph Smith was talking about infinite regression. However that is just something that we can talk about around the campfire while we roast hot dogs and eat s'mores what we do need to focus our time on is infinite progression. That's just my thoughts
The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were ‘gods’ and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him-for we can prevent Him, if we choose-He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful, but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said. CS Lewis “Mere Christianity”
Sincere question. This line from the Sermon in the Grove, to me reads like God the Father had a father. Can you help me reconcile it with God being the Eternal Father, Head God? "If Abraham reasoned thus -- 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. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it."
I'm the temple we use the term the most high God. Which suggests there are many but there is one that is greatest of all at least as it has to do with us here on earth.
Coupla things… aren’t we taught that our scriptures only relate to this earth? Also, worlds without number have I created. Can you include and incorporate those teachings in this or a future podcast?
I was only speaking of first gods, and how much less could anyone begin to fathom how many total Gods, each with their own galaxy (as per Joseph Smith - see also "The Kolob Theorum." Continued...
A deeper point is the relationship of these two beings. Joseph taught in the 1840s-and I think it was an extension of what he learned in the Grove that morning-that the statement of the Master about his doing nothing but what he had seen the Father do has infinite implications. How could Jesus have seen the acts of the Father as a witness? President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The statement of our Lord that he could do nothing but what he had seen the Father do, means simply that it had been revealed to him what his Father had done. Without doubt, Jesus came into the world subject to the same condition as was required of each of us-he forgot everything, and he had to grow from grace to grace.” Again, the relationship is exact. If Christ himself was uniquely begotten and was the firstborn in the spirit, and if he was the Christ not only of this earth but also, as the Prophet taught later, of the galaxy, so before him the Father himself was a Redeemer, having worked out the salvation of souls of whom he was a brother, not a father. This is deep water. The conclusion is drawn by Joseph Smith in his King Follett discourse. Whatever else it may mean, and it is mind-boggling, it at least means this: The Father, by experience, knows exactly what his Son has been through. And the Son, by experience, knows exactly what the Father has been through. Therefore, when he says, “I and my Father are one,” he is not expressing a metaphysical identity. He is speaking of oneness of spirit, harmonic throbbings of love and insight that can come only in the patterns of eternal redemption. Sown in the mind of a fourteen-year-old boy, that seed of insight blossomed and grew. From Truman Madsen's talk on Joseph Smith's First Vision Verse in Question John 5:19, I'd also appeal to "If You Could Hie to Kolob"
Joseph Smith clearly said that there is no Father without a Son and that there is no Son without a Father. Therefore there IS NO FIRST GOD. And careful studies will resolve this presumed conflict by understanding that absolutes are relative to a sphere - that sphere being this generation of time. Yes indeed, the almighty God (of this generation) is the Father of all Gods (of this generation). There is indeed an infinite number of Gods because every God there is has a Father.
Those statements are not contradictory if one will consider time as not being linear but like an ever expanding ring wh 11:43 ich can be traversed clockwise and counter clockwise, just as in the spirit diminsion or higher ones it is pissible to do such. That is why God can know things from the beginning and onward! Continued later, msybe...
Space has no limits in any direction. The concept of infinite regression and progression is compatible with an endless universe filled with matter. When singing "if you could hie to kolob" the lyrics "there is no end to space" rings true. I am fascinated by those who refuse to consider the limits of made made trinitarian or false lds notions and reject anything outside the bounds of cultural viewpoints and opinions. Truth is truth and can only be discovered by maintaining an inquiring mind and readiness to reject old/false notions. If we live on beyond this life what are our boundaries to knowledge and capacity? Are we limited or is their unlimited potential? Wouldnt we be bored to tears in a million years without progression of knowledge? It makes sense that at some point in a million, billion, trillion, or trillion of trillion years that our minds and souls would want to reach greater and greater attainments to knowledge in every field of study. Wouldnt we want to learn to create planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc? If there is no end to time and space and material then there is no bounds, unlimited possibilities to creation and progression. Arent the greatest achievements and fulfillment found in our relationships to each other? So endless procreation of children seems like a joyful thought. And then seeking to bring about their eternal fulfillment would likewise follow. I know of nothing so amazing and thought-provoking as lds doctrine on the family and eternity. It transcends every man-made cultural notion of the past all of which seems void of any real vision or purpose on what really matters in relation to eternity. I forever praise God that my family found its way out of protestantism into the light, authority, and power found and experienced in the grand ongoing restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
I'm surprised at a few points made. Consider this. Think of any one Elders quorum. How many are there? 20, 30, doesn't matter. In the back of your mind you know in our dispensation or any part of it the numbers are huge. Now keeping in mind the numbers in tha 1 quorum, if all are faithful at the end of the final council, how many Plan of Salvations will begin to be planned, prepared, and actually begin. When you decide on any number, than you will begin to understand.
I've always wanted to know what the middle tier of the celestial glory was. Now I know. But trying to understand what that actually means responsibility wise is a different question
There is no middle in the celestial . There is only three . Top middle bottom . Only three . All in celestial are one . One . All the same . Then you have middle which of terrestrial and then telestrial which one star differed in gory one from another . All are one in the celestial . Read the section in doctrine and convents on these three degrees of glory . Who goes to each what is required . Celestial is not divided into three parts . All are one there . There are not 6 degrees . Only three . It is not drawn that way a y more . Draw a circle divide in three and write heaven or celestial . In the circle celestial you have terrestrial and telestrial . Only three . Top middle bottom. Too are all the same .
Heiser was great. I really wish that there were better explanations of the Godhead. I grew up understanding that there was God the Father (Elohim) and Jesus Christ (Jehovah) and the Holy Ghost. and that we are children of Elohim, and siblings to Jehovah, also a son of Elohim. BUT then I actually read the scriptures, and while the intercessory prayer in John 17 seems to confirm this view, and shatter Catholicism and Protestantism, I read the D&C and it seems to confirm the Idea of the Trinity, that Jehovah is the Father, and that Jesus is the Son, only as the human avatar of Jehovah. And the D&C and BOM both seem to explain Jehovah as the Father of our spirit, and the being to whom we direct our prayers, as the Father, as we take upon us, or pray, in the NAME of the Son, Jesus Christ. Thus, the more I study, the less clear I am as to who it is I pray at night. and while I have ZERO problem with a Head Honcho GOD as the #1 father and a council of innumerable Gods who have achieved godhood through the divine generations. I just want to know who it is I pray to at night. the church really has not done a good job of explaining it.
Yes Buddy, but the term Only Begotten on the flesh refers to His mortal mother and His birth into mortality as opposed to the spirits and the first parents of world who were all born as immortals.
Although initially convincing at first, I am no longer convinced. There are a few problems. Why can’t “head God” mean “our head God”? Why can’t “all other Gods” mean “all other Gods in this domain”? Why can’t “most high” mean “our most high”? Etc How does the grand council fit into this in the creation timeline? Do we not believe that one of the convincing factors for us deciding to come to an earth the fact that God the Father already has a body, and we wanted the same? Does this grand council and choosing a savior happen before or after creating worlds already started and death and resurrection already started? Infinite regression works perfectly if your narrow our terms down to mean “X… for us” instead of “X… in the most absolute sense” God the father had a father before him (revelation 1:5-6) the context of these statements suggests spirit / heavenly fathers. How did God the father become more high than his father? Arguing the context is suggesting earth fathers is hard to do.
I would just point out that in the King Follett Discourse Joseph Smith says that the Father lived in mortality and did that which Christ did on this earth, meaning he was the savior for his generation. Joseph Smith also says that there never was a son without a father, nor a father who was not first a son. These statements are in direct contradiction to the idea that there is a single original ruler that is the Father of all other gods.
As man is, God once was..... How can this statement from a prophet of God be reconciled to this teaching? Speculation? Could it be that God is in fact the greatest, and the Father of all gods, but within His own "realm"? His own creations carried out by His only begotten Son, worlds without end occupied by His sons and daughters, who are striving to become themselves gods, just like their Heavenly Father? We could surmise that outside His "realm" that there are indeed other gods. Each with their own creations and worlds inhabited by their own sons and daughters, and governed by that god who created them. No bearing on us, or on the God we worship. And yet, a familial tie that binds us ALL. This I believe, but of course is also speculation. Something I would never teach in gospel doctrine.
Interesting, I looked at several other translations of Isaiah 44:8 and they all seem to agree that "yea, there is no God, I know not any" is actually "indeed, there is no other rock, I know not any." They all consistently use "rock" instead of God, the KJV is alone in this translation. This is, of course, Jehovah, Jesus Christ, speaking in Isaiah. Jesus is the rock, the rock of salvation, upon which you must build your foundation. This is why you gotta read more than the KJV.
The mortal experience is necessary to achieving our potential. The consequences to the choices we make outside of this fallen existence are rather severe. This stage in our progression is necessary in order for us to acheive our potential. It separates the wheat from the chaff, if you will.
The use of Elohim, as God is clear evidence that passages that once referred to multiple gods were changed to be about one distinct God. It’s simply converting a polytheistic religion to a monotheistic religion. It’s not that complex!
I'M GOING TO LISTEN TO THIS AGAIN WHEN I CAN FOCUS ON EVERY WORD. THAT BEING SAID I QUESTION THIS VERY MUCH. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOU SEE GOD AS THE HEAD GOD OF ALL GODS YET HE HAS A BODY OF FLESH AND BONE!! IF HE IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE HEAD GOD HOW DID HE GAIN A MORTAL BODY?? I QUESTION THIS WHOLE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE AND WHAT JOSEPH SMITH MEANT. SOMETIMES I THINK AS MORTALS WE LEAN TO MUCH ON OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETATION. THAT IS WHAT IS CAUSED SO MANY PROBLEMS IN THE CHURCH AND MORE PEOPLE ARE FALLING AWAY.
This isn’t really in line with the topic, but “canon” was mentioned a few times. How are we to read canon v how we read words of the prophet. Is scripture higher authority than our prophet?
The prophets curate canon, and the prophets dictate policy. They are the executive branch, and the judicial branch, President and Supreme Court Justice. We are first and foremost accountable to the law, the canon that is set in stone. Prophets only dictate how the law is carried out, not what it is. The law says do not steal, if a prophet goes against that and tells you to steal, they better have a pretty good justification for interpreting the scripture that way. However, it is important to note that prophetic interpretation of scripture, is not itself scripture. Prophets do not “legislate from the bench” so to speak. A prophet may say that the commandment “do not kill” does not apply to soldiers in war or self defense, but you would not be a heretic for saying your conscience and plain reading of the scripture does not bring you to that same conclusion. If the prophets and apostles want to legislate new scripture to add to the canon, there is a particular process. They must present this new revelation to the whole church, and ask the church to sustain and accept it as canonical scripture. We saw this happen just recently in 2020 with the restoration proclamation.
@@amoreexcellentsaint1270 Yes, the 3 proclamations (Living Christ, Family, and Restoration) are now part of the standard works. You can find them under basic resources in the scriptures section of the gospel library. Official declarations 1&2 are included with the Doctrine and Covenants, as well as the 1918 addition of section 138. The articles of faith are included in the Pearl of Great Price. I would not be surprised if some physical editions of the Pearl of Great Price or some quads also included the proclamations.
@@KnuttyEntertainment I’ve always been under the impression that canonized content is found in one of the scriptures. Additions particularly get put in Doctrine and Covenants. Could you show me a reference of some sort that shows articles like the family proclamation are canon?
@@KnuttyEntertainment No, the proclamations aren't canon. They were given and authored with the combined effort of the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12, but none of them have been canonized in the formal sense. Sections 137/138 and the Official Declarations were presented in conference to the general body of the Church to be ratified, which is the process for canonization (read: inclusion in the formal canon of scripture of the Church). This is one reason, for example, the _Lectures on Faith_ were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants. They were never presented to the general body of the Saints to be ratified. There was no sustaining vote for _The Family: A Proclamation to the World,_ nor for _The Living Christ,_ nor for _The Restoration of the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: A Bicentennial Proclamation to the World._ This doesn't necessarily diminish their importance, rather it places them at a slightly different weight when compared to the accepted canon of the Church, which is The Old and New Testaments as contained in the current printing of the KJV (this is why we don't have the Apocryphal books, just take a look at the Catholic Bible), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The canon is binding upon the Saints for doctrine while the Proclamations can be seen as clarifications offered by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. When Blake is talking about canon, he's referring to the above books of scripture. That's also not to say that more is not expected. But to canonize something it has to be brought before the Saints in a General Assembly and ratified by the body present. Edits: typos and formatting.
Looking forward to the full episode. Even as a Formon I love this topic. I discussed the council of the Gods conjoined with the nature of the Atonement in an essay I wrote years ago when I first left the church. I maintain, much to the chagrin of many of my fellow formers, that Joseph actually had some great insights. I’ve seen and met the intelligences he talks about. Interested to see how you go further into the “Ye Are Gods” portion. I’m predicting another use of the “lose yourself” Christ clip, or an ironic and unfortunate avoidance/forgetting. 😉
So, rather, Joseph and the scriptures teach a Monarchichal Polytheism vs. a Monarchichal Monotheism. And, of such, we may become, eventually becoming a part of that hierarchichal body.
Yes, Mormons are unbiblical by Protestant (Bible only) standards. However, where the LDS differ with Protestant's is the LDS belief in continuous revelation, even modern revelation. Such as was bestowed upon The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saint's-by the power of God, through his prophet Joseph Smith- in bringing forth additional holy scriptures. From these sacred works the truth of many great and wonderful things are revealed; the most important of which is contained within the Book of Mormon.
No. Everything that the Father is the Son is also. They share the same glory. However, there is a sense in which Christ says in John that the Father is greater than he -- in the sense that all glory is given to the Father,
@@blakeostler8965 Thank you for replying. I would still like to ask, if it is the case that everything that the Father is the Son is also, is this not what is taught in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds?
@@jerryhenson4395 Yes -- but not in the same sense. In the Nicense Creed the Father and the Son are the "same substance" nad not the same nature. The Nicene Creed leads to a logical contradiction because the "same substance" leads to but one individual who is God; whereas the "same nature" properly recognizes the distinctness and separate personalities of the Father and the Son.
The first God(s) were formed by the greatest intelligences forming their own bodies, with the aid of other intelligences, and no one can fathom how many first Gods there may have been and will come to be in the vast eternities of space-time! Continued...
JS said there never was a son without a father vice versa or something to that effect in teachings of the prophet JS…. This seems to me to mean there was not a first god or if there was it also came with a son ….kind of like what came first the chicken or the egg… it’s a packaged deal… Then that means that we are essentially like the mainline Christians who say God was the first or iow he is the first and there’s nothing before him ….so whether you have an infinite regress of gods or just one god the way I see it is is that it is the same principle : the concept of god (whether singular or plural) being the first self existent entity is the first principle of all other existence
@@vaingamaliet252 There's an infinite distance between an infinite regression of demigods on the one hand and the Biblical case for one transcendent Creator God who caused all other things to exist.
@@brianhorner8349 i sort of hear what you are saying in a narrow sense...meaning, i get that there is a difference between just one god who created all of it (because its just one versus many)....versus ....an infinite regression of gods (though i wouldn't call them "demigods" as you do....unless of course, you consider jesus christ to be a demigod?....the problem with that is that jesus christ is obviously fully god....but he wasn't always fully god in the same sense that his father was fully god......i get the whole "mystery" of the trinity and that the trinity is incomprehensible..but perhaps we can set that aside).... try to see what i am saying on a grander scale though....the "concept" of god is that all things were created by god who is greater than us. ....my question to you is, whether that is our current god (father, son, holyghost) or whether there is one or more before our current god, what practical difference does that make in our worship of our god? does it make him "less" worthy of our praise knowing that he is actually "lesser" than HIS father-god? analogize your admiration of your parents....does knowing that your grandparents brought up your parents take away from the love and respect you have for your parents? or does it add to it? i realize your parents and god may be in different comparable categories...but we are logically trying to make sense of these concepts right? so we use words and logic to try to understand this mystery.... i realize that the "first" god would be in a "higher" position than our father-god (our father-god could be the "grandson" say, of the first creator god)....but again, what is the so called "infinite" distance? practically speaking, what difference does it make? also consider this: our god (say, the grandson of original creator god) has learned EVERYTHING, has developed FULLY into an infinite everlasting trustworthy god...he is fully capable of doing everything his grandpa did (call it the family business of godhood)...... how is this any different from what and who jesus christ is? did not jesus christ, as the sciprtures say, grew from birth, boyhood, teens, and then finally to his capstone 3year ministry? he was god that entire time, but you wouldnt' say that when jesus was just a wee lad that he was father-god would you? who changed his diapers? if he was all powerful why did mary andjoseph have to flee to egypt to escape herods infanticide? did jesus crawl or fly his parents first class to egypt? ok so if jesus can be "subordinate" as a wee little boy growing into manhood and full god hood....then why couldn't father-god have experienced something similar? like why couldn't father-god at one time in his development (eons and ages ago) grow into knowledge and wisdom....and subsequently, as the scriptures hint, why couldn't we grow in wisdom, grace, truth, and holiness? i mean heaven and eternity are a long time right? what are we gonna be doing up there after we die? just playing the harp and eating grapes and bowing down kissing the feet of jesus and god everyday? or is it going to be a really long concert of watching the most amazing christian rock bands? or is it going to be alot of family reuininons and bbqs? or will we have like something really challenging to learn and do? (like learning how to be a god to create our own worlds and stuff, including having an eternal family and experiencing after life with them, pretty cool right? lol) this is what the church of jesus christ of latter day saints simply asserts: (and i don't represent them officially, just my opinion): hey our god is great, he is mighty to save, he is king of kings lord of lords and we are his children and someday we can after much trial and error and through the saving grace of jesus christ, someday we can grow into godhood and into a fullness of holiness....and it may take ages in the eternities and an inifinite after life....but god and jesus and the holy spirit and our ancestors and all those great people who are dead and gone to heaven, they can help us spiritually develop now and in the next life to progress to learn to master....and then one day....we can achieve godhood and become like jesus and become like god.... this is not to say we would surplant god or replace god or takeover god (like the way satan wanted to do)...its just saying...in some miraculous mysterious way, "the sky is the limit".... so yeah whether it is just one original creator god as our god or whether it is a line of gods that have learned how to be god so that they can teach us how to become "godly"....the point is OUR GOD is the ONLY one WE worship and emulate....and i as a latter day saint, certainly prefer our creation story over the mainstream one, obviously hahahaha sorry for the long thread i don't want to belittle your concept of god ....i hope this doesnt come across that way.... feel free to explain to me what this "infinite distance" is between what i have tried to explain and how you understand it?
@@vaingamaliet252 1.) The Word of God is as explicit and clear as it is redundant on this simple point: There IS only ONE True and Living God. ALL other things, beings, persons, animals, humans, angels, etc. are His CREATURES - his creaTIONS. All of creation is CONTINGENT upon the reality of God and God alone. God Himself is NOT contingent upon anything - neither time, nor space, nor matter nor energy in any of their forms for His existence. God is the "I AM". The very meaning of His name tells us that God alone IS, without regard to anything or anyone else. 2.) A "demigod" is a "deified mortal". Jesus was not a demigod. Nor is the Father. Jesus is not a deified mortal. He is GOD the creator of all things (Jn 1:1-3, Heb 1:8-10, Col 1:15-17, etc) who became man (Jn 1:14, Phil 2:5-9, Col 2:9, etc.), not a man who became one of a pantheon of demigods. 3.) You will never become a God. At best you will, if you are saved, become LIKE God in some ways. But you are not eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient or omnisapient. Nor will you ever be. No one will. Nothing in the Word of God says you or anyone else will be Gods - possessing the unique attributes of the one and only true and living God who caused you and all other beings and things to exist out of nothing.
@@brianhorner8349 i respect your defense and knowledge of YOUR interpretation of scripture... good for you.....we obviously see things differently and i don't think we'll get anywhere (but before i go, let me share a few things to your numbered points).... 1) ok so god is one? i agree...but just as jesus is one with god , it's perfectly consistent to say that god the father is one with his father....and just as jesus is not contingent on god the father, god the father is not contingent on god the grandfather, etc... i get that contingencies cannot logically and infinitely regress, but why not? why does there have to be a 'first" cause or mover or creator? as long as it is caused , moved and created and greater than i, i submit myself to that greatness...idk what the big deal is...we both believe in stuff that are logically absurd....such is the nature of faith 2)you say jesus is god, i agree also....but this is what the original church was split over, this is part of the reason why the orthodox left the catholics in 1000ad....the orthodox disagreed that the holy spirit was of the same substance as god and jesus while the catholics believed that god, jesus and spirit ARE of same substance....so which is it? whose interpretation is right? i assume you are not eastern orthodox christian and i assume you believe in the trinity....please explain in plain english how the heck the trinity makes sense given a plain reading of the text? if it is SO simple and clear then why did they have to meet for so long and kick gnostics and other heretics out while they tried to come up with a unified consensus understanding of the nature of god?dont come at me with how simple this is....if it was so simple, we wouldnt have sunday school and pastors to try to explain all the mystery of it all to us....and even the pastors themselves have to admit that at the end of the day it is a complete mystery of how to reconcile logic with scripture.....is jesus subordinate to the father? is the holy spirit subordinate to the son and father? are they all one in equal power and glory? and if they are, explain to me how jesus was clearly a man who became god? or how god became a man? how does that work? do the scriptures flesh all that out for us? no they dont which is why there are thousands of different christian churches who interpret the same NT in hundreds of different ways.... 3) you say i will never become a god...ok great, i say i can and i hope i will and i absolutely read the bible in that way....if i can become LIKE god why cant i become A god? if jesus was a man who became god and jesus says "come follow me" ....after an eternity of following him, why is it so absurd to think that i couldn't become like him in godlike stature and beingness? why is it such a giant leap to follow the logic down the line: if we are the offspring of god (as paul says) and joint heirs with christ....and christ is god then how is it so wrong to then accept us becoming a god someday? (btw we are not polytheists, we are like you monotheists....we accept that there are multiple gods (both in godhead (god, son, spirit) and out of the godhead (grandpa god and head god etc--what makes us monotheists is that we only worship one god=god the father in the name of jesus christ by the holy spirit)becoming a god is really not that hard to imagine my friend...and its not hard to read the bible with that awesome point in mind..... you say nothing in the word of god says we will become a god...i disagree...there are many ways to interpret several key passages from OT and NT to easily comprehend this mystery....i wont bother with the references because i know you'll just refute them with your own "correct" interpretation of the same passages...but if you really wanted to any educated latterday saint in this field would be happy to make the connections....(but i doubt you'd have the patience or humility for that) i would say this: early christians construed passages from the bible to come up with the trinityand then modern christians (latterday saints) took the same passages (with others) and came up with a non-trinity concept of the nature of god (with some important caveats) joseph smith as a prophet as well as some other later leaders received inspiriation and revelations to bolster and restore certain understandings just as much as luther and calvin and aquinas as "prophets" of their day, had their own inspiring commentaries and interpretations of scripture...to give the common man a clearer understanding of what they thought scripture is teaching... only difference is we view joseph as a prophet whereas you don't view luther as one....but they are very similar, practically, in function....hey man....just because you state and testify of your interpretation regarding the word of god as true does not make it all clear or all so simple, the same goes for me....its my opinion and it takes years of pouring over but i do believe it is the truth...and i am a smart person who can back it up with a reasonable level of logic (if you but grant me just a few premises lol) and you sound like a smart guy with a very good understanding and backing of your tradition....thats great that we disagree and come down different paths of reasoning and understanding! i believe god is on my side and you probably believe god is on your side of the aisle in terms of a correct understanding....i suppose WE WILL SEE one day won't we LOL i am happy that legally you cannot kill me or violently persecute me for my religion like the protestants did to joseph and the early mormons kicking us out of the usa....we are here to stay and are much more legally protected now than we were in those wild american west days... and i am happy catholics and protestants are not killing each other and killing jews and muslims over not being baptized or being a christ killer or any number of religious atrocities done in our human history....all in the name of chirst and it beings gods will this is what is great about american religious freedom....joseph smith wrote latter day saint article of faith 11"we claim the privilege of worshipping almighty god according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how where or what they may"i certainly prefer my understanding of god and religion and spirituality over a traditional or mainstream christian explanation but i'm koo with all of the diversity of christian and non-christian thought that is out in the world.... you may think latterday saints are going to hell if we don't accept your version of the gospel truth and guess what, we want you to join our christian church too so you can experience the more abundant life jesus offers members of his church in these latter days (yes, thats us, his church, the latter day saints, the church of jesus christ of latter day saints) the reality is though, that the likelihood of me joining your christian understanding and your christian church is so near impossibly low and vice versa that it is dare i say pointless to have these conversations other than it being fun for me (i hope they are fun for you too, LOL)... how about this: you are right and i am righter? LOL God bless you brother see you around, i'm out.
The two ideas are not contradictory. Both can be true even in a linear progression. There can be a Father of all gods who presides within a particular group of gods or, in modern terms, presidents, just as stake president presides over all other authorities within his stake -- over all bishops, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, primary presidents, etc. There is an authority above the stake president, the area president, and an authority above him, a member of the Twelve, and an authority above him, the president of the Church, and an authority above him, Jesus Christ, and an authority above him, the Father, and an authority above Him... Without infinite regression, there is always the question of beginnings -- Who created God? Infinite regression answes this simply -- Occam's Razor. (For some reason, people can more easily imagine no end than they can imagine no beginning, but without infinite beginnings, there can be no infinite endings.) Infinite universes, or multiverses, as proposed by 2020 Nobel Prize winner Roger Penrose, is consistent with the idea of infinite regression. There is no kingdom in which there is no space, and there is no space in which there is no kingdom.
Wait, so is our God (not Jesus) a son of the Head God, and is Jesus the son of the son the Head God? Would we be the grandchildren of the Head God in this instance? I'm trying to make sense of this. Please help! From this I'm getting Head God Heavenly Father Jesus Christ (who is also a god and we are joint heirs with him) Also, I watch you a lot on Midnight Mormons, great stuff!
In this idea, Heavenly Father is Head God. Of course... there are some issues, we don't really believe in subordination between God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son as far as I know, though that may only extend insofar as divintiy for sure.
@@randomnerd9088 so.. has the Head God been a man before? Or has he always been God? Has our Heavenly Father been a man? Or when they “as man is, God was once” are they referring to Jesus and not Heavenly Father who is the Head God?
@@KINGKNUBYT Blake Ostler's pov is that God the Father, at some point, condecended and experience mortal life similar to what Jesus Christ did (though explicitly not literally as Jesus Christ). I don't know that I hold that view, but if we don't take the easy solution and consider the King Follet discourse & Lorenzo Snow's references to "God" as to God the Son but rather God the Father, then it seems to be the best theological parsing of those comments. The other somewhat common theory is of infinite regression, I don't hold that personally and think it's a misinterpretation of what Joseph Smith said. It's not like JS didn't know that God is eternal, Snow knows of the same thing, and they both obviously knew that eternal meant "without beginning" as much as it meant without end. Therefore any interpretation that places a specific limit to when God was God cannot be a proper representation of what they meant, any theological understanding of their comments must hold that God is eternal.
This video is more incoherent lies: YHWH isn't the Son of EL of the Canaanite pantheon that Mormons think Heavenly Father is and Dr.Michael S.Heiser's video that is used here is by a trinitarian who states that YHWH is God Most High just as Abram states in Genesis 14: 22 to the king of Sodom. Isaiah 44: 6- 8 is talking about Only One God both the Invisible YHWH and visible YHWH of the Two Powers in Heaven Israelite theology that is the basis of the Christian trinity. Not different gods! Your ignorance is overwhelming!
Psalm Ch.83:18ASV"that they may know that thou alone, whose name is JEHOVAH, Art the MOST HIGH over all the earth. The Lord JEHOVAH is no ones subordinate everyone is his su ordinate. He is plainly declared in scripture to be the MOST HIGH Elohim. There are many who are called El, elohim(including the prophet Moses), adonai for these are not names but titles. There is only one called JEHOVAH Because this is no mere title but the proper name of the greatest person and the greatest God. The blasphemous presumptiousness of Christendom's translators hides the true glory of JEHOVAH'S Sacred name. It appears more times in scripture than the next five most common names or titles COMBINED. It is the only name or title in ALL of scripture ever described as Holy.
In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1. Jesus is God not an exalted god man, Christianity does not believe in many gods, such as Mormonism. There is one God, the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, three persons, one God, one essence. they are the power, they take authority, they are omnipresent, omnipotent, the first and the last, the Alpha and the Omega, the Glorious Holy God. God does not need a divine council to give Him ideas or to approve His decisions. He is the Omniscient God Almighty in His wisdom. The divine council is privileged to participate in various judgements and degrees, privileged to participate in Gods plan, and so are we, those who believe in Him. 1 Cor 8:5-6 Although there may be so called gods in heaven and earth, as indeed there are many gods and lords, yet there is ONE God.
This is just etiological silliness. Creating story and projecting it backwards. It’s like listen to Star Trek fans arguing with Star Wars fans. My god is bigger and can beat up your god.
Brigham Young made two statements concerning this that seem contradictory, but they are not. The first was that was never a time when there were no Gods, and that it would be easier for an ant to count all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth than for us to find out the first cause of all things! Continued...
There are many things wrong here! First of all, he is wrong about the KF sermon. Joseph Smith only stated that God was once a man like us! Also, gods can refer to Heavenly Father's spirit children (Psalms 82:6). There was no gods other than the ones that would be born on this earth that took part in the planning of the creation of this world. Continued...
Thanks for sharing. As a life long member, this view on God always made more sense than the infinite regress of gods.
I love this. As a convert from traditional Christianity I always had a problem with the idea of a infinite regression of God going forward and backwards. I love this view thanks for sharing!
Same
Well, as someone looking into the church as a protestant
I have never had a problem with infinite regression. Without infinite regression, we're stuck with the problem of what came before. Infinite regression solves this simply. The problem with infinite regression is our finite minds. As for the Father calling a council of gods, it could refer to those who the Father in His perfect foreknowledge knew would themselves become gods such as Jehovah, Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph Smith -- to name a few.
Thanks, Blake. Love your work and efforts. God bless us all in coming closer to understanding both our Father and His Son.
Woh! I've actually been pondering this lately and was brought back by the spirit to read the King follett discourse again and saw some interesting insites. What I find odd about how I learn from the spirit is it's always confirmed later by a second witness. So what I noticed seems to be what you all have noticed as well.
I love this! I have found when I am pondering something often the spirit leads me to a channel or video that answers that exact question I have been pondering
RIP Michael Heiser. I'm sure he's loving the discussions with missionaries on the other side as they teach each other.
Great video on how Mormons do not believe they worship supreme being but a lesser being
Yes! I believe this is much more consistent than thinking we have a “Heavenly Grandfather”.
The Father of Jesus in heaven is the Father of all.
Great conversation, looking forward to the full interview.
Love it! We have no idea who we really are. If we did we wouldn’t treat one another the way we do. We would minister and sacrifice and testify.
My mental image of all is that it began as an infinitely small mobius strip and, as time passes, that strip is infinitely expanded, and will become infinitely large. God is the strip, and all is part of God. The strip is also not so much a big loop as one that is wrinkled so that any one part of the strip can be, at times, as close to any other part of the strip as possible. The entire strip likely beats like a heart, with the parts of the strip constantly moving closer or farther. All consciousness is part of the strip. It could be thought of as the fabric of the universe.
In my mind I think Joseph Smith was talking about infinite regression. However that is just something that we can talk about around the campfire while we roast hot dogs and eat s'mores what we do need to focus our time on is infinite progression. That's just my thoughts
The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were ‘gods’ and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him-for we can prevent Him, if we choose-He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful, but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said. CS Lewis “Mere Christianity”
Sincere question. This line from the Sermon in the Grove, to me reads like God the Father had a father. Can you help me reconcile it with God being the Eternal Father, Head God?
"If Abraham reasoned thus -- 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. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it."
We address that in the upcoming full episode.
This totally makes sense to me! I’m OK with all of it! There is divine order in all things!
@@thoughtfulfaith2020 awesome! Look forward to it!
Fascinating discussion!
This was an incredible video.
I'm the temple we use the term the most high God. Which suggests there are many but there is one that is greatest of all at least as it has to do with us here on earth.
Coupla things… aren’t we taught that our scriptures only relate to this earth?
Also, worlds without number have I created.
Can you include and incorporate those teachings in this or a future podcast?
5 - stars, keep it coming!
I LOVE Blake. Reading his books are very difficult but worth reading
I was only speaking of first gods, and how much less could anyone begin to fathom how many total Gods, each with their own galaxy (as per Joseph Smith - see also "The Kolob Theorum." Continued...
A deeper point is the relationship of these two beings. Joseph taught in the 1840s-and I think it was an extension of what he learned in the Grove that morning-that the statement of the Master about his doing nothing but what he had seen the Father do has infinite implications. How could Jesus have seen the acts of the Father as a witness? President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The statement of our Lord that he could do nothing but what he had seen the Father do, means simply that it had been revealed to him what his Father had done. Without doubt, Jesus came into the world subject to the same condition as was required of each of us-he forgot everything, and he had to grow from grace to grace.”
Again, the relationship is exact. If Christ himself was uniquely begotten and was the firstborn in the spirit, and if he was the Christ not only of this earth but also, as the Prophet taught later, of the galaxy, so before him the Father himself was a Redeemer, having worked out the salvation of souls of whom he was a brother, not a father. This is deep water. The conclusion is drawn by Joseph Smith in his King Follett discourse. Whatever else it may mean, and it is mind-boggling, it at least means this: The Father, by experience, knows exactly what his Son has been through. And the Son, by experience, knows exactly what the Father has been through. Therefore, when he says, “I and my Father are one,” he is not expressing a metaphysical identity. He is speaking of oneness of spirit, harmonic throbbings of love and insight that can come only in the patterns of eternal redemption. Sown in the mind of a fourteen-year-old boy, that seed of insight blossomed and grew.
From Truman Madsen's talk on Joseph Smith's First Vision
Verse in Question John 5:19, I'd also appeal to "If You Could Hie to Kolob"
"One God" the word one in Hebrew is ichad which means compound unity.
Absolutely! This is awesome! Book if Enoch, Book of Abraham talk about the "sons of God".
Joseph Smith clearly said that there is no Father without a Son and that there is no Son without a Father. Therefore there IS NO FIRST GOD. And careful studies will resolve this presumed conflict by understanding that absolutes are relative to a sphere - that sphere being this generation of time. Yes indeed, the almighty God (of this generation) is the Father of all Gods (of this generation). There is indeed an infinite number of Gods because every God there is has a Father.
Those statements are not contradictory if one will consider time as not being linear but like an ever expanding ring wh 11:43 ich can be traversed clockwise and counter clockwise, just as in the spirit diminsion or higher ones it is pissible to do such. That is why God can know things from the beginning and onward! Continued later, msybe...
Space has no limits in any direction. The concept of infinite regression and progression is compatible with an endless universe filled with matter.
When singing "if you could hie to kolob" the lyrics "there is no end to space" rings true. I am fascinated by those who refuse to consider the limits of made made trinitarian or false lds notions and reject anything outside the bounds of cultural viewpoints and opinions.
Truth is truth and can only be discovered by maintaining an inquiring mind and readiness to reject old/false notions.
If we live on beyond this life what are our boundaries to knowledge and capacity? Are we limited or is their unlimited potential?
Wouldnt we be bored to tears in a million years without progression of knowledge? It makes sense that at some point in a million, billion, trillion, or trillion of trillion years that our minds and souls would want to reach greater and greater attainments to knowledge in every field of study. Wouldnt we want to learn to create planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc? If there is no end to time and space and material then there is no bounds, unlimited possibilities to creation and progression.
Arent the greatest achievements and fulfillment found in our relationships to each other? So endless procreation of children seems like a joyful thought. And then seeking to bring about their eternal fulfillment would likewise follow.
I know of nothing so amazing and thought-provoking as lds doctrine on the family and eternity. It transcends every man-made cultural notion of the past all of which seems void of any real vision or purpose on what really matters in relation to eternity.
I forever praise God that my family found its way out of protestantism into the light, authority, and power found and experienced in the grand ongoing restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
I'm surprised at a few points made. Consider this. Think of any one Elders quorum. How many are there? 20, 30, doesn't matter. In the back of your mind you know in our dispensation or any part of it the numbers are huge. Now keeping in mind the numbers in tha 1 quorum, if all are faithful at the end of the final council, how many Plan of Salvations will begin to be planned, prepared, and actually begin. When you decide on any number, than you will begin to understand.
I've always wanted to know what the middle tier of the celestial glory was. Now I know. But trying to understand what that actually means responsibility wise is a different question
There is no middle in the celestial . There is only three . Top middle bottom . Only three . All in celestial are one . One . All the same . Then you have middle which of terrestrial and then telestrial which one star differed in gory one from another . All are one in the celestial . Read the section in doctrine and convents on these three degrees of glory . Who goes to each what is required . Celestial is not divided into three parts . All are one there . There are not 6 degrees . Only three . It is not drawn that way a y more . Draw a circle divide in three and write heaven or celestial . In the circle celestial you have terrestrial and telestrial . Only three . Top middle bottom. Too are all the same .
Heiser was great.
I really wish that there were better explanations of the Godhead. I grew up understanding that there was God the Father (Elohim) and Jesus Christ (Jehovah) and the Holy Ghost. and that we are children of Elohim, and siblings to Jehovah, also a son of Elohim.
BUT then I actually read the scriptures, and while the intercessory prayer in John 17 seems to confirm this view, and shatter Catholicism and Protestantism, I read the D&C and it seems to confirm the Idea of the Trinity, that Jehovah is the Father, and that Jesus is the Son, only as the human avatar of Jehovah. And the D&C and BOM both seem to explain Jehovah as the Father of our spirit, and the being to whom we direct our prayers, as the Father, as we take upon us, or pray, in the NAME of the Son, Jesus Christ.
Thus, the more I study, the less clear I am as to who it is I pray at night.
and while I have ZERO problem with a Head Honcho GOD as the #1 father and a council of innumerable Gods who have achieved godhood through the divine generations. I just want to know who it is I pray to at night. the church really has not done a good job of explaining it.
Yes Buddy, but the term Only Begotten on the flesh refers to His mortal mother and His birth into mortality as opposed to the spirits and the first parents of world who were all born as immortals.
Although initially convincing at first, I am no longer convinced. There are a few problems.
Why can’t “head God” mean “our head God”?
Why can’t “all other Gods” mean “all other Gods in this domain”?
Why can’t “most high” mean “our most high”?
Etc
How does the grand council fit into this in the creation timeline? Do we not believe that one of the convincing factors for us deciding to come to an earth the fact that God the Father already has a body, and we wanted the same? Does this grand council and choosing a savior happen before or after creating worlds already started and death and resurrection already started?
Infinite regression works perfectly if your narrow our terms down to mean “X… for us” instead of “X… in the most absolute sense”
God the father had a father before him (revelation 1:5-6) the context of these statements suggests spirit / heavenly fathers. How did God the father become more high than his father? Arguing the context is suggesting earth fathers is hard to do.
I would just point out that in the King Follett Discourse Joseph Smith says that the Father lived in mortality and did that which Christ did on this earth, meaning he was the savior for his generation. Joseph Smith also says that there never was a son without a father, nor a father who was not first a son.
These statements are in direct contradiction to the idea that there is a single original ruler that is the Father of all other gods.
As man is, God once was..... How can this statement from a prophet of God be reconciled to this teaching? Speculation? Could it be that God is in fact the greatest, and the Father of all gods, but within His own "realm"? His own creations carried out by His only begotten Son, worlds without end occupied by His sons and daughters, who are striving to become themselves gods, just like their Heavenly Father? We could surmise that outside His "realm" that there are indeed other gods. Each with their own creations and worlds inhabited by their own sons and daughters, and governed by that god who created them. No bearing on us, or on the God we worship. And yet, a familial tie that binds us ALL.
This I believe, but of course is also speculation. Something I would never teach in gospel doctrine.
We cover this in the full episode coming out tomorrow
where is the "is there a king besides me? I know of none" scripture Blake was referring to for context?
What about the idea taught by Lorenzo Snow that "as God is we can become, as we are, God once was"?
Jesus
@@towardcivicliteracy Yeah literally Jesus. It's a poetic phrase.
@randomnerd9088 how did Jesus become a god if he created the universe?
Interesting, I looked at several other translations of Isaiah 44:8 and they all seem to agree that "yea, there is no God, I know not any" is actually "indeed, there is no other rock, I know not any." They all consistently use "rock" instead of God, the KJV is alone in this translation.
This is, of course, Jehovah, Jesus Christ, speaking in Isaiah. Jesus is the rock, the rock of salvation, upon which you must build your foundation.
This is why you gotta read more than the KJV.
Abraham 3:23...???
They call him The Most High God for a reason.
I’m glad Blake is out there philosophizing, but I find most of his takes on his podcast to be nonsensical.
Refers to Ella Hime as a father God. Ignore the fact that Elohim is plural for multiple gods.
You are making the same mistake as Peepstone Joe
Please read book of Genesis
“For full interview see link in video description.”
The link: premiers in 45 hours. 😠
So, passing through mortality is unnecessary to achieving our potential?
The mortal experience is necessary to achieving our potential. The consequences to the choices we make outside of this fallen existence are rather severe. This stage in our progression is necessary in order for us to acheive our potential. It separates the wheat from the chaff, if you will.
The use of Elohim, as God is clear evidence that passages that once referred to multiple gods were changed to be about one distinct God. It’s simply converting a polytheistic religion to a monotheistic religion. It’s not that complex!
I'M GOING TO LISTEN TO THIS AGAIN WHEN I CAN FOCUS ON EVERY WORD. THAT BEING SAID I QUESTION THIS VERY MUCH. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOU SEE GOD AS THE HEAD GOD OF ALL GODS YET HE HAS A BODY OF FLESH AND BONE!! IF HE IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE HEAD GOD HOW DID HE GAIN A MORTAL BODY?? I QUESTION THIS WHOLE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE AND WHAT JOSEPH SMITH MEANT. SOMETIMES I THINK AS MORTALS WE LEAN TO MUCH ON OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETATION. THAT IS WHAT IS CAUSED SO MANY PROBLEMS IN THE CHURCH AND MORE PEOPLE ARE FALLING AWAY.
We get more into that in the full episode.
I've never understood the insistence of some that the God of Gods could not have a body of flesh and bones.
This isn’t really in line with the topic, but “canon” was mentioned a few times. How are we to read canon v how we read words of the prophet. Is scripture higher authority than our prophet?
The prophets curate canon, and the prophets dictate policy. They are the executive branch, and the judicial branch, President and Supreme Court Justice.
We are first and foremost accountable to the law, the canon that is set in stone. Prophets only dictate how the law is carried out, not what it is. The law says do not steal, if a prophet goes against that and tells you to steal, they better have a pretty good justification for interpreting the scripture that way.
However, it is important to note that prophetic interpretation of scripture, is not itself scripture. Prophets do not “legislate from the bench” so to speak. A prophet may say that the commandment “do not kill” does not apply to soldiers in war or self defense, but you would not be a heretic for saying your conscience and plain reading of the scripture does not bring you to that same conclusion.
If the prophets and apostles want to legislate new scripture to add to the canon, there is a particular process. They must present this new revelation to the whole church, and ask the church to sustain and accept it as canonical scripture. We saw this happen just recently in 2020 with the restoration proclamation.
@@KnuttyEntertainment is the restoration proclamation “canon”? Where was that stated? Is the family proclamation canon as well?
@@amoreexcellentsaint1270 Yes, the 3 proclamations (Living Christ, Family, and Restoration) are now part of the standard works. You can find them under basic resources in the scriptures section of the gospel library. Official declarations 1&2 are included with the Doctrine and Covenants, as well as the 1918 addition of section 138. The articles of faith are included in the Pearl of Great Price. I would not be surprised if some physical editions of the Pearl of Great Price or some quads also included the proclamations.
@@KnuttyEntertainment I’ve always been under the impression that canonized content is found in one of the scriptures. Additions particularly get put in Doctrine and Covenants.
Could you show me a reference of some sort that shows articles like the family proclamation are canon?
@@KnuttyEntertainment No, the proclamations aren't canon. They were given and authored with the combined effort of the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12, but none of them have been canonized in the formal sense. Sections 137/138 and the Official Declarations were presented in conference to the general body of the Church to be ratified, which is the process for canonization (read: inclusion in the formal canon of scripture of the Church). This is one reason, for example, the _Lectures on Faith_ were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants. They were never presented to the general body of the Saints to be ratified.
There was no sustaining vote for _The Family: A Proclamation to the World,_ nor for _The Living Christ,_ nor for _The Restoration of the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: A Bicentennial Proclamation to the World._ This doesn't necessarily diminish their importance, rather it places them at a slightly different weight when compared to the accepted canon of the Church, which is The Old and New Testaments as contained in the current printing of the KJV (this is why we don't have the Apocryphal books, just take a look at the Catholic Bible), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The canon is binding upon the Saints for doctrine while the Proclamations can be seen as clarifications offered by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. When Blake is talking about canon, he's referring to the above books of scripture.
That's also not to say that more is not expected. But to canonize something it has to be brought before the Saints in a General Assembly and ratified by the body present.
Edits: typos and formatting.
Looking forward to the full episode. Even as a Formon I love this topic. I discussed the council of the Gods conjoined with the nature of the Atonement in an essay I wrote years ago when I first left the church. I maintain, much to the chagrin of many of my fellow formers, that Joseph actually had some great insights. I’ve seen and met the intelligences he talks about. Interested to see how you go further into the “Ye Are Gods” portion. I’m predicting another use of the “lose yourself” Christ clip, or an ironic and unfortunate avoidance/forgetting. 😉
wow
Blake is wrong. Abraham 3:19 is talking about spirits. And it said Jehovah is the smartest of all God's children. Not Elohim.
So, rather, Joseph and the scriptures teach a Monarchichal Polytheism vs. a Monarchichal Monotheism. And, of such, we may become, eventually becoming a part of that hierarchichal body.
Mormons be like : "This monotheism makes a lot more sense" 😅
Yes, Mormons are unbiblical by Protestant (Bible only) standards.
However, where the LDS differ with Protestant's is the LDS belief in continuous revelation, even modern revelation.
Such as was bestowed upon The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saint's-by the power of God, through his prophet Joseph Smith- in bringing forth additional holy scriptures. From these sacred works the truth of many great and wonderful things are revealed; the most important of which is contained within
the Book of Mormon.
So the question I would have is this: Do Latter-day Saints consider Jesus a lesser god than the Father?
No. Everything that the Father is the Son is also. They share the same glory. However, there is a sense in which Christ says in John that the Father is greater than he -- in the sense that all glory is given to the Father,
@@blakeostler8965 Thank you for replying. I would still like to ask, if it is the case that everything that the Father is the Son is also, is this not what is taught in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds?
@@jerryhenson4395 Yes -- but not in the same sense. In the Nicense Creed the Father and the Son are the "same substance" nad not the same nature. The Nicene Creed leads to a logical contradiction because the "same substance" leads to but one individual who is God; whereas the "same nature" properly recognizes the distinctness and separate personalities of the Father and the Son.
The first God(s) were formed by the greatest intelligences forming their own bodies, with the aid of other intelligences, and no one can fathom how many first Gods there may have been and will come to be in the vast eternities of space-time! Continued...
Who was the God of the "head God"?
JS said there never was a son without a father vice versa or something to that effect in teachings of the prophet JS….
This seems to me to mean there was not a first god or if there was it also came with a son ….kind of like what came first the chicken or the egg…
it’s a packaged deal…
Then that means that we are essentially like the mainline Christians who say God was the first or iow he is the first and there’s nothing before him ….so whether you have an infinite regress of gods or just one god the way I see it is is that it is the same principle : the concept of god (whether singular or plural) being the first self existent entity is the first principle of all other existence
@@vaingamaliet252 There's an infinite distance between an infinite regression of demigods on the one hand and the Biblical case for one transcendent Creator God who caused all other things to exist.
@@brianhorner8349 i sort of hear what you are saying in a narrow sense...meaning, i get that there is a difference between just one god who created all of it (because its just one versus many)....versus ....an infinite regression of gods (though i wouldn't call them "demigods" as you do....unless of course, you consider jesus christ to be a demigod?....the problem with that is that jesus christ is obviously fully god....but he wasn't always fully god in the same sense that his father was fully god......i get the whole "mystery" of the trinity and that the trinity is incomprehensible..but perhaps we can set that aside)....
try to see what i am saying on a grander scale though....the "concept" of god is that all things were created by god who is greater than us. ....my question to you is, whether that is our current god (father, son, holyghost) or whether there is one or more before our current god, what practical difference does that make in our worship of our god? does it make him "less" worthy of our praise knowing that he is actually "lesser" than HIS father-god?
analogize your admiration of your parents....does knowing that your grandparents brought up your parents take away from the love and respect you have for your parents? or does it add to it?
i realize your parents and god may be in different comparable categories...but we are logically trying to make sense of these concepts right? so we use words and logic to try to understand this mystery....
i realize that the "first" god would be in a "higher" position than our father-god (our father-god could be the "grandson" say, of the first creator god)....but again, what is the so called "infinite" distance? practically speaking, what difference does it make?
also consider this: our god (say, the grandson of original creator god) has learned EVERYTHING, has developed FULLY into an infinite everlasting trustworthy god...he is fully capable of doing everything his grandpa did (call it the family business of godhood)......
how is this any different from what and who jesus christ is?
did not jesus christ, as the sciprtures say, grew from birth, boyhood, teens, and then finally to his capstone 3year ministry? he was god that entire time, but you wouldnt' say that when jesus was just a wee lad that he was father-god would you? who changed his diapers? if he was all powerful why did mary andjoseph have to flee to egypt to escape herods infanticide? did jesus crawl or fly his parents first class to egypt?
ok so if jesus can be "subordinate" as a wee little boy growing into manhood and full god hood....then why couldn't father-god have experienced something similar? like why couldn't father-god at one time in his development (eons and ages ago) grow into knowledge and wisdom....and subsequently, as the scriptures hint, why couldn't we grow in wisdom, grace, truth, and holiness? i mean heaven and eternity are a long time right? what are we gonna be doing up there after we die? just playing the harp and eating grapes and bowing down kissing the feet of jesus and god everyday? or is it going to be a really long concert of watching the most amazing christian rock bands?
or is it going to be alot of family reuininons and bbqs? or will we have like something really challenging to learn and do? (like learning how to be a god to create our own worlds and stuff, including having an eternal family and experiencing after life with them, pretty cool right? lol)
this is what the church of jesus christ of latter day saints simply asserts: (and i don't represent them officially, just my opinion):
hey our god is great, he is mighty to save, he is king of kings lord of lords and we are his children and someday we can after much trial and error and through the saving grace of jesus christ, someday we can grow into godhood and into a fullness of holiness....and it may take ages in the eternities and an inifinite after life....but god and jesus and the holy spirit and our ancestors and all those great people who are dead and gone to heaven, they can help us spiritually develop now and in the next life to progress to learn to master....and then one day....we can achieve godhood and become like jesus and become like god....
this is not to say we would surplant god or replace god or takeover god (like the way satan wanted to do)...its just saying...in some miraculous mysterious way, "the sky is the limit"....
so yeah whether it is just one original creator god as our god or whether it is a line of gods that have learned how to be god so that they can teach us how to become "godly"....the point is OUR GOD is the ONLY one WE worship and emulate....and i as a latter day saint, certainly prefer our creation story over the mainstream one, obviously
hahahaha
sorry for the long thread
i don't want to belittle your concept of god ....i hope this doesnt come across that way....
feel free to explain to me what this "infinite distance" is between what i have tried to explain and how you understand it?
@@vaingamaliet252
1.) The Word of God is as explicit and clear as it is redundant on this simple point: There IS only ONE True and Living God. ALL other things, beings, persons, animals, humans, angels, etc. are His CREATURES - his creaTIONS. All of creation is CONTINGENT upon the reality of God and God alone. God Himself is NOT contingent upon anything - neither time, nor space, nor matter nor energy in any of their forms for His existence. God is the "I AM". The very meaning of His name tells us that God alone IS, without regard to anything or anyone else.
2.) A "demigod" is a "deified mortal". Jesus was not a demigod. Nor is the Father. Jesus is not a deified mortal. He is GOD the creator of all things (Jn 1:1-3, Heb 1:8-10, Col 1:15-17, etc) who became man (Jn 1:14, Phil 2:5-9, Col 2:9, etc.), not a man who became one of a pantheon of demigods.
3.) You will never become a God. At best you will, if you are saved, become LIKE God in some ways. But you are not eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient or omnisapient. Nor will you ever be. No one will. Nothing in the Word of God says you or anyone else will be Gods - possessing the unique attributes of the one and only true and living God who caused you and all other beings and things to exist out of nothing.
@@brianhorner8349 i respect your defense and knowledge of YOUR interpretation of scripture... good for you.....we obviously see things differently and i don't think we'll get anywhere (but before i go, let me share a few things to your numbered points)....
1) ok so god is one? i agree...but just as jesus is one with god , it's perfectly consistent to say that god the father is one with his father....and just as jesus is not contingent on god the father, god the father is not contingent on god the grandfather, etc...
i get that contingencies cannot logically and infinitely regress, but why not? why does there have to be a 'first" cause or mover or creator? as long as it is caused , moved and created and greater than i, i submit myself to that greatness...idk what the big deal is...we both believe in stuff that are logically absurd....such is the nature of faith
2)you say jesus is god, i agree also....but this is what the original church was split over, this is part of the reason why the orthodox left the catholics in 1000ad....the orthodox disagreed that the holy spirit was of the same substance as god and jesus while the catholics believed that god, jesus and spirit ARE of same substance....so which is it? whose interpretation is right? i assume you are not eastern orthodox christian and i assume you believe in the trinity....please explain in plain english how the heck the trinity makes sense given a plain reading of the text? if it is SO simple and clear then why did they have to meet for so long and kick gnostics and other heretics out while they tried to come up with a unified consensus understanding of the nature of god?dont come at me with how simple this is....if it was so simple, we wouldnt have sunday school and pastors to try to explain all the mystery of it all to us....and even the pastors themselves have to admit that at the end of the day it is a complete mystery of how to reconcile logic with scripture.....is jesus subordinate to the father? is the holy spirit subordinate to the son and father? are they all one in equal power and glory? and if they are, explain to me how jesus was clearly a man who became god? or how god became a man? how does that work? do the scriptures flesh all that out for us? no they dont which is why there are thousands of different christian churches who interpret the same NT in hundreds of different ways....
3) you say i will never become a god...ok great, i say i can and i hope i will and i absolutely read the bible in that way....if i can become LIKE god why cant i become A god? if jesus was a man who became god and jesus says "come follow me" ....after an eternity of following him, why is it so absurd to think that i couldn't become like him in godlike stature and beingness? why is it such a giant leap to follow the logic down the line: if we are the offspring of god (as paul says) and joint heirs with christ....and christ is god then how is it so wrong to then accept us becoming a god someday? (btw we are not polytheists, we are like you monotheists....we accept that there are multiple gods (both in godhead (god, son, spirit) and out of the godhead (grandpa god and head god etc--what makes us monotheists is that we only worship one god=god the father in the name of jesus christ by the holy spirit)becoming a god is really not that hard to imagine my friend...and its not hard to read the bible with that awesome point in mind.....
you say nothing in the word of god says we will become a god...i disagree...there are many ways to interpret several key passages from OT and NT to easily comprehend this mystery....i wont bother with the references because i know you'll just refute them with your own "correct" interpretation of the same passages...but if you really wanted to any educated latterday saint in this field would be happy to make the connections....(but i doubt you'd have the patience or humility for that)
i would say this: early christians construed passages from the bible to come up with the trinityand then modern christians (latterday saints) took the same passages (with others) and came up with a non-trinity concept of the nature of god (with some important caveats)
joseph smith as a prophet as well as some other later leaders received inspiriation and revelations to bolster and restore certain understandings just as much as luther and calvin and aquinas as "prophets" of their day, had their own inspiring commentaries and interpretations of scripture...to give the common man a clearer understanding of what they thought scripture is teaching...
only difference is we view joseph as a prophet whereas you don't view luther as one....but they are very similar, practically, in function....hey man....just because you state and testify of your interpretation regarding the word of god as true does not make it all clear or all so simple, the same goes for me....its my opinion and it takes years of pouring over but i do believe it is the truth...and i am a smart person who can back it up with a reasonable level of logic (if you but grant me just a few premises lol) and you sound like a smart guy with a very good understanding and backing of your tradition....thats great that we disagree and come down different paths of reasoning and understanding! i believe god is on my side and you probably believe god is on your side of the aisle in terms of a correct understanding....i suppose WE WILL SEE one day won't we LOL
i am happy that legally you cannot kill me or violently persecute me for my religion like the protestants did to joseph and the early mormons kicking us out of the usa....we are here to stay and are much more legally protected now than we were in those wild american west days...
and i am happy catholics and protestants are not killing each other and killing jews and muslims over not being baptized or being a christ killer or any number of religious atrocities done in our human history....all in the name of chirst and it beings gods will
this is what is great about american religious freedom....joseph smith wrote latter day saint article of faith 11"we claim the privilege of worshipping almighty god according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how where or what they may"i certainly prefer my understanding of god and religion and spirituality over a traditional or mainstream christian explanation but i'm koo with all of the diversity of christian and non-christian thought that is out in the world....
you may think latterday saints are going to hell if we don't accept your version of the gospel truth and guess what, we want you to join our christian church too so you can experience the more abundant life jesus offers members of his church in these latter days (yes, thats us, his church, the latter day saints, the church of jesus christ of latter day saints)
the reality is though, that the likelihood of me joining your christian understanding and your christian church is so near impossibly low and vice versa that it is dare i say pointless to have these conversations other than it being fun for me (i hope they are fun for you too, LOL)...
how about this: you are right and i am righter? LOL
God bless you brother
see you around, i'm out.
The two ideas are not contradictory. Both can be true even in a linear progression. There can be a Father of all gods who presides within a particular group of gods or, in modern terms, presidents, just as stake president presides over all other authorities within his stake -- over all bishops, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, primary presidents, etc. There is an authority above the stake president, the area president, and an authority above him, a member of the Twelve, and an authority above him, the president of the Church, and an authority above him, Jesus Christ, and an authority above him, the Father, and an authority above Him... Without infinite regression, there is always the question of beginnings -- Who created God? Infinite regression answes this simply -- Occam's Razor. (For some reason, people can more easily imagine no end than they can imagine no beginning, but without infinite beginnings, there can be no infinite endings.) Infinite universes, or multiverses, as proposed by 2020 Nobel Prize winner Roger Penrose, is consistent with the idea of infinite regression. There is no kingdom in which there is no space, and there is no space in which there is no kingdom.
Wait, so is our God (not Jesus) a son of the Head God, and is Jesus the son of the son the Head God? Would we be the grandchildren of the Head God in this instance? I'm trying to make sense of this. Please help!
From this I'm getting
Head God
Heavenly Father
Jesus Christ (who is also a god and we are joint heirs with him)
Also, I watch you a lot on Midnight Mormons, great stuff!
In this idea, Heavenly Father is Head God. Of course... there are some issues, we don't really believe in subordination between God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son as far as I know, though that may only extend insofar as divintiy for sure.
@@randomnerd9088 so.. has the Head God been a man before? Or has he always been God? Has our Heavenly Father been a man? Or when they “as man is, God was once” are they referring to Jesus and not Heavenly Father who is the Head God?
@@randomnerd9088 thank you for responding!
@@KINGKNUBYT Blake Ostler's pov is that God the Father, at some point, condecended and experience mortal life similar to what Jesus Christ did (though explicitly not literally as Jesus Christ).
I don't know that I hold that view, but if we don't take the easy solution and consider the King Follet discourse & Lorenzo Snow's references to "God" as to God the Son but rather God the Father, then it seems to be the best theological parsing of those comments. The other somewhat common theory is of infinite regression, I don't hold that personally and think it's a misinterpretation of what Joseph Smith said.
It's not like JS didn't know that God is eternal, Snow knows of the same thing, and they both obviously knew that eternal meant "without beginning" as much as it meant without end. Therefore any interpretation that places a specific limit to when God was God cannot be a proper representation of what they meant, any theological understanding of their comments must hold that God is eternal.
Christianity branched from polytheistic roots. The name Mormons use for God the father literally means “Gods”-as in more than one God.
The sons of gods are obviously demigods, which are used throughout other religious and mythological belief systems.
Get checked for Malignant Scrupulosity.
Our Gracious God YHWH killed all the other gods.
Jacob is wrong. Revelation 1:6 says Heavenly Father has a Father
“God” is ambiguous. Likely refers to Christ, not the Father.
Question: do all these head and minion Gods have navels under their white robes?
Nice fairy tales to share around the campfire..but truth is not entertained by such
This video is more incoherent lies: YHWH isn't the Son of EL of the Canaanite pantheon that Mormons think Heavenly Father is and Dr.Michael S.Heiser's video that is used here is by a trinitarian who states that YHWH is God Most High just as Abram states in Genesis 14: 22 to the king of Sodom.
Isaiah 44: 6- 8 is talking about Only One God both the Invisible YHWH and visible YHWH of the Two Powers in Heaven Israelite theology that is the basis of the Christian trinity.
Not different gods!
Your ignorance is overwhelming!
Psalm Ch.83:18ASV"that they may know that thou alone, whose name is JEHOVAH, Art the MOST HIGH over all the earth.
The Lord JEHOVAH is no ones subordinate everyone is his su ordinate. He is plainly declared in scripture to be the MOST HIGH Elohim. There are many who are called El, elohim(including the prophet Moses), adonai for these are not names but titles. There is only one called JEHOVAH Because this is no mere title but the proper name of the greatest person and the greatest God. The blasphemous presumptiousness of Christendom's translators hides the true glory of JEHOVAH'S Sacred name. It appears more times in scripture than the next five most common names or titles COMBINED. It is the only name or title in ALL of scripture ever described as Holy.
Poggers
Poggers
Guys, y’all are talking crazy only arguing from the BoM. This is all intelligible gibberish.
In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1. Jesus is God not an exalted god man, Christianity does not believe in many gods, such as Mormonism. There is one God, the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, three persons, one God, one essence. they are the power, they take authority, they are omnipresent, omnipotent, the first and the last, the Alpha and the Omega, the Glorious Holy God.
God does not need a divine council to give Him ideas or to approve His decisions. He is the Omniscient God Almighty in His wisdom. The divine council is privileged to participate in various judgements and degrees, privileged to participate in Gods plan, and so are we, those who believe in Him. 1 Cor 8:5-6 Although there may be so called gods in heaven and earth, as indeed there are many gods and lords, yet there is ONE God.
Once minutos de tonterias.
Wow you guys are waaaaaaay off.
This is just etiological silliness. Creating story and projecting it backwards. It’s like listen to Star Trek fans arguing with Star Wars fans. My god is bigger and can beat up your god.
Brigham Young made two statements concerning this that seem contradictory, but they are not. The first was that was never a time when there were no Gods, and that it would be easier for an ant to count all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth than for us to find out the first cause of all things! Continued...
Brigham also said the Negro will never hold the priesthood
Our mortal family is patterned after Our Heavenly Family, stop being so obtuse, Jacob.
Elohim= singular Eloheim= plural. Video uses the wrong spelling.
There are many things wrong here! First of all, he is wrong about the KF sermon. Joseph Smith only stated that God was once a man like us! Also, gods can refer to Heavenly Father's spirit children (Psalms 82:6). There was no gods other than the ones that would be born on this earth that took part in the planning of the creation of this world. Continued...
Jesus once had a mortal body as man.