[Traveler]

Originally Posted by PassionForHisWord

Yes, that's part of the context. But the other half is God's statement: There has been no God before Him, and niether will there be after Him.

Let's say I got in a line to buy lunch for myself. If I was the only one in line, and also somehow the only customer the restaurant had all day, that would make me both the first customer and the last customer for that day, right?

Well, rather than using a time segment of a day, God declares He is the first and the last for all eternity (Isaiah 44:6). The first and the last what? The first and the last God. He even adds (in that verse reference I just put) that besides Him there is no other God. He has been the first for the entire infinite duration that He has been in existence, and because He is the only God, He will also be the last for the entire infinite duration that He will continue to exist in.

It may sound a little silly, but if we go back to my analogy, this would be the equivalent of me saying "I am the first and the last customer today, and besides me there is no other customer today."

Much of the problem you have to do with the doctrine is that you employ logic intent on finding fault. This is the same problem the Pharisees and Scribes had in opposing Jesus. So I am not sure where to begin. Let us start with Genesis. Note that prior to the fall of man all references to G-d or g-d are plural. Note that after the fall of man all references to G-d are singular. Failure to engage this fact is a great flaw of traditional Trinitarian Christians. It fails to recognize the very core and basis of the fall and the only means for fallen man to return to the Kingdom of Heaven.

In the most simple of terms if man deals with the exact same single G-d before and after the fall then there was in truth no fall. We learn from scripture that Jesus is the “only” mediator G-d with the Father. With this understanding of Jesus everything in ancient scripture makes sense. For example; as the “mediator G-d” for fallen man there are no other G-ds for consideration. All of the ancient references to G-d in Biblical scripture parallel the ancient covenants concerning Kingdoms and Suzerain rule as directed toward subjects of that kingdom. It would be most foolish to think that the ancient Egyptians thought Pharaoh was indeed the only Suzerain on earth – even though every ancient Egyptian manuscript referencing Pharaoh says exactly that.

The LDS doctrine is that G-d the Father is the Suzerain of the Kingdom of heaven and that Jesus Christ his “begotten” Son is his servant vassal. We call the Father our father because he is the father of our spirits. LDS doctrine also teaches that the destiny of man is to evolve and become like G-d. To say this is impossible it to limit G-d and say he has no such power to do any such thing. Which in my mind is rather foolish since G-d gave all living creatures power to reproduce after their own “kind” and then to imply that G-d has no such power himself.

I also submit that there is no character or attribute of G-d that is not worthy of man’s emulation. In every way G-d intended for man to be like him. To claim and pronounce otherwise is in my mind the worst kind heresy and makes G-d a creation of man and his logic rather than man the very intended image and likeness of that G-d that created him.

The Traveler