Jesterss Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 God does not look like us, we look like Him.Having fun putting our beliefs in sci-fi terms?But according to JS, God has flesh and bone and looks like a man.. So isn't it fair to say that God looks like man?
altersteve Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) But according to JS, God has flesh and bone and looks like a man.. So isn't it fair to say that God looks like man?Yes, but we were made in His image, not the other way around. I think that's what Pa Pa meant. Edited October 7, 2011 by altersteve 1
altersteve Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Sorry but I'm a little confused by the two posts above -- they seem to contradict each other. The first says there are no other gods, and the second says that God passed through mortality. If there are no other gods, then who was in charge when God was in mortality? Are you meaning to say that there are no other gods within our universe but our Heavenly Father, and that he went through mortality in another universe? The simple statement that "There are no other gods of other worlds in LDS doctrine," with no other qualifications, doesn't sound right to me. It doesn't represent my beliefs anyway, and I am LDS.By "no other gods," I mean that Heavenly Father is the God of gods. There are other exalted, glorified, divine beings who are "gods" in that sense, but there are no beings equal to or greater than our Heavenly Father.I don't know how, when, or where the Father's mortal experience took place; nobody does. I also don't know who was "in charge" when the Father was a mortal. As far as I understand, it's something that we don't understand right now, and we won't understand until much later. Nearly everything in this area is pure speculation. 1
K-2 Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 .K-2:I think we're getting into pure conjecture here.Whether there is or is not other Gods there is only one God to us.Sure. I just couldn't tell what you thought "to us" would mean. Some think there is a god over each planet, some think there is one over each galaxy, some think there is one over each universe, and some (hopefully not LDS) think there is only one God over the entire infinite multiverse.
ERayR Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 But according to JS, God has flesh and bone and looks like a man.. So isn't it fair to say that God looks like man?Nope. I believe that goes "God created man in his own image, male and female created he them". That means we look like God. It may be just a quibble because if we look like God then God looks like us but, It may be just me, I have always been taught to put the most important first.
altersteve Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) Sure. I just couldn't tell what you thought "to us" would mean. Some think there is a god over each planet, some think there is one over each galaxy, some think there is one over each universe, and some (hopefully not LDS) think there is only one God over the entire infinite multiverse.Why not? That's what I believe. I don't have any reason to believe that there is more than one universe, but I certainly don't believe that there is anything that Heavenly Father is not the God of. Edited October 7, 2011 by altersteve
Jesterss Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) Nope. I believe that goes "God created man in his own image, male and female created he them". That means we look like God. It may be just a quibble because if we look like God then God looks like us but, It may be just me, I have always been taught to put the most important first.Right, it is just quibble when speaking to another person of faith. Of course we understand what Genesis says about man being made in Gods image. To non-LDS, this takes a different meaning though. So when non-LDS try to make the connection of image to image, being vice-versa, and you say "no" it comes off as if you are trying to be sneaky with your interpretation. It would seem more appropriate if you could say "Yes" then add the "but it's important to understand that we were made in his image, so the qualifier is putting God first."Edit: When I ask someone a question, and the first thing they say is "no" then in my mind they obviously don't agree with my question or statement. Wouldn't you agree?If I asked you if you were a christian, wouldn't you say: "Yes, but I am a member of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints"? You wouldn't say No, because then I would obviously think you really meant you aren't a christian...Saying no, to me asking if God looks like man, makes me think you don't think he has flesh and bone and human characteristics... That's all I'm getting at, and I'm sure most non-LDS mean as well.. Not meant to be a word game..AlterSteve actually answered it best.. Edited October 7, 2011 by Jesterss
Cobalt-70 Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Having fun putting our beliefs in sci-fi terms?Not sci-fi terms. Scientific terms. There is a great tradition within Mormonism of trying to describe theology in scientific terms, John Widtsoe being a prime example. Mormonism is a very materialistic religion.
Calm Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) Right, it is just quibble when speaking to another person of faith. Of course we understand what Genesis says about man being made in Gods image. To non-LDS, this takes a different meaning though. So when non-LDS try to make the connection of image to image, being vice-versa, and you say "no" it comes off as if you are trying to be sneaky with your interpretation. It would seem more appropriate if you could say "Yes" then add the "but it's important to understand that we were made in his image, so the qualifier is putting God first."The problem is not just which is more important but which served as the model. When people say that LDS believe that God is in man's image or God looks like man, that suggests that God was made in man's image, not the other way around. God was first, we are made in God's image just as children are made in their parents' image. One can say that a father looks like his child, but much more often it described as a child looks like a parent because of the understanding of 'which came first' that is built into the connotation of the phrase.The whole point to LDS about man being in God's image is to establish the proper relationship between God and man (I assume nonLDS look on this verse in the same way). This relationship is one of the most fundamental and important aspects of the Gospel so describing efforts to maintain the proper understanding of the relationship as "quibbling" is inappropriate, in my opinion, in that it trivializes what is important. Edited October 7, 2011 by calmoriah
thesometimesaint Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) K-2:I believe that our God is the God of the whole universe/multiverse. Though it is entirely possible for other Gods to exist in service to our God. That idea would fit within the Council of the Gods, and if we are to become Gods ourselves it makes sense. But that is just my speculation. Edited October 7, 2011 by thesometimesaint
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 But according to JS, God has flesh and bone and looks like a man.. So isn't it fair to say that God looks like man?That would suppose we came first, we look like Him. May seem like semantics, but in the case a clear distinction.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Not sci-fi terms. Scientific terms. There is a great tradition within Mormonism of trying to describe theology in scientific terms, John Widtsoe being a prime example. Mormonism is a very materialistic religion.Si literal, I like it. You man we actually believe in matter?
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 K-2:I believe that our God is the God of the whole universe/multiverse. Though it is entirely possible for other Gods to exist in service to our God. That idea would fit within the Council of the Gods, and if we are to become Gods ourselves it makes sense. But that is just my speculation.Good point (if I am following) why would "God" be "Less God", just because he has (other immortal beings) "gods" who serve him?
Cobalt-70 Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Si literal, I like it. You man we actually believe in matter?Not only matter, but a universe ruled by physical laws that even God cannot transgress. It is natural that we would try to de-supernaturalize things. 1
Jesterss Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 The problem is not just which is more important but which served as the model. When people say that LDS believe that God is in man's image or God looks like man, that suggests that God was made in man's image, not the other way around. God was first, we are made in God's image just as children are made in their parents' image. One can say that a father looks like his child, but much more often it described as a child looks like a parent because of the understanding of 'which came first' that is built into the connotation of the phrase.The whole point to LDS about man being in God's image is to establish the proper relationship between God and man (I assume nonLDS look on this verse in the same way). This relationship is one of the most fundamental and important aspects of the Gospel so describing efforts to maintain the proper understanding of the relationship as "quibbling" is inappropriate, in my opinion, in that it trivializes what is important.You argue the obvious... yet miss the point.. There is no disagreement on what you mean when you say this.. How about when you look at a picture of your wife's mom when she was younger, wouldn't you say (when addressing your mother-in-law), "wow, [insert mother-in-law's name here] you looked like [insert wife's name here] when you were younger"... Does that really detract from her giving birth to your wife? No, it just means that now you can see the resemblance and indeed they look a lot alike... See, word play is not hard.. And your point is understood, but to tell me no, you don't think God looks like man, is the same as saying we don't look like God... Neither detracts from the first... If I were to say that God took his image from man, then yes, I would expect a No... But the question was never who took the looks from who or who initially had the look, it's about whether you believe they look alike.. cmon.. stop trying to twist it... WE GET IT...
Jesterss Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) That would suppose we came first, we look like Him. May seem like semantics, but in the case a clear distinction.It is precisely semantics you are arguing... a play on words and phrases...Did God take his looks from humans?^--The answer is obviously no, because we took our looks from him, he was first... Do Humans, in appearance, look like God does?^--In your theology, we look like God in appearanceDoes God, in his appearance, look like we (humans/man) look?^--In your theology, God does indeed look like us, because we look like him... (is it really that hard to say this? rather than trying to twist words?)Notice the first question is the only one that wouldn't get a yes... not so hard is it? Edited October 7, 2011 by Jesterss
ERayR Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 The problem is not just which is more important but which served as the model. When people say that LDS believe that God is in man's image or God looks like man, that suggests that God was made in man's image, not the other way around. God was first, we are made in God's image just as children are made in their parents' image. One can say that a father looks like his child, but much more often it described as a child looks like a parent because of the understanding of 'which came first' that is built into the connotation of the phrase.The whole point to LDS about man being in God's image is to establish the proper relationship between God and man (I assume nonLDS look on this verse in the same way). This relationship is one of the most fundamental and important aspects of the Gospel so describing efforts to maintain the proper understanding of the relationship as "quibbling" is inappropriate, in my opinion, in that it trivializes what is important.That is exactly what I was getting at only you said it so much better. Thanks.
Calm Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) WE GET IT...You may, but my experience with some others is otherwise and likely is the same reason why ERayR was insisting on saying it a certain way. Some LDS have developed the habit of insisting on precision based on past experiences with what happens when they are more casual. You must remember you are talking with individuals who have had a long history of these kinds of conversations and thus will bring habits based on these experiences into the conversation with you that may not be needed. Edited October 8, 2011 by calmoriah
Jesterss Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 You may, but my experience with others is otherwise and likely is the same reason why ERayR was insisting on saying it a certain way.Some LDS have developed the habit of insisting on precision based on past experiences with what happens when they are more casual. You must remember you are talking with individuals who have had a long history of these kinds of conversations and thus will bring habits based on these experiences into the conversation with you that may not be needed.point taken.. and understandable.. it's just circular arguments like these that cause frustration sometimes... so I'll try to keep that in mind next time as well..
K-2 Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 K-2:I believe that our God is the God of the whole universe/multiverse. Though it is entirely possible for other Gods to exist in service to our God. That idea would fit within the Council of the Gods, and if we are to become Gods ourselves it makes sense. But that is just my speculation.Do you believe He was ever begotten as a spirit?
altersteve Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Do you believe He was ever begotten as a spirit?I know this wasn't directed at me, but let's just say that I don't believe there was ever a time when our Heavenly Father didn't exist.
ERayR Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 You may, but my experience with others is otherwise and likely is the same reason why ERayR was insisting on saying it a certain way.Some LDS have developed the habit of insisting on precision based on past experiences with what happens when they are more casual. You must remember you are talking with individuals who have had a long history of these kinds of conversations and thus will bring habits based on these experiences into the conversation with you that may not be needed.Precisely. There are some who see a difference where there is none. I find it better to be very precise when trying to communicate with them.
K-2 Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 I know this wasn't directed at me, but let's just say that I don't believe there was ever a time when our Heavenly Father didn't exist.He could've existed as an intelligence prior to spirit birth, I suppose.
Calm Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 He could've existed as an intelligence prior to spirit birth, I suppose.He could have also had the ability as an intelligence to organize his own spirit body, just because a process was used once doesn't require it to have been used for all time.
zerinus Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 I have skimmed through this thread quickly, and I have not noticed anyone quoting what God Himself has revealed about the existence of "aliens:"Moses 1:4 And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease.5 Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth.27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the spirit of God.28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore.29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.
Recommended Posts