stevedallas Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 That would be a complete misunderstanding of the Nature of God. The idea is that God is more of a Title, and when Elohim took over the title of God, the entity as a God is never changing.It is an extremely powerful doctrine that has its fingers in EVERY aspect of the LDS theological track, which is wrapped around the preexistence, the concept that Jesus took the Title of God during the Old Testament era, and the entire theology of Eternal Progression. Again, to ignore these fundamental concepts in the Church is not only flawed, but unnecessary.There is NO reason this is a harmful theology. And I think an understanding of the theology of the Hebews and other cultures of the time reveal a far more complex picture of God than presented by the current EVs.Understand I am being pro-LDS as I think this is an awesome concept and doctrine.Ok...then where did the first God come from and from whom did he receive his mantle?Again, not fighting, trying to understand.
LeSellers Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Ok...then where did the first God come from and from whom did he receive his mantle?There was no "first God".What there is, is "infinity". I don't understand it, and neither does anyone else. The matter that makes up the universe(s) has always existed, although not in the forms we see it today. It always was, and it always will be. There was no beginning. There is no end.There was no beginning of Gods, either.Nor did we, as intelligences, have a beginning. We, too, have always been.Please read and ponder the hymn, "If You Could Hie to Kolob". The answer is there, although I don't pretend to really get it.Lehi
Log Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Ok...then where did the first God come from and from whom did he receive his mantle?Again, not fighting, trying to understand.He received his mantle from all who consented by covenant with him to be his*. *This is my personal view and in no way should be taken to be the position of the church or any other person in it.
altersteve Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 CFR.I've explained this many times on this board. This is what Joseph Smith taught in the King Follett sermon. I've never heard a Church leader say that our Heavenly Father was once a sinful man; I reject that idea completely. As I understand it, rather, the Father was once a man in the same sense that Christ was once a man: sinless and perfect, yet still a man; a man, yet still God.
orion88 Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Yet the concept that jskains mentioned, that God is an exalted man and was once mortal, is established and official doctrine.What does it mean that God is an exalted man?
Brade Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 I've explained this many times on this board. This is what Joseph Smith taught in the King Follett sermon. I've never heard a Church leader say that our Heavenly Father was once a sinful man; I reject that idea completely. As I understand it, rather, the Father was once a man in the same sense that Christ was once a man: sinless and perfect, yet still a man; a man, yet still God.Don't forget the possibility that when God says of himself that he's sinless the expression 'sinless' actually doesn't mean sinless but is just a name like 'Bob' or 'Tom'. Like when God uses the expression 'eternal punishment'. He doesn't mean a punishment with no end. One of his names is 'Eternal' so 'eternal punishment' is just an expression for 'his punishment'. 3
mfbukowski Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Don't forget the possibility that when God says of himself that he's sinless the expression 'sinless' actually doesn't mean sinless but is just a name like 'Bob' or 'Tom'. Like when God uses the expression 'eternal punishment'. He doesn't mean a punishment with no end. One of his names is 'Eternal' so 'eternal punishment' is just an expression for 'his punishment'.Or of course, just as there will be a "new heaven" and "new earth" he could just be a "new man".You are being sarcastic, but I am not. But that's ok
Senator Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 The LDS view of God is the one taught in the standard works. That is where the doctrine of the Church officially resides. Nothing supersedes that as a repository of Church doctrine.Wilford Woodruff, the fourth President of the Church, reported: “I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made … with regard to the living oracles and with regard to the written word of God. … A leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the [living] oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’ ”
Ares Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Your agenda driven posts are becoming positively annoying. You do not appear to have anything useful to contribute to this message board.As long as he is posting according to the rules of the board others can decide if he is adding anything or not. If you disagree with his reasoning address it. Otherwise allow the moderators to moderate.
etana Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 The Church teaches that God passed through mortality just like Jesus Christ did, not that He was once exactly like us (sinful, imperfect, etc.). He was still God both during and before His mortality.This approximates the way i understand it as well. There are certainly other ways to extrapolate God based on the scriptures in light of the KFD..The popular idea that sinful men will "grow up" and inherit their own slice of the universe does make people uncomfortable, not for the reasons the OP insinuates but, out of reverence for, love of, fear and awe of God. 2
KevinG Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Absolutely! Using the King Follett sermon to imply we believe God was sinful or weak as we are now is an abuse of what I consider the valuable meaning behind Josephs words. Instead of bringing God down the sermon elevates us as His children and gives us a sense of our eternal parentage and destiny.To truly understand what Joseph meant we would have to know what it means to be a child of God, what he meant by "once was" and what the essentail parts of humans and gods have in common. I have my ideas but they are nothing like the criticisms that claim we somehow bring God down by claiming to be His eternal children and heirs. 3
etana Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 It seems rather simple. Heavenly father was like us. He did everything He had to and became a God Himself, taking on the role of running our Universe. He is the ONLY God of our universe, and the only one He knows of here. And we would carry on that tradition after the Earth goes through its phases...He didn't "take... on the role of running the Universe" He created the universe. He was also always God (unless you lean to your own understanding in preference to that presented in the scriptures).Sorry, I just don't see a reason to hide this one and I find it silly to do so.JMSI don't know that anyone is hiding anything so much as just not agreeing with what we see as an overly simplified and arrogant interpretation. 1
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) I would have absolutely no problem if it turns out that God sinned before He was exalted. In fact, I'd rather He be like us in that way: able to be forgiven for wrong choices made in the past. I don't love my parents because they've never made mistakes; I love them because they learn from those mistakes and try not to do them again. That's a much more powerful universe to me than one in which God is simply physically incapable of sinning. He wouldn't be good if He was incapable of acting differently; to be truly Good as a conscious, willful act, one has to have the potential to do evil and yet choose not to. God would cease to be God if He transgressed the Law agreed upon by common consent. That's why we honor Him: He chooses to be Good. Edited November 3, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith 1
KevinG Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) The gods much chuckle as we mortals debate the nature of eternal existance. I just bristle when someone who understands my doctrines less than I do tries to misrepresent them as something degrading to God. Edited November 3, 2011 by DaddyG
Jack Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 In reading early accounts of the King Follet Discourse I found it both interesting and confusing to read that babies and children who die young become Gods of worlds still inhabiting the bodies in the state they were when they died. "Baby Gods" is what I read on one of the forums on a post about it.I have read the discourse that had that part in it and then a few years later from the same sourcing it had that part taken out. Not sure why other than it is a difficult one to digest.Will/are there worlds presided over by "baby God" physical bodied one month old equivalents? That would be interesting.
LeSellers Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) The gods much chuckle ...Who do you think you are, Al Sharpton? (Although you'd have done better to have worded it thus: "Chuckle the gods much ...".)Lehi Edited November 3, 2011 by LeSellers
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) Jack: I believe Joseph Smith retracted that bit later, but I can't recall where I read that. Edited November 3, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith
KevinG Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Who do you think you are, Al Sharpton?LehiThe Mormon Al Sharpton. Hmmm... that might work.
mfbukowski Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) Absolutely! Using the King Follett sermon to imply we believe God was sinful or weak as we are now is an abuse of what I consider the valuable meaning behind Josephs words. Instead of bringing God down the sermon elevates us as His children and gives us a sense of our eternal parentage and destiny.To truly understand what Joseph meant we would have to know what it means to be a child of God, what he meant by "once was" and what the essentail parts of humans and gods have in common. I have my ideas but they are nothing like the criticisms that claim we somehow bring God down by claiming to be His eternal children and heirs.Yep.It discounts the positively unbelievable gift that he gives us by grace and through no merit of our own- the possibility of becoming like him, because he brings us up out of the depths- and all we have to do is do our very best to repent.That's what Evangelicals cannot understand - they are so fixated on the notion that somehow exaltation brings God "down" to our level, they ignore the magnitude of the gift he gives us.To me, they limit his generosity and put caps on the potential of his grace. We don't. Edited November 3, 2011 by mfbukowski
diglot Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 The LDS view of God is the one taught in the standard works. That is where the doctrine of the Church officially resides. Nothing supersedes that as a repository of Church doctrine.Yet somehow members of the Church manage to interpret the standard works to give different views of God.Before I came to this forum, I never knew the diverse opinions that existed amongst LDS concerning the nature of God.
mfbukowski Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Jack- it is usually believed that even babies have "full grown spirits".I would like to see some sources on your comment- this is not a CFR per se- it would just be interesting.
cinepro Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) I've explained this many times on this board. This is what Joseph Smith taught in the King Follett sermon. I've never heard a Church leader say that our Heavenly Father was once a sinful man; I reject that idea completely. As I understand it, rather, the Father was once a man in the same sense that Christ was once a man: sinless and perfect, yet still a man; a man, yet still God.This is what he said:"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!Unless Joseph was sinless, and Jesus was in the crowd and the "we" was only referring to them two, I think the phrase "was once as we are now" probably means what it sounds like.But as others have pointed out, what's the point? People who have sinned have just as much opportunity to become exactly the same kind of God as God is as the sinless ones. I'm fairly certain that is something the Church teaches as doctrine, so it seems counterproductive to say the it is somehow derogatory to theorize God once being as we are now. Edited November 3, 2011 by cinepro
diglot Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) That's what Evangelicals cannot understand - they are so fixated on the notion that somehow exaltation brings God "down" to our level, they ignore the magnitude of the gift he gives us.To me, they limit his generosity and put caps on the potential of his grace. We don't.I think it is more that Evangelicals see it is impossible (even for God) to turn a finite created being into an infinite eternal being.We don't put caps on his generosity. But we do think certain things are impossible, even for God. For example, God can not make a stone too heavy that he can not move it. God also can not turn a finite created human into someone who has always inhabited eternity, exists outside of all creation, etc.If you approach the LDS concept of exaltation with Evangelical presuppositions about who God is, then the idea of LDS exaltation seems like a logical impossibility (just like God making a stone too heavy to move). Edited November 3, 2011 by diglot
mfbukowski Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Yet somehow members of the Church manage to interpret the standard works to give different views of God.Before I came to this forum, I never knew the diverse opinions that existed amongst LDS concerning the nature of God.I really see that as one of our strengths, and it has been discussed at length by Blake Ostler among others. Our religion is a practical one- as long as we accept the principles and practices contained in the temple recommend interview, we are considered "orthodox". Ostler calls it "orthopraxis".The key is that we are allowed and encouraged to seek our own answers and our own personal revelations on matters not considered essential for our "salvation". And even that word is in quotes because we see even that differently than others- it has a range of meanings including everything from attaining the telestial (lowest) kingdom to exaltation itself.
altersteve Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Unless Joseph was sinless, and Jesus was in the crowd and the "we" was only referring to them two, I think the phrase "was once as we are now" probably means what it sounds like.Yes, Joseph said that God was once as we are now, in the same sense that Christ was once as we are now. This is clear when the entire sermon is read in its proper context, in light of what Joseph says elsewhere in the discourse. He compared the Father's mortality to Christ's for a reason. He taught from the Bible that Christ could do nothing except that which He had seen the Father do, and that He obtained the power to lay down His life and take it back up again from His Father, thus suggesting that the Father had this power as well. It's a power that we do not have because we are not God.But as others have pointed out, what's the point? People who have sinned have just as much opportunity to become exactly the same kind of God as God is as the sinless ones. I'm fairly certain that is something the Church teaches as doctrine, so it seems counterproductive to say the it is somehow derogatory to theorize God once being as we are now.As I've explained, I don't believe we can become "the same kind of God as God is." God became like us so that we can become like Him, but I don't believe that means we will be exactly like Him, just as He was not exactly like us.
Recommended Posts