Do You Believe God The Father Had A Father

[mfbukowski]

If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, DON'T call me Shirley!

But I think it is irreverent to make jokes about the temple.

Edited September 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[ANACO]

If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, DON'T call me Shirley!

But I think it is irreverent to make jokes about the temple.

It's "

"

[mfbukowski]

It's "

"

Love it!

[USU78]

Love it!

Did someone call me schnorrer?

[mfbukowski]

Did someone call me schnorrer?

My wife complains that I do that all night but I don't think she says it quite that way

It's a farshelpeh krenk.

(I knew those years in New York would do me good!)

[USU78]

My wife complains that I do that all night but I don't think she says it quite that way

It's a farshelpeh krenk.

(I knew those years in New York would do me)

BTW: A big G'mar Chatima Tova! to you.

USU "

גמר חתימה טובה

" 78

[mfbukowski]

BTW: A big G'mar Chatima Tova! to you.

USU "

גמר חתימה טובה

" 78

For those who are reaching this page by Googling it and looking for the translation, here it is:

Literally: A good final sealing

Idiomatically: May you be inscribed (in the Book of Life) for Good

Thank you so much! And the same for you!

I cannot think of a greater thing to wish anyone than "a good final sealing"!

[Theo-tokos]

Hello, I am a new to this site and I am trying to understand this issue.

I don't understand how changing the nature of time addresses this issue. The real question is: every effect has a cause. The universe is an effect (and so is jehovah according to Mormon theology) therefore they have a cause. The source of these must be a cause that is itself uncaused. This is what we mean by God. Or another way to phrase it is that the universe is contingent. It is possible for it to not be. Jehovah also must be contingent then, so the source of contingent beings must be a necessary being. This is what we call God. God must be an uncaused cause and a necessary being. It isn't something I can imagine but it is logical. The infinite regress is a real problem unless there is an uncaused necessary being.

Saying that is just the way it is doesn't solve the issue either. The issue is that an infinite regress is not logically possible. Causes extending into infintie past mean that there is no first cause. I there is no first cause, there are no effects, no effects, no philosophers to argue about why things are.

Can anyone shed light?

[Calm]

So where did the uncaused necessary being come from?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I don't know if God the Father has a Father...nor do I need too.

[ChristKnight]

So where did the uncaused necessary being come from?

Presumably, if the "uncaused necessary being" is uncaused, He/It didn't come from anywhere, He/It always existed, being "uncaused".

[Calm]

Presumably, if the "uncaused necessary being" is uncaused, He/It didn't come from anywhere, He/It always existed, being "uncaused".

I agree, but I don't see any difference between that and an infinite regress of Gods in having any explanatory value so I am curious as to his answer.

Does anyone here see a significant difference in explanatory value between saying something has always been there and something regresses back for eternity (in essence, the system of father to son has always existed, simply replacing one being with an infinite number of beings as the unexplainable, uncaused cause).

Edited December 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Does anyone here see a significant difference in explanatory value between saying something has always been there and something regresses back for eternity (in essence, the system of father to son has always existed, simply replacing one being with an infinite number of beings as the unexplainable, uncaused cause).

Nope.

And we have been over this many times. Hume correctly demolished this entire idea of an uncaused cause hundreds of years ago.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/

[onefour1]

Doctrine and Covenants 93:33

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

From this verse we see that elements are eternal.

Doctrine and Covenants 131:7

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

From this verse we learn that all spirit is made of element or matter and is only more fine or pure.

Thus I believe it is an LDS doctrine that things that exist have always existed in one form or another and that the doctrine of ex nihilo creation (creation out of nothing) is a false doctrine.

Doctrine and Covenants 93:29

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

This verse tells us that man was made of intelligence that has always existed and was never created or made and never can be.

So it is my belief that LDS doctrine suggest that everything that exists is made from that which has always existed. Everything that exists is made from that which has always existed. Our intelligences and the matter that make up our beings are as eternal as God himself.

Motion and change exist in both mortality and eternity. We know this because the creation of the heavens and the earth are past events, Jesus has come to earth for his mortal ministry and gone back to heaven. Change occurs in both eternity and in mortality. I believe it is because change exists and we have memories, that the concept of time exists. When events, due to change, occur we remember those former states of being. This gives us a sense of passage (time) from one event to another. When all of these changes or events are compared to another event that has a relatively constant change, we can measure and record the events in our lives based on the change of the constant event. We reckon the passage of events due to change according to another constant event such as the revolution of the earth around the sun or the rotation of the earth on its axis. Now we have a measure for our events and the concept of time. We can break the days into smaller increments and we get hours minutes and seconds. But all time is conceptualized by watching other events such as the movements of a second or hour hand on a clock or the sun coming up in the morning and going down in the night or watching the seasons come and go or the moon going from one full moon to the next. It is my belief that time is a contrivance and that the only thing that really exists in this subject area is change. Time is a useful tool to measure events and sychronize our lives so that we can all be to work on time or go to sleep or eat together, etc. etc. But it is an arbitrarily created contrivance for our use and benefit. I don't believe that it is a something that has its own existence.

When Adam was first created in the garden, according to the book of Abraham, he was not yet given his time of reckoning but was still under the reckoning of God's time which was the same as that on Kolob. Later, he was give his reckoning based on the sun and the rotation of the earth, etc. God created man's time and I believe he also created the time which is on Kolob as well. It was nothing more that setting something in motion with a relatively constant motion and basing all our changes and events on that constant motion. Time is arbitrary. The motions of the sun, earth, etc can be set by God. Change, in this context, is the one thing that is eternal. Time is the creation of a measure to measure change. In reality, I believe that we exist in an ever present state of existence which simply has motion and change going on within it. Passage of events gives us the illusion that somehow we are on a river of time flowing through the ages. But to me time only exists because we create it. It is useful but I don't believe it to be an eternal reality. I only believe that change exists as the eternal reality of the subject at hand. Only in our minds does time go back for an infinite duration. Sure, several mediums of time have been created but the point is that they all were created and are not an eternal reality but an invention of measure for our benefit. All that exists is what exists in the now with all its changes. But as a whole, nothing is taken from it or added to it. The things within it are rearranged and reconfigured but as a whole it never gets any bigger or smaller.

We live in the ever present NOW. Change goes on all the time but our conscience state is always in the ever present now. We conceive of a past based on our memory of past events and recorded history. But does the past have a real existence? Is it possible to go back in time? I don't believe we can. Reality and eternity is the ever present now. The same with the future. We only come upon it when it becomes the NOW. We know that we have some control over our changes and can plan for them. This give rise to the concept of the future. But in reality it doesn't exist. Only the NOW exists. Changes occur within the now and events go away and no longer exist. We dream of future events that we plan on doing but they are never real until we experience them in the now. Past and Future are conceptual only. True existence is the now. This does not make these concepts any less important because they are tied to our now and we learn from past events and accomplish things by planning for future events. But they are conceptual from our memory of how the now once was or how the now can become.

God, in whatever form he has existed, has always been a part of the now. Man and woman, whatever form they have had or will have will always exist in the now. Eternity, to me is the now. Time or mortality is a sectioned off piece of eternity that has been given a beginning and end. It hasn't been revealed to us whether there was a first God or an infinite regression of Gods. But LDS doctrine does teach that we can become a God (see D&C 132). It is no stretch of the imagination that if we can become a God, God might have been like us at some stage in his existence. Joseph Smith taught, as recorded in History of the Church vol 6 page 305 that God actually was once like we are now.

[ERayR]

Your expression here seems to support mfb's assertion on some thread somewhere (sorry, I forget which one) that Mormons are more focused on orthopraxy (acting correctly) than orthodoxy (believing correctly).

It is a thesis I still find to be fascinating, though I must say it appears to be more of new-school Mormonism than old-school. So thanks, mfb, for putting it out there.

Sorry to come back to this after so long but I just ran across it. I would say this is not correct. It is my experience that Mormons are very focused on believing correctly. It is just that beyond the basics so very little is revealed and there are no creeds. Beyond the basics Mormonism is a theology based on personal revelation. The basics do not change and if ones advanced journey conflicts with the basics then it should be reexamined. Eventually as each advances in their own path and understanding all will converge at the Throne of God.

[ERayR]

Presumably, if the "uncaused necessary being" is uncaused, He/It didn't come from anywhere, He/It always existed, being "uncaused".

Edited December 29, 2012 by ERayR

[mfbukowski]

Sorry to come back to this after so long but I just ran across it. I would say this is not correct. It is my experience that Mormons are very focused on believing correctly. It is just that beyond the basics so very little is revealed and there are no creeds. Beyond the basics Mormonism is a theology based on personal revelation. The basics do not change and if ones advanced journey conflicts with the basics then it should be reexamined. Eventually as each advances in their own path and understanding all will converge at the Throne of God.

Just for the record, since this was an indirect reply to me, I have no problem with anything you said here except saying it was "incorrect". So I am a little puzzled.

The mere idea of responding to personal revelation as one moves forward on a "path", to me, is "orthopraxis". THAT itself IS "correct belief"- that indeed we SHOULD be in a state of becoming better in spirit, thought and deed on a continuous basis.

Perhaps the apparent disagreement might be based in the idea of continuity of change and growth in knowledge. I do not see knowledge as a static thing, so that for me "believing correctly" is of paramount importance, but that correct belief is itself a belief that one should be constantly growing in understanding, and I am sure you would agree with that.

One cannot progress unless one takes it as an "unchangeable truth" that one SHOULD progress continually, and that includes in knowledge and belief.

I guess it is the idea of "constancy of change" or progression. A great flowing river like the Mississippi can be seen as an "eternal constant" yet we know it is in a constant state of change from nanosecond to nanosecond, and for me that epitomizes the idea of gospel orthopraxy. But yes, those basic beliefs that one should progress, and all that goes with it, that we should help others progress, that we are forgiven for previous sins during our progression etc are all part of it, but it is all based on correct practice ultimately. No progression is possible unless we are.... well, progressing!

[ERayR]

Just for the record, since this was an indirect reply to me, I have no problem with anything you said here except saying it was "incorrect". So I am a little puzzled.

The mere idea of responding to personal revelation as one moves forward on a "path", to me, is "orthopraxis". THAT itself IS "correct belief"- that indeed we SHOULD be in a state of becoming better in spirit, thought and deed on a continuous basis.

Perhaps the apparent disagreement might be based in the idea of continuity of change and growth in knowledge. I do not see knowledge as a static thing, so that for me "believing correctly" is of paramount importance, but that correct belief is itself a belief that one should be constantly growing in understanding, and I am sure you would agree with that.

One cannot progress unless one takes it as an "unchangeable truth" that one SHOULD progress continually, and that includes in knowledge and belief.

I guess it is the idea of "constancy of change" or progression. A great flowing river like the Mississippi can be seen as an "eternal constant" yet we know it is in a constant state of change from nanosecond to nanosecond, and for me that epitomizes the idea of gospel orthopraxy. But yes, those basic beliefs that one should progress, and all that goes with it, that we should help others progress, that we are forgiven for previous sins during our progression etc are all part of it, but it is all based on correct practice ultimately. No progression is possible unless we are.... well, progressing!

I agree with all you have said here. What I was addressing was MiserNobis post where he said this: Your expression here seems to support mfb's assertion on some thread somewhere (sorry, I forget which one) that Mormons are more focused on orthopraxy (acting correctly) than orthodoxy (believing correctly).

What I was taking exception to was his that Mormons were more focused on acting correctly (works) than in believing correctly. I think that for one to consistently act correctly they must believe correctly.

Edited December 30, 2012 by ERayR

[Bernard Gui]

Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons or daughters of Elohim. So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation.

The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Salt Lake City, Utah, 30 June 1916

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. By His almighty power He organized the earth and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist coeternally with Himself. He formed every plant that grows and every animal that breathes, each after its own kind, spiritually and temporally—“that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual.” He made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant, but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with godlike reason and intelligence. Nevertheless, the whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, each class in its “distinct order or sphere,” and will enjoy “eternal felicity.” That fact has been made plain in this dispensation (see D&C 77:3).

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.

Joseph F. Smith

John R. Winder

Anthon H. Lund

First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

November 1909

Edited December 30, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[DarkScythe]

Does it matter if Heavenly Father had a Father? My Answer is No it doesn't matter if He has a Father or not. For it doesn't effect me. And Heavenly Father is the King of this Multi-verse and none shall replace him.

[ERayR]

Does it matter if Heavenly Father had a Father? My Answer is No it doesn't matter if He has a Father or not. For it doesn't effect me. And Heavenly Father is the King of this Multi-verse and none shall replace him.

Besides there seems to be enough room for everybody.

[Calm]

.

What I was taking exception to was his that Mormons were more focused on acting correctly (works) than in believing correctly. I think that for one to consistently act correctly they must believe correctly.

But there are many nonLds, even nonChristians who I have seen live exemplar lives without full knowledge of the gospel and even many good Saints whose understanding is very simple....and otoh I know quite a few very well informed Saints who are way off the path of acting in love, faith and pure religion.

I suspect that at this point no one believes more correctly then the demons spoken of in scripture, those who have already reject Christ as their saviour.

These kinds of examples lead me to believe that right now it is more of what we do with our knowledge, at whatever level it is than to have extensive knowledge and belief.

Another reason I am an orthopraxis proponent is that if correct belief is most essential to progression at this time then since God has severely limited humanity's exposure to the full gospel over the eons, even just the gospel, he has set things up to make it impossible for the vast majority to live by his laws...and that sounds counterintuitive. Plus scriptures say people are judged not by the amount of light they have, but what they do with that light.

Eventually in the next life we will be taught the truths that God has and we will likely find IMO that at this point we are seeing through a glass darkly and we would all fail a test of general gospel knowledge/beliefs if we were presented with one at the time of entering paradise or spirit prison.

Edited December 30, 2012 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

But there are many nonLds, even nonChristians who I have seen live exemplar lives without full knowledge of the gospel and even many good Saints whose understanding is very simple....and otoh I know quite a few very well informed Saints who are way off the path of acting in love, faith and pure religion.

I suspect that at this point no one believes more correctly then the demons spoken of in scripture, those who have already reject Christ as their saviour.

These kinds of examples lead me to believe that right now it is more of what we do with our knowledge, at whatever level it is than to have extensive knowledge and belief.

Another reason I am an orthopraxis proponent is that if correct belief is most essential to progression at this time then since God has severely limited humanity's exposure to the full gospel over the eons, even just the gospel, he has set things up to make it impossible for the vast majority to live by his laws...and that sounds counterintuitive. Plus scriptures say people are judged not by the amount of light they have, but what they do with that light.

Eventually in the next life we will be taught the truths that God has and we will likely find IMO that at this point we are seeing through a glass darkly and we would all fail a test of general gospel knowledge/beliefs if we were presented with one at the time of entering paradise or spirit prison.

As usual you are correct. Well back to the drawing board. However, my premise that Mormons are not more focused on acting correctly than believing correctly is still correct. I just said it poorly. The Mormons I know are very focused on getting the correct beliefs.

[Rob Osborn]

Hello, I am a new to this site and I am trying to understand this issue.

I don't understand how changing the nature of time addresses this issue. The real question is: every effect has a cause. The universe is an effect (and so is jehovah according to Mormon theology) therefore they have a cause. The source of these must be a cause that is itself uncaused. This is what we mean by God. Or another way to phrase it is that the universe is contingent. It is possible for it to not be. Jehovah also must be contingent then, so the source of contingent beings must be a necessary being. This is what we call God. God must be an uncaused cause and a necessary being. It isn't something I can imagine but it is logical. The infinite regress is a real problem unless there is an uncaused necessary being.

Saying that is just the way it is doesn't solve the issue either. The issue is that an infinite regress is not logically possible. Causes extending into infintie past mean that there is no first cause. I there is no first cause, there are no effects, no effects, no philosophers to argue about why things are.

Can anyone shed light?

I have thought long and hard on this issue and it is not easily resolved. I understand it like this-

The universe, or matter exists in a linear motion- always progressing from the present into the future. Any one moment is thus l8ke a "blip" in time where every event happened due to what led up to that event previously. From any one moment in this linear motion we can count events backwards and forwards any finite number of sequences. Never is there a time in th e linear past where some event is not connected with any pont recorded in the present. This literally means there is no point in the past that is infinitly unreachable. So it is with the future- there will never come a time when some God, myriads of eons, away, is not directly counted with a finite number from me.

[savedbygrace]

If it is true that as God is man may become, taking into account eternal marriage and procreation, and progression to God hood, and creation of other world etc., and this has been going in ad infenitum, then the natural conclusion is that the God with whom you have to do has been through this process which is eternal and simply has to have a father and mother and to have been married in order to have become who he is. Phew, that was complicated. But, how does that square with Gods own proclamation in Isaiah that not only is he The One God, he also does not know of any other. Now if this is true then, he is denying the existence of his own heavenly father and the eternal progression that he has been faithful to or his knowledge is not infinite, or he is telling a lie.

God is infinite, truth and love, He is I AM, he cannot lie because truth is what he is, so someone has it wrong.