Do You Believe God The Father Had A Father

[Ahab]

Because accepting every idea that pops into my head as God-given is the worst kind of idolatry. It also leads to apostasy and/or insanity and/or megalomania. I have met members of the Church who have gone down this road.

That I had an idea does not mean it came from God. That I suspect that some of it is right and some of it is wrong is even moreof a reason to be wary.

I'm not suggesting you accept every idea that pops into your head.

Some ideas are good and from God, and others are not.

I think you just need to realize which idea(s) God has already given you regarding this issue.

[The Nehor]

I'm not suggesting you accept every idea that pops into your head.

Some ideas are good and from God, and others are not.

I think you just need to realize which idea(s) God has already given you regarding this issue.

He has given me a few hints and I have built a framework around them. The stuff he gave me is true. The rest is a mixture of possible truth and my brain farts.

[Ahab]

He has given me a few hints and I have built a framework around them. The stuff he gave me is true. The rest is a mixture of possible truth and my brain farts.

I don't mean to be picking on you, if it seems like I am.

I think I had almost forgottten what it was like to not know this stuff, because I've known it for quite a while now.

You reminded me, though, and I also know you're not the only one still trying to figure all of this out.

I still think you have or at least may have already been given the right idea(s), though.

You just need to realize which of the ideas you have are the right ones. Try thinking in simple terms. That helps me.

[ERayR]

I have to keep reminding myself that TIME is likely not linear with God so the concept of a heirarchy will be meaningless. Besides,as BKP said,some truth is not useful.

This part of the lyrics from the hymn "Oh My Father" has often intrigued me. Did Eliza R. Snow point to something beyond the obvious?

I had learned to call thee Father,

Thru thy Spirit from on high,

But, until the key of knowledge

Was restored, I knew not why.

[Duncan]

Who cares!!!! worry about your own dang kids or get some of your own and let God deal with us, he has plenty!

[swfarnsworth]

I believe it but I don't really care that I do; I don't really care about it; and I don't really care if I'm mistaken. When I do indulge in thinking about it, I think of endelss regress as "indeterminate by" or even "irrlevant to" our reckoning.

What the LDS Church doesn't teach through-and-through its curriculum is what it was exactly like for God to have been as man is. I've never heard anyone with the keys to do so bear testimony of any of those details as saving principles. The emphasis is much more focused on what we may become.

Thank you for summarizing exactly how I feel about the issue.

If god had a father, who had a father, who had a father, etc, etc., at some point, didn't something have to be created out of nothing? Isn't the argument that creationists often use against those who argue for natural causes for the earths creation, that something cannot be created from nothing? How is this idea that something cannot be created from nothing jibe with the argument for the existence of god, or god's god, or god's god's god, etc., as at some point, something had to be created from nothing?

Assume for a moment that God is the amorphous self-illuminating entity that most religions seem to worship. Since this being is believed to have always existed, it is never asked how it came into existence because that never happened. What people never seem to ask, however, is why that being exists. Why is there anything at all? Why is there matter or space? Why isn't the numerical value of existence a divide-by-zero error? (Not a lack of value, but a total absence of value in every conceivable sense.)

The answer is easy: Who cares? What value could come from answering this question?

One worthwhile question remains: How is an infinite regress of gods any worse than the self-illuminating entity god?

[cursor]

From one of the official websites of the Church:

"This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did" (

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith

, pp. 345-46).

Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as he did.

http://www.LDS.org/l...1-13-59,00.html

[mfbukowski]

I have no opinion on it because it is irrelevant to my life.

The idea however that God is a Man with a body is revolutionary and turns Christianity on it's head. I agree with the philosopher in the NY times that this is the strongest idea in Mormonism- the idea that God is immanent.

A transcendent God cannot hear and answer prayers. Abstract essences which fill the universe which are essentially Platonic Forms are not gods who can be fathers. Gods who are the "ground of Being" are a little hard to talk to, besides being a concept which makes no sense whatsoever.

So I certainly like the idea that God had a Father and hope he did, but frankly I think knowing how all that works is so far beyond us we don't need to worry about it, nor can we even really speak about it.

It is literally unspeakable because all words do is mess everything up and then you end up with threads like this one.

[swfarnsworth]

From one of the official websites of the Church:

"This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did" (

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith

, pp. 345-46).

Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as he did.

http://www.LDS.org/l...1-13-59,00.html

Shhh! We don't want the public to hear that, or they might not be brainwashed convert.

We even had a good hiding place: the Church website. Now where are we going to hide it?

/S

[mfbukowski]

I don't mean to be picking on you, if it seems like I am.

I think I had almost forgottten what it was like to not know this stuff, because I've known it for quite a while now.

You reminded me, though, and I also know you're not the only one still trying to figure all of this out.

I still think you have or at least may have already been given the right idea(s), though.

You just need to realize which of the ideas you have are the right ones. Try thinking in simple terms. That helps me.

Do you even realize this is tremendously condescending?

Oh tell us the TRVTH which only the almighty YOU know, oh great one!

[Ahab]

Do you even realize this is tremendously condescending?

Oh tell us the TRVTH which only the almighty YOU know, oh great one!

Heh, yeah. Like how it sounds condescending when anyone claims to know anything someone else doesn't know.

It's not my fault this stuff is so basic and elementary to my understanding. I wanted to know, and God told me.

Blame him if you don't think I should know what I know.

[Ahab]

Assume for a moment that God is the amorphous self-illuminating entity that most religions seem to worship. Since this being is believed to have always existed, it is never asked how it came into existence because that never happened. What people never seem to ask, however, is why that being exists.

I asked and God answered by telling me the reason is because that is just the way reality is.

Why not nothing at all, instead? Because it doesn't fit within reality. Because that idea is only within some people's imagination. Because there has never been only nothing. Because out of all that exist one kind of being has always existed which is superior to all other kinds of being in existence.

It helps me to know how reality is, so I don't get confused by what's in only mine or some other people's imagination.

It also helps me to realize that the one we call our Father is really our Father, in actual reality, rather than just being some kind of metaphor which is somehow supposed to make us feel better about ourselves even though in reality he isn't our real actual Father, you know, the one who actually had something to do with our birth, along with his Father (and Mother) before him.

People write songs about things like this, you know. How awesome to know our Father in heaven is really our Father.

Why is there anything at all?

Because that's just the way things really are.

Why is there matter or space?

Because that's just the way things really are.

Why isn't the numerical value of existence a divide-by-zero error? (Not a lack of value, but a total absence of value in every conceivable sense.)

Because that's NOt just the way things really are.

The answer is easy: Who cares?

I do, and I know, even if nobody else is interested in the way things really are.

What value could come from answering this question?

It would depend on who gave the answer, I think. With an answer from God, we can know the way things in reality are.

One worthwhile question remains: How is an infinite regress of gods any worse than the self-illuminating entity god?

I don't see how it makes any difference if both of those are ideas conform to the way things really are, which they do.

It's just that the entity isn't one person all by himself or with only 2 other persons.

In reality there is no end to the number of persons who are in reality "God".

[swfarnsworth]

I asked and God answered by telling me the reason is because that is just the way reality is.

That response answers the question "Do you exist?", not "Why would you exist if you were an amorphous self-illuminating entity?".

Why not nothing at all, instead? Because it doesn't fit within reality. Because that idea is only within some people's imagination. Because there has never been only nothing. Because out of all that exist one kind of being has always existed which is superior to all other kinds of being in existence.

It helps me to know how reality is, so I don't get confused by what's in only mine or some other people's imagination.

...

Because that's just the way things really are.

Because that's just the way things really are.

Because that's NOt just the way things really are.

I do, and I know, even if nobody else is interested in the way things really are.

Your response is giving me the impression that you are disagreeing with my original points, but I agree with everything you said above.

It also helps me to realize that the one we call our Father is really our Father, in actual reality, rather than just being some kind of metaphor which is somehow supposed to make us feel better about ourselves even though in reality he isn't our real actual Father, you know, the one who actually had something to do with our birth, along with his Father (and Mother) before him.

People write songs about things like this, you know. How awesome to know our Father in heaven is really our Father.

I apologize if I said something to make you think that you wouldn't be preaching to the choir by saying that.

[Ahab]

That response answers the question "Do you exist?", not "Why would you exist if you were an amorphous self-illuminating entity?".

Yes, it answers that too, if that fits within the way reality is, if I were an amorphous self-illuminating entity.

Btw, I had to look up to see what the word "amorphous" means and this is what I came up with:

1. without shape: without any clear shape, form, or structure
   
2. not classifiable: not obviously belonging to any category or type
   
3. not crystalline: without a crystalline structure
   

Now I see that he is not "amorphous", and that I had a wrong impression about what "amorphous" means, but now I can see that the kind of being God is is a self-illuminating being.

Your response is giving me the impression that you are disagreeing with my original points, but I agree with everything you said above.

Okay, if you say so. I got the impression you were wondering why people might want to ask those questions.

I apologize if I said something to make you think that you wouldn't be preaching to the choir by saying that.

No apology necessary, with me. I was just trying to answer the questions you were asking.

[MiserereNobis]

A LOT of members believe it and will share their belief.

How do you suppose you could find out if the Church actually teaches it, though? By polling members of the Church? Would that be a good way, ya think? How about looking for quotes from not only membes of the Church, but from Church Presidents, too? If a Church President teaches it, do you suppose that would mean the Church teaches it? The President speaks for the Church, right? Or if you don't think one President all by himself is enough, even though he by himself holds the keys of the kingdom, how about if you found quotes from several Church Presidents and maybe some members of trhe Quorum of the Twelve, too? Would that be enough, ya think?

As far as "scripture" goes, that all depends on what scripture actually is, doesn't it, and how do you suppose you find out what is scripture? I and many other members of the Church will tell you it's anything men are moved to write by the power of the Holy Ghost, which isn't necessarily part of the "canon" or "standard" works in the Church.

Any person who is the most supreme kind of being in all of existence is the being we refer to as "God". God is also a word we commonly use to refer to a particular person who is God, though, more commonly our Father but Jesus and the Holy Ghost are also persons who are God, too, so you should try to keep that in mind when a member of the Church uses the word "God".

At the very top of the hierarchy as far as the "kind" of being our Father is, but there are other persons who are the same kind of being he is. Just think back to basic terms before you started to try to find out who or what God was, when you simply thought of "God" as the most supreme being in all of existence, and then expand on that to realize that being is a particular "kind" of being with more than one person who is that kind of being. At that point it's just a matter of whether or not you should refer to those persons as Gods, or persons who are God, and I think to be politically correct you should refer to them as persons who are God with "God" still meaning the most supreme kind of being in all of existence.

And it really shouldn't blow your mind that one of those persons actually had a Father. Jesus did, so why shouldn't another preson who is God also have a Father? I can see how it might get a little confusing for some people to know which person you're referring to as Father, though, but considering how Jesus becomes a Father of those who are born again through him, we already have more than one Father, not even counting all of the Fathers people who have had who have been mortal on this Earth.

It's all very simple, and yet somehow complex because the word father can include persons who are also known as a grandfather, or a great grandfather, or a great... great grandfather going back into infinity forever.

Ahab, I think you are an old-school Mormon, which is wonderful (as a Catholic, I'm into being old-school). You embody the ideas of the LDS church in the past and stand, sometimes very starkly, as a contrast to those who embody the LDS church now.

It is an interesting time right now in the LDS church, just like in the 1970s post-Vatican II, it was an interesting (though terribly misguided) time in the Catholic Church.

Edited September 19, 2012 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

I don't mean to be picking on you, if it seems like I am.

I think I had almost forgottten what it was like to not know this stuff, because I've known it for quite a while now.

Humility, dear Ahab, is the number one Christian virtue, and pride, dear Ahab, is the number one Christian sin.

[USU78]

I find myself not much worrying about such things as I did in my youth.

Scripture-based conjecture, whether by a sitting Prophet or an Elder's Quorum President may sound great and may even be 100% accurate, but it makes very little difference in how we are to serve Him Whom we ought to be serving. Far more important to get right with G-d than to determine whether there was a beginning before the beginning.

[MiserereNobis]

Who cares!!!! worry about your own dang kids or get some of your own and let God deal with us, he has plenty!

Mormons are apt to quote that life eternal is knowing God. It seems strange to respond, "never mind what God is like!" if the whole point is to know Him...

[MiserereNobis]

I have no opinion on it because it is irrelevant to my life.

The idea however that God is a Man with a body is revolutionary and turns Christianity on it's head. I agree with the philosopher in the NY times that this is the strongest idea in Mormonism- the idea that God is immanent.

True, which is why Mormons should not be timid about it and should not try to say that their belief about God is the same as traditional Christianity's view about God.

A transcendent God cannot hear and answer prayers.

Yes, which is why it's a good thing that God is both transcendent and immanent, not just one or the other. The Incarnation is the miracle which reconciles us to God, and since God is outside of time, the Incarnation is always present to Him.

So I certainly like the idea that God had a Father and hope he did, but frankly I think knowing how all that works is so far beyond us we don't need to worry about it, nor can we even really speak about it.

*gasp* Is this a mystery, then? From my impressions, Mormons are loath to admit that there is any mystery at all when it comes to God

It is literally unspeakable because all words do is mess everything up and then you end up with threads like this one.

Maybe, mfb, your Catholic upbringing is coming out here We can only go so far with words, and then we are left with mystery, with the ineffable Being of God, with a Being of whom we cannot truly speak, because He is ultimately so far beyond our language and minds.

[Ahab]

ahab, I think you are an old-school Mormon, which is wonderful (as a Catholic, I'm into being old-school). You embody the ideas of the LDS church in the past and stand, sometimes as a very stark, contrast to those who embody the LDS church now.

Well I definitely am old-school, if I understand what you mean. I don't think I'm all that different from many other members of the Church today, though. I think there have been all types throughout all of history... with some strong in the doctrine and some not.

It is an interesting time right now in the LDS church, just like in the 1970s post-Vatican II, it was an interesting (though terribly misguided) time in the Catholic Church.

Are you suggesting there is some misguidance in the "LDS church" today?

Well, I like to think we're all doing as well as we know how, and when we all know better, then we'll do better too.

Still a variety of types of members in the Church as well as outside of it, though.

There's never been a time, and there never will be a time, when all of us agree on everything.

We're all destined for different degrees of glory, and God has already made a place for each one of us.

[MiserereNobis]

Shhh! We don't want the public to hear that, or they might not be brainwashed convert.

We even had a good hiding place: the Church website. Now where are we going to hide it?

/S

I appreciate your humor (truly!) but you have to admit that there are some LDS, even on this board, that distance themselves from this idea by saying it is not realy doctrine, but only speculation.

And last time I checked, it wasn't taught in the 6 missionary discussions (but my last check was a while ago, so perhaps the discussions have changed).

On the other hand, the nature of God as believed and declared by the Catholic Church (and believed and assented to by me) is at the very beginning of the Catechism.

[cursor]

If it's important to understand the preexistence, and significant that we comprehend the structure of the afterlife (degrees of glory, etc.), how is it not important to appreciate the eternal and cyclical nature of the broader plan? Knowing it adds significant meaning and unique perspective to this life.

Edited September 19, 2012 by cursor

[MiserereNobis]

I find myself not much worrying about such things as I did in my youth.

Scripture-based conjecture, whether by a sitting Prophet or an Elder's Quorum President may sound great and may even be 100% accurate, but it makes very little difference in how we are to serve Him Whom we ought to be serving. Far more important to get right with G-d than to determine whether there was a beginning before the beginning.

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.

[Duncan]

Mormons are apt to quote that life eternal is knowing God. It seems strange to respond, "never mind what God is like!" if the whole point is to know Him...

I didn't say that and I care about what God is like but not so much about what hasn't been revealed yet just because what difference in my life does knowing that God had or didn't have a father

[Ahab]

Humility, dear Ahab, is the number one Christian virtue, and pride, dear Ahab, is the number one Christian sin.

Faith in what the Lord has told me ranks up there pretty high, too. I like knowing and sharing what God has told me.