Do You Believe God The Father Had A Father

[MiserereNobis]

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

Charity and humility always trump faith

1 Corinthians 13:1-2

1. If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2. And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

[Ahab]

Charity and humility always trump faith

1 Corinthians 13:1-2

Humility is what leads me to gain my faith from God, and Charity is what leads me to share my faith from God.

It all works together for the glory of God.

[MiserereNobis]

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.

And it appears that you place yourself with those who are strong in the doctrine, yes?

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

Well, there are two answers to this question. First, my statement was not meant to imply that there is misguidance in the LDS church today. It was simply meant to point out that I believe the immediate post-Vatican II Catholic Church had some misguidance from her clergy. Second, since I am not LDS and am Catholic, we all know that I believe that the LDS church is fundamentally misguided (as you believe my Church is in apostasy). But that was not the point of my statement. My point was that there appear to be interesting things going on in the LDS church theologically, as evidenced by the wide view of theological viewpoints of LDS members, as opposed to in previous years, when there appeared to be more of a consensus.

[altersteve]

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

I disagree. The number one Christian virtue is charity, the pure love of Christ, which all other good things stem from.

To answer the question in the thread title, I'm open to the idea but I don't really care one way or the other.

[Ahab]

And it appears that you place yourself with those who are strong in the doctrine, yes?

Of course! Who doesn't who also wants to be sure their beliefs are true? I don't wnat to be ashamed. Do you?

Well, there are two answers to this question. First, my statement was not meant to imply that there is misguidance in the LDS church today. It was simply meant to point out that I believe the immediate post-Vatican II Catholic Church had some misguidance from her clergy. Second, since I am not LDS and am Catholic, we all know that I believe that the LDS church is fundamentally misguided (as you believe my Church is in apostasy). But that was not the point of my statement. My point was that there appear to be interesting things going on in the LDS church theologically, as evidenced by the wide view of theological viewpoints of LDS members, as opposed to in previous years, when there appeared to be more of a consensus.

Interesting response. I'll give you a rep point for being very clever, or at least appearing to be.

I'm not all so sure things are so much different today than they have been in the past, though. There have always been apostates in and outside of our Lord's Church, but at least the Church is still alive and kicking... unlike when in the past our Lord took the Church from the Earth and left nothing but apostates to run the world... until he later restored the Church... and here we are now.

[Ahab]

I disagree. The number one Christian virtue is charity, the pure love of Christ, which all other good things stem from.

To answer the question in the thread title, I'm open to the idea but I don't really care one way or the other.

I always look for the word "only" to see if someone's paradigm is limited.

More than one thing can be number one, you know. Humility is a part of Charity, and it takes Faith to find both.

[MiserereNobis]

Of course! Who doesn't who also wants to be sure their beliefs are true? I don't wnat to be ashamed. Do you?

Here is an excerpt from the Litany of Humility (from the Catholic Church, of course):

O Jesus! meek and humble of heart, Hear me.

Fromthe desire of being esteemed,

Deliver me, Jesus.

From the desire of being loved...

From the desire of being extolled ...

From the desire of being honored ...

From the desire of being praised ...

From the desire of being preferred to others...

From the desire of being consulted ...

From the desire of being approved ...

From the fear of being humiliated ...

Fromthe fear of being despised...

From the fear of suffering rebukes ...

From the fear of being calumniated ...

From the fear of being forgotten ...

From the fear of being ridiculed ...

From the fear of being wronged ...

From the fear of being suspected ...

That others may be loved more than I,

Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.

That others may be esteemed more than I ...

That, in the opinion of the world,

others may increase and I may decrease ...

That others may be chosen and I set aside ...

That others may be praised and I unnoticed ...

That others may be preferred to me in everything...

That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should…

There is a long tradition of humility in the Catholic Church. St. Francis is perhaps one of humility's champions; he always prefered to be despised and ashamed instead of esteemed and extolled.

It is a very difficult path that the Gospel of Our Lord lays out for us, eh?

Interesting response. I'll give you a rep point for being very clever, or at least appearing to be.

Darn! There goes my humility!

unlike when in the past our Lord took the Church from the Earth and left nothing but apostates to run the world.

That wasn't very nice of Him now, was it, to take His Church away and leave His flock floundering in darkness and sin and error for 1800 years.....

[Ahab]

Here is an excerpt from the Litany of Humility (from the Catholic Church, of course):

There is a long tradition of humility in the Catholic Church. St. Francis is perhaps one of humility's champions; he always prefered to be despised and ashamed instead of esteemed and extolled.

It is a very difficult path that the Gospel of Our Lord lays out for us, eh?

God doesn't want us to be ashamed or despised, or at least not when we're doing his will and trying our best to follow him.

It's just that most people who follow him usually are, just as he was.

Darn! There goes my humility!

Nah, keep what you have that is good and see if we have anything good to add to it.

We do, but the point is for you to see it, which means you should look for it.

That wasn't very nice of Him now, was it, to take His Church away and leave His flock floundering in darkness and sin and error for 1800 years.....

Perhaps you didn't understand me when I said he took his Church away. His flock didn't founder. Those were apostates.

And yes, it was about 1800 years until the Lord's Church was restored while the children of the apostates were still floundering in darkness and sin.

[RobertAC]

"As man now is, God once was: as God now is, man may be" -- the concept is intriguing. It seems to adopt a prevalent gnostic Christian belief that the universe is polytheistic, but that at the top of the chain is the true God. Jehovah, the vengeful God of the Jews, was like the other deities of the different people in the world. Jesus was not preaching about Jehovah, but about a more rarified, loving God that was above all of the others. Like people, the deities have different levels of higher consciousness between them. The individual person can develop towards divinity, or he/she can slip and develop into someone with a lower consciousness level.

The concept acknowledges change, in a similar way that Hinduism and Buddhism recognize that a deity may live for a long time, but that ultimately the deity is born, lives, and then dies -- only to be reborn again.

[MiserereNobis]

God doesn't want us to be ashamed or despised, or at least not when we're doing his will and trying our best to follow him.

It's just that most people who follow him usually are, just as he was.

It might be interesting to explore the idea of humility in Mormonism and Catholicism. In the Catholic Church, the tradition of humility clearly states that yes, we should desire to be ashamed and despised (as shown in the Litany).

Nah, keep what you have that is good and see if we have anything good to add to it.

I'll say the same to you: bring your good to Christ's One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, and see what She can add to it

Perhaps you didn't understand me when I said he took his Church away. His flock didn't founder. Those were apostates.

I think I need more explanation here. How did Christians for 1800 years not flounder if Christ took His Church away?

[Nevo]

From my impressions, Mormons are loath to admit that there is any mystery at all when it comes to God

Not Brigham Young. During a doctrinal dispute with a fellow apostle, Young stated: "The trouble between Orson Pratt & me is I do not know Enough & he knows to[o] much. I do not know evry thing. Their is a mystery Concerning the God I worship[,] which mystery will be removed when I Come to a full knowledge of God" (quoted in Gary James Bergera, Conflict in the Quorum: Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith [salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002], 140).

[Ahab]

It might be interesting to explore the idea of humility in Mormonism and Catholicism. In the Catholic Church, the tradition of humility clearly states that yes, we should desire to be ashamed and despised (as shown in the Litany).

Doesn't that strike you as the least bit odd, especially in the context of understanding our Lord's doctrine?

My mind is thinking of a scripture recorded in the Bible. Can you guess which one?

I'll say the same to you: bring your good to Christ's One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, and see what She can add to it

God has told me which Church is the Lord's Church and I see no good reason to learn from your Church. You are here.

I think I need more explanation here. How did Christians for 1800 years not flounder if Christ took His Church away?

If by Christian you're referring to a follower of Jesus Christ, then just think of followers who didn't follow him very well.

That would cause someone to flounder, don't you think? Maybe because they wanted to be ashamed and despised?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

In the Encyclopedia of Mormonism we read, discussing Lorenzo Snow's couplet:

"This doctrine is stated concisely in a well-known couplet by President Lorenzo Snow: "As man now is, God once was: as God now is, man may be"This principle is clearly demonstrated in the person of Jesus Christ, a God who became mortal, and yet a God like whom mortals may become. But the maxim is true of the Father as well. As the Prophet Joseph Smith said, "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret" (TPJS, p. 345). Thus, the Father became the Father at some time before "the beginning" as humans know it, by experiencing a mortality similar to that experienced on earth. There has been speculation among some Latter-day Saints on the Iimplications of this doctrine, but nothing has been revealed to the Church about conditions before the "beginning" as mortals know it."

The complete article can be found here: http://eom.byu.edu/i.../God_the_Father

I've pulled this into a new thread because I don't think the thread on the Trinity is really the right place for it. When I was a Mormon, I was convinced that the LDS Church definitely taught that the Father had a Father and that that Father had a Father going back endlessly. It was what was taught in the transcription of a sermon which Joseph Smith supposedly taught a few days before his death in the Sermon in the Grove, a sermon which was transcribed by Thomas Bullock and not published until the 20th century. The article from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism seems to downplay that belief. In fact I can't find any mention of it in the Encyclopedia -- maybe I've just missed it. Anti-Mormons try to use this belief to discredit Mormonism. It seems a lot of talk about nothing if the LDS Church really doesn't teach it.

I have given this topic much thought over my life and have come to understand that it does not matter if the father had a father, to us it only matters that our heavenly father had one and it is to him that we look for salvation..."though there be gods many, there is but one God we worship". Paul from Corinthians Edited September 20, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[RobertAC]

I have given this topic much thought over my life and have come to understand that it does not matter if the father had a father, to us it only matters that our heavenly father had one and it is to him that we look for salvation..."though there be gods many, there is but one God we worship". Paul from Corinthians

I think that is a healthy perspective to have, Pa Pa. We can all debate whether a particular point is true or not, but at the end of the day if it does not enrich our lives, it probably is not a big deal to begin with.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I think that is a healthy perspective to have, Pa Pa. We can all debate whether a particular point is true or not, but at the end of the day if it does not enrich our lives, it probably is not a big deal to begin with.

Agree...there are many fathers and grandfathers in the world, but that means nothing much to my children and grandchildren; to them I am the only father and grandfather.

[zerinus]

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.

God has told me that this is true:

Moses 1:

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

And also this:

D&C 43:

5 And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments;

6 And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me.

7 For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.

If God wanted to reveal some great doctrine to the Church, He would do so through the appointed channels, and by following the appointed procedure. He wouldn't do it through an anonymous poster on the Internet!

I know that Brigham Young has taught this kind of stuff before (outside the appointed procedures); but he taught a number of incorrect doctrines (outside the appointed procedure) which later had to be withdrawn. I prefer to go through the appropriate channels for new doctrines and revelations.

[The Nehor]

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.

Okay. God, why are you revealing the mysteries to those who brag about it when you said that is exactly what not to do to learn the mysteries? Also you said that those mysteries should be treasured up in secrecy by those who receive them. So why? Ahhhhh.....cool. I will ignore him then.

[The Nehor]

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...

Amen. The LDS reluctance to acquire knowledge seems silly to me. Usually the response is something about how it is unnecessary for salvation. I am not sure whether this is due to laziness, lack of hinest curiosity, or what. I think it is an error. First off, we do not know what knowledge we may need in the trials ahead. Bits of knowledge I thought I was acquiring for my own amusement turned out to help me in dark hours of my life. Finally it seems too utilitarian to be a method for maintaining a relationship with one that you love. Willful ignorance about one's spouse would not be excused by appealing to the idea that they will not divorce you for not knowing it. The love of God calls out for understanding. It is also difficult to serve a being you do not know.

[The Nehor]

It might be interesting to explore the idea of humility in Mormonism and Catholicism. In the Catholic Church, the tradition of humility clearly states that yes, we should desire to be ashamed and despised (as shown in the Litany).

I disagree. We are told to expect it but also to despise the shame associated with following Christ. I do think that if no one despises you or the gospel as a whole you are doing it wrong. The Savior explained what the World loves. I suspect the LDS faith has been granted a short moratorium on being quite so hated to get missionary work going. I wonder if I will live to see the day when persecution rages again.art of me hopes so and part of me hopes not.

[Tacenda]

God has told me that this is true:

Moses 1:

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

And also this:

D&C 43:

5 And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments;

6 And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me.

7 For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.

If God wanted to reveal some great doctrine to the Church, He would do so through the appointed channels, and by following the appointed procedure. He wouldn't do it through an anonymous poster on the Internet!

I know that Brigham Young has taught this kind of stuff before (outside the appointed procedures); but he taught a number of incorrect doctrines (outside the appointed procedure) which later had to be withdrawn. I prefer to go through the appropriate channels for new doctrines and revelations.

Personal revelation is wrong Z? Do the LDS believe in only getting revelation by or through a person with the right authority? I'm tired of going through someone else to get to the Savior. Like in the temple, I'm to obey the counsel of my husband in righteousness and he is to obey the counsel of the Father. I'm sick of the middleman.

[The Nehor]

Personal revelation is wrong Z? Do the LDS believe in only getting revelation by or through a person with the right authority? I'm tired of going through someone else to get to the Savior. Like in the temple, I'm to obey the counsel of my husband in righteousness and he is to obey the counsel of the Father. I'm sick of the middleman.

No. The counsel is that if you do get revelation not revealed generally it is best not to share or teach it until i becomes taught by the leadership. This applies to large unrevealed issues. If you get an insight on faith or repentance it is usually safe to share. If God tells you where the Three Nephites are or what Planet Enoch lives on or wwhen the Second Cming is you should not share.

[swfarnsworth]

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.

The early-modern prophets made the point clear, and their writings/sermons on the topic have been quoted so many times in Church publications and by the more recent prophets that if it isn't doctrine, the Church is doing a fantastic job keeping the speculation alive.

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).

I'll check the copy I have later (I think it's six years old) of the missionary discussions. If it makes any mention of "becoming like God", that would essentially mean "becoming a god" to other religions, as we already see ourselves as the same sort of creature that God is minus the perfect knowledge and attributes that He has.

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.

In a presentation I did on Mormonism for students of a world religions course, the first slide was a title slide. The second slide, however, had the phrase "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be" in large letters to ensure that the doctrine was explicitly clear from the onset. Of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Gospel Principles book, and the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (the three things we have that most closely resemble the Catechism), the point is made clearly enough in the first two and very explicitly in the third.

[altersteve]

It might be interesting to explore the idea of humility in Mormonism and Catholicism. In the Catholic Church, the tradition of humility clearly states that yes, we should desire to be ashamed and despised (as shown in the Litany).

Sorry, but being humble doesn't mean you have to hate yourself. It simply means that you recognize that you're not perfect. That's the most basic definition. We can do that and still be happy to be who we are.

[Flyonthewall]

God has stated in scripture that He does not give any details about any other world but here.

I beleive the scriptures we have, and all the truths we have are from our perspective.

Does God the Father have a Father? I can see yes, and I can see no. I leave it open until that truth is revealed.

It is not something that would add anything or take anything away from my belief in God.

It's a non-issue.

[mfbukowski]

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.

The only problem is that we believe that what we believe about God is what ORIGINAL Christianity taught, so saying it your way requires major explanation. But I have no problem not being called a "Christian" by those who have strayed from the truth.

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.

That is of course, like saying he is both black and white at the same time which is contradictory. But your idea of "mystery" allows paradoxes I suppose- we do not believe in paradoxes. But more to come about that next.

*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

No, it's not a mystery at all- it is not possible to be verbalized- that is very different than a mystery.

In fact the reason we cannot talk about it intelligibly is because it is a paradox- to talk intelligibly about God having a father we would have to talk about a "time before time" which is unintelligible. I deliberately asked you earlier about what God was doing for eternity before he created us- and you couldn't answer.

Well we have answers for questions other churches don't even try to explain- and the story about God having a father is an attempt- an inspired attempt- to explain that. But if you analyze it, we are attempting to go where language cannot really go. We do not have a context for the idea of time before time, so it becomes an eternal regress. That is why President Hinckley was rather vague about that part of the Snow couplet and said that "we don't know much about that"- he was precisely correct. In fact even speaking about it involves paradox and we don't like mysteries and paradoxes.

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.

No, it's not my Catholic upbringing, it's Wittgenstein. But he was raised Catholic, so maybe it's HIS Catholic up bringing.

On the other hand, he was able to explain perfectly why such things are unspeakable without ever using the word "mystery". He had a rational explanation for what we could not speak about and why. Just saying "it's beyond us" doesn't explain much.