Do You Believe God The Father Had A Father

[Calm]

Has anyone noticed that Miserere doesn't defend Catholicism- just questions Mormonism?

It is an LDS themed board.....

And he has offered explanations. Perhaps he just doesn't feel the need to defend Catholicism. Many of my Catholic friends never did.

[Calm]

So, you are using "being" to really mean a state of being or existence as opposed to meaning a single entity, correct?

Sounds to me more like he is talking about a collective entity, such as a family or board of trustees, a single noun that denotes plural individuals that share an identity of belonging to a certain community.

[Calm]

That's always been my understanding. They are three separate persons who are one in Being, not one Being.

I would really like to see this in official Catholic teaching because I have had Catholic friends deny that this is what it means (a community of persons sharing characteristics or existence).

[Bart Burk]

Nah, the main difficulty is that there are two different schools of opinion on this issue.

One opinion is that God the Father was always God the Father.

The other opinion is that God the Father was a human being on a planet, like us, and rose to his exaltation, just like we will.

Depending on which opinion you hold to, you'll have different opinions about the pre-existance.

There is also a few different opinions about the differences between spirits and intelligences (if they are different), that make the word 'begotten', interpreted differently depending on whom you talk to. It'd be a good idea to explore these different interpretations so you can see the many alternate conclusions of different sorts.

I've never been bothered by the idea that God is an exalted human being. Nor am I bound to it. In terms of spirits and intelligences, I have no knowledge on the subject, but some part of us always existing appeals to me, because it solves some things about free will even if the universe runs in a deterministic fashion (in other words, it makes them completely compatible). However, again, I have no such knowledge on the subject, and am probably wrong, so yeah, explore some things about it.

I do have knowledge on the subject of the separation of the Father and the Son. They are truly too different people... just like you and I are.

What problem do you see, exactly, just curious?

Nah, the main difficulty is that there are two different schools of opinion on this issue.

One opinion is that God the Father was always God the Father.

The other opinion is that God the Father was a human being on a planet, like us, and rose to his exaltation, just like we will.

Depending on which opinion you hold to, you'll have different opinions about the pre-existance.

There is also a few different opinions about the differences between spirits and intelligences (if they are different), that make the word 'begotten', interpreted differently depending on whom you talk to. It'd be a good idea to explore these different interpretations so you can see the many alternate conclusions of different sorts.

I've never been bothered by the idea that God is an exalted human being. Nor am I bound to it. In terms of spirits and intelligences, I have no knowledge on the subject, but some part of us always existing appeals to me, because it solves some things about free will even if the universe runs in a deterministic fashion (in other words, it makes them completely compatible). However, again, I have no such knowledge on the subject, and am probably wrong, so yeah, explore some things about it.

I do have knowledge on the subject of the separation of the Father and the Son. They are truly too different people... just like you and I are.

What problem do you see, exactly, just curious?

Problem may have been the wrong word. I was just suggesting there is no option in traditional Christianity which proposes a progressing God. It looks to me like Mormons have an option of accepting or rejecting the idea.

[RobertAC]

I was just suggesting there is no option in traditional Christianity which proposes a progressing God. It looks to me like Mormons have an option of accepting or rejecting the idea.

From an outsider's perspective, it seems that many, but not all, Christian denominations accept the notion of divine revelation where God is still speaking and delivering his messages through his prophets. Mormonism may frame its understanding of revelation in a manner that is different from other denominations of Christianity, but it is a distinction without a substantive difference. For example, the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and the President of the Latter Day Saints both claim that they receive revelations from God that are timely and important not just to themselves, but to the faithful. These are not revelations that were written thousands of years ago. They are revelations for today. The Catholic Church takes a stand against the death penalty based upon revelation. It is not a position that it has taken throughout its history, but is a fairly modern position. Similarly, Spencer Kimball openned up the LDS priesthood to all males, regardless of their skin color. Again, another radically different position from what had been before.

If Christianity is proof of God's will, then God is changing and progressing because the churches are changing and progressing.

[zerinus]

Yes, the Nicene Creed states that He was "begotten, not made", however it also states, at least in the version recited by English-speaking Catholics (and others) for some time, that He is "eternally begotten of the Father" (I recited this myself for most of my life, so I know). Other translations say something like "begotten of His Father before all worlds", "begotten of the Father before all ages", and I believe the latest translation of the Roman Missal, the Mass, no longer has "eternally begotten of the Father", but "born of the Father before all ages". So he was not incorrect.

There are many different translations of the creed into English. This Wikipedia source contains all of them. I agree that some of them say "eternally begotten;" but there are a number points to be observed here. Firstly, there is a difference between saying "eternally begotten," and saying "begotten before all ages". It is a couple of the Protestant versions that say "eternally begotten". All of the Catholic and Orthodox versions say "before all ages". Secondly (and most importantly), what you are referring to is in fact the Constantinople Creed (381), so named now the Nicene Creed, not the original (true) Nicene Creed of 325. In the original one that particular phrase does not occur at all. The relevant paragraph in each version (respectively) reads as follows (emphasis added):

AD 325: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

AD 381: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

And the latter does not say "eternally begotten" anyway. The idea of being "eternally begotten" has never been a concept of either of the creeds, nor of the Catholic or Orthodox Churches. It was developed by the Protestants. Here is the source of the above quotes.

Edited September 21, 2012 by zerinus

[ChristKnight]

There are many different translations of the creed into English. This Wikipedia source contains all of them. I agree that some of them say "eternally begotten;" but there are a number points to be observed here. Firstly, there is a difference between saying "eternally begotten," and saying "begotten before all ages". It is a couple of the Protestant versions that say "eternally begotten". All of the Catholic and Orthodox versions say "before all ages". Secondly (and most importantly), what you are referring to is in fact the Constantinople Creed (381), so named now the Nicene Creed, not the original (true) Nicene Creed of 325. In the original one that particular phrase does not occur at all. The relevant paragraph in each version (respectively) reads as follows (emphasis added):

AD 325: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

AD 381: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

And the latter does not say "eternally begotten" anyway. The idea of being "eternally begotten" has never been a concept of either of the creeds, nor of the Catholic or Orthodox Churches. It was developed by the Protestants. Here is the source of the above quotes.

Read what I wrote again, I already stated all this. Also, I'm not sure if you've ever attended a Catholic Mass and recited the Nicene Creed. I have, hundreds of times, prior to my conversion. Before the latest translation of the Roman Missal, the Nicene Creed, in the English translation used, stated "eternally begotten of the Father". I know because I said it many times for years. It is also found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican website), EWTN (a Cathoic network), etc etc. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' website also documents what I already stated, that Catholics used to state "eternally begotten of the Father" (what Bart Burk said) prior to the latest translation fo the Roman Missal, which renders it "born of the Father before all ages" (among other translated changes), as Wikipedia gives it. This change came about in 2010-2011. There are also multiple Catholic websites discussing the concept of "eternally begotten", which a simple Google search turns up.

[TAO]

Problem may have been the wrong word. I was just suggesting there is no option in traditional Christianity which proposes a progressing God. It looks to me like Mormons have an option of accepting or rejecting the idea.

Oh, okay, I see what you are saying now. Yeah, I think you'd be close to right there. Most Orthodox traditions don't consider the idea of a progressing God. Then again, I'm not a very Orthodox sorta person, so I guess you could say it appeals to me a tiny bit ;-).

And yeah, I think you'd be right that Mormons have the opportunity to accept or reject it. I know there were some discussions with the user 'inquiringmind' over the issue, a few months back I think. Actually, I wonder what has happened to him... I haven't seen him on the board in a bit =p. He was nice to talk to; he asked good questions. He had a bit of difficulty with a few things a lot of Mormons believe (I think this was one of the issues), but, then again, who doesn't? We all have our little trials in things that we have to make decisions on. Me included =D.

[The Nehor]

One opinion is that God the Father was always God the Father.

The other opinion is that God the Father was a human being on a planet, like us, and rose to his exaltation, just like we will.

I believe both of those opinions are true.

[ANACO]

1. If you could hie to Kolob

In the twinkling of an eye,

And then continue onward

With that same speed to fly,

Do you think that you could ever,

Through all eternity,

Find out the generation

Where Gods began to be?

2. Or see the grand beginning,

Where space did not extend?

Or view the last creation,

Where Gods and matter end?

Methinks the Spirit whispers,

"No man has found 'pure space,'

Nor seen the outside curtains,

Where nothing has a place."

The heads (Plural) of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take that view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods."

• (DHC 6:476)
  

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. 'Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me.' 'Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are.' All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster. I want to read the text to you myself—'I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one.' The Greek shows that it should be agreed. 'Father, I pray for them which Thou hast given me out of the world, and not for those alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be agreed, as Thou, Father, are with me, and I with Thee, that they also may be agreed with us,' and all come to dwell in unity, and in all the glory and everlasting burnings of the Gods; and then we shall see as we are seen, and be as our God and He as His Father. I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned it by translating the papyrus which is now in my house.

History of the Church 6:476

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.

" All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster."

Ha ha ha! I like Joseph Smith and his examples of the absurdities of the teachings of men.

Edited September 21, 2012 by ANACO

[Bernard Gui]

I think that a lot of members believe this but the Church doesn't really teach it and there doesn't seem to be any scriptural warrant for it. The Church's official doctrine is that God the Father is "the Supreme Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things" (s.v. "God the Father" in True to the Faith: A Gospel Reference).

If this is to be taken literally—if God the Father is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things—then it would seem to rule out the idea of an infinite regression of Gods. If God the Father is "supreme" then he is at the very top of the hierarchy, not somewhere in the middle.

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

[zerinus]

Read what I wrote again, I already stated all this. Also, I'm not sure if you've ever attended a Catholic Mass and recited the Nicene Creed. I have, hundreds of times, prior to my conversion. Before the latest translation of the Roman Missal, the Nicene Creed, in the English translation used, stated "eternally begotten of the Father". I know because I said it many times for years. It is also found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican website), EWTN (a Cathoic network), etc etc. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' website also documents what I already stated, that Catholics used to state "eternally begotten of the Father" (what Bart Burk said) prior to the latest translation fo the Roman Missal, which renders it "born of the Father before all ages" (among other translated changes), as Wikipedia gives it. This change came about in 2010-2011. There are also multiple Catholic websites discussing the concept of "eternally begotten", which a simple Google search turns up.

Okay, you may be right about the varied usage within the Catholic Church; not too familiar with that myself. But I stick to what I said in my original post, that the phrase does not occur in the Nicene Creed, especially in the original (325) version of it; and even in the latter (381) version, in spite of how it may have been translated into English in some sectarian translations.

[zerinus]

I think that a lot of members believe this but the Church doesn't really teach it and there doesn't seem to be any scriptural warrant for it. The Church's official doctrine is that God the Father is "the Supreme Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things" (s.v. "God the Father" in True to the Faith: A Gospel Reference).

If this is to be taken literally—if God the Father is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things—then it would seem to rule out the idea of an infinite regression of Gods. If God the Father is "supreme" then he is at the very top of the hierarchy, not somewhere in the middle.

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

There are two observations to be made with regard to the two quotes: Firstly, I don’t see that they contradict each other. Secondly (and more importantly), your second quote is contradicted by LDS scripture:

Mosiah 26:

22 For behold, this is my church; whosoever is baptized shall be baptized unto repentance. And whomsoever ye receive shall believe in my name; and him will I freely forgive.

23 For it is I that taketh upon me the sins of the world; for it is I [Jesus] that hath created them; and it is I that granteth unto him that believeth unto the end a place at my right hand.

Ether 3:

15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I [Jesus] have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine [Jesus’] own image.

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I [Jesus] created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

D&C 93:

9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.

10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.

According to these verses, Jesus is the creator of our spirits (and bodies) before He was resurrected, which casts doubt on the validity of your second quote. I realise that it comes from a statement by the First Presidency; but still, if it contradicts scripture (without an explanation), it’s validity becomes questionable and is in doubt. In fact, the explanation that it gives is, “So far as . . . have been made known through divine revelation,” which means that it is not declaring a new revelation, but relying on old revelation. But if it has got the old revelation wrong, which it appears to have, then the teaching is wrong.

[Bart Burk]

There are two observations to be made with regard to the two quotes: Firstly, I don’t see that they contradict each other. Secondly (and more importantly), your second quote is contradicted by LDS scripture:

Mosiah 26:

22 For behold, this is my church; whosoever is baptized shall be baptized unto repentance. And whomsoever ye receive shall believe in my name; and him will I freely forgive.

23 For it is I that taketh upon me the sins of the world; for it is I [Jesus] that hath created them; and it is I that granteth unto him that believeth unto the end a place at my right hand.

Ether 3:

15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I [Jesus] have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine [Jesus’] own image.

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I [Jesus] created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

D&C 93:

9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.

10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.

According to these verses, Jesus is the creator of our spirits (and bodies) before He was resurrected, which casts doubt on the validity of your second quote. I realise that it comes from a statement by the First Presidency; but still, if it contradicts scripture (without an explanation), it’s validity becomes questionable and is in doubt. In fact, the explanation that it gives is, “So far as . . . have been made known through divine revelation,” which means that it is not declaring a new revelation, but relying on old revelation. But if it has got the old revelation wrong, which it appears to have, then the teaching is wrong.

King Follett and the Sermon in the Grove are hopelessly at odds with the Book of Mormon. The question is, which has priority?

Edited September 21, 2012 by Bart Burk

[zerinus]

King Follett and the Sermon in the Grove are hopelessly at odds with the Book of Mormon.

It is at odds with the D&C and the rest of canonized scripture as well.

The question is, which has priority?

Canonized scripture has priority, obviously.

[Flyonthewall]

There are two observations to be made with regard to the two quotes: Firstly, I don’t see that they contradict each other. Secondly (and more importantly), your second quote is contradicted by LDS scripture:

Mosiah 26:

22 For behold, this is my church; whosoever is baptized shall be baptized unto repentance. And whomsoever ye receive shall believe in my name; and him will I freely forgive.

23 For it is I that taketh upon me the sins of the world; for it is I [Jesus] that hath created them; and it is I that granteth unto him that believeth unto the end a place at my right hand.

Ether 3:

15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I [Jesus] have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine [Jesus’] own image.

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I [Jesus] created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

D&C 93:

9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.

10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.

According to these verses, Jesus is the creator of our spirits (and bodies) before He was resurrected, which casts doubt on the validity of your second quote. I realise that it comes from a statement by the First Presidency; but still, if it contradicts scripture (without an explanation), it’s validity becomes questionable and is in doubt. In fact, the explanation that it gives is, “So far as . . . have been made known through divine revelation,” which means that it is not declaring a new revelation, but relying on old revelation. But if it has got the old revelation wrong, which it appears to have, then the teaching is wrong.

I have never understood the church to teach that Jesus is the creator or our spirits. God the Father is the father of our spirits. Jesus created the mortal bodies in which they are housed during this mortal life.

I don't see the First Presidency quote as contradicting these scriptures, but rather, it is you that is contradicting the First Presidency.

[Bart Burk]

It is at odds with the D&C and the rest of canonized scripture as well.

Canonized scripture has priority, obviously.

So why do you think that is? Did Joseph Smith just crack in the last couple of months of his life because of all the pressures around him? Were the scribes wrong in their transcriptions? I know there are some traditional RLDS folks who claim some people attending the King Follett sermon never heard anything in favor of multiple Gods:

http://www.restored.org/lds/ldsall.htm

"The fourth and final problem has to do with the testimony of James Whitehead, Joseph Smith's personal secretary who was in the congregation when the sermon was preached. He testified that:

I heard what is known as the "King Follett" sermon preached. That sermon was published. Joseph Smith

did not in that sermon teach the plurality of gods.

(Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence, Herald Publishing House, Lamoni, IA, 1893, p. 37)"

And I think the entire Sermon in the Grove is suspect since it apparently wasn't published until long after the sermon was supposedly given. I may be wrong, but I don't think it was made available until the 20th century. At least King Follett was published shortly after Joseph Smith's death, but the same can't be said for the Sermon in the Grove.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Bart Burk

[Ahab]

Trying to figure something out does not constitute ignoring it.

I already ignore a lot of things other people say. As Hugh Nibley said it is a good thing this life is not an intelligence test or we would all fail it. I see no reason to change my tune or mindset. At the risk of sounding arrogant based on what you have said I am 99% certain you are wrong as it appears to conflict with some of the few bits I know are accurate based on revelation.

To think you were berating me for not trusting revelation.

First of all, I wasn't berating you. That was an attempt at a tongue in cheek comment.

Secondly, what I have said is in 100% agreement with all of the revelation I know of, and if you think it's not we can discuss it if you'll simply say why you don't think it does.

And thirdly, I don't ignore anything other people tell me. I simply won't change my tune if what they say doesn't agree with what God has told me. I call that dismissing, instead of ignoring.

[Ahab]

I don't know anything about any of those things; and I am not aware that any of the above has been revealed anywhere.

Oh come on now. You do know at least that Jesus went through all of that, except in his case he didn't sin when he was mortal. I think you also know the plan we follow is an eternal plan which everyone else like us must follow through the course of our lives. We're first born as spirit children to our parents who themselves went through the same things we go through, and when we are born we're not created from out of nothing but from the essence of our parents, both male and female. We're told we all have a Father and Mother in heaven, including our Father in heaven.

What I do know is that according to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith, God is an unchangeable being. He does not change. And that is what I go by:

Well then it seem to me that you should say that all of those changes I mentioned don't really constitute a change in being.

We're still the kind of being called "God" regardless of what stage of development we are in and regardless of what our emotions are at a particular time.

[zerinus]

I have never understood the church to teach that Jesus is the creator or our spirits.

Well the scriptures do! Don't you believe the scriptures I have quoted? It is not as though they are ambiguous. Perhaps it would be more helpful if you could tell us what problem you have with the verses I have quoted.

God the Father is the father of our spirits. Jesus created the mortal bodies in which they are housed during this mortal life.

How so? How did He create our bodies, but not our spirits? Let's look at Ether 3:15 for example:

"And never have I showed myself unto man whom I [Jesus] have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine [Jesus’] own image."

How did Jesus create our bodies "in the beginning" in His own image? Which "beginning" was that? Or look at D&C 93:10:

"The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him."

It is all in the past tense. So how did Jesus create all our bodies in the past tense? The same is true of Mosiah 26:23.

I don't see the First Presidency quote as contradicting these scriptures, . . .

When you have given an explanation for the above, I will believe you!

. . . but rather, it is you that is contradicting the First Presidency.

Nay, the First Presidency is contradicting scripture!

[Ahab]

I have never understood the church to teach that Jesus is the creator or our spirits. God the Father is the father of our spirits. Jesus created the mortal bodies in which they are housed during this mortal life.

Understand that to create is to organize and sometimes change a thing or things, rather than to make it from out of nothing. We all have a Father who created our spirit, including the spirit of Jesus, but none of us were created from out of nothing. We're all created from the essence of our Father(s) and Mothers, and Jesus created us when we were born again through him at which point he also became a Father to us. Jesus is our brother, but he is also our Father if we have been born again through him, just as we have brothers who are or can also become our father/Father.

[RainingStar]

I'm okay with the idea that we don't know for certain. If I appear before Him one day and learn that, yes, He also had a Father my attitude will be, 'cool, I like that idea'. If I find out He didn't, my attitude will be, 'cool, I like that idea.'

It means nothing to my salvation, does nothing to help endure to the end. Picture it any way that feels right to you, or like me, be content with not knowing.

It's not an official teaching of the church, evidence shows that many people once believed it. Until we have scripture or revelation on the subject, it is only so much opinion, no matter how well placed the opinion.

[Alan]

In my view, the person we address as Father in our prayers does not have a father. To me it just doesn't make sense. The line has to stop somewhere. I see the Father as a great-grandfather of sorts. The original one. Our actual father (perhaps Adam, perhaps not) is a link in the chain just as we will be if we gain our exaltation. I am firmly convinced that if we obtain exaltation and get involved in creating and peopling worlds, our spiritual offspring will pray to the same person we pray to. They will not pray to us.

[Bart Burk]

In my view, the person we address as Father in our prayers does not have a father. To me it just doesn't make sense. The line has to stop somewhere. I see the Father as a great-grandfather of sorts. The original one. Our actual father (perhaps Adam, perhaps not) is a link in the chain just as we will be if we gain our exaltation. I am firmly convinced that if we obtain exaltation and get involved in creating and peopling worlds, our spiritual offspring will pray to the same person we pray to. They will not pray to us.

That actually makes a lot of sense. Let me throw in something else I once considered -- instead of creating spirit offspring maybe God the Father does that forever. Our children will be physical children given spirits by the same Heavenly Father who gave us our spirits.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Bart Burk

[Tacenda]

That actually makes a lot of sense. Let me throw in something else I once considered -- instead of creating spirit offspring maybe God the Father does that forever. Our children will be physical children given spirits by the same Heavenly Father who gave us our spirits.

So in your thought process and Alan's, would that make you gods with the little "g"?

Edited September 21, 2012 by Tacenda