Our Own Planets?

[Freedom]

The point for me is that if one is living by the spirit of revelation and one hopes to enter the presence of God, of necessity he will receive doctrine that is suitable for his heed and diligence which is not considered doctrine for those who are not willing to example the same levels of heed and diligence.

Yes, but this doctrine that is suitable for an individuals needs would not be doctrine that would affect the fundamental teachings of the church.

[SamIam]

Yes, but this doctrine that is suitable for an individuals needs would not be doctrine that would affect the fundamental teachings of the church.

 

Essentially, absolutely correct and one of the points of my post. Another being that if you are not developing personal "doctrine" that expands upon the foundational doctrine you are not moving forward in the spirit of revelation and prophecy which is a mandate for entering into his rest.

[SamIam]

Thank you for that.   You made a lot of good points and I appreciate what you said.  My point, though, was that we shouldn't dwell so much on whether or not a teaching is included in our Church doctrine, as if that is the end all and be all of any concept of truth.

 

What matters is whether or not something is true, and whether you consider or call some aspect of truth our "doctrine", if it is true, then it's still true whether or not that truth can be classified as our Church doctrine.  We just need to know whether or not it is true.

 

My post was to support this very point that you make here.  We are in agreement. I'm only adding that those truths become my personal points of knowledge which fall within acceptable definitions for the word doctrine, only it is my personal doctrine and not required to be accepted by any other than myself.

[Ahab]

My post was to support this very point that you make here.  We are in agreement. I'm only adding that those truths become my personal points of knowledge which fall within acceptable definitions for the word doctrine, only it is my personal doctrine and not required to be accepted by any other than myself.

Maybe it's the point that you're adding that somewhat detracts from my point.  Forget all about whether or not something true is Church doctrine.  Just ask yourself if you would want to know anything that is true.   Do you?  Whether or not it is "Church doctrine"?

 

Joseph Smith said something about how we should seek to find truth wherever it can be found.  If it's true, I want to know about it.

 

... well, at least the good stuff.  There's a lot of bad stuff going on that I'm really not all that interested in, so I look mostly for what is good, and lovely, and virtuous, and praiseworthy.  I mainly just want the good news.  The news media people can have all of the bad news they want.

[SamIam]

Maybe it's the point that you're adding that somewhat detracts from my point.  Forget all about whether or not something true is Church doctrine.  Just ask yourself if you would want to know anything that is true.   Do you?  Whether or not it is "Church doctrine"?

 

Joseph Smith said something about how we should seek to find truth wherever it can be found.  If it's true, I want to know about it.

 

... well, at least the good stuff.  There's a lot of bad stuff going on that I'm really not all that interested in, so I look mostly for what is good, and lovely, and virtuous, and praiseworthy.  I mainly just want the good news.  The news media people can have all of the bad news they want.

 

Ahh but there you go again, if you state "church doctrine" then you have narrowed the field to one definition of doctrine.  That is okay by me but if we are to truly communicate I was simply expanding upon the word for it's other layers of meaning.  I'm, good with yours.  From now on I will always add the term church (whether actual or implied) to the front of the word doctrine and we can all speak of the same perspective. 

[Ahab]

Ahh but there you go again, if you state "church doctrine" then you have narrowed the field to one definition of doctrine.  That is okay by me but if we are to truly communicate I was simply expanding upon the word for it's other layers of meaning.  I'm, good with yours.  From now on I will always add the term church (whether actual or implied) to the front of the word doctrine and we can all speak of the same perspective. 

No, no, no.  I really don't care if you call it doctrine or church doctrine and I'd rather than you not even mention the word "doctrine".  All I really care about is whether or not something is true...and even then I look mostly for the good stuff.  There are a lot of bad things going on, and a lot of news about bad things, but I'd rather hear about only the good stuff out of the stuff that is true.

 

It's the people who harp on the idea of whether or not something is "doctrine" that bug me.  Why care if it's "doctrine"?

[SamIam]

No, no, no.  I really don't care if you call it doctrine or church doctrine and I'd rather than you not even mention the word "doctrine".  All I really care about is whether or not something is true...and even then I look mostly for the good stuff.  There are a lot of bad things going on, and a lot of news about bad things, but I'd rather hear about only the good stuff out of the stuff that is true.

 

It's the people who harp on the idea of whether or not something is "doctrine" that bug me.  Why care if it's "doctrine"?

100 % with you on that.  It is because of the carpers who always want to obfuscate the process of seeking greater light and knowledge with their little marginalizing corrections that I find myself getting  a bit testy sometimes. 

[mfbukowski]

We do get a universe of our own. A universe of possibilities.

OK now you are scaring me.

 

That's about the third think today I have agreed with you on.  Definitely scary.

[Lightbearer]

The Church disagrees with you.

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Please show me where the Church disagrees with me? The KFD is hardly an isolated statement. It has been taught countlessly in manuals and by other prophets ever since. You may not believe it, but you cannot point to one statement by any General Authority that contradicts the teaching that God is a glorified and exalted man and the we as His spirit children can become like Him. Consider it a CFR, and I do not want the so-called refutation the Anti-Mormons claim President Hinckley made. It was not a refutation it was a choice not to cast pearls before swine. The Church that I have been a member of and believed for more than 40 years has consistently taught this as doctrine. It may hurt your sensibilities to think that God the Father had a Father but I proclaim loud and long that this idea the idea that we are the same species as God is not to be refuted. I glory in the doctrine and will not deny it.

[SamIam]

Please show me where the Church disagrees with me? The KFD is hardly an isolated statement. It has been taught countlessly in manuals and by other prophets ever since. You may not believe it, but you cannot point to one statement by any General Authority that contradicts the teaching that God is a glorified and exalted man and the we as His spirit children can become like Him. Consider it a CFR, and I do not want the so-called refutation the Anti-Mormons claim President Hinckley made. It was not a refutation it was a choice not to cast pearls before swine. The Church that I have been a member of and believed for more than 40 years has consistently taught this as doctrine. It may hurt your sensibilities to think that God the Father had a Father but I proclaim loud and long that this idea the idea that we are the same species as God is not to be refuted. I glory in the doctrine and will not deny it.

I used to have an executive secretary who was a very compulsive, follow the rules kind of guy.  He read every manual, knew every line of every section and was quite fond of always being able to exert control by binding people by the "rules".  For a while it was always difficult to address the issue because he was technically always right.  From him I coined a phrase of so right you are wrong. 

 

From time to time I have discussed this little trait with others if it appeared it might serve a purpose and I mention that it is a common behavior of those who had no legitimate authority to try to borrow authority by trapping people by the authority that a definition of rules gives them. It is rather the same as people who court management and manipulate them to borrow upon their authority to get their way.  Thus the attempt is construed as an act of unrighteous dominion.  For the very few who are willing to see themselves it has been very instructive. For those who cannot it is the greatest waste of time.

 

Funny thing is that this sort of an appeal to authority is same as the live by the law will die by the law mentality of scriptures.  Thus in a discussion concerning the possibility that we might one day have a kingdom of our own and in fact kingdoms of our own it is a particularly poignant observation that the potential is they will never understand the principles of righteous dominion well enough to garner the kingdom they deny is possible anyway.  So for them indeed there is no kingdom, nor planet for the necessity of a rule by law mentality instead of one that permits a kingdom to flow unto them without compulsory means. Don't get too excited. It is not worth the effort.

[Stone holm]

I think what we can safely say is that sanitized teachings do not acknowledge it as doctrine.

[Maidservant]

So you think the plan is to have Telestials roaming the Universe?  And Mark Twain said you go to heaven for the climate and hell for the company....wonder what he would have made of that concept.

 

Ha ha.  "The plan" . . . hmm . . . I could never say this sentence: the plan is to have Telestials roam the universe.  ha ha.  I could say: "The plan is agency, and telestials will likely and already do roam the universe."  The hunger that humankind in general to roam the stars is huge--our deep longing and resonence with Star Wars, Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica and an entire genre of universe.  Also I was watching the Mars Curiosity stuff--the rover that has been on Mars for a year.  So, yes, the human race will continue to go in that direction to the best of our ability, and I daresay that the Spirit is the source of that inspiration generally speaking, just as it is for all branches of human knowledge.  Our Father in heaven allows us and encourages us to bring to pass our own (righteous) desires.

 

I should clarify in general.  I have every intention of 'owning' and designing a planet or three or twelve at whatever point in my existence might permit for that (maybe I already do!).  I would create a planet even simply for artistic purposes, just to enjoy it.  I consider that I already assisted in the physical creation of this planet as well as in the spiritual planning of the world's historical unfolding ('planet' and 'world' are two very different things to me). I also consider that I am an eons ancient spirit, so who knows what knowledge I possess, but if I had to guess, I'm pretty sure that as a spirit I am full of knowledge that would permit me to do all kinds of things, including the creation of geology, fauna and flora.  I'm pretty sure that is like abc's from where I come from (my Father).  I consider that every time I do anything to create my home and garden where I live, I am participating, still, ongoing, on this spectrum of 'planet owning'.

 

I find the miracle NOT to be 'owning a planet'.  The miracle is the creation of a WORLD, which world is a measure of influence.  And I began the creation of my world the moment my first son was born and the humans that I gave birth to thereafter.  Also, my entire world of choices that I make and the love with which I minister any others, my neighbors, the ward, etc--that is the world I have already been granted, and as I learn my priesthood and increase my charity, without compulsory means, this world will flow unto me, expand, eternally and without limit.  WORLDS are PEOPLE and CHOICES and the environment that we choose to surround other people with--love or violence.

 

A planet can be likened to a building.  Not all buildings are celestial.  A building is a building.  However, we do have temples.  A temple is a building.  But it has been consecrated for sacred purposes.  President Monson nor God personally builds each temple we have.  Rather, those who have construction businesses and knowledge about building buildings are contracted for the purpose.  So it's not the actual hardware that makes the temple (although it is beautiful).  In fact, we have temple open houses and permit everyone.  It is the consecration thereafter and the investment of purpose that makes the temple a handiwork of God.  So I think of planet building in the manner and by this example.  It doesn't take a God to make a planet.  It does take a God to invest a planet with sacred, priesthood purpose; as has been done with the work on THIS planet.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Maidservant

[thesometimesaint]

My point was that an idea can be true and come to us through revelation from God without being specified in the standard works.

 

You might as well say: A Quad! A Quad!  We already have a Quad, and when any idea is true it must be put into our Quad !!!

 

I didn't say that the KFD was untrue. Just that some things in it require further light and knowledge through revelation to become doctrine.

 

Actually to be a doctrine of the Church you must be able to find it in the Standard Works.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

We/I believe in continueing revelation.

 

There are plenty of ideas that while true, are not doctrine. IE;  All the evidence so far from plane geometry is that the Pythagorean Theorem is true. However it is not a doctrine of the Church.

[Tacenda]

I didn't say that the KFD was untrue. Just that some things in it require further light and knowledge through revelation to become doctrine.

 

Actually to be a doctrine of the Church you must be able to find it in the Standard Works.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

We/I believe in continueing revelation.

 

There are plenty of ideas that while true, are not doctrine. IE;  All the evidence so far from plane geometry is that the Pythagorean Theorem is true. However it is not a doctrine of the Church.

Then get rid of the Nauvoo reenactment of the KFD as it stands?  It was true to life and depicts our doctrine.  Why water down something from God?  If you take that away, you get nothing.  You get other churches.  It is what made the people act the way they did.  It is why the people crossed the plains the way they did, giving up so much.  How dare we take that away.  The Gods (them) will be angry, if they're  watching.  The church as they and JS knew it will soon go into oblivion, without the stand out stuff. Maybe the church is in apostasy.      

[Ahab]

Then get rid of the Nauvoo reenactment of the KFD as it stands?  It was true to life and depicts our doctrine.  Why water down something from God?  If you take that away, you get nothing.  You get other churches.  It is what made the people act the way they did.  It is why the people crossed the plains the way they did, giving up so much.  How dare we take that away.  The Gods (them) will be angry, if they're  watching.  The church as they and JS knew it will soon go into oblivion, without the stand out stuff. Maybe the church is in apostasy.      

No, the Church isn't in the apostasy.  This is just what happens when people don't accept some of the truth the Church is teaching, with some people straining at gnats at whether or not something true should be considered "doctrine".  It's something the Church teaches and has taught repeatedly, and what the Church teaches is true.  If you want to get all bent out of shape on whether or not what the Church teaches is "doctrine", go for it, but it won't matter one whit as to whether or not what the Church teaches is true.

 

Some people just don't know how to know what the truth is, and some others just don't want say something is true unless it fits neatly into a box that they label as "doctrine".  Truth is what matters, and this teaching is among the best teachings ever taught by members of the true Church of Jesus Christ.

[thesometimesaint]

Then get rid of the Nauvoo reenactment of the KFD as it stands?  It was true to life and depicts our doctrine.  Why water down something from God?  If you take that away, you get nothing.  You get other churches.  It is what made the people act the way they did.  It is why the people crossed the plains the way they did, giving up so much.  How dare we take that away.  The Gods (them) will be angry, if they're  watching.  The church as they and JS knew it will soon go into oblivion, without the stand out stuff. Maybe the church is in apostasy.      

 

Why would I want to water down the KFD? There is already plenty about it that I already do know enough about it to keep me busy for a very long time to come. Personally I'll probably have to wait to find out if God the Father has a Father, ad infinitum, until I meet God the Father, and ask him myself. It is definitely on my "to ask" list.

 

I never said take anything from what the Church already has. Just that there are somethings we don't know much about.

 

I think quite highly of those early pioneers. Unlike so many other nonmember groups that came west. Those early Saints came across not as individuals but as a whole culture.

 

I don't believe the Church is in Apostacy. Moreover I still believe in Article of Faith # 9: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

[Tacenda]

Why would I want to water down the KFD? There is already plenty about it that I already do know enough about it to keep me busy for a very long time to come. Personally I'll probably have to wait to find out if God the Father has a Father, ad infinitum, until I meet God the Father, and ask him myself. It is definitely on my "to ask" list.

 

I never said take anything from what the Church already has. Just that there are somethings we don't know much about.

 

I think quite highly of those early pioneers. Unlike so many other nonmember groups that came west. Those early Saints came across not as individuals but as a whole culture.

 

I don't believe the Church is in Apostacy. Moreover I still believe in Article of Faith # 9: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Sorry TSS, I kind of got a little crazy, I didn't mean to infer you wanted to water down the sermon.  But since attending the Nauvoo reenactment, it occurred to me how significant that sermon was.  I believe it is the culmination of our belief system while still remaining a Christian faith, but not very well known, which is where the church may be getting off the rails somewhat.  Maybe some of our leaders think it's the only way to stay away from appearing to cultish.  I don't know. 

[thesometimesaint]

Sorry TSS, I kind of got a little crazy, I didn't mean to infer you wanted to water down the sermon.  But since attending the Nauvoo reenactment, it occurred to me how significant that sermon was.  I believe it is the culmination of our belief system while still remaining a Christian faith, but not very well known, which is where the church may be getting off the rails somewhat.  Maybe some of our leaders think it's the only way to stay away from appearing to cultish.  I don't know. 

 

No problem.

 

I don't believe the Church leaders worry much about appearing cultish. But I do believe they want to be very accurate as to what we really do believe.

[Lightbearer]

No problem.

 

I don't believe the Church leaders worry much about appearing cultish. But I do believe they want to be very accurate as to what we really do believe.

Yes I do not believe the Church leaders worry about that at all. I also like to be very accurate in what we really do believe. The KFD was not written in a vacum, Joseph Fielding Smith thought it was valid enough to put in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith without any disclaimer. So I think it has been considered by better minds than yours and mine and they did not reject it. Since you did not care to answer my CFRm I thought I would give some additional support to my position as proof that the Church does not disagree with me...at least President Snow does not disagree and since this is in this years MP manual I assume that the current First Presidency does not disagree with me either

 

"President Snow later recalled, “the Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me—the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man. I formed the following couplet which expresses the revelation, as it was shown me. …

“As man now is, God once was:

“As God now is, man may be.”

Feeling that he had received “a sacred communication” that he should guard carefully, Lorenzo Snow did not teach the doctrine publicly until he knew that the Prophet Joseph Smith had taught it. Once he knew the doctrine was public knowledge, he testified of it frequently...

Again further in that Chapter:

Through a continual course of progression our Heavenly Father has received exaltation and glory and he points us out the same path and, inasmuch as he is clothed with power, authority and glory, he says, “walk ye up and come in possession of the same glory and happiness that I possess.”

This could not be plainer, it is in total agreement with the KFD, that God was once as we are and obviously had a Father who begat Him just as we are children of our Father.

… This is the high destiny of the sons of God, they who overcome, who are obedient to His commandments, who purify themselves even as He is pure. They are to become like Him; they will see Him as He is; they will behold His face and reign with Him in His glory, becoming like unto Him in every particular"

 

Again no idea of becoming a "lesser god" (little g) we become like unto HIm in every particular!

 

"The Lord has placed before us incentives of the grandest character. In the revelations which God has given, we find what a person can reach who will travel this path of knowledge and be guided by the Spirit of God. I had not been in this Church [very long] when it was clearly shown to me what a man could reach through a continued obedience to the Gospel of the Son of God. That knowledge has been as a star continually before me, and has caused me to be particular in trying to do that which was right and acceptable to God. … It seems, after all the education that we had in things pertaining to the celestial worlds, that there are some Latter-day Saints who are so well satisfied with simply knowing that the work is true that when you come to talk to them of our great future they seem surprised, and think it has nothing to do particularly with them. John the Revelator, in the third chapter of his first epistle, says:

“Now are we the sons of God.” [1 John 3:2]

… And he goes on:

“And it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is.

“And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as God is pure.” [see 1 John 3:2–3]

… The Spirit of God has conveyed to us that there are solid and solemn truths in expressions of this kind. Paul, in speaking to the Philippians, suggested that they cultivate an ambition which is quite strange to the people at the present time, though not so to the Latter-day Saints, especially those who are not satisfied to be but babes in the things of God. He says:

“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” [Philippians 2:5–6]

… This [is] what Paul taught, and he understood what he was talking about. He was caught up to the third heaven and heard things, he tells us, that were unlawful for man to utter [see 2 Corinthians 12:1–7]. … Would it be wrong for us to ask the people here to cultivate an ambition of this character? There are a number of sayings in the Bible particularly in the New Testament, that seem strange to people not in possession of the Spirit of the Lord.

“He that overcometh shall inherit all things.” [Revelation 21:7]

What an expression is that? Who believes it? If a father were to say to his son, “My son, be faithful, and follow my counsels, and when you become of age you shall inherit all that I possess,” it would mean something, would it not? If the father told the truth, that son would have something to encourage him to be faithful. Did Jesus want to deceive us when He made use of this expression? I will assure you that there is no deception in the language. He meant precisely what He said. Again, Jesus said:

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in His throne.” [Revelation 3:21]

That is a wonderful saying. Is there any truth in it? It is all true. It is the Lord Almighty that said it. We are told in the Scriptures by the Apostle Paul:

“For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” [2 Corinthians 5:1]

I believe that. And when he says that Jesus “shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body” [Philippians 3:21] I believe that also. Do the Latter-day Saints believe these things that I am talking about? You must, of course, believe them. Again:

“For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me;

“And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father;

“And he that receiveth my Father, receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.” [D&C 84:36–38]

Could anyone think of anything more that could be given? … Paul comprehended these things very well, for he said he “pressed forward to the mark of the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” [see Philippians 3:14]

In these remarks which I have made we may see something in regard to the nature of this high calling in Christ Jesus. …

… I do not know how many there are here that have got a real knowledge of these things in their hearts. If you have, I will tell you what its effects will be. As John said:

“Every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as God is pure.” [see 1 John 3:3]

… God has pointed out the results of traveling upon this road of glory and exaltation and the promises are sure. The Lord knew precisely what He could do. He knew what materials He had to operate with, and He knew just what He said. If we do the part that He has assigned unto us, and keep our second estate, we shall be sure to realize these promises in every particular, and more than you and I can possibly comprehend."

 

Now I think this last quote proves that this doctrine is contained in the scriptures, therefore it is true DOCTRINE of the Church. It is not some isolated statement, it has been taught and is continued to be taught in the Church today (notwithstanding the accusations that it is being "sanitized" for the benefit of being accepted by the world. We cannot deny this doctrine of God, it is to me the defining doctrine that seperates us from "traditional christian" churches.

[thesometimesaint]

We have no doctrine as to what God the Father did before he was God the Father. Speculation on it is just that.

 

President Hinckley was correct when he said he didn't know much about the first part of that sonnet. I assume he knows more about than anyone else in the Church.

 

I've always maintained that we are already Gods, and that we have, or will have, the opportunity to beome more like God our Heavenly Father. We will never be exactly like him, nor will we ever be in ascendance over him. We will always be his children, and subject to him.

[Ahab]

We have no doctrine as to what God the Father did before he was God the Father. Speculation on it is just that.

 

President Hinckley was correct when he said he didn't know much about the first part of that sonnet. I assume he knows more about than anyone else in the Church.

 

I've always maintained that we are already Gods, and that we have, or will have, the opportunity to beome more like God our Heavenly Father. We will never be exactly like him, nor will we ever be in ascendance over him. We will always be his children, and subject to him.

Again with the word "doctrine".  Would you be more comfortable if we simply said we teach some things about that time period?  One thing we know he did before he became God the Father is that he got married, because he certainly didn't create us on his own without a woman.  And we also know that at some point he was born, and then grew as a   child, growing and learning and following his Father's commandments until he became a perfect man, like his son Jesus Christ now is.

 

But sure, yeah, we don't really know a  whole lot about that.  But we do know at least that much about him.

[Storm Rider]

Again with the word "doctrine".  Would you be more comfortable if we simply said we teach some things about that time period?  One thing we know he did before he became God the Father is that he got married, because he certainly didn't create us on his own without a woman.  And we also know that at some point he was born, and then grew as a   child, growing and learning and following his Father's commandments until he became a perfect man, like his son Jesus Christ now is.

 

But sure, yeah, we don't really know a  whole lot about that.  But we do know at least that much about him.

 

Yup, that is where you lose me. What we know is that Jesus did nothing he did not see the Father do. However, Jesus was always a member of the Godhead; there was not a time when he was not. 

 

The proposition makes logic stare, because there is a first, necessarily so. I am Alpha and Omega; none before me and none after me. Now we can play word games and say that is only for this universe, this dimension, but there are other gods out there doing the same thing....and we are back to who is first; where did it begin. Brigham said it well when he said we have about as much chance as an ant trying to count each sand particle in the world as trying to understand where Gods began.

 

I see no value in the attempt to answer the first question, "Where did our Father come from?" only to shut the door on the obvious second question, "Where did his Father come from?" All we have accomplished is added a layer of silliness to the mystery of our Father in Heaven.

 

What is clear is that God the Father has seen fit to keep this unanswered.  If it was so important to our Salvation I promise you he would have said something. It serves no purpose other than to open other questions we cannot answer.

 

I understand how some of our members feel compelled to defend the KFD as doctrine; they find great beauty there. I find more questions that lie outside of the simple teaching of Joseph, that all things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  Further, every truth that we teach is only an appendage to the central message of all time—that Jesus is the Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, the Holy Messiah, the Promised One, the Savior and Redeemer of the world; that He alone triumphed over and over the captivity of hell; that no one could ever have the blessings of heaven without His intervention in our behalf; and that there shall never be any other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, except in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.  There is no other truth more important, more vital than this. 

[JDave]

Again with the word "doctrine".  Would you be more comfortable if we simply said we teach some things about that time period?  One thing we know he did before he became God the Father is that he got married, because he certainly didn't create us on his own without a woman.  And we also know that at some point he was born, and then grew as a   child, growing and learning and following his Father's commandments until he became a perfect man, like his son Jesus Christ now is.

 

But sure, yeah, we don't really know a  whole lot about that.  But we do know at least that much about him.

When have you ever heard that taught in church?  CFR that we "teach some things about that time period".

[thesometimesaint]

Again with the word "doctrine".  Would you be more comfortable if we simply said we teach some things about that time period?  One thing we know he did before he became God the Father is that he got married, because he certainly didn't create us on his own without a woman.  And we also know that at some point he was born, and then grew as a   child, growing and learning and following his Father's commandments until he became a perfect man, like his son Jesus Christ now is.

 

But sure, yeah, we don't really know a  whole lot about that.  But we do know at least that much about him.

 

We don't know that God the Father got married before he was God the Father. We have no doctrine concerning what if anything God the Father did before he was God the Father. Moreover we have no doctrine that God the Father was never God the Father.

 

The Scriptures make no mention of a wife of God the Father.

 

Speculation about what if anything God the Father did before he became God the Father(If there was such a time) is not part of our doctrine. 

 

You are going far beyond what is doctrine of the Church. But thank you for playing the speculation game.

[Ahab]

We don't know that God the Father got married before he was God the Father. We have no doctrine concerning what if anything God the Father did before he was God the Father. Moreover we have no doctrine that God the Father was never God the Father.

 

The Scriptures make no mention of a wife of God the Father.

 

Speculation about what if anything God the Father did before he became God the Father(If there was such a time) is not part of our doctrine. 

 

You are going far beyond what is doctrine of the Church. But thank you for playing the speculation game.

You seem to be trying to bury your  head in the sand, bro.  Some things are just obvious to anyone who knows what a Father is and how someone becomes a Father.  Sure, you can imagine that our Father may have had us as his children out of wedlock, or that he somehow created us without a woman.  Or that he was born without both a Father and Mother to give birth to him.  But why waste your time thinking silly thoughts like that?  And why keep deluding yourself into thinking my thoughts are only speculation?