Did Heavenly Father Live As We Currently Live?

[mfbukowski]

Indeed it is. The I AM.

Oh, you mean the phrase that can be translated "I am becoming"?

  

The nature of God is three persons co-eternal.

Yeah, so?  We believe that.

 

 

Our descriptions of their relationship correspond to (sorry there's that word) what we can understand within the context of relationships. 

 

It's all interpretation and who you trust. 

 

We are made in God's image by his speaking it.

 

Can an infinite God create another infinite God?

I have no clue what you are talking about here and how it is relevant.  Full declarative sentences help a lot.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Indeed it is. The I AM. 

Sorry but "I AM" does not mean "self existent". And I am not sure that is the best translation anyway. Not that that even matters. I do appreciate your interpretation though and I can respect it. But we do indeed see things differently. Lets continue. What else you got?

Edited July 9, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[JLHPROF]

I disagree, and time suggests wisdom in not do so. It is too far reaching with so little scriptural support. There is a process that this "sermon" does not meet the condition to become canon.

 

If we truly believe in continuing revelation, then it needs 0 scriptural support (as long as God isn't contradicting himself with the new revelation).  If God appeared to Joseph and said "I was once a man on an earth as you were" and Joseph taught that in the KFD, that is all the support it needs.

We are too quick to dismiss the teachings of the prophets as "speculation and opinion" when they have claimed to receive them by revelation.  We do this with Brigham Young and Adam-God, which he said he received by revelation.  We do this with Joseph Smith who had direct revelation ALL the time.

Do we believe the prophet receive doctrine from God or don't we?  Or are they just there to interpret what we already have?

[thesometimesaint]

If we truly believe in continuing revelation, then it needs 0 scriptural support (as long as God isn't contradicting himself with the new revelation).  If God appeared to Joseph and said "I was once a man on an earth as you were" and Joseph taught that in the KFD, that is all the support it needs.

We are too quick to dismiss the teachings of the prophets as "speculation and opinion" when they have claimed to receive them by revelation.  We do this with Brigham Young and Adam-God, which he said he received by revelation.  We do this with Joseph Smith who had direct revelation ALL the time.

Do we believe the prophet receive doctrine from God or don't we?  Or are they just there to interpret what we already have?

 

We truly believe in continuing revelation

.

Who are you to tell God what he can and can't do? IE;  If he can go from no ham and cheese sandwiches. To ham and cheese sandwiched are fine. Then either God isn't contradicting himself. Or God is fully capable of requiring different things from different people. To see for ourselves if we will do whatsoever our God will command us.

 

Actually within the Church it does require more that just JS, or any one man, saying it.for it to become doctrine.

 

JS was responsible for setting up the Church. Prophets after that time maintain it.

 

It is both. We have a well established method of determining what we as a Church believe, and the KFD, no matter how correct it is, doesn't meet that method.

[Alan]

He lived either as we do or as Jesus did.

There are no other viable possibilities.

 

I think there is at least one other alternative.

God the Father is God, the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, almighty architect, creator, and sustainer of all.

He has always been God.

This concept is supported in the scriptures, especially in the Book of Mormon. 

[thesometimesaint]

I think there is at least one other alternative.

God the Father is God, the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, almighty architect, creator, and sustainer of all.

He has always been God.

This concept is supported in the scriptures, especially in the Book of Mormon. 

 

Agreed. However it gets a little complicated when the Scriptures also tell us we are also Gods.

[danielwoods]

Oh, you mean the phrase that can be translated "I am becoming"?

 

 

The phrase can be translated however you'd like. It doesn't make much sense (in my opinion) to translate it that way. 

 

I'm thinking that this would be fundamental difference between our views. The progressive God view and the Non-progressive God view. 

 

Sorry but "I AM" does not mean "self existent". And I am not sure that is the best translation anyway. Not that that even matters. I do appreciate your interpretation though and I can respect it. But we do indeed see things differently. Lets continue. What else you got?

 

Exodus 3:14

 

"And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

 

God is referencing himself as the highest standard because there is no one else who is higher. By saying, "I am who I am" he is stating is self-existent nature. 

 

For a more detailed discussion: http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-i-am.htm

[JLHPROF]

We truly believe in continuing revelation.

 

Yes, we do.

 

Who are you to tell God what he can and can't do? IE;  If he can go from no ham and cheese sandwiches. To ham and cheese sandwiched are fine. Then either God isn't contradicting himself. Or God is fully capable of requiring different things from different people. To see for ourselves if we will do whatsoever our God will command us.

 

God is a God of order and does not change.  Eternal laws are also unalterable.  Ordinances are also unalterable.

At least, that's what the scriptures and prophets tell us.  I personally said nothing about what God can do.

 

Actually within the Church it does require more that just JS, or any one man, saying it.for it to become doctrine.

To become official doctrine yes, but if there is a recorded reference to a revelation from God I really don't care what was approved.  If Joseph said something was given to him by revelation from God, that's enough to make it true for me.

 

JS was responsible for setting up the Church. Prophets after that time maintain it.

True.

 

It is both. We have a well established method of determining what we as a Church believe, and the KFD, no matter how correct it is, doesn't meet that method.

 

Like I said, it's a pity it doesn't.  It's still true.  Whether or not it's official doesn't mean a thing to me. 

[Ahab]

I think there is at least one other alternative.

God the Father is God, the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, almighty architect, creator, and sustainer of all.

He has always been God.

This concept is supported in the scriptures, especially in the Book of Mormon.

The question was if God (our Father) ever lived as we are now living, with a spirit like ours clothed with a mortal body, and I was saying yes to that question while also saying he either sinned or did not sin while he lived in his then mortal body.

Nothing you're saying contradicts what I said and we do not disagree with each other.

[thesometimesaint]

 

We truly believe in continuing revelation.

 

Yes, we do.

 

Who are you to tell God what he can and can't do? IE;  If he can go from no ham and cheese sandwiches. To ham and cheese sandwiched are fine. Then either God isn't contradicting himself. Or God is fully capable of requiring different things from different people. To see for ourselves if we will do whatsoever our God will command us.

 

God is a God of order and does not change.  Eternal laws are also unalterable.  Ordinances are also unalterable.

At least, that's what the scriptures and prophets tell us.  I personally said nothing about what God can do.

 

Actually within the Church it does require more that just JS, or any one man, saying it.for it to become doctrine.

To become official doctrine yes, but if there is a recorded reference to a revelation from God I really don't care what was approved.  If Joseph said something was given to him by revelation from God, that's enough to make it true for me.

 

JS was responsible for setting up the Church. Prophets after that time maintain it.

True.

 

It is both. We have a well established method of determining what we as a Church believe, and the KFD, no matter how correct it is, doesn't meet that method.

 

Like I said, it's a pity it doesn't.  It's still true.  Whether or not it's official doesn't mean a thing to me. 

 

 

Male circumcizm was given as an eternal commandment by God. Even Peter agreed with it. Paul did not. The new revelation from God changed it.

[Guest]

Seeing the reanactment of the KFD last summer in Nauvoo, they must believe it's a doctrine. Or that would be spreading false doctrine wouldn't it?

I think you are misunderstand what I am saying. Edited July 9, 2014 by Pa Pa

[JLHPROF]

Male circumcizm was given as an eternal commandment by God. Even Peter agreed with it. Paul did not. The new revelation from God changed it.

 

No, circumcision was given as a sign of entrance into the old covenant.  The new covenant replaced/superceded it.  It didn't change the requirement to enter the old covenant.  Laws do not change.

[thesometimesaint]

No, circumcision was given as a sign of entrance into the old covenant.  The new covenant replaced/superceded it.  It didn't change the requirement to enter the old covenant.  Laws do not change.

 

Peter before the new revelation soundly disagrees with you. Replace/supersedes means the same thing as change.

[JLHPROF]

Peter before the new revelation soundly disagrees with you. Replace/supersedes means the same thing as change.

 

No it doesn't.  Any covenant/contract is subject to its own conditions.  The old covenant (including circumcision) was made.

The new covenant (without circumcision) was made later.  Both covenants/contracts exist independently.  Just because we no longer enter into the old covenant doesn't retroactively remove the requirement for circumcision for those that did enter that covenant.

The gospel doesn't change.  Eternal laws don't change.  Ordinances don't change.  The scriptures and the prophets are very clear on this fact.  Sometimes more is revealed, sometimes things are revoked.  But eternal is eternal.  God doesn't change his mind, especially on gospel doctrine.

 

D&C 3:2 springs to mind.

Edited July 10, 2014 by JLHPROF

[theplains]

  there is some stuff from the temple that Satan tells Eve that is interesting to

 

I know you can't elaborate on this 'stuff' but does it have scriptural support or was it just

something invented by an LDS elder?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[name]

Hi VideoGameJunkie!

 

Did Heavenly Father go through his own life, making mistakes, dealing with challenges, repenting, doing temple ordinances during his life, etc to become God?

No.

God has always been God. The Creator of all of creation. The Almighty. The I Am. The Alpha. The Omega.

God was/is not a created being (thus, no mistakes, no his own life, no repenting, no doing temple ordinances, etc). God has no beginning (like all things created do)

Edited July 10, 2014 by name

[JLHPROF]

Hi VideoGameJunkie!

 

No.

God has always been God. The Creator of all of creation. The Almighty. The I Am. The Alpha. The Omega.

God was/is not a created being (thus, no mistakes, no his own life, no repenting, no doing temple ordinances, etc). God has no beginning (like all things created do)

 

Ironically, the symbolism of the Alpha and the Omega is the beginning and the end...not the eternal.

 

This post is just another reason I am so glad to have a testimony of the truths of Mormonism.

Edited July 10, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Storm Rider]

Agreed. However it gets a little complicated when the Scriptures also tell us we are also Gods.

 

I don't see the conflict you are alluding to above.  If God's work and glory is to bring to pass our exaltation, you are creating a a conflict where there is none. 

[danielwoods]

Ironically, the symbolism of the Alpha and the Omega is the beginning and the end...not the eternal.

 

This post is just another reason I am so glad to have a testimony of the truths of Mormonism.

 

"Thus, Alpha and Omega as a Christian symbol signifies the eternal nature of Jesus Christ and God."

http://christianity.about.com/od/symbolspictures/ig/Christian-Symbols-Glossary/Alpha-and-Omega.htm

[JLHPROF]

 

"Thus, Alpha and Omega as a Christian symbol signifies the eternal nature of Jesus Christ and God."

http://christianity.about.com/od/symbolspictures/ig/Christian-Symbols-Glossary/Alpha-and-Omega.htm

 

Just goes to show that symbols can represent whatever we want.  The biblical quotes this link gives specifically say A&O means the beginning and the end, yet somehow this site reads that to mean without beginning or end, before the beginning and after the end, basically everything except what they say...

[Storm Rider]

Just goes to show that symbols can represent whatever we want.  The biblical quotes this link gives specifically say A&O means the beginning and the end, yet somehow this site reads that to mean without beginning or end, before the beginning and after the end, basically everything except what they say...

 

I am not sure this is a real conflict.  I tend to agree with Daniel's interpretation; it is hyperbole rather than a literal statement that you are making it.  Jesus has always been a member of the Godhead and always will be. 

 

I am not a literalist when it comes to scripture; sometimes it is literal and sometimes its analogy and sometimes it is hyperbole.  

 

The challenge that most of Christianity has is Jesus' comment that he does nothing except what he saw the Father do (John 5:19).  If Jesus only does that which he saw the Father do, when was that time and where was the Father when he was doing it?  Some LDS who believe that God progressed to be God, I am not one of them, have a problem in that all it does is beg the question of who was the First Cause?  

 

What is evident is that there are areas of the gospel where questions remain and God has not answered them.  

[blooit]

Agreed. However it gets a little complicated when the Scriptures also tell us we are also Gods.

 

What about the possibility that both are true...  that God is and has always been God.  We may become "like" him, but will always be His children.  All of our descendants will be "His children."  We are gods, but will never be "The I Am."

[mfbukowski]

I think there is at least one other alternative.

God the Father is God, the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, almighty architect, creator, and sustainer of all.

He has always been God.

This concept is supported in the scriptures, especially in the Book of Mormon.

Yep.

Just what I said.

[MiserereNobis]

If God is self existent what about the other persons in the Trinity?  If there are three persons, how is each of them "self-existent"?  Does the Holy Spirit "proceed" from the Father and Son?

 

Um, God *is* the Trinity, not one person in the Trinity.

[Alan]

Um, God *is* the Trinity, not one person in the Trinity.

 

This is true.