Did Heavenly Father Live As We Currently Live?

[mfbukowski]

I love the idea of the Ents' language where they name something by telling all its history. And there is no word for yes or no because the why of the answer is used to answer.

Perhaps when we have eternity to discuss in we will begin to use language in such a more detailed way...or if we communicate spirit to spirit/mind to mind perhaps words will no longer exist in the same way but we communicate in thought packages with 'words', images, sounds, smells, emotions all transferred at once and then embellished by the receiver.

I think Tolkien was brilliant (and other myth makers) to make God's language music.

Great stuff!

Tolkien was a profound thinker about language itself and that is how he could come up with such wonderful ideas that stretch our understanding.

[Ahab]

Is a circle or a ring an eternity then?

I said something, not anything.

You seem to be confused about more than a few things and I'm not convinced that talking about them would do you much good.

[Stone holm]

We believe that "intelligences" are eternal.  But did we exist eternally as Spirit Children of Heavenly Father, no I don't think so.  Our intelligence got assigned to a specific spiritual body.  And unless we are willing to throw Brigham Young completely under the bus, which seems to be the fad nowadays, then Spirit Children are more or less created the same way as mortal children.  So if Heavenly Father was once like us, then that very strongly suggests there was a time when He was not a Heavenly Father.  Am I missing something here, or are we just abandoning the Snow Couplet altogether?

[JLHPROF]

Am I missing something here, or are we just abandoning the Snow Couplet altogether?

 

A lot of Church members here appear to be, along with the KFD.

Personally, I see little point in Mormonism without them.

[VideoGameJunkie]

The main reason I asked the original question was because we can achieve exaltation and live the life that Heavenly Father lives. I don't know what that means exactly, so that's why I was wondering.

[Stone holm]

A lot of Church members here appear to be, along with the KFD.

Personally, I see little point in Mormonism without them.

I agree, they are core structural teachings as far as I am concerned.

[Alan]

or are we just abandoning the Snow Couplet altogether?

 

Yes. And the sooner the better in my view.

[Storm Rider]

A lot of Church members here appear to be, along with the KFD.

Personally, I see little point in Mormonism without them.

 

I could not disagree more with you.  The real beauty of the gospel is not founded on where did God come from, but his infinite love for us is such that he provided a way for us to become like him.  The problem that I see with those who think God became God is all they have done is open the door to who or what is the First Cause.  They have passed the buck to the First God without providing any answers.  God is the First Cause; he is, has been, and always will be God.  

[teddyaware]

I could not disagree more with you.  The real beauty of the gospel is not founded on where did God come from, but his infinite love for us is such that he provided a way for us to become like him.  The problem that I see with those who think God became God is all they have done is open the door to who or what is the First Cause.  They have passed the buck to the First God without providing any answers.  God is the First Cause; he is, has been, and always will be God.

If the King Follett Discourse provides us a genuine glimpse into the mind and thinking of the Prophet Joseph Smith shorty before his death, then your ideas would be at variance with his...

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" (KFD)

Pretty difficult to misinterpret the plain meaning these words.

more,

" We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see." (KFD)

Again, as plain as could be.

As for myself, I have come to occupy a middle-ground position. I accept the scriptures that teach us from all eternity God always was God, while simultaneously accepting the King Follett Discourse and Snow Couplet. I could explain how I'm able to harmonize these two seemingly diametrically opposed concepts, but it's time to go to work.

Edited July 15, 2014 by teddyaware

[JLHPROF]

I could not disagree more with you.  The real beauty of the gospel is not founded on where did God come from, but his infinite love for us is such that he provided a way for us to become like him.  The problem that I see with those who think God became God is all they have done is open the door to who or what is the First Cause.  They have passed the buck to the First God without providing any answers.  God is the First Cause; he is, has been, and always will be God.  

 

You don't see the conflict in what you wrote - "his infinite love for us is such that he provided a way for us to become like him." but "he is, has been, and always will be God."

 

You have to dismiss both parts of the Snow couplet or keep both parts.  Logic defies them working separately.

So the only way around this obvious conflict is to say, well we can't become "exactly" like God, just god's with a lower case g.  And I have never seen that in gospel teachings.

 

I think removing the doctrines of the Snow couplet & KFD make Mormonism into little more than your average sectarian protestant sect.  Everything unique and amazing in the restored gospel (that didn't exist in protestant thought) connects back to these doctrines. 

 

- The first vision where we learned that Heavenly Father & Christ were separate beings - why does that even matter doctrinally without the KFD doctrine.

- Eternal families and marriage - why bother without the KFD doctrine, we can all live together as platonic friends.

- D&C 130:10 - why worry about higher kingdoms without the KFD doctrine.

- Spirit creation - why claim God as our actual father if we aren't going to grow up to become a God like him.

 

The entire doctrine of mormonism outside of the first principles (which protestants had without authority) crumbles and comes to nothing without the doctrines of the KFD.  It was the culmination of the restoration, the reason behind the temple ordinances, the purpose of priesthood advancement, the essence of eternal families.  Without it, we are left with the most basic Christian principles - good, but not exalting.

[Storm Rider]

If the King Follett Discourse provides us a genuine glimpse into the mind and thinking of the Prophet Joseph Smith shorty before his death, then your ideas would be at variance with his...

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" (KFD)

Pretty difficult to misinterpret the plain meaning these words.

more,

" We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see." (KFD)

Again, as plain as could be.

As for myself, I have come to occupy a middle-ground position. I accept the scriptures that teach us from all eternity God always was God, while simultaneously accepting the King Follett Discourse and Snow Couplet. I could explain how I'm able to harmonize these two seemingly diametrically opposed concepts, but it's time to go to work.

 

Hey Ted, I am aware of what the KFD says and I understand that it was Joseph that gave the talk.  I am not as bothered by the fact that we don't have a verbatim record of what he said and just use the notes of others.  I disagree with him more out of a sense of what is acknowledged, recognized doctrine.  I realize that my stance conflicts with others; I am a bit of a purist when it comes to doctrine.  If I don't find it in the Standard Works, it is not doctrine.  This is the only way that I can keep things straight and not allow myself to be whip-sawed by what every prophet, apostle, or other leader has ever said.  They are entitled to their own opinion, but that is as far as I am prepared to go with them.  

 

I don't hold Joseph any higher than I do Brigham, David, Spencer, or Thomas.  I have favorite prophets, Brigham being at the top of my list, but my reasons vary.  I also have some that are less than favorites.  

 

all the best,

[Storm Rider]

You don't see the conflict in what you wrote - "his infinite love for us is such that he provided a way for us to become like him." but "he is, has been, and always will be God."

 

You have to dismiss both parts of the Snow couplet or keep both parts.  Logic defies them working separately.

So the only way around this obvious conflict is to say, well we can't become "exactly" like God, just god's with a lower case g.  And I have never seen that in gospel teachings.

 

I think removing the doctrines of the Snow couplet & KFD make Mormonism into little more than your average sectarian protestant sect.  Everything unique and amazing in the restored gospel (that didn't exist in protestant thought) connects back to these doctrines. 

 

- The first vision where we learned that Heavenly Father & Christ were separate beings - why does that even matter doctrinally without the KFD doctrine.

- Eternal families and marriage - why bother without the KFD doctrine, we can all live together as platonic friends.

- D&C 130:10 - why worry about higher kingdoms without the KFD doctrine.

- Spirit creation - why claim God as our actual father if we aren't going to grow up to become a God like him.

 

The entire doctrine of mormonism outside of the first principles (which protestants had without authority) crumbles and comes to nothing without the doctrines of the KFD.  It was the culmination of the restoration, the reason behind the temple ordinances, the purpose of priesthood advancement, the essence of eternal families.  Without it, we are left with the most basic Christian principles - good, but not exalting.

 

I don't see the conflict that you think is there.  I don't see how it crumbles or is in the least affected with a recognition of God always being God.  As I stated above, your position just delays the inevitable; what is the First Cause?  You don't have an answer and Joseph never provided one; however, where did the first God come from?  When you get to that point you are exactly where I am without any apparent conflict. 

[mfbukowski]

We believe that "intelligences" are eternal.  But did we exist eternally as Spirit Children of Heavenly Father, no I don't think so.  Our intelligence got assigned to a specific spiritual body.  And unless we are willing to throw Brigham Young completely under the bus, which seems to be the fad nowadays, then Spirit Children are more or less created the same way as mortal children.  So if Heavenly Father was once like us, then that very strongly suggests there was a time when He was not a Heavenly Father.  Am I missing something here, or are we just abandoning the Snow Couplet altogether?

As I have said over and over, there is no reason to abandon the Snow couplet unless you are a fundamentalist literalist and believe that evolution is in conflict with the gospel, there was a worldwide flood, donkeys talk, and so do snakes.

 

All you have to postulate is that God lives outside of "time" as we know it, and there are successive eternities.

 

So by HIS time reference, there was a "time" when he was like us.

 

From OUR time reference, there was NO TIME when he was like us.

 

It's like the old saw that there may be many "gods" but our God is the only one relevant to us.  I don't know why people make this so hard.

[mfbukowski]

I could not disagree more with you.  The real beauty of the gospel is not founded on where did God come from, but his infinite love for us is such that he provided a way for us to become like him.  The problem that I see with those who think God became God is all they have done is open the door to who or what is the First Cause.  They have passed the buck to the First God without providing any answers.  God is the First Cause; he is, has been, and always will be God.  

I really like your posts and agree with you 99% of the time, but you cannot base an argument for the existence of God on First Cause- that was disproven by Hume in the 1600's.  That is strict scholastic thinking straight out of Thomas Aquinas and is a sectarian argument.

 

If you are going to bring up "becoming like God" at all, you are stuck with two routes- 1- the Catholic idea of theosis where somehow we share in God's "divine nature" in a mysterious way where we become somehow "like" him but without becoming gods ourselves.

 

THAT is not Mormon doctrine.

 

I don't see any way around that.

 

View number 2 is essentially the Snow Couplet.

 

IF we can become gods, it is only reasonable to understand that he was in some way like us in some distant eternity or alternate universe.  Abandon half the couplet and the other half goes with it.  No compromise is possible.

[mfbukowski]

There was no more a first cause than there was an origin for matter.

 

LDS belief is that matter is eternal and so are we, and that we have the potential to become gods.  I don't see any way around that.

 

How can we be in his "image" then?  Does he not have a body?

 

This is fundamental stuff here.

[mfbukowski]

Hey Ted, I am aware of what the KFD says and I understand that it was Joseph that gave the talk.  I am not as bothered by the fact that we don't have a verbatim record of what he said and just use the notes of others.  I disagree with him more out of a sense of what is acknowledged, recognized doctrine.  I realize that my stance conflicts with others; I am a bit of a purist when it comes to doctrine.  If I don't find it in the Standard Works, it is not doctrine.  This is the only way that I can keep things straight and not allow myself to be whip-sawed by what every prophet, apostle, or other leader has ever said.  They are entitled to their own opinion, but that is as far as I am prepared to go with them.  

 

I don't hold Joseph any higher than I do Brigham, David, Spencer, or Thomas.  I have favorite prophets, Brigham being at the top of my list, but my reasons vary.  I also have some that are less than favorites.  

 

all the best,

I am just curious then if you accept the first vision and the doctrine that God has a body of flesh and bones?

 

Where did they come from- or perhaps you don't worry about that?

 

I do not want to badger you- I consider you a friend- I am just wondering how you work all this out.

[JLHPROF]

I don't see the conflict that you think is there.  I don't see how it crumbles or is in the least affected with a recognition of God always being God.  As I stated above, your position just delays the inevitable; what is the First Cause?  You don't have an answer and Joseph never provided one; however, where did the first God come from?  When you get to that point you are exactly where I am without any apparent conflict. 

 

I think you need to sing "If you could hie to Kolob" every day for a while...

 

But seriously, as Mfbukowski put more eloquently than I, this is fundamental stuff for anyone claiming to believe in the restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith.  For other religions there would be issues, but the doctrines of the Snow Couplet and KFD are so interwoven through EVERY doctrine of our religion that how it can be questioned is beyond me.

 

I am no philosopher on first cause, but the fact that God was once a man doesn't require there to have been an original any more than we should expect there to be a final God.  "God" is an office that we are told we can achieve.  If we can achieve it then logic dictates that our God also achieved it.  How do we know we can achieve it?  Because we are the same species as He is.  It's simple reproduction.  Puppies grow into Dogs unless something prevents it.  And God's children grow into beings capable of being Gods - it's his work and glory to perpetuate the race of the Gods.  And we will do the same eternities without end.

 

It's the very essence of Mormon belief.

[JLHPROF]

 

I don't hold Joseph any higher than I do Brigham, David, Spencer, or Thomas.  I have favorite prophets, Brigham being at the top of my list, but my reasons vary.

 

 - Well, you ought to, because he stands in a position higher than they do - he is the head of the dispensation and they will answer to him for the stewardship he passed down.  Your favorite taught that.  Joseph Smith is the priesthood head of Brigham, David, Spencer and Thomas, just as Thomas is the head of Boyd, Dallin, Russell and Jeffrey.

[halconero]

I have this personal pet theory that what really sets those who are exalted apart from others is the ability to exist within a plurality of eternities, wherein an eternity becomes less a measure of time, and more a measure of dominion. D&C 132 says that those who are sealed and exalted will exist from everlasting to everlasting, and will have a plurality of crowns, thrones, dominions, principalities, and kingdoms given to them.

In this sense I believe that we can say that Heavenly Father has been God forever, for infinity, and there never was a time where he was not God....for this eternity.

[Ahab]

I really like your posts and agree with you 99% of the time, but you cannot base an argument for the existence of God on First Cause- that was disproven by Hume in the 1600's. That is strict scholastic thinking straight out of Thomas Aquinas and is a sectarian argument.

If you are going to bring up "becoming like God" at all, you are stuck with two routes- 1- the Catholic idea of theosis where somehow we share in God's "divine nature" in a mysterious way where we become somehow "like" him but without becoming gods ourselves.

THAT is not Mormon doctrine.

I don't see any way around that.

View number 2 is essentially the Snow Couplet.

IF we can become gods, it is only reasonable to understand that he was in some way like us in some distant eternity or alternate universe. Abandon half the couplet and the other half goes with it. No compromise is possible.

Talking like we become "gods" is part of the problem. We don't become gods or Gods or God because we already are God and we always have been, even before our parents did what they did so we could be born in heaven, because even then we were a part of them just as they were a part of their parents going back forever and ever while being the kind of being they were, and still are, and always will be.

We do not come out of nothing or from nowhere. We were born as our parents perpetuated their own species, with each set of parents coming from their parents before them, with no ultimate beginning and no ultimate end for as long as there continues to be at least 2 people of our species, a man and a woman, who are able to give birth to children just as our Father and his wife who are able to do it.

It's the basic story of the birds and the bees applied to "infinity and beyond", as Buzz Lightyear would put it.

[mfbukowski]

I really don't like "Hie to Kolob", and I have been put off by the hymn "Oh My Father", especially when I first joined the church because I thought those both were to flippant and profane actually.

 

I still kind of shudder when we sing that with investigators present.

 

And I don't think Joseph has any more authority than living prophets.

 

I wish we could be more subtle about all these ideas so that people don't think we are "weird".

 

But I don't see any way around it.

 

This is a link to a very good discussion about the "First Cause" idea.   I would love to understand why people hold the position- and of course many Catholics and evangelicals do still. 

 

But I am having trouble seeing how it is compatible with Mormonism. 

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

[mfbukowski]

I have this personal pet theory that what really sets those who are exalted apart from others is the ability to exist within a plurality of eternities, wherein an eternity becomes less a measure of time, and more a measure of dominion. D&C 132 says that those who are sealed and exalted will exist from everlasting to everlasting, and will have a plurality of crowns, thrones, dominions, principalities, and kingdoms given to them.

In this sense I believe that we can say that Heavenly Father has been God forever, for infinity, and there never was a time where he was not God....for this eternity.

Exactly.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I hope to achieve all that is promised in D&C 132 with the plurality of crowns, thrones, dominions, principalities, and kingdoms, but I have to stay obedient and find a wife to be sealed to.

[Stone holm]

I really don't like "Hie to Kolob", and I have been put off by the hymn "Oh My Father", especially when I first joined the church because I thought those both were to flippant and profane actually.

 

I still kind of shudder when we sing that with investigators present.

 

And I don't think Joseph has any more authority than living prophets.

 

I wish we could be more subtle about all these ideas so that people don't think we are "weird".

 

But I don't see any way around it.

 

This is a link to a very good discussion about the "First Cause" idea.   I would love to understand why people hold the position- and of course many Catholics and evangelicals do still. 

 

But I am having trouble seeing how it is compatible with Mormonism. 

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

Okay. That is basically where we part company. I don't go with the philosophers stone about being outside of time. I find it nearly impossible to reconcile with the early prophets of the Restoration. But if you are willing to discard those teachings, well of course you can go pretty much down any Christian sectarian road you wish. But at some point when traveling that road, you wind up like Dorothy saying Toto I don't think we are in Mormonism anymore.

[teddyaware]

I don't see the conflict that you think is there.  I don't see how it crumbles or is in the least affected with a recognition of God always being God.  As I stated above, your position just delays the inevitable; what is the First Cause?  You don't have an answer and Joseph never provided one; however, where did the first God come from?  When you get to that point you are exactly where I am without any apparent conflict.

Lehi's doctrinal exposition in 2 Nephi 2 gives us some important clues when it comes to helping us to make a determination as to whether or not there was a 'first cause' and whether or not God always existed. And the answers to those two propositions, at least according to Lehi, is that there was no first cause that induced existence to emerge from nonexistence and that God had no beginning.

But there's an unexpected twist to Lehi's presentation on things eternal. Lehi not only informs us that there is no first cause and that God has always existed but, quite remarkably, he also goes on to say there was no beginning to the forces that stand in opposition to God either. In other words, Lehi reveals to us that God and the forces opposed to God are coeval, having no beginning and no end in a self-existent and immutable reality based on perpetual opposition in all things...

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. (2 Nephi 2)

 

Lehi is saying that unless there is a self-existing system of reality based on eternal opposition in all things, there would be neither life nor death and no sense nor insensibilty -- meaning nothing at all could exist.

 

and Lehi continues,

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2)

 

In this verse Lehi is saying law and sin had no beginning, righteousness and unrighteousness had no beginning  and happiness and misery had no beginning. He goes on to say that if this uncreated system of existence constructed upon an indestructible matrix of opposition in all things did not always exist, there is nothing and no one who could have then caused existence to issue forth from a state of nonexistence. Finally he instructs us to understand that if there wasn't always an uncreated God standing at the helm of eternal power, nothing could exist; without an uncreated eternally self-existent God, all things would vanish into nonexistence. Therefore God, however one may define Him, always existed and has no beginning, neither will He have an end.

Edited July 16, 2014 by teddyaware