What do we really know about God the Father?

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Cool. I worked there in the early 90's and my business partner grew up there.

How old is your business partner? It's a small place. I may know him. Did you work for the lab? Which ward were you in?

Edited April 27, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How old is your business partner? It's a small place. I may know him. Did you work for the lab? Which ward were you in?

He's in his late 40's - Art Pollard. I worked in the fusion section. If you know Larry Mann it was his group, although I worked on inertial confinement fusion and not magnetic fusion. Just down the road from TA-55. I actually babysat the Mann's house one summer. When I lived there the Bishop was also the Sheriff (forget his name) and his son was my age. The chief of staff for the lab was the young adult group leader. Had tons of fun those years. We had a dead poet society where we'd go out to various places and everyone would bring one poem. Did tons of climbing down in White Rock. When I was there the area had only two wards: the White Rock ward and the Los Alamos Ward. I was in Los Alamos.

[Teancum]

On 4/23/2017 at 8:47 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Well, no, that's not correct. You took the opportunity to turn an interesting and sincere question into yet another dig at the Prophet, the Church, and me. If that's all you want to do, then by all means take your leave.

Or you can contribute something of value.  There are about 1000 words in the quote you provided. What exactly did you learn about God in all those words?

I learned a lot about what Joseph Smith believed about God and that he did not think he did not know much about God and that he believed such knowledge was critical. 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

I learned a lot about what Joseph Smith believed about God and that he did not think he did not know much about God and that he believed such knowledge was critical. 

Lots of generalities, no specifics. This discussion is what we specifically know about Father. 

Edited April 30, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[DemonsAway]

Newbie here, trying this board out. I am no longer a believer for a heads up. The most honest answer is we know nothing. We don't even know if there is a God. A person can only say what the Bible claims about God, or the BoM, or what any prophet says or what anyone feels their personal experience is. But in reality, nobody knows. They only know their personal desire of what they want God to be.

[Meadowchik]

It has occurred to me that without the Godhead doctrine, polygamy as the New and Everlasting covenant would not work.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, DemonsAway said:

Newbie here, trying this board out. I am no longer a believer for a heads up. The most honest answer is we know nothing. We don't even know if there is a God. A person can only say what the Bible claims about God, or the BoM, or what any prophet says or what anyone feels their personal experience is. But in reality, nobody knows. They only know their personal desire of what they want God to be.

Everyone does seem to want to make God in their own image.

[Teancum]

On 4/30/2017 at 1:29 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Lots of generalities, no specifics. This discussion is what we specifically know about Father. 

Such wonderful equivocation.   You need it to be an LDS apologist.

 

Read what the man the LDS church claims is the greatest prophet whoever lived said.  He seemed to know a lot about God and was not timing about it.   I think he would be astounded at the topic in this thread from those who so poorly defend what he started.

[Meadowchik]

Now, I can't help but wonder if the Godhead grew out of Joseph's polygamy:

If God the Father is a being of flesh and bone and was once like us, then through the Savior we can become like Him. The New and Everlasting Covenant is that Special Something that allows us (the men, at least) to do so.

Otherwise, God is a more mystical being less like us, with Jesus the manifestation of God in physical form, and our highest goal is to return to His presence, without a thought to a new kind of marriage.

[JLHPROF]

On ‎4‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 8:10 AM, Meadowchik said:

It has occurred to me that without the Godhead doctrine, polygamy as the New and Everlasting covenant would not work.

True I suppose.

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Now, I can't help but wonder if the Godhead grew out of Joseph's polygamy:

If God the Father is a being of flesh and bone and was once like us, then through the Savior we can become like Him. The New and Everlasting Covenant is that Special Something that allows us (the men, at least) to do so.

Otherwise, God is a more mystical being less like us, with Jesus the manifestation of God in physical form, and our highest goal is to return to His presence, without a thought to a new kind of marriage.

I think it would be more correct to say to traditional Christian view of God (as you describe in your last sentence) has no need of any marriage, polygamous or otherwise.
Polygamy does necessitate a Godhead more similar to us mortals.

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

True I suppose.

I think it would be more correct to say to traditional Christian view of God (as you describe in your last sentence) has no need of any marriage, polygamous or otherwise.
Polygamy does necessitate a Godhead more similar to us mortals.

It seems like Brigham Young was convinced of this, and in his Adam-God doctrine, he tried to fill in the gaps of Joseph's Godhead-polygamy cosmology.

[JLHPROF]

47 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It seems like Brigham Young was convinced of this, and in his Adam-God doctrine, he tried to fill in the gaps of Joseph's Godhead-polygamy cosmology.

Maybe.  He definitely expanded on the KFD teachings, the temple teachings, etc and attempted to mesh all that Joseph had said into one cohesive doctrine.
I happen to think he did it by inspiration and got it right.  Most people think he got it wrong.  Still makes more sense to me than current Church teachings or traditional Christian teachings.

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Maybe.  He definitely expanded on the KFD teachings, the temple teachings, etc and attempted to mesh all that Joseph had said into one cohesive doctrine.
I happen to think he did it by inspiration and got it right.  Most people think he got it wrong.  Still makes more sense to me than current Church teachings or traditional Christian teachings.

I guess "making sense" depends on what you think Christianity really is at its core.

[Tsuzuki]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Maybe.  He definitely expanded on the KFD teachings, the temple teachings, etc and attempted to mesh all that Joseph had said into one cohesive doctrine.
I happen to think he did it by inspiration and got it right.  Most people think he got it wrong.  Still makes more sense to me than current Church teachings or traditional Christian teachings.

Brigham Young's Adam-God doctrine is a misunderstanding of the concept of Adam Kadmon in the Kabbalah.

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, Tsuzuki said:

Brigham Young's Adam-God doctrine is a misunderstanding of the concept of Adam Kadmon in the Kabbalah.

Somehow I doubt Brigham was familiar with the Kabbalah.  He wasn't much of an academic.

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I guess "making sense" depends on what you think Christianity really is at its core.

"Christianity" consists of acquiring the attributes of Christ through faith, repentance, and effort AND following the commands and teachings of Christ (all of them, not just the ones about charity).

Edited May 4, 2017 by JLHPROF

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Somehow I doubt Brigham was familiar with the Kabbalah.  He wasn't much of an academic.

I think the argument is more that Joseph was indirectly influenced by Kabbalism either through the masonic/hermetic tradition, through possible reading about platonism, or through his Hebrew teacher. There's not a lot of evidence for it beyond some similarities and a passing quote from an obscure Kabbalistic source in a Times and Seasons editorial. That said Adam/Kadamon is a pretty prominent idea in Kabbalism and was widely adopted by Christian Cabalism in the Renaissance and comes up in the masonic tradition as well. 

There's lot of parallels although often loose. 

The argument is more that Brigham heard the idea in Nauvoo but because he often wasn't there due to missions didn't really get the full picture. He then goes with the idea in the Utah period. So it's the idea of a distortion of a distortion that itself takes upon its own life. But given it's a windy road of influences often dependent upon misreadings it's very hard to establish. So it pays to be skeptical.

That said I think the tradition within the Merkabah and Hekhalot traditions which significantly influence Kabbalism are a more likely parallel. There you have things like Enoch being made Metatron and eventually being the lesser YHWH. This pops up in places like 3 Enoch but also other important texts. There was also a lot of Adam speculation around the time of Christ on up through early late antiquity. Indeed the very idea of Christ as the new Adam can be seen as tied to a lot of these ideas in the 1st century. Some of these persist. For instance there's an interesting tradition in the early Syriac Christian texts (~2cd century) Adam is created in the image of God in such a strong sense that Michael orders the angels to worship Adam. Some refuse which is why Satan and company fall. There's lots of oddities like that in late antiquity. There's hints of this tradition in John's revelation too (where John attempts to worship the angel and is forbidden) You see certain elements in Nephi's vision too.

Despite the very interesting parallels in late antiquity the most likely source of influence on Joseph is the hermetic tradition. The hermetic tradition is heavily influenced by the theurgical platonic tradition although does so on the basis of some late texts (~400 AD) that everyone thought pre-dated Moses. Even after the antiquity of the texts were found to be false in the 17th century the idea persisted in the hermetic/masonic tradition. In this tradition Adam is the head of seven great governors that rule the cosmos. (Roughly the seven planets that move) They also make use of the Adam Kadmon tradition as I mentioned. It's through Adam Kadmon that what's on earth is a reflection of heaven and vice versa. So in their view there's this Egyptian view of Adam who is more than human and is divine. He's the brother of the demiurge Son of God. While Adam falls, the fall isn't seen as negative. Adam in this tradition isn't just a human soul and body but a divine immortal essence and body. The goal then is to recover his divinity through hidden knowledge. (All of this is in the Hermetic text the Pimander) Quoting Yates' quote of the text.

Quote

What a great miracle is Man, O Asclepius, a being worthy of reverence and honour. For he passes into the nature of a god as though he were himself a god; he has familiarity with the race of demons, knowing that he is issued from the same origin; he despises that part of his nature which is only human, for he has put his hope in the divinity of the other part. (Yates, Giodano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, 28)

Demon here isn't the Christian sense of fallen angel or Satan. Rather in the hermetic tradition it's akin to our view of archangels but is associated with the greek tradition tying them to the moving planets. (Think Socrates' Daemon in the dialogs if you've read Plato)

Adam is thus called the Son of God. 

All these texts were still very popular at the time of Joseph Smith especially among masons. There was a translation by John Everard, which while not a good translation, was widely read. It's important to realize though that there's a tradition of how this would have been read which is different from how we might read it on a cold reading.

Also note that while Brigham wasn't a scholar, he was a mason and was very tied in with the traditions within masonry. Within masonry there's a strong tradition that it originates with Adam and is tied to the knowledge given by eating of the tree of knowledge. If you recall that's tied to being a God.

Edited May 5, 2017 by clarkgoble
Corrected some misspellings.

[Tsuzuki]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Somehow I doubt Brigham was familiar with the Kabbalah.  He wasn't much of an academic.

That would explain why he got it wrong when he heard the concept from Joseph Smith.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Tsuzuki said:

That would explain why he got it wrong when he heard the concept from Joseph Smith.

To be fair there's not a lot of evidence he got it from Joseph. The strongest arguments is from one of the parts of the Nauvoo Expositor that William Law wrote as an expose. One of the parts was the claim Joseph was teaching that God could fall which of course is similar to Brigham's theory. On the other hand it might just mean something akin to how some read Alma 42 and the idea God could cease to be God.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 4/24/2017 at 11:14 AM, Calm said:

It appears there is an error in this popular quotation plus context helps supply what he meant:

"Now we are here. Our memories are veiled. We are showing God and ourselves what we can do. Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father and how familiar His face is to us."

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/12/jesus-christ-gifts-and-expectations?lang=eng

Thanks for the context. It sheds a lot of light on the quote.

It's says our lack of knowledge is due to the veil. When that is removed, all things we knew before will be brought again to our remembrance, and that is what will startle us.

Time and again, I see instances of how misleading it is when something is removed from context. It is for that reason that I frequently ask for a citation, if not the full context, of a quote that has been provided.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

On 4/23/2017 at 5:17 PM, Teancum said:

No I will pass.  Not worth talking about something really nobody knows much about.  You said we don't know much about God the Father.  I showed you where Joseph taught that is was the first principles of the gospel to know about God and his attributes and he didn't ever teach that we don't know much about God. If you label that as anti Mormon then discussion with you about your own topic, which contradicts the founding LDS Prophet, well its simply a waste of time.

 

Uh, I think revolutionizing Christianity with the idea of an embodied God with all that implies about immanence and transcendence, all that implies the King Follette discourse, the Council of the Gods, the correct philosophy which makes God our Father instead some location-less cloud of nothing, the inference that therefore matter and spirit or energy are one force, the idea that the soul is both spirit and body, the notion that there are multiple eternities and multiple worlds....

I would say that is just a tad that we know that most Christians do not.

But heck, who's counting

Oh wait.

You are.

In that case I would say your are blatantly wrong.  In a nice way of course.

Love ya bro, but you are barking up the wrong tree of life.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 4/30/2017 at 6:21 AM, DemonsAway said:

Newbie here, trying this board out. I am no longer a believer for a heads up. The most honest answer is we know nothing. We don't even know if there is a God. A person can only say what the Bible claims about God, or the BoM, or what any prophet says or what anyone feels their personal experience is. But in reality, nobody knows. They only know their personal desire of what they want God to be.

That IS reality.

How did you decide who your spouse should be?  Maybe it involved some personal desire?  What school to attend?  Where to live?  What is important to you and gives your life meaning?  Was all that experimental science?

Were you aware that science is irrelevant to spirituality?  That scripture is not science?  That should be fairly obvious with a 6 day creation but I guess some have not gotten the memo.

You just got it.

Even atheists have religions.  http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/04/04/religion-without-god/

Once you understand the true function of "religion" in your life as a personal choice of what makes your life meaningful, all those arguments go away.

A testimony based on your "gut" and a belief in God is just as valid as picking a spouse or occupation based on your "gut".  Your world is what you create- it's not out there to be found.

Edited May 6, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 4/30/2017 at 7:39 AM, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Everyone does seem to want to make God in their own image.

God presents himself in ways which draw us to him.  He's smart enough to know what will communicate to each of us individually and uses individualized lesson plans.

He's a great tutor.

You don't teach calculus in kindergarten and not even one way of teaching math works for everyone.

Yet eventually for those who keep on studying, you all end up knowing higher math.   But some have to wait til their death to see how spirituality works. 

Mormons can accommodate this view in our theology- others can't. 

I used to be an atheist, but I got better.

Edited May 6, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 4/23/2017 at 10:29 PM, Bobbieaware said:

The scriptures teach us Christ is the revelation of who and what God the Father is to man. Christ himself also taught he did nothing except those things which he saw the Father do before he himself did them. The Kimg Follett discourse goes on to say the Father was once a mortal man who, I assume, went through experiences much like our own while faithfully traversing the path that led ultimately to his reception of the fulness of eternal glory. The minutiae of things like whether or he preferred pepperoni pizza to sausage pizza, or baseball to football, seems to be of little import. As Joseph Smith once said, if you want to know God, know yourself.

DANG!

That's good stuff!

Do you have a reference for that last sentence?  To me, that's all of it!  If people could truly get that, that is all of it.

But I am positive that God preferred sausage- no question.  That should be in the Articles of Faith.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 4/24/2017 at 0:24 AM, Bernard Gui said:

I'm puzzled by your animus. Pizza? If God were Australian, we should be more concerned about footy and cricket.

But definitely NOT Vegemite.