Varying Valiantness of Plants and Animals?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Eek! said:

Perfect fits are hard to come by.

[speculation] Could there be more than one possible meaning to the word "God"?   This might explain some of the seeming inconsistencies.

My understanding is that the Book of Judges is "the Book of the Elohim" in Hebrew, giving a precedent for the word we translate as "God" having meanings which we aren't accustomed to.  My understanding is also that "Elohim" is a plural word, masculine plural to be exact, but in Hebrew the masculine plural is used for a group that includes both males and females, so theoretically an Elohim could be a group consisting of both males and females.  Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway the principle of eternal progression implies that there may be several stages in between being a faithful mortal on an Earth, and being Creator of a universe.   For instance, there might be intermediate stages wherein a person (or group) is in effect the Elohim of a planet, then perhaps the perhaps the Elohim of a galaxy, then perhaps the Elohim of a supercluster of galaxies, before moving all the way up to Elohim of a universe.   I'm NOT saying this is necessarily how it works - this is just a "for instance, it might be something like this." 

So maybe Brigham wasn't totally off base with his Adam-God theory, Adam and Eve perhaps being the Elohim of this planet, but not necessarily the Elohim of the whole universe - that being still a stage or two down the road.

As to what kinds of bodies exalted beings have at these various stages, my guess is that there's a progression there as well, and could be that it's more complicated than an either/or between "has a body" and "is a spirit". 

Also, it might be possible that the evolution in Joseph Smith's teachings which we see is actually an evolution of his thinking on what would be the most enlightening and uplifting teaching on the subject of the nature of God at this time, as opposed to trying to cover all aspects of a possibly very complicated subject completely.  [/speculation]

I agree and in fact there have been similar ideas discussed here before in various Adam-God threads. I am not good at searches here but someone might help you find them

You are far from "off the wall" in these views!

 

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Maybe he knew but did not want to fully reveal it at that time?

Perhaps.  However, if he knew and simply didn't want to share it yet, he could have avoided the matter all together in the Lectures on Faith.  Instead, he canonized the idea that God was a personage of spirit.  It seems strange to me that if he knew in 1833 that God had a body of flesh and bone, that he would canonize the Lectures in Faith in 1835.  It is one thing to wait to fully reveal it, but it is another thing to canonize something completely contrary. 

[Eek!]

57 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree and in fact there have been similar ideas discussed here before in various Adam-God threads. I am not good at searches here but someone might help you find them

You are far from "off the wall" in these views!

Gotta admit I really did not expect anything remotely approaching an "I agree...".   My "off-the-wall-ness" needs a make-over!

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Gotta admit I really did not expect anything remotely approaching an "I agree...".   My "off-the-wall-ness" needs a make-over!

There is the phrase "for that is the way Father gained his knowledge".  Either you know the source or not.

Secondly we know the Savior only did what he saw his father do.  Does that mean that the Father was once a savior?

Look up some "multiple probation" threads and Adam God threads

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Perhaps.  However, if he knew and simply didn't want to share it yet, he could have avoided the matter all together in the Lectures on Faith.  Instead, he canonized the idea that God was a personage of spirit.  It seems strange to me that if he knew in 1833 that God had a body of flesh and bone, that he would canonize the Lectures in Faith in 1835.  It is one thing to wait to fully reveal it, but it is another thing to canonize something completely contrary. 

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/God_is_a_Spirit/Lecture_of_Faith_5_teaches_the_Father_is_"a_personage_of_spirit"

Interesting stuff

Edited June 4, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Eek!]

50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There is the phrase "for that is the way Father gained his knowledge".  Either you know the source or not.

I think that phrase applies to more situations than just the one where it shows up.

51 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Secondly we know the Savior only did what he saw his father do.  Does that mean that the Father was once a savior?

Now isn't THAT an interesting teaching!  If eternal progression is a correct teaching, then it makes total sense that the Father was also a savior. 

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Look up some "multiple probation" threads and Adam God threads

Multiple mortal probations also makes sense to me.  Imo it's implied by the King Follet Discourse, or at least by an off-the-wall reading thereof. 

Must admit I haven't read any of the Adam/God threads, but it sounds like those are going to be fun reading too.  Thanks for the tip!