God in our Image?

[Navidad]

I wonder if sometimes while we believe God made us in His image and likeness (or nature?), we often have done the opposite —created a God who is in our own image, likeness, and nature? Do I create a God who sees the world as I do, who is of a like nature, temperament, and manner as me?

Do I do that when I read, interpret, and teach the Scripture as well? To what degree do I create doctrine and/or dogma that is more consistent with who I am than who He is? Just in a reflective mood this morning. What think ye?

[Pyreaux]

Aye, we project ourselves on to God. His ways are not our ways. We think, surely, He would never inexplicably work against us like Job, He would never turn against his chosen people, like in the Fall of Jerusalem and the Condemnation of the Latter-day Saints. Every country at war believes their cause is righteous and God is on their side. We think being a true church must mean God is not active in less true churches, and is even working against them, simply because we don't have concern for them or think of them as our enemies.

Or, in a more literal sense, in classic Roman Gentile-Christian custom, we still make films depicting Jesus as a tall hansom white man with auburn hair, our artists paint their lovely white wives as the Virgin Mary and even use a mirror to literally paint their white selves with a beard to depict a prophet who's supposed to have lived in the middle east. We do this to a lot of historical figures. We paint Charlemagne, the First Knight of the Crusades, as white, when he was black. It's not just white people who do this. Ever seen a Buddha statue that wasn't Asian? Buddha was a nobleman from the Aryan steppes of Russia, and so was probably white, only he has a billion Asian adherents who depict him like themselves. In South of the US, its popular for the Virgin Mary to be sometimes depicted as Hispanic. The way we all visually depict God is a visual sign of the issue about the way we project our image and thinking from our uncritical and uncreative imaginations on to God.

 

Edited January 2, 2023 by Pyreaux

[manol]

"You can safely assume you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." - Anne Lamott

I cannot speak for anyone else, but my concept of God has changed quite a bit over time, and seems to track my own belief system changes.  Hopefully I have not finished evolving, in which case my concept of God probably has not either.

Edited January 2, 2023 by manol

[Glenn101]

   I imagine that most people sort of see God in their own image. I read a quote somewhere, I think it was C.S. Lewis which goes something like this : "I had rather see God as He is rather than what I think he is."

Glenn

[InCognitus]

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

I wonder if sometimes while we believe God made us in His image and likeness (or nature?), we often have done the opposite —created a God who is in our own image, likeness, and nature? Do I create a God who sees the world as I do, who is of a like nature, temperament, and manner as me?

Do I do that when I read, interpret, and teach the Scripture as well? To what degree do I create doctrine and/or dogma that is more consistent with who I am than who He is? Just in a reflective mood this morning. What think ye?

I try really hard to see God the Father as he is portrayed by the teachings of Jesus throughout our standard works.  I think Jesus teaches us that God is a loving Father who wants those who participate with him to be part of his family in a big way.  I know I use my own human experience as a son and a father to relate to how I imagine God's love for us (and punishment if we mess up), but I'm pretty sure my own human experience in these areas falls short.  

[Nofear]

If one adopts one of the more popular LDS positions that Heavenly Father was once mortal on a different planet then I find it entirely plausible, nay probable, that the humans on that planet would have any entirely variant phenotype not found on this planet. That is, His mortal form wouldn't correspond to anything that we would recognize. At the same time, I think resurrected beings do have full mastery over their resurrected form and if one wanted to make cosmetic adjustments to be more comfortable to the viewer, I have no problem with God doing that.

Long story short, I don't think we have any real reference for the "natural form" of our Heavenly Parents other then They are basically humanoid.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

   I imagine that most people sort of see God in their own image. I read a quote somewhere, I think it was C.S. Lewis which goes something like this : "I had rather see God as He is rather than what I think he is."

Glenn

How can we not?  It’s the only filter we have to apply.  I think the best approach is to question our perceptions though and constantly ask the Lord to give us opportunities to know him better.

Edited January 2, 2023 by Calm

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, Navidad said:

I wonder if sometimes while we believe God made us in His image and likeness (or nature?), we often have done the opposite —created a God who is in our own image, likeness, and nature? Do I create a God who sees the world as I do, who is of a like nature, temperament, and manner as me?

Do I do that when I read, interpret, and teach the Scripture as well? To what degree do I create doctrine and/or dogma that is more consistent with who I am than who He is? Just in a reflective mood this morning. What think ye?

Well I think every god in every religion from the dawn of time is created in human's image.  Humans create their gods. And base it on what the humans believe in any point in time. I mean even th OT God was not a monotheistic god originally.  Nor was the trinitarian god of orthodox christianity the original god of christianity. And Mormonism's god has evolved and changed as well.  Gods likely do not exist and thus we make them in our image.

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well I think every god in every religion from the dawn of time is created in human's image.  Humans create their gods. And base it on what the humans believe in any point in time. I mean even the OT God was not a monotheistic god originally.  Nor was the trinitarian god of orthodox Christianity the original god of Christianity. And Mormonism's god has evolved and changed as well.  Gods likely do not exist and thus we make them in our image.

It is at times a bit paradoxical for the same atheists I know in life that reject the ancient gods, also tend to believe because there is no reason biogenesis should be limited to this planet, that evolution compels life to become more complex, and that there are planets much older than our solar system, there is almost a certainty there is intelligent life with features very comparable to the gods the ancients claim. And more than a few are humanists and transhumanists, often believing the such an advanced a stage of evolution would be most likely be achieved by something human-like, due to notions of our own human potential. For the human is divine.

But they all have this weird laissez-faire attitude like yours to... I don't know... appear brave in the face of oblivion? Whereas I... I plan to live forever.

[BlueDreams]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

I wonder if sometimes while we believe God made us in His image and likeness (or nature?), we often have done the opposite —created a God who is in our own image, likeness, and nature? Do I create a God who sees the world as I do, who is of a like nature, temperament, and manner as me?

Do I do that when I read, interpret, and teach the Scripture as well? To what degree do I create doctrine and/or dogma that is more consistent with who I am than who He is? Just in a reflective mood this morning. What think ye?

Mix of both. 

Maybe moreso that how we engage with God is reflective as to where we're at. For example I've met plenty of people who become fearful or avoidant of God when they struggle or feel they've erred. They may assume God wouldn't understand, that they don't deserve responses, etc. So they assume they can't reach out. God in this format is extremely conditional and punitive.

I've also seen when we have a belief on how God loves us and what we can assume from that...and then something flies in the face of that picture. Also doesn't go well. Insert a bunch of atheist arguments around human suffering and how that points to there being no loving God.  But believers can also fall into this category. I had a friend recently who had to confront an assumption she believed about how God would interact with her that proved wrong. She didn't come to disbelieve but she certainly had to work through her anger around it. I'm certain I fall into this category more than once as well, but my brain is swiss cheese at the moment. 

Scriptures change meaning to the audience all the time. And how we interpret them is strongly influenced by the voices we have around us to explain them as well as the experiences we have in our lives. 

 

At the same time, personally I've seen my understanding of God change as They've changed me. Many of these experiences were not of my making or personal desire at the time. Some went counter to many of my assumptions prior to them happening. Since these experiences from all that I can understand are above my own desires/expectations, I have a hard time seeing them as anything but an experience to help shift my own understanding of God by making me a tiny bit more like Them. 

If we are truly in God's image/likeness/nature, then some part of us has to have the capacity to understand Them to some degree. We have to some degree reflect Them so we must be able to know Their nature and attributes to some degree. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

 

 

 

 

 

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

To what degree do I create doctrine and/or dogma that is more consistent with who I am than who He is? 

Yes, this is basically what all people and religion does to some extent.   Whenever we use words to describe God, we are creating God in our own image to some degree.  Translating the perfect and ineffable into an effable, imperfect and broken human language is to capture an image of Him that actually more reflects us, and our language.  

It is unavoidable.  Rather than tossing out words however, we can view words as limiting and fruitless in and of of themselves, but as seeds which can grow into experience of God for ourselves which we can taste as He is, to some limited degree.

I love this, which is applicable, from one of my new favorite Latter-day Saint authors.  I have thoroughly been edified by every single one of his articles: 

https://tom-fairholm.medium.com/how-to-eat-god-63f9bdd5b91f

[MustardSeed]

IMO our experiences with our own earthly parents tends to influence how we see God. 

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

I wonder if sometimes while we believe God made us in His image and likeness (or nature?), we often have done the opposite —created a God who is in our own image, likeness, and nature? Do I create a God who sees the world as I do, who is of a like nature, temperament, and manner as me?

I think if and when we do so, we contravene what we are taught in scripture:

• "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." - Isaiah 55:8
• "Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend." - Mosiah 4:9
• "Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand." - Jacob 4:10
• "But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things." - 2 Nephi 2:24
• "{God} comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever." - D&C 88:41
• "And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." - Abr. 3:19
• "For now we see through a glass, darkly..." - 1 Cor.13:12

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

Do I do that when I read, interpret, and teach the Scripture as well? To what degree do I create doctrine and/or dogma that is more consistent with who I am than who He is? Just in a reflective mood this morning. What think ye?

We here are probably already familiar with the following statement from Joseph Smith:

Quote

“Let us here observe, that three things are necessary in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

“First, the idea that he actually exists.

“Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes.

“Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing is according to his will. For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive; but with this understanding it can become perfect and fruitful, abounding in righteousness, unto the praise and glory of God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Smith, in Lectures on Faith 3:2–5.)

I think having living prophets and apostles generally keeps us hewing closer to that second point (having "a correct idea of {God's} character, perfections, and attributes."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think if and when we do so, we contravene what we are taught in scripture:

• "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." - Isaiah 55:8
• "Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend." - Mosiah 4:9
• "Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand." - Jacob 4:10
• "But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things." - 2 Nephi 2:24
• "{God} comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever." - D&C 88:41
• "And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." - Abr. 3:19
• "For now we see through a glass, darkly..." - 1 Cor.13:12

We here are probably already familiar with the following statement from Joseph Smith:

I think having living prophets and apostles generally keeps us hewing closer to that second point (having "a correct idea of {God's} character, perfections, and attributes."

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks, I am familiar with that quote and I appreciate the scriptures. It seems to me like the challenge comes in the second of Smith's three principles. As humans we are woefully ill-equipped to understand the character of God. I am unlearned in how the living prophets and apostles have greater insight into the second point? Is it an accepted principle of the Church that God somehow reveals Himself to the living LDS prophets and apostles in ways that He does not to the rest of us? If so, could you please give me an example of writing or a conference talk by someone who reveals things about God that the rest of us do not know? Please, that is a genuine question, not a challenge. Best.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Navidad

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Thanks, I am familiar with that quote and I appreciate the scriptures. It seems to me like the challenge comes in the second of Smith's three principles.

I agree.  The varied depictions and understandings of God's "character, perfections, and attributes" are perhaps the most potent differentiating factors that divide the various sects of Christianity.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

As humans we are woefully ill-equipped to understand the character of God?

Are you asking this or stating it?

I think that we can easily misconstrue or misunderstand or be misled about "the character of God."  We are, on our own, "ill-equipped to understand the character of God" because He must be revealed to us.  Consider these remarks by Elder McConkie:

Quote

God is known only by revelation; he stands revealed or remains forever unknown. He cannot be discovered in the laboratory, or by viewing all immensity through giant telescopes, or by cataloging all the laws of nature that do or have existed. A knowledge of his powers and the laws of nature which he has ordained does not reveal his personality and attributes to men in the true gospel sense. Certainly a knowledge of these laws and powers enables man to learn truths which are faith promoting and which help him to understand more about Deity; but saving knowledge of God comes only by revelation from the Holy Ghost as a consequence of obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

Man’s purpose in life is to learn the nature and kind of being that God is, and then, by conformity to his laws and ordinances, to progress to that high state of exaltation wherein man becomes perfect as the Father is perfect. [MD, s.v. “God,” 318]

I think this is correct.  

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am unlearned in how the living prophets and apostles have greater insight into the second point?

Well, there's good ol' Amos 3:7, which states that "{s}urely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

I think living prophets and apostles are necessary because the dead ones only provided fragmentary portions of their knowledge and understanding, and they are not here to speak for themselves, and they therefore cannot correct us when we misconstrue what they have said, or when we fill in the gaps incorrectly.  In other words, the Bible is not, itself, sufficient guidance.  As Joseph Smith put it:

Quote

11 While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
12 Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.

The answer, for me, comes in the form of A) living prophets who B) hold the Priesthood and C) receive revelation, such that they D) can and do speak authoritatively on issues that can only be given and understood through revelation, including God's "character, perfections, and attributes."

I think the the first order of evidence would be modern scriptures, which I believe give us many insights which facilitate "a correct idea of {God's} character, perfections, and attributes."  Consider, for example, these summarizing observations by Andrew Skinner:

Quote

In these latter days, beginning in 1820, our Heavenly Father, through His Son and His prophets, has rerevealed many divine truths about His nature and personality so that each of us can again come to know Him as the meridian disciples knew him and as we knew Him in our premortal existence.

Joseph Smith’s First Vision in 1820 immediately clarified misunderstandings about the nature of the Godhead as well as the person of God the Father:

• God the Father is a distinct personage, separate from the Lord Jesus Christ.

• God the Father looks like a man, as does His Son—who is our Savior.

• God the Father can speak and move.

• God the Father knows individuals by name.

• God the Father hears and answers prayers.

• God the Father bears witness of His Son.

• Satan and his power are real, but God’s power is greater.

It is easy to see why President Ezra Taft Benson said:

The appearance of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ to the boy prophet {Joseph Smith} is the greatest event that has occurred in this world since the resurrection of the Master. {Ezra Taft Benson, “Life Is Eternal,” Ensign, June 1971, 34}

Other revelations about the nature and person of God the Father followed the First Vision, and Joseph Smith taught these truths to all who would listen. But these were radical doctrines indeed.

Though we take it for granted, section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants teaches an incredibly profound truth:

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. {D&C 130:22}

In the King Follett Sermon, a year after section 130 was recorded in 1843, Joseph astounded the theological world with this further instruction about the physical person of God:

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

These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another. {Teachings, 345}

However, here a caution needs to be emphasized. We must always remember that God is exalted—we are not! He is perfect—we are not! He must never be treated casually. He possesses almighty power. His “brightness and glory defy all description” (JS—H 1:17).

In another way of explaining this, Joseph Smith further declared:

God Almighty Himself dwells in eternal fire; flesh and blood cannot go there, for all corruption is devoured by the fire. “Our God is a consuming fire.” . . .

. . . Immortality dwells in everlasting burnings. {Teachings, 367}

President Joseph Fielding Smith put it this way:

God is full of energy, and should we mortals stand in his presence, unless his spirit was upon us to protect us we would be consumed. That is how much energy there is in a celestial body. {Joseph Fielding Smith, Seek Ye Earnestly (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1970), 275}

It should come as no surprise that the Prophet Joseph and his associates described a god whose character and personality were made up of all characteristics possessed by His Divine Son. The traits of one are the traits of the other (see “Lecture Third” in Lectures on Faith):

• He “is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34).

• He is “merciful and gracious” (Exodus 34:6; see also Psalm 103:8; 2 Nephi 2:6).

• He is “slow to anger,” “abundant in goodness,” and will be so forever (Nehemiah 9:17; Exodus 34:6; see also Moroni 7:12).

• He is generous (see 2 Nephi 26:24).

• “He changes not, neither is there variableness with him; but that he is the same . . . yesterday, to-day, and for ever” (Lectures on Faith 3:15; see also Mormon 9:9; Moroni 8:18).

• He is just (see Mosiah 29:12).

• He is “a God of truth, and canst not lie” (Ether 3:12).

• He possesses independent faith. That is to say, He is the only being who has faith in Himself and is not dependent on any other being or any other power to accomplish His purposes and bring about His desires. If this were not so, we could not exercise faith in Him. We “would be as the heathen, not knowing but there might be a being greater and more powerful than [God], and thereby be prevented from fulfilling his promises” (Lectures on Faith, Q&A 3:19).

• God is the author of law. It originates with Him (see D&C 88:41–42).

• God possesses all power and all knowledge (see 1 Nephi 9:6; Mosiah 4:9; Isaiah 46:9–10).

• “God is love” (1 John 4:16). That is to say, this characteristic or attribute of love shapes, mediates, and influences all of God’s other attributes. “With all the other excellencies” of our Heavenly Father’s character, without love “to influence them, they could not have such powerful dominion over the minds of men” (Lectures on Faith, 3:24).

And these summarizing remarks given at BYU-Hawaii in 2011:

Quote

Now that we know God exists by the testimony of Joseph Smith, lectures three and four teach us the Characteristics and Attributes of God.  God is a God of Creation, a God of Mercy, the Same, and No respecter of persons, a God of Truth, and Love. He also is a God of Knowledge, Power, Justice, and Judgment. While you view this graphic, let me read you a critical sentence from the fourth lecture: "The God of heaven, understanding most perfectly the constitution of human nature, and the weakness of men, knew what was necessary to be revealed, and what ideas must be planted in their minds in order that they might be enabled to exercise faith in him unto eternal life."  These various characteristics are critical for us to know, and to hold onto, in order that we have faith in God.

Lecture five tells us that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one. They are one, in that they have the same nature. The invitation is then made that all of us can possess the same characteristics, and be transformed into the same likeness.

In fact, Lecture Seven has one of the most powerful inserts necessary for our knowledge bases .  "These teachings of the Saviour most clearly show unto us the nature of salvation and what he proposed unto the human family when he proposed to save them: that he proposed to make them like unto himself, and he was like the Father, the great prototype of all saved beings; and for any portion of the human family to be assimilated into their likeness is to be saved; and to be unlike them is to be destroyed; and on this hinge turns the door of salvation." 

Having living prophets and apostles means having an enhanced understanding of our relationship with Heavenly Father, the Plan of Salvation, our relationship with Him, our eternal destiny, and so on.  It also means having clarifying and strengthening and authoritative sources of guidance to help us address issues in our day.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Is it an accepted principle of the Church that God somehow reveals Himself to the living LDS prophets and apostles in ways that He does not to the rest of us?

I believe so, yes.  They are, it seems, “special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world.” (D&C 107:23.)  Of particular import, I think, are the concepts of "authority" and "stewardship."  Essentially, I have "authority" to receive revelation for myself and those within my stewardship.  The Brethren, as part of their calling, have both authority and stewardship over the entirety of the Church in ways that "the rest of us" do not.  

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

If so, could you please give me an example of writing or a conference talk by someone who reveals things about God that the rest of us do not know? Please, that is a genuine question, not a challenge. Best.

I think most of the "new" revelations in this dispensation came through Joseph Smith, with living prophets and apostles affirming, explaining, clarifying, applying, etc.  So the extrabiblical portions of the Standard Works would be the primary source for you.

I anticipate that the day will come when The Proclamation ("The Family: A Proclamation to the World") will be canonized.  I think the Lord is biding his time for us to acclimate ourselves to it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  The varied depictions and understandings of God's "character, perfections, and attributes" are perhaps the most potent differentiating factors that divide the various sects of Christianity.

Are you asking this or stating it?

I think that we can easily misconstrue or misunderstand or be misled about "the character of God."  We are, on our own, "ill-equipped to understand the character of God" because He must be revealed to us.  Consider these remarks by Elder McConkie:

I think this is correct.  

Well, there's good ol' Amos 3:7, which states that "{s}urely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

I think living prophets and apostles are necessary because the dead ones only provided fragmentary portions of their knowledge and understanding, and they are not here to speak for themselves, and they therefore cannot correct us when we misconstrue what they have said, or when we fill in the gaps incorrectly.  In other words, the Bible is not, itself, sufficient guidance.  As Joseph Smith put it:

The answer, for me, comes in the form of A) living prophets who B) hold the Priesthood and C) receive revelation, such that they D) can and do speak authoritatively on issues that can only be given and understood through revelation, including God's "character, perfections, and attributes."

I think the the first order of evidence would be modern scriptures, which I believe give us many insights which facilitate "a correct idea of {God's} character, perfections, and attributes."  Consider, for example, these summarizing observations by Andrew Skinner:

And these summarizing remarks given at BYU-Hawaii in 2011:

Having living prophets and apostles means having an enhanced understanding of our relationship with Heavenly Father, the Plan of Salvation, our relationship with Him, our eternal destiny, and so on.  It also means having clarifying and strengthening and authoritative sources of guidance to help us address issues in our day.

I believe so, yes.  They are, it seems, “special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world.” (D&C 107:23.)  Of particular import, I think, are the concepts of "authority" and "stewardship."  Essentially, I have "authority" to receive revelation for myself and those within my stewardship.  The Brethren, as part of their calling, have both authority and stewardship over the entirety of the Church in ways that "the rest of us" do not.  

I think most of the "new" revelations in this dispensation came through Joseph Smith, with living prophets and apostles affirming, explaining, clarifying, applying, etc.  So the extrabiblical portions of the Standard Works would be the primary source for you.

I anticipate that the day will come when The Proclamation ("The Family: A Proclamation to the World") will be canonized.  I think the Lord is biding his time for us to acclimate ourselves to it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks so very much. I very much appreciate your time and consideration in replying to me. I was in attendance one evening in our old scout lodge when your dad gave a talk. Then the next day I went to the mountains with a big bunch of your family. We visited the obelisk on Temple Hill. I may or may not have given the group a talk. I really don't remember. I have been up there too many times with my LDS friends to keep track of the trips. I do however remember meeting your family at the academy and riding along (to open gates!) at the bishop's request. Your dad may or may not remember the old Mennonite guy who went up with them and probably talked too much! Ha!

Edited January 3, 2023 by Navidad

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks so very much. I very much appreciate your time and consideration in replying to me. I was in attendance one evening in our old scout lodge when your dad gave a talk. Then the next day I went to the mountains with a big bunch of your family. We visited the obelisk on Temple Hill. I may or may not have given the group a talk. I really don't remember. I have been up there too many times with my LDS friends to keep track of the trips. I do however remember meeting your family at the academy and riding along (to open gates!) at the bishop's request. Your dad may or may not remember the old Mennonite guy who went up with them and probably talked too much! Ha!

Was this in 1996?  If so, I was there as well.

I have previously mentioned you to my dad, and he does remember you (though his memory overall is fading these days).

Thanks,

-Smac

[BlueDreams]

22 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

IMO our experiences with our own earthly parents tends to influence how we see God. 

I strongly agree that's often true... I'm also really glad that that didn't end up personally true for me, though.

 

with luv, 

BD 

[MustardSeed]

13 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I strongly agree that's often true... I'm also really glad that that didn't end up personally true for me, though.

 

with luv, 

BD 

Often because of who parents are, God becomes the soft place to fall. 

[Islander]

On 1/2/2023 at 5:23 AM, Navidad said:

I wonder if sometimes while we believe God made us in His image and likeness (or nature?), we often have done the opposite —created a God who is in our own image, likeness, and nature? Do I create a God who sees the world as I do, who is of a like nature, temperament, and manner as me?

Do I do that when I read, interpret, and teach the Scripture as well? To what degree do I create doctrine and/or dogma that is more consistent with who I am than who He is? Just in a reflective mood this morning. What think ye?

It would be difficult for me to assess if you have done so or not. What I do know is that you MUST see and understand God as He reveals Himself in the scriptures. That is where His character, attributes, power, truth and promises are revealed to us. What we think or feel about Him (our "view") is irrelevant if it is not contained in the scriptures. All his attributes are equally powerful, omnipresent,  immutable and displayed for all to see. Of course, we tend to concentrate on those that more directly impact or benefit us. Like His mercy, grace, lovingkindness and everlasting promises. 

But rest assured, He does not change. 

 

[Navidad]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Was this in 1996?  If so, I was there as well.

I have previously mentioned you to my dad, and he does remember you (though his memory overall is fading these days).

Thanks,

-Smac

No, this was probably around 2017 or 2018. Maybe his last trip here.

[mfbukowski]

On 1/2/2023 at 4:23 AM, Navidad said:

I wonder if sometimes while we believe God made us in His image and likeness (or nature?), we often have done the opposite —created a God who is in our own image, likeness, and nature? Do I create a God who sees the world as I do, who is of a like nature, temperament, and manner as me?

Do I do that when I read, interpret, and teach the Scripture as well? To what degree do I create doctrine and/or dogma that is more consistent with who I am than who He is? Just in a reflective mood this morning. What think ye?

This is an essential point to me; the issue becomes complex, and is tied to who God is, and why we have that position in our prime paradigm.

His sacrifice is voluntarily becoming immanent, not transcendent. He uses the forces of nature AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM and does nothing "supernatural"

Part of our paradigm is that Christ does only what the Father has done, implying that the Father was an embodied savior in another time reference.  One of our hymns refers to generations of Gods.

Did God make man or did man make God? That's an old one!

Answer: both.

We are the same species. We worship the IDEAL and perfected human we call Eloheim

Christ is another ideal Human, and there are others from this world who are now Gods.

Perhaps you have not read D&C?

[mfbukowski]

 

@Navidad

D&C 132

 "37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods."

This should make it clear. God is in our image AND we are in his image because we are the SAME image and appearance, or so goes our paradigm

And the Son is in His explicit image, and does only what He has seen his father do.

THIS is the revolutionary revelation AND restoration in a nutshell, our prime paragigm and raison d' etre, and why theology is finally getting it right and becoming humanism: both are about the perfection of mankind.

Edited January 4, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Islander said:

But rest assured, He does not change. 

Then does He progress?

Yes I have read McConkie on that and disagree.

The idea that God does NOT change comes from Greek philosophy and language because "perfect" MEANS "complete" in Greek and progression and perfection of something/ someone must include a change in status.

Just another part of the apostasy caused by Greek, Platonic philosophy.

Why Christians base their theology on pagan Greeks is beyond my understanding: another historic disaster.

[Islander]

On 1/4/2023 at 2:43 PM, mfbukowski said:

Then does He progress?

Yes I have read McConkie on that and disagree.

The idea that God does NOT change comes from Greek philosophy and language because "perfect" MEANS "complete" in Greek and progression and perfection of something/ someone must include a change in status.

Just another part of the apostasy caused by Greek, Platonic philosophy.

Why Christians base their theology on pagan Greeks is beyond my understanding: another historic disaster.

I disagree. I suggest that your view of God makes him a very small "god". You have no scriptural bases to demonstrate that the God of the universe is a work in progress. As He has revealed Himself in scripture we see an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God without beginning or end. This idea of "progression" of God is totally foreign to the scriptures.