[What makes someone part of Gods people?]

How does someone become part of Gods people?

Covenants made through the proper authority, the priesthood.

[Is intelligence finite, and if so...]

It is always interesting to me to see how scientifically defined terms are used by the religious community. There are a number of terms involved in this thread but the two most prominent are "intelligence" and "infinite"

As an expert and consultant in artificial intelligence with application to robotic in manufacturing - I may have some input. But we are going to have to get over some rather misleading religious notions.

In the scientific community we define intelligence as "the ability to learn and alter responses". Thus we can say a robot possesses artificial intelligence if it is able to learn from events and alter it response. But this also implies that intelligence has means to sense the environment, project possible outcome, remember past experience and choose from multiple possibilities.

From a religious stand point - can we consider if G-d is intelligent? The problem here is if we are to say, "No" then the assumptions is that G-d is stupid - because we all know that stupidity is the absence of intelligence. But if we say G-d is intelligent we then that conflicts with the ability to learn and alter responses? With what we understand of our universe we will very quickly paint ourselves into a corner we cannot get out of trying to make much sense of such terms in relation to G-d. LDS theology is the only religious doctrine I have encountered that can maintain some rational to all this stuff without creating contradictions that require fuzzy magic kind of unexplainable logic to get out of this religious labyrinth with one's sanity intact. In essence we understand that G-d is the master of this universe - so we can trust him not to make a mistake in relationship to our existence. Not just in this mortal existence but in obtaining what is religiously called "eternal life". But because G-d is intelligent - he is learning things of higher or divine place. Which may mean of more dimensional space in scientific terms. So in terms of our "condition" and place G-d is all knowing - but beyond mortal possibility it may be possible that G-d is learning of things that currently do not apply to our state. Therefore, G-d is both all knowing and at the same time - able to learn. But as I have said - LDS is the only theology that I have encountered that can deal with the full ramifications of an intelligent (spiritual) G-d.

Another term of problem is the word infinite. In mathematics infinite is a theory that is easy to deal with. We can even have different kinds of infinite that theoretically have different magnitudes or values. But in physics (real applications in our universe) there is no such thing as infinite. Infinite does not really exist in finite reality. Infinite does not exist in our universe - as we define it. And so the universe is turned upside down with things like "Black Holes" that are unreasonably defined with physicis that is in essence undefined because mathematically values that must be finite end up defined as infinite. Black Holes are not the only problem in dealing with mathematical theoretical discussions of infinite - electrons (bosons in general) also can produce infinite problems. But all this is another discussion.

I guess that what I am trying to say is that we cannot use the standard definitions because the are not really broad enough but we cannot use anything else because we just do not have the terms to be reasonably descriptive. Therefore we are left with only one last possibility as I see it. That is, to use the scripture method from Isaiah. We learn line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept; seeing only what is within our finite vantage - and then moving beyond. Which bring me to my final point - which is only defined with LDS theology. That intelligence is unbounded and that as we learn and modify our behavior we not only become like G-d but we become G-ds. And thus the definition of damnation becomes that which has limits and is bounded.

The Traveler

On top of all that (which I totally agree with), all we can do is apply the mortal condition to the Celestial realm. The method of learning and the manner is which knowledge is obtained in the Celestial realm is unknown to us.

It may be like someone from the 1200s trying to explain how a 12 year old might look up an answer to a question on the internet. Our understanding of "artificial intelligence" and organic intelligence (the brain) is a study of things that may be unique to the mortal realm. This is the only situation that we know of in which our dual being status is at odds with itself. When the spirit and body work more in unison in the next realm, the method of learning may be far from our current methods. For example, how is it possible for Jesus to understand the sin when he does not sin? How can Jesus know of the sins of another that occurred when he was not physically around at the time of the sin?

Obviously, there is a lot more to gathering information and understanding than we can comprehend right now. One, I think, very important aspect of learning that we understand very little of is vicarious learning. We get a taste of it when our loved ones do something great and we feel their joy. Or when a ward member shares a testimony that touches our spirit. I think that form of learning, gathering information from someone else' experience as if it was our own will be a very important aspect of learning that we cannot really fully appreciate right now other than through the example of Christ. This is probably why love is so important, that is the key to vicarious learning. One thing that happens by the age of 8, the age of accountability, is a more developed ability to place one self in someone else' shoes which is a higher intelligence, human feature. Until robots can love and demonstrate ability to put their self in someone else' shoes, "artificial intelligence" is very far from the way God would have us learn, loving one's neighbor as their self. The concept of "self" and "love" and "faith" in an instructor of the method are the first lessons. ... that goes way beyond just an ability to alter responses.

[Is intelligence finite, and if so...]

Wouldn't that lead to a potential finite number of spirit children?

I ask because, if I am rembering right, are not our spirits made of intelligence?

If that be the case how does that relate to eternal progression? We know God posses all truth so progression doesn't lead to new knowledge, I was under the understanding that it is the growth of the eternal families we are in that increases the glory of God.

If that is correct, wouldn't there be a finite number of spirit children, and seemingly trouble for "eternal" progression, or does this lead us back to the names of God in D&C 19?

Or perhaps I am,

A) Thinking too much,

B) Have flawed premises,

C) Both

D) Just have to wait...

Thanks for your thoughts!

There is one piece of knowledge that can be obtained over time and at the same time have all knowledge. That is, to know that something is done when it is done. With the passage of time, things in the future may be spiritually planned or created but there is a value to God in not just knowing about them but actually bringing them to pass. This is why we are told that the glory of God is "to bring to pass ...".

What happens when something is "brought to pass"? It is realized. The realization of an act is different from just knowing someone's potential. Many are called but few are chosen. Not everyone's potential is met. The glory of God is to bring about that potential and not just claim it is possible in the future. There is value in the doing and finishing the work. If that were not the case then there would be no need for this world. God could have already judged us based on our potential alone. If there is value in this then God cannot say that something is done until it is "brought to pass". He cannot have knowledge of something "brought to pass" until it passes. That is where there is progression, in the bringing to pass.

[resurrected body?]

A couple of more interesting statements from the brethren.

As we are laid down so will we come forth whether old or young. If we were old when we died we will be old when resurrected. Joseph Fielding Smith elaborates: For those that died when old it appears to me that there will be a transition period until the physical form matches the spirit.

Regarding glory and kingdoms we have:

Harold B. Lee also has a very interesting statement on how the process will be viewed by those on the earth during the millennium.

I think those quotes are not very well understood. I think Joseph Fielding Smith's explanation tries to correct some of the misconception about those quotes when he states that someone with a missing leg obviously is not going to resurrected with a missing leg. We are not going to physically come out of the grave how we physically went into the grave. That is a morbid and disgusting thought.

My cousin who died in Baghdad from a roadside bomb, brought back in a little 5 gallon bag, what was left of him, is not going to come out of the grave that way. What about those who are cremated or burned to death, i.e 911, where there are no or little remains to find? What would happen to the person who was consumed by a lion or a shark? Does the lion get the molecules or the person upon resurrection? What if a person died in a field and their molecules were absorbed by an apple tree and someone else comes along and eats the apple and incorporates those molecules into their body? Who gets them in the end? Obviously, these statements were not to be taken literally, that the actual material laid down in the grave will pass through the dirt and come together to form a body ... there are too many situations where most of the material is missing or incorporated into something else, etc., to be taken as a literal statement.

The word stature comes from how it is used in the scriptures in other places, like Jesus statement from the sermon on the mount; " 27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?" ... " 33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

The statements reflect the fact that during our probation is the time to add to our stature, after we die, one cannot add to our "stature". But, if we seek the kingdom of God while here then all things will be added and the perfect body will be given. We can't do it by ourselves and certainly a dead body cannot do it so it will come forth the way it went into the grave because now is the time for change and growth by paying attention to the Kingdom of God.

And " 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love."

"Stature" in the scriptures is the measurement of how close we are to perfection, to the fulness of Christ and relates to how Christlike we are. Metaphorically, "adding one cubit" is the process of becoming more Christlike, not actually changing one's physical height. ... just to keep those statements in the right context. Out of context, it makes it sound like he is talking about physical characteristics ... don't want to lead away from the real message.

3 Nephi 13: 27-34; The covering is thrown into the oven, it is done away with, then we receive the real covering but don't concern yourself with the temporary earthly covering so much because the need for covering and adornment is based in righteousness, not how we are adorned in this life. The carnal things are thrown into the oven in the end, even for the lilies of the field (representing all natural things). If one has little faith then they hold onto carnal things and concerns. It is like holding onto your worn out, moth bitten coat after buying a new one. I don't think any of are really going to have any affinity for our carnal clothing after this life, unless one develops a love for carnal things. And this is why we are taught to first concern ourselves with the Kingdom of God and to let go of carnal treasures (which includes our physical body), loving death more than self.

[resurrected body?]

My question deals with how similar will our resurrected bodies be to our mortal bodies? I have Cerebral Palsy so would my resurrected body be whole..without physical deficits? I'm also sterile, so would I still be unable to reproduce in the Celestral Kingdom? Would like others to share what they believe about the nature of our resurrected body.

Thanks

God created two bodies, one for Adam and one for Eve. The Fall resulted in the creation of all other forms of bodies. To fall in love with any aspect of the corrupted body is to love something that is carnal and to love treasures that will turn to dust. We should not love ourselves more than death. Death is the point at which we give up all this corruption for perfection. Thus, Christ died so we may live in a perfect body after we die. The extent to which we forsake the things of this world, even the thorns in the flesh will be a part of what form of body we will receive. Of the Celestial there is one body as the sun in one, of the Terrestrial there is one body and of the Telestial there is variability as one star varies from another. So, to really answer your question, it depends on what Kingdom a person is received into.

[G-d the Father]

Do you recall the one example that I made in which we are not equal to G-d (ever) and that G-d does not grant to us or give to us - ever?

The Traveler

I would be surprised if you really have knowledge of "ever" as that is a really long time, most of which is not yet revealed to us. Most of our revelations refer to the present and our present situation. "We" are not the same "we" after exaltation, so it is a tricky statement to use the term "we". I do not disagree that we could not ever be equal to God when we are shy of exaltation. The only possible situation in which there could be equality has to be after exaltation, so "we" in our current state have no potential to be like God. The only way it could be is some "we" changing event, like redemption, sanctification and exaltation. So, no I don't recall the example given of "ever". What is the one thing God denies His children if they so desire it that would for ever make them not equal?

[G-d the Father]

It is my opinion that you are making a very important point but have taken the thought of sameness when someone is "one" with G-d, a little too far in saying that it is equal. Thought I agree somewhat concerning that when we become one with G-d we share a sameness but I do not see how that must be equal. To illustrate take the scripture D&C 1:38 :

Obviously the totality of a home teacher is not equal to the totality of G-d even if he speaks by the spirit and thus is the same.

The Traveler

I agree, but I was not just talking about being the "same", i.e - one in thought and purpose. The result of being one in thought and purpose is so that we can one day be worthy of what God is offering us, to receive a fullness, to receive all that God has. When we combine the idea of being one in thought in purpose with what happens at the point one receives a fullness, then it becomes equal. We cannot receive a fullness if we are not willing to receive it. Certainly, saying that it cannot be done would, by definition, not be willing to receive all.

And that is the purpose of this life, to separate out what we are willing to receive. The potential is 100% when we are born, then it gets whittled away by our own choice to something smaller than that potential. Luckily we have repentance and a Savior to help us get back to 100%.

[The Holy Ghost]

Ponder this.

Ponder this; we are all in that state of probation where if we follow the gospel we can pass through the things that Christ did for us. He did it for us so that we don't have to do it ourselves.

[So there hasn't been a thread about women in the priesthood for 5 minutes]

I'll partially disagree here. Though I could see truth in it but what did Christ do? His atonement did both.

My belief is this for females:

Prophetesses

Queens

Female Apostles

They can bless their children by laying on of hands

Keeper of the physical veil (womb).

I agree with whats been said. They both have equal power separately but when combined they gain a fullness thereof.

One of many symbolism's of the creation story is that Eve represents the Body and Adam represents the spirit. When inseparably connected they experience a fulness of joy. Alone they are carnal (body), or lack of godliness (spirit).

You could make an argument that Eve is the keeper (guardian) of the spirit but I am not sure. Haven't thought about it much.

The female has just a major of a job in forgiveness as men except when it comes to the atonement so again you could make a argument here that Men do the grunt work for "forgiveness" and women do the grunt work of the "physical veil" and protecting/nurturing their offspring. The body is what gives us a fulness of joy. Females allow that to happen. Than a righteous man (Christ) allows us to overcome that.

The opposition to the spirit is the body that is needed to grow.

Thanks, glad to see statements like yours that show such an insight as to the symbolism of man and women to spirit and body.

I find it interesting that the idea that we need a body to be like God is such a unique and special doctrine and yet we really have no idea why. The sacredness of the need for the body is probably the same reason we don't discuss the sacred idea of a Heavenly Mother very much. I think the two go hand in hand as you have implied. Without knowing or maybe having the ability to really understand why a spirit being needs a body to receive any degree of glory (even a Telestial glory where procreation is not the issue) the value of women remains sacredly special and will someday be revealed. What is the special ingredient the body provides that the spirit alone cannot make or have on its own, we don't really understand. But we do know that the inseparable parts of receiving a fullness of joy is a characteristic of God that very few in this world appreciate. It is a statement that God could not be God by Himself. To be like God requires special binding covenants and acts, to be connected with something more than self.

[Question on the War in Heaven]

I've heard this before and have to admit I don't know what it means.

What was the second part of his children? o.O

If you take a whole of something and make two cuts, you end up with three parts. The first estate test is one cut, the second estate is the next cut, creating three parts.

[So there hasn't been a thread about women in the priesthood for 5 minutes]

A thought I'd like people's opinions on... Something I've been toying around with:

Premise: A priest's job description is forgiveness.

But we need fighters. Those who stand up for the defenseless. Those who stay wary. Those who speak up for the victims, and those who prevent victimization from happening in the first place. Those who accept that forgiveness is divine, and repentance happens, but who are not required to exercise it above common sense.

Men are priests.

Women are guardians.

We need both.

Thoughts?

Q

The full power of the priesthood is not possible without the woman being equal to her man, which likely is one of those irrevocable laws in heaven that even God himself has to abide. I am not saying the woman has to hold the priesthood only the power of the priesthood held by the man is not full without him having a helpmeet of equal responsibility and power. In other words, it shouldn't be looked at as a divided power but one that results in synergistic power when put together with the woman.

President Kimball; "We had full equality as his spirit children. We have equality as recipients of God’s perfected love for each of us. The late Elder John A. Widtsoe wrote:

“The place of woman in the Church is to walk beside the man, not in front of him nor behind him. In the Church there is full equality between man and woman. The gospel, which is the only concern of the Church, was devised by the Lord for men and women alike” (Improvement Era, Mar. 1942, p. 161).

Within those great assurances, however, our roles and assignments differ. These are eternal differences—with women being given many tremendous responsibilities of motherhood and sisterhood and men being given the tremendous responsibilities of fatherhood and the priesthood—but the man is not without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord (see 1 Cor. 11:11). Both a righteous man and a righteous woman are a blessing to all those their lives touch."

So, unless a woman with the priesthood could have another woman as a helpmeet, she could never have the same priesthood power that way.

[Question on the War in Heaven]

I was called on the carpet this Sunday in HP group for stating that the war in heaven was fought, not by God the Father, or By Jesus Christ (or the Holy Ghost for that matter), but was between The Sons of Adam and Satan and his hosts. To some this was radical and unheard of doctrine. The Bible Dictionary states quite clearly:

This term arises out of Rev. 12:7 and refers to the conflict that took place in the premortal existence among the spirit children of God. The war was primarily over how and in what manner the plan of salvation would be administered to the forthcoming human family upon the earth.

The scripture is clear that the war was led by Michael and his angels. No mention of the Godhead involved.

Would it really be much of a war if Elohim were involved? Wouldn't we basically refer to it as an instant smackdown?

I also know that The Father does refer to Lucifer as an enemy.. regarldless, I don't see The Father needing to do anything except express his will, and it would be done.

OK so, how picky is this? I do not think for a moment that the Father did not know about the brewing discontentment among a third of his children, nor of Satan's imminent rebellion (such would be out of line with our understanding of an all knowing Heavenly Father).

Just wondering if this was a point upon which my trip to the HP woodshed was well founded, or if it is clearly understood among most LDS people that God is all powerful and any attempt at sneaking in a good right hook on him is preposterous.

thoughts? - especially reliable sources on the War in Heaven would be appreciated.

The purpose of the First Estate test was to show our intellectual choice, given all information and knowledge as we were at that point mature spirits. Heavenly Father already made that choice a long time ago, He wouldn't have to face that intellectual "battle" again. However, Heavenly Father initiated the war the moment we were given moral agency. The agency and their associated consequences was given to us and we had to make a choice, the rewards and punishments associated with those laws are permanent and so the moral and intellectual "battle" for those that had to make the choice was intense. God was on one side, Lucifer on the other; Lucifer could not alter God's plan and likewise God could not alter the consequences of Lucifer's rebellion at that point, so the battle was not really between the two but inside each of us. Just like it is now, the battle is a personal one. Do we choose one side or the other. God does not allow us to be 'lukewarm' on the issue. The battle was between the followers for either side.

Gospel Principles; "God has told us through His prophets that we are free to choose between good and evil. We may choose liberty and eternal life by following Jesus Christ. We are also free to choose captivity and death by following Satan. (See 2 Nephi 2:27.) The right to choose between good and evil and to act for ourselves is called agency.

In our premortal life we had moral agency. One purpose of earth life is to show what choices we will make (see 2 Nephi 2:15–16). If we were forced to choose the right, we would not be able to show what we would choose for ourselves. Also, we are happier doing things when we have made our own choices.

Agency was one of the principal issues to arise in the premortal Council in Heaven. It was one of the main causes of the conflict between the followers of Christ and the followers of Satan. Satan said, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1). In saying this, he “rebelled against [God] and sought to destroy the agency of man” (Moses 4:3). His offer was rejected, and he was cast out of heaven with his followers (see D&C 29:36–37)."

[G-d the Father]

Pride, really? To me it sounds like the person doesn't feel worthy enough to be considered equal to God. It sounds the opposite of pride; it sounds like he's being humble.

M.

To arrive at that level requires keeping one's eye single to His glory (as there is only one, not divided) and not a personally owned designation. People less than willing to share 100% and claim the glory as their own alone are those that arrive at a less than equal to God level of glory. If a person did something of good report for their self than, by definition, it is not done with an eye single to the glory of God. If the eye is single to the glory of God then it does not fall away from that, even by one little bit, like setting one's sights slightly lower.

[G-d the Father]

I know there are portions of the discourse that can be interpreted that way. That's why I bolded the portion that speaks of a continued hierarchy. Jesus rises to the level of the Father, but the Father rises to a greater exaltation. Greater than what He had before (which is what Jesus receives) and greater than what Jesus has!

I appreciate the lengths you've gone to in explaining that kingdoms and dominions given to the Father are not lost or taken from the giver. My understanding of it is with the principle of stewardship. I pay my tithing, but the Lord doesn't take it, He returns it back to me in the form of funds for the scouting program and commands me to be a good steward. It's not mine, but then again, it was never really mine to begin with. And yet, where the rubber meets the road, here I am writing checks with the same discretion as though it were indeed my own. Father Adam will one day give his dominion to Christ, but I doubt that we'll ever stop thinking of him outside of that stewardship. Jesus recognizes that the judgment He has comes from the Father.

I wonder if we think about the inheritance in too materialistic terms. Perhaps "all that the Father hath" is really an ascension track. Or perhaps it is God-principles that empower Him to reign. My hypothetical father went to college, got married, bought a house, and started a successful business. From him I can inherit 1) his house, and his business, and whatever increase he's accumulated in his life (if we're being even more literal, I also inherit his children and his relationships) - this is my understanding of the "inherit all" model you're perpetuating, with the exception that all my siblings will also inherit his house, and his business, and whatever he's accumulated in his life (we don't split it, we each get all); 2) college tuition, a trust fund to get me started as a newlywed, the downpayment for a house, and a starter fund for a business - this would be an example of us inheriting the "exaltation ladder", you've climbed the stairs of the skyscraper all the way up to the celestial floor, now we'll take you to the other side of the building where you'll find the stairs to the "worlds without end" floors - all the opportunities for the same experiences but without the literalness; 3) the value of an education, family values, a sense for "homestead", and a work ethic coupled with the entrepreneurial spirit - this would be inheriting all the attributes of godhood without necessarily the same dominions.

In the last two instances, we get the equality of D&C 76 but the gradation of D&C 130 (the principle of intelligence creating "so much the advantage"). For those two models, you have the same glories (based on attributes and access) even though one may have received five talents and the other two.

If you go to college you also inherit the benefit of learning things that were already discovered and put into text books for you. You inherited intelligence. You did not have to recreate language, for example, or mathematics, or how to make paper before you took advantage of those things. It becomes yours without having to go through every little step it took to get to that point by yourself.

I don't think you can separate dominions from godhood. By definition, to be God means to have all. Having all is the same as having all. If I compare person A that has all with person B that has all, then there is no distinguishable features different from A to B even if person A got there first.

It is funny to me how so many people jump on the band wagon of God being timeless but when it comes to this, of course, there is a hierarchy based in time.

The whole discussion, I believe, is based in whether a person believes in vicarious acts or not. If Jesus paid the price for our exaltation then we do not have to pay the same price. Yes, we have to live the gospel principles but we can reap the benefit of the price paid without having to reproduce it exactly like Christ did it. We take the same steps symbolically to receive the vicarious act, such as baptism and taking on His flesh with the sacrament.

Likewise, we do not have to take every step of the so-called ladder exactly like those who did it before us because we believe in vicarious acts. The jump up the ladder is accomplished in the words "faith" and "inheritance". Inheritance is the way to skip over many rungs of the ladder without having to take every step. Just like I didn't have to invent paper by myself before going to college. The knowledge was inherited and received based in faith that the person who did it, did it right. I don't have to prove to myself that the technique of making paper was done right before I use it. This is why faith is so important and this life stratifies people based in levels of faith. Lack of faith means that I would have to walk every rung of the ladder for myself.

[G-d the Father]

Hmmmm: It seems to me your thinking is in essence one dimensional. It was once said that the only true gift is the gift of one's self - anything else is just a cheep substitution. We have had many discussions in the past about that kind of thinking that comes from a fallen state or from the mind of the "natural man".

You just do not seem to understand that giving - in and of itself makes the giver greater than the receiver. So let me now ask you - what have you, or what can you give to G-d that makes your gift to him equal to his gift to you?

The Traveler

There is only one thing that is equal, which is to give 100% of their life, their heart, might, mind and strength. A 100% gift would equal a 100% gift. The "gift" is a commitment or covenant to share all. D&C 42; " 2 Therefore, O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him with all your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blameless before God at the last day."

Mark 12; " 41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:

44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living."

The scriptures you quoted is exactly why we need Christ to make it "100%". Then we can truly come to the table with 100%.

[G-d the Father]

From the King Follett Discourse:

It sounds like Joseph thinks the Son remains eternally subordinate to the Father in dominion and glory.

I think that statement is misinterpreted in one specific way. I think people assume that when the Kingdom is presented to the Father that it is taken away from the person that presents it. There is nothing there that says once the Kingdom is presented it is therefore taken away from the one who presents it. In fact, it says because it is presented He becomes exalted and INHERITS everything the Father did before.

That is like saying, when one puts their name on the joint account by putting all they have into the account then suddenly that person inherits all that was in the account and the original account holders have more.

How do you know that the treading in His footsteps happens nearly instantaneously. In other words, treading in His footsteps is another way of saying, whatever God does becomes the Son's, they walk the same path, they make the same moves. If He treads in His footsteps then that suggests again that they are not discernible in any specific way, they don't walk different paths.

One other important point in that statement is that it is possible to INHERIT everything God did before. In other words, it is possible to become part of the endless and no beginning system by inheriting it all. The Kingdom is presented, God receives it and THEN the Son inherits all that God has (which includes what was just presented), ALL that God has at that moment.

[G-d the Father]

You insisted that truth never changes and that is the point. If G-d the Father is really the same yesterday, today and forever and if that principle is the truth and if G-d ever was "greater than all" and if that is indeed the truth - then he is the "greatest of all" yesterday, today and forever. If G-d ceases be the greatest then his nature of being greatest has changed and G-d is not what he use to be and he is no longer G-d.

The Traveler

The title "God" is the greatest, I do not disagree with that because 100% is the greatest. That does not mean that others cannot have the same title. What is defined as "100%" can change, expand even though the title of "100%" never changes. See multiple discussions about the word "perfect".

Are you saying that it is impossible to be like God? Even a perfect being like Christ cannot be like God?

Is God's eternal spouse less than the greatest? ...she must live in a different mansion then.

There is only one way that equality could be reached and that is by grace, by inheritance or a gift. If it was based in singular effort, I agree, nobody could ever reach God. But we do not believe that. We believe in an inheritance (i.e. - something given that was not developed or earned on individual effort). Do you think God earned an inheritance at some point or was His method like Lucifer's proprietary reward, not shared.

There is only one "God" for all time and eternity. That is exactly why I am saying that the only way to have the one is to be part of the one. Again, it is like saying there is only one bank account that contains all the funds. The only way to have it all is to share it all, to put your name on the account with everyone else. Once a person's name is on the account then they automatically become part of the never changing one account that has no beginning and no end. Once a person wants to break away from that idea, like Lucifer did, it cannot be an account (glory) without beginning or end.

Do you think God could be God by Himself? Could He achieve Godhood without ever having any interaction with any other being? The moment a social interaction is required to be like God is the moment that glory cannot be a single proprietary thing, it has to be shared. The more alone a person is, the less like God they are, like the single stars in the sky.

[G-d the Father]

I agree with the first sentence, however the second sentence appears contradictory. How can God be greater, if in your sentiment (if I understood you correctly) they are indistinguishable? This would imply they are different if one is "greater" than the other. Otherwise, by sharing none would be greater.

I understand this is how you feel, believe, however I am not so sure this would be correct. I definitely think God's 100% is different than Christ's 100%. I will eventually have a fullness of the Father, however he will always be greater than I. My 100% will be different, because I will not have his glory.

How then did Stephen distinguish the Father from the Son if they are of the same glory, and how did he know it was Christ on the right side?

Sorry for the confusing speech.

In reference to the first paragraph here, I was using the word "greater" to mean God's own eternal progression, His work and His glory, in comparing God to God not to someone or something else. I was referring to His works without end as opposed to being a stagnant God.

Going back to the metaphor of a bank account, if your name is on God's bank account, glory is shared as we give all with an eye single to the glory of God, then you would not have a portion of God's glory, you would have 100% as your name is on the account as well as everyone else who makes it to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. Just like there was one Kingdom or land in the story of the prodigal son. It is when it is divided, i.e. - the son that took his portion, that it becomes less than the whole.

To divvy up the glory or to break it into proprietary pieces is not Celestial, at least the way I understand it. That is what Lucifer wanted to do, you get yours and I get mine attitude, separate accounts. That is essentially what evil is. Whereas Celestial is to love your neighbor as self and to love God with all your heart might mind etc. A Celestial focus is on the one account, the one glory, God's glory.

When God gives an inheritance, is it removed from what He has as if it is taken from one account and put into another or is it shared? My belief is that it is shared. If it is shared and not broken off or taken away from the whole then it is certainly possible to share 100%. If it is shared then it is still "God's glory" just the same as when Eloheim received His share of all that was before and all that is to come making Him eternal as "God's glory" itself.

God, wants us to be connected under covenants, to be sealed to each other for a reason.

I am sure Stephen distinguished the two the same way Joseph did, one pointed to the other and said 'This is my Son'.

I realize the Father will always be our Father and we will always be His children but that in and of itself does not create a distinguishable feature. A perfect offspring would be one that is exactly like the parent. I don't think each consecutive generation in God's eternal rounds becomes less and less as time goes on. I think the round is perpetual and doesn't decline in momentum or strength. It actually does the opposite, it grows and grows. Like the effect of compounding interest, it exponentially grows when the interest is put back into the same pot. If it is divided it does not compound. Eternal joy is eternal because it is shared. It is shared by way of covenants and by the first and second greatest commandments. Christ' example is that He gives all the glory back into the one account, gives it to God. This is the way glory is eternal and ever expanding.

One other thing to ponder is whether God could be God by Himself? Or is God who He is by way of His social traits? If sociability is required as it is required of us to become like God, then already one is admitting that He shares His glory with someone else. For example, it is required of us to be a part of the new and everlasting covenant to reach the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. God's nature is dependent on social relationships.

By the way, if one doesn't want to be a part of that type of system, if one tells their self that they do not want to keep their eye "single", that they would rather have a portion then God allows for that. He will give them what they want. Like the prodigal son, He allows us to take a portion as opposed to the whole if that is what we want. If one is not willing to submit to the "whole, shared" plan then they won't be a part of it. God and Christ both are submissive to the plan and will always be. If we take a portion then we did not get a fullness, by definition. If we really do everything with an eye single to the glory of God, then how can one say I am okay receiving only a portion of the glory of God. The way one receives a portion is by wishing for an "account" that is separate from the shared one. Then God will give what is wanted.

[G-d the Father]

There is a flaw in your logic and the way you apply it. Was it true 6,000 years ago that G-d the Father is greater than all others? If it was true before the fall of man then according to your logic it is unchangeable and is still true. Or it really was not true to begin with.

The Traveler

No, there is a flaw in your logic. To compare requires two points. All that has to change is one of the two to change the comparison.

[G-d the Father]

What scriptural evidence do you have to specify they are "side by side"?

If they are side by side as you suggest then how do you interpret this scripture, particularly verse 24 and 28?

1 Corinthians 15: 24 - 28

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

The son delivers the kingdom to God, specifying a relationship that is not side by side, and verse 28 specifying the son is "subject" unto God.

Yes, and in verse 28 that you quote it says "that God may be all in all." What does that mean to you?

D&C 130: " 20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated."

Mormon 9; " 9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?"

From the prophet John Taylor; "It is true mankind have not at all times been susceptible of receiving and appreciating the same degree of light, truth, and intelligence that they have at other times. God has in certain instances withdrawn the light of his countenance—his Holy Spirit—the light and intelligence that proceeds from him—in a certain degree from the human family; but his laws are immutable and he is the same eternal, unchangeable being.

The truth does not change. What was true 1,800, 4,000, or 6,000 years ago is true today, and what was false in any age of the world is false today. Truth, like the great Eloheim, is eternal and unchangeable, and it is for us to learn its principles, to know how to appreciate it, and govern ourselves accordingly.

As the gospel is a principle that emanates from God, like its author it is “the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever,”—eternal and unchangeable. God ordained it before the morning stars sung together for joy, or ere this world rolled into existence, for the salvation of the human race. It has been in the mind of God, and as often as developed it has been manifested as an eternal, unchangeable, undeviating plan by which to save, bless, exalt and dignify man."

God is subject to God as well. He is subject to the undeviating plan and immutable laws (eternal, unchangeable laws). Like Christ' example we can become subject to the fullness of these laws and in that way become exalted.

"Subject" to Him is the same as being subject to the law from God. The same law that has been around without beginning or end which is truth and light. By being subject to the law then God can be all in all. Without covenants we fall outside the law and there is no sharing of all that God has. If all things are subjected then God can share all. Like the story of the prodigal son, the one who remains obedient and subjected to service of his father has all. If any of this is true, then God also received all by being subject to the law making Him no different than all those that have all.

God's work and glory is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man. In other words, His glory is related to our success. I am not sure why you or anyone would think His glory would be higher if any of us received only 90% or His glory, or 75% of His glory. Would not His work and glory be full if we all received 100%. How is God magnified by His Son being only 90% of what He is or something less than 100%? He is only made greater the more of His children being closer to 100% like Him compared to falling short of 100%. It isn't a zero sum arrangement where if someone achieves something it has to be compared to the relative achievements of someone else (greater or less than) to have value. In other words, God isn't made lesser by Christ having everything God has. If anything God is greater by Christ sharing all that God has. Just like the prodigal son is better off sharing everything of the Father's.

If they are different then one would also have to say that they are either subject to a different set of laws or that one is not subject to the laws as much as the other as we know that they are both obedient 100%. I don't think God's 100% looks different than Christ' 100%. ..and I am not sure why anyone would hope they are different.

Acts 7: " 55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

They are in the same place, side by side, same glory.

[G-d the Father]

Rather than offer my opinion I will let Jesus speak for himself:

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Note that Jesus said that the Father is greater. Why do you not believe Christ?

More quoting of Jesus

John 10:27-30

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

30 I and my Father are one.

Again Jesus testifies that the Father is greater. Why do you not believe Christ?

More from Jesus:

John 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

Jesus testifies that he what he does was assigned to him - that he was sent by the Father - Why will you not believe Christ?

John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Here Jesus testifies that he does nothing on his own - NOTE THE WITNESS BY JESUS THAT HE DOES NOTHING of his own. Not even of his own will but the will of the Father. This is not my idea nor my doctrine. I do not understand why you ask me the question you do - Your issue is with Jesus the Christ and his doctrine, his teachings, his witness - not me - all I have suggested is that you receive his witness.

In other posts you have stated that we must have a eye single to the glory of G-d. What do you hope to gain with your eyes focused on your own glory that you keep saying is "equal". You will never have any glory but that which is given to you as a gift from G-d the Father. The Son of G-d has no glory but what he received from the Father. If you receive glory from G-d the Son such glory (by his words, testimony and witness) come exclusively from G-d the Father. Even the Son recognized the truth that G-d the Father is greater than all and that includes him.

If you do not believe me -- believe Christ.

The Traveler

Do I need to testify to you that Christ ascended and sits on the right hand of God?

If my son becomes a doctor, you wouldn't say he is not a doctor because he was an elementary school student at one point. If you are comparing God to Christ by looking at their total pathway then you are going to have to prove that God did not take a similar pathway, otherwise we are left with comparing where they currently stand. I don't think you want to say that Christ is less than God because He took a different pathway than God to reach Godhood.

I believe all those things about the mortal life (pre-ascension) of Christ, but that wasn't the question, was it?

Your question was to any discernible differences between Christ and God, I guess I was assuming now and not during His mortal life. This is a description of Christ now; D&C 110; " 1 The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.

2 We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.

3 His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:

4 I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father."

During his mortal life He was not described that way, "eyes were as a flame of fire", "hair ... like the pure snow", "voice ... sound of the rushing of great waters" etc. He ascended. He was brought up to heaven. He had not yet received a fullness as He was here and mortal.

Christ doing the will of the Father supports what I am saying, that they are indistinguishable. I don't see how that suggests they are different. That would say that their wills are the same which is what, I believe, I am saying.

I am sorry, I am not seeing your point of the last paragraph. I don't see anything that I disagree with in that paragraph as again you are talking about before the fullness of the glory is received.

Ephesians 4; " 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things."

The descent is the process by which He ascends. Like jumping on a diving board, you are trying to focus on the lowest point of the jump to say that there is a difference and yet the purpose of the jump was to ascend higher than what could have been possible without the descent. This is true for all of us and likely (hasn't been revealed) is true for God. Even Christ grew in stature in the eyes of man and God. The only way they would be different is if God did not grow in stature, is that what you are saying? Are you trying to say that the process by which God became God is different than what Christ did?

Again, if they presumably took the same path, as Christ does what He sees the Father do, now that they are side by side, how are they different? They are not different because one did it after the other. That is not a statement of discernible differences.

[G-d the Father]

It does provide discernible differences to those that understand the traditions and meaning to which context the Holy Scriptures are revealed. The rheum of heaven is described in scripture as a Kingdom and the relationship of G-d as that of a Supreme Suzerain to his appointed vassal and subjects whose citizenship is granted through covenant.

This is important to me because I am a disciple of Jesus Christ and he (the Son of G-d) taught (through witness and great personal sacrifice) clearly and plainly that he is both lesser and subordinate to the Father. I cannot even imagine a better witness to such an important truth pertaining to the "kingdom of Heaven" and our eternal place (by granted right) in such eternal kingdom.

However, I do understand the opposition to both that eternal kingdom, its covenant citizens and to its Supreme Suzerain and his appointed Vassals by which the kingdom is governed (ordered).

The Traveler

In what way is He "lesser"? In what way, specifically, is God 'greater' then?

Definitions; sub·or·di·nate

adj.

1. Belonging to a lower or inferior class or rank; secondary.

2. Subject to the authority or control of another.

n.

One that is subordinate.

tr.v. (s-bôrdn-t) sub·or·di·nat·ed, sub·or·di·nat·ing, sub·or·di·nates

1. To put in a lower or inferior rank or class.

2. To make subservient; subdue.

So, Christ is of a lower rank or class? Is He subject to the control of God or does He do it willingly? What aspect of Christ needs to be subdued by God?

Please give specifics of how you think Christ fits that definition. But, let me remind you that whatever Christ does, He saw the Father do it also, so the Father fits those same definitions and therefore is as equally subordinate (if you prefer that word). I think "subordinate" is not an accurate word, loving, serving, sacrificing, dedicated, eye single to the glory of God, all might be better terms than "subordinate". Whatever the description, I think you are going to have a hard time not also calling God the same. After all this, what are the differences you see?

And, this "Kingdom" is not like any Kingdom on Earth or of man ... at least not as much as you would like it to be. But, there are places in the Kingdom set aside for those that prefer or fall in love with that arrangement, where there is oversight and limitation.

[The sealed plates]

People forget how answers to prayers do not neccesarily carry over when they gain new knowledge. For example.

If I prayed (and I have) to know if the church is true. I have both got a YES and a NO for an answer. How is that so?

You have to be very specific in your quesitons according to the context givin. For example if I prayed to know if I should date a girlfriend. The lord wants to tell me that I should date her but not marry her.

So I ask in prayer. Should I date her? But my context of the question, my understanding, if I date her I will marry her. The lord tells me NO.

If I ask instead a very specific questioin, should I date here with out any other preconceived thoughts getting in the way. The Lord can give me a yes. Than I should pray if I should marry her and the Lord can tell me no.

So if I pray to know if the church is true, it depends on context. What is my definition of True? What do I mean by that? If I have no knowledge about that than most likely the Lord can give a yes because I have no preconceived notions about it. One I develop knowledge of what true means than I have to readjust my question. The same for everything else in the gospel. This is the process of separating traditons of men with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Or separating the carnal mind from the spiritual mind.

[G-d the Father]

According to Stephen, Jesus sat at the right hand of G-d following his incarnate state - which in the ancient culture of Kingdoms is a subordinate though second in importance position.

The Traveler

That being the case, that doesn't provide any discernible differences between the two to us (which was your original question). Christ may have been on the right side of God when they appeared to Joseph but it still required an introduction. As Christ points out, one member of the body cannot say that it has no need for the other. So, even though we like to see the order of things in that manner, I don't think it is so seen in the Celestial Kingdom where there is a fullness of glory and joy by way of their shared relationship.

I am not sure what the gospel significance of wanting there to be distinguishing character differences between the two is. Why is that important to you?

[G-d the Father]

"Jesus works under the direction of the Father" - Guide to the Scriptures, LDS.org

I have to agree with Traveler. A straightforward reading of the New Testament would lead to the belief that Jesus is subordinate to the Father.

Jesus taught that the method to become like the Father is through service. When one accepts that then all that the Father has can be theirs. This is the story of the prodigal son. This is the story of Christ washing the feet of the apostles.

D&C 88; " 36 For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me;

37 And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father;

38 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.

39 And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood."

The process by which we receive all, exemplified by Christ is by remaining humble, sacrifice and service to others with love. You can use the word "subordinate", I would rather use the words 'broken heart and a contrite spirit'.

2 Nephi 2; " 6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.

7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.

8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise."

General Conference 2007, Bruce Porter of the seventies; "The Savior’s perfect submission to the Eternal Father is the very essence of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Christ’s example teaches us that a broken heart is an eternal attribute of godliness. When our hearts are broken, we are completely open to the Spirit of God and recognize our dependence on Him for all that we have and all that we are. The sacrifice so entailed is a sacrifice of pride in all its forms. Like malleable clay in the hands of a skilled potter, the brokenhearted can be molded and shaped in the hands of the Master."

In the Kingdom of God, leadership = service. Just like an earthly father would do anything for his children, our Father in Heaven is likewise "subordinate" to His children in that He serves them through His leadership. All in the Celestial Kingdom are "subordinate" to each other. That is a required trait to get there, even required of God.