Seminarysnoozer

Well then I would add the clarification, in that state. When the mortal body is no longer mortal, then it is not a mortal corrupted body any more. It has changed from an apple to an orange, so to speak, it is something different.

Being in the similitude or likeness or image of something doesn't make it equal or the same. I am not sure if that is what you are implying. If I have a flight simulator program that is not the same as an airplane even though it is made to imitate or be in the likeness of it. Our body, in and of itself, cannot ever be like God. This body is just an opportunity to have some experiences to show that if we are good stewards of small things we may be able to handle stewardships over bigger things, i.e. - if one does well on a flight simulator they likely will do well flying a plane with further instruction. If a person is translated, obviously, they are not in their mortal, carnal, corrupted body any longer. So, then we are not talking about the same situation. It is in that altered situation though that a person can see clearly and really be themselves. Showing that in our current state, we are not really ourselves and we cannot fully act for ourselves, the carnal animalistic part of our dual being also acts. Jesus had a different body, the Only Begotten body to accomplish His mission here on Earth. I could not understand it and it hasn't been revealed all the reasons why that was necessary but it was different from yours and my body, that is for sure. Bottom line though is that our spirit does not control our body otherwise we would really be ourselves in this life, which is pure, righteous God obeying individuals, all of us. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. The flesh is weak because it gives into primitive carnal desires, like sleep. When a newborn baby cries for the first time, is that the spirit telling the body to cry or the body in control? When a newborn suckles for the first time is that the spirit instructing the body what to do or is it the body driving those desires itself? When you desire to eat food on Fast Sunday, is that your spirit wanting food or your body? When you see a hot woman (or man, whatever the case may be) walk down the street and certain thoughts pop into your head, was that the spirit putting those thoughts there or did they originate in the brain, the body? When a person feels euphoria from using drugs, is that the spirit feeling that and responding that way or is it the body? When a person is forgetful about things they have learned in the past, is that the spirit forgetting or the body? When a person feels the urge to fall asleep in Sacrament meeting is that the spirit or the body? ... we can go on and on. I can tell you 100% that my body is not wired or made with the same likes and dislikes as my spirit, it does not "think" the same way as my spirit, it does not act the same way as my spirit. That is the struggle of this life, that is the test, who will win out in this test of wills. In a resurrected state or that state which God is in, the situation is different. Then the body is in harmony with the spirit. But, we were not talking about that situation. And we do not know much about the tabernacle of God, that body, all we know is that it has flesh and bones and no blood and we are in its image. We do not know how it is wired or operates etc. That is something, I believe, we will not know or need to know in this life. So what is the tabernacle of God, we cannot say right now other than those small features I mentioned. It certainly isn't like our body now, though, other than maybe its image.

Thanks for your response. This is reason that when we talk about God and man though, we are talking about apples and oranges. You obviously have a hard time separating our current existence from who we really are. If we can't get beyond that, then we are talking about two different things. I think "human nature" only pertains to our current fallen body. It does not pertain to my spirit. Those two things are separate. We do not believe in turning dust into something more than dust. You still haven't explained where the spirit comes from other than God gave it. In your opinion the spirit of man is not a being? The spirit of man is nothing more than our animalistic natures? Then we are not anything more than a lion or bear or any other creature. If you think we have something more than what our carnal body would provide, more than the natural instincts of what being human is, then what is that essence? To us, that ability to reason, choose and take responsibility for our choices is not "human" it is given by our spirit being. An animal cannot sin because it does what it is programmed to do, what comes naturally. Man is different, in that we have responsibility. That responsibility does not come from our carnal, animal being. If it did then how does that make us different from any other animal. There has to be something more, and there is, it is our spirit being. Adam was created in the image of God and then God blew in his spirit. What do you think God blew in if Adam was already in His image? Just the ability to live? It was Adam's individual spirit that existed before to make Adam now the first man, man = a dual being of both body and spirit together. Jesus is the Only Begotten in the flesh. Not, Gods only spirit child. Our body can never become God, human nature can never become God because that includes our carnal body. When we discard the human carnal body and transfigure into a body of Celestial glory then we can become like God. So, long as you are just talking about our carnal, corrupted body by itself or in combination with the spirit, then it is limited to its current realm. We are mostly talking about the next phase of our growth, outside of this existence when we talk about our potential to be like God. If one thinks human nature continues beyond death then they don't understand what 'come unto my rest' means.

In that joining though, we will no longer be "man" or "human". Before you were saying that LDS believe that "man" and God are both divine. I am clarifying that we don't believe that. We do not believe that "man" is divine even though the spirit of man could be. We believe the spirit of man, which is who we really are, is the same species as God. If you believe we will be transformed, then transformed to what? "Supernatural human beings"? What does that mean? Then you are no longer taking about "man". You are taking about us in our non-man state. I think if you are going to disagree with that view then you are obligated to define what is meant by "supernatural human beings" and where you get that view. What if, "supernatural human beings" is the same as being divine? .... then you would agree with our view, just that you are using a different term. It seems, though, that you would agree with the idea that being human or being "man" is just a temporary state and not our real selves. This life is an temporary, fallen, corrupted state from our real selves, our spirit self.

Yes, this is right. Don’t forget Zechariah 11:17 “ 17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.” …and Matthew 5:29, and 30. “ 29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” These scriptures deal a little more specifically with “light” as it talks about obscuration of the right eye, darkening of the right eye. The ‘right eye’ symbolizes ones ability to recognize evil. So if it is obscured, light is not getting in, then the person will eventually perish through their progressive darkening of their ability to see the light or recognize what is truly evil, not calling something that is really evil, evil any longer. It is better to pluck the eye out if it is obscured and one cannot distinguish good from evil. The right arm signifies the power of truth or the ability to deal with the evil. It becomes dried up or weaker over time if one is lazy about it and doesn’t constantly strengthen one’s skills to deal with evil. I think this is the same process of “hardening of the heart”. There are many symbols to represent this process. This represents our internal battle between the corrupted body and our spirit. Do we follow the passions of the body more than the spirit? If we do then we will be rejecting the light to follow the darkness.

This is what you have wrong. I think we distinguish it better than most. We believe in the dual nature of man in this world, being both spirit and body. "The nature of man" is what is contributed to our current situation by the carnal body. What I think you fail to see is that when we die we keep living as a spirit. If the spirit lives on and the body dies, where did that spirit come from? That divine nature of our own spirit, you have failed to distinguish very well. You have to separate those two things to really make the statement you were trying to make. You were trying to say that the Mormon faith (better known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) does not distinguish between the nature of our spirit from the nature of God's spirit, that both spirits are the same species. ... not the nature of "man", the half spirit, half carnal corrupted body man. We probably believe the same things as far as the "nature of man" but realize that is not who we really are, this is a temporary state, where we are both man and spirit together. In other words that is only half our nature and not the part that will live on past death. We will never be "man" again after this life. Do you believe the nature of your spirit is the same nature as your carnal self here? I think you might have to without realizing we are first children of God.

No but that wasn't my point. But, I am sure you would say that part of the meaning is that you are equals and similar. Using the word "one" usually isn't a way to point out differences.

In this existence we are very different beings, we are mortal and have a carnal body. If you believe in the resurrection though you probably believe that our "being" will change. If it changes at all, why would there be a limit to how much it could change ... to the point of being similar to God. Jesus prayer was to become one with Him and thus one with the Father. Does becoming one really mean staying separate, a different type of being for you?

Thanks, If you think that is what I was saying, I didn't express myself very well. I don't think I said that we will take the place of our God but that we could become a God in the same way our God is God. You might say, well that can't be because there is only one God. Yes, for you and I there is only one God. Just like I will only have one earthly Father or Mother. And possibly in the sense that I will only have one Bishop but whenever I see my ex-Bishop I still call him Bishop. The title is never lost. How else can there be one eternal round that is progressive unless when we get back to the point where a new God is needed for that round there would need to be an additional God for an additional round, that would be how things exponentially increase. For any one person, their God would be their God always. "All" does mean the same. 100% of something is the same as 100% of that thing no matter how you arrange it. That was my point that it is like sharing knowledge etc. It is all. So when our God got His 100% knowledge and inheritance from His God which would include experiential knowledge of what it would be like to be a Savior, He inherited "all" that was done before him and therefore became an endless, eternal being having claim to all that was done before Him. If one of us is fortunate enough to receive all that the Father has, then we would also be able to claim ownership and knowledge of all the works before us and all that we will be linked to in the future, thus being forever God. If one does not think it is possible to inherit experiential knowledge let me ask all the women of this forum, me being one of them, I have thought about this before ... Does God know what it is like to give birth? Yes, but how? He didn't experience it, did He? No, then how could He know that? And I am talking about the joy that comes from that too, not just the possible suffering that a Savior would know. It is because it is possible to know what something is like without having to experience it but knowing it well enough as if it was experienced. There are several on this forum that believe the only way to merit what Christ has is to experience it. I do not think that is true. I think there are many things given when we inherit our Kingdom and limitless when it is the Celestial Kingdom of the highest level. Experiential knowledge could easily be passed on through a body, possibly this is why a body connected with a spirit is joy. It is the one way to pass on experiential knowledge. If we are fortunate to get the Celestial model of this body then it could contain all the experiential knowledge of all that happened before us, thus receiving all the knowledge and ability to lay claim to all that was before. .... just as an example of something that is not known at this time but to show that it is possible, in that scenario, to be a man once and then be an eternal God.

We don't agree, but that is okay. Controlling and having a greater influence are two different things. For me, this was our biggest differing point. The spirit does not control the body and the body does not control the spirit. We are dual beings in this mortal life. Our life is like an airplane with two pilot seats. If pilot-spirit takes the plane, the pilot-spirit is not controlling pilot-body and if pilot-body controls the plane that does not mean it is controlling pilot-spirit. The plane representing the actions of this life. There are many times where both pilots have control and even work in union. But if pilot-spirit let go of the controls then pilot-body would take the plane in the wrong direction. Pilot-body doesn't have to grab pilot-spirits hands to control the plane or convince the pilot-spirit to do anything. All the pilot-body has to do is to what for pilot-spirit to let down his guard and slightly let loose of the steering. It doesn't have to control the other pilot. If the pilot-spirit gets tired or lets down his guard, he may over time decide just to go along with what the pilot-body is doing and in that way learn to like how the pilot-body does things and then go along with it. That is still a choice for the pilot-spirit, it wasn't "controlled". One pilot being a stronger influence over the other is not being "controlled" it is just having a greater influence in the output, the actions of this life. Luckily, we choose who we want to give power too, that is the test but the body in this life is always stronger than the spirit, at least in the beginning, as we all crash the plane (we all die) and we all sin (get pulled off course).

Thanks. Even in your summary though, I don't think that those points 1 and 2 separate man and Christ as you left it vague. You may have intended it that way or maybe not, I can't tell. If you intended it that way, the more specific summary would be; 1. Either, the single path to become like God is to be the one and only Savior during one's mortal life, 2. Or one doesn't have to be a Savior in their mortal life to become like God but take advantage of the one and only Savior's atonement becoming one with Him, 3. Or there is no way that we can become like God, but perhaps we can become some kind of a God in the future. If I say that the only way I can become like God is through Christ's atonement, then there is only one way. But that isn't to say that I would have to be a Christ. The one way through Christ' atonement and resurrection would apply to the multiple paths that people take in this life depending on what they were given. Another way to maybe say this is that either there is one "full" inheritance or there are multiple types of "full" inheritances. Some "full" inheritances include a limitation to what that person could never have that the Father has. Or a "full" inheritance really means everything the Father has. I agree there are going to be some partial inheritance Gods out there but I think we were mostly talking about the pathway to becoming exactly like God the Father. I think we were just talking about those that become "one" with the Father by first becoming "one" with Christ.

Thanks, I am perfectly okay with everything you say here and I appreciate you sharing this. You said something here that allows me to understand where I think our differing views might come from but tell me if I am wrong. You said "share in the inheritance of Christ". Maybe this is a topic for another thread but I think it is in this concept where people divide on either side of the fence with this particular issue. I am curious what you mean by "share" in the inheritance. Because to me that is suggesting that we will not have the same inheritance, that it is different. I think this is very close to the story of the prodigal son. The returning son will have all just like the one who stayed. If one gets all the father has what is it that the person doesn't get by way of their inheritance? The inheritance is based on one's obedience to what we are given in this life it is not based in the total amount of what one did. Otherwise how would we explain the child who died at the age of 7 making it into the Celestial Kingdom. If the person with one talent doubled his talent that is the same as the person with 5 talents doubling his talents, in the end they would receive the same reward. Or do we really believe that where much is given much is required ... so that that person would get much more in the next life? I don't think so. The reward of "all" cannot be anything more than that. Again, I think what causes a person to fall on one side of the fence or the other on this issue is an idea that inheriting all the Father has really means all or it doesn't. This is similar to your two path idea, meaning one path really doesn't lead to inheriting all where the other path only leads to inheriting all despite the fact that both brothers in the prodigal son got all in the end. The younger brother ended up having a lower job, taking care of pigs as he was away from the kingdom so to speak. Where the older brother stayed and had everything available to him. But through repentance they were back on the same level, in terms of inheritance. Even though, the older brother would rather it be based in merit-reward as opposed to love and compassion. I think we have to be careful in suggesting that our eternal reward is based in being given a specific path as opposed to what we do with the path we are given, where our heart is.

Thanks, I agree. I am not confusing the two so much as saying that if man can become like God, then it is possible that God was man. And if it was possible that God was man then it isn't necessary that God was a Christ, a Savior by way of the power of inheritance. I would rather believe that it just hasn't been revealed to anyone, the specifics of God's mortal existence, what role He had before and that is probably why it isn't specifically a doctrine to say that He was like any of us, maybe He was that world's Christ, I don't know, I don't think Lorenzo Snow or Joseph Smith really knew those specifics while here but maybe they did. The thing is that some here are trying to suggest even a deeper meaning to the pulling away from that statement by saying that God had to be a Christ before. I think that is even more of a stretch than what I am saying, that He could have been an average (younger brother) man in His mortal existence. The difference between those two views though relates to what people think about the possibility of eternal progression. I can't separate those two issues in my mind. Either there is eternal progression or there is a limit to our progression. I don't think we can have it both ways. Then people try to rationalize that with some other doctrine about how it might be possible for all of us to someday be a Christ and be mortal again in some other world, that really strays from our accepted and sustained doctrine.

Good points! And the thing that he is not understanding is that fruit = separation. The knowledge of good and evil cannot take place without separation from God. That is just a fact that he is not appreciating or understanding. God cannot produce evil only allow for it by way of the consequence of choice when that individual takes responsibility for their own choice. The responsible choice to be introduced to evil results in separation from God, one cannot have both, knowledge of evil and stay with God until one has been sanctified through a Savior, a redeemer to return to God, to redeem one's previous status.

If He didn't want it, He wouldn't allow for it. Don't confuse the ends with the means. If you believe in an all powerful God, which I am assuming you do, what possible reason then do you have to explain why this all powerful God even gave them the option for such a thing, to be separated from Him? In your opinion, why would He put that tree in the Garden in the first place? By the way, spiritual matters are emotional by nature, this isn't a secular discussion of the material to most of us. Don't be afraid of your emotions getting in the way of your judgment as far as this goes, it might enhance one's judgement.

What other sustaining vote do we need other than the sustaining vote we give for our leaders? If one of our main doctrine is that of the possibility for eternal progression, this doctrine does not take away from its narrowness by much. The thing is, this doctrine doesn't contradict any other doctrine and throughout the history of the church, I don't see it changing by another opposing doctrine. How the world sees us or "appearing" wishy-washy is something I don't think we should be too worried about. Overall, I think LDS are pretty well educated about what there doctrine is and it stays consistent amongst various congregations compared to members of most religions. That sounded really prideful but I am just saying the gospel doesn't vary from place to place around the world.

It is in the 2003 new testament student study guide put out by the Church, for the Philippians 1-4 section. L. Tom Perry used it in a Liahona article in May 2002. And in the 2003 student manual "Church History in the Fullness of Times" Chapter 35 put our by the church, it says that the Lord inspired Lorenzo Snow and "Shortly before Joseph Smith’s death, Lorenzo heard him teach the same doctrine. Thereafter Elder Snow made this doctrine one of the subjects of his own discourses." ... so at least it is out there as late as 2003. Couldn't find any closer than that.

Could it be though for the same reason we would say there are some things in the temple that we don't "teach"? In other words, our line upon line learning isn't ready for this kind of thing in the general teachings of the church. Maybe this was the stance Hinkley was after. That it is not the main part of our gospel and doesn't need to be the focus of any teaching right now, "we don't emphasize it" is his clarification of "I don't know that we teach it". If it is not a doctrine then it is 'we don't believe it'. President Kimball said this is the time to prepare to meet God. After that is when we are concerned about becoming like Him, if we are in that group to have that option I suppose.

I believe he forbade them to eat of the tree until they were ready to move on. God gives us commandments for future steps in our lives, to give us the bigger picture. He commanded us to be perfect. Matt. 5:48: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Do you think God was giving us a commandment that we cannot keep here? This is the same type of question you are asking about Adam and Eve. In my earlier posts that you dismissed I tried to explain to you that, like a young adult ready to move on with his life, God wants Adam and Eve to move onto the next level of training and have this experience, after all it is His plan. But to do that, they have to choose it. And if they choose it, they will die, they will be separated from God and have mortal bodies. If, on the other hand, they choose to stay in the garden then He would forbid them to eat of the tree of death, the tree of knowledge of good and evil because if they chose that then they couldn't remain in his presence. That is a part of choosing that plan, not because it is a punishment but because in order to learn the things we have to learn, faith and responsibility we need that separation. Just like a young adult needs to do things on their own to learn responsibility. This life is also a test to prove how spiritually minded we are in this kind of setting which determine what school (Kingdom) we end up in the next life. I think it is similar to telling a young adult child, 'you can live here as long as you want but while you are here and under my responsibility then you have to live with our rules ... I forbid you to be out past 10 O'clock, etc. Now if you want to stay out past 10 O'clock and have your own responsibilities and personal successes then you will have to move out to do that, to really get credit for the results of your choices, both successes and failures. While you are under my watch, you won't have failures but at the same time you won't have any personal responsibilities and therefore no personal successes." If one wants to be a pilot that person will have to eventually take a chance and get in the plane and fly it. They wouldn't know how without doing it, they couldn't just read about it. And just handing a pilots license to a person that doesn't know how to fly does not make them a pilot. Likewise, to be perfect like our Heavenly Father is perfect we have to learn how to do it, we have to take part in this part of our training. Adam and Eve knew that probably better than we know it now as they walked and talked with God in the garden.

Is President Lorenzo Snow’s oft-repeated statement—“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be”—accepted as official doctrine by the Church? Gerald N. Lund, Teacher Support Consultant for the Church Education System responded; “Numerous sources could be cited, but one should suffice to show that this doctrine is accepted and taught by the Brethren. In an address in 1971, President Joseph Fielding Smith, then serving as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said: “I think I can pay no greater tribute to [President Lorenzo Snow and Elder Erastus Snow] than to preach again that glorious doctrine which they taught and which was one of the favorite themes, particularly of President Lorenzo Snow. … “We have been promised by the Lord that if we know how to worship, and know what we worship, we may come unto the Father in his name, and in due time receive of his fulness. We have the promise that if we keep his commandments, we shall receive of his fulness and be glorified in him as he is in the Father. “This is a doctrine which delighted President Snow, as it does all of us. Early in his ministry he received by direct, personal revelation the knowledge that (in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s language), ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods … the same as all Gods have done before.’ “After this doctrine had been taught by the Prophet, President Snow felt free to teach it also, and he summarized it in one of the best known couplets in the Church. … “This same doctrine has of course been known to the prophets of all the ages, and President Snow wrote an excellent poetic summary of it.” (Address on Snow Day, given at Snow College, 14 May 1971, pp. 1, 3–4; italics added.) It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today.” ... I added the bold. This is from Ensign, "I have a question" section.

Unless one also "literally" believes that we will inherit all that the Father has by making it into the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. Then it would be logical that the Father represents and possesses by virtue of His inheritance all that was done before Him, including a plan in which a Savior saved the mortal world as this plan is one eternal round being done over and over again. In other words, the Father, inherited what His Christ did for Him.

I think mikbone would disagree with me on this based on previous discussions but the thing that I have trouble with saying that God the Father had to be a Savior before is that that leaves little hope for the rest of us ever being like God. I still can't find it in my head to believe that it would be possible to receive a glorified body and placed in a Kingdom, the Celestial Kingdom in this case and then later take on the role of a Savior by giving up a body that was never supposed to be separated again to take on a body that could die, a mortal body to be a Savior. In other words, if God the Father was a Savior previously, then He wasn't ever "man" as in "man" like the rest of us, He was only a Savior, never a younger brother of another Savior. That would make no pathway available for an average person (a younger brother) to ever become like God. I think the people that propose such a system of progressive responsibility for average man to Holy Ghost to Jesus to Father (or something like that) would have to include some kind of re-incarnation doctrine that really doesn't exist in our gospel. Or if being a Savior is the only pathway to being like God, than God was never the average man (a younger brother) in that step-wise progression theory. The step-wise progression theory, to me, also throws out what it means to inherit all that God has.

Then maybe that is a clue as to where and how the spirit communicates with the body, via the brain. The spirit leaving the heart, for example (i.e - heart transplant) does not kill a person or change who they are.

Read through KFD with the idea that "Father" means the person that has inherited all that came before Him, just for an interesting perspective. As it is true that the Father inherited all the work and glory that came before Him. All that what was done before, world after world with Savior after Savior is consolidated into one being, Our Father in Heaven. If we believe in the family version of eternal progression we can't separate that from that being. If you or I are fortunate enough to make it to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, we will also inherit all that was done before, even the work of previous worlds, then it could be said that "we did it before". And in our progression would pass that on to our offspring in the same way.

I didn't say "child", that would be a ridiculous example, I gave a metaphor to contemplate the good that comes from this situation using an example of a "young adult". Meaning this is a person who is ready to move on to the next level of their learning. I think you could see how it would be detrimental to force a young young adult to live in your house and live by your rules only all their life and not have their own life if they really want to learn responsibility on their own. How do you teach your children responsibility? I think you would answer something along the lines, 'by giving it to them'. If one believes that as a child of God we never needed to learn responsibility then I could see how this whole situation creates conflict. I would think you could understand this better if you understood the value of us learning responsibility. But that is only possible if one thinks that we will have the need for responsibility after this life. If one believes that everything could and would be given without any gratitude or responsibility, in other words, not valued or earned, then you are right, being exposed to responsibility is contradictory. I think your example of 'getting hit by a car' misrepresents this life. We all knew ahead that we would be saved by a Savior. That is what we agreed to. Maybe a better example is asking a child to jump into a swimming pool that the parent is floating right there in the water to catch the child and help the child if they need it. The only danger of this life is if we jump into the part of the water where there is no parent around, that is our choice. Satan in the premortal life tried to convince people, possibly, that randomly people would be saved but that was a lie, we all are saved (with the exception of the sons of perdition). The chances of getting 'hit by a car' is zero if one does not fight against the spirit.