The will of Father and Son

[richlittell]

3Nephi 1:14

Behold, I come unto my own, to fulfil all things ...and to do the will both of the Father and of the Son--of the Father because of me, and of the Son because of my flesh.

I have read this many times, with focus on the will of the Father and it just struck me that Christ also came to do his will, what does the last part mean .. because of me... and because of the flesh? Any thoughts?

Edited September 20, 2008 by richlittell

[richlittell]

Some time after I posted this I had an idea of what the aforementioned scripture might mean, but I can't be sure.

to do the will of the Father, because of me:

I came because it was the will of the father that the world should have a savior and I was chosen to fulfil that role

to do the will of myself, because of the flesh:

It was necessary for me to have a strong and righteous will, my own, that I might overcome the temptations of this world while in the flesh, or rather, it was my will to do that which is righteous, that I might overcome the temptations of the flesh.

[Guest tomk]

Click on this link.

Pay close attention to the last 2 or 3 chapters, where it talks about how the Father accomplished the Atonement because of His Holy Son, who was willing to surrender His will to His Father in every aspect imaginable. The Son acted as a "Proxy" for the Father. This was needed because the Father was already a glorified, resurrected Being. He could not come down and DIE for mankind. But the Son could...so Father sent His Beloved Son.

14 Behold, I come unto my own, to fulfil all things which I have made known unto the children of men from the foundation of the world, and to do the will, both of the Father and of the Son—of the Father because of me, and of the Son because of my flesh. And behold, the time is at hand, and this night shall the sign be given.

and to do the will, both of the Father and of the Son—of the Father because of me, and of the Son because of my flesh.

[DO THE WILL OF THE FATHER] ... because of me.

This is Christ speaking. He is indicating that there was something about Himself that made Him the perfect choice to come down and perform the Atonement!

What made Him the perfect choice was His willingness to do the WILL of the Father. The Father knows His Children. The Father knew that Christ could come down and successfully carry-out the Father's will.

[DO THE WILL OF THE SON] ... because of my flesh.

The Atonement was a battle between Darkness and Light. It took place INSIDE of Christ's Body. A body and spirit that was LIGHT. Darkness and Evil tried to extinguish that LIGHT -- and Christ sweat great drops of blood, the agony was so great. But the Light could not be extinguished. Christ was victorious.

But in all of this....HEAVENLY FATHER POWERED THE SON. Without the guidance and power of the FATHER .... Christ could not have succeeded!!!!

This is why Christ always said things like:

John 5: 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

John 14: 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Do you see it? The FATHER "BECAME" THE SON. THE SON "BECAME" THE FATHER. NOT LITERALLY ONE SUBSTANCE...BUT ONE IN PURPOSE, ONE IN POWER. THIS IS WHY THE ATONEMENT IS SO AMAZING.

[richlittell]

...

Do you see it? The FATHER "BECAME" THE SON. THE SON "BECAME" THE FATHER. NOT LITERALLY ONE SUBSTANCE...BUT ONE IN PURPOSE, ONE IN POWER. THIS IS WHY THE ATONEMENT IS SO AMAZING.

Thanks tomk for that additional insight and for me especially the scripture you referred to in John 5, I had been trying to find that one lately but couldn't remember the key words.

thanks :)

[Justice]

Deleted

Edited September 22, 2008 by Justice

[Guest tomk]

Yes, this is why Christ had to be born of a mortal mother.

If you take this truth to it's logical conclusion, you see why men hold the Priesthood and women don't. That Christ could not be born of an immortal mother is a powerful beginning place to understand the Priesthood.

The things on earth more closely mirror the things in heaven than we sometimes realize.

I still don't see the connection between mortal mother and the priesthood.

But one thing I do know is that the earthly family is meant to teach us about how Heavenly Father and Mother look upon us. How they feel about us. Why our sins pose no barrier between us, as far as their love and their desire to help us. When we allow ourselves to view ourselves as children ... the gospel makes more sense. As parents, we don't chastise or condemn our children for the mistakes they make! Our love for them does not change, even when they willfully sin. Our desire to bless them and help them is not influenced by those things. They are our children!

Well...can we not allow for Heavenly Parents to feel the same way about us?

That is why is say the earthly family unit teaches us about our Heavenly Parents. When I think about our children, when I talk with my wife about about our children -- is it too far of a stretch to imagine something similar going on in heaven??? I think not!

[Justice]

Deleted

Edited September 22, 2008 by Justice

[Justice]

Deleted

Edited September 22, 2008 by Justice

[Guest tomk]

By the way, this is what the scriptures mean as to why Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, or else they would eat and live forever in the state they were in, namely fallen.

If Eve were to become immortal, by eating of the fruit of the tree of life, before the "mortal Messiah" was born, the Savior would have been born immortal, and we would have the same result as my previous post.

The Savior had to be born of a mortal mother in order to Atone for the sins of mankind by the shedding of His blood. If He were born of an immortal mother, by either of the methods outlined in my past 2 posts, He would not have blood to shed.

That much I get. :)

Didn't we theorize once that it works like this:

EXALTED MAN + EXALTED WOMAN = IMMORTAL SPIRIT / IMMORTAL BODY

THEY ARE THE PARENTS OF OUR SPIRITS.

THEY ARE THE PARENTS OF ADAM AND EVE'S PHYSICAL BODIES.

=====

EXALTED MAN + MORTAL WOMAN = MORTAL BODY - ABLE TO DIE, BUT ALSO ABLE TO KEEP DEATH AT BAY INDEFINITELY (CHRIST)

=====

EXALTED WOMAN + MORTAL MAN: ???

=====

[MarginOfError]

By the way, this is what the scriptures mean as to why Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, or else they would eat and live forever in the state they were in, namely fallen.

If Eve were to become immortal, by eating of the fruit of the tree of life, before the "mortal Messiah" was born, the Savior would have been born immortal, and we would have the same result as my previous post.

The Savior had to be born of a mortal mother in order to Atone for the sins of mankind by the shedding of His blood. If He were born of an immortal mother, by either of the methods outlined in my past 2 posts, He would not have blood to shed.

I think you've gone off the deep end, and I want to make it clear that this is not an opinion widely held in the Church, nor is there much in the way of evidence to support it. In fact, there is ample evidence to give an alternate explanation to why Adam and Eve could not partake of the fruit from the Tree of Life.

For behold, after the Lord God sent our first parents forth from the garden of Eden, to till the bground, from whence they were taken—yea, he drew out the man, and he placed at the east end of the garden of Eden, ccherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the tree of life—

Now, we see that the man had become as God, knowing good and evil; and lest he should put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever, the Lord God placed cherubim and the flaming sword, that he should not partake of the fruit—

And thus we see, that there was a time granted unto man to repent, yea, a probationary time, a time to repent and serve God.

For behold, if Adam had put forth his hand immediately, and partaken of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, according to the word of God, having no space for repentance;...

Alma 42:2-5

It is pretty clear that the probationary time of man ends upon the introduction of immortality to man. Adam and Eve could not partake of the fruit of the tree of life because it would end their probationary state without giving them the time they needed to repent. The very doctrine of posthumous ordinances lends support to this interpretation. The decision to not let Adam and Eve eat the fruit from the Tree of Life had nothing to do with the Savior's birth, and everything to do with Adam and Eve's salvation.

[Prodigal_Son]

The things on earth more closely mirror the things in heaven than we sometimes realize.

You say that like you've been there. Is this John the Beloved or one of the Three Nephites?

By the way, this is what the scriptures mean as to why Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, or else they would eat and live forever in the state they were in, namely fallen.

If Eve were to become immortal, by eating of the fruit of the tree of life, before the "mortal Messiah" was born, the Savior would have been born immortal, and we would have the same result as my previous post.

The Savior had to be born of a mortal mother in order to Atone for the sins of mankind by the shedding of His blood. If He were born of an immortal mother, by either of the methods outlined in my past 2 posts, He would not have blood to shed.

I, too, have to politely indicate that this is a rather obtuse conclusion of the interpretation of that passage.

EXALTED WOMAN + MORTAL MAN:??

According to my wife, that's my marriage.

[WANDERER]

It would be similar Tom, but not quite...lots of spirit children.

[Justice]

I had a long post prepared, but decided to remove my previous words, and shorten this post to this:

The decision to not let Adam and Eve eat the fruit from the Tree of Life had nothing to do with the Savior's birth, and everything to do with Adam and Eve's salvation.

This is an oxymoron.

How can it have nothing to do with the birth of the Savior, yet have everything to do with anyone's salvation?

Could Adam and Eve somehow bring salvation to themselves if they were kicked from the Garden?

I think you need to seriously ponder this topic, study it, and ask for guidance before you mock me and what I post.

Just because you have never heard a thing does not mean it's not true... or perhaps you believe you know everything? Also, the truth will never be decided by popular opinion or a vote. Truth is truth, regardless of how many people understand it.

All I ask is that before you mock my views that you study it first and show me in scripture or General Conference addresses exactly where I am wrong. Saying, "you are wrong" in a mocking tone is not very helpful.

I truly hope that God blesses you today and you feel His Spirit.

Edited September 22, 2008 by Justice

[Justice]

I think you've gone off the deep end, and I want to make it clear that this is not an opinion widely held in the Church, nor is there much in the way of evidence to support it. In fact, there is ample evidence to give an alternate explanation to why Adam and Eve could not partake of the fruit from the Tree of Life.

It is pretty clear that the probationary time of man ends upon the introduction of immortality to man. Adam and Eve could not partake of the fruit of the tree of life because it would end their probationary state without giving them the time they needed to repent. The very doctrine of posthumous ordinances lends support to this interpretation. The decision to not let Adam and Eve eat the fruit from the Tree of Life had nothing to do with the Savior's birth, and everything to do with Adam and Eve's salvation.

I will briefly comment to show you there are no hard feelings.

If we look at the situation behind this scripture, we can see why Alma said what he said, and did not offer further explanation.

First, I want you to know that I do not disagree that God removed Adam from the Garden to give man a probationary period. What I am saying is that there was another thing required for man's salvation beyond repentance: a Savior.

The scripture you posted:

Alma 42:

4. And thus we see, that there was a time granted unto man to repent, yea, a probationary time, a time to repent and serve God.

This is not just referring to Adam, but to all of man... all of their offspring. All mankind had to receive a physical body in order to be like our Father in Heaven. Adam now had one, but the plan of salvation was to save all men, if possible. So, in fact it had less to do with "Adam" specifically than you suggest.

Now, let's consider this passage in context. Alma was speaking to Corianton (chapters 39-42). His primary message to Corianton was:

Alma 39:

9 Now my son, I would that ye should repent and forsake your sins, and go no more after the lusts of your eyes, but cross yourself in all these things; for except ye do this ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. Oh, remember, and take it upon you, and cross yourself in these things.

Repentance was his primary message to his son in these chapters. Also, he tries to answer his concerns about resurrection and the suffering for sins (related to repentance):

Alma 40:

1 Now my son, here is somewhat more I would say unto thee; for I perceive that thy mind is worried concerning the resurrection of the dead.

Alma 41:

1 And now, my son, I have somewhat to say concerning the restoration of which has been spoken; for behold, some have wrested the scriptures, and have gone far astray because of this thing. And I perceive that thy mind has been worried also concerning this thing. But behold, I will explain it unto thee.

Alma 42:

1 And now, my son, I perceive there is somewhat more which doth worry your mind, which ye cannot understand—which is concerning the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner; for ye do try to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery.

Alma's intent was not to explain all the purposes for the Fall to Corianton, but to reassure him that he could repent. He was explaining that this probationary period was granted to all men, including him, as part of God's plan of salvation.

However, it is clear there is more to it because Alma also teaches that a Savior is required, and that we gain access to the Atonement of Christ through repentance.

So, to say "because Alma didn't tell his son Corianton the other reasons Adam was kicked from the Garden, that makes them not true," is, in my opinion, bad logic. This is what I'm trying to get accross, and am trying to do so in a spirit of love.

[MarginOfError]

All I ask is that before you mock my views that you study it first and show me in scripture or General Conference addresses exactly where I am wrong.

I believe my post was accompanied by scripture. In fact, I believe it was you who posted no references to explain your conclusions. At this point, the burden of proof lies with you.

So, to say "because Alma didn't tell his son Corianton the other reasons Adam was kicked from the Garden, that makes them not true," is, in my opinion, bad logic.

Equally bad logic is saying that they are true because Alma didn't say them.

[Justice]

I never claim to be able to prove anything that can only be taught by the Holy Ghost.

I did reference your scripture and offered comments.

I did not say they were true because Alma didn't say them. That doesn't even make any sense. It seems you want to argue about it instead of offering thoughtful commentary on either of my last two posts.

I will not argue, but if you'd like to discuss it I'd be glad to. However, if you continue to put words in my mouth that discussion will be quite difficult.

[MarginOfError]

All I ask is that before you mock my views that you study it first and show me in scripture or General Conference addresses exactly where I am wrong. ...

I never claim to be able to prove anything that can only be taught by the Holy Ghost.

How convenient.

I did reference your scripture and offered comments.

Yes, you did. And in doing so, you neither refuted anything I said, nor supported anything you said.

I did not say they were true because Alma didn't say them. That doesn't even make any sense.

Agreed.

It seems you want to argue about it instead of offering thoughtful commentary on either of my last two posts.

Let's put together some thoughtful commentary then. In one of the posts you've deleted, you said, "If Eve were to become immortal, by eating of the fruit of the tree of life, before the 'mortal Messiah' was born, the Savior would have been born immortal...." You had previously stated that an mortal Savior was necessary because only a mortal Savior could fulfill the Atonement. So, by your reasoning, if Eve were to remain in the Garden of Eden and eat from the Tree of Life, she would become immortal, and all her offspring after her would become immortal. The result would have been an immortal Savior that would frustrate the Plan of Happiness (not to mention an incredible overpopulation problem).

But let's briefly consider the susceptibility of Adam and Eve to death. When Adam and Eve were first placed in the Garden of Eden, they had perfect bodies; they were not sucseptible to death. We read in 2 Nephi 2:22, "if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen,....And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end." Is this not the very definition of immortal? Then, in the following verse, we learn "And they [Adam and Eve] would have had no children;...." So in their first immortal state, Adam and Eve could not reproduce.

After the Fall, Adam and Eve became mortal ( Moses 6:48) and were then able to have children (2 Nephi 2:19-25). So what would have happened had Adam and Eve eaten from the Tree of Life? Do they retain the ability to have children? Do they lose it?

One possibility is that they maintain the ability to have children, and as has been suggested, these children would inherit the immortality of their parents. The scriptures, however, give absolutely no examples of two immortal parents bearing immortal children with physical bodies. In fact, the scriptures don't agree with this at all. We do know that we are God's offspring (Acts 17:28-29, Romans 8:16), and in fact, the literal offspring of God (for example, Marion G. Romney. See also Search Results for Literal Offspring). Yet, as his literal offspring, we did not inherit his immortality, but gained only spiritual embodiments that were later housed in physical bodies. This either means:

• immortal beings do no procreate in the same way as mortal beings, and we are the product of some other procreative process
• immortal beings can procreate like mortals and there exists some class of beings that inherit immortal physical bodies and we are entirely unaware of their existence.

I like to take the scriptures at face value and accept that we are God's offspring, which leaves the implication that immortal beings do not procreate in the same way that mortal beings do (perhaps rightfully so--I can't imagine many women are excited about being pregnant throughout the eternities). This leads to the conclusion that, had Adam and Eve eaten from the Tree of Life, they would not be having immortal children because, in fact, they would not be having children.

Again, I reiterate my points from the previous posts about why the Tree of Life had to be guarded. It was an act of mercy to allow the time necessary for Adam and Eve to learn the Gospel, accept the Atonement, and repent of their sins. If they had eaten it, they would have become immortal, ending their probationary state, and they would have been judged on their actions up to the point of becoming immortal.

I might also add a word of caution about seeking truths that are not taught in the scriptures. I do not contest that such truths can be discovered, but such areas are a great place for Satan to deceive and ensnare. That's quite a risk to take when considering that these truths, having not been revealed in the past, are entirely irrelevant to our earthly goals.

Furthermore, such truths have not been revealed to the world. They will not be revealed to the world unless it be through authorized channels, namely the prophets. If the Lord sees fit to reveal these truths to an individual, it will likely be an individual who can be trusted not to reveal the truths outside of proper authority. Any who receive these truths and choose to reveal them act outside of the trust God has given them when he revealed such truth to them.

[brother01]

3Nephi 1:14

I have read this many times, with focus on the will of the Father and it just struck me that Christ also came to do his will, what does the last part mean .. because of me... and because of the flesh? Any thoughts?

The book of Mormon in a number of places, especially in the first edition, contains a number of verses that are very supportive of the Trinity doctrine as understood by the authors of the Bible. I wonder at how LDS don't see those verses and in times past have even gone after some of the teachings of past LDS Prophets, such as the Adam/God doctrine.

I was just looking at posts over at FAIR and noted one is still trying to explain that doctrine as true, even though LDS Prophets since Brigham Young have refuted it as false doctrine.

How do we explain the names in Genesis 5 that says: "Man is appointed mortal sorrow. God came down teaching. His death shall bring the despairing comfort, rest." How did God come down teaching except that Jesus is God?

What do you think John was saying in I John 4:12; "No man has seen God at any itme."?

[Justice]

So, by your reasoning, if Eve were to remain in the Garden of Eden and eat from the Tree of Life, she would become immortal, and all her offspring after her would become immortal. The result would have been an immortal Savior that would frustrate the Plan of Happiness (not to mention an incredible overpopulation problem).

Yes.

So in their first immortal state, Adam and Eve could not reproduce.

Yes (bold added).

After the Fall, Adam and Eve became mortal and were then able to have children.

Eve tells you what allowed them to have children. It was not that they "couldn't" have children physically, whether before or after the Fall, it was that they didn't "understand" how to. After they ate the fruit they realized their nakedness. They began to understand "good and evil." Here is how Eve words it:

Moses 5:

11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

So, after they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or after they transgressed God's law, they understood how to have seed. I thought that was the whole point of it? This was the only way Eve could gain this understanding.

She said "were it not for our transgression, we never..." meaning it was the only way.

So what would have happened had Adam and Eve eaten from the Tree of Life? Do they retain the ability to have children? Do they lose it?

Of course they retain it, because they could not "undo" the transgression. That was the whole point of needing to repent.

Being able to have offspring was, or the knowledge of how to do so, was one of the key pieces of knowledge we needed in coming to earth. Adam and Eve, and we, retain that knowledge forever, regardless of where we spend an eternity now. This is partly how we became "as God."

Satan wants God's glory. What is Satan seeking? Well, at least in part, this knowledge of procreation.

Moses 1:

39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

You have to know how to have offspring before this can become your work and glory.

One possibility is that they maintain the ability to have children, and as has been suggested, these children would inherit the immortality of their parents. The scriptures, however, give absolutely no examples of two immortal parents bearing immortal children with physical bodies.

Yes they do.

We do know that we are God's offspring... and in fact, the literal offspring of God... Yet, as his literal offspring, we did not inherit his immortality,

Our spirits are His literal offspring, not our physical bodies. We have mortal parents here on earth who are the literal parents of our physical bodies.

God has only parented 2 physical bodies of all men and women who have ever lived on earth. One was the Savior, who was born of an mortal mother. The other was Adam, who was born of an immortal mother. Look at the results of each.

Have you not read the quotes from Joseph Smith and Brigham Young teaching us how Adam got here?

Well, I have been looking for them, but cannot find them. Maybe someone else can find them and post them for us.

But, based on this knowledge, and the fact that we know Adam was born with an immortal body and Christ was born with a mortal body, that it is the condition of the mother that determines the condition of the child's body.

immortal beings can procreate like mortals and there exists some class of beings that inherit immortal physical bodies and we are entirely unaware of their existence.

No, we are aware. Adam was one such being. I will find the quotes because I know this is our stumbling block.

I like to take the scriptures at face value and accept that we are God's offspring, which leaves the implication that immortal beings do not procreate in the same way that mortal beings do (perhaps rightfully so--I can't imagine many women are excited about being pregnant throughout the eternities). This leads to the conclusion that, had Adam and Eve eaten from the Tree of Life, they would not be having immortal children because, in fact, they would not be having children.

This is an odd statement knowing that only those who obtain the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom will be able to use their procreative powers and have offspring.

And again, I think you will see that once Adam and Eve partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that knowledge could not be taken from them. Neither could their knowledge of how to have "seed."

Again, I reiterate my points from the previous posts about why the Tree of Life had to be guarded. It was an act of mercy to allow the time necessary for Adam and Eve to learn the Gospel, accept the Atonement, and repent of their sins. If they had eaten it, they would have become immortal, ending their probationary state, and they would have been judged on their actions up to the point of becoming immortal.

No, read that scripture you posted again. It was probationary because they were mortal, or "outside God's presence." You cannot sin in God's presence. This mortal probation was a time to learn good and evil and then repent. It would have ended when they became immortal, not when they were judged. There would have been no judgement because man would not have been redeemed.

Alma 42: 5

5 For behold, if Adam had put forth his hand immediately, and partaken of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, according to the word of God, having no space for repentance; yea, and also the word of God would have been void, and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated.

Where does it say he would have been judged? Where does it say he would have been brought back into God's presence? We have to be brought back into God's presence to be judged.

Morm. 9:

13 And because of the redemption of man, which came by Jesus Christ, they are brought back into the presence of the Lord; yea, this is wherein all men are redeemed, because the death of Christ bringeth to pass the resurrection, which bringeth to pass a redemption from an endless sleep, from which sleep all men shall be awakened by the power of God when the trump shall sound; and they shall come forth, both small and great, and all shall stand before his bar, being redeemed and loosed from this eternal band of death, which death is a temporal death.

Ether 3:

13 And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you.

Adam and Eve, and all their posterity, would have remained on earth, not able to be redeemed, or brought back into God's presence.

Why would it have been impossible to be redeemed?

Man could still have repented in an immortal state. They were separated from God, still able to think and speak. But, man would no longer exist in "time," or as a mortal. He would be consigned to exist in his current state forever, unless a redemption could be made.

I might also add a word of caution about seeking truths that are not taught in the scriptures. I do not contest that such truths can be discovered, but such areas are a great place for Satan to deceive and ensnare. That's quite a risk to take when considering that these truths, having not been revealed in the past, are entirely irrelevant to our earthly goals.

Furthermore, such truths have not been revealed to the world. They will not be revealed to the world unless it be through authorized channels, namely the prophets. If the Lord sees fit to reveal these truths to an individual, it will likely be an individual who can be trusted not to reveal the truths outside of proper authority. Any who receive these truths and choose to reveal them act outside of the trust God has given them when he revealed such truth to them.

This part is understood. However, I do not believe what we are discussing is taught in the temple. I do not view it as a "taboo" subject. Some will view it as speculation, other might see the truth of it. I did not ask you to take my words for it, just because I said it. All I asked you to do was present thoughtful commentary and discussion, and not mock me for views I believe to be sacred.

[richlittell]

The book of Mormon in a number of places, especially in the first edition, contains a number of verses that are very supportive of the Trinity doctrine as understood by the authors of the Bible. I wonder at how LDS don't see those verses and in times past have even gone after some of the teachings of past LDS Prophets, such as the Adam/God doctrine.

I was just looking at posts over at FAIR and noted one is still trying to explain that doctrine as true, even though LDS Prophets since Brigham Young have refuted it as false doctrine.

How do we explain the names in Genesis 5 that says: "Man is appointed mortal sorrow. God came down teaching. His death shall bring the despairing comfort, rest." How did God come down teaching except that Jesus is God?

What do you think John was saying in I John 4:12; "No man has seen God at any itme."?

While I appreciate your viewpoint, this question was addressed to an LDS audience who understands and accepts the three distinct personages in the Godhead. However, if you like, there are plenty of other threads that discuss the issue of the trinity, just do a search for "trinity" and you should be able to find them. :)

And I think some others here are getting a bit off topic as well (hint hint) :)

[MarginOfError]

Being able to have offspring was, or the knowledge of how to do so, was one of the key pieces of knowledge we needed in coming to earth. Adam and Eve, and we, retain that knowledge forever, regardless of where we spend an eternity now. This is partly how we became "as God."

Satan wants God's glory. What is Satan seeking? Well, at least in part, this knowledge of procreation.

Way out there, with nothing to back it up.

But, based on this knowledge, and the fact that we know Adam was born with an immortal body and Christ was born with a mortal body, that it is the condition of the mother that determines the condition of the child's body.

Or perhaps Adam was created out of the dust of the earth? (Gen 3:19, Moses 4:25)

Both Adam and Christ were fathered by some process we don't understand. Adam being from the dust, and Christ being born of a virgin mother, conceived of the Holy Ghost. The methods we consider procreative need not necessarily apply in one case, and could not apply in the other to fulfill scripture.

And you're right, these things aren't taught in the temple. For myriad reason. One of which is it is pure speculation. The way you tell me to go 'study and pray' about it implies that you think I haven't. But I have, and it reeks of speculative fill-in-the-blank. And for what purpose? It has nothing to do with our purpose on earth.

If you really wish to continue this, start a new thread or e-mail me. Out of respect for rich, tom, and PS, let's get out of their worthwhile conversation.

[Justice]

Fair enough.

[brother01]

Jesus said man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

And you think it is to eat a fruit off the tree of eternal life to be sufficient for not only the person who ate it, but to all their posterity???

Not me:-)

[Justice]

Who are you responding to, brother, and what in particular?