Just a thought...

[Lbybug]

Okay, so I normally don't post in the gospel discussion thread, let alone start topics in it...but i was reading another thread and a thought came to mind...i hope it doesn't come across silly, but i'm going to ask it anyways.

so, in the thread, someone was asking about Christ getting a body and being a God.

anyways, my question/thought was...

we all come to earth to have bodies and be like Heavenly Father. So obviously then, Heavenly Father has a body too...so did He recieve the body that He has before He was a God?

i'm not exactly sure the church's teachings on that subject. i know the song "if you could hie to kolob" kind of touches on the subject of there being many God's in the universe...i think.

anyways, any thoughts on the subject? or what is the official teaching on this subject? i'm sure if i searched through the threads there was probably a discussion on this somewhere, but the thought just popped into my head and i thought i'd ask.

sorry if the post is a bit choppy, i have problems explaining myself sometimes...hope it's clear enough :S

~Becca

[FunkyTown]

No, no. It was very clear, Lby.

Just as a caveat to readers who are not LDS, we are about to get in to 'Pseudo-doctrine': That is doctrine people have implied based upon everything from LDS hymns to the King Follett discourse. To preface this, I would suggest that you take everything stated here with a grain of salt. Specifically, there will be a lot of opinions in this thread that are not doctrine. Some might seem silly, thought-provoking, spurious or outright heretical. To repeat, what will be spoken of in this thread is not doctrine no matter what some may say.

[Lbybug]

i definately will take it with a grain of salt. thanks for the warning funkyt.

sorry to open a can of worms :S

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

Some tangential thoughts.

Physical bodies are essential in Mormon Doctrine, not just some sort of inferior "vessel for the soul." Because he can't have one, Satan wants to make us feel ashamed of ours. (This is one of the reasons that naturism is easier for Mormons to understand than for mainline Christians.)

If you look at the bit from the King Follett discourse, it's easy to believe that all of existence has a sort of fractal quality. Our God was once a man and had His God and that spirals upwards. A man here on earth can become a God and create his own planet whose inhabitants may become Gods in turn and spiraling downwards. (That's why in my youth, Mormons of a scientific bent tended to pull for the Steady State Universe, which is currently way out of favor because of all the good work on the Big Bang Theory.)

[hordak]

Some tangential thoughts.

Because he can't have one, Satan wants to make us feel ashamed of ours. (This is one of the reasons that naturism is easier for Mormons to understand than for mainline Christians.)

.)

I would think the opposite is true given all the focus on modesty and chastity. (Not saying being modest means one is ashamed of their body but those who are proud and like to show it are normaly the ones who are seen as being bad)

[HiJolly]

Okay, so I normally don't post in the gospel discussion thread, let alone start topics in it...but i was reading another thread and a thought came to mind...i hope it doesn't come across silly, but i'm going to ask it anyways.

so, in the thread, someone was asking about Christ getting a body and being a God.

anyways, my question/thought was...

we all come to earth to have bodies and be like Heavenly Father. So obviously then, Heavenly Father has a body too...so did He recieve the body that He has before He was a God?

Yes, that is our understanding. But as FT said, it's not doctrinal. No matter *how* many GA's discussed it in General conference.

i'm not exactly sure the church's teachings on that subject. i know the song "if you could hie to kolob" kind of touches on the subject of there being many God's in the universe...i think.

Yes. There is an order in Heaven where all intelligence 'fits' in. Sufficiently advanced intelligences obtain the title of 'god'.

anyways, any thoughts on the subject? or what is the official teaching on this subject? i'm sure if i searched through the threads there was probably a discussion on this somewhere, but the thought just popped into my head and i thought i'd ask.

~Becca

The official teaching is hard to pin down, because if it is not supported in scripture, then it's not doctrine. So President Snow's couplet

"As man is now, God once was;

As God is now, Man may yet become."

Is official, but not strictly doctrine. IOW, it's true but not necessarily taught (since we can't 'prove' the "God once was" part via the scriptures.

HiJolly

[BenRaines]

The reason it is not doctrine, as I see it, is that it does not impact my eternal progression. Sort of like the question "Which comes first, the chicken or the egg". It doesn't matter. Just matters that we know a chicken comes from an egg and an egg comes from a chicken.

Ben Raines

[bmy-]

Mormon Literature Sampler: The King Follett Discourse

Should answer your questions. It's the King Follet Discourse.. it's one of Joseph Smiths last (and greatest) talks/sermon.

It is not considered official Church doctrine.. even if it should be IMO.

It's a long read.. but it is worth it 100x over.

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

I would think the opposite is true given all the focus on modesty and chastity. (Not saying being modest means one is ashamed of their body but those who are proud and like to show it are normaly the ones who are seen as being bad)

It may come as a surprise, but real naturism is both modest and chaste. Naturists are not proud of their bodies (any more than non-naturists are) nor do they necessarily like to show them. They accept them. Like our Original Parents, we try to be "naked and unashamed."

Also, although Mormon doctrine makes it easier to become a naturist, Mormon culture has the opposite effect. In my experience, I've seen about the same proportion of LDS members in naturist organizations as in the general population from which they are drawn.

[Justice]

I believe God received His body the exact same way all have received their bodies. He was born of a mortal mother. I don't believe there is any other way to get one.

Some believe God wills and creates and can do whatever He chooses, and therefore would not need to be born, but could just make one. I don't believe so. I believe God follows law, and the fact that He follows law perfectly is what makes Him God. All we need do is look at the example of Jesus Christ. He is trying to perfect His children in the same manner He was perfected. Following law is a requirement to be perfected. How can one be perfect if they are not measured to a law?

This topic can get deep fast, but I believe I have given my opinion without getting too deep. :)

[Guest tomk]

Justice is correct.

Try not to think of it as being somehow DIFFERENT for God than it is for us. Try not to think of it in terms of BEGINNING with Heavenly Father.

Heavenly Father was once like us. He went through the SAME THING we are going through now, and through His obedience and process of time, attained His Godhood.

We only know about HIM because that is what is relevant and needful for our exaltation right now. Knowing about Gods that are before Him would serve no real useful purpose as far as our mortal probation. Perhaps it might be interesting ... but it would not be needful.

The King Follett discourses are on lds.org. So I would hesitate not to call them doctrine. Apparently they hold some truth or the Church would not post them.

For the uninitiated:

Mormon Literature Sampler: The King Follett Discourse

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The King Follett Sermon

also:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - I Have a Question

which says at the end:

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.

[Sergg]

The fact that now* the King Follet sermon is not considered doctrine does not necessarily mean that it was never taken to be not only official doctrine, but 'essential' doctrine for salvation. A plain visit(and fruitful one) through the Journal of Discourses reveals its importance to both Young and Smith. As much to both brothers Pratts. It is the same concerning the Lectures on Faith. The fact that now* is not a part of Doctrine and Covenants, does not mean that it was never* part, not only of doctrine but of 'Scriptures'.

B.H. Roberts polemical enquiries to the First Presidency of his time, concerning (for example) evolution, if not solve, at least 'reveal' how much of a deal of importance it held by times of Young and Fielding Smith such questions.

The same goes for Fielding Smith and his 'Doctrines of Salvation'. By now*(when his writings both in obscurity and historical anacronicity unfit the Leadership's corpus of belief) it may be 'unnecesarry' for salvation and even 'pseudo' doctrine or 'his' old point of view. But th every title reveals of which importance is the entertainment of such concepts by his time!

So whatever you 'unearth', LdyBug, concerning this topic, is but of total personal evaluation. Including, the attributing it either 'important' or 'official' adjectives as doctrine.

If , an 'official' doctrine is that which a Church unheasitatingly puts forward, or 'lists' in a Creed for the masses and evangelism, well, its not. But that does not prove that it isnt both a secretly official 'supposed' doctrine among the highest leaders, nor that in the past it actually was official.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Sergg

[deseretgov]

I'd like to throw in some two cents. I personally believe that God was once a spirit child of His god, then He went to a world, got a body then received salvation. But in my version our God is the God of the entire universe. If we progress to become gods we will have our own universe. God's god had his own universe. It's not that we each "get our own planet" because that would mean that there would be many gods in this universe with their own planet. If you travelled to another planet you woud have another god to choose from.