The Nature of God and the "Divine Lego Set"

[Guest The_Doctor]

I've been hearing some strange things at my church and I thought I'd try asking you guys here.

One of the things I've been hearing is that supposedly Heavenly Father once was a human. And I don't mean the He has a body thing, but that once upon a time He was mortal and could sin. Is there any scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, or teachings of the prophets) that supports this?

Second I've heard the belief that God didn't really create the Universe. He just found the stuff (Hence the Lego set bit.) and put it together. Is there any scripture to support this also?

[Justice]

So, if He did use existing matter and "build" the universe, how is that not creating?

[Guest The_Doctor]

So, if He did use existing matter and "build" the universe, how is that not creating?

I guess it technically is creating, but it just seems to downgrade him from Supreme Creator to somebody that just put the pieces together.

[Gwen]

how does that idea downgrade god? not all creators are created equal .... don't know about you but i've never been nor ever will be able to do this Abston Church of Christ with legos.

[Misshalfway]

One of the things I've been hearing is that supposedly Heavenly Father once was a human. And I don't mean the He has a body thing, but that once upon a time He was mortal and could sin. Is there any scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, or teachings of the prophets) that supports this?

It is my understanding of LDS doctrine that eternal progression is an important concept but the idea that God was once a fallen sinful man like us is not part of that.

Jesus Christ is a good example. He did need to come to earth to gain a physical body, but he didn't/couldn't sin. His was a great condescension among the children of men.

I have heard some saints use the JSmith quote about "as man is, God once was" to mean that Father was once sinful. My understanding though is that first of all, we don't have any more doctrinal/official information to clarify what Joseph meant and that our doctrine now is that eternal progression does not necessarily need to include a sinful state first.

The D&C and PofGP talks about how God "organized" the universe. It is my understanding that matter cannot be created or destroyed. It appears the scriptures confirm this by giving us a peek into how the creative process actually happened. It is explained that God "organized" intelligence to make spirit children and that he used unorganized matter to organize the universe. Perhaps the word "create" isn't the most accurate term to describe God's process.

[Guest The_Doctor]

So this is a widely held belief? But are there any scriptures that support it?

[Guest The_Doctor]

It is my understanding of LDS doctrine that eternal progression is an important concept but the idea that God was once a fallen sinful man like us is not part of that.

Jesus Christ is a good example. He did need to come to earth to gain a physical body, but he didn't/couldn't sin. His was a great condescension among the children of men.

I have heard some saints use the JSmith quote about "as man is, God once was" to mean that Father was once sinful. My understanding though is that first of all, we don't have any more doctrinal/official information to clarify what Joseph meant and that our doctrine now is that eternal progression does not necessarily need to include a sinful state first.

The D&C and PofGP talks about how God "organized" the universe. It is my understanding that matter cannot be created or destroyed. It appears the scriptures confirm this by giving us a peek into how the creative process actually happened. It is explained that God "organized" intelligence to make spirit children and that he used unorganized matter to organize the universe. Perhaps the word "create" isn't the most accurate term to describe God's process.

Okay. That's helpful but how does it sink with the wording in Genesis.

Also I just want to clarify I'm not trying to be a troll, I'm just confused.

[Misshalfway]

There are lots of scriptures that shed light on the creation part of your questions. Go read the creation story in the Pearl. You can also use the index in the triple to study spirit in the D&C.

I am not sure there is anything definitive on the eternal progression of God himself. The King Follet Discourse is the main source for that information and it has not been canonized. There are also questions about the accuracy of the text. There are, I believe, five versions of the discourse recorded. So, in my mind, we can appreciate what the discourse is trying to say but we kinda gotta keep it in perspective too.

[Misshalfway]

Okay. That's helpful but how does it sink with the wording in Genesis.

Also I just want to clarify I'm not trying to be a troll, I'm just confused.

Remember that the LDS position is that we believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. The account of the creation in the Pearl sheds light and adds understanding to what the Bible is trying to say.

[Guest The_Doctor]

There are lots of scriptures that shed light on the creation part of your questions. Go read the creation story in the Pearl. You can also use the index in the triple to study spirit in the D&C.

I am not sure there is anything definitive on the eternal progression of God himself. The King Follet Discourse is the main source for that information and it has not been canonized. There are also questions about the accuracy of the text. There are, I believe, five versions of the discourse recorded. So, in my mind, we can appreciate what the discourse is trying to say but we kinda gotta keep it in perspective too.

Would it be more accurate to say that no one knows for certain about the Creation? That there's no "official" set belief on it, besides that God was the cause of it.

Edit: Okay.

Edited January 27, 2010 by The_Doctor
Seeing a New Post

[Misshalfway]

Would it be more accurate to say that no one knows for certain about the Creation? That there's no "official" set belief on it, besides that God was the cause of it.

Edit: Okay.

Not for me.

To say that there is probably more that we don't know about the creative process than we do know might be more accurate to me.:)

[Misshalfway]

Let me clarify. To say that there is no "official" belief is inaccurate. We believe in six creative periods. We believe God is literally the father of our spirits. There is an official position. But it would be inaccurate to say that we know everything about the creation.

Again, I suggest you study the Pearl. Lots of stuff in there. Are you TR holder? The temple is also a place where we learn about the creation.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Misshalfway

[Guest The_Doctor]

Are you TR holder? The temple is also a place where we learn about the creation.

No, not at the moment.

[hordak]

I've been hearing some strange things at my church and I thought I'd try asking you guys here.

Second I've heard the belief that God didn't really create the Universe. He just found the stuff (Hence the Lego set bit.) and put it together. Is there any scripture to support this also?

That is the 1st law of thermodynamics. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Discovered by a German Physician and Physicist in 1841. While it may not sound as "powerful" as the traditional view it would be the equivalent of Martin Luther teaching "Germ theory"(we get sick from little microscopic bugs) which isn't as "powerful" as "Sin causes sickness" that many taught, and some still do. When looking to be healed one relies on Germ theory, And anyone who has warmed by the fire, can testify to the truth of the first law of thermodynamics

One of the things I've been hearing is that supposedly Heavenly Father once was a human. And I don't mean the He has a body thing, but that once upon a time He was mortal and could sin. Is there any scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, or teachings of the prophets) that supports this?

You will find varying opinions on this among the members. But looking at the science again it is not as "powerful" as the traditional view, but everything (that i know of) starts out as a lesser form of itself .

[Guest The_Doctor]

Why does everyone keep bring up that one law of science that states matter and energy can't be created and destroyed? I mean were talking about matters science never was really equipped to discuss. I mean there's little evidence to support life after death yet we believe it.

[Misshalfway]

I personally think that God is the best scientist of all. His understanding of all eternal laws is immeasurable. It's also clear from 2 Nephi that God obeys those eternal laws. If he ceased to do so, he would cease to be God.

In my mind, there is no line between religion and science. Just the stuff we know and the stuff we don't. Truth is acquired in layers for us humans. We think we see the whole picture sometimes when really we just see a small piece. Doesn't mean we are wrong about that small piece.

[hordak]

If your looking for scripture

Abraham 3

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

[Guest The_Doctor]

I personally believe God doesn't follow the laws of science because He created them. He is able to make food appear on the desert floor, flood the planet, and has an immortal body just for some examples. And then Jesus has his own listed of scientific impossibilities (aka miracles). But I do believe God follows the spiritual laws.

Edit: But every book except the Book of Abraham uses the word create or created. Even the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price uses created.

Edited January 27, 2010 by The_Doctor
Seeing a New Post

[Elgama]

Not for me.

To say that there is probably more that we don't know about the creative process than we do know might be more accurate to me.:)

totally agreed - I always reckon us trying to understand the creative powers and makeup of God etc is like trying to watch a 3D movie without the special specs. I have my own theories but that is all they are they have some validity in scripture and LDS doctrine

[Misshalfway]

Edit: But every book except the Book of Abraham uses the word create or created. Even the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price uses created.

Could you explain why that is a problem for you? Does that make Abraham wrong in your thinking? Or could it simply make Abrahams account the most accurate when it comes to that wording? I am also not completely convinced that the word "create" means making something out of nothing. I can create a painting but I used materials like paint and paper and often the influences of other artists before me. I can also create a baby if I obey the right procedures. My body doesn't create that baby out of nothing. My body uses the egg and sperm to form a person - not to mention bringing an already created spirit into that body. God's process of creation, including creating things spiritually before they are created physically is much the same thing. Its about obedience. Even the very elements literally obey God. It is my belief that these "miracles" happen by way of commanding the elements to obey. Because we do not see the spectrum of possibilities that God does limits our ability to understand the "how".

You might also want to look at vs. 18 in Abr 4 where it says "the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed."

[Gwen]

Genesis 3

19 In the asweat of thy face shalt thou eat bbread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for cdust thou art, and unto ddust shalt thou return.

were you made out of dust?

[Misshalfway]

Good point, gwen. When we die our bodies don't just disappear.

[Guest The_Doctor]

Could you explain why that is a problem for you? Does that make Abraham wrong in your thinking? Or could it simply make Abrahams account the most accurate when it comes to that wording?

I would take that into consideration with the rest of the scriptures and the fact that the rest doesn't use that wording, so yes I would say it's wrong. But I have issues with Abraham to begin with. Maybe someday I won't but at the moment I do.

I've come to my own conclusions about these topics, so I'll probably leave this thread alone after this post. Thank you for the input to my questions.

[Traveler]

The Doctor: I believe there are several considerations.

1. Man is fallen and cut off from the Father – everything we know of the Father is through the example of Jesus Christ. Since Jesus demonstrated that a G-d can live and exist in a mortal body it is assumed that the Father could as well. That the Father lived as a mortal capable of sin is speculation but it is not difficult to understand that the Father has a physical body since the scriptures speak of man physical creation as being in the “image” and “likeness” of G-d. The ancient concept indicates a physical copy.

2. Creation: We know that even in extreme cases matter and energy are exchangeable. If G-d used “his power” to create the universe then his power was transformed into matter and the creation was not out of nothing.

3. The scriptures tell us that man is created by G-d. It is possible to study and observe the creation of a human – in fact this is somewhat documented and is part of “sex education”.

4. Most of us believe that G-d is honest and truthful and does not operate with deception. This would mean that G-d is not deliberately hiding his methods and how he created things. He is not trying to “trick” us. I personally do not believe G-d is a liar displaying openly physical laws that he does not utilize. There may be “scientific” things we do not understand but I do not believe G-d uses “magic” that he keeps hidden and secret so he can “fool” or deceive us concerning what actually happens. I personally believe that he wants us to understand more about him and that G-d (both Father and Son) has nothing to hide and actually wants us to come to understand and “know” them better.

5. The mystery of G-d – I believe to be a fabrication created by those that have purpose in keeping any truthful understanding of G-d from mankind.

The Traveler

[Blackmarch]

I've been hearing some strange things at my church and I thought I'd try asking you guys here.

One of the things I've been hearing is that supposedly Heavenly Father once was a human. And I don't mean the He has a body thing, but that once upon a time He was mortal and could sin. Is there any scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, or teachings of the prophets) that supports this?

GOd is a Man (or perhaps I should say, the Man) However to define what is human and what isn't in regards to God really doesn't work - GOd really hasnt' sharply defined humanity scripturewise. The other best support for God being a Man, and possibly having been as we are, is in the new testament where christ says he does all that he's seen his father do...

and that's about it.. the rest is mainly logical deduction and guesswork.

Second I've heard the belief that God didn't really create the Universe. He just found the stuff (Hence the Lego set bit.) and put it together. Is there any scripture to support this also?

yes and no. If I recall right there are some older manuscripts regarding whats translated as genesis where what was translated as "created" could also be translated as "organised" which would support the earth having been made from material.

As to the physical creation of this universe, there is really nothing to go either way with, as we have no idea how God influences the universe (or universes).