Who is God?

[circusboy01]

Is not Jesus our God, and wasn't Jesus born on this planet?

I thought Jesus was the God of the old testament Now Heavenly Father Elohiem ( not sure of spelling) is our God, and Jssus is our savior and mediator between us and God. Brother Ray

[Seminarysnoozer]

God has a physical body, so it must occupy physical space. So if the universe is defined as that which contains everything, then God must be in the universe. The only way for God to be outside of the universe is for him to be not real, and since we claim him to be real, he must be in the universe. The reality of God and his physical body is a core doctrine of Mormon theology. I believe that this doctrine takes precedence over whether or not he created the entire universe or just our part of it.

But his physical body is not made from corrupted material. It is made of a finer material than what we have within our scope now.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Why this obsession with our rank order in comparison to our Creator? When I post this, will the post curse me because it can never be what I am? Does a painting curse the artist because it can never be one? Do I blame my mother because I cannot cook like her? It seems to me to be a futile exercise for me to query my Heavenly Father because I cannot be a Heavenly Father. I am thankful for the role I have, and honored to be in God's eternal service.

The curse comes from what is in the heart. If it is one's heart to not be like our Father and to not be one with Him then that will be that person's destiny. God does not give gifts (eternal ones) that will be trampled. But, if we so desire, like the prodigal son returning home, we can have all that the Father has. Or was there something that the Father of the prodigal son did not give his son when he returned?

[Anddenex]

I thought Jesus was the God of the old testament Now Heavenly Father Elohiem ( not sure of spelling) is our God, and Jssus is our savior and mediator between us and God. Brother Ray

We believe in the Godhead. Jesus is God.

I still do not understand the full meaning of this verse, but I find it very intriguing to think about:

2 Nephi 11: 7:

For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and che is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.

I apologize Brother Ray, I wasn't avoiding your question... I didn't recognize the question was aimed at me until now.

[prisonchaplain]

The curse comes from what is in the heart. If it is one's heart to not be like our Father and to not be one with Him then that will be that person's destiny. God does not give gifts (eternal ones) that will be trampled. But, if we so desire, like the prodigal son returning home, we can have all that the Father has. Or was there something that the Father of the prodigal son did not give his son when he returned?

To stick with my analogy, my post is like me. It reflects my thoughts and my character. It expresses me in a particular context.

I am a child of God. I am a son of God. I will indeed be like him. The word we describe ourselves with--Christian--means Christ-like.

What I do not believe I will become is exactly what He is. Instead I will become the best possible expression of what he has created me to be. If my "ruling and reigning with him" ends up appearing as a god-like role I'll not shy away from it. I'll not protest because God seems to have crossed a doctrinal line.

On the other hand, neither will I be disappointed with whatever my role is. I do not strive to be anything other than what God has for me. I do not hold back, nor do I grasp. I know that I know that I know that what lies ahead is God's very best for me. I would never dream of accusing him of not giving me what I was due.

So, it's not that traditionalists are shrinking away from God's ultimate for us. Rather, we simply do not believe that future glory includes our becoming exactly what God is. We believe there is now and always only one God, and that our pleasure will be to forever represent him--as ambassadors, and probably as governors in his realm.

[Guest]

To stick with my analogy, my post is like me. It reflects my thoughts and my character. It expresses me in a particular context.

I am a child of God. I am a son of God. I will indeed be like him. The word we describe ourselves with--Christian--means Christ-like.

What I do not believe I will become is exactly what He is. Instead I will become the best possible expression of what he has created me to be. If my "ruling and reigning with him" ends up appearing as a god-like role I'll not shy away from it. I'll not protest because God seems to have crossed a doctrinal line.

On the other hand, neither will I be disappointed with whatever my role is. I do not strive to be anything other than what God has for me. I do not hold back, nor do I grasp. I know that I know that I know that what lies ahead is God's very best for me. I would never dream of accusing him of not giving me what I was due.

So, it's not that traditionalists are shrinking away from God's ultimate for us. Rather, we simply do not believe that future glory includes our becoming exactly what God is. We believe there is now and always only one God, and that our pleasure will be to forever represent him--as ambassadors, and probably as governors in his realm.

FWIW, PC, I agree with this and I think many LDS people do.

[Traveler]

To stick with my analogy, my post is like me. It reflects my thoughts and my character. It expresses me in a particular context.

I am a child of God. I am a son of God. I will indeed be like him. The word we describe ourselves with--Christian--means Christ-like.

What I do not believe I will become is exactly what He is. Instead I will become the best possible expression of what he has created me to be. If my "ruling and reigning with him" ends up appearing as a god-like role I'll not shy away from it. I'll not protest because God seems to have crossed a doctrinal line.

On the other hand, neither will I be disappointed with whatever my role is. I do not strive to be anything other than what God has for me. I do not hold back, nor do I grasp. I know that I know that I know that what lies ahead is God's very best for me. I would never dream of accusing him of not giving me what I was due.

So, it's not that traditionalists are shrinking away from God's ultimate for us. Rather, we simply do not believe that future glory includes our becoming exactly what God is. We believe there is now and always only one God, and that our pleasure will be to forever represent him--as ambassadors, and probably as governors in his realm.

As I read this I could understand that you think G-d deliberately created man to be forever inferior to him and in reality does not want or desire man to get too close to being like him. And that a true "Christian" should know and in truth treat everybody else in a likewise manner as inferior beings that will never measure up to what they are but should think of themselves as worms in comparison?

We thus become more like the G-d we worship - thinking those that do not believe as we do are worthy of the same dis-classification that separates us for G-d - should separate us from the unbelievers?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, I continue to find it unnecessary to use the word "inferior" to describe my relationship with God. Further, I do not find that most Christians treat others as inferior beings. I am a friend of God. He truly is my father. Why should I begrudge the Creator for making me whatever it is he has made me. Gratitude, rather than jealousy, is my appropriate response.

[Traveler]

Traveler, I continue to find it unnecessary to use the word "inferior" to describe my relationship with God. Further, I do not find that most Christians treat others as inferior beings. I am a friend of God. He truly is my father. Why should I begrudge the Creator for making me whatever it is he has made me. Gratitude, rather than jealousy, is my appropriate response.

As usual - I chose my words very carefully. It was intended more to induce thought than to criticize. The relationship of every human with G-d is referenced as a Father and offspring (son or daughter) as well as a loving friend who will die for his friends. But those that take upon them his very name of G-d by covenant are symbolized by something different. I would propose that the three most common symbols shown us by G-d are: first the marriage covenant (of becoming one). The next symbol is a oneness exactly like (in every detail) the oneness between Jesus and the Father. The third is a new birth - borne again of G-d.

All of these symbols imply equality void of any differentiating, even the slightest difference, in the same manner as Trinitarians do not differentiate the Holy Trinity. I wanted to test your waters to see how close you dare to come to what I believe to have come to understand.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

To stick with my analogy, my post is like me. It reflects my thoughts and my character. It expresses me in a particular context.

I am a child of God. I am a son of God. I will indeed be like him. The word we describe ourselves with--Christian--means Christ-like.

What I do not believe I will become is exactly what He is. Instead I will become the best possible expression of what he has created me to be. If my "ruling and reigning with him" ends up appearing as a god-like role I'll not shy away from it. I'll not protest because God seems to have crossed a doctrinal line.

On the other hand, neither will I be disappointed with whatever my role is. I do not strive to be anything other than what God has for me. I do not hold back, nor do I grasp. I know that I know that I know that what lies ahead is God's very best for me. I would never dream of accusing him of not giving me what I was due.

So, it's not that traditionalists are shrinking away from God's ultimate for us. Rather, we simply do not believe that future glory includes our becoming exactly what God is. We believe there is now and always only one God, and that our pleasure will be to forever represent him--as ambassadors, and probably as governors in his realm.

What God has for you is what you want. That may be where LDS view is a little different. We believe part of this life is to express the desires of our heart. If we show affinity towards worldly things, as opposed to godly or heavenly things then that becomes the desire of our heart. What God wants for us is to maintain our desire to be like Him that we had before coming here. We even believe that you had that desire before coming here as that is what it takes to pass the first estate test, it is just a matter of recalling that desire and letting it supersede any other desire, including passivity.

I believe your expression of your potential in God's kingdom is correct and I am sure that you attain what you want. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

[Traveler]

What God has for you is what you want. That may be where LDS view is a little different. We believe part of this life is to express the desires of our heart. If we show affinity towards worldly things, as opposed to godly or heavenly things then that becomes the desire of our heart. What God wants for us is to maintain our desire to be like Him that we had before coming here. We even believe that you had that desire before coming here as that is what it takes to pass the first estate test, it is just a matter of recalling that desire and letting it supersede any other desire, including passivity.

I believe your expression of your potential in God's kingdom is correct and I am sure that you attain what you want. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

I always seem to have a slightly different view than you - but on this point - that we become what we worship. This is why I believe that we must worship G-d in truth.

Where I differ slightly - I do not believe that desire of the heart is that important other than something that has our temporary attention. I believe we achieve anything worthwhile by discipline. Any one can wish but achievement is only obtained by discipline. If our notions of G-d are a mystery - we may wish to be like him but only that which we understand and discipline will change us. This is why I am saddened by those that think the most important attributes of G-d are a mystery.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

This discussion has suddenly become quite profound and interesting. I find myself agreeing with Traveler that truth and discipline trump what we desire. On the other hand, our dreams and goals are important. Also, that Traveler may be a better trinitarian than I am. He argues that Jesus and the Father are more one than I do. Traditionally, trinitarians have thought LDS allow too much separation, by calling the three united only in purpose. Yet, here is Traveler arguing that Jesus and the Father are exactly the same, even in the smallest detail. My response is that they are distinct persons. Fascinating! :-)

[Christyba75]

As of late, I find myself becoming more and more impatient with the oft used metaphors and analogies of the scriptures and gospel lingo. If God is real, then he's real, measurable, and definable. If he's beyond real then he's not completely knowable. I'm sure that someone will have some nice language to say that "God is mystery and we can grasp the wonderment of the eternities as we hearken to the spirit that is within the depths of our souls and pierce the mind of the grand creator, etc, etc . . . ". But I'm a human with a human mind that sees what I see and feels what I feel, which feelings are in my brain, not my cardiac muscle. If I am to continue to consider God as real, then I insist that he be real, even if he's beyond my current comprehension (because he's made with up-spin quarks and communicated via entangled neutrinos -- even in this case, he's made of real things that are in existence--not fairy dust and unicorn magic). Can God please be real? God, are you really there?

[volgadon]

then he's real, measurable, and definable

I'm sure he is, with the right set of knowledge. Something we do not fully possess.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I always seem to have a slightly different view than you - but on this point - that we become what we worship. This is why I believe that we must worship G-d in truth.

Where I differ slightly - I do not believe that desire of the heart is that important other than something that has our temporary attention. I believe we achieve anything worthwhile by discipline. Any one can wish but achievement is only obtained by discipline. If our notions of G-d are a mystery - we may wish to be like him but only that which we understand and discipline will change us. This is why I am saddened by those that think the most important attributes of G-d are a mystery.

The Traveler

Thanks, of course keep in mind that the "desires of the heart" is something that only God can truly see. It is not synonymous with consciousness. Sometimes people say they like things or simply go with the crowd or fold under peer pressure etc and that is not really the desire of their heart. It takes into account the corrupted influences from the brain that disrupt the underlying spirit self influences.

For example, a person might have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism and so they desire it physically but that may not really be the "desire of their heart".

By definition, all of us here desire to be like God. Some lose that desire during the course of their life and the carnal influences pulling them away from that original desire. Righteousness is defined by maintaining that desire, to wish to have the image of his countenance in ours.

[Seminarysnoozer]

This discussion has suddenly become quite profound and interesting. I find myself agreeing with Traveler that truth and discipline trump what we desire. On the other hand, our dreams and goals are important. Also, that Traveler may be a better trinitarian than I am. He argues that Jesus and the Father are more one than I do. Traditionally, trinitarians have thought LDS allow too much separation, by calling the three united only in purpose. Yet, here is Traveler arguing that Jesus and the Father are exactly the same, even in the smallest detail. My response is that they are distinct persons. Fascinating! :-)

The LDS use of "desire of the heart" as opposed to simply "desire" is defined by what the person truthfully wants beyond the carnal distractions of the body. Truth and discipline are a part of the hearts desire but leaves the judgement of things like "discipline" to God as only God can see the real desire of the heart. Again, desire of the heart is not synonymous with consciousness. I was not talking about "desire" alone because that would include the passing carnal desires of the body such as sexual desires, hunger, thirst, anger, fear, the desire to drink alcohol, smoke etc. (potentially). LDS believe we are dual beings both body and spirit. God can see the inner man, the spiritual self, where we have a hard time looking beyond the outer man, the carnal man, the body's influences.

If you think that God and Jesus are not exactly the same, then what specific thing does God posses that Jesus does not? (Outside of a name)

[Traveler]

As of late, I find myself becoming more and more impatient with the oft used metaphors and analogies of the scriptures and gospel lingo. If God is real, then he's real, measurable, and definable. If he's beyond real then he's not completely knowable. I'm sure that someone will have some nice language to say that "God is mystery and we can grasp the wonderment of the eternities as we hearken to the spirit that is within the depths of our souls and pierce the mind of the grand creator, etc, etc . . . ". But I'm a human with a human mind that sees what I see and feels what I feel, which feelings are in my brain, not my cardiac muscle. If I am to continue to consider God as real, then I insist that he be real, even if he's beyond my current comprehension (because he's made with up-spin quarks and communicated via entangled neutrinos -- even in this case, he's made of real things that are in existence--not fairy dust and unicorn magic). Can God please be real? God, are you really there?

I personally believe that not only is G-d real but that he is alive. Now wrap your entangled neutrinos around that one.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

This discussion has suddenly become quite profound and interesting. I find myself agreeing with Traveler that truth and discipline trump what we desire. On the other hand, our dreams and goals are important. Also, that Traveler may be a better trinitarian than I am. He argues that Jesus and the Father are more one than I do. Traditionally, trinitarians have thought LDS allow too much separation, by calling the three united only in purpose. Yet, here is Traveler arguing that Jesus and the Father are exactly the same, even in the smallest detail. My response is that they are distinct persons. Fascinating! :-)

Very good observation - however distinct does not mean different - though similar there is a differentiation in the terms. And you avoided the more important point - that we are one with G-d in the same manner that they are one with each other. Thus if you differentiate yourself from G-d the Father (and Jesus Christ) in any way that you do not agree that Jesus can also be differentiated - you have failed to complete being born of the spirit and are not one with G-d.

Many LDS when confronted with this conundrum begin to doubt and think - as you - such a thing is even possible even and especially with G-d.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Thanks, of course keep in mind that the "desires of the heart" is something that only God can truly see. It is not synonymous with consciousness. Sometimes people say they like things or simply go with the crowd or fold under peer pressure etc and that is not really the desire of their heart. It takes into account the corrupted influences from the brain that disrupt the underlying spirit self influences.

For example, a person might have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism and so they desire it physically but that may not really be the "desire of their heart".

By definition, all of us here desire to be like God. Some lose that desire during the course of their life and the carnal influences pulling them away from that original desire. Righteousness is defined by maintaining that desire, to wish to have the image of his countenance in ours.

I am attempting to introduce a "new" idea to you - that it is possible to "change" the desire of your heart. That through discipline you can change what is possible and even make that possibility - a reality.

However, you seem to be stuck in the idea that when someone fails it is because of something that cannot be understood that you call the desire of one's heart. We can understand desire as an element of self and when we indulge in self and selfish desires we take the first step to bondage - but when we sacrifice self and selfish desires by discipline we take the first step to freedom.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

If you think that God and Jesus are not exactly the same, then what specific thing does God posses that Jesus does not? (Outside of a name)

God (the Father) possesses the pain of seeing his Son endure the incarnation--especially that whole week we call the passion. Jesus, of course, possesses the direct experiences of the incarnation.

As for us, one obvious reason why traditionalists believe that we can never become what God is would be that we were created at a finite point in time. So, even though we may have an eternal future, but we came into existance at a specific moment.

[Christyba75]

I personally believe that not only is G-d real but that he is alive. Now wrap your entangled neutrinos around that one.

The Traveler

Wonderful! I can conceive of the same thing, (that's what "believe" means, right?) If humanity were allowed to exist long enough and expand beyond this planet, and if we're allowed to advance science, then could we eventually arrive at where God is (i.e. Kolob), or would he obstruct us? Maybe that's what the second coming is for, to short-circuit us and get us back to Heaven without us having to do the hard work of progressing as a species on our own -- sort of like a ladder in chutes and ladders. (There I go again using those metaphors that I disdain).

I'm aware that I'm asking odd questions. I would never do so in church. There, I speak like everyone else. I hope it's safe to ask such bizarre questions here. I'm sincere in my quest. I'm just trying to find answers to all the weird little things that I thought as a child, that I ignored during my mission and early marriage, and am now back to questioning. I'm really trying to understand if God is real in the sense that he's tangible or if he's real like the feelings of the mind. I have always been taught that he is present in the universe (or outside it -- whatever that could possible mean), but that as LDS, more than other religions, we believe that God is an individual with a body. I like that concept, and I hope that it's correct. But to say that "I know that God exists because of an emotion" then makes us question what it means to "know" something. "Know" then takes on a very different meaning than to say that I know that if I drop a ball it will fall. That is known because of testing a hypothesis. We still don't know 100.000% that the ball will fall every time, but we're 99.9999999% sure that every time I drop a ball whose density is greater than the surrounding atmosphere on earth that it will accelerate toward the center of the planet, and we call that 99.9999999% confidence "knowledge". When we say that we "know" God lives, aren't we saying that we can conceive of it, it may make reasonable sense in our understanding of everything (even though we must admit that there are other possibilities), we want it to be correct, our emotions make us feel good about that concept, and maybe we've even seen a cloud formation in the shape of a sheep? (I've actually heard that in a Fast & Testimony meeting).

Edited December 6, 2012 by Christyba75

[Vort]

It's fine to ask the question, but of course you will not get a definitive answer here (or anywhere else).

We cannot become like God merely by advancing our technology. That's like saying I want to become the President of the United States by wearing a really nice suit. Godliness is not about technology; it is about learning to love and interact with our fellowman while we learn about what faith is and how to use it to lift others.

A relentlessly naturalistic approach to religious truth will always, 100% of the time, end in disappointment.

[Christyba75]

It's fine to ask the question, but of course you will not get a definitive answer here (or anywhere else).

I agree. But why do you think that is?

We cannot become like God merely by advancing our technology. That's like saying I want to become the President of the United States by wearing a really nice suit.

I absolutely agree that we can not become someone else, but why can't we be in proximity to him? We can visit the White House; could we not eventually visit heaven or at least knock on the door, or will God physically hide it from us? And how do we know this?

Godliness is not about technology; it is about learning to love and interact with our fellowman while we learn about what faith is and how to use it to lift others.

Also agreed. But Godliness is a state of being that we can have right now and in which we can continually improve. Godliness is not the personage of God, but rather an attribute of him which we can emulate.

A relentlessly naturalistic approach to religious truth will always, 100% of the time, end in disappointment.

Why? I'm very serious about this. Why? And what is meant by "religious truth" and how does it differ from "non-religious truth". I assume that you just meant "truth". D&C 93:34 says, "And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come." Another way of saying this is that truth is knowledge of reality. Unless we want to debate what "reality" is, we should agree that something is real if it can be not only agreed upon, but demonstrated. It doesn't mean that it has been demonstrated, but that it conceptually could be. We expect that EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ. At that time, we will all be in agreement. But at this time, many are not. At this time, some say that if I wear a suicide vest and kill infidels, that I'll get 70 virgins, and then EVERYONE will know that Allah is God. As of now, that's not real, not demonstrable.

It seems like there is no other way to search for truth other than a naturalistic scientific way. Isn't anything else just shared imagination?

Help ye mine unbelief!

[Vort]

I agree. But why do you think that is?

Because truth either is revealed or it is not known. And God does not reveal such petty, mechanistic "truths".

I absolutely agree that we can not become someone else, but why can't we be in proximity to him? We can visit the White House; could we not eventually visit heaven or at least knock on the door, or will God physically hide it from us? And how do we know this?

We can. God invites us -- practically begs us -- to come unto him, know him, and gain proximity to him. But we must do it on his terms, and those terms do not include building a spaceship.

A relentlessly naturalistic approach to religious truth will always, 100% of the time, end in disappointment.

Why? I'm very serious about this. Why?

Because our only (or at least our best) tool for examining things in a naturalistic manner is science, and science has nothing at all to do with finding truth. We find real, lasting truth in only one way: It is revealed to us from God.

And what is meant by "religious truth" and how does it differ from "non-religious truth".

What I called "religious truth" is probably better called "truth," which scripture defines as a knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they will be. Science has no possible way of giving us any such knowledge; the best it can do is offer up models that allow us to get sort of a sense of how the mechanistic parts work. Divine revelation is the only manner of obtaining real, ultimate truth (as opposed to Real Ultimate Power, which is available at the click of a mouse).

I assume that you just meant "truth". D&C 93:34 says, "And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come." Another way of saying this is that truth is knowledge of reality.

Agreed.

Unless we want to debate what "reality" is, we should agree that something is real if it can be not only agreed upon, but demonstrated.

Disagreed, with both parts of the statement. A great many things we agree on are nevertheless false, products of our own ignorance. And a great many realities are utterly beyond demonstration. What is the exact surface temperature, to within half a Kelvin, of the antipodal point of the sun from our location at this moment? How many stars of our sun's size or greater are found in the Andromeda galaxy? What was the precise oxygen content of George Washington's blood when he began crossing the Delaware? More importantly, do I love my wife? I affirm that I do, but it's not demonstrable in any fixed sense.

It doesn't mean that it has been demonstrated, but that it conceptually could be.

Of course, quantum dynamics suggests that a great many things are unknowable by their physical nature. Does this mean they do not exist -- that they are not "true"?

t seems like there is no other way to search for truth other than a naturalistic scientific way. Isn't anything else just shared imagination?

To my mind, this demonstrates a lack of understanding of what science is and what it is not. Science is not philosophy. Science is not truth. Science is modeling. Truth exists independently and lasts forever. It is impossible to "disprove" truth, because (by definition) it is true, and you cannot "disprove" something that is true. But science disproves things all the time; that is the very definition of the scientific process. If something is not falsifiable -- my love for my wife, the existence of human life in the Andromeda galaxy, the existence of God -- then it is not a scientific topic. That does not mean it isn't real or true, just that science is incapable of examining it.

Help ye mine unbelief!

Hope that helps some.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I am attempting to introduce a "new" idea to you - that it is possible to "change" the desire of your heart. That through discipline you can change what is possible and even make that possibility - a reality.

However, you seem to be stuck in the idea that when someone fails it is because of something that cannot be understood that you call the desire of one's heart. We can understand desire as an element of self and when we indulge in self and selfish desires we take the first step to bondage - but when we sacrifice self and selfish desires by discipline we take the first step to freedom.

The Traveler

It is not a new idea it is just that I am being more specific. For example, your last sentence I would add an element of specificity; We can understand desires as an element of the carnal self versus the spirit self and when we indulge in the carnal self and it's associated selfish desires we take the first step to bondage - but when we can sacrifice carnal self and it's selfish desires by discipline we take the first step to spiritual freedom.

The misconception comes from the under appreciation of the role of the dual being and the temporary nature of carnal self. Can we change our temporary self (the combined carnal body and spirit)? Absolutely! That is the test we face, the given circumstances and then a measure of how much we change in this setting. Like the worker given 5 talents, what is he going to do with it, change it or hide it and lose it?

Edited December 6, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer