G-d the Father

[mrmarklin]

I have somehow acquired the notion that God the Father was once incarnate himself. Maybe it's from the scripture "As man is, God once was and as God is, man may become"

Where is that scripture by the way? It's in my head but I can't find the reference.

It's not a scripture per se, but it's what Mormons believe. God the Father was once a man like ourselves.

[Traveler]

It appears to me that there is a great deal of confusion concerning G-d - specifically concerning the persons of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Although the scriptures do indeed differentiate between the three with their various titles there is little known about their persons; with the grand exception of Jesus. But even concerning Jesus (of whom we know by far the most) we know very little.

Sometime ago in a conversation with a non-LDS poster on this very forum we concluded that getting to know the Father (for us) has come more from the experiences of being a loving caring parent than from doctrinal information in scripture.

I find it most interesting that Jesus taught that of all aspects of the nature of G-d that the most honored title reference to the first person of the G-dhead is the title of Father. I find it interesting because this title is also given to his male human creation that partner with G-d in propitiating the species most like G-d of all created life forms. But at the same time a title of equally divine importance is mother. Although there is no reference in scripture of any kind to a divine mother - there is in reality not that much more reference to the person that is our Father in Heaven.

An so it is that because of the baron landscape that so much speculation has risen throughout the history of mankind and even into our modern era. It is also interesting to me that so many religious thinkers are so reluctant in accepting that divine "person" uniquely as our Heavenly Father.

The Traveler

[mrmarklin]

If two people have 100% of something than there cannot be one over the other. QUOTE]

While this is a true statement in our limited comprehension, it has led to Trinitarianism ie. the concept where God, Christ and the Holy Ghost are one and the same.

I get what the trinitarians are saying, but in reality it defies logic. Conversely, they say that by God and Christ being "equal" and having all things also defies logic if they're separate!

We'll have to wait until the afterlife to fully understand the concept of receiving all things of the Father.

[Maureen]

While this is a true statement in our limited comprehension, it has led to Trinitarianism ie. the concept where God, Christ and the Holy Ghost are one and the same.

This is a little simplistic. In the Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct from each other but they are one God. In looking at man, I guess we can split him up into parts; we are part limbs, torso, head, etc. But God cannot be split into parts. The Father is not 1/3 God, he is all God; likewise with the Son and Holy Spirit.

I get what the trinitarians are saying, but in reality it defies logic. Conversely, they say that by God and Christ being "equal" and having all things also defies logic if they're separate!

Who's logic? Why must God only be understood by man's perception? If you can't understand who God is, then he can't be God? And if there is only one God, how could he have differing levels of glory and divinity?

M.

[Seminarysnoozer]

If two people have 100% of something than there cannot be one over the other. QUOTE]

While this is a true statement in our limited comprehension, it has led to Trinitarianism ie. the concept where God, Christ and the Holy Ghost are one and the same.

I get what the trinitarians are saying, but in reality it defies logic. Conversely, they say that by God and Christ being "equal" and having all things also defies logic if they're separate!

We'll have to wait until the afterlife to fully understand the concept of receiving all things of the Father.

If my computer shows the same postings as your computer then there is only one set of postings but on two computers. That does not defy logic at all.

[Traveler]

If my computer shows the same postings as your computer then there is only one set of postings but on two computers. That does not defy logic at all.

That may apply to computers but when it comes to intelligent spirit beings it contradicts the revelation given in Abraham Chapter 3.

The Traveler

[justinc]

They may experience it individually but it doesn't remain individual for very long, if not instantaneously.

They must experience their own individual states of consciousness, or else how could they tell themselves apart from each other as they so clearly do?

It is beyond our understanding but I think Christ attempted on many occasions to try to enlighten us about that ability to be one.

But is Jesus talking about our ability to become one being/person or is he talking about us becoming unified?

11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me

Paul often expresses the concept of being "in Christ" which scholars believe is a mystic metaphor, perhaps belonging to or having a sense of devotion - or having the entire life bound up with the person referred. The reference you quote hardly shows that the Father and Son are indistinguishable, rather it shows their close relationship of unity.

[Seminarysnoozer]

They must experience their own individual states of consciousness, or else how could they tell themselves apart from each other as they so clearly do?

But is Jesus talking about our ability to become one being/person or is he talking about us becoming unified?

Paul often expresses the concept of being "in Christ" which scholars believe is a mystic metaphor, perhaps belonging to or having a sense of devotion - or having the entire life bound up with the person referred. The reference you quote hardly shows that the Father and Son are indistinguishable, rather it shows their close relationship of unity.

Do you believe you can hide anything from God? How about a thought or an experience? How about a desire or something learned?

How did Christ pay for our sins without knowing what they were?

You are asking 'how'? That I can't answer. All I can say is that we believe He has that ability.

[Seminarysnoozer]

That may apply to computers but when it comes to intelligent spirit beings it contradicts the revelation given in Abraham Chapter 3.

The Traveler

Please be more specific as I don't see that when I read Abraham 3 but also keep in mind that we were talking about glorified beings that exist in the highest level of the Celestial kingdom. We were not talking about intelligent beings prior to them achieving that state.

[Traveler]

Please be more specific as I don't see that when I read Abraham 3 but also keep in mind that we were talking about glorified beings that exist in the highest level of the Celestial kingdom. We were not talking about intelligent beings prior to them achieving that state.

Then you have misread verse 18 that obviously is in references to a "unchanging eternal state". The term "gnolaum" which is specific to intelligences of even the highest level (including the Celestial Kingdom). Which makes the understanding inclusive throughout eternity and not exclusive to a pre-existence as you are trying to interpret it.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

....

Paul often expresses the concept of being "in Christ" which scholars believe is a mystic metaphor, perhaps belonging to or having a sense of devotion - or having the entire life bound up with the person referred. The reference you quote hardly shows that the Father and Son are indistinguishable, rather it shows their close relationship of unity.

To begin - I agree with your understanding that the Father and the Son are distinguishable persons. And this thread is intended to highlight how scripture and various religious theologies attempt to make such distinctions. What I am attempting to do is add to my personal research; a sanity check, by seeing what others think they have found to consider what I may have missed. Those of a different religious stripe are of particular interest to me - if they are willing to submit their findings to some scrutiny.

However, often in such discussions, we mortals like to make reference to "scholars" which we have determined to be experts. I would point out that historically a reference to experts have never (note the reference to never) turned out well in the various epochs provided to us in scripture. Perhaps the worst case scenario would be the Scribes and Pharisees that despite all their so-called wisdom they crucified the very Christ to which the scriptures, in which they were so expert, was testified of. Here are a few scriptures you may find interesting concerning this subject:

1Corinthians 1:19-20

Jeremiah 9:23

Isaiah 29:14

So I am very interested - in both what individuals have come to believe and why specifically they believe. In the fields of science I sometimes encounter someone that has difficulty understanding why they believe what they do. Usually this is because they have not really done their homework in the matter. In the religious arena I find this also to be the case but with the cavort that such is more the rule than the exception. For whatever reason those of religious stripe seem to have a much higher percent of individuals that have acquired their beliefs from un-scrutinized sources or unverified sources. Leaving religious dis-unified and theology in a state of literal chaos and confusion.

The Traveler

[justinc]

Do you believe you can hide anything from God? How about a thought or an experience? How about a desire or something learned?

Nothing can be hidden from an omniscient being, including my thoughts, experience, desires etc. Me and God have individual minds, even though he knows whats happening in mine by virtue of his being God :).

How did Christ pay for our sins without knowing what they were?

How did lambs atone for sins without knowing what the sins were? I don't think its necessary to know what the sins were. Jesus own self understanding was probably that he was suffering for the sins of the world. In him, the totality of sin was being condemned in the flesh.

[justinc]

For whatever reason those of religious stripe seem to have a much higher percent of individuals that have acquired their beliefs from un-scrutinized sources or unverified sources. Leaving religious dis-unified and theology in a state of literal chaos and confusion.

I agree. Sometimes things are left unchecked, which is why I think anyone who wishes to seriously understand Christianity should know it is a lifelong learning process of reading and revising.

[Seminarysnoozer]

They must experience their own individual states of consciousness, or else how could they tell themselves apart from each other as they so clearly do?

But is Jesus talking about our ability to become one being/person or is he talking about us becoming unified?

Paul often expresses the concept of being "in Christ" which scholars believe is a mystic metaphor, perhaps belonging to or having a sense of devotion - or having the entire life bound up with the person referred. The reference you quote hardly shows that the Father and Son are indistinguishable, rather it shows their close relationship of unity.

I never said they didn't experience it separately. I am not sure why you think I am making that point. I never said that. I simply said that they share their experiences.

If my husband and I share a bank account, he makes money puts it into the bank account and I put money in the bank account, what we own together in that bank account is one amount, the sum total of both of our input. Even though there are two separate inputs the sum is one and we both own 100% of the sum as joint owners of the account. What you are trying to argue is that because there are two separate consciousness that it must remain separate. I don't think you can know that. If you already believe that God can know of your conscious then I don't see how it is too far of a stretch for you to comprehend the idea of shared experience, shared glory, shared joy, thus making it endless joy and endless happiness. As more and more join the 'bank account' so-to-speak, the glory is magnified and eternally increasing (of course, the 'bank account' has little to do with physical possession but more to do with glory and honor which we know can be given as Christ gives His glory to God) and yet not consumed or divided. This is what allows for eternal joy.

What does it mean to have an eye single to the glory of God? Why would God want that if the system is one in which we have different 'accounts'. Those who know how to love their neighbor as their self start not to see the neighbor as a "separate" being even though they are. That characteristic is empathy and charity which is the pure love of Christ. Pure love is the method in which all experienced is shared. That is what we are trying to learn and show we are capable of here, for a reason. We get what we want.

Another example of this is when one's own child gets an A in class, they are more likely to be affected by that than if another child gets an A. If we become that connected with God, then every achievement He or I make is shared in it's affect as if I or He did it. The result of the action is shared without having to make the same action. Just like my husband's income is shared without me having to make it myself and he shares mine.

Christ is the example of doing something for someone else so they can reap the benefit of the action without forcing them to do it for their self, so long as they remain on the account (so-to-speak). Vicarious acts of love is what being Christ like, charitable, is all about. Showing faith in that system is what allows it to work. If I though my husband would take his share out of the bank some day (if I didn't have faith in him) then I wouldn't see the bank account as really being shared. ... unified but not shared. There is a difference.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Nothing can be hidden from an omniscient being, including my thoughts, experience, desires etc. Me and God have individual minds, even though he knows whats happening in mine by virtue of his being God :).

How did lambs atone for sins without knowing what the sins were? I don't think its necessary to know what the sins were. Jesus own self understanding was probably that he was suffering for the sins of the world. In him, the totality of sin was being condemned in the flesh.

God the Father has offered us all that He has. ... unless of course, you don't want all and repeatedly tell yourself that you don't and can't. He won't give you something you don't want. Lucifer before this world began wanted only that which he could claim as a proprietary ownership as he didn't want to give credit to someone else for his own glory. This goes against God's plan. God's plan is to give glory to those who would receive it and yet not claim it as a single ownership. The prodigal son was given all when he returned and there was celebration even after he had wasted his original inheritance. By living with his father and not claiming any personal ownership, separate from the whole then he can have all as opposed to a portion. Those who desire a portion can have a portion but their treasure will turn to dust.

Lambs do not atone for sins. They were offered in similitude of the true offering under the preparatory law as a shadow of what was the true sacrifice. Hebrews 10; " 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:"

Partaking of the sacrament or fast offerings and even tithing do not atone for sin but do allow us to more in tune to the spirit and avoid sin and renew our covenants.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I agree. Sometimes things are left unchecked, which is why I think anyone who wishes to seriously understand Christianity should know it is a lifelong learning process of reading and revising.

The spirit teaches all that is needed, combined with a hunger for the truth. It is only learned by the spirit there is no other way. There is no revising necessary when guided by a Prophet of God. You are right in that those that are lost in the mist of confusion and fail to hold onto the iron rod can spend a lifetime trying to understand and never arrive at a serious understanding.

[justinc]

There is no revising necessary when guided by a Prophet of God.

The Adam-God doctrine was taught. And then revised by succeeding Prophets. Prophets are subject to the word of God.

[Traveler]

The Adam-God doctrine was taught. And then revised by succeeding Prophets. Prophets are subject to the word of God.

One of my favorite (for fun) moments is in sports when a player in football got the ball and took off the wrong direction. We see similar things happen in intellectual debates. For example, many religious apologist of the Christian stripe believe that Darwin believed and thought that man evolved from apes and even today evolutionist had proven conclusively that man did not evolve from apes.

I have personally appreciated your thought that a quest for truth is not an event of conversion but a life long pursuit. Both to understand truth and to apply truth in our lives. I believe Christ taught to pursue all truth and thought he taught eternal principles of religious nature he never discarded the importance of pursuing any truth.

As a scientist involved in artificial intelligence I am very intrigued by our increasing understanding of intelligence derived from what we are calling the "Hive mind". Which is distributed (individuals) intelligence unified in a common cause. Note my use of the term distributed. This implies some very important notions about the contributions of non homogenous individuals blended in common cause. I am not sure very many believers in a supreme G-d comprehend the magnitude of such a concept and the purpose of G-d creating intelligent individuals in his image.

I would also like to address your comment concerning Adam-G-d:

First: because very few understand the concept - like the misunderstanding of Darwin - when one sentence is removed from the context of thousands of sentences; the wrong concept is portrayed. In light of the hive mind intelligence, the concept of Adam-G-d takes on a vastly different concept that even few LDS appreciate.

Second: Because few address what we learn about G-d the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Especially because of comments from Isaiah.

But it is from Isaiah that I want to bring to light the final thought in this particular post.

Isaiah 28 9 ¶Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

The Adam-God doctrine was taught. And then revised by succeeding Prophets. Prophets are subject to the word of God.

There is a difference between revision and enlightenment. Like Traveler's post from Isaiah and Christ' description of the need for animal sacrifice, we learn line upon line. That does not mean anything was revised.

Definition re·vise; Verb Reconsider and alter (something) in the light of further evidence.

Noun A proof including corrections made in an earlier proof.

en·light·en;

Verb Give (someone) greater knowledge and understanding about a subject or situation. Give (someone) spiritual knowledge or insight.

Nothing altered, just greater understanding. Calculus doesn't make multiplication false.

[justinc]

There is a difference between revision and enlightenment.

"Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This [i.e., Brigham Young's teaching on Adam], however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel." - Bruce R. McConkie (Quorum of the Twelve Apostles), letter to Eugene England, p. 6, 19 February 1981

“To be sure Brigham Young and a few others taught that [Adam-God] for a period of years. But by the criteria I have just given you it would not qualify as being the doctrine of the church because frankly when President Young passed away that doctrine passed away with him. - Robert L. Millet (Professor of Ancient Scripture, Brigham Young University), Dialogue with Greg Johnson, Mt. Olympus Presbyterian, 23 April 2006

Does this sound like the Adam-God doctrine was revised?

[Dlowellbrown]

God and Christ are equal in power, knowledge, dominion and all other things. That being said, the Godhead are three separate beings. God the Father, creator of all. Jesus , savior of all things that God created. Holy Ghost, revelator of all truth to all things God created.

Knowing God and knowing Christ is effectively the same thing because Christ has all that the Father has.

Does God have more Glory than Jesus? No. Jesus glorifies God, but God gives all that He has to Jesus and anyone else who becomes exalted. Those who are exalted will eternally glorify God, but as heirs of all that He has will also receive glory even as they give it.

[Traveler]

God and Christ are equal in power, knowledge, dominion and all other things. That being said, the Godhead are three separate beings. God the Father, creator of all. Jesus , savior of all things that God created. Holy Ghost, revelator of all truth to all things God created.

Knowing God and knowing Christ is effectively the same thing because Christ has all that the Father has.

Does God have more Glory than Jesus? No. Jesus glorifies God, but God gives all that He has to Jesus and anyone else who becomes exalted. Those who are exalted will eternally glorify God, but as heirs of all that He has will also receive glory even as they give it.

For sake of discussion rather than argument I would like to respond. First by saying thank you for your input. It would seem to me, as I try to understand eternal things that in reality the Father is greater than the Son. In fact these are the teachings of Christ - that the Father is greater. I would be interested in why you think that the Father and the Son are equal in "Power". I am a little uncertain what you mean by power?

Let me give a little example: Let us talk about the power of love. Those that give the most love to others have the greater power of love. They do not lose what they give but rather the gain greater power by giving. As I understand divine beinsg in heaven, the valid measure of power is through their service and what they give. For this reason I believe Jesus rightfully recognized the Father is greater than him.

Then to creation. When we talk about creation - we are told in scripture that all things were created by "the Word" or Jesus Christ. For me, I envision the Father as the architect and Jesus and the contractor that implemented (build) the creation to the Father's plans (which includes principles and laws that governed how things were put together and remain and function even now).

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

For sake of discussion rather than argument I would like to respond. First by saying thank you for your input. It would seem to me, as I try to understand eternal things that in reality the Father is greater than the Son. In fact these are the teachings of Christ - that the Father is greater. I would be interested in why you think that the Father and the Son are equal in "Power". I am a little uncertain what you mean by power?

Let me give a little example: Let us talk about the power of love. Those that give the most love to others have the greater power of love. They do not lose what they give but rather the gain greater power by giving. As I understand divine beinsg in heaven, the valid measure of power is through their service and what they give. For this reason I believe Jesus rightfully recognized the Father is greater than him.

Then to creation. When we talk about creation - we are told in scripture that all things were created by "the Word" or Jesus Christ. For me, I envision the Father as the architect and Jesus and the contractor that implemented (build) the creation to the Father's plans (which includes principles and laws that governed how things were put together and remain and function even now).

The Traveler

You have to compare apples to apples though. At that point when he stated that, he was mortal. Now, or after He receives a fullness, He is equal in all things. Else, what is meant by fullness? Does it really mean part?

[Traveler]

You have to compare apples to apples though. At that point when he stated that, he was mortal. Now, or after He receives a fullness, He is equal in all things. Else, what is meant by fullness? Does it really mean part?

Hmmmmm: Perhaps because of my scientific and mathematical background -- equal means something "different" to me than it does to you. In essence as long as there is any "difference" two separate things or persons are not equal. For me as long as you or I have our identity we are not equal. We may be "one" but we are not equal. But if you think that by being one we are equal - I understand your interpretation but even thought I have given you all my thoughts in this matter and you have given me all your thoughts - and we are one - we are still not equal.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Hmmmmm: Perhaps because of my scientific and mathematical background -- equal means something "different" to me than it does to you. In essence as long as there is any "difference" two separate things or persons are not equal. For me as long as you or I have our identity we are not equal. We may be "one" but we are not equal. But if you think that by being one we are equal - I understand your interpretation but even thought I have given you all my thoughts in this matter and you have given me all your thoughts - and we are one - we are still not equal.

The Traveler

All of my thoughts and all of your thoughts does not make 100%, whereas God and all that are like Him have 100%. All is equal to all. And all includes everything the other person has.

If I put all my money in a bank account and my husband puts all his money in that same bank account and we are joint owners of the bank account then we both own 100% of the bank account. We are equal in our ownership and there is no difference in what one owns over the other.

The glory of God, of which we are supposed to all have an eye single to, is something that is co-owned.

The hang up is when we throw in the equation any idea of proprietary ownership, which by definition is satanic.

If you give me all your thoughts in this matter and they are exactly like mine and I receive them as if they are my own and you likewise then in that matter our thoughts would be equal. The problem is that in this life and in this state you and I do not have the ability to perceive all our thoughts and make them our own from the other.