G-d the Father

[Seminarysnoozer]

There is a flaw in your logic and the way you apply it. Was it true 6,000 years ago that G-d the Father is greater than all others? If it was true before the fall of man then according to your logic it is unchangeable and is still true. Or it really was not true to begin with.

The Traveler

No, there is a flaw in your logic. To compare requires two points. All that has to change is one of the two to change the comparison.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I agree with the first sentence, however the second sentence appears contradictory. How can God be greater, if in your sentiment (if I understood you correctly) they are indistinguishable? This would imply they are different if one is "greater" than the other. Otherwise, by sharing none would be greater.

I understand this is how you feel, believe, however I am not so sure this would be correct. I definitely think God's 100% is different than Christ's 100%. I will eventually have a fullness of the Father, however he will always be greater than I. My 100% will be different, because I will not have his glory.

How then did Stephen distinguish the Father from the Son if they are of the same glory, and how did he know it was Christ on the right side?

Sorry for the confusing speech.

In reference to the first paragraph here, I was using the word "greater" to mean God's own eternal progression, His work and His glory, in comparing God to God not to someone or something else. I was referring to His works without end as opposed to being a stagnant God.

Going back to the metaphor of a bank account, if your name is on God's bank account, glory is shared as we give all with an eye single to the glory of God, then you would not have a portion of God's glory, you would have 100% as your name is on the account as well as everyone else who makes it to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. Just like there was one Kingdom or land in the story of the prodigal son. It is when it is divided, i.e. - the son that took his portion, that it becomes less than the whole.

To divvy up the glory or to break it into proprietary pieces is not Celestial, at least the way I understand it. That is what Lucifer wanted to do, you get yours and I get mine attitude, separate accounts. That is essentially what evil is. Whereas Celestial is to love your neighbor as self and to love God with all your heart might mind etc. A Celestial focus is on the one account, the one glory, God's glory.

When God gives an inheritance, is it removed from what He has as if it is taken from one account and put into another or is it shared? My belief is that it is shared. If it is shared and not broken off or taken away from the whole then it is certainly possible to share 100%. If it is shared then it is still "God's glory" just the same as when Eloheim received His share of all that was before and all that is to come making Him eternal as "God's glory" itself.

God, wants us to be connected under covenants, to be sealed to each other for a reason.

I am sure Stephen distinguished the two the same way Joseph did, one pointed to the other and said 'This is my Son'.

I realize the Father will always be our Father and we will always be His children but that in and of itself does not create a distinguishable feature. A perfect offspring would be one that is exactly like the parent. I don't think each consecutive generation in God's eternal rounds becomes less and less as time goes on. I think the round is perpetual and doesn't decline in momentum or strength. It actually does the opposite, it grows and grows. Like the effect of compounding interest, it exponentially grows when the interest is put back into the same pot. If it is divided it does not compound. Eternal joy is eternal because it is shared. It is shared by way of covenants and by the first and second greatest commandments. Christ' example is that He gives all the glory back into the one account, gives it to God. This is the way glory is eternal and ever expanding.

One other thing to ponder is whether God could be God by Himself? Or is God who He is by way of His social traits? If sociability is required as it is required of us to become like God, then already one is admitting that He shares His glory with someone else. For example, it is required of us to be a part of the new and everlasting covenant to reach the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. God's nature is dependent on social relationships.

By the way, if one doesn't want to be a part of that type of system, if one tells their self that they do not want to keep their eye "single", that they would rather have a portion then God allows for that. He will give them what they want. Like the prodigal son, He allows us to take a portion as opposed to the whole if that is what we want. If one is not willing to submit to the "whole, shared" plan then they won't be a part of it. God and Christ both are submissive to the plan and will always be. If we take a portion then we did not get a fullness, by definition. If we really do everything with an eye single to the glory of God, then how can one say I am okay receiving only a portion of the glory of God. The way one receives a portion is by wishing for an "account" that is separate from the shared one. Then God will give what is wanted.

[Traveler]

No, there is a flaw in your logic. To compare requires two points. All that has to change is one of the two to change the comparison.

You insisted that truth never changes and that is the point. If G-d the Father is really the same yesterday, today and forever and if that principle is the truth and if G-d ever was "greater than all" and if that is indeed the truth - then he is the "greatest of all" yesterday, today and forever. If G-d ceases be the greatest then his nature of being greatest has changed and G-d is not what he use to be and he is no longer G-d.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

You insisted that truth never changes and that is the point. If G-d the Father is really the same yesterday, today and forever and if that principle is the truth and if G-d ever was "greater than all" and if that is indeed the truth - then he is the "greatest of all" yesterday, today and forever. If G-d ceases be the greatest then his nature of being greatest has changed and G-d is not what he use to be and he is no longer G-d.

The Traveler

The title "God" is the greatest, I do not disagree with that because 100% is the greatest. That does not mean that others cannot have the same title. What is defined as "100%" can change, expand even though the title of "100%" never changes. See multiple discussions about the word "perfect".

Are you saying that it is impossible to be like God? Even a perfect being like Christ cannot be like God?

Is God's eternal spouse less than the greatest? ...she must live in a different mansion then.

There is only one way that equality could be reached and that is by grace, by inheritance or a gift. If it was based in singular effort, I agree, nobody could ever reach God. But we do not believe that. We believe in an inheritance (i.e. - something given that was not developed or earned on individual effort). Do you think God earned an inheritance at some point or was His method like Lucifer's proprietary reward, not shared.

There is only one "God" for all time and eternity. That is exactly why I am saying that the only way to have the one is to be part of the one. Again, it is like saying there is only one bank account that contains all the funds. The only way to have it all is to share it all, to put your name on the account with everyone else. Once a person's name is on the account then they automatically become part of the never changing one account that has no beginning and no end. Once a person wants to break away from that idea, like Lucifer did, it cannot be an account (glory) without beginning or end.

Do you think God could be God by Himself? Could He achieve Godhood without ever having any interaction with any other being? The moment a social interaction is required to be like God is the moment that glory cannot be a single proprietary thing, it has to be shared. The more alone a person is, the less like God they are, like the single stars in the sky.

[mordorbund]

From the King Follett Discourse:

What did

Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling

into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling,

and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to

My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt

Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His

place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the

tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus

glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children.

It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first

principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said.

It sounds like Joseph thinks the Son remains eternally subordinate to the Father in dominion and glory.

[Seminarysnoozer]

From the King Follett Discourse:

It sounds like Joseph thinks the Son remains eternally subordinate to the Father in dominion and glory.

I think that statement is misinterpreted in one specific way. I think people assume that when the Kingdom is presented to the Father that it is taken away from the person that presents it. There is nothing there that says once the Kingdom is presented it is therefore taken away from the one who presents it. In fact, it says because it is presented He becomes exalted and INHERITS everything the Father did before.

That is like saying, when one puts their name on the joint account by putting all they have into the account then suddenly that person inherits all that was in the account and the original account holders have more.

How do you know that the treading in His footsteps happens nearly instantaneously. In other words, treading in His footsteps is another way of saying, whatever God does becomes the Son's, they walk the same path, they make the same moves. If He treads in His footsteps then that suggests again that they are not discernible in any specific way, they don't walk different paths.

One other important point in that statement is that it is possible to INHERIT everything God did before. In other words, it is possible to become part of the endless and no beginning system by inheriting it all. The Kingdom is presented, God receives it and THEN the Son inherits all that God has (which includes what was just presented), ALL that God has at that moment.

[Traveler]

I think that statement is misinterpreted in one specific way. I think people assume that when the Kingdom is presented to the Father that it is taken away from the person that presents it. There is nothing there that says once the Kingdom is presented it is therefore taken away from the one who presents it. In fact, it says because it is presented He becomes exalted and INHERITS everything the Father did before.

That is like saying, when one puts their name on the joint account by putting all they have into the account then suddenly that person inherits all that was in the account and the original account holders have more.

How do you know that the treading in His footsteps happens nearly instantaneously. In other words, treading in His footsteps is another way of saying, whatever God does becomes the Son's, they walk the same path, they make the same moves. If He treads in His footsteps then that suggests again that they are not discernible in any specific way, they don't walk different paths.

One other important point in that statement is that it is possible to INHERIT everything God did before. In other words, it is possible to become part of the endless and no beginning system by inheriting it all. The Kingdom is presented, God receives it and THEN the Son inherits all that God has (which includes what was just presented), ALL that God has at that moment.

Hmmmm: It seems to me your thinking is in essence one dimensional. It was once said that the only true gift is the gift of one's self - anything else is just a cheep substitution. We have had many discussions in the past about that kind of thinking that comes from a fallen state or from the mind of the "natural man".

You just do not seem to understand that giving - in and of itself makes the giver greater than the receiver. So let me now ask you - what have you, or what can you give to G-d that makes your gift to him equal to his gift to you?

• Luke 17:10

  10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

• Mosiah 2:21

  21 I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.

The Traveler

[mrmarklin]

From the King Follett Discourse:

It sounds like Joseph thinks the Son remains eternally subordinate to the Father in dominion and glory.

This is the problem trinitarianism was invented to solve. If the Christ is a "creature" (ie. created by) of the Father it logically follows that He is inferior. He's not, but trinitarianism appears to solve the conundrum.

In Mormon belief we all have the possibility in sharing God's glory.

I look at it as analogous to a business partnership. If I let my son (or anyone else) in as a partner, and give them a share that is equal to mine, and business doubles as a result, we are equal in that partnership in all respects. Have the same goals, business methods (beliefs) and share in the profits equally, etc etc.

We are still different people.:)

I think this is what is meant by receiving all things. And the more people God can admit to His partnership the better off He feels (gaining glory) because of the increasing success of the partnership.

Edited August 7, 2013 by mrmarklin

[Traveler]

This is the problem trinitarianism was invented to solve. If the Christ is a "creature" (ie. created by) of the Father it logically follows that He is inferior. He's not, but trinitarianism appears to solve the conundrum.

In Mormon belief we all have the possibility in sharing God's glory.

I look at it as analogous to a business partnership. If I let my son (or anyone else) in as a partner, and give them a share that is equal to mine, and business doubles as a result, we are equal in that partnership in all respects. Have the same goals, business methods (beliefs) and share in the profits equally, etc etc.

We are still different people.:)

I think this is what is meant by receiving all things. And the more people God can admit to His partnership the better off He feels (gaining glory) because of the increasing success of the partnership.

Perhaps - but I think this view is medieval thinking left over from the Dark Ages. And I think this is why so many have problems with G-d being greater. In Medieval times only the noble born could be the king and Lords. It had nothing to do with their worthiness and inward nobility only that they were superior by divine decree. In LDS theology we are not just another creation experiment but rather we are divine offspring with all the genetics as a likeness of our Father in Heaven.

Perhaps my views come from my earthly upbringing. Being the son of a great and respected parents I always walked in the shadow of my father. I would take those interested to the bedside of my father in his last moments. There he apologized for raising me far below his vast economic capabilities. He said he would make it up with an inheritance of opulence. It was interesting to me that this was the first and only time he said to me that he was pleased with me as a son. Always before he had encouraged me to do better - because I am his son. I was the son that was to run for political office. But after Nixon I parted forever from the Republican party and the parting was quite bitter. I could not deal with the corruption as my father had - I could not follow in his footsteps.

I told my father I had all ready inherited everything of value (including the priesthood) what I would receive would be passed on in his name. Any inheritance I received from him would be given in his name. That he would be better off giving to someone else that would build upon what he had built. That would give back more. Someone that because they were given much that much could be expected. That is when he, for the first time expressed his appreciation to me.

Being my father's son opened many doors for me that would not have otherwise been open. I know what it is to live in the shadow of someone greater and still make my lesser mark. I do not have to be the best. I do just fine being in the background. I do not need to be the bishop - I can be just the home teacher or the primary teacher. I have no problem with with someone of good intention being in charge and making all the important decisions. I have no problem with my Father in Heaven or his Son giving me assignments. Like the prodigal son - I have no more wish than being even a underpaid servant in my Father's household. I really do not care if my older brother inherits more than me - We all know he deserves it much more than me. I owe it to both of them.

The Traveler

Edited August 8, 2013 by Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Hmmmm: It seems to me your thinking is in essence one dimensional. It was once said that the only true gift is the gift of one's self - anything else is just a cheep substitution. We have had many discussions in the past about that kind of thinking that comes from a fallen state or from the mind of the "natural man".

You just do not seem to understand that giving - in and of itself makes the giver greater than the receiver. So let me now ask you - what have you, or what can you give to G-d that makes your gift to him equal to his gift to you?

The Traveler

There is only one thing that is equal, which is to give 100% of their life, their heart, might, mind and strength. A 100% gift would equal a 100% gift. The "gift" is a commitment or covenant to share all. D&C 42; " 2 Therefore, O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him with all your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blameless before God at the last day."

Mark 12; " 41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:

44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living."

The scriptures you quoted is exactly why we need Christ to make it "100%". Then we can truly come to the table with 100%.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Seminarysnoozer

[mordorbund]

I think that statement is misinterpreted in one specific way. I think people assume that when the Kingdom is presented to the Father that it is taken away from the person that presents it. There is nothing there that says once the Kingdom is presented it is therefore taken away from the one who presents it. In fact, it says because it is presented He becomes exalted and INHERITS everything the Father did before.

I know there are portions of the discourse that can be interpreted that way. That's why I bolded the portion that speaks of a continued hierarchy. Jesus rises to the level of the Father, but the Father rises to a greater exaltation. Greater than what He had before (which is what Jesus receives) and greater than what Jesus has!

I appreciate the lengths you've gone to in explaining that kingdoms and dominions given to the Father are not lost or taken from the giver. My understanding of it is with the principle of stewardship. I pay my tithing, but the Lord doesn't take it, He returns it back to me in the form of funds for the scouting program and commands me to be a good steward. It's not mine, but then again, it was never really mine to begin with. And yet, where the rubber meets the road, here I am writing checks with the same discretion as though it were indeed my own. Father Adam will one day give his dominion to Christ, but I doubt that we'll ever stop thinking of him outside of that stewardship. Jesus recognizes that the judgment He has comes from the Father.

I wonder if we think about the inheritance in too materialistic terms. Perhaps "all that the Father hath" is really an ascension track. Or perhaps it is God-principles that empower Him to reign. My hypothetical father went to college, got married, bought a house, and started a successful business. From him I can inherit 1) his house, and his business, and whatever increase he's accumulated in his life (if we're being even more literal, I also inherit his children and his relationships) - this is my understanding of the "inherit all" model you're perpetuating, with the exception that all my siblings will also inherit his house, and his business, and whatever he's accumulated in his life (we don't split it, we each get all); 2) college tuition, a trust fund to get me started as a newlywed, the downpayment for a house, and a starter fund for a business - this would be an example of us inheriting the "exaltation ladder", you've climbed the stairs of the skyscraper all the way up to the celestial floor, now we'll take you to the other side of the building where you'll find the stairs to the "worlds without end" floors - all the opportunities for the same experiences but without the literalness; 3) the value of an education, family values, a sense for "homestead", and a work ethic coupled with the entrepreneurial spirit - this would be inheriting all the attributes of godhood without necessarily the same dominions.

In the last two instances, we get the equality of D&C 76 but the gradation of D&C 130 (the principle of intelligence creating "so much the advantage"). For those two models, you have the same glories (based on attributes and access) even though one may have received five talents and the other two.

[Finrock]

I wrote this thought down back in 2009. To my soul it sounds delicious and right and it makes me want to worship and love God more and to follow Jesus Christ more completely. I share it now for what it is worth. Do what you want with this information.

As an essentially free agent, am I going to choose to join the order of Godhood? As an eternally existing being I have no threat of utter destruction. The true motivation is not my death, but my desire to be a part of the Eternal Economy, the Eternal Order. I need to identify myself after the new name, after the Ancient Order.

The Ancient Order is one of lifting those below you to be equal with you. It is to share, in all equality, glory and power, which is intelligence.

Regards,

Finrock

[Finrock]

Good Afternoon Traveler. I hope you've been well! :)

Being my father's son opened many doors for me that would not have otherwise been open. I know what it is to live in the shadow of someone greater and still make my lesser mark. I do not have to be the best. I do just fine being in the background. I do not need to be the bishop - I can be just the home teacher or the primary teacher. I have no problem with with someone of good intention being in charge and making all the important decisions. I have no problem with my Father in Heaven or his Son giving me assignments. Like the prodigal son - I have no more wish than being even a underpaid servant in my Father's household. I really do not care if my older brother inherits more than me - We all know he deserves it much more than me. I owe it to both of them.

The Traveler

I was speaking to a friend of mine one day about a subject matter similar to here and he told me that when he was a youth he sat in his bishops office for a temple recommend interview. In the office was a picture of the apostles. My friend told me that he pointed to the picture and told his bishop that one day he wanted to be like the apostles. The bishop then corrected my friend and told him that he should not seek after positions and that in the Church we are happy with whatever calling we are given. My friend told me that he didn't say anything at the time, but that the bishop had misunderstood what my friend was saying. He wasn't saying that he desired to have the position of apostle, but what he was speaking about was that he hoped to be as righteous and to exercise the priesthood power like the apostles did.

Our position is irrelevant. We don't exercise power in the priesthood because of position. To equate joining the Eternal Economy to one of seeking for position and not being happy that someone else has more than we do, is a gross misrepresentation of this particular principle. Now, I'm not saying that noone believes what you describe, but what I am saying is that what I think Seminarysnoozer is speaking to and what I believe, has nothing to do with envy or seeking for power.

Everything I have is because of God. This is true regardless of what I have. What difference does it make to my gratitude or to my utter dependence on God if God grants me access to all that He has?

28 They who are of a celestial spirit shall receive the same body which was a natural body; even ye shall receive your bodies, and your glory shall be that glory by which your bodies are quickened.

29 Ye who are quickened by a portion of the celestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.

30 And they who are quickened by a portion of the terrestrial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.

31 And also they who are quickened by a portion of the telestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.

32 And they who remain shall also be quickened; nevertheless, they shall return again to their own place, to enjoy that which they are willing to receive, because they were not willing to enjoy that which they might have received.

33 For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift. (bold added)

God is willing and able to make us equal with Him. It is what He wants. Who are we to tell Him: "No, Father. I am grateful and enjoy all of your gifts, but not the greatest of all. I do not deserve it!" That to me, sounds like pride.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited August 10, 2013 by Finrock
Correction to thought. Clarification. Grammar

[Maureen]

...Who are we to tell Him: "No, Father. I am grateful and enjoy all of your gifts, but not the greatest of all. I do not deserve it!" That to me, sounds like pride.

Pride, really? To me it sounds like the person doesn't feel worthy enough to be considered equal to God. It sounds the opposite of pride; it sounds like he's being humble.

M.

[Finrock]

Good Evening Maureen. I hope you've been doing well over the last few days! :)

Pride, really? To me it sounds like the person doesn't feel worthy enough to be considered equal to God. It sounds the opposite of pride; it sounds like he's being humble.

M.

Yes, pride.

First, I don't know if there is a real difference in the words "deserve" and "worthy" in this context, but I just want to point out that I used the term "deserve". Nothing more to that point. :)

When I ask myself, "Is there any gift from God that I deserve or am worthy of?" the answer is always, "No. I neither deserve nor am I worthy of any gift that God has given me." I am an unprofitable servant and I merit nothing. God has given me my spirit and my body. This earth exist because God made it. He provides the air that I breath. Ever day I can exist and experience mortality because God has provided this for me and for all of us. EVERYTHING I have is because God gave it to me as a gift. But God has not given me any of these gifts because I have done something to deserve them. No, He has done it because He loves me. This of course applies to all of God's children.

If you accept the gifts from God which includes everything that you currently have, but then decline the gift of becoming equal with God because you say you don't deserve it, aren't you then also saying that you deserve what you currently have? Isn't it pride to believe that you somehow have merited the things that you have? God should always receive honor and glory, regardless of what we have because we have nothing outside of Him. We should glady accept all gifts from God if He wishes to bestow them upon us.

Thank you for your question!

Regards,

Finrock

[Traveler]

Good Evening Maureen. I hope you've been doing well over the last few days! :)

Yes, pride.

First, I don't know if there is a real difference in the words "deserve" and "worthy" in this context, but I just want to point out that I used the term "deserve". Nothing more to that point. :)

When I ask myself, "Is there any gift from God that I deserve or am worthy of?" the answer is always, "No. I neither deserve nor am I worthy of any gift that God has given me." I am an unprofitable servant and I merit nothing. God has given me my spirit and my body. This earth exist because God made it. He provides the air that I breath. Ever day I can exist and experience mortality because God has provided this for me and for all of us. EVERYTHING I have is because God gave it to me as a gift. But God has not given me any of these gifts because I have done something to deserve them. No, He has done it because He loves me. This of course applies to all of God's children.

If you accept the gifts from God which includes everything that you currently have, but then decline the gift of becoming equal with God because you say you don't deserve it, aren't you then also saying that you deserve what you currently have? Isn't it pride to believe that you somehow have merited the things that you have? God should always receive honor and glory, regardless of what we have because we have nothing outside of Him. We should glady accept all gifts from God if He wishes to bestow them upon us.

Thank you for your question!

Regards,

Finrock

Finrock,

I think the real problem is in definition of terms. If we use a balance scale in business to determine equal weight then we put the object we desire to measure on one side and then the known unit on the other side then we add to or subtract to the object we wish to weigh until a "perfect" balance is achieved. That way we can prove our measure and say the items tested are equal in weight.

If we are to say that all men are created equal and someone were to test that statement on a balance scale they would very quickly discover that in matters of weight; men are not created equal. In fact I would suggest that in any empirical consideration in which man can consistently "measure" there is not one consideration in which it can be demonstrated that all men are created equal.

I am very impressed in your understanding of the great love and sacrifice that G-d has so burdened himself in order to bestow upon man the great gifts of salvation and eternal life. This is a wonderful thing when we realize that the gifts of salvation and eternal life are gifts that G-d has also received unto himself. But I am also concerned with our understanding of what is involved in becoming and being equal to the "greatness" and "wonderfulness" as I understand that our G-d (The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost) is.

What most concerns me is the focus on self and what is obtained or granted by the self. Thus it appears that the measure of equal, as some would measure is completely measured by what is obtained, granted or acquired for self. Because the only measure by which someone can declare they are equal to G-d is based on their measure of self and what is obtained by self -- that it appears to me any such declaration with focus on self and what self is able to gather to its self meets the very requirement and definition of selfishness.

On the other hand if we are to measure greatness by the amount of service or gifts we give to others then the focus is not on self but measured not on what we have but what we give to others. If this is our measure then it is by definition difficult to be selfish - because we are looking at and measuring not what we have for self but what that of self we give away.

If we consider our unselfish gifts to others and not count that which we have obtained by gift; it is impossible to be honest and say we are equal to G-d in the gifts we unselfishly give to others.

But I will consed all selfish arguments by which those that measure greatness (only by what is obtained to self) and focus on the self - do indeed have valid argument that they are equal to G-d in that which they have acquired for their self.

The Traveler

I would add one point to this post. I am also concerned that many are thinking I am arrogant thinking that I am right. However, this is not about "being right" but in recognizing the greatness of G-d and that in any measure that I have ever in truth applied in comparing me to G-d - I am nothing in comparison. My sacrifice of love cannot be compared and in any real or true measure to be said equal - not just in comparing to G-d but to many like yourself and others that sacrifice and give more than I do - if in nothing else - in words of kindness on this forum.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Traveler

[Maureen]

Good Evening Maureen. I hope you've been doing well over the last few days! :)

I've been doing great Finrock, I hope you are well also. :)

Yes, pride.

First, I don't know if there is a real difference in the words "deserve" and "worthy" in this context, but I just want to point out that I used the term "deserve". Nothing more to that point. :)

When I ask myself, "Is there any gift from God that I deserve or am worthy of?" the answer is always, "No. I neither deserve nor am I worthy of any gift that God has given me." I am an unprofitable servant and I merit nothing. God has given me my spirit and my body. This earth exist because God made it. He provides the air that I breath. Ever day I can exist and experience mortality because God has provided this for me and for all of us. EVERYTHING I have is because God gave it to me as a gift. But God has not given me any of these gifts because I have done something to deserve them. No, He has done it because He loves me. This of course applies to all of God's children.

I agree.

If you accept the gifts from God which includes everything that you currently have, but then decline the gift of becoming equal with God because you say you don't deserve it, aren't you then also saying that you deserve what you currently have?

No. A person can realize that they do not deserve a gift from God but still accept it. The problem I have with this concept is, why would it be necessary for me to be equal with God. I can share in God's gifts and glory without having to be equal with him. This whole concept where God is made low by once being human before he was God and us becoming equal to God does not sit well with me. I personally reject this concept.

Isn't it pride to believe that you somehow have merited the things that you have?

If this is running along the lines of your first question, then yes, but I don't agree with your first question, therefore it seems an out of place idea. Mankind does not deserve blessings from God, but God gives them and we have that choice to accept them.

God should always receive honor and glory, regardless of what we have because we have nothing outside of Him. We should glady accept all gifts from God if He wishes to bestow them upon us.

I agree. The one thing I don't agree with is God wanting to make us Gods, since a main theme of Christianity is that there is only one God.

M.

[Traveler]

....

No. A person can realize that they do not deserve a gift from God but still accept it. The problem I have with this concept is, why would it be necessary for me to be equal with God. I can share in God's gifts and glory without having to be equal with him. This whole concept where God is made low by once being human before he was God and us becoming equal to God does not sit well with me. I personally reject this concept.

Maureen - in many things you post, I find agreement - but interesting as it is; it seem to be more interesting to discuss differences (or perceived differences). There is a problem because such a focus can be easily misunderstood. In mathematics we have a principle called "trichotomy". In essence it means that numbers are related by being either less than, greater than or equal to each other. But there are special cases (imaginary numbers) that do not possess such a relationship. In essence I believe that things can be different and the law trichotomy cannot be proven to be valid in describing the differences. I believe an excellent example of the failure of the law of trichotomy in specific cases is the relationship of a man and woman as demonstrated in marriage.

Thus I do not believe we can say that we are ever equal to G-d despite the fact that I strongly believe and support the notion that we should and can be one with G-d. This notion of one with G-d however, is a notion in dispute within the religious community. One example appears to me to be that Trinitarians (such as yourself) have difficulty with the 3 persons of the G-dhead being one but not being equal - or in other words being one yet one is greater than another. Thus there is a Trinitarian teaching that they (the G-dhead) are "equal" despite the fact that Jesus (The Son) specifically said that the Father is greater. If we apply the logic that The Father and the Son are equal then we must apply that same logic if we are to be one with G-d in the same manner as the Father and the Son are one.

So in that sense I believe that G-d makes man equal to him otherwise there could be no oneness. This is the same sense that all mankind are equal under the law. Being a symbolic term that in some cases (most cases) does not have empirical evidence to back the purpose in the symbolism.

So it is my opinion we need to be somewhat careful in saying we reject being equal to G-d because that can also communicate that we do not believe that we can really be one with G-d. And so someone may think that they ought to reject your notion in hope to one day be reconciled and thus one with G-d.

If this is running along the lines of your first question, then yes, but I don't agree with your first question, therefore it seems an out of place idea. Mankind does not deserve blessings from God, but God gives them and we have that choice to accept them.

Again I think we need to be careful not to convey the wrong idea. I would point out that the blessings of G-d are not distributed "equally" to all mankind. That is the purpose of the "Final Judgement" and the reason that it is called a "Judgement" because the rewards and blessings of G-d will be metered out according to how G-d determines those "deserving" of his blessings. Some times with certain Protestant friends I am not sure they understand that G-d will not bestow his blessings on anyone that does not deserve such blessings. But as soon as I suggest such a thing I am criticized and informed that we cannot "earn" blessings. I think there is a little bit of a disconnect here because I do not believe G-d has no reason for how he bestows his blessings. I also believe that if G-d could he would bestow his blessing on ever person - but he cannot because in essence they have not earned nor deserve such blessings. Quite the opposite - I believe that G-d is not so silly nor stupid to shower blessings on the undeserving. The problem in my mind is rather how we determine among ourselves how G-d will rightly judge those deserving.

I agree. The one thing I don't agree with is God wanting to make us Gods, since a main theme of Christianity is that there is only one God.

M.

Then my question at what point do we know G-d does not want us to be just like him? What about G-d must we set aside and teach that we must not ever attempt to follow him and his example? And if we do such a thing - how can we have hope to be one with him? Realizing that being one with G-d does not require that we are equal (a problem the Pharisees had in accusing Christ of blasphemy).

The Traveler

[Finrock]

I've been doing great Finrock, I hope you are well also. :)

Glad to hear. Thank you. Truth is that today has not been my best day, but neither has it been my worse. Overall, I am doing well though.

I agree.

No. A person can realize that they do not deserve a gift from God but still accept it. The problem I have with this concept is, why would it be necessary for me to be equal with God. I can share in God's gifts and glory without having to be equal with him. This whole concept where God is made low by once being human before he was God and us becoming equal to God does not sit well with me. I personally reject this concept.

If this is running along the lines of your first question, then yes, but I don't agree with your first question, therefore it seems an out of place idea. Mankind does not deserve blessings from God, but God gives them and we have that choice to accept them.

I agree. The one thing I don't agree with is God wanting to make us Gods, since a main theme of Christianity is that there is only one God.

M.

I understand that you reject the doctrine of exaltation and eternal life (at least as far as Mormons understand it). However, hopefully you can see that becoming equal with God is not a matter of pride and there is no selfishness involved. If you reject the notion of exaltation, then of course you will not see it as a gift to be accepted.

I believe God wants me to be equal with Him, therefore it is a commandment. I, in turn, want to obey God. There is no pride or selfishness in obedience to God's commandments. If God wants me to be like Him, exactly, then that is what I want and I will pursue the course He has laid before me because I love Him and want to obey Him in ALL things. I know that I will never deserve anything from Him and that my worthless efforts are only effectual through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Thank you for taking the time to respond and sharing your thoughts. As you can see, we agree more than we disagree.

Regards,

Finrock

[Maureen]

...Thus I do not believe we can say that we are ever equal to G-d despite the fact that I strongly believe and support the notion that we should and can be one with G-d. This notion of one with G-d however, is a notion in dispute within the religious community. One example appears to me to be that Trinitarians (such as yourself) have difficulty with the 3 persons of the G-dhead being one but not being equal - or in other words being one yet one is greater than another. Thus there is a Trinitarian teaching that they (the G-dhead) are "equal" despite the fact that Jesus (The Son) specifically said that the Father is greater....

I believe the coequality of the 3 persons of the Godhead (Trinity) lie in their nature (Divinity) and in their attributes. My belief is that there is only one Divine being and that being is God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit). Some of God’s attributes are omniscience (all knowing), omnipotence (all powerful) and omnipresence (everywhere present) and all 3 persons of the Godhead have these attributes (among others almost too numerous to mention). Their nature and attributes make all 3 persons co-equal. I will concede that each person’s relationship with each other and mankind make their functionalities different therefore not equal. For example, the Son proceeds from the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son; especially in regards to their introduction to mankind.

If we apply the logic that The Father and the Son are equal then we must apply that same logic if we are to be one with G-d in the same manner as the Father and the Son are one.

So in that sense I believe that G-d makes man equal to him otherwise there could be no oneness. This is the same sense that all mankind are equal under the law. Being a symbolic term that in some cases (most cases) does not have empirical evidence to back the purpose in the symbolism.

So it is my opinion we need to be somewhat careful in saying we reject being equal to G-d because that can also communicate that we do not believe that we can really be one with G-d. And so someone may think that they ought to reject your notion in hope to one day be reconciled and thus one with G-d.

It’s important not to conflate the oneness of their nature and the oneness of their unity - two very different things. Mankind cannot become one with God in his nature (in other words, man cannot become God) but he can become one in unity (share in God’s glory).

Again I think we need to be careful not to convey the wrong idea. I would point out that the blessings of G-d are not distributed "equally" to all mankind. That is the purpose of the "Final Judgement" and the reason that it is called a "Judgement" because the rewards and blessings of G-d will be metered out according to how G-d determines those "deserving" of his blessings. Some times with certain Protestant friends I am not sure they understand that G-d will not bestow his blessings on anyone that does not deserve such blessings. But as soon as I suggest such a thing I am criticized and informed that we cannot "earn" blessings. I think there is a little bit of a disconnect here because I do not believe G-d has no reason for how he bestows his blessings. I also believe that if G-d could he would bestow his blessing on ever person - but he cannot because in essence they have not earned nor deserve such blessings. Quite the opposite - I believe that G-d is not so silly nor stupid to shower blessings on the undeserving. The problem in my mind is rather how we determine among ourselves how G-d will rightly judge those deserving.

To be clear I will separate my thoughts regarding this into "grace" and "rewards". Because of God's grace (atonement through Jesus) mankind has salvation (eternal life with God). And through God's grace mankind can become a new man and be inspired to do good works. And in doing good works God promises rewards. And like you say each person will receive different rewards. I don't know if I can use the word "deserve" because it just doesn't sound right. I can imagine that the thought behind the reward will be based more on zeal, effort, attitude from that individual who has produced that good work. In the end, all glory is given to God, so possibly in this way, mankind and God become united in a circle of grace, good works, rewards and glory.

Then my question at what point do we know G-d does not want us to be just like him? What about G-d must we set aside and teach that we must not ever attempt to follow him and his example? And if we do such a thing - how can we have hope to be one with him? Realizing that being one with G-d does not require that we are equal (a problem the Pharisees had in accusing Christ of blasphemy).

For one thing Christ was/is God and the Pharisees did not realize it. But that's very different from mankind becoming God. Jesus has always been God, he did not become God, there was never a time when Jesus was not God. I don't know of any scripture that I believe in that says God wants his creation to be God. God is love and we are commanded to love, that's a pretty good way of how we can follow him and his example.

M.

[Traveler]

I believe the coequality of the 3 persons of the Godhead (Trinity) lie in their nature (Divinity) and in their attributes. My belief is that there is only one Divine being and that being is God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit). Some of God’s attributes are omniscience (all knowing), omnipotence (all powerful) and omnipresence (everywhere present) and all 3 persons of the Godhead have these attributes (among others almost too numerous to mention). Their nature and attributes make all 3 persons co-equal. I will concede that each person’s relationship with each other and mankind make their functionalities different therefore not equal. For example, the Son proceeds from the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son; especially in regards to their introduction to mankind.

It’s important not to conflate the oneness of their nature and the oneness of their unity - two very different things. Mankind cannot become one with God in his nature (in other words, man cannot become God) but he can become one in unity (share in God’s glory).

To be clear I will separate my thoughts regarding this into "grace" and "rewards". Because of God's grace (atonement through Jesus) mankind has salvation (eternal life with God). And through God's grace mankind can become a new man and be inspired to do good works. And in doing good works God promises rewards. And like you say each person will receive different rewards. I don't know if I can use the word "deserve" because it just doesn't sound right. I can imagine that the thought behind the reward will be based more on zeal, effort, attitude from that individual who has produced that good work. In the end, all glory is given to God, so possibly in this way, mankind and God become united in a circle of grace, good works, rewards and glory.

For one thing Christ was/is God and the Pharisees did not realize it. But that's very different from mankind becoming God. Jesus has always been God, he did not become God, there was never a time when Jesus was not God. I don't know of any scripture that I believe in that says God wants his creation to be God. God is love and we are commanded to love, that's a pretty good way of how we can follow him and his example.

M.

You have presented some ideas that I find very fascinating - mostly because they are so removed from my conclusions in these matters. I would very much like to drill down into why you believe as you do and see what I may have missed. However, I also understand that hard question can all appear as offensive and put a person on the defensive rather than a willingness to be open and honest concerning a landscape that is most difficult to navigate - especially with someone asking what may seem to be distracting questions.

Are you open to the challenge?

The Traveler

[Maureen]

Sure, I think I can drill down. :)

M.

[Traveler]

....

It’s important not to conflate the oneness of their nature and the oneness of their unity - two very different things. Mankind cannot become one with God in his nature (in other words, man cannot become God) but he can become one in unity (share in God’s glory).

...

M.

We can start to drill down with this statement. Explain anything you like in more depth -- but I am at a loss as to why it is so important to separate the oneness in the nature of G-d with the oneness of unity. Perhaps if you could give clear separation between "nature" and "unity".

For example I see love as an attribute of the nature of G-d and a primary force in divine unity. Why do you think it is so important to have separate understanding of love as a nature and as a divine force of unity?

Do you believe that when there are discernible differences with two things (divine or otherwise) - that if there are differences that we can to any degree say they are equal? Do you have any examples of such possibilities?

Also a question - do you believe in little, some or 100% eparation in divine natures between the persons? For example of one possesses a particular nature - is that nature not present or partially present in other persons.

Finely - What specific nature of individual divine differentiation is unique and eternally exclusionary to mankind? Do you have specific examples?

The Traveler

BTW - this does not have to be one sided - you are welcome to question me on my logic and belief structure. Thanks

[Maureen]

We can start to drill down with this statement. Explain anything you like in more depth -- but I am at a loss as to why it is so important to separate the oneness in the nature of G-d with the oneness of unity. Perhaps if you could give clear separation between "nature" and "unity".

There are many beings that have a human "nature" but there is only one being that has a divine "nature", God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are that one being, they alone have a divine nature. This is their oneness of nature.

Before the beginning, before anything was created, there was God. God has always existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These persons have relationships with each other, they are united in their relationships with each other. They have a unity that is perfect. One of Jesus' tasks on earth was sharing with mankind who God really is. He talked of God as a Heavenly Father. Someone that mankind can have an intimate relationship with; not just a creator, but a Father. With Christ as our mediator, we can have a loving relationship with God. We can be united with God as a family.

For example I see love as an attribute of the nature of G-d and a primary force in divine unity. Why do you think it is so important to have separate understanding of love as a nature and as a divine force of unity?

God's nature, his divinity is his and only his. I don't believe that humans are gods in embryo. I believe that God created us human, and we will be able to participate in God's divine nature but we will never have that nature for ourselves. Love is that attribute that comes from God. God has created us as beings with that ability to give and receive love. We love because he first loved us. Love is something that even humans have the capacity for.

Do you believe that when there are discernible differences with two things (divine or otherwise) - that if there are differences that we can to any degree say they are equal? Do you have any examples of such possibilities?

I'm not sure. If you specifically compare divine with human then I would have to say No, they would not be equal.

Also a question - do you believe in little, some or 100% eparation in divine natures between the persons? For example of one possesses a particular nature - is that nature not present or partially present in other persons.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "separation in divine natures". God is a being that cannot be separated into parts. If you're referring to the "persons" of the Godhead having different attributes then I would say No, they would all have the same attributes.

Finely - What specific nature of individual divine differentiation is unique and eternally exclusionary to mankind? Do you have specific examples?

Again, I'm not sure I understand the question but since you have the words "divine" and "mankind" in the same sentence, I will have to say None. I don't believe mankind has any divinity in him at all.

BTW - this does not have to be one sided - you are welcome to question me on my logic and belief structure...

OK, my questions may not be totally related to this subject but I'm sure I can think of something.

M.

[LaughingMan]

Man oh man, I should've joined a few weeks ago so I could be in this thread from the very start!! I love discussions like this!!! Its a bit difficult to play catchup, so I'm just going to chime in here where Traveler left these tidbits and add things as they come to me! And, FWIW, these are all merely my own interpretations and conclusions as I have spent a great deal of my life pondering such things.

Maureen - in many things you post, I find agreement - but interesting as it is; it seem to be more interesting to discuss differences (or perceived differences). There is a problem because such a focus can be easily misunderstood. In mathematics we have a principle called "trichotomy". In essence it means that numbers are related by being either less than, greater than or equal to each other. But there are special cases (imaginary numbers) that do not possess such a relationship. In essence I believe that things can be different and the law trichotomy cannot be proven to be valid in describing the differences. I believe an excellent example of the failure of the law of trichotomy in specific cases is the relationship of a man and woman as demonstrated in marriage.

Since we're using a mathematics analogy here, I feel like the calculus principle of magnitudes is delightfully applicable in attempting to possibly explain the differences between God the Father, and Jesus Christ. With magnitudes, two similar figures can have different total values. The number 1 could truly have a value of 1 (or 2,5,63, pick any number),or be greater or lesser, as I comprehend it. Its still the same number by definition but with different magnitude, its total worth (terrible word because I don't feel as though it accurately displays the intended sentiment, but I can't think of another word, and don't want to get off track with a thesaurus) can differ greatly. This is how I tend to consider the natures of God the Father, and Jesus Christ; both are Deity undoubtedly, however, due to experience, and eternal progression, the Father has an definitively higher magnitude.

It is truth that we can be co-heirs, that we can share in the glory of our Father in Heaven and our Older Brother, however, due to the principle of eternal progression in which we believe, They will continue to grow and progress just as we do, so logically that should entail that we likely will not ever be in a position to be their equal, barring unknown circumstances that are entirely conjectural with our limited mortal knowledge of the Celestial experiences.

The Godhead/Trinity (dependent on your personal belief) I feel is nearly identical in function and purpose to the First Presidency. They have the same purpose, and work together as One in functionality, but are inherently different persons.

Also, I am of the belief that Heavenly Father and Jesus, in sharing Their glory with those of us who earn it due to our successes in our mortal test, further magnifies their Own glory. As another somewhat poor example, its similar to an artist who's entirely focused on their creations. He relies on his works to sustain his life, to feed him, clothe him, and house himself. If he is a poor artist, his work will not sell, and he will be without the things he requires, and go no further in life. However, if his product is good, his crafts are well made, accomplished and refined, his success raises him perpetually. His creations uplift his reputation, so to speak. (I told you it was a bad example, but perhaps look past those failing words! )

Lastly, (at least for this post) one last bit that is something I feel to be an interest thought, and personally one that I accept. With that being said, I am a person who comes to conclusions in regards to my personal beliefs in certain theological arenas, but definitely leave the door open for my own opinions to change... in essence, this is merely my current belief. I believe that Jesus Christ was the Only Begotten Son of the Father in the flesh upon the earth. However, I feel that as much as that is truth, that Jesus was either the Firstborn or Secondborn of The Father among spirit children as well. The point in this being that I feel it was His Birthright to be the God of this world; to create this world, to be the God of this world, to lay down His life for the sins of His brothers and sisters and be our Savior and King, with God the Father in a supervisory and assisting role. (The reasoning between Firstborn or Secondborn being that Lucifer or Jesus may have been the eldest, but we do not know. It would be similar potentially however to Jacob and Esau, or Ishmael and Isaac.)

Thats the end for now!