Can't believe that God isn't eternal

[Traveler]

I believe it was Lorenzo Snow who first said, “As*man*now is,*God*once was;*as God*is now*man*may be.”

It's my understanding of LDS theology that God was once a man in another planet or universe and became God only through obeying His god.

I have trouble accepting this. I mean, isn't God supposed to be THE Supreme Being? I always understood God as that of which nothing is higher. But if he was once a man, doesn't that mean there is someone or something greater than God? It also reduces Him to a creature, someone who was once made. Isn't God supposed to have no beginning and no end?

Is it wrong that I consider myself a somewhat faithful Mormon yet don't believe that God is an exalted man?

As a scientist and engineer as well as a devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I have great difficulty with the notion that reality is somehow radically different than what we observe. I do not know why anyone would make such an assumption.

The key to G-d and understanding G-d is Jesus Christ. The reality of Jesus Christ was carefully recorded in ancient scripture and preserved for us today in the Bible and Book of Mormon through the love of G-d and his desire that we "Know" him and of him. As I have said Jesus is the grand example and key to knowing G-d.

Now let us consider the statement of President Snow: "As man is G-d (Jesus Christ) once was. And as G-d (Jesus Christ) is man may become.

I do not understand how someone can call themselves a Christian and have any difficulty with that pure understanding of divine doctrine that we are "the children of G-d" and that it is the intent of G-d that we ought to "grow up" to be like our father. Jesus said: "Come follow me". The scriptures are very adamite that man follow Jesus and be even as he is. I am most surprised that someone would say they are a Christian and oppose the suggestion and notion that we follow his example.

So I will ask a question because I am confused with this discussion. What about the example of Jesus Christ is unacceptable that we should believe that we must not and cannot follow - ever?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

That's my leaning as well, and for the record I'm a lifelong member and consider myself to be in good standing. This is one of many things I see as peripheral; it's not something that directly affects my salvation, so I'm not going to stress out over it. I'm not perfect in the essential stuff so I can't waste energy trying to nail down the small details.

Or even the big cosmological details.

[Guest]

As a scientist and engineer ....

I do not understand how someone can call themselves a Christian and have any difficulty with that pure understanding of divine doctrine that we are "the children of G-d" and that it is the intent of G-d that we ought to "grow up" to be like our father. Jesus said: "Come follow me". The scriptures are very adamite that man follow Jesus and be even as he is. I am most surprised that someone would say they are a Christian and oppose the suggestion and notion that we follow his example.

So I will ask a question because I am confused with this discussion. What about the example of Jesus Christ is unacceptable that we should believe that we must not and cannot follow - ever?

The Traveler

As a scientist and engineer, it is very easy to understand that someone who doesn't believe that God is of the same substance as humans would, of course, believe that humans may follow Jesus Christ in perfect obedience and gain godlike qualities like perfect love but would still not become the same substance as God and hence never become God - ever.

Really. It's that easy.

Edited October 3, 2013 by anatess

[Guest]

Then again this isn't the Science board, it's the LDS Gospel Discussion board.

[Traveler]

Then again this isn't the Science board, it's the LDS Gospel Discussion board.

Are you suggesting the two are not or can not or should not be compatible?

The Traveler

[Guest]

Are you suggesting the two are not or can not or should not be compatible?

The Traveler

I challenge you to show where I said any such thing.

I'm just pointing out that this thread is on a board discussing LDS beliefs, not scientific principles. Where they are compatible isn't related to that point.

[Finrock]

Knowing who God is, His character, His attributes, and what He is all about is not a trivial deep doctrine thing. It is a fundamental and essential component of our faith.

We need to come to know who God is because without that knowledge we cannot know who we are. We will be confused as to what our purpose is. We cannot be saved without this knowledge.

The world, over time, has corrupted the truth about God. God the Father is an exalted man. It is curious to me that Mormons have a problem with the idea that God was once a mortal man who had to work out His salvation. Why do we keep trying to shape our religion to match what the world says? Why do we try to accomodate the scientist and the philosophers of the world?

I just want to stress that knowing God is a priority, not an afterthought. We can't fully live our religion if we believe in false notions about God. We can't have the fulness of the Spirit if we don't have an understanding of God. I repeat my last counsel. Get rid of any preconceptions, assumptions, or thoughts that come from man. Be as a child willing and ready to learn and to submit to God in all things. Be open and ready to receive revelation from God so that He can make these things known to you by the power of the Holy Ghost. Be believing and don't doubt the plain messages about God found in the scriptures. Many times the scriptures teach us plainly what the truth is but I have noticed in others and in myself in the past that we reject the plain meaning quite often. For instance, the sacrament prayers says that we should take upon us the name of Christ. Many people miss the direct and plain meaning of that phrase. Without adding anything to it or needing to infer, we are asked to become Christ, in name and in deed. We should take upon us that name Christ. Yet, so many Mormons reject that notion and they infer more or completely ignore this part of their covenant. This happens in many other cases too.

So, the scriptures teach plainly but because of unbelief people will add or take away from the scriptures so that they feel more comfortable. I'm saying that we need never be afraid of the truth even if it will seem to the rest of the world to be blasphemous or wrong. God is not what the rest of the world's religions teach. All of their notions are corrupt in one way or another. Forget your previous notions about God and then get your answer from the Spirit. Then you will have pure, unadulterated, truth if you don't reject it because of unbelief.

God's ways are not our ways. His thoughts are not our thoughts. We shouldn't allow the traidtions of mankind to keep us away from knowing God. And I agree with Traveller. We must look to Christ to know the Father. The life of Jesus Christ testifies of the nature of God. Jesus Christ did only those things He had seen His father do.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited October 3, 2013 by Finrock
Spelling

[Guest]

I can know someone without knowing exactly how they came to be.

[Guest]

Knowing who God is, His character, His attributes, and what He is all about is not a trivial deep doctrine thing. It is a fundamental and essential component of our faith.

We need to come to know who God is because without that knowledge we cannot know who we are. We will be confused as to what our purpose is. We cannot be saved without this knowledge.

The world, over time, has corrupted the truth about God. God the Father is an exalted man. It is curious to me that Mormons have a problem with the idea that God was once a mortal man who had to work out His salvation. Why do we keep trying to shape our religion to match what the world says? Why do we try to accomodate the scientist and the philosophers of the world?

Regards,

Finrock

You're playing philosopher yourself. God the Father is an exalted man, yes. God the Father having once been mortal is not LDS doctrine. We simply do not know if he was. Basically, the Plan of Salvation (the journey through mortality) applies to how we were organized to gain exaltation. It does not apply to any other beings not classified as "children of our Heavenly Father". Similarly, it does not necessarily apply to the Holy Spirit who is already God when the Plan was put forward.

Edited October 3, 2013 by anatess

[Guest]

For the record, I never said trivial. My relationship with my Heavenly Father is personal, real, and pivotal to how I live my life. I'm just saying that knowing exactly where He came from, in this stage of my Eternal life, is much less significant to my salvation than the principles Jesus taught while He was on the earth, and the things that the prophets both modern and ancient have led us to study.

[Traveler]

As a scientist and engineer, it is very easy to understand that someone who doesn't believe that God is of the same substance as humans would, of course, believe that humans may follow Jesus Christ in perfect obedience and gain godlike qualities like perfect love but would still not become the same substance as God and hence never become God - ever.

Really. It's that easy.

Then you agree that as man is that all Christians believe that G-d (Jesus) once was.

My point is that if G-d can be the substance of man and then transcend from the substance of man to the substance of G-d that such a transition is possible and G-d has the power to do so. That if G-d truly love his children why not help them to become better. If such a transition is not really an improvement then I can understand why he would not do so for our benefit - but if there is no benefit in a transition of the substance of man to the substance of G-d - why did Jesus make the transition himself?

And if Jesus never really was the substance of man - then the scriptures lie as well as Jesus calling himself the son of man. The doctrine of Christ becomes a myth, a fable and a false notion.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I challenge you to show where I said any such thing.

I'm just pointing out that this thread is on a board discussing LDS beliefs, not scientific principles. Where they are compatible isn't related to that point.

Just thought I would ask. I believe truth to have once source and that the forum is open to the truth and that it is LDS doctrine to seek truth - even if it comes from a pagan perspective.

I see the LDS as being inclusive - it was my impression from your statement:

Then again this isn't the Science board, it's the LDS Gospel Discussion board.

That you see the LDS Gospel as something different than Scientific truth.

Just looking for clarification. That is why I asked (hoping to understand your intent better) if you do not believe the LDS Gospel is compatible to Science. I am still not sure - If you care to elaborate.

Thanks

The Traveler

[Guest]

Then you agree that as man is that all Christians believe that G-d (Jesus) once was.

My point is that if G-d can be the substance of man and then transcend from the substance of man to the substance of G-d that such a transition is possible and G-d has the power to do so. That if G-d truly love his children why not help them to become better. If such a transition is not really an improvement then I can understand why he would not do so for our benefit - but if there is no benefit in a transition of the substance of man to the substance of G-d - why did Jesus make the transition himself?

And if Jesus never really was the substance of man - then the scriptures lie as well as Jesus calling himself the son of man. The doctrine of Christ becomes a myth, a fable and a false notion.

The Traveler

Again... you're the one who claims you are a scientist so this should be easy-breasy for you to understand.

The GOD substance has the power to be MAN. Hence, it has a 3rd person - Jesus Christ - who was Man.

The MAN substance does not have the power to be GOD. Hence, regardless of how much God loves us, we cannot be God because He did not create us as GOD substance. He created us as MAN substance.

Jesus became MAN to show us that even if we have MAN substance we can be Godlike. He did not become MAN so MAN can transition to the GOD substance.

TO THE OP: This post is what a Trinitarian believes. Not what a Mormon believes. I just want to make that clear.

Edited October 3, 2013 by anatess

[Guest]

I don't believe they are incompatible. I believe science (what we have of it now) doesn't offer us perfect understanding of what we need to get back Home, whereas the fullness of the Gospel does.

I also believe that philosophy can be dangerous. There are plenty of people who are happy to feed and eat the philosophies of men mingled with scripture, but the light we receive from the Father is different. He gives us the essential stuff through the Scriptures and the voices of His servants. I'll take that knowledge over the conclusions of men. Even if I have to wait for it.

[Guest]

I don't believe they are incompatible. I believe science (what we have of it now) doesn't offer us perfect understanding of what we need to get back Home, whereas the fullness of the Gospel does.

I also believe that philosophy can be dangerous. There are plenty of people who are happy to feed and eat the philosophies of men mingled with scripture, but the light we receive from the Father is different. He gives us the essential stuff through the Scriptures and the voices of His servants. I'll take that knowledge over the conclusions of men. Even if I have to wait for it.

They're not incompatible but complimentary. Science deals mostly on the how of things whereas the Spirit deals mostly on the why of things. Science sometimes tries to answer the why of things just so they can propose many different hows just like the Spirit sometimes puts forth the how of things but in such generalistic terms.

So, when it comes to the how of things, as long as it falls within the general how and more importantly the why provided by scripture, science usually has a better explanation... like How did God create the universe? Science has a much better idea of how that is. The Why - hah, they're very blind on that one.

And on the flip side, when it comes to scientific theories, you can discard theories if it doesn't match with the generalistic hows of true scripture... and more especially if it contradicts with the why.

Edited October 3, 2013 by anatess

[Traveler]

I don't believe they are incompatible. I believe science (what we have of it now) doesn't offer us perfect understanding of what we need to get back Home, whereas the fullness of the Gospel does.

I also believe that philosophy can be dangerous. There are plenty of people who are happy to feed and eat the philosophies of men mingled with scripture, but the light we receive from the Father is different. He gives us the essential stuff through the Scriptures and the voices of His servants. I'll take that knowledge over the conclusions of men. Even if I have to wait for it.

I think I may understand - but to clarify - your understanding is that science is a philosophy of man?

As a side note - it appears to me that there have been many more wars fought and blood split over differences in the interpretations of the Gospels of G-d than the differences in the interpretations of the principles of science.

The Traveler

[Guest]

No, I do not equate science and philosophy. Those were meant to be separate thoughts. But leaning on science only or philosophy mingled with scripture with both leave us lacking.

Does fighting over something make it more or less true?

[Guest]

As a side note, it appears to me that our origin is revealed, canonized Gospel truth. God's origin is not.

[Guest]

As a side note - it appears to me that there have been many more wars fought and blood split over differences in the interpretations of the Gospels of G-d than the differences in the interpretations of the principles of science.

The Traveler

That's also an easy one to understand. It's easy for a man bent on conquest to use faith to control people because it has a lot of wiggle room in dealing with facts. It's not as easy for a man bent on conquest to use scientific principles to control people because the nature of science is you have to have facts for it to be acceptable science so wrong ones are easily discarded.

[Vort]

That's also an easy one to understand. It's easy for a man bent on conquest to use faith to control people because it has a lot of wiggle room in dealing with facts. It's not as easy for a man bent on conquest to use scientific principles to control people because the nature of science is you have to have facts for it to be acceptable science so wrong ones are easily discarded.

And this is the central point that refutes those who blame religion for violence. In almost all cases, religion is not the root cause of violence; rather, it is a convenient excuse. Many Arabs (the vast majority of whom are Muslim) resent the US's interference in Middle Eastern politics, and were only too happy when the US was targeted by terrorists. This was explained in religious terms, but in fact it's secular politics at play here. It's not like if all the Arabs had only been Christians or Buddhists instead, none of this would ever have happened.

[Finrock]

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

You're playing philosopher yourself. God the Father is an exalted man, yes. God the Father having once been mortal is not LDS doctrine. We simply do not know if he was. Basically, the Plan of Salvation (the journey through mortality) applies to how we were organized to gain exaltation. It does not apply to any other beings not classified as "children of our Heavenly Father". Similarly, it does not necessarily apply to the Holy Spirit who is already God when the Plan was put forward.

Revelation from the Spirit is not philosophy. Revelation from the Spirit is pure truth. Revelation from the Spirit is doctrine. That is all that I am suggesting. "We" have been believing in other people's interpretation of scripture or we have been allowing our own prejudices/assumptions/upbringing to make the case that "we don't know". "We" often don't know because we haven't asked or in many cases we aren't even interested in knowing. Many people know what the doctrine is concerning God the Father's origins and this knowledge is essential.

Brigham Young's Adam-God teaching is not as weird and far out there as people think, but to truly understand what Brigham was talking about people need to let go of their prejudices and assumptions and allow the Spirit only to teach you. It is the only way we can truly know the gospel of Jesus Christ. We can't keep relying on other people's interpretations (including apostles). We need to get revelation for ourselves from the Holy Ghost.

When we humble ourselves and truly search the sciptures, the scriptures will begin to unfold before our eyes. You will see and understand things like never before. Even scriptures you've read many times will suddenly become clear. God will make His truth manifest to those who humble themselves and search the scriptures. Searching the scriptures is not just reading them or even just studying them. I know this by experience.

Of course everyone is free to believe what they wish, but noone can honestly claim that "we" don't know what the doctrine is concerning the origins of God. You can only say that you don't know. I know that God the Father was once a mortal man. One day, if and when I am exalted and become a God, I will begin to live God's life (Eternal Life). I will begin to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man. I will have at one point been mortal, yet I will be God. Jesus Christ is our example. But, as I've said, everyone is free to believe or not to believe in this, but this doesn't mean that they aren't responsible and accountable for finding out for themselves through the Spirit.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited October 3, 2013 by Finrock
Removed extra quote

[JimmiGerman]

I don't believe they are incompatible. I believe science (what we have of it now) doesn't offer us perfect understanding of what we need to get back Home, whereas the fullness of the Gospel does.

I also believe that philosophy can be dangerous. There are plenty of people who are happy to feed and eat the philosophies of men mingled with scripture, but the light we receive from the Father is different. He gives us the essential stuff through the Scriptures and the voices of His servants. I'll take that knowledge over the conclusions of men. Even if I have to wait for it.

Wasn't it Joseph Smith, the prophet, talking in "DoC" about knowledge and intelligence...? I think he premonitioned science as an important element of human destiny. I deeply believe that scriptures can be revised or replenished by new revelations or new insights. Today we know a million times more things and scientific facts than the people or alchemists of the past. But we haven't lost our Christian faith. I think that God expects us to learn more about his Creation and wonderful universe to become closer to understanding his supernatural being. Perhaps he would say: "Find me", and not only by old scriptures. My credo: why should I read only in an old book when I also could read in a new book? That's why I considered to read Mormon scriptures and could define my Christian believe from a new level or plane.

[Guest]

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

Revelation from the Spirit is not philosophy. Revelation from the Spirit is pure truth. Revelation from the Spirit is doctrine. That is all that I am suggesting. "We" have been believing in other people's interpretation of scripture or we have been allowing our own prejudices/assumptions/upbringing to make the case that "we don't know". "We" often don't know because we haven't asked or in many cases we aren't even interested in knowing. Many people know what the doctrine is concerning God the Father's origins and this knowledge is essential.

Brigham Young's Adam-God teaching is not as weird and far out there as people think, but to truly understand what Brigham was talking about people need to let go of their prejudices and assumptions and allow the Spirit only to teach you. It is the only way we can truly know the gospel of Jesus Christ. We can't keep relying on other people's interpretations (including apostles). We need to get revelation for ourselves from the Holy Ghost.

When we humble ourselves and truly search the sciptures, the scriptures will begin to unfold before our eyes. You will see and understand things like never before. Even scriptures you've read many times will suddenly become clear. God will make His truth manifest to those who humble themselves and search the scriptures. Searching the scriptures is not just reading them or even just studying them. I know this by experience.

Of course everyone is free to believe what they wish, but noone can honestly claim that "we" don't know what the doctrine is concerning the origins of God. You can only say that you don't know. I know that God the Father was once a mortal man. One day, if and when I am exalted and become a God, I will begin to live God's life (Eternal Life). I will begin to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man. I will have at one point been mortal, yet I will be God. Jesus Christ is our example. But, as I've said, everyone is free to believe or not to believe in this, but this doesn't mean that they aren't responsible and accountable for finding out for themselves through the Spirit.

Regards,

Finrock

YOU may have received Spiritual revelation on how God became God but the CHURCH has not (or may have, but received instructions not to make the revelation public). Therefore, what YOU know about God before he became God is simply personal revelation and cannot be taught to others.

This goes for anything of a spiritual nature we may claim to believe or receive revelation about that is not part of LDS Doctrine.

And it is not cool to say, "I know because I asked" giving the implication that we don't know because we didn't ask. It is not LDS doctrine for a reason. And it is not because the modern prophets did not ask.

And it is even more uncool to try to pass this for doctrine to a young impressionable one-month young LDS member who is still unsure about whether God is Eternal.

Edited October 3, 2013 by anatess

[JimmiGerman]

(...)

As a side note - it appears to me that there have been many more wars fought and blood split over differences in the interpretations of the Gospels of G-d than the differences in the interpretations of the principles of science.

The Traveler

One cannot doubt this. On the other hand never before so many people have died on one stroke as by modern science in form of the war machinery of the first / second world war or the atom bomb... every coin has two sides... What I mean is that even if science didn't bring more blood split over differences in its interpretations it has brought many victims in another way. But nevertheless I would never deny science.

Edited October 3, 2013 by JimmiGerman

[andypg]

The GOD substance has the power to be MAN. Hence, it has a 3rd person - Jesus Christ - who was Man.

The MAN substance does not have the power to be GOD. Hence, regardless of how much God loves us, we cannot be God because He did not create us as GOD substance. He created us as MAN substance.

Jesus became MAN to show us that even if we have MAN substance we can be Godlike. He did not become MAN so MAN can transition to the GOD substance.

TO THE OP: This post is what a Trinitarian believes. Not what a Mormon believes. I just want to make that clear.

This is what I tend to believe.