Do we not focus on Heavenly Father enough?

[Guest]

It seems the main focus in scripture and church is on Jesus Christ and His atonement. The Jehovah of the Old Testament is Jesus and the Lord talking to Joseph Smith in Doctrine and Covenants is Jesus. And God that Moses saw was Jehovah or pre earth Jesus. It seems the only words Heavenly Father actually speaks throughout the scriptures with his own voice are things like "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased" and "This is my beloved son, hear Him." To me Heavenly Father seems obscure and in hiding throughout this world and has spent his time delegating everything to Jesus for this life. So do we not put enough focus on Heavenly Father? We can't see His face until we've passed judgment and found worthy to enter the Celestial Kingdom. Then we will finally get to talk to Heavenly Father. Whenever I hear The Lord God in scriptures I know they're talking about Jesus Christ as either Jehovah, earthly Jesus, or resurrected Jesus. I wish I heard more from Heavenly Father. Joseph Smith seems to be the only one that saw the Father when he saw 2 personages in the grove. Moses saw Jehovah Jesus, John in Revelation saw Jesus siting on the throne. It seems Joseph Smith was the only one who saw both the Father and the son together, in his vision in the grove and his vision of the Celestial Kingdom in D&C 137 when he says he sees the Father and Son sitting together on the throne. The biggest communication Heavenly Father has to us through one channel is our Patriarchal blessings and priesthood blessings when the words spoken are those from Heavenly Father.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Zarahemla

[Guest]

http://askgramps.org/how-are-we-to-make-contact-with-jesus-and-have-a-personal-relationship/

 

[Guest]

Carb, I didn't clicK the link yet but it says Jesus. I want to know about Heavenly Father not Jesus.

[Guest]

If you read the article, the primary point is that we worship ALL THREE members of the Godhead as ONE.  When we single out ANY member of the Godhead above the others as our sole focus of our devotion, an imbalance occurs.

That doesn't necessarily answer your question.  But it does give some appropriate background for discussion about it.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

It seems the main focus in scripture and church is on Jesus Christ and His atonement. The Jehovah of the Old Testament is Jesus and the Lord talking to Joseph Smith in Doctrine and Covenants is Jesus. And God that Moses saw was Jehovah or pre earth Jesus. It seems the only words Heavenly Father actually speaks throughout the scriptures with his own voice are things like "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased" and "This is my beloved son, hear Him." To me Heavenly Father seems obscure and in hiding throughout this world and has spent his time delegating everything to Jesus for this life. So do we not put enough focus on Heavenly Father? We can't see His face until we've passed judgment and found worthy to enter the Celestial Kingdom. Then we will finally get to talk to Heavenly Father. Whenever I hear The Lord God in scriptures I know they're talking about Jesus Christ as either Jehovah, earthly Jesus, or resurrected Jesus. I wish I heard more from Heavenly Father. Joseph Smith seems to be the only one that saw the Father when he saw 2 personages in the grove. Moses saw Jehovah Jesus, John in Revelation saw Jesus siting on the throne. It seems Joseph Smith was the only one who saw both the Father and the son together, in his vision in the grove and his vision of the Celestial Kingdom in D&C 137 when he says he sees the Father and Son sitting together on the throne. The biggest communication Heavenly Father has to us through one channel is our Patriarchal blessings and priesthood blessings when the words spoken are those from Heavenly Father.

 

The most direct answer to you question is that man is fallen and cannot be in the presents of the Father.  It is interesting that you used the term focus.  In scientific terms the act of focus produces an "image".  It is interesting to me that man, by revelation is the image and likeness of G-d.   I submit the thought that if we focus on G-d we will see (comprehend) man - that man is the focused image and likeness of G-d.  I find LDS theology amazing in this particular regard and has interesting implications in a discussion I am having with someone in the thread Patriotism in the current events thread.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I submit the thought that if we focus on G-d we will see (comprehend) man - that man is the focused image and likeness of G-d.

You make it sound like we're really worshiping ourselves.

[Traveler]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You make it sound like we're really worshiping ourselves.

Especially if we make any effort to reflect in ourselves - that which we think to worship.   -- hope someone sees the irony in my use of the word reflect 

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

We focus on Heavenly Father by praying to Him.  He is the one to whom we address our prayers. 

All of our lessons tend to center around the Son because He is the source to which we look for our salvation.  And that is the object of this life - to obtain salvation.  We can only do this by the atoning blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[Blackmarch]

10 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

It seems the main focus in scripture and church is on Jesus Christ and His atonement. The Jehovah of the Old Testament is Jesus and the Lord talking to Joseph Smith in Doctrine and Covenants is Jesus. And God that Moses saw was Jehovah or pre earth Jesus. It seems the only words Heavenly Father actually speaks throughout the scriptures with his own voice are things like "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased" and "This is my beloved son, hear Him." To me Heavenly Father seems obscure and in hiding throughout this world and has spent his time delegating everything to Jesus for this life. So do we not put enough focus on Heavenly Father? We can't see His face until we've passed judgment and found worthy to enter the Celestial Kingdom. Then we will finally get to talk to Heavenly Father. Whenever I hear The Lord God in scriptures I know they're talking about Jesus Christ as either Jehovah, earthly Jesus, or resurrected Jesus. I wish I heard more from Heavenly Father. Joseph Smith seems to be the only one that saw the Father when he saw 2 personages in the grove. Moses saw Jehovah Jesus, John in Revelation saw Jesus siting on the throne. It seems Joseph Smith was the only one who saw both the Father and the son together, in his vision in the grove and his vision of the Celestial Kingdom in D&C 137 when he says he sees the Father and Son sitting together on the throne. The biggest communication Heavenly Father has to us through one channel is our Patriarchal blessings and priesthood blessings when the words spoken are those from Heavenly Father.

If you know Christ, you will know the Father.

If you know the Father, then you will know Christ.

[SilentOne]

14 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

It seems the main focus in scripture and church is on Jesus Christ and His atonement. The Jehovah of the Old Testament is Jesus and the Lord talking to Joseph Smith in Doctrine and Covenants is Jesus. And God that Moses saw was Jehovah or pre earth Jesus. It seems the only words Heavenly Father actually speaks throughout the scriptures with his own voice are things like "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased" and "This is my beloved son, hear Him." To me Heavenly Father seems obscure and in hiding throughout this world and has spent his time delegating everything to Jesus for this life. So do we not put enough focus on Heavenly Father?

To me, the fact that Heavenly Father mainly or solely speaks directly to people on Earth in order to introduce His Son indicated that He wants us to mainly focus on Christ. But on a sort-of related point, a friend of mine and I have both felt closer to Heavenly Father than to Jesus because our prayers are directed to the Father, so we are talking to Him every day.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Traveler said:

Especially if we make any effort to reflect in ourselves - that which we think to worship.   -- hope someone sees the irony in my use of the word reflect 

That's not irony.  And you really do believe that we worship ourselves.  I find that disturbing.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That's not irony.  And you really do believe that we worship ourselves.  I find that disturbing.

 

In the sense that you are thinking and intend to define my input – yes I do think that a worship of self is indeed a part (more than a part but the highest and most noble part) of true worship of G-d.   And that prayer is a rather low and in comparison a more insignificant element of worship.  Stay with me for just a bit here because I am not discounting prayer – just implying that when we finish our prayers we need to apply what we have received.  In other words we need to follow Christ – to walk in his footsteps.   We need to use Jesus as our example.  Or as Jesus said, “What manner of men ought you to be – even as I am”.  That the highest and most noble worship is emulation.  Thought I do not think emulation is narcissistic or caught up in the worship of self – it is applying self to what we most worship.  And if someone wants to see and define such discipline and effort as self-worship - Rather that oppose their thought and logic – I accept the possibility and endorse it fully; realizing that we do indeed become what we worship but that there is a difference between the worship; where we become what we worship as opposed to the worship of what we have become – which is the thought I think you actually find objection to.   

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Traveler said:

In the sense that you are thinking and intend to define my input – yes I do think that a worship of self is indeed a part (more than a part but the highest and most noble part) of true worship of G-d.   And that prayer is a rather low and in comparison a more insignificant element of worship.  Stay with me for just a bit here because I am not discounting prayer – just implying that when we finish our prayers we need to apply what we have received.  In other words we need to follow Christ – to walk in his footsteps.   We need to use Jesus as our example.  Or as Jesus said, “What manner of men ought you to be – even as I am”.  That the highest and most noble worship is emulation.  Thought I do not think emulation is narcissistic or caught up in the worship of self – it is applying self to what we most worship.  And if someone wants to see and define such discipline and effort as self-worship - Rather that oppose their thought and logic – I accept the possibility and endorse it fully; realizing that we do indeed become what we worship but that there is a difference between the worship; where we become what we worship as opposed to the worship of what we have become – which is the thought I think you actually find objection to.   

So, did you study political discourse as a minor?

No, what I object to is the notion that we are to worship ourselves.  This is a far cry from trying to emulate the perfect object of our worship (God).  We are not perfect, and therefore not worthy of worship.  If we ever achieve that status then we will be worthy of such, not by ourselves -- but by lesser beings.

[Traveler]

On ‎7‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 9:47 AM, Carborendum said:

So, did you study political discourse as a minor?

No, what I object to is the notion that we are to worship ourselves.  This is a far cry from trying to emulate the perfect object of our worship (God).  We are not perfect, and therefore not worthy of worship.  If we ever achieve that status then we will be worthy of such, not by ourselves -- but by lesser beings.

I competed on my high school debate team – so long ago it almost seems to be a previous life.  As a side note my debate coach taught us that we should never debate an issue unless we honestly believed that we could take the stand or view of our opponent and argue it better than they are.  In essence to prepare better than those that disagree with what we are trying to argue for.

Back to our exchange – In regards to Matt 5:48.  Based on your response to me, is it your opinion that G-d might have made a mistake to expect us (by commandment) to be perfect?  Especially if perfect beings should only be worshiped by non-perfect beings?  It is my opinion that as we progress towards perfection the more “perfect” our worship of G-d will become and that our worship will become perfect to no less degree than we ourselves are perfect.

Thank you for your interest in my opinions and views

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I competed on my high school debate team...

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Based on your response to me, is it your opinion that G-d might have made a mistake to expect us (by commandment) to be perfect?  Especially if perfect beings should only be worshiped by non-perfect beings?  It is my opinion that as we progress towards perfection the more “perfect” our worship of G-d will become and that our worship will become perfect to no less degree than we ourselves are perfect.

If by "argue our opponents positions better than they" you mean "completely misinterpret what they're saying, thus making it so unintelligible as to find it implausible", then you're doing a great job.

 

[Guest]

From the 1928 Webster's Dictionary:

Quote

PER'FECT, adjective [Latin perfectus, perficio, to complete; per and facio, to do or make through, to carry to the end.]

1. Finished; complete; consummate; not defective; having all that is requisite to its nature and kind; as a perfect statue; a perfect likeness; a perfect work; aperfect system.

Perfection, whether you see it as the current definition (without defect) or the definition of Joseph Smith's time (complete) requires a Savior, who is who He is because He serves, worships, and emulates our Father. However you cut it, all praise and worship go to Them. 

[tesuji]

On 7/5/2016 at 4:34 PM, Carborendum said:

We focus on Heavenly Father by praying to Him.  He is the one to whom we address our prayers. 

All of our lessons tend to center around the Son because He is the source to which we look for our salvation.  And that is the object of this life - to obtain salvation.  We can only do this by the atoning blood of Jesus Christ.

 

I agree.

The OP is right that when we encounter God in the scriptures it is almost always God the Son, not God the Father. Jehovah in the Old Testament, is Jesus Christ.

The main answer here is that we pray to God the Father, not to the Son. So the Father is definitely not absent from our lives.

The other main point is that we come unto the Father through the Son. "No man cometh unto the Father, but by me," John 14:16. John chapter 17 explains that through Christ, we become one with the Father.

[NeedleinA]

On 7/5/2016 at 2:56 PM, Zarahemla said:

It seems Joseph Smith was the only one who saw both the Father and the son together, 

Here are a couple of examples that might help out @Zarahemla
Acts - Chapter 7: 55-56  Chapter Heading reads, "Stephen recounts the history of Israel and names Moses as a prototype of Christ—He testifies of the apostasy in Israel—He (Stephen) sees Jesus on the right hand of God—Stephen’s testimony is rejected, and he is stoned to death."

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

In addition to Stephen, Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith saw them both together in Doctrine and Covenants Section 76: 20-23
20 And we beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and received of his fulness;
23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—
here is a link to a kid friend version of that story

Edited July 8, 2016 by NeedleinA

[Traveler]

13 hours ago, Carborendum said:

If by "argue our opponents positions better than they" you mean "completely misinterpret what they're saying, thus making it so unintelligible as to find it implausible", then you're doing a great job.

 

As part of my profession I work directly with artificial intelligence.  It is my job to predict in advance where logic constructs (especially concerning complex systems) break down and test them in advance (not just test but to develop solutions or plans to counter problems) – it is how I stay employed since I am self employed.  This “break down” almost always occurs at what we call the boundary conditions or what many think of as extreme conditions.  Personally I mean no offense but because of my training when evaluating logic critically – I give heavy consideration to conditions where there is most likely be problems.

If I may use driving a car as an example – if we expect a car to operate within specifications between 0 and 85 miles per hour – test driving the car at 25 to 50 mph is not likely to produce valuable results – not near what test driving the car at 0,1 and 84.99 mph is likely demonstrate.  These conditions are more likely to demonstrate stress that will breakdown and prove the most problematic to operating the car. 

Let’s take this application to abstract thought like what we find in religious discussions.  If someone says “I believe in G-d”.  What does that really mean?  It could mean that they plan to go to church sometime before they die or it could mean that they fully intend to make their living in the ministry.  I like to ask question for two reason – one -> to determine as accurately and as I can preciously as I can what they are trying to communicate to me.  Kind of a; do you mean this – do you mean that and so on.  The second reason is to get an idea of how well they have thought through and explored the full gambit possibilities addressed (especially extremes) things associated directly to what they are concluding.  Using the example of G-d – I may ask questions to determine what they consider to be G-d and why such a being would want being like humans (and not other creatures) to worship them.  If other creatures that are not human should worship them – if humans are expected to include the same methods or other “things” in their worship?  I try to understand others and their opinions as completely and as best as I can.

I have discovered that some people do not want to explorer their thoughts and beliefs – I try to understand.  But if they are posting on the internet – I logically assume that they wish to engage others, even those that may have a different opinions (the internet is open to a lot of opinions) – and if they address me specifically – that I should respond with all that I can to honestly engage them with the very best I have to offer.

As a side note - often I have discovered with some clients that when I review their procedures and expectations of the system – that they see, better than I, what changes are necessary.  But some become upset and feel threatned.  I remember well the plant manager that came so unglued that he addressed me in a most profane manner and had me escorted from the premises by armed security.  Then 3 weeks later I received a call from the same plant manager begging me to return and interestingly we also have become good and trusted friends.  

 

The Traveler