Snigmorder

God is a Christ and he's not our Father (question)

Recommended Posts

 I've reached a conclusion that I don't like based on the revelations.  I've always liked the idea of being the literal offspring of God the Father, but now I'm not so sure. My question is if there's anything wrong with my conclusion. 

 First, some statements of fact. 

 Fact #1: God was once a man on an earth. Joseph Smith confirmed this in the King Follet sermon.

Fact #2: Exalted couples continue to have offspring in eternity. (D&C 132:19, also in the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, trust me it's in there)

Fact #3: Joseph Smith basically confirmed that God the Father  is himself a Christ in the sermon in the Grove. I am merely saying it's a fact that Joseph Smith said it, not that God actually is a Christ (though I think he is.)

Fact #4: God the Father, Jesus Christ, and man are all the same race of being. I.e. God is not different in kind from us.  After all, he did say "Man of Holiness is my name."

 

Now for some assumptions based on the revelations and logic which flows from them.

Assumption #1: there's an infinite progression and regression of gods. (eg. Heavenly grandpa, Go as far back as you want)

Assumption #2: God the Father's  mortal life was that of a Christ. He lived without sin and was divine. 

Assumption #3: God cannot give the pains of atonement to Jesus unless he himself has experienced an atonement. I assume this for two reasons. Reason #1:  omniscience wouldn't cut it, "now the spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the son of God suffer at the cording to the flash that he might take upon him the sins of his people"  Alma 7:13, which could potentially mean that God the Father would have needed to know these things by experience in order to cause Christ's suffering in Gethsemane. Reason #2: All things being equal between God and Jesus as far as degree is concerned. Christ having experienced the atonement would logically make him greater than God, having more intelligence by virtue of his experience as Christ.  And that doesn't sound right.

Assumption #4: by reason of assumption #3,  we can conclude one thing: that only a Christ can bring forth a Christ. Or in other words, a man who has not been a Christ does not have the intelligence required for such an endeavor.

 

 Now for the progression of logical steps which lead to the conclusion.

Step #1: Exalted persons have spirit children, not children in the flesh. (being born in the flesh in the presence of God would be a state of damnation, like that of the garden of Eden)

Step #2: Said spirit children  cannot have a fullness of joy and cannot be gods themselves, unless they have bodies.

Step #3: Said spirit children will therefore require a Plan of Salvation.

Step #4: Said Plan of Salvation requires a Christ.

Step #5: Problem; none of these perfected, exalted persons  are capable of bringing forth a Christ, because an atonement for said Christ requires more intelligence than they possess. 

Step #6: Solution; Jesus Christ, Our lord, presents a Plan of Salvation, and brings forth his Christ. Which would make Jesus Christ the God of the children of the exalted of this Earth.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, God the father is not the literal father of our spirits, but the redeemer of our parents in the spirit. 

Now, some contradictions. Jesus Christ is said to be the firstborn in the spirit, this first born status is relative. Meaning God had other children. Also, Joseph F Smith and his counselors declared that we are God's offspring.

Another thing I'm not sure about  is how a Christ atones  for intelligences which are not yet born in the spirit but are later born in the spirit to parents who's earlier children have already been redeemed. This system of mine implies some kind of eternal progression of messiahs, and I have no idea how this really works.

This entire conclusion rides on the idea that God needs to have experienced an atonement in order to give an atonement. (But then there's still the issue of Christ being "greater" than God) 

 

So if you would be so kind as to poke holes in my conclusion, I would be most grateful.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah the philosophies of men mingled with....non canonized obscure comments from Joseph Smith.

Other than the flawed logic in some of what you have (exalted beings inherit all the Father has), you can't come up with a 'logical' conclusion that is contrary to specific canonized doctrine. We are the literal spirit children of God the Father. That is truth. Start there and work backwards and you're more likely to have some semblance of reality to the thought(s).

Anyhow, what, exactly, is the theoretical benefit of your little adventure in mortal "think-they-are-wise" logic game here? I suppose we could go through and poke point-by-point holes in things...but why? The conclusion is doctrinally wrong. Forget the fact that we know so little about almost everything else stated. We KNOW that we are literally spirit children of God. Knowing the conclusion is wrong is enough. Start over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Fether said:

where in that discourse does it suggest Heavenly Father was a Christ?

From the Sermon in the Grove: 

"I learned a testimony concerning Abraham (Book of Abraham), and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven. "In order to do that," said he, "suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist -- two men on the earth, one wise than the other, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist. Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them."

If Abraham reasoned thus -- If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.

I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys. I know it is good reasoning."

Edited by Snigmorder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some quick thoughts. I have to run to work -

1st thought: There are too many scriptural and modern prophetic references to us being the literal children of God spiritually to put the idea aside. This alone suggests that there is a flaw with this conclusion.

2nd thought: Did Heavenly Father suffer any less during our Saviour's atoning sacrifice than the Saviour did? As a parent I can tell you when my child is in pain, I am too - It may not be the same, but I doubt it can be quantified. We also know that when Jesus accepted the role of of Saviour in the premortal realm, that he did so specifying that the glory be The Father's. To me these things make no reason to believe that the Saviour's part is deserving of more honour and glory than the Father's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Ah the philosophies of men mingled with....non canonized obscure comments from Joseph Smith.

Other than the flawed logic in some of what you have (exalted beings inherit all the Father has), you can't come up with a 'logical' conclusion that is contrary to specific canonized doctrine. We are the literal spirit children of God the Father. That is truth. Start there and work backwards and you're more likely to have some semblance of reality to the thought(s).

Anyhow, what, exactly, is the theoretical benefit of your little adventure in mortal "think-they-are-wise" logic game here? I suppose we could go through and poke point-by-point holes in things...but why? The conclusion is doctrinally wrong. Forget the fact that we know so little about almost everything else stated. We KNOW that we are literally spirit children of God. Knowing the conclusion is wrong is enough. Start over.

 This is exactly the kind of thing I wanted to hear, aside from the king Follett or grove sermons being obscure, I consider them fact (though I don't know how accurate the account of the sermon in the Grove is.)  I was supposed to go to bed at midnight but now it's 7 AM. I spent the night pondering this conclusion, or in other words, it's bothering me, which is why I've posted.

Edited by Snigmorder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SpiritDragon said:

Just some quick thoughts. I have to run to work -

1st thought: There are too many scriptural and modern prophetic references to us being the literal children of God spiritually to put the idea aside. This alone suggests that there is a flaw with this conclusion.

2nd thought: Did Heavenly Father suffer any less during our Saviour's atoning sacrifice than the Saviour did? As a parent I can tell you when my child is in pain, I am too - It may not be the same, but I doubt it can be quantified. We also know that when Jesus accepted the role of of Saviour in the premortal realm, that he did so specifying that the glory be The Father's. To me these things make no reason to believe that the Saviour's part is deserving of more honour and glory than the Father's.

"And the glory be thine forever", that's genius, you just added more depth to that scripture for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @Snigmorder, and welcome to the forum!

I really like the way you approached this post logically laying out your first basic observations and then building from there.  I'll mirror the same approach in my reply:

1 hour ago, Snigmorder said:

 Fact #1: God was once a man on an earth. Joseph Smith confirmed this in the King Follet sermon.

Not a fact, but non-canonical speculation.  The King Follet Discourse has never been ratified as revelation from the Lord or canonized.  The fact that the speaker was Joseph Smith doesn't automatically make it Thus Saith the Lord.   We LDS do not believe in his (or any other person's) automatically infallibility, as Christ was the only person Perfect on this Earth.  I highly recommend you read this official Church article: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

1 hour ago, Snigmorder said:

Fact #2: Exalted couples continue to have offspring in eternity. (D&C 132:19, also in the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, trust me it's in there)

That one is indeed a fact, and D&C 132 is indeed scripture.

1 hour ago, Snigmorder said:

Fact #3: Joseph Smith basically confirmed that God the Father  is himself a Christ in the sermon in the Grove. I am merely saying it's a fact that Joseph Smith said it, not that God actually is a Christ (though I think he is.)

Completely false.  JSH 17: "When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"

The Father and the Son are two different personages.  

1 hour ago, Snigmorder said:

Fact #4: God the Father, Jesus Christ, and man are all the same race of being. I.e. God is not different in kind from us.  After all, he did say "Man of Holiness is my name."

Aka: we don't believe in non-human races like rest of Christendom.  

---------------

Now, moving on to your assumptions.  Note: these are YOUR assumptions.  This is NOT God speaking.  Truth comes from God, not man's assumptions.  Always remember that.  Failure to do so is an attempt to dethrone God's Truth with man's "truth" and the core of the Great Apostasy and so many people's personal apostasy.  Note: I'm not saying you're apostatizing here (when writing this I haven't even finished reading your post), just putting out the warning to remember this as I do whenever conversation exists God's revealed truth and goes into speculation territory.  

1 hour ago, Snigmorder said:

Assumption #1: there's an infinite progression and regression of gods. (eg. Heavenly grandpa, Go as far back as you want)

Assumption #2: God the Father's  mortal life was that of a Christ. He lived without sin and was divine.

Assumption #3: God cannot give the pains of atonement to Jesus unless he himself has experienced an atonement. I assume this for two reasons. Reason #1:  omniscience wouldn't cut it, "now the spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the son of God suffer at the cording to the flash that he might take upon him the sins of his people"  Alma 7:13, which could potentially mean that God the Father would have needed to know these things by experience in order to cause Christ's suffering in Gethsemane. Reason #2: All things being equal between God and Jesus as far as degree is concerned. Christ having experienced the atonement would logically make him greater than God, having more intelligence by virtue of his experience as Christ.  And that doesn't sound right.

Assumption #4: by reason of assumption #3,  we can conclude one thing: that only a Christ can bring forth a Christ. Or in other words, a man who has not been a Christ does not have the intelligence required for such an endeavor.

All of these are big assumptions never been confirmed by revelation.  You have official left the domain of what God has revealed and entered your own guesswork territory.  Every single one of your assumptions here are YOUR assumptions and could very well be false.

1 hour ago, Snigmorder said:

 Now for the progression of logical steps which lead to the conclusion.

Step #1: Exalted persons have spirit children, not children in the flesh. (being born in the flesh in the presence of God would be a state of damnation, like that of the garden of Eden)

Step #2: Said spirit children  cannot have a fullness of joy and cannot be gods themselves, unless they have bodies.

Step #3: Said spirit children will therefore require a Plan of Salvation.

Step #4: Said Plan of Salvation requires a Christ.

Those are all doctrinal Truths. 

1 hour ago, Snigmorder said:

Step #5: Problem; none of these perfected, exalted persons  are capable of bringing forth a Christ, because an atonement for said Christ requires more intelligence than they possess. 

Full stop right there: this is not doctrinal revealed Truth.  This is you making an assumption off of your assumption off of your assumption (aka guesswork).  We have no God given revelation saying such thing.

1 hour ago, Snigmorder said:

Step #6: Solution; Jesus Christ, Our lord, presents a Plan of Salvation, and brings forth his Christ. Which would make Jesus Christ the God of the children of the exalted of this Earth.

Completely off the reservation unconfirmed flawed guesswork.

1 hour ago, Snigmorder said:

CONCLUSION: Therefore, God the father is not the literal father of our spirits, but the redeemer of our parents in the spirit. 

What the?!?!  This doesn't even flow logically from your guesswork on guesswork on guesswork.  

In addition, you are discarding the Truth God revealed to us and replacing it with a philosophical golden calf of your guesswork.  

1 hour ago, Snigmorder said:

Also, Joseph F Smith and his counselors declared that we are God's offspring.

As have other prophets: both in scripture and modern day.  Your golden calf here contradicts them.

1 hour ago, Snigmorder said:

So if you would be so kind as to poke holes in my conclusion, I would be most grateful.

Your foundational "facts" were flawed from the beginning.   Your logical step #5 was also false.  I recommend focusing on the basic and better understanding where Truth comes from.  

Edited by Jane_Doe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Completely false.  JSH 17: "When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"

The Father and the Son are two different personages.  

I believe the point was that God the Father acted in the role of a savior for the world where he experienced mortality not that He and Christ are the same being. So the response really should be the same as point 1. Not everything JS said is canon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Hi @Snigmorder, and welcome to the forum!

I really like the way you approached this post logically laying out your first basic observations and then building from there.

 

 Thank you, I was thinking about the apostasy and the gnostics and all that kind of thing while  thinking about this. 

The idea is that God is a Christ from a different age, not THE Christ of this earth and generation of spirits.  Of course, it's not like I'm making this idea up off the top of my head. It's not like the Demiurge from the gnostics or anything. It's just what I gather from Joseph Smith's sermon in the Grove. 

 

 Joseph Smith said (I'm paraphrasing) "there are men in this front row who would kill me if I told you everything I know."  And Brigham Young said something like "don't tell me lest I  apostatize" (I can fish these quotes out if you really want.)  it seems to me that if Joseph Smith says "the big secret is that God was once a man," we should assume revelation of some description. He even claimed it was in the Scriptures (though, there is zero citations in the teachings book.)

 

Edited by Snigmorder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

 This is exactly the kind of thing I wanted to hear, aside from the king Follett or grove sermons being obscure, I consider them fact (though I don't know how accurate the account of the sermon in the Grove is.)  I was supposed to go to bed at midnight but now it's 7 AM. I spent the night pondering this conclusion, or in other words, it's bothering me, which is why I've posted.

The problem with the King Follett discourse is that it was windy that day, and the various records of it as dictated by some there contradict each other, include different information, etc. Some of the information therein has been embraced and made doctrine by repeat usage in various conferences and lessons. Some of the information therein has not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Not a fact, but non-canonical speculation.  The King Follet Discourse has never been ratified as revelation from the Lord or canonized.

...

Completely false.  JSH 17: "When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"

The Father and the Son are two different personages.  

.  

What is all canonized and true? Is it just the the scriptures found in the quad? Are Ensigns always 100% true? Are there things that the church stamps it's symbol on thaybare false? I only ask because the King Follet sermon is on LDS.org and I was always under the impression that anything officially published by the church was doctrine. Then there are other books and documents published by apostles that are up for interpretation when they do not have the church symbol.

also, what Snigmorder is saying is that when G-d was a man, he was acting as Christ for his round of creation. Not that he is Jesus, but rather that he had the same calling.

The interesting thing about your post @Snigmorder is that you are not te first person to bring up this very same theory. 

I feel like it makes too many logical jumps though, that it hangs too far in the fringe of truth and theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

 I was thinking about the apostasy and the gnostics and all that kind of thing while  thinking about this. 

With all due respect, be very careful lest you repeat their same mistakes (putting man's philosophies above God's Truth)

6 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

It's just what I gather from Joseph Smith's sermon in the Grove. 

See my commentary on your "Fact #3" above.  

6 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

Joseph Smith said (I'm paraphrasing) "there are men in this front row who would kill me if I told you everything I know."  And Brigham Young said something like "don't tell me lest I  apostatize" (I can fish these quotes out if you really want.)  it seems to me that if Joseph Smith says "the big secret is that God was once a man," we should assume revelation of some description. He even claimed it was in the Scriptures (though, there is zero citations in the teachings book.)

 

I'm going to be very blunt here: Joseph Smith was a sinner.  Same with every other prophet that has ever walked the faith of the Earth.  Only Christ was ever perfect.  Joseph himself said so, and it is said so other places in scripture  Please do stop falsely idolizing him and taking every non-cannocial quote of his as "Thus Saith the Lord".  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me offer a couple of other arcane details that may enliven the line of "logical speculation" a bit--

1). The idea of exalted beings creating new spirits via a "spirit birth" process, so far as scholars can tell, does not originate with Joseph Smith.  He *seems*, from his extant quotes on the topic (which are few and far between) to have favored an "adoption" view and believed that spirits are simply uncreated and eternal in nature.  There's a quote from JS about how God, finding Himself in the midst of lesser intelligences, takes pity on them and devises a plan to allow them to become as He is, that supposedly comes closest to encapsulating his view.  The notion of "spirit birth" seems to come from Parley Pratt, as I recall.  (That doesn't make it wrong, necessarily; but it's worth noting.)

2). There was a speculative LDS teaching hinted at by Brigham Young and Eliza Snow (among others), tied to the Adam-God theory, that was called "multiple mortal probations".  The notion was that in man's journey to exaltation, after resurrection but before full godhood there was another period of mortality where one would go to an earth and serve as an "Adam" or "Eve"; and another period where one (at least, if one was a male) would have to serve as a Savior.  This is, all, of course, far outside the realm of orthodox LDS doctrine; but it gives an idea of how earlier generations of Saints have grappled with the conundrum the OP expresses.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Full stop right there: this is not doctrinal revealed Truth.  This is you making an assumption off of your assumption off of your assumption (aka guesswork).  We have no God given revelation saying such thing.

...

What the?!?!  This doesn't even flow logically from your guesswork on guesswork on guesswork.  

@Snigmorder

First, welcome.  Glad to have someone willing to discuss things.

I do have to agree with Jane and others.  Before I even read Jane's response, I was thinking this ^^^ same thing.  That last "statement" was where I had my "speculation alarm" go off.  And, likewise, I found your conclusion to be a non sequitur.

Backup and reform your logical steps.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Reposting due to computer glitch)

 

7 minutes ago, Fether said:

What is all canonized and true? Is it just the the scriptures found in the quad? Are Ensigns always 100% true? Are there things that the church stamps it's symbol on thaybare false? I only ask because the King Follet sermon is on LDS.org and I was always under the impression that anything officially published by the church was doctrine. Then there are other books and documents published by apostles that are up for interpretation when they do not have the church symbol.

There's also coloring pages on LDS.org.  There's a huge difference between those things and actual scripture.  Again, I highly recommend this official Church article: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

also, what Snigmorder is saying is that when G-d was a man, he was acting as Christ for his round of creation. Not that he is Jesus, but rather that he had the same calling.

Which is speculation, not God's revelation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

There's also coloring pages on LDS.org.  There's a huge difference between those things and actual scripture.  Again, I highly recommend this official Church article: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

There seems to be something wrong with the website or link. I tried it on my iPhone. iPad, and PC and it all looks like this

 

IMG_0167.PNG

Or maybe it is trying to say that our doctrine is so messy and confusing that there is not point in trying to figure it out??

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
32 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Let me offer a couple of other arcane details that may enliven the line of "logical speculation" a bit--

As you might expect, I have a couple of things to say about these.

32 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1). The idea of exalted beings creating new sports via a "spirit birth" process, so far as scholars can tell, does not originate with Joseph Smith.  He *seems*, from his extant quotes on the topic (which are few and far between) to have favored an "adoption" view and that spirits are simply uncreated and eternal in nature.  There's a quote from JS about how God, finding Himself in the midst of lesser intelligences, takes pity on them and devises a plan to allow them to become as He is, that supposedly comes closest to encapsulating his view.  The notion of "spirit birth" seems to come from Parley Pratt, as I recall.  (That doesn't make it wrong, necessarily; but it's worth noting.)

Yes, I know, you did not say you supported the notion.  But I'll counter it anyway.  We are the "literal offspring of God"

Quote

All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. “Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith[1998], 335).

Every person who was ever born on earth is our spirit brother or sister. Because we are the spirit children of God, we have inherited the potential to develop His divine qualities. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can become like our Heavenly Father and receive a fulness of joy.

-- Gospel Principles Chapter 2

Quote

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Romans 8: 16-17

Quote

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

Acts 17:29

Do you notice that the requirement is that we are "offspring".  As such, we are like him and he is like us.  If we are not the same "species" do you see how this logic falls apart?  We may as well say that God is merely our own creation like gold, or silver, or stone.  If we are not His offspring, and only adopted, then how do we have claim to an exalted potential?  Without that, then we are no different than the sectarians.

32 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

2). There was a speculative LDS teaching hinted at by Brigham Young and Eliza Snow (among others), tied to the Adam-God theory, that was called "multiple mortal probations".  The notion was that in man's journey to exaltation, after resurrection but before full godhood there was another period of mortality where one would go to an earth and serve as an "Adam" or "Eve"; and another period where one (at least, a male) would have to serve as a Savior.  This is, all, of course, far outside the realm of orthodox LDS doctrine; but it gives an idea of how earlier generations of Saints have grappled with the conundrum the OP expresses.

First, we still don't know what Young was saying about Adam-God.  The text reveals a missing logical step in his words.  The sentences just before don't lead up to the sentences on this topic.  This indicates a missing segue and therefore, pertinent information.

As to the multiple mortal probations, Abraham disagrees.

Quote

And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

Abraham 3:26

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's quit with the vagaries and see the actual quote (and the scripture it came from):

John 5:19

Quote

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

TPJS, Section Six 1843-44, Pg. 345-348 (ish) (footnote mine, italics mine):

Quote

...God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did...

The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son Power1 -- to do what? Why, what the Father did.  The answer is obvious -- in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again.  Jesus, what are you going to do?  To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again.

The quote then goes on to discuss going from grace to grace, exaltation to exaltation until one attains the resurrection of the dead and can dwell in celestial glory.  A little later, it discusses the creation and God working "out his kingdom with fear and trembling" and that all must do the same, line upon line, etc.  It does NOT mention atoning for others.

1 Perhaps a reference to John 5:26:

Quote

26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

While these things support the speculation that God did more of the things Christ did (such as atoning for the sins of God's siblings - complete speculation based on the fact that Christ atoned for the sins of his siblings), what they literally say is much more vague (on the part of scripture), and limited to resurrection (on the part of the TPJS quote).

One of the worst things one can do when trying to work through something logically is to add assumption to fact.  Worse than this, of course, is to dismiss known fact in order to support the added assumption.

Scripture, prophets, and the Holy Ghost reveal to us that God is the Father of our spirits.  Dismiss this and your logic is instantly based on a falsehood and therefore can only lead to false conclusions.

PS: As others have already stated - the OP's final conclusion did NOT logically follow from what came before.  And I find "Assumption #3" to be royally flawed.  (I also find assumptions to have little to no place in logic - deductions yes, but deductions are not the same as assumptions - at least not in my mind.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now