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


Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Fether said:

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??

LOL.  It didn't do that an hour ago.  If you copy and paste the text it works just fine:

Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.

The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined. 

The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context, and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:

·       Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

·       Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

·       Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being.  In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges.  According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

·       Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwide humanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

·       Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.

·       Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions. For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment. Sometimes what some may consider an argument or dispute over doctrine is really a misunderstanding of simple differences in terminology. 

Journalists, academics and laymen alike are encouraged to pursue their inquiries into the Church by recognizing the broad and complex context within which its doctrines have been declared, in a spirit of reason and good will.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

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.)

 I've read the article by White (can't remember his first name.)

 I think the Scriptures  are clear in the tone that they take with man. That is, that man is a new creature, entirely different from the spirits, that must be "adopted" into the kingdom of God. 

However, that does not mean there is no "birth" of spirits to God  in eternity.  If you assume that there are gods that came before the Father and then consider that the exalted have spirit children. It wouldn't make much sense to say that God's manner of "Spirit children" and our manner of "spirit children" are different.

 

Now here's the question: Is an intelligence anthropomorphic?  I personally don't believe it is.  Therefore, it must acquire it's anthropomorphic shape at spiritual conception. Be it the literal organization of the intelligence itself into a new form. Or, be it the "light of truth" placed inside a body of spiritual matter. 

 (I don't believe that "intelligence"  is itself the matter from which spirits are made, as Bruce R. McConkie or Joseph Fielding Smith seem to think.)

 

 I'm also not so sure that Pratt is wrong about a literal spiritual birth, here's why. 

 

Some statements:

Statement #1: Eternal life is the kind of life that God lives, God's life is called eternal life.

Statement #2: And apparently you cannot have eternal life without a Man and a woman (Celestial marriage.)

Question: Why is eternal life inpossible without a male and a female?

Answer: Because without a male and a female you cannot have eternal increase of the seeds.

Now, i'm absolutely certain that the children that we can have are in fact spirits, the same kind that we were, possessing the same intelligence that we have. So you can't argue that the children we're having are different from the children our God has.

From this we can therefore assert that we are God's literal offspring, Or that he has actual offspring.

 

Now, this all rides on the assumption that the purpose of the opposite genders in eternal life is for the purpose of sexual procreation of spirits. This doesn't necessarily need to be the only conclusion. I don't know why sexual procreation as a God would cause an eternal intelligence to become anthropomorphic, that's not to say I have to know why. 

Edited by Snigmorder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

 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. 

[etc.]

Exhibit A in the "Not Deep Doctrine" pile. My advice: Forget all about this topic, or at least don't waste any more precious time worrying about it. On the scale of importance, this falls somewhere between irrelevant and silly.

Reality is what it is. We don't understand anything but a small slice of reality. Be content with that and build on it; don't worry that larger reality might be different from how you thought it was. Rest assured, it is a very great deal different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

How does that reconcile with Jesus Christ being the Only Begotten in the Flesh?

Jesus Christ being the "only begotten" is a title of unique quality meaning being born into mortality having a mortal mother and an immortal father.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2010/12/jesus-christ-is-the-only-begotten-son-of-god?lang=eng

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Jesus Christ being the "only begotten" is a title of unique quality meaning being born into mortality having a mortal mother and an immortal father.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2010/12/jesus-christ-is-the-only-begotten-son-of-god?lang=eng

Well, at least now I know a little of where you're coming from. I don't read the same into it that you appear to. I am of the opinion that Only is singular, and that the twist to suggest that it only counts if the mother is mortal is wordplay. I could go into examples, but I don't think they'd be befitting to discuss in the context of divine procreation. Let me just say that I think the only way that your theory could work is if it could be established that prior to the fall, Adam and Eve were not flesh. Otherwise they surely would have been begotten in the flesh, no? Since we know that their bodies could have lived forever without partaking of the fruit, it stands to reason that they were of similar composition to resurrected immortal bodies - which are still flesh and bone. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't agree with you based on my current understanding of scripture and interpretation of language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest a book. Actually even better, the author of that book has videos on youtube. Her name is Nanci Danison look her up, she had one of the most interesting near death experiences back in 1994 where she learned about source (GOD) and saw a documentary of the earth. She was raised catholic but after her experience she dismisses all religions as man made however she does not know LDS doctrine and some of her knowledge could fit very well into our limited understanding of the eternities.

I agree with Vort in that the most important thing for us to worry about is the here and now and the tools we have with us on earth is exactly what we need at this time, nothing more nothing less. A week after my grandfather passed away back in 2004 I had a dream of him. I was sitting in a huge stadium with many tables, I was at a table with my family as he was walking from table to table giving advice to what seemed to be other familys he was related to. I was so excited to hear the "mind blowing" advice he would give me as we were all sitting on the other side of the veil. He came to me looked me in the eyes and uttered five words and then continued to the next table, "You know what to do!" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SpiritDragon said:

Well, at least now I know a little of where you're coming from. I don't read the same into it that you appear to. I am of the opinion that Only is singular, and that the twist to suggest that it only counts if the mother is mortal is wordplay. I could go into examples, but I don't think they'd be befitting to discuss in the context of divine procreation. Let me just say that I think the only way that your theory could work is if it could be established that prior to the fall, Adam and Eve were not flesh. Otherwise they surely would have been begotten in the flesh, no? Since we know that their bodies could have lived forever without partaking of the fruit, it stands to reason that they were of similar composition to resurrected immortal bodies - which are still flesh and bone. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't agree with you based on my current understanding of scripture and interpretation of language.

So how do you interpret this-

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2017 at 8:56 AM, Snigmorder said:

 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.

A couple of things to consider:

RE: Fact #4, “basically” does not a fact make. We are all able to become saviors on Mount Zion, and Our Father must have been one also, if not a Christ.

RE: Assumption #3, the Father did not cause the Son’s pain in the Garden of Gethsemane; the consequences of sin did. President Packer said, “[Jesus] faced the awesome power of the evil one, who was not confined to flesh nor subject to mortal pain. That was Gethsemane!” https://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/03/who-is-jesus-christ?lang=eng Therefore, a savior on Mount Zion, once exalted, can bring forth a Christ.

Jesus said, “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 (John 5:19).” I believe this has more to do with receiving grace for grace (and using that grace to bless) until He received a fullness of the Father, than defining His role as Christ. This is why he said, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” as a mortal, and expandedon this theme with, “Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect” as a resurrected being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

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."

We also covenant to lay down our lives and will take it up just as Jesus and His Father did; we do this through the merits of Jesus Christ, receiving grace for grace until we receive a fulness. Because of how grace works, the merits and works of the beneficiary are not as important as the fact that they exist in the Savior, with Whom we are to become One.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

So how do you interpret this-

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38)

I interpret it as a genealogy statement which stylistically uses the term son of God to indicate Adam, the first man, to avoid confusion with Adam the prince of Eternia. Personally, I find picking this one verse out and conflating meaning into it (that may or may not be true) is how theories like the sons of God and the daughters of Eve are different species, or why didn't it just say the children of God or the children of man. The authors used some poetic licence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

I interpret it as a genealogy statement which stylistically uses the term son of God to indicate Adam, the first man, to avoid confusion with Adam the prince of Eternia. Personally, I find picking this one verse out and conflating meaning into it (that may or may not be true) is how theories like the sons of God and the daughters of Eve are different species, or why didn't it just say the children of God or the children of man. The authors used some poetic licence.

Thats quite a stretch.

Logically speaking, why does it take both a man and a woman sealed together to have a continuation of the seed in eternity? If God said he was going to make man in his own image does this not refer to a continuation of his seed? We thus are a continuation of Gods seed, we are literally his descendents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Thats quite a stretch.

Logically speaking, why does it take both a man and a woman sealed together to have a continuation of the seed in eternity? If God said he was going to make man in his own image does this not refer to a continuation of his seed? We thus are a continuation of Gods seed, we are literally his descendents.

God did not say He was going to make man in his own image as a lone creator. The God of creation, specifically the creation of His children, men and women, is a plural God:

“Let us make man [male and female] in our image, after our likeness; and it was so.”

“And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.”

They formed male and female in Their image. This is why, logically speaking, it takes both a man and a woman sealed together to have 1) a continuation of the seed born in the covenant in time; 2) to have this continuation pertain to them, or sealed to them in eternity; 3) and then continue the same eternal round they see the Father do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

They formed male and female in Their image. This is why, logically speaking, it takes both a man and a woman sealed together to have 1) a continuation of the seed born in the covenant in time; 2) to have this continuation pertain to them, or sealed to them in eternity; 3) and then continue the same eternal round they see the Father do.

Consider what naturally follows from this, and we may want to rethink that belief.

If they created physical bodies in such a manner, then what is the difference between having physical children and having spirit children?

If Adam could change from an immortal body to a mortal body simply by sinning, then others could, too.  That has some serious repercussions to other doctrines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Thats quite a stretch.

Logically speaking, why does it take both a man and a woman sealed together to have a continuation of the seed in eternity? If God said he was going to make man in his own image does this not refer to a continuation of his seed? We thus are a continuation of Gods seed, we are literally his descendents.

Well, Rob, I'm going to assume that you are charitably trying to open my mind to something I'm not yet ready to receive. We learn and progress line upon line and precept upon precept. For me, the evidence isn't there. There are plenty of scriptural topics that can be interpreted in different ways. This is why it's important to look at the full context of revealed truth. You appear to be basing the idea that Adam is the literal descendant of God based on your interpretation of one verse, while ignoring the teaching of Christ being the Only Begotten, or at the very least accepting a definition of Only Begotten that to me is "quite a stretch." With the importance of the origin and destiny of man in mormonism it seems to me that if Adam were literally God's first born in the flesh (as opposed to Christ being the only) that we'd have an inkling of that revealed in the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, the Book of Moses or Abraham or even in the temple, somewhere. Instead, we have plenty of discussion from general authorities talking about the whole of the human family being a direct descendant of God in spirit, which is a logical and probable explanation to why Adam could be referred to as the son of God - we all are. So to me, there are more logical explanations that fit into my understanding of church teachings, which seem like less of a stretch than what you are sharing.

 

Edited by SpiritDragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Consider what naturally follows from this, and we may want to rethink that belief.

If they created physical bodies in such a manner, then what is the difference between having physical children and having spirit children?

If Adam could change from an immortal body to a mortal body simply by sinning, then others could, too.  That has some serious repercussions to other doctrines.

I was speaking conceptually, not literally (and certainly not Adam-God!). Adam's physical body was organized, created, or formed by the power and under the direction of God. We do not know the specifics; there exists the idea that he was conceived of translated or terrestrial parents in a taken-up, Zion-like city or planet and then transported or birthed and raised here. LDS children are formed the same way: God doesn't directly give birth to them, but a sealed couple bears them under His power, authority, covenant, etc. so that these children are born in the covenant. This is one way in which they are as Adam.

We do not know how Adam's spiritual body was formed, but it too was by the power and under the direction of God. We know that exalted couples enjoy the continuation of the seeds, and that such a union is necessary for forming spirit children, however that is accomplished. In Adam's case, that Couple was the same God who directed His physical creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

God did not say He was going to make man in his own image as a lone creator. The God of creation, specifically the creation of His children, men and women, is a plural God:

 

“Let us make man [male and female] in our image, after our likeness; and it was so.”

 

“And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.”

 

They formed male and female in Their image. This is why, logically speaking, it takes both a man and a woman sealed together to have 1) a continuation of the seed born in the covenant in time; 2) to have this continuation pertain to them, or sealed to them in eternity; 3) and then continue the same eternal round they see the Father do.

 

You are correct, they- the Gods, male and female.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

Well, Rob, I'm going to assume that you are charitably trying to open my mind to something I'm not yet ready to receive. We learn and progress line upon line and precept upon precept. For me, the evidence isn't there. There are plenty of scriptural topics that can be interpreted in different ways. This is why it's important to look at the full context of revealed truth. You appear to be basing the idea that Adam is the literal descendant of God based on your interpretation of one verse, while ignoring the teaching of Christ being the Only Begotten, or at the very least accepting a definition of Only Begotten that to me is "quite a stretch." With the importance of the origin and destiny of man in mormonism it seems to me that if Adam were literally God's first born in the flesh (as opposed to Christ being the only) that we'd have an inkling of that revealed in the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, the Book of Moses or Abraham or even in the temple, somewhere. Instead, we have plenty of discussion from general authorities talking about the whole of the human family being a direct descendant of God in spirit, which is a logical and probable explanation to why Adam could be referred to as the son of God - we all are. So to me, there are more logical explanations that fit into my understanding of church teachings, which seem like less of a stretch than what you are sharing.

 

For what its worth, all the early prophets believed Adam and Eve were procreated by God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

Well, Rob, I'm going to assume that you are charitably trying to open my mind to something I'm not yet ready to receive. We learn and progress line upon line and precept upon precept. For me, the evidence isn't there. There are plenty of scriptural topics that can be interpreted in different ways. This is why it's important to look at the full context of revealed truth. You appear to be basing the idea that Adam is the literal descendant of God based on your interpretation of one verse, while ignoring the teaching of Christ being the Only Begotten, or at the very least accepting a definition of Only Begotten that to me is "quite a stretch." With the importance of the origin and destiny of man in mormonism it seems to me that if Adam were literally God's first born in the flesh (as opposed to Christ being the only) that we'd have an inkling of that revealed in the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, the Book of Moses or Abraham or even in the temple, somewhere. Instead, we have plenty of discussion from general authorities talking about the whole of the human family being a direct descendant of God in spirit, which is a logical and probable explanation to why Adam could be referred to as the son of God - we all are. So to me, there are more logical explanations that fit into my understanding of church teachings, which seem like less of a stretch than what you are sharing.

 

Let me just ask this- Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

For what its worth, all the early prophets believed Adam and Eve were procreated by God.

Do you mean anciently? If so how do you know if it's not in the scriptures? Are you suggesting the early church leaders of this dispensation? Do you have credible quotes or journal entries from which to make this assertion? It's quite a claim, considering we have no teachings to suggest as much today. 

Edited by SpiritDragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

For what its worth, all the early prophets believed Adam and Eve were procreated by God.

Who are "all the early prophets"? Also, please provide some non-Adam-God citations (I am already familiar with that doctrine). Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

Do you mean anciently? If so how do you know if it's not in the scriptures? Are you suggesting the early church leaders of this dispensation? Do you have credible quotes or journal entries from which to make this assertion? It's quite a claim, considering we have no teachings to suggest as much today. 

I was meaning the LDS prophets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share