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


Recommended Posts

On 7/6/2017 at 0:50 AM, 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, 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.

 

I’ve also come across this idea that in our journey towards godhood, we would have to take our turn at being a Christ. The support for this idea came from the difference between Matthew 5:48 and 3rd Nephi 12:48 where in the first reference, Christ, who had not yet been resurrected, says be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect, and in the second scripture, after His resurrection, Christ says be ye there even as I or your Father in Heaven is perfect, the implication being that in order to become perfect, one must first pass through what Christ did in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross.

I’m not saying I agree with the idea, I’m just pointing out that others have claimed that the difference between these two verses gives support to the idea.

(No idea why its all come out in bold, that wasn't intentional)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

 

 

I’ve also come across this idea that in our journey towards godhood, we would have to take our turn at being a Christ. The support for this idea came from the difference between Matthew 5:48 and 3rd Nephi 12:48 where in the first reference, Christ, who had not yet been resurrected, says be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect, and in the second scripture, after His resurrection, Christ says be ye there even as I or your Father in Heaven is perfect, the implication being that in order to become perfect, one must first pass through what Christ did in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross.

I’m not saying I agree with the idea, I’m just pointing out that others have claimed that the difference between these two verses gives support to the idea.

(No idea why its all come out in bold, that wasn't intentional)

I've looked into the "multiple mortal probations" theory. I don't care which Prophet said what, or what Joseph Smith allegedly said according to Liza R. Snow about reincarnation. The Scriptures and the revelations are clear that this probation is the only probation and that once we are resurrected, the spirit is inseparably connected  to the body, to go no more out. 

The most efficient way to refute the idea would be to hear every facet and reasoning behind the theory and go through it systematically.

 Nowhere does it say that these beings which we call gods are the result of repeated exposure to suffering and trials. In fact, the likely reason Jesus was a  worthy sacrifice was because he had never sinned. Consider this passage from Alma 42:13 "Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God." In other words, God's justice is perfect and exact. Nothing less than a divine man, who is blameless before the very justice he is satisfying, would suffice.

He never sinned because he attained a great deal of intelligence in pre-mortality and was like unto God. He was already perfect in pre-mortality, but was not yet a god in the complete sense because he had not Eternal life. And he had not Eternal life because he had not a body.

I'm of the opinion that the point of the gospel, in this one and only probation, is to guide the lesser intelligences that they might align their hearts and minds with truth.  Which truth is fully embodied in the Father and the Son, for the glory of God is intelligence, and intelligence is the application of truth. And once their souls are aligned with the civilization of truth, they receive all that the Father has.

And in God's perfect omniscience  and mercy, If one has died without the law, He receives them if they WOULD HAVE accepted had they been permitted to tarry. 

It seems to me that brute force trials aren't the focal point of the probation or of godhood. I don't agree with the "multiple mortal probations" theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

We all are created from the dust of the earth

God did not create from nothing. Evolution merely shows us that it is theoretically possible to derive organic matter from non-organic matter.  I don't take the creation account in Genesis literally, (other than organization being divine providence.) If I do, then I have to accept the existence of a firmament (physical dome,) and primordial waters. Something I find interesting is how God talks to Moses in the book of Moses in terms of a Genesis cosmology in regards to the creation of the earth. Yet shows him worlds without number, an obvious contradiction to Genesis cosmology. This goes to show that what mattered, was that those ancient prophets knew that the earth as they knew it, was the workmanship of the Lord.

 Some of the wording in the creation account of the book of Abraham sounds kind of evolution-esque. But I'm not confident that that's what he's trying to describe, his language could easily be explained in other ways.

"And the gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great Whales, and every living creature that moveth, Which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their own kind; and every winged foul after their kind. And the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good.  

And the gods organized of the earth to bring forth the beasts after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creep with upon the earth after its kind; and the Gods saw they would obey." Abraham 4:21, 25

 Here's a passage that proves man was not brought from another world. "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"  Abraham 4:27 

We do not believe in a God that creates from nothing, and even with the idea that God brought plants and animals to earth from a different location (which as far as I know isn't supported by anything in scripture or the revelations), the question still has to be asked. How did God acquire organic matter?

And as far as we can ascertain, Organic matter is not uncreated like non-organic matter is. Therefore, if organic matter exists, it must have been derived from non-organic matter. And we have a theory.

I do accept a literal Adam and Eve in a garden of Eden. Whether or not pre-Adamites are considered animals or gods, I.e. whether they contain the mind of man or not,  or that there really were pre-Adamites, I cannot say. I will say this, I have no reverence for science and I have no reverence for the conclusions of science. But I do know that the theory of evolution was not derived ex nihilo. However, I can take evolution or leave it, it doesn't matter to me. If it came down to it, I would except revelation over the world and its conclusions.

 

Edited by Snigmorder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2017 at 10:50 AM, 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.)

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.

Regarding the logic of #2: In the Adam-God teaching there is a head of all gods (Elohim), and these include gods that are called Jehovahs, who are heads of other gods (one of whom is Michael, who is both Heavenly Father and Adam). The following passages are completely illogical when read with an eye that the characters follow this construct: Moses 6:50-54; Moses 1:32-34; Moses 4: 28, 29.

In addition, things go way off the rails with Enoch receiving his revelation in Moses 6 in light of what D&C 107:48-49 says about the timing of things. According to the D&C passage, Adam was yet mortal when Enoch received his revelation in Moses 6, So Adam could not have been speaking to Enoch in Moses 6:26-28, calling him “my son” and explaining his history and relationship with his forefather Adam -- i.e. himself -- (as also detailed in verses 50-68) at the same time. Adam was 622 years old when Enoch was born, 647 when he ordained Enoch (at age 25), and 687 when he blessed Enoch (at age 65; D&C 107:48); Adam lived another 243 years, and with Enoch walking with God for 365 years until he was taken up at 430 years old (D&C 107:49; year 1052), Enoch had to have had his vision prior to Adam departing the earth at age 930. Adam could not have been in two estates at the same time.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

God did not create from nothing. Evolution merely shows us that it is theoretically possible to derive organic matter from non-organic matter.  I don't take the creation account in Genesis literally, (other than organization being divine providence.) If I do, then I have to accept the existence of a firmament (physical dome,) and primordial waters. Something I find interesting is how God talks to Moses in the book of Moses in terms of a Genesis cosmology in regards to the creation of the earth. Yet shows him worlds without number, an obvious contradiction to Genesis cosmology. This goes to show that what mattered, was that those ancient prophets knew that the earth as they knew it, was the workmanship of the Lord.

 Some of the wording in the creation account of the book of Abraham sounds kind of evolution-esque. But I'm not confident that that's what he's trying to describe, his language could easily be explained in other ways.

"And the gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great Whales, and every living creature that moveth, Which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their own kind; and every winged foul after their kind. And the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good.  

And the gods organized of the earth to bring forth the beasts after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creep with upon the earth after its kind; and the Gods saw they would obey." Abraham 4:21, 25

 Here's a passage that proves man was not brought from another world. "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"  Abraham 4:27 

We do not believe in a God that creates from nothing, and even with the idea that God brought plants and animals to earth from a different location (which as far as I know isn't supported by anything in scripture or the revelations), the question still has to be asked. How did God acquire organic matter?

And as far as we can ascertain, Organic matter is not uncreated like non-organic matter is. Therefore, if organic matter exists, it must have been derived from non-organic matter. And we have a theory.

I do accept a literal Adam and Eve in a garden of Eden. Whether or not pre-Adamites are considered animals or gods, I.e. whether they contain the mind of man or not,  or that there really were pre-Adamites, I cannot say. I will say this, I have no reverence for science and I have no reverence for the conclusions of science. But I do know that the theory of evolution was not derived ex nihilo. However, I can take evolution or leave it, it doesn't matter to me. If it came down to it, I would except revelation over the world and its conclusions.

 

Being created from the dust of the earth is the means on how we all are created. In the dust seeds were planted. From that arose plants which provided food for the Gods. From that came the nutrients required to live. Procreation was made possible because of the food. Then came Adam and Eve. From Adam and Eve till now this same process perpetuates and is the means for all of us to be born.

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