Is God the most high? Does it actually matter?

[CommanderSouth]

I feel this is an outgrowth of some thoughts I have been having regarding the King Follet discourse. 

I know this isn't standard works level cannon but for the sake of discussion let's assume it is. 

God was once a man, now enthroned in yonder heaven. True, he is perfect and just and glorified, but he is still a being bound by laws that we don't know where the came from (or perhaps are simply self existing). This version of God doesn't create ex nihilo and reminds me of the statement that any sufficiently advanced technology would appear as magic to one of lesser understanding. With that in mind, one could simply treat this God as a sufficiently progressed man. Which is some ways removes the mystery and majesty of the divine. 

Now let's go to the other hand. God is a self existing being who created our universe from nothing. He created the laws of our universe and is not bound by them. This leaves more questions about his reasoning as the idea of an omnipotent being creating feeling creatures that will suffer if they don't follow him by faith alone, that has its own set of problems. 

This second being is more mysterious and divine in someways in my mind. But the question is, which God (if either) is God?  

I think the idea I have is that, the LDS idea of God sometimes makes me feel like we lessen him by putting him on our level.  That he simply holds all knowledge and that is how he does everything. 

What do you all think?

[zil]

2 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

removes the mystery and majesty of the divine

I think it only partly removes the mystery and doesn't remove the majesty at all, if you think about it.  Which is more majestic, someone magical you cannot begin to comprehend, or someone who has already worked harder than you or I ever wanted to in the first place, for longer than we can imagine possible, and more selflessly than we ever dreamed?

Presumably both described versions of God possess all knowledge, the only difference is that one had to learn it and one somehow magically always had it.  I find more impressive the one who had to work for it.  Someone who has spent their entire existence on easy street (so to speak) just doesn't seem that impressive to me.  It's pretty easy to just be who you are; it's amazingly difficult to become something better.  When I look around me, the people who impress me are those who keep going long after I would have given up.

PS: Welcome to the forums!

[MrShorty]

Much of my thought on this flows out of this previous discussion: https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/61190-what-is-the-scope-of-gods-creation/ God might be bound by some higher laws, but He still created the entire universe that I can observe (and presumably the laws that govern it as well). In my view, God retains His greatness and majesty because He clearly transcends anything that I can observe.

Of course, not all agree with that assessment (as you can see from the Kolob theorem discussion).

[Vort]

Yes. Yes.

[Jane_Doe]

4 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

Is God the most high?

Yes, that is scriptural.

4 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

God was once a man, now enthroned in yonder heaven. True, he is perfect and just and glorified, but he is still a being bound by laws that we don't know where the came from (or perhaps are simply self existing). This version of God doesn't create ex nihilo and reminds me of the statement that any sufficiently advanced technology would appear as magic to one of lesser understanding. With that in mind, one could simply treat this God as a sufficiently progressed man. Which is some ways removes the mystery and majesty of the divine. 

I'm just going to dismiss a couple of myths here that don't originate from the Gospel--

-- In order to be "Godly enough" God must have created ex nihilio.  Just no.  Ex nihilio is not a scriptural concept and we don't need to add non-scriptural concepts to make the True God "good enough".

-- Likewise: In order to be "Godly enough" God must get to do whatever He wants.  Totally unscriptural.  Being God is not about being a gaint toddler and doing whatever you want.  Rather it's about the True freedom that comes from living Perfect Righteousness.

-- God is not simply a techno-wizard.  Just no on so many levels.  For example, no technology level grants Perfect Love.  

-- God is simply a sufficiently progressed man and remove the majesty of the divine.   No.   I can't even bring myself to humor this misconception.

4 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

Now let's go to the other hand. God is a self existing being who created our universe from nothing. He created the laws of our universe and is not bound by them. This leaves more questions about his reasoning as the idea of an omnipotent being creating feeling creatures that will suffer if they don't follow him by faith alone, that has its own set of problems. 

This second being is more mysterious and divine in someways in my mind.  But the question is, which God (if either) is God?  

Yeah, a giant toddler that needs pagan philosophy to be good enough.   No, such being is the product of man's imagination and is not God in the slightest. 

4 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

I think the idea I have is that, the LDS idea of God sometimes makes me feel like we lessen him by putting him on our level.  That he simply holds all knowledge and that is how he does everything. 

True LDS theology in NO way 'lessons' God.  Such is impossible.

4 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

What do you all think?

I would recommend a scripture study session for you to remember who the True God is.  He's not a toddler, not a pagan byproduct, not a techno-wizard.  He is a loving Perfect Father.  I would recommend starting with looking at His Perfect love, justice, and mercy: traits sorely missing from all these myths.

[Jane_Doe]

Another myth:

-- In order for God to be "good enough" He must forever be completely unknowable, mysterious, and beyond human comprehension.  This is blatantly anti-scriptural.  Rather, the Gospel teaches: "3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."  (John 17:3)

[person0]

Quote

7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjurethee by God, that thou torment me not.
(Mark 5:7) emphasis added

This verse establishes two things:

1) God the Father is the most high.

2) There is more than one being that can be identified as a god.

• The spirits comprising Legion did not pass through the veil and would have maintained a remembrance of pre-mortal life.  As a result, when they identify Jesus as the Son of the most high God, this would likely not have been in reference to the Father's reality and greatness compared to the various false God's worshiped by mankind at the time.

Edited September 11, 2017 by person0

[laronius]

Following the apostasy, or should I say during it, one of the very first doctrines of Christ that Satan attacked was man's understanding of who God is. Why? Because as Joseph Smith pointed out, if we do not comprehend God we cannot comprehend ourselves. That isn't to say we know everything there is to know about God but we do understand who he is and knowing who he is tells us who we are. The result of the post-apostasy skewed idea of God is a belief that cheapens and degrades all of mankind. We are majestic beings with so much potential we can scarcely even begin to comprehend what awaits us in the eternities if we stick to the path God has laid out for us. Raise your view of who you are and can be and the majesty of God our Father takes on epic proportions.

[Fether]

11 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

I feel this is an outgrowth of some thoughts I have been having regarding the King Follet discourse. 

I know this isn't standard works level cannon but for the sake of discussion let's assume it is. 

God was once a man, now enthroned in yonder heaven. True, he is perfect and just and glorified, but he is still a being bound by laws that we don't know where the came from (or perhaps are simply self existing). This version of God doesn't create ex nihilo and reminds me of the statement that any sufficiently advanced technology would appear as magic to one of lesser understanding. With that in mind, one could simply treat this God as a sufficiently progressed man. Which is some ways removes the mystery and majesty of the divine. 

Now let's go to the other hand. God is a self existing being who created our universe from nothing. He created the laws of our universe and is not bound by them. This leaves more questions about his reasoning as the idea of an omnipotent being creating feeling creatures that will suffer if they don't follow him by faith alone, that has its own set of problems. 

This second being is more mysterious and divine in someways in my mind. But the question is, which God (if either) is God?  

I think the idea I have is that, the LDS idea of God sometimes makes me feel like we lessen him by putting him on our level.  That he simply holds all knowledge and that is how he does everything. 

What do you all think?

I have played with the idea that God was just a man part of a highly technologically advanced human race that squires immortality, then to build a perfect society, the "god's" built this simulation for all men to go down before become part of such a perfect society. Only those that pass this simulation will acquire said "God hood" and he a part of this eternally growing perfect society.

This is of course all hullabaloo and not worth spending time rationalizing

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/tad-r-callister_our-identity-and-our-destiny/

this talk was one of my first exposures to the topic and I feel it answers a lot of your questions.

this doctrine doesn't diminish god, but raises us to him. God does not intend that he will always be a mystery, but that one day we will be to fully rationalize his greatness and understand how he got there. 

Why doesn't he do it now?

a thousand years  ago if a man cured a case of polio, he would be a magician or holy man. Today he would be a doctor or scientist, far less impressive. We may have a similar reaction to god if we understood everything today.

 

[zil]

5 minutes ago, Fether said:

We may have a similar reaction to god if we understood everything today.

I submit that our mortal selves could not possibly contain that understanding nor survive the process of trying to receive it.

[Fether]

1 minute ago, zil said:

I submit that our mortal selves could not possibly contain that understanding nor survive the process of trying to receive it.

I think you are right 

[Traveler]

16 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

I feel this is an outgrowth of some thoughts I have been having regarding the King Follet discourse. 

I know this isn't standard works level cannon but for the sake of discussion let's assume it is. 

God was once a man, now enthroned in yonder heaven. True, he is perfect and just and glorified, but he is still a being bound by laws that we don't know where the came from (or perhaps are simply self existing). This version of God doesn't create ex nihilo and reminds me of the statement that any sufficiently advanced technology would appear as magic to one of lesser understanding. With that in mind, one could simply treat this God as a sufficiently progressed man. Which is some ways removes the mystery and majesty of the divine. 

Now let's go to the other hand. God is a self existing being who created our universe from nothing. He created the laws of our universe and is not bound by them. This leaves more questions about his reasoning as the idea of an omnipotent being creating feeling creatures that will suffer if they don't follow him by faith alone, that has its own set of problems. 

This second being is more mysterious and divine in someways in my mind. But the question is, which God (if either) is God?  

I think the idea I have is that, the LDS idea of God sometimes makes me feel like we lessen him by putting him on our level.  That he simply holds all knowledge and that is how he does everything. 

What do you all think?

 

I do not understand how being a man degrades G-d in any way.  Whenever someone comes up with an idea of G-d – I hold that idea up against the example of Jesus Christ.  It no more degrades G-d the Father to have been a man than it degraded Jesus to come to earth and become a man to save us all.  I think the idea that G-d is degraded if he is ever a man is to deny the Christ.  I do not understand why anyone claiming to be a Christian would do such a thing????

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

Well, since we are going down this rabbit hole which we aren't discussing doctrine specifically, but more LDS theory (though expounded upon and expanded from an original talk given by a Prophet in what we assume was a prophetic statement of how thing are), we could go down that rabbit hole moreso.

We find in the Pearl of Great price that in heaven there were MANY, and that it was more under the direction of the Most High that this world was created.  However, ALL of us most likely took part in the creation of this world, and that was done under the Son who was also our leader in this process under the Father.  Hence, when you think of creation, even as pre-mortal spirits, we had a great deal of power.  This was because we, in fact, were, as per the LDS theory, gods already, but not as the Most High who had received exaltation and glory and ruled as our King in Heaven.  He was as far above us as we are above the lowly intelligences that have yet to attain any degree of spiritual rainment as of yet. 

However, we have passed through a veil of forgetfulness and forgotten who we were, and what we did.  Even then, I think with the knowledge we have, even if we had the mystical idea of him rather than the idea of what he is and became, our idea of how glorious and powerful he is cannot and does not match how glorious he truly is.  It is beyond what we can even imagine in our mortal state.  If we think this idea diminishes our idea of Our Father, then it is only because our weakness in comprehending just how high his glory truly is, and not being able to even comprehend that if we realized it, we still couldn't comprehend just how great his glory and power truly are. 

If we did realize it, if we weren't obliterated with the thought, we probably would do anything we could to never sin, and literally almost be catatonic rather than risk displeasing him.

[person0]

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

However, we have passed through a veil of forgetfulness and forgotten who we were, and what we did.

Makes you wonder, there are those of us who were on the Lord's side in pre-mortal life, and yet in this life fall to the state of being son's of perdition.  Is it possible that some among Lucifer and his followers, if passed through the veil and given a body, would ultimately be righteous, make and keep covenants, and based on mortal life only, be eligible to return to the celestial kingdom? Obviously not going to happen, but just a curious thought.

[Fether]

42 minutes ago, person0 said:

Makes you wonder, there are those of us who were on the Lord's side in pre-mortal life, and yet in this life fall to the state of being son's of perdition.  Is it possible that some among Lucifer and his followers, if passed through the veil and given a body, would ultimately be righteous, make and keep covenants, and based on mortal life only, be eligible to return to the celestial kingdom? Obviously not going to happen, but just a curious thought.

Ephesians 1:3-5, and Alma 13 suggest otherwise

[Midwest LDS]

The short answer to this is yes God is the most High ( the Savior taught us this himself). And yes it absolutely matters. We are taught that life eternal is to know Our Heavenly Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent. All else is never more than speculation and irrelevant to our salvation, else God would have revealed it too us. 

[person0]

53 minutes ago, Fether said:

Ephesians 1:3-5, and Alma 13 suggest otherwise

I am certain that the hypothetical situation I presented will never occur.  However, after reading, I fail to see how the passages you offered would negate the plausibility of what I was saying. Are you saying that lack of being foreordained would be the issue preventing this?  I really wasn't thinking about it that deeply.    It would be like a Total Recall scenario; you were evil, your memories were wiped and you forget who you were, in your memory wiped state you choose to be good.  It happened in Hollywood!  Twice!  

[zil]

1 minute ago, person0 said:

I am certain that the hypothetical situation I presented will never occur.  However, after reading, I fail to see how the passages you offered would negate the plausibility of what I was saying. Are you saying that lack of being foreordained would be the issue preventing this?  I really wasn't thinking about it that deeply.    It would be like a Total Recall scenario; you were evil, your memories were wiped and you forget who you were, in your memory wiped state you choose to be good.  It happened in Hollywood!  Twice!  

Personally, I suspect those who chose to follow Satan were the ones who were fully converted to that path - diehards, as it were.  Some of those who didn't follow him at that time may have been unsure and so they stayed with the majority.  I've wondered if some of them weren't spies, moles, undercover agents, so to speak...  (Not sure that would even have been possible, but, you know, it makes for an entertaining story.)

[person0]

Just now, zil said:

Personally, I suspect those who chose to follow Satan were the ones who were fully converted to that path - diehards, as it were.  Some of those who didn't follow him at that time may have been unsure and so they stayed with the majority.  I've wondered if some of them weren't spies, moles, undercover agents, so to speak...  (Not sure that would even have been possible, but, you know, it makes for an entertaining story.)

Do I see a movie script in the works?

[zil]

4 minutes ago, person0 said:

Do I see a movie script in the works?

No way.  I want nothing to do with Hollywood.

[person0]

1 minute ago, zil said:

No way.  I want nothing to do with Hollywood.

Looks like Reign of Judges has been funded.  Perhaps you could do it without Hollywood.  

[zil]

5 minutes ago, person0 said:

Looks like Reign of Judges has been funded.  Perhaps you could do it without Hollywood.  

Nope.  Written word or not at all (and since I decline to write fiction set in reality, I won't be writing this one).  Sorry, you'll have to use your own imagination. 

[Fether]

37 minutes ago, zil said:

Personally, I suspect those who chose to follow Satan were the ones who were fully converted to that path - diehards, as it were.  Some of those who didn't follow him at that time may have been unsure and so they stayed with the majority.  I've wondered if some of them weren't spies, moles, undercover agents, so to speak...  (Not sure that would even have been possible, but, you know, it makes for an entertaining story.)

@person0 I gotchya

I always understood it like this:

If a spirit was good, he was foreordained to the church. If he was bad or lukewarm, he was not. I imagine there were those that were foreordained and failed to, but there were none that were not foreordained and later repented and changed. That would suggest God dis not they would later be good.

sons of perdition are not foreordained to the gospel.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Fether

[Vort]

1 hour ago, zil said:

I decline to write fiction set in reality

Why? Is it because you don't want the burden and restrictions of historical accuracy? Or is it because you are afraid of getting something wrong? Or is it some other reason or reasons? If you don't mind my asking.

 

[Vort]

duped dupe

Edited October 26, 2018 by Vort