The Godhead And The Role Of The Holy Ghost

[Guest moreholinessgiveme]

I have a lot to say about this - I hope I don't blow you away.

In the Lectures on Faith, Lecture 4 (I believe) it states that God the Father and Jesus Christ have a common mind. I take this to be the definition of being a God. If a spirit or coporeal being surrenders their own will completely, while still having a separate awareness, and this is a permanent surrender, then they become "a" God. This is how the Holy Ghost became a God. Jesus was a God in the spirit world before he became mortal. This is how we will become Gods.

The Goodhead is like a Bishopric. There was a time when this current Godhead didn't exist. I will refer to God the Father as Ahman (That's his name).

If Jesus did everything and only things he saw his Father do, then Ahman also performed an atonement for hsi spirit brothers and sisters. When he did that, he was in a different Godhead, playing the role of the Redeemer in that Godhead. IMO, there is a progression of Godheads. There will come a day when Jesus will be called into a new Godhead, where he will play the role of the Father, and the spirit we now name the Holy Ghost will be called to be the Redeemer in that Godhead, having witnessed all the things which Jesus did as a Redeemer for us.

There is a lot more I can say about this, but I'll stop now to see how you react to htis.

Interesting thoughts!!

Much of this will just have to wait until we're in the Celestial Kingdom, I guess. Until then it is pure speculation.

The pattern for THIS world seemed to be the FIRSTBORN Son did the Redeeming.

We can assume that a similar pattern will happen in our own "Eternal Families"; perhaps one day my wife and I will stand before our own host of children and ask "Who will I send?" and my firstborn son will answer "Here I am, send me" and everything will follow the pattern.

Who knows?

[HiJolly]

I have a lot to say about this - I hope I don't blow you away.

In the Lectures on Faith, Lecture 4 (I believe) it states that God the Father and Jesus Christ have a common mind. I take this to be the definition of being a God. If a spirit or coporeal being surrenders their own will completely, while still having a separate awareness, and this is a permanent surrender, then they become "a" God. This is how the Holy Ghost became a God. Jesus was a God in the spirit world before he became mortal. This is how we will become Gods.

The Goodhead is like a Bishopric. There was a time when this current Godhead didn't exist. I will refer to God the Father as Ahman (That's his name).

If Jesus did everything and only things he saw his Father do, then Ahman also performed an atonement for hsi spirit brothers and sisters. When he did that, he was in a different Godhead, playing the role of the Redeemer in that Godhead. IMO, there is a progression of Godheads. There will come a day when Jesus will be called into a new Godhead, where he will play the role of the Father, and the spirit we now name the Holy Ghost will be called to be the Redeemer in that Godhead, having witnessed all the things which Jesus did as a Redeemer for us.

There is a lot more I can say about this, but I'll stop now to see how you react to htis.

I appreciate your helpful tone, and willingness to share. That said, though, I'm hoping you won't say much more about that. I know some LDS really get dogmatic about this stuff, I've heard if for decades, but it isn't in scripture and thus needs to take a backseat to the doctrines of the Church that are based in scripture.

Everyone benefits when we recognize speculation for what it is. If you claim it is not speculation, then it is a mystery that has been revealed to you, and has not yet been revealed to the Church. As such, it is not your place to declare it, but the Prophet's. If he chooses not to so declare, then just be patient. And keep it to yourself.

HiJolly

This is very good advice, HiJolly. Let's try and keep this discussion focused on what we do know, and what is taught by the Church, rather than delving into things that have not.

Honos

[larsumms]

I appreciate your helpful tone, and willingness to share. That said, though, I'm hoping you won't say much more about that. I know some LDS really get dogmatic about this stuff, I've heard if for decades, but it isn't in scripture and thus needs to take a backseat to the doctrines of the Church that are based in scripture.

Everyone benefits when we recognize speculation for what it is. If you claim it is not speculation, then it is a mystery that has been revealed to you, and has not yet been revealed to the Church. As such, it is not your place to declare it, but the Prophet's. If he chooses not to so declare, then just be patient. And keep it to yourself.

HiJolly

This is very good advice, HiJolly. Let's try and keep this discussion focused on what we do know, and what is taught by the Church, rather than delving into things that have not.

Honos

I was of the same opinion as HiJolly for a long time, but find that stance to be too conservative now. There is scriptural evidence to support this. But most of the support comes from uncannonized scripture. That is why I choose a forum like this to expose these ideas. This topic is certainly inappropriate for the pulpit or Sunday School. But is it inappropriate to speak about at all. You will note that I did not bare testimony to it - and will not. It is not even my place to ask in prayer if such things are true.

I know there is a danger to delving into these topics, but that is the case with all LDS scholarship. Skousen's 1000 year books caused lots of discussion, but also lots of confusion. When I went on my mission, they tested us in the Mission Training Center to see if we could recall the name of the 12 Apostles from memory. There were 50 new Elders in the class who began suggesting names. More than 12 names were given - many more. Cleon Skousen was one of them, as well as a few BYU Professors.

I have heard leaders in the Church criticise Gerald B Lund (before he was called) for authoring "The Work and The Glory" series. The reason for the critique is that there will be those who will read those books and think they are historical fact, and not a novel based on historical facts. This is why Lund was so careful in producing that series - publishing all his sources of hard data along with the fiction. Although I do look forward to hearing someone say they are descended from Benjamin Steed. ;-}

There are reasons that I broke silence after 25 years.

People ar asking questions that can be answered to some degree within the bounds of revealed scripture, and no one is answering them. The General Authorities don't because people jump on their statements and read too much into them. When I was at BYU, our Bishop had Paul H Dunn come speak to our ward. Our Bishop was a close childhood friend to Dunn. WHen it came time for Q & A and the end of his talk, the first question asked was: "Were Adam and Eve made out of adobe?". LOL. The answer does exist in uncanonized scripture (from Brigham Young). Elder Dunn encouraged the young man to study it out, and did not answer the question nor give a hint. Later in the session, another student asked if he had seen the Savior in person. Dunn responded that the question was too personal for him to answer (which I totally agree with).

I have heard of old men standing up in Testimony Meetings and ranting that women should not work, and using the "Proclamation on the Family" as evidence to back it up. That is a mis-use of the statement from Church Leaders. But what troubles me more is that the presiding authority in that meeting did not stand up afterwards and correct the man. There is clearly stated guidelines in the handbook of instructions to do so. If a non-member stood up in a Testimony meeting and taught falsehood, the presiding authority has a responsibility to correct the statement before the close of the meeting.

So now I believe there is some room for discussion on these topics.

Larsumms,

"Uncanonized scripture" is a contradiction in terms.

We are here to discuss Latter-day Saint beliefs, not entertain unfounded speculation. If you cannot back up your assertions from canonical Scriptures and cogent thought, you will not be allowed to derail this thread.

Your own post admits the dangers in unfounded personal opinion and speculation.

Please give us citation and scriptural support for your positions and allow the members to decide for themselves.

You stated:

You will note that I did not bare testimony to it - and will not. It is not even my place to ask in prayer if such things are true.

Then why do you wish to discuss it here? You will find no answers, except those that must be confirmed through prayer.

Please limit this discussion to things that can be confirmed through the teachings of the Church, through the statements of its leaders, and confirmed through revelatory prayer.

We do not have a problem with questions which challenge the orthodoxy of Mormon beliefs, but we do prefer that they are at least in the same neighborhood.

If you offer a statement, you are expected to be able to either support it by citation or withdraw it.

Honos

[Guest Seraphim]

We want to be very clear here about what is and is not doctrine. Please site the reference for God the Father's name being "Ahman". A link would be especially helpful.

Seraphim

[larsumms]

I was of the same opinion as HiJolly for a long time, but find that stance to be too conservative now. There is scriptural evidence to support this. But most of the support comes from uncannonized scripture. That is why I choose a forum like this to expose these ideas. This topic is certainly inappropriate for the pulpit or Sunday School. But is it inappropriate to speak about at all. You will note that I did not bare testimony to it - and will not. It is not even my place to ask in prayer if such things are true.

I know there is a danger to delving into these topics, but that is the case with all LDS scholarship. Skousen's 1000 year books caused lots of discussion, but also lots of confusion. When I went on my mission, they tested us in the Mission Training Center to see if we could recall the name of the 12 Apostles from memory. There were 50 new Elders in the class who began suggesting names. More than 12 names were given - many more. Cleon Skousen was one of them, as well as a few BYU Professors.

I have heard leaders in the Church criticise Gerald B Lund (before he was called) for authoring "The Work and The Glory" series. The reason for the critique is that there will be those who will read those books and think they are historical fact, and not a novel based on historical facts. This is why Lund was so careful in producing that series - publishing all his sources of hard data along with the fiction. Although I do look forward to hearing someone say they are descended from Benjamin Steed. ;-}

There are reasons that I broke silence after 25 years.

People ar asking questions that can be answered to some degree within the bounds of revealed scripture, and no one is answering them. The General Authorities don't because people jump on their statements and read too much into them. When I was at BYU, our Bishop had Paul H Dunn come speak to our ward. Our Bishop was a close childhood friend to Dunn. WHen it came time for Q & A and the end of his talk, the first question asked was: "Were Adam and Eve made out of adobe?". LOL. The answer does exist in uncanonized scripture (from Brigham Young). Elder Dunn encouraged the young man to study it out, and did not answer the question nor give a hint. Later in the session, another student asked if he had seen the Savior in person. Dunn responded that the question was too personal for him to answer (which I totally agree with).

I have heard of old men standing up in Testimony Meetings and ranting that women should not work, and using the "Proclamation on the Family" as evidence to back it up. That is a mis-use of the statement from Church Leaders. But what troubles me more is that the presiding authority in that meeting did not stand up afterwards and correct the man. There is clearly stated guidelines in the handbook of instructions to do so. If a non-member stood up in a Testimony meeting and taught falsehood, the presiding authority has a responsibility to correct the statement before the close of the meeting.

So now I believe there is some room for discussion on these topics.

Larsumms,

"Uncanonized scripture" is a contradiction in terms.

We are here to discuss Latter-day Saint beliefs, not entertain unfounded speculation. If you cannot back up your assertions from canonical Scriptures and cogent thought, you will not be allowed to derail this thread.

Your own post admits the dangers in unfounded personal opinion and speculation.

Please give us citation and scriptural support for your positions and allow the members to decide for themselves.

You stated:

Then why do you wish to discuss it here? You will find no answers, except those that must be confirmed through prayer.

Please limit this discussion to things that can be confirmed through the teachings of the Church, through the statements of its leaders, and confirmed through revelatory prayer.

We do not have a problem with questions which challenge the orthodoxy of Mormon beliefs, but we do prefer that they are at least in the same neighborhood.

If you offer a statement, you are expected to be able to either support it by citation or withdraw it.

Honos

[Honos]

Larsumms, your link is broken. Try again.

[larsumms]

First of all, the tone of the challenge I am recieving is not good. I have seen this before, and it is unbecoming of members of Christ's Church. It promotes silence.

John 5:19 – Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, Verily, I say unto you, The Son doeth nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son also.

The Son doeth what he hath seen the Father do; then the Father hath some day laid down his life and taken it again.

History of the Church, J Smith, V5:426

The book of John was originally written in Greek. The key to this verse is the word “seeth”. “What he seeth the Father do”. In Greek, John used the verb “plebo”. The most common use of plebo is “to see with one’s own eyes”. The most accurate definition is “to observe accurately”. The emphasis is on the person doing the perceiving. Essentially, it means “to witness”. If Jesus witnessed an atonement performed by Heavenly Father, what form would Jesus have had at that time. Since Heavenly Father was not yet a celestial man, then Jesus could not yet have been born as a spirit body. Therefore, if Jesus observed the atonement performed by Heavenly Father, he would have been an intelligence.

Joseph Smith said concerning John 5:19:

If Jesus 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 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.

History of the church, J Smith, V6:476

In the Journal of Discourses, Heber C. Kimball said the following While opening a meeting in prayer:

I pray that I may have the spirit of my Father and my God, and the spirit of Jesus, my elder brother, who is like unto his Father; and a pray that I may partake of the spirit of the Holy Ghost, which is in the same family and lineage. (V4:362)

The phrase “in the same lineage” is interesting. Why not just stop the sentence with “in the same family”. Why was “in the same lineage” added? If you assume that Holy Ghost is a spirit brother to Jesus, the term “same lineage” is redundant to “same family”.

There is more if you want it, but it brings in many other issues that will sidetrack the topic.

So I will end this entry with this comment - you state "then why would you say these things here?" What is so special about this website that one cannot discuss this topic. DIscussion is not speculation. If I put in all these quotes at the start, would you have read it, or passed over it as being too lengthy.

When I was a new convert at BYU, I taught a Sunday School lesson on the Plan of Salvation. I made a side comment like "and if Jesus had not atoned for us, we would all become angels to the devil". You should have seen the reaction I got. People got HOT real fast. They demanded a citation of validation of that teaching. Here it is: 2 NE 9:8-9. It states that teaching very clearly. When I told them the cite, the russling of pages all over the room was something I will never forget. I was a new convert, and had read the BOM only once. Most of the people in the room were born in the Church, yet the did not know this. As you read this, did you know that teaching? If not, why not? I submit that you did not know it because members do not study the doctrine enough - they just repeat what they hear - and what we hear are the simple truths that are appropriate for public meetings because investigators are present.

Do you see now why I am speaking out? You are doctrinally bigoted - which promotes silence and lack of learning.

Understanding our wonderful doctrine is not done through dictation - it is done through study.

For example - I was challenged earlier to provide a reference for the term "Ahman".

It was very easy to find - how come you didn't do that first before challenging me for a citation?

Bruce R McKonkie once said that he regretted having written "Mormon Doctrine". When asked wy, he said that members go to his writings first before the scriptures. I think there is more to that than meets the eye. The reason they go to Mormon Doctrine is that there is comfort in being dictated to. It is easier to recieve than to dig. It is easier to challenge than to look it up.

[Guest Iggy]

First of all, the tone of the challenge I am recieving is not good. I have seen this before, and it is unbecoming of members of Christ's Church. It promotes silence.

Did you not read the rules of this forum? Or did you just skip the reading and click on the I Agree button? Actually here at this Forum, they have been overly kind about requesting more information and references with links to what you are posting.

I belong to three other LDS based forums, and at two of them your account would have been deleted before this last post of yours.

Your link does not work, can you not post it again. Thank you.

[Honos]

First of all, the tone of the challenge I am recieving is not good. I have seen this before, and it is unbecoming of members of Christ's Church. It promotes silence.

John 5:19 – Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, Verily, I say unto you, The Son doeth nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son also.

The Son doeth what he hath seen the Father do; then the Father hath some day laid down his life and taken it again.

History of the Church, J Smith, V5:426

The book of John was originally written in Greek. The key to this verse is the word “seeth”. “What he seeth the Father do”. In Greek, John used the verb “plebo”. The most common use of plebo is “to see with one’s own eyes”. The most accurate definition is “to observe accurately”. The emphasis is on the person doing the perceiving. Essentially, it means “to witness”. If Jesus witnessed an atonement performed by Heavenly Father, what form would Jesus have had at that time. Since Heavenly Father was not yet a celestial man, then Jesus could not yet have been born as a spirit body. Therefore, if Jesus observed the atonement performed by Heavenly Father, he would have been an intelligence.

Joseph Smith said concerning John 5:19:

If Jesus 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 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.

History of the church, J Smith, V6:476

In the Journal of Discourses, Heber C. Kimball said the following While opening a meeting in prayer:

I pray that I may have the spirit of my Father and my God, and the spirit of Jesus, my elder brother, who is like unto his Father; and a pray that I may partake of the spirit of the Holy Ghost, which is in the same family and lineage. (V4:362)

The phrase “in the same lineage” is interesting. Why not just stop the sentence with “in the same family”. Why was “in the same lineage” added? If you assume that Holy Ghost is a spirit brother to Jesus, the term “same lineage” is redundant to “same family”.

There is more if you want it, but it brings in many other issues that will sidetrack the topic.

So I will end this entry with this comment - you state "then why would you say these things here?" What is so special about this website that one cannot discuss this topic. DIscussion is not speculation. If I put in all these quotes at the start, would you have read it, or passed over it as being too lengthy.

When I was a new convert at BYU, I taught a Sunday School lesson on the Plan of Salvation. I made a side comment like "and if Jesus had not atoned for us, we would all become angels to the devil". You should have seen the reaction I got. People got HOT real fast. They demanded a citation of validation of that teaching. Here it is: 2 NE 9:8-9. It states that teaching very clearly. When I told them the cite, the russling of pages all over the room was something I will never forget. I was a new convert, and had read the BOM only once. Most of the people in the room were born in the Church, yet the did not know this. As you read this, did you know that teaching? If not, why not? I submit that you did not know it because members do not study the doctrine enough - they just repeat what they hear - and what we hear are the simple truths that are appropriate for public meetings because investigators are present.

Do you see now why I am speaking out? You are doctrinally bigoted - which promotes silence and lack of learning.

Understanding our wonderful doctrine is not done through dictation - it is done through study.

For example - I was challenged earlier to provide a reference for the term "Ahman".

It was very easy to find - how come you didn't do that first before challenging me for a citation?

Bruce R McKonkie once said that he regretted having written "Mormon Doctrine". When asked wy, he said that members go to his writings first before the scriptures. I think there is more to that than meets the eye. The reason they go to Mormon Doctrine is that there is comfort in being dictated to. It is easier to recieve than to dig. It is easier to challenge than to look it up.

Lars,

This board is for congenial discussion of LDS beliefs, not unfounded speculation based on cherry-picked scriptures, not debate, and certainly not for name calling.

Finally, you accuse us of using the scriptures to promote silence. Scripture can also be used to promote heresy, which is why we choose to err on the side of caution.

You were asked to: 1) provide citation for your assertions, and 2) avoid discussing something speculative which you yourself admitted was not appropriate for discussion in Church.

Your response was argumentative, hostile, and abusive.

Because of your aggressive tone, name calling, and third failure to offer citation (and lambasting us for not tracking it down for you) you will be suspended for three days. Please come back in a more suitable frame of mind. One that does not include accusations of bigotry.

That will not be tolerated here.

Come see us in three days.

Honos

[MorningStar]

First of all, the tone of the challenge I am recieving is not good. I have seen this before, and it is unbecoming of members of Christ's Church. It promotes silence.

John 5:19 – Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, Verily, I say unto you, The Son doeth nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son also.

The Son doeth what he hath seen the Father do; then the Father hath some day laid down his life and taken it again.

History of the Church, J Smith, V5:426

The book of John was originally written in Greek. The key to this verse is the word “seeth”. “What he seeth the Father do”. In Greek, John used the verb “plebo”. The most common use of plebo is “to see with one’s own eyes”. The most accurate definition is “to observe accurately”. The emphasis is on the person doing the perceiving. Essentially, it means “to witness”. If Jesus witnessed an atonement performed by Heavenly Father, what form would Jesus have had at that time. Since Heavenly Father was not yet a celestial man, then Jesus could not yet have been born as a spirit body. Therefore, if Jesus observed the atonement performed by Heavenly Father, he would have been an intelligence.

Joseph Smith said concerning John 5:19:

If Jesus 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 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.

History of the church, J Smith, V6:476

In the Journal of Discourses, Heber C. Kimball said the following While opening a meeting in prayer:

I pray that I may have the spirit of my Father and my God, and the spirit of Jesus, my elder brother, who is like unto his Father; and a pray that I may partake of the spirit of the Holy Ghost, which is in the same family and lineage. (V4:362)

The phrase “in the same lineage” is interesting. Why not just stop the sentence with “in the same family”. Why was “in the same lineage” added? If you assume that Holy Ghost is a spirit brother to Jesus, the term “same lineage” is redundant to “same family”.

There is more if you want it, but it brings in many other issues that will sidetrack the topic.

So I will end this entry with this comment - you state "then why would you say these things here?" What is so special about this website that one cannot discuss this topic. DIscussion is not speculation. If I put in all these quotes at the start, would you have read it, or passed over it as being too lengthy.

When I was a new convert at BYU, I taught a Sunday School lesson on the Plan of Salvation. I made a side comment like "and if Jesus had not atoned for us, we would all become angels to the devil". You should have seen the reaction I got. People got HOT real fast. They demanded a citation of validation of that teaching. Here it is: 2 NE 9:8-9. It states that teaching very clearly. When I told them the cite, the russling of pages all over the room was something I will never forget. I was a new convert, and had read the BOM only once. Most of the people in the room were born in the Church, yet the did not know this. As you read this, did you know that teaching? If not, why not? I submit that you did not know it because members do not study the doctrine enough - they just repeat what they hear - and what we hear are the simple truths that are appropriate for public meetings because investigators are present.

Do you see now why I am speaking out? You are doctrinally bigoted - which promotes silence and lack of learning.

Understanding our wonderful doctrine is not done through dictation - it is done through study.

For example - I was challenged earlier to provide a reference for the term "Ahman".

It was very easy to find - how come you didn't do that first before challenging me for a citation?

Bruce R McKonkie once said that he regretted having written "Mormon Doctrine". When asked wy, he said that members go to his writings first before the scriptures. I think there is more to that than meets the eye. The reason they go to Mormon Doctrine is that there is comfort in being dictated to. It is easier to recieve than to dig. It is easier to challenge than to look it up.

D & C 78:

20 Wherefore, do the things which I have commanded you, saith your Redeemer, even the Son aAhman, who prepareth all things before he btaketh you;

The Son is referred to as Ahman in this scripture.

[HiJolly]

D & C 78:

The Son is referred to as Ahman in this scripture.

James E. Talmage wrote in the beginning of "Jesus the Christ" that all the names we have for God are really not names - they are titles. I realize that Jesus the Christ is not scripture, and therefore not doctrine, but I believe that his view is correct. And the Son inherits much from the Father, including titles. FWIW.

Another point. This LDS Forum has a lot of investigating and otherwise new-to-the-gospel folks participating. I'd hate to be responsible for teaching something that is not scripturally defensable, particularly when it pertains to the nature of God and the things of eternity. In this, a PUBLIC setting, caution is called for, demanded, even.

OTOH, in our personal persuits, there is no limit. In the book of Mormon, we have excellent examples of writers having beautiful truths which cannot be written. They stop and say "I was going to write more, but the Spirit constraineth me". Not because it's impossible, (though there is some of that, the ineffible, to be sure), and not because they're not true; but because it is to be taught by the Holy Ghost alone, to each of our Heavenly Father's children, as they are ready to receive it.

We are promised in the Doctrine & Covenants that we will be taught by members of the Church of the Firstborn, if we grow in the Gospel and honor our covenants (paraphrasing, I admit). We all know at least one member of that Church, and that is the Holy Ghost. He is the perfect teacher, for what He teaches to us, is then KNOWN to us. Gnosis, if you will.

This is all my opinion, of course, and if anyone takes exception to it, I'd like to know.

HiJolly

[Pa Pa]

MorningStar said...

They are one in purpose, but have different functions. We have God The Father who has a body of flesh and bone and is the Father of our spirits. The Son had a body of flesh and blood and was needed to Atone for our sins, and The Holy Ghost is needed to testify of both of them and enable us to feel God's influence everywhere. They work rather nicely together. :)

Best discription I've seen in a long time. They each act in concert...I guess there are some things only a spirit can do...thus th need for HG.

Pa Pa

[Steele]

I actually agree with a lot of what larsumms has to say, but it all boils down to this: you've got to stick with the LDS canonized scriptures. Yeah, it's fun to read the Apocrypha, etc. (ever read some o' dat? Wow, there's some pretty funky stuff in there, and some of it's even true -- see D&C 91), but like larsumms said himself, Elder McConkie was upset because the members didn't search out the scriptures (read LDS canonized scriptures).

I also think we have to be really careful about the inferences and conclusions that we draw from the scriptures.

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Pet. 1:20)

Unless a member of the Godhead or the prophet of the Lord addresses or clarifies a particular scripture or doctrine, we should keep any and all private interpretations, well, private.

For example, I think it's really interesting to dig down deep and uncover some of the original Greek words used in the NT. I've learned a lot by doing that. This stuff about the verb "plebo" and how it means "to witness" is very interesting to me. To suddenly conclude, however, that this means that Christ witnessed the atonement of His Father as an intelligence is well, like starting to take a walk out into left field. We don't know what Christ saw of His Father's life, when He saw it, how He saw it, etc. There have been many people (Nephi, the Brother of Jared, Moses, etc.) who saw "The Vision" -- all things unfolded from the beginning to the end, etc., while they lived here on Earth, not as intelligences. When Christ says, "...for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise" -- does that mean that He saw some/all of the Father's life? Possibly. Could it mean that He (Christ) saw it while living here on Earth? Possibly. We just don't know. And also, we run into trouble when we take things out of context.

If you go back and read John chapter 5, Christ never mentions anything about witnessing the atonement of His Father. Within the context of John 5, it's much more likely that Christ healed on the Sabbath simply because He was following the example and doing the will of the Father in all things. When Christ says, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do" -- what do you think that means? Personally, I don't think that means that Christ would eat honey comb and fish after his resurrection only because He saw the Father do it, too. Or that Christ walked to Cana and turned water into wine only because He saw the Father do it, too. Or that Christ sat over against the treasury and gave the parable of the widow's mite only because He saw His Father do it, too, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

What I understand from that (Uh, oh, Danger, Will Robinson! Warning, Warning -- private interpretation coming, private interpretation coming -- Warning, Warning!!!) Christ seems to be saying, like he says elsewhere, that He does only that which pleases the Father and that He suffers "the will of the Father in all things from the beginning."

Bottom line -- let's stick with what we've been given to work with -- namely, the canonized scriptures, a living prophet, and the Holy Ghost. Yeah, it's fun to wonder if the Heavenly Gates slide on wheels or swing on hinges, but let's not get carried away with lots of stuff that we just don't know. :)

[MorningStar]

James E. Talmage wrote in the beginning of "Jesus the Christ" that all the names we have for God are really not names - they are titles. I realize that Jesus the Christ is not scripture, and therefore not doctrine, but I believe that his view is correct. And the Son inherits much from the Father, including titles. FWIW.

Another point. This LDS Forum has a lot of investigating and otherwise new-to-the-gospel folks participating. I'd hate to be responsible for teaching something that is not scripturally defensable, particularly when it pertains to the nature of God and the things of eternity. In this, a PUBLIC setting, caution is called for, demanded, even.

OTOH, in our personal persuits, there is no limit. In the book of Mormon, we have excellent examples of writers having beautiful truths which cannot be written. They stop and say "I was going to write more, but the Spirit constraineth me". Not because it's impossible, (though there is some of that, the ineffible, to be sure), and not because they're not true; but because it is to be taught by the Holy Ghost alone, to each of our Heavenly Father's children, as they are ready to receive it.

We are promised in the Doctrine & Covenants that we will be taught by members of the Church of the Firstborn, if we grow in the Gospel and honor our covenants (paraphrasing, I admit). We all know at least one member of that Church, and that is the Holy Ghost. He is the perfect teacher, for what He teaches to us, is then KNOWN to us. Gnosis, if you will.

This is all my opinion, of course, and if anyone takes exception to it, I'd like to know.

HiJolly

Amen

MorningStar said...

Best discription I've seen in a long time. They each act in concert...I guess there are some things only a spirit can do...thus th need for HG.

Pa Pa

Thank you! :)

[snipe123]

James E. Talmage wrote in the beginning of "Jesus the Christ" that all the names we have for God are really not names - they are titles. I realize that Jesus the Christ is not scripture, and therefore not doctrine, but I believe that his view is correct. And the Son inherits much from the Father, including titles. FWIW.

Another point. This LDS Forum has a lot of investigating and otherwise new-to-the-gospel folks participating. I'd hate to be responsible for teaching something that is not scripturally defensable, particularly when it pertains to the nature of God and the things of eternity. In this, a PUBLIC setting, caution is called for, demanded, even.

OTOH, in our personal persuits, there is no limit. In the book of Mormon, we have excellent examples of writers having beautiful truths which cannot be written. They stop and say "I was going to write more, but the Spirit constraineth me". Not because it's impossible, (though there is some of that, the ineffible, to be sure), and not because they're not true; but because it is to be taught by the Holy Ghost alone, to each of our Heavenly Father's children, as they are ready to receive it.

We are promised in the Doctrine & Covenants that we will be taught by members of the Church of the Firstborn, if we grow in the Gospel and honor our covenants (paraphrasing, I admit). We all know at least one member of that Church, and that is the Holy Ghost. He is the perfect teacher, for what He teaches to us, is then KNOWN to us. Gnosis, if you will.

This is all my opinion, of course, and if anyone takes exception to it, I'd like to know.

HiJolly

I would like to agree with these sentiments and also add a few words in response to LARSUMMS:

Heb. 5: 12, 14

12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

There is a very good reason for this concept taught by Paul...To illustrate lets play with his analogy a bit...

What will happen if you set a baby down in a high chair and throw a Steak on his tray?

1) He will look at you like your stupid.

2)This big fearsome steak just might scare the crap out of him.

2)He will look at the steak and wonder what he is supposed to do with it.

3)He will poke at it and still wonder what to do with it.

After Poking at it and looking at it and marveling at this new thing he will:

1) Throw it on the floor.

2) Put it in his mouth.

After he puts it on his mouth, he will:

1)Spit it out and reject it.

2)Choke on it.

The same principles apply to doctrine

There is no other possible outcome when you have a baby interacting with a steak...ARE YOU READING THIS LARSUMMS? THERE IS NO OTHER OUTCOME WHEN PRESENTING A STEAK TO A BABY, AND IN THE SAME WAY THERE IS NO OTHER OUTCOME WHEN SPECULATING IN THE PRESCENCE OF CONVERTS NEW MEMBERS, AND OTHERS WHO MAY NOT HAVE HEARD THESE CONCEPTS BEFORE.

There is a reason we teach things in the church the way that we do, and it is the same reason that Paul did...Milk before meat.

It might be acceptible to you and others to discuss such speculative topics openly, even when there might be some scriptural justification for the belief, but you also have a responsibility to keep some things to yourself. If these "Doctrines" were so important, they would be preached loudly from the housetops...That you are frustrated that they are not, does not mean you get to take it upon yourself to discuss them openly, especially when God and his prophets are relatively silent on the subject...The Restored Gospel lays bare many plain and precious things related to the salvation of men, and answers many questions...it also creates questions as we have seen on this thread...But it is decidedly silent on many of those questions and there are things we do not know for certain, or clearly...If we were supposed to know, we would. The rest is speculation, and mortals are incapable of understanding such topics as how God, became God...or whether the Godhead is really like some vast celestial bishopric...If it is, what difference does it make to you and me on this earth, and how can you presume to know the answer to that question for certain?

Edited for spelling...:)

[snipe123]

I find discussions about the nature of Heavenly Father interesting. People reject the idea that He has a body, but it makes sense to me that if The Son has a body, The Father has a body. The scripture is frequently brought up that God is a spirit. Yes, and we are spirits too. The Holy Ghost is part of the Godhead and is a spirit and I don't see how this scripture points to Heavenly Father not having a body. If Heavenly Father is just a spirit, then what is the purpose of the Holy Ghost? It seems the Holy Ghost would not be necessary if Heavenly Father had no body.

They are one in purpose, but have different functions. We have God The Father who has a body of flesh and bone and is the Father of our spirits. The Son had a body of flesh and blood and was needed to Atone for our sins, and The Holy Ghost is needed to testify of both of them and enable us to feel God's influence everywhere. They work rather nicely together. :)

The reasons that men reject the idea that God has a physical immortal body is quite an interesting subject to me...When a traditional Christian says they believe that because it is in the Bible they often refer to that scripture that says God is "a Spirit". They do not know that in The Greek, there are no articles, i.e. "a, and, the" so it is impossible for the Greek to say God is a Spirit. You can say God is Love, like the Bible does say...God is Spirit...etc...

So thats interesting, but how did this notion that God is a spirit enter into Christian thinking?

The answer is because the Greeks told them it was so.

One of the most prominant ideas taught by Greek philosopy for centuries is that God will never associate himself with anything physical. Since to be physical, must necessarily imply some form of imperfection or limitation which God cannot have by definition. The Greeks, and Romans rejected the Christian Jesus on those very grounds. Why would God be born as a baby and cry and wail like other crying babies...Why would he suffer death and then say that he "suffered" in that death...The early Christian apologists that emerged after the apostles deaths began to soft soap this idea, saying that Christ only "appeared" to suffer, and that his physical body was not really physical, but appeared to be so that he could walk among men...and that he discarded it after his ascension...They did this despite Christs efforts to convince them he did actually have a physical body, by eating with them and having them touch him etc...

The earliest Christians understood and accepted the idea that GOd had a body and that Christ was truely ressurected and has a physical, perfected body...to some apologists who argued against the Greek ideas sneaking into the church, this doctrine was the one thing that distinguished a Christian from a non-Christian. The Mormon view on this is the most "Christian" if you accept the idea that the Christians living during the time of CHrist and his apostles were also...The current traditional view is the result of the marriage between Greek pagan (neo-platonic)thought and Christianity...and it was the CHristian view that was sacrificed for the sake of appealing to the "educated" classes so that "Christian" doctrine more closely matched the philosophies of the day.