Do you think that God once was a man?

[Shell72]

Which scripture are you trying to refer too?

Hos 11:9

9 I will not carry out my fierce anger,

nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim.

For I am God, and not man—

the Holy One among you.

I will not come in wrath. [c]

[Shell72]

Good to hear that....music can bring peace unto our soul.

It really does, and music makes me feel closer to God - and the music at this Baptist Church is amazing!!

[JohnBirchSociety]

Are you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?

Absolutely. Going on 30 years. Served a mission in Europe, etc...

Again, is it not telling that such a very important statement from Joseph Smith on GOD is completely absent from the context of the Standard Works? If the King Follett Discourse was authoritative at all, it would probably stand as one of the central teachings ever spoken.

Fortunately, we have the Standards Works and the Holy Ghost for protection.

GOD never became GOD. The Standard Works leave no question on this.

[Hemidakota]

My favorite is Michael Mclean...:)

Let do a quick pique for you regarding this book: the Book of Hosea itself begins by showing Jevovah's anger with the children of Israel, whose unfaithfulness toward God is compared to the unfaithfulness of harlots [Hos 2:4-5, 9:15]. But by the end of the book, somehow God's heart is softened [Hos 11:1-3, 8-9, 13:4,9]

We are talking about Jehovah and not GOD the FATHER. Without understanding the author veiwpoint, what is happening, location, and timeframe, you are only taking this out of content. Hosea even mentions that there is no Savior beside him. Remember that verse? What? No Savior? We know differently there is a Savior - namely Jehovah or Jesus Christ. Do you see what I am saying here?

[Hemidakota]

Absolutely. Going on 30 years. Served a mission in Europe, etc...

Again, is it not telling that such a very important statement from Joseph Smith on GOD is completely absent from the context of the Standard Works? If the King Follett Discourse was authoritative at all, it would probably stand as one of the central teachings ever spoken.

Fortunately, we have the Standards Works and the Holy Ghost for protection.

GOD never became GOD. The Standard Works leave no question on this.

Now, you are saying that Joseph Smith and those after him - prophets - are not to be followed at all but the standard works? Are you really sure that is correct statement that is no nothing in the LDS standard works concerning this subject?

Hmm...reminds me of a professor at BYU who stated, "I am active temple goer". My reply, "So what?" trying to impress upon me that his attendance is require to validate his point. This issue was raised with not always follow the prophets. You wonder why there is always a need to bring out the 'broom.'

[Vanhin]

Possible reading comprehension issue here Vanhin or I am guessing you seeking to contend this issue.

At this point, you posted information that is aready been agreed upon and not what we are discussing at hand. Yes! Spiritual elements and intelligence is eternal. What is being present by a member, that includes you, that there is no one prior to GOD. That is not the case.

It's one thing to say, I am specualting, or this is what I think. I am not interested in contending the issue, but I have a hard time just sitting here and watching you and others delve into speculation and deep doctrine, as if you were authorized to teach it as doctrine.

It is pure speculation to say that God had a father. Otherwise it would be easy for you to produce a publication from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon.org to support it. The scriptures definetly do not support it. To say that Heavenly Father has a god is a direct contradiction of the message of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and all revealed scripture. That should be our message as well until (or if) God reveals more about the subject, and it is accepted as official doctrine by the proper process.

When I was a missionary in Finland, Elder John E. Fowler, who at the time was of the Second Quorum of the Seventy (a General Authority) toured our mission. In one of our zone conference he allowed us the opportunity to ask questions. One of the questions was, "Does Heavenly Father have a father?". He answered quickly and without compromise, "We do not know. That is the Church's answer to that question."

Especially here, where people who are young in the gospel, or seeking truth, it is inapproriate to constantly teach as doctrine things that are speculation.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Hemidakota]

Again, there is no speculation but what you think is speculation from your own collected thoughts. If you truly do not believe in what both prophets wrote, talked about, not forgetting others since Joseph Smith, and then is there is an issue. Church answer? Elder Fowler is no longer a member of the Quorum..

However, at this point, as told already, "GOD was once man." If so, then who was His creator Vanhin? Instead of rehashing out the same rhetoric back and forth, then we simply stop here; not bringing out a contentious spirit.

[Guest tomk]

It's one thing to say, I am specualting, or this is what I think. I am not interested in contending the issue, but I have a hard time just sitting here and watching you and others delve into speculation and deep doctrine, as if you were authorized to teach it as doctrine.

It is pure speculation to say that God had a father. Otherwise it would be easy for you to produce a publication from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon.org to support it. The scriptures definetly do not support it. To say that Heavenly Father has a god is a direct contradiction of the message of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and all revealed scripture. That should be our message as well until (or if) God reveals more about the subject, and it is accepted as official doctrine by the proper process.

When I was a missionary in Finland, Elder John E. Fowler, who at the time was of the Second Quorum of the Seventy (a General Authority) toured our mission. In one of our zone conference he allowed us the opportunity to ask questions. One of the questions was, "Does Heavenly Father have a father?". He answered quickly and without compromise, "We do not know. That is the Church's answer to that question."

Especially here, where people who are young in the gospel, or seeking truth, it is inapproriate to constantly teach as doctrine things that are speculation.

Regards,

Vanhin

Maybe I can help with some of your angst by reminding you, and the Moderators of this site, if need be, that LDSNet is not an officially sanctioned site of the LDS Church -- period.

If people are in search of official doctrine, they should go to LDS.org for such -- not these forums. And any information they receive here in these forums should be taken as "well-meaning" but, ultimately, only a lay member response to their question, not an official one.

I know of no BAN on this forum against specualtion, imagination or dreaming of what could be, as long as we identify it as such, which I take great pains to try and do.

And if such a BAN were to try and be enforced - it would lead to chaos. Because the line between doctrine and speculation is easy to cross. Many of those who learn the mysteries do not always realize the need to distinguish what, to them, has long been accepted as truth. Not all of us want to be sitting in Gospel Doctrine all the time. Some of us are ready for meat.

[Shell72]

My favorite is Michael Mclean...:)

Let do a quick pique for you regarding this book: the Book of Hosea itself begins by showing Jevovah's anger with the children of Israel, whose unfaithfulness toward God is compared to the unfaithfulness of harlots [Hos 2:4-5, 9:15]. But by the end of the book, somehow God's heart is softened [Hos 11:1-3, 8-9, 13:4,9]

We are talking about Jehovah and not GOD the FATHER. Without understanding the author veiwpoint, what is happening, location, and timeframe, you are only taking this out of content. Hosea even mentions that there is no Savior beside him. Remember that verse? What? No Savior? We know differently there is a Savior - namely Jehovah or Jesus Christ. Do you see what I am saying here?

I see what you are saying but I don't see how by your examples that it is being taken out of context.

Regardless of what was going on, God said the words "I am not man". It does not matter why he said it. "I am not man" can not mean anything other that the words "I am not man" -

In some cases yes scripture can be taken out of context - but not in this case..

[Hemidakota]

It is Hosea writing abilities and what he wrote. One sense he said, God was not man, the other hand there is no Savior.

If God is not man, then what is written in Genesis from Moses prospective is false also: "Let us make man in our image..."

Now your point is validate since it is written in that particular style.

[skippy740]

Here's something from the Teachings of Brigham Young manual:

LDS.org - Relief Society Chapter Detail - Knowing and Honoring the Godhead

God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost constitute the Godhead. President Brigham Young taught the Latter-day Saints to worship God the Father and address prayers to Him in the name of Jesus Christ. He taught further that God the Father was once a man on another planet who “passed the ordeals we are now passing through; he has received an experience, has suffered and enjoyed, and knows all that we know regarding the toils, sufferings, life and death of this mortality” (DBY, 22).

Some believe or conceive the idea that to know God would lessen him in our estimation; but I can say that for me to understand any principle or being, on earth or in heaven, it does not lessen its true value to me, but on the contrary, it increases it; and the more I can know of God, the dearer and more precious he is to me, and the more exalted are my feelings towards him (DBY, 18).

The great architect, manager and superintendent, controller and dictator [absolute ruler] who guides this work is out of sight to our natural eyes. He lives on another world; he is in another state of existence; he has passed the ordeals we are now passing through; he has received an experience, has suffered and enjoyed, and knows all that we know regarding the toils, sufferings, life and death of this mortality, for he has passed through the whole of it, and has received his crown and exaltation and holds the keys and the power of this Kingdom; he sways his scepter, and does his will among the children of men, among Saints and among sinners, and brings forth results to suit his purpose among kingdoms and nations and empires, that all may redound to his glory and to the perfection of his work (DBY, 22).

[skippy740]

I see what you are saying but I don't see how by your examples that it is being taken out of context.

Regardless of what was going on, God said the words "I am not man". It does not matter why he said it. "I am not man" can not mean anything other that the words "I am not man" -

In some cases yes scripture can be taken out of context - but not in this case..

"I am not man" means that he is not CARNAL or ruled by the flesh - to lie, to lust, to cheat and steal, etc.

He is our God and an Exaulted Being who is above such carnal instincts. That is what the scripture means.

Just my $.02 and I am not trying to stir up any contention, but that is what I believe is the intent behind that scripture.

[Vanhin]

Maybe I can help with some of your angst by reminding you, and the Moderators of this site, if need be, that LDSNet is not an officially sanctioned site of the LDS Church -- period.

If people are in search of official doctrine, they should go to LDS.org for such -- not these forums. And any information they receive here in these forums should be taken as "well-meaning" but, ultimately, only a lay member response to their question, not an official one.

As true as that maybe, it doesn't change the fact that people do come here, and they do read the things we write. Many of the misconceptions that continue to be passed on to others about the Church were originally passed in the same manner by well intending Saints, even leaders of the Church, who perhaps were not clear enough that "Hey! This is just my speculation." Anything else is a huge disservice to the Lord and his work here on earth.

I know of no BAN on this forum against specualtion, imagination or dreaming of what could be, as long as we identify it as such, which I take great pains to try and do.

And if such a BAN were to try and be enforced - it would lead to chaos. Because the line between doctrine and speculation is easy to cross. Many of those who learn the mysteries do not always realize the need to distinguish what, to them, has long been accepted as truth. Not all of us want to be sitting in Gospel Doctrine all the time. Some of us are ready for meat.

And a ban is not needed. I don't have a problem with speculation, imagination, or dreaming. I do my share of it. That's not my point.

It is clear from scripture that Heavenly Father has a body and that we are His offspring. I think that is quite supported, by not just scripture, but also the teachings of latter-day prophets and apostles as found at lds.org and mormons.org. But it is not doctrine that God the Father had a father, or that above Him is another god; and there certainly was no time that either the Father or the Son were not God. That contradicts scripture, and is specualtion at best. It simply contradicts scripture.

17 By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them; (D&C 20:17)

Regards,

Vanhin

[Hemidakota]

Here's something from the Teachings of Brigham Young manual:

LDS.org - Relief Society Chapter Detail - Knowing and Honoring the Godhead

God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost constitute the Godhead. President Brigham Young taught the Latter-day Saints to worship God the Father and address prayers to Him in the name of Jesus Christ. He taught further that God the Father was once a man on another planet who “passed the ordeals we are now passing through; he has received an experience, has suffered and enjoyed, and knows all that we know regarding the toils, sufferings, life and death of this mortality” (DBY, 22).

Some believe or conceive the idea that to know God would lessen him in our estimation; but I can say that for me to understand any principle or being, on earth or in heaven, it does not lessen its true value to me, but on the contrary, it increases it; and the more I can know of God, the dearer and more precious he is to me, and the more exalted are my feelings towards him (DBY, 18).

The great architect, manager and superintendent, controller and dictator [absolute ruler] who guides this work is out of sight to our natural eyes. He lives on another world; he is in another state of existence; he has passed the ordeals we are now passing through; he has received an experience, has suffered and enjoyed, and knows all that we know regarding the toils, sufferings, life and death of this mortality, for he has passed through the whole of it, and has received his crown and exaltation and holds the keys and the power of this Kingdom; he sways his scepter, and does his will among the children of men, among Saints and among sinners, and brings forth results to suit his purpose among kingdoms and nations and empires, that all may redound to his glory and to the perfection of his work (DBY, 22).

As we draw closer to the Savior, we begin to understand what His goal is for our FATHER - bring glory unto HIM as we serve HIM. Thus, the FATHER becomes a impact on our daily lives and center of our mortal desire to be with in the end.

[Hemidakota]

Maybe I can help with some of your angst by reminding you, and the Moderators of this site, if need be, that LDSNet is not an officially sanctioned site of the LDS Church -- period.

If people are in search of official doctrine, they should go to LDS.org for such -- not these forums. And any information they receive here in these forums should be taken as "well-meaning" but, ultimately, only a lay member response to their question, not an official one.

I know of no BAN on this forum against specualtion, imagination or dreaming of what could be, as long as we identify it as such, which I take great pains to try and do.

And if such a BAN were to try and be enforced - it would lead to chaos. Because the line between doctrine and speculation is easy to cross. Many of those who learn the mysteries do not always realize the need to distinguish what, to them, has long been accepted as truth. Not all of us want to be sitting in Gospel Doctrine all the time. Some of us are ready for meat.

One man's opinion is necessary to ensure free agency is at work. However, the rewards of such can be a downfall in ones life if the path taken is not the right one.

[Hemidakota]

"I am not man" means that he is not CARNAL or ruled by the flesh - to lie, to lust, to cheat and steal, etc.

He is our God and an Exaulted Being who is above such carnal instincts. That is what the scripture means.

Just my $.02 and I am not trying to stir up any contention, but that is what I believe is the intent behind that scripture.

Correct statement but he is limited on the spirit at this time. I think highly of him to questioned such but for him, it will require some ponderous and thoughtful prayers in searching the truth.

Thanks

HD

[Shell72]

It is Hosea writing abilities and what he wrote. One sense he said, God was not man, the other hand there is no Savior.

If God is not man, then what is written in Genesis from Moses prospective is false also: "Let us make man in our image..."

Now your point is validate since it is written in that particular style.

I think taking God's word and discarding it with the justification that it was a writing style is a dangerous line..

Even if that were the case, I do not understand how this can be attributed to writing style "For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you. ".

Numbers 23:29 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."

Making something in an image, does not mean they are, or ever were, the same. If I were to paint a picture in my image - does that mean that piece of paper becomes me?

It looks like me - but does that mean that that I ever was a piece of paper? No.. it will always remain a piece of paper, and I will always remain of flesh and blood. What about dolls? They are created in mans image - does that mean that they were ever man or will become man? Or the fact that man created a doll - does that mean man once was a doll?

Where did Hosea say there was no savior? I can not find him saying those words...

[Shell72]

"I am not man" means that he is not CARNAL or ruled by the flesh - to lie, to lust, to cheat and steal, etc.

He is our God and an Exaulted Being who is above such carnal instincts. That is what the scripture means.

Just my $.02 and I am not trying to stir up any contention, but that is what I believe is the intent behind that scripture.

I respectfully disagree.. If God were a man once, I believe He would have told us in the Bible in a way that there would be no doubt. He has told us that He is not man, and I don't understand why when something is stated plainly - that anyone would try to change His words to mean otherwise..

I love your .02 - and I'm certainly very thankful that we can all have this conversation in a respectful way.. It's a nice change when seperate views can be debated with mutual respect. :)

[Hemidakota]

13:4 Jehovah of the Old Testament, who delivered Israel from the land of Egypt, is also Jesus Christ of the New Testament. As stated here, "there is no saviour beside me."

[Guest tomk]

As true as that maybe, it doesn't change the fact that people do come here, and they do read the things we write. Many of the misconceptions that continue to be passed on to others about the Church were originally passed in the same manner by well intending Saints, even leaders of the Church, who perhaps were not clear enough that "Hey! This is just my speculation." Anything else is a huge disservice to the Lord and his work here on earth.

And a ban is not needed. I don't have a problem with speculation, imagination, or dreaming. I do my share of it. That's not my point.

It is clear from scripture that Heavenly Father has a body and that we are His offspring. I think that is quite supported, by not just scripture, but also the teachings of latter-day prophets and apostles as found at lds.org and mormons.org. But it is not doctrine that God the Father had a father, or that above Him is another god; and there certainly was no time that either the Father or the Son were not God. That contradicts scripture, and is specualtion at best. It simply contradicts scripture.

17 By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them; (D&C 20:17)

Regards,

Vanhin

Vanhin:

I understand what you are saying.

I will endeavor to make it clear when I am speculating.

<speculation> How's that? :)

Eternal and Everlasting have a few different meanings. Depending on the context, they do not mean "no beginning / no end". They can refer to a KIND or QUALITY of something.

For example:

From D&C 19

1 I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord; yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world.

2 I, having accomplished and finished the will of him whose I am, even the Father, concerning me—having done this that I might subdue all things unto myself—

3 Retaining all power, even to the destroying of Satan and his works at the end of the world, and the last great day of judgment, which I shall pass upon the inhabitants thereof, judging every man according to his works and the deeds which he hath done.

4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

From the context of the passage above, I interpret vs 11 and 12 thusly:

11 Eternal punishment is God’s [KIND OF] punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s [KIND OF] punishment.

It is not THAT BIG of a stretch for the mind to speculate that God has a Father. God having a Father makes more sense to me than Him coming out of nowhere, or creating Himself as an omnipotent being out of nothing.

If we have to progress to Godhood line upon line, precept upon precept, why wouldn't God?

We are the same species of God. If He can father us, it would seem to indicate that He Himself, had a Father, and His Father had a Father. And so forth and so on. This is not strange to me at all. It makes perfect sense.

</speculation>

[Shell72]

13:4 Jehovah of the Old Testament, who delivered Israel from the land of Egypt, is also Jesus Christ of the New Testament. As stated here, "there is no saviour beside me."

Hosea 13

4 "But I am the LORD your God,

who brought you out of Egypt.

You shall acknowledge no God but me,

no Savior except me.

In the old Testament what other Savior was there?

[Hemidakota]

In the Book of Moses, correction to Genesis, it was Lucifer who try to claim that position.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Again, there is no speculation but what you think is speculation from your own collected thoughts. If you truly do not believe in what both prophets wrote, talked about, not forgetting others since Joseph Smith, and then is there is an issue. Church answer? Elder Fowler is no longer a member of the Quorum..

However, at this point, as told already, "GOD was once man." If so, then who was His creator Vanhin? Instead of rehashing out the same rhetoric back and forth, then we simply stop here; not bringing out a contentious spirit.

Again, sir, it is really telling that your insistence on "GOD was once man" is wholly absent from the accepted scripture of our Church.

The Standard Works don't say anything other than GOD has always, fully, completely, been GOD. They never say that he became GOD.

Furthermore, since you keep referring to non-scriptural statements, I'll refer to scripture itself.

GOD created time for man's benefit, and therefore GOD simply IS. Time is for man only, not GOD, who created all things. (Alma 40:8)

So, if we are going to speak of doctrine, and if you insist on condemning me as if I don't follow Church doctrine, you might want to show support of your position (and any Church leader's position) from the STANDARD Works (they are, after all the STANDARD)...

GOD has always been GOD. GOD IS. GOD is the creator of all things. GOD was not created. GOD did not become GOD.

So, the challenge remains, if this "GOD was a man" concept is so valid, why is it absent from the Standard Works?

HINT: It is not valid for two reasons. One, it absent from the Standard Works. Two, it hasn't been added to the Standard Works. Certainly if it was so central a doctrine, it would at least be mentioned in the Standard Works?

[Vanhin]

Vanhin:

I understand what you are saying.

I will endeavor to make it clear when I am speculating.

<speculation> How's that? :)

Eternal and Everlasting have a few different meanings. Depending on the context, they do not mean "no beginning / no end". They can refer to a KIND or QUALITY of something.

For example:

From D&C 19

1 I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord; yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world.

2 I, having accomplished and finished the will of him whose I am, even the Father, concerning me—having done this that I might subdue all things unto myself—

3 Retaining all power, even to the destroying of Satan and his works at the end of the world, and the last great day of judgment, which I shall pass upon the inhabitants thereof, judging every man according to his works and the deeds which he hath done.

4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

From the context of the passage above, I interpret vs 11 and 12 thusly:

11 Eternal punishment is God’s [KIND OF] punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s [KIND OF] punishment.

It is not THAT BIG of a stretch for the mind to speculate that God has a Father. God having a Father makes more sense to me than Him coming out of nowhere, or creating Himself as an omnipotent being out of nothing.

If we have to progress to Godhood line upon line, precept upon precept, why wouldn't God?

We are the same species of God. If He can father us, it would seem to indicate that He Himself, had a Father, and His Father had a Father. And so forth and so on. This is not strange to me at all. It makes perfect sense.

</speculation>

You are right, it's not a big stretch to come to that thought, and I don't blame anyone for thinking that way. When we think about it through the lens of our current temporal and finite existence, we come to temporal and finite solutions.

I understand the definition(s) of eternal and endless. If that were the only way that the scriptures described the nature of God, you might have a case. To me, when I look at this passage of scripture, I am left with no doubt that God has always been God, and that he will ever be the God. Note the combination of terms infinite, eternal, everlasting, and unchangeable:

17 By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them; (D&C 20:17)

The combination of infinite and eternal alone are sufficient, but the scriptures often make it a point to really make sure we understand that He is God and always has been. He is "...the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;". I cannot understand how anyone could mistake these words.

"I believe without equivocation or reservation in God, the Eternal Father. He is my Father, the Father of my spirit, and the Father of the spirits of all men. He is the great Creator, the Ruler of the Universe. He directed the creation of this earth on which we live. In His image man was created. He is personal. He is real. He is individual. He has “a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22)." (Pres. Hinckley)

Those opposed to our faith might oppose the idea that God is literally the Father of the spirits of all men, or that He has a body of flesh and bone. But they should not have any problems declaring with us that He has ever been God and "is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;". On at least that point Latter-day Saints are in agreement with other Christians not of our faith.

Even when I am exalted with my wife and family, I will ever worship the Father and the Son, in spirit and truth. I will continue the work of the Father in bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind, which is made possible because of the infinite and eternal sacrifice of His Only Begotten Son; which sacrifice was done once and for all.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[Guest tomk]

Vanhin:

You're entitled to your viewpoint, as am I. I don't see much point in discussing this further. You've made it clear you are not open to seeing God as a Being who progressed to where He is now. He materialized magically as this all-knowing, omnipotent Being with no past status as something else.

That does not make sense to me.

At the end of the day, I suppose it matters very little to what is needed for salvation. I think given the conditions of this world we live in, God is probably more interested in our believing in Him AT ALL vs whether or not He has a Father or GrandFather. :)

I wish you well.

Tom