- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
So I was reading Mormon Doctrine and was reading talks by other leaders about the nature of God. Im not going to lie, I am very uncomfortable with the idea that God had a God, and that God had a God etc. I am very uncomfortable with the idea that God “became” God. I mean in my opinion it goes against the scriptures, and really no longer makes him the Almighty God. What do you guys think? I honestly don’t have too much of a problem with the concept because I really can’t grasp all the meaning of things within my own universe, to really worry much about beyond that…so I don’t feel it changes me and my relationship to God. I do have a problem with Mormon Doctrine…not sure all of that source is really solid to take at face value, nor do I think the church has ever endorsed it as true doctrine (despite the presumptive title of the book).
questioning89 wrote:So I was reading Mormon Doctrine and was reading talks by other leaders about the nature of God.
Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie is one person’s personal opinion about the teachings of the LDS Church — the author’s. Some of his views were overturned even in his own lifetime. He apologized for a major view he promoted on race and priesthood. Which just goes to show that even apostles learn things “line upon line.”
questioning89 wrote:Im not going to lie, I am very uncomfortable with the idea that God had a God, and that God had a God etc. I am very uncomfortable with the idea that God “became” God. I mean in my opinion it goes against the scriptures, and really no longer makes him the Almighty God. What do you guys think?
OK. Well that has been an idea floating around in the Church for a very long time. It is the assumption some leaders have made, based on mystical experiences (revelations) from previous prophets in our Church. It isn’t actually a plainly stated doctrine in our canonized scripture, but is an assumption made on ideas in those works.
How do you think you personally can work around that discomfort? Do you have some ideas? You have to decide and take responsibility for your beliefs — to own them.
The range of options falls somewhere generally into these three categories:
1. Accept it as-is without understanding the why or how. Some people label this “faith” with the assumption they will be given an explanation or see the truth of it at some later point.
2. Reject it. Those past leaders might be wrong. It isn’t the first time.
3. Reinterpret and find a new personal meaning. This option sort of says the above statement about God is true and not true at the same time. You decide it is a metaphor pointing to a transcendent idea, one that can’t be so plainly explained by humans except through the symbolic language of religion.
I personally fall into category 3 on this specific topic. I am different on other topics. Some I accept, some I reject. That is how the buffet works.
I spent a lot of time studying subjects like Sacred Geometry and other esoteric “mystery school” teachings. I see something very different, deep and personally enlightening in the Mormon brand of Theosis doctrines. What I see buried in our teachings about Theosis is even more disturbing
Heber13 – LOL! I agree. I have less problem with the idea that God is as man once was as I do with the book Mormon Doctrine. Personally, I like the idea that human beings are not static, that spiritual progress is part of our destiny. If we are God’s children (rather than his pets), we have to have the spark of divinity within us. This is similar to me to the concept of reincarnation. Have you read anything about the idea of multiple mortal probations? It makes the idea of theosis a little more fleshed out, similar to reincarnation, IMO. Here’s a link (with links) to a discussion about that notion:
http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2005/06/multiple-mortal-probations/95/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2005/06/multiple-mortal-probations/95/ Taking that to the next “logical” step of “what about when God was a snotty punk teenage kid” is mind-boggling, though, I agree. But on a given day, it is also comforting.
Valoel wrote:I spent a lot of time studying subjects like Sacred Geometry and other esoteric “mystery school” teachings.
Was that a GE elective class at BYU??? I don’t remember those?
😆 Since you asked…here is the way I look at it for now: I am a spark of God. In me, God is a man. To God I will return. Thus the Father will be again glorified. As I now am, God now is. As God now is, I now am. Division is illusion, and all is one.
Eeeee. Did I say too much? Please don’t stone me.
Heber13 wrote:Was that a GE elective class at BYU??? I don’t remember those?
😆 I dove into this years ago when I was really trying to sort out the temple in my mind, and was still mostly TBM (as much as I ever was, I suppose).
If anyone is of the opinion that Joseph borrowed heavily from the Masons, well … the Masons borrowed heavily from groups in Europe during the middle ages that preserved records of various mystic “schools” of thought, who borrowed heavily from ancient cultures such as Egypt, the Jews and the Sumerians. Going to these sources directly helped me sort out the symbols, or at least know what many other people in the past understood about them. They may not have been right either *shrug* But it helped me personally either way. I now feel connected to a group of people I admire, stretching back thousands of years who all asked the same questions.
Tom Haws wrote:I am a spark of God. In me, God is a man. To God I will return. Thus the Father will be again glorified. As I now am, God now is. As God now is, I now am. Division is illusion, and all is one.
Wow, that’s beautiful! I agree completely!
questioning89 wrote:So I was reading Mormon Doctrine and was reading talks by other leaders about the nature of God. Im not going to lie, I am very uncomfortable with the idea that God had a God, and that God had a God etc. I am very uncomfortable with the idea that God “became” God. I mean in my opinion it goes against the scriptures, and really no longer makes him the Almighty God. What do you guys think?
I’m good with it. I see God as existing in two senses.The firstis the ‘eternal and unchanging’ view, the transcendent God, source of ‘Adam Kadmon’ that has no body, parts (but does have passions!) but is the sum of all intelligences. This is the image of perfection, the ineffible standard of what it is to be a god. It is also the source of all things that are. The secondis the sparks that filled the universe upon the shattering of the vessels (Adam Kadmon) containing the sparks. These are the intelligences within you, me, and everything. As these intelligences increase in wisdom and capacity, they model themselves after the image of God, becoming, eventually, a fullfillment of godliness. Someday, we (the intelligences) will repair the broken vessels (become One) and restore Adam Kadmon, then become one literally with the One in transcendence; and then prepare to continue the eternal round yet again. Well, that’s my opinion.
HiJolly
Mystic Heretic
I like the concept of one eternal round – one great whole – eternal progression – etc. I’m ambivalent about that part of the famous couplet – but I like the general vision it presents if seen as others already have articulated. (Tom, I love the way you phrased your comment.)
Ok Im not as confused, but still have questions. So are you guys saying that God is both the being in heaven, and in us? questioning89 wrote:Ok Im not as confused, but still have questions. So are you guys saying that God is both the being in heaven, and in us?
I would say that God is all there is, and we are from that, and learning how to realize who we are and how we can rejoin ourselves to the One. Joseph Smith said in the King Follett sermon (1844) that God ‘found’ Himself in the midst of other intelligences, and He showed us (the ‘lesser’ intelligences) how to develop and become as He is. This is what we call the ‘Plan of Salvation’.Unlike protestant or catholic views, we teach that angels and we ourselves are “of a kind” with God. All intelligences are.
It actually goes a bit beyond what is taught in Church, but what *IS* taught is sufficient to get us on the path. Well, that and the temple teachings…
HiJolly
questioning89 wrote:the being in heaven, and in us?
OK, now. Tell us about heaven, Q89.
Let me add that I believe in the “Council of the Gods” concept. I personally think that the nature of “godhood” is going to surprise a lot of Mormons – but not as much as it surprises nearly all non-Mormon Christians. This is the same question I’ve been debating with my wife and other family members lately. A few different scattered thoughts I’ve come up with: The term God doesn’t necessarily mean God the father. Who is the God of the old Testament? Jehovah/Christ. This may confuse more than help but if you believe Brigham’s Adam/God theory has any credence at all (if it does, I’d say many people’s interpretations of it are completely wrong as it does not mean Adam is the highest God but a God under HF/JC but that’s a whole other discussion) then maybe this thought is about Adam.
- As hawkgrrl mentioned about progression (while I don’t believe in reincarnation as in being born back into the same world) I see the possibility of different mortal lives on different worlds being very possible. Just as we have a progression in the church with more and greater responsibilities such as Deacon/Teach/Priest/Elder/etc. why wouldn’t eternal progression follow something similar for those on the road to Godhood (those going to the Celestial Kingdom): PreMortal Life/Choosing HF’s plan => Mortal Probation/Testing if you will follow plan => Father/Mother of new world (Adam/Eve) => Savior of new world (JC) => Organizer of many worlds (Eloheim/HF) – though within this type of framework I believe there could be an ultimate organizer/God of the universe who everyone ultimately reports to similar to the leadership of the church from Deacon’s Quorum Pres on up through Prophet. Or maybe (based on some scriptures) Eloheim/HF is the “supreme” organizer. In any case the only Gods that matter to us in this world would be HF/JC who we would worship.
- As others have pointed out, the book is not doctrine but in fact opinion so maybe there’s nothing to the idea at all (in fact the first edition was banned from publishment by the prophet and was written and originally published without any authority by a man who was a mere quorum of the seventy at the time of writing)
- If you believe in any sort of Big Bang Theory, maybe when the universe was created, God was created as man who then learned how to become greater than a mortal man and who then organized us into what we are now – this one’s quite out there however and I’d tend to dispute it personally.
Personally I find comfort in the thought of a God that once had a mortal life before progressing onward so they could know what it was like. If God never experienced what it’s like to be Human, how can he lead us and help us through becoming better humans?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.