The Couplet

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

do you worship your father now?

no what are you getting at?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Why would Jesus be excluded? Couldn't someone be part of team and be sent to deliver a message?



"Creation of Man" is probably what needs to be defined. Is it creation of Mortal man? is it creation of our intelligence?

In this cirucmsance, the problem in John 17:3 is that the one true God is indicated, and that Jesus is sent from that God (and therefore cannot be that God). The "and" looms large.

D&C 93:29 is clearly speaking of an eternal creation of man (and not a mortal creation). Things get really wild in that passage though, in addition to delcaring man an eternal, uncreated intelligence, man is said to be "spirit," "spirit" and "element" are both said to be eternal ("spirit and element, insepearbly connected receive a fullness of joy"), and the "elements are the tabernacle of God." "Intelligence" is also said to be the glory of God.

What I'm ruminating about is an implicit distinction in D&C 93 between God and the tabernacle of God. This might be a stupid thought, but Father and Son HAVING tangible bodies of flesh and bone (D&C 130) is not necessarily those bodies being part of their beings. It certainly could be, as in I HAVE a heart, but it could also be like, I HAVE a house (or tabernacle) wherein I dwell. In other words, God posesses a body and is inseperably connected to a body, but the body might be distinct from God.

Of course, Mormon notions of God have not required a physical body (the Holy Ghost and Jehovah before being born. They were both God), and I might just be on the edge of a tiny bit of "why" that might be so.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

In this cirucmsance, the problem in John 17:3 is that the one true God is indicated, and that Jesus is sent from that God (and therefore cannot be that God). The "and" looms large.

I guess I'm not getting your implications. Couldn't someone be sent from an organization and still be part of said organization? Help me understand why my reasoning can't be possible

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

no what are you getting at?

If one's relationship with God is like unto one's relationship with one's mortal father, then it would make sense that one would do similar work to one's father, and move on from a purely apprentice role as one would have as a child.

Ideally, one always reverences, respects, and often defers to one father when one is an adult.

I happen to like the theosis implicit in Mormon doctrine/beliefs, and I won't stand idly by while Jay Santos tries to turn us into Methodists.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

D&C 93:29 is clearly speaking of an eternal creation of man (and not a mortal creation). Things get really wild in that passage though, in addition to delcaring man an eternal, uncreated intelligence, man is said to be "spirit," "spirit" and "element" are both said to be eternal ("spirit and element, insepearbly connected receive a fullness of joy"), and the "elements are the tabernacle of God." "Intelligence" is also said to be the glory of God.

What I'm ruminating about is an implicit distinction in D&C 93 between God and the tabernacle of God. This might be a stupid thought, but Father and Son HAVING tangible bodies of flesh and bone (D&C 130) is not necessarily those bodies being part of their beings. It certainly could be, as in I HAVE a heart, but it could also be like, I HAVE a house (or tabernacle) wherein I dwell. In other words, God posesses a body and is inseperably connected to a body, but the body might be distinct from God.

Now this is an interesting observation. a lot of implications with this. Maybe this is what the holy ghost is?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

I guess I'm not getting your implications. Couldn't someone be sent from an organization and still be part of said organization? Help me understand why my reasoning can't be possible

The passage declares one true God AND Jesus Christ. Jesus is not part of the one true God, even if one considers it an organization. Jesus is outside the notion of one true God in this passage. If it's an organization, he isn't part of it, although he delivers messages for it. Jesus can be the FedEx guy, but he isn't a part of the galactic Halliburton.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Now this is an interesting observation. a lot of implications with this. Maybe this is what the holy ghost is?

Yes.

[Cali Coug]

What were Hinckley's comments on the topic you refer to, SIEQ?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What were Hinckley's comments on the topic you refer to, SIEQ?

It's a case of taking Hinckley's non-answer and desire to avoid a question, and then using it to advance the agenda of your choosing, in my opinion.

I took absolutely NOTHING away from Hinckley's answer, other than he does not wish to talk about anything DEEP or controversial with the public.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What were Hinckley's comments on the topic you refer to, SIEQ?

From Time magazine:

After being asked if we teach that God the Father was once a man, President Hinckley said, "I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it."

My thinking in this post definitely gives President Hinckley a way out, so to speak. I'm not suggesting that President Hinckley had any of what I've said in mind, though.