God is an Exalted Man...

[jonny]

Did anyone else study Lesson 2 in the Joseph Smith manual today. I've always considered these books, since they are vetted and approved by the First Presidency, as being an accurate representation of our doctrine.

We had an interesting discussion on Joseph Smith's teachings about God being an exalted man today. I was wondering if you discussed this in your ward also.

My other question comes from page 42 - "Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth. These personages...are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Witness or Testator."

The idea of the Godhead making a covenant between the three was something I'd never considered. It's pretty thought provoking.

My question is about God the Father being called the Creator. I've always seen Christ as the Creator. What do you think that Joseph Smith was referring to?

 

[silvermoon383]

Who builds a building, the archetect or the laborers? Then when it's done, who gets the credit?

 

[Francine]

Edit: whoops did it again

 

[jonny]

Num.23:[19] God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Christians don't have a problem believing that Christ was once fully man. I don't see why its such a big jump to God the Father having a body and having been a man at some point.

 

[Francine]

Christians don't have a problem believing that Christ was once fully man. I don't see why its such a big jump to God the Father having a body and having been a man at some point.

I posted that before I realized this was the DIR. Pretend it didn't happen.

 

[jonny]

Who builds a building, the archetect or the laborers? Then when it's done, who gets the credit?

I understand that, and I think that is what Joseph Smith meant. But, if someone were to say "the Creator" 99% of the time, they would be referring to Christ. I wonder why Joseph Smith thought it was significant to give the title to God the Father in this instance.

 

[jonny]

I posted that before I realized this was the DIR. Pretend it didn't happen.

It's okay.

 

[Sola'lor]

Did anyone else study Lesson 2 in the Joseph Smith manual today. I've always considered these books, since they are vetted and approved by the First Presidency, as being an accurate representation of our doctrine.

We had an interesting discussion on Joseph Smith's teachings about God being an exalted man today. I was wondering if you discussed this in your ward also.

My other question comes from page 42 - "Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth. These personages...are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Witness or Testator."

The idea of the Godhead making a covenant between the three was something I'd never considered. It's pretty thought provoking.

My question is about God the Father being called the Creator. I've always seen Christ as the Creator. What do you think that Joseph Smith was referring to?

Nope. We had Stake Conference yesterday.

The covenant idea is interesting. It makes sense.

I think God would be called the creator because he organized our spirits. It was through Him that everything was authorized to be organized. I guess he could have always said, 'God the first, the Head Honcho.'

 

[WillowTheWhisp]

We had Ward Conference so missed out on the lesson too because we had a joint RS & Priesthood meeting taken by the Stake Presidency, which wasn't from the manual.

 

[nutshell]

Johnny, I think you're ward is a week ahead (of course, each quorum makes its own adjustments).

 

[Katzpur]

I understand that, and I think that is what Joseph Smith meant. But, if someone were to say "the Creator" 99% of the time, they would be referring to Christ. I wonder why Joseph Smith thought it was significant to give the title to God the Father in this instance.

Maybe it's because Jesus always does the will of His Father. Even though Jesus was the Creator, there would have been no creation at all had it not been the will of the Father.

 

[Francine]

I think God would be called the creator because he organized our spirits. It was through Him that everything was authorized to be organized. I guess he could have always said, 'God the first, the Head Honcho.'

That doesn't sound like a very fulfilling job description. People come up to Heavenly Father and ask him to rubber stamp something when they need to run a chit up the chop chain, but they still get to do all the work and they get all the job satisfaction.

 

[Sola'lor]

That doesn't sound like a very fulfilling job description. People come up to Heavenly Father and ask him to rubber stamp something when they need to run a chit up the chop chain, but they still get to do all the work and they get all the job satisfaction.

For you maybe. We don't know exactly what brings fulfillment to God. But I imagine His existence as God is not an occupation or employment.

 

[Starfish]

My other question comes from page 42 - "Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth. These personages...are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Witness or Testator."

The idea of the Godhead making a covenant between the three was something I'd never considered. It's pretty thought provoking.

I've never thought about the Godhead covenanting with each before embarking on this great project, our world. To me, it further solidifies the truth that the three are truly united as one in purpose. It feels right, doesn't it. Wow. I need to pay more attention to the lessons in our manual.

 

[zippythepinhead]

I've never thought about the Godhead covenanting with each before embarking on this great project, our world. To me, it further solidifies the truth that the three are truly united as one in purpose. It feels right, doesn't it. Wow. I need to pay more attention to the lessons in our manual.

Makes sense to me:yes:

 

[jonny]

That doesn't sound like a very fulfilling job description. People come up to Heavenly Father and ask him to rubber stamp something when they need to run a chit up the chop chain, but they still get to do all the work and they get all the job satisfaction.

This is a Biblical teaching: John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Christ always gave the glory to the Father.

 

[tomspug]

This is how I differentiate the real God from false ideas about God. Every man-made concept of God is a projection of humanity onto an idea of God. So, yes, I believe that most god concepts are basically an Exalted Man. However, I believe all of these concepts to be inadequate.

God is far beyond anything humans can comprehend, and he is certainly not simply an exalted man.

 

[Katzpur]

God is far beyond anything humans can comprehend, and he is certainly not simply an exalted man.

But on this particular forum, He is definitely an exalted man.

 

[zippythepinhead]

But on this particular forum, He is definitely an exalted man.

Amen!

 

[Katzpur]

But on this particular forum, He is definitely an exalted man.

You know, I just love it when people who disagree with this believe throw in the qualifier "simply" or "merely" or "just" before the words "exalted man." They almost never say, "God is not an exalted man." They almost always say, "God is not simply an exalted man." The whole concept takes on a new meaning when you add that one innocuous little word.