Yeah that next discussion on God the Father having a Father gets us much more deeply into this subject. Things got pretty heated in that discussion if I remember correctly.

Looking back now, I was very skeptical of Mark’s ideas when we had this discussion but I actually am much more open to variations of them now. I think he stated thing well in #50 when he said:

I feel that Brigham Young’s theology failed largely because it was an unnatural hybrid of classical Christian orthodoxy, the Mormon concept of exaltation, and a natalist concept of spiritual parenthood. Neo-orthodox LDS theology today is even less plausible – trying to fit together two schemes that just won’t match, and appealing to mystery a la Luther to explain the discrepancies.

BTW — Mark still comments here under the handle “Mark D”

The guiding principle behind my theology is to discard unnecessary assumptions of Christian orthodoxy in favor of a truly personal and relational concept of divinity – using the distribution principle to get away from the paradox of God as a metaphysical singularity. A God who if he wiggled a finger improperly could wipe out whole civilizations by accident, who if he overslept could cause electrons to cease going around in their orbits – indeed a God who can hardly have a personality at all. The Greek statue conception of God. We tone it down in contemporary LDS theology, but the paradox remains.

I think of the Most High as a Man of Righteousness presiding over the hosts of heaven in great glory, one with a sense of humor, perhaps slightly absent minded from time to time, but dead serious when the occasion requires. I cannot comprehend all truth, all light, and all law proceeding from within his person to ground all the order in the universe. If I had that responsibility I would see if I could rip the heart out and place it on a pedestal. A moments neglect could be fatal for billions. That is why natural law grounded in personality makes no sense. The Atonement grounded in a single individual has comparable problems – the energy density alone would melt the earth. Fortunately, LDS theology provides ample precedent for natural law independent of God, if not for a proper conception of a distributed Atonement.

One last thing – I do not see my theology as a matter of musical chairs – it is more a matter of relationships where fathers only substitute where necessary – patrilineal government at its finest. You know that recommend using place provides ample support for this idea, including the Atonement part.

(#13) …or in other words. You are not a God in embryo.

J. Stapley,

Agreed I may not be a god in embryo,depending on my eternal progression, but if I do make it to the celestial kingdom and become a god, then I am a god in embryo, therefore, as such, I could claim I have the seeds of divinity within me. Therefore, as an eternal inteligence, one that “was also in the beginning with God” I feel that to claim that I have always been “divine” would be truth, because that seed was always there.

the plurality of Gods–I have selected this text I wish to declare I have always–& in all congregations when I have preached it has been the plurality of Gods it has been preached 15 years–I have always declared God to be a distinct personage—Jesus Christ a separate & distinct person from God the Father. the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage & or Spirit & these 3 constitute 3 distinct personages & 3 Gods—if this is in accordance with the New Testament–lo & behold we have 3 Gods anyhow & they are plural anyhow
(Bullock Report)

I believe in these Gods that God reveals as Gods—to be Sons of God & all can cry Abba Father–Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods even from before the foundation of the world & are all the only Gods I have a reverence for– John said he was a King. Jesus Christ who hath by his own blood made us Kings & Priest to God. Oh thou God who are Kings of Kings & Lord of Lords
(Bullock Report)

In any event, the God that JS taught that we must know to have eternal life in the KFD is clearly the Father of Jesus. It is this God, the Head God, that Jesus patterned his life after. Further, it is this God, the Father of Christ, that is the King of kings and Lord of Lords. So I’m pretty sure that your God above the Father is a misunderstanding of the text.

Mark: I obviously will have a hard time accepting your musical chairs view of God and gods, atonement, etc. It seems to me to have scant scriptural support and to contradict the scriptures on many levels. I acknowledge that it is something like what BY thought. I personally believe that his theology was a disaster for the most part — tho I like his emphasis on God as a person and not merely a title or essence as the basis of our worship.

1) No divine *person* is dramatically unique in terms of capacities they possess in and of themselves or by virtue of association with a small integral number of persons. The authority and power of God are derived by virtue of the mantle of representation for a much larger body of persons, in a manner not to dissimilar from the authority of a righteous judge except with a much more dominant spiritual aspect.

2) That the terms “Heavenly Father”, “Messiah”, “Christ” and so on are used in three senses in the scriptures: first, as proper names for one particular person or another, second as augmented titles for a person invested with heavenly power and authority in some context, and third as universal titles for all such persons throughout eternity.

3) That grace, light, knowledge, truth do not in *large part* emanate from the mind, heart, or body of any particular divine person, or small integral number of such persons, but are a consequence of the collective effort and unity of the whole hosts of heaven, much as a small number of sparks may be aggregated into a burning fire.

4) That our personal Savior or Heavenly Father manifests these characteristics, and indeed identifies them as his own by divine investiture, not merely of a small number of direct line authorities, but legimate authorization to act in behalf of the divine concert of all within some context, much as a righteous priesthood leader exercises keys within some jurisdiction.

5) That heavenly father and motherhood do not involve natal procreation of a very large number of new spirits, but rather priesthood presidency over their lineal and adopted descendants, and that is the proper interpretation of “continuation of seeds” with regard to the Abrahamic Covenant.

6) That the authority of heavenly father/motherhood is generally administered on a patrilineal, not matrilineal basis, such that if one is a member of the tribe of Ephraim: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Ephraim (and their wives from whom you descend) may all have some role in presiding over you, but not likely the father or mother of Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Asenath and so on.

7) That at any given time, there is one father, generally a patrineal ancestor, but others on a pro tem basis or by adoption, that presides over you and to whom your prayers are addressed, and is directly responsible for your spiritual well being.

8) That Jesus Christ, nor his personal Heavenly Father does not directly participate in this process – rather when we pray we take upon ourselves the name and role of Jesus Christ, speaking to our Father, as he did.

9) That the doctrine of sealings and the law of adoption is a precursor for establishing who will be our permanent heavenly father and mother, and that in general if they qualify, in due time our earthly father and mother will come to preside over us as our heavenly father and mother.

10) That the role of the Holy Ghost is similarly distributed, and is most likely filled by spirits yet unborn into the same line, to the degree that type of planning works under the constraints of free agency.

11) That the kingdom of heaven is organized more like a republic than a enlightened despotism. That the authority of the Most High is subject to common consent, and that he could in principle be removed out of his place for sufficiently high crimes and misdemeanors.

12) That celestial administration instead of being divided primarily geographically, and secondly patrilineally, is primarily patrilineal, and secondly geographic.

13) That the work and glory of any heavenly father or mother is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of his or her children.

14) That the suffering of the Atonement is radically distributed among aspiring and actual heavenly fathers (and mothers) – first the physical sacrifice (symbolized by bread) of fathers and mothers in this earthly life, and second the spiritual sacrifice (symbolized by water) made in behalf of their lineal and adopted descendants in the next life.

15) That all fathers, mothers, and others are truly and properly Saviors (upon mount Zion) to the degree that they take upon themselves this role, joint heirs with Christ, anointed sons and daughters unto God, and spiritual fathers and mothers (by degrees) unto those whom they serve, an relational identity that will be made permanent in the next life for those who are worthy, according (as always) to the principle of common consent.

16) That we are finite number of patrilineal generations removed from the first person to ever hold a physical body, whether on this earth or some other earth. That we are also a finite number of patriarchal priesthood “hops” removed from the Most High.

17) That the human body, whether physical or spiritual, was in some sense designed (or evolution influenced) such that it was an actual decision on the part of some architect or author, for us to have two eyes and ten fingers. In other words, the doctrine of Creation involves actual discretion and not just a metaphysical accident.

18) That at some point in the sufficiently far distant past, we were almost certainly unembodied, but personal intelligences, as B.H. Roberts has described, and that though some were more intelligent than others, there were not a small handful who were orders of magnitude more advanced than their immediate peers. Or rather that prior to this earth life Jesus, Michael, Abraham, Moses, …, and the Most High were peers comparable to the way the members of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency are peers.

19) That the D&C 107 and 28 principles of priesthood administration are applicable in heaven as well as on earth.

Now I can give scriptural arguments for all of these points, of various degrees of complexity, but to some degree I have to defend it as a systematic whole, in terms of being more plausible than more conventional views.

I completely agree. Let me point out that I didn’t dismiss your model — I simply asked for a concise few paragraphs explaining it. (See #38)

Hehe. I am certainly trying to be upfront about my views. It does appear that we are having a disconnect here though. I’ll try to back up and see if we can slow things down to be sure we are on the same page.

Let’s see if I am grasping what you are saying. You appear to assert that there was a God who was divine from all eternity, the Head God or Most High God

Yes, I am open to that idea. I am not asserting that is the only possibility, but since you are in that camp I can buy the idea that there is a single divine person who has always been the most intelligent from all eternity.

but the Father of Jesus Christ and our Father was not divine from all eternity.

That’s right — Exactly as Joseph taught.

Rather, the Father of Christ came to an earth as a less-than-god and learned how to be a god. However, you also appear to assert that you accept that already divine beings become mortal

There are two options here.

a) If one prefers the My Turn on Earth model of eternity then one would have to conclude that the Father was divine prior to his single mortal probation just like Jesus was because Joseph taught that Jesus did only the things that his father did before him. So that means the Father condescended in the role of a savior and atoned for the sins of the world upon which he was mortal too (else the Son did not do only what he saw his Father do.) In this model the assumption is that Jesus progressed to the point of Godhood in premortality and presumably the Father did the same thing. Further, in this model the Father did not come to an earth as a less-than-god and learn how to be a god because he learned how to be a God prior to his single mortality.

b) If one prefers the multiple mortal probations model then the Father had multiple mortal probations in his progression toward exaltation. In this model he did come to earth(s) as a less-than-god and learned how to be a god. After he became exalted he condescended to one more mortality the role of savior as well.

Either model allows for the Father progressing to exaltation before mortality though.

It seems to me that you assert a contradictory position.

I hope you can see now that I am not.

Thus, it doesn’t follow, as you seem to think it does, that we are not fully divine or one with the members of the Godhead if we are not the ultimate source of light and salvation along with all other gods

Ummm, you say we can join the Godhead but then you say that the Godhead will still consist of only three persons. Which is it? Are we in or not? What you describe is not what I would consider “joining the Godhead” — sounds more like becoming ministering angels to the Godhead to me.