Does Each Galaxy Have Its Own God...

[sbsion]

I voiced my feelings on the matter in hopes that those who were doing such would realized they were traveling down this road.
It is up to them to decide if they want to continue. It will not hurt me one bit because I will not participate in those discussions. But they may be hurting a lot of others who have tender testimonies and they may be hurting themselves by divulging such information.

POV..........I disagree and will teach truths when "move upon"

[oneClimbs]

I think a line needs to be drawn here between revealing sacred personal revelation and just intellectual discussions on a topic.

I've never had any revelation on the matter. It honestly hasn't interested me THAT much because that's one of those things that I'm cool with just waiting until I get there to find out. There are other subjects that I am currently focusing on getting personal revelation for. So I think if you have had some personal revelation on the matter, you should probably keep it to yourself. But there's no harm in speculation. I mean, the way I see it, there's no possible way we will ever be able to comprehend it in man's understanding and the English language anyway.

But it's still fun to gather together some information about a topic and see if maybe the Spirit can teach us something individually.

When things that are great are passed over without even a thought I want to see all in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom—I believe all that God ever revealed and I never heard of a man being damned for believing too much but they are damned for unbelief. - Joseph Smith

[ithink]

I think a line needs to be drawn here between revealing sacred personal revelation and just intellectual discussions on a topic.

I've never had any revelation on the matter. It honestly hasn't interested me THAT much because that's one of those things that I'm cool with just waiting until I get there to find out. There are other subjects that I am currently focusing on getting personal revelation for. So I think if you have had some personal revelation on the matter, you should probably keep it to yourself. But there's no harm in speculation. I mean, the way I see it, there's no possible way we will ever be able to comprehend it in man's understanding and the English language anyway.

But it's still fun to gather together some information about a topic and see if maybe the Spirit can teach us something individually.

When things that are great are passed over without even a thought I want to see all in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom—I believe all that God ever revealed and I never heard of a man being damned for believing too much but they are damned for unbelief. - Joseph Smith

I'll join you guys in this group. I prefer to know it all, and don't think of feel this is the wrong place to discuss this. After all, do we not have a hymn that leads us to think along these lines?

If You Could Hie to Kolob, 284 – William W. Phelps

1. If you could hie to Kolob In the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward With that same speed to fly,
Do you think that you could ever, Through all eternity,
Find out the generation Where Gods began to be?

2. Or see the grand beginning, Where space did not extend?
Or view the last creation, Where Gods and matter end?
Me thinks the Spirit whispers, “No man has found ‘pure space,’
Nor seen the outside curtains, Where nothing has a place.”

3. The works of God continue, And worlds and lives abound;
Improvement and progression Have one eternal round.
There is no end to matter; There is no end to space;
There is no end to spirit; There is no end to race.

4. There is no end to virtue; There is no end to might;
There is no end to wisdom; There is no end to light.
There is no end to union; There is no end to youth;
There is no end to priesthood; There is no end to truth.

5. There is no end to glory; There is no end to love;
There is no end to being; There is no death above.
There is no end to glory; There is no end to love;
There is no end to being; There is no death above.

I'll comment on this too. There has been discussion as to how long "our" god has presided, and how long "our" God has been a God. But has not God said even to us: "And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him. " At the highest level, the devilish ideas of ownership, of quid-pro-quo and all like that are gone and replaced with a commonality that makes irrelevant much of our way of thinking.

[LukeAir2008]

Joseph Smith said to the most faithful of the Brethren, men who I consider to be spiritual giants, that if he told them all they would hate him and seek his life. Brigham said 'well if that's the case don't tell me'. What Joseph did reveal was substantial so heaven only knows what else he could have revealed.

The general membership have always struggled with revelation. They wanted to maintain their own ideas of God that they had brought from apostate christianity. Whenever Joseph revealed anything new there were protests and opposition and Joseph would usually apologise and withdraw the statement. Of course we know that eventually he only revealed sacred knowledge to those whom he trusted.

Just to clarify. I don't claim to have had any personal revelation on these subject matters other than the revelation that Joseph, Brigham, John, Wilford etc. were all true Prophets of God and so I have the privelege and blessing of their knowledge and understanding. These men received revelation for the whole church. The rest of us receive revelation for ourselves. If we start announcing our own revelations to others there is no surer sign that we are apostates and our supposed knowledge is spurious.

[p51-mustang]

It makes sense that each God would have at least one galaxy and some that have been around awhile would have more. If you think of this in terms of your own exaltation, when you first recieve your exaltation will you be governing the whole universe or will it take some time create new earths, stars etc? As spirits progress, then more creations will be made for them to dwell on and so on and so forth as that glory and dominion expands.

So to me the idea that the milky way galaxy belongs to our heavenly father makes sense. Is it the end of his dominion? Could be and with time more galaxies will be created. Or it could be that there are many galaxies he has dominion over. A God that has just recently reached exaltation would likely have a smaller dominion than a God that has been exalted for many eons of time, right? We are taught that God's glory expands with each spirit that progresses to exaltation right? So it would make sense that his creations that serve those spirits would also expand over time.

Of course all of this thinking comes from my very small limited mind.

[serenitylala]

I don't see anything wrong with discussing this stuff, but I do wonder if we are being way too limited in our assumptions.

I feel like we're toddlers in daycare, trying to figure out the space program. There's just so much out there that we don't know.

If only we were like Enoch than at least we'd have somewhat of a better idea.

Worlds without number. It makes one think.

[ktg]

Moses 1
10 ... I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed.

This made me feel something like that.

http://www.flixxy.com/hubble-ultra-deep-field-3d.htm

[serenitylala]

Moses 1
10 ... I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed.

This made me feel something like that.

http://www.flixxy.com/hubble-ultra-deep-field-3d.htm

Awesome! I so agree with you.

[bobhenstra]

The answers to (almost) every question above is found in the scripture and the words of the prophets. Our problem isn't in what they have said, "they" have answered all the questions necessary for us to receive the gift of salvation. The problem is in our willingness, or lack of, to search out the answers "already revealed!"

We seem to have a strange cautionary streak in us; "Oh!!!, it's too sacred to talk about!" True with some Temple teachings, but the Temple "also" explains which teachings are "not" to be talked about. The fact is, much of what is said in the Temple is already published right here on the internet. We're probable wise not to speak about their correct meanings, and that, if we even know their correct meanings.

Then we hear, "well it's best not to talk about anything so sacred!" Even If the prophets have spoken on a specific subject, can we not also speak to each other about that subject?

The simple rule is; "IF" the prophets have spoken on "a" subject, we can quote them!

Another simple rule; Any seemingly gospel teaching not spoken on by the prophets is simply pure conjecture.

Our own ignorance of what they have spoken on "isn't" their fault!

I think all too often we use the word "sacred" as an excuse to justify our own lack of knowledge. If we don't know the answer, many of us simply declare the subject sacred---then-- we don't have to talk about it should a question arise!

Truth is, "every" gospel subject is sacred, but "limiting" ourselves in gospel understanding using that excuse isn't sacred, it's foolishness!

There's this from Elder Orson Pratt commenting on revelations received from the Lord
speaks about understanding:

"It is an old sectarian whim and notion, to
suppose that we must not try to understand revelation. You know that when
they come to something in the divine records which they do not understand,
they will say—"Oh, the Lord never intended us to understand that, that is a
mystery, we must not search into these things, they are mysteries." Just as
though the Lord would reveal something that he never intended or wished
the human family to understand. Saying nothing about the Deity, it would be
an act of foolishness on the part of a man to attempt a revelation of
something that he never intended his fellow-men to understand. The Lord is
more consistent then man; and if he reveals anything, he surely intends that
thing to be for the profit and edification of the pure in heart." (Journal of
Discourses, 26 vols. 17: 326.)

Another thing, I keep hearing about Elder McConkie, and how many mistakes he's made! I add this; The fact that you or anybody doesn't agree with or understand something a prophet says, does "not" make the prophet wrong!

I've also heard this argument; Well, Elder McConkie wasn't the actual prophet! Again, an incorrect and false understanding, several times a year we are ask to raise our right hand in sustaining the 12 Apostles as "prophets, seers, and revelators!" Elder McConkie, during his sojourn in the Holy Apostleship here in mortality, "was" a prophet, seer and revelator! It's way past time we recognize that fact.

I have seen nothing in his writings nor his speeches that comes even close to suggesting false doctrine "nor" false history. I have seen historical truths he has been ask to delete, because it wasn't time to reveal them, but "nothing" incorrect!

President David O. McKay compared Elder McConkie to Nephi of old! High praise indeed!

Bob

[serenitylala]

The answers to (almost) every question above is found in the scripture and the words of the prophets. Our problem isn't in what they have said, "they" have answered all the questions necessary for us to receive the gift of salvation. The problem is in our willingness, or lack of, to search out the answers "already revealed!"

We seem to have a strange cautionary streak in us; "Oh!!!, it's too sacred to talk about!" True with some Temple teachings, but the Temple "also" explains which teachings are "not" to be talked about. The facts are, much of what is said in the Temple is already published right here on the internet. We're probable wise not to speak about their correct meanings, and that, if we even know their correct meanings.

Then we hear, "well it's best not to talk about anything so sacred!" Even If the prophets have spoken on a specific subject, can we not also speak to each other about that subject?

The simple rule is; "IF" the prophets "have or have not" spoken on "a" subject!

Another simple rule; Any seemingly gospel teaching not spoken on by the prophets is simply pure conjecture.

Our own ignorance of what they have spoken on "isn't" their fault!

I think all too often we use the word "sacred" as an excuse to justify our own lack of knowledge. If we don't know the answer, many of us simply declare the subject sacred---then-- we don't have to talk about it should a question arise!

Truth is, "every" gospel subject is sacred, but "limiting" ourselves in gospel understanding using that excuse isn't sacred, it's foolishness!

There's this from Elder Orson Pratt commenting on revelations received from the Lord
speaks about understanding:

"It is an old sectarian whim and notion, to
suppose that we must not try to understand revelation. You know that when
they come to something in the divine records which they do not understand,
they will say—"Oh, the Lord never intended us to understand that, that is a
mystery, we must not search into these things, they are mysteries." Just as
though the Lord would reveal something that he never intended or wished
the human family to understand. Saying nothing about the Deity, it would be
an act of foolishness on the part of a man to attempt a revelation of
something that he never intended his fellow-men to understand. The Lord is
more consistent then man; and if he reveals anything, he surely intends that
thing to be for the profit and edification of the pure in heart." (Journal of
Discourses, 26 vols. 17: 326.)

Another thing, I keep hearing about Elder McConkie, and how many mistakes he's made! I add this; The fact that you or anybody doesn't agree with or understand something a prophet says, does "not" make the prophet wrong!

I've also heard this argument; Well, Elder McConkie wasn't the actual prophet! Again, an incorrect and false understanding, several times a year we are ask to raise our right hand in sustaining the 12 Apostles as "prophets, seers, and revelators!" Elder McConkie, during his sojourn in the Holy Apostleship here in mortality, "was" a prophet, seer and revelator! It's way past time we recognize that fact.

I have seen nothing in his writings nor his speeches that comes even close to suggesting false doctrine "nor" false history. I have seen historical truths he has been ask to delete, because it wasn't time to reveal them, but "nothing" incorrect!

President David O. McKay compared Elder McConkie to Nephi of old! High praise indeed!

Bob

You go Bob! See another reason why I like you! Yeah Bob!

[Anti-Socialist]

Quote:
is there more than one Christ in the eternities?..............hmmmmmmm and...?


If anyone knows the answer to that question, I hope they keep it sacred.

Does anyone else feel restrained to talk about topics like this on LDSFF or any other website? I can thing of a worse place to talk about such sacred topics imo. I am very selective to who I discuss deep spiritual matters with in my personal life little alone throw it all over the internet!

Thank you. I was beginning to think I was alone.
I would not even discuss some of these issues outside the temple, and some are so sacred, I would not even discuss them there.
This is one of those issues.
How can something be treated with sacredness when it is splattered all over the world for everyone to mock and ridicule?

Well, as I have stated in other post's, I had become very inactive when I was 16. I am 29 now, and I am just starting to come back to the Church. I have only been to the temple for certin baptism's the youth preform for the less fortante....(you know what I am talking about)... With that said, I have no Idea what is taught in the temple. I get my theory from the scriptures. I cannot tell you where the scriptures say this, or even what book it is in.

However I am sure that I once read that we were made in Gods Image. I took that to mean that God was once like us, which meant God has a Father. And If God had a father, then he must have a mother, brothers, and sisters. After that thought sunk in, I theorized that some our God's brothers and sisters had to have made it to the same level of development that God has reached. Which meant to me, that they are God's to their own children. It is so overwhelming to think of the grand scheme.

I have never thought about other messiah's in those worlds, but then again everything that I am writing I just got after reading the scriptures those many years ago. I could be wrong on my theroy, but I guess I will never know until I see God once more.

[sbsion]

to talk about GODS/Fathers/Sons/Christs/Angels, etc.........is to talk about family. Sacred?, well, aren't ALL things sacred then...........righteousnes yeilds sacredness, I think one needs to define interpretations POV?

[NoGreaterLove]

I think all too often we use the word "sacred" as an excuse to justify our own lack of knowledge. If we don't know the answer, many of us simply declare the subject sacred---then-- we don't have to talk about it should a question arise!

Maybe someone knows more than we think they do and have come to an understanding that it is sacred.
I often times read people deliberately using phrases from the temple. Sure it is on the internet. Not a secret, sacred. We as a society tend to make light of sacred things in the name of learning. Justifying sharing sacred ideas or sacred teachings for the purpose of expanding ones knowledge.
Sometimes we talk about sacred things without realizing they are sacred. But when the Holy Ghost moves upon us and gives us an uncomfortable feeling about what we are saying, then we need to listen and obey.

[Original_Intent]

I agree NGL and it reminds me of a saying "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

That being said, I agree with what you said last the most - it is all based on the guidance of the spirit. I have been constrained in certain circumstances not to reveal certain personal things that have nothing to do with the temple, but because it was not appropriate for the audience. In other situations with a different group of people I did not feel constrained on those same issues.

By the same token, there are things spoken of in the temple that I feel there is no problem speaking about outside the temple, again the rule to follow is listen to the spirit. Certainly there are things in the temple that should NEVER be spoken of outside the temple, at least to my limited understanding. However, I have also heard authorities make references that were lifted directly from certain portions of the endowment, even reading the book of Abraham there is a lot there. So I do not condemn anyone for making a "veiled reference" (appropriate!) to something in the temple ceremony. Why? Because it is not my place to judge what the Spirit has constrained another person to say or not say. If it makes me uncomfortable, then I move on. Possibly a word of warning as was done here, however, my opinion is that this is an area that we should not judge each other as we are not in a position to judge.

[ready2prepare]

President Harold B. Lee offers some excellent
advice regarding discussions such as this one:

• "There are too many of us who put
  question marks instead of periods after
  what the Lord says. We shouldn't try
  to spend time explaining what the Lord
  didn't see fit to explain. We spend
  useless time."
  --President Harold B. Lee,
  "Admonitions for the Priesthood
  of God." Ensign, January 1973

Best Regards,
Sharon (Helping people get prepared) in Mississippi

[Original_Intent]

r2p,

there is a time when that quote applies, and a time when it does not.

Before anyone gets their hackles up about me questioning a prophet of God, please hear me out.

An example of when it is OK to "question further what he Lord did not see fit to explain: Nephi, seeking further understanding (even beyond what his father got!) regarding Lehi's dream of the tree of life. Thank heavens nephi didn't just say - Oh well, if the Lord had really wanted me to know, he would have spelled it out.

Now I would say some examples of putting question marks instead of periods after what the Lord says could be the church's position on Prop 8, for instance. Another would be members who questioned whether David O McKay and Ezra Taft Benson were stepping out of their proper bounds when speaking about <gasp!> political issues.

Certainly there are better ways to spend our time than speculating about stuff that does not pertain to our immediate salvation. But let's face it, none of us are anywhere near perfect efficiency, and I would suggest that most if not all of us spend a good deal of time discussing things far more trivial than the topic under discussion. The author has some good backing for his thesis. Some good points have been raised against it in this thread. In my opinion it is an interesting discussion. I don;t think this thread questions any definitive statement by the Lord, and therefore I do no think that the quote about putting question marks instead of periods after what the Lord has said applies. If it does apply, then I would gues that anywhere from 75% to 95% of this forum should just be deleted, since much of it is speculation and not even regarding a gospel topic. Seems like one of the biggest threads on here is Inflation vs. deflation thread - do we just not discuss it because if the Lord wants us to know, he will let us in His own good time? Or do we apply our faculties to try our best to understand and then ask for additional guidance and understanding to verify our conclusions?

Sorry didn't mean to rant, and I am not upset at all, so I am not sure rant is a good word. Maybe wordy, rambling opinion fits better.

[sbsion]

I think all too often we use the word "sacred" as an excuse to justify our own lack of knowledge. If we don't know the answer, many of us simply declare the subject sacred---then-- we don't have to talk about it should a question arise!

Maybe someone knows more than we think they do and have come to an understanding that it is sacred.
I often times read people deliberately using phrases from the temple. Sure it is on the internet. Not a secret, sacred. We as a society tend to make light of sacred things in the name of learning. Justifying sharing sacred ideas or sacred teachings for the purpose of expanding ones knowledge.
Sometimes we talk about sacred things without realizing they are sacred. But when the Holy Ghost moves upon us and gives us an uncomfortable feeling about what we are saying, then we need to listen and obey.

and, it's different for everyone, as there is "....one intelligence above another......." of course, we don't "...cast pearls before swine", but, that doesn't mean everyone is a swine?

[armedtotheteeth]

In my personal quest to be enlightened by the Lord directly, I find the more truth I am given about our Fathers mysteries, the less likely I am to share it with everyone. On this forum you can not filter who receives the significance, or see who is ready for further light and knowledge. Let the Holy Spirit guide people to these thoughts and conclusion; he knows better them any of us.
I remember a life lesson I learned when I was on my mission. I had the most amazing experience when I was young involving the direct administration of angels to me and my family. I remember it being so powerful that I shared it with everyone, with all the details surrounding this amazing occurrence. I used it on my mission as a way of conveying our Fathers love, but after telling the story to everyone I remember the story was losing its power.
When we learn things and have those “pure intelligence/breakthrough moments,” they are for us, and those we feel inspired to share them with under careful circumstance, not to be given to the world so easily as per this or any other forum. I have struggled and worked hard for my further light and knowledge; as we all have. This is how we learn the deep stuff, its hard, its challenging.
Not thru internet threads of men’s ideas mingled with scripture.

[sbsion]

and those we feel inspired to share them with under careful circumstance, not to be given to the world so easily as per this or any other forum. I have struggled and worked hard for my further light and knowledge; as we all have. This is how we learn the deep stuff, its hard, its challenging.
Not thru internet threads of men’s ideas mingled with scripture.

so, you don't believe in your signature?.........hmmmmmm

[armedtotheteeth]

so, you don't believe in your signature?.........hmmmmmm

Yes I do believe it, with all my heart! But if you live by what my signature says, you will already know, that you have to rely wholly upon the spirit of God to tell you what is of a good fountain or what is from a bitter one; because as you can see, there is a lot of…….……speculation.

[Quiet Cricket]

It seems to me a lot of threads like this get turned into "it doesn't matter" or "we shouldn't talk about" threads. It's kind of a bummer.

[LukeAir2008]

It makes sense that each God would have at least one galaxy and some that have been around awhile would have more. If you think of this in terms of your own exaltation, when you first recieve your exaltation will you be governing the whole universe or will it take some time create new earths, stars etc? As spirits progress, then more creations will be made for them to dwell on and so on and so forth as that glory and dominion expands.

So to me the idea that the milky way galaxy belongs to our heavenly father makes sense. Is it the end of his dominion? Could be and with time more galaxies will be created. Or it could be that there are many galaxies he has dominion over. A God that has just recently reached exaltation would likely have a smaller dominion than a God that has been exalted for many eons of time, right? We are taught that God's glory expands with each spirit that progresses to exaltation right? So it would make sense that his creations that serve those spirits would also expand over time.

Of course all of this thinking comes from my very small limited mind.

Yes, its like being called a Father before you actually have any children. You may have all the right attributes and powers but until you actually bring forth children you are not a Father (or Mother) of anybody. Our Heavenly Father is the God of all the intelliegnces that he has organized either as spirit children or as other creations. He has a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Grandfather etc etc and spirit brothers and sisters, some of whom will be exalted and many who wont be. He is not their God - he is our God.

We are told our Heavenly Father's name is Elohim but of course thats the nursery level standard answer you would give to a child. Elohim means 'the Gods' or one of the Gods' - thats not the Father's personal name. The singular of Elohim is El which is pronounced 'Ale'. If we are ever exalted we will be an El or one of the Elohim!

We are told that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have all received their exaltation and are now Gods.(D&C 132:37) They are not our God - they are our spirit brothers and their exalted wives are our spirit sisters - but they are and will be the Gods of all the intelligences that they organize into either spirit children or other creations. Perhaps somewhere in time and eternity, on another planet, their children on learning the truth might protest and say, Oh No! not the Angel Abraham...he can't be our Heavenly Father, we want his Father as our God - but that can never be.

Your Heavenly Father is the Exalted Angelic Man who brings you into existence as a Spirit Son or Spirit Daughter - and nobody else!

[bobhenstra]

It makes sense that each God would have at least one galaxy and some that have been around awhile would have more. If you think of this in terms of your own exaltation, when you first recieve your exaltation will you be governing the whole universe or will it take some time create new earths, stars etc? As spirits progress, then more creations will be made for them to dwell on and so on and so forth as that glory and dominion expands.

So to me the idea that the milky way galaxy belongs to our heavenly father makes sense. Is it the end of his dominion? Could be and with time more galaxies will be created. Or it could be that there are many galaxies he has dominion over. A God that has just recently reached exaltation would likely have a smaller dominion than a God that has been exalted for many eons of time, right? We are taught that God's glory expands with each spirit that progresses to exaltation right? So it would make sense that his creations that serve those spirits would also expand over time.

Of course all of this thinking comes from my very small limited mind.

Yes, its like being called a Father before you actually have any children. You may have all the right attributes and powers but until you actually bring forth children you are not a Father (or Mother) of anybody. Our Heavenly Father is the God of all the intelliegnces that he has organized either as spirit children or as other creations. He has a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Grandfather etc etc and spirit brothers and sisters, some of whom will be exalted and many who wont beINCORRECT, your judging. He is not their God - he is our God.

We are told our Heavenly Father's name is Elohim but of course thats the nursery level standard answer you would give to a child. Elohim means 'the Gods' or one of the Gods' - thats not the Father's personal name. The singular of Elohim is El which is pronounced 'Ale'. If we are ever exalted we will be an El or one of the Elohim! God's name is Ahman! Search it out.

We are told that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have all received their exaltation and are now Gods.(D&C 132:37) They are not our God - they are our spirit brothers and their exalted wives are our spirit sisters - but they are and will be the Gods of all the intelligences that they organize into either spirit children or other creations. Perhaps somewhere in time and eternity, on another planet, their children on learning the truth might protest and say, Oh No! not the Angel Abraham...he can't be our Heavenly Father, we want his Father as our God - but that can never be.

Your Heavenly Father is the Exalted Angelic Man who brings you into existence as a Spirit Son or Spirit Daughter - and nobody else!

[LukeAir2008]

It makes sense that each God would have at least one galaxy and some that have been around awhile would have more. If you think of this in terms of your own exaltation, when you first recieve your exaltation will you be governing the whole universe or will it take some time create new earths, stars etc? As spirits progress, then more creations will be made for them to dwell on and so on and so forth as that glory and dominion expands.

So to me the idea that the milky way galaxy belongs to our heavenly father makes sense. Is it the end of his dominion? Could be and with time more galaxies will be created. Or it could be that there are many galaxies he has dominion over. A God that has just recently reached exaltation would likely have a smaller dominion than a God that has been exalted for many eons of time, right? We are taught that God's glory expands with each spirit that progresses to exaltation right? So it would make sense that his creations that serve those spirits would also expand over time.

Of course all of this thinking comes from my very small limited mind.

Yes, its like being called a Father before you actually have any children. You may have all the right attributes and powers but until you actually bring forth children you are not a Father (or Mother) of anybody. Our Heavenly Father is the God of all the intelliegnces that he has organized either as spirit children or as other creations. He has a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Grandfather etc etc and spirit brothers and sisters, some of whom will be exalted and many who wont beINCORRECT, your judging. He is not their God - he is our God.

We are told our Heavenly Father's name is Elohim but of course thats the nursery level standard answer you would give to a child. Elohim means 'the Gods' or one of the Gods' - thats not the Father's personal name. The singular of Elohim is El which is pronounced 'Ale'. If we are ever exalted we will be an El or one of the Elohim! God's name is Ahman! Search it out.

We are told that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have all received their exaltation and are now Gods.(D&C 132:37) They are not our God - they are our spirit brothers and their exalted wives are our spirit sisters - but they are and will be the Gods of all the intelligences that they organize into either spirit children or other creations. Perhaps somewhere in time and eternity, on another planet, their children on learning the truth might protest and say, Oh No! not the Angel Abraham...he can't be our Heavenly Father, we want his Father as our God - but that can never be.

Your Heavenly Father is the Exalted Angelic Man who brings you into existence as a Spirit Son or Spirit Daughter - and nobody else!

Bob, you should calm down and think before you type?

So what you are actually saying is that every man and woman born on this or any other planet will be exalted? NONSENSE!

I know what our Heavenly Father's name is. The name Ahman is probably another title in the Adamic language meaning Exalted Man. Jesus is referred to as Son of Ahman or Son of Man. My point is that the church's teaching is that Heavenly Father's name is Elohim which means the Gods. Thats one of his titles rather than his personal name.

[bobhenstra]

Bob, you should calm down and think before you type?

Think about what, falsehoods? God is a perfect man with a perfect plan for all his children. Perfection does not fail! God knows all about mortality and the problems his children would face, he's smart enough and powerful enough to help all of his children overcome the moment that is mortality.

So what you are actually saying is that every man and woman born on this or any other planet will be exalted? NONSENSE!

Please, read and study my signature line, the quote by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and the Lord's quote following.

I know what our Heavenly Father's name is. The name Ahman is probably another title in the Adamic language meaning Exalted Man. Jesus is referred to as Son of Ahman or Son of Man. My point is that the church's teaching is that Heavenly Father's name is Elohim which means the Gods. Thats one of his titles rather than his personal name.

It's Ahman!