What were God's sins?

[freedomforall]

This is an area where there really is no official doctrine, and people are free to believe what feels right to them. I find it interesting which theories different people find more comforting.

I've always liked the theory FTC seems to be proposing, that our father god could literally be anybody that qualified for exhalation in his generation, whether he was the savior of that "world" or a prophet or a degenerate who eventually repented or even an aborted fetus that didn't need to prove himself in mortality. If all those people have the potential to become gods in full measure than why couldn't our father god have been any one of those people? If I have the ability to inherit all that my father has then to me it is a very hopeful and inspiring belief that someone as imperfect as I could be made perfect in the eternities.

But some people are not comforted by this belief, in fact it bothers them to think that their father god could be anyone but the perfect savior of his own generation, and they are free to believe that as well. I've never been particularly inspired by the geocentric beliefs that humanity on this planet is the most important life in all the universe (of all the populated planets, Jesus suffered and died on ours, etc.) but some people are. To each their own.

Why on earth would anyone dwell on any possibility of our God having sinned anytime in the past, present or even the future? He and Jehovah are perfect, inside and out, and give us the command to be just as perfect as they. 3 Ne. 12:48
Moroni 10:32,33 tells us how we can be perfect, in Christ, in this life. Had Father sinned, he would have had a way to have his sins remitted in some manner just as ours are through the Blood of the Lamb via sincere repentance.
I may be off key here, but for anyone saying that just because Father may have sinned, it must be okay if I sin. This is foolish thinking.
God is perfect, therefore, we can have enough confidence in him to handle our pleas, our supplications and our heartfelt prayers. We would be lost if we could not have someone to tell our problems to knowing there is no one to help, no one to offer mercy or grace, no one to comfort, to make calm and serene in times of distress.

I say, let's forget about God's sins and look ahead, and do what we need to do to get back to Father. This is work enough.

[freedomforall]

That is fair, so I will change my view to say that God doesn't look upon sin/transgression with the least degree of allowance FOR OUR SAKE, so we can continue learning the lessons we need to in order to become like Him. It is not to cause us shame, it is to help us out.

If there were no shame or guilt, would people be prodded to repent?

2 Nephi 2:11-13
11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

Shame and guilt creates rebellion. Love creates repentance. My kids all learned how to walk without me shaming them or guilting them into it. That opposition is to show us what God does not do.

Isn't there a difference between shame and disappointment?
A child learning to walk is not going to feel shame for falling on his or her head, but they may experience disappointment. Only a foolish and cruel parent would ridicule and make fun of a child upon them falling several times until they are comfortable enough to walk unhindered by imbalance.

There must be shame associated with sin. There must be disappointed for falling several times until the sin is eradicated. Shame is talked about in scripture as a necessary component used to urge repentance. A child falling down as they learn to walk is not a bad thing.

A person frequenting a den of ill repute has much reason to bear shame and guilt until they repent and change that type of lifestyle.

Proverbs 13:5,18
5 A righteous man hateth lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and cometh to shame.

Hosea 4:7,18
7 As they were increased, so they sinned against me: therefore will I change their glory into shame.

2 Nephi 9:14,46
14 Wherefore, we shall have a perfect knowledge of all our guilt, and our uncleanness, and our nakedness; and the righteous shall have a perfect knowledge of their enjoyment, and their righteousness, being clothed with purity, yea, even with the robe of righteousness.

Mormon 9:3
3 Then will ye longer deny the Christ, or can ye behold the Lamb of God? Do ye suppose that ye shall dwell with him under a consciousness of your guilt? Do ye suppose that ye could be happy to dwell with that holy Being, when your souls are racked with a consciousness of guilt that ye have ever abused his laws?

Through repentance, Christ not only remits sin, He also removes guilt and shame, thus rendering us clean and pure in body and mind.

[Robin Hood]

This thread is based on faulty theology from the outset, in my view.
God is sinless and would cease to be God if he sinned.

The only person to whom the statement "as man is God once was, and as God is man may become" applies is Jesus Christ.

[freedomforall]

This thread is based on faulty theology from the outset, in my view.
God is sinless and would cease to be God if he sinned.

The only person to whom the statement "as man is God once was, and as God is man may become" applies is Jesus Christ.

I guess people wonder where the Majesty on High got his body if not having been on an earth someplace. And having been on an earth...did he sin?

I mean, this seems to be the pattern. An intelligence gains a spirit, then goes down and gains flesh and blood, then goes back and learns how to be a God and creating their own worlds and people to put on them. Oh, and along the way they sin a lot. Otherwise, why all the fuss about becoming perfect?

And then for those who become Gods, the people they create can ask the questions...where did God get his body? Did he sin?

So I do not agree that this is based on faulty theology, rather, merely trying to see the chain of events required for Godhood.

I just think it to be foolish to dwell on sins God may or may not have committed in his journey. God is perfect however he got there. This is all we need to concern ourselves with, IMHO.

[captainfearnot]

I may be off key here, but for anyone saying that just because Father may have sinned, it must be okay if I sin. This is foolish thinking.

I agree. Luckily, I don't think anyone is saying that.

[freedomforall]

I may be off key here, but for anyone saying that just because Father may have sinned, it must be okay if I sin. This is foolish thinking.

I agree. Luckily, I don't think anyone is saying that.

I'm merely making certain of it. Otherwise, why is the OP such an issue...an issue brought up to stir up wild imaginations and conjecture?

[LDS Physician]

We have been instructed to be perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect.

And how is he perfect? He is perfect because he experienced a mortality, sinned, repented, grew line-upon-line, was resurrected, etc...and we've been instructed to do the same.

[Robin Hood]

We have been instructed to be perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect.

And how is he perfect? He is perfect because he experienced a mortality, sinned, repented, grew line-upon-line, was resurrected, etc...and we've been instructed to do the same.

He could also be perfect because he has simply never sinned; like Jesus never sinned.
I don't see why his perfection is dependent upon sin. Seems backwards to me.

We certainly haven't "been instructed to do the same" as the list you describe. In order to maintain this position, you will have to demonstrate where in the scriptures we are instructed to sin.

[freedomforall]

We have been instructed to be perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect.

And how is he perfect? He is perfect because he experienced a mortality, sinned, repented, grew line-upon-line, was resurrected, etc...and we've been instructed to do the same.

He could also be perfect because he has simply never sinned; like Jesus never sinned.
I don't see why his perfection is dependent upon sin. Seems backwards to me.

We certainly haven't "been instructed to do the same" as the list you describe. In order to maintain this position, you will have to demonstrate where in the scriptures we are instructed to sin.

It was God's design to cast out Lucifer from heaven and put him here on earth so we can be tempted to sin. If it hadn't been Lucifer, it had to be somebody because without temptation we would be without knowledge of right and wrong, good or bad, bitter or sweet; we would not even know how to succor the children we are supposed to rule over as placed on our own worlds.

2 Nephi 2
11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

Rom. 4:15
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Rom 5:13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

2 Ne. 9:25
25 Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him.

Alma 42:13
13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.
..........................................................................................................................

We sin all the time...however, it is a matter of whether we harden our heart and allow the chains of Satan to drag us to hell or that we repent and continue to strive to be on the side of God.

Since there has to be opposition in all things, there had to be a bad guy to tempt us...and there had to be a perfect guy to save us. Satan is the epitome of bad, and Jehovah is the epitome of good. We choose which one we list to obey.

God does not force us to do good or to sin, but he sure did put temptation in our path to test us.

[Robin Hood]

We have been instructed to be perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect.

And how is he perfect? He is perfect because he experienced a mortality, sinned, repented, grew line-upon-line, was resurrected, etc...and we've been instructed to do the same.

He could also be perfect because he has simply never sinned; like Jesus never sinned.
I don't see why his perfection is dependent upon sin. Seems backwards to me.

We certainly haven't "been instructed to do the same" as the list you describe. In order to maintain this position, you will have to demonstrate where in the scriptures we are instructed to sin.

It was God's design to cast out Lucifer from heaven and put him here on earth so we can be tempted to sin. If it hadn't been Lucifer, it had to be somebody because without temptation we would be without knowledge of right and wrong, good or bad, bitter or sweet; we would not even know how to succor the children we are supposed to rule over as placed on our own worlds.

So if I understand your position correctly, it appears to me you are saying, in effect, that God set us up.

Why would he do such a thing?
On the one hand you claim he is perfect and sinless, but on the other hand you claim this perfect sinless father deliberately placed his children in harms way.

I believe this is heresy.

[freedomforall]

We have been instructed to be perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect.

And how is he perfect? He is perfect because he experienced a mortality, sinned, repented, grew line-upon-line, was resurrected, etc...and we've been instructed to do the same.

He could also be perfect because he has simply never sinned; like Jesus never sinned.
I don't see why his perfection is dependent upon sin. Seems backwards to me.

We certainly haven't "been instructed to do the same" as the list you describe. In order to maintain this position, you will have to demonstrate where in the scriptures we are instructed to sin.

It was God's design to cast out Lucifer from heaven and put him here on earth so we can be tempted to sin. If it hadn't been Lucifer, it had to be somebody because without temptation we would be without knowledge of right and wrong, good or bad, bitter or sweet; we would not even know how to succor the children we are supposed to rule over as placed on our own worlds.

So if I understand your position correctly, it appears to me you are saying, in effect, that God set us up. You might say that.

Why would he do such a thing?
On the one hand you claim he is perfect and sinless, but on the other hand you claim this perfect sinless father deliberately placed his children in harms way.

I believe this is heresy.

It is what it is. Did you not read the provided scriptures?

When Lucifer was escorted out of heaven, where was he cast down to?

Does not God say that it is his work and glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man? And how is he going to do this if we are ignorant of the presence of evil, and how we reacted to it?

Did not Adam and Eve get informed that as soon as they partook of the forbidden fruit, they had then become as the Gods knowing good and evil?

Can you teach a child all about good and all about evil if you have no clue what they entail?

JST, John 14:30. Compare John 14:30
The prince of darkness, or Satan, is of this world.
30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you; for the prince of darkness, who is of this world, cometh, but hath no power over me, but he hath power over you.

D&C 29
39 And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet—

Moses 4:4 (3–4)
3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;
4 And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.

[Robin Hood]

He could also be perfect because he has simply never sinned; like Jesus never sinned.
I don't see why his perfection is dependent upon sin. Seems backwards to me.

We certainly haven't "been instructed to do the same" as the list you describe. In order to maintain this position, you will have to demonstrate where in the scriptures we are instructed to sin.

It was God's design to cast out Lucifer from heaven and put him here on earth so we can be tempted to sin. If it hadn't been Lucifer, it had to be somebody because without temptation we would be without knowledge of right and wrong, good or bad, bitter or sweet; we would not even know how to succor the children we are supposed to rule over as placed on our own worlds.

So if I understand your position correctly, it appears to me you are saying, in effect, that God set us up. You might say that.

Why would he do such a thing?
On the one hand you claim he is perfect and sinless, but on the other hand you claim this perfect sinless father deliberately placed his children in harms way.

I believe this is heresy.

It is what it is. Did you not read the provided scriptures?

When Lucifer was escorted out of heaven, where was he cast down to?

Does not God say that it is his work and glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man? And how is he going to do this if we are ignorant of the presence of evil, and how we reacted to it?

Did not Adam and Eve get informed that as soon as they partook of the forbidden fruit, they had then become as the Gods knowing good and evil?

Can you teach a child all about good and all about evil if you have no clue what they entail?

JST, John 14:30. Compare John 14:30
The prince of darkness, or Satan, is of this world.
30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you; for the prince of darkness, who is of this world, cometh, but hath no power over me, but he hath power over you.

D&C 29
39 And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet—

Moses 4:4 (3–4)
3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;
4 And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.

I understand your reasoning, but I believe it is flawed.
It is flawed because you claim sin is a requirement. Not that opposition or evil is a requirement, but that personal sin is.
That is clearly false doctrine.

You claim that since you believe that God the Father was once a mortal man like us, he was therefore guilty of sin. I believe this position to be totally unjustified, is pure conjecture, and cannot be demonstrated from scripture. It is heresy in my view.

[inho]

There are now two different things to discuss:
1) Was God once a mortal man like us? Robin Hood does not believe this. Most LDS will disagree with him.
2) Was a devil necessary? D&C 29:39 says so. I have hard time understanding this. I understand that opposition is necessary. It is necessary for us to live a mortal life out of the presence of God, which allows the possibility of sinning. However, do we really need a personal evil? According to my understanding there was no evil being tempting Lucifer in the pre-existence and yet he and others choose to rebel.

[Robin Hood]

There are now two different things to discuss:
1) Was God once a mortal man like us? Robin Hood does not believe this. Most LDS will disagree with him.
2) Was a devil necessary? D&C 29:39 says so. I have hard time understanding this. I understand that opposition is necessary. It is necessary for us to live a mortal life out of the presence of God, which allows the possibility of sinning. However, do we really need a personal evil? According to my understanding there was no evil being tempting Lucifer in the pre-existence and yet he and others choose to rebel.

I think you sum it up well inho.
1. I do believe God was once a mortal man; we can read all about him and his mortal life in the gospels.
2. A devil is not necessary. If so, all those born during the millenium are doomed.

[LDS Physician]

We have been instructed to be perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect.

And how is he perfect? He is perfect because he experienced a mortality, sinned, repented, grew line-upon-line, was resurrected, etc...and we've been instructed to do the same.

He could also be perfect because he has simply never sinned; like Jesus never sinned.
I don't see why his perfection is dependent upon sin. Seems backwards to me.

We certainly haven't "been instructed to do the same" as the list you describe. In order to maintain this position, you will have to demonstrate where in the scriptures we are instructed to sin.

Well, Robin Hood, in the far off future, my children will have a Heavenly Father who did sin when he was a mortal. If you believe that HF was a Christ, then all of his brothers who went on to become HFs experienced sin and their children will be praying to and relying upon a glorified man who sinned. Is any of this in scripture? It is...but subtly so...logic and the spirit are needed to see it. Prophets have explained it similarly. But if you use your mind you can see that faith, (sin), repentance, baptism, and the HG are necessary steps to progression.

Only one of our father's family progressed through his mortality without sin...the rest of us have the same opportunity as Him because of Him. Chances are, our HF took advantage of a similar plan unless, of course, he was the one out of his entire family to be a Savior and therefore sinless. What are the chances of that?

[Robin Hood]

We have been instructed to be perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect.

And how is he perfect? He is perfect because he experienced a mortality, sinned, repented, grew line-upon-line, was resurrected, etc...and we've been instructed to do the same.

He could also be perfect because he has simply never sinned; like Jesus never sinned.
I don't see why his perfection is dependent upon sin. Seems backwards to me.

We certainly haven't "been instructed to do the same" as the list you describe. In order to maintain this position, you will have to demonstrate where in the scriptures we are instructed to sin.

Well, Robin Hood, in the far off future, my children will have a Heavenly Father who did sin when he was a mortal. If you believe that HF was a Christ, then all of his brothers who went on to become HFs experienced sin and their children will be praying to and relying upon a glorified man who sinned. Is any of this in scripture? It is...but subtly so...logic and the spirit are needed to see it. Prophets have explained it similarly. But if you use your mind you can see that faith, (sin), repentance, baptism, and the HG are necessary steps to progression.

Only one of our father's family progressed through his mortality without sin...the rest of us have the same opportunity as Him because of Him. Chances are, our HF took advantage of a similar plan unless, of course, he was the one out of his entire family to be a Savior and therefore sinless. What are the chances of that?

I don't believe the person we refer to as Heavenly Father was "a Christ".
I believe the person we refer to as Jesus Christ was though. The clue is in the name.
I believe he was the only Christ there ever has been and ever will be. Otherwise, the atonement would not be infinite.
The Book of Mormon is very clear regarding the nature of God and the destiny of his children.

[Finrock]

We have been instructed to be perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect.

And how is he perfect? He is perfect because he experienced a mortality, sinned, repented, grew line-upon-line, was resurrected, etc...and we've been instructed to do the same.

He could also be perfect because he has simply never sinned; like Jesus never sinned.
I don't see why his perfection is dependent upon sin. Seems backwards to me.

We certainly haven't "been instructed to do the same" as the list you describe. In order to maintain this position, you will have to demonstrate where in the scriptures we are instructed to sin.

Well, Robin Hood, in the far off future, my children will have a Heavenly Father who did sin when he was a mortal. If you believe that HF was a Christ, then all of his brothers who went on to become HFs experienced sin and their children will be praying to and relying upon a glorified man who sinned. Is any of this in scripture? It is...but subtly so...logic and the spirit are needed to see it. Prophets have explained it similarly. But if you use your mind you can see that faith, (sin), repentance, baptism, and the HG are necessary steps to progression.

Only one of our father's family progressed through his mortality without sin...the rest of us have the same opportunity as Him because of Him. Chances are, our HF took advantage of a similar plan unless, of course, he was the one out of his entire family to be a Savior and therefore sinless. What are the chances of that?

I don't believe the person we refer to as Heavenly Father was "a Christ".
I believe the person we refer to as Jesus Christ was though. The clue is in the name.
I believe he was the only Christ there ever has been and ever will be. Otherwise, the atonement would not be infinite.
The Book of Mormon is very clear regarding the nature of God and the destiny of his children.

We covenant to take upon us the name of Christ. One day we must actually come around to fulfilling this covenant and take upon us His name. The Spirit of Christ can be obtained by an infinite amount of individuals and an infinite amount of individuals can take upon them the name of Christ.

-Finrock

[Robin Hood]

He could also be perfect because he has simply never sinned; like Jesus never sinned.
I don't see why his perfection is dependent upon sin. Seems backwards to me.

We certainly haven't "been instructed to do the same" as the list you describe. In order to maintain this position, you will have to demonstrate where in the scriptures we are instructed to sin.

Well, Robin Hood, in the far off future, my children will have a Heavenly Father who did sin when he was a mortal. If you believe that HF was a Christ, then all of his brothers who went on to become HFs experienced sin and their children will be praying to and relying upon a glorified man who sinned. Is any of this in scripture? It is...but subtly so...logic and the spirit are needed to see it. Prophets have explained it similarly. But if you use your mind you can see that faith, (sin), repentance, baptism, and the HG are necessary steps to progression.

Only one of our father's family progressed through his mortality without sin...the rest of us have the same opportunity as Him because of Him. Chances are, our HF took advantage of a similar plan unless, of course, he was the one out of his entire family to be a Savior and therefore sinless. What are the chances of that?

I don't believe the person we refer to as Heavenly Father was "a Christ".
I believe the person we refer to as Jesus Christ was though. The clue is in the name.
I believe he was the only Christ there ever has been and ever will be. Otherwise, the atonement would not be infinite.
The Book of Mormon is very clear regarding the nature of God and the destiny of his children.

We covenant to take upon us the name of Christ. One day we must actually come around to fulfilling this covenant and take upon us His name. The Spirit of Christ can be obtained by an infinite amount of individuals and an infinite amount of individuals can take upon them the name of Christ.

-Finrock

My wife took my name when she covenanted with me.
In doing this she did not become me, take on my particular characteristics, nor perform the same work as me.

[Finrock]

Well, Robin Hood, in the far off future, my children will have a Heavenly Father who did sin when he was a mortal. If you believe that HF was a Christ, then all of his brothers who went on to become HFs experienced sin and their children will be praying to and relying upon a glorified man who sinned. Is any of this in scripture? It is...but subtly so...logic and the spirit are needed to see it. Prophets have explained it similarly. But if you use your mind you can see that faith, (sin), repentance, baptism, and the HG are necessary steps to progression.

Only one of our father's family progressed through his mortality without sin...the rest of us have the same opportunity as Him because of Him. Chances are, our HF took advantage of a similar plan unless, of course, he was the one out of his entire family to be a Savior and therefore sinless. What are the chances of that?

I don't believe the person we refer to as Heavenly Father was "a Christ".
I believe the person we refer to as Jesus Christ was though. The clue is in the name.
I believe he was the only Christ there ever has been and ever will be. Otherwise, the atonement would not be infinite.
The Book of Mormon is very clear regarding the nature of God and the destiny of his children.

We covenant to take upon us the name of Christ. One day we must actually come around to fulfilling this covenant and take upon us His name. The Spirit of Christ can be obtained by an infinite amount of individuals and an infinite amount of individuals can take upon them the name of Christ.

-Finrock

My wife took my name when she covenanted with me.
In doing this she did not become me, take on my particular characteristics, nor perform the same work as me.

Christ is a title, not just a name. In any case, you will be called Christ. Can you justify being called Christ, when you've taken upon you the name of Christ, unless you are like Him?

-Finrock

[Robin Hood]

I don't believe the person we refer to as Heavenly Father was "a Christ".
I believe the person we refer to as Jesus Christ was though. The clue is in the name.
I believe he was the only Christ there ever has been and ever will be. Otherwise, the atonement would not be infinite.
The Book of Mormon is very clear regarding the nature of God and the destiny of his children.

We covenant to take upon us the name of Christ. One day we must actually come around to fulfilling this covenant and take upon us His name. The Spirit of Christ can be obtained by an infinite amount of individuals and an infinite amount of individuals can take upon them the name of Christ.

-Finrock

My wife took my name when she covenanted with me.
In doing this she did not become me, take on my particular characteristics, nor perform the same work as me.

Christ is a title, not just a name. In any case, you will be called Christ. Can you justify being called Christ, when you've taken upon you the name of Christ, unless you are like Him?

-Finrock

Don't know; but then neither do any of us.

[Finrock]

We covenant to take upon us the name of Christ. One day we must actually come around to fulfilling this covenant and take upon us His name. The Spirit of Christ can be obtained by an infinite amount of individuals and an infinite amount of individuals can take upon them the name of Christ.

-Finrock

My wife took my name when she covenanted with me.
In doing this she did not become me, take on my particular characteristics, nor perform the same work as me.

Christ is a title, not just a name. In any case, you will be called Christ. Can you justify being called Christ, when you've taken upon you the name of Christ, unless you are like Him?

-Finrock

Don't know; but then neither do any of us.

Yes you do. If you want to be called a Baker you have to be able to do what Bakers do. You can't just take on the title Baker and not really be a Baker. This is true for any other title you intend to take upon you.

-Finrock

[Robin Hood]

My wife took my name when she covenanted with me.
In doing this she did not become me, take on my particular characteristics, nor perform the same work as me.

Christ is a title, not just a name. In any case, you will be called Christ. Can you justify being called Christ, when you've taken upon you the name of Christ, unless you are like Him?

-Finrock

Don't know; but then neither do any of us.

Yes you do. If you want to be called a Baker you have to be able to do what Bakers do. You can't just take on the title Baker and not really be a Baker. This is true for any other title you intend to take upon you.

-Finrock

Really?
Well, I'm an Englishman. I didn't do anything in order to obtain this title.
I didn't buy it, work for it, negotiate for it, or steal it.
I just got it because I am a son of England.

Christ, we are informed in the Book of Mormon, is our father.
The child takes his father's name.

[LDS Physician]

Robin Hood, read Mosiah chapter 5. You will take on his name (if that's what you want and that's how you live) and be called by that title.

How else do you suppose that we will progress to be like HF? The answer is by taking on that title and all that it means.

[Finrock]

Christ is a title, not just a name. In any case, you will be called Christ. Can you justify being called Christ, when you've taken upon you the name of Christ, unless you are like Him?

-Finrock

Don't know; but then neither do any of us.

Yes you do. If you want to be called a Baker you have to be able to do what Bakers do. You can't just take on the title Baker and not really be a Baker. This is true for any other title you intend to take upon you.

-Finrock

Really?
Well, I'm an Englishman. I didn't do anything in order to obtain this title.
I didn't buy it, work for it, negotiate for it, or steal it.
I just got it because I am a son of England.

Christ, we are informed in the Book of Mormon, is our father.
The child takes his father's name.

You are equivocating, but that's fine. You are free to believe as you wish.

You met the conditions of being an Englishman, which conditions were that you must be born in England. Other titles have different conditions. Being born in England did not qualify you to be a Baker.

Christ asks and answers, "Therefore, what manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am."

He said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;

Therefore, if ye do these things blessed are ye, for ye shall be lifted up at the last day."

(Source: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/27.21-22).

-Finrock

[LDS Physician]

And in regards to Jesus being HF, here is a quote from BRM:
"No matter how logically the cultists make it appear, that Adam is the father of our spirits and the God whom we should worship, nonetheless it is false. No matter how logically a presentation is made that men are saved by grace alone and without works, the doctrine presented is false. No matter how logically you make it appear that Jehovah is the Father, the fact remains it is false.… If you have been to the temple you know perfectly well who Elohim, Jehovah and Michael are. (Bruce R. McConkie Correspondence, 1982.)"