honorentheos wrote:
Lest we forget, we started this thread because you had said -
"Most if not all of the views of God out there just didn't/don't make sense to me. The only one(s) that do are the ones that teach that we are literally created in the image/form of God."
And we barely got into the thread before you decided the official LDS view of God doesn't actually make that much sense, either.
I think I've been clear. I question whether or not the literal "flesh and bone" descriptor that we read in the D&C makes sense in the way that some folks think it does. My earlier posts elaborate on that.
If we look at God as being in our image/form it seems as though some folks would also...by association...describe God as having flesh and bone. Others have described God as a being of light. To combine the two from the point of view of what one might actually observe if they were so privileged to see God, would likely not result in much difference in description.
But how would I know? I haven't had that experience. And those that have purported to are going to explain it according to what they observe/see. And we have precious few of those folks...so we're getting very limited information. Some say "flesh and bone", some say, "being of light". Both ways of describing God result in a picture of God's image/form having a likeness to ours.
How that all fits into space/time and God in and out of the universe, etc., don't ask me.
Regards,
MG