Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Jon63

Do Mormon's teach that God was once a man?

Recommended Posts

The Prophet Gordon B Hinkley stated that the Church didn't teach this principle, or at least he denied knowledge of this principle being taught.

I have also seen postings on this site that labelled such a notion as false and completely anti - Moromon.

So I checked it out and guess what...Mormons DO teach that God was once a man and were indeed actively teaching it at the time Mr Hinkley denied it publically.

See page 305 of the current Gospel Principles manual for reference

'It is the First Principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God...He was once a man like us...dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ did...'

The discussion therefore should not be about wether or not it is taught, but wether or not it should be taught or why the Prophet gave a disengenious answer to the question?

Share this post


Link to post

First off, the quote was slightly out of context. In regard to the doctrine of God once being man, that is believed by many LDS and is mentioned often. Does it mean that it is doctrine? No. Our knowledge (mortal LDS) is vague and limited on the subject and as doctrine there is no clear answer to the question, much like the question of global flooding, and so on.... One can comfortably be LDS and believe it or one can be comfortably LDS and not believe it.

Share this post


Link to post

First off, the quote was slightly out of context. In regard to the doctrine of God once being man, that is believed by many LDS and is mentioned often. Does it mean that it is doctrine? No. Our knowledge (mortal LDS) is vague and limited on the subject and as doctrine there is no clear answer to the question, much like the question of global flooding, and so on.... One can comfortably be LDS and believe it or one can be comfortably LDS and not believe it.

I'm LDS and I don't have a fixed opinion about it. Why should I believe or not believe in something that is based on insufficient information? I'm happy to wait until more light and truth is given. I'd rather focus my research on doctrines that are richly discussed in the scriptures, such as faith, repentance etc.

Share this post


Link to post

Did you not read the post properly?

I'm sorry but this isn't a take it or leave it subject - this is a Gospel Principle that is actively taught.

Mormonism DOES teach that God was once a man.

Do you feel it acceptable to pick and choose which principles to apply?

For instance, if you don't particularly agree with Temples is it okay to 'opt out'?

Share this post


Link to post

Did you not read the post properly?

I'm sorry but this isn't a take it or leave it subject - this is a Gospel Principle that is actively taught.

Mormonism DOES teach that God was once a man.

Do you feel it acceptable to pick and choose which principles to apply?

For instance, if you don't particularly agree with Temples is it okay to 'opt out'?

I believe that god was once a man. And I think that it makes sense. Also, to see god as once a man is very comforting because it means that god understands us in a very personal way. And I have always thought why would we experience something meaningful as our body if god himself didn't experience it himself.

And yes, I do believe that the lds church teaches that god was once a man.

Share this post


Link to post

Trolls need diets, care to let us know what your beef is with the idea that it may or may not be doctrine. And when you say Mormonism do you mean Mormons or do you reject that our doctrine is vague on the subject (which it plainly is) or are you just looking for a fight?

For instance, if you don't particularly agree with Temples is it okay to 'opt out'?

You can be a Mormon and not go to the temple. Heck, some Mormons can't even get it.

Again, just looking for a fight or do you have a question?

Share this post


Link to post

Did you not read the post properly?

For instance, if you don't particularly agree with Temples is it okay to 'opt out'?

yes, one can opt out. I have not been to the temple in 25 years. But I may still believe in them. But yes, it is okay to opt out if one doesn't believe in temples. Why not? However, the bible states that the saints should be of one mind and so, I wouldn't spread it around if I did not agree with temples.

Share this post


Link to post

The Prophet Gordon B Hinkley stated that the Church didn't teach this principle, or at least he denied knowledge of this principle being taught.

This is completely false-whether you are intentially saying false things, not choosing your words very carefully, or are ignorant on the matter, I have no idea, but it would be best to be as accurate as possible.

Pres. Hinckley did NOT deny knowledge of this principle-

"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."

Obviously Hinckley had knowledge of the principle.

I have also seen postings on this site that labelled such a notion as false and completely anti - Moromon.

Show me.

I want quotes where a mormon has labled the teaching that God was once mortal as an anti-mormon creation. You'll understand if, after your first incorrect statement, i don't want to take your word for it.

So I checked it out and guess what...Mormons DO teach that God was once a man and were indeed actively teaching it at the time Mr Hinkley denied it publically.

He didn't publicly deny it.

He claimed that he did not know that the Lorenzo Snow couplet (which was the specific the topic of the conversation), which states that as we are, God once was, was a very accurate way to explain the LDS belief on the subject. He claimed that he could not comment on exactly what Pres. Snow meant by the couplet, to acknowledge whether or not the way that members frequently use it is in line with what Pres. Snow was teaching.

See page 305 of the current Gospel Principles manual for reference

'It is the First Principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God...He was once a man like us...dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ did...'

There is no page 305 in the current manual.

Are you making this stuff up?

The discussion therefore should not be about wether or not it is taught, but wether or not it should be taught or why the Prophet gave a disengenious answer to the question?

Right now the discussion should be focused on the inconsistencies in this post, before we can discuss anything else.

Share this post


Link to post

I did a search on the current manual, the quote is from Chapter 47 Exaltation.

http://lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

I don't argue with the fact that the original poster is being dishonest in his questions, but he is correct that it is in the manual. (I have no idea if it's page 305 or not)

The current manual only goes up to page 290. The text ends at 280 and everything after that is index.

Thanks for finding the quote. I didn't doubt that it was in the manual so much as i doubted tha Jon had any personal knowledge on it but was getting his information from a website or some other secondary source. It's not a big deal if he got the page number wrong, unless it's a sign that he's just repeating what others have said to him.

I think it's also important to acknowledge the whole quote instead of dwelling on the part Jon was emphasising.

The whole quote states that JS taught that God was "once a man like us; God Himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did."

Obviously, JS is saying that God was once mortal like us because the only thing we have in common with Jesus is our mortality. He is not saying that God was once sinful like us, or imperfect like us, or he would not be comparing our earthly experiences with Christ's.

This is a great example of what Pres. Hinckley was talking about-how Pres. Snow's quote (the topic of the conversation which lead to the question by the Time reporter) is not clear on exactly what it is teaching about God's past, so it's unclear if the church is presently teaching the same thing that Pres. Snow meant.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't most Christians believe that Jesus Christ, who is God, was once a Man? :P

Share this post


Link to post

Mormons believe that God was once a man? That is it! I am out of this church. I had no idea that they believe this stuff. Must be anti-mormon lies?

Share this post


Link to post

Don't most Christians believe that Jesus Christ, who is God, was once a Man? :P

I'm sure they could find a way to say that Christ was God when he was on Earth, despite having flesh, blood, and bone.

Share this post


Link to post

Mormons believe that God was once a man? That is it! I am out of this church. I had no idea that they believe this stuff. Must be anti-mormon lies?

The Bible even calls God a Man of War. Gasp. Will the last Christian to leave please turn out the lights?

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I believe Jesus was once a man.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't most Christians believe that Jesus Christ, who is God, was once a Man? :P

Ouch, good one.

Share this post


Link to post

The Bible even calls God a Man of War. Gasp. Will the last Christian to leave please turn out the lights?

On of my favorite proof texts of EV's is "God is not a man: that he should lie."

So the bible tells us that God is not a man that lies. But he is still a man.

I will point out for the benefit of Jon, that God is mor than just a man.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't understand the need to obfuscate.

The principle that God was once a man is a very simple concept to grasp, and is entirely consistent with the notion of exhalation. Frankly, I don't how one can believe in the doctrine of exhalation, and yet not believe that God was once a man, now exalted. To believe otherwise emasculates the concept of exhalation.

I sense that this obfuscation is driven by a desire not to offend conservative Christians, who would consider such a notion to be blasphemous. But that doesn't make sense, as they don't consider Mormons to be Christian anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

The big difference is that most Christians interpret all the Biblical references to our being the children of God, even his very offspring, as symbolic or by adoption only, apparently as if a human were to adopt a stray dog. I have heard it said, "We are not of the same species!"

LDS Christians take the Biblical references literally. We are the same species! And to be a literal son or daughter means that one grows up to be like the parent. Not replacing the parent.

When I stand under the stars of a cold, clear winter sky, I am thrilled at the possibilities within our vast universe -- how little we mortals truly know -- and that God may have something more for me to do in the future among those stars, to His everlasting glory.

Share this post


Link to post

I sense that this obfuscation is driven by a desire not to offend conservative Christians, who would consider such a notion to be blasphemous. But that doesn't make sense, as they don't consider Mormons to be Christian anyway.

I fully believe that God was once a man. It is doctrine and I make no apologies about it. I think one person in this thread obfuscated. Don't blame us for that. Any way carry on.

Share this post


Link to post

It is not actively taught, but it is generally understood (at least in the American church).

Share this post


Link to post

I fully believe that God was once a man. It is doctrine and I make no apologies about it. I think one person in this thread obfuscated. Don't blame us for that. Any way carry on.

I think you are referring to my post, but I'm not sure what you mean by "obfuscated". I was truthful in what I wrote. I have not heard this principle taught by anyone in the last 10 years, so it has obviously not the importance that other principles have. I don't see the point in dwelling on it. Yes the principle makes sense, but it also opens up many questions which have even less answers in LDS doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe that god was once a man. And I think that it makes sense. ...And yes, I do believe that the lds church teaches that god was once a man.

Here is a quote from the First Book of Commandments (a fuller but non-LDS version of the D&C):

SECTION 131

THE PATHWAY OF GOD AND MAN

Revelation Received May, 1836

By the Prophet Lorenzo Snow

At Kirtland, Ohio

The spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me, the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man.

2 I had a direct revelation of this. It was most perfect and complete. If there ever was a thing revealed to man per

Share this post


Link to post
So I checked it out and guess what...Mormons DO teach that God was once a man and were indeed actively teaching it

Yes. The Church publishes it, therefore it is official doctrine.

at the time Mr Hinkley denied it publically.

He was thinking outloud. In developing his answer, I think he was searching for a way not to cast pearls before swine. He said we didn't emmphasize it and did not deny it.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...