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

I repeat, it is not officially doctrine in our church and while I think it accurate, my thoughts on the matter do not make it doctrine. I find the issue to be somewhat silly since it is not a defining aspect of our church (though anti Mormons tend to want to magnify everything as "defining" even when the reference is vague). It may indeed be accurate, but it is irrelevant to membership in the church, entrance into the Temple or any other "defining" position such as a belief in Jesus Christ as the literal son of God.

Share this post


Link to post

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

It is actively taught.

I am the Gospel Doctrine Teacher, Elders Quorum Instructor and Sunday School President; and I teach the concept of human deification and that God and Christ are exalted human males every chance I get. Probably 20 times a year, in one form or another.

This concept is the theological bedrock of mormonism, from the First Vision to the King Follett Sermon.

Share this post


Link to post
I repeat, it is not officially doctrine in our church

Why do you think the Church would intentionally teach something relating to the nature of the Godhead for many decades that is not doctrine and not identify it as such?

Share this post


Link to post

This concept is the theological bedrock of mormonism, from the First Vision to the King Follett Sermon.

What in the world is that supposed to mean??

Share this post


Link to post

I believe God IS a man. Our Father in Heaven. A perfect, sinless man that knows us so well that he knows, and provided everything we need to return to him from before the foundation of the world.

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.

Absolutely correct.

Why some mormons hedge and obfuscate on this topic baffles me: shrinking away from this teaching is because it clashes with the deity concept of another faith?

If you are uncomfortable with the idea that God is an exalted homo sapiens, then you perhaps should find a different church.

Share this post


Link to post

What in the world is that supposed to mean??

It means the idea that God is an exalted human being, we are his literal offspring and have the capacity to become like him is the very foundation of Mormonism.

What church do you attend?

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.
Absolutely correct.

Why some mormons hedge and obfuscate on this topic baffles me: shrinking away from this teaching is because it clashes with the deity concept of another faith?

If you are uncomfortable with the idea that God is an exalted homo sapiens, then you perhaps should find a different church.

In the 1990's, the Church abandoned the message of "we are Christians like you" as a main message and went back to differentiation. Back then we were not compromising on doctrine at all and I don't think we ever will, but we were finding out that such a message generated no incentive or interest to join the Church.

Share this post


Link to post

In the 1990's, the Church abandoned the message of "we are Christians like you" as a main message and went back to differentiation. Back then we were not compromising on doctrine at all and I don't think we ever will, but we were finding out that such a message generated no incentive or interest to join the Church.

Interesting/confusing post... what exactly IS "incentive" to join the church then? a message of commonality with the churches of the world?

Share this post


Link to post

Why do you think the Church would intentionally teach something relating to the nature of the Godhead for many decades that is not doctrine and not identify it as such?

Why do we have Santa Claus at our celebration of Christ's birth?

Share this post


Link to post

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.

ACtually I was not referring to your post.

Share this post


Link to post

I repeat, it is not officially doctrine in our church and while I think it accurate, my thoughts on the matter do not make it doctrine.

I believe it to be doctrine. But not much is known about it. The doctrinal aspect is that God is a like us and we are able to become like him and become glorified.

Share this post


Link to post

Why do we have Santa Claus at our celebration of Christ's birth?

Check...and...mate.

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting/confusing post... what exactly IS "incentive" to join the church then? a message of commonality with the churches of the world?

No.

The incentive to join a church is broad and varies.

Rather the "we are just like you" campaign this was an attempt to clarify misinformation: The LDS Church is undisputably a Christian religion.

Share this post


Link to post

I think Hinckley is right in that we don't know a lot about it. That perhaps is the source of any sort of hedging on that matter. If one simply doesn't know a lot about it, then it is must wiser and safer to use terms that are not absolutist.

Is it doctrine? Suree....noootttt realllly, per se.

What the garbage is it then? Not really teaching but speculation????That seems right to nearly every LDS who has considered it....

Whatever...we have our problems in explaining ourselves. Let's not hold it against those who wish to criticize us.

I'll be the first to admit some of this is tough to get/understand. How is God literally our Father if He fathered our spirit bodies, yet He has a physical body? don't know. In what way are we the same species considering that? When we're exalted does that mean any children produced are going to come out as spirit personages made up of eternally existent intelligences (whatever they are?)? Is literal Father referring to the idea that He formed our spirits by the use of eternal matter known as intelligences or did He really you know what to produce each of us? So Did the Father also then exist as some unformed intelligences too, at some point, and then get formed into a spirit body which at a later date was joined with a physical body? I don't know if that's even what happened to me, exactly.

Share this post


Link to post

EbedInteresting.png

Since the days of President Lorenzo Snow, it has been a long standing belief among Latter-day saints that

Share this post


Link to post

I believe it to be doctrine. But not much is known about it. The doctrinal aspect is that God is a like us and we are able to become like him and become glorified.

I too am of the "opinion" that it is doctrinal. But the issue itself is vague and has not been clarified as doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post

That would be why his claim of 'in the current manual' didn't make sense then. :P

Obviously an error, but I would share the blame with the Church for not removing the previous versions from the website (or not giving the new manual a different name).

Share this post


Link to post

I too am of the "opinion" that it is doctrinal. But the issue itself is vague and has not been clarified as doctrine.

That clarification makes sense and I agree.

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously an error, but I would share the blame with the Church for not removing the previous versions from the website (or not giving the new manual a different name).

I agree it's weird that there's no differentiation on the website.

The quote is in the current manual at least, just not on the page he said it was (Are there page numbers listed online? I couldn't find any in your link. If there's not, then he's must be getting his number from an actual book and not the church's website.)

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...