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

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?

The Church does address the issue of Santa Claus.....But it's nothing like the doctrine that teaches God was once a mortal man. So what is your answer to my question?

Share this post


Link to post

Really? Do they call Santa Claus the 4th wiseman? :P

Share this post


Link to post

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.)

The page numbers for the old manual are in the PDF I linked to from the Church's website. The new manual doesn't appear to be available in PDF form.

Share this post


Link to post

The page numbers for the old manual are in the PDF I linked to from the Church's website. The new manual doesn't appear to be available in PDF form.

ah, i didn't go to the PDF, just the top link that took me to the google search, which took me to the church's website where the lesson was shown in full, but without the page numbers.

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'?

Do you personally believe that God became a man, possessed a body of flesh and bone?

Your answer to this question is very important and will become apparent as the discussion progresses further.

So, based on your understanding Christian teaching and doctrine - did the Great I AM, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob come down and take upon himself human form and lived in mortality?

Share this post


Link to post
Really? Do they call Santa Claus the 4th wiseman?

Nope. But a simple search on LDS.org will reveal it. However now that you admit that at least in your "opinion", that God was once a mortal man is doctrine, I'm generally satisfied. Obviously we don't have all the details, but not having them doesn't preclude it as official doctrine.

Once you do endeavor to answer the actual question though, you will see that logic dictates the CHurch's own statement on doctrine. Some fear the answer, which is why they won't answer the question.

Share this post


Link to post

Really? Do they call Santa Claus the 4th wiseman? :P

By all accounts St. Nicholas was a pretty wise, jolly old fellow who gave food a nd toys to the poor and needy like any good Christain should do.

Share this post


Link to post
So, based on your understanding Christian teaching and doctrine - did the Great I AM, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob come down and take upon himself human form and lived in mortality?

Considering the fact of Biblical Theosis, and it being the only scriptural description of how Gods are made, I wouldn't limit the official LDS doctrine of God having once been a mortal man to the experience of Jesus Christ. The doctrine includes the Father also and just because it says "the same as Jesus Christ himself did" does not necessarily imply that the Father lived in mortality as a condescended God. He could just as easily have lived it as one of us, a sinner.

Share this post


Link to post

Read the New Testament. Particularly the Gospel of John. It's pretty clearn that God was a man. In fact, it's the central theme of the New Testament that the Word was made Flesh and Atoned for the Sins of the world.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

AMEN and AMEN! I do believe that God was once like us. I do not see why this is a problem for anyone. Now, was our Father a plain ole man like me, or was he like his only begotten? If has like Jesus, he was always God wasn't he? Either way, I have no problem with the doctrine of progression. In fact, I have always (since learning this doctrine) believed that Our Father was infact a Christ himself. Now this is the official doctrine of Robspectre. Don't argue with me about it. God knows I am right. :P

Share this post


Link to post

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?

There's no need for That much sarcasm. I agree with this of course, and I believe in it. What I'm not sure about is what kind of mortal existence God had, whether he was sinless like Christ or not. Either option opens up a whole can of worms for which we have no answers, but which antis love to pick on.

Share this post


Link to post

I am a card carrying member of the Church.

The reason for the original post was to show how confused we are as an organization in terms of what we believe, and that clarification on doctrinal matters is hard to come by.

I gave one example, the actively taught doctrine that God was once a man like us.

If you review the posts you will see that people are confused - even the Prophet didn't know that we teach it (and despite several comments this has not been taken out of context) and stated that we didn't know a lot about it (so even the Prohpet is confused about doctrinal matters). You will see posts that try to avoid the actual question. Unfortunately this is typical of Mormonism as an organization - because of a lack of clear, unequivacal leadership.

A lack of clarity and an increasing desire by the Leadership to maintain a positive PR image pose serious threats to the confidence of members and investigators and therefore, growth of the Church.

Some examples:

1. Is Polygamy doctrine? - well at one time it was, now it isn't, but it will be in the Celestial Kingdom although on the LDS website under Polygamy it quotes President Hinkey as saying it isn't doctrinal.

2. Should Blacks have been denied the Priesthood because they were black?

3. Is being Gay a choice and a cardinal sin or is it part of human nature that creates desires that shouldn't be acted upon?

4. Are we a 'peculiar people' who are 'in the world but not of the world' or are we (as the multi million dollar advertising campaign is telling people) 'normal' and just like everyone else?

Members are actively discouraged from seeking clarity from anyone but their local leaders - who in my experience, do not have the resources to answer these questions.

This leaves people to research (which will undoubtedly uncover more of the difficulties that Mormonism struggles to answer clearly) ponder and pray. That process is open to misinterpretation and for members to affirm that what they think is correct, when in fact it may not be - I have heard people testify that they 'know' that Joseph Smith did not marry women who already had husbands when clearly he did.

As a member I am left with no acceptable outlet for my questions on clarity.

So I post to see how other people are feeling.

I commend those posters who have given clear answers on what they believe - I wish the Church gave such clear guidance on thorny issues.

To those posters who have 'rubbished' the posting, questioned the merits of the poster and the references provided etc. I suggest perhaps that you may have a great future in politics or Church Leadership positions...

Share this post


Link to post

I am a card carrying member of the Church.

The reason for the original post was to show how confused we are as an organization in terms of what we believe, and that clarification on doctrinal matters is hard to come by.

I gave one example, the actively taught doctrine that God was once a man like us.

Please demonstarte that "we are confused as an organization". I think one person in this thread was not very clear and he latter clarified his poistion. For the most part everyone that is a believing mormon said the same thing.

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.

This is the best and most honest post on this thread. If Mormons are to be gods, God had to have been a man. That is the basis of this belief.

Respectfully,

Balzer

Share this post


Link to post

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.

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

The poster most certainly did not misquote Hinkley. You misinterpreted his post. The poster said Hinkley denied knowledge of "the teaching" of the principle, which he did.

Respectfully,

Balzer

Share this post


Link to post

I think president Hinckley tried to avoid the subject in order to avoid its corollaries:

  • If God was a man like us, did He sin?
  • Did he have a mortal father? A heavenly Father?
  • Are there currently other exalted Heavenly Fathers 'supervising' other plans of salvation, with their own Jesus Christ and Holy Ghost etc.?
  • If Christ's atonement is infinite and retrospective, did it enable God the Father's exaltation?
  • etc.

True teaching, but great big can of worms! His answer may have been the wisest he could have given...

Share this post


Link to post

The poster most certainly did not misquote Hinkley. You misinterpreted his post. The poster said Hinkley denied knowledge of "the teaching" of the principle, which he did.

Respectfully,

Balzer

No, Pres. Hinckley did not deny knowledge of the principle being taught.

The exact question asked of Pres. Hinckely-

"Q: ...about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

Pres. Hinckley's answer-

"A: I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

The bolded portion is the part that Time magazine left out of it's printed interview.

It seems clear to me, when Pres. Hinckley specifically speaks about not knowing the circumstances under which 'the statement' was made, that he is not talking about the doctrine of deification or that God is an exalted man. He is talking about whether or not the church teaches that God was once a man 'as we are'-sinful, weak, imperfect. He is saying tha he doesn't know what Lorenzo Snow meant by his couplet.

Hinckley denying knowledge that the Lorenzo Snow couplet is taught in church is very different from denying knowledge that it is taught in church that God was once a man. People though seem to believe that one equals the other but the distinction is important. Lorenzo Snow's couplet is not the basis for the doctrine and denying the couplet is not the same thing as denying the doctrine which spawned it.

Share this post


Link to post

I think president Hinckley tried to avoid the subject in order to avoid its corollaries:

  • If God was a man like us, did He sin?
  • Did he have a mortal father? A heavenly Father?
  • Are there currently other exalted Heavenly Fathers 'supervising' other plans of salvation, with their own Jesus Christ and Holy Ghost etc.?
  • If Christ's atonement is infinite and retrospective, did it enable God the Father's exaltation?
  • etc.

True teaching, but great big can of worms! His answer may have been the wisest he could have given...

I think you are getting things mixed up. If you bother to read the King Follet Discource you will see Joseph state

- God has a body of flesh and bone

- God was on the Earth at one time, like Jesus

- Obviously, Jesus was never like the rest of us, (he didn't sin)

Since flesh and bone man were created in God's image, we are like God in this matter instead of God being like us.

Again, you must prove Jesus was a sinner to also claim God the father was a sinner.

Share this post


Link to post

I think president Hinckley tried to avoid the subject in order to avoid its corollaries:

  • If God was a man like us, did He sin?
  • Did he have a mortal father? A heavenly Father?
  • Are there currently other exalted Heavenly Fathers 'supervising' other plans of salvation, with their own Jesus Christ and Holy Ghost etc.?
  • If Christ's atonement is infinite and retrospective, did it enable God the Father's exaltation?
  • etc.

True teaching, but great big can of worms! His answer may have been the wisest he could have given...

What is the problem with discussing the corollaries? That is what adults do when they have theological discussions.

Share this post


Link to post

Again, you must prove Jesus was a sinner to also claim God the father was a sinner.

No you don't. When I am exalted I will be perfect and eternal. Because I am perfected through Christ does not make it a different kind of perfect.

Share this post


Link to post

What is the problem with discussing the corollaries? That is what adults do when they have theological discussions.

I think it was the venue that it would be hard to try and squeeze in a 20 min discourse in a 10 min interview.

Esp when the edit stuff out. THere is no way I would have tried to explain it all knowing that. If they edit out a critical peice of infomrtaion how does that help us out?

Share this post


Link to post

I think it was the venue that it would be hard to try and squeeze in a 20 min discourse in a 10 min interview.

Esp when the edit stuff out. THere is no way I would have tried to explain it all knowing that. If they edit out a critical peice of infomrtaion how does that help us out?

Very good point.:P

Even on this board I sometimes dread saying something as it will lead to typing the equivalent of the number of pages in War and Peace to get across what I really mean. An edited interview would be an awful situation to have to explain everything.

Share this post


Link to post

What is the problem with discussing the corollaries? That is what adults do when they have theological discussions.

I think nicolas's point isn't that discussing corollaries is wrong, but that attempting to give a nuanced and indepth answer to an interview question about a complex subject might be the mistake Pres. Hinckely was trying not to make.

Sometimes it's best just to answer the question asked and move on. The question was about the Lorenzo Snow couplet, Hinckely answered the exact parameters of the question and did not go into the doctrine behind the couplet. nicolas's post seems to address WHY Hinckely might not have gone into the doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post

This is the best and most honest post on this thread. If Mormons are to be gods, God had to have been a man. That is the basis of this belief.

Respectfully,

Balzer

Yeah because all of the rest of us have just been lying about what we believe.

Actually we are already gods. Nothing requires God to have been just like us. Not that you said that but it is implied.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah because all of the rest of us have just been lying about what we believe.

The obfuscation is about what is taught, not what is believed.

Nothing requires God to have been just like us. Not that you said that but it is implied.

Not quite. What is implied in the doctrine it that God "may" very well have been like us, not that he necessarily was.

Under your doctrine, in theory, its possible that God was the savior of his planet, or that he is the alpha God. No one has implied otherwise.

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...