Do Elder Oaks And Pres Hinckley Have Different Views

[Scott Lloyd]

God and man are both of the same species. The difference is we are only potentially a god in embryo and He is perfected, glorified and exalted. Both President Hinckley and Elder Oaks are on the same page. It is a little tiresome to hear this same old worn out quote that supposedly throws some doubt on God being a glorified and exalted man or of President Hinckley not believing the doctrine when it is all over the scriptures. The truth is we do not know a lot about the details of God (the Father) being a mortal man. The prototype we have been given is the Lord Jesus Christ, He is the example we must follow and He is who makes Godhood possible for us. We are children of God in the literal sense, He is the Father of our spirits and Jesus is the joint heir of which we can take part with if we follow Him.

Well stated. We will never supplant or be independent of God, our Eternal Father. Rather, if we do his will and keep his commandments, we will partake of his divine nature as joint-heirs with Christ of all that he has.

This is a concept our antagonists can't grasp, it seems.

[Hammer]

Shouldn't President Hinckley be allowed this question? I think I can find if push came to shove where GBH stated clearly that he was no scriptorian.

His job was not exactly one of expounding the doctrines. His was to build temples and unify the people. Not every prophet is given the same job.

Think about Noah, Moses, Adam, Abraham, Isaiah, shoot-- I could go on forever-- They all had different things they had to do. Moses wasn't called to write the prophecies of Isaiah and Isaiah wasn't called upon to free the people from slavery.

I find it difficult to believe people can be so unknowledgable about the calling of prophet after reading the scriptures.

[mocnarf]

Shouldn't President Hinckley be allowed this question? I think I can find if push came to shove where GBH stated clearly that he was no scriptorian.

Why do you need to be a scriptorian to be able to say whether or not that the belief that man (and woman) follow all the commandments and honor their covenants that they could become like God and be able to create spirit children and indeed create and populate worlds of your own. All temple mormons that I know and talk to in private tell me this is what they believe. If this is not mormon doctrine then where are they getting this idea?

And if this is mormon doctrine, why does GBH not say so when asked?

He's not a "scriptorian" are you telling me that he has not read the scriptures or that he just doesn't understand what they say?

[Corky Wallace]

I'm going to combine a couple of beliefs - one perhaps loosely held by LDS - and pose some questions:

1- Man can become like God, physically, literally, exalted, etc.

2- Some (very intelligent) LDS have reconciled the Genesis account of the creation with the Theory of Evolution.

Questions:

Assuming people can be exalted with their earthly bodies - consistent with Joseph's vision - will the possibility of exaltation be extended to earlier versions of mankind? Neanderthals? Common ancestors of man & ape?

Assuming the answer to the first question is "yes" or even "maybe, we don't know", what about the possibility for other species?

It's becoming apparent the Neanderthals were a distant cousin of homo sapiens, perhaps with a common ancestor, but quite distinct. If in the grand scheme the purpose of other animals is to be subservient to humans, what is the purpose of the Neanderthals?

Mammoths?

Dinosaurs? (OK, that one's easy - to provide oil to mankind later.)

Certainly my questions are "out there", but these kinds of questions might be posed by a Hindu (whose theology can accommodate evolution of species.)

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm going to combine a couple of beliefs - one perhaps loosely held by LDS - and pose some questions:

1- Man can become like God, physically, literally, exalted, etc.

2- Some (very intelligent) LDS have reconciled the Genesis account of the creation with the Theory of Evolution.

Questions:

Assuming people can be exalted with their earthly bodies - consistent with Joseph's vision - will the possibility of exaltation be extended to earlier versions of mankind? Neanderthals? Common ancestors of man & ape?

Assuming the answer to the first question is "yes" or even "maybe, we don't know", what about the possibility for other species?

It's becoming apparent the Neanderthals were a distant cousin of homo sapiens, perhaps with a common ancestor, but quite distinct. If in the grand scheme the purpose of other animals is to be subservient to humans, what is the purpose of the Neanderthals?

Mammoths?

Dinosaurs? (OK, that one's easy - to provide oil to mankind later.)

Certainly my questions are "out there", but these kinds of questions might be posed by a Hindu (whose theology can accommodate evolution of species.)

Can it be possible that intelligence, being eternal, is able to fill to certain bounds? You are a human because you're divine core, your essential intelligence, was so from the beginning. Perhaps we are not all made from intelligence from the same universal soup bowl, if you will.

[mms]

Perhaps it's the medication, perhaps it's a matter of having gotten a full-night's rest, or perhaps even latent senility settling in, but I begin to wonder if I wasn't too harsh on you initially.

Your initial posts set off all of my buzzers, but I begin to think I pulled on my hob-nail boots and jumped too quickly.

Having gotten past the understandable defensiveness on both sides, your posts strike me as far too thoughtful and articulate to have come from the "standard-issue" troll.

By now, one of those would have been foaming at the mouth, tearing at his/her hair, wailing at the walls, denouncing us all as heretics and dupes, and scurried for the hills.

Thanks. Let me say, also, that I have learned much in my short time on this board and one of the things I have learned is that I should have observed longer before jumping in. And when I did post, I should have done so more thoughtfully. And upon feeling attacked, I should not have taken things so personally. Although my first post got sidetracked on the troll issue and my personal reaction to it, I have found that ultimately there is much to be gained here and many responses to subsequent posts have been quite enlightening. I have not headed for the open arms of the other boards, but have stayed and continue to seek insight from those, here. Those who continue to be suspicious, that's okay. I simply ask that you allow for the possibility that I am who I say I am and give me the benefit of the doubt, for now.

[stargate]

Joseph Smith also taught Heavenly Father became a God.

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: â??When you climb up a

ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by

step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the

principles of the Gospelâ??you must begin with the first, and

go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But

it will be a great while after you have passed through the

veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all

to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to

learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the graveâ?

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 348).

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith

taught: â??It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for

a certainty the character of God. â?¦ He was once a man like

us; â?¦ God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth,

the same as Jesus Christ himself didâ? (Teachings of the

Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345â??46).

Source: Gospel Principles, page 305

Jeff

[solomarineris]

Pretty much all of the Church curriculum is on line now. Can you give us a single link that explains the concept of God having once been a man in a way that does not raise questions for which there are at present no answers?

Barring that, go ahead and cite something from those old priesthood manuals, if you care to.

what?

You are just being a little ridiculous by belieng the fact that;\

God has a body of lesh and bone

He has a physical body

HE went through the same trials as a man as we did

God became human in another planet

Created this world, humans

what is so hard and deep theology?

please explain?

I feel bad for genuine mormons who stick behind these beautiful theology and do not compromise their faith. It is those Mormons who deny the real Mormon theology who want to adjust to mainstream Christianity.

When I was converted to LDS church 35yrs ago this was one of the most fascinating concept That I've embraced, That "God was once a MAN".

There is no shame in to proclaim this concept.

[selek]

When I was converted to LDS church 35yrs ago this was one of the most fascinating concept That I've embraced, That "God was once a MAN".

There is no shame in to proclaim this concept.

And yet you converted away so quickly, despite this beautiful and eternal verity!

[solomarineris]

And yet you converted away so quickly, despite this beautiful and eternal verity!

You are wrong.

I wasn't the one who watered down this concept so blatantly.

[Hammer]

Why do you need to be a scriptorian to be able to say whether or not that the belief that man (and woman) follow all the commandments and honor their covenants that they could become like God and be able to create spirit children and indeed create and populate worlds of your own. All temple mormons that I know and talk to in private tell me this is what they believe. If this is not mormon doctrine then where are they getting this idea?

And if this is mormon doctrine, why does GBH not say so when asked?

He's not a "scriptorian" are you telling me that he has not read the scriptures or that he just doesn't understand what they say?

I really believe he made that statement as a diference away from sacred doctrine misunderstood by many outsiders that we believe we will become God of this earth and people.

There is only One God (see even this needs explained) for this earth and that God is Jesus Christ through His Father.

GBH understands the doctrine and believes it. He just knew it would bring up more questions and there wasn't a lot of time.

I will say it wasn't the best way to go on a public television show, but it is nearly impossible to try and tell our story in this fashion.

Even here where we discuss at nausium every intimate detail, the lack of understanding through the Spirit is incrediable.

Take that to a medium of TV live and you really have problems. Maybe he was just following that old wise teaching: If ye have not the Spirit, ye shall not teach. And though he may have had the Spirit, trying to convey it across the TV with King running the show, it was precarious at best.

I think he did the right thing by saying it wasn't a doctrine as it was stated--that it was just a couplet. Because the doctrine is very intricate and deep in its true and full understanding.

[Scott Lloyd]

what?

You are just being a little ridiculous by belieng the fact that;\

God has a body of lesh and bone

He has a physical body

HE went through the same trials as a man as we did

God became human in another planet

Created this world, humans

what is so hard and deep theology?

please explain?

I feel bad for genuine mormons who stick behind these beautiful theology and do not compromise their faith. It is those Mormons who deny the real Mormon theology who want to adjust to mainstream Christianity.

When I was converted to LDS church 35yrs ago this was one of the most fascinating concept That I've embraced, That "God was once a MAN".

There is no shame in to proclaim this concept.

So I take it you are not going to cite anything, then. I particularly wonder about the "God became human in another planet" bit. What Church manual contains that statement?

And does any Church manual or article answer questions that naturally arise from the implications? Who was God when God was becoming "human in another planet" for example?

Do you blame President Hinckley for not wanting to get into this with an ill-informed interviewer interested only in two-second responses to questions?

[Scott Lloyd]

You are wrong.

I wasn't the one who watered down this concept so blatantly.

Who has watered it down? What President Hinckley did was decline to expound upon matters on which the Lord has seen fit to remain silent.

[Hammer]

what is so hard and deep theology?

If you don't know the depth of this doctrine, then you haven't been taught by the Spirit.

please explain?

What is read and understood on the surface isn't anything to what it is when it has been expounded upon through the Holy Ghost. The beginning from the end and why they are the same in one eternal round.

I feel bad for genuine mormons who stick behind these beautiful theology and do not compromise their faith.

There is nothing to feel bad about. In fact it sounds pathetically like a statement made to invoke ire.

It is those Mormons who deny the real Mormon theology who want to adjust to mainstream Christianity.

And they do and they spend hours finding fault with the church. What does that have to do with it?

When I was converted to LDS church 35yrs ago this was one of the most fascinating concept That I've embraced, That "God was once a MAN".

Yes. Eions ago. Now it is as if you never were converted at all right?

There is no shame in to proclaim this concept.

Absolutely no shame. Just endless and incomprehensible JOY.

[solomarineris]

Do you blame President Hinckley for not wanting to get into this with an ill-informed interviewer interested only in two-second responses to questions?

Why don't you consider for one moment that "ill-informed" interviewer an investigator?

What would you say as a missionary; God is a spirit, Christians believe?

I don't believe for second that interviewer was "ill-informed" as you claim, I've heard that interview couple times, he asked intelligent, well thought but hard Q's.

[solomarineris]

Who has watered it down? What President Hinckley did was decline to expound upon matters on which the Lord has seen fit to remain silent.

Hey Scott,

No argument for that line of thought, coming from you as a member who finds His explanation sufficient. That's fine with me.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why don't you consider for one moment that "ill-informed" interviewer an investigator?

But he wasn't, was he? In either case.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hey Scott,

No argument for that line of thought, coming from you as a member who finds His explanation sufficient. That's fine with me.

It was sufficient, considering the circumstances and setting. It avoided delving into undoctrinal conjecture (a la "God became human on another planet") and thereby misleading listeners/readers who were only casually interested and not likely to seek out any further information on the matter.

[Hammer]

Why don't you consider for one moment that "ill-informed" interviewer an investigator?

What would you say as a missionary; God is a spirit, Christians believe?

I don't believe for second that interviewer was "ill-informed" as you claim, I've heard that interview couple times, he asked intelligent, well thought but hard Q's.

He asked contraversial questions.