BCSpace Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 The Joseph Smith manual that we have been using for the past two years also has the Joseph Smith quote in it, so this is old news. But does the Church regularly "teach" or "emphasize" this doctrine? Is it well understood? I don't think so. It may or may not be significant that the Church's current authoritative doctrinal handbook, True to the Faith, is silent on the subject of God the Father's origins. I don't see how either would be a problem for the doctrine at all.So Gordon B. Hinckley's didn't know what he was talking about?GBH was obviously thinking out loud and his first thought was to not cast pearls before swine. Why do some LDS even have a hard time with this doctrine? I understood this to be doctrine as a child.Me too.
handys003 Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 I don't have any problem with JS and the KFD. Heck what are ou going to do for all eternity? I want to create for a change.Fron the Gospel of Thomas:11) Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one aboveit will pass away. The dead are not alive, and the living willnot die. In the days when you consumed what is dead, you made itwhat is alive. When you come to dwell in the light, what will youdo? On the day when you were one you became two. But when youbecome two, what will you do?"
SeattleGhostWriter Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 I have always understood this as being a deep doctrine of the Faith that is taught and is not something hidden. A funny thing is to ask a Christian what they believe they will be doing in heaven once they pass from mortality to immortality. Also, ask them about the scripture references in the Bible about people being resurrected and why we would possess a physical body in the after life. One such gent scratched his head and could not answer that question at all. He said it is a "great mystery"
Maya Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 Love the new doctorinal books they ensure many things to doctorin. The earlier profets said so much..... not easy to see what was what. Well I have spekulated this for a long time... now I dont need to speculate adn I dont need to feel spekulative when saying it.
Markk Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 I have always understood this as being a deep doctrine of the Faith that is taught and is not something hidden. A funny thing is to ask a Christian what they believe they will be doing in heaven once they pass from mortality to immortality. Also, ask them about the scripture references in the Bible about people being resurrected and why we would possess a physical body in the after life. One such gent scratched his head and could not answer that question at all. He said it is a "great mystery"Ahh? So the god makers was correct then, your going to spend eternity populating planets, DP was right though, at least three decades. I suggest some posters here hit the archives and start editing.Mark
Wants2know Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 Page 279. "Joseph Smith taught, 'It is the first principle of the Gospel to knowfor a certainty the Character of God...He was once a man like us; ...God Himself,the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did."
Lightbearer Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 Actually, LDS apologists tend to bring this up more than the critics because they think they can use our criticism as evidence of anti-Mormon stupidity. It makes them feel better, I suppose. This thread is a perfect example. But critics should be able to "milk" this for as long as they want, because unfortunately for Mormons, there is no statute of limitations on holding someone accountable for deceiving and obfuscating. Especially not when you claim to be the only spokesperson for God, and then go on national television and obfuscate for a Chruch that claims to be the only true Church, because it has a prophet who will always tell us the straight scoop - unlike those "apostate" Churches that waiver in doctrines of men.Surely the Lord knows that a prophet would never obfuscate or deceive for any reason:(Genesis 20:2-14) "And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah. But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man
CV75 Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 In Gospel through the Ages, and Priesthood teaching manual, it say very clearly 95% of what it says is really about how man becomes like God, and extremely little about God's own unique experience with life as a mortal man, wherever/whenever/however that took place. Not much can be said of it because we don't know much about it. We know a lot more about what we have to do, as well it should be. Perhaps our own personal experience with this type of progress is all it takes to understand, and the only way it should be known, and is as simple as that.
CV75 Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 I have wondered if the way Pres. Hinckley worded his statement was to make the Church not seem so different from other churches. The Church does not emphasize much about God having been a man because it does not have much information about that other than a few most basic assertions made a long time ago. The revealed doctrine is not very complete. We have far much more information and put much more emphasis about becoming Christ-like, which feeds directly into the principle of becoming as God is. We teach a lot about that, but this is only the second half of the "couplet".So President Hinckley didn't / couldn't say much about the entire couplet in a press interview, especially where the question was, "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?" His answer, "I don
SlackTime Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 I believe that part of the problem with this discussion is the word "essential". What is meant when someone asks is Gog being a man like us "essential" doctrine?Is it doctrine? I believe it is. Is it essential? Well, that all depends upon what "essential" means. Is professing acceptance of this doctrine required to be a member of the Church in good standing? To bear a Temple Recommend? To hold a calling? The answer is no to all three. Is it doctrine that is required for obtaining any particular blessing in this life, or in the life to come? I don't think so. So is it essential doctrine?...Is it foundational in the sense that it helps us understand who we are, and who God is, and to understand what great blessings he has in store? Well, that's a yes, at least for me. Do we completely understand it? No, but then there is much that we don't understand completely.I have no problems with Pres. Hinckley's comments on TV, they do not bother me in the least. In fact, in that setting and venue, I would most likely have answered similarly.- SlackTime
bizabra Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 BIZ: Well, so was Prez Hinckley just uninformed or dissimulating when he was talking with Larry King? Inquiring minds wanna know!
hordak Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 I believe that part of the problem with this discussion is the word "essential". What is meant when someone asks is Gog being a man like us "essential" doctrine?Is it doctrine? I believe it is. Is it essential? Well, that all depends upon what "essential" means. Is professing acceptance of this doctrine required to be a member of the Church in good standing? To bear a Temple Recommend? To hold a calling? The answer is no to all three. Is it doctrine that is required for obtaining any particular blessing in this life, or in the life to come? I don't think so. So is it essential doctrine?...Is it foundational in the sense that it helps us understand who we are, and who God is, and to understand what great blessings he has in store? Well, that's a yes, at least for me. Do we completely understand it? No, but then there is much that we don't understand completely.I have no problems with Pres. Hinckley's comments on TV, they do not bother me in the least. In fact, in that setting and venue, I would most likely have answered similarly.- SlackTimeWe had this discussion on a "tamer" LDS board a week ago and i was surprised by the number of members who think this isn't doctrine. They cited the Fairwiki as evidence. Something about it not having "scriptural backing". We can debate what is doctrine till the cows come home but i'm pretty sure an official church manual holds more weight then editable non official website. No offense. Plus I found the no "scriptural backing" excuse odd for members of a church that's "claim to fame" is Modern revelation. I mean there is no "scriptural backing" indicating that your spirit can be affected by what you take into you body, In fact Jesus taught the opposite, yet tea can keep you out of the temple. This info is found in non other then a church publication. It's funny how members are so quick to bust out a publication like for the strength of the youth on morality, or GP manual on the WoW, but overlook this teaching as "opinion" because "it's only a manual".
SlackTime Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 BIZ: Well, so was Prez Hinckley just uninformed or dissimulating when he was talking with Larry King? Inquiring minds wanna know!Neither, he was being "wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove". (Matt 10:16)
SlackTime Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 We had this discussion on a "tamer" LDS board a week ago and i was surprised by the number of members who think this isn't doctrine. They cited the Fairwiki as evidence. Something about it not having "scriptural backing". We can debate what is doctrine till the cows come home but i'm pretty sure an official church manual holds more weight then editable non official website. No offense. Plus I found the no "scriptural backing" excuse odd for members of a church that's "claim to fame" is Modern revelation. I mean there is no "scriptural backing" indicating that your spirit can be affected by what you take into you body, In fact Jesus taught the opposite, yet tea can keep you out of the temple. This info is found in non other then a church publication. It's funny how members are so quick to bust out a publication like for the strength of the youth on morality, or GP manual on the WoW, but overlook this teaching as "opinion" because "it's only a manual".Doctrine comes in many levels. Is it required doctrine... i.e. must you believe it to obtain exaltation? No. Is it a teaching of the Church, does it shed light on basic concepts of who we are and our relationship to God. Yes. Is everything that is a teaching "doctrine"? Different people will answer that question differently. Some will assume that if it is "doctrine" it must be "required doctrine" The concepts of set theory is completely lost on some. But since words are understood differently by different people it is important to be clear. It is not required doctrine, it is not canonized doctrine, it IS a teaching of the Church and is a basic concept. Is it well understood in the Church? No it is not. But I would classify it as a doctrine, meaning that it is something that is taught, in a very general way, in the Church.- SlackTime
thesometimesaint Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 wants2know:There is not much more to go on. We believe God the Father was just like us. The only example we have is Jesus the Christ.
Zakuska Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 Surely the Lord knows that a prophet would never obfuscate or deceive for any reason:So did Abraham lie? Did he deceive? Did he obfuscate? Or did He follow instructions from God? Perhaps in like manner President Hinckley said what he said to an unbelieving, gentile press because God told Him to answer in such a manner? Perhaps those asking the question were not worthy of the full answer:A prophet can only speak what the God of Heaven tells Him to speak, it is not for me or anyone else to dictate what a prophet or God should or should not say.Lets take this a step further:1 kings 22 15
staccato Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 Of course it is doctrinal. Of course it is essential. When I started 7th grade (which would have been 1979) I purposefully outlined a course plan that included as many scientific/mathematical classes as possible. Why? Because I wanted to get a jump start on this critical knowledge I would need in order to make my own world after I was exalted in this one. This was my life goal. I did not pull this life goal out of a vacuum. I was taught it. Both at home and at church.This is why, in discussions of grace vs works in LDS theology, I dismiss grace arguments. A man will be placed in whichever kingdom according to his works in this life, and his knowledge. A man works upward, through ordinance progression and careful diligence in following "the rules". He works. He does not float up on grace.
BCSpace Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 We can debate what is doctrine till the cows come homeWe don't have to do that at all since the Church has clearly stated what doctrine is recently in the link in my siggy. It's the same definition that the Church has used for at least the last 30 plus years. It's really just a matter of whether or not you agree with the Church, not whether or not it's doctrine.
thesometimesaint Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 staccato:You will never, at least in this life, know enough, and your works will never be sufficient to earn your way into heaven. It is by grace we are saved after all we can do.
hordak Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 Doctrine comes in many levels. Is it required doctrine... i.e. must you believe it to obtain exaltation? No. - SlackTime? Joseph Smith taught:
SlackTime Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 Of course it is doctrinal. Of course it is essential. When I started 7th grade (which would have been 1979) I purposefully outlined a course plan that included as many scientific/mathematical classes as possible. Why? Because I wanted to get a jump start on this critical knowledge I would need in order to make my own world after I was exalted in this one. This was my life goal. I did not pull this life goal out of a vacuum. I was taught it. Both at home and at church.This is why, in discussions of grace vs works in LDS theology, I dismiss grace arguments. A man will be placed in whichever kingdom according to his works in this life, and his knowledge. A man works upward, through ordinance progression and careful diligence in following "the rules". He works. He does not float up on grace.3 men were swimming in an ocean, there was a storm, and a rip tide, all were being carried out to their deaths. A rescue boat was sent to find the men. Because the tossing of the sea was great, they couldn't get too close, but a life preserver was thrown within reach of each of the men in turn. One man, catching hold of the preserver, used the rope attached to pull himself to the boat where he climbed to safety. The next, weaker than the first could simply hold on as the rope was drawn in and he was lifted into the boat. The third, seeing the preserver, said to himself, I do not know where this rope leads or who has thrown this preserver. I will not grasp it, lest I be made thrall to an enemy. He drown.To which of the men was salvation extended? Which had Faith enough to accept the gift? Which had to "do" something to make the salvation effective? Which would have been saved without the grace of the thrown line?No matter how much work you do, you cannot earn your way to God, you have fallen short of the Kingdom. You are drowning and are sure to die. Christ has offered you a lifeline, a way to be saved. But you must believe in him to grasp it, and you must at least hold onto it until your salvation is sure. LDS believe in Grace, and they know that there is a requirement to use that Grace to obtain the proffered reward. That you did not understand this is obvious, too bad you still don't.- SlackTime
staccato Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 We are, of course, talking about exaltation, becoming gods ourselves. Not salvation. Grace may get you saved. Grace will not get you exalted. And for a type A personality like myself, you can well imagine which goal I was aiming for.
SlackTime Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 ? I don't know if it's required for exaltation. But according to the manual it seems to be pretty important."It" seems pretty important? Kinda depends upon what "it" is, doesn't it?What is the first principle of the Gospel? Joseph Smith said it in a now canonized statement to Mr. Wentworth, called Article of Faith #4 4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. Hmmm... Then what was Joseph saying in the noncanonized King Follett sermon? (BTW: I really like the sermon and believe it.)So? can something be important, and still not be required doctrine? I'll let you figure it out.- SlackTime
SlackTime Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 We are, of course, talking about exaltation, becoming gods ourselves. Not salvation. Grace may get you saved. Grace will not get you exalted. And for a type A personality like myself, you can well imagine which goal I was aiming for.But you cannot be Exalted without first obtaining Salvation. I would recommend you growing in your understanding of that basic requirement. You cannot be Sanctified until you are Justified. You have placed the cart in front of the horse.- SlackTime
Lightbearer Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 So you believe that is perfectly acceptable to be dishonest with the people since, according to you, the Bible suggests Abraham could do the same thing. This is just absolutely amazing. So instead of denying dishonesty, you try to excuse it? WOW. The testimonies on this forum just go to prove that those so-called anti-Mormons were justified in their skepticism of your sincerity.Afraid to answer the question? Was Abraham justified or was he a liar? A simple yes or no will do (that is one of your favorite tactics) The Bible does not suggest, it comes right out and says it! I don't give a damn about the Anti-Mormons, they will get their reward. But I am not going to let some troll come here and try to say that a prophet of God is a liar and get away with it. Then by that standard, everything a Prophet says is doctrinal since it would necessarily be from God. Whatever happened to a prophet is a prophet only when speaking as such? Are we to believe Hinckley wasn
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.