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

[semlogo]

I was always taught growing up in the church that God was once a man, and I believe that doctrine. I think I'm in good company.

[maupayman]

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.

Could we agree that his choice of words was poor? "I don't know that we teach that". That, to me, is not true. Of course he knows that this has been, and still is taught in the church.

[SilverKnight]

Could we agree that his choice of words was poor? "I don't know that we teach that". That, to me, is not true. Of course he knows that this has been, and still is taught in the church.

Perhaps.

Larry King dropped the Snow Quote on him: "As man is, God once was."

If he would have responded: "I don't know we teach it like that" - He would have been 100% accurate.

I still say he held his own pretty well as a nonagenarian being grilled by a seasoned interviewer.

[Obiwan]

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?

If you actually read the quote in question AND understand LDS theology, you will know that President Hinckley's statement was in reference to the "couplet" and the concept related thereto by Lorenzo Snow. He wasn't stating whether we believe God was once a man or not.

However, just so you know, this idea is "unofficial" doctrine. Meaning, while it can be found in some of our materials, it's not considered "official doctrine". You will find that the leaders of the Church have not mentioned the concept over the pulpit at least since Hinckley's statement and for sometime before. The Church is trying to not directly promote ideas that aren't directly stated in scripture. What is found in correlated materials isn't always doctrine but "teachings" that are true, good and useful.

As has been said, we aren't a religion that necessarily has a "systematic theology". This idea is between being doctrine and unofficial doctrine.

It is the first part of the couplet that Hinckley was de-emphasising, not the last.

[semlogo]

If you actually read the quote in question AND understand LDS theology, you will know that President Hinckley's statement was in reference to the "couplet" and the concept related thereto by Lorenzo Snow. He wasn't stating whether we believe God was once a man or not.

However, just so you know, this idea is "unofficial" doctrine. Meaning, while it can be found in some of our materials, it's not considered "official doctrine". You will find that the leaders of the Church have not mentioned the concept over the pulpit at least since Hinckley's statement and for sometime before. The Church is trying to not directly promote ideas that aren't directly stated in scripture. What is found in correlated materials isn't always doctrine but "teachings" that are true, good and useful.

As has been said, we aren't a religion that necessarily has a "systematic theology". This idea is between being doctrine and unofficial doctrine.

It is the first part of the couplet that Hinckley was de-emphasising, not the last.

According to whom?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Could we agree that his choice of words was poor? "I don't know that we teach that". That, to me, is not true. Of course he knows that this has been, and still is taught in the church.

It seems to me Pres. Hinckley himself thought the initial response was lacking. Again, from TIME Magazine:

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?

A: I don

[Jaybear]

It seems to me Pres. Hinckley himself thought the initial response was lacking. Again, from TIME Magazine:

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?

A: I don

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You would make a good lawyer.

That is kinda of funny. LoaP does do a good job of outlining things in a very good, concise manner.

[LifeOnaPlate]

That could be a compliment or insult, depending!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That could be a compliment of insult, depending!

Yeah, I thought the same thing, but I think he ment it as a compilent.

[mbh26]

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

What exactly is church doctrine and what is not Jeff K?

[nicolasconnault]

What exactly is church doctrine and what is not Jeff K?

Hey, that would make an awesome discussion topic! Why has no one ever thought of that!?

[Jeff K.]

What exactly is church doctrine and what is not Jeff K?

I generally look to the Doctrine and Covenants laid out by modern day prophets and apostles for the source of official doctrine.

[why me]

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.

I don't understand th fuss either. I think that it would be great if god was once a man. And if heavenly mother was once a woman. It would show a geniune connectedness to the both of them. And to realize that they can understand our problems on a human level would be very comforting. I would much rather have heavenly father as once a man than a supernatural being that only existed in space without a physical body like we have.

In fact, to pray to a heavenly father that was once a man would make that prayer especially special because we would know that he has a personal understanding of what we are going through.

[why me]

He replies in succession:

[1] I don

[semlogo]

I don't understand th fuss either. I think that it would be great if god was once a man. And if heavenly mother was once a woman. It would show a geniune connectedness to the both of them. And to realize that they can understand our problems on a human level would be very comforting. I would much rather have heavenly father as once a man than a supernatural being that only existed in space without a physical body like we have.

In fact, to pray to a heavenly father that was once a man would make that prayer especially special because we would know that he has a personal understanding of what we are going through.

100% agreed. It seems that some apologists here are so eager to make LDS theology acceptable to the world that they're willing to throw some wonderful LDS doctrines under the bus.

[Jeff K.]

Or it might be that the answer is more nuanced. For instance, our opinions are one thing, but careful and cautious understanding officially is another. There is caution in avoiding recklessness rather than establishing our opinions as official.

[semlogo]

Or it might be that the answer is more nuanced. For instance, our opinions are one thing, but careful and cautious understanding officially is another. There is caution in avoiding recklessness rather than establishing our opinions as official.

How is it reckless to believe the teachings of the prophets?

[LeSellers]

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?

So, you want to discuss castrated goats and sheep?

Odd of you, to say the least.

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

How is it reckless to believe the teachings of the prophets?

Well lets see, because all teachings aren't doctrine?

[LifeOnaPlate]

100% agreed. It seems that some apologists here are so eager to make LDS theology acceptable to the world that they're willing to throw some wonderful LDS doctrines under the bus.

I'm certainly not throwing anything under the bus, I'm trying to offer a plausible reading of Pres. Hinckley's statements in that section of the interview.

[Obiwan]

100% agreed. It seems that some apologists here are so eager to make LDS theology acceptable to the world that they're willing to throw some wonderful LDS doctrines under the bus.

Not true at all....

LDS believe it is a "true" teaching, that is why it is still even taught in Gospel Principles. But it has not been canonized as "official" doctrine, these days anyway. The Church is being more careful in designating and publicly emphasizing what is and isn't official doctrine. That is why President Hinckley emphasized that particular point the way he did.

That is why it is best to call it "unofficial doctrine". Probably not the best term to describe it, but it's quasi-official and not necessarily doctrine (which only comes out of the scriptures and official pronouncements), thus not appropriate to call it "official doctrine". Of course, maybe I'm putting to fine a point on the issue, thinking like the brethren?

Maybe a better way to call it would be a "non-systematic" theology concept of the Church. Something that is taught, but not something that is emphasized as official doctrine. Basically what Hinckley was trying to say, not so emphasized as doctrine today, and something we really don't know much about and don't understand.

[Balzer]

I still say he held his own pretty well as a nonagenarian being grilled by a seasoned interviewer.

Wait a minute. He's the freaking PROPHET for crying out loud! You think he was outclassed by the likes of some "seasoned interviewer?"

Respectfully,

Balzer

[FuturetwItblog_17075]

Wait a minute. He's the freaking PROPHET for crying out loud! You think he was outclassed by the likes of some "seasoned interviewer?"

Respectfully,

Balzer

As fun as it would be to say that GBH was pwned, I doubt it. I think that he knew exactly how evasive his response to the question really was and the reasons for giving such an evasive response. Theoretically, prophets could be easily outclassed by an interviewer. I don't believe that this is one of those cases.

[Balzer]

As fun as it would be to say that GBH was pwned, I doubt it. I think that he knew exactly how evasive his response to the question really was and the reasons for giving such an evasive response. Theoretically, prophets could be easily outclassed by an interviewer. I don't believe that this is one of those cases.

I would have to disagree. A true prophet could never be outclassed by anyone. I do agree tho that his answer was intentionally evasive, and understand why it was so. And I don't hold that against him, even if he might have been a little more honest. This is a controversial belief, but I still think Mormon's have every right to it.

Respectfully,

Balzer