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

[why me]

ame='evangelist' timestamp='1294804011' post='1208962673']

Thanks for being honest!

I just think that it makes sense and I can find nothing wrong with it. We all need to believe in a very personable god who understands what it means to have a physical body. And who understands us very intimately because he himself has experienced it. And as an evangelist, you may believe that jesus is god, and I would say to you, isn't it wonderful that he came to earth, got a physical body, experienced tempation, joy, sadness and pain...? He became a very personable god by doing so.

[thesometimesaint]

Semlogo:

As a skin color Blacks have had the Priesthood since the beginnings of the Church. There was a relatively short time that African Blacks were denied the Priesthood in this life.

[Jon63]

Semlogo:

As a skin color Blacks have had the Priesthood since the beginnings of the Church. There was a relatively short time that African Blacks were denied the Priesthood in this life.

Semlogo

''Blacks were never excluded from the Priesthood''

The above qoute was taken from an earlier posting by you on this thread.

Which is it?

You seem to be contradicting yourself or did you not know that you said that, did you not know that you emphasized that...

[thesometimesaint]

Jon63:

You do know that there is no difference in skin color between some of the the South Pacific islander Blacks and the African Blacks?

[cdowis]

Semlogo:

As a skin color Blacks have had the Priesthood since the beginnings of the Church. There was a relatively short time that African Blacks were denied the Priesthood in this life.

They were denied the priesthood in the OT times, from the time of Moses.

[semlogo]

Semlogo:

As a skin color Blacks have had the Priesthood since the beginnings of the Church. There was a relatively short time that African Blacks were denied the Priesthood in this life.

A couple of them had it, but most were denied until 1978. Quibbling about skin tone is disingenuous. We're talking about race.

[thesometimesaint]

semlogo:

Personally I believe there is only one race of humans; Homo Sapiens Sapiens. But even dividing them along the color line is no help as http://blackunity.multiply.com/reviews/item/26

[cinepro]

Semlogo:

There was a relatively short time that African Blacks were denied the Priesthood in this life.

"Relatively short" to whom? Non-black members of the Church?

[semlogo]

semlogo:

Personally I believe there is only one race of humans; Homo Sapiens Sapiens. But even dividing them along the color line is no help as http://blackunity.multiply.com/reviews/item/26

I use race as shorthand for ethnicity.

I think these kinds of back door justifications and equivocations do more harm than good. It behooves us to plainly admit that this was a racist policy that specifically targeted blacks (blacks being short-hand for people of African ethnicity) and apologize for it, and then move on. When we try to justify it by saying it wasn't technically about color, do you really think that makes African Americans/mixed race people feel better about it? Sometimes you just have to strip the bandage off all at once rather than trying to take it off slowly. No excuses. We banned blacks from the priesthood for most of our history. That was wrong. We made a mistake. We won't make it again.

Covering up our mistakes or making excuses for them isn't the way of a disciple of Christ. I say that very generally, directed at me too, since I've done the same.

[Jon63]

I use race as shorthand for ethnicity.

I think these kinds of back door justifications and equivocations do more harm than good. It behooves us to plainly admit that this was a racist policy that specifically targeted blacks (blacks being short-hand for people of African ethnicity) and apologize for it, and then move on. When we try to justify it by saying it wasn't technically about color, do you really think that makes African Americans/mixed race people feel better about it? Sometimes you just have to strip the bandage off all at once rather than trying to take it off slowly. No excuses. We banned blacks from the priesthood for most of our history. That was wrong. We made a mistake. We won't make it again.

Covering up our mistakes or making excuses for them isn't the way of a disciple of Christ. I say that very generally, directed at me too, since I've done the same.

I applaud you

Now if only we could get the Church to say the same thing...

[cinepro]

I applaud you

Now if only we could get the Church to say the same thing...

Elder Holland's statement on the matter in an interview for the PBS Mormons documentary is especially interesting. I wonder what future leaders might say about it (in more official venues):

I've talked to many blacks and many whites as well about the lingering folklore [about why blacks couldn't have the priesthood]. These are faithful Mormons who are delighted about this revelation, and yet who feel something more should be said about the folklore and even possibly about the mysterious reasons for the ban itself, which was not a revelation; it was a practice. So if you could, briefly address the concerns Mormons have about this folklore and what should be done.

One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

What is the folklore, quite specifically?

Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don't know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I've been able to live in the period where we're not expressing or teaching them, but I think that's the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. ... But I think that's the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. ... We just don't know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. ... That's my principal [concern], is that we don't perpetuate explanations about things we don't know. ...

We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we're absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that's not perpetuated in the present. That's the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic. ...

[semlogo]

I applaud you

Now if only we could get the Church to say the same thing...

I think they will, eventually. And we'll be better for it.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

I'm not disputing that the LDS believe God the Father was once like us. We have established

scripture that we are in His likeness and image. What I am disputing is that we know much of anything about the mortal experience of God the Father. That we have any established Scripture that has God the Father having been a mortal just like us. We don't.

Please show me where (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345

[cinepro]

cinepro:

I'm not disputing that the LDS believe God the Father was once like us. We have established

scripture that we are in His likeness and image. What I am disputing is that we know much of anything about the mortal experience of God the Father. That we have any established Scripture that has God the Father having been a mortal just like us. We don't.

Please show me where (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345

[Alan]

I'm LDS through and through and I do not believe that the person we called the Father was ever a mortal man. I just do not accept it. There is nothing in the scriptures which can be reasonably interpreted to declare that doctrine, and it offends (to my mind at least) common sense.

However, God was once a man if we are talking about Jesus. The Book of Mormon clearly states that Jesus is both Father and Son because of the atonement. That is the only way it can be argued, in my view.

[SilverKnight]

I'm LDS through and through and I do not believe that the person we called the Father was ever a mortal man.

Most people assume when you say you are LDS, you mean the Salt Lake based CoJCoLDS.

If you are not, you may want to clarify that.

[Cold Steel]

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 Hinckley denied it publically.

I think what President Hinckley was stating was that the church's teaching has at times been so convoluted that he really didn't think it should be taught in the ways it was. Simply put, there is a prohibition in the church against light-mindedness; that is, making light of things that are holy. In my own experience, I've heard people talk about becoming gods and creating worlds, and I think President Hinckley was cautioning that people shouldn't be adding things to the doctrine that were never specifically taught.

Dr. Hugh Nibley documented the ancient teachings on the subject and yes, sometimes some of the early saints put it exactly like that -- that if we are faithful and keep the law given to us by God that yes, we, too, "can become creators of worlds" (Askew Manuscript). But many of the church authorities in our own day have counseled about toning it down a bit. We really don't know the processes by which we attain such blessings. Nor do we know the conditions. What we do know is what John teaches, and that is that the faithful on Earth become co-heirs with Christ; and that "when we see God, we shall be like him," for we "shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2-3)

When I was on my mission, I recall a particularly disagreeable chap poking his bony finger into my chest and accusing me of teaching the "lie" Satan told to Adam; namely that he, Adam, could become like God. But he had no reply to the fact that God, Himself, later confirmed that "man has become as one of us," knowing good from evil. But we have no idea that later, in the Celestial Kingdom, to what extent we become like God, and sometimes we become too cavalier in our expectations. LDS scriptures already confirm that we all took a part in the creation of the Earth upon which we now reside. So in that aspect we already are creators. But what President Hinckley was saying, I think, was that we shouldn't be too quick in assuming many of the things we assume about this doctrine. We are, after all, the children of God, and co-heirs with Christ. Children usually have some capacity in becoming like their fathers and we know what heirs do and what they attain: all that their fathers have.

Finally, the ramifications of what God is need to be fully understood. The bulk of the entire Christian world understands little of this, so our frame of reference may be so off kilter that LDS need to be careful of what we teach, lest it be so misunderstood and ridiculed. This, too, may be behind President Hinckley's cautioning statements. Even in astrophysics, we now know about galaxies (when in Joseph Smith's day, we only knew about solar systems). In the future we may discover that beyond our "universe" there may be other universes, each expanding from a central hub. If everything is a system in the midst of like systems, then the Cosmos may be a lot larger than anyone has ever conceived.

.

[Alan]

Most people assume when you say you are LDS, you mean the Salt Lake based CoJCoLDS.

If you are not, you may want to clarify that.

Salt Lake based CoJCoLDS it is.

[SilverKnight]

Salt Lake based CoJCoLDS it is.

RLDS/CoC reject the later theological innovations of Joseph Smith - which is what I thought you were.

An any case, thanks for clarifying

[Obiwan]

Jeff K., on 07 January 2011 - 03:44 PM, said:

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

That is literally a meaningless statement.

Not true at all.... There are a lot of ideas and things that are taught, true things, that aren't necessarily or are even at all "doctrine". One of the biggest things I can think of are financial principles. Further, not everything in scripture itself is considered "doctrine". No religion on the planet believes such either. A lot of things are said in the Bible that no Christian religion or very few believe in or practice. Do you know of almost any Christian religion in which the "women are kept silent"??? Yet, such was once taught in the Bible. Likewise, in the latter-day Church, some things are taught, some are true, and sometimes something false has been taught, such as a few reasons given by some for the priesthood ban.

[cinepro]

Not true at all.... There are a lot of ideas and things that are taught, true things, that aren't necessarily or are even at all "doctrine". One of the biggest things I can think of are financial principles. Further, not everything in scripture itself is considered "doctrine". No religion on the planet believes such either. A lot of things are said in the Bible that no Christian religion or very few believe in or practice. Do you know of almost any Christian religion in which the "women are kept silent"??? Yet, such was once taught in the Bible. Likewise, in the latter-day Church, some things are taught, some are true, and sometimes something false has been taught, such as a few reasons given by some for the priesthood ban.

Are you sure you're in the right thread? The thread title, the OP, and the interview with President Hinckley all discuss "teachings" and "principles", but never talk about "doctrine" as far as I can see.

So, would you agree that it is a teaching and principle of the Church that "God was once a man"?

[evangelist]

I have a very good friend who is a nun. I remember a discussion with her about looking after a woman with lust. She gave me a real eye opener. She said: "why me, when you look at a woman, you don't need to be lustful. Just admire her beauty and thank god for creating such a beautiful human being.

I have been often thanking god since this advice.

And I still find it comforting that god was once a man and as a man, I am sure that he looked at women too, but not with lust but with admiration.

So if this is a issue with a mormonor any believer should they take the bible literally and cut off body parts??

one love

[evangelist]

I just think that it makes sense and I can find nothing wrong with it. We all need to believe in a very personable god who understands what it means to have a physical body. And who understands us very intimately because he himself has experienced it. And as an evangelist, you may believe that jesus is god, and I would say to you, isn't it wonderful that he came to earth, got a physical body, experienced tempation, joy, sadness and pain...? He became a very personable god by doing so.

It might make sense to a society but is contradictory to the bible!

one love

[evangelist]

Semlogo:

As a skin color Blacks have had the Priesthood since the beginnings of the Church. There was a relatively short time that African Blacks were denied the Priesthood in this life.

Could God be a black man sensce He was so called in the mormon teachings a human before He became God??

one love

[evangelist]

They were denied the priesthood in the OT times, from the time of Moses.

Is that in the bible?