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

[LeSellers]

Is that in the bible?

Yes, it is. Try Leviticus, especially, and Deuteronomy, along with Exodus. There were no black Levites.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

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

Possible, but unlikely: His Son was not black

[evangelist]

Yes, it is. Try Leviticus, especially, and Deuteronomy, along with Exodus. There were no black Levites.

Lehi

Was Solomon black?

Song:1:5: I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.

Song:1:6: Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.

[LeSellers]

Was Solomon black?

It depends on what you mean by black.

Song:1:5: I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.

Song:1:6: Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.

First, I do not accept Canticle as scripture. But even were I to do so, what you claim it says is not what it actually says. Young's literal Translation gives "very dark" (i.e., a deep sun tan) where you have "black".

Third, Solomon was not a Priest. The Davidic (royal/kingly) line was Jewish, the Priestly line was Levitical. So it doesn't matter to this question whether Solomon was black or orange.

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

That is literally a meaningless statement.

To a literalist yes, but to most who understand that not everything taught in Sunday School is doctrine, just as not everything taught here is doctrine.

Think about it.

[ERayR]

No LDS do not teach that God was "once" a man. The correct teaching would be that he is and always has been an exalted man. His path to this point is nothing but speculation. What is important is that he has revealed a path for us from this point to where he now is.

[semlogo]

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.

If a church teaches something, it's as good as doctrine. Who cares if something is classified now as official or unofficial? If it's taught, then it's de facto doctrine. Official and unofficial don't mean anything in the real world.

The thing about women keeping silent was Paul's doctrine. We don't teach that, therefore it's not our doctrine.

Rather than worrying about official or unofficial, we should worry about correct vs incorrect.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No LDS do not teach that God was "once" a man. The correct teaching would be that he is and always has been an exalted man. His path to this point is nothing but speculation. What is important is that he has revealed a path for us from this point to where he now is.

You are correct. I have been trying to out line this with the use of Num 23:19. He still is a man, albeit an exalted man.

[semlogo]

Yes, it is. Try Leviticus, especially, and Deuteronomy, along with Exodus. There were no black Levites.

Lehi

That's not really the same thing. It was the gentiles and non-Levites who were denied the priesthood (ie 99.9% of the world). They weren't singling out blacks. The gentiles got the priesthood in New Testament times. Africans are gentiles too.

[Senator]

The correct teaching would be that he is and always has been an exalted man.

I would speculate that this is speculation as well.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I would speculate that this is speculation as well.

Man of Holiness is His name.

Moses 7:35

Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also.

That does not sound like speculation to me. But oh well.

[Jeff K.]

If a church teaches something, it's as good as doctrine. Who cares if something is classified now as official or unofficial? If it's taught, then it's de facto doctrine. Official and unofficial don't mean anything in the real world.

The thing about women keeping silent was Paul's doctrine. We don't teach that, therefore it's not our doctrine.

Rather than worrying about official or unofficial, we should worry about correct vs incorrect.

That is incorrect. One can teach in Sunday School to stay out of debt, that does not mean it is doctrine. One can and often does speak of opinions regarding doctrinal questions, that does not make the opinions doctrine. The church allows us to explore and seek personal revelation for ourselves on many matters, this does not make it the churches doctrine.

Anti's would love the church to take the stance that everything mentioned from the pulpit automatically is doctrine. This is of course a ridiculous assertion they often make. But they certainly would like for we Mormons to accept it as such. Apparently some seem to align themselves with that thinking. Apostles and Prophets would disagree with them.

The difference between official and unofficial is the difference between God and man. You may not worry or quibble about such a minor difference, but I think it is important that we recognize what it means.

[Senator]

Man of Holiness is His name.

Moses 7:35

Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also.

That does not sound like speculation to me. But oh well.

"The correct teaching would be that he is and always has been an exalted man"

That He is an exalted man, is a well excepted LDS teaching.

That He has always been such, I believe is not well established, and indeed the very subject matter of Joseph Smith's King Follet discource.

[Jeff K.]

That He has always been such, I believe is not well established, and indeed the very subject matter of Joseph Smith's King Follet discource.

I agree, and so it is not established, it is not doctrine.

[semlogo]

That is incorrect. One can teach in Sunday School to stay out of debt, that does not mean it is doctrine. One can and often does speak of opinions regarding doctrinal questions, that does not make the opinions doctrine. The church allows us to explore and seek personal revelation for ourselves on many matters, this does not make it the churches doctrine.

Anti's would love the church to take the stance that everything mentioned from the pulpit automatically is doctrine. This is of course a ridiculous assertion they often make. But they certainly would like for we Mormons to accept it as such. Apparently some seem to align themselves with that thinking. Apostles and Prophets would disagree with them.

The difference between official and unofficial is the difference between God and man. You may not worry or quibble about such a minor difference, but I think it is important that we recognize what it means.

What do the designations "official" or "unofficial" really mean to the average member? Nothing. It's only on the internet that people argue about that. In the real world, doctrine is simply what is taught by the church. When the church stops teaching something, then in the real world it stops being doctrine.

Quick example: the prohibition against masturbation does not meet your standard of official doctrine. And someone could use that to justify doing it, but it's still de facto doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

semlogo:

I of course can only speak for myself and not every average member. But there has been disagreements over what is unofficial and official doctrine from long before the internet was a research project of DARPA.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

semlogo:

I of course can only speak for myself and not every average member. But there has been disagreements over what is unofficial and official doctrine from long before the internet was a research project of DARPA.

And the disagreements could be easily removed by the President.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

"The correct teaching would be that he is and always has been an exalted man"

That He is an exalted man, is a well excepted LDS teaching.

That He has always been such, I believe is not well established, and indeed the very subject matter of Joseph Smith's King Follet discource.

I would state that my comments had more to do with the question in teh OP. "Do Mormons teach that God was once a man".

I was not so much trying to say that God has always been a man. Although I think a reasonable case can be made for that.

[semlogo]

semlogo:

I of course can only speak for myself and not every average member. But there has been disagreements over what is unofficial and official doctrine from long before the internet was a research project of DARPA.

By whom? Average members?

[Jeff K.]

What do the designations "official" or "unofficial" really mean to the average member? Nothing. It's only on the internet that people argue about that. In the real world, doctrine is simply what is taught by the church. When the church stops teaching something, then in the real world it stops being doctrine.

Quick example: the prohibition against masturbation does not meet your standard of official doctrine. And someone could use that to justify doing it, but it's still de facto doctrine.

Now you are simply making yourself the representative of the "average member". I don't accept that, and therefore your judgement as to the distinction between official and unofficial is also invalid. You don't know enough members to state what the average member might believe to be true, given most of the membership is outside the US, I daresay you cannot even come up with a rough approximation as to what constitutes the view of the average member. And that is why it becomes even more important to distinguish between official doctrine (What God wants you to understand and know) and your interpretation of doctrine (what man thinks it is). And that is important to the average member. Even if its not important to you.

[Jeff K.]

And the disagreements could be easily removed by the President.

No, disagreements are not easily removed by the President of the Church since revelation on specific issues are when God decides, not the First Presidency. We as Latter Day Saints must often discern those opinions, which do not necessarily impact our salvation for ourselves to help us learn.

[thesometimesaint]

semlogo:

Other than the basics I have no idea what an "average" member should believe. BRM's Mormon Doctrine has been discussed and cussed when I was first learning about the Church 40 years ago. I remember well the informal discussions on where the "narrow neck of land" is, and how big were the Nephite, and Lamanite lands. It was commonly believed and taught that they were hemispheric in size. I didn't believe it then, and don't believe it now. I am glad to see that my ideas, not that I'm first let alone only one to have them, are gaining in acceptance. The list is almost endless of points of disputed interpretations of the Scriptures on which the LDS in good faith disagree upon.

The final answer on what Gods' mortal existence(if he had any) was like has not yet been received. That's leaves only two possibilities that I can think of. Either it isn't all that important to our salvation, or God has not yet told us for his own reasons.

[Jeff K.]

semlogo:

Other than the basics I have no idea what an "average" member should believe. BRM's Mormon Doctrine has been discussed and cussed when I was first learning about the Church 40 years ago. I remember well the informal discussions on where the "narrow neck of land" is, and how big were the Nephite, and Lamanite lands. It was commonly believed and taught that they were hemispheric in size. I didn't believe it then, and don't believe it now. I am glad to see that my ideas are gaining in acceptance. The list is almost endless of points of disputed interpretations of the Scriptures on which the LDS in good faith disagree upon.

The final answer on what Gods' mortal existence(if he had any) was like has not yet been received. That's leaves only two possibilities that I can think of. Either it isn't all that important to our salvation, or God has not yet told us for his own reasons.

Just to note, while it seems to have more acceptance, I knew of the theory regarding a more limited geography when I first joined 30+ years ago and the issue in our little branch was at least ten years old there in VA. Its been around.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

No, disagreements are not easily removed by the President of the Church since revelation on specific issues are when God decides, not the First Presidency. We as Latter Day Saints must often discern those opinions, which do not necessarily impact our salvation for ourselves to help us learn.

If it's not that important then they need to stop disfellowshipping people for using their reasoning skills to come to their own conclusions about said issues.

[Jeff K.]

If it's not that important then they need to stop disfellowshipping people for using their reasoning skills to come to their own conclusions about said issues.

Depends on what they are using their reasoning skills for, and what the conclusions are, and if they are humble enough to receive instruction.