God

[stevedallas]

Though I agree with most of the LDS teachings, one that gives me trouble is the idea that God was once a man. Is that a critical doctrine in the LDS Church?

Another LDS belief I LOVE is the eternal marriage. I love my wife more than I ever thought I could love anyone. It seems odd that God would give me a wife like her and let it only last a little while. If I ever become LDS, I will pray she does as well so we may be married in the temple.

[bluebell]

Could you explain what it is that bothers you so much about the idea of God having once been mortal?

Does it bother you that Christ was once a man? Does it lessen Him in some way in your belief compared to God, who it sounds like you believe was never a man?

[stevedallas]

Could you explain what it is that bothers you so much about the idea of God having once been mortal?

Does it bother you that Christ was once a man? Does it lessen Him in some way in your belief compared to God, who it sounds like you believe was never a man?

I guess because I have always believed that God never changes. God claimed in the Bible that he never changes. And as far as Jesus, I have always believed that Jesus was God first, man/God second, then God again.

[bluebell]

I guess because I have always believed that God never changes. God claimed in the Bible that he never changes. And as far as Jesus, I have always believed that Jesus was God first, man/God second, then God again.

I can definitely see where you are coming from.

Do you believe that when the bible says that God never changes, that the statment doesn't include Jesus (who obviously had to change in some big ways to be a mortal man) or do you believe that Christ's condescension wasn't the type of 'change' that nullifies the verses you are referring to?

(just trying to make sure i'm understanding where you are coming from correctly).

[wenglund]

Though I agree with most of the LDS teachings, one that gives me trouble is the idea that God was once a man. Is that a critical doctrine in the LDS Church?

Do you also have a problem with the notion of man becoming Gods (i.e. the loving Father enabling his children to becoming even as he is)? I ask because this is, essentially, the end objective of the restored gospel and the plan of salvation and exaltation.

If it isn't a problem for you, then why would the notion of God having undergone the same process as he desires for his children (though perhaps similar to Christ underwent) be problematic for you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stevedallas]

I can definitely see where you are coming from.

Do you believe that when the bible says that God never changes, that the statment doesn't include Jesus (who obviously had to change in some big ways to be a mortal man) or do you believe that Christ's condescension wasn't the type of 'change' that nullifies the verses you are referring to?

(just trying to make sure i'm understanding where you are coming from correctly).

When I say God never changes, I guess I mean he did not start as man and become God. When God the Son became man, it was a partial change (he was still God) that HE caused, it was not a change that was caused on him.

[stevedallas]

Do you also have a problem with the notion of man becoming Gods (i.e. the loving Father enabling his children to becoming even as he is)? I ask because this is, essentially, the end objective of the restored gospel and the plan of salvation and exaltation.

If it isn't a problem for you, then why would the notion of God having undergone the same process as he desires for his children (though perhaps similar to Christ underwent) be problematic for you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I guess we need to define "gods". I do,not believe we will ever be GOD. But, in heaven, I DO believe we will be sinless and live forever. Those are god-like traits, so, in a way, we will be like gods. Does that make sense?

[BCSpace]

Though I agree with most of the LDS teachings, one that gives me trouble is the idea that God was once a man. Is that a critical doctrine in the LDS Church?

Yes. It means we can also become Gods ourselves. Theosis (the deification of man) is the only method mentioned in the scriptures as to how Gods are made.

[Questing Beast]

"As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become."

That was referred to back in '94-95 by president Hinckley as "a couplet". He discounted entirely the first half, claiming not to know much about that, or to know anyone who did know much about that. I have not heard it taught in the Church by the general authorities in my lifetime. I don't think that it is a doctrine of the Church anymore, and has not been for a long time: although considerably more time will be required to see it dead in the past where it belongs - along with the "seed of Cain", "avenging the blood of the prophets" and "plurality of wives" doctrines....

[wenglund]

When I say God never changes, I guess I mean he did not start as man and become God. When God the Son became man, it was a partial change (he was still God) that HE caused, it was not a change that was caused on him.

So, if LDS believe that in the somewhat irrelevant eternities of the past, God the Father underwent the same process as Christ (he was God, became man, then was God), then you would consider God as changed, and there goes your problem with the LDS belief, Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Questing Beast]

Yes. It means we can also become Gods ourselves. Theosis (the deification of man) is the only method mentioned in the scriptures as to how Gods are made.

Theosis may apply to man, but it does not apply to "God". That is why the notion that God the Father worked out his own mortality before he became a god is problematic, and no longer taught in any of the Church's publications; that we will become "gods" IS taught and is not a problem with biblical references, since we are called sons and daughters of God and joint heirs with Christ, etc. Nowhere in the scriptures is the notion found that God the Father was once a mortal man before he progressed to become a god, or rather THE God (and "the only one with which we have to do")....

[stevedallas]

So, if LDS believe that in the somewhat irrelevant eternities of the past, God the Father underwent the same process as Christ (he was God, became man, then was God), then you would consider God as changed, and there goes your problem with the LDS belief, Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

explained like that, it would, I think, be something to consider. It does beg the question about if there is only ONE God, as I believe.

On another note, I love Orson Scott Card. I have read almost all his books and consider Ender's Game one of the finest books written

[Questing Beast]

So, if LDS believe that in the somewhat irrelevant eternities of the past, God the Father underwent the same process as Christ (he was God, became man, then was God), then you would consider God as changed, and there goes your problem with the LDS belief, Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

LDS were never taught that. The teaching (it never was a doctrine in the sense of being canonized as scripture) was that God the Father was once a man, as we are now: not that he began as God, experienced mortality like Jesus, then resumed God status in full, like Jesus. We are not like either of them: we are not yet gods. Yet the teaching says, "as man now is, God once was", meaning that God had to be as man (we) are now....

[annewandering]

It is puzzling how we can believe that we are the children of God and not have it follow that He was once a child but I admit to liking logic.

[Questing Beast]

It is puzzling how we can believe that we are the children of God and not have it follow that He was once a child but I admit to liking logic.

Logic and worship are two different things. If God the Father was a mortal child before he became OUR god, then he logically ought not to be the god we worship: we ought to be worshiping his god, or the god before that. But if it's "turtles all the way down", then the only "God" worthy of worship is a concept of Necessary Cause, or Existence in the first place. I'd like it to be a little bit more intimate than that, but perhaps "God" only gave us a manifestation to worship, as a man (or woman, or both), never intending that we stop there: but rather, as we outgrow the primitive literalness of our forebears, we seek outside of our limited empirical experience for that Necessary Cause of Existence in the first place. And, Joseph Smith's glorified God the Father cannot be it.

I would not have a problem with the theology if it said that the gods that appeared to Joseph Smith were manifestations so that he could related to "God" in a personal way. But instead, we are taught this theology which asserts that God the Father has a tangible, finite body: and this IS scriptural, and causes its own problems: for how can a finite brain in a brain pan like ours be responsible for all of Existence, or be master and lord over it? That, is not logical....

[CV75]

Though I agree with most of the LDS teachings, one that gives me trouble is the idea that God was once a man. Is that a critical doctrine in the LDS Church?

Another LDS belief I LOVE is the eternal marriage. I love my wife more than I ever thought I could love anyone. It seems odd that God would give me a wife like her and let it only last a little while. If I ever become LDS, I will pray she does as well so we may be married in the temple.

I don’t think it is a critical doctrine, or that it even qualifies as a doctrine. It is a popular idea, and it does stand to reason, based on how man fares along the path in the plan of salvation. So I see nothing terribly wrong in believing it. But it is only reason, with its attendant pitfalls.

For this reason, as far as actually living my religion goes, I try to focus on the “doctrine of Christ” as taught in the Book of Mormon. Wherever I see mention (prophetic testimony) of a principle in connection to believing in Christ, faith in Christ, repentance, baptism in water, baptism of fire (Holy Ghost), enduring to the end and receiving these in covenants from Christ’s authorized servants (as laid out in 3 Nephi 11: 18-41), I pay attention to that principle (for example, the principles discussed in Mosiah 4:3-16).

[wenglund]

I guess we need to define "gods". I do,not believe we will ever be GOD.

Why? Do you think God lacks the will or capacity to enable his children to become like him?

But, in heaven, I DO believe we will be sinless and live forever. Those are god-like traits, so, in a way, we will be like gods. Does that make sense?

It sounds to me like your sight, while laudable in its own right, is set well below the prospects that God, in his infinite love and ability affords us. But, to each their own.

Besides, you mentioned elsewhere about wanting to be eternally married to your wife. At least that is something worth shooting for beyond an eternal sinless existence. And, if you think about it, eternal marriage is a big step towards becoming an eternal father, which is very much God-like.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

explained like that, it would, I think, be something to consider. It does beg the question about if there is only ONE God, as I believe.

I am not sure how it begs the question any more than Christ's mortality would beg the question. Perhaps it depends upon whether one believes that God is one in an ontological sense or one in a social sense. Since we LS believe the later, there is no question begging involved.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

LDS were never taught that. The teaching (it never was a doctrine in the sense of being canonized as scripture) was that God the Father was once a man, as we are now: not that he began as God, experienced mortality like Jesus, then resumed God status in full, like Jesus. We are not like either of them: we are not yet gods. Yet the teaching says, "as man now is, God once was", meaning that God had to be as man (we) are now....

The teaching was silent as to whether the Father was once a man like Christ or a man like you and I, thus leaving it open to personal opinion. I happen to favor the later (not that it matters in the least in our achieving the desired goal of exaltation), which is why I legitimately asked the question that I did. You are free to think otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[diglot]

Theosis may apply to man, but it does not apply to "God". That is why the notion that God the Father worked out his own mortality before he became a god is problematic, and no longer taught in any of the Church's publications; that we will become "gods" IS taught and is not a problem with biblical references, since we are called sons and daughters of God and joint heirs with Christ, etc. Nowhere in the scriptures is the notion found that God the Father was once a mortal man before he progressed to become a god, or rather THE God (and "the only one with which we have to do")....

Can any other LDS posters confirm this as true?

The missionaries I have talked to all seemed to view "as man is, God once was" to be a crucial belief of the LDS Church.

The position that Questing Beast seems to be espousing - that God didn't exalt to godhood after being a man - is this quite a common stream of thought amongst Mormons?

[wenglund]

Logic and worship are two different things. If God the Father was a mortal child before he became OUR god, then he logically ought not to be the god we worship: we ought to be worshiping his god, or the god before that.

That would only be logically required if one accepts your presupposition about worshipping the God before God. I don't.

It is not like presupposing that the commandment to honor one's parents logically refers to our parent's parents.

But if it's "turtles all the way down", then the only "God" worthy of worship is a concept of Necessary Cause, or Existence in the first place.

See above. Also, you are presupposing a Necessary Cause or Existence. I don't.

I'd like it to be a little bit more intimate than that, but perhaps "God" only gave us a manifestation to worship, as a man (or woman, or both), never intending that we stop there: but rather, as we outgrow the primitive literalness of our forebears, we seek outside of our limited empirical experience for that Necessary Cause of Existence in the first place. And, Joseph Smith's glorified God the Father cannot be it. I would not have a problem with the theology if it said that the gods that appeared to Joseph Smith were manifestations so that he could related to "God" in a personal way. But instead, we are taught this theology which asserts that God the Father has a tangible, finite body: and this IS scriptural, and causes its own problems: for how can a finite brain in a brain pan like ours be responsible for all of Existence, or be master and lord over it? That, is not logical....

I am able to logically worship and relate to my God on a personal level even given my LDS theology. But, that may be just because I logically work on a different set of premises than you.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[selek1]

Though I agree with most of the LDS teachings, one that gives me trouble is the idea that God was once a man. Is that a critical doctrine in the LDS Church?

Most Evangelicals, when presented with this idea, are given to think that we believe that God was once a sinful man,

One of the more foaming-at-the-mouth of the breed (literally) used to take this idea to extremes by insisting that we believed God was once a transsexual cross-dresser, or some such nonsense.

It is much fairer to say that we believe it possible- even likely- that Heavenly Father once existed as did Jesus. A mortal, perfect man who nonetheless remained wholly God.

We do not believe there was ever a point where God was not God.

Another LDS belief I LOVE is the eternal marriage. I love my wife more than I ever thought I could love anyone. It seems odd that God would give me a wife like her and let it only last a little while. If I ever become LDS, I will pray she does as well so we may be married in the temple.

You're not the only one. There have been a lot of learned mainstream-Christian professors who's hearts ached within them at the thought of being separated from their loved ones at death.

[wenglund]

Can any other LDS posters confirm this as true? The missionaries I have talked to all seemed to view "as man is, God once was" to be a crucial belief of the LDS Church. The position that Questing Beast seems to be espousing - that God didn't exalt to godhood after being a man - is this quite a common stream of thought amongst Mormons?

It is not scriptural, but it is a common, though non-essential, belief among LDS (the focus of the restored gospel and the plan of salvation and exaltation are focused almost exclusively on the life phases of progression (pre-mortality, mortality, death, resurrection) of a single generation--i.e the children of Heavenly Father. That is the "eternities of eternities" to which we have to do.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cdowis]

"As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become."

That was referred to back in '94-95 by president Hinckley as "a couplet". He discounted entirely the first half, claiming not to know much about that, or to know anyone who did know much about that.

You accept Time Magazine as a credible source for LDS doctrine?

I find it disappointing (but not surprising) that you have failed to do your homework. http://fairmormon.or...llett_Discourse

As Pres. Hinckley said in General Conference, " I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church."

Edited October 24, 2011 by cdowis

[TAO]

Though I agree with most of the LDS teachings, one that gives me trouble is the idea that God was once a man. Is that a critical doctrine in the LDS Church?

Another LDS belief I LOVE is the eternal marriage. I love my wife more than I ever thought I could love anyone. It seems odd that God would give me a wife like her and let it only last a little while. If I ever become LDS, I will pray she does as well so we may be married in the temple.

Steve, if God was once a man, think about how well he can relate to our problems... and how good he would be at solving them =).

Also another good thing about it is related to growth... the ability to grow forever means eternity will NOT be boring ;-).

There is one more thing I like about a God that has grown. A God that has grown will understand purpose... that is... he will have a reason for doing things, and, if we pay attention enough to him, we might be able to understand. And we do... his purpose is to 'bring about the immortality and eternal life of man'. To me that is a grand purpose... spending eternity... serving others... serving your children... so they can be just like you =D.

Now that is a god I want to serve. Just, relatable, and, above all, serviceable. In my honest opinion, perfect.

Just random thoughts ;-0

-TAO

EDIT: Hmmm... I believe he only changed before he became God... but I may be completely wrong on that aspect =P.

Edited October 24, 2011 by TAO