God

[Calm]

To be fair, I believe his position was that according to the logic of our doctrine, God could have been a transexual drag queen who repented, accepted the Atonement of His Saviour, and achieved exaltation; he did not claim that he actually was. It definitely though demonstrated that contrary to his claims he was not the least bit interested in converting LDS to what he believed is the truth, rather his purpose was to make us look as bad as possible to others.

[cdowis]

The "logic" is based on a deep and profound ignorance of our doctrine.

JS points to the Bible that says that Christ followed the example of the Father, He did what He saw the Father do. The Father was also sinless.

[jo1952]

There is another way we could look at this, which is purely contemplation on my part. Heavenly Father could easily have decided to go through a personal experiencing of becoming a man even though He was already God. Thus, He could continue being a perfect Heavenly Father with the knowledge of what it would be like for His spirit children to go through the experience of the Plan He was creating for them.

Just some thoughts.....

Regards,

jo

[Rob Bowman]

QB,

Lorenzo Snow's couplet (as Snow himself called it) was affirmed as revelation by Joseph Smith, affirmed by various LDS leaders throughout LDS Church history, and is quoted with approval in a current manual, Presidents of the Church (2003), available on lds.org. Perhaps the LDS Church will someday completely abandon the first half of Snow's couplet, but it does not appear to have done so yet.

"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....

[Rob Bowman]

selek,

You wrote:

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.

If you're going to complain about unnamed persons supposedly misrepresenting LDS beliefs, you might want to be careful not to misrepresent the unnamed persons yourself.

The criticism is not that Mormons believe that God was a sinner, but that (as calmoriah recognized) LDS Church doctrine at least allows for the possibility that God the Father was a sinner. That is, it does not appear that the LDS Church has ever officially taught that God was never a sinner, and its doctrine allows for this as a possibility.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

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?

See my earlier post. It would be fair to say that the LDS Church is deemphasizing this idea, but it has not yet abandoned it. What you should also consider is that whatever the LDS Church does or does not say about it now, Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS religion, clearly taught it.

You wrote:

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'm thrilled that you have such a strong love for your wife. I don't know how old you are, but when you get older you will find, I hope, that while your love for your wife does not diminish, the way that love is experienced does. In the orthodox Christian understanding, if you and your wife are both genuine believers in Jesus Christ who are saved by God's grace through trusting in Christ alone for your eternal life, you will not be separated in eternity, but will have an even more profound love relationship than you can ever experience while still in this mortal, fallen, sinful condition. Nor will you need temple rituals or obedience to prophets or anything other than the grace of God in Christ to have this assurance. God is creating a new humanity in Christ as its Head, in which all of the redeemed are adopted as his children and united by the Spirit into an everlasting family of brothers and sisters whose love will be pure and perfect (Rom. 8:14-30). The marriage relationship between a man and a woman is merely a foretaste of the glorious relationship that we will all have with Jesus Christ as our Bridegroom (e.g., John 3:29; Eph. 5:25-27; Rev. 19:7-9; 21:2, 9). From this perspective, you will not feel that you have lost anything; you and your wife will have gained infinitely more.

[Anakin7]

John 5:18-20 come to mind.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Maidservant]

Steve, if you are asking this question in terms of your baptism into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then the things you have to believe can be encapsulated in the Articles of Faith and the baptismal interview questions (also see the volume Preach My Gospel, available online in PDF at lds.org).

You do not need to believe God was once a man to be a faithful Latter-day Saint.

There are just some of us who don't mind taking implications to their (logical? possible?) conclusions.

But you don't have to do accept this even to get a temple recommend and marry your lovely bride there . Do it .

You have to believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in our Savior, Jesus Christ. And accept Thomas S. Monson as a prophet. Things along these lines.

[Stargazer]

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.

God is eternal. Of course he never changes. Problem with this principle is that if God never changes, nothing ever changes. If he creates a universe, this must change him. If he destroys a universe, this must do so also.

The unchangeability of God is that He is infinitely dependable. Not that His condition is always and ever the same.

[zerinus]

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?

Yes, that I believe is about right. Gordon B. Hinckley made statements to that effect.

[zerinus]

Double post

Edited October 24, 2011 by zerinus

[Stargazer]

If we are to be joint heirs with Christ, and presumably Christ is a joint heir of the Father, then eventually we all become like God. Whether the Father has always existed in the exact same format or not, our future is intended to be just like His. What will we then say of ourselves?

[zerinus]

In the orthodox Christian understanding, if you and your wife are both genuine believers in Jesus Christ who are saved by God's grace through trusting in Christ alone for your eternal life, you will not be separated in eternity, but will have an even more profound love relationship than you can ever experience while still in this mortal, fallen, sinful condition.

That is of course not correct. The traditional Christian ritual of marriage ends with "until death do you part". And Evangelical critics of Mormonism have traditionally maintained not only that marriage does not and need not continue after death; but have always quoted Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25 as a counter argument to the LDS belief that it does. Now in their dishonesty they have decided to adopt a different tack because of the attractiveness of this doctrine to non-LDS. They have decided it serves their purposes better to cash in on the doctrine than to dispute it.

Nor will you need temple rituals or obedience to prophets or anything other than the grace of God in Christ to have this assurance.

I have got bad news then for you. In Mormon revelation God has confirmed that not only the sacrament of Marriage, but all the ordinances or sacraments of the gospel are required for our salvation, contrary to Protestant false doctrine. The Catholic Church rightly recognizes marriage as a sacrament, together with other ordinances such as baptism, confirmation, and ordination. You guys have corrupted and perverted true Christian doctrine by denying the efficacy of the sacraments for salvation. Mormonism agrees with the Catholic Church on that score, and recognizes the necessity of all the sacraments, or ordinances of the gospel, for salvation, including marriage; except that we are able to perform that sacrament for eternity which they don't. Stop preaching false Protestant doctrines here.

God is creating a new humanity in Christ as its Head, in which all of the redeemed are adopted as his children and united by the Spirit into an everlasting family of brothers and sisters whose love will be pure and perfect (Rom. 8:14-30). The marriage relationship between a man and a woman is merely a foretaste of the glorious relationship that we will all have with Jesus Christ as our Bridegroom (e.g., John 3:29; Eph. 5:25-27; Rev. 19:7-9; 21:2, 9). From this perspective, you will not feel that you have lost anything; you and your wife will have gained infinitely more.

Now you are dropping your mask, and getting closer to real Protestant false doctrine, which doesn't really teach the eternity of marriage, in spite of your earlier claim that it did. Try to be more honest in the future when preaching about what you believe.

Edited October 24, 2011 by zerinus

[Storm Rider]

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.

And how does that conflict with LDS doctrine?

[thesometimesaint]

QB:

Ye ARE Gods was said by Jesus.

True we don't know very much about God the Fathers' mortal life, but we do know from Jesus that he didn't do anything that he hadn't seen his Father do.

[CV75]

Lorenzo Snow's couplet (as Snow himself called it) was affirmed as revelation by Joseph Smith, affirmed by various LDS leaders throughout LDS Church history, and is quoted with approval in a current manual, Presidents of the Church (2003), available on lds.org. Perhaps the LDS Church will someday completely abandon the first half of Snow's couplet, but it does not appear to have done so yet.

There are many revelations that are not “critical doctrine” but are instructional or event-specific and not applicable to the salvation of all mankind in all times, places an conditions, as, for example, the "doctrine of Christ" as taught in the Book of Mormon. They often serve as substrates requiring additional revelation (sometimes personal, sometimes general from the Lord’s anointed) to flesh out and understand better. Such revelations may or may not ever become doctrine.

[bluebell]

Nor will you need temple rituals or obedience to prophets or anything other than the grace of God in Christ to have this assurance.

What about obedience to God? Is trying to obey the commandments of God necessary in order to have the assurance?

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

How ironic. I am now being accused of not being honest about my own beliefs! Isn't this fun.

As an orthodox and evangelical Christian, I do not believe that marriage, as we experience it in this mortal life, continues in the new heavens and new earth. However, that doesn't mean that family ties are broken. My special relationships with my parents, siblings, wife, children, etc., will be part of what I take with me into the eternal kingdom. However, the way those relationships function will change. We will all be adults; my children will no longer be dependent on me for their sustenance and shelter. I will no longer be subject to my parents, either, as their dependent child. And my wife and I will no longer be the joint heads of a household, producing offspring and raising children. But will we be separated? No way. Will we forget what we had here? Of course not. Will what we have in the new heavens and new earth be less than what we had here? No, it will be more. It will be greater. It will be glorious.

Believe it or not, I appreciate your candor in rejecting my view -- the orthodox view -- as false doctrine. It highlights the differences between our views. But you are mistaken in trying to drive a wedge between Catholic and Protestant doctrine with regard to marriage. Both Catholics and evangelical Protestants believe that God specially sanctifies marriage between believing Christians. True, we have different ways of understanding how this works. Catholics are sacramentalists and evangelical Protestants are not. But we agree together on the basic nature of marriage, and our view contrasts sharply with the LDS doctrine of celestial or eternal marriage. Catholics view Protestant marriages as legitimate, full marriages, no less than Catholic marriages, even though naturally they think we are missing some blessings associated with the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

The real differences between the orthodox and Mormon view of marriage is not about husband and wife being reunited for eternity. That is misleading in that it falsely attributes to orthodox Christians the belief that a husband and his wife will be estranged or separated for eternity. The real difference is that in classic Mormon theology, eternal marriage is a key element in the cyclical process of eternal progression by which people become Gods over new worlds. In LDS doctrine, our heavenly parents produced us as their literal spirit offspring, and sent us to this world to progress toward becoming Gods like them with the capacity to produce new populations of spirit children inhabiting new worlds. That is the doctrine that we evangelical Christians firmly reject, not the idea that the marriage relationship will in some sense continue to be a distinct and meaningful relationship in the resurrection.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

You wrote:

There are many revelations that are not “critical doctrine” but are instructional or event-specific and not applicable to the salvation of all mankind in all times, places an conditions, as, for example, the "doctrine of Christ" as taught in the Book of Mormon. They often serve as substrates requiring additional revelation (sometimes personal, sometimes general from the Lord’s anointed) to flesh out and understand better. Such revelations may or may not ever become doctrine.

Perhaps, but this isn't one of them. There is obviously nothing "event-specific" about the doctrine that God was once a man like us and that we can become Gods like him. "It is clear that the teaching of President Snow [in the "couplet"] is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today." Gerald N. Lund, Ensign, Feb. 1982, 40. So it was, at least, LDS doctrine, and the evidence shows that this has not changed, even though the idea is now being deemphasized.

[Rob Bowman]

bluebell,

You wrote:

What about obedience to God? Is trying to obey the commandments of God necessary in order to have the assurance?

Someone who does not seek to obey God's commandments is showing by his life that his profession of faith is questionable at best and insincere at worst (1 John 2:3). So yes, obedience is important to assurance. But the objective ground or basis for that assurance is not our performance but rather the grace of God in Christ.

[bluebell]

bluebell,

You wrote:

Someone who does not seek to obey God's commandments is showing by his life that his profession of faith is questionable at best and insincere at worst (1 John 2:3). So yes, obedience is important to assurance. But the objective ground or basis for that assurance is not our performance but rather the grace of God in Christ.

Of course the basis for the assurance is not our performance but the grace of Christ.

But, if our attempted obedience to God's commandments shows whether or not we can have assurance in His grace, then it's dangerous to say to someone that they don't need to obey prophets, for example, in order to have the assurance of salvation, if such a prophet is relaying a true commandment of God.

A person does not need to obey false prophets, but they do need to obey true prophets because true prophets speak the commandments of God. Your statement had no such qualifier and without it the implication is that obedience is never necessary.

I know that your goal is to keep as many people as you can away from the LDS church, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[CV75]

CV75,

You wrote:

Perhaps, but this isn't one of them. There is obviously nothing "event-specific" about the doctrine that God was once a man like us and that we can become Gods like him. "It is clear that the teaching of President Snow [in the "couplet"] is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today." Gerald N. Lund, Ensign, Feb. 1982, 40. So it was, at least, LDS doctrine, and the evidence shows that this has not changed, even though the idea is now being deemphasized.

Not so. It was and is not "critical doctrine" the term the OP uses. It is not an "event-specific" revelation as you say, but I will point out it is of the "instructional" variety of revelation I mentioned. It may be that President Snow's teaching is "acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today" but it is not "critical," say, like the atonement or the doctrine of Christ -- there is simply not enough known or revealed about the first half of the "couplet". It is something that may be pondered on with some benefit, and enhanced by more revelation as the Lord sees fit, but I would not count is as "critical doctrine."

Much more revelation and doctrine have been given on the second half of the "couplet" and so I would say that the principle that we can become as God is might be considered "critical doctrine," but only in that it reflects the very purpose of the atonement and the doctrine of Christ.

[Rob Bowman]

bluebell,

You wrote:

Of course the basis for the assurance is not our performance but the grace of Christ.

But, if our attempted obedience to God's commandments shows whether or not we can have assurance in His grace, then it's dangerous to say to someone that they don't need to obey prophets, for example, in order to have the assurance of salvation, if such a prophet is relaying a true commandment of God.

A person does not need to obey false prophets, but they do need to obey true prophets because true prophets speak the commandments of God. Your statement had no such qualifier and without it the implication is that obedience is never necessary.

I know that your goal is to keep as many people as you can away from the LDS church, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

My goal is to bring as many people to the true gospel of Jesus Christ. That goal is not a negative one, but it does have negative implications for any religious institution or individual that teaches a gospel at variance with that true gospel (Gal. 1:6-9).

I agree that if there were a true prophet on the earth today, that God's people should follow what he teaches. I will go further: if there were a true prophet on the earth today, God's people would follow what he teaches. But as you surely understand, from my perspective the LDS Church presidents are not true prophets of God. Regretfully, I am convinced that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and as you correctly state, one need not and should not follow a false prophet.

One of the many indications that the LDS Church prophets are not from God, in my understanding, is precisely that they teach that temple ordinances are essential to live forever in the presence of God the Father. This is an unbiblical teaching. The temple rituals of the old covenant, which were utterly unlike Mormon temple ordinances, were mere foreshadowings of the redeeming work of Jesus Christ, our eternal and heavenly high priest, who offered himself as the final and ultimate sacrifice for sins (Heb. 7-10). True Christians do not need man-made temples; the church is God's "temple," the temple not made by human hands, constructed not of rocks but of the "living stones" of believers united together through their union with Jesus Christ, the cornerstone (Eph. 2:19-22; 1 Peter 2:3-8 ).

Edited October 24, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

You wrote:

Not so. It was and is not "critical doctrine" the term the OP uses. It is not an "event-specific" revelation as you say, but I will point out it is of the "instructional" variety of revelation I mentioned. It may be that President Snow's teaching is "acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today" but it is not "critical," say, like the atonement or the doctrine of Christ -- there is simply not enough known or revealed about the first half of the "couplet". It is something that may be pondered on with some benefit, and enhanced by more revelation as the Lord sees fit, but I would not count is as "critical doctrine."

Much more revelation and doctrine have been given on the second half of the "couplet" and so I would say that the principle that we can become as God is might be considered "critical doctrine," but only in that it reflects the very purpose of the atonement and the doctrine of Christ.

If you wish to parse the matter in this way, that's your business. Joseph Smith does not seem to have felt that the idea of God having been a man like us was not critical doctrine. He claimed in the King Follett Discourse that it was of paramount importance: "It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."

I certainly am not presuming to tell you what you believe or what you should believe as a Mormon. What I am saying is this: Joseph Smith and others clearly taught this doctrine in the name of God, as supposed prophets of God. If they were right, then we should all accept their understanding of God, regardless of the level of critical importance you wish to assign to this specific idea. If they were wrong, on the other hand, they were false prophets, as Joseph himself admits in that sermon. From that standpoint, the doctrinal issue here is indeed of critical importance!

Edited October 24, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[CV75]

If you wish to parse the matter in this way, that's your business. Joseph Smith does not seem to have felt that the idea of God having been a man like us was not critical doctrine. He claimed in the King Follett Discourse that it was of paramount importance: "It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."

I certainly am not presuming to tell you what you believe or what you should believe as a Mormon. What I am saying is this: Joseph Smith and others clearly taught this doctrine in the name of God, as supposed prophets of God. If they were right, then we should all accept their understanding of God, regardless of the level of critical importance you wish to assign to this specific idea. If they were wrong, on the other hand, they were false prophets, as Joseph himself admits in that sermon. From that standpoint, the doctrinal issue here is indeed of critical importance!

There are many problems with using the King Follett Sermon as a primary and reliable record of revelation or critical doctrine from Joseph Smith, especially when we have the Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Mormon. These you can count on.

My understanding of the OP asking about "critical doctrine" is that which a member must accept to enjoy full fellowship with the Church and with the Spirit. My point is that we can enjoy such without making the “God was once a man” idea preeminent over, or parallel with the doctrine of Christ as taught in the Book or Mormon, which indeed must be accepted to enjoy full fellowship with the Church and with the Spirit.

Anyone can erroneously believe that Joseph Smith and others taught the “God was once a man” idea as clearly, frequently and scripturally as they did the doctrine of Christ, and placed the same emphasis and criticality upon it, and responsibility upon the members to live by it, as they did the doctrine of Christ. But doing so detracts from the principal messages of the doctrine of Christ.

To accept a prophet’s understanding of God, one not only needs to hear it in proper order from the proper source, but he needs to possess the spirit of the prophets, or the spirit of prophecy, and these can only be gotten in accordance with the doctrine of Christ.