As Man Now Is, God Once Was; As God Is Now Man May Be.

[KevinG]

Critics crow about how the LDS Chuch "seems to be" pulling back from the statements of Joseph and President Snow on the matter of deification.

Today in Sacrament meeting a wise High Priest and good faithful brother taught us this passage again as a way of helping us understand God knows us and our trials and has compassion for us.

Nobody corrected him, nobody left the chapel. There wasn't even a sharp intake of breath when he invoked the teaching. Instead there was nodding of heads in agreement.

Here in the real Mormon world, on the front lines of the teaching we still believe we are literal sons and daughters of a God who is intimately familiar with our experiences and can lead us to where He is through the atonement of His Son Jesus Christ.

Go figure.

[CASteinman]

Plus 1

[cwald]

Yeah, but wasn't it Pres. Hinckley who said the church had pulled back on this teaching, in the Larry King interview? What am I missing?

[KevinG]

Yeah, but wasn't it Pres. Hinckley who said the church had pulled back on this teaching, in the Larry King interview? What am I missing?

a LOT. President Hinckley never pulled back from the teaching he just didn't put a detailed analysis of it out for the press to have a field day over.

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/fordham-michael/does_president_hinckley_understand_lds_doctrine

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Hinckley_downplaying_the_King_Follett_Discourse

"I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that's to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church." -President Gordon B Hinckley in October 1997

[cwald]

a LOT. President Hinckley never pulled back from the teaching he just didn't put a detailed analysis of it out for the press to have a field day over.

http://www.fairlds.o...nd_lds_doctrine

http://en.fairmormon...llett_Discourse

"I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that's to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church." -President Gordon B Hinckley in October 1997

‘I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it,’" - Hinckley

But, if you say so.

Edited July 22, 2012 by cwald

[rpn]

There are a whole lot of traditions in the church which are speculation, often completely consistent with our understanding, but not themselves supported by scriptures or revelation. It is completely correct that leaders have, ever since the 1978 priesthood change, suggested that speculating in areas where we don't have specific revelation is not as wise as simply saying "we don't know". Yes, JS probably said it in the King Follet Sermon. But it is not taught as doctrine because little to nothing has been revealed about the nature of Heavenly Father's origins.

[KevinG]

But, if you say so.

I guess clicking a link is too difficult. So I will help you.

As reported:

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.

A: Yeah

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’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it...I understand the philosophical background behind it.. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

Complete statement in the transcript:

A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

Take president Hinckley's own statement in response to the questions and add the fact that we still teach quotes from Joseph, President Snow and other prophets about deification and I think we've established the Saints believe it and President Hinckley believed it.

[cwald]

I guess clicking a link is too difficult. So I will help you.

As reported:

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.

A: Yeah

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’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it...I understand the philosophical background behind it.. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

Complete statement in the transcript:

A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

Take president Hinckley's own statement in response to the questions and add the fact that we still teach quotes from Joseph, President Snow and other prophets about deification and I think we've established the Saints believe it and President Hinckley believed it.

Well, actually, I might come up with a different conclusion.

[KevinG]

self censured for testiness...

Edited July 22, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

Would that those in opposition to the LDS Church hang as strongly on the inspired words of the living prophets as they do to a passing comment incompletely quoted by the press.

[ShawFanX]

Yeah, but wasn't it Pres. Hinckley who said the church had pulled back on this teaching, in the Larry King interview? What am I missing?

No. He was just not casting any pearls before bacon. That's all.

[ShawFanX]

There are a whole lot of traditions in the church which are speculation, often completely consistent with our understanding, but not themselves supported by scriptures or revelation. It is completely correct that leaders have, ever since the 1978 priesthood change, suggested that speculating in areas where we don't have specific revelation is not as wise as simply saying "we don't know". Yes, JS probably said it in the King Follet Sermon. But it is not taught as doctrine because little to nothing has been revealed about the nature of Heavenly Father's origins.

The teaching - and by extension its implications - are present in recent Church published doctrinal works for use by the general membership:

http://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-2?lang=eng

[cwald]

Okay...but I certainly understand why the critics might be confused as to what the church actually believes, on this issue. I mean, that is fair right?

[Alan]

The statement made by Lorenzo Snow was never sanctioned by the church and has the same status as the Journal of Discourses.

Personally, I don't believe it in the way many church members do.

[CASteinman]

The statement made by Lorenzo Snow was never sanctioned by the church and has the same status as the Journal of Discourses.

This is false. It is official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is not scripture. But it is official doctrine.

[CASteinman]

Yeah, but wasn't it Pres. Hinckley who said the church had pulled back on this teaching, in the Larry King interview? What am I missing?

I think you are not missing so much as adding. He did not say the church had pulled back on this teaching.

[CASteinman]

Okay...but I certainly understand why the critics might be confused as to what the church actually believes, on this issue. I mean, that is fair right?

If it were possible to confuse them further with such little effort, I would be all for it.

[ShawFanX]

This is false. It is official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is not scripture. But it is official doctrine.

I think this is correct. Not all official doctrine is in the scriptures, nor are all the implications of things said in scriptures official doctrine...yet.

[Tacenda]

Man, Potential to Become like Heavenly Father

see also Father; Immortality; Perfection.

• let them have dominion, Gen. 1:26 (Moses 2:26).
  
• man is become as one of us, Gen. 3:22 (Moses 4:28).
  
• be holy: for I … am holy, Lev. 19:2 (1 Pet. 1:16).
  
• thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, Ps. 8:5
  
• madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands, Ps. 8:6
  
• Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High, Ps. 82:6
  
• Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father, Matt. 5:48 (3 Ne. 12:48).
  
• spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have, Luke 24:39
  
• Is it not written in your law … Ye are gods, John 10:34 (Ps. 82:1–8; D&C 76:58).
  
• we are the offspring of God, Acts 17:29
  
• heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ, Rom. 8:17
  
• changed into the same image from glory to glory, 2 Cor. 3:18
  
• if a son, then an heir of God through Christ, Gal. 4:7
  
• Till we all come … unto a perfect man, Eph. 4:13
  
• be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live, Heb. 12:9
  
• when he shall appear, we shall be like him, 1 Jn. 3:2
  
• him that overcometh will … sit with me in my throne, Rev. 3:21
  
• men are, that they might have joy, 2 Ne. 2:25
  
• to them have I given to become the sons of God, 3 Ne. 9:17
  
• what manner of men ought ye to be … even as I am, 3 Ne. 27:27
  
• your joy shall be full … shall be even as I am, 3 Ne. 28:10
  
• you shall have eternal life, D&C 14:7
  
• Ye who are quickened by … celestial glory, D&C 88:29
  
• saints shall … be made equal with him, D&C 88:107
  
• you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified, D&C 93:20
  
• Man was also in the beginning with God, D&C 93:29
  
• every man shall enter into his eternal presence, D&C 121:32
  
• spirits of just men made perfect, D&C 129:3
  
• he is a man like ourselves, D&C 130:1
  
• Father has a body of flesh and bones, D&C 130:22
  
• in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order, D&C 131:2 (D&C 131:1–4).
  
• shall they be gods, because they have all power, D&C 132:20 (D&C 132:1–24).
  
• that men might be made partakers of the glories, D&C 133:57
  
• to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, Moses 1:39
  
• I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy, JS—H 1:17
  

See also 2 Tim. 2:10–12; 1 Ne. 11:11; D&C 50:24.

http://www.lds.org/s...father?lang=eng

I use to be quite hung up on the teaching that "As Man Now Is, God Once Was; As God Is Now Man May Be", probably because I'd been perusing non lds sites that teach that it is blasphemous to believe that we can be Gods. Because in the bible it says, there are no other Gods before me, and no other Gods after me, (don't have the scripture in front of me). So this became a touchy subject to discuss with my husband. Then one day It kinda sunk in, that maybe it isn't blasphemous, after my husband told me in the scriptures we are to become like him. He explained it to me like this, we want our children to grow up, leave the nest and start their own families, like we've done. And God wants us to have what he has. So lately I've come around and it's easier for me to think about it in those terms.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Tacenda

[CASteinman]

I think this is correct. Not all official doctrine is in the scriptures, nor are all the implications of things said in scriptures official doctrine...yet.

I consider anything published under the auspices and with the approval of the First Presidency and/or the Quorum of the 12 as official bodies, to be official doctrine. This would include the Handbook of Instructions, Lesson Materials and so forth as well as the Scriptures.

I do not consider the term "official doctrine" to be the same as truth but the isomorphism is substantial and superior to competitive products of the world.

[Buzzard]

If it were possible to confuse them further with such little effort, I would be all for it.

And a jolly good job of doing so has been done. Meanwhile, faithful members of the kingdom who listen to the spirit and official church pronouncements suffer from no such confusion.

Such a profound, joyful, and elegant doctrine, and the critics attempt to boil it down to "Mormons get their own planet". Sucks to be a critic sometimes, I suppose.

[KevinG]

On my planet Brussels Sprouts will taste like dark chocolate. Nuff said.

[CASteinman]

On my planet Brussels Sprouts will taste like dark chocolate. Nuff said.

LOL... I recall a fellow I know -- not a Mormon. He constantly had me in stitches. He one time said, "There are a lot of women are are glad I am not a god -- like her for instance" (nodding toward a pretty lady). I told him, "When you are able to get over those lusts you will be on your way". He said "Well then.. what's the point?"

This is exactly the kind of thing that is a problem with discussions of deification. It is very hard for us to put down the lenses of our fallen natures and see ourselves and each other as we should be seen. And it is this failure of vision that the critics use in their attack on us.

I really like the quote by CS Lewis (well, I like most of it) and use it often:

It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no 'ordinary' people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilisations -- these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whome we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit -- immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously -- no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner -- no mere tolerance or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment.

Edited July 22, 2012 by CASteinman

[cwald]

self censured for testiness...

Thank you. No need to make it personal.

[BCSpace]

Yeah, but wasn't it Pres. Hinckley who said the church had pulled back on this teaching, in the Larry King interview? What am I missing?

The fact that he didn't end on "I don't know that we teach that." He was obviously thinking out loud. Not a good thing to do in front of the media but none of us is perfect. Even if he had, which he didn't, there is still the matter of all 15 apostles and prophets having to approve doctrine such being signified by official publication. Didn't happen either.