SamIam Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 Man, Potential to Become like Heavenly Father 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. I like the softer tone. - very nice.
Tacenda Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 I like the softer tone. - very nice.Thanks SamIam, hopefully I don't have a relapse !
SeekerB Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Understanding God is a whole lot easier for LDS individuals than it is for the other christian denominations and adherants to other faiths. I have heard or read comments that God doesn't do a good job letting people know He exists and don't understand why He doesn't speak with the voice of thunder.The idea that this life is a test to see if we are worthy to become like God greatly lessens the confusion others have about His nature and why He does or doesn't do things . Edited July 23, 2012 by SeekerB 1
Anakin7 Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Man, Potential to Become like Heavenly Fathersee 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. 8:5madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands, Ps. 8:6Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High, Ps. 82:6Be 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 24:39Is 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 17:29heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ, Rom. 8:17changed into the same image from glory to glory, 2 Cor. 3:18if a son, then an heir of God through Christ, Gal. 4:7Till we all come … unto a perfect man, Eph. 4:13be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live, Heb. 12:9when he shall appear, we shall be like him, 1 Jn. 3:2him that overcometh will … sit with me in my throne, Rev. 3:21men are, that they might have joy, 2 Ne. 2:25to them have I given to become the sons of God, 3 Ne. 9:17what manner of men ought ye to be … even as I am, 3 Ne. 27:27your joy shall be full … shall be even as I am, 3 Ne. 28:10you shall have eternal life, D&C 14:7Ye who are quickened by … celestial glory, D&C 88:29saints shall … be made equal with him, D&C 88:107you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified, D&C 93:20Man was also in the beginning with God, D&C 93:29every man shall enter into his eternal presence, D&C 121:32spirits of just men made perfect, D&C 129:3he is a man like ourselves, D&C 130:1Father has a body of flesh and bones, D&C 130:22in 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 133:57to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, Moses 1:39I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy, JS—H 1:17See also 2 Tim. 2:10–12; 1 Ne. 11:11; D&C 50:24.http://www.lds.org/s...father?lang=engI 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. Don't forget 2 Cor 8:9In His Eternal Debt/GraceAnakin7LDS JEDI KNIGHT
Storm Rider Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 LDS theology, or more properly those who wish to focus on a single element, miss out on the more significant meanings of Exaltation. To contemplate what it would be like to become one with the Father and the Son; could anything be more glorious? To know that through Jesus' atonement all was given to you, to understand that love, to feel that love constantly, how humbling would that be? I find it crass when Exaltation is summed up with creating a planet. If we are one with the Father, who is actually creating a planet? If we are one with the Father who will always be God? Too much is lost when the conversation is limited to a single event that might be. The fault is as much our own fault as those who try to seek to destroy or criticize. Those who deny Exaltation, Deification, or Theosis are those who deny scripture and do not understand God's Word. We will become one with the Father and the Son, actually one with him. All else pales in comparison to that single, wonderful, humbling reality. 1
tyler90az Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 It is one of my favorite doctrines and I love the King Follet Sermon.The critics do not understand the doctrine correctly. In the sermon it speaks clearly about the fact that we will never surpass Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ. Each one of us who becomes exalted will add glory onto them. In the same way we will add glory onto any family member who is exalted before us. They tend to think it means we will be equal to God one day. Although we will be one with God, have as much power as he does now, he will only get more power. Think of it how God and Christ are one, that does not mean Christ has more power then God.
DonBradley Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 I don't think President Hinckley was equivocating on our doctrine. I think he was soft-pedaling a bit in dealing with the media on this, because that was always his approach in talking with the media on things the world might find "weird."Take this, for instance, from an interview with the Australian ABC new show "Compass," November 9, 1997:RB: So with you, God has a physical body?GBH: He’s an individual - as is His Son, Jesus Christ.RB: And God has a wife?GBH: I don’t know, but I suppose so. As we have a Father I assume we have a mother.RB: I understood your teachings said that God has a wife?GBH: Yes. Well we.... Yes we have a mother in heaven. We believe so. We’re sons and daughters of God.[...]GBH: If you’re a child you have to have a mother.Though President Hinckley believes and acknowledges that we have a Heavenly Mother, he soft pedals his answer a bit because he knows it will sound shocking to other Christians.President Hinckley similarly soft pedaled his answer about guiding the Church by revelation:RB: As the world leader of the the Church, how are you in touch with God? Can you explain that for me?GBH: I pray. I pray to Him. Night and morning. I speak with Him. I think He hears my prayers. As He hears the prayers of others. I think He answers them.RB: But more than that, because you’re leader of the Church. Do you have a special connection?GBH: I have a special relationship in terms of the Church as an institution. Yes.RB: And you receive........GBH: For the entire Church.RB: You receive?GBH: Now we don’t need a lot of continuing revelation. We have a great, basic reservoir of revelation. But if a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in prayer. We discuss it as a First Presidency and as a Council of the Twelve Apostles. We pray about it and then comes the whisperings of a still small voice. And we know the direction we should take and we proceed accordingly.RB: And this is a Revelation?GBH: This is a Revelation.RB: How often have you received such revelations?GBH: Oh, I don’t know. I feel satisfied that in some circumstances we’ve had such revelation. It’s a very sacred thing that we don’t like to talk about a lot. A very sacred thing.Q: But it’s a special experience?GBH: I think it’s a real thing. It’s a very real thing. And a special experience.Here President Hinckley understated the receipt of revelation in the Church (e.g., that he "thinks" we have it and is "satisfied" we do). Should we take this to mean that he, and the Church, were backing off from our central claim--continuing revelation? Of course not. So why would we take his similarly media-soft pedaled answer about the Lorenzo Snow couplet to mean he was backing off from the doctrine that God was once like us?As President Hinckley clearly stated in the following General Conference, we should "never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church." The press is just not where doctrine will be clearly and authoritatively laid out.Don 3
DonBradley Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 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.If you read the sermon reports, you may find a few surprises.For instance, was the sermon actually given at the funeral of King Follett, who had died a month earlier? Or was it delivered on a more formal and authoritative occasion? Exactly what was going on in Nauvoo on April 7, 1844?Also, what did the Prophet say he was going to do in this sermon, where did he say he learned its doctrine on God's origin, and what testimony did he bear of it, and how important did he regard it in the Gospel? (e.g., fill in the blank: "It is the _____ 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.")Finally, what did he say about how his declaration of this doctrine related to his being a true, or false, prophet?Seek and ye shall find... Don 2
Alan Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 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.It is not official doctrine of the church at all. Reference please.
Alan Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) To me, this idea that we will become Gods (rather than gods) is quite wrong. I do not believe that anyone will ever pray to me or worship me. If I am exalted in the celestial kingdom my spiritual posterity will pray to and worship the same being I do. Edited July 23, 2012 by Alan
CASteinman Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) It is not official doctrine of the church at all.Reference please. Aaronic Priesthood Manual 2, (1993), Lesson #1 "Who Am I" pages 1-3.Teachings of Presidents of the Church: George Albert Smith, 2010, Lesson #7 "The Immortality of the Soul" page 71I would further point out that in addition to it being used officially by First Presidency approved doctrinal instruction materials, it is considered a condensation of things taught in a variety of places in the scriptures and brought into one phrase. As President Kimball said:"We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were said by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: “As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.”"However, my argument does not rest on President Kimball's statement. It rests on the fact that official doctrinal instructional materials, developed, edited and approved under the hand of the First Presidency, present it as a doctrinal fact. President Kimball's statement merely summarizes its ties back to the Standard Works. Edited July 23, 2012 by CASteinman
CASteinman Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 To me, this idea that we will become Gods (rather than gods) is quite wrong. I do not believe that anyone will ever pray to me or worship me. If I am exalted in the celestial kingdom my spiritual posterity will pray to and worship the same being I do.You are not required to believe it. But, Joseph Smith was a prophet of God -- and he absolutely taught it.
CASteinman Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 It is one of my favorite doctrines and I love the King Follet Sermon.I wish we could canonize it as scripture. Unfortunately we do not have a sufficiently verifiable version and Joseph Smith died before he could write it down, corrected. 2
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 I wish we'd canonize it as well, along with the Sermon in the Grove and all the First Vision accounts. 1
KevinG Posted July 23, 2012 Author Posted July 23, 2012 Thank you. No need to make it personal.Remember that criticizing someones sacred beliefs is always personal. I will try to be as civil as I can in response however. 2
halconero Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 It is not official doctrine of the church at all.Reference please.Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46)Taken from the Gospel Principles book, Chapter 47: Exaltation, pg. 279. This is the book used to teach new members, less-actives, or investigators in the Gospel Principles Sunday School class. Therefore, this is a principle of the Gospel. The first principle actually. Joseph said that if he did not teach this and reveal the character of God he was not a true prophet.My question is. If this is not a doctrine the of the church why would the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve approve of us teaching it as a Gospel Principle to those relatively young in the Gospel? For some investigators coming to Church for the first time it is one of the first things they learn, at least it was for Juan, one of the people I taught.He asked us about that quote later after class. Should I have told him "Hey, don't worry about it. Even though it was taught to you in Sunday School, and yes it is in the manual it's not actually true doctrine. Turns out God IS the author of confusion. He just permitted His prophets, seers and revelators to put that in there to mess with people." 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 I don't have a problem with Theosis, but the Lorenso Snow couplet is not doctrine.See http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine
Closet Doubter Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 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.I always believed the same but I see us backtracking on many of the teachings of Joseph Fielding Smith (doctrines of salvation), Bruce McConkie (mormon doctrine) and others. Things recorded in Journal of Discourses are brushed off as the prophet or apostle speaking as a man. If I can't count on the information written in official church publications or the teachings of the prophets and apostles at stake or general conference to be true because it may turn out they are just speaking as men, what good are they for me. When I have to depend on sites like MD&D to figure out what the church really believes and what is really doctrine, why do we need the general authorities? Why doesn't the Prophet or the Apostles come out with definitive statements on the issues that are controversial? 1
Closet Doubter Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 I don't think President Hinckley was equivocating on our doctrine. I think he was soft-pedaling a bit in dealing with the media on this, because that was always his approach in talking with the media on things the world might find "weird."Take this, for instance, from an interview with the Australian ABC new show "Compass," November 9, 1997:RB: So with you, God has a physical body?Though President Hinckley believes and acknowledges that we have a Heavenly Mother, he soft pedals his answer a bit because he knows it will sound shocking to other Christians.President Hinckley similarly soft pedaled his answer about guiding the Church by revelation:Here President Hinckley understated the receipt of revelation in the Church (e.g., that he "thinks" we have it and is "satisfied" we do). Should we take this to mean that he, and the Church, were backing off from our central claim--continuing revelation? Of course not. So why would we take his similarly media-soft pedaled answer about the Lorenzo Snow couplet to mean he was backing off from the doctrine that God was once like us?As President Hinckley clearly stated in the following General Conference, we should "never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church." The press is just not where doctrine will be clearly and authoritatively laid out.DonI guess part of my problem is I expect a prophet to speak as someone with authority. I can't imagine someone asking Joseph Smith about any of these doctrines and not getting an authoritative and definitive answer. I didn't see this with any of President Hinckley's interviews. Relating to one of my favorite movie series, Lord of the Rings, I feel like we are being led by Stewards while we are waiting for the return of a King (prophet). 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) closet doubt:Whatever their value Doctrines of Salvation, Mormon Doctrine, and the Journal of Discourses have never been accepted by the Church as doctrine. Nor are they official church publications.See http://www.mormonnew...mormon-doctrineNot every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.Don't take anything you read on MD&D as LDS doctrine. Not even what I tell you. Look it up yourself, and then go to the Lord for confirmation.As men they are entitled to any opinion they want to claim. The Church however has a higher standard. Edited July 23, 2012 by thesometimesaint
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 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.I taught it from lesson material on Sunday...so if we are "pulling back", I did not get the memo.
treehugger Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 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.What is the incomplete quote?What is the complete quote?What makes the message from the so called "complete quote" that the makes the so called incomplete quote unreliable?
KevinG Posted July 23, 2012 Author Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) What is the incomplete quote?What is the complete quote?What makes the message from the so called "complete quote" that the makes the so called incomplete quote unreliable?I am beginning to see a pattern among those who complain the church does not inform people of their doctrine and history well enough.Read the thread please for answers to your questions. Edited July 23, 2012 by KevinG
treehugger Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) I am beginning to see a pattern among those who complain the church does not inform people of their doctrine and history well enough.Read the thread please for answers to your questions.And i see a pattern of claims made with no substance to back the claim.I read the thread. All I see is you claiming.g something without showing.g evidence of what you claim.Again I ask, what is the alleged incomplete quote that is attributed to Pres. Hinckley? What is the complete quote. And how do the two differ. Edited July 23, 2012 by treehugger
Recommended Posts