Alan Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 The way I see it is that upon attaining exaltation we will (if I can be excused for using business terminlogy) be promoted to the board of the family business. As such we will be given resposibilities and be able to pursue them with a degree of autonomy. We may even be able to hold stock in the business. However, The Father remains as CEO and it remains His business ultimately. Everything will be done for His glory. As the business succeeds so will we; but we will not depose God or head a rival business (that's Lucifer's enterprise).The idea that we can replace God the Father in the affections of future generations of human beings is abhorent to me and should be, in my view, to every right thinking LDS.As for Lorenzo Snow's "couplet", if we apply it to Jesus Christ it fits perfectly.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 Really?Looks like a checklist to me. BernardIt is a lesson...how else to teach. Would you or others feel better if not numbered.
cinepro Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) 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 think it's great that this doctrine was reiterated in Sacrament Meeting.That being said, to the degree that this has veered into a discussion of President Hinckley's "I don't know that we teach that" comment, I will say this was one of the only times I was truly disappointed in a media appearance by President Hinckley.But compounding my disappointment is his subsequent non-clarification in conference; I'm surprised LDS have found it convincing or helpful, and I suspect there is quite a bit of wishful thinking involved in the reception of this comment:"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 1997Ok, what is missing from that statement? How about actually clarifying what the doctrine is, he being a Prophet speaking to the faithful in General Conference, and all that? He doesn't say which doctrine he is referring to, and then assures us he "understands them thoroughly" but doesn't share his thorough understanding with us. So we're left with two evasive interviews and a non-clarification. This is PR and politics, not "declaring the doctrine."Well played, President Hinckley. Well played. Edited July 25, 2012 by cinepro
KevinG Posted July 25, 2012 Author Posted July 25, 2012 What was missing from that statement was the context and the middle two sentences. I'm much more likely to find the Journal of Discourses, President Snow and scriptural references to deification more authoritative than an offhand remark to Time Magazine complete with ellipses, even if that remark was made by a living prophet.
cinepro Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) What was missing from that statement was the context and the middle two sentences. I'm much more likely to find the Journal of Discourses, President Snow and scriptural references to deification more authoritative than an offhand remark to Time Magazine complete with ellipses, even if that remark was made by a living prophet.The doctrine that God was once a mortal man, and that we can become like God, was just as much a doctrine (and current teaching of the Church) 10 seconds before President Hinckley made his comment as it was 10 seconds after. His statement doesn't reflect on that fact. I only find this situation interesting for how President Hinckley handled it.I honestly don't know why he didn't just say "Yes, we teach that. Isn't it marvelous? Next question."If the interviewer tried to probe deeper, that is the opportunity to say that we don't know much more about it, and that it is a philosophical subject that isn't emphasized. But there's nothing wrong with admitting that we do teach it. It has been taught to every man and woman in the Church several times in the last few years. It's easily viewable on the church website. President Hinckley is only lucky that the interviewer didn't have a Church-published lesson manual on hand to respond to his "I don't know that we teach it" comment. That would have been embarrassing! Edited July 25, 2012 by cinepro
cinepro Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 And the Primary kids too...10.Across10 - He wrote as a couplet (two lines of verse) a revelation that he had and that the Prophet Joseph Smith said was true: As man ____ is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.
KevinG Posted July 25, 2012 Author Posted July 25, 2012 President Hinckley is only lucky that the interviewer didn't have a Church-published lesson manual on hand to respond to his "I don't know that we teach it" comment. That would have been embarrassing!I suspect that the hesitancy to discuss the topic was that President Hinckley was more worried about casting pearls before a gotcha question (derived from the cheap shot "God sinned" and "Jesus and Satan are brothers" interpretations of our complex and deep understanding of the nature of God) rather than misremembering our doctrines or what is published in our manuals. 2
KevinG Posted July 25, 2012 Author Posted July 25, 2012 Thank you by the way for supporting my opening post with yet additional evidence that we are not pulling away from our doctrines and teachings of the nature of God.
thesometimesaint Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) cinepro:I don't remember when the last time i've had any Gospel Doctrine classes on what God did before creating this earth, or let alone claiming that God sinned. But then I've been a member of the Church for only 41 years. Edited July 25, 2012 by thesometimesaint 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 The way I see it is that upon attaining exaltation we will (if I can be excused for using business terminlogy) be promoted to the board of the family business. As such we will be given resposibilities and be able to pursue them with a degree of autonomy. We may even be able to hold stock in the business. However, The Father remains as CEO and it remains His business ultimately. Everything will be done for His glory. As the business succeeds so will we; but we will not depose God or head a rival business (that's Lucifer's enterprise).The idea that we can replace God the Father in the affections of future generations of human beings is abhorent to me and should be, in my view, to every right thinking LDS.As for Lorenzo Snow's "couplet", if we apply it to Jesus Christ it fits perfectly.This analogy is OK, I suppose, as far as analogies go, but it does not do justice to the doctrinal concept expressed in John 17, Jesus's intercessory prayer, wherein he prays that his disciples will be "one" with him and his Father, even as His Father and He are one. I take this oneness to mean that they are one in every meaningful sense of the word except the sectarian concept of one in substance.
cinepro Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) I suspect that the hesitancy to discuss the topic was that President Hinckley was more worried about casting pearls before a gotcha question (derived from the cheap shot "God sinned" and "Jesus and Satan are brothers" interpretations of our complex and deep understanding of the nature of God) rather than misremembering our doctrines or what is published in our manuals.As far as I can tell, the question didn't involve "God sinned" or "Jesus and Satan are brothers", so I'm not sure how those points are relevant. Where did that come from?This is the complete question, according to FAIR: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? Edited July 25, 2012 by cinepro
altersteve Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 As far as I'm concerned, President Snow never defined what man being "as" God means and he never explained the extent to which man may be "as" God, nor did he tell us how God was once "as" man. It's a very complicated idea and it's impossible for us to fully understand it at this stage in our existence.My $0.02. 1
KevinG Posted July 25, 2012 Author Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) As far as I can tell, the question didn't involve "God sinned" or "Jesus and Satan are brothers", so I'm not sure how those points are relevant. Where did that come from?I will spell it out a bit more clearly for you... This question was among a long list of particular LDS beliefs and President Hinckley refrained from getting into a detailed description of deification. I suspect one of the reasons he did was to avoid his explanations being used as fodder for the crowd who engages in nasty speculation and misrepresentation of our beliefs (for example "Jesus and Satan were brothers" or "LDS believe God was a sinner"). There may be other reasons he demurred and said we don't emphasize it- in particular wanting to focus on the basics like the Atonement.In short where it came from for me is the past and present behavior of the press and critics who like to twist statements until they no longer recognize the intent.Whatever his reasons I can understand the hesitancy to get into lengthy explanations and discourses when in front of the press. I wish he had a more ready statement at the time but the critics insistence on using this one passing and heavily edited statement as evidence we are pulling back from teaching deification is ridiculous. Your evidences show this quite clearly.Pearls before swine and all that. Edited July 25, 2012 by KevinG 1
cinepro Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 As far as I'm concerned, President Snow never defined what man being "as" God means and he never explained the extent to which man may be "as" God, nor did he tell us how God was once "as" man. It's a very complicated idea and it's impossible for us to fully understand it at this stage in our existence.My $0.02.There are other teachings on the subject. It's not all President Snow...“God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make Himself visible,—I say, if you were to see Him today, you would see Him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.- Joseph Smith
KevinG Posted July 25, 2012 Author Posted July 25, 2012 When I read Joseph's teachings I get the impression they weren't so much about making a man out of God but that God seeks to make gods out of men. 1
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 cinepro:I don't remember when the last time i've had any Gospel Doctrine classes on what God did before creating this earth, or let alone claiming that God sinned. But then I've been a member of the Church for only 41 years.We do not teach that God sinned...you are correct. All that Christ did (in his words) "all that I do I have seen the Father do". He saw Elohim's perfect life and did likewise.
thesometimesaint Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 Pa Pa:We don't teach either. IMNTBHO President Hinckley was being absolutely correct in what he said.
altersteve Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 There are other teachings on the subject. It's not all President Snow...Yes, I know. And I've talked about this before, including my take on Joseph Smith's King Follett sermon. What I meant when I said we don't know how God was like us was that we don't know the extent to which He was like us. That He looks like we do still does not explain how this is the case, nor does it address the extent to which He is similar to us. He has a body like we do, yes, but we need to understand that having a body to Him may be completely different to how having a body is for us, and He may not even have a body in the way that we would currently understand it except that He is physical and has physical dimensions in time and space. But He may not even live in this "time and space," so we can't even speculate on that. So who knows what the specifics of becoming "like Him" are or what they mean or imply.Like I said, we know far too little about this subject to really say much about it except that we have the potential to become like Him in some manner. But we don't know the specifics of that. It's fun to think about, but our limited perspective prevents us from going any further.
altersteve Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 When I read Joseph's teachings I get the impression they weren't so much about making a man out of God but that God seeks to make gods out of men.I like this point of view.
altersteve Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 But to be clear, I don't have much of a problem with the traditional idea of "deification" in the Church, that we'll be exactly like God is now. Of course that's possible. I just perceive some theological holes in that idea. But then again that's to be expected since, like I said, we only have a limited perspective of these concepts. It's next to impossible for us to fully understand them. So maybe these holes I'm seeing really aren't holes at all, merely holes in my own understanding. So for this reason I try to I spend my time worrying about other, more important things I can understand, things closer to home, like trying to come closer to Christ than I was yesterday, loving others as myself, being with my family, and striving to always be of service to my fellow human beings. Those things take priority above all else.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 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. Good for you. I think you can learn about God and the scriptures by looking at our life and how things work here. I raelly am glad you were able to gain this understanding.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 Pa Pa:We don't teach either. IMNTBHO President Hinckley was being absolutely correct in what he said.The Bible teaches that we will, "be joints hiers with Christ". Also that we will "have all that the father has".
Lightbearer Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 The way I see it is that upon attaining exaltation we will (if I can be excused for using business terminlogy) be promoted to the board of the family business. As such we will be given resposibilities and be able to pursue them with a degree of autonomy. We may even be able to hold stock in the business. However, The Father remains as CEO and it remains His business ultimately. Everything will be done for His glory. As the business succeeds so will we; but we will not depose God or head a rival business (that's Lucifer's enterprise).The idea that we can replace God the Father in the affections of future generations of human beings is abhorent to me and should be, in my view, to every right thinking LDS.As for Lorenzo Snow's "couplet", if we apply it to Jesus Christ it fits perfectly.I find it odd that any LDS would find the idea of becoming a God would be abhorent! Instead of seeing the plan of salvation as a business or a corporation... I see it more as a family. God is our Father, we have a mother, and we are the spirit children of Heavenly Parents. We are not His mere creations or creatures. We were created in HIs image, we are His spirit offspring, and as His offspring if we follow the path that Christ has shown us we will become one with them (a God in our own dominions) it is not dethroning God anymore than I "dethrone" my earthly father from His position as the patriarch of my family just because I became a father. In fact He moves further along in His glory and is not dimnished in any way. This doctrine of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man is key to understanding the doctrine of exaltation. We are the children of lights, a race of gods, in fact we are Gods in embryo unless we abort the process by rejecting the Father's plan for us. Our becoming equal with God is not robbery of God's glory, in fact it adds to His glory as we become like Him. That is what the Prophet Joseph Smith taught and that is what is taught in the Church today. It is doctrine, It has been a teaching of the church for the 44 years I have been a member. It was taught in Primary, Sunday School, Priesthood, Seminary, Institute, I taught it in the Mission field and continue to teach it today. Every prophet (including President Hinckley) has taught this doctrine and although there may be some in the church who are uncomfortable with it, I think it is because of the baggage they may be carrying from their former religions which is why "their creeds are an abomination in His sight." 1
ERayR Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 But, if you say so.You must learn to understand what someone says is interpreted by them not by what your biases want to hear.
Recommended Posts