President Hinckley'S Denial And The Lorenzo Snow Manual

[Calm]

This has been a fascinating discussion. I am witnessing how what I believed as a firm doctrine is evolving before my very eyes.

You do know that not all posters on the board are 'typical' LDS in their interpretations of doctrine and scripture and speculation...I would be cautious to see evolution of a doctrine occurring here. There have always in my experience (50+ years) been those who have seen such doctrine in their own unique way.

[Scott Lloyd]

You do know that not all posters on the board are 'typical' LDS in their interpretations of doctrine and scripture and speculation...I would be cautious to see evolution of a doctrine occurring here. There have always in my experience (50+ years) been those who have seen such doctrine in their own unique way.

And, alas, there have long been those who erroneously hold the Church as an institution accountable for folk doctrine and private speculation by individuals.

[Alan]

God the Father is the most high God. In my view he has no father and such an idea is ludicrous to me.

There is not one scripture reference in any of the standard works that says otherwise.

[Ahab]

Me: There's a flaw or two with your reasoning, although I can relate to what you're talking about and once saw things as you do. Each man is not an island unto himself, although we each bear personal responsibility for our own choices.

You: I don't know how you could know that you "once saw things as do." Similarities, especially as expressed in text, can become misleading. For instance, "each man IS an island unto himself." Evidence is only for that and nothing else. We are each egocentric. We never touch metaphysically, mentally or spiritually. Our senses share the empirical world only, and by our senses we communicate what each of us individually is sensing/experiencing. But in this world we are indeed separated into our own egocentric worlds. The only One we contact outside of our empirical (mortal) senses is "God".

Me again: I see what you mean, and I've seen it even before I met you, but you're not considering how each one of us is interrelated. We didn't get to be what we are on our own, without anyone else, and we don't continue to live without anyone else helping to form what we become later. We are family. We have a common Father, and as his children we still interact both in the mortal and immortal realms. You'll never be able to escape that reality, regardless of where you go. You're stuck with us now, so you might as well try your best to get along with us. You will never be an island unto yourself without any interaction with us.

Me: Let's expand on your thought that each religion is a man-made religion. I don't see a big problem with that when considering my understanding of what "man" is, but let's pretend that I don't know man is the same kind of being as God.

You: Textually, at least, we seem to agree that man is the same as God. And when God manifests as one of us in form we are the same kind of being as God too.

Me again: Yes, and he always manifest himself as one of us because he is one of us, and all of us, as well as himself who begat us, spiritually.

Me: Or maybe what would be better is to limit your use of the word "God" to our Father in heaven.

You: Not for me. "God the Father" is how "God" manifests for our benefit. But that kind of nuance of belief really doesn't make any practical difference in how a person who believes behaves toward "God".

Me again: How or in what sense we regard him as our "Father" can make a really big difference in how we behave towards him. I know it did for me once I realized it was in a literal, physical sense and not just as a metaphor or an abstract thought.

...

Me: Can you now see how God would use one religion more than another, because one religion (or the men in that religion) would be more open to him using them to advance light and truth? Forget about which religion that may be for a moment, because I'm not trying to make that the focus. Just realize how God would use one religion more than another because that religion (or those men in that religion) would be more open to God using them to advance light and truth.

You: I see where you are going with this, and I happen to believe that the LDS faith is the best organized (dogmatic) religion on the planet today. But I would be, possibly, the last person to push that on anyone. Missionaries are looking for those who are looking for them, not out there to convince anyone that "Mormons, Mormons, are the best, we feel sorry, for the rest!"

Nevertheless, my belief is not evidence that "God" works best within some religions and not so much through other religions. People individually find more or less compatibility with a given religion. It doesn't matter "where" they are in spiritual or metaphysical terms, we are all progressing, and comparisons to others are not beneficial at all. So "where" is a non subject. "What" is directly addressable. "What" I am is the most important definer of "who" I am. And "what" I am is either honest and true or otherwise. If a person is devoted to being honest and true then s/he will not lie to the self or anyone else. This kind of person is in all religions. There is no religion that purports to follow "God" that is not built on the virtue of integrity, with personal integrity as the requisite quality. So making a judgment of the world's religions as advanced or deficient is to judge what is not ours to know. We cannot know the individuals in them except a mere handful at a time. And in my limited experience, individuals in any religion are equally justified in following that religion.

Me again: The "what" in regards to what I was talking about was in regards to possessing and sharing light and truth. Not all of us have the same amount of that "what". Some have more, and some others have less. The point is to get as much as our Father has and do with it what he does. If it's just intellectual knowledge without being put into practice appropriately into how we live our lives then it's not really doing a whole lot for us and everyone else we interact with.

Me: .. Men don't have more light and truth than God does, since all light and truth is within God's domain, so what you call man-made religion is actually God-inspiried religion, inspired by the degree of light and truth God gives to each man to work with.

You: I agree, all religion is God-inspired religion. But God doesn't dispense light and truth unevenly, and that's how religions become different, because the men change the light and truth according to their limited circumstances. That's another interpretation of the sower and the tares; religion falls in the form of inspiration upon all men at all times, and because of circumstances in some places the inspiration flourishes and enlightenment comes more dominantly and drives back the dark; such was the case in early Islam, in the Iberian peninsula, for example: the influx of Islam raised the level of enlightenment and civilization where barbarized Christianity had held sway before. In many other cases the inspiration is either not recognized or fails to overcome entrenched traditions of darkness, and the result is a less enlightened denomination of the same inspiration.

Me again: We each learn at our own rate as our circumstances allow, but we're not all learning at the same rate and we're not all in the same circumstances, so yes there is an uneven distribution. Not all are ready for what others have already received, but all may become ready eventually. Compare a newborn baby to an old man who has already received a lot of light and truth about how things are in this world. Or compare someone in one religion who has received a lot of light and truth from God through that religion which another man isn't even aware of? Do you still say God doesn't dispense light and truth unevenly?

Me: And there's one other point you might want to consider for a moment. I don't share the doctrine I accept simply because I am a member of a particular religion. That would be looking at it backwards. I first accepted the light and truth, from wherever I found it, and the light and truth I accept is simply taught by a particular religion (or particular men/women in that religion). And I'm still open to finding light and truth from wherever I find it, but based on my past experience I'm pretty dang sure that any light and truth I find will be something that has already been taught by people in my religion, because we have God with us to give us light and truth.

You: I've been impressed by the amount of light and truth in the LDS faith. I am less impressed the more I learn about the world. Or rather, I am more impressed that all religion is far more equal than I had considered before. The only paradigm that makes sense of my 'satiable imagination is the wider view: that "God" works all in all, as I said above. If dogmatic religion is valid then all are valid, and it does no good to try and define which are better. The teachings, official doctrines, etc., are virtually equal as far as "enlightened" are concerned. The Quran is drawn from the Arabic culture, the Old Testament from the Jewish/Israelite, the New Testament from the Greco-Roman overlaid on the Jewish, the Mormon from the preexisting Judeo-Christian. The "Eastern" religions have their own traditions of borrowing going back thousands of years. Morality in all of them overlaps in the highest degree. "Comeupance" is taught in all of them as a result of personal actions and desires. Salvation/redemption, enlightenment, are the goals of them all. Seeking "God" is the ultimate quest, to be rewarded by reunion for the "faithful", and the "faithful" are defined by their personal integrity. That this set of shared ideals is compromised by human failings is not surprising, and it is inevitable.

That one organized religion might possess a greater percentage of its members as faithful examples of its dogmatic beliefs than the rest is surely the case, but how are we to judge? And what would be the purpose of judging? Apostasy is a common thread in all religions. To point to one at a given place and time as superior will be useless in proving which religion that God works most in, since all religions, the older they get, have historical baggage relating to their lowest time when their people were behaving in evil ways and largely disowned their own doctrines. Islam, for example, is today being co-opted (again) by fanatics, yet that does not disprove the historical evidence that the religion was at one time far more enlightened (proven by learning and civilization which followed) than all the religions around it. Much of what raised Christianity out of its barbarism was what it gleaned from contact with Islam. And today, the reverse can be true, if Islam learns from the Christian past, and modern Christians don't forget what they already know about fundamentalism....

Me again: We can judge by judging the amount of light and truth available through each God-inspired religion. The fact that someone may disregard or fail to recognize light and truth where it is doesn't negate the fact that the light and truth is still there. Most people who apostasize from a God-inspired precept in a religion do so because they no longer consider something to be a God-inspired precept of light or truth, even though in all cases it is. Otherwise instead of falling they're moving forward by accepting more light and truth than they once had. Nobody stays put. We're either moving forward or backward.

[Questing Beast]

God the Father is the most high God. In my view he has no father and such an idea is ludicrous to me.

There is not one scripture reference in any of the standard works that says otherwise.

Amen, brother. But I qualify "God the Father" as an anthropomorphic manifestation for our benefit, as I have already said. GtF is not transcended by any other manifestation, but there are infinite manifestations of equal authenticity to GtF. Joseph Smith got his views on the Godhead from a combination of upbringing/tradition, and personal experience. The nature and purpose of the Godhead is the important lesson, not the apparently "physical" appearance of the manifestation of that Godhead, which does not agree with other metaphysical manifestations of God, that, imho, are just as valid as Joseph Smith's, or Paul's, or Joshua's, et al. any who have "seen God". Some cultures see God as the ultimate Matriarch, the "earth mother", or in pantheistic order, with the ultimate Creator at the top. Pagans who gave veneration to a pantheon of lesser gods/goddesses were not in thrall to the Creator of all Existence, and as far as I can tell they were aware of this fact, yet had their beliefs co-opted by that pantheon of lesser gods/goddesses who were very much "in their faces" in a big way. "God" steadily enlightened the world through truth, and said-pantheonistic beliefs faded and all but disappeared. But nothing is ever lost or forgotten entirely, and some people today are turning back to the "old ways" voluntarily. Mostly their asserted "neo-paganism" is a fetish or conceit, imho, and not a genuine belief in a personal religion. The world of today either dispenses with God altogether or believes in "him" more than ever....

[Questing Beast]

... You're stuck with us now, so you might as well try your best to get along with us. You will never be an island unto yourself without any interaction with us.

I did not mean to give the impression that "I am (as an Island)" wants to be solitary. "Children" is plural, in other words there are siblings. But no matter how many of us there are, we still exist ALONE metaphysically apart from each other. Perhaps in the "afterlife", which is the same state as the "preexistence" there is metaphysical communion in the nature of "mind reading", but we have no evidence of that here.

[God] always manifest himself as one of us because he is one of us, and all of us, as well as himself who begat us, spiritually.

We seem to share a concept of God that is more in agreement than disharmony.

... Not all of us have the same amount of that "what". Some have more, and some others have less. The point is to get as much as our Father has and do with it what he does. If it's just intellectual knowledge without being put into practice appropriately into how we live our lives then it's not really doing a whole lot for us and everyone else we interact with.

The point I was making is that religions are "populated" because the members find them satisfying. The religions that die are the ones that no longer give what their former members wanted. So God is constantly meeting everyone where they move to, God is never left behind, but is always up ahead of where we are, prepared with guidance as we need it.

I don't know of anyone getting only "intellectual knowledge". It is all spiritual as well as empirical. That the spiritual is not acknowledged seems irrelevant to me. A state of existence is mostly unnoticed by us, but is real just the same.

We each learn at our own rate as our circumstances allow, but we're not all learning at the same rate and we're not all in the same circumstances, so yes there is an uneven distribution.

We are the unevenness not God's influence, which is everywhere continually.

... Do you still say God doesn't dispense light and truth unevenly?

Yes. God dispenses fully and forever. We are uneven in our individual capacities. But immortals ALL "get there" eventually.

We can judge by judging the amount of light and truth available through each God-inspired religion. The fact that someone may disregard or fail to recognize light and truth where it is doesn't negate the fact that the light and truth is still there. Most people who apostasize from a God-inspired precept in a religion do so because they no longer consider something to be a God-inspired precept of light or truth, even though in all cases it is. Otherwise instead of falling they're moving forward by accepting more light and truth than they once had. Nobody stays put. We're either moving forward or backward.

To make a judgment on how much light and truth another religion has seems like inescapable observer bias, and even circular logic. As the whole "human race" is manifestly moving forward, according to our own shared history, the evidence tells me that God is advancing all of us together, even while individuals are more or less advanced. There is no moving "backward". We can return and try again at any point in our lives, as the past is probably (I say this on faith) at our complete disposal, much like a role-playing game or especially a computer RPG, where "reset" and "reload" are constant options, and yet are definitely part of "that life".

Apostasy is such a subjective word too. Most large-scale apostasies formed into arguably better religious organizations than the one they left. Those that were not better eventually died off....

Edited March 13, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Ahab]

I did not mean to give the impression that "I am (as an Island)" wants to be solitary. "Children" is plural, in other words there are siblings. But no matter how many of us there are, we still exist ALONE metaphysically apart from each other. Perhaps in the "afterlife", which is the same state as the "preexistence" there is metaphysical communion in the nature of "mind reading", but we have no evidence of that here.

We are individuals, but we are not alone. and we can commune with others of our kind by what can be considered "mind reading".

I can do it more and more, the more I get to know someone, including now being able to read the mind of God.

We seem to share a concept of God that is more in agreement than disharmony.

I've noticed that too, but we still have some disharmony between us.

The point I was making is that religions are "populated" because the members find them satisfying. The religions that die are the ones that no longer give what their former members wanted. So God is constantly meeting everyone where they move to, God is never left behind, but is always up ahead of where we are, prepared with guidance as we need it.

No, not always where they/we move to. Usually he's calling us back to him when we're not where he wants to go.

I don't know of anyone getting only "intellectual knowledge". It is all spiritual as well as empirical. That the spiritual is not acknowledged seems irrelevant to me. A state of existence is mostly unnoticed by us, but is real just the same.

I was talking about how we can "know" something, intellectually, but not be putting that knowledge into practice in how we live our own lives. Like how someone can know intellectually that God is merciful but not being merciful in how they live their own lives.

]We are the unevenness not God's influence, which is everywhere continually.

I was talking about how light and truth are not everywhere in equal amounts. The fact that some have more than some others proves that.

Yes. God dispenses fully and forever. We are uneven in our individual capacities. But immortals ALL "get there" eventually.

He may be dispensing but not all of us are getting it, or at least not evenly, and some of us may never get as much as he gives to others. Satan, for example. I seriously doubt, and yet still hold out a little hope, that maybe someday eventually he'll receive as much light and truth as God is dispensing. So far, not yet, though. How long do you think it will be before he will get it?

]To make a judgment on how much light and truth another religion has seems like inescapable observer bias, and even circular logic. As the whole "human race" is manifestly moving forward, according to our own shared history, the evidence tells me that God is advancing all of us together, even while individuals are more or less advanced. There is no moving "backward". We can return and try again at any point in our lives, as the past is probably (I say this on faith) at our complete disposal, much like a role-playing game or especially a computer RPG, where "reset" and "reload" are constant options, and yet are definitely part of "that life".

Heh, you can say this, and yet you still think of us as being alone? The fact that not all of us are receiving the same amount of light and truth is blatantly obvious to me, and I can see how some of us are falling backwards instead of moving forward with some other people. Thus, the kind of life each one of us lives, the degree of joy we enjoy, the amount of light and truth we receive, is dependent upon how well and to what degree we receive light and truth from our Father. There are 2 extremes on the spectrum, and we're either moving closer to our Father or closer to Satan, with many of us apprarently satisified, at least for now, being somewhere in the middle.

]Apostasy is such a subjective word too. Most large-scale apostasies formed into arguably better religious organizations than the one they left. Those that were not better eventually died off....

An apostasy refers to a falling away, not to an advancement. Those who choose to be faithful to God will keep moving onward and upward in advancement of light and truth, while those who fall away will go the other way and enjoy a lot less. It's never a good idea to apostasize from a God-inspired religion but you can move upward into the best God-inspired religion available when you find it.

[Stone holm]

Amen, brother. But I qualify "God the Father" as an anthropomorphic manifestation for our benefit, as I have already said. GtF is not transcended by any other manifestation, but there are infinite manifestations of equal authenticity to GtF. Joseph Smith got his views on the Godhead from a combination of upbringing/tradition, and personal experience. The nature and purpose of the Godhead is the important lesson, not the apparently "physical" appearance of the manifestation of that Godhead, which does not agree with other metaphysical manifestations of God, that, imho, are just as valid as Joseph Smith's, or Paul's, or Joshua's, et al. any who have "seen God". Some cultures see God as the ultimate Matriarch, the "earth mother", or in pantheistic order, with the ultimate Creator at the top. Pagans who gave veneration to a pantheon of lesser gods/goddesses were not in thrall to the Creator of all Existence, and as far as I can tell they were aware of this fact, yet had their beliefs co-opted by that pantheon of lesser gods/goddesses who were very much "in their faces" in a big way. "God" steadily enlightened the world through truth, and said-pantheonistic beliefs faded and all but disappeared. But nothing is ever lost or forgotten entirely, and some people today are turning back to the "old ways" voluntarily. Mostly their asserted "neo-paganism" is a fetish or conceit, imho, and not a genuine belief in a personal religion. The world of today either dispenses with God altogether or believes in "him" more than ever....

Well yes we are a conformist religion as to certain respects, as we do believe and have doctrinal faith in an anthropomorphic God, rather than in Plato's philosopher god which was intended primarily as a tool for a few to control the masses. But, it comes down to our perception of reality. If we do in fact believe that God does in fact have a solid body of flesh and bone who is able to project His power in some fashion that we do not understand -- then that is the reality for us, and the idea of God as being some thinking realm outside of Plato's cave is interesting, but not the God that we believe in. If we are wrong, then we may never actually know that, however, if we are right then someday you will know that you are wrong. But when I think of conformity, I think of a religion that emphasizes conformity to a certain lifestyle -- and on that there can be division within the faith. There are some Mormons who feel that you have to conform to a certain lifestyle or you have denied the faith, they may be right -- there are others, that believe, no there is plenty of room for diversity in the Church -- you don't have to all look like members of the ideal 1950's Middle-Class White Americans to be a Mormon. That is the conformity issue, not the issue of whether God exists or what he is like. If you believe that God doesn't exist or that he or she is some type of gaseous metaphor, well that is a fine thing to believe if it works for you, but unfortunately you don't believe in Mormonism, because Mormonism does believe in an anthropomorphic God and that that is the hoped for destiny of those trying to exercise their faith. I mean we have ducks and turtles -- ducks aren't turtles no matter how much you want to change them into such.

[Questing Beast]

...

He may be dispensing but not all of us are getting it, or at least not evenly, and some of us may never get as much as he gives to others. Satan, for example. I seriously doubt, and yet still hold out a little hope, that maybe someday eventually he'll receive as much light and truth as God is dispensing. So far, not yet, though. How long do you think it will be before he will get it?

...

"Never" is a long time for immortals, in fact is has no value, no measure for immortals.

"Satan" is a symbolic character to get the point of rebellion across. Given that a real person is occupying that "role" at the present, it does not follow that such a benighted person will forever remain benighted.

D&C 19 seems to make that clear enough, expounding upon the actual meaning/use of the words "eternal" and "endless" vis-a-vis punishment....

[Questing Beast]

@Stone holm: I don't believe that Joseph Smith's God the Father is the end of the subject vis-a-vis what "God" Is. That god is too small. One of an "endless" parade of "gods" is not an object of worship. Reverence, respect, veneration as One with power and in authority, yes, but not the kind of worship that involves prayer. This is imho, of course....

[Stone holm]

@Stone holm: I don't believe that Joseph Smith's God the Father is the end of the subject vis-a-vis what "God" Is. That god is too small. One of an "endless" parade of "gods" is not an object of worship. Reverence, respect, veneration as One with power and in authority, yes, but not the kind of worship that involves prayer. This is imho, of course....

Have never felt overly comfortable with the word "worship", but reverence, respect, verneration -- that I don't see a problem with, in fact it makes a lot of sense in that He is the One who went through the effort to get where He is and then chose to help me get there as well. In fact if you think about that, wouldn't that be a being more worthy of respect and veneration than something we cannot possibly ever know which somehow touched off the "big bang" and hasn't otherwise been involved with us. I think we tend to venerate those who are specifically involved in doing or creating something for our benefit temporally or aesthetically or in the hereafter. Why would we venerate something totally intangible like the void outside the cave in Plato's Philosopher God?

[Ahab]

@Stone holm: I don't believe that Joseph Smith's God the Father is the end of the subject vis-a-vis what "God" Is. That god is too small. One of an "endless" parade of "gods" is not an object of worship. Reverence, respect, veneration as One with power and in authority, yes, but not the kind of worship that involves prayer. This is imho, of course....

I think you're thinking too small. Our Father represents the best of all that God is and can be. If he were not as perfect as another person who is the same kind of being he is, or not as loving, or not as merciful while also being just and charitable, then maybe you'd have a good point, but considering all that he does and is and represents, there isn't anyone better to talk with.

[Stone holm]

I think you're thinking too small. Our Father represents the best of all that God is and can be. If he were not as perfect as another person who is the same kind of being he is, or not as loving, or not as merciful while also being just and charitable, then maybe you'd have a good point, but considering all that he does and is and represents, there isn't anyone better to talk with.

I agree.

[Ahab]

I agree.

Rep point, please. Sheesh. I feel like I have to pull teeth around here to get some while they just flow like a flood to others.

FYI, calmoriah said I could have all of her points from now on, so from now on you can give all the points you would give her to me.

Or at least I think calmoriah said that. Anyway, I'm sure she won't mind. She has enough already.

[Scott Lloyd]

Rep point, please. Sheesh. I feel like I have to pull teeth around here to get some while they just flow like a flood to others.

FYI, calmoriah said I could have all of her points from now on, so from now on you can give all the points you would give her to me.

Or at least I think calmoriah said that. Anyway, I'm sure she won't mind. She has enough already.

You ask; I deliver.

[Ahab]

Thank you.

[Calm]

Rep point, please. Sheesh. I feel like I have to pull teeth around here to get some while they just flow like a flood to others.

FYI, calmoriah said I could have all of her points from now on, so from now on you can give all the points you would give her to me.

Or at least I think calmoriah said that. Anyway, I'm sure she won't mind. She has enough already.

Excuse me?!?!

[Questing Beast]

Have never felt overly comfortable with the word "worship", but reverence, respect, verneration -- that I don't see a problem with, in fact it makes a lot of sense in that He is the One who went through the effort to get where He is and then chose to help me get there as well. In fact if you think about that, wouldn't that be a being more worthy of respect and veneration than something we cannot possibly ever know which somehow touched off the "big bang" and hasn't otherwise been involved with us. I think we tend to venerate those who are specifically involved in doing or creating something for our benefit temporally or aesthetically or in the hereafter. Why would we venerate something totally intangible like the void outside the cave in Plato's Philosopher God?

It would depend on whether or not you believe what you've just asserted here: "...something we cannot possibly ever know which somehow touched off the "big bang" and hasn't otherwise been involved with us", etc. If that is your paradigm of the Necessary Cause, then lacking any interest in such would make sense. It appears that such a concept as "Existence In The First Place" cannot be intimate enough to satisfy many. But I see it differently.

To my mind "God" is all in all and NOW yet Infinitely creating worlds. That means of course that there is no beginning or end to creation, yet all things are numbered to God, since all things are God manifesting. It doesn't matter how many things there are. I am unique, and nothing stands between me, my mind, and God, God's mind. That inseparable connection is incomparably intimate. My awareness of what God knows is limited only by my capacity to know, which I accept is always increasing. This describes the purpose of God better than anything else on offer that I have heard of, and makes the words, "This is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" take on a wider meaning than just resurrection to a "kingdom of glory" and living in God the Father's presence forever, with him as the God that I pray to forever. I can't conceive of such an eternal state.

Each mind is more intimately interesting than that to God. Each mind is intended to become a "soul-mate" to God. No matter how long that takes us, as we see it, to God, it is all NOW. (God can't help obtaining instant gratification, but in order to enjoy the process, space-time provides all the time and experience it takes to "get there", so it really is like a game, a cosmic role-playing game, with the reward of perfect satisfaction for God and each unique soul....)

[Ahab]

It would depend on whether or not you believe what you've just asserted here: "...something we cannot possibly ever know which somehow touched off the "big bang" and hasn't otherwise been involved with us", etc. If that is your paradigm of the Necessary Cause, then lacking any interest in such would make sense. It appears that such a concept as "Existence In The First Place" cannot be intimate enough to satisfy many. But I see it differently.

To my mind "God" is all in all and NOW yet Infinitely creating worlds. That means of course that there is no beginning or end to creation, yet all things are numbered to God, since all things are God manifesting. It doesn't matter how many things there are. I am unique, and nothing stands between me, my mind, and God, God's mind. That inseparable connection is incomparably intimate. My awareness of what God knows is limited only by my capacity to know, which I accept is always increasing. This describes the purpose of God better than anything else on offer that I have heard of, and makes the words, "This is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" take on a wider meaning than just resurrection to a "kingdom of glory" and living in God the Father's presence forever, with him as the God that I pray to forever. I can't conceive of such an eternal state.

Each mind is more intimately interesting than that to God. Each mind is intended to become a "soul-mate" to God. No matter how long that takes us, as we see it, to God, it is all NOW. (God can't help obtaining instant gratification, but in order to enjoy the process, space-time provides all the time and experience it takes to "get there", so it really is like a game, a cosmic role-playing game, with the reward of perfect satisfaction for God and each unique soul....)

This all sounds very good, and I think I may even consider revising my understanding of NOW. Makes more sense to me now than to think of him living in the past or in the future, although I know he's been around forever and will always be around forever. The problem I've been having with understanding NOW is that it's always gone as quick as it gets here from the future where it came from, so I've been thinking of myself as a time traveler. But it really is always NOW, isn't it. It's never the past, or the future. Those are just reference points for what will come to be a NOW moment later, or has already been NOW and is now gone forever.

Before you seemed to be referring to a First Cause, rather than a Necessary Cause, so that's why I didn't agree with you on those ideas. There has never been a First Cause, generally speaking, athough one thing always leads to another which is the cause for what comes after that. Is that what you're referring to as a Necessary Cause now? I simply refer to that idea as Cause and Effect.

[Questing Beast]

Cause and effect is only in this world, i.e. space-time. Yes, "Necessary Cause" transcends the words "first cause", because any use of words that convey space-time are not applicable to God (even though I slip up occasionally and use "first cause" to refer to God). God is the maker of space-time and Exists "outside" of it: that Existence is NOW, and only space-time gives the perspective of cause and effect. I believe Einstein had a vision of this necessity when he quipped that space-time is necessary to keep things from happening all at once....

[canard78]

It's clear to me from context -- though it may not be to an uncomprehending magazine journalist or a hostile antagonist -- that President Hinckley was referring to the first part of the Snow couplet, the part that says as man is God once was. And President Hinckley was absolutely right in reference to that concept: We don't know or understand much about it; therefore we don't teach or emphasize it very much.

Thus there is no real conflict between what President Snow said and what President Hinckley said. So you are not obliged to to ignore or discredit either man.

Coincidentally, as we discussed this chapter in high priests meeting today, I made a comment to the effect of the above.

The problem with Mormon apologetics, is sometimes they won't call a spade a spade. There is a conflict between what Pres Snow and Pres Hinckley said.

In the commentary on the article FAIR state the question and answer:

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 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.

The FAIR article commenting on it (here: http://www.fairlds.org/authors/fordham-michael/does_president_hinckley_understand_lds_doctrine) then says:

The answer is correct; we do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us. We emphasize trying to pattern our lives after Jesus Christ so we may reach our full potential of becoming like God is. As for not discussing the concept in public discourse, all one has to do is examine Conference talks to see the truth of the answer.

The first sentence of both President Hinckley's reply (I don’t know that we teach it) and FAIR's comment (The answer is correct; we do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us.) is wrong, especially the FAIR comment.

Every year we teach this principle to investigators and new members. Quite recently the entire church were taught this as part of the year-long Priesthood & Relief Society 'refresher course':

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 268).

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).

Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as He did.

Other examples of the teaching appearing in print include:

It was also included in the 2006 Ensign:

Not only do we know that God possesses a glorified body of flesh and bones, but from this restored understanding of the nature of God flows the Latter-day Saint belief regarding our nature and potential. The Prophet Joseph Smith once taught: “It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, … and that He was once a man like us. … When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them.”

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/01/the-fulness-of-the-gospel-the-nature-of-the-godhead

And this from a 1982 Ensign article by Gerald N. Lund, when discussing the 'couplet' by President Snow:

“Numerous sources could be cited, but one should suffice to show that this doctrine is accepted and taught by the Brethren. In an address in 1971, President Joseph Fielding Smith, then serving as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said:

“This is a doctrine which delighted President Snow, as it does all of us. Early in his ministry he received by direct, personal revelation the knowledge that (in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s language), ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods … the same as all Gods have done before.’

“After this doctrine had been taught by the Prophet, President Snow felt free to teach it also, and he summarized it in one of the best known couplets in the Church. …

“This same doctrine has of course been known to the prophets of all the ages, and President Snow wrote an excellent poetic summary of it.” (Address on Snow Day, given at Snow College, 14 May 1971, pp. 1, 3–4; italics added.)

It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/02/i-have-a-question

I'm fine accepting that maybe President Hinckley got caught unexpected and didn't want to discuss it in detail. I'm a little less comfortable with the idea that he might have intentionally given a misleading answer to avoid discussing tricky doctrine that might make us seem 'peculiar.' Most of all, I'm not fine with FAIR pretending what he said was accurate. Their statement of "we do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us" is completely incorrect and misleading.

[Stone holm]

Yeah, whatever. Unless we are going to dump both the King Follett Sermon and the Lorenzo Snow couplet, it looks pretty doctrinal that gods are produced in generations, and that Heavenly Father was in the generation before us. He is eternal in the same sense that we are eternal namely "intelligences" -- but that does not mean that He was always a God.

[canard78]

Yeah, whatever. Unless we are going to dump both the King Follett Sermon and the Lorenzo Snow couplet, it looks pretty doctrinal that gods are produced in generations, and that Heavenly Father was in the generation before us. He is eternal in the same sense that we are eternal namely "intelligences" -- but that does not mean that He was always a God.

Exactly... which is why FAIR are wrong to say: "we do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us."

Does the author of that article (Michael Fordham) participate here? I'd be interested to understand what he meant by this statement, given it clearly is taught in our classes today.

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah, whatever. Unless we are going to dump both the King Follett Sermon and the Lorenzo Snow couplet, it looks pretty doctrinal that gods are produced in generations, and that Heavenly Father was in the generation before us. He is eternal in the same sense that we are eternal namely "intelligences" -- but that does not mean that He was always a God.

I don't fully agree. God has always been God and eternal just as we are.

[thesometimesaint]

Exactly... which is why FAIR are wrong to say: "we do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us."

Does the author of that article (Michael Fordham) participate here? I'd be interested to understand what he meant by this statement, given it clearly is taught in our classes today.

We haven't ever taught that God is just like us.