Mormons Starting To Think And Talk Like Protestants

[thesometimesaint]

Um so I found the King Follet Discourse, but am unable to find the Snow Couplet. Could you elaborate?

 

“As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.”

( The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1984], 1.)

[thesometimesaint]

The problem with the milk before meat is that when you turn all of the teaching manuals into milk, is that people eventually begin to doubt the existence of meat or become vegetarians.  Which is all well and good if you want to be a mainline Christian, I guess.

 

It don't believe we will ever be mainline Christians. We have too many distinctive beliefs. The main one is Continuing Revelation. Something Catholics gave up for Tradition and Protestants don't believe in with their Sola Scriptura.

[EllenMaksoud]

“As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.”

( The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1984], 1.)

I'm afraid that I do not know how to respond to that. Within the limits of my understanding the only places that the Bible reveals the nature of Heavenly Father is in the first chapter of Genesis, and the first chapter of John.  I've only just now listened to the King Follet Discourse, and I think it will take more study to fully digest it.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm afraid that I do not know how to respond to that. Within the limits of my understanding the only places that the Bible reveals the nature of Heavenly Father is in the first chapter of Genesis, and the first chapter of John.  I've only just now listened to the King Follet Discourse, and I think it will take more study to fully digest it.

 

The concept is found in the Bible, though we know very little about the first segment of the couplet.

See Theosis

[Ahab]

I'm afraid that I do not know how to respond to that. Within the limits of my understanding the only places that the Bible reveals the nature of Heavenly Father is in the first chapter of Genesis, and the first chapter of John.  I've only just now listened to the King Follet Discourse, and I think it will take more study to fully digest it.

When Lorenzo Snow came up with that couplet he had a concept in his mind which he translated into those words, and when he used the words "God" and "man" he had distinct thoughts in his mind in reference to both of those words.  So when he said "God" he meant our Father, and when he said "man" he meant what we often refer to as mankind.  In other words, he realized our Father was and still is a man, and he also knew that we (mankind) are his children.

 

So a more correct translation of what he meant is:  As our Father now is, we (his children) may become, and as we now are, our Father once was.  Just as Jesus was also as we now are and is also what we may become in being like him.

 

We're already the same kind of being.  What we aren't, yet, is as perfect as our Father in heaven.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Ahab

[EllenMaksoud]

When Lorenzo Snow came up with that couplet he had a concept in his mind which he translated into those words, and when he used the words "God" and "man" he had distinct thoughts in his mind in reference to both of those words.  So when he said "God" he meant our Father, and when he said "man" he meant what we often refer to as mankind.  In other words, he realized our Father was and still is a man, and he also knew that we (mankind) are his children.

 

So a more correct translation of what he meant is:  As our Father now is, we (his children) may become, and as we now are, our Father once was.  Just as Jesus was also as we now are and is also what we may become in being like him.

 

We're already the same kind of being.  What we aren't, yet, is as perfect as our Father in heaven.

May I say that I struggle with this? Oh, I believe the doctrine with the caveat that at no time would I want to be found in violation of Isaiah 14:14.  I want to shower adoration on Heavenly Father as I was created to do, but I would never wish to have him believe that I wish to usurp his power and glory. 

[Stone holm]

May I say that I struggle with this? Oh, I believe the doctrine with the caveat that at no time would I want to be found in violation of Isaiah 14:14.  I want to shower adoration on Heavenly Father as I was created to do, but I would never wish to have him believe that I wish to usurp his power and glory. 

Lorenzon Snow said he had an oral vision that went "God once was as man is, and man may become as God is."    The couplet was discussed in this years Presidents of the Church series.  Pres. Hinckley not long before his death played coy about the Snow couplet on a the Larry King Live show saying it wasn't emphasized or taught much.

[Ahab]

May I say that I struggle with this? Oh, I believe the doctrine with the caveat that at no time would I want to be found in violation of Isaiah 14:14.  I want to shower adoration on Heavenly Father as I was created to do, but I would never wish to have him believe that I wish to usurp his power and glory. 

Sure, you can say that, but there's really no good reason for you to be uncomfortable about the idea.   No matter what you do you won't ever usurp his power or glory, because there is no way you could ever do that.  By truly adoring him you can be like him, though, and that's what true worship is all about.  Emulation.  Being like him, to do as he does. 

[thesometimesaint]

Lorenzon Snow said he had an oral vision that went "God once was as man is, and man may become as God is."    The couplet was discussed in this years Presidents of the Church series.  Pres. Hinckley not long before his death played coy about the Snow couplet on a the Larry King Live show saying it wasn't emphasized or taught much.

 

The first part of the couplet isn't emphasized or taught much.

[Tacenda]

I don't believe that Sunday School(Gospel Rumor) is the best place for discussing off message tangential subjects. Better to tell them about "Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board".

Listening to all 5 of the youtube videos of the King Follett sermon right now. IMHO, it's our doctrine plain and simple, I don't understand why it's gone into oblivion in our SS class discussions or teaching manuals. And may be a reason for Stone holm's angst. Edited August 19, 2013 by Tacenda

[EllenMaksoud]

Lorenzon Snow said he had an oral vision that went "God once was as man is, and man may become as God is."    The couplet was discussed in this years Presidents of the Church series.  Pres. Hinckley not long before his death played coy about the Snow couplet on a the Larry King Live show saying it wasn't emphasized or taught much.

I am tempted to feel somewhat distressed by his remarks. I was speaking with my Relief Society President this morning after I listened to the King Follet Discourse. She is life long Mormon, so she added her thoughts to my confusion.   I do not wish to see the Mormon church back down on parts of theology that have made it unique.

 

To be clear, and as emphatic as possible, I have attended perhaps a dozen different "other" christian churches, and as you know, was Muslim. In my opinion, the Mormon church practices the wishes of Jesus Christ head and shoulders above the rest. The church does a great job of managing its members. My pet peeve about churches in general is that they are great at punishing sinners, but a very poor job of restoration of the sinner. The Mormon church actually works at restoration in a way I have not seen previously.

[Ahab]

Listening to all 5 of the youtube videos of the King Follett sermon right now. IMHO, it's our doctrine plain and simple, I don't understand why it's gone into oblivion in our SS class discussions or teaching manuals. And may be a reason for Stone holm's angst.

It hasn't gone into oblivion, but the reason some people downplay it is because they don't believe the teachings are true, or as someone else said earlier, because some people get the wrong idea and to avoid giving the wrong idea they don't say much about it.  I'm one of those who will find a way to talk about it, though, and explain how it is true.  Some people are going to get the wrong idea anyway regardless of how it is discussed, but I don't see that as a good reason to not tell the truth about the true teachings.

[Calm]

  That's why I believe that it's in our doctrine, or is our doctrine.  It separates us from other Christian faiths I believe.

 

There are other Christian faiths that teach theosis (Orthodox and Catholic at least), though they do so with the understanding that man is totally the creature of God while we do so from the understanding that God is the literal father of man's spirit and that we are of the same species as God (for want of a better way to say it)...that Christ came down and became a man not only because we needed him to, but because the physical form he took on was his natural physical state....IOW, that "fully God" and "fully man" mean the same thing once man becomes one with God and partakes in exaltation.

Edited August 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Listening to all 5 of the youtube videos of the King Follett sermon right now. IMHO, it's our doctrine plain and simple, I don't understand why it's gone into oblivion in our SS class discussions or teaching manuals. And may be a reason for Stone holm's angst.

 

The KFD isn't doctrine. It has never been accepted by the Church as doctrine. I'm prefectly fine with the KFD as having some doctrianal statements in it.

It has hardly gone into oblivion. When we constantly talk about how man can become like God. OTOH How God the Father was once a man not so much.

[Freedom]

I am unclear on the point of the discussion. We have one concept, God was once a man, that is not established as doctrine in any of our scripture and consequently do not teach it as such. From this, we are making the huge leap that we are all becoming protestants. This is rather flawed. We do not know how God came to be so speculating on it is a waist of time. All we know is what we may become if we are obedient.

[Calm]

Lorenzon Snow said he had an oral vision that went "God once was as man is, and man may become as God is."    The couplet was discussed in this years Presidents of the Church series.  Pres. Hinckley not long before his death played coy about the Snow couplet on a the Larry King Live show saying it wasn't emphasized or taught much.

That applied to the first part and he is right, imo, though there was speculation for a time on what God did before he became our Father.  But in comparison to other subjects, I don't believe there is much out there.

 

The second part is taught as a basic doctrine.

[Ahab]

There are other Christian faiths that teach theosis (Orthodox and Catholic at least), though they do so with the understanding that man is totally the creature of God while we do so from the understanding that God is the literal father of man's spirit and that we are of the same species as God (for want of a better way to say it)...that Christ came down and became a man not only because we needed him to, but because the physical form he took on was his natural physical state....IOW, that "fully God" and "fully man" mean the same thing once man becomes one with God and partakes in exaltation.

To avoid confusion it helps to realize that when we say "God" we are usually talking about our Father in heaven, except when we're using the word "God" to refer to another person who is the same kind of being as our Father in heaven, so when you say being "fully God" and "fully man" mean the same thing that should be translated as "fully our Father" and "fully man" mean the same thing, unless by "man"" you're referring to mankind, in general, considering that not all of of us are fully like our Father in heaven.

[Calm]

To avoid confusion it helps to realize that when we say "God" we are usually talking about our Father in heaven, except when we're using the word "God" to refer to another person who is the same kind of being as our Father in heaven, so when you say being "fully God" and "fully man" mean the same thing that should be translated as "fully our Father" and "fully man" mean the same thing, unless by "man"" you're referring to mankind, in general, considering that not all of of us are fully like our Father in heaven.

I usually take care to write "God the Father" or "God the Son" when it makes a difference.  When it doesn't or when it needs to include all, I will just write God.

[Tacenda]

To avoid confusion it helps to realize that when we say "God" we are usually talking about our Father in heaven, except when we're using the word "God" to refer to another person who is the same kind of being as our Father in heaven, so when you say being "fully God" and "fully man" mean the same thing that should be translated as "fully our Father" and "fully man" mean the same thing, unless by "man"" you're referring to mankind, in general, considering that not all of of us are fully like our Father in heaven.

The statements by you and Cal, are making my brain hurt. I guess I really need to strengthen the muscle and study it. In my youth, God is my father and Jesus is my brother. Now Jesus is my God also. And this goes along with some Christian belief, that Jesus is God incarnate not our brother, but not in the LDS belief. He is our brother and He is a God from a realm that He progressed to that status. So both God and brother and son of God. Son of God makes him our brother, after He is our brother is that when he becomes a God, or before when he helped create the world with his Father? This is where my brain hurts. Edited August 19, 2013 by Tacenda

[Ahab]

I usually take care to write "God the Father" or "God the Son" when it makes a difference.  When it doesn't or when it needs to include all, I will just write God.

So you mean any kind of being which is the same kind of being as us or our Father in heaven are both fully the same kind of being?

 

Hmm.  I guess that makes sense.  I think I was just thinking that not all of us are fully like our Father in heaven, so even though we are all fully the same kind of being, we are not fully like him and how he is now.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Ahab

[Calm]

 after He is our brother is that when he becomes a God, or before when he helped create the world with his Father? This is where my brain hurts.

He was our brother before he helped create the world.

[Ahab]

These statements by you and Cal, is making my brain hurt. I guess I really need to strengthen the muscle and study it. In my youth, God is my father and Jesus is my brother. Now Jesus is my God also. And this goes along with some Christian belief, that Jesus is God incarnate not our brother, but not in the LDS belief. He is our brother and He is a God from a realm that He progressed to that status. So both God and brother and son of God. Son of God makes him our brother, after He is our brother is that when he becomes a God, or before when he helped create the world with his Father? This is where my brain hurts.

 

It might help to clarity things if we try to say the same thing without using the word "God", instead referring to each person by another name, or term. I think part of the confusion comes from the fact that we use the word "God" to mean different things, like using it in some instances to refer to our Father and in other instances to refer to another person who is the same kind of being as our Father in heaven.

 

So, go ahead and rephrase what you meant while trying to avoid using the word "God". Or just define what you mean when you use that word to clarify what you are talking about.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Ahab

[Calm]

So you mean any kind of being which is the same kind of being as us or our Father in heaven are both fully the same kind of being?

 

Hmm.  I guess that makes sense.  I think I was just thinking that not all of us are fully like our Father in heaven, so even though we are all fully the same kind of being, we are not fully like him and how he is now.

"Fully God" and "fully man" is used to describe Christ by traditional Christians...but they mean Christ has two natures, one God and one man that do not overlap.  I am saying that for LDS, those two natures are the same and that is where we differ.

[Ahab]

He was our brother before he helped create the world.

He still is our brother, even though he is also the Father of those who have been born again through him, by adoption.

[Stone holm]

It hasn't gone into oblivion, but the reason some people downplay it is because they don't believe the teachings are true, or as someone else said earlier, because some people get the wrong idea and to avoid giving the wrong idea they don't say much about it.  I'm one of those who will find a way to talk about it, though, and explain how it is true.  Some people are going to get the wrong idea anyway regardless of how it is discussed, but I don't see that as a good reason to not tell the truth about the true teachings.

 

I agree am not a big fan of all the ******-footing around and winding up with members who advance in the Church and then at some point stumble into something that hits them like a brick wall.  Have talked about this with my wife who is very conservative about always trying to back whatever the Church does or publishes and hates saying anything that might be considered a criticism, and she thinks that people really ought to be familiar with stuff like this.  I mean the Snow Couplet has been around for years and it used to be everyone knew it, and it didn't bother anyone -- now we have people who don't even know what it is, and are espousing stuff that sounds more like mainline Christianity and for good reason because the Church correlation department is publishing sanitized stuff.  This should be of concern.