What is this doctrine?

[tubaloth]

tubaloth, you say that this doctrine is 'our potential to be like God is'. Other posters didn't say that, they said it was that God was once like us

The doctrine for us, is that we can progress to become like our Heavenly Father, just like Heavenly Father progressed to where he is at. I (and I guess we as a church) don’t really focus on how Heavenly Father got to his point, we just know he got to it. What I’m worried about (and what my salvation has to deal with) is how I can do the same thing!

However, you then say 'as we believe the doctrine we assume the same type of thing happen with our Heavenly Father', which makes it clear you believe that the doctrine does assume the same type of thing happened with Heavenly Father. This agrees with what all the others have said.

I’m not saying, that the first half ‘As man is G-d once was' isn’t Doctrine. What I’m saying is that’s all we have on the subject. The second part we know a lot more (what I can become) then the first part (how God got to where he is). If that makes any sense.

You say 'It is taught in the Bible and in the Doctrine in Covenants', so that means it's canonical. You also say 'this is a deeper doctrine of our teaching', so it is taught as doctrine by your church.

Again I guess I look at it as two parts. The first part of “as Man is God once was…” Is that “taught” I guess depending on what you mean by taught? Quoting the same thing you quoted in your opening post has happen before. But that’s about the extent of how it is being taught. There is no more in depth teaching then what you have already sited. That goes for the first part. The second part does get more attention “As God now is, Man may become”

So this part is “taught” more. But again, the most that is taught is just quoting the same thing over again. An Example is by Pres. Hinckley in 1994

On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342–62; and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! (See The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Clyde J. Williams, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984, p. 1.)

Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom. Gordon B. Hinckley, “Don’t Drop the Ball,” Ensign, Nov 1994, 46

That’s what is taught. We really don’t go to far from what Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow already taught. We just reminder ourselves of what the Ultimate Goal is!

So far I've been told by at least four people here that the doctrine in question is that God (Heavenly Father), (1.) was once like us

The Doctrine is just what has already been quoted.

2. and became God,

Yes I do assume God, become God.

that this is a revelation

Reveled to Prophets, yes! (I guess again we have to take this in two parts. The second part of what we can become (like God) is in the Doctrine and Convents and the Bible) . The First part of where God came from is only been “revealed” To Joseph Smith on a smaller level and on to Lorenzo Snow on a deeper level. All other teachings about this subject come from these two quotes/talks. Now if you want to group with this teaching that God has a Physical Body (which we believe) then you can, and that is in the scriptures.

that this is doctrine,

I don’t doubt it is! Some might pick and choose. That’s fine. I just don’t think you can take one part of it and not the other! Either the whole saying by Lorenzo Snow is Doctrine or the whole thing isn’t! But, what is emphasized more is what my potential is! Not what God was.

Does that mean it wasn’t doctrine? NO, it just means we don’t know enough to dwell on it for ever and ever. We dwell on what we know.

Is President Lorenzo Snow’s oft-repeated statement—“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be”—accepted as official doctrine by the Church?

Gerald N. Lund, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Feb. 1982, 39–40

Gerald N. Lund, Teacher Support Consultant for the Church Education System. To my knowledge there has been no “official” pronouncement by the First Presidency declaring that President Snow’s couplet is to be accepted as doctrine. But that is not a valid criteria for determining whether or not it is doctrine.

Generally, the First Presidency issues official doctrinal declarations when there is a general misunderstanding of the doctrine on the part of many people. Therefore, the Church teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrines but which the First Presidency has seen no need to declare in an official pronouncement. This particular doctrine has been taught not only by Lorenzo Snow, fifth President of the Church, but also by others of the Brethren before and since that time.

In her biography of her brother, Eliza R. Snow explains the circumstances which led Lorenzo Snow to pen the famous couplet: “Being present at a ‘Blessing Meeting,’ in the Temple, previous to his baptism into the Church; after listening to several patriarchal blessings pronounced upon the heads of different individuals with whose history he was acquainted, and of whom he knew the Patriarch was entirely ignorant; he was struck with astonishment to hear the peculiarities of those persons positively and plainly referred to in their blessings. And, as he afterwards expressed, he was convinced that an influence, superior to human prescience, dictated the words of the one who officiated.

“The Patriarch was the father of Joseph, the Prophet. That was the first time Lorenzo had met him. After the services, they were introduced, and Father Smith said to my brother that he would soon be convinced of the truth of the latter-day work, and be baptized; and he said: ‘You will become as great as you can possibly wish—EVEN AS GREAT AS GOD, and you cannot wish to be greater.’ ” (Eliza R. Snow, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, Salt Lake City: Deseret News Co., 1884, pp. 9–10.)

Lorenzo Snow was baptized a short time later and began his service in the Church. In the spring of 1840 he was called to serve a mission in the British Isles. Before his departure he was in the home of a Church member who was preaching a sermon on the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. (See Matt. 20:1–16.) According to Elder Snow, “While attentively listening to his explanation, the Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me—the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man. I formed the following couplet which expresses the revelation, as it was shown me, and explains Father Smith’s dark saying to me at a blessing meeting in the Kirtland Temple, prior to my baptism. …

“As man now is, God once was:”

“As God now is, man may be.”

“I felt this to be a sacred communication, which I related to no one except my sister Eliza, until I reached England, when in a confidential private conversation with President Brigham Young, in Manchester, I related to him this extraordinary manifestation.” (Eliza R. Snow, pp. 46–47; italics added. Brigham Young was President of the Quorum of the Twelve at the time.)

President Snow’s son LeRoi later told that the Prophet Joseph Smith confirmed the validity of the revelation Elder Snow had received: “Soon after his return from England, in January, 1843, Lorenzo Snow related to the Prophet Joseph Smith his experience in Elder Sherwood’s home. This was in a confidential interview in Nauvoo. The Prophet’s reply was: ‘Brother Snow, that is a true gospel doctrine, and it is a revelation from God to you.’ ” (LeRoi C. Snow, Improvement Era, June 1919, p. 656.)

The Prophet Joseph Smith himself publicly taught the doctrine the following year, 1844, during a funeral sermon of Elder King Follett: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! … It is the first 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.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938, pp. 345–46.)

Once the Prophet Joseph had taught the doctrine publicly, Elder Snow also felt free to publicly teach it, and it was a common theme of his teachings throughout his life. About ten years before his death, while serving as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, President Snow incorporated his original couplet into a longer poem. He addressed the poem to the Apostle Paul, who had written the following to the Philippian Saints:

“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Philip. 2:5–6.)

Part of the poem reads:

The boy, like to his father grown,

Has but attained unto his own;

To grow to sire from state of son,

Is not ’gainst Nature’s course to run.

A son of God, like God to be,

Would not be robbing Deity.

(As cited in LeRoi C. Snow, p. 661.)

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:

“I think I can pay no greater tribute to [President Lorenzo Snow and Elder Erastus Snow] than to preach again that glorious doctrine which they taught and which was one of the favorite themes, particularly of President Lorenzo Snow. …

“We have been promised by the Lord that if we know how to worship, and know what we worship, we may come unto the Father in his name, and in due time receive of his fulness. We have the promise that if we keep his commandments, we shall receive of his fulness and be glorified in him as he is in the Father.

“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.

[Vanhin]

Thanks tubaloth.

My whole thing is that we should stay within the confines of what is accepted as official doctrine when teaching this stuff to others, out here, or at Church. At least according to the message of the scriptures, as it stands now, God did not become God, and has always been God. It is made abundantly clear that He has ever been God from all eternity to all eternity, and is the Supreme Ruler of the universe (which means everything). He would have been God before, during, and after any mortal experience where he gained his body, just like Jesus Christ.

There is absolutely no support in the scriptures for any Gods (capital "G") before God (Moses 1). And Christ also. And there is no support in our scriptures for previous Christs, in fact the opposite is true. The scriptures affirm and our modern apostles affirm that Christ is unique, and bears the emblems of his sacrifice on his hands and feet. It was an infinite and eternal sacrifice, and covered the entirety of creation, and redeemed all mankind past, present, and future (Alma 34:10). How else would it be an infinite and eternal atonement?

It is not our official doctrine that God had a father, though many infer that from statements made by early leaders of the Church. It's not our official doctrine that we will take over God's work and have christs of our own in some alternate universe. However, it is our doctrine that the faithful will continue the work of the Father, and bear the souls of men in this life and in the life to come. But he will ever be the Father, and Jesus his Christ, the Redeemer of mankind (D&C 132:63).

It is not our official doctrine that before we were spirit sons and daughters of God, that we were some non-spirit entity called "intelligences". I'm not even sure where people are getting that. Even Jospeh Smith used the term interchangably with spirit when speaking about our pre-mortal existence. In scripture, intelligence(s) refers to light of truth, spirit children of God, and spirit matter; not anywhere does talk about a non-spirit pre-begotten us. Man is spirit, at his most basic form (D&C 93:33, Guide to the Scriptures: Intelligence, Intelligences).

This is kind of a pet peave of mine, as some of you already know, so please forgive my bluntness. I just think we do more harm than good to continue to perpetuate specualtion as doctrine. The simple truth is the following:

1) There is a God, and he is an exalted Man.

2) Jesus is the Christ, the Redeemer of mankind (He is also an exalted Man, at this point)

3) The spirits of mankind are the offspring of God.

4) Mortality is part of God's plan for our progression, where we gain bodies of flesh and bone, and learn by our own experience the difference between good and evil.

5) The faithful will live forever, with their families, in the presence of God and his Christ, and will become exalted men and women.

One day, soon I hope, we will receive all things and know all things concerning our existence. We will have the capacity to comprehend inifinite and eternal things, and will see this as God does. Until then, we continue in faith in Christ, and hope, and in obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel until the end.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

Edited June 24, 2008 by Vanhin

[HiJolly]

HiJolly, the 'official church statement' you cite (which ironically does not appear in the Standard Works nor the official proclamations and declarations of the First Presidency of the Church nor the Articles of Faith),

Yes, I had noticed that the definition of 'doctrine' was itself not doctrinal. *I* think it's rather humorous, indicating that at least SOME folks in SLC have a sense of humor. But as you point out below, it turns out that it IS doctrinal, unless you disqualify it on the grounds that the declaration is technically in the 'commentary' section of the website... 'Tis a puzzlement!

actually also includes 'official declarations and proclamations', which are not restricted to 'official declarations and proclamations of the First Presidency'.

Good catch, after a full year of referring to it, I had not caught that distinction. Thanks!

HiJolly

[Misshalfway]

Did Jesus lose anything or lower himself by becoming mortal? Enduring and experiencing and progressing thru human challenge and mortal death?

I am going to assume that any Christian would agree that, No, would be the logical answer. Why then would the idea of God the Father doing the same thing be of alarm? For those who believe Jesus and the Father are the same being anyway, how is the idea of God being as man is something so foreign, or so challenging?

I understand that God the Father, at some point, did gain his physical body the same way all of us do. But I also understand that His earth/mortal experience was from a sinless perspective, just as Christ's was. Something none of us can claim. Vahnin, I believe you stated something to this effect earlier. Probably said it better too. :)

Edited June 24, 2008 by Misshalfway

[puiwaihin]

There's a difference between something coming from an official source within the Church, like a press release or a letter from Church headquarters, and an official declaration or proclamation-- like the Proclamation on the Family. Official doctrine is made through unanimous agreement of one or all of the presiding quorums. (D&C 107 21-29). Proclamations or announcements not made through that process do not have the same force.

There are other teachings that are believed in the Church other than those found in the Standard Works and official proclamations, but they are not official. There is still some room for doubt as to whether such a thing is inspired-- or if the interpretation of something is inspired-- and it is up to the individual member to learn of the truth through careful study and prayer. Things said by the prophets and apostles are often inspired. If it is written in the the Standard Works and is in accordance with the teachings of the gospel we can know they are true. If something is said not in canon we can still know if it is correct or not when the Spirit of God teaches it to us. (Vanhin already gave quotes for this earlier.)

I believe President Snow was inspired of God when this truth was revealed to him: "As man is God once was; as God now is man may be!" It refers to several clear and plain doctrines in the restored gospel: eternal progression, exaltation, God as our Father, etc. However, the part where it says "God was as man is" can have several meanings, not all of which are within officially received doctrine. If taken to mean Jesus Christ, or through Christ, then that would make things simple. But it could easily mean the Father was as man is, and if so, then in what sense that is true becomes an issue. And the answer to that is not within official church teachings.

While the quote is accepted of the Brethren, not all of its possible interpretations are. There is nothing wrong with discussing these things and trying to understand them, but this should be a matter of careful prayer and humility-- not a time for pride in scholarship. And when dealing with people outside the Church, we should be even more careful in helping them understand that this question lies out the basic principles of the gospel and what is established as revealed truth.

As a matter of disclosure, I was discussing this with the OP on another messageboard under a different username.

Edited June 25, 2008 by puiwaihin
adding a note about myself, spelling

[Fortigurn]

This has been a very enlightening thread, thank you to all participants. So what we see is a general agreement on the following.

To the question of which doctrine is taught in these quotes:

* 'The doctrine that God once lived as we do now'

* 'Eternal Progression'

* 'As man is G-d once was'

* 'The doctrine for us, is that we can progress to become like our Heavenly Father, just like Heavenly Father progressed to where he is at'

* 'The Doctrine is just what has already been quoted'

* 'It refers to several clear and plain doctrines in the restored gospel: eternal progression, exaltation, God as our Father, etc'

To the question of whether or not this is a revelation:

* 'The church does believe this is revelation, yes'

* 'Yes'

* 'Yes, and there are plenty of scriptures to support it as shown below'

* 'Reveled to Prophets, yes!'

* 'I believe President Snow was inspired of God when this truth was revealed to him: "As man is God once was; as God now is man may be!"'

To the question of whether or not it is taught by the LDS Church:

* 'Yes, we are taught that God was once a man, like us. Its all in the Doctrine and covenants I believe'

* 'Yes'

* 'Yes, it is taught'

* 'I have seen and heard many of our (LDS) leaders repeat this statement. To me that qualifies it as doctrine. I'm sure I'm wrong in so many ways, but if multiple prophets have repeated it, it must be right'

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

* 'The second part does get more attention “As God now is, Man may become” So this part is “taught” more'

* 'Either the whole saying by Lorenzo Snow is Doctrine or the whole thing isn’t!'

* 'While the quote is accepted of the Brethren, not all of its possible interpretations are'

This is the message I have received consistently when questioning active LDS members concerning this doctrine.

[Vanhin]

Yep and dispite the things I have said, I believe the quote to be true. I just don't subscribe to the interpretations given by some, in light of the binding scripture that we already have about the nature of God, and our relationship to him.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Fortigurn]

Vanhin, your point is well made and well taken.

On the matter of what constitutes 'official Church doctrine', and how it is determined, I see here a range of conflicting views. This did not surprise me, since I was already aware of the difference of beliefs on this matter within the LDS Church.

So we have:

* 'The official doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is contained in the following works: the Holy Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, Official Declarations and proclamations, and Articles of Faith'

* 'Official doctrine is made through unanimous agreement of one or all of the presiding quorums. (D&C 107 21-29). Proclamations or announcements not made through that process do not have the same force'

* 'I have seen and heard many of our (LDS) leaders repeat this statement. To me that qualifies it as doctrine. I'm sure I'm wrong in so many ways, but if multiple prophets have repeated it, it must be right'

* 'Doctrines of the Church are found in only 3 sources, per official church statemnent on lds.org:

1-- The four standard works of scripture

2-- The official proclamations and declarations of the First Presidency of the Church

3-- The 13 Articles of Faith '

* 'the Church teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrines but which the First Presidency has seen no need to declare in an official pronouncement'

I believe HiJolly said it well:

Yes, I had noticed that the definition of 'doctrine' was itself not doctrinal. *I* think it's rather humorous, indicating that at least SOME folks in SLC have a sense of humor. But as you point out below, it turns out that it IS doctrinal, unless you disqualify it on the grounds that the declaration is technically in the 'commentary' section of the website... 'Tis a puzzlement!

I found the Ensign article extremely pertinent:

Gerald N. Lund, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Feb. 1982, 39–40

Gerald N. Lund, Teacher Support Consultant for the Church Education System. To my knowledge there has been no “official” pronouncement by the First Presidency declaring that President Snow’s couplet is to be accepted as doctrine. But that is not a valid criteria for determining whether or not it is doctrine.

Generally, the First Presidency issues official doctrinal declarations when there is a general misunderstanding of the doctrine on the part of many people. Therefore, the Church teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrines but which the First Presidency has seen no need to declare in an official pronouncement. This particular doctrine has been taught not only by Lorenzo Snow, fifth President of the Church, but also by others of the Brethren before and since that time.

Numerous sources could be cited, but one should suffice to show that this doctrine is accepted and taught by the Brethren.

HiJolly, I'm glad I could show you that 'official declarations and proclamations', which are not restricted to 'official declarations and proclamations of the First Presidency' can also be sources of official Church doctrine. It would be nice to take credit for that find, but I'm afraid it wasn't mine. It was pointed out to me by an active LDS member I have known and interacted with for the last year or so (not puiwaihin).

By the way puiwaihin, it's worth noting that D&C 107 21-29 does not say that official doctrine is only made through unanimous agreement of one or all of the presiding quorum.

What it says, very plainly, is this:

every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the [a] unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other—

What it is saying is that decisions made by any one quorum must be approved by the unanimous approval of all members in every quorum. It doesn't actually say anything about doctrine (let alone how doctrine is formed), and it certainly doesn't say that 'Proclamations or announcements not made through that process do not have the same force'.

[Traveler]

I don't have a problem with believing that he had a mortal existence. What is irreconcilable in my logic is the idea that we, as God's children, can become exalted as gods like God our father. The reason it is irreconcilable in my logic is because since we model after our father, then he too had the same existence as we. It is not that he had a mortal existence that I can't comprehend (Jesus was an example of God's mortal existence on this Earth), but that there must have once been a time or capacity where God did not yet exist, as we did not yet exist, even in our pre-existence, before we were begotten.

If the explanation or whatever for my question/understanding will hijack thread and bring it in another direction, please start another. (I'm not sure if i should yet >_>)

I believe that the problem with your logic is similar to many scientists trying to deal with the "event horizon" of the Big Bang. In essence the “event horizon” is the point in time before which we have no data – in theory or in reality.

Let me help you with a few ideas that we do know:

First is the condescension of G-d (as per the example of Jesus Christ) to take upon a mortal experience. We know this to be possible because of Jesus.

Second is the condescension of man. We know that man also condescended for a mortal experience because this told to us in scripture as the fall of man. We also know that this was a fall from a divine place (with G-d – similar to the condescension of Christ but different because Christ did not transgress in his condescension) to mortal earth.

Third is the eternal nature of the Son of G-d. From the gospel of John we learn that Jesus was with G-d in the “beginning” and was the means for creating all things. We also know that Jesus was begotten of the Father. Therefore we know from the example of Jesus that he being eternal and a creator was The Son of G-d.

I submit that all should worship and emulate that G-d which is wise and powerful. That he is both smart enough and has the means to make G-ds like himself of men such as us. In fact everything he asks, commands and directs us to do is for that very reason – that we will become more like him. Therefore we can define good as that which helps man become like G-d and we can define evil as that which will direct us from becoming more like G-d. To say that man cannot become like G-d is to therefore limit G-d – and the only way to make such an assumption with limited knowledge in a fallen and mortal existence is in essence an attempt to “Damn” G-d by limiting his knowledge and power to do what he can in reality do.

I do not mind that you want to do such a thing but for my logic as a scientist – I believe that even in this current universe it is both possible and likely that there are entities that exist that are more intelligent and advanced than man and if we would contact them we could learn and advance – much more I believe that anyone that in reality contacts that divine creator will also learn and advance beyond what others (which have not made such a contact) deem as possible.

The Traveler

[MrNirom]

What makes any doctrine believable?

Why do some people believe one thing.. and others believe another?

Did someone "prove" their doctrine and so they converted?

This doctrine can not be proved by anyone.. anymore that you can prove God exists or that the space of the universe goes on forever.

FAITH is what makes believers. And it starts with us. Do we believe that IF we ask God if something is true or not.. will he tell us?

Do we have FAITH that God will answer? But before we can ask God.. even if we do have the faith he will answer.. we will determine if we will even take the question to God. If you were of another religion.. and you heard the Doctrine.. "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be" Would you even ask God?

Let's make some assumptions here:

1. This doctrine is true.

2. Jesus Christ knows this doctrine is true.

Can you see Jesus starting his ministry and saying to everyone.. here is what I have come to teach you.. "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be"

Just how far do you think Christianity would have come? I think the death of Jesus would have been immediate!

It is not that the doctrine was false.. it that the people could in no way accept the doctrine based on what they had been taught and believed.

Now we can understand why we learn line upon line.. precept upon precept. Milk before Meat.

Just my 1 cent. :)

[Traveler]

I would ask the question: What is the difference between knowing any truth and thinking you know a truth? What in reality is the difference between faith in a thing or believing a thing or knowing the truth?

The Traveler

[bytor2112]

Ponderous words indeed!!!

If You Could Hie to Kolob, 284 - William W. Phelps

1. If you could hie to Kolob In the twinkling of an eye,

And then continue onward With that same speed to fly,

Do you think that you could ever, Through all eternity,

Find out the generation Where Gods began to be?

2. Or see the grand beginning, Where space did not extend?

Or view the last creation, Where Gods and matter end?

Me thinks the Spirit whispers, “No man has found ‘pure space,’

Nor seen the outside curtains, Where nothing has a place.”

3. The works of God continue, And worlds and lives abound;

Improvement and progression Have one eternal round.

There is no end to matter; There is no end to space;

There is no end to spirit; There is no end to race.

4. There is no end to virtue; There is no end to might;

There is no end to wisdom; There is no end to light.

There is no end to union; There is no end to youth;

There is no end to priesthood; There is no end to truth.

5. There is no end to glory; There is no end to love;

There is no end to being; There is no death above.

There is no end to glory; There is no end to love;

There is no end to being; There is no death above.

[MrNirom]

Me thinks the Spirit whispers, “No man has found ‘pure space,’

Well we know this song was written before man went into space. hehehe

[MrNirom]

I would ask the question: What is the difference between knowing any truth and thinking you know a truth? What in reality is the difference between faith in a thing or believing a thing or knowing the truth?

The Traveler

I would answer your question: To know a truth is to look at the sun and know it exists. To think you know a truth is to be blind and told there is a sun.. and when you look at it.. you can only feel it's warmth.

Faith is having a belief in somthing that is unseen.. but is true.

Knowing the truth.. you have seen.