Was God once a Man?

[Investigator1]

Does the LDS Church believe that God the Father was once a man? I know that various prophets have spoken on this issue, and President Hinckley kind of left it in a vague area during an interview. Also, Joseph Smith said in the King Follett discourse that God the Father was once as we are, and is an exalted man. How should I interpret this? I know that LDS believe that God will always be our God, and Jesus always our Savior, even through our own exaltation. However, how do you interpret these statements about the Heavenly Father being once a man? What is the basis for this belief, and do we find this among the early Christians? Out of all the believes about the Godhead, this is probably the most difficult to accept, as I have found much evidence historically for the LDS views on the nature of God, and prayer has helped. Thanks!

[bytor2112]

Maybe this will help......

[Vort]

Does the LDS Church believe that God the Father was once a man? I know that various prophets have spoken on this issue, and President Hinckley kind of left it in a vague area during an interview. Also, Joseph Smith said in the King Follett discourse that God the Father was once as we are, and is an exalted man. How should I interpret this? I know that LDS believe that God will always be our God, and Jesus always our Savior, even through our own exaltation. However, how do you interpret these statements about the Heavenly Father being once a man? What is the basis for this belief, and do we find this among the early Christians? Out of all the believes about the Godhead, this is probably the most difficult to accept, as I have found much evidence historically for the LDS views on the nature of God, and prayer has helped. Thanks!

Bytor's link will contain all the following information, but to summarize:

Shortly before he was murdered, Joseph Smith plainly taught that "God himself was once as we are now". Some years later, Lorenzo Snow (another president of the Church) coined the couplet, "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become." While the scriptures are not quite so plain as this, they ultimately teach the same doctrine (e.g. Matthew 5:48 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect").*

Latter-day Saints take this idea very seriously and very literally. However, there is not a consensus as to what this actually means. In what sense was God once "as we are"? What does it mean to "become as God is"? These points are not agreed on within Mormonism and are often debated in forums such as this. What pretty much all Latter-day Saints will agree on, though, is that the teachings are literally true.

*I remember a religious historian I once read to have written that the brilliance of Judaism above any other ancient religion was that the Jewish god Yahweh embodied HUMAN virtue, and that Yahweh's followers were expected to adopt those virtues as their own and actually become like their god. This was unlike any other ancient religion, whose gods were quasi-human or completely inhuman figures that desired pacification to grant blessings, not parents of sons and daughters who were expected to embody the very virtues that made their deity a god.

[Connie]

See this thread: http://www.lds.net/forums/share/17806-lorenzo-snow-couplet.html

[livy111us]

Here is some interesting stuff:

John 5:19--The Son can’t do anything that He hasn’t seen the Father do. Would that mean that God lived as a spirit in a pre-mortal life, was born (John 5:26) and received a body, died, and was resurrected (John 10:17-18)?

Mark 10:18-- In the 1611 edition of the King James Version, this passage reads "why callest thou me good? There is no man good, but one, that is God". The phrase ‘no man’ was removed from every subsequent printing of the King James Bible even though the same Greek word that underlies the 1611 rendition (oudeis) is also translated ‘no man’ in Revelation 7:9 and 14:3

In Hosea 2:16, the Lord says His people will call him "Ishi". This is Hebrew for "man", or "male person". (see also Ex. 15:3)

Ez. 1:26– And above the firmament that [was] over their heads [was] the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne [was] the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.

According to Philip Munua "commentators have long noticed how Dan. 7:9 has built upon Ez. 1:26-27. What needs to be singled out especially is the description of God as a ‘figure like that of a man’." (Philip Munua, Four Powers of Heaven, pg 99)

In the 1611 edition of the KJV, Mark 10:18 reads: "And Jesus said unto him, ‘why callest thou me good? There is no man good, but one, that is God.’". The phrase ‘no man’ was removed from every subsequent printing of the KJV even though the same Greek word that underlies the 1611 rendition [oedeis] is also translated as ‘no man’ in Rev. 7:9 and 14:3.

An ancient Armenian apocryphal document entitled ‘Concerning the Creation of Adam’ says

"when Adam departed and was walking around in the garden, the serpent spoke to Eve and said, ‘why do you taste of all the trees, but from this one tree which is beautiful in appearance you do not eat?’ Eve said ‘because God said when you eat of that tree, you shall surely die.’ but the serpent said ‘God has deceived you, for formerly God was man like you. When He ate of that fruit, He attained this great glory.’"(The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature, pg. 262-264 William L. Lipscomb)

In a Christian Gnostic work called the 'Corpus Hermeticum' (10.25) we find the straightforward statement that "God in the heavens is an immortal man"(this work is cited in Munoa, III, 'Four Powers of Heaven', 102)

Those scholars who are familiar with the Gnostic system of belief point out that the "Gnostic speculations about ‘man’ were anchored in the ‘older Israelite mentality" (ibid)

In the Dead Sea Scrolls on parchment QM 12.2 and 1QM 19, identify God as a "Glorious man" (Manoa, III, Four Powers in Heaven, 103-104)

The Assyrian cuneiform word for God is i* which Assyriologists pronounce ILU (In reality it should be pronounced ALE -- the U is a grammatical suffix that is not pronounced, but lengthens the preceding vowel -- but this is not vital for us here). This word is composed of the characters i (pronounced EE or like the European "I"), which means exalted (and a couple of other things - protect, possess, or protect), and * LU, person, individual, or man (* LU is in turn composed of & KU, garment, and / creature, so a person [* LU]is a "garment creature," or a creature wearing clothes). Hence we have i* God, literally "exalted man." (David Stewart)

In the Nag Hammadi, the Apocryphan of John (14.14), there God is referred to as ‘man’.

(Soren Giverson, Apocryphan Johannis, pg. 73)

Irenaeus stated "How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man? Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created? How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker? For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For thou dost not make God, but God thee" (Irenaeus Against Heresies 4:523, Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:523-524)

He argues that how can we become a god, if we were not once a man. Using this same line of argument, how could God become a God, if He was not a man once?

[GingerGolden]

I cannot answer for any other of course, but for myself, I can say that this is one subject that stood out to me and made a lot of sense in being true as soon as I heard it, just as the pre-mortal existence makes so much sense to me.

Besides being true, for me, I do think these subjects are also practical.

Maybe it is the strong sense of love I have for others as well as being an empath and being able to pick up on feelings, vibrations and sometimes the thoughts of others.

To me it only makes good sense that Our Eternal Father loves us so dearly that even though the veil is pulled to it is thin it is something that is natural and is crossed over between for each of us.

Being a family, an eternal family makes sense that it would be from this side of eternity to the other side of eternity and beyond.

We didn't just start being at birth, we existed before then and I truly feel that we will exist to be as Our Heavenly Parents.

We are now as they were and we will become even more, if we prove our worthiness.

To me, it makes practical sense.

Edited March 12, 2009 by GingerGolden

[Christian07]

Short answer, yes...

[Maxel]

Short answer: canonically, it is not definitively stated. Traditionally, the belief that God was once a man like us is supported by virtually every prophet I know of. I personally believe in that doctrine. However, as of right now the belief is not canonical, but the implications of the answer are serious.

If this proves a stumbling block to you, agree with yourself to leave it be for now, and revisit the idea when you're stronger in the Gospel.

[Janice]

If this proves a stumbling block to you, agree with yourself to leave it be for now, and revisit the idea when you're stronger in the Gospel.

I always enjoy Maxel's posts.

Understandably, this idea is one of our beliefs that causes some to become very upset with Mormons. To state that God was once a man can indeed seem very blasphemous. And to say that we can become like him seem double so. I can relate and understand completely with those who feel this way, especially when I think of the relationship between God and man in the traditional Catholic and Protestant light: God is undefinable, without body, parts or passion (did I say that right?), that we can not and should not try to understand him. Man is debase, fallen, naturally sinful, and the greatest we can hope for or aspire to is to glorify him with our worship.

I choose to think of God a bit differently. I choose to see him not an entity, a force, a mysterious something that we can never hope to understand; but as a being who, like us, has a body with a head, arms, legs, etc. but unlike us, has a body that is perfect and immortal. When I think of God in this way, things start to make sense. For example: the Bible tells us that we are created in his image; the idea that we are literally his spiritual children.

To think of God this way does not, at least in my mind, diminish him, but it instead bring me closer to him (not him to me). When I pray it comforts me to think of him as my daddy, and not as a mysterious force I can't hope to understand.

In this light, the idea that he was once as we are now, and that we can become like him becomes less strange. He IS our daddy. Our Heavenly Daddy. And like any good dad, he wants only the very best for His children, and he is willing to sacrifice a great deal, even his eldest son, to try and give it to us.

His hopes for us extend far beyond simply wishing for us to sing His praises and glorify Him with our worship. He wants us to obtain *everything*! He wants us to inherit his throne!

In my little mind, this notion of God, of Heavenly Father, is so much more comforting, so much more real to me then the traditional notion of a God who we can't expect or hope to understand who will limit His children and tell them they will never have all that He has.

Who among us wants our children to have less then we have? Not I. And I suspect not you either :)

Janice

[nimrod]

"As man is God once was. As God is, man may become."

This is one of the most simple and natural doctrines. What is a Father? What is a Son? What is their relationship and destiny? To be anything different.....would be unnatural and incomprehensible. God is not incomphrehensible. He is knowable. He must be if we are to have eternal life. (ie: for this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent) How can you exercise sufficient faith in a God that you do not understand? Whom you do not know?

As the Bible plainly teaches.....we are sons and daughters; therefore we are heirs and joint heirs with Christ. Those that have ears let them hear.

The World has long been deceived by the Creeds of man....the first being formed at Nice (or Nicea...depending on your spelling).

[Justice]

I get frustrated when I see members of the Church try to dodge this and say it's not true because it's not doctrine.

All you have to do is read the scriptures with an open mind and it's written all over their pages.

[beefche]

I get frustrated when I see members of the Church try to dodge this and say it's not true because it's not doctrine.

All you have to do is read the scriptures with an open mind and it's written all over their pages.

You know, justice, in the thread by ceeboo about this subject, I made the comment that I don't ever remember being taught that in church. And I stand by that statement. I truly don't remember a talk or lesson on this subject. Maybe it was mentioned as an aside, but I don't recall anything. It's just not something that is dwelt on and fervently taught on a consistent basis.

I believe that Heavenly Father was once a man, but to what extent I don't know. I don't necessarily feel that I have a problem owning up to that belief, but I just find it difficult to understand why it is such a stumbling block for so many people. That is what I was trying to understand from ceeboo's thread.

(btw, I didn't take your comment personally...it just started me thinking about me...since I'm the center of my world...and everything revolves around me...)

[Traveler]

Does the LDS Church believe that God the Father was once a man? I know that various prophets have spoken on this issue, and President Hinckley kind of left it in a vague area during an interview. Also, Joseph Smith said in the King Follett discourse that God the Father was once as we are, and is an exalted man. How should I interpret this? I know that LDS believe that God will always be our God, and Jesus always our Savior, even through our own exaltation. However, how do you interpret these statements about the Heavenly Father being once a man? What is the basis for this belief, and do we find this among the early Christians? Out of all the believes about the Godhead, this is probably the most difficult to accept, as I have found much evidence historically for the LDS views on the nature of God, and prayer has helped. Thanks!

Jesus the Christ is our example of the Father in heaven. To know Jesus is to know the Father.

If you understand what I just said you have an idea concerning a very important doctrine taught by Jesus. Jesus came to earth and revealed himself. In revealing himself he teaches us of the Father. As Jesus made himself manifested unto man many could not distinguish Jesus from any other man. With that and the truth in scripture that man is in the physical likeness and image of G-d we know that except for the exaltation of G-d the Father there is no visual clue that differentiates the difference between G-d and man.

If you know of a scripture that teaches otherwise – I would personally be very interested. Hopefully if there is to be definite doctrine established by such a scripture it is not an obscure scripture with possible conflicting variant readings but a powerful scripture that leaves little to interpretation.

One thing about “Mormon” doctrine that first must be established is that every point can be understood by scripture even though it may not be according to traditional interpretation of scripture.

The Traveler

[Guest tomk]

God has given us the answer in our own Parents. Male and Female. And they have Parents as well. Going back through Eons of time.

[FunkyTown]

I want to thank everyone here for their input. Maxel? Vort? You guys are amazing. Whenever I see questions like this, I think 'Uh oh. We're about to get in to pseudo-doctrine again where people will say their view is 100% correct'.

I appreciate the candor people have had with saying, 'This is what I think, but it hasn't been clarified yet'.

That has turned a thread that I generally dread in to one that really shows humility and strength in the gospel. You guys rock.

[hordak]

I get frustrated when I see members of the Church try to dodge this and say it's not true because it's not doctrine.

All you have to do is read the scriptures with an open mind and it's written all over their pages.

I'm not surprised. Even President Hinkley, when asked about it, said

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.

Unless you take GP class you could go your life without hearing about IMO. I have never seen it mentioned in any other manual or discussed in a public discourse

[Jim108]

God was never a man. God is from everlasting to everlasting and God knows of no other Gods. Your answer is a simple no. Jim

[Ezequiel]

there is a verse of scripture in the Book of Moses that always caught my attention. The reference is Moses 6:57, which is a revelation that Enoch had about a conversation between Adam and God.

"57 . Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ..."

Furthermore, in the book "Jesus The Christ" by Talmage - he explains that the title of Jesus Christ "Son of Man" is refering that Jesus Christ is the "Son of Exalted Man"

So, to me, thats a clear reference that God is indeed a Man. Wether He had to go through a period of probabtion and mortality would simply be speculation, but I would immagine that He would have had to go through some sort of growing stage where He grew from "grace to grace" as well. I don't know. But definetly food for thought though.

Hordak: I'd like to know the source of that quote, if I may! =)

Edited March 13, 2009 by Ezequiel

[hordak]

Hordak: I'd like to know the source of that quote, if I may! =)

TIME magazine interview.

Cover

Mormon Inc. Big picture of the Salt lake temple.

[Justice]

I'm not surprised.

You're not surprised about what specifically?

[hordak]

You're not surprised about what specifically?

That people don't know about it and that it isn't taught openly. IMO and i know many will disagree, this falls in the same category as people being less valiant in the Pre life, Lamanites being the principal ancestors of the Native Americans, and the physical nature of the conception of Jesus.

You can can find quotes from Prophets and Apostles that support and teach these ideas. Some use scripture, to support them and some use revelation but these idea have expired and are no longer taught. I believe the same thing is happening with this.

Whether it is true or not i don't expect to know for a very long time.But The church hasn't been very vocal in teaching it.

Edited March 14, 2009 by hordak

[Connie]

I've been a member all my life and can't think of a time when i did not know this doctrine. The Church, of course, does not focus on the "God was once a man" part of it, which IMO is what Pres. Hinckley meant in his interview.

We focus on the "man can become like God" part of it and that is what is taught and taught quite extensively i think. Why in our current Pristhood/Relief Society manual it is taught on pages 52, 221-222, 481 and 531. And even on page 40 it mentions the first part of the couplet. "God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" (of course, as many members will know, we are studying the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith which you can read here, LDS.org - Melchizedek Priesthood Table of Contents - Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith)

How many times do we sing "I Am a Child of God"? How many times is it mentioned that we can become like Him? I can't think of a doctrine that is not taught more openly!

Please do all read this thread, http://www.lds.net/forums/share/17806-lorenzo-snow-couplet.html

This has what i found in the Ensign magazine posted on it and many other good thoughts.

[Guest tomk]

God just didn't "pop" into existence. He came from somewhere. He requires that we grow from grace to grace in order to gain our exaltation. Why would He do that, and how would He know the way to do it, if He had not gone through it?

Jesus, the Only Begotten, "learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;" (Hebrews 5:8)

So why would we expect any different from Heavenly Father?

Jesus, "grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him." (Luke 2:40)

So why would Heavenly Father be any different?

Jesus also proclaimed, "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him ... Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me ... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? (John 14: 7, 9)

For some reason we want the natural flow of things to magically change when it comes to Heavenly Father.

[h2001st]

To state that God was once a man can indeed seem very blasphemous. And to say that we can become like him seem double so.

Hi Janice-

Actually, the Catholic Catechism (#460) teaches

"The Word became Flesh to make us partakers of the divine nature.... for the Son of God became man, so that we may become God."

So the idea of progression is there- even though our end results are very different. This is also not something that is well-researched. Catholics may argue this simply means "you progress by grace only." I disagree.

I completely agree that there is a stark difference between the LDS and Catholic concepts of blasphemy and fear. In my opinion, that is why we Catholics do NOT openly testify. It is personal and sacred, being taken from us if we reveal it.

We do "fear" the Father more than LDS, so the idea that He is more of a paternal, loving, kind -(a more New Testament God- sans floods and fires)- is a very comforting concept.:)

[livy111us]

Hi Janice-

Actually, the Catholic Catechism (#460) teaches

"The Word became Flesh to make us partakers of the divine nature.... for the Son of God became man, so that we may become God."

So the idea of progression is there- even though our end results are very different. This is also not something that is well-researched. Catholics may argue this simply means "you progress by grace only." I disagree.

I completely agree that there is a stark difference between the LDS and Catholic concepts of blasphemy and fear. In my opinion, that is why we Catholics do NOT openly testify. It is personal and sacred, being taken from us if we reveal it.

We do "fear" the Father more than LDS, so the idea that He is more of a paternal, loving, kind -(a more New Testament God- sans floods and fires)- is a very comforting concept.:)

I like the way (or one of the ways. We all know that Baptism is part of Gods grace) Tertullian puts it. He says

"It would be impossible that another God could be admitted, when it is permitted to no other being to possess anything of God. Well, then, you say, at that rate we ourselves possess nothing of God. But indeed we do, and will continue to do so. Only, it is from Him that we receive it, and not from ourselves. Fore we will be even gods, if we deserve to be among those of whom He declared, ‘I have said, You are gods’ and ‘God stands in the congregation of the gods’. But this comes of His own grace, not from any property in us. For it is He alone who can make gods." (Ante-Nicene Fathers 3:480, Tertullian, 200 AD, W)

So, by Gods grace, we will be made gods. Interesting...