"God once was..."


JudoMinja
 Share

Recommended Posts

This quote is often used to identify our belief in eternal progression and our ability to become "as God"- "As man is, God once was; As God is, man may become". There is also quite a bit of speculation that this also means God was once a mortal. This can easily be reconciled if we acertain that the word "God" is here a reference to Jesus Christ. After all, Christ did take on mortality and we can become joint heirs with Him in Heaven, but there are also many who believe this is a reference to the Father. My question works with that assumption:

What was God?

In LDS doctrine, we have a more indepth understanding of the different roles of the members of the Godhead. Specifically, Jesus Christ is identified as the "Creator". We believe that it was the Son of God who created all things under the direction of His Father. He then came into the world, took on mortality, resisted temptation and lived a perfect life, atoned for our sins and overcame death so that we may be resurrected and forgiven, and that He now lives- the same today, yesterday, and forever. Is it possible that God the Father once was as Jesus Christ? Did He once take upon himself the very same role?

Of course, this is all speculation, and I welcome all thoughts and opinions on this topic. If "As man is, God once was; As god is, man may become" is a reference to the Father then we would assume that He was once mortal. Many have taken this assumption as a way to say we believe in a "changing" God, but if that mortal role was the same as that of Christ is He really changing? Personally, I think this possibility simply strengthens the statement that He is "the same yesterday, today and forever"- that Creation and the role of the Savior is perpetuated cyclically throughout eternity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest mormonmusic

What surprised me was Gordon B Hinckely's interview on Larry King Live. Larry asked President Hinckley if we believe "As man is, God once was". GBH mentioned "I don't know that we teach it, I don't know that we emphasize it". It was a bit of an ambiguous statement, but it certainly suggested that the first part of the couplet isn't something that is in the forefront of our beliefs any longer. Further, it might even be interpreted that the statement was an error -- but then, maybe not. But his answer certainly planted doubt in my mind if GBH believed God really did progress to the point where He is now. I leave myself open to influence on that point whenever I hear the couplet.

My own mind reads it this way:

"As man is, God may have been. As God is, man may become" is my current interpretation of that point based on President Hinckley's comments to Larry King.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This quote is often used to identify our belief in eternal progression and our ability to become "as God"- "As man is, God once was; As God is, man may become". There is also quite a bit of speculation that this also means God was once a mortal. This can easily be reconciled if we acertain that the word "God" is here a reference to Jesus Christ. After all, Christ did take on mortality and we can become joint heirs with Him in Heaven, but there are also many who believe this is a reference to the Father. My question works with that assumption:

What was God?

In LDS doctrine, we have a more indepth understanding of the different roles of the members of the Godhead. Specifically, Jesus Christ is identified as the "Creator". We believe that it was the Son of God who created all things under the direction of His Father. He then came into the world, took on mortality, resisted temptation and lived a perfect life, atoned for our sins and overcame death so that we may be resurrected and forgiven, and that He now lives- the same today, yesterday, and forever. Is it possible that God the Father once was as Jesus Christ? Did He once take upon himself the very same role?

Of course, this is all speculation, and I welcome all thoughts and opinions on this topic. If "As man is, God once was; As god is, man may become" is a reference to the Father then we would assume that He was once mortal. Many have taken this assumption as a way to say we believe in a "changing" God, but if that mortal role was the same as that of Christ is He really changing? Personally, I think this possibility simply strengthens the statement that He is "the same yesterday, today and forever"- that Creation and the role of the Savior is perpetuated cyclically throughout eternity.

This discussion has come up several times on this forum and from that I realize that I might have a differing view on this than most, but I'll still throw it out there ...

I think one has to keep in mind two important things when talking about this;

1. Christ' atonement, if taken advantage of, results in erasing completely all sins of mortality. One has to have a testimony of that complete, white as snow view of the atonement to understand how God could have once been man. Do we really believe that our sins can be washed clean as if they were never there or not?

2. In making it to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom one inherits all that the Father has. What does that mean? One inherits all that the Father has? Do we really believe that or not? If one believes that we really have the opportunity to inherit all that the Father has then what of the Father's possessions including knowledge, history, achievements, glory, eternal nature, etc. do we not inherit? If we say there is a limitation in what we inherit then we do not inherit all that the Father has.

So, taking those two important pieces of our gospel into consideration, why is it not possible to have an Eternal Father who once sinned but had them completely washed by an eternal atonement and who, by His obedience, obtained a full inheritance of all that was before including the knowledge, experience, power, glory and all that comes with the title of God the Father? I don't understand why we have to make up some other pathway to that position when we are told that is the pathway to inherit all that He has.

If I say that I am the author of a book, that may be true but did I invent the English language, did I invent paper, did I invent the printing press, or discover how to make ink, did I really come up with all the ideas in the book or are they borrowed and expanded upon previous ideas in my learning? So even though I claim to be an author of a book, it is really only a small portion of that process that I participated in, taking advantage of all the things I inherited from someone else' work. The eternities are similar except by "inheritance" we claim possession through the bonds of being a covenant people and the importance of family life. You and I are of the family of God and have a right to inherit all that family has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I would guess that most believe Heavenly Father was also a mortal at one time, not all members do. LDS scholar and philosopher Blake Ostler believes that God the Father never was mortal, and attempts in his books to explain the KFD in a different way. Personally, I do not think he succeeds.

I can see that God could have at one time changed, and now not be a changing God. We are talking about "eternal rounds" in regards to this. During this particular eternal round, we were spirits, who are now mortal, who will become resurrected and glorified beings. That is an eternal round. In the next eternal round, where we are the Creators, we will not change.

In D&C 19, we learn that "Endless" and "Eternal" are names of God. So "Endless" punishment is God's punishment, and is not necessarily a punishment that will never end. So it may be with eternities and forevers. When we say God is God from "one eternity to the next", or "all eternity" we are discussing an eternal round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scripturally speaking, what we really don't know very much about is just what you are saying -- that God was once a man. This concept is not found in the Bible nor the Book of Mormon.

That man can become as man, is clearly in scripture.

So I agree with Pres. Hinckley's statement, from that perspective.

HiJolly

Edited by HiJolly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer is not difficult - the problems all come from faulty assumptions and speculations. Jesus is not just our example of G-d he is G-d. The statement in question is very clear to understand; what it is to be G-d is to know and understand Jesus Christ. As soon as we ask the question - “Does what we understand of G-d (Jesus Christ) apply to the Father?” We can open ourselves up to misunderstanding. The correct answer is to learn of the Father is through Jesus Christ - To learn of the Father through any other means is heresy and wrong.

Was the Father a redeemer and savior in the same manner as was Jesus? The question may be ill asked and better understood by asking the correct question and willingly receiving the correct answer. All that is necessary to be a savior and redeemer is completely whole in the Father and part of the oneness that was necessary for Jesus to obtain with the Father in order to be our savior and redeemer. All the elements that comprise the mission of Jesus as our L-rd and Savior came from the Father and are in the Father. To teach or to speculate otherwise of necessity excludes Jesus from being one with the Father and is a lie which comes from the “father” of lies.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be reading this thread with great interest. Y'all likely know that Trinitarians believe that the Godhead, in terms of nature, is unchanging. One element about Christ as Creator, though--1 Colossians 1 seems to indicate that Jesus created for his own pleasure. So, I am left to wonder just how much directing the Father was doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traveler - as an aside why do you write God as G-d? I'd like to know the philosophical underpinnings.

The primary reason is because as I have traveled I have meet many devout people of other faiths in other lands that know little of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or much of other forms of Christianity. Often they seek out the internet for information. In their culture it is contrary to reverence and a vain use of the name of G-d before the world to use his whole name. Therefore, as a service to the invisible readers that read and often in private thank me; I make this accommodation. I also do this as habit for the internet to remind me that I remain ever careful on the internet to not use the name of G-d in vain. In short it is a personal thing.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JudoMinja "God once was..."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This quote is often used to identify our belief in eternal progression and our ability to become "as God"- "As man is, God once was; As God is, man may become". There is also quite a bit of speculation that this also means God was once a mortal. This can easily be reconciled if we acertain that the word "God" is here a reference to Jesus Christ. After all, Christ did take on mortality and we can become joint heirs with Him in Heaven, but there are also many who believe this is a reference to the Father. My question works with that assumption:

What was God?

In LDS doctrine, we have a more indepth understanding of the different roles of the members of the Godhead. Specifically, Jesus Christ is identified as the "Creator". We believe that it was the Son of God who created all things under the direction of His Father. He then came into the world, took on mortality, resisted temptation and lived a perfect life, atoned for our sins and overcame death so that we may be resurrected and forgiven, and that He now lives- the same today, yesterday, and forever. Is it possible that God the Father once was as Jesus Christ? Did He once take upon himself the very same role?

If I may ask from a non-LDS perspective; Jesus was God the Word in the beginning (John 1:1) before He became flesh (John 1:14), so was that the path of the father in your view?

It seems the fathers path, in my understanding, was man first then God.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible that God the Father once was as Jesus Christ? Did He once take upon himself the very same role?

If You Could Hie to Kolob, Hymn 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.

In the following King Follet Discourse statement by Joseph Smith. The Prophet quite forcefully declared (in my opinion at least) that Elohim was once on an 'earth' the same as Jesus Christ was, and that while Elohim was on that 'earth' He (God the Father) laid down his life and was resurrected. The phrase lay down his life (to me at least) refers to something very much like Jesus Christ's act of atonement (St. John 10:17-18). I find it interesting that during this speech Joseph Smith defied all men with "learning and wisdom" (I read self appointed scholars and philosophers here) to refute his statement.

We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple and first principles of the gospel, to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another, and that God himself; the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible. I wish I had the trump of a arch angel, I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever; what did Jesus say? (mark it elder Rigdon; ) Jesus said, as the Father hat power in himself, even so hath the Son power; to do what? why what the Father did, that answer is obvious; in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus what are you going to do? To lay down my life, as my Father did, and take it up again.---- If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible; the scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom, all the combined powers of earth and hell together, to refute it. Here then is eternal life, to know the only wise and true God. April 7, 1844 - "The King Follett Discourse", Joseph Smith Jr. as recorded in the Times and Seasons Minutes

The argument here made by the Prophet is very much strengthened by the following passage: "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he [the Father] doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (St. John 5:19) - Note by Elder B. H. Roberts, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p.346

Joseph Smith also referred to the John 5:19 scripture on at least 2 other seperate occasions:

Peter says that Jesus Christ sat on the right hand of God any person that has seen the heavens opened knows that their is three personages in the heavens holding the Keys of Power. As the father hath power in himself so the Son hath power in himself, then the father has some day laid down his body & taken it again so he has a body of his own--so has his son a body of his own so each one will be in their own body. Sermon delivered at the Nauvoo temple grounds on Sunday June 11, 1843; as recorded in the Woodruff Journal

That which is without body or parts is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones. John 5-26, "As the father hath life in himself, even so hath he given the son to have life in himself". God the father took life unto himself precisely as Jesus did.

He quoted a passage from the testament where Jesus said all things that he had saw the father Do he had done & that he done Nothing But what he saw the father do John the 5th [verse 19] he also said in testimony of the situation the saints in the presence of God. that they had flesh & bones & Instructions delivered at the opening of the "Lyceum" at Smith homestead, Nauvoo, Ill., January 5, 1841; As recorded in both the Clayton & McIntire Record

The following statement is obviously based on Philippians 2:12. The fear and trembling that is refered to (in my mind) alludes to the act that took place in Gethesemane and upon the cross in Golgatha.

I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father, so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory, so that Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before; it is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said. When you climb a ladder, you must begin at the bottom and go on until you learn the last principle; it will be a great while before you have learned the last. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it is a great thing to learn salvation beyond the grave. I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of any thing that is not contained in the Bible, and I think there are so many wise men here, who would put me to death for treason; so I shall turn commentator to-day. April 7, 1844 - "King Follett Discourse", Joseph Smith Jr. as recorded in Times and Seasons Minutes

I wish that these concepts were 'plain beyond disputation' but obviously they are not...

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read through KFD with the idea that "Father" means the person that has inherited all that came before Him, just for an interesting perspective. As it is true that the Father inherited all the work and glory that came before Him. All that what was done before, world after world with Savior after Savior is consolidated into one being, Our Father in Heaven. If we believe in the family version of eternal progression we can't separate that from that being.

If you or I are fortunate enough to make it to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, we will also inherit all that was done before, even the work of previous worlds, then it could be said that "we did it before". And in our progression would pass that on to our offspring in the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may ask from a non-LDS perspective; Jesus was God the Word in the beginning (John 1:1) before He became flesh (John 1:14), so was that the path of the father in your view?

It seems the fathers path, in my understanding, was man first then God.

Thanks

Yes, that is what I was thinking. I was thinking that God the Father previously took on the same role that Jesus Christ takes on in our time. That He was once the "Only Begotten Son" of His Father... And this just popped in my head... perhaps had to go through the role of the Holy Spirit before the role of Savior? It would, in a sense, be a progression through lesser to greater roles.

I don't know... This is all just recent speculations that have popped in my head based on some thoughts that have been going back and forth on other threads and in my other scripture reading and conversations. It kind of separates it from the original quote that inspired the thought though, since if that is the way it works, it kind of excludes us from it. When the Savior was the "Word" with God in the beginning, He did not have a body and had to come here like us to get a body. Since we now have bodies, we would not be able to progress in quite the same way if that is how it works.... Our progression is then made slightly different and separate from that which God experiences.

I'm liking the other thoughts that have been shared on this so far. I know that this quote is not considered "doctrine". We do not have to believe in God's progression through "manhood" to be considered LDS, but many members do believe this. It was, after all, the understanding of some of our early leaders. I think the reason we haven't been given anything more difinitive is because this is not something central to the Plan and knowledge that we don't really need to be able to progress through mortality. It is currently something beyond us- the "mysteries" of God if you will, and likely something we will come to understand after this life. I do, however, feel that speculations and attempts to understand who God was can also help us better understand who God is, since He is the "same yesterday, today, and forever". Without revelation on the matter, we won't know which speculations are correct, but then we can also rely on our own personal revelations to help broaden our understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this just popped in my head... perhaps had to go through the role of the Holy Spirit before the role of Savior? It would, in a sense, be a progression through lesser to greater roles.

Sermon delivered at Nauvoo temple grounds on Sunday August 27, 1843 Franklin D. Richards "Scriptural Items"

Holy Ghost in Probationary State

Joseph also said that the Holy Ghost is now in a state of Probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same or a similar course of things that the Son has.

Joseph Smith, June 16 1844, as recorded in the George Laub Journal

But the holy ghost is yet a Spiritual body and waiting to take to himself a body. as the Savior did or as god did or the gods before them took bodies for the Saviour Says the work that my father did do i also & those are the works he took himself a body & then laid down his life that he might take it up again.

Joseph Smith indicated that the Holy Ghost would eventually have the opportunity to become a Savior like Jesus Christ. It stands to reason that the inverse would be true too. I would bet that partaking of the role of Holy Ghost would be excellent training for the Office of Messiah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may ask from a non-LDS perspective; Jesus was God the Word in the beginning (John 1:1) before He became flesh (John 1:14), so was that the path of the father in your view?

It seems the fathers path, in my understanding, was man first then God.

Thanks

You need to be a bit more specific, I'm not following what you're asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think mikbone would disagree with me on this based on previous discussions but the thing that I have trouble with saying that God the Father had to be a Savior before is that that leaves little hope for the rest of us ever being like God. I still can't find it in my head to believe that it would be possible to receive a glorified body and placed in a Kingdom, the Celestial Kingdom in this case and then later take on the role of a Savior by giving up a body that was never supposed to be separated again to take on a body that could die, a mortal body to be a Savior. In other words, if God the Father was a Savior previously, then He wasn't ever "man" as in "man" like the rest of us, He was only a Savior, never a younger brother of another Savior. That would make no pathway available for an average person (a younger brother) to ever become like God. I think the people that propose such a system of progressive responsibility for average man to Holy Ghost to Jesus to Father (or something like that) would have to include some kind of re-incarnation doctrine that really doesn't exist in our gospel. Or if being a Savior is the only pathway to being like God, than God was never the average man (a younger brother) in that step-wise progression theory. The step-wise progression theory, to me, also throws out what it means to inherit all that God has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think mikbone would disagree with me on this based on previous discussions but the thing that I have trouble with saying that God the Father had to be a Savior before is that that leaves little hope for the rest of us ever being like God. I still can't find it in my head to believe that it would be possible to receive a glorified body and placed in a Kingdom, the Celestial Kingdom in this case and then later take on the role of a Savior by giving up a body that was never supposed to be separated again to take on a body that could die, a mortal body to be a Savior. In other words, if God the Father was a Savior previously, then He wasn't ever "man" as in "man" like the rest of us, He was only a Savior, never a younger brother of another Savior. That would make no pathway available for an average person (a younger brother) to ever become like God. I think the people that propose such a system of progressive responsibility for average man to Holy Ghost to Jesus to Father (or something like that) would have to include some kind of re-incarnation doctrine that really doesn't exist in our gospel. Or if being a Savior is the only pathway to being like God, than God was never the average man (a younger brother) in that step-wise progression theory. The step-wise progression theory, to me, also throws out what it means to inherit all that God has.

Yeah, it does make the pathway complicated...

My recommendation at this point is not to worry about where we fit into the system. But instead to try to figure out the nature of God. Joseph Smith tried with limited success to explain how God came to be God. It is found within the King Follett Discourse, some of which I linked in an above post.

Don't try to find a grand unified theory with a single jump. It will cause lots of confusion. It did for me for many years. But try to see what Joseph Smith was trying to communicate. Dont try to force your intrepretation onto his words. Read and understand what he said.

In the Third Lecture in the Lectures on Faith, the Prophet wrote,

"Let us here observe, that three things are necessary in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation. First, the idea that he actually exists. Second a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes. Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing is according to his will. (Emphsis via italics found in the original text)

Much is in store for those that enter into the Celestial Kingdom. No doubt not all of it is to be learned during this life.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

My father was a public school administrator. I am not a public school administrator, never have been, and almost certainly never will be. Therefore, I am not like my father. Right?

What does it mean for a man to "be like God"? Does it mean that he creates his own worlds, populates them with his spirit children, and presides over them in judgment? This is a tremendously naive view of the meaning. I grant that it may be true, but I would point out that there are very many other possibilities that do not include "being God" that would fulfill the statement.

Can there be any doubt that God lives in a society of other celestial beings? Would any Latter-day Saint question this seemingly obvious point? Surely he has a place or function in his society. What is that place? What is that function?

Being like God could mean something as simple as living in a celestial society. Not everyone is mayor, or baker, or street sweeper. But all are celestial beings and members of a perfect society. Inheriting that is, in my estimation, inheriting "all that the Father hath".

I do not categorically deny the often-believed possibility that "as God is, man may become" means exactly that we will be in the same position God himself is in. I grant it is a possible meaning. I do deny that any such belief is orthodox LDS doctrine, and I welcome anyone to prove me wrong.

Joseph Smith said that the reason the Saints are not granted more knowledge from heaven is that they don't know how to keep a secret, and followed by saying that he could keep a secret "until doomsday". The doctrine of "deification", if you care to call it that, is one frequently used by enemies of the Church to bash us over the head. They do not understand it, and frankly, neither do we. It is a pearl that has been cast before swine, who after desecrating it have turned to rend us. We brought it upon ourselves with our big mouths, loose lips, and penchant for over-dramatization.

Why do you suppose we don't know any number of other "mysteries of the kingdom", from the open ministering of angels to the nature of the Holy Ghost? Because we can't shut up, that's why. It is my opinion that open discussion of such things, even on a discussion list like this, is unwise. We should realize that we don't even understand the basics of our own doctrine in this area, much less its ramifications, and then we should simply shut our mouths about it and busy ourselves preaching (and thinking about) the important and saving doctrines of the gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And by the way, I believe this is the reason for President Hinckley's seemingly milquetoast, noncommittal response to the question he received on 60 Minutes about the quote. He recognized that no possible good could result from openly discussing such a topic, and rightly pointed out that it's not something we preach or talk about in Church. We talk about the restoration, faith, repentance, baptism, the Holy Ghost, and other elements of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Our prophet saw fit to keep his mouth shut and not offer speculation about the possible implications of President Snow's couplet. I believe we should follow his example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And by the way, I believe this is the reason for President Hinckley's seemingly milquetoast, noncommittal response to the question he received on 60 Minutes about the quote. He recognized that no possible good could result from openly discussing such a topic, and rightly pointed out that it's not something we preach or talk about in Church. We talk about the restoration, faith, repentance, baptism, the Holy Ghost, and other elements of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Our prophet saw fit to keep his mouth shut and not offer speculation about the possible implications of President Snow's couplet. I believe we should follow his example.

When I heard his interview, what stuck in my head was "pearls before swine." Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that this quote is not considered "doctrine". We do not have to believe in God's progression through "manhood" to be considered LDS, but many members do believe this. It was, after all, the understanding of some of our early leaders.

I assume we're talking about the "As God once was..." phrase. If so, Professor Stephen Robinson (BYU), in his dialogue book with evangelical professor, Craig Blomberg, offers that the quote is all but equal to scripture. It is quoted so frequently, and never denied. Many non-LDS who know little of your faith, know this quote. All this to say, if it's not scripture, it surely qualifies as at least doctrine. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume we're talking about the "As God once was..." phrase. If so, Professor Stephen Robinson (BYU), in his dialogue book with evangelical professor, Craig Blomberg, offers that the quote is all but equal to scripture. It is quoted so frequently, and never denied. Many non-LDS who know little of your faith, know this quote. All this to say, if it's not scripture, it surely qualifies as at least doctrine. Right?

Scripture in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is as follows:

Bible - King James Version as far as translated correctly, Article of Faith Eight

Book of Mormon

Doctrine & Covenants

Pearl of Great Price

Also "whatsoever [God's representatives] shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost (D&C 68:2-4, 2 Tim. 3:16). Therefore, anyone who is moved upon by the Holy Ghost while speaking in General Conference and recorded for later reading in the Ensign, including the First Presidency messages, are considered scripture, although they would not be included as part of the Standard works of the Church.

WORDS OF OUR LIVING PROPHETS - In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. "We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Ninth article of faith). Gospel Principles Chapter 10

The Hymnal (D&C 25:11) and Temple Endowment can also be considered as scripture.

All other sources are various levels of commentary. The word doctrine is kinda sketchy.

Is the Lorenzo Snow Couplet a widely held belief in the LDS church? Yes.

Is it well understood? Hardly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this to say, if it's not scripture, it surely qualifies as at least doctrine. Right?

"Doctrine" means "teaching". It is certainly a Church teaching, has been referenced in the recent past, and certainly has never been retracted in any way. So yes, it is a doctrine. But it is not emphasized, and as I have argued before, I do not believe it is generally understood correctly even within the LDS Church, much less outside of it. In fact, I believe it is a "mystery of Godliness" in the McConkie sense: Something that cannot be understood by the carnal mind, only by those inspired of the Spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And by the way, I believe this is the reason for President Hinckley's seemingly milquetoast, noncommittal response to the question he received on 60 Minutes about the quote. He recognized that no possible good could result from openly discussing such a topic, and rightly pointed out that it's not something we preach or talk about in Church. We talk about the restoration, faith, repentance, baptism, the Holy Ghost, and other elements of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Our prophet saw fit to keep his mouth shut and not offer speculation about the possible implications of President Snow's couplet. I believe we should follow his example.

Thank you Vort, and I am sorry if bringing this up as a discussion topic was a bad idea... I was under the impression that this was not a topic openly discussed simply because it was always so misused and misrepresented by antis, and that our leaders avoided it because it was something we have not received any further clarifying revelation on- something that we cannot at this point consider "scripture" but may be able to oneday when revelation makes it clear. Since our lack of understanding causes confusion and obviously contention (with the many attacks against the church thanks to the misunderstanding of it) and it is also not something necessary to understand in furthering our salvation, it is wise for our leaders to avoid focusing on it.

I thought that perhaps brought up in the proper spirit (one seeking further understanding and not to tear it apart) and proper attitude (understanding that it is merely speculation and not scripture) it would be something okay to discuss. However, I think you may also be right that this qualifies as a "pearl" and that many people in the world- both members and non-members- are just not ready for it. I did not see it as something necessary to keep to myself, but perhaps I should have... I'm debating now whether or not I should ask to have this thread closed or deleted, but also am wondering if it is possible to continue?

I think I will just leave it up to the wisdom of the moderators- if this is something that we can continue to discuss without contention, or if this is something that should be closed altogether. Thank you though, for the reminder to be careful about openly sharing such things, as the little "sparks" of thought that prompted me to start the thread may well have been personal revelation I should have kept to myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share